Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#4,526
#4,526
OGbabyaviVol said:
Someone needs to show him a weight room. 225 pound benchpress for a 290 pound DT...:question:
Click to expand...

Just don't let this guy show him.
OBn4cscqQeOctVsBtyhU_Workout%20Row%20Flip%20Fail.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,527
#4,527
VolNilla Ice said:
Brother, those pale ales rresulted in my academic probation and yes many an arse to kick out of the place. If u really partied back then please tell me u hit Campus Pub. My claim to fame was dancing with Ace Clement in there one night. Mike and Willys was also live, I partied with D Goodrich and Fred White the night D Good went shopping with his agent and had just bought that new Mercedes droptop. Oh yes i rode in it. Crashed on his couch and lost my keys in his couch which was shipped to Dallas a few days later bc he had just been drafted by the 'Boys. Cost me $100 for a key to raggedy No Limit Clement dorm room lock. Lol. The lacrosse and rugby parties were the best and the around the world parties at college park! Man sorry to post OT but this all came back like a flashback in Nam. Great times
Click to expand...

hahaha yeah man Campus Pub was amazing as well. So cheap, so many girls, so much fun. Used to frequent Hannahs on the strip a lot back then too. I remember my freshman year in '98 at Hannahs sitting next to Al Wilson at the bar. He was nice enough to humor my dumbass for a few minutes.

We had it so good back then and didn't even know it. That's why if things go as planned this fall (and the next few) I won't take a second for granted. Soak it up!
 
#4,528
#4,528
Darth_Shiveman said:
This question is way over my head. But my understanding is that due to the difficulties in determining the rate of mitochondrial DNA, there is no current scientific consensus and estimates have generally varied based on the attempted methods of calculation.


I can't really go into any more depth than that since most of that is beyond my understanding, honestly.
Click to expand...

I totally respect your response. It is beyond mine as well, Darth. It is also beyond the evolutionary scientists and self proclaimed experts because their understanding is limited despite their attempts to come off as having the answers. They proclaimed a few decades ago that they knew the truth and that it confirmed "Eve" lived 200,000 years ago. They did it through their nucleus DNA research. Along came the mitochondrial DNA discovery and now they are all waffling. Mitochondrial DNA mutates far faster than they first thought when they discovered it (implying they were wrong in their original representations and will continue to be wrong until conclusively proven to be correct). They now know from follow-up research in the late 90's that "Eve" would have lived only 6000-6500 years ago, which is consistent with Biblical representations.. Funny how that never seems to make it into mainstream discussions and science books for that matter. There are secular scientific publications I can list for this representation, as well as our federal government's own research available on-line that states mitochondrial DNA has provided more questions than answers relating to evolution.

The same evolutionary theorists also struggle with Y-chomosome Adam. Some research even states that it is clear that Jews and Arabs around the world are closely related, which is consistent with them coming from the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Then there is the male specific Y gene issue that shows the difference in gene content in a chimp and human being more comparable to the difference in non-sex chromosomal gene content in a chicken and a human at 310 million years of separation. Never see that printed in evolutionary or mainstream scientific journals because it doesn't fit the agenda. As a result it never makes it into textbooks of students of all levels. The point given that there is much change via mutations even with evolution's supposed 6 million years of man's existence theory, which is a major issue for evolutionists. But hey, it's science per the evolutionists - no room to question or challenge. I see it all as the great lie to change human morality and understanding of the Creator for power and control of humanity. But that's just me.

As has been pointed out, adaptation to changing environmental conditions and cultural choices is not evolution. It's simply adaptation and the results of same. Mutation of a species is simply mutation of a species, not evolution from one species to another. This is stated as "types" in the bible. The Neanderthal mating with human species resulting in tracing of DNA to both - actually proves the point that both are human species. So the only real question left is the dating of Neanderthals. Which reverts to the paragraphs and points above.

I point all this out because I have the time to research subjects of interest. Others may have a completely different views, and that is OK. I was taught evolution throughout my education. I was never taught anything different, including creation. There were too many theories and conclusions that did not make much sense to me. The methods they used appeared contrived and full of SWAG's. But since it was not my field of study for a profession I answered the questions on the tests and wrote the papers the way they taught it.

Much respect for your honesty on here. Other posters will undoubtedly lose their minds over this, some may agree. In the end we all choose to pursue knowledge of the subject or not based on our own desire to understand. Peace, brother. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,529
#4,529
Darth_Shiveman said:
Faith isn't really the right term, since science is quick to dump an explanation if another, better one is found. Faith means believing in something regardless of evidence. Science is about following the evidence.
Click to expand...
Yeah... except when it doesn't.

The metaphysical assumption (naturalism) behind evolution is a matter of faith as it the "hope" that processes will some day be found to account for biological and genetic complexity when they simply do not occur anywhere in the natural world.

As for developing from an indentation, to me there are two reasons this seems like a pretty good explanation, one scientific and one more philosophical.

1. There are extant species that represent every stage on that evolutionary path. Planarians see with those indentations, nautiluses have deeper ones with no transparent cover, etc. It's not like scientists are just making wild speculations. We can see all of the steps from indentation to eyeball in the world currently.

2. If our eyes were designed by an all knowing, all powerful creator, wouldn't they work better? Having evolved in the ocean stunted the possibilities of eyesight (because they evolved to see almost entirely refracted light). If they'd evolved on land then (in theory) we be able to see more of the light spectrum. We'd be able to see better at night. We'd be able to see better details super up close, like fish can.
Click to expand...
Numerous sources including the Discovery Institute have answered this weak but often repeated argument.

This type of argument works for a lot of features on our bodies. How intelligent is it to put a playground and a sewage system right next to one another between our legs? Who would make people breath and eat with the same tube? Why give us eyes that can only see 3/16 of light there is to be seen? The fact that humans could easily design and plan a better, more efficient body lends credence to the randomness of evolution IMO.
Click to expand...

:lolabove: So.... because you would have done it "better" is proof that it is random?

Again an objection that shouldn't be answered here but has been answered very intelligently by a number of sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,530
#4,530
While there are no repeatable processes that can produce increases in information.... there are repeatable experiments to support the idea of baraminology. It is the idea that God created a set of highly genetically pristine animals that then speciated into all of the world's animals.

We see this process at work every day in nature. We have made it happen for thousands of years with both plants and animals. Existing genetic information can be directed to create significant diversity. Dogs make a good example. There is great diversity within the genome but there comes a point where too many reinforced mutations create an animal too weak to survive or even reproduce sufficiently well- Teacup Chihuahuas/Bulldogs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,531
#4,531
Darth, the following statement has absolutely nothing to do with my personal beliefs but my observation of debate. Which was my life for a long time.

You sir, are playing against a stacked deck. Simply put, majority makes the rules.
Taking a step back and observing just the debate in the forms used, you really can't come out ahead in this.
Meaning, if you present a scientific theory that is 75,85 or even 95% complete, as long as there is a missing percentage, it's considered debunked.
However, it's a perfectly acceptable technique for your opponents to incorporate phrases such as "not literally", "approximate", "fables", "subjective", " open to interpretation", and " written for the ability to comprehend at the time".
This has to be the case for everyone except for young Earthers who take the entire Bible 100% literally.
And that is in no way judging or insulting the faithful, it has to be that way to work.

Once again, this is in no way representative of my own beliefs, just my love of debate. And the number one rule for a good debate is that it has to be equal for both sides. And that's simply an impossibility with this discussion.

And honestly, the point seems moot.
For all the years these debates have happened here, I've yet to see someone present a point that made the opposition change their beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,532
#4,532
sjt18 said:
Yeah... except when it doesn't.

The metaphysical assumption (naturalism) behind evolution is a matter of faith as it the "hope" that processes will some day be found to account for biological and genetic complexity when they simply do not occur anywhere in the natural world.
Click to expand...

You can choose to believe this, but all the evidence collected thus far says you're wrong. Scientific matters aren't matters of faith. If scientific testing and evidence pointed towards evolution being wrong, scientists would dump it without thinking and move on to whatever their evidence pointed to being the best answer for the questions they're asking.

That's part of the scientific process, testing and ruling out bad explanations. It's an ongoing process to find better answers to describe the natural world. Many of the current scientific consensuses will be challenged or outright disproven in our lifetimes because of this. Science isn't afraid to be wrong. That's how it improves itself and finds better answers.

Religious faith is very different. I don't know people who are truly committed to any religion who's dump it at a moment's notice if they found evidence that it was not the truth. I don't think there are any groups of religous people researching and testing answers given by their holy books and actively trying to disprove them for better answers. That's how faith is different and why science and religion really shouldn't be compared. They answer different questions. Science merely tries to find explanations for how the world works and why it is how it is. Religion (and I guess philosophy, too) give answers to WHY. Science isn't in the business off giving answers to the questions that religion does.

As for the processes of evotion not occurring in the natural world, I'm not really sure what in the hell you're talking about. I think you're out of your element. There are plenty of examples of the processes of evolution occurring in the natural world. I've pointed out plenty in my earlier posts. I'd go into more detail, but I know you well enough to know you're not willing to consider any ideas that challenge the beliefs you hold. You'll just break this down sentence by sentence in a snide way that can make you feel right and/or superior (while being neither)

Numerous sources including the Discovery Institute have answered this weak but often repeated argument.

:lolabove: So.... because you would have done it "better" is proof that it is random?

Again an objection that shouldn't be answered here but has been answered very intelligently by a number of sources.
Click to expand...

It's a valid argument that few have a good answer for. To steal a line from Neil Degrasse Tyson, the end result of evolution is often kind of stupid. If all of the extant species were designed by someone, he kind of did a crappy job with a lot of them. The whole point of "intelligent design" is that it's supposed to be done intelligently, right?

Also, the fact that you use the discovery institute as a source shows you aren't willing to consider actual scientific explanations that challenge your beliefs and instead would rather just stick to pseudo-science that comfortingly reassures you of what you already believe. I'm more than willing to engage people who are honestly open to discussion on these matters, but you obviously don't fall into that category. This is the last I'll reply to you on this subject. You can have the last word (or 10,000) :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,533
#4,533
Just an FYI for anybody interested: baraminology has a grand total of 0 peer reviewed scientific researches done to test it's validity.

It's basically an attempt to take the scientific field of cladistics and conform it to the book of Genesis, rejecting any parts that don't fit in order to create a model that doesn't conflict with the Old Testament.


It's a nice, comforting idea for many. But it's hard to accept any of its conclusions with turning a blind eye to many, many inconsistencies or contrary evidences. It's basically 19th century pseudoscience co-opted for current day political agendas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,534
#4,534
If life is meaningless and this is all just a random bunch of nothingness, then I feel like there should be life on many, many other planets within our observation. But there's not. Isn't it just a little odd that we're the only planet with life on it. I mean, surely there'd be at least some bacterial or plant life or sludge with tadpoles in it or something. But nope. It almost seems like we have a unique collection of conditions, but it seems illogical given the sheer size of the universe that we'd be unique at all. Also, why are we the only creature here on Earth who can speak and process thought? Shouldn't there be other genera or species with similar development along the way? It seems to me there should be at least one species of primate in the middle of an evolution jump who would be losing hair and walking upright or maybe throwing spears. It's a real head scratcher. But anyhoo. I plan on asking God all about it someday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,535
#4,535
who says there isn't life on other planets? There is almost an infinite number and how many have we checked?
 
#4,536
#4,536
bignewt said:
who says there isn't life on other planets? There is almost an infinite number and how many have we checked?
Click to expand...

True, but my point is we should find some on the one's we've already checked by now. But nope. I think we should keep searching, but my opinion is we're never going to find anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,538
#4,538
Skullbone said:
If life is meaningless and this is all just a random bunch of nothingness, then I feel like there should be life on many, many other planets within our observation. But there's not. Isn't it just a little odd that we're the only planet with life on it. I mean, surely there'd be at least some bacterial or plant life or sludge with tadpoles in it or something. But nope. It almost seems like we have a unique collection of conditions, but it seems illogical given the sheer size of the universe that we'd be unique at all. Also, why are we the only creature here on Earth who can speak and process thought? Shouldn't there be other genera or species with similar development along the way? It seems to me there should be at least one species of primate in the middle of an evolution jump who would be losing hair and walking upright or maybe throwing spears. It's a real head scratcher. But anyhoo. I plan on asking God all about it someday.
Click to expand...

There are actually many who are currently questioning whether Titan, Saturn's largest moon, has some very simple life forms.

As for expecting there to be life in our solar system, that's asking a little much. Especially considering every type of life form we currently know of would die pretty much instantly on all the planets in our solar system. We know there's life on 1/8, that's pretty good.

I also think you're underestimating just how far away other planets and solar systems are. Jupiter is like 50 million miles away. It takes our probes 3 years to get there and study the planet. It's really difficult to properly study other planets (and we've only been going to space for about 70 years).

Odds are in favor of there being some other life in the universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top