Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 12:22 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Help Me Understand
RE: Help Me Understand
Bumping this because I think all of you would do well to check out those two links I grabbed, above, especially the PDF of the bone and embryological homologies.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost

I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.

Reply
RE: Help Me Understand
I too have seen some of the scientific debate vrs evolution. What i take from it is this ... science doesn't know everything and probably never will. That's okay. Science is an ever changing entity just like life. The scientists in this field can and always should challenge their theories and build up on them.

The contention comes when the literalists come thumping their book and say "quit looking we don't need anymore answers." and for a long time they did. Back then the evolutionist was considered the retard but now the creationist is. There is no constant except change.

I say throw the theory of evolution on the fire of scrutiny now and always...not to throw it away but to improve on it.

Science has the power to admit when it is wrong and change... religion...not so much.
Reply
RE: Help Me Understand
(October 25, 2015 at 8:56 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:


TRS,


Thank you for the links.  I have seen similar things before, and did I mention, that I hate drawings presented as evidence.  It does seem to be more of the same.  When similar things are found, and they agree with the common descent model, it shows evolution.  When similar things appear, and they do not agree with the common descent model, then it shows evolution.  I do understand that this is not an inconsistency as there are other factors in the making of the determination, however for one who is skeptical of common descent; I think the second claim takes away from the first.  I also do not think it has been demonstrated, that because these ridges which turn into gills in one embryo look like these ridges which become something completely different in humans and other mammals is evidence of common descent.  It may fit with the story, but similarity as we have seen, does not show common descent necessarily.  Also in the early stages of embryo development, considering what you are going from, to what the end result is, I think it is reasonable to expect a great number of things, to have a similar appearance at certain points.   The fact is that in humans, these are never gills, and do not have anything more than a similar appearance at a certain stage of development.
Reply
RE: Help Me Understand
(November 8, 2015 at 12:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: TRS,


Thank you for the links.  I have seen similar things before, and did I mention, that I hate drawings presented as evidence.  It does seem to be more of the same.  When similar things are found, and they agree with the common descent model, it shows evolution.  When similar things appear, and they do not agree with the common descent model, then it shows evolution.  I do understand that this is not an inconsistency as there are other factors in the making of the determination, however for one who is skeptical of common descent; I think the second claim takes away from the first.  I also do not think it has been demonstrated, that because these ridges which turn into gills in one embryo look like these ridges which become something completely different in humans and other mammals is evidence of common descent.  It may fit with the story, but similarity as we have seen, does not show common descent necessarily.  Also in the early stages of embryo development, considering what you are going from, to what the end result is, I think it is reasonable to expect a great number of things, to have a similar appearance at certain points.   The fact is that in humans, these are never gills, and do not have anything more than a similar appearance at a certain stage of development.

With respect, I think you have their reasons for 1) illustrating what can only otherwise be known by data, since you can't easily (or at all) photograph some of these things that warrant visual representation-- in other words, something is not fake simply because I draw it to show how all the pieces come together; it's why we draw the center of the earth, to show the core, mantle, etc.-- and 2) their reasons for making the comparison to development, both very confused.

DNA does not represent a blueprint for an animal. What it represents are a set of "dividing, differentiating, and folding instructions" as the embryo goes from being a ball of stem cells (by simple division) to a hollow sphere and then folds in on itself to form the layers which begin to differentiate into new types of cell. At every stage, it keeps folding and copying and making new types of tissue in order to form that system. We can now "read" those instructions in the DNA, but we already knew they were there from embryology, because we could watch each stage and see the same processes  at work, and only later  processes turned those embryos through the necessary additional folds and changes to become something further down the chain of evolutionary development. We can SEE it, even though it's hard represent visually because in real life, tissues are hard to differentiate because everything's nearly the same color. So we make nice, pretty drawkings; bird and fish (etc) identification books are often done by artistic renderings rather than photographs, to help highlight some of the features that identify the real thing.

So you're right, the gill slits "never become gills"; what they do is start forming the same way that tissues in fishes, which have the DNA to make it keep developing into gills, form. They later will take a different path in the "switching and folding game", and turn into the structures we have in our throats to make sound. Evolution often works like that, taking sets of instructions and turning them in a new direction.

In other words, we share (from our common ancestry) the developmental Steps 1-58, say, but at Step 59 our DNA says to do something different, and the switch-and-fold process turns in a new direction that continues via the "updated" set of instructions that developed in one of our ancestors, after the split from the creature that doesn't have that set of instructions. There may even be other aspects of development that remain mostly unchanged from the set inherited equally-intact by our relatives; that's why Neil Shubin's book is called Your Inner Fish.

You're quite right, that just because similar things appear it does not mean they arrived by common descent; that's what convergent evolution is, period. Closer examination can tell you, via other traits, whether or not the similar design emerged because the creatures share common gene pools that passed the trait down, or whether it is the result of convergence-- an organ or system that works so well that it will be heavily selected for, in gene pools that produce that structure. One of the most famous ways we can show this is to look at the eyes of octopi and those of humans. They seem extremely similar, at first glace, but a closer examination shows that they develop in completely different ways, especially with regard to how the light-sensitive nerves grow and develop; ours run from the retina to the inside of the eyeball and back out through the "blind spot" in our vision, which our brains correct for so we do not see it without covering one eye, while the nerves from the retina of an octopus go straight back to the brain, and thus produce no blind spot.

Finally, common descent can also be demonstrated by looking at the genomes, in which non-coding sections (ones that don't do active things that can be acted upon by Natural Selection pressure) are simply passed down relatively intact, generation to generation, and thus contain "markers" which can be used to track family-tree patterns and see if species are related in that way. It is something that would have shown evolution via common ancestry to be 100% false, if it had been false; instead, it validated the Theory to a degree that was not possible, before. There is no question in anyone's mind that we know how this works.

It's not a "story". It's not something they're throwing out evidence to confirm as true. It simply is the way things are, and all signs point to it.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost

I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.

Reply
RE: Help Me Understand
(September 16, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
(September 16, 2015 at 12:50 pm)Alex25 Wrote: Okay, so in that case- how can you be sure that other parts of the bible are to be taken literally? What are the rules to determine what is literal and what is metaphorical?

Before the NT scriptures were written and the canon of the Bible finalized, God established an infallible Church which He continues to guide by His Holy Spirit.

That Church studies these things very, very carefully.

Giggle

(September 17, 2015 at 12:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(September 17, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: It was an official Church position.

And even if infallibility refers to faith and morals rather than facts, you'd still have to explain the moral lapses that caused even the highest members of the Church hierarchy to shelter criminals. You'd have to explain the popes who in the past maintained mistresses, or came into the position by foul play. I know what you're going to say, "The Church is infallible, but the people are human", but the Church is the people.

The idea that your church is infallible is laughable. You should know better.

I agree, PT. The only positions that we claim are infallible are Church doctrine. The people within the Church can and do still make mistakes or do things that are very wrong. No Catholic should claim otherwise.

yes but the PEOPLE within the church , you know the ones who do things that are very wrong , are the ones who determine church doctrine . Church Doctrine was created by humans not God .
Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today   FSM Grin   Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will be as one  - John Lennon

The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also  - Mark Twain
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I don't understand what my mom believes Der/die AtheistIn 11 2981 January 14, 2018 at 6:59 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  The Problem With This Guy Is That He Does Not Understand Evangelicals Minimalist 1 1099 April 6, 2017 at 12:19 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  help me understand this OT and NT stuff Sara0229 35 8113 January 1, 2016 at 4:36 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Help Me Understand, part duex Simon Moon 85 12888 September 28, 2015 at 11:19 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  Don't Understand The Appeal Of Christianity To People Imaginos7 30 7633 September 10, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Last Post: Lek
  God doesn't understand iterative probability RobbyPants 8 2446 May 8, 2015 at 10:54 pm
Last Post: KevinM1
  The free will argument demonstrates that christians don't understand free will. Esquilax 91 17310 May 2, 2014 at 6:41 pm
Last Post: Ryantology
  I still don't understand why anyone would make up a person like the Biblical Christ.. dave4shmups 96 34793 September 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Sinners cannot understand the Bible! dry land fish 131 56765 September 27, 2009 at 2:57 am
Last Post: Ryft



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)