Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Religious Beliefs

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
    Thank you. It seems, from Wiki, that there are many "populations" within each "species". But aren't they still the same species in general? So you can't, for example, call each population of penguin a different species, can you?

    ~Dave
    It's just terminology. So what you can and can't do is only dictated by the definitions of the words.

    There's a hierarchy of life, if you will - a taxonomic rank.

    Domain
    Kingdom
    Phylum
    Class
    Order
    Family
    Genus
    Species

    Take penguins, 'cause that's what we started with in this discussion.

    What we call "penguin" refers to the entire Family of these aquatic, flightless birds.

    So "penguin" can refer to Emperor Penguins, or it can refer to King Penguins, or it can refer to Royal Penguins. They're all part of the Family Spheniscidae.

    But it's important to remember that in this Family there are Genera of penguins. And in each Genus there are many different species of penguin.

    An Emperor Penguin and a King Penguin are in the same Genus but they are not the same species.

    Same goes for humans.

    The modern human is the species called Homo sapiens. But the word "human" refers to the genus "Homo" which has about 13 species within it.

    Populations are just geographical groupings. If a population of penguins breaks off within a species and breeds separate from the original population for long enough, then eventually if it meets certain criteria, it can be considered a new species.
    sigpic

    Comment


      So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that at some point, due to evolution, a creature that was not an Emperor Penguin laid an egg with an Emperor Penguin in it?

      ~Dave

      Comment


        Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
        So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that at some point, due to evolution, a creature that was not an Emperor Penguin laid an egg with an Emperor Penguin in it?

        ~Dave
        The changes in DNA are a lot more subtle than you make it seem and it would take thousands of years of adaptations and natural selection.

        But, yes. At some point, somewhere, there had to be a first Emperor Penguin. It's impossible to pinpoint the exact organism because the changes over generations are so subtle, but essentially, yeah.
        sigpic

        Comment


          Originally posted by GhostPoet View Post
          I think science is incredible. But people have to be careful with it when it comes to the facts. There's been so much controversy over the theory of evolution. Political bullying and major pressure within the scientific community to produce results over the many years has resulted in fabricrations and outright lies. But it's not all like that. Just saying...don't take the truth from the surface.
          Not within the scientific community there hasn't, just in the media. I'd agree there have been many fabrications and lies, but all of that Intelligent Design stuff has been refuted time and again, I don't think anyone but the religious right take it seriously.

          Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
          So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that at some point, due to evolution, a creature that was not an Emperor Penguin laid an egg with an Emperor Penguin in it?

          ~Dave
          No, evolution is a gradual change, there would never be so many mutations that at birth the offspring were a completely distinct separate species. With each generation there would gradually be genes in the population that weren't there before, and changes to the point that you end up with a new species, but there'd be no point at which you could determine when a population changes from one species to another, it's not that cut and dry.

          Comment


            Well, we seem to have a difference of opinion, here. And I thought we had just discovered that the egg really did come first. LOL!

            ~Dave
            Last edited by ~Dave; 12 December 2008, 11:54 AM.

            Comment


              you may not be able to pinpont the exact time when a species changes into another, but you can show the transition with remains
              Spoiler:
              Vice Admiral and occasionally the Acting Leader of the Gateworld Cantina
              sigpic

              Comment


                Originally posted by tombombadil View Post
                you may not be able to pinpont the exact time when a species changes into another, but you can show the transition with remains
                Spoiler:
                Ok, let's go with that. These skulls show that there are similarities between the creatures who owned them. What is it that proves they are a continuous transition from the first one to the last one?

                ~Dave

                Comment


                  Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
                  Ok, let's go with that. These skulls show that there are similarities between the creatures who owned them. What is it that proves they are a continuous transition from the first one to the last one?

                  ~Dave
                  I suppose you could argue that without a time machine it's impossible to prove, but we know empirically that evolution happens in nature now, and we can also chart the development of these species DNA, not to mention the fact that they all lived in time periods one after the other. It's not hard to put two and two together, evolution theory predict perfectly what we find in fossils all the time.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by jenks View Post
                    I suppose you could argue that without a time machine it's impossible to prove, but we know empirically that evolution happens in nature now, and we can also chart the development of these species DNA, not to mention the fact that they all lived in time periods one after the other. It's not hard to put two and two together, evolution theory predict perfectly what we find in fossils all the time.
                    I get back to my theory that god does exist..but made us through evolutiuon
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by wolfax View Post
                      I get back to my theory that god does exist..but made us through evolutiuon
                      Not seeing it. If I'm reading the Bible correctly, then God did something about 4000BC that caused all life to be wiped out and then restarted life on Earth. (The Earth became void and without form.) So this is actually the second (at least) Earth age, and all the fossils which date before 4000BC belong to the previous age. And God began then to make all the animals and plants and people. From such a recent past, there is simply not enough time for evolution to play any part in the Christian Bible. At least according to my reading of it.

                      ~Dave

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
                        Not seeing it. If I'm reading the Bible correctly, then God did something about 4000BC that caused all life to be wiped out and then restarted life on Earth. (The Earth became void and without form.) So this is actually the second (at least) Earth age, and all the fossils which date before 4000BC belong to the previous age. And God began then to make all the animals and plants and people. From such a recent past, there is simply not enough time for evolution to play any part in the Christian Bible. At least according to my reading of it.

                        ~Dave
                        Yes..but 4000 yrs is probly god days, not actual human yrs...so he wiped out all life via an asteroid and started over
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by jenks View Post
                          I suppose you could argue that without a time machine it's impossible to prove, but we know empirically that evolution happens in nature now, and we can also chart the development of these species DNA, not to mention the fact that they all lived in time periods one after the other. It's not hard to put two and two together, evolution theory predict perfectly what we find in fossils all the time.
                          I can accept that interbreeding between some species of animals can produce some interesting characteristics which could be another sub-species within a species. That along with some adaptive evolution to adjust to different climactic conditions. But I'm not seeing anything in nature or anywhere else to account for mankind as being evolved from lower animals of any kind. "Putting two and two together", is not proof. There is simply nothing to prove primates turned into human beings no matter how much time passed to get it done.

                          ~Dave

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by AvatarIII View Post

                            you also said that you follow the word of god, which is the bible... but how can you or anyone truely know that the bible is the word of god, and not the word of satan.

                            I find this bit interesting. How can anyone say for certainty that the Bible is the untainted word of God?

                            You do realise it was created by humans in the time around the Roman Empire. Therefore it was a selection of books chosen by men, not God and therefore is subject to error IMHO....

                            In fact most of the books of the Bible are manglings of other religions and stories, and a lot of stuff in the NT is just ripped off other religions.
                            Go home aliens, go home!!!!

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by wolfax View Post
                              Yes..but 4000 yrs is probly god days, not actual human yrs...so he wiped out all life via an asteroid and started over
                              Nope. The Bible is worded such that time is not undetermined except in certain cases. For example, if you see "the day of atonement", we have no way of knowing how long that was. But if there is a numeral, or an ordinal, we do. Such as "and it was evening and morning of the first day". In that case it was a 24 hour day. So, unless you want to completely recreate the Bible to conform to evolution, there's no way for it to be compatible.

                              ~Dave
                              Last edited by ~Dave; 12 December 2008, 08:16 PM.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Coco Pops View Post
                                I find this bit interesting. How can anyone say for certainty that the Bible is the untainted word of God?

                                You do realise it was created by humans in the time around the Roman Empire. Therefore it was a selection of books chosen by men, not God and therefore is subject to error IMHO....

                                In fact most of the books of the Bible are manglings of other religions and stories, and a lot of stuff in the NT is just ripped off other religions.
                                LOL! Yeah. I've gone that route with Christians before, too. But they just say that an all powerful God would be able to influence men to put into the Bible that which He wished to be in there. It was Divinely, inspired.

                                ~Dave

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X