Evolution

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 24 2006, 07:24 PM) [snapback]324495[/snapback]</div>

So in return for the advantage of being one of the 25 percent with the recessive gene 25 percent of the children with the full blown gene, in Africa, will die! What advantage is that? In addition if these children with a recessive gene marry another with the recessive gene their children stand a 50% chance of getting the full blown disease! How beneficial is that?!? I should think that they should be lined up around the block waiting for some scientist to develop an injection to give children a 25% recessive gene for Sickle Cell Anemia just to avoid malaria. <_<

Wildkow

p.s. OK enough of this I don't want to start discussing how beneficial Type One diabetes is since most people with it are less likely to get fat and die of obesity related diseases.

 

Sorry... but NASA does have such a computer... I didn't word the statement right. NASA has a computer system that can basically read thoughts by translating the electrical signals of part of the brain.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 24 2006, 08:23 PM) [snapback]324449[/snapback]</div>

It might have been the trinity that came from Egyptian mythology... or one of the major christians.



And Europe really laughs at us for how backwards we are. Health care, for one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 10:06 PM) [snapback]324487[/snapback]</div>

ok- honestly? no. only after you mentioned it and i went and looked it up did i realize that particular organism was involved in the evolution debate.

i was describing a generic situation, not how peppered moths that were already peppered got uh, more peppered as in darker colored.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 09:47 PM) [snapback]324359[/snapback]</div>

Interesting point you brought up here. If the genius of man is a gift of God indeed, I would consider it nothing short of an insult at His address if we fail to use it properly to explore our universe. Since there are plenty of indications that support evolution, I would assume that this is what God wants us to believe. It might still be all incorrect, but then He really did a lot of effort to make it look like it happened that way. I'm a humble person, and I don't ignore all the signs He left in nature. Anything else would be a blasphemy of the intelligence He gifted us with. It would be a real blasphemy if we would let a book written 2000 years ago overrule what our gifted intelligence is telling us.
Of course, this all differs from religion, which has completely different starting points. But when I'm in science mode, all I can do is let those signs speak to my enquiring mind, and come to a conclusion. Is it true or false? I don't know. All I know is that this is what the universe He created tells me. He may have good reasons to fake all that, but it's beyond my reach to question this.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 09:47 PM) [snapback]324359[/snapback]</div>

First of all, the concept "species" is a rather arbitrary one, invented by taxonomists to simplify things. Nature doesn't work with species, there is no clear line. And you still need to explain why the accumulated effects of your "micro-evolutions" would magically stop at a certain time, preventing it from becoming "macro-evolutions". What happens if you look at the combined effect of 2.000.000.000 years of micro-evolutions?

 

Your poll is worthless because the only option you offer for creation, other than "intelligent design", is "Literal religious belief". I don't know why people keep bringing this subject up, as it is quite tiresome, and is only done to provide a forum for religious mockery. But, to repeat what I posted in other similar posts, there is a HUGE variety of beliefs that could all be filed under "Literal religious beliefs", and most of them are very controversial even among Christians. For example: just because there are groups who would try to literally interprete the Genesis account "day" as a literal 24 hour day does not mean that all Bible scholars agree with that. In fact, the Hebrew "day" simply can mean an epoch of time. The entire creative time period, encompasing 6 creative days, are all called a "day", so where does that leave you?
But, if you're simply asking if I believe in the Genesis account of man's direct creation by God, YES, I guess I do take that literally. But, otherwise, I refuse to be pigeon-holed by your poll.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 24 2006, 04:32 PM) [snapback]324372[/snapback]</div>

Ahh...Pascal's wager. I guess we'll just end up disagreeing and that's fine... but here's my take:

So if I told you that if you thought of mischevious thoughts in the act of procreation would make you go to hell, would you go for that 'just in case?' Of course someone could say god appraises mischievous thoughts during sex and thus thinking naughty during sex would make you go to heaven. Would you buy that one too?

Or what if someone said the only way to get to heaven was to blow yourself up?

How do you know that hell would be so bad? What if that fictional literature character called Satan would actually be able to give you a better life in Hell? Surrounded by all kinds of mischievous things and you ended up with a not so tortuous life? A life of hedonism, if you will (I think that's the right term).

Some psych wards have several Jesuses that honestly believe they are the 2nd coming of Jesus... do you go to the psych hospital and listen to them, 'just in case' they really are who they say they are?

You could create all kinds of ideas in your mind... all kinds of 'just in cases...' imo the logic of Pascal's wager doesn't work out.

Cool.

 

Briefly picked up a Nature journal today... a couple of things that popped... first there was one article about gene jumping causing 'speciation' (please note vtie's information about speciation)... another in how an RNA (something... I think it was a gene) gave humans an advantage over chimps in evolutionary development. Fascinating stuff.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 25 2006, 01:19 PM) [snapback]324739[/snapback]</div>

RNA gave humans an advantage? Interesting, I should read this article. I work with RNA Thought of having a license plate called "RNAROKS" but it was too nerdy for me. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 25 2006, 06:01 AM) [snapback]324606[/snapback]</div>

Is that supposed to be an unbiased source?

Sounds to me like a religious indoctrination site:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 24 2006, 08:23 PM) [snapback]324449[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you on this one Daniel that it is wrong to appeal to emotions. The point that I was trying to make is that there are intelligent people who believe not only in Evolution, but in Intelligent Design and Creation also.
In fact, my reasoning for posting it is to counter the Evolutionist's appeal to the emotions, in which they state that intelligent people do not believe in Intelligent Design or Creation.
I am glad that we both agree that there are intelligent people who differ on the question of Origins.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 25 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]324688[/snapback]</div>

Brilliant reply!

T.H. Huxley, nicknamed "Darwin's bulldog," for his fierce defense of natural selection, distilled it into an equally-beautiful quip:

"I cannot believe that god would have written across the rocks such an enormous and all-pervading lie."

Creationists often claim that god created the fossils in order to mislead us. Huxley quipped that this was equal to calling god a liar. But you have taken it a step farther, pointing out that god (if there is a god) gave us the gift of reason, which we use to analyze the evidence, which would make a lie "written across the rocks" that much more malicious.

On the other hand, the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not make us in his image, and has never promised to be truthful to us, and in fact is quite whimsical and mischievious. He very well might have created fossils and starlight with the intention of bollixing up our study of nature. Therefore, creationists are tacitly admitting that they are really Pastafarians. (And I, for one, welcome them into the fold with open arms, a plate of spaghetti with tofu, and a can of beer.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 25 2006, 06:58 AM) [snapback]324630[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps you could be more clear about what you mean by a computer that reads thoughts. Do you mean that with that computer connected to my head, if I thought "I think I'll have tofu for lunch," the computer would type out that sentence on its terminal? Such a computer does not exist, and I predict never will.

However, if you mean a computer that merely detects electrical patterns, allowing a person to learn to control it by learning to generate specific signals, and then program the computer to perform a designated action for each kind of signal, then, yes, such computers do exist, and are probably not limited to NASA.

But this latter version is not reading "thoughts," it is merely reading electrical activity.

We are of course in agreement over how the rest of the world views our backward and inhumane health care system. (Though we are 20 years ahead of them on second-hand smoke. -- Never say I have only bad things to say about the U.S. of A.!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 25 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]324780[/snapback]</div>

Facts are facts, they come from the horses mouth. How bout your sources they just sound like a evo-indoctrination site to me. There is a least one thing you can say about my side we, at least that I know of, don't purposely fake evidence to support our assertations. B) Looking forward to your reply.

Wildkow

p.s. Dang no file attachments yet! I could really use a "dancing banana" at the end of that last sentence. :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 25 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]324688[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 28 2006, 08:44 AM) [snapback]325064[/snapback]</div>

1) Said when they believed that it took millions of years to form fossils, therefore, it was said with some measure of ignorance.

2) Hmmmmm, you say our system is inhumane how is that not bad? <_<

3) You make me laugh, TY!

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 28 2006, 09:16 AM) [snapback]325079[/snapback]</div>

Facts are facts, but lies are not. The latter sometimes come from a different part of the horse. Some creationist authors like to compound two lies by first making blatantly false statements, and then ascribing those statements to scientists who never uttered them.

The typical formula is something like this: "Science claims that [false statement inserted here] but if this was so then [refutation of false statement inserted here]."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 28 2006, 09:16 AM) [snapback]325079[/snapback]</div>

What are you talking about??? Nobody believed it took millions of years to form fossils. It does, of course, take time for sedimentary rocks to form around preserved animal remains, or for bones or other structures to be converted by mineralization.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 28 2006, 10:09 AM) [snapback]325107[/snapback]</div>

Pardon me for not understanding but I think an example would work best for explaining what you are talking about.

Hmmmmm, my bad your probably right, how long does it take fossils to form?

Thank You

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 29 2006, 04:14 PM) [snapback]325811[/snapback]</div>

You are the one who pooh-pooh's Huxley's quip by asserting that he was ignorant of what you claim was the "fact" that fossils take millions of years to form, as if that was relevant to the question of whether your god "... would have written across the rocks ... an enormous and all-pervading lie."

How long it takes fossils to form is irrelevant.

Many creationists claim god put the fossils in place as a false record of things past. How long fossils took to form makes no difference. Huxley believed in god and didn't believe god would lie. But if god lied in the fossil record, then everything ascribed to god is put in doubt. I.e., the entire Bible.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 29 2006, 05:17 PM) [snapback]325822[/snapback]</div>

It's just a question, don't you know?

Wildkow :lol:

p.s. How about the first part of my previous reply?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 30 2006, 01:14 AM) [snapback]325811[/snapback]</div>

That depends on a lot of factors. Some take less than a years, some take thousands of years. The point is that the term "fossil" covers a wide variety of different ways to preserve the appearance of a living create for the future. It may just be a footprint, or an insect trapped in tree sap. So, there is no meaningfull one-fits-all answer to your question.

Another question is "how old are fossils?". To my knowledge, amonst the oldest ones found are stromatolites, sediments of cyanobacteria. Some are more than 2 billion years old. If you doubt this number, you should provide us with an alternative theory for quantum mechanics, because they are based on radio isotopes.