NationStates Jolt Archive

I explored Buddhism and several others during the process.
Buddhism has some awesome ideas about how to live in the here and now

The idea of being a Bodhisattva has some appeal to me. I have listened to the Dalai Lama. I think he is a wonderful man with some great ideas.Commendable. *bows*


My problem is laying all this stuff at God's doorstep when it is clearly us who have got it wrong.
What if you're wrong about that too?

Yes also proof God Exists.Although, not the most convincing argument for Jahweh, i'm afraid. Seriously, there's no substance there whatsoever.
No other animal except there cousin the pipe fish can do this.As far as *we* know, of course. :p
Although they don't translate very well when stuck in your ear. I did hear a lot of squishing sounds but that was it. Hey you never know.True, this. Kinda why i mentioned more than one orifice.
;)
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Projects1999/schisto/SchistoEM100.gif

Any god worth his salt would expect you to seek the answers to these yourself.

Given most followers seem to willingly give it up to devote themselves to an arbitrary concept, one does wonder as to this.

The questions always lead back to the one who did this in the first place. No rational person would create his own enemy. He is not a person though. You, me, the guy next door we would have took him out right at the beginning.

If he killed my son I am telling you Sodom and Gomorrah would look like a playground compared with what I would have done. I think he should have sent the legion of angels.

So you don't like angel breeding with humans, fine why oh why didn't you just stop them? 2 or 3 legions should do the trick.




Hey Azazel keep the snake in the cage. It is either my way or the Long Island expressway.

On that happy note I am off to Never nver land. Good Night all!

On that happy note I am off to Never nver land. Good Night all!
May Morpheus have copious lube for your embrace!
*bows*

Any god worth his salt would expect you to seek the answers to these yourself.

Thank you. Do you wanna be my prophet? :D

Success, of course.

Hmmm, perhaps you need to contrast with chains of volcanoes for an understanding there.


Same way i got the gas in the mites that secrete your sweat smell.

Because there aren't enough pop-ups and the perfumes you use are limited and less erotic than remniscient of houses after a fire and having been doused thoroughly with water hoses.

Perhaps you should hang out with penguins for a while to give you a different perspective.
Now you're putting them before God. For shame.
As in, you stick it in your ear (or whatever orifice) and it will translate *whatever* for you?

Bending. No seriously, there is no such thing. I only put that in concept in place so you could gain some perspective on consequence, the obvious importance of free will. "He" is actually me.
"He" never turned against anyone anymore than I did.

In the wishes of the feeble and the hopes of the desperate. You'll have better luck with Nod.

There is no such thing, silly! Each one of you is living out a very small part of the vast experience that is me, simultaneously!

Funny you should bring up salt. *giggles*


Why do you make a bird that swims? Why do make a bird who can't fly? Same question to the evolutionists...

So you make fish that fly and birds that swim. Okay now you are just showing off. He is Glorious!


Oh I forgot you make mouse that can fly and the only true flier.

May Morpheus have copious lube for your embrace!
*bows*

Morpheus stay away from me when you are being prophetic and for God sake put some pants on.

Although, not the most convincing argument for Jahweh, i'm afraid. Seriously, there's no substance there whatsoever.

Lesbians.

Lesbians are the best evidence for a god.

The questions always lead back to the one who did this in the first place. No rational person would create his own enemy.

If you're omnipotent, there are no 'enemies'.

(Also - you've read the Bible, right? Satan isn't Jehovah's enemy - he's his representative).

Why do you make a bird that swims? Why do make a bird who can't fly?

I don't quite see the connection. A 'bird' isn't defined by flying, but by shared characteristics. Flight is only an advantage if your food source is high or flying, or if you have heavy predator risks. A bird that stands 6 feet tall doesn't have to worry so much about predators, and probably EATS the critters other birds think of as predators.

So - why would it need to fly. Put such a creature in a hot dry climate (where evolution would favour reduced surface area and reduced water use) and wings and flying become handicaps - so the design will favour flightless birds... and eventually, that is the niche that evolution will fill.

Morpheus stay away from me when you are being prophetic and for God sake put some pants on.You're alright, even if a bit prudish. :)

I don't quite see the connection. A 'bird' isn't defined by flying, but by shared characteristics. Flight is only an advantage if your food source is high or flying, or if you have heavy predator risks. A bird that stands 6 feet tall doesn't have to worry so much about predators, and probably EATS the critters other birds think of as predators.

So - why would it need to fly. Put such a creature in a hot dry climate (where evolution would favour reduced surface area and reduced water use) and wings and flying become handicaps - so the design will favour flightless birds... and eventually, that is the niche that evolution will fill.


What are the wings for then? Arguably they turn into flippers on the penguin side. Ostriches have feathers and wings. They run fast which makes up for the flying thing but why the wings then? Why not something that allows you to run faster?

Penguins
Never mind why would any animal choose to live in the most inhospitable climate on the face of the earth. If evolution were case that meant that several animal tried and were unsuccessful. They kept trying and were finally successful. How did this come to be. Well maybe they were attached to another continent at one time. Okay why would they stay their as they drifted further and further towards the south pole, less and less food etc.?

If they were forced to retreat to the water why not gills or something that will help my species. Let's say because lack of predators made them successful. Also lack of food source makes them starve.

Fish flopping around in drying pools supposedly developed legs and gill to lungs wouldn't we see the same with penguins?

Second thing you have a ton of lizard and all of a sudden it get really cold. Ice age cold. How does one change their blood type from Cold Blooded to Hot blooded
Scales to fur
And
and from laying eggs to birthing their young (mammals)?

Wouldn't that suggest it would have taken 3 times as long as they had to make the change?
If they made one change at a time we would likely see evidence somewhere

Lizards who are now Hot blooded

Lizards that do not lay eggs. Oviparous and Viviparous. I take it back apparentlly there are a couple.

The more developed form of vivipary is called placental viviparity; placental mammals are the best example, but other animals have also adapted by incorporating this behavior, such as in scorpions, some sharks, some snakes, and in velvet worms. Certain lizards also employ this method such as the genera Tiliqua (Blue-tongued skinks) and Corucia(Solomon Islands skink) . The placenta is attached directly to the mother in these lizards which is called viviparous matrotrophy. Viviparous offspring live independently and require an external food supply from birth. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages to being viviparous.

How about Lizards that furry

Remember the Ice waits for no one. Which of the above do we see today?

Talk about holes in theory. Oh let me guess those are all the missing links.

Wouldn't that suggest it would have taken 3 times as long as they had to make the change?
If they made one change at a time we would likely see evidence somewhere

Lizards who are now Hot blooded

Lizards that do not lay eggs

How about Lizards that furry


Yellow-spotted tropical night lizards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-spotted_tropical_night_lizard) have live births instead of eggs.

They've discovered feathered dinosaurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur).

And what about this pic?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Wiki_tarantula.jpg

It can easily be evidence for tarantulas being both warm-blooded and cold-blooded.

Okay why would they stay their as they drifted further and further towards the south pole, less and less food etc.?

Because they couldn't leave. Antarctica doesn't border any other continetns.


Fish flopping around in drying pools supposedly developed legs and gill to lungs wouldn't we see the same with penguins? That's not how fish left land, and penguins couldn't have evolved gills that quickly.

Second thing you have a ton of lizard and all of a sudden it get really cold. Ice age cold. How does one change their blood type from Cold Blooded to Hot blooded
Scales to fur
And
and from laying eggs to birthing their young (mammals)?

It happened over millions of years, and not due to the Ice Age, that came way after mammals evolved.

Because they couldn't leave. Antarctica doesn't border any other continetns.

Actually, Australia was attatched to antarctica until ~50 million years ago.

When they separated, however, Antarctica was further north than it currently is, so not all of it was iced over.

What are the wings for then? Arguably they turn into flippers on the penguin side. Ostriches have feathers and wings. They run fast which makes up for the flying thing but why the wings then? Why not something that allows you to run faster?


Like jet turbines?

Look at the wings of an Ostrich - they are not load-bearing. Ostriches are no longer suited for flight, so their wings are longer fit for it - but they would suffice for balance, for example.


Penguins
Never mind why would any animal choose to live in the most inhospitable climate on the face of the earth.


I doubt if they 'chose' to do so.


If evolution were case that meant that several animal tried and were unsuccessful.


No, it would mean that the populations either adapted to the conditions, or they died out.

You know what happens if you breed short dogs with short dogs? You get really short dogs. That's an imposed breeding restriction, but the same kind of result can be achieved through natural mechanisms. If you placed thousands of dogs in an envirnment with low ground cover, and all the food at ankle height... and you introduced a predator that could easily predate anything it saw... what do you think would be the general trend in dog height within just a few generations?

It's not a matter of 'trying and failing' - it's a matter of those that best fit the niche surviving and reproducing their particular variant of the genepool.


They kept trying and were finally successful. How did this come to be. Well maybe they were attached to another continent at one time. Okay why would they stay their as they drifted further and further towards the south pole, less and less food etc.?


What would they do? Hop on the bus out of town?

I don't know why you assume there'd be insufficient food... I mean... maybe it would be insufficient to meet a large population, but it would be a pretty secure foodsource for smaller surviving generations, wouldn't it? Less competition for the resource?


If they were forced to retreat to the water why not gills or something that will help my species.


Because this isn't pokemon. Evolution doesn't happen by spontaneous acquisition of new body parts, but by adaptation.


Let's say because lack of predators made them successful. Also lack of food source makes them starve.


Okay. Seems fair. So a given species will adapt until it is as safe as it can get from predators, and has best access to niche food.


Fish flopping around in drying pools supposedly developed legs and gill to lungs wouldn't we see the same with penguins?


Fish already have an organ very similar to a lung - the swim bladder. Indeed, some fish (like Bettas) actually have something that is basically a lung. There's your 'transition' - swimbladder-to-labyrinth. Fish already have parts similar to basic legs. The very first survivors would have been those populations that had sufficient strength, vigour, or beneficial mutation, that they could use fins to move on mud (for very short distances, one assumes), and that could survive in very dirty or shallow water. Those characteristics would be exagerrated in the survivors of each generation.


Second thing you have a ton of lizard and all of a sudden it get really cold. Ice age cold. How does one change their blood type from Cold Blooded to Hot blooded
Scales to fur
And
and from laying eggs to birthing their young (mammals)?


Mammals already existed before the 'reptiles' died out.


Talk about holes in theory. Oh let me guess those are all the missing links.

Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the problem with the 'god-of-gaps' argument. Just because I can't prove I ate breakfast this morning, doesn't mean God did it.

Lesbians.

Lesbians are the best evidence for a god.

I find it odd that the religious types don't present this line of argument more often. It is a theological winner.

I find it odd that the religious types don't present this line of argument more often. It is a theological winner.

They should have put hot lesbians in front of Dawkins, he would never have managed a counter-argument.

Plus it would have put viewing figures for his series waaaay up.

Talk about holes in theory. Oh let me guess those are all the missing links.

You realise the reasoning flaw in the whole "missing link" concept ?

No ?
Well.. how about:
"As long as you cannot tell me how often Jesus pooped/day, you cannot sensibly claim he was real since you cannot give a second by second description of his life"

Exactly the same reasoning. Is it flawed ?

Like jet turbines?

Look at the wings of an Ostrich - they are not load-bearing. Ostriches are no longer suited for flight, so their wings are longer fit for it - but they would suffice for balance, for example.



I doubt if they 'chose' to do so.



No, it would mean that the populations either adapted to the conditions, or they died out.

You know what happens if you breed short dogs with short dogs? You get really short dogs. That's an imposed breeding restriction, but the same kind of result can be achieved through natural mechanisms. If you placed thousands of dogs in an envirnment with low ground cover, and all the food at ankle height... and you introduced a predator that could easily predate anything it saw... what do you think would be the general trend in dog height within just a few generations?

It's not a matter of 'trying and failing' - it's a matter of those that best fit the niche surviving and reproducing their particular variant of the genepool.



What would they do? Hop on the bus out of town?

I don't know why you assume there'd be insufficient food... I mean... maybe it would be insufficient to meet a large population, but it would be a pretty secure foodsource for smaller surviving generations, wouldn't it? Less competition for the resource?



Because this isn't pokemon. Evolution doesn't happen by spontaneous acquisition of new body parts, but by adaptation.



Okay. Seems fair. So a given species will adapt until it is as safe as it can get from predators, and has best access to niche food.



Fish already have an organ very similar to a lung - the swim bladder. Indeed, some fish (like Bettas) actually have something that is basically a lung. There's your 'transition' - swimbladder-to-labyrinth. Fish already have parts similar to basic legs. The very first survivors would have been those populations that had sufficient strength, vigour, or beneficial mutation, that they could use fins to move on mud (for very short distances, one assumes), and that could survive in very dirty or shallow water. Those characteristics would be exagerrated in the survivors of each generation.



Mammals already existed before the 'reptiles' died out.



Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the problem with the 'god-of-gaps' argument. Just because I can't prove I ate breakfast this morning, doesn't mean God did it.

Interesting so these reptiles adapted before they had any real reason to. These smart reptiles started taking their set a different way. So they develop first the egg thing it would appear. Then cold blood to hot blood. You could swap those last 2 with little effect. The scales to fur. They lose regeneration. Eyes change. That is alot of evolution.

Poor reptiles they bear the brunt of any evolution discussion.


With regard to the fish argument only a handful of species have this ability. Mud Skipper. African Lung Fish


This is from a guy who actually has one.
http://aqualandpetsplus.com/Oddball,%20Lungfish.htm

Missing Link. We’ve seen info saying the lungfish could be the fish that first adapted to walking on land. Get your salt shaker again. Those flimsy little legs couldn’t hold up a corydoras catfish. Lotsa catfishes move better on land than these guys. Remember the walking catfishes that threatened to devour Miami? Lungfish a Coelacanth relative? Forgettaboutit. And as far as that goes, those coelacanths live awfully deep to have stumbled onto land.



This is from wiki on the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

African and South American lungfish are capable of surviving seasonal drying out of their habitats by burrowing into mud and estivating throughout the dry season. Changes in physiology allow the lungfish to slow its metabolism to as little as 1/60th of the normal metabolic rate, and protein waste is converted from ammonia to less-toxic urea (normally, lungfish excrete nitrogenous waste as ammonia directly into the water).


So I guess at the time the did not have the ability to hibernate/ estivating and were force to walk around?

I had never heard of "walking catfish" so I looked that up as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_catfish

Sounds more like a snake to me


In Florida, walking catfish are known to have invaded aquaculture farms, entering ponds where these predators prey on fish stocks. In response, fish farmers have had to erect fences to protect ponds. Authorities have also created laws that banned possession of walking catfish.


If it please the court isn't also "possible" that these animals were created exactly the way they are right now? Which is why we only see one or two skinks that are able to breed live young?

Isn't also possible that the lungfish and the catfish are kind of unique? Lungfish mostly stay burried? While catfishes adapted not evolved to meet a challenge?

What would they do? Hop on the bus out of town?

Assuming they had not lost the ability to fly at that point, fly away, walk, run. Oh wait they should be able to swim at this point no? Swim back to Australia or where ever? So they came from Ducks? So you lose flight but gain swimming a trade off I guess. Fair. Would there be a common "First Bird" then or are you saying their were whole bunch of different kind of first birds?




I don't know why you assume there'd be insufficient food... I mean... maybe it would be insufficient to meet a large population, but it would be a pretty secure foodsource for smaller surviving generations, wouldn't it? Less competition for the resource?

So let see we start with Amoeba right is that the basic building block? So really we all came from Amoeba. Some later became plant which is a fascinating transition.

See the point is you can poke holes in any argument if you think about long enough.


Really all this stuff came from feathered feet pigeons.

That is creepy the way the ads change. All of a sudden we have Bird spikes

Interesting so these reptiles adapted before they had any real reason to.


You make it sound like it would be a conscious effort, or directed. It's not that they 'evolved before they had to' - it's that there are always varieties within any genepool, and when the situation changes (food becomes scarce, temperature drops... a foot of water covers everything, or whatever) the ones that are BEST suited survive.

It's not like it started getting globally cooler, and lizards turned round and said "shit, better evolve".


So they develop first the egg thing it would appear. Then cold blood to hot blood. You could swap those last 2 with little effect. The scales to fur. They lose regeneration. Eyes change. That is alot of evolution.

You make it sound like it's a process of steps that have to be completed. If the eye is adapting AND the lung is adapting AND the legs are adapting... it's not such an obstacle as you make it sound. Like Is aid, it's not like it's a choice - these are variants that exist in the population anyway, just preferred by changing situations.


With regard to the fish argument only a handful of species have this ability. Mud Skipper. African Lung Fish


Which ability? To breathe? Did you look up bettas?


So I guess at the time the did not have the ability to hibernate/ estivating and were force to walk around?


Hibernating would allow mudskippers, etc to survive on land for protracted periods. Earlier evolution would have facilitated shorter periods of dry-land capability. But the hibernating fish would outbreed and outfeed the non-hibernating.


If it please the court isn't also "possible" that these animals were created exactly the way they are right now?


Of course it's 'possible'.

But it does mean that every piece of scientific evidence that supports evolution, or that shows transition... is a fake placed there by some magical entity, apparently for the purpose of tricking science.

So let see we start with Amoeba right is that the basic building block? So really we all came from Amoeba. Some later became plant which is a fascinating transition.

See the point is you can poke holes in any argument if you think about long enough.


Where's the hole?

Just think, we could all be reading a book right now

Arguments on who has it right and who has it wrong are rather pointless if you ask me.Seeing as you can neither prove nor disprove the exsistence of God or the theory of evolution, it is all a question of your perspective on life events past and present.trying to convince somone to think your way just because your think you opinion is the correct one is like trying to teach a hammer to lift nails.As we are fond of saying back home"That dog won't hunt".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/250px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg


You all have a lot to learn about the true nature of God anyway....

Arguments on who has it right and who has it wrong are rather pointless if you ask me.Seeing as you can neither prove nor disprove the exsistence of God or the theory of evolution, it is all a question of your perspective on life events past and present.trying to convince somone to think your way just because your think you opinion is the correct one is like trying to teach a hammer to lift nails.As we are fond of saying back home"That dog won't hunt".

...nevermind that we DID prove that evolution exists....

Evolution doesn't disprove God guiding it. Say there are two rabbits with different characteristics. By chance, one gets out of his hole five minutes earlier than the other one, and is killed by a hawk. The other one, by chance, misses this hawk. The latter rabbit makes tons of babies, the first one dies a virgin. God can work in this randomness.

Personally, I see God as more a writer than anything else. Everything has an explanation, but it doesn't change the fact that the author guides the plot towards a certain direction.

Maybe so, but jehovah's death certainly interferes!

It's not like it started getting globally cooler, and lizards turned round and said "shit, better evolve".

You know that's exactly what happened .... i saw it in a cartoon once.

Personally, I see God as more a writer than anything else. Everything has an explanation, but it doesn't change the fact that the author guides the plot towards a certain direction.Fair enough.
Does that, then, make Satan the editor?

"If God is Our Father," you thought, "then Satan must be Our Cousin."

Maybe so, but jehovah's death certainly interferes!
Many attempts at quicker extroverted suicide than the rate we typically see.

Arguments on who has it right and who has it wrong are rather pointless if you ask me.Seeing as you can neither prove nor disprove the exsistence of God or the theory of evolution, it is all a question of your perspective on life events past and present.trying to convince somone to think your way just because your think you opinion is the correct one is like trying to teach a hammer to lift nails.As we are fond of saying back home"That dog won't hunt".

woh woh woh . . .how is it impossible to prove the theory of evolution? I mean its essentially proven as of right now.

woh woh woh . . .how is it impossible to prove the theory of evolution? I mean its essentially proven as of right now.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=testing-natural-selection
Worth a gander, of course.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=testing-natural-selection
Worth a gander, of course.

Definitely, Interesting stuff.

Definitely, Interesting stuff.
Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Arguments on who has it right and who has it wrong are rather pointless if you ask me.Seeing as you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or the theory of evolution, it is all a question of your perspective on life events past and present.trying to convince someone to think your way just because your think you opinion is the correct one is like trying to teach a hammer to lift nails.As we are fond of saying back home"That dog won't hunt".

Well said.

Arguments on who has it right and who has it wrong are rather pointless if you ask me.Seeing as you can neither prove nor disprove the exsistence of God or the theory of evolution, it is all a question of your perspective on life events past and present.trying to convince somone to think your way just because your think you opinion is the correct one is like trying to teach a hammer to lift nails.As we are fond of saying back home"That dog won't hunt".

Whether the existence or nonexistence of gods is a difficult subject (mainly because there isn't a concise well defined definition of gods and this makes it hard to prove or disprove) evolution theory has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Where's the hole?

Isn't the whole reason behind evolution. That some catastrophic effect cause creature to change?



Is seems to be a chain of events to me.

Fish -> Amphibian ->Lizard -> Now here is where you get a whole bunch

Flying Lizards became birds

A different type became mammals: an Elephant is vastly different from a mouse. Wouldn't they all have a common ancestor?

Isn't the whole reason behind evolution. That some catastrophic effect cause creature to change?

No, it is not. If you don't understand the basic premise, how can you argue about it effectively?

Isn't the whole reason behind evolution. That some catastrophic effect cause creature to change?

Let us make a deal.
You read up on the theory of evolution. Actual biology textbooks, not that silly fluff its opponents or overenthousiastic supporters produce. Also talk with some actual evolutionary biologists, and perhaps a few scientists in the fields of asttronomy, geology and so on as well.

Some of us will in exchange read a holy book of your choice. The whole thing, not some funny "brick testament" or "100 reasons why God is evil" sites. We will also talk with some priests of the religion you picked.

Then we continue ;) Acceptable ?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=testing-natural-selection
Worth a gander, of course.

Not a bad article. It would be nice if they stick to one type of organism all the way through the study. This jumping from Bacteria to bumblebees to flowers to butterflies to whatever. Makes my eye cross.


This shows exactly what I criticizing for Species to occur there needs to be a reason. They need either to be isolated. Continent a breaks off from continent B there by causing the shift.

In the case of the bacteria you put the whole colony under stress by artificially adding an anti-bacterial agent. So now you have a choice either adapt or die.


Now cut back to our time machine. We zoom back to the time of the dinosaurs. We see a nice jungle climate. Tons of giant lizard running around eating each other.


From the sky giant meteor appears and smashes into the ocean. okay game on. Big cloud is thrown up, earthquakes, tidal waves.


So you guys told me that the mammals where here before they had any real reason to change. In the coming environment they are going to dominate. They are small, take better care of their young, they are hot blooded. I guess we would have had birds at that time as well.

It is pretty fascinating change to go from lizard to mammal. So where they isolate somehow? Was the genes in these lizards?

We saw bigger and bigger lizards but nothing for a change on that scale. Wouldn't we also be able to find pre-historic mammals in fossils. In the same time period of say as Tyrannosaurus Rex.

If you look at wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_period#Terminology

Jurrasic and Cretaceous.

The Jurassic is a geologic period and system that extends from about 199.6± 0.6 Ma (million years ago) to 145.5± 4 Ma, that is, from the end of the Triassic to the beginning of the Cretaceous. The Jurassic constitutes the middle period of the Mesozoic era, also known as the "Age of Reptiles". The start of the period is marked by the major Triassic–Jurassic extinction event. However the end of the Jurassic Period did not witness any major extinction event. The start and end of the period are defined by carefully selected locations; the uncertainty in dating arises from trying to date these horizons


The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate and high eustatic sea level. The oceans and seas were populated with now extinct marine reptiles, ammonites and rudists; the land by dinosaurs. At the same time, new groups of mammals and birds as well as flowering plants appeared.


Se what I mean bam they are just suddenly here. Nature doesn't usually work that way. Granted 100 million years boggle the mind. Still we should see reptile beginning the process of switching over to mammals no?

Not a bad article. It would be nice if they stick to one type of organism all the way through the study. This jumping from Bacteria to bumblebees to flowers to butterflies to whatever. Makes my eye cross.


This shows exactly what I criticizing for Species to occur there needs to be a reason. They need either to be isolated. Continent a breaks off from continent B there by causing the shift.

In the case of the bacteria you put the whole colony under stress by artificially adding an anti-bacterial agent. So now you have a choice either adapt or die.


Now cut back to our time machine. We zoom back to the time of the dinosaurs. We see a nice jungle climate. Tons of giant lizard running around eating each other.


From the sky giant meteor appears and smashes into the ocean. okay game on. Big cloud is thrown up, earthquakes, tidal waves.


So you guys told me that the mammals where here before they had any real reason to change. In the coming environment they are going to dominate. They are small, take better care of their young, they are hot blooded. I guess we would have had birds at that time as well.

It is pretty fascinating change to go from lizard to mammal. So where they isolate somehow? Was the genes in these lizards?

We saw bigger and bigger lizards but nothing for a change on that scale. Wouldn't we also be able to find pre-historic mammals in fossils. In the same time period of say as Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Wikipedia to the rescue!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jurassic_mammals

Wouldn't we also be able to find pre-historic mammals in fossils. In the same time period of say as Tyrannosaurus Rex.


Such as, say, an extinct mammoth's tusk (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mammoth-tusk15-2009jan15,0,3259647.story?track=rss)?

Wikipedia to the rescue!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jurassic_mammals

Right but not in the same time period. Also to further this. The alligator and crocodile are largely unchanged? The earliest fossil puts them somewhere in the late Jurassic 200 million years ago give or take

Fascinating just fascinating.

It is the Jurassic to Cretaceous transition.

Right but not in the same time period. Also to further this. The alligator and crocodile are largely unchanged? The earliest fossil puts them somewhere in the late Jurassic 200 million years ago give or take

Fascinating just fascinating.

It is the Jurassic to Cretaceous transition.

:eek: You are kidding me right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous#Terrestrial_fauna

'On land, mammals were a small and still relatively minor component of the fauna. The fauna was dominated by archosaurian reptiles, especially dinosaurs, which were at their most diverse. Pterosaurs were common in the early and middle Cretaceous, but as the Cretaceous proceeded they faced growing competition from the adaptive radiation of birds, and by the end of the period only two highly specialized families remained.'

Not a bad article. It would be nice if they stick to one type of organism all the way through the study. This jumping from Bacteria to bumblebees to flowers to butterflies to whatever. Makes my eye cross.... <snip>

All of which highlights the fact that you just don't understand evoloution at all.

Yes dramatic changes do effect it, but really only in the manor in which those specific animals who's genes have mutated to give add protection and increase the chances of survival during a dramatic change, survive.

Thusly passing on the same genetic mutation to it's young. Whilst those without this mutation would die out. In time then the only animals of the species left is the one with the mutation that has helped it survive.

You do know that genes mutate all the time yes?

It is this that is the driving force behind evolution, nothing else really.

<snip>

All of which highlights the fact that you just don't understand evoloution at all.

Yes dramatic changes do effect it, but really only in the manor in which those specific animals who's genes have mutated to give add protection and increase the chances of survival during a dramatic change, survive.

Thusly passing on the same genetic mutation to it's young. Whilst those without this mutation would die out. In time then the only animals of the species left is the one with the mutation that has helped it survive.

You do know that genes mutate all the time yes?

It is this that is the driving force behind evolution, nothing else really.



Of course I have never claimed to be an expert on evolution nor on the Bible might add. There is ton of stuff to read. I could spend the rest of my life reading it. As you read it you are left with more questions than you started out with.

A lot people I am not suggesting any of you are in such a group consider it a foregone conclusion that it happened and we all came from anaerobic bacteria.

Also the more you read it, the more you almost feel a hand guiding things. What might be that hand?

Of course I have never claimed to be an expert on evolution nor on the Bible might add. There is ton of stuff to read. I could spend the rest of my life reading it. As you read it you are left with more questions than you started out with.

A lot people I am not suggesting any of you are in such a group consider it a foregone conclusion that it happened and we all came from anaerobic bacteria.

Also the more you read it, the more you almost feel a hand guiding things. What might be that hand?

The more you read what?

The more I read the less I feel there is a "hand" guiding anything.

:eek: You are kidding me right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous#Terrestrial_fauna

'On land, mammals were a small and still relatively minor component of the fauna. The fauna was dominated by archosaurian reptiles, especially dinosaurs, which were at their most diverse. Pterosaurs were common in the early and middle Cretaceous, but as the Cretaceous proceeded they faced growing competition from the adaptive radiation of birds, and by the end of the period only two highly specialized families remained.'



No it is when you look back up the pipe for lack of better analogy. Look at it from the other end. How do you get from Reptile to Mammal in the first place?

The more you read what?

The more I read the less I feel there is a "hand" guiding anything.

Well most of it was "online" I must admit. Website, articles in scientific journals. I don't have a list ready or anything.

No it is when you look back up the pipe for lack of better analogy. Look at it from the other end. How do you get from Reptile to Mammal in the first place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/synapsida.html

google is your friend. Wikipedia too.

Reptile-Synapsid-mammal

EDIT: posted a link twice.

The problem is, as always, the presumption that evolution is "triggered" by anything. Or that genetic mutations are are a response to the enviornment. It might be a simplistic way of looking at it, but it's fundamentally in the wrong order.

The idea of "it got colder so animals grew fur and turned into mammals!" is backwards. Mammals occured because of mutations. Those mutations happened. It wasn't "in response" to the enviornment" at all.

The environment may have made certain mutations more favorable, thus increasing the likelihood of them being passed on, but the simple fact is, a mutation can occur, and a species can evolve, simply due to random mutations, without any selective pressures occuring to make it so.

The problem is, as always, the presumption that evolution is "triggered" by anything. Or that genetic mutations are are a response to the environment. It might be a simplistic way of looking at it, but it's fundamentally in the wrong order.

The idea of "it got colder so animals grew fur and turned into mammals!" is backwards. Mammals occurred because of mutations. Those mutations happened. It wasn't "in response" to the environment" at all.

The environment may have made certain mutations more favorable, thus increasing the likelihood of them being passed on, but the simple fact is, a mutation can occur, and a species can evolve, simply due to random mutations, without any selective pressures occurring to make it so.


Interesting so evolution just happens? So an alligator for example remained almost unchanged and yet some other lizards changed enough to eventually become a mammal.

Interesting so evolution just happens? So an alligator for example remained almost unchanged and yet some other lizards changed enough to eventually become a mammal.

More or less.

Interesting so evolution just happens? So an alligator for example remained almost unchanged and yet some other lizards changed enough to eventually become a mammal.

Yes, you are correct. See, there isn't a plan or a hand guiding it...so some species evolve and others stay the same. :P

Interesting so evolution just happens? So an alligator for example remained almost unchanged and yet some other lizards changed enough to eventually become a mammal.

If there is a niche something will eventually evolve to exploit it. Something that is succesfully exploiting a niche doesn't need to evolve so tends to stay more or less the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/synapsida.html

google is your friend. Wikipedia too.

Reptile-Synapsid-mammal

EDIT: posted a link twice.

Actually I waiting for some one to mention them.

Synapsids. They look and sound pretty much like reptiles. Even the author think so.

Actually I waiting for some one to mention them.

Synapsids. They look and sound pretty much like reptiles. Even the author think so.

Yes, they do. Your point?:confused:

Of course I have never claimed to be an expert on evolution nor on the Bible might add. There is ton of stuff to read. I could spend the rest of my life reading it. As you read it you are left with more questions than you started out with.

A lot people I am not suggesting any of you are in such a group consider it a foregone conclusion that it happened and we all came from anaerobic bacteria.

Also the more you read it, the more you almost feel a hand guiding things. What might be that hand?

Lets get this cleared up right away. I am a religious man, I belive in God. But logicaly speaking evolution is just the way it happend. There really are no arguments that can prove that it did not happen that way.

so I have no qalms beliveing that a crative God set out the laws of physics and that all evloved to Gods plan .

But really if you even try to speak out agianst evolution, you are showing a massive amount of ignorance. Yes it is right, the more you learn the better able you are to see the truth.

Interesting so evolution just happens? So an alligator for example remained almost unchanged and yet some other lizards changed enough to eventually become a mammal.

Indeed, but the thing to remember is do the mutations incresease the chance of survival?

If not then obviously that mutation is not carried forward in any offspring. You know it being hard to have babies if you have died.

Think of it this way. You have dark hair and you meet marry and have children with a natural blonde. There really is no telling what colour hair you children will have, they may have blonde, dark or a mixture of both, all dependant on the mix of genes in each particular child.

Now supposing the sun gave out deadly rays that for some unknown reason, killed all those with blonde hair.

You would only have the dark haird children survive. In the fullness of time they grow up and marry and have kids. Because all of those with blonde hair are dead, they marry a dark haired, and their children will be dark haired, because there are no humans left alive with the blonde gene.

That is evolution at work.:D

so evolution just happens?

yup.

there are only two things you need for evolution. replication and descendants to be similar but not identical to their ancestors. add in a third condition - some variations creating more or less offspring than others - and you get the branching pattern of evolution we actually see in the world. it's effectively unavoidable.

Synapsids. They look and sound pretty much like reptiles

'reptile' isn't a real group in the world

I'm convinced that even if God Himself came down in response to a controlled experiment run by the most respected scientists in the world, and then other well-respected scientists repeated the experiment, no one who is an atheist now would believe the results. They would say the scientists were wrong - the data was faked - it's not true if the video isn't on the Internet - the video was faked - the scientists are lying believers - fill in your excuse.

I believe that most atheists believe in, and have faith (that's right) that there's no God. It's the central tenet of their worldview, and nothing - not personal experience and certainly not someone else's experience - can ever be said to be real and true. Only the results of a repeatable experiment - and if the day ever comes that such an experiment "proves" the existence of God, well, the atheists will continue in their belief that there is no God.

I'm convinced that even if God Himself came down in response to a controlled experiment run by the most respected scientists in the world, and then other well-respected scientists repeated the experiment, no one who is an atheist now would believe the results. They would say the scientists were wrong - the data was faked - it's not true if the video isn't on the Internet - the video was faked - the scientists are lying believers - fill in your excuse.

I believe that most atheists believe in, and have faith (that's right) that there's no God. It's the central tenet of their worldview, and nothing - not personal experience and certainly not someone else's experience - can ever be said to be real and true. Only the results of a repeatable experiment - and if the day ever comes that such an experiment "proves" the existence of God, well, the atheists will continue in their belief that there is no God.

I'm an atheist and I already explained what would take for me to believe in god.

Somebody must fling a mountain into the sea upon command using only the power of their faith, as detailed in Matthew 17:20, followed by them successfully digesting two ounces of potassium cyanide while handling an angry rattlesnake, as detailed in Matthew 16:18.

Lemme know when you find somebody who's willing to manifest the abilities that Jesus claims his followers will have.

Interesting so evolution just happens?

No. Mutations just "happen". Sometimes those mutations are beneficial to the enviornment. When this is so, sometimes those with the mutations live longer, and become more likely to pass that mutation on to their offspring.

Thus if a beneficial mutation occurs, sometimes the results of that mutation are beneficial enough where the mutation eventually becomes the norm of the species, or is spread enough to constitute a new species. Then the process repeats again, and keeps repeating.

That whole bundle of process which can be broken down to "mutations occur, sometimes they are helpful in your enviornments, those wth helpful mutations are, generally, more likely to have offspring and pass those mutations on to them" and called, simply, the process of evolution.

Why are alligators more or less unchanged? Because there haven't been enough mutations in the allegator community to become wide spread. Nothing has come along down the genetic pipeline for alligators that would provide a beneficial mutation sufficient enough to spread.

I'm an atheist and I already explained what would take for me to believe in god.

Somebody must fling a mountain into the sea upon command using only the power of their faith, as detailed in Matthew 17:20, followed by them successfully digesting two ounces of potassium cyanide while handling an angry rattlesnake, as detailed in Matthew 16:18.

Lemme know when you find somebody who's willing to manifest the abilities that Jesus claims his followers will have.

Even if that happened, you would say it was faked, or not real.

I'm an atheist and I already explained what would take for me to believe in god.

Somebody must fling a mountain into the sea upon command using only the power of their faith, as detailed in Matthew 17:20, followed by them successfully digesting two ounces of potassium cyanide while handling an angry rattlesnake, as detailed in Matthew 16:18.

Lemme know when you find somebody who's willing to manifest the abilities that Jesus claims his followers will have.


This sort of rhetoric does tend to get my goat. I really have no problems if it is yur choice to not search out God, I mean the quest for God or not is and should be a purley personal, private matter.

However, you argue against Christainity and because you see flaws in that one faith you declare that there is no God? Not really logical is it.

Even if that happened, you would say it was faked, or not real.

NO. I you fling the mountain just by saying so or drink the poison without any harm I'll convert to whatever religion you want me to. I'm dead serious

I'm convinced that even if God Himself came down in response to a controlled experiment run by the most respected scientists in the world, and then other well-respected scientists repeated the experiment, no one who is an atheist now would believe the results. They would say the scientists were wrong - the data was faked - it's not true if the video isn't on the Internet - the video was faked - the scientists are lying believers - fill in your excuse.

I believe that most atheists believe in, and have faith (that's right) that there's no God. It's the central tenet of their worldview, and nothing - not personal experience and certainly not someone else's experience - can ever be said to be real and true. Only the results of a repeatable experiment - and if the day ever comes that such an experiment "proves" the existence of God, well, the atheists will continue in their belief that there is no God.


:rolleyes:

What is more likely is if we somehow ever managed to disprove God or any religion (going back in time and finding out Jesus never existed, for example), most of the religious would still believe it despite the evidence, and would say stupid things like the devil was tricking us.

You have nothing to base your lame little atempted attack on but your own prejudice. I have the constant denial of scientific evidence if favor of 3000 year old fairy tales to base mine on.

You know that's exactly what happened .... i saw it in a cartoon once.

It is?

Well that's me converted. Hail.... someone.

:rolleyes:

What is more likely is if we somehow ever managed to disprove God or any religion (going back in time and finding out Jesus never existed, for example), most of the religious would still believe it despite the evidence, and would say stupid things like the devil was tricking us.

You have nothing to base your lame little atempted attack on but your own prejudice. I have the constant denial of scientific evidence if favor of 3000 year old fairy tales to base mine on.


Heh yep I make you right, tahts the differance between faith and knowledge I geuss.

This sort of rhetoric does tend to get my goat. I really have no problems if it is yur choice to not search out God, I mean the quest for God or not is and should be a purley personal, private matter.

However, you argue against Christainity and because you see flaws in that one faith you declare that there is no God? Not really logical is it.

I don't claim there is no god. I have no belief. Hotwife asked what would I require to believe. I believe he is Christian so I proposed a Christian proof.

If you provide your own definition of god I'll try to think a good proof.

:rolleyes:

What is more likely is if we somehow ever managed to disprove God or any religion (going back in time and finding out Jesus never existed, for example), most of the religious would still believe it despite the evidence, and would say stupid things like the devil was tricking us.

You have nothing to base your lame little atempted attack on but your own prejudice. I have the constant denial of scientific evidence if favor of 3000 year old fairy tales to base mine on.

Where did I say that the religious were no less stupid about proof? Trying to insert arguments that I didn't make? Or paint me with positions I haven't taken on this forum, ever?

I'm of the opinion that there's no conflict in science and religion.

There are two parties who believe there's a conflict - atheists and the direly religious.

:DIt is?

Well that's me converted. Hail.... someone.

Odinn?

Isn't the whole reason behind evolution. That some catastrophic effect cause creature to change?


No.


Is seems to be a chain of events to me.

Fish -> Amphibian ->Lizard -> Now here is where you get a whole bunch

Flying Lizards became birds

A different type became mammals: an Elephant is vastly different from a mouse. Wouldn't they all have a common ancestor?

Sure.



Where's the hole?

:D

Odinn?

I'm easy to convince today. Odinn wins.

*hails Odinn*

I don't claim there is no god. I have no belief. Hotwife asked what would I require to believe. I believe he is Christian so I proposed a Christian proof.

If you provide your own definition of god I'll try to think a good proof.

Ahh then that is fair.

God the creative force behind the universe. I'm sorta Deist about it all.

I'm easy to convince today. Odinn wins.

*hails Odinn*

Sweet now, you get to drink the mead, fuck wheres the mead? Whos got the fucking mead?

Let us make a deal.
You read up on the theory of evolution. Actual biology textbooks, not that silly fluff its opponents or overenthousiastic supporters produce. Also talk with some actual evolutionary biologists, and perhaps a few scientists in the fields of asttronomy, geology and so on as well.

Some of us will in exchange read a holy book of your choice. The whole thing, not some funny "brick testament" or "100 reasons why God is evil" sites. We will also talk with some priests of the religion you picked.

Then we continue ;) Acceptable ?

In all fairness.... many of us on this site (and I realise that NSG is NOT representative of other forums... which is why I'm still here) have already gone out there and read other 'holy' books.

Also frogs are essentially the same as they are today. Several species may have died out but for the most part still here and just as they were.

Where did I say that the religious were no less stupid about proof? Trying to insert arguments that I didn't make? Or paint me with positions I haven't taken on this forum, ever?

I'm of the opinion that there's no conflict in science and religion.

There are two parties who believe there's a conflict - atheists and the direly religious.

My mistake. Please provide a clear, concise, falsifiable and preferable brief definition of god.

My mistake. Please provide a clear, concise, falsifiable and preferable brief definition of god.

No, it's not your mistake - it's KOLs mistake.

And you're making the mistake that I have scientific proof of God. It wouldn't matter if I did - you would still refuse to believe.

You're also making the mistake that everything can be explained through science, when we already know by theorem that cannot happen.

There are things that religion is good for, and things that science is good for. I see no real reason to say "one should be destroyed and invalidated forever".

No, it's not your mistake - it's KOLs mistake.

And you're making the mistake that I have scientific proof of God. It wouldn't matter if I did - you would still refuse to believe.

You're also making the mistake that everything can be explained through science, when we already know by theorem that cannot happen.

There are things that religion is good for, and things that science is good for. I see no real reason to say "one should be destroyed and invalidated forever".

Indeed, the two can quite happily live side by side. Heh although admitedly there are some fucking mad religionsits out there.:D

Se what I mean bam they are just suddenly here. Nature doesn't usually work that way. Granted 100 million years boggle the mind. Still we should see reptile beginning the process of switching over to mammals no?

Look around you, now.

Google 'animal kingdom' or something like that. You'll see that there are hundreds of types of dogs... thousands of types of reptiles... millions of types of bugs. There's this whole wealth of stuff out there... and most of it is thriving pretty well within a niche.

Why do rats live in cities? Because the characteristics of rat-ness make them very well suited to survive in that environment. But there are also cats. And dogs. And (in Europe) often foxes. And pigeons, and roaches and spiders, etc. Even in THAT environment (a fairly hostile one), there's quite a supply of different material.

When the environment changes- some of that stuff will fare better than some others. If it gets colder, perhaps, some of the dogs will thrive while others die. That kind of thing.

You're looking at a world where dinosaurs MASSIVELY dominated. All the advantages were in their favour. But there were some mammals, making an existence in niches that dinosaurs couldn't fill.

SO what happens when the envirnoment changes? The dinosaurs are no longer well suited, and they begin to fail... they can't compete for resources, maybe, and they starve. For example.

Your 'niche' mammals now have the run of the planet with no competition from dinosaurs, and their numbers explode, as does their variety.

Which is why, at the same time we see a big drop in fossil evidence for dinosaurs, we see a parallel huge increase in mammalian evidence, of great variety.

(Just for a reminder... we're not talking 'bam' dinsoaurs are gone, mammals move in... we're talking dinosaurs dying out, mammals that are ALREADY there expanding to fill the niches over maybe millions of years.)

No, it's not your mistake - it's KOLs mistake.

And you're making the mistake that I have scientific proof of God. It wouldn't matter if I did - you would still refuse to believe.

You're also making the mistake that everything can be explained through science, when we already know by theorem that cannot happen.

There are things that religion is good for, and things that science is good for. I see no real reason to say "one should be destroyed and invalidated forever".

You are making a mistake thinking I would reject scientific proof of god. I would not. If you, or anyone can provide the said falsifiable definition and prove in a scientific way that god exists I will believe it. My atheism is the direct consequence of the lack of evidence. If there were evidence I wouldn't be an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, is the lack of belief.

You are making a mistake thinking I would reject scientific proof of god. I would not. If you, or anyone can provide the said falsifiable definition and prove in a scientific way that god exists I will believe it. My atheism is the direct consequence of the lack of evidence. If there were evidence I wouldn't be an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, is the lack of belief.

Heh I always like this one. Are you telling us then that you belive in nowt without the evidance?

Also frogs are essentially the same as they are today. Several species may have died out but for the most part still here and just as they were.

the species of frogs that are alive today are not the species of frogs that existed 100 million years ago

You are making a mistake thinking I would reject scientific proof of god. I would not. If you, or anyone can provide the said falsifiable definition and prove in a scientific way that god exists I will believe it. My atheism is the direct consequence of the lack of evidence. If there were evidence I wouldn't be an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, is the lack of belief.

The problem is not one of evidence, it is one of faith.

Every religion requires "faith". If you don't have any faith, it doesn't matter what you see before your eyes - you'll switch to a different explanation for what you see.

Science and faith are two completely separate things. Not mutually exclusive, just separate.

Science already shows us that not everything can be explained or proven - that is, since we're inside this system, or universe, we're limited to how much of it we can prove or explain by theorem. That doesn't mean that what we can't prove or explain doesn't exist - it just means it's unknowable.

Neither faith nor science has all the answers for everything, and it's a mistake to believe that only one of them has them.

Heh I always like this one. Are you telling us then that you belive in nowt without the evidance?

Basically yes. And I'm very suspicious of evidence.

Interesting so evolution just happens?

I think you have an idea about 'evolution' that makes it a 'force' for change.

That's not what evolution talks about.

Evolution is selection, based on viability. The 'change' already exists. It's the variety within a species, within a group, within a family... it's the mutations. It's the dominant genes. Whatever. It's all those things.

Life is already wildly divergent. Even within as small a genepool as a family, you'll find characteristics that make one individual better suited to x, y, or z... than another.

And that's what 'evolution' is. It's not things turning from a fish into a banana. It's the most drought-resistant fish surviving and producing drought-resistant babies, that survive, etc for millions of years. And, if you've looked at the selective breeding WE do, it's hard to reconcile a chihuahua with a wolf - but that's where chihuahuas come from, and we've done that in just a few years.

If there is a niche something will eventually evolve to exploit it. Something that is succesfully exploiting a niche doesn't need to evolve so tends to stay more or less the same.

Exactly.

If crocodiles are top of their niche, and their environment is safe... why would they change?

I'm convinced that even if God Himself came down in response to a controlled experiment run by the most respected scientists in the world, and then other well-respected scientists repeated the experiment, no one who is an atheist now would believe the results. They would say the scientists were wrong - the data was faked - it's not true if the video isn't on the Internet - the video was faked - the scientists are lying believers - fill in your excuse.

I believe that most atheists believe in, and have faith (that's right) that there's no God. It's the central tenet of their worldview, and nothing - not personal experience and certainly not someone else's experience - can ever be said to be real and true. Only the results of a repeatable experiment - and if the day ever comes that such an experiment "proves" the existence of God, well, the atheists will continue in their belief that there is no God.


This is just an opinion, mine is that if the experiments proved a God existed I, and other atheists, would be forced into becomming a believer. However neither of our opinions amount to even a very small hill of beans until it happens.

Indeed, but the thing to remember is do the mutations incresease the chance of survival?

If not then obviously that mutation is not carried forward in any offspring. You know it being hard to have babies if you have died.

Think of it this way. You have dark hair and you meet marry and have children with a natural blonde. There really is no telling what colour hair you children will have, they may have blonde, dark or a mixture of both, all dependant on the mix of genes in each particular child.

Now supposing the sun gave out deadly rays that for some unknown reason, killed all those with blonde hair.

You would only have the dark haird children survive. In the fullness of time they grow up and marry and have kids. Because all of those with blonde hair are dead, they marry a dark haired, and their children will be dark haired, because there are no humans left alive with the blonde gene.

That is evolution at work.:D


That is a fascinating example. Couldn't also be that the blondes change their behavior going out only at night or burrow underground or cause my hair to fallout becoming bald or try to mate with brunettes so my offspring will better be able to handle the environment.

Instead of creating where the wasn't any before some type of immunity to the radiation.

And you're making the mistake that I have scientific proof of God. It wouldn't matter if I did - you would still refuse to believe.

How's that view from the cheap seats?

The problem is not one of evidence, it is one of faith.

Every religion requires "faith". If you don't have any faith, it doesn't matter what you see before your eyes - you'll switch to a different explanation for what you see.


Yes, you are correct. Religion requires faith. Science requires evidence.


Science and faith are two completely separate things. Not mutually exclusive, just separate.


Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

I believe they are mutually exclusive. If you have tested and have evidence you don't need faith, because you have proofs. That doesn´t means people can´t have faith in somethings and apply the scientific method to others.


Science already shows us that not everything can be explained or proven - that is, since we're inside this system, or universe, we're limited to how much of it we can prove or explain by theorem. That doesn't mean that what we can't prove or explain doesn't exist - it just means it's unknowable.

Neither faith nor science has all the answers for everything, and it's a mistake to believe that only one of them has them.

It is quite clear that science doesn't has the answers for everything. I still need to find faith having the answer for something.

How's that view from the cheap seats?

Peeplonia and I are suffering from nosebleeds, but otherwise it's fine.

I'm convinced that even if God Himself came down in response to a controlled experiment run by the most respected scientists in the world, and then other well-respected scientists repeated the experiment, no one who is an atheist now would believe the results. They would say the scientists were wrong - the data was faked - it's not true if the video isn't on the Internet - the video was faked - the scientists are lying believers - fill in your excuse.

I believe that most atheists believe in, and have faith (that's right) that there's no God. It's the central tenet of their worldview, and nothing - not personal experience and certainly not someone else's experience - can ever be said to be real and true. Only the results of a repeatable experiment - and if the day ever comes that such an experiment "proves" the existence of God, well, the atheists will continue in their belief that there is no God.

Well, this one is easy to answer.

Let's ask someone who is both an Atheist AND a scientist?

Oh... like me? Yeah - and I say you're full of shit.

I do not 'believe' that there is 'no god'. This has been explained a hundred times on this forum, not just by me. I am an Atheist by default - Atheism is what is left when you DON'T 'believe' any of the god stories.

And, again, as I've said before a hundred times - if you could show me something... ANYthing... that could prove there was a god, I'd be a religious man in an instant.

So... sufficiently wrong that you couldn't really have been any wronger, and it doesn't get much wronger than that. Go you.

I think you have an idea about 'evolution' that makes it a 'force' for change.

That's not what evolution talks about.

Evolution is selection, based on viability. The 'change' already exists. It's the variety within a species, within a group, within a family... it's the mutations. It's the dominant genes. Whatever. It's all those things.

Life is already wildly divergent. Even within as small a genepool as a family, you'll find characteristics that make one individual better suited to x, y, or z... than another.

And that's what 'evolution' is. It's not things turning from a fish into a banana. It's the most drought-resistant fish surviving and producing drought-resistant babies, that survive, etc for millions of years. And, if you've looked at the selective breeding WE do, it's hard to reconcile a chihuahua with a wolf - but that's where chihuahuas come from, and we've done that in just a few years.

Well said.

drought-resistant babies seems plausible. I guess where I have trouble is where they create the ability where there was none before. Not to mention this was caused by mutation.

Basically yes. And I'm very suspicious of evidence.

Fine then, do you belive that you are loved?

Fine then, do you belive that you are loved?

Oh yes I do...and I have plenty of evidence for that! :) :p :fluffle:

Oh yes I do...and I have plenty of evidence for that! :) :p :fluffle:

Heh and this evidance you have for it, I don't suppose that is is hard undisputable evidance, not at all based on the words or deeds of other people is it?

The poroblem is that they don';t even understand what the word "god" means...

Omnipotence is IMPOSSIBLE.
Omniscience is IMPOSSIBLE.
Omnibenevolence is IMPOSSIBLE.
Perfection is IMPOSSIBLE.

Jehovah existed (until he died), but he's far from what you imagine.

The poroblem is that they don';t even understand what the word "god" means...

Omnipotence is IMPOSSIBLE.
Omniscience is IMPOSSIBLE.
Omnibenevolence is IMPOSSIBLE.
Perfection is IMPOSSIBLE.

Jehovah existed (until he died), but he's far from what you imagine.

Then why do you suppose we have words to describe each of these things?

Then why do you suppose we have words to describe each of these things?

Because anyone can bolt some greek terms together and call it a word.

Well said.

drought-resistant babies seems plausible. I guess where I have trouble is where they create the ability where there was none before. Not to mention this was caused by mutation.

The ability isn't new. Look at you and I - one of us is taller, in all likelihood. If food were only available at a certain elevation above the ground, one of us would have some advantage over the other (unless we were very nice about it all and shared), and would be the one most LIKELY (by virtue of being the one of the two that hadn't starved) to produce offspring that would also present a greater likelihood of being tall.

The 'ability' was a characteristic of both original lifeforms - just to differing degrees.

Now, look at fish - a labyrinth-breather fish has a slightly different swimbladder to other types of fish, and that 'ability' enables it to survive much better in shallow, dirty water (like Bettas).

If Bettas keep reproducing for millions of years, and the water gets dirtier and dirtier, and shallower and shallower... every generation will have some survivors and some losers - and the characteristic that is the marker for survival will have it's features exaggerated.

Eventually, a million years from now, there may be some Betta's still swimming around in some grime somewhere, but the dominant species (living in our thought-experiment dirty shallow water) will be fairly different to it's great-great-times-n ancestor.

Mutation is a bit misleading - it's not like we're talking about spontaneously gaining limbs over a generation, which is what most people think of when you say it - we're talking about tiny changes in data on a DNA strand... and that happens ALL the time.

Because anyone can bolt some greek terms together and call it a word.

Fine I guess, but you know how many words do we have that are meaningless?

Look around you, now.

Google 'animal kingdom' or something like that. You'll see that there are hundreds of types of dogs... thousands of types of reptiles... millions of types of bugs. There's this whole wealth of stuff out there... and most of it is thriving pretty well within a niche.

Why do rats live in cities? Because the characteristics of rat-ness make them very well suited to survive in that environment. But there are also cats. And dogs. And (in Europe) often foxes. And pigeons, and roaches and spiders, etc. Even in THAT environment (a fairly hostile one), there's quite a supply of different material.

When the environment changes- some of that stuff will fare better than some others. If it gets colder, perhaps, some of the dogs will thrive while others die. That kind of thing.

You're looking at a world where dinosaurs MASSIVELY dominated. All the advantages were in their favour. But there were some mammals, making an existence in niches that dinosaurs couldn't fill.

SO what happens when the envirnoment changes? The dinosaurs are no longer well suited, and they begin to fail... they can't compete for resources, maybe, and they starve. For example.

Your 'niche' mammals now have the run of the planet with no competition from dinosaurs, and their numbers explode, as does their variety.

Which is why, at the same time we see a big drop in fossil evidence for dinosaurs, we see a parallel huge increase in mammalian evidence, of great variety.

(Just for a reminder... we're not talking 'bam' dinsoaurs are gone, mammals move in... we're talking dinosaurs dying out, mammals that are ALREADY there expanding to fill the niches over maybe millions of years.)

Which is why, at the same time we see a big drop in fossil evidence for dinosaurs, we see a parallel huge increase in mammalian evidence, of great variety.


That would imply that the variety was changing / adapting before that.

Which is why, at the same time we see a big drop in fossil evidence for dinosaurs, we see a parallel huge increase in mammalian evidence, of great variety.


That would imply that the variety was changing / adapting before that.

Yes. All the time.

As it is now.

If evolution didn't exist it would help me a lot. I wouldn't have to keep emptying and refilling my bioreactors because the stupid bacteria inside has evolved to stop making the stuff I want at no gain to itself

If evolution didn't exist it would help me a lot. I wouldn't have to keep emptying and refilling my bioreactors because the stupid bacteria inside has evolved to stop making the stuff I want at no gain to itself

Ahh but that's just micro evoltion, I have no problems with that!

Bwahahahha!:D

Yes, you are correct. Religion requires faith. Science requires evidence.....

I think it would be more correct to say that both require faith and evidence, but science tries to rely less on faith and more on evidence. Even the most die-hard scientist will acknowledge that (s)he has faith in certain things like the fact that gravity won't change tomorrow.

The ability isn't new. Look at you and I - one of us is taller, in all likelihood. If food were only available at a certain elevation above the ground, one of us would have some advantage over the other (unless we were very nice about it all and shared), and would be the one most LIKELY (by virtue of being the one of the two that hadn't starved) to produce offspring that would also present a greater likelihood of being tall.

The 'ability' was a characteristic of both original lifeforms - just to differing degrees.

Now, look at fish - a labyrinth-breather fish has a slightly different swimbladder to other types of fish, and that 'ability' enables it to survive much better in shallow, dirty water (like Bettas).

If Bettas keep reproducing for millions of years, and the water gets dirtier and dirtier, and shallower and shallower... every generation will have some survivors and some losers - and the characteristic that is the marker for survival will have it's features exaggerated.

Eventually, a million years from now, there may be some Betta's still swimming around in some grime somewhere, but the dominant species (living in our thought-experiment dirty shallow water) will be fairly different to it's great-great-times-n ancestor.

Mutation is a bit misleading - it's not like we're talking about spontaneously gaining limbs over a generation, which is what most people think of when you say it - we're talking about tiny changes in data on a DNA strand... and that happens ALL the time.

Wouldn't me the shorter one just learn how to climb? Assuming we are still human. I change my behavior to make up for the lack of height. Isn't that far simpler. We both have an equally likelihood of predation. That is just being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Heh and this evidance you have for it, I don't suppose that is is hard undisputable evidance, not at all based on the words or deeds of other people is it?

How come you don't consider deeds evidence? It is considered evidence in most courts in the world.

Oh.. you have been hurt in the past, I see. :(

Wouldn't me the shorter one just learn how to climb? Assuming we are still human. I change my behavior to make up for the lack of height. Isn't that far simpler. We both have an equally likelihood of predation. That is just being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Can you climb fast enough? Do you have claws to do so?

I think it would be more correct to say that both require faith and evidence, but science tries to rely less on faith and more on evidence. Even the most die-hard scientist will acknowledge that (s)he has faith in certain things like the fact that gravity won't change tomorrow.

I don't think any scientist has any expectation that gravity will change tomorrow, so I don't think they need to have faith that it won't.

Wouldn't me the shorter one just learn how to climb? Assuming we are still human. I change my behavior to make up for the lack of height. Isn't that far simpler. We both have an equally likelihood of predation. That is just being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Climbing requires more effort and leaves it vulnerable to being snuck up on behind. In a scare food environment the tall one has eaten the food before the short one managed to climb up the tree.

I think it's safe to say that all of Christian Voice's arguments are easily refutable and it's also interesting that God himself was unavailable for comment.

The fun bit comes the next time a religious group tries to place an advert because there is little they can say that can pass the 'substantiation and truthfulness' test.

Christian Voice have shot themselves in the foot.

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betta

All the Betta species are small fishes, but they vary considerably in size, ranging from under 2.5 cm (1 inch) total length in B. chanoides to five inches in the Akar betta (B. akarensis).[1]

Bettas are anabantoids, which means they can breathe atmospheric air thanks to a unique organ called the labyrinth. This accounts for their ability to thrive in low-oxygen water conditions that would kill most other fish, such as rice paddies, slow-moving streams, drainage ditches, and large puddles. [2]


Perfect example the fish like adapted to this behavior. The one better able to breathe was successful. Assuming there was an abundance of food if you do learn how there has to be a reward or the animal or fish would do so..

I don't think any scientist has any expectation that gravity will change tomorrow, so I don't think they need to have faith that it won't.

And they don't have that expectation because they assume that nature is orderly.

Can you climb fast enough? Do you have claws to do so?


Do I need claws to do so? Develop the ability to climb versus grow claws. Which will only happen several generations afterward and doesn't solve my immediate problem or likely my offspring s problems either

And they don't have that expectation because they assume that nature is orderly.

Repetitive more than orderly. :p

Climbing requires more effort and leaves it vulnerable to being snuck up on behind. In a scare food environment the tall one has eaten the food before the short one managed to climb up the tree.


You could also argue that the tall one is better able to be seen by predators. I would be up tree making more difficult for predators to catch me. Even in a scarce food environment I could learn to eat other plants. Modify my behavior to get whatever it is that I need.


Do you see where I am going with this?

You could also argue that the tall one is better able to be seen by predators. I would be up tree making more difficult for predators to catch me. Even in a scarce food environment I could learn to eat other plants. Modify my behavior to get whatever it is that I need.


Do you see where I am going with this?

Honestly. I don't. :confused:

And they don't have that expectation because they assume that nature is orderly.

They have experience (ie evidence) that nature is orderly.

They have experience (ie evidence) that nature is orderly.

unfortunately, that's a terrible argument. viciously circular, and such.

Honestly. I don't. :confused:

It is easier to modify your behavior than it is to grow claw and change your being.

If I were to move to a frigid climate there are certain changes you would expect. I may gain more weight so as to protect myself from the cold. I may grow more hair. If I were a predator my skin may become more white so as to blend into the surrounding better. My skin may become more white if I were a herbivore so as to blend in. I would either need to stockpile food or be constantly hunting.


I could also just move to a more temperate climate. Assuming that is possible

It is easier to modify your behavior than it is to grow claw and change your being.

If I were to move to a frigid climate there are certain changes you would expect. I may gain more weight so as to protect myself from the cold. I may grow more hair. If I were a predator my skin may become more white so as to blend into the surrounding better. My skin may become more white if I were a herbivore so as to blend in. I would either need to stockpile food or be constantly hunting.


I could also just move to a more temperate climate. Assuming that is possible

You still sporting the idea that evolution is driven by sudden changes in the environment?

unfortunately, that's a terrible argument. viciously circular, and such.

How so? The sun has risen every day of my life. In the absence of anything having acted on the sun to change its behaviour the evidence tells me it will rise tomorrow.

You still sporting the idea that evolution is driven by sudden changes in the environment?

No sorry during the course of my lifetime. No evolution what so ever.

The whole tie in point is that in one sense it is okay to have things we can't explain but now bringing back to the Bible it is not okay in others?

No sorry during the course of my lifetime. No evolution what so ever.
:eek:
Evolution isn't something that happens during a lifetime. It is a process that takes several generations.

How so? The sun has risen every day of my life. In the absence of anything having acted on the sun to change its behaviour the evidence tells me it will rise tomorrow.

because the argument needs to assume that induction works in order to demonstrate that induction works. in reality, the evidence only tells you that if the world is such that induction works, then the evidence tells you that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Wouldn't me the shorter one just learn how to climb?


Maybe.

And, you might well be a better climber than me. I'm kinda tall and heavy - not an ideal climbing build.

What would be the result on offspring, do you think?


Assuming we are still human. I change my behavior to make up for the lack of height. Isn't that far simpler. We both have an equally likelihood of predation. That is just being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Well, if you are climbing for food, and I'm stuck on the ground eating what drops... which one of us is more exposed to predators?

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betta

All the Betta species are small fishes, but they vary considerably in size, ranging from under 2.5 cm (1 inch) total length in B. chanoides to five inches in the Akar betta (B. akarensis).[1]

Bettas are anabantoids, which means they can breathe atmospheric air thanks to a unique organ called the labyrinth. This accounts for their ability to thrive in low-oxygen water conditions that would kill most other fish, such as rice paddies, slow-moving streams, drainage ditches, and large puddles. [2]


Perfect example the fish like adapted to this behavior. The one better able to breathe was successful. Assuming there was an abundance of food if you do learn how there has to be a reward or the animal or fish would do so..

Errr... what?

It is easier to modify your behavior than it is to grow claw and change your being.

your behavior is at least partially determined by genetics and evolution. surely you don't believe that everyone is equally adaptable to all circumstances...

And they don't have that expectation because they assume that nature is orderly.

I expect the sun to rise tomorrow, but I have no beliefs, either way. I'll be a little surprised if it doesn't (not to mention, one assumes, dead), but it has no 'belief' to crash into. It'll just change my expectations for the next day, and how I assume other things work that hinge on that data.

I expect the sun to rise tomorrow, but I have no beliefs

this is a crazy definition of belief

Do I need claws to do so? Develop the ability to climb versus grow claws. Which will only happen several generations afterward and doesn't solve my immediate problem or likely my offspring s problems either

I think you're looking for big, sudden changes.

If creature x is even a TINY bit better advantaged to suvive scenario A... then creature y is going to be disadvantaged. So, creature A will gain marketshare... in terms of probable numbers, monopoly of food supply.

The 'big changes', such as they are, occur from effectively line-breeding those characteristics that were a tiny advantage to begin with.

this is a crazy definition of belief

Maybe.

I think 'belief' means more than just saying 'my wife was at home when I got home yesterday, so she porbably will be today'. That - to me, is not 'belief' - it's a logical deduction based on circumstances that tend to occur, and such - requires no faith.

The whole tie in point is that in one sense it is okay to have things we can't explain but now bringing back to the Bible it is not okay in others?

Oh I think I understand it now. You are trying to compare the Bible with the Theory of Evolution.

You say: Since there are things in the Bible that seem contradictory atheist say it is false. But there are things that Evolution Theory can explain so if atheist were fair they would admit it is false also.

That's your argument?

because the argument needs to assume that induction works in order to demonstrate that induction works. in reality, the evidence only tells you that if the world is such that induction works, then the evidence tells you that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Okay I get the feeling that I am out of my depth here.

Am I really making the mistake outlined in wikipedia of saying all the observations of swans we have made they are white therefore all swans are white? To me I am saying that the idea that things don't change without something causing them to is a fundamental idea that fits with all our observation so far - though would we actually know if it wasn't the case?

The sun rising data set is not complete so every new observation adds data, but we will never reach a point where we can say observation proves the case. What we can do is reach appoint where it is an acceptable assumption which I would say is different from a belief.

Maybe.

I think 'belief' means more than just saying 'my wife was at home when I got home yesterday, so she porbably will be today'. That - to me, is not 'belief' - it's a logical deduction based on circumstances that tend to occur, and such - requires no faith.

belief just means any cognitive content you hold to be the case. if you expect x, then you are saying that you think x is or will be true. faith doesn't enter into it. hell, reasons don't enter into it, until we get to the stage of evaluating beliefs.

belief just means any cognitive content you hold to be the case. if you expect x, then you are saying that you think x is or will be true. faith doesn't enter into it. hell, reasons don't enter into it, until we get to the stage of evaluating beliefs.

I 'expect' my wife to be at home, when I go home this evening.

But I don't think that will 'be true' or 'untrue'. She might go over to her mom's... or be out... or be visiting a friend.

So, I don't think 'belief' is always the right word.

Okay I get the feeling that I am out of my depth here.

Am I really making the mistake outlined in wikipedia of saying all the observations of swans we have made they are white therefore all swans are white? To me I am saying that the idea that things don't change without something causing them to is a fundemental idea that fits with all our observation so far - though would we actually know if it wasn't the case?

the problem arises even there, because your reason for thinking that "things don't change without something causing them to" is itself dependent on knowing that claim to be true.

I 'expect' my wife to be at home, when I go home this evening.

But I don't think that will 'be true' or 'untrue'. She might go over to her mom's... or be out... or be visiting a friend.

So, I don't think 'belief' is always the right word.

how sure you are of your beliefs is somewhat independent of the holding of them - a different level of analysis. if you did not think 'my wife will be home when i go home this evening' was true, you could not rightly say that you expect it. expectation of x necessitates holding that x is true.

the problem arises even there, because your reason for thinking that "things don't change without something causing them to" is itself dependent on knowing that claim to be true.

But then are we left with anything? Surely by the same token logic has no value as it too may not always have the same rule. If all we are left with is to have to make some assumption or belief if you will as our starting point. So surely we would just have to look at how utilitarian different starting assumptions are and make a choice?

how sure you are of your beliefs is somewhat independent of the holding of them - a different level of analysis. if you did not think 'my wife will be home when i go home this evening' was true, you could not rightly say that you expect it. expectation of x necessitates holding that x is true.

No, expectation is the level of assumption based on prior history. I assume she'll be there. I'm not saying she will or she won't. She usually is, so she probably will be.

No, expectation is the level of assumption based on prior history. I assume she'll be there. I'm not saying she will or she won't. She usually is, so she probably will be.

What is the difference between assuming something is going to happen and believing something is going to happen?

What is the difference between assuming something is going to happen and believing something is going to happen?

One involves belief, and the other only involves an assumption?

No, expectation is the level of assumption based on prior history. I assume she'll be there. I'm not saying she will or she won't. She usually is, so she probably will be.

"i assume she will be home but i do not believe that she will"

this is straight up nonsense.

One involves belief, and the other only involves an assumption?

Definitions of believe on the Web:

* accept as true; take to be true; "I believed his report"; "We didn't believe his stories from the War"; "She believes in spirits"
* think: judge or regard; look upon; judge; "I think he is very smart"; "I believe her to be very smart"; "I think that he is her boyfriend"; "The racist conceives such people to be inferior"
* be confident about something; "I believe that he will come back from the war"
* follow a credo; have a faith; be a believer; "When you hear his sermons, you will be able to believe, too"
* credit with veracity; "You cannot believe this man"; "Should we believe a publication like the National Enquirer?"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Definitions of assume on the Web:

* take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof; "I assume his train was late"
* take on titles, offices, duties, responsibilities; "When will the new President assume office?"
* take on a certain form, attribute, or aspect; "His voice took on a sad tone"; "The story took a new turn"; "he adopted an air of superiority"; "She assumed strange manners"; "The gods assume human or animal form in these fables"
* bear: take on as one's own the expenses or debts of another person; "I'll accept the charges"; "She agreed to bear the responsibility"
* occupy or take on; "He assumes the lotus position"; "She took her seat on the stage"; "We took our seats in the orchestra"; "She took up her position behind the tree"; "strike a pose"
* seize and take control without authority and possibly with force; take as one's right or possession; "He assumed to himself the right to fill all positions in the town"; "he usurped my rights"; "She seized control of the throne after her husband died"
* simulate: make a pretence of; "She assumed indifference, even though she was seething with anger"; "he feigned sleep"
* take up someone's soul into heaven; "This is the day when May was assumed into heaven"
* wear: put clothing on one's body; "What should I wear today?"; "He put on his best suit for the wedding"; "The princess donned a long blue dress"; "The queen assumed the stately robes"; "He got into his jeans"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

What is the difference?

What is the difference?

the only way i can see to make the distinction is that you can hold an assumption for the sake of argument, and so in some sense take it to be true (in a very very limited context) while also not actually believing it.

the only way i can see to make the distinction is that you can hold an assumption for the sake of argument, and so in some sense take it to be true (in a very very limited context) while also not actually believing it.

True, but I doubt GnI assumes that the Sun will rise tomorrow merely for the sake of argument.

True, but I doubt GnI assumes that the Sun will rise tomorrow merely for the sake of argument.

hopefully

hopefully

Another possible explanation is that he assumes for the sake of pragmatism. Sort of like extreme anti-realism, he doesn't think the sun will rise tomorrow, but assumes or acts as if it does, because otherwise he would never get anywhere for practical purposes.

:eek:
Evolution isn't something that happens during a lifetime. It is a process that takes several generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito

That's a new species that evolved in the past couple decades. Evolution doesn't have to be a long, plodding process. Depending on the organism and environmental stressors, it can happen rather quickly, in a manner that we can observe.

"i assume she will be home but i do not believe that she will"

this is straight up nonsense.

Not at all.

I can't 'believe' you don't see a difference between those two. (Although I do 'assume' it).

Another possible explanation is that he assumes for the sake of pragmatism. Sort of like extreme anti-realism, he doesn't think the sun will rise tomorrow, but assumes or acts as if it does, because otherwise he would never get anywhere for practical purposes.

i'm not sure i believe that anyone could actually do that consistently

Another possible explanation is that he assumes for the sake of pragmatism. Sort of like extreme anti-realism, he doesn't think the sun will rise tomorrow, but assumes or acts as if it does, because otherwise he would never get anywhere for practical purposes.

Actually, I don't know if any of the posts would still remain, but this is basically what I have said before.

I think my approach to things could best be described as 'extreme pragmatism'.

As an illustration - I think we've all undergone the thought experiment where you consider that your entire existence might be a figment of your-own-imagination-in-a-different-form (for example - this is all my dream, but I'm not me, and this is not my world... that kind of thing).

Or - that reality might be someone elses imagining - and you might think you are conscious and individual, but only because you're imagined that way?

That kind of thing.

But - no matter what conclusion you come to in these philosophical explorations - you just go ahead and do things, anyway... right? You don't accept the premise, even though there's really no way you ultimately write it off... so you carry on existing, doing things on the assumption that the world is much as it appears to be?

Whether you 'believe' it or not, you continue under the same set of asumptions. You make the best of it.

You may remember the adverts on busses in the UK saying "There probably is no God" -apparently the people behind it are being accused of breaking the UK advertising code as according to Christian Voice there is plenty of evidence for God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."

Yeah right

Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?
He lay awake all night worrying about whether there was a DOG! :D

i'm not sure i believe that anyone could actually do that consistently

But, you could 'assume' it?

But, you could 'assume' it?

i could probably imagine beings which might be able to do it, but those beings are not us

i could probably imagine beings which might be able to do it, but those beings are not us

You believe that?

Or you assume it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito

That's a new species that evolved in the past couple decades. Evolution doesn't have to be a long, plodding process. Depending on the organism and environmental stressors, it can happen rather quickly, in a manner that we can observe.

Wow I had never heard of that before. Great story. See another point. Life threw a curve ball at these mosquitoes. If you learn/adapt to live underground you will get access to these humans who are huddled down here fearing for their lives. The mating thing is a stretch maybe that female didn't like that male because he had bad breathe, his wings were too short or something.

Cows are like this no matter what you do sometimes some cow will not go with some bulls. You have to trick the bulls. They had to build an apparatus that is basically a real end of a cow. Make it smell they way the bull likes it and eventually if you shake it just right whammo. Maybe they just need to do something like that on a mosquito level.

Another possible explanation is that he assumes for the sake of pragmatism. Sort of like extreme anti-realism, he doesn't think the sun will rise tomorrow, but assumes or acts as if it does, because otherwise he would never get anywhere for practical purposes.

how exactly would one come to the idea that acting as though you believed 'the sun will rise tomorrow' is pragmatic without actually believing that it will? the pragmaticness of doing so is entirely contingent on it actually being the case.

Maybe.

And, you might well be a better climber than me. I'm kinda tall and heavy - not an ideal climbing build.

What would be the result on offspring, do you think?



Well, if you are climbing for food, and I'm stuck on the ground eating what drops... which one of us is more exposed to predators?


Right the reverse would be true If I was not able to climb. I would have to eat whatever fell or find another tree or start eating grass for example.

Your offspring would tend to be smaller or you could get even taller children.

Giraffe vs say a deer. Deer learned to stand briefly on their hind legs or prop themselves up against the base of the tree. We would see deer with longer necks or taller legs. With mutation you have to find someone who has mutated in the same way that you have. Even if it is a gradual glacier pace.

:eek:
Evolution isn't something that happens during a lifetime. It is a process that takes several generations.

I know adaption very much happens during a lifetime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Blessed View Post
From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betta

All the Betta species are small fishes, but they vary considerably in size, ranging from under 2.5 cm (1 inch) total length in B. chanoides to five inches in the Akar betta (B. akarensis).[1]

Bettas are anabantoids, which means they can breathe atmospheric air thanks to a unique organ called the labyrinth. This accounts for their ability to thrive in low-oxygen water conditions that would kill most other fish, such as rice paddies, slow-moving streams, drainage ditches, and large puddles. [2]


Perfect example the fish like adapted to this behavior. The one better able to breathe was successful. Assuming there was an abundance of food if you do learn how there has to be a reward or the animal or fish would do so..
Errr... what?

Isn't just possible that one time they didn't have this ability to breathe air.

This accounts for their ability to thrive in low-oxygen water conditions that would kill most other fish, such as rice paddies, slow-moving streams, drainage ditches, and large puddles.

There is an abundance of food in these rice patties that is going to waste or not being harvested. At one time possibly these fish may not have been able to do so.

What would cause the labyrinth to suddenly start developing?

Compare the above to say what a pearl diver does. If I tried holding my breathe that long I would surely perish. But they can do it with a little effort and training / learning / adapting.

So back to Betta. At one point they were likely hyperventilating on the side where they could breathe. Swim into the rice paddy. Eat as much as I can and swim back to the side where I can breathe easier. Repeat, over and over again. Its not pretty but it works.

Since we also mention dog breeding. We kind of use what nature / god /whatever has provided and we selectively choose which traits we want to keep.

So let's say we are building a hunting dog. We have to ask ourselves well what are we hunting? Deer - We need a fast ferocious dog. Rabbits - we need short fast dog able to run through the underbrush. Then we go out and find a dog with said traits. If we see trait that is naturally there in another breed we choose to have them mate and see what the outcome is.

Strength + strength = more strength

however we are also equally likely to get the negatives as well. Maybe the knee joints are more susceptible to damage. Maybe the hearing is bad, maybe the jaw is wrong.

To sum it up it is a mix and match game.

What would cause the labyrinth to suddenly start developing?

Nothing more than a random beneficial mutation.


So back to Betta. At one point they were likely hyperventilating on the side where they could breathe. Swim into the rice paddy. Eat as much as I can and swim back to the side where I can breathe easier. Repeat, over and over again. Its not pretty but it works.

could be. then such a mutation would really help in that they could stay where the food is longer, but that is not to say that the situation caused the mutation.

Nothing more than a random beneficial mutation.



could be. then such a mutation would really help in that they could stay where the food is longer, but that is not to say that the situation caused the mutation.



Alright both of those are fair statements. So now as group us Betas without labyrinths are doing our thing swimming back and forth, back and forth. So one of our females swims too close to radioactive material, or maybe it was the sun. Poof we have a new gene that I can pass on to my children. This new gene allows me to hold my breathe longer. At what point does that become a new organ.

from the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabantoid

The characteristics of the fish habitats are indicators of the size of the labyrinth organ, as the organ size is negatively correlated with the level of oxygen in the waters. Species native to low-oxygen waters are more likely to have larger and more complex labyrinth organs than species found in fast-flowing, oxygen-rich waters.

Proof of not understanding evolution is not proof of God alas.

Right the reverse would be true If I was not able to climb. I would have to eat whatever fell or find another tree or start eating grass for example.

Your offspring would tend to be smaller or you could get even taller children.

Giraffe vs say a deer. Deer learned to stand briefly on their hind legs or prop themselves up against the base of the tree. We would see deer with longer necks or taller legs.


Not by gaining those abilities from stretching, of course. The reason they'd have longer necks or legs would be because the ones with the slightly longer necks/legs in EACH generation would be selected by the impartial hand of starvation.

Thus, those 'fittest' (in this case, long reaching parts) survive, and pass on their slightly 'fitter' genes.


With mutation you have to find someone who has mutated in the same way that you have.


Not necessarily. It would depend how drastic the difference, and whether it would 'breed true'.


Even if it is a gradual glacier pace.

Glaciers move slow, but they get there in the end, and there's no mistaking their passage. Near-relatives will be able to interbreed (in most circumstances) for quite some time before the genepools become divergent enough that it no longer functions.

Isn't just possible that one time they didn't have this ability to breathe air.

This accounts for their ability to thrive in low-oxygen water conditions that would kill most other fish, such as rice paddies, slow-moving streams, drainage ditches, and large puddles.

There is an abundance of food in these rice patties that is going to waste or not being harvested. At one time possibly these fish may not have been able to do so.

What would cause the labyrinth to suddenly start developing?

Ah. I think I got you now.

Look at the structure of the labyrinth. It's basically a swimbladder. As such, it's something that was intrinsic in the ancestor, it didn't 'suddenly' anything - it has just gradually adapted as successive generations with slightly 'different' swimbladders have outperformed their normal-swimbladder cousins.

Since we also mention dog breeding. We kind of use what nature / god /whatever has provided and we selectively choose which traits we want to keep.

So let's say we are building a hunting dog. We have to ask ourselves well what are we hunting? Deer - We need a fast ferocious dog. Rabbits - we need short fast dog able to run through the underbrush. Then we go out and find a dog with said traits. If we see trait that is naturally there in another breed we choose to have them mate and see what the outcome is.

Strength + strength = more strength

however we are also equally likely to get the negatives as well. Maybe the knee joints are more susceptible to damage. Maybe the hearing is bad, maybe the jaw is wrong.

To sum it up it is a mix and match game.

Right. It is very much a mix and match game.

Which is why humans are great at communal interactions, have adroit manual skill, and an elevated binocular perspective... but we freeze to death and expire from heat over a ridiculously small range, we're basically shit swimmers, and we have useless natural defences.

The combination of mix-and-match that is best suited to certain conditions, will out-perform and - ultimately - outlast, its competitors.

When it comes down to it, at heart, evolution is all about who gets to eat, and then who gets to fuck.

If you don't understand the basic premise, how can you argue about it effectively?Way to sink a faith. No point hanging around THIS forum anymore. :(

Oh ... tastes great, less filling.

Proof of not understanding evolution is not proof of God alas.

Excellently put.

Right. It is very much a mix and match game.

Which is why humans are great at communal interactions, have adroit manual skill, and an elevated binocular perspective... but we freeze to death and expire from heat over a ridiculously small range, we're basically shit swimmers, and we have useless natural defences.

The combination of mix-and-match that is best suited to certain conditions, will out-perform and - ultimately - outlast, its competitors.

When it comes down to it, at heart, evolution is all about who gets to eat, and then who gets to fuck.



Okay. Excellent. So let me lay this on you before I forget. I prayed for wisdom because I am not skilled in these areas. Anyway the question came to me as I was riding the PATH, a short subway in NJ/NY.

Anyway the question is if evolution were the case wouldn't we be able to see Betta that had no labyrinth and then be able to fast forward 200 million years or whatever and see a Betta with a labyrinth? Here is the before here is the after.

Secondly what we humans see as evolution could it not also be the process of making the Betta we know today?


God never explained how he did it, the Bible is not a blueprint on how he did it. It is just an overview he left out a lot of the complicated stuff. Remember he was trying to make his case to shepherds and nomads. None of the had any skill in biology. Few of them knew anything about science at all. They may have had some skill in animal husbandry but that is it.

Okay. Excellent. So let me lay this on you before I forget. I prayed for wisdom because I am not skilled in these areas. Anyway the question came to me as I was riding the PATH, a short subway in NJ/NY.

Anyway the question is if evolution were the case wouldn't we be able to see Betta that had no labyrinth and then be able to fast forward 200 million years or whatever and see a Betta with a labyrinth? Here is the before here is the after.

Secondly what we humans see as evolution could it not also be the process of making the Betta we know today?


God never explained how he did it, the Bible is not a blueprint on how he did it. It is just an overview he left out a lot of the complicated stuff. Remember he was trying to make his case to shepherds and nomads. None of the had any skill in biology. Few of them knew anything about science at all. They may have had some skill in animal husbandry but that is it.

I'm really not seeing your point what so ever. "what we humans see as evolution could it not also be the process of making the Betta we know today?"

Evolution IS the process that resulted in the betta we know today. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about this.

He is another good one. You take male donkey and mate with a female horse. You get a Mule. Mules are almost always sterile why would evolution do this to a creature?

I'm really not seeing your point what so ever. "what we humans see as evolution could it not also be the process of making the Betta we know today?"

Evolution IS the process that resulted in the betta we know today. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about this.

Let's change it around a little. Evolution is the process God used to create a Betta, just one example.

Let's change it around a little. Evolution is the process God used to create a Betta, just one example.
that is the modern religious view eh?

but its theology, not science and cant be proven.

that is the modern religious view eh?

but its theology, not science and cant be proven.


True enough. What I was trying to get at is it just a semantic argument?

Depends on how you try to prove it and what you will accept as proof.

True enough. What I was trying to get at is it just a semantic argument?

Depends on how you try to prove it and what you will accept as proof.
it depends on what you accept as proof.

religious people will take theological proof. non religious people want scientific proof.

it depends on what you accept as proof.

religious people will take theological proof. non religious people want scientific proof.

Well said. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be many cross over points.

He is another good one. You take male donkey and mate with a female horse. You get a Mule. Mules are almost always sterile why would evolution do this to a creature?

*sigh* you really don't get it do you?

True enough. What I was trying to get at is it just a semantic argument?

Depends on how you try to prove it and what you will accept as proof.

it's not a "semantic" argument at all, it's a theological one.

it's not a "semantic" argument at all, it's a theological one.

Theology is the study of a God or the Gods from a religious perspective.

Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (philosophical, ethnographic, historical) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any of myriad religious topics.


This just my own idea here. What it appears many want is scientific proof not religious proof.

http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/human-body.htm

Mostly for my own amusement.

This just my own idea here. What it appears many want is scientific proof not religious proof.

because "religious proof" is by definition an oxymoron. If there is evidence to be had, the scientific method is the only valid way of analyzing it.

He is another good one. You take male donkey and mate with a female horse. You get a Mule. Mules are almost always sterile why would evolution do this to a creature?

Donkeys have 62 chromosomes; horses have 64. By a quirk of nature, the two species are closely related enough to allow them to mate. However, because of the difference in the number of chromosomes, the F1 generation mule is sterile.

Evolution isn't a deity. Evolution isn't directed. It's not trying to create the "perfect" creature; it doesn't have a goal. Rather, it's our description of the process that allows organisms to become better adapted to their specific environments through random mutations.

A pretty good article

http://www.y-jesus.com/jesuscomplex_1.php?gclid=COOwn8HDk5gCFQNvHgodWijKmw

Donkeys have 62 chromosomes; horses have 64. By a quirk of nature, the two species are closely related enough to allow them to mate. However, because of the difference in the number of chromosomes, the F1 generation mule is sterile.

Evolution isn't a deity. Evolution isn't directed. It's not trying to create the "perfect" creature; it doesn't have a goal. Rather, it's our description of the process that allows organisms to become better adapted to their specific environments through random mutations.


You sound like you know the answer. So why can't 2 mules mate? Wouldn't they have the same number of chromosomes?

According to the esteemed Mr. Pratchett, genius that he is, the inefficiency of the human brain is conclusive evidence for the existence of God, and the agency of creationism, since evolution is more efficient. Irreverent, and somehwta fascetious given he is commendably humanist, but all the same, entertaining.

You sound like you know the answer. So why can't 2 mules mate? Wouldn't they have the same number of chromosomes?

When two animals mate, each parent contributes half the chromosomes.


Because mules have an odd number of chromosomes, they run into trouble at that stage.

He is another good one. You take male donkey and mate with a female horse. You get a Mule. Mules are almost always sterile why would evolution do this to a creature?

Because evolution is not some intellegent guiding force that is self aware and claims to have a species best interests at heart.

A better question is "Why would a loving God do that to a creature?"

Because evolution is not some intellegent guiding force that is self aware and claims to have a species best interests at heart.

A better question is "Why would a loving God do that to a creature?"

Sorry I did that on purpose. There several question that "piss off" evolutionist that being one of them.


From the other side. Just because things can go together doesn't mean they should. Just because they may look the same, act similar doesn't mean they are compatible in the long run.

You sound like you know the answer. So why can't 2 mules mate? Wouldn't they have the same number of chromosomes?

their problem isn't that they are sterile with each other. their problem is that they are sterile, period. the number of chromosomes they have is irrelevant.

Sorry I did that on purpose. There several question that "piss off" evolutionist that being one of them.


They shouldnt piss off anyone, because it just makes you look foolish, not them.

And we're not "evolutionists". That makes it sound like some kind of religion. Its not a religion, because its not based in faith, its based in evidence.

Sorry I did that on purpose. There several question that "piss off" evolutionist that being one of them.

you know what pisses off intelligent people? willful ignorance.

Because evolution is not some intellegent guiding force that is self aware and claims to have a species best interests at heart.

A better question is "Why would a loving God do that to a creature?"


Just proof that he exists. Otherwise they would be able to. Donkeys stay with donkeys, horses with horses and you won't have a problem. Otherwise it is 2 step process.

Just proof that he exists. Otherwise they would be able to. Donkeys stay with donkeys, horses with horses and you won't have a problem. Otherwise it is 2 step process.

lol, you dont know what "proof" is do you?

Just proof that he exists. Otherwise they would be able to. Donkeys stay with donkeys, horses with horses and you won't have a problem. Otherwise it is 2 step process.

wtf?

you know what pisses off intelligent people? willful ignorance.

You mean like claiming Christ didn't exist?

You mean like claiming the Exodus never happened?

That we all just made him up as some sort worldwide conspiracy or repressing the people?

wtf?

I concur.

You mean like claiming Christ didn't exist?

You mean like claiming the Exodus never happened?

See, if there is proof of either of those things, intellegent people wouldnt doubt them.

You mean like claiming Christ didn't exist?

You mean like claiming the Exodus never happened?

That we all just made him up as some sort worldwide conspiracy or repressing the people?

No, I mean like claiming that Audhumla did NOT free Buri from the ice

Sorry I did that on purpose. There several question that "piss off" evolutionist that being one of them.

Mainly because it demonstrates that the people arguing against evolution demonstrate that they don't understand it.

You sound like you know the answer. So why can't 2 mules mate?
Because the genetic combination of a horse and a donkey results in a chromosomal matching that renders the offspring sterile.

Wouldn't they have the same number of chromosomes?

wow...

Truly Blessed are you really this ignorant about science or is it a ploy?

You mean like claiming the Exodus never happened?

please provide evidence that it did

It is sort of a ploy.

When one goes poking around in sciences backyard so to speak they suddenly develop many of the same qualities they accuse Christians of when talking about their faith.

It is sort of a ploy.

When one goes poking around in sciences backyard so to speak they suddenly develop many of the same qualities they accuse Christians of when talking about their faith.

No, no they dont.

No matter how hard you wish science was as unsubstantiated as religion, that is not the case.

No, I mean like claiming that Audhumla did NOT free Buri from the ice

I don't know of anyone who has ever met Thor, Loki etc.

Even if did happen 2000 years ago.

please provide evidence that it did

If I had evidence it would be in a museum somewhere. Sadly I do not.


The discussion would just move on if I did to Noah or Adam or whoever.

It is sort of a ploy.

When one goes poking around in sciences backyard so to speak they suddenly develop many of the same qualities they accuse Christians of when talking about their faith.

exactly the same...you know, if you count actually UNDERSTANDING the subject, and using things like genetics to explain it. It's the great fallacy though, to assume that when people get bothered by demonstrations of profound ignorance, that's the same thing. Science has evidence. Science has data. Science has theories that have been tested. Religion does not. Thus I ignore no data, no theories, no evidence when I argue against religion. You DO do so when you argue against science.

I've read the bible, have you read any modern biology textbook?

I don't know of anyone who has ever met Thor, Loki etc.

Even if did happen 2000 years ago.

Do you conclusively, incontrovertibly know of anybody who has met Christ?

Incidentally, I've been meaning to ask; do you continue with this discussion purely as mental self-flaggellation?

I don't know of anyone who has ever met Thor, Loki etc.

Even if did happen 2000 years ago.

I don't know of anyone who has ever met Jesus Christ. I know of STORIES about people who are said to have met him.

But then again, if you want me to pull out dozens of stories involving Roman, Greek, Norse, Hindu gods all interacting with people, that's easily done. For instance, we can start with Hercules.

Also, you would know that if you had familiarized yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand

Mainly because it demonstrates that the people arguing against evolution demonstrate that they don't understand it.

Take the same sentence and substitute [Christianity or the Bible] for evolution.

Mainly because it demonstrates that the people arguing against Christianity or the Bible demonstrate that they don't understand it.

Take the same sentence and substitute [Christianity or the Bible] for evolution.

Mainly because it demonstrates that the people arguing against Christianity or the Bible demonstrate that they don't understand it.

see, that's where you're wrong. You presume the two are similar. They are not. I've read the bible. I understand what it says. I can argue against its validity by pointing out inconsistencies and erronious statements.

You, clearly, do not understand even the most basic premises of modern biology. Frankly, it's damned insulting of you to presume my ignorance of religion parallels your ignorance of science.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Take the same sentence and substitute [Christianity or the Bible] for evolution.

Mainly because it demonstrates that the people arguing against Christianity or the Bible demonstrate that they don't understand it.

No, see, the problem is we understand it better then you do. We understand it enough to see how laughably incorrect it is on so many counts.

And stop comparing the Bible to science. One has facts. The other hear-say. Youre only making yourself look foolish.

I don't know of anyone who has ever met Jesus Christ. I know of STORIES about people who are said to have met him.

But then again, if you want me to pull out dozens of stories involving Roman, Greek, Norse, Hindu gods all interacting with people, that's easily done. For instance, we can start with Hercules.

Also, you would know that if you had familiarized yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand

Is there any evidence that Hercules was a real person either from secondhand accounts or any historical book.

Is there any evidence that Hercules was a real person either from secondhand accounts or any historical book.

There is just as much evidence for Hercules as there is for Jesus.

Is there any evidence that Hercules was a real person either from secondhand accounts or any historical book.

Of course there are secondhand accounts. Where do you think all the stories come from? That Iolas fellow saw quite a bit of it.

And a book? How utterly ethnocentric of you. Oral traditions apparently don't count for you?

You see from the posting in the last few moments the anger that has worked it way into the postings. I am not really even trolling and read back some of responses.

Then ask yourself why would people be upset by "Claiming there Probably is no God".

All they have to do is say "there is no evidence for God; therefore our advertisement is accurate."
Indeed, those attacking the ads seem to realize this, as their attacks take the form of "well there is plenty of evidence God exists!" without producing any of said evidence. There's a reason they're not pulling "there is no evidence he doesn't" line of attack here-- they realize that it's silly.

Yeah! There should be a law saying "All Christians must give evidence for God. Punishment will be a gear lever from a Renault Magnum up their bums!" Only a joke!

You see from the posting in the last few moments the anger that has worked it way into the postings. I am not really even trolling and read back some of responses.

Then ask yourself why would people be upset by "Claiming there Probably is no God".

wtf? Youre equating people going slack jawed at profound scientific ignorance to a bunch of Christians getting pissy that freedom of religion allows for people to publicly say they dont believe in God?

There is just as much evidence for Hercules as there is for Jesus.

In truth, there is Roman testimony for the existence of a "Jesus"; little is given beyond a name, and the evidence hardly supports the larger Christian conception of Jesus, but he did exist.

You see from the posting in the last few moments the anger that has worked it way into the postings. I am not really even trolling and read back some of responses.

Then ask yourself why would people be upset by "Claiming there Probably is no God".

despite what you might think, pointing out ignorance isn't a sign of anger. It's a sign of hostility towards ignorance. A hostility richly deserved.

Your problem is, you think you're proving a point, but in so doing, you make arguments and claims that nobody with even the most basic understanding of biology and evolutionary theory would make. you're not pointing out flaws, you're not furthering your arguments, and you're not trying to emulate people who make well thought out, well reasoned critiques of religion.

You just make yourself sound stupid.

In truth, there is Roman testimony for the existence of a "Jesus"; little is given beyond a name, and the evidence hardly supports the larger Christian conception of Jesus, but he did exist.

the problem is when you use words like "he existed"? What "he" are we defining? Was there, likely, someone out there around 2000 years ago named Jesus? Sure, probably.

And there was probably a greek guy named heracles at some point too.

Simply put:

Believe, Don't Believe that is your choice, but why do feel the need to criticize what another believes? What is it to you?


Scroll back over my post see If I questioned another religion?

There is just as much evidence for Hercules as there is for Jesus.

Totally! We know that Jason met Heracles, and we know that people named Jason have existed, so therefore Heracles must be real! It's proven.

the problem is when you use words like "he existed"? What "he" are we defining? Was there, likely, someone out there around 2000 years ago named Jesus? Sure, probably.

And there was probably a greek guy named heracles at some point too.

If memory serves, and I haven't a citation, the reference is to a dissident rabbi named Jesus contemporary with, and in proximity to, the events of the gospel. This is generally accepted by such academics as concern themselves with the subject. What isn't is that said figure consciously sought to create a religion independant for Judaism, and the rest of the tripe generated by the patristic documents.

Totally! We know that Jason met Heracles, and we know that people named Jason have existed, so therefore Heracles must be real! It's proven.

Just having the metal to walk around in a toga is enough for me.

Simply put:

Believe, Don't Believe that is your choice, but why do feel the need to criticize what another believes? What is it to you?


And what's it to you if somebody publicly says "I disagree with X!" (X being something you believe, in this case, Christianity.)


Scroll back over my post see If I questioned another religion?

Well, the fact that you advocate for Christianity automatically implies that you think that Islam, Buddhism, etc. are all false, and, if you're like most Christians, that adherents of said religions are going to be tortured for all eternity. So yeah, basically every time you claim Christianity is true, you claim another religion is false.

Scroll back over my post see If I questioned another religion?

You most certainly did so. You stated you believed in christianity, yes? Ergo, by extention, you MUST believe that any other religion that posits anything different than christian dogma MUST be wrong.

To believe in something, by definition, requires you to disbelieve in any conflicting alternative.

If memory serves, and I haven't a citation, the reference is to a dissident rabbi named Jesus contemporary with, and in proximity to, the events of the gospel. This is generally accepted by such academics as concern themselves with the subject. What isn't is that said figure consciously sought to create a religion independant for Judaism, and the rest of the tripe generated by the patristic documents.

I have my own personal theories about this. Namely there probably was a rabbi or other spiritual teacher named jesus. And as he grew popular, other emulated him, taking on his style, and his name.

Then when one of them got nailed to a plank, news, spreading slowly those days, didn't reach all the OTHER preachers going by that name. Until someone having both heard of the crucifixion and seeing "jesus" up and walking around, started the resurrection idea.

And what's it to you if somebody publicly says "I disagree with X!" (X being something you believe, in this case, Christianity.)



Well, the fact that you advocate for Christianity automatically implies that you think that Islam, Buddhism, etc. are all false, and, if you're like most Christians, that adherents of said religions are going to be tortured for all eternity. So yeah, basically every time you claim Christianity is true, you claim another religion is false.

Fair. I suppose but you also see why some may get hot under the collar.

Buddha never said he was a God or Messiah.

Islam is much more difficult. We believe largely the same things except when it comes to Jesus.


I am not saying which is right or wrong that is up to the person reading to decide.

I am not sure I agree with by virtue of being a Christian I am saying the others are incorrect. It is more of what I believe.


Nor am I claiming who will and won't go to hell. That alone is for God to decide.

But now that jehovah's 100% dead, who'll decide?

For those who may be impartial here is a pretty good comparison.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islam_judaism_christianity.htm

For those who may be impartial here is a pretty good comparison.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islam_judaism_christianity.htm

I'm actually curious who you think doesn't know this.

For those who may be impartial here is a pretty good comparison.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islam_judaism_christianity.htm

You should let them know that the main text for jews is the torah, not the bible.

While we're at it, Adonai is also a common jewish name for jehovah. Jewish prayers, for example, generally start "Baruch ata adonai, blahblahblah" which is "Blessed is god, blahblahblah".

I have my own personal theories about this. Namely there probably was a rabbi or other spiritual teacher named jesus. And as he grew popular, other emulated him, taking on his style, and his name.

Then when one of them got nailed to a plank, news, spreading slowly those days, didn't reach all the OTHER preachers going by that name. Until someone having both heard of the crucifixion and seeing "jesus" up and walking around, started the resurrection idea.

I don't buy that; if Jesus was sufficiently restive and dangerous to merit execution, he would therefore have represented a threat to Roman authority. Therefore, one can assume he was a popular, well-known figure; the news of his execution would thus have been transmitted quickly.

Personally, I've always found the brevity of Jesus' presence on earth after the resurrection interesting, in as much as, unlike testimony for his life previous, he does bugger all in the way of public philanthropy, preaching and the such. In short, nothing that would be worthy of notation, and therefore nothing that, corroborated against extant records, would disprove his resurrection.

I suspect, personally, given the political turmoil in Judea following the Roman conquest, Jesus may have been little more than a rabbi-cum-demagogue, executed for his actions, conferred divinity by the authors of the gospels who themselves sought to establish a faith independant from Judaism.

You most certainly did so. You stated you believed in christianity, yes? Ergo, by extention, you MUST believe that any other religion that posits anything different than christian dogma MUST be wrong.

To believe in something, by definition, requires you to disbelieve in any conflicting alternative.

I am not so sure. For me it sowing of Tares.

Can we see Islam as wicked people? I am not so sure. I think that is for God to decide. None of us on earth are capable of judging anyone else. If that point would just sink in we would be far better off.

I am not so sure. For me it sowing of Tares.

Can we see Islam as wicked people? I am not so sure. I think that is for God to decide. None of us on earth are capable of judging anyone else. If that point would just sink in we would be far better off.

that...um...didn't address anything I said.