Jurassic Park, reality?

Edric O · September 7, 2002

Hey, if God used cloning, that means that cloning really is playing God... So you just proved my point, gryphon. ;) But actually, I doubt it. Cloning is far too primitive for Him.

Earthnuker, technically animals aren't sentient either... And I think we vastly underestimate some plants. There have been experiments that seem to show plants have feelings as well.

The difference between single-cell and multi-cell organisms is fundamental. It's even greater than that between plants and animals. So this is where I draw my line. Where do you draw yours?

Survival of the fittest, Acriku? I was hoping humanity has evolved beyond that. What use is our intelligence if we still act like apes?

You do have a point though. My aversion to cloning is not entirely logical. It's also because every part of me tells me this is wrong. It deprives us of our humanity. It's not worth it.

Nema, the pursuit of knowledge is not always as innocent as you might think. There is some knowledge we could do without, such as the knowledge of how to destroy a planet. There are powers that we are not ready for...

Science for the sake of science can be extremely dangerous.

Do you think it's right to kill a man to save two others? How about killing a million to save two millions? A planet to save two planets?

I agree that each case must be judged on its own merits. But we cannot judge who deserves to live and who doesn't.

And morality IS superior to everything.

gryphon · September 7, 2002

Hey, if God used cloning, that means that cloning really is playing God... So you just proved my point, gryphon. ;) But actually, I doubt it. Cloning is far too primitive for Him.

Not entirely, it's just one of the things he does / did. So also just a part of playing God. On the rest I agree.

Have you seen Star Trek Insurrection ?

"How many people does it take admiral ? How many people untill it get's wrong, a hundred, a thousend, mayby even a million ?"

- Picard to defend the movement of the population.

TMA_1 · September 7, 2002

the bible only means one thing. Only one interpritation is right.

Anathema · September 7, 2002

Edric, there ARE scientists who believe plants have feelings- but there are also scientists who believe homeopathic medicine works ::). It hasn't been proven. If a plant starts producing a certain substance as a reaction to when you cut off a leaf, it is not necessarily an emotion or a logical reaction. Plants have nothing that vaguely resembles a nerve system.

You previously stated that the killing or tinkering with ALL life is bad- no matter if it is animal, plant or human. Now you say tinkering with single-cell organisms isn't bad, while those are alive too.

My line? My morale is that individual humans are more important then individual animals. This does not justify eradication of species by purpose or by burning down their habitat for expansion of human habitat. As long as you don't exterminate a species or make an animal suffer it's okay with me- animals do not suffer for being geneticly engineered.

nemafakei · September 7, 2002

"I agree that each case must be judged on its own merits. But we cannot judge who deserves to live and who doesn't"

But to fail to judge might lead to all 3 million dying.

"I was hoping humanity has evolved beyond that"

Evolution happens to everything, not just organisms. Take the principle and apply it to all other circumstances.

"Only one interpritation is right"

At most, one interpretation is correct.

"the knowledge of how to destroy a planet"

We need not have put it to physical use. It is not the science to blame, but those who misuse it. A gun is not responsible for killing someone - it is the wielder. As long as we have gun laws, we are ok. If not... {Sidelong glance at the US}

Twin-Head · September 7, 2002

Nema, Not even the guy whom Invented Evolution Believed in it. Their is sooo much proof, right in front of us that is is false

nemafakei · September 7, 2002

I have seen little conclusive proof against it, but total logic proof for it, not limited to descent of species, either.

Twin-Head · September 7, 2002

What?? Whatever. What did man supposedly 'evolve' from?

ordos45 · September 7, 2002

Apes is what we supposedly evolved from. I don't believe in evolution, but I'm not disproving it either. I need Empirical Evidence of it to believe it.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles

An interesting little site.

http://www.creationseminar.net/

I heard the guy speak. Yes I sat through all 8 hours of his seminar.

Twin-Head · September 7, 2002

Ok. then what did apes evolve from?

ordos45 · September 7, 2002

I have little idea. I believe it goes back to smaller mammals, all the way back to single cell organisms, and then back to prehistoric guck and muck that was struck by lightning or something like that. At least that was pretty much the gist of it in science textbook.

exatreide · September 7, 2002

Twin head?

have you ever been to school? ::)

how old are you? 7? 8? 9? 4?

the first thnings on earth were these little singel celled things called backteria. i am sure you have never heard of them. well they had free reign on the earth for awhile. then some of them mutated into having to cells. then these cells kept multiplying untill they formed complex mullti celled organisms then they became inverabretes.

(things with out back bone-added for twin head) these things soon evolved into having back bones. its easier to get around with back bones and bones in general. these things are called fish(the things that swim in the water-added for twin head) these things after a while crawled up onto land and developed legs. but still retaining the abitlity to breath underwater,but having the abiltiy to breath on air.(anpibians(sp) frogs neuts-added for twin head)

these after ahile lost there need to breath underwater. and just breathed air. these also lost there moisty scally fish flesh. for reptile scales.(reptiles are lizereds and snakes-added for twin head)

after a while these things developed feathers and flew around in the sky(when you look up its the sky-added for twin head)

these reptiles also grew fur and became simple marsuplials(kwalas,possems ect-added for twin head)

after a while these started giving live birth and became mammals.(dogs,cats,people- added for twin head)

some of these mamels became apes. which became humans.

thats enough study today class. twin head you go lay down and take your nap ::)

ordos45 · September 7, 2002

Okay, I don't think I could go into that much detail, while flaming at the same time. Lot of free time to type all of those evolutionary stages Ex?

So anyhow, lightning hits water, things begin evolving from the single cells produced, eventually we get to the point at which we are today. That about covers it in a paragraph, I think....

TMA_1 · September 7, 2002

Well the best idea of how things evolved goes something like this. This is not accurate its just what I have studied in class.

Certain clays that were rich in Amino acids started organizing. Eventually r.n.a. was the byproduct of this mingling. The molecule continued to reprint itself and a new chain, d.n.a. was eventually made.

very primitive single cell organisms started to use photosynthesis and chemophotosynthesis. Their byproducts enriched our atmosphere with oxygen which was before mainly methane, carbon dioxide and other gases.

the mitochondrion, a former cell itself melded with other cells. They eventually became a part of eachother. Energy for their sustenance became much more efficient. From this, cells could grow and evolve into more complex plants.

primitive plants eventually were able to grow on land.

heterotrophes grew and flurished on land. but werent the first. bacteria were doing it long before. Eventually these creatures would develope new mutations that would either hinder, or help them to survive.

These mutations are what we have come from. All of it is random chance. Now I know I have probably gotten some of it wrong and have left some gaps open. but hey I am not a scientist. I dont believe in macro evolution. As a christian I believe by faith.

Twin-Head · September 8, 2002

Twin head?
have you ever been to school? ::)
how old are you? 7? 8? 9? 4?
the first thnings on earth were these little singel celled things called backteria. i am sure you have never heard of them. well they had free reign on the earth for awhile. then some of them mutated into having to cells. then these cells kept multiplying untill they formed complex mullti celled organisms then they became inverabretes.
(things with out back bone-added for twin head) these things soon evolved into having back bones. its easier to get around with back bones and bones in general. these things are called fish(the things that swim in the water-added for twin head) these things after a while crawled up onto land and developed legs. but still retaining the abitlity to breath underwater,but having the abiltiy to breath on air.(anpibians(sp) frogs neuts-added for twin head)
these after ahile lost there need to breath underwater. and just breathed air. these also lost there moisty scally fish flesh. for reptile scales.(reptiles are lizereds and snakes-added for twin head)
after a while these things developed feathers and flew around in the sky(when you look up its the sky-added for twin head)
these reptiles also grew fur and became simple marsuplials(kwalas,possems ect-added for twin head)
after a while these started giving live birth and became mammals.(dogs,cats,people- added for twin head)
some of these mamels became apes. which became humans.
thats enough study today class. twin head you go lay down and take your nap ::)

Ok then where did bacteria come from? Huh answer that. the point of the question was to prove you wrong, while keeping the question in a way you could understand it.

Acriku · September 8, 2002

TwinHead where did God come from? You can't answer that, so how the hell are we supposed to know where everything came from. We are human, we don't know everything that is on this earth. Can you get that through your head? Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean it's false, and doesn't mean it is valid proof for invalidating it. So back off TwinHead.

Nice explanations TMA and EX, nice "short but to the point" explanation ordos ;)

gryphon · September 8, 2002

Ok. then what did apes evolve from?

And a simular post above.

That' isane. You know we didn't evolve from that. So you have studied it yourself. You should know the answer to that. If you don;t you abviously don't know what you'r talking about and arn't able to say it's not true.

You don't know what it means, so you can't say it's true or not.

If you'd like to know, simply go to your parents bookshelf and take out the world famous book of Darwin. It should be in there.

nemafakei · September 8, 2002

One point of clarification - Humans DID evolve from a type of ape, but we are still ape. That is, there was a species that came before chimp and human - it died out, but the species it produced included chimps, and humans. We did not evolve from any species alive today (that we know of).

"the point of the question was to prove you wrong"

You have not, so far, done so. The fact that those at fed2k can not produce at your whim direct exemplary evidence of every stage in the evolution of mankind does not mean that evolution theory is incorrect.

Edric O · September 8, 2002

This discussion has started running in circles. We are going back to what we talked about before. And as such, this will be my last post in this topic. (besides, I'm getting really bored of it... ;))

Earthnuker, I happen to love my plants. And I like plants in general more than I like animals. That's just one of my little illogical feelings. End of story.

Yes, I did say at some point that killing and/or tinkering will ALL life is bad. But after giving it more thought, I realized I was wrong and so I changed my opinion. I don't think harming single-cell organisms is bad, because we do it all the time just by staying alive. The same does not apply to multi-cell life, however. It is only right to use them for food, nothing more. And don't start giving me examples of how much we need things like wood and paper every day. It doesn't HAVE to be this way. We could change (but we won't...)

Nema:

But to fail to judge might lead to all 3 million dying.

Good point. But this doesn't apply to the cloning argument.

However, in general I think that if we have the option of either killing some to save the others or letting everyone die, we should randomly select those who must be killed. It is not our place to judge.

Evolution happens to everything, not just organisms.

No, not to everything. Entropy can't allow everything to evolve.

But I think my point in this matter was that humans should not lower themselves to living the same way as animals, along principles like "survival of the fittest".

We need not have put it to physical use.

Come on, Nema, let's not deceive ourselves! We all know what human nature is like. A scientist knows when he invents a potential weapon. It is naive to think that your discovery will somehow not be used as a weapon, even though it has such a destructive potential. If you invent a potential doomsday device, you can't just wash your hands of all responsibility! You KNOW it will be turned into a weapon!

As long as we have gun laws, we are ok. If not... {Sidelong glance at the US}

So true, oh so true... *will they ever learn?*

It seems nobody has noticed my statement about the "where did it come from" question, so let me say it again:

The argument of "where did it come from?" is stupid and ridiculous, both in relation to God and the Big Bang. Neither God or the Big Bang are a product of our universe, SO THEY CAN VERY WELL COME FROM NOTHING! Do I have to remind you that time only exists inside the universe?

And like I said before, this is my last post on this topic. For an exhaustive discussion on evolution vs. creationism, click here:

http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5678

I think they covered pretty much everything.

TMA_1 · September 8, 2002

yeah we think that time only exists in this universe. There are many ideas of how big our universe is and if we can escape it. one idea is we exist in a globular universe, that we just are in a part of it kinda like in a big sphere. another idea is we live in a curved universe. that if we traveled in a straight line at ultra speeds we would end up where we stared eventually. The prominant idea is we live in a flat universe. Neverending.

Time is "substantial" using that word lightly. It can be altered and changed. We can see it by the bending of space-time around large bodies in space.

I still believe that God created this universe in its mysteries. Science even admits to learning the great truth behind it. They say we will never know this great truth, that we just have to keep looking and learn more on it. God already knows his creation.

Acriku · September 9, 2002

Maybe it's possible people a million years from now will look back at us as we do to the early spaniards and other europeans and wonder how we thought the universe was flat, just as we wonder how they thought the world was flat. I dunno, it was something that popped up in my head.

ordos45 · September 9, 2002

http://creationcrap.batcave.net/50%20lies.html

Seemed like something you all would love to pounce upon, though if they're gonna claim to disprove everything of Creationism, they might want to site sources, etc.

Discussion of the universe is now the topic on this thread, cool!

TMA_1 · September 9, 2002

nice argument starter Ordos.lol You love to cause discussion that will never teach anybody anything.lol

Oh, and the guy that controls this website on disproving creationism is extremely arrogant and would be told to shut up by many scientists.lol He is making it his business to prove evolution correct. Scientists will even say it isnt a proven fact. Just a well supported theory. This guy is just stirring up the waters. I read much of it and its just angry babbling. I guess he got beaten up by christians as a child and decided to get revenge via world wide web when he grew up.lol

ordos45 · September 9, 2002

Yep, personally I saw nothing but flames and links to similiar sites, but hey what am I? I'm just a Creationist.

Acriku · September 9, 2002

I think he would have a good point for arguing if it wasn't presented in such a fashion.

Like the fact that an omniscient omnipotent and omnibelevelent(spell bleh) God is impossible and contradictory.

Also I want to put on the table: God isn't truly omniscient if he doesn't see what we do in the future, since he just sees all possibilites but doesn't see the actual future.

Sign In

Jurassic Park, reality?

Recommended Posts

Edric O

gryphon

TMA_1

Anathema

nemafakei

Twin-Head

nemafakei

Twin-Head

ordos45

Twin-Head

ordos45

exatreide

ordos45

TMA_1

Twin-Head

Acriku

gryphon

nemafakei

Edric O

TMA_1

Acriku

ordos45

TMA_1

ordos45

Acriku

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information