Author Topic: 10 Commandments in Alabama?  (Read 16462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline himura_kenshin

Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #75 on: September 04, 2003, 11:08:32 PM »
Right, right, (oh and i was going back and forth from comp while i was writing that post, heh). But these behaviors you described are because of the already existing goal. Now the reason i have been insisting on comparing organisms and computers is because in the absense of a god or a soul, organisms are driven by sheer cause and effect on a very complex level, just like a computer. Correct?

Offline Majin Tenshi

  • McCoy Golem!
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • The can opener went bye-bye...
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #76 on: September 04, 2003, 11:46:05 PM »
But these behaviors you described are because of the already existing goal.
 (responding to an PM as well)  In theory, survival and reproduction instincts aren't neccesary for evolution, however, they are almost a certain result of a survival-of-the-fittest-environment.  

Simply the random developments that made some of the first cells (or organic molecules) would result in survival and reproduction tendencies very quickly.  Even if you only had one cell, as it grew, eventualy, it would get too big and break in two, both parts would probably end up being very different, and whichever made more copies of its parts or itself would end up over-running the other.  

Now the reason i have been insisting on comparing organisms and computers is because in the absense of a god or a soul, organisms are driven by sheer cause and effect on a very complex level, just like a computer. Correct?  
  Correct, however, I believe I allready pointed out that there is a key difference between life an computers that invalidates the analogy for the pourpose of this discuscion:  Computers don't have any capacity for mutation or reproduction, two basic requirements for evolution.  Because of this, they are incapable of evolution, or developing anything "naturaly."
Ok, so I leave and come back....

Offline himura_kenshin

Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #77 on: September 04, 2003, 11:54:51 PM »
If we made a computer that had access to other machines and factories that were capable of creating more machiens for different purposes, it would in a way be able to both reproduce, improve and mutate. Let's say we make one, but don't tell it to maintain, reproduce, or improve itself. Would it do so anyway?

edit:
Eh, lemme add a question to this that i was toying with before.

Back to the slug and sea anemone, how did the anemone develope poison (just talking about the poison here, that's all) if neither it's brain, nor it's cells contained the knowledge and reasoning to develope a chemical that would harm it's predators?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 12:19:15 AM by himura_kenshin »

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #78 on: September 05, 2003, 12:40:45 AM »
If we made a computer that had access to other machines and factories that were capable of creating more machiens for different purposes, it would in a way be able to both reproduce, improve and mutate. Let's say we make one, but don't tell it to maintain, reproduce, or improve itself. Would it do so anyway?

edit:
Eh, lemme add a question to this that i was toying with before.

Back to the slug and sea anemone, how did the anemone develope poison (just talking about the poison here, that's all) if neither it's brain, nor it's cells contained the knowledge and reasoning to develope a chemical that would harm it's predators?
Obviously you never watched Terminator. Its fools like you who play with the fate of the world by creating a new life you know nothing about. Building a silicon based life form is scary stuff. Obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll elaborate. Imagine a supercomputer with an immensely powerful AI. Imagine if it were hooked onto the internet. Within weeks, the supercomputer could replicate itself into other computers, commaneering them. It could easily move on to military systems, which use forms of radio waves and internet. You could potentially end the world.

One more thing. Lets just say we slap computer parts together, in shoddy way. Can we assume it will work? If we make a machine that will be able to reproduce, improve, and mutate, it will do just that, yet dont tell it to reproduce, improve, or mutate, IT WONT REPRODUCE, IMPROVE, OR MUTATE.

Back to the slug and sea anemone. If you had read our prior posts, you would have known we were speculating. Its the best we can do. I'm sure others will be able to come across speculations. In the future, someone may (or may already have) develop a way to experiment to discover how they develop chemicals. After all, your stomach digests food, and your intestines bring the digested food to your body. Yet our brains, nor our cells contain the "knowledge" and "reasoning" to develop a stomach or a system to digest food.


There are currently about 1.5 million species that scientists have described and formally named. Some believe that there are 10 million, and others estimate between 30 and 80 million. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Noah put two of each animal in his boat in one day. That would be approximately 35 animals per second. Not to mention that putting every animal of every species includes the possibility of predation that would kill just 2 of the animals. Then you have to think of feeding them for the amount of days the animals were in the boat. Its not possible, but people continue to believe in it.

(sorry i had to put this up, but you've been attacking many of my beliefs over the past few weeks, its time for you to defend some of yours)

Offline himura_kenshin

Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #79 on: September 05, 2003, 01:23:49 AM »
OK, do you understand what a hypothetical scenario is? Obviously just because i ask a question, i have every intention of putting a super computer in a nuclear power plant and telling it to do whatever it wants, right? Quit jumping to conclusions.

And just so everyone knows, i may forget or misread things, but i assure you i have read EVERY post in this topic.

Quote
One more thing. Lets just say we slap computer parts together, in shoddy way. Can we assume it will work? If we make a machine that will be able to reproduce, improve, and mutate, it will do just that, yet dont tell it to reproduce, improve, or mutate, IT WONT REPRODUCE, IMPROVE, OR MUTATE.

Who said anythign about slapping stuff together? And thank you for answering my question. Apparently you believe that if we make a computer able to do something like that, it will? Well, i'm going to have to disagree with that. It has no reason to, it has no will, it's a machine.

Quote
Back to the slug and sea anemone. If you had read our prior posts, you would have known we were speculating. Its the best we can do. I'm sure others will be able to come across speculations. In the future, someone may (or may already have) develop a way to experiment to discover how they develop chemicals. After all, your stomach digests food, and your intestines bring the digested food to your body. Yet our brains, nor our cells contain the "knowledge" and "reasoning" to develop a stomach or a system to digest food.


Yes, thank you i did read your posts, and your speculations are these:
Quote
A guess of mine would be that at some point in time, the slug had nothing else to eat but anemones. The anemones were poisonous, but it had to adapt, otherwise it would be extinct.
and:
Quote
Something does not spontaneously develomp something like darts.  It would most likely start as poison secreted on the skin (defenseive).  Thicker "hairs" (or something pre-existing or servering a different pourpose) would be able to distribute poison better, and those with the thickest "hairs" would survive better.  Eventualy, these would be thick and sturdy enough to be considered spines.  Spines that broke off could continue to injure prey after it had moved away, allowing poison to work more effectively, so they became more easily renewed and easily detached.
Had you read my post, you would have noticed that i was asking a new, yet related question. These speculations are answering another question. You said "The anemones were poisonous." This gives me the impression that you believe these anemones just happened to have this poison flowing around in their body for no apparent reason. No? It was for defense like majin said? Well then it required information and reasoning to build, and according to you, such a thing comes from the brain. Well then i suppose an anemone knew (contained the information in it's brain) about the biology of it's predators and the chemicals that could be used to attack it. Furthermore it knew the very process required to make those chemicals. Smart anemone, eh?

Quote
There are currently about 1.5 million species that scientists have described and formally named. Some believe that there are 10 million, and others estimate between 30 and 80 million. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Noah put two of each animal in his boat in one day. That would be approximately 35 animals per second. Not to mention that putting every animal of every species includes the possibility of predation that would kill just 2 of the animals. Then you have to think of feeding them for the amount of days the animals were in the boat. Its not possible, but people continue to believe in it.

I never said i didn't believe in adaptation and mutation, and noah wouldn't have taken any sea dwelling animals on the ark, which also takes a good chunk out of that statistic. A christian HAS to believe in some adaptation because we believe in only 2 people as the beginning of mankind. If we didn't believe in adaptation, there's no way that so many races could have come from those two people.

Quote
(sorry i had to put this up, but you've been attacking many of my beliefs over the past few weeks, its time for you to defend some of yours)


Fair enough, i would be a hypocrite to attack your beliefs if i couldn't defend mine. Don't expect this to take me off the offensive though. ;)

edit: One more thing, i never cared much for biology and don't have much confidence in my knowledge in science. However, i remember hearing the theory that any cell in the body contains the same DNA, (except sperm and egg cells) which actually contains the information to theoretically grow a whole person in a lab. Or more practically, grow a piece of skin or an organ to transplant later on. This would lead me to believe that this claim:
Quote
After all, your stomach digests food, and your intestines bring the digested food to your body. Yet our brains, nor our cells contain the "knowledge" and "reasoning" to develop a stomach or a system to digest food.

is wrong.
Anyway, I could well be wrong here, i'm just repeating and deducing. *shrug*
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 02:06:06 AM by himura_kenshin »

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #80 on: September 05, 2003, 02:19:11 AM »
I was explaining why we would not make a computer that would choose to preserve itself. Therefore, hypothetically, we probably would not try to create one, and therefore would not know.

Quote
Who said anythign about slapping stuff together? And thank you for answering my question. Apparently you believe that if we make a computer able to do something like that, it will? Well, i'm going to have to disagree with that. It has no reason to, it has no will, it's a machine.

What I meant was quite simply, you can give a machine the ability to do something, but if the function is not programmed into its AI, it will not perform its function. What you are saying is to create a perfect human, yet not give it a brain, and assume it will get up and do everything a regular human will do. Not gonna happen.

Quote
Had you read my post, you would have noticed that i was asking a new, yet related question. These speculations are answering another question. You said "The anemones were poisonous." This gives me the impression that you believe these anemones just happened to have this poison flowing around in their body for no apparent reason. No? It was for defense like majin said? Well then it required information and reasoning to build, and according to you, such a thing comes from the brain. Well then i suppose an anemone knew (contained the information in it's brain) about the biology of it's predators and the chemicals that could be used to attack it. Furthermore it knew the very process required to make those chemicals. Smart anemone, eh?

I read your post. I was explaining why I could not give a perfect knowledgable answer.I never said anything about requiring a brain for evolution. Do you think Africans just thought they wanted darker skin and got it? No, it came through generations of being under the sun. Anemones cannot move. Therefore, they must have some defense mechanism, otherwise they would die. I will just assume that the other ones were preyed to extinction

Quote
I never said i didn't believe in adaptation and mutation, and noah wouldn't have taken any sea dwelling animals on the ark, which also takes a good chunk out of that statistic. A christian HAS to believe in some adaptation because we believe in only 2 people as the beginning of mankind. If we didn't believe in adaptation, there's no way that so many races could have come from those two people.

I would like to point out that there are species of animals in existance that are completely infertile, except for a a single queen (or king, or both). The rest of the society gathers food for the queen. therefore, it would take a long time to actually find a fertile queen/king. And, as pointed out earlier, every second counts...

Lets assume that only 3 percent of the worlds known 1.5 million creatures were put onto that boat. Thats still 1 creature per second, and thats record time. Oh yea, did i mention Noah would have to find his little critters too?


--edit (to counter your edit)
Technically your right. But likewise, the anemone also has that bit of DNA in its system that allows it to be immune to the effects of the poison. In otherwords, you are proving that statement i made earlier wrong, but you are also proving yourself wrong.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 02:32:08 AM by pheonixfenix »

Offline Majin Tenshi

  • McCoy Golem!
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • The can opener went bye-bye...
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #81 on: September 05, 2003, 02:50:23 AM »
If we made a computer that had access to other machines and factories that were capable of creating more machiens for different purposes, it would in a way be able to both reproduce, improve and mutate. Let's say we make one, but don't tell it to maintain, reproduce, or improve itself. Would it do so anyway?
 Why would it mutate?  


Ok, lets explain this with your example.  Hook a computer up to the internet and just stream everything through it.  Eventualy, it'll get a virus (faulty data).  This virus will "mutate" the computer's programing.  There is a possibility that this will cause the computer to send different instructions to the factory.  It is possible these instructions will result in a new computer with a new program being built.  If this computer is hooked up, and its new program says to build more of itself then the old program, then this computer will dominate.  


Actualy, a computer virus is as close to life as computers get right now.  As data is transfered through the internet, sometimes it is accidentaly corrupted.  This sometimes results in "dangerous" programing.  If this programing includes a copy comand, it will spread and infect more systems.  Minor transfer errors can change this virus further.   (remember, not all computer viruses are programed)
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 03:55:49 AM by Majin Tenshi »
Ok, so I leave and come back....

Offline himura_kenshin

Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #82 on: September 05, 2003, 02:58:18 AM »
Quote
I was explaining why we would not make a computer that would choose to preserve itself. Therefore, hypothetically, we probably would not try to create one, and therefore would not know.

Umm... ok, that's a pretty poor way to dismiss a that question. I ask "what if", and you say, "it probably wouldn't happen, so i don't know." That's the whole point of a hypothetical situation you know.

Quote
What I meant was quite simply, you can give a machine the ability to do something, but if the function is not programmed into its AI, it will not perform its function. What you are saying is to create a perfect human, yet not give it a brain, and assume it will get up and do everything a regular human will do. Not gonna happen.

Hmm.. no that's not what i'm saying. Give it the brain, just don't give it a goal. Don't tell it to do anything. Turn it on, and program some loops to monitor it's own condition.

Quote
I never said anything about requiring a brain for evolution. Do you think Africans just thought they wanted darker skin and got it?

Of course i don't think that, you do. See?

Quote
Yet our brains, nor our cells contain the "knowledge" and "reasoning" to develop a stomach or a system to digest food.

By that standard, our stomach is developed with information that is stored in our brain. Well i suppose that information must be somehow formed in there while we are in the womb so we can develope a stomach.

Quote
Anemones cannot move. Therefore, they must have some defense mechanism, otherwise they would die. I will just assume that the other ones were preyed to extinction

You're stating the obvious. Of course they need the defense. But how did they get it? Did they just have it before they were ever threatened for no reason? Or did they develope it to meet a threat? And if they developed it, where did the information to develope it come from?

Quote
I would like to point out that there are species of animals in existance that are completely infertile, except for a a single queen (or king, or both). The rest of the society gathers food for the queen. therefore, it would take a long time to actually find a fertile queen/king. And, as pointed out earlier, every second counts...

That fertility condition didn't necessarily exist that long ago, and perhaps that specific species didn't even exist yet.


Quote
Lets assume that only 3 percent of the worlds known 1.5 million creatures were put onto that boat. Thats still 1 creature per second, and thats record time. Oh yea, did i mention Noah would have to find his little critters too?


Who knows how much adaptation has occurred since then? even 3% may still be much too large.

Just checked me Bible, (which i should've done in the first place) and it's actually stated quite clearly in Genesis 7 that not only was this done in 7 days, not 1, but the animals actually came to Noah (which of course i will explain with "God sent them" so don't ask why they came).


edit: And to majin's post, to make this already too-long post even too-longer:

I was thinking of a mutation like the computer commanding factories to build a machine. I wasn't actually thinking of hooking it up to the internet, but since a cell does not exist in an isolated environment, it's probably actually a more accurate analogy. A virus that tells it to produce more is the result of programming. This would be the equivalent of being told to do so by a god. As you said, not all viruses are the result of programming. This would equate to a coincidence causing a cell to just start reproducing. Ok, now we have reproducing single cell organisms. What does that get us? A lot of single cell organisms. Not tadpoles, birds or people. I suppose it makes some sense, that a cell could be caused to reproduce by a coincidence. But just because it is reproducing, doesn't give it a "desire" or "instinct" to reproduce, since a single cell is not capable of having such a thing. And this reproduction doesn't have anything to do with improvement of a species to meet a challenge.

In my example, yes a virus could come along by some extremem coincidence and make the computer make more machines. But a virus, that wasn't programmed by anyone, that comes along and makes the machine try to survive and improve itself? A command that complex and general, would almost have to be written, not a coincidence. And it's even less likely when you put it in it's real world equivalent. How do you tell a single cell organisms to improve itself? Refer to my revised poison/anemone example.

Aw man! I didn't mean to add THAT much!!
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 03:34:52 AM by himura_kenshin »

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #83 on: September 05, 2003, 03:34:54 AM »
Quote
Umm... ok, that's a pretty poor way to dismiss a that question. I ask "what if", and you say, "it probably wouldn't happen, so i don't know." That's the whole point of a hypothetical situation you know.
*sigh* obviously you dont remember my answering that question...

Quote
Obviously you never watched Terminator. Its fools like you who play with the fate of the world by creating a new life you know nothing about. Building a silicon based life form is scary stuff. Obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll elaborate. Imagine a supercomputer with an immensely powerful AI. Imagine if it were hooked onto the internet. Within weeks, the supercomputer could replicate itself into other computers, commaneering them. It could easily move on to military systems, which use forms of radio waves and internet. You could potentially end the world.


Quote
Hmm.. no that's not what i'm saying. Give it the brain, just don't give it a goal. Don't tell it to do anything. Turn it on, and program some loops to monitor it's own condition.

And it wont do anything. Your point? The human mind is more than a thousand times more powerful than a supercomputer.

Quote
Of course i don't think that, you do. See?
1. have no idea what the fuck you are talking about
2. I never said a brain was required to evolve, plants evolve, yet they have no brain
3. Do not put words in my mouth

Quote
By that standard, our stomach is developed with information that is stored in our brain. Well i suppose that information must be somehow formed in there while we are in the womb so we can develope a stomach.
your point?


Quote
Who knows how much adaptation has occurred since then? even 3% may still be much too large.

Just checked me Bible, (which i should've done in the first place) and it's actually stated quite clearly in Genesis 7 that not only was this done in 7 days, not 1, but the animals actually came to Noah (which of course i will explain with "God sent them" so don't ask why they came).
I, Unlike christians, have not read the entire bible. I have read excerpts from it, and therefore have an idea of what is in it, but not word for word. My mistake. Good point on the adaptation however. Only problem is that there are distinct species that are cut off from land (galapagos island creatures for instance) that could not make the distance to the middle east. Explain how they exist today.

Quote
That fertility condition didn't necessarily exist that long ago, and perhaps that specific species didn't even exist yet
Are you saying that there is no possible way that honey bees and naked mole rats lived thousands of years ago? When you make statements like that, you HAVE TO PROVE IT, otherwise state that it is a speculation.

Quote
You're stating the obvious. Of course they need the defense. But how did they get it? Did they just have it before they were ever threatened for no reason? Or did they develope it to meet a threat? And if they developed it, where did the information to develope it come from?
See, I could be a moron and spew out inane facts that i cant prove, but unfortunately, as a scientist, i choose to back up my claims with fact. If i dont, i blatently say its speculation. I am saying right now that I cannot prove this. I will not try either, because I cant. I hold myself to this standard to make a more respectable debatist. Obviously you do not, you are posting things that you cannot prove.


Offline Majin Tenshi

  • McCoy Golem!
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • The can opener went bye-bye...
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #84 on: September 05, 2003, 04:01:56 AM »
(no, I haven't had much of a look at those last few posts.  I'm getting around to that now)
I was thinking of a mutation like the computer commanding factories to build a machine. I wasn't actually thinking of hooking it up to the internet, but since a cell does not exist in an isolated environment, it's probably actually a more accurate analogy. A virus that tells it to produce more is the result of programming. This would be the equivalent of being told to do so by a god. As you said, not all viruses are the result of programming. This would equate to a coincidence causing a cell to just start reproducing. Ok, now we have reproducing single cell organisms. What does that get us? A lot of single cell organisms. Not tadpoles, birds or people. I suppose it makes some sense, that a cell could be caused to reproduce by a coincidence. But just because it is reproducing, doesn't give it a "desire" or "instinct" to reproduce, since a single cell is not capable of having such a thing. And this reproduction doesn't have anything to do with improvement of a species to meet a challenge.

In my example, yes a virus could come along by some extremem coincidence and make the computer make more machines. But a virus, that wasn't programmed by anyone, that comes along and makes the machine try to survive and improve itself? A command that complex and general, would almost have to be written, not a coincidence. And it's even less likely when you put it in it's real world equivalent. How do you tell a single cell organisms to improve itself? Refer to my revised poison/anemone example.
 I'm only adding details to this analogy to suit the neccesary outcome.  I don't want to go through all the work to add enough conditions to duplicate reality.  What happens when these new computers start getting their info from the internet?  They'll change in detrimental or benificial ways.  The ones that change in benificial wasy will over populate the ones that change in detrimental ways and control the factory.  
The virus is not equivilant to the "hand of god" since its representing random mutation which happens in every generation.  

The other problem with this is that we're haveing something doesn't match early life.
1. Relies on outside influence to begin.  
2. Starts out as a complex device


The second bit about computer viruses as seperate from the first.  (I'll add an {hr} to make it clearer.)

Lets make this short.  Life that doesn't replicate itself dies.  Life that does, continues.  If in an overall population there is an average of indifference, however, some are more inclined to reproduce, then those will be the only ones in the next generation.  Life will have developed the tendancy to reproduce.  


"How do you tell a single cell organisms to improve itself?"
YOU DON'T.  Once in a while a mutation results in a benificial change.  Thats how things improve.  They don't just go: "Hmmm... wow, if I was imune to this poison, I'd be better" and mutate themselves.  What happens is, those less suseptive to the poison surivive more, and as that quality mutates with each generation, those who become more imune flourish.  

Quote
You're stating the obvious. Of course they need the defense. But how did they get it? Did they just have it before they were ever threatened for no reason? Or did they develope it to meet a threat? And if they developed it, where did the information to develope it come from?
 You don't understand evolution at all do you?  
Mutation:  Random changes in DNA (and therefore the creature) that happens each generation.

New threats don't pop up overnight.  New defenses don't pop up over night.  They mostly react to each other over the course of hundreds of generations.  As a poison gets stronger, the resistance gets stronger.  Those that mutate benificialy survive and reproduce, those that don't, die.  

Is this the 5th time I've explained this?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 04:07:33 AM by Majin Tenshi »
Ok, so I leave and come back....

Offline himura_kenshin

Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #85 on: September 05, 2003, 04:39:09 AM »
Quote
*sigh* obviously you dont remember my answering that question...
Yes i do, and i responded to it, i just didn't feel you understood the question i was trying to ask properly. That aside...

Quote
And it wont do anything. Your point? The human mind is more than a thousand times more powerful than a supercomputer.
Sure the human mind is, but even animals work towards self-improvement, right? And furthermore this was a hypothetical machine, not a modern day supercomputer. This one might have just as much speed and storage as a human mind.

Quote
1. have no idea what the fuck you are talking about
2. I never said a brain was required to evolve, plants evolve, yet they have no brain
3. Do not put words in my mouth

I was getting that from this quote:
Quote
By that standard, our stomach is developed with information that is stored in our brain. Well i suppose that information must be somehow formed in there while we are in the womb so we can develope a stomach.

So just what information is in cells and what is in the brain here? You seem rather inconsistent on this issue to me.

Quote
I, Unlike christians, have not read the entire bible. I have read excerpts from it, and therefore have an idea of what is in it, but not word for word. My mistake. Good point on the adaptation however. Only problem is that there are distinct species that are cut off from land (galapagos island creatures for instance) that could not make the distance to the middle east. Explain how they exist today.

I haven't read the entire Bible either. Probably should if i'm going to be basing my beliefs off of it, but i haven't yet. Hmm.. are you saying that an animal released from the ark who cannot swim (or is otherwise unable to make the journey) couldn't have made it to the galapagos islands? Could've been anything really. Brought there by human ships for whatever reason. And i kinda like the theory of Pangea, the single continent, which could've been broken up by the flood. Who knows, maybe for a short time after the flood waters receded there was a bridge of some sort?

Quote
Are you saying that there is no possible way that honey bees and naked mole rats lived thousands of years ago? When you make statements like that, you HAVE TO PROVE IT, otherwise state that it is a speculation.


In my mind, the words "didn't necessarily" and "perhaps" don't translate to "no possible way". I don't know where you pulled that from.

Quote
See, I could be a moron and spew out inane facts that i cant prove, but unfortunately, as a scientist, i choose to back up my claims with fact. If i dont, i blatently say its speculation. I am saying right now that I cannot prove this. I will not try either, because I cant. I hold myself to this standard to make a more respectable debatist. Obviously you do not, you are posting things that you cannot prove.

I am posting things i can't prove and noting them as speculation or possibilities. I'm asking you a question you can't seem to answer, even with speculation. That too me looks like more of an upper hand than "you're speculating and i'm not."

Majin:

Quote
"How do you tell a single cell organisms to improve itself?"
YOU DON'T.  Once in a while a mutation results in a benificial change.  Thats how things improve.  They don't just go: "Hmmm... wow, if I was imune to this poison, I'd be better" and mutate themselves.  What happens is, those less suseptive to the poison surivive more, and as that quality mutates with each generation, those who become more imune flourish.  
.

Hmm.... althought i understood the part about good mutations reproducing, I never picked up that these mutations were NOT a reaction to the threat and were just random mutations. Seems much more reasonable now.

I'm going to have to drop this one for now. I do have another argument to move on to..... but it's particularly abstract and hard to debate, and i'd like to give this one more thought before i resort to that. I've gotta go to sleep right now, but i'll be back tomorrow.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 04:40:36 AM by himura_kenshin »

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #86 on: September 05, 2003, 04:55:54 AM »
By that standard, our stomach is developed with information that is stored in our brain. Well i suppose that information must be somehow formed in there while we are in the womb so we can develope a stomach.

That quote came from you. I was asking waht your point was, because i dont understand what your point is. Like i said before, I DO NOT LIKE HAVING WORDS PUT IN MY MOUTH. DONT DO IT AGAIN

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #87 on: September 05, 2003, 05:08:10 AM »
Quote
I haven't read the entire Bible either. Probably should if i'm going to be basing my beliefs off of it, but i haven't yet. Hmm.. are you saying that an animal released from the ark who cannot swim (or is otherwise unable to make the journey) couldn't have made it to the galapagos islands? Could've been anything really. Brought there by human ships for whatever reason. And i kinda like the theory of Pangea, the single continent, which could've been broken up by the flood. Who knows, maybe for a short time after the flood waters receded there was a bridge of some sort?

No, I'm asking how the animals from the Galapagos islands got onto the ark. Explain to me how Pangea could be broken up by floods? Pangea is believed to have been broken up by earthquakes not water. Secondly, the continents continue to move apart at an extremely slow rate. Two reasons why your theory does not work
1. The idea of Pangea was recent, only in the last few hundred years was it concieved
2. The breaking of Pangea would have been seen as a sign of god, and would definitely been written in the bible.

Quote
I am posting things i can't prove and noting them as speculation or possibilities. I'm asking you a question you can't seem to answer, even with speculation. That too me looks like more of an upper hand than "you're speculating and i'm not."
Are you asking me to counter a speculation with a speculation? I dont think so.

Offline Majin Tenshi

  • McCoy Golem!
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • The can opener went bye-bye...
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #88 on: September 05, 2003, 05:11:53 AM »
A post 3x as long was killed by conection timeout, so I'm gonna make this quick.
Lemme get this straight for both of you.

The brain doesn't know whats in the dna, nor does it have any power over the DNA.  
The brain isn't even the complete master of the body, horomones affect the brain.  

DNA is a blind program that determines the way the body functions through protien blueprints.  

the flood myth is just an absurd reaction to the chaotic floods that were common around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. (I know I spelled them wrong.)

Oh, and it also teaches "Do as god says or die"
Ok, so I leave and come back....

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #89 on: September 05, 2003, 05:14:06 AM »
A post 3x as long was killed by conection timeout, so I'm gonna make this quick.
Lemme get this straight for both of you.

The brain doesn't know whats in the dna, nor does it have any power over the DNA.  
The brain isn't even the complete master of the body, horomones affect the brain.  

DNA is a blind program that determines the way the body functions through protien blueprints.  

the flood myth is just an absurd reaction to the chaotic floods that were common around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. (I know I spelled them wrong.)

Oh, and it also teaches "Do as god says or die"
Get this straight for both of us? I know that, Himura was shoving words in my mouth.
Not only does it say that, You burn in hell if you dont worship god...great huh?

Offline Majin Tenshi

  • McCoy Golem!
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • The can opener went bye-bye...
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #90 on: September 05, 2003, 05:19:02 AM »
Get this straight for both of us? I know that, Himura was shoving words in my mouth.
Not only does it say that, You burn in hell if you dont worship god...great huh?
 Thats the great thing about causality (which I "believed" in before the matrix or discovering BerserK).  Since free will is only an illusion, a just god can't punish me for not believing in it.  

But lets not argue about that.  Theres some kind of more pressing discusion going on...
Ok, so I leave and come back....

Offline himura_kenshin

Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #91 on: September 05, 2003, 08:05:52 PM »
Quote
Yet our brains, nor our cells contain the "knowledge" and "reasoning" to develop a stomach or a system to digest food.


These words were not shoved into your mouth, and if you don't believe me, scroll up. According to majin, myself, and my biology teacher who i just asked today, the above statement is inaccurate.

Speculation, if it is stated as speculation is not a bad thing. If i ask a question and you don't even try to answer it, don't think you can fire a question at me and expect me to answer it. There is nothign wrong with providing a possible answer to a question and i don't see why you think there is.

And as for the flood, and pangea, i heard somewhere that the flood was both rain and the breaking apart of continenets where water was brought up through the ground. Furthermore, don't accuse me of speculation when you say something this ridiculous:

Quote
2. The breaking of Pangea would have been seen as a sign of god, and would definitely been written in the bible

Yeah, that's provable alright. If you said "probably" i would just disagree and say not necessarily. But since you said "definitely" i'd have to say you're a hypocrite, and doing what you're accusing me of.

Oh and another thing: stop with trying to disprove Christianity on the basis that you don't think that the things God does in the Bible are nice or fair. If the real God was an all powerful being who was going to send us all to hell and laugh about it, then that would be the real God and that's what would happen no matter what we thought about it.

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #92 on: September 05, 2003, 08:44:40 PM »


These words were not shoved into your mouth, and if you don't believe me, scroll up. According to majin, myself, and my biology teacher who i just asked today, the above statement is inaccurate.

Speculation, if it is stated as speculation is not a bad thing. If i ask a question and you don't even try to answer it, don't think you can fire a question at me and expect me to answer it. There is nothign wrong with providing a possible answer to a question and i don't see why you think there is.

And as for the flood, and pangea, i heard somewhere that the flood was both rain and the breaking apart of continenets where water was brought up through the ground. Furthermore, don't accuse me of speculation when you say something this ridiculous:Yeah, that's provable alright. If you said "probably" i would just disagree and say not necessarily. But since you said "definitely" i'd have to say you're a hypocrite, and doing what you're accusing me of.

Oh and another thing: stop with trying to disprove Christianity on the basis that you don't think that the things God does in the Bible are nice or fair. If the real God was an all powerful being who was going to send us all to hell and laugh about it, then that would be the real God and that's what would happen no matter what we thought about it.

1. I was using your definition of "knowledge" and "reasoning". Thats why they're in quotations (read your above posts, where i used that phrase) Secondly, read your previous post. You were quoting yourself, whether you know it or not. Also, its a different quote you used from last time. Be more consistent.
2. Re-ask the question i "didnt" answer, I believe i answered all of your questions, either with ground science or speculation
3. water would not be brought up from the ground in that instance. It would be lava (i.e volcanos, thats how land is formed, through many eruptions of volcanos that eventually surface above water)
4. I wasnt trying to disprove christianity. I was laughing at the moral doctrine of christianity, thats all. If God wants to send bears to maul little children for making fun of a bald man, yet forgives Cain for killing his brother, then yes, i would laugh at his moral doctrine.



--Note, that when things are in quotations (""), it means that there is another meaning to them. Also, stop quoting yourself and calling them my words. you've done that twice now. If you need proof, i will post direct you to the 2 specific quotes i am talking about.

One more thing. If things like mauling children with bears are in the bible, I am sure that something as grand as the breaking apart of the world would also be in the bible (then again, with the moral doctrine god has, I could be wrong... ::))

Offline himura_kenshin

Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #93 on: September 05, 2003, 09:44:09 PM »
Hmm.. well it would be stupid to argue if the breaking apart should or shouldn't be in the Bible. So i'll just leave it at "I disagree."

I have quoted myself, and i was aware of it, and i did not intentionally claim it was your quote when i did it.

The first time you accused me of putting words in your mouth, it was because of this quote, which was made BY ME, just to clarify that:

Quote
Of course i don't think that, you do. See?

This quote of MINE was a follow up to this question of YOURS:
Quote
I never said anything about requiring a brain for evolution. Do you think Africans just thought they wanted darker skin and got it?

The quote: "You do, see" was followed up in my post by this quote by YOU, which i was using to justify MY statement.

Quote
Yet our brains, nor our cells contain the "knowledge" and "reasoning" to develop a stomach or a system to digest food.


The reason i said "you do", is because it seemed to me at the time that you thought the brain held the genetic information that was used to form a stomach in a human. If you believe the brain holds genetic information used in forming the stomach, it seemed to me you would believe the same about the brain holding genetic information used in evolving. Perhaps this was an too big of a stretch on my part and i should not have so readily made this assumption, but in this case, the quotes that i listed as yours, were yours.

I see what you are looking at now, i didn't phrase it clearly enough. I quoted myself with this quote:

Quote
By that standard, our stomach is developed with information that is stored in our brain. Well i suppose that information must be somehow formed in there while we are in the womb so we can develope a stomach.

I didn't clarify that well enough. But the reason i used this quote is because i had already said it and here was your response:

Quote
your point?

Such a response leads me to believe you do not disagree with the statement. If you did disagree, why did you not say so instead of saying "your point?". Your response of "your point?" leads me to believe that you still think that genetic information in the brain forms the stomach.

What i should have done, is quoted my quote along with your response. I apologize for the confusion. However, the words i "put in your mouth" here did not disagree with what you were saying. If they did, why would you answer them with "your point?"


edit: forgot to add this in my post

Quote
3. water would not be brought up from the ground in that instance. It would be lava (i.e volcanos, thats how land is formed, through many eruptions of volcanos that eventually surface above water)


Some christians believe that God guides happenings on earth but they can all be explained by laws of physics etc. There is actually a Bible, i believe it's called the "Student Bible" or something, that claimes that the parting of the red sea was probably God causing a piece of a clif to break off and fall into the water. I personally believe God has power to intervene without limitation. There is water in the ground, and i believe if God wanted to break apart the ground and pull ground water up through it, he could.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 10:23:40 PM by himura_kenshin »

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #94 on: September 06, 2003, 12:45:09 AM »
When i said "your point" i was asking what your point was. That does not mean I agree with you. It means that I dont understand how that statement is relevant to the debate. Thats all.

I have to reiterate about Pangea. It is a recent theory. It is believed (through geological dating and other things i dont quite understand) that Pangea existed when the dinosaurs did, and by the time man kind came around, the continents were already broken apart. That would explain why Christians didnt know about the Americas

Offline himura_kenshin

Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #95 on: September 06, 2003, 01:05:45 AM »
When i said "your point" i was asking what your point was. That does not mean I agree with you. It means that I dont understand how that statement is relevant to the debate. Thats all.

Well, in that case i apologize for misinterpreting your comment(s).

I have to reiterate about Pangea. It is a recent theory. It is believed (through geological dating and other things i dont quite understand) that Pangea existed when the dinosaurs did, and by the time man kind came around, the continents were already broken apart. That would explain why Christians didnt know about the Americas

I don't quite understand what you are driving at here. I believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Then the flood came, along with the initial breakup of pangea. Can you elaborate a bit?

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #96 on: September 06, 2003, 02:16:35 AM »
Well, in that case i apologize for misinterpreting your comment(s).I don't quite understand what you are driving at here. I believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Then the flood came, along with the initial breakup of pangea. Can you elaborate a bit?
The common theory is that Dinosaurs and Humans did NOT coexist. Why? Carbon dating brings dinosaurs back millions of years. The oldest Link in Mankind that we have found today dates back approximately 160 thousand years. (feel free to correct me, i didnt look this up, but remember reading this in the past). It is believed that Pangea broke up before mankind actually entered the world. As I said before, Pangea is a relatively recent theory

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Pangea/Pangea1.html

This is a page on Pangea is describes what happened, how they know it happened, and how long ago it occured. It places the beginning of the Pangea break up approximately 180 million years ago

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1295624.html
oldest human fossil.



Offline himura_kenshin

Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #97 on: September 06, 2003, 02:33:46 AM »
I honestly don't know anything about carbon dating. However, the first thing you linked to there (which i did not examine thoroughly) says the plates probably broke apart for the same reason they are moving today. This would be incredibly slow and set pangea back a long time, for example, 180 million years ago. However, with the theory that God ripped it apart and brought the water up through, (a significant jumpstart) the theory of pangea still checks out with Christianity and the young age.

(You'll notice i've temporarily layed off the attack on common descent. Rest assured i've got more arguments, and i'll use them eventually, but debating several things at once was both time consuming and exhausting and i'd like to slow this down just a bit.)

Herald of Galactor

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #98 on: September 06, 2003, 02:37:29 AM »
So does Roy get to keep his plaque if he removes it from the courthouse, or is it slated for demolishment? Sorry, but I was kinda curious about the incident that started this lively and engrossing discussion, so, can anyone tell me?

medievald00d

  • Guest
Re:10 Commandments in Alabama?
« Reply #99 on: September 06, 2003, 02:41:13 AM »
Roy wont remove it, and i think he's been arrested for breaking the law. I'm not sure if its slated for demolishment yet.