Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Archea

Member
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Archea

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    18
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Theistic Evolutionist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Maryland
  1. Archea

    Creation Theory

    While going through this site, many times creationists have asked those who accept evolution for a definition of the theory. But I have never seen a creationist give a definition of a theory of creation, or a creation theory. So, as many times as you have asked evolutionists, "what exactly is the creation theory, and what does it state?" Secondly, any scientific theory is subjected to review and revision based on new evidence. So has there been any evidence that contradicts the theory of creation, if yes what was it and how has that changed the creation theory. If no, if evidence was presented that contradicted this theory, would you change the creation theory to match the observable evidence? Third, as a scientific theory it must have the ability to predict certain things. For example, from evolution we can conclude that no dinosaur remains will be found after the 65million year mark. Or, from the solar nebulae theory/hypothesis, we should find the terrestrial planets in the center of the solar system while finding jovial planets at the edge. So what are the predictions made by the creation theory, and how do they explain the evidence better than the current scientific explanation? This thread is not about showing the fallacies of evolution, so please do not respond with 'evolution that' 'evolution this', but to understand the theory of creation as it so often is presented as science.
  2. Archea

    The Curious Case Of Human And Chimps

    Yes, this is the thread I was referring to. I do not assume to know more about this than he does. I never said that he didn't know what he was talking about, because I'm sure he does. But what he has presented does not fit with the observable evidence, and I'm left with two options: 1. he has a fake degree and has no idea what he is talking about 2. he is simply lying, most likely for money. Imagine if someone has studied Jesus extensively and wrote a paper saying that he was eight feet tall, had blond hair, blue eyes and was really born somewhere in Europe (there is an actual sect of Christianity that believes this more or less). And did it in such a way that the average person could not refute it. However, he can wrap that story up all he wants, that person would still be lying because the evidence does not support that view and even laymen people who study this non-professionally can refute it. And if you want to discuss this in-depth, a separate thread as Adam suggested might be the best way to go.
  3. Archea

    G*y Marriage And H*mos*xaulity

    Where have you been? Everyone knows the military doesn't allow g*ys, when the marines tried to recruit me one of the questions that they asked was "are you g*y?" 'cuz you can't join if you are'.
  4. Archea

    Hi Everyone

    No scientific theory is set in stone. That's because theory are subjected to change with new evidence that is found. This is why there is no absolute, unchanging theory of evolution. But the basic essence of evolution is probably not going to change. And the fact that theories change should not get in the way of conversation about it and using the terms correctly. I've never heard this claim from any scientist, before Darwin we had the concept that species change overtime, but we didn't have a mechanism to understand how they change. Darwin gave us the concept of that mechanism, natural selection with evolution. And again as new evidence comes up, scientific theories are subjected to change. What do you mean by the "actual number"? the number of nucleotides that are different? Codons? Proteins? What? And how does this prove evolution wrong? Evolution says that we had a common ancestor like 5 million years ago or something. Flies and chickens had a common ancestor a few hundred million years ago. The further the common ancestor is the greater the genetic difference is. Yes, evolution does not say anything about how life was created, only what happens after it is created. Abiogenesis deals with how life was created, not what happens to it afterwords. The two are not dependent on each other. LOL, the scientific research money from the U.S. government is very very low, so much that many of the scientists are leaving the U.S. for other countries that are more science friendly. If you think that 80% of the government money is going to science you are either lying or seriously misinformed. I will not debate this subject but the majority of the U.S. budget goes into the war and military in general. And if you want to include war technology into the science budget, well that part of science has nothing to do with evolution anyway. Of course. If there is a scientific theory that can explain the evidence and facts better than evolution than it will increase our knowledge of the world greatly. And if evolution is proven wrong, it will have no bearing on anything other than evolution. It will change the way we think, obviously, but any theory that can do better than evolution would be welcomed by the scientific community. Because scientists are too busy doing research and contributing to the peer review section of science to debunk every claim made. And if creationists do honest scientific research they can submit it to the peer review section and if their claims turn out to be true they will be accepted, and if they prove creation they will probably win a nobel prize. As far as I know, no respected scientist has presented claims destroying evolution that wasn't a lie. After a person deceives the scientific community like this, their credibility is destroyed, it only takes one time for this to happen. I cannot find anyone promoting or disproving this picture anywhere. I only found it on one other site that was set up like a thread, but it didn't say anything. I need something more than this to find anything on it. That is because every single case like this that was presented to the scientific community has been debunked and it turns out that is exactly what has happened. A court of law is different than a peer review section in the scientific literature. What was this court case called and what was the verdict? Explain the science of how this evidence was debunked? Show me where these actions are wirtten anywhere in the scientific method? I cannot do anything with this picture because I have nothing to go on. No one on either side has presented this as evidence that I can find.
  5. Archea

    G*y Marriage And H*mos*xaulity

    I found an article while searching that said that this gene is passed along the X chromosome so you can get it through you're maternal side. In addition, with those who are g*y, the women in the family tend to be more fruitful and thus have more kids. If there is a g*y gene, which I agree with, this would help explain why such an odd mutation would stay around generation after generation. I do not think that people are born as g*y, only with the ability to become g*y in the right environment(this includes their choices). And with a certain genome a person is more susceptible to being g*y than others. Some more evidence for this gene is twin studies which concluded that 40%-60% of a persons orientation is determined through a persons DNA. But I must stress that there is no one g*y gene, it is how a collection of genes work together to create a persons genome. If you can show any of the evidence I present is false I shall welcome correction.
  6. Archea

    Hi Everyone

    Sorry CTD, I just could not recall who told me that. The last part of the above post was not meant for you in particular, just creationists in general. I'm sure many agree with your position on that matter, and I just wanted to show that there is another side to the story.
  7. Archea

    G*y Marriage And H*mos*xaulity

    True, today's society is indeed becoming more liberal in a sense that people are quick to blame others. But the opposite is just as bad, where one cannot say they've been wronged. For moderation is key.
  8. Archea

    Hi Everyone

    I didn't explain my position clearly and I apologize. The Adam part was figurative while the Christ part is not figurative. If you recall I stated earlier that there is more than one kind of truth, and that just because it does not happen literally doesn't mean there is no truth in it, or there is lies in it. I can tell he is lying because what he says does not make any sense from a scientific standpoint, or even a logical standpoint with a little bit of scientific knowledge. He is a person who has a real degree and has done real science, and to turn around and say these things show that he is lying. Does someones position make it so they cannot lie? If so at what position does this become in affect? And I do understand the subject, enough to tell that he is making BS up and show through science that some of the things he says does not coincide with facts that we have. Any word and language analogies are completely useless and false once you go beyond the elementary concept of DNA. Sanford knows this and you cannot use words as a way to understand or describe mutations. I do not know how much genetics you understand, and I apologize for saying anything you already know. The basic nucleotides: T, A, G, and C. In RNA the T is switched with U. DNA transcribes itself to RNA. In the RNA three nucleotides together makes a codon. These codons then make proteins. What is essential to the process are the codons. Fortunately codons are redundant (ie. multiple codons code for the same protein). If a mutation happens, there is a chance that nothing will happen to the over all organism. And in-fact most of the mutations are neutral, meaning that the mutation does not change the chemical makeup of the person. And even if it did there is a good chance that the environment will not even affect the outcome, making it neutral. The average person has around 120 mutations, if each one were bad we would have all been dead after a thousand years of breeding. How are mutations by their very nature destroying genetic information? And what do you mean by genetic information? The consensus with the scientific community is that mutations are not all-across the board bad, and there are very few mutations that would actually be harmful to the organism no matter the environment. Many of these bad bad mutations are based on whether or not these mutations are beneficial, harmful or neutral in the environment in which they live. Your above post implies that we can select animals for breeding and get the desired results, this goes against what Sanford had told us. Either you have joined me in realizing that Sanford is wrong, or you might have miss wrote your position. If this is what you meant to write please note and be aware that this goes against what Sanford has implied, whether you like it or not. Luck does play a role in whether in organisms gets to reproduce or not. But many organisms produce a multitude of young, so luck is somewhat diminished by this, and a beneficial mutation is more likely to survive because of this than not. And once a recessive gene is in the population, it is very hard to get ride of that recessive gene in the population. Afraid not, this is all genetics, no environmental factors here. The condition described is lactose intolerance, pure genes. If Sanford is right about luck and mutations happening so fast that no selection is possible, this is one thing that evolution clearly explains but genetic deterioration does not. Most non-Europeans have this deficiency and it is actually the norm among humans. Those with European decent are very likely to have this mutation where their lactase levels are high through out their lives, but they do decrease some as they get older. Again most mutations are neutral to the organism for various reasons. And natural selection is a force that drives evolution to create the most fit organism for that specific environment. Perhaps you underrate me, and in time we will meet in the middle. On a final note to this post I noticed that someone, I cannot recall their name, said that because the scientific community did not rebuttal Sanford's claim that it must all be true, and the scientific community is hiding form this new research. However I just want to say that scientists that do research do not spend their time looking for those who are wrong about science and rebuttal everything that is wrong about their model, because they simply do not have time. And many see it as if they accept any challenge that they are recognizing that this model or theory is a possible contender in the world of science, and since the vast majority of scientists conclude that creation science is not science they do not feel the need to establish it as one. This is not an attack in any way shape or form, just how main stream scientists view creation science and why many of them will not debate with a creationist.
  9. Archea

    Hi Everyone

    Fair enough, I will not expect you to vigorously debate this here. But if anyone who has read his book (I'm assuming several on this forum has?) can easily refute all my arguments as they are "junk arguments." I shall await and see. I might start a new thread on this, if so I hope you will join, even if it is for a short time.
  10. Archea

    The Curious Case Of Human And Chimps

    His claims make sense, and he has probably studied this much more than any one of us. On another thread I was attacked for going against what a professional in their field said, just because he is considered to have authority through his degree. Could I not make the same argument here? Here is someone his has studied Christianity both professionally and personally (I happen to know he is also a Christian), and you think you know better than him? Paraphrasing from the other post: 'you obviously have no idea what you are talking about'. But putting theology behind, how would the world being different than today hinder scientific research? No scientists or creationist so far has even slightly hinted that the laws themselves would be different. So why can't we use science to determine what happened in the past? I know we can use Ice core samples from the Arctic to determine things like, atmospheric composition, temperature and precipitation thousands of years ago. No eyewitnesses needed
  11. Archea

    Hi Everyone

    Again this can be taken figuratively, Adam is a reference to the fact that everybody sins (I think this conversation was with you), and through Christ we shall rise from our fallen state. I've always found most atheist interpretations to be 'God is a bronze-aged psycho killer', or something like that. But the reason for not taking a literal genesis are many. In short, it's not what all the combined evidence suggests. But the combined evidence for the resurrection shows that it must have happened. I think that Sanford is flat out lying. In the review he makes several assertions that cannot be true. First he states that one out of a million mutations are beneficial while all the others are harmful. Most mutations are neutral to the overall effectiveness of the DNA because of the redundant code; multiple codons code for the same protein. And the rest of the mutations are determined beneficial or not by their environment, there is no standard where you can say this mutation is good or bad. Second he states that mutations are too subtle to be "selectable" , if this was the case than even the bad mutations are not selectable therefore bad mutations should not be a problem. Third, mutations arise faster than can be selected. If this were true we could not breed anything with consistent results. We would not be able to select dogs for breeding purposes, same with bananas, wheat, corn and many other foods that over time humans have selected for breeding without the use of genetic altered plants. We have been doing this for hundreds of years, this would not be possible if Sanford is correct. Fourth, survival of the luckiest outdoes selection. If this were true, all different variations of the same species just happened to randomly evolve into the better suited version to which they live. Take humans for example, according to this it is pure coincidence that Europeans have a mutation that makes them produce the enzyme lactase at high levels throughout their life where dairy products just so happen to be a major source of energy. While in other places where dairy products are not available, this mutation is not present and people start to decrease in the enzyme lactase after they stop breast feeding. (Lactase is the enzyme that breaks down lactose, a key ingredient in dairy products such as milk and cheese.) And there are many other examples that contradict the statement Sanford presents. Lastly, he states that any good mutations present will be lost because the organism has mostly bad mutations and will die without any offspring. While it is possible that bad mutations in an organism can out way the beneficial, most mutations are neutral as stated above. Plus no one here will disagree that organisms have been passing down their genes for at least 6,000 years and some of them had to have survived. And any advantage that they could get will increase their chances of passing on their genes to the next generation. If I, someone in introductory biology can show how his statements for his argument are false, imagine what someone with real knowledge can do to his arguments. There would be absolutely nothing left. I can easily see why the scientific community doesn't take his genetic degeneration model seriously. But thank you for showing me this article, I've never heard of him before or his experiments.
  12. Archea

    The Curious Case Of Human And Chimps

    Adam, The content of the atmosphere is always changing. I think in the past when the dinosaurs were around the oxygen levels were higher than they are now, I think this is why in the past we've seen gigantic creatures. But I am curious as to why you claim that radiation levels were higher post-flood. Not all mutations are a result of radiation. Going to the part about humans living 800 years pre-flood. As I've discussed this with others here, the early Hebrews did not distinguish between the soul and the physical body. And my religion professor explained it to the class that what the authors we're trying to convey through number of years lived was how close people were to God. Over time people became more and more corrupt as shown through the decrease in years lived which equal the spiritual connection to God.
  13. Archea

    G*y Marriage And H*mos*xaulity

    you've probably already done this but I just went into google and typed in "g*y gene" (without the censer). From the various websites and pages I got, there seems to be genetic factors that play a role in a persons s*xuallity. There is no one gene that contributes to this, but it is how many genes interact with each other. I assume you are familiar with the nature vs. nurture argument, and that now we know that it is a combination of the two that determines a persons personality ect. One site said that from previous studies with twins, about half of a persons s*xuality comes from their genetic makeup while the other half comes from their environment. So their is no g*y gene so to say, but a persons DNA does affect their orientation. I think that it is a limited choice whether a person is g*y or not. But their actions they can control, and with help they can control it better.
  14. Archea

    Hi Everyone

    How intertwined to you see God in natural laws and in this world? Obviously you see it more controlled than me, but do you feel that God is controlling every single sub-atomic particle, or is there a middle ground where you stand? In the evolutionary model death was here in the beginning. And obviously we perceive death as horrible. But at the same time many people realize that there is a time when all must die, and through this death we are released from our earthly bondage and take our place which the Lord shall command us to go, whether that be from heaven or hell. Basically, yes death is bad, but most people realize that death is also part of God's plan. Thanks, after midterms I'll check these sites out. After I look at the sites we'll be able to have more discussion on this topic, if that is okay with you. I'm sorry I don't have any links or anything on this matter, this came from a talk with a religion professor a few years ago. But if someone wanted to write down a plain factual account they would write it in their history, not their sacred texts. Although there have been examples where cultures have taken factual accounts and embellished them and used them as figurative tools in sacred texts. The most famous example would be the Gilgamesh flood, or Noah's flood, since many people think that it is the same story. There is evidence that a natural dam broke and water rushed into the surrounding area destroying everything, killing thousands while dispersing even more people, and the times match up with when scholars think that the flood stories were recorded. Thus many people think that the flood stories were based off of real events that have been exaggerated in sacred texts to reveal truths to us. As I've stated with another person it is possible to believe in Jesus and accept evolution at the same time. With that being said obviously the Christian should see the bible as true, but not scientifically enlightening. What are the amillennial interpretations and what do you mean when Constantine turned the church into a part of the human system? I agree with you completely on this matter. Date-setting is useless. I think setting a date for the end of times will only lead people further away from Christ, especially people that do not already believe. When the common person sees a Christian prophesying the end of the world in such and such date, and again and again nothing happens, it discredits the religion as being nothing more than superstition. At least that's what I see going on. Peace be with you
  15. Archea

    Hi Everyone

    I have a feeling that when it comes to interpreting Genesis me and many of the fundamentalists will just have to agree to disagree. But I do agree that the person and their soul are the same, if that is what you are saying. But Jesus himself said that a person must be born again, he is clearly talking about a spiritual rebirth not physical. I myself think that Adams fall was figurative, as I believe that Adam is not a physical person. Instead I see it as God telling us that we inherently sinners, and because of this we cannot attain salvation by ourselves, we need God. And this applies to everyone. A lot has changed since Darwin, and scientists know that complexity does not guaranteed survival over simpler organisms. But what is your evidence that we are accumulating genetic damage?
×

Important Information

Our Terms