Clan x86
Member Forums => AntiVirus' Home for Lost Toys => Topic started by: Ender on January 26, 2008, 05:24:42 pm
-
I am learning about viruses in biology and this makes you an interesting person.
-
... Uh... What?
-
stfu
-
antivirus you bore me.
-
Lmfao, sorry. I have been very very very very busy with homework and I haven't had much time to check the forums!! I don't remember much about Viruses from AP Bio, but if you want to talk about it I will be more than happy to!
P.S. I think I am switching my major from Comp. Sci. to Biology so hopefully in the near future we can have pretty in depth conversations about them. I am in Evolution right now and we aren't going to learn anything about Viruses, at least in the sense in which you are learning about them.
P.S.S Sorry about being boring. </3
-
Evolution? Blasphemy! There's no such thing!
-
I hated biology. :(
-
Evolution is when scientists make themselves look like apes.
Unless we came from.. like.. rocks with a really wide gene pool.
-
Evolution is when scientists make themselves look like apes.
Unless we came from.. like.. rocks with a really wide gene pool.
Err... what? Are you implying evolution is fallacious because it makes scientists look silly and it is impossible for genes to spontaneously form?
-
Evolution is when scientists make themselves look like apes.
Unless we came from.. like.. rocks with a really wide gene pool.
wtf?
-
Err... what? Are you implying evolution is fallacious because .. it is impossible for genes to spontaneously form?
Uh huh.
-
Err... what? Are you implying evolution is fallacious because .. it is impossible for genes to spontaneously form?
Uh huh.
That's a really shitty argument. :)
-
Err... what? Are you implying evolution is fallacious because .. it is impossible for genes to spontaneously form?
Uh huh.
Genes are just sequences of nucleotides. Even unicellular bacteria and noncellular viruses have genes. What's so magical about them?
-
Err... what? Are you implying evolution is fallacious because .. it is impossible for genes to spontaneously form?
Uh huh.
Mutation? Look up Lenski's experiment on E.Coli. Mutation is a change in a nucleotide which changes an allele which results in a new gene. That is pretty spontaneous. :P
Either way I don't believe completely in Evolution. I have my own ideas about evolution that almost ties creationism and evolution together.
-
Stop it. I think his beliefs are stupid. What's so wrong about that?
-
Stop it. I think his beliefs are stupid. What's so wrong about that?
Then say why without such bold conclusions. You said he was an idiot, not his beliefs are stupid. There's a big difference.
-
Sidoh, I think your ideas are great. So I'm gonna have to say this, even though I've kept it bottled up inside for the past three years.
I love you.
I love you so much.
Mon amour pour toi brûle avec l'intensité des mille soleils.
:-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
Call me--the lube is waiting. 4073593011
-
Stop it. I think his beliefs are stupid. What's so wrong about that?
Then say why without such bold conclusions. You said he was an idiot, not his beliefs are stupid. There's a big difference.
If he actually believes that crap, then he's an idiot.
-
If he actually believes that crap, then he's an idiot.
Even if his claims are based on faulty evidence, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. Knock it off.
-
So you're telling me that you all believe that rock-soup turned into human bodies with a great big pool of genes?
I'm no biology major.. or anything even close.. but srsly, far fetched.
-
So you're telling me that you all believe that rock-soup turned into human bodies with a great big pool of genes?
I'm no biology major.. or anything even close.. but srsly, far fetched.
So you're telling me that you believe that little piece of bread turned into enough to feed that great big number of people?
And to answer your question, I do. Don't think of it as humans forming; think of it as a single eukaryotic cell forming.
@Antivirus: I think viruses can explain some mutations in DNA. It's not like they're spontaneous in the sense of being without reason or cause.
-
I'd be interested in figuring out how that worked, Ender. I mean, I seriously am interested. No sarcasm.
But yeah, I believe that the universe was created by a God, and that God provided enough food to feed a ton of people. I'm sure it's the other way around for you, but that's easier for me to grasp than evolution is.
-
It's only far easier to grasp because you're ignorant and gullible.
-
It's only far easier to grasp because you're ignorant and gullible.
Many people believe the same thing about evolution, though. So where's the difference come in?
-
A book written a few thousand years ago with no empirical evidence says that a being which is all powerful willed the universe into existence.
A lot of research done over the past few centuries with lots and lots of empirical evidence shows a distinct link between single celled organisms and what's around today though a well known method of evolutionary mutations in genes.
That's the difference.
-
Empirical evidence isn't the only kind of evidence. There are many different arguments made by great thinkers in favour of God. Before you can dismiss it all as idiocy, you should probably understand it. Go read some of the great philosophers who've delved into the area:
* St. Augustine comes to mind first , he was originally a confirmed atheist who eventually converted to a Christian after much reasoning, and wrote a book about his proofs (called Confessions)
* Locke
* Berkeley
* Nietzsche
* Hume
* St. Thomas Aquinas
* Kant
* etc. etc. etc.
They don't all They didn't just make up their proofs from nowhere, they spent years and years developing theories and proving them. Before you can dismiss it all as nonsense, you really have to go into them and understand what they were saying. The converse is also true -- before a religious person can dismiss evolution, they should also understand it. I can't expect somebody else to do something that you are unwilling to do.
-
I read Kant, Hume, and Locke, and a few others before, and while I agree that they are smart and have well thought out arguments, I still think the concept is stupid. Also, I highly doubt Joe has done as much research as they have, and I also doubt he's read them.
-
No, I haven't. But I've read every single thing you've given me to read about evolution (nothing), since I already understand creationism, and I still stand by my position. So either you lose, I win, or a combination of the two.
-
I read Kant, Hume, and Locke, and a few others before, and while I agree that they are smart and have well thought out arguments, I still think the concept is stupid. Also, I highly doubt Joe has done as much research as they have, and I also doubt he's read them.
Whether or not he's read them, I don't think somebody who does believe them is necessarily an idiot.
-
I don't either. I said JOE is an idiot.
-
I don't either. I said JOE is an idiot.
You said he was an idiot after quoting him saying he disagreed with evolution. That's both uncalled for, ungrounded and useless and it's STILL useless to call him an idiot. If you want to hate him, fine, but don't drag unnecessary drama in with you.
-
Haha@filter
That aside, I know some smart pro-creationists, but in general, pro-creationists are idiots, especially when they use the argument "I don't feel like learning about evolution, so I'll just completely toss off your argument" and then insist on being an arrogant asshole ("[sic] I WIN EITHER WAY MUAHAHAHA") about it.
@Joe: I READ EVERYTHING YOU GAVE ME ON CREATIONISM (NOTHING). And guess what? I also read OTHER things ON MY OWN. Nobody spoon-fed me the information, I found most of the stuff about creationism on my own. If you expect to get ANYWHERE in life with your lazy attitude, I'll laugh.
-
@Joe: I READ EVERYTHING YOU GAVE ME ON CREATIONISM (NOTHING). And guess what? I also read OTHER things ON MY OWN. Nobody spoon-fed me the information, I found most of the stuff about creationism on my own. If you expect to get ANYWHERE in life with your lazy attitude, I'll laugh.
Keep in mind that Joe DID ask for more information about evolution in this article, repeatedly. Maybe you should provide that, so at least you might have some basis for an argument? Right now, you're just restarting your point over and over (that Joe's an idiot/stupid/etc.), which is a great conclusion (just kidding!), but maybe you should look at adding some argument in favour of evolution, like, somewhere. :P
-
You're both wrong, You must rethink your beliefs then conform to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)
-
I'd be interested in figuring out how that worked, Ender. I mean, I seriously am interested. No sarcasm.
But yeah, I believe that the universe was created by a God, and that God provided enough food to feed a ton of people. I'm sure it's the other way around for you, but that's easier for me to grasp than evolution is.
You find religion better because the alternative is too complex for you? If you're sincere about searching for truth, then small things like that shouldn't hinder you. You are free to choose your own beliefs, but anyone who chooses one over the other without understanding the other should be treated with nothing less than contempt. I know that this is harsh, but ignorance is not an acceptable state for any individual.
-
Maybe if he went to school and took a biology course he'd get some information. That aside, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) has some great info. I don't feel like writing out more tags, so screw that:
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
http://www.kcfs.org/KsSciSt1999-2001/Fliers_articles/evolution_proof.pdf
<above, html format> (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:IXnZ4FiAdO4J:www.kcfs.org/KsSciSt1999-2001/Fliers_articles/evolution_proof.pdf+evolution+proof&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a) * Joe should start smoking
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/fused-chromosomes-a-proof-of-human-evolution/
http://www.ubersite.com/m/74105
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
I'd also like to compare a couple things...
Christianity: A supernatural, all-powerful existence willed the universe into existence in 6 days
Scientology: A supernatural, all-powerful existence willed the universe into existence in 6 days
Christianity: After a life of dedication and worship to the All Mighty God, one may join him in his paradise
Scientology: After a life of dedication and worship to the All Mighty Xenu, one may join him in his spaceship
Christianity: Those who do not believe must die
Scientology: Those who do not believe must die
-
@Antivirus: I think viruses can explain some mutations in DNA. It's not like they're spontaneous in the sense of being without reason or cause.
Yeah, viruses can probably explain some mutations, but some mutations are completely random. But mutation is as far as I know, pretty random.
rabbit, don't overly simplify Christianity and Scientology to prove a point. Any one could do that with anything, as demonstrated below:
Canadians: white
Americans: white
Canadians: speak mainly english
Americans: speak mainly english
Canadians: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Americans: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
-
Canadians: white
Americans: white
No, that's no true.
Canadians: speak mainly english
Americans: speak mainly english
Many Americans and Canadians speak other languages.
Canadians: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Americans: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Also not true. Many Canadians and Americans live overseas.
-
@Antivirus: I think viruses can explain some mutations in DNA. It's not like they're spontaneous in the sense of being without reason or cause.
Yeah, viruses can probably explain some mutations, but some mutations are completely random. But mutation is as far as I know, pretty random.
rabbit, don't overly simplify Christianity and Scientology to prove a point. Any one could do that with anything, as demonstrated below:
Canadians: white
Americans: white
Canadians: speak mainly english
Americans: speak mainly english
Canadians: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Americans: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
So? Christianity and Scientology have the same basic structure, as do America and Canada.
-
So? Christianity and Scientology have the same basic structure, as do America and Canada.
Big deal. That doesn't mean that Christianity is involved with all of the scandals that Scientology is accused of, etc.
-
Canadians: white
Americans: white
No, that's no true.
Canadians: speak mainly english
Americans: speak mainly english
Many Americans and Canadians speak other languages.
Canadians: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Americans: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Also not true. Many Canadians and Americans live overseas.
You completely missed the point. :P
-
Big deal. That doesn't mean that Christianity is involved with all of the scandals that Scientology is accused of, etc.
Because, you know, christians have never hurt anyone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades).
(disclaimer: this post is meant to be humorous)
-
@Antivirus: I think viruses can explain some mutations in DNA. It's not like they're spontaneous in the sense of being without reason or cause.
Yeah, viruses can probably explain some mutations, but some mutations are completely random. But mutation is as far as I know, pretty random.
rabbit, don't overly simplify Christianity and Scientology to prove a point. Any one could do that with anything, as demonstrated below:
Canadians: white
Americans: white
Canadians: speak mainly english
Americans: speak mainly english
Canadians: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Americans: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
So? Christianity and Scientology have the same basic structure, as do America and Canada.
So? Just because they have a few things in common doesn't mean you can try and support an argument by comparing simplistic similarities.
-
Big deal. That doesn't mean that Christianity is involved with all of the scandals that Scientology is accused of, etc.
Because, you know, christians have never hurt anyone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades).
(disclaimer: this post is meant to be humorous)
Hahaha.
-
Canadians: white
Americans: white
No, that's no true.
Canadians: speak mainly english
Americans: speak mainly english
Many Americans and Canadians speak other languages.
Canadians: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Americans: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Also not true. Many Canadians and Americans live overseas.
You completely missed the point. :P
Or he totally understood the point -- that overgeneralizations are typically wrong, both in this case and in the Christianity/Scientology case. :)
-
Canadians: white
Americans: white
No, that's no true.
Canadians: speak mainly english
Americans: speak mainly english
Many Americans and Canadians speak other languages.
Canadians: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Americans: live in the western hemisphere of the world.
Also not true. Many Canadians and Americans live overseas.
You completely missed the point. :P
Or he totally understood the point --...
Lol, I suppose that's true.
-
Sorry Joe that I've been so late to reply.
Attached are some articles on evolution from my bio class.
But even better is the following book: The Making of the Fittest by Sean B Carroll
Edit: The Carroll book has won a lot of awards, and is very highly-regarded. You should look into it.
-
Oh, and for the sake of balance, Descartes' argument for God existing:
1. God contains all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection
3. Therefore, God exists
-
Oh, and for the sake of balance, Descartes' argument for God existing:
1. God contains all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection
3. Therefore, God exists
Descarte's proof is far, far more complicated than that. That's a huge oversimplification.
-
Oh, and for the sake of balance, Descartes' argument for God existing:
1. God contains all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection
3. Therefore, God exists
Descarte's proof is far, far more complicated than that. That's a huge oversimplification.
It's the outline of it. But yeah, he devotes around 10 pages to arguing his claims and shooting down counterarguments.
-
Hm, well:
1. Nothing is perfect
2. God doesn't exist/is fallible
-
Oh, and for the sake of balance, Descartes' argument for God existing:
1. God contains all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection
3. Therefore, God exists
Descarte's proof is far, far more complicated than that. That's a huge oversimplification.
It's the outline of it. But yeah, he devotes around 10 pages to arguing his claims and shooting down counterarguments.
True, but presented in such a glib way, it sounds completely impossible and gives rise to a lot of objections. The full argument takes care of a lot of that stuff.