0
Tink1717

Ladies, how do you feel about this?

Recommended Posts

Quote

do you have any idea how many embryos who are concieved.. are spontaneously miscarried... the numbers are staggering..human physiology is just not all that good at reproduction.



There's been some fantastic progress in stem cell research lately where paralized rats are now walking again. It's a few years off from being tested on humans, but it looks very promising that the damaged spinal cord cells can be regenerated with the stem cells. The problem in the US though is that GWB passed some stupid laws where public money was not allowed to be used in this stem cell research (and this law includes everything from the actual research to the infrastructure setup to support the research). So private money is being raised and wasted because duplicate labratories are needed to be constructed. But fret not, a lot of the really good research is happening in countries with more open policies towards medical research. Plus listening to one of these scientists speak, they have good some arguments. They aren't destroying life. They are using a life which never would have been used anyway towards making the lives of those suffering better.

Not 100% related to your points, but somewhat related nonetheless.


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>As far as evolution goes, you want to believe that some primordial ooze
> just spread across the earth and one day thought "I need some legs"
>then BAM! Here we are.

Nope. But if you ever saw a mudskipper run away from you across a swamp you would understand how our legs could come to be. If you ever studied a scallop's eyes, or an octopuses, I think you might come to realize how we evolved eyes. The study of evolution is an amazing journey through the basic processes of biology that define the natural world around us - I think it's almost criminal to deny kids that because people are afraid they might 'lose some religion' or something.

>The human body, let alone the World, is so complex that I refuse to
>see how it all happened by chance.

Not chance; evolution. If chance never, ever worked in our favor, no one would ever play the lottery. But we do play because sometimes we win, even if the odds are a million to one. We faced such odds when we began evolving. But we had a mechanism to keep the good changes and reject the bad ones (natural selection) and we had a lot longer than a million years to do it.

>I do not want my kids growing up, thinking they evolved from some
>lower life form or that they just happened by chance; they have no
>purpose for their life . . .

And how does that follow? We used to think the earth was the center of the universe; will your children think their life is meaningless because we are not even the center of our own solar system, let alone our galaxy?

What is great about humanity is that we can decide our own purpose in life, and some of those purposes are amazingly noble. Look at what Gandhi did, and what he sacrificed for his cause - and he didn't even believe that he was created in the Garden of Eden.

>As far as dinosaurs go, I am sure they existed...

How? The Bible doesn't mention them. You'd think massive reptiles that ruled the earth would have been noticed if they were around after man was created.

>I have also read that "carbon dating" is not as accurate as it is portrayed to be.

Correct; it can sometimes be erroneous. But to believe that every single dating technique (potassium, argon, iridium layering, magnetic orientation, ice coring etc) is wrong by exactly the same amount every time is a real stretch (or a very elaborate conspiracy theory.) Occam's Razor would seem to apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1010
Quote

'K, so what's the problem with abortion?

Mom can have one and still go to heaven.
Baby takes the express without all the icky life stuff to wade through.

Who's being harmed, ultimately?



because life as we know it here is important, special, unique, worthwhile ... all of those things. :)
(And your characterization of the "goal" of Christians as going to heaven isn't really my experience nor that of my friends. More a by-product that may be realized by faith/grace/life with the Lord. ;))

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1010
Quote

...

So you'd have a kid you know will have Down's? Or some other defect?

A friend recently needed to do the Amniocentesis because the initial screen indicated a higher risk of it. Had it come back positive, they would have faced that decision. Personally I don't think knowingly giving birth to a child with Down's does anyone a favor.



Have you ever known anyone with Down's syndrome? If you have and can still say that, then you have a very hard heart indeed. I get a hug from a downs person in the grocery store or church or where ever she sees me. And yes she is adult of age and lives with her parents. Her life is tremoundously valuable.

I was born with "some other" birth defect ... surgeries to "fix" it were covered by the health ins of the era, but is an exception to most health plans now. Current young mothers/families with such a child face impossible medical bills. Should I have been aborted? Should the babies of today with the same "expensive" defect be aborted? How fair is that? Now that it can be fixed ... but it costs money, don't fix it but kill the baby? :S How about abortion for any undesirable genetically based future condition?

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1010
Quote

My favorite is when people say that they're for abortion only in the cases of incest/rape/harm to the mother.

...



but then the pro-choice side calls us monsters if we hold the consistent position that abortion in those cases (rape/incest) may be wrong as well.:S

I know a grown woman, a beautiful wife and mother of three who is the product of a violent stranger rape. Her mother gave her up for adoption. She hasn't made contact with her mother yet, but someday I hope she does so that her mother can see the beautiful family and grandkids she let happen. :)

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1010
I answered your question. Why don't you answer mine? Are you pro-euthanasia for all those that are/will be a burden on society, or just for the unborn who will be a future burden on society? Why stop at Downs ... the slippery slope went from Roe (early term) to partial-birth abortion in under 30 years. Do you really think we won't have identifiable genetic markers for many "undesirable tendencies" thirty years hence? Thirty years from now I think human life should still be valued whether or not the government or your HMO (the same under Pres H. Clinton?) thinks your baby/fetus has undesirable tendencies or not. Heck you might even have a skydiver for a grandkid/greatgrandkid. :o ;)

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1010
Quote



1. The soul is probably a function of the brain....which begins to function in some capacity at 20-28 weeks post-conception. But we really don't know.

2. All souls are of equal value in God's eyes.




So help me out here, I don't see how these can be squared (and its not like its #31 & 32 ... it the first two!) ... if the soul is just a function of our imagination, then how does it exist in #2 to be referred to by a different entity?

Or are you saying that you believe the soul comes into being (where from or created by whom just not stated) at some point of brain maturation ... ?

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1010
Quote



(And there are deep consequences of termination, I guarantee you that.).



I am assuming you mean emotional and psychological consequences. If it is just your body and a bunch of cells, why the problems?

Quote

It's about choice...what is right and moral for me cannot be automatically assumed to be right and moral for another.



That's about as relativistic a statement as possible. Aren't there some things that are actually right, and wrong?


For the record, I think that women and girls are often victims of the abortion industry. They are often told that it is no big deal ... then realize after the procedure that it is a big deal. The pro-life movement is populated not by old white guys as I think was stated someplace here, but is populated by women, many of whom have had babies, or abortions, or close friends who have been pregnant. If you call them you'll be talking to women who have been in those shoes.

I'm done. Cheers & Blue Skies to all, I'll try to respond tomorrow evening if anyone replies to my ramblings here :|:)

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



1. The soul is probably a function of the brain....which begins to function in some capacity at 20-28 weeks post-conception. But we really don't know.

2. All souls are of equal value in God's eyes.




So help me out here, I don't see how these can be squared (and its not like its #31 & 32 ... it the first two!) ... if the soul is just a function of our imagination, then how does it exist in #2 to be referred to by a different entity?

Or are you saying that you believe the soul comes into being (where from or created by whom just not stated) at some point of brain maturation ... ?



I'm saying that I really don't know what the soul is, but my belief is that it's probably a function of our brain. I've never seen any evidence for a soul that is separate from the mind....a function of the brain.

I think that WE...all people...are of equal value in God's eyes (my concept of God may not be the same as yours....probably isn't).

linz
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's about as relativistic a statement as possible. Aren't there some things that are actually right, and wrong?

I think there are some things that are actually right and wrong in a black and white kinda way. I just don't think that this is one of them.

linz
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I did not say that all of the educational professionals of the world are brainwashing kids...I just think that evolution is a THEORY, not a fact.



As has been said countless times, by Christians and no-christians here, it is fine to believe that God had a hand in evolution. Just because we might have evolved just not exclude the idea that GOD was involved in that evolution.

And you are right, evolutiuon IS a theory. But it is a theory based on SCIENCE. The problem is that when you hear the word theory, you think, "well, it has to be something just pulled out of the air. Something made up."

In SCIENCE, that is just not true. A theory which has no credibility to back it up, IN SCIENCE, would not last very long. It would be utterly debunked and we would move on to the next thing. So while evolution, IN TOTAL, is just a theory, many parts of it have been JUSTIFIED and proven through science.

Now, here is my hypothesis: You have read little to no scientific studies about evolution. The information you get on evolution comes from your own mind, church, and creationist website -- all of which have a vested interested in making sure evolution is wrong. What you think about evolution comes only from the Bible and how you FEEL, instead of actually looking at the WORK scientists have done in their respective fields.

I could be wrong, but I can only base my hypothesis on observations.

And just to reiterate again: evolution does NOT have to mean God had no hand in it.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many zoologists do not use the "theory of evolution" which is a complex theory that is the subject of countless debates. In many science classes they are starting to teach adaptation. Its what I believe and I learned it in my college courses as well as my countless hours at the zoo working with my internship.

If I were able to understand the in-depth theory of evolution I would then be one to say God had a hand in it. However its complexity is over my head, and the general "We started as apes and turned into man" is just not enough for me to accept.

Adaptation on the other hand is shown throughout the animal world and is proven.

The best example I can give is the axolotil. Over his life he is an aquatic animal. However, if oxygen is over time added to his enclosure he will lose his gills and form lungs and be able to live in a completley different enviroment then he was created for. They truely are amazing salamander that even can regenrate lost limbs. Our zoo recieved theirs from the Mayo clinic after they were done with the research, Juan came to us without a leg, as the clinic cut it off. Over time we watched Juan form a new fully fuctional leg. This animal is considered neoteny which to me blows the whole evolution theory out of the water. If evolution were correct, why would an animal adapt backwards like the axolotil?
Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This animal is considered neoteny which to me blows the whole evolution theory out of the water. If evolution were correct, why would an animal adapt backwards like the axolotil?



Neoteny refers to an animal that retains juvenile characteristics through to its adulthood. I'm not sure what you mean by "adapting backwards"? And how on earth does that blows the theory of evolution out of the water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In regards to the axi, they were adapted from terrestrial "true" salamanders. They adapted to a lessor being. They can change (adapt) in ones lifetime where as evolution is a theory that it takes alot of years to create even a small amount of advancement or change. This animal did not advance, it became more simple so it could adapt to the enviroment. All terrestrial salamanders did not "evolve" like the axi. Instead living side by side these specimans adapted in a world they preferred.

So since the Axi was at one time a "true" salamander who "adapted" into neoteny, and if need be, and the Axi can adapt to a "true" salamander if the conditions he exist in are changed. However any offspring from a axi that has adapted to the land will not give the traits that the parent has, such as lungs, and the tads will have gills. It to me is not consistent with an "evolution" theory.
Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That isn't a necessarily a conflicting theory. That's a trait that probably appeared through evolution.

If it gave an organism reproductive advantage to be able to live comfortably in more than one environment then given enough time that trait could evolve
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution doesn't imply that things get better all the time -- a fish is not "less evolved" than a human in water.

It simply means that in a given physical environment, the critters that are born with a natural resistance to its problems (e.g. dark skin on humans in Africa where there is more sunlight, or a water-storing hump on camels where there is a dearth of water).

If the deserts were to all of a sudden become wet and fertile, slowly, over millions of years, the camel's hump would become less useful -- the ability to store water wouldn't help, other animals that can eat the camel would move in and catch them. So faster, more agile camels without humps would probably survive better.

But it would take millions of years.

In England, moths that had light-colored wings were common; they rested on trees with light-colored bark. In parts of England where the industrial revolution caused a lot of pollution, these moths began to stand out like sore thumbs, and get eaten by birds. So the ones that blended into the trunks (darker) began to get a little more common.

There is variation among people now -- some are tall, some are short, some are better spellers, some have better eyesight. Same for all animals. And when your survival depends on that, it's likely that the successful critters or people will have more children, and more of them will survive.

Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But it would take millions of years



Thats kinda my point. I speak it better then I can write things down, the axi is an animal that "adapts" in its lifetime and can change his physical make up to survive in his enviroment. Yet the traits that he uses to survive would not be passed down to his offspring. Instead they will be born the way he was. As a tad, in water, dependant on the water because the offspring have gills and the adult who adapted has lungs.
Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Many zoologists do not use the "theory of evolution" which is
>a complex theory that is the subject of countless debates.

You've gotten confused by the taxonomy debate, I fear. To put it in a VERY general nutshell, there are two kinds of taxonomists - ones that think that you should group organisms by physical similarity, and ones that think you should group organisms by who their ancestors were. But both groups believe that evolution created those animals.

>If I were able to understand the in-depth theory of evolution I would
> then be one to say God had a hand in it. However its complexity is
> over my head, and the general "We started as apes and turned into
> man" is just not enough for me to accept.

That's a good attitude, I think. In the future you may learn more about it and feel more comfortable with the idea. Just don't confuse "it's hard for me to understand" with "therefore it's wrong." (If that was the case, I'd think acupuncture was wrong!)

>The best example I can give is the axolotil. Over his life he is an
>aquatic animal. However, if oxygen is over time added to his
>enclosure he will lose his gills and form lungs and be able to live in
>a completley different enviroment then he was created for.

Sounds like a mudskipper! (They have many of the same adaptations for dual environments.)

>This animal is considered neoteny which to me blows the whole
>evolution theory out of the water.

"Neoteny" is a way that pedomorphosis happens. Pedomorphosis is the retention of juvenile features into adulthood. It happens in a great many species, because often having two possible somatic forms is a survival advantage. Indeed, it is one of the more important evolutionary mechanisms. If a species of ape became somewhat neotenous, it might grow less hair, keep the young ape's ability to learn throughout its life, and retain its simpler bone structure. (Sound like any species you can think of?) If this were a survival advantage, the genetic information to do this would be retained in future generations.

> If evolution were correct, why would an animal adapt backwards
>like the axolotil?

Evolution drives an organism to be able to survive in its environment. It does not drive anything "forward" or "backward." If an organism's environment were suddenly simplified (fewer predators, fewer obstacles, whatever) evolution would drive the creature to develop a smaller brain.

And if you want to see a remarkable example of simplification, look at cave fish. They actually lose their eyes once they are in the dark long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why is it that the adaptations of these animals happens in their lifetime vs having the adaptation happen over thousands / millons of years?

I do not stand to say that evolution is not true, I just personally do not believe in it. Ive had this talk with Carl about why we did not teach evolution to the kids that we taught (education programs at the zoo) and his statement was "we cant prove evolution, we can prove adaptation" He has a doctorate in animal sciences, and worked for the Smithsonian Zoo with the reproduction of great apes before he moved to Florida.

Mudskipper is similar... its a terrestial salamander but not nearly as cute as a axi or a newt. Im in total love and obsession with those two. Im always the first to admit when I do not know the information and I do and have tried to learn more about evolution because it is perplexing. Its to much for me to believe to me. If I believed that it happened as Darwin stated, then I would still feel God had a hand in it. I do not believe the earth is less then 3000 years old (by our calender).

Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution because of how complex it is. One of the few things that scientists agree on (pertaining to evolution) is radiometric dating and thats something I agree with to. I have read the Origin of Specis. I dont agree with his "hybrids theory" or "natural selection" in the way he described them.

I hate how cliche this will sound but if I evolved from a ape, then how come all the apes didnt evolve? We have different species, we are a different specis. We did not start out as amobias.
Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course we can't prove evolution. Science, by nature, does not prove anything at all. It only disproves. When scientists cannot disprove a theory, it is taught as the best explanation we currently have for the way things function. Theories are always open to revision, and scientists are generally just as thrilled when they manage to disprove a theory as they are when they manage to support it.

One of the biggest differences between religion and science is that with science, it doesn't matter if you "believe in it" or not. The basis of creationism/intelligent design is in religion and the history of the people, not in science. Students should be exposed to the Jewish/Christian creation myth, along with a good chunk of other creation myths in history or social studies class, as well as the theory of evolution (in science class), which should be presented in its appropriate scientific context: as a theory, not a fact, because theories and facts are two entirely different things, and one, by definition, cannot become the other.

Intelligent design/creation science are not genuine scientific theories. They are an attempt to use scientific-sounding arguments to uphold a religious belief, the belief that the creation story told in the Bible is literally true. The scientific method starts with a question, like, "Why are some fossil animals so different from the animals around us today?" and finds the best explanation that cannot be disproven using through observation and experimentation. You look at a hypothesis and do your damnest to disprove it. When you and other scientists can't disprove it, it then becomes a theory. The creationist method starts with an answer, then looks for evidence that seems to fit. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3117_evolution_creation_and_scien_12_7_2000.asp)

Theories are not just fuzzy, uncertain ideas that are a step on the path towards becoming facts. A theory is not a fact, and a fact is not a theory. A fact is an observation, something that can be seen to be true or false with little or no interpretation. To a scientist, a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.

A key factor to keep in mind is that the term "theory" is used by scientists in a manner different from common usage. For most contexts, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work - in fact, one which has a low probability of being true. This is where we get the complaint that something in science is "only a theory" and hence shouldn't be given a great deal of credibility. For scientists, however, a theory is a conceptual structure which is used to explain existing facts and predict new ones. (about.com)

If you only teach kids facts, and not how to interpret those facts (theories), they only get half of the scientific process. Evolution cannot be dismissed simply because it is a theory.

Here is a list of common scientific theories: http://www.radix.net/~bobg/timeline/theories.html

If all of these were removed from the curriculum, just because they were theories, there wouldn't be a science class, because there would be nothing to teach! Science is not just about observation (fact), it is about explanation (theories). Without learning theories, it is impossible to learn science.

The current consensus among philosophers of science seems to be this:

* Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

* Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

William McComus (Science Prof, USC) lists gravity as a modern example of a well-established law for which no really satisfying theory is available. We can use the Law of Gravity, and even correct it for the effects of relativity (General Relativity), but we don't have any consensus notion of how it functions! Is it geometry or gravitons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very good post. Thanks. I dont have time to pick it apart and respond but I will come back later and check the links... I do want to respond to this part real quick though

Quote

Students should be exposed to the Jewish/Christian creation myth, along with a good chunk of other creation myths in history or social studies class, as well as the theory of evolution (in science class), which should be presented in its appropriate scientific context: as a theory, not a fact, because theories and facts are two entirely different things, and one, by definition, cannot become the other.



I agree that everyone should be exposed to the popular theories... as long as it is proposed that "so and so" believe this. Its parents at home who handle faith unless the child is in a school that is faith based.

My faith is passed on to my children (except for the fact I am mad at God) , however they deserve the rights to be exposed to what the masses accept as reality, as to help them to be more well rounded and able to defend their faith, not to mention the educational benefits of adjusting to college better.
Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Then why is it that the adaptations of these animals happens in their
>lifetime vs having the adaptation happen over thousands / millons of
>years?

A great many animals adapt. Our muscles get bigger through use. Our skin thickens if we use it a lot. Our skin turns brown if it is exposed to UV. None of that is evolution; it's simple adaptation.

The reason we _can_ adapt is that we evolved the ability to do it. We're not born with big muscles, but we are born with the genes to develop big muscles if we need them. Why? Because organisms with that capabilty do better than organisms with big muscles all the time (= need lots of food) and they do better than organisms with small muscles all the time (= not strong enough to survive.)

>we cant prove evolution, we can prove adaptation

Evolution can be shown in the lab. Adaptation can be shown in the lab. They are two very different processes; teaching one doesn't have much to do with teaching the other.

>Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution because of how
>complex it is.

That's true - heck, that's how science works! They are still arguing over the details about how electromagnetism works, what photons are and what happens when things get very cold. And gravity is still very much a work in progress.

>I hate how cliche this will sound but if I evolved from a ape, then
>how come all the apes didnt evolve?

They did. Our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzees did not look like chimpanzees OR humans. Then that ancestor organism started evolving in two different directions. Chimps went in one direction, we went in another. Nowadays there are no more of those common ancestors; evolution has changed them into two different species.

Don't make the mistake that many do that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, the ultimate 'goal' that everything is driving towards. We are just one result of evolution. Evolution doesn't have goals, and it doesn't drive towards any ideals of perfection. All it does is select for organisms that are slightly better than other organisms. At some point in our past, we got smart enough that we could actually start altering our environment to make it more likely that our offspring survived. As soon as that happened, intelligence became a very strong survival characteristic, and we got smarter quickly.

>We have different species, we are a different specis. We did not start
>out as amobias.

Actually bacteria. If you want a great book on this, the Ancestor's Tale (by Dawkins) takes us back in time through each of our most recent common ancestors, all the way back to bacteria. At each split he talks about what changed and how the two branches went their different ways.

Again, it's hard to imagine evolving from a deer to a whale. But if you ever get a chance to see these animals, it's not hard at all to imagine a deer evolving to something like a warthog, a warthog evolving to a hippo. a hippo evolving to a seal, a seal evolving to a manatee, and a manatee evolving to a whale. Now picture a near-infinite array of various animals on the planet, and you'll find species that look like all the various transitional forms we went through.

I think this is a very cool thing. We are very intimately related to every other life form on the planet. Even bacteria share our basic life processes. Some animals, like chimps, carry 99% of our DNA. We're not nearly as different as we once thought we were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I could go on and on about this but to make my answer simple and short, I think it’s ridiculous to ban abortion.



More to the point, it is ridiculous to legislate the inner workings of anyone's body.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I could go on and on about this but to make my answer simple and short, I think it’s ridiculous to ban abortion.



More to the point, it is ridiculous to legislate the inner workings of anyone's body.



Someone isn't even allowed to come the pro-abortion side unless they do it for your reasons?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0