Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-30-2001, 03:58 AM   #21
Lifetime
Red Dragon
 

Join Date: March 3, 2001
Location: Scotch College, Melbourne
Posts: 1,503
Quote:
Originally posted by Sir Real:
1)I'm a smartass.
2)I can't be bothered to spell tings right.
3)That if you took a sample of homo-sapin(Human that existed before us) and tested his DNA it would only be 1.5% deriffent from ours (Homo-sapin-sapin) is today and the one before that would be slimmer to that one and so on down the fossil record.
4)that professer is really, really bad at this job. I've can spot lots of points were he could of put a hole in the 'students' theory.

[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 10-29-2001).]
Just as you could put a hole in a student's theory, perhaps the student could but a stop in those holes..
Just a thought. Lets not bicker about whos right or wrong, its a thread not to proove a certain viewpoint, but just to show an alternate perspective.

------------------
No-Name Face
Lifetime is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 04:03 AM   #22
Harkoliar
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: March 21, 2001
Location: Philippines, but now Harbor City Sydney
Age: 34
Posts: 5,556
thanks for the nice (and off-topic remarks) hehe...
but for my own personal opinion: there is no absoloute truth of what truly happened, there is no abosoloute statement that tells you everything and anything... there is no absoloute perfection...
cheers

------------------
Revived I Am to hunt this world... Banish ye evil or face my wrath...
Harkoliar is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 10:12 AM   #23
Sir Kenyth
Fzoul Chembryl
 

Join Date: August 30, 2001
Location: somewhere
Age: 47
Posts: 1,785
As far as evolution goes, who is to say it isn't the very tool god used to create the world as we know it? Just because our physical universe runs itself and has discernable paterns and cycles, doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't created. A perfect machine always runs smoothly and with little intervention.

------------------
Member of ORT
Master Barbsman and weilder of the razor wit!
Official royal toad! Ribbit! Ribbet I say!

The true secret to happiness is not having what you want, it's wanting what you have!
Sir Kenyth is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 04:18 PM   #24
domingo
Zhentarim Guard
 

Join Date: August 11, 2001
Location: St. George Utah USA
Posts: 331
*bump* ... dang I almost missed this ..... very good

------------------
You can only call someone something so many times before they become that which you did not wish them to be!
Bad things happen to bad people!

Founding Father of TLFB
domingo is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 11:34 PM   #25
Sir Real
Dungeon Master
 

Join Date: October 9, 2001
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Prime2U:
Show me irrefutable proof that a homo sapin (whateva that is) is a human that came before us.
And tell me what percent difference there is in DNA between you and a cow while you're at it.


Well we share slimmer characterists and the fossil record and discovered bones show that they used tools, lived in comunitys and unless there was another spieces that existed on earth (Exluding Nathiendufell(boy that bad spelling)) before we were alegledy created.
Perhaps this link might shed some light for you
The diffence between me and a cow is greater then 1.5%, don't know it exacty but I not a prof'.

Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:

I'll have to see the evidence on that one (studies). How long does DNA survive in a viable form? How long before DNA degrades to the point that our tests are unreliable? What is the differance in percent of human DNA and say chimpanzee? So we are close (humans and chimps) does that mean one came from the other?
What is the percent differance of DNA inorder to quailify species as being seperate species?
DNA degrades, well I have not ideal on it speed but it does happen, which of course lead to doughts about it laditive, so it not used that much. But slimmer strands from mupitle sources of pre-humans cann't all but conidince can it?
Difference is greater then 1.5% but again I don't know.


Sir Real is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 12:11 AM   #26
Prime2U
Zhentarim Guard
 

Join Date: October 2, 2001
Location: Manhattan,KS USA
Posts: 316
Quote from Sir Real : Well we share slimmer characterists and the fossil record and discovered bones show that they used tools, lived in comunitys and unless there was another spieces that existed on earth (Exluding Nathiendufell(boy that bad spelling)) before we were alegledy created.
Perhaps this link might shed some light for you
The diffence between me and a cow is greater then 1.5%, don't know it exacty but I not a prof'.


Ok, the genetic difference between a human and an ape is between 1 and 2%. This is a fact. Does that mean a chimpanze is a prehistoric form of man? doesn't make much sense does it? I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this 1.5%, as it really doesn't have any significance at all. We are that close genetically to many primates.

I don't remember right now how similar we are to a cow, but we are very close genetically to mammals in general. I do know that we are 90% similar to dogs, and 88-89% similar to horses. So, 10% different from dogs, 11% different from horses, 1-2% different from the apes. Knowing this, how is 1.5% (which is the same with many apes) significant in any way? I'm interested to know.

As far as your link, it sheds no light whatsoever. It says right on that page that cladistics, which is what the page is all about, is based on assumptions. Now I may believe in creation, but I am also a scientist, and assumptions are anathema in science. One cannot assume anything, as that invalidates the whole hypothesis. You must have concrete, repeatable evidence.

I also feel I should state here that Darwin's definition of evolution is " Descent with modification." Natural selection, which is modifications to increase survival rates through the generations, is in deed a proven fact. All of the other stuff that is now being called evolution is not in any way proven, and scientists just love associating it with natural selection in order to give it credibility that it does not deserve. Sir Real, it even states this on that link you gave me, in the glossary.

------------------


"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon
Prime2U is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 12:27 AM   #27
Sir Real
Dungeon Master
 

Join Date: October 9, 2001
Posts: 72
[qoute]
Ok, the genetic difference between a human and an ape is between 1 and 2%. This is a fact. Does that mean a chimpanze is a prehistoric form of man? doesn't make much sense does it? I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this 1.5%, as it really doesn't have any significance at all. We are that close genetically to many primates.

I don't remember right now how similar we are to a cow, but we are very close genetically to mammals in general. I do know that we are 90% similar to dogs, and 88-89% similar to horses. So, 10% different from dogs, 11% different from horses, 1-2% different from the apes. Knowing this, how is 1.5% (which is the same with many apes) significant in any way? I'm interested to know.

As far as your link, it sheds no light whatsoever. It says right on that page that cladistics, which is what the page is all about, is based on assumptions. Now I may believe in creation, but I am also a scientist, and assumptions are anathema in science. One cannot assume anything, as that invalidates the whole hypothesis. You must have concrete, repeatable evidence.

I also feel I should state here that Darwin's definition of evolution is " Descent with modification." Natural selection, which is modifications to increase survival rates through the generations, is in deed a proven fact. All of the other stuff that is now being called evolution is not in any way proven, and scientists just love associating it with natural selection in order to give it credibility that it does not deserve. Sir Real, it even states this on that link you gave me, in the glossary.

[/QUOTE]

Well humans and Apes are two branches from the same tree, wew when on way they when another of course were going to be slimmer.
Evolution is " Descent with modification." so it going down with modification huh? that doesn't make even sense, I love to see that comment in some sort of context.
Evolution is the developing of a creature and so is Natural selection.
1.5% difference is the amount of gentic difference between any HUMAN from any part of the world!!! AND of course diffence is small between the mammel groups as we all are from the same gentic templete.
Oh and the link is just something I pucked out of the air.
But enougth of this, You give me some evidence of something other then Evolution.
Sir Real is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 12:44 AM   #28
Prime2U
Zhentarim Guard
 

Join Date: October 2, 2001
Location: Manhattan,KS USA
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally posted by Sir Real:
[qoute]
Ok, the genetic difference between a human and an ape is between 1 and 2%. This is a fact. Does that mean a chimpanze is a prehistoric form of man? doesn't make much sense does it? I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this 1.5%, as it really doesn't have any significance at all. We are that close genetically to many primates.


I don't remember right now how similar we are to a cow, but we are very close genetically to mammals in general. I do know that we are 90% similar to dogs, and 88-89% similar to horses. So, 10% different from dogs, 11% different from horses, 1-2% different from the apes. Knowing this, how is 1.5% (which is the same with many apes) significant in any way? I'm interested to know.


As far as your link, it sheds no light whatsoever. It says right on that page that cladistics, which is what the page is all about, is based on assumptions. Now I may believe in creation, but I am also a scientist, and assumptions are anathema in science. One cannot assume anything, as that invalidates the whole hypothesis. You must have concrete, repeatable evidence.


I also feel I should state here that Darwin's definition of evolution is " Descent with modification." Natural selection, which is modifications to increase survival rates through the generations, is in deed a proven fact. All of the other stuff that is now being called evolution is not in any way proven, and scientists just love associating it with natural selection in order to give it credibility that it does not deserve. Sir Real, it even states this on that link you gave me, in the glossary.





Well humans and Apes are two branches from the same tree, wew when on way they when another of course were going to be slimmer.
Evolution is " Descent with modification." so it going down with modification huh? that doesn't make even sense, I love to see that comment in some sort of context.
Evolution is the developing of a creature and so is Natural selection.
1.5% difference is the amount of gentic difference between any HUMAN from any part of the world!!! AND of course diffence is small between the mammel groups as we all are from the same gentic templete.
Oh and the link is just something I pucked out of the air.
But enougth of this, You give me some evidence of something other then Evolution.
[/QUOTE]


I am sorry you cannot understand what descent with modification means. I have no idea how I can debate the various views on evolution with you until you at least understand what natural selection is all about. If you want context, then very well I will oblige:
I'll even use your own example. Gorilla goes into desert and dies. Another less hairy one goes into the desert and survives. The offspring have less hair. This descendant has been modified to increase survivability.

Why did you pluck a link from the air and then tell me it would shed light on the topic?

If humans vary 1.5% from each other, and apes and humans vary around 1.5% from each other, and yet there are many very obvious differences between humans and apes, then how does fossil record DNA similarity between us and any primate have any value at all whatsoever?

I do not need to give you evidence supporting something besides what you call evolution. All I need to do if point out that that hypothesis is obviously unproven, and shows some flaws, and look to the alternative. Creation was never put forward by a scientist, it's been around as long as humans have. I have never seen one iota of evidence to disprove it. I am confident that I never will. I will accept it based on faith, as it was meant to be accepted.

------------------


"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon
Prime2U is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 12:52 AM   #29
Ziroc
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Test

------------------
Ziroc™
Ironworks Webmaster
www.tgeweb.com/ironworks
 
Old 10-31-2001, 12:55 AM   #30
John D Harris
Ninja Storm Shadow
 

Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 56
Posts: 3,577
Quote:
Originally posted by Prime2U:

Ok, the genetic difference between a human and an ape is between 1 and 2%. This is a fact. Does that mean a chimpanze is a prehistoric form of man? doesn't make much sense does it? I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this 1.5%, as it really doesn't have any significance at all. We are that close genetically to many primates.

I don't remember right now how similar we are to a cow, but we are very close genetically to mammals in general. I do know that we are 90% similar to dogs, and 88-89% similar to horses. So, 10% different from dogs, 11% different from horses, 1-2% different from the apes. Knowing this, how is 1.5% (which is the same with many apes) significant in any way? I'm interested to know.

As far as your link, it sheds no light whatsoever. It says right on that page that cladistics, which is what the page is all about, is based on assumptions. Now I may believe in creation, but I am also a scientist, and assumptions are anathema in science. One cannot assume anything, as that invalidates the whole hypothesis. You must have concrete, repeatable evidence.

I also feel I should state here that Darwin's definition of evolution is " Descent with modification." Natural selection, which is modifications to increase survival rates through the generations, is in deed a proven fact. All of the other stuff that is now being called evolution is not in any way proven, and scientists just love associating it with natural selection in order to give it credibility that it does not deserve. Sir Real, it even states this on that link you gave me, in the glossary.

Prime2U, Interesting points, personally I don't have a problem with evolution, I don't know how God did it all I know is that He did. IMHO the Genesis story is writen in a way that nomadic shepards could understand (grasp the concept of creation). Take the use of the terms "there was evening and there was morning" it strikes me as odd to assume that an infinite God (not bound by time) would use those types of terms for anything other than to show that there was a passage of time. Rememeber since God is not bound by time what is a day to Him? A billion years? or even a few trillion years? Even now with all of our combined intellect and computing power we still can not get any closer to the time after the big bang than 1 to the 43 power of a second. (National Geographic October 1999). IMHO I find it hard to believe that God would reveal to a bunch of shepards exactly how He did it. Do we even need to know exactly how God created everthing? You start talking about sub-atomic particals (sp?)
and quatum phsyics and my head starts to hurt .
Since you are a scientist I got one for you, who knows maybe it'll get you the Nobel prize for phsyics .(if it does I want a small cut of the prize money) "Time" is the unifying force that the Quatum Phsyicsist have been looking for, not "time/space" but rather "Time". With out time you have no space, distance, movement, velocity, no orbit of atomic particals, or vibrations of sub-atomic particals. We see it as time/space because from our finite point of view we see speed as "time to travel a distance" or amount of distance traveled in a set amount of time. We don't see that it is time that limits us not speed, distance, or any of the other "3" dimensions.
How's that for a monkey wrench?



------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!
John D Harris is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Passion Of Christ Daniel_M Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics) 22 11-25-2004 03:42 AM
The Easter Bunny and the reserection of Christ. TheCrimsomBlade General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 20 04-08-2004 01:14 PM
The Passion of The Christ Rokenn Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics) 4 12-20-2003 05:16 PM
Who did Nostradamus ID as the 3rd anti-Christ? Ronn_Bman General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 42 01-30-2003 03:13 PM
For the love of Christ!!!!!!!!!! Mordigan Baldurs Gate & Tales of the Sword Coast 4 02-08-2001 08:43 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2017 Ironworks Gaming TM & The Great Escape Studios - All Rights Reserved