ROTS Pre-Suit Vader vs. Galen Marek

Started by Enyalus26 pages
Enyalus MALE DOMINANCE!!!

In defense of Jbill311's last post....they've shown that chickens are descended from dinosaurs. They share, IIRC, 72% of the exact same genetic code as their ancestors in fact. But in the embryo stage, the chemical which controls evolution of those certain parts is told not to fire.

I watched a special on the...Discovery Channel, I think it was. Where they were able to inject certain chemicals into the undeveloped chicken eggs and trigger certain evolutionary chemicals that were dormant in the modern species to fire up. The result? They produced chickens with crocodile-like teeth, a long vertabraed tail, and scales instead of feathers (notice that the legs of a chicken and other birds are already naturally covered in scales).

It was amazing.

Jbill311 The Blind Critic

If you notice, I did post a link to a lot of other transitional species- Archeopteryx was my personal project for a while in the religion forum.

Lt. Valerian Republic Navy

Originally posted by Enyalus
I watched a special on the...Discovery Channel, I think it was. Where they were able to inject certain chemicals into the undeveloped chicken eggs and trigger certain evolutionary chemicals that were dormant in the modern species to fire up. The result? They produced chickens with crocodile-like teeth, a long vertabraed tail, and scales instead of feathers (notice that the legs of a chicken and other birds are already naturally covered in scales).

It was amazing.

That sounds interesting.

Jbill311 The Blind Critic

Also, was I off base? Do I need defending? It made sense as I typed it, but since this is only KMC I didn't really proofread it. I was probably a bit clunky and repetitive, (just how it happens) but was it silly?

Borbarad Advocatus Diaboli
Originally posted by Enyalus
...As a huge fan of Plato's philosophy and epistomology, I just cringed.

I wonder why. It's exactly one thought ahead of Socrates. "I know that I know nothing" -> "I know that I can't know anything, therefore attempting to archieve knowledge is a waste of time."

See. I'm not talking about "knowledge" in the general sense, which, essentially, also isn't "knowledge". I guess you would say that you "know" what colours your eyes have. Yet, if the "Matrix" is right, your eye-color is determined by your thoughts, which would in turn mean that you don't know your eye-color. In fact you can't even know that you possess eyes. Because you could technically be a brain in some laboratory that is stimulated via electric impulses. And maybe you don't even exists at all and I'm just talking to an illusion [or you are doing that].


That remark, however, was extremely eloquent. 👆

^^

Enyalus MALE DOMINANCE!!!

Originally posted by Borbarad
I wonder why. It's exactly one thought ahead of Socrates. "I know that I know nothing" -> "I know that I can't know anything, therefore attempting to archieve knowledge is a waste of time."

See. I'm not talking about "knowledge" in the general sense, which, essentially, also isn't "knowledge". I guess you would say that you "know" what colours your eyes have. Yet, if the "Matrix" is right, your eye-color is determined by your thoughts, which would in turn mean that you don't know your eye-color. In fact you can't even know that you possess eyes. Because you could technically be a brain in some laboratory that is stimulated via electric impulses. And maybe you don't even exists at all and I'm just talking to an illusion [or you are doing that].

"Dark nexus of sophistic energy..." ? 😉

But no, I understood what you were getting at. I cringed because I wanted to come to his defense, and couldn't.

Null ARC Avis The best, the elite.

I love the God of the Gaps idea (i dont use theory because i like the scientific definition better). It makes me laugh and cry at the same time at its stupidity.

truejedi Senior Member
Originally posted by Jbill311

1. Lets not get into a 'god of the gaps' debate here, since gaps can (and are) filled at a tremendous rate, leaving a potential god less and less space to hide.

first, its a big universe, we live in an itty bitty piece of it, i'd say there are more than enough gaps for any "potential god" to hide in if that entity actually wanted to.


2. The Big Bang Theory has no bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Neither does Abiogenesis. Questioning those theories will not cast doubt on Evolution through natural selection.

I never disagreed with that. I asked another, unrelated question. It wasn't the theory of evolution i wish to debate here, its the out-of-hand denial of the possibility of the existence of a god.
As i said, take evolution, i don't believe it, but it doesn't mean you can't, what i want to know, is simply WHERE did the mass from the big bang come from? (i mean, i'll even give you the big bang) i'm just wondering, where did it come from? you say in the next paragraph that it had all of eternity to form, but given all of eternity, matter cannot manipulate itself without energy, and where did your potential energy come from? Even scientists admit that all energy in the universe will run out someday, so the question is, and we know energy can be neither created nor destroyed, all energy in a system will be constant, so, given the universe as our system, where the heck did all that energy come from in the first place? No energy, no Big Bang. So i ask it again, denying the possibility that energy and matter can form themselves out of nothing, because that's absurd, and you know it, where did it come from?


3. The theory says that there was a singularity. The origin of the singularity is irrelevant, as it had all of eternity to form. If it had a probability of 1 in in 1E1000000000000(etc.) it would still have happened, because there were no other events, or even time, in between its non-existence and its appearance. Then, everything would have proceeded as they suppose. This isn't to say that the theory is infallible, there are still several uncertainties, especially about how matter behaves at plank temperatures. (VERY VERY HOT).

I answered the first sentence there already, and the problem with it is, there is actually a probability of 0 in 1E100000000000000000 of energy forming out of nothing. I'm assuming for something to reach or be maintained at your plank temperature, ENERGY IS REQUIRED. SO WHERE THE HECK IS THE ENERGY COMING FROM? So even if your probability argument is correct, then that theory still fails.

here's the other problem. You express a belief in something that science doesn't back up, and science can't even come close to proving, by your own admission (the formation of that singularity due to plank temperature... etc.) However, virtually all creationist theories believe that everything was created fully matured, i.e., trees weren't seeds, light from stars didn't take millions of years to reach earth after creation, birds weren't eggs, etc. If this were to be true (not proven i know) but if it were, then there would be virtually no way of distinguishing a universe that is billions of years old from one that is only 100's, thousands, 10k or 100k thousands of years old. To me, its hard to believe that that's true, but to look at it objectively, iTS JUST AS EASY TO BELIEVE as something coming from nothing, because EVERY scientific law we have ever adhered to keeps that from being possible.

Also, carbon dating, or other types of chemical dating are the main way to date fossils, rocks, etc. on earth. The problem is, these dating methods are based on a BIG ASSUMPTION, and that is that there have always been the same amounts of those substances in the upper atmosphere as are there now. that is another unprovable, and really throws the entire chemical-dating system out whack, however, THAT system is based on evolution being true, so while evolution supports the dating system, the dating system supports evolution, leaving an even bigger hole in the entire theory, IMO.


4. As for non-matter, in quantum physics this is shown to not be exactly true. Matter jumps, shifts, and non-vacuum is (I believe- rudimentary physics is talking here) is more probable than vacuum. For details I'll PM Inimalist, the Religion Forum's resident science god.

the fact remains that energy cannot create itself, and without energy, you won't get one quantam shift, jump, or permutation. one last time, Where is the energy coming from? It doesn't matter if evolution is true or not, if the entire evolutionary chain was set in motion by a deity...

Autokrat Unknown

Hey I'm just curious, but what does the formation of the universe have to with whiny ***** Anakin vs angsty Galen Marek?

Not that I care, it's actually sort of funny...

truejedi Senior Member

pg 2.... was pulling down the star destroyer impressive? and jbill replied with "we can't occupy the middle east" whatever that means, and then it was off.l

Lord Knightfa11 Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Good for you.

Thank you. I take it very seriously when someone implies plagiarism.

And you'll notice I'm not expending much effort on this yet. You're really starting to tell me I need to get serious, though.
Hmm. K. So you are going to stop talking about evolution and take the world seriously?

I'd love to see this quote...

you will as soon as I can find it.

The Catholic Church has no issue with evolution. And since when do scientists have an all consuming desire to suppress religion?

When have your alleged scientists not?
And they don't want to throw out their theory? They didn't make the theory up,
yes. they totally did. And whats sad is they don't really have any proof. I'm sorry, but when you teach evolution in a public school to children as FACT when there is so little to prove it and so much to disprove it, you are guilty of fraud.
Tossing out old theories when they're proven wrong is a major point of science.
Which they have not done.

It has nothing to do with what scientists want to believe, it's what they glean from the evidence.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

Ever heard of a fellow named Darwin? Or Kepler? Both believers in God and they went against the 'norms.'
and both came to christ after realizing that their theories had failed.

The reason this theory even IS a theory is because of the overwhelming evidence behind it! Scientists don't just flip a coin to decide what they want to study, they decide based on the available evidence and defend it with evidence.
Yes, but you have yet to give me one iota of evidence that supports evolution. Apparently it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism, because you haven't shown one piece of evidence for evolutionists, you are just arguing that scientists know what they are doing and we just have to trust them.

Lord Knightfa11 Restricted
Originally posted by Jbill311
Theory n.
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Fail. You just said that it has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted. there is a whole contingency of christian, muslim, and hindu scientists who don't accept it, so it can't be widely accepted. It has never been tested, and it can't be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Lord Knightfa11 Restricted

Originally posted by Jbill311
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Part two especially has good examples.

So it says that:
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods.
There is an even simpler, more reasonable explanation for this. four thousand years ago, a flood devastated the earth. The flood fossilized the animals, and thus, as you are not going to get a kangaroo fossil in north America, in some areas/elevations you are not going to find certain types of creatures, and since insects can fly and float to an extent, they are not going to be submerged in mud and water as quickly as the rest, and therefor won't be fossilized in the same layer.
Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete.
so now he is saying that he only has some of the families. Well if evolution is true, there should be at least one transitional form, i mean, how lucky would us creationists have to be if there were no transitional forms to be found anywhere?
and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.
yay, so he has no transitional forms and an excuse he made up that in order for it to be valid, you have to believe that evolution is true. So he made up this long and boring rant comparable to that of supershadow in an attempt to clarify in evolutionary terms why he has no evidence for evolution.

The 'hydrogen molecules' are a gross oversimplification of a complex scientific phenomenon: matter behaves differently at extreme temperatures. As for the creation of more complex types of matter, nuclear fusion takes care of that, unless you would argue that the sun does not shine?

I could argue that you can't prove to me that when we are creating art surrealistically, you are actually viewing one of the many dimensions in which the earth is viewed through an entirely different perspective, but lets keep this in evolution vs creationism, shall we? And I understand that matter behaves differently at extreme temperatures. And can you prove that nuclear fusion changes one element to another, or are you arguing another "theory"?

Strawman.

???

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding in the mechanics of evolution. The bat evolved from an animal that resembes a modern day shrew. It sprouted from a common ancestor, but there will never be a shrew that has bat babies, a cow that has bison babies, or a shark that has dolphin babies. Modern Day animals do not change into other modern day animals.

Ok, so the bat evolved from an animal that LOOKS LIKE a shrew. But somewhere along the lines of those transitional forms, there has to be a bat that can't fly. An animal that looks like a shrew isn't going to sprout wings and fly in one generation. SO at some point, you must have a bat/thingthatlookslikeashrew that has huge thumbs and useless forelimbs. And it is supposed to survive because it is the fittest. Hit me with another one. And no, I understand that modern day animals don't change into other modern day animals, but I also understand that ancient animals don't change into different classes of modern day animals.

Animals that succeed will pass along their genes to the next generation in greater quantities than those without the mutation. The [b]GRADUAL change of species over time is the theory of Evolution. Many scientists support the idea of punctuated equilibrium- long periods of near- stasis interspersed with periods of rapid change. No one has ever claimed that any animal will bring forth a brand new species- it is only through vast amounts of time that Evolution can work through natural selection. Also, the concept of 'species' is often misunderstood. A species is any group of animals that share traits and can reproduce and create fertile offspring.
uhuh, and when have we ever observed the slightest mutation to be beneficial? In all our years of academic biologic study? and yes, i understand the premise of zoology. Species can intermingle and bring forth young; class/kind cannot. You can get a species of dog to breed until it is fat, has long floppy ears, and short legs, but its never going to be able to be a futuristic animal that resembles a rabit.

Evolution is valid-
An honorable attempt in our textual joust, but you are undone.

a skinny teenager on the intrawebs disagreeing with a theory he (she?- no offense) doesn't understand

Oh, I understand fiction, and I don't know what you mean by "skinny teenager." I take offense, good sir.

does NOT invalidate it. Whether or not it 'breeds pessimistic, self centered animals' is irrelevant because it is a scientific truth. The effects of the truth don't reflect on its veracity. Anyway, Biologically- you are an animal. As for scientists seeing themselves as a 'cause', the individuals I've met have rarely been self centered or narcissistic, and value truth over ego. If it was proved definitively that Evolution was incorrect, they would adopt the new theory and test it- looking for the truth, not what will benefit them most. [/B]

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)

One of your so called scientists who would throw out an incorrect theory at the drop of a hat...

Hitler's master race was based on your idea of evolution. If we were to kill off the weaker species of Homo Sapien, than the fittest would evolve faster, and our race will transcend into glory. This theory caused the slow and systematic deaths of MILLIONS.

Tangible God Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by truejedi
do you really think so? seems like we have a lot more crime every summer in the US anyway. 1 in 10 citizens right now are incarcerated. Is that a ridiculous number or what? 1 in 10. The percentage has never been so high, and it keeps going up. (don't ask for my source, saw it in a newspaper a couple of months ago)
2 pages since 5 o'clock... Christ. I go out for a few hours and I look like an ass going back this far.

I've heard that stat. too, and I certainly wouldn't claim to say the world's in a state of enlightenment. Crime may be more abundant than ever, and while a drop in a sense of community and morality is certainly responsible, I wouldn't count out the fact that human population has doubled in only several generations (ratio may stay the same, but the media tends to report quantity above all). Which is another factor: much, much more access to information and media.

That's my two cents anyway.

DARTH POWER Senior Member
Originally posted by Jbill311
Religion is dangerous when it asks us to believe things on 'faith' rather than reason. It is dangerous when seeking answers is discouraged, and we are encouraged to remain in ignorance. It is dangerous when it forces us to have a higher allegiance than to our own well being (placing God above our own welfare). It is dangerous when rules, laws and myths more than 2000 years old are viewed as factual telling of history and as a guide for our life. It is dangerous when millions of people are willing to lay down their lives in defense of an ideal that can be warped to whatever end their leaders wish. Religion is dangerous because it prevents us from thinking for ourselves.

Actually Islam is about thinking and seeking knowledge. I havent got the quotes on me right now, but I culd easily find them, because there are many many verses in the Quran telling us to THINK and to Seek Knowledge. Its underlying principle is to seek the truth with an open mind. and NOT to follow people or ideas blindly. Thats why Muslims are not allowed alcohol and other intoxicants because they affect our thinking.

Also Muslims at the time of Muhammad(peace be upon him) would question him over everything. So they should likewise also question their leaders in what they are doing.

Of course im just talking about Islamic principles being a Muslim myself. I can not talk for all Religions, but I do believe the underlying message of all Religions are Noble ones.

DARTH POWER Senior Member

Originally posted by Enyalus

That's why our welfare system is drained, Social Security is drying up, and we let millions of illegal immigrants into the country to take away jobs from legal American citizens while granting them tax breaks and exemptions. We're soft enough. [/B]

yeah thats fine if you dnt want that many immigrants. thats not what i meant by looking at the whole human race as your brothers. theres always going to be a limit to the charity you can do. and people shuldnt be encouraged to take charity without working themselves. and with immigrants it should be a 2 way relationship. they should make their contribution back to society.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Thank you. I take it very seriously when someone implies plagiarism

When did someone imply such?

Hmm. K. So you are going to stop talking about evolution and take the world seriously?

I do take the world seriously. I just happen to believe evolution's a bit of a part of that.

you will as soon as I can find it.

You won't. Know why? Because it [B]DOESN'T EXIST
God. Darwin was an educated man in the 1800s. Nobody believed birds evolved from FRUITS.

When have your alleged scientists not?

No. When HAVE they. Not every scientist is Richard freaking Dawkins. Most of them just don't care


yes. they totally did. And whats sad is they don't really have any proof. I'm sorry, but when you teach evolution in a public school to children as FACT when there is so little to prove it and so much to disprove it, you are guilty of fraud. Which they have not done.

They aren't guilty of fraud? So little to prove it and so much to disprove it? Stop regurgitating fundie nonsense at me, please

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility.

....huh? There are endless possibilities...it just depends on what the evidence supports

Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

What? Non living matter? No, it's lifeforms steadily adapting and evolving into new ones. Evolution doesn't concern itself where life originally came from, only how it developed.


(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
and both came to christ after realizing that their theories had failed.
Yes, but you have yet to give me one iota of evidence that supports evolution. Apparently it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism, because you haven't shown one piece of evidence for evolutionists, you are just arguing that scientists know what they are doing and we just have to trust them. [/B]

...more faith to buy evolution?

Alright...where to begin...okay then:
1. Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the fact of evolution. These are now discredited explanations.
2. Darwin's theory is the accepted one, but it required refinement. Natural Selection as a whole is the accepted theory
3. let me present numerous sites that will contain the evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm/printable

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The evidence for evolution is just overwhelming. It also has nothing to do with religion and reducing it to such is a strawman.

And 'both came to Christ?' WHAT?! Darwin and Kepler were proponents of evolution and elliptical orbit to the days they died respectively. And Kepler was not an evolutionist, he was an astronomer! Not only that, they believed in God before and after they created their theories!

Lord Knightfa11 Restricted

Those quotes are from the chief BIOLOGIST at HARVARD. he has a degree in BIOLOGY, and he is the one you trust for your "advancement" in the theory of evolution. Your failure is complete when you try and disprove your own avaunt guarde.

and the attached pics show from your "how evolution works" page how mutations are never beneficial.

See any mutations that make one of them the fittest? Once again, science has never recorded a beneficial mutation in the slightest degree.

And none of those prove evolution, they are all FICTION. nobody scientifically recorded that, they HYPOTHESIZED it and now they are TEACHING a quasi-theory to children and the consequences are that our society is going to hell in a hand basket, because we are raising hedonistic little bastards, based on an idea that doesn't even qualify as scientific theory.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Those quotes are from the chief BIOLOGIST at HARVARD. he has a degree in BIOLOGY, and he is the one you trust for your "advancement" in the theory of evolution. Your failure is complete when you try and disprove your own avaunt guarde.

The only George Wald I find in research is a Nobel prize winner for his work with the retina. I find no Harvard educated biologist by that name. I want that quote's source.
Moreover, one dissenting biologist's quote with no evidence behind it means nothing

and the attached pics show from your "how evolution works" page how mutations are never beneficial.

Nonsense. What if a moth gains a mutation of a darker pigment, allowing it camouflage against a tree? Mutation doesn't mean what you think it means

See any mutations that make one of them the fittest? Once again, science has never recorded a beneficial mutation in the slightest degree.

Don't be silly. There are several very famous experiments on the matter. It's nature's way of checking stuff out...a mutation occurs...the mutation can be a simple thing like longer legs or darker shade or thicker fur or anything of the sort...but the mutation has more children than others and the genes subsume the lessers.
What do you think a 'mutation' means? It's just an aberrant development.

And none of those prove evolution, they are all FICTION. nobody scientifically recorded that, they HYPOTHESIZED it and now they are TEACHING a quasi-theory to children and the consequences are that our society is going to hell in a hand basket, because we are raising hedonistic little bastards, based on an idea that doesn't even qualify as scientific theory.

Blah blah blah.
Drivel. Complete drivel No, it isn't fiction. All of it together lends great credence. Stop being silly.

Lord Knightfa11 Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
The only George Wald I find in research is a Nobel prize winner for his work with the retina. I find no Harvard educated biologist by that name. I want that quote's source.
Moreover, one dissenting biologist's quote with no evidence behind it means nothing

In 1934, Wald went to Harvard University where he became an instructor, then a professor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wald
And your dissenting biologist IS a Nobel prize winner.

Nonsense. What if a moth gains a mutation of a darker pigment, allowing it camouflage against a tree? Mutation doesn't mean what you think it means

Like I said, this can happen, but its not mutation. A chiuaua can be bred with a Labrador to bring forth a different animal.

1. Biology.
a. a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.

So its not a mutation unless the animal's ancestors don't contain the dark pigment. And since, as we believe, all dog's common ancestors have been... dogs, a different colored dog isn't going to be that shocking.

Don't be silly. There are several very famous experiments on the matter. It's nature's way of checking stuff out...a mutation occurs...the mutation can be a simple thing like longer legs or darker shade or thicker fur or anything of the sort...but the mutation has more children than others and the genes subsume the lessers.

Like I said... There haven't been any beneficial MUTATIONS (according to my attached definition).

What do you think a 'mutation' means? It's just an aberrant development.

hmm. not according to my dictionary, or anyone else's. try again.

Blah blah blah.

well argued. your most coherent point.

Drivel. Complete drivel No, it isn't fiction. All of it together lends great credence. Stop being silly.

Hmm. So something that hasn't been tested, you say it all happened millions of years ago, there is no evidence, so someone makes an excuse of WHY there isn't evidence and all of a sudden we have fact? I'm sorry, I don't believe it.