How did whales, porpoises, and dolphins evolve?

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks says . . . Conservatives donate 30 percent more money than liberals (even when controlled for income), give more blood and log more volunteer hours. In general, religious people are more than three times more generous than secularists to all charities, 14 percent more munificent to nonreligious charities and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person. In terms of societal health, charitable givers are 43 percent more likely to say they are "very happy" than nongivers and 25 percent more likely than nongivers to say their health is excellent or very good.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 23 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]428356[/snapback]</div>

There are quite a few things that "don't make sense" on the surface. This would be one of them ... if you're human, that is.

We tend to think globally, while evolution works on the smallest of levels, with observable variation in isolated communities, such as islands, and even "weird" mammals that give birth prior to most development and then keep the fetus outside of their bodies in an external skin pouch (marsupials) which appear only in Australia and South America. Why would "evolution" choose to advance life one way in Europe and another way in Australia? Neither method is really superior to the other on the surface, although you could argue very few Kangaroos die in childbirth trauma but may have higher fetal death rates, while more mature live-bearing mammal babies don't die as often, but the mothers do.

The mistake is thinking that evolution is logical. It is not.

For instance, why would blacks have a higher propensity toward sickle cell anemia? One theory is that the variation in the oxygen carrying capacity of the sickle cell victim's red blood cells also provided some protection against malaria, so the victim could at least reach the age of reproduction. As the population of sickle-cell victims grew during malaria outbreaks the variation survived. The fact that the same mechanism that extended their lives to reproduction age also killed them shortly thereafter, when someone who survived malaria without sickle cell would live a lot longer life, doesn't matter. "Evolution" isn't "thinking" about the change for the "greater good" ... those are human concepts. It doesn't make sense, and it isn't always the most efficient way to handle things, but its the way life happens. Life, always, happens.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 23 2007, 09:06 AM) [snapback]428374[/snapback]</div>

Lungs are able to extract far more oxygen from the air, than gills can do from water. There are no warm-blooded water-breathers. All warm-blooded animals breath air. It is only by breathing air that an animal can obtain enough oxygen to metabolize the amount of energy needed to maintain body temperature internally. IOW, air-breathers can produce far more energy per volume of body weight than can water-breathers.

Note, however, that cetacians evolved lungs on land, and only later returned to the sea, as is evident from the fossil record.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Apr 23 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]428474[/snapback]</div>

They do get health care, but don't imagine they can get away without paying taxes. Evetyone's got to pay taxes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lowlander @ Apr 23 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]428503[/snapback]</div>

Why do people insist in associating the human emotion of love with the sadist who created the world, assuming such a creator exists?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 23 2007, 12:07 PM) [snapback]428526[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lowlander @ Apr 23 2007, 12:10 PM) [snapback]428529[/snapback]</div>

Damn! You beat me to it!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 23 2007, 11:12 AM) [snapback]428475[/snapback]</div>

There are people here in FHOP who still don't believe it is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 23 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]428748[/snapback]</div>

Your source please?

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 23 2007, 11:12 AM) [snapback]428475[/snapback]</div>

Are you referring to this myth

Wildkow

p.s. More. . .

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...iew&id=2587
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 23 2007, 02:15 PM) [snapback]428610[/snapback]</div>

How does one ban participation in NOT believing something? That's gonna be tough to enforce! But I'm sure it will make for a happier place.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 23 2007, 08:50 AM) [snapback]428356[/snapback]</div>

They did it on porpoise.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 24 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]428748[/snapback]</div>

Maybe they get better mileage in a flat world.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Apr 24 2007, 06:49 AM) [snapback]428862[/snapback]</div>

It's been done, in Cuba you HAVE to believe in the revolution. Participating in a group that does not believe in the revolution is dangerous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 23 2007, 02:44 PM) [snapback]428561[/snapback]</div>

Sorry to continue to drag this thread off topic, but I can't stand to see people be so arrogant to think that there is only one way to believe in this world.

I would love to see the day when people can have valid beliefs, and not be criticized for having an opposing view, just because it does not agree with your view.

I see evidence that everyday now, someone is knocking others who believe in God, while taking umbrage if someone else, that does believe in God, knocks them for not believing.

It's such a crock.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 23 2007, 03:39 PM) [snapback]428590[/snapback]</div>

So, you prefer to abuse children by indoctrinating them with athiesm?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 23 2007, 06:23 PM) [snapback]428687[/snapback]</div>

I find that my liberal friends don't tend to give individually, but rather hope that they can gain elected power, raise taxes and use those governement funds to feed the starving, get every homeless person a lawyer, spa day and brand new house. So many are so passionate about their cause but give nothing on their own. They have passion for the environment but live in 11,000sqft houses or 28,000sqft houses of their own while suggesting that we all cut back.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Apr 24 2007, 04:50 AM) [snapback]428918[/snapback]</div>

There's a world of difference between "indoctrinating [children] with atheism" and merely NOT indoctrinating them with religion.

Religious indoctrination teaches kids to suppress their natural curiosity and skepticism. It teaches them not to question.

Don't indoctrinate kids at all, but teach them to think for themselves and make up their own minds! Religion would fade away merely by the sheer preposterousness of it if it were not drilled into the as-yet-unformed minds of children before they are able to understand what is being done to them.

 

"Religion would fade away merely by the sheer preposterousness of it if it were not drilled into the as-yet-unformed minds of children before they are able to understand what is being done to them."

Well said. That is my position exactly. Religion is obviously absurd. No adult who had not been indoctrinated by religion as a child would ever believe in God or any other kind of magical thinking. This early brainwashing explains why otherwise intelligent people can believe in irrational things. To give your young child fantasy stories about Adam and Eve, God, angels, etc, instead of books on evolution and cosmology is to warp their minds with irrational lies and is an insidious form of abuse. And, as I said, the people who perpetrate this on their children were, in most cases, lied to by their parents when they were young. So the cycle of abuse goes on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 24 2007, 09:43 AM) [snapback]429059[/snapback]</div>

Do you believe what they taught about Christians and the Flat Earth myth?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 23 2007, 08:54 AM) [snapback]428421[/snapback]</div>

This diagram was used in the recent Kitzmiller vs. Dover case to show that we have detailed evidence for intermediate forms.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 24 2007, 02:18 AM) [snapback]428905[/snapback]</div>

I'm about honouring logic and accurate data. So if you have a reasonably logical argument to make and you use decent data to support it then I can respect your belief even if it differs from my own. If you are clearly delusional, illogical and have no data to support your belief and that belief causes harm then it shouldn't be respected in my opinion.

I think a good portion of religious thinking is flawed, obviously, but some so called "religious values" are perfectly legitimate. For instance, there is a lot of wisdom in the many of the ten commandments. But I don't believe God handed them down to Moses and I certainly don't think they have value because God supposedly told us to follow them. I think they have demonstrated their worth over the centuries as they clearly make our society more peaceful and just. So I think it is good to value principles for rational and logical reasons.

A more specific example: I don't believe in sex outside of marriage, not because it is a sin but because there is a chance that an unwanted pregnancy might occur. And every kid should have a loving and committed couple raising them, with a stay-at-home parent. Casual hook-ups hurt kids. So I can't support that.

So I have common beliefs with many religious people but we get there from two different routes.

What I don't like is the idea that people might believe something like the end of the world is coming 'cause it's in the Bible - consequently there is no reason to protect the environment. Things like that drive me crazy!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 24 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]429129[/snapback]</div>

I'm all about honoring others views. As a Preacher, I don't care if you believe like I do, or not. Ask around; you will find I am fair towards others having the belief that God does not exist or whatever.

However, I do find it offensive when people just throw around the words 'fantasy' and 'illogical' and such, when it comes to believing in God. It seems hypercritical to me, to knock another's beliefs, no matter what they are, just because they differ from yours. I don't agree with the Muslims, say, but I won't knock them.

It's about showing respect for others opinions. That is what I am talking about. We all don't agree, nor would I expect us to.

 

"I don't believe in sex outside of marriage, not because it is a sin but because there is a chance that an unwanted pregnancy might occur. And every kid should have a loving and committed couple raising them, with a stay-at-home parent. Casual hook-ups hurt kids. So I can't support that."

If you are referring to adultery, than I agree, but primarily because it destroys the trust that is the foundation of a marriage. If you mean young single people should not have sex, I disagree. They should, however, use condoms and avoid promiscuity, mainly for health reasons.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Apr 24 2007, 04:50 AM) [snapback]428918[/snapback]</div>

I don't think it wrong to teach children ABOUT religions and atheism but I wouldn't emotionally coerce a child to believe any particular religious/atheistic doctrine. When they are adults they can decide on their own what makes the most sense to them. It's unfortunately common religious practice to tell children that they owe God everything and that they should feel tremendous guilt if they don't believe. That's child abuse! I lived it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 24 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]429047[/snapback]</div>

Well said

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 24 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]429137[/snapback]</div>

Religious belief is fantastical and illogical. Its actually illogical by its own admission (faith). Ideas do not deserve respect and should be submitted to criticism and scrutiny. If you feel offended by the criticism of an idea then maybe you should examine why this idea means so much to you.

This doesn't apply only to religion. Look no further than the BT Plate thread! Talk about inquisitional mindsets!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 24 2007, 11:30 AM) [snapback]429146[/snapback]</div>

Well, if a woman has her tubes tied and/or the man has had a vasectomy and they are discreet about it I don't really care what they do sexually outside of marriage - they can be promiscuous - if adults want to be unhealthy and abuse themselves - who cares.

But other forms of birth control fail too often in my opinion to risk a possible pregnancy - and once a kid is born into an uncommitted mess it is really hard on them. And I'm not able to support abortion. I don't see the fetus as anything but a human being that intrinsically deserves the right to live and half a loving intact, committed family. And by the way, religion didn't teach me that, biology did.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 24 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]429129[/snapback]</div>

BRAVO!!!