backtop


Print 252 comment(s) - last by AnaximanderSin.. on Jul 21 at 12:25 PM


  (Source: Contented)
The chicken wins!

One of the most puzzling and famous life questions has stumped people for generations. It's the question of which came first: the chicken or the egg? In order for there to be an egg, a chicken would have had to lay it. In order for there to be a chicken, it would have had to hatch from an egg. It seems as though either answer could be the correct answer; until now

Dr. Colin Freeman from Sheffield University along with colleagues from Warwick University have figured it all out. Their research project originally aimed to figure out how animals make eggshells because it's an extraordinarily strong yet lightweight material that no human has been able to replicate, and the researchers hoped to learn how to develop a manmade equivalent by learning about the way animals make eggshells.

Chickens were chosen as their test subjects simply because the protein was easy to study. The study began when Freeman and his colleagues used the UK Science Research Council's super-computer called HECToR (High End Computing Terascale Resource), which is based in Edinburgh. The "ingredients" used to make eggshells were programmed into HECToR, and that was it. The computer was left to produce results on its own, and it took weeks for HECToR to figure out how chickens make eggshells.

When HECToR finally arrived at a conclusion, the researchers were stunned when they realized that they had solved the age old question. After years and years of debate, it was finally determined that the chicken came before the egg.

"It had long been suspected that the egg came first, but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first," said Freeman. 

What they found was a protein, called ovocledidin-17 (OC-17), that exists only in a chicken's ovaries and is vital to eggshell formation in chickens. The protein acts as an ongoing builder that pieces microscopic parts of the shell together by converting calcium carbonate into calcite crystals. The shell would not exist without this protein, which only exists in chickens, so the end result is that the chicken came first.

The protein was discovered before this research project, but HECToR made it easier for the researchers to observe the process "in microscopic detail," thus understand the proteins significance in the eggshell-making procedure.

So what does this mean for those who always thought the egg came first? Freeman and his colleagues referred to some theories that suggest that chickens' "ancestors evolved to create hard eggs around the time of the dinosaurs."

In addition to answering the question that has burdened the human race for ages, the results of this study could be advantageous in the medical field since human bones and teeth are made in a similar way as eggshells. This could lead to a better understanding of how to rebuild human bones. Also, the study could help figure out how crystal structures can be made and destroyed (since the eggshells are made up of microscopic crystals). Learning how this can be done could lead to the elimination of limescale crystals on pipes and kettles. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Expected!
By XZerg on 7/15/2010 7:35:11 AM , Rating: 2
The parents would have to start to resemble a chicken first before they can lay an egg that will hatch into a chicken. Over their lifetime prior to laying the egg, their dna would have to mutate to make this possible.

The philosophical way looking at this would be, the chicken would have to have come first to ensure someone keeps the egg warm for hatching it.




RE: Expected!
By Omega215D on 7/15/2010 7:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
Or maybe younger Earth temperatures were high enough to allow the egg to mature on its own without needing the chicken to rest on it.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 10:10:09 AM , Rating: 1
It's so amusing how far people will go out of their way to support a ridiculous theory!


RE: Expected!
By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 11:11:16 AM , Rating: 5
We ask the question, where do all the creatures that inhabit the Earth come from?

There are two very popular theories.

One takes observable phenomenon, such as genetics, random mutation, natural/sexual selection and vast amounts of time to explain what's going on. The only component of this theory that hasn't been directly observed is time.

On the other hand, we have the theory that an all-powerful being created everything roughly as it is today, and did so very recently. We have the same amount of evidence for this as we have for other theories, such as an old Native-American theory that the world we know is the back of a giant turtle shell floating in the ocean. None of this has been observed.

But believe what you will, that is totally your right. Let's look at the consequences:

The study of evolution has lead to advances in many fields, with real-world results ranging from medicine to computer programming. Man's increased knowledge of the finer workings of nature continues to benefit us, as we replicate what we see and work that into our technology.

On the other hand, creationism leads us to no scientific advancement, no increased knowledge of how the world around us works, and no useful applications. It is part of a social tool used by structures of power, such as the Church. At one time, denouncing creationism as the explanation for how all things came to be as they are would result in severe social implications - or worse. The same can be said about the stance the Church took on the Earth being the centre of the Universe. Those were dark times.

In fact, if one puts the bar of "knowledge" so high as to say that we don't know Evolution to be true, then we should also go back and say we don't really know the Earth isn't at the centre of the Universe. All we have are observations of objects in the sky. It is merely accepted that the best way to describe their motions is that they revolve around other centres of gravity. But maybe that's not so - maybe the Church was right about that, too.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Expected!
By Spivonious on 7/15/2010 11:46:27 AM , Rating: 4
I agree that atheism isn't required for science. Quite the contrary, in fact. Many of the great scientists were devout religious people.

Every religion has violent radicals. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Minor grammar note: Hitler was a person, so it's "atheist who" not "atheist that". He was also brown-haired, brown-eyed who claimed that blonde-haired/blue-eyed people were the master race.

God has some strange rules. Look at this from Matthew 5:27-30:

quote:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’e 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.


Has a married man ever looked at a pretty girl and thought about her lustfully? Better gouge out your eyes. Ever masturbated? Cut off that hand!

Since we can take chemicals that change our feelings (anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, etc.), I have no doubt that at its center "love" is simply some chemicals flowing around our brains. What we associate with those chemicals is love.


RE: Expected!
By clovell on 7/15/2010 5:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
How did we get from religion to equating all emotion with chemicals?


RE: Expected!
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 5:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Has a married man ever looked at a pretty girl and thought about her lustfully? Better gouge out your eyes. Ever masturbated? Cut off that hand!


Ever heard of something called hyperbole? Or are you also one of those people who have trouble detecting sarcasm?

Btw, that verse isn't talking about masturbation.


RE: Expected!
By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 6:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
People in these forums have today been informed that they can expect to go to Hell if there is a God because they don't believe in a literal view of the Book of Genesis. How, then, are words spoken centuries later, by Jesus himself, so easily cast aside as "hyperbole".

If you don't cheat on your wife because you're afraid you'll get caught, but you still want to, you have committed adultery. If you want to commit the sin, yet don't because you fear God will punish you, you still have committed adultery. That is my understanding of what Jesus was saying.

But don't listen to me. I'm obviously an agent of Satan because I'm not a legalistic Christian.


RE: Expected!
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 7:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't cheat on your wife because you're afraid you'll get caught, but you still want to, you have committed adultery. If you want to commit the sin, yet don't because you fear God will punish you, you still have committed adultery. That is my understanding of what Jesus was saying.


Let me explain it for you: Jesus was saying if you keep on looking so as to have a passion for her, you have the motivation in your heart to commit adultery. The heart is the figurative seed of motivation in the bible. The path towards adultery starts with you looking at something that doesn't belong to you. Keep your eyes off of it, and you avoid going down that path.

Think of it this way: If you are a diabetic, you wouldn't be stupid to put a 2 liter of soda in front of you all day to get you to break down and drink it, would you?

quote:
How, then, are words spoken centuries later, by Jesus himself, so easily cast aside as "hyperbole".


Are you really that stupid? Do you even know what that word means? Or do you really think Jesus said to gorge your eye out?

What next? You read the Song of Solomon and can't fathom that is poetry about looking forward to having sex?


RE: Expected!
By OUits on 7/15/2010 7:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't cheat on your wife because you're afraid you'll get caught, but you still want to, you have committed adultery. If you want to commit the sin, yet don't because you fear God will punish you, you still have committed adultery. That is my understanding of what Jesus was saying.


Well that depends on which philosophy of ethics you apply, which raises an interesting point in this scenario.

There are two popular theories regarding the morality of an act. One is about the motivation behind the act, disregarding consequences (Kant's Categorical Imperative). The other (Utilitarianism) has to do only with the consequences of the act.

I agree with your understanding of what the Bible was saying, showing moral importance of motive, because of the phrase:
quote:
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.


Which is obviously rooted in the Kant style of moral ethics, placing value in the motivation behind the action. However, the very next line that's used to back it all up says:
quote:
It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.


This is a complete reversal to a Utilitarian point of view because now the value is with the consequence of the action. The very next sentence.


RE: Expected!
By chrnochime on 7/16/2010 2:18:51 AM , Rating: 2
Every time there's a debate that can somehow be linked to religion versus atheists, someone bored enough to waste time typing out a whole bunch of theories about why certain aspects in certain religion cannot be true shows up. I mean really, do you not have enough things to do at work to have to spend a minimum of 15-20 minutes just to come up with all these anti-religion comments that are obviously flame-baits?

Let me guess you're just irritated by all the zealots and absolutely do not find joy in posting these same freaking things that countless other people bored to death have done before. If you don't find satisfaction debunking others, what's your point anyway? Too much time on your hands? Do something constructive. Unless you can't even do that...then well LOL


RE: Expected!
By sprockkets on 7/16/2010 8:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't find satisfaction debunking others, what's your point anyway? Too much time on your hands? Do something constructive. Unless you can't even do that...then well LOL

got cleared from workk early lol


RE: Expected!
By rmclean816 on 7/16/2010 3:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't literally mean cut off your hand.
It is meant to show the seriousness of things that will/can lead to immoral things.


RE: Expected!
By Fritzr on 7/16/2010 11:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
Bible Fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the revealed word of God and is correct in every word will treat this as an instruction not as a parable to be interpreted in a manner that makes the reader comfortable.

Most Christians will read that as parable or hyperbole, fanatics will kill those who refuse to see the light and read the Word of God in the same manner as the fanatic does.

There are many examples of this attitude in the history of the Christian Church including many minor examples in the US over the last few decades.

You can see an example of what happens when these believers take over the government. In parts of the Middle East where the Taliban control things. The word translates as "religious student". They read the Koran and enforce their personal opinion of the words of the Prophet.

The only difference between Moslem Taliban and Christian Taliban is the holy book they use to justify their actions.


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, so, passage you quoted... The only mandate is to not commit adultery, gouging eyes out is an extreme solution used to show the severity of the act.
Out of context, sure. I won't deny that some Biblical ideas are quite weird, but that one there is covered under the For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17.


RE: Expected!
By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 11:57:55 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think I'm arguing for Atheism. I'm not an Atheist myself.

I should probably clarify that by 'Creationism' I mean the concept that God created everything roughly as it is, and very recently - which is what I wrote above. In my opinion, Evolution does not answer the question of how things got started. I doubt any scientific investigation will ultimately be able to determine the true origins of the Universe - what spawned it, what determined what the laws of nature will be, and so on.

However, I look at Evolution as the consequence of the laws of nature, and it is consistent with them. Saying that someone that believes in Evolution isn't a Christian makes about as much sense to me as saying that someone who believes in Thermodynamics isn't a Christian.


RE: Expected!
By callmeroy on 7/15/2010 3:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well I will tilt my hat in agree with you there, I'm Christian and try to "live the the life" (I know that's corny to say but I don't know how else to explain it)...but I too don't believe in that "version" of Creationism....I don't believe everything was created how it is now and 6 thousand years ago (or whatever).


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 4:39:12 PM , Rating: 1
Essentially you just said, "I am a Christian, but I don't believe God when he said he created everything in 6 days."

Does no-one else see something wrong with that? I believe that everyone interprets the Bible a little differently, but there comes a point where you either believe the word of God or you don't.


RE: Expected!
By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 5:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
You must now give up all your worldly possessions, leave your family/loved ones, and follow the path of Christ or be doomed to Hell. For it is written that it is harder for a rich man to enter into heaven than for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle.

Can a camel pass through an eye of a needle?

Well, through God, all things are possible.

All things...

Even something like the Universe being 13-odd billion years old?


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 5:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You must now give up all your worldly possessions, leave your family/loved ones,

This shows that you are being a complete ass-hat that refuses to be reasonable. The bible mentions absolutely NOTHING about doing something ridiculous like that.

quote:
Can a camel pass through an eye of a needle?

Yeah, greedy folks don't get into heaven. Money will not get you into heaven. Many people are very rich without owning a dime to their name.

quote:
Well, through God, all things are possible. All things... Even something like the Universe being 13-odd billion years old?

If you believe that, then you believe in a weak, and non-omnipotent God. He says six days, and you believe (I assume?) billions of years... go figure..


RE: Expected!
By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 5:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
Hey now, calm down.

The man Jesus spoke to about being rich and the eye of the camel thing was a very devout man. He followed every commandment.

Or perhaps your faith simply fails when you are asked to actually make a real-world sacrifice, such as the challenge Jesus gave to the man? Maybe you don't believe as deeply in your legalistic viewpoint to actually live accordingly?

But yet, it's quite easy for you to have said several people writing here are in deep trouble if there really is a God - because they don't believe in a literal view of the Book of Genesis. Who are you to judge?


RE: Expected!
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 6:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The man Jesus spoke to about being rich and the eye of the camel thing was a very devout man. He followed every commandment.


Jesus discerned in this one case that the man's riches would hold him back. He asked for what was wrong to correct, and was told it. By his reaction he couldn't let go of his wealth.

Nothing in the bible prohibits being rich. In fact Paul told Timothy at 1 Tim 6:17 to warn rich people in the congregation not to rest their hope on uncertain riches (like what happened to our economy), but on God.

Paul said it best: You came into the world with nothing, and you are going to die with nothing.


RE: Expected!
By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 6:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Again, though, the passage can't be read literally. Christ was clearly emphasising a point when he said "it is harder for a rich man to enter into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle". But if we are free to interpret the words of Christ one way or another, why are we not free to interpret the writings of a man writing down a story as he understands it thousands of years ago?

I look for meaning. 6 days of work 6000 years ago versus God creating everything some far distant time in the past has no bearing on my view of my own religion. I only continue the debate because some continue to insist that I'm hell-bound for believing in macro-evolution. I hope someday the fear-mongering will end.


RE: Expected!
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 7:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"it is harder for a rich man to enter into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle".


Sigh, hyperbole, just like when someone says "It's raining cats and dogs!" doesn't mean that literally!

You have a brain. Use it!


RE: Expected!
By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 10:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
my whole point in making the comment is to point out how ridiculous taking such things 100 percent literally is. I do this in argument against taking Genesis literally.


RE: Expected!
By therealnickdanger on 7/16/2010 8:28:07 AM , Rating: 4
I would recommend that anyone interested in deeper understanding of this passage study the Greek words kameilos (camel) and kamilos (heavy rope) as well as the Aramaic root word g-m-l (the root is the same for camel and rope). The translation of "camel" may very well be inaccurate. It doesn't matter either way as the result is the same - a camel or a thick rope can not pass through the needle's eye.

What unfolds in this passage is a perfect segway into the next parable - the parable of the workers in the vineyard The basic premise of which is that those who put in a full day's labor versus those who worked only five minutes all get the same pay at the end of the day. Commentary regarding socialism aside, if one realizes that the heavy, braided rope (kamilos) were unraveled, one would eventually wind up with strands which were small enough to pass through the needle. If wealth is analogous with this rope, then the meaning of his warning to the rich man becomes less hyperbole and more cerebral.

The rich man claimed to have obeyed all the words of Scripture, yet had not shared the wealth God had given him.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/16/2010 8:55:36 AM , Rating: 2
Very insightful; thanks for posting this.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/16/2010 7:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I only continue the debate because some continue to insist that I'm hell-bound for believing in macro-evolution.

I'd have to say that I have only come across one person in my lifetime that felt this way. Instead of assuming, why don't you ask what we actually believe? We absolutely can not save ourselves from our sins; they have to be cleansed by God. The beautiful thing about God is that he give you free will. Free will to love him, or free will to hate him. Either way, he leaves the choice up to you.

All details aside, the ultimate questions is whether or not you accept Jesus as your savior from sin . The ONLY human to ever walk this earth without sin was God himself. We have to understand that no one single person is perfect, and we do sin (a lot unfortunately).

Having said that, whether or not you believe that God created everything billions of years ago vs thousands is not "the most" important subject; however, I do think it is wrong to believe only certain parts of the bible are true. I think it is very wrong to pick and choose/modify the word to fit your lifestyle(I say that non-accusingly).

So the whole notion of "if you don't believe that the earth is <~10,000 years old, you will go to hell" is ridiculous and demeaning to those you accuse of this. I do believe, however, that you should either believe that God did what he said that he did, or do not. Don't pick and choose.


RE: Expected!
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2010 6:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Essentially you just said, "I am a Christian, but I don't believe God when he said he created everything in 6 days." Does no-one else see something wrong with that?


No. Do you think your god gives a shit? I'm not a Christian either, but I was raised up Roman Catholic (the worst) when I was younger. And I sort of thought the other stuff was more important than anything in the Old Testament or Genesis. You know like how you live your life and treat others and building a personal relationship with Christ, that kind of thing? I mean, isn't that the point?

You know Quad, I'm one of the few people on Daily Tech that fights for others right to have and express religious beliefs. But the more I read your posts, the more you just rub me and everyone else the wrong way. Honestly it's getting silly now. Just please drop it.

When I see you, ironically, insult others and treat them dismissively because they don't agree with you on how the Universe was formed and how old Earth is, well, it sort of seems that you too have forgotten the real important lessons and teachings of Christianity yourself.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/16/2010 8:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When I see you, ironically, insult others and treat them dismissively because they don't agree with you on how the Universe was formed and how old Earth is, well, it sort of seems that you too have forgotten the real important lessons and teachings of Christianity yourself.

I want you to put your money where you mouth is and quote me in context , of exactly where I did ANYTHING that you just accused me of. Until then, we will just dismiss everything you just said as pure non-sense.


RE: Expected!
By Calindar on 7/16/2010 5:34:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
insult others and treat them dismissively


quote:
Until then, we will just dismiss everything you just said as pure non-sense.


LOL


RE: Expected!
By callmeroy on 7/16/2010 8:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
No that's not what I said.

I said I don't believe the world and everything in existence was created in a literal 24x6 = 144 hour period of time.

I take my faith and belief seriously but no I'm sorry -- I don't think most things in the bible were meant to be taken literally....the bible is full of symbolism.

I'm also very cautious of just any old bible version (as you know there are dozens if not hundreds of different translations and editions)...because 2000 years is a long time and a lot to ask for word of mouth to not get garbled, meanings changes, new passages made up, etc. in a book. Remember you aren't a "saved" or a true Christian because you read a book, any more than because you go to Church. Someone can be saved and a Christian having never opened a bible in their life or stepping foot in a church.

Its what we believe, feel, pray, do...God knows if we are full of *hit or not in our belief..we aren't fooling him...its just are we honest enough to ourself in what we fear , doubt or don't know?


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/16/2010 9:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think most things in the bible were meant to be taken literally....the bible is full of symbolism.

I think somehow you are accusing me of not knowing that there is a lot of symbolism and metaphorical speaking in the Bible. I understand this; but most of the points that I debate about are what I feel to be literal word for word truth. (Of course some things are meant to be understood as metaphorical, otherwise, we would really have some kooky folks on our hands.)
quote:
Remember you aren't a "saved" or a true Christian because you read a book, any more than because you go to Church. Someone can be saved and a Christian having never opened a bible in their life or stepping foot in a church.

I could not agree more.
quote:
Its what we believe, feel, pray, do...God knows if we are full of *hit or not in our belief..we aren't fooling him...its just are we honest enough to ourself in what we fear , doubt or don't know?

Also agreed. In the end, he will know. I appreciate your opinion on this matter.


RE: Expected!
By Mogounus on 7/15/2010 3:32:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And let me also explain the consequences. If there is a God who created everything, then you are REALLY pissing him off by scoffing his creation and not following his laws. Lets just assume that: Piss off God = punishment.


LOL
I've heard that one before but it makes me laugh every time. Hey maybe you should prey to ALAH also... what if he is real and by not worshiping him you are pissing him off? How about Buda? Maybe you should worship all the gods ever dreamed up just to cover all your bases? You can never be too sure you know.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 5:23:59 PM , Rating: 1
That's always one of the worst arguments against my faith. What you assume, is that I have not studied and sampled each religion that I have ever been exposed to. If you would like to know, I have chose my faith because it makes absolute perfect sense. Everything else has fundamental flaws that I just could not put into reality.

Case in point with Islam. You can't consider yourself a good person while being instructed to murder "infidels".


RE: Expected!
By Mogounus on 7/15/2010 5:44:45 PM , Rating: 1
First off it is not an argument against your faith... it's a rebuttal to your dumn ass reasoning that you should worship "God" because what if he does exist.

Secondly, you HAVE NOT sampled every religion out there. To say so is simply nieve or moronic... depending on which category you fall into. There are more religions than you can even learn about in a single lifetime, some big like christianity and many small (ie cults). You can not possibly even scratch their surface to make an informed decission like you claim to.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 6:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
your dumn ass reasoning that you should worship "God" because what if he does exist.

You don't know me, and that's def. not the the only reason I worship God.

quote:
Secondly, you HAVE NOT sampled every religion out there.

Really? No crap. I never claimed to. STOP ASSUMING AND READ THE THINGS THAT I WRITE.


RE: Expected!
By Mogounus on 7/15/2010 7:07:55 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, so now I can't make an assement of your bad reasoning becuase I don't know you? I don't have to. You were making that argument, that is all that is needed.

Oh, sorry you are correct... you said "every other religion" in the context of every one you came across. So how many have you actually "studied"?

Ok, I can tell you are getting upset now... no point in making you cry. Maybe you should butt out of such scientific discussions unless you can make arguements based in science and logic.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/16/2010 8:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, I can tell you are getting upset now... no point in making you cry.

You sound like a 16 year old brat. I'm not going to entertain you anymore unless you can learn how to conduct yourself in a respectful debate; good day.


RE: Expected!
By Mogounus on 7/16/2010 12:21:48 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, admitidly a bit of a childish stab... however, I'm not the one who started with "you don't know me" and "Really, no crap". Yeah, really adult conduct there.


RE: Expected!
By chrnochime on 7/16/2010 2:21:50 AM , Rating: 2
Fix your spelling errors and then perhaps you can call others dumb ass haha.

WTF is "nieve" anyway??


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you found a girl, and knew, as a matter of fact, that she was to be your wife, would you keep on trying out every other girl and some guys just to make sure.

There is one truth, if you find it on your second try why keep on looking?


RE: Expected!
By togaman5000 on 7/16/2010 1:11:14 AM , Rating: 1
Of course it makes sense, it doesn't require any examination of logic. I do not say this to insult you, but because that is the very definition of "faith."

Faith is by nature a nonthinking thing, and therefore an almost animalistic thing, unbecoming of those who consider themselves to be rational humans.


RE: Expected!
By rmclean816 on 7/16/2010 3:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
Faith non thinking eh?


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/16/2010 8:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Faith is by nature a nonthinking thing, and therefore an almost animalistic thing, unbecoming of those who consider themselves to be rational humans.
'
This guy is such an advanced human that it's almost impossible for my pathetic brain to comprehend. You sir, will probably invent some, "brain growin'" masheen one day too help us a lernin'. I want dem smarts one days, cuz I needs them to make moneys.

If you couldn't tell, I was alluding to the fact that you think you are superior to everyone around you; and that everyone who doesn't think like you is mentally retarded.

...And yes; that does make you a horrible person.


RE: Expected!
By Newegg2010 on 7/16/2010 5:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
Christianity has similar concepts to the Islamic Jihad


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/16/2010 8:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
That's a really bold claim that you failed back up with fact based evidence ...


RE: Expected!
By MastermindX on 7/15/2010 4:53:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
universal understanding of Good and Evil


You don't go out often do you? Good/Evil is a matter of culture more than anything else. What is consider good is a community is consider evil in another one.

There was a time where burning witches was considered good... Very universal and intemporal that Good/Evil thinggy.


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, tell that to Paul writing to the Corinthians. It is true that cultures can have different views; however, biblically there is a very clear and constant division between good and evil.


RE: Expected!
By Justin Time on 7/15/2010 7:25:56 PM , Rating: 3
Atheism is not really compatible with science, as it specifies a belief (i.e. the non-existence of a deity) which is unproven.

Agnosticism is more compatible with science.


RE: Expected!
By Calindar on 7/16/2010 5:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you completely. I see claiming with 100% certainty that a god does not exists as being just as ridiculous as claiming with 100% certainty that one does exists. As it is, there isn't any evidence that proves a god does exist, and the burden of proof is on that camp, but to say with certainty that one doesn't exist is an assumption we are not in the position to make, which is why I consider myself agnostic.


RE: Expected!
By DFSolley on 7/15/2010 11:36:42 AM , Rating: 4
Perhaps God said "let there be evolution".


RE: Expected!
By JustSal on 7/15/2010 11:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure he didn't say that. Because if you read the first book of the bible, Genesis, you'll see that God created all things in 7 days. So there is no room for hundreds of billions of years.


RE: Expected!
By Mogounus on 7/15/2010 3:43:11 PM , Rating: 5
*WARNING - LOGIC AHEAD*

And how can you know that the Bible is the word of god and not just the words of some confused stoneage retard making up stories to explain things he doesnt understand? How would you know the difference?


RE: Expected!
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 6:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Simple. If God is the sovereign then perhaps he should be able to foretell the future or guide people to the best way of life,

If it were some confused wacky person, then people who followed its words would be stupid like them.


RE: Expected!
By Mogounus on 7/15/2010 6:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
So are you saying that the billions of people on this planet that follow another religion are stupid? Seems by your reasoning he isn't a very good god if he was only able to convince a small minority.

The only conclusion I can draw then is that you are not following the correct god and are yourself stupid. Hmm...


RE: Expected!
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 6:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So are you saying that the billions of people on this planet that follow another religion are stupid? Seems by your reasoning he isn't a very good god if he was only able to convince a small minority. The only conclusion I can draw then is that you are not following the correct god and are yourself stupid. Hmm...


Not really. Jesus himself said most wouldn't follow him, because it involves work and sacrifice, which most are too lazy to do because they are myopic.

Of course, saying that Christianity is the minority religion is quite stupid on your part.


RE: Expected!
By bodar on 7/17/2010 6:59:46 AM , Rating: 3
Uhhh, you may want to rethink that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/articl...

Not to mention, now who's being all high and mighty, declaring all the other religious followers are "lazy"? Muslims have 5 formal prayers per day and have strict rules on what they eat/drink. Sounds pretty damn lazy to me...

http://islam.about.com/cs/prayer/a/prayer_times.ht...
http://islam.about.com/od/dietarylaw/a/diet_law.ht...

P.S. -- No, I'm not a Muslim. I just hate when religious fanboys get all holier than thou.


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
A pastor at a church I went to recently put it this way;
"I wish our church (christianity) was as faithful, dedicated and obedient as the Hindi, Muslims and Mormons."
I know full well that I am complacent and comfortable, and it honestly makes me sad from time to time. But in all honesty, is it that hard to participate in church or have a good time with other believers?
It is easier for things to fall into disrepair than to keep them maintained and well oiled.


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, ancient egypt was deep stone age, no chariots and bronze weapons here, move along... /sarcasm

I mean, the guy was royalty, how could he possible have an education.


RE: Expected!
By wgbutler on 7/15/2010 2:42:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:

One takes observable phenomenon, such as genetics, random mutation, natural/sexual selection and vast amounts of time to explain what's going on. The only component of this theory that hasn't been directly observed is time.


With all due respect, there are several problems with this theory.

1) It never explains the origin of the first life (abiogenesis). Even if we had concrete proof that one type of species (i.e. reptiles) completely morphs into another type of species (i.e. mammals) you still need an original animal to get everything going. And materialism has no answer whatsoever for how that first life formed from non-living chemistry.

2) It goes against what we observe in the labs with bacteria in experiments such as the Lenski experiments or the double mutation experiments conducted by Ralph Seelke.

3) The fossil record doesn't reflect what we expect from a gradualistic transformation of single celled organism to complex mammals. The record actually shows new species springing into existence suddenly with no previous transitional forms. The Cambrian explosion is the best example of this problem for neo-darwinists.

4) It defies all common sense and ascribes supernatural powers to random processes. Frank Tipler and John Barrow calculated that the chances of moving from a bacterium to homo sapiens in 10 billion years or less is 10-24,000,000. That's a decimal point with 24 million zeros to the left of 1.

There are other problems, but I don't want to belabor the point.

quote:

On the other hand, we have the theory that an all-powerful being created everything roughly as it is today, and did so very recently. We have the same amount of evidence for this as we have for other theories, such as an old Native-American theory that the world we know is the back of a giant turtle shell floating in the ocean. None of this has been observed.


Trying to equivocate the Genesis account with giant turtle shells is asinine. It is more plausible to connect the giant turtle shell theory with the bacteria to man model espoused by macro-evolution.

Furthermore, there are multiple interpretations of Genesis 1, not all of which mandate that the Earth was created recently. My favorite model, the Framework Hypothesis, interprets Genesis 1 as an ancient Hebrew poetic structure that illustrate the fundamental truth that God is responsible for all that is.

quote:

The study of evolution has lead to advances in many fields, with real-world results ranging from medicine to computer programming. Man's increased knowledge of the finer workings of nature continues to benefit us, as we replicate what we see and work that into our technology.


I am a computer scientist, and am not aware of any computer programming advancement attributable to macro-evolution.

Furthermore, the theory of macro-evolution has actually retarded scientific advancement in many ways, one of the most recent examples being the "junk DNA" hypothesis. Because macro-evolution was assumed to be true, it took several years for scientists to start looking at the regions of DNA that do not code proteins. When they finally got around to studying these regions, they were stunned to learn that the DNA had vital and important functions, rather than being simply residual and useless leftover genetic material as neo-Darwinism espoused.

quote:

On the other hand, creationism leads us to no scientific advancement, no increased knowledge of how the world around us works,

Again, not true. As one example, Johannes Kepler belief in God directly inspired him to discover the laws of planetary motion.

quote:

At one time, denouncing creationism as the explanation for how all things came to be as they are would result in severe social implications


Not quite true, denouncing the teachings of the Roman Catholic church led to persecuation. But it is disenguous to equate Roman Catholic orthodoxy with creationism.

Furthermore, now it is the kiss of death for a scientist's career to advocate design in nature, as such a profession will get him blacklisted and persecuted. So if you think this type of behavior is inappropriate, I recommend looking in your own house first.

quote:

maybe the Church was right about that, too.


Again, you are trying to equivocate Roman Catholic orthodoxy with Biblical creationism. That's a red herring.

But one area that the scriptures were absolutely correct was that the Universe does in fact have a beginning, an assertion that was vigorously denied by the scientific community for decades before the evidence was so overwhelming that even the atheists had to concede this. And even now they remain diligently at work trying to come up with other models to get around the profound theological problems this presents.


RE: Expected!
By tigen on 7/15/2010 3:40:56 PM , Rating: 5
1) Abiogenesis isn't a flaw in the theory, it's just an unknown. However, there are theories for it. It would involve micro-structures in ancient history so evidence would be hard to find. In any case, "god" doesn't explain the origin of god, so you're not better off there. In fact you're worse off because you have no evidence for the god theory and merely postulate it as an inherently untestable assertion. "You can't explain some historical event with 100% certainty, therefore the world was made by magical elves."

2) No lab experiment disproves evolution.

3) The fossil record absolutely does reflect evolution. There are clear paths between mammals and lower lifeforms.

4) You're the one ascribing supernatural powers to improbable events. Just like how when one person survives a plane crash, everybody says god saved that one, even though it's quite probable that in massive disasters some few people could survive by chance. Life itself may or may not be quite improbable, but the universe is large. Frankly we don't have enough data.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 4:44:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
3) The fossil record absolutely does reflect evolution. There are clear paths between mammals and lower lifeforms.

No, and there never will be. You can't find a couple teeth, a toe, and a jawbone and reconstruct an entire skeleton of what you "think" the transitional fossils are.


RE: Expected!
By michaelklachko on 7/15/2010 4:31:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

I am a computer scientist, and am not aware of any computer programming advancement attributable to macro-evolution.


Please don't embarrass yourself:

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


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 4:47:16 PM , Rating: 1
Wow. That was the dumbest post I think you could have possibly come up with.


RE: Expected!
By michaelklachko on 7/15/2010 5:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong?


RE: Expected!
By wgbutler on 7/16/2010 9:17:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Please don't embarrass yourself:

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


I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up! My response follows:

First of all, if you look at my original quote I stated:

quote:

I am a computer scientist, and am not aware of any computer programming advancement attributable to MACRO-evolution.


MACRO-evolution being the complete transformation of one species into another completely different type of species (i.e. bacteria to homo-sapiens, etc). I full accept that MICRO-evolution happens and life forms are capable of making minor changes to adapt to their environment.

Genetic programming uses a fitness landscape to achieve a desireable result. It's interesting, and I admit that I don't much about it. But from my initial observation I'm not sure how much of an advantage it gives you over brute force computation.

Secondly, even if the concept of GP was directly inspired by MACRO-evolution, that doesn't establish the case for the truth of the MACRO-evolution model any more than the iPad being INSPIRED by the tricorder in Star Trek establishes that Vulcans are flying around with tricorders!

Finally, many macro-evolution proponents have taken this a step further and promoted genetic algorithms in computer programs as a way to prove the macro-evolution model. This was debunked in a peer reviewed paper written by Dembski and Marks (IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, vol.39, #5, September 2009, pp.1051-1061) which you can read here:

http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/REPRINTS/2009_C...

The gist being that they found that the macro-evolution proponents were gaming the system by inputting the information needed to achieve the desired result.

Thanks for coming.


RE: Expected!
By ot56 on 7/20/2010 2:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you accept micro evolution, do you accept the eve hypothesis which traces humanity back to a single individual based upon known mutation rates of mitochondrial DNA?

Mitochondrial DNA mutates at a pretty fixed rate, is not involved in sexual reproduction (coming from the egg only) and thus provides a reasonable marker for dating the human population. Using mitochondrial mutation rates, scientists have analyzed that there was a single human female at about 70,000 years ago.


RE: Expected!
By ot56 on 7/15/2010 5:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
It is interesting that this reply taled about the Roman Catholic Church when the official position of the RC Church is that evolution occured. Creationism is a protestant creature.

Oh by the way, of cource Genesis said 7 days and NEVER in the Bible in any other verse is METAPHOR used.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 5:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the official position of the RC Church is that evolution occured.


The Roman Catholic church is now considered a cult in my book. They have distorted the Bible so much, that they don't have any sense of direction anymore.


RE: Expected!
By ot56 on 7/15/2010 5:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
A cult with 750 million members? Me thinks your book needs rewriting.

By DEFINITION cult is a minority position. Quadrility, BY DEFINION, your beliefs are cultist. They are in definately a minority position.

There is ABSOLUTELY no room to argue with this statement.

Oh and interesting you ignored my comment about metaphor :)

Creationism is built upon the observably false premise that everything in the Bible is absolute truth when indeed the literary construct of metaphor is used in practically every other verse.


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. Learn to define:
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Therein he is correct to say that to him it is a cult.


RE: Expected!
By clovell on 7/15/2010 5:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
You are aware that they compiled the Bible, yes? Sifting through hundreds of gnostic and apostate books to finally distill the word of god down to a common standard?


RE: Expected!
By ot56 on 7/15/2010 5:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Technically the new testament, but yes absolutely true!


RE: Expected!
By ot56 on 7/15/2010 6:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Roman Catholic church is now considered a cult in my book. They have distorted the Bible so much, that they don't have any sense of direction anymore.


It is interesting how when confronted with an example of a well respected, well followed, large (greater than 2x the population of the US and the single largest Christian institution in the world representing perhaps half of all Christians) you dismiss them by calling them a cult.

This is not rational arguement rather grasping at straws.


RE: Expected!
By ot56 on 7/15/2010 6:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
I just looked it up.

Roman Catholic is now over 1 bln

Eastern orthodox, which, by and large, follows Roman Catholic on matters of dogma is 240Mln.

All protestant COMBINED are less than 700 Mil.

So 2/3rds of all Christians are cultists! Laughable on the face of it.


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
And you are assuming that every single one of those 1bln believe the exact same things. I have met many many catholic church goers who differ greatly from the conventional or even accepted RC theology. Remember that Protestants have a root in Catholicism. It is silly to assume that only 3 or 4 catholics in all of history have thought something is amiss.
Lastly, I grew up in Chile, RC by national religion, and maybe 5 of the 90 people in my graduating class were actually church goers or believers though all were, by the census of Chile, Catholic.
So, check sources and conduct a study before you throw out numbers.


RE: Expected!
By nct on 7/15/2010 5:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
chances of moving from a bacterium to homo sapiens in 10 billion years or less is 10-24,000,000. That's a decimal point with 24 million zeros to the left of 1.


In 2003, it was estimated that there are 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe. That's 7 followed by 22 zeros. Further, the estimate came with the caveat that it was likely extremely low, since it was based on extrapolating the count of a small patch of sky and only based on what our instruments are currently able to detect.

So, saying that something can't be true because there is an infinitesimally small chance of it occuring doesn't hold up when there can be an astronomical number of tries.

quote:
Trying to equivocate the Genesis account with giant turtle shells is asinine.


How is equating one culture's story of creation with another culture's asinine? Because yours is written in a book? The biblical version of the creation myth is no more or less valid than any other attempt at an explanation.


RE: Expected!
By wgbutler on 7/16/2010 9:26:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

In 2003, it was estimated that there are 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe. That's 7 followed by 22 zeros.


I agree with you that there are huge number of galaxies, stars, and planets in our universe. The VAST majority of these are completely uninhabitable for any type of life.

So at the very least, I think it would be safe to say that life capable worlds are extremely rare and that 90% of these 70 sextillion stars could be ruled out off the bat.

As we discover more about the Universe, this fact is becoming more and more apparent, which is why many atheists are now starting to appeal to the concept of an infinite multi-verse in order to give themselves the probabilistic resources needed to justify random causation as the explanation for everything.

quote:

How is equating one culture's story of creation with another culture's asinine? Because yours is written in a book? The biblical version of the creation myth is no more or less valid than any other attempt at an explanation.


The turtle shell example was cherry picked as a preposterous example of something that couldn't possibly be true and then an attempt was make to link with the Genesis account (i.e. people who believe in Genesis are no different than people who believe in giant turtle shells).

My basic point is that I could do the same exact thing and it would prove the same exact point, which is no point at all.


RE: Expected!
By nct on 7/16/2010 4:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The VAST majority of these are completely uninhabitable for any type of life.


That's what we thought about deep sea life, then we found bacteria that could metabolize sulfide. Ruling out the possibility of sentient life around other stars because we speculate conditions there aren't the same as here is completely narrow-minded.

However, I take issue with the whole premise that there is an infitely low chance of a human being evolving from a primitive cell. It ignores the basic premise of evolution, that life most suited to a particular environment is likely to survive. Rather than being the result of a random roll of the dice, homo sapiens are the product of an enormously long process of that primitive cell changing to a form optimized for life on Earth. You seem like an intelligent person, I have a hard time understanding why you fail to grasp such a self-evident concept.

quote:
The turtle shell example was cherry picked as a preposterous example of something that couldn't possibly be true...


Then you choose a creation myth. I don't find the concept of an all-powerful deity speaking the universe into being any more plausible than the Egyptian myth that an all-powerful deity masturbated to create the world. All of them seem pretty ridiculous to me.

quote:
...atheists had to concede this. And even now they remain diligently at work trying to come up with other models to get around the profound theological problems this presents.


Just a thought from your earlier post...athiests don't have theological problems :)


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
No, it is that the least suited will not survive. And before you act like "Oh well that in turn means survival of the fittest" and no. No it does not mean survival of the fittest, it means that the least fit will die off, regardless of the existence of anything more fit. You say rats are the pinnacle of evolution since they can live everywhere?
If you think genetics isn't at its core probability then I think I just wasted my time arguing against, since you already took care of my work for me.


RE: Expected!
By ot56 on 7/15/2010 6:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
3) The fossil record doesn't reflect what we expect from a gradualistic transformation of single celled organism to complex mammals. The record actually shows new species springing into existence suddenly with no previous transitional forms. The Cambrian explosion is the best example of this problem for neo-darwinists.

This arguement exposes a basic misunderstanding of evolution and the fossil record. First, the notion there are no transitional forms is patently FALSE. I mean, just look at the record of homonid evolution, you have a gradual progression from an ape-like ancestor through austrolopethines through a dozen or so members of the genus homo, leading to modern man. This is CLEAR evidence of the "transitional" forms you are looking for, a clear progression of form through time.

Also, remember, the fossil "record" is probabilistic. Finding fossils is not like finding planes at O'Hare field, it is a difficult, frustrating task. Even with the utmost effort applied to human evolution, the best archeologists in the world are only rarely able to find genuine relics. With all this effort they are only able to find a limited number of samples from a handful of individuals that represent populations that number in the millions, spread over tens of thousands of years. Every bone is not preserved, every bone, every individual, every adaption cannot be part of the record.

And by definition, the transitional forms are not the success, from an evolutionary perspective that their fully evolved decendants are. Thus they will leave porportionally FEWER examples. Making their discovery even more difficult.

So instead view the progression from ape through modern man, with demonstrated timelines, as the representation of the transtion!


RE: Expected!
By wgbutler on 7/16/2010 9:29:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

This arguement exposes a basic misunderstanding of evolution and the fossil record. First, the notion there are no transitional forms is patently FALSE.


Darwin himself acknowledged the Cambrian fossil record was a problem.

If macro-evolution is even half true, there should be a preponderance of evidence for it all over the place. And there are a preponderance of fossils in the geological record, just not a preponderance of evidence for neo-Darwinism.


RE: Expected!
By ot56 on 7/16/2010 11:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
Nice to refute me by quoting a guy from 160 years ago. Using the level of scientific knowledge from the 1840's to prove a point in a debate in 2010 is like trying to use a roman legion to penetrate the magiot line!

I guess that you do so because those ancient stores of knowledge allow room for arguement. Arguing against any biologist with current knowledge would put you in the place of the roman legion.

Quite simply to assert there is no evidence for macro evolution is to IGNORE the facts of the matter.

And why is the Cambrian fossil record a problem? This assertion is based upon the myth of a cambrian "explosion". This myth is being debunked daily as our ability to identify soft tissue fossils increases. The fossil record now indicates that the Cambrian "explosion" is simply due to a single adaption, that of a hard skeleton and that soft tissue evolution had been going on for quite some time before that. Hardly an explosion, more like a slow burn.

The evidence for macro evolution is visable in the fossil record and in living flora and fauna and was even visable in Darwin's time. Ever heard of Galapagos island? Darwin's Finches? Hawaii has much the same conditions, but the traces of evolution are more contaminated by the influence of humans.

In the galapagos, one is able to document speciation in near real time (1000's of years) when you have small populations in isolated environments.

To look at Darwin's finches and assert macro evolution does not occur is to look at the sun and say it will burn out when the wood is gone.


RE: Expected!
By wgbutler on 7/16/2010 3:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
So much ignorance, so little time...

quote:

Nice to refute me by quoting a guy from 160 years ago. Using the level of scientific knowledge from the 1840's to prove a point in a debate in 2010 is like trying to use a roman legion to penetrate the magiot line!


Modern evolutionary biologists also admit that the Cambrian explosion poses a problem. It's very politically incorrect for them to admit out loud, but every once in awhile you catch one in a rare moment of candidness and you see what they really think.

For one example (and there are others) check out this article written discussing a Bioessays paper published in 2009 (Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," BioEssays, Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 (2009).)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_art...

quote:

To look at Darwin's finches and assert macro evolution does not occur is to look at the sun and say it will burn out when the wood is gone.


You are making the classical mistake of taking evidence of MICRO-evolution and extrapolating that to mean that MACRO-evolution is true.

Also, the finch beak size variation is overblown. What happens is that beaks go through a range of sizes depending on the weather and the types of foods the birds eat. There is no new information being generated, and the birds certainly aren't turning into some new non-bird species! I mean, it's been almost 200 years and those creatures are still finches!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/...


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
cuz we have full skeletons for all those hominids.


RE: Expected!
By Calindar on 7/16/2010 6:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) It never explains the origin of the first life (abiogenesis). Even if we had concrete proof that one type of species (i.e. reptiles) completely morphs into another type of species (i.e. mammals) you still need an original animal to get everything going. And materialism has no answer whatsoever for how that first life formed from non-living chemistry.

Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of first life because that isn't what it is about. Evolution describes the changes in species over time. Your argument is akin to saying Newton's first law of motion cannot be accurate because it doesn't explain the origin of the momentum. While evolution requires life's existence, it doesn't need to explain it's existence to successfully explain how it behaves.

quote:
2) It goes against what we observe in the labs with bacteria in experiments such as the Lenski experiments or the double mutation experiments conducted by Ralph Seelke.

Did you look at the Lenski experiment? How does it not support evolution? They are witnessing genetic mutations and variations first hand. What exactly are you expecting to see in 22 years time? The E-Coli to turn into a Rabbit? Lenski directly supports Evolutionary theories.

quote:
3) The fossil record doesn't reflect what we expect from a gradualistic transformation of single celled organism to complex mammals. The record actually shows new species springing into existence suddenly with no previous transitional forms. The Cambrian explosion is the best example of this problem for neo-darwinists.


The fossil record is nowhere near complete with huge gaping holes everywhere. This is because the chances of a fossil being preserved enough to survive millions of years is very rare, and the chances of us finding it are rare too. Finding a species with no previous transitional forms simply means no previous ancestors have been found yet, it does not imply that they did not exist. There is a lot of evidence from fossils we have found that support the theories of evolution. This support can also be found in living animals today, where many animals that are completely different today share similar but altered body structures(Look at the bones in the front appendages of different mammals like humans, dolphins, and bats, for example.)

quote:
4) It defies all common sense and ascribes supernatural powers to random processes. Frank Tipler and John Barrow calculated that the chances of moving from a bacterium to homo sapiens in 10 billion years or less is 10-24,000,000. That's a decimal point with 24 million zeros to the left of 1.


Large numbers are a favorite argument for "fine tuning" by the creationist crowd, but a large number like this means absolutely nothing. You cannot calculate probability from a sample size of 1. It is meaningless.


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 6:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
Evolution education assumes a single origin. So though it is not explicitly stated as a requirement, it is very strongly implied.


RE: Expected!
By callmeroy on 7/15/2010 3:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
This again?

You fall into the same trap that most do , that of thinking there's just "two neat boxes" that the topic of creation falls into -- the boxed called "evolution" and the boxed called "creationism".......no its not that simple you are aliening a huge portion of people who believe in a hybrid view point (of which I'm one).

The conclusions I've come to on this subject and what I believe weren't formed overnight. They are from reading about science and evolution, my beliefs in God, personal experiences through my life, many conversations on the topic (especially with Athiests) over several years.

From all that my personal believe is that evolution and science are absolutely real - to ignore that is foolish. However I do believe all things from nature/creation (minerals, animals, plants, etc.) had their genesis with God one way or the other.

I really detest being labelled in the group that thinks God created the world directly and instantly in a literal sense (and all things in it) ....just a matter of a few thousand years ago no less. I do NOT believe that is what happened.

Evolution is an invention of God, that was his design on how life would adapt and evolve -- we humans just praised one of our own for being the first one to recognize it and label it.

You and I exist because how ever far back you trace time there was some event that happened , some how particles had to exist to spark off the chain of events that led to our creation....I believe God created that chain of events and particles.

We humans created our technology because God created us as intelligent and learning beings.

So its not that we all think BOOM! out of a poof of smoke humans just appeared out of thin air....(or anything else)...

Its folks like YOU that basically TELL us what we believe for us....which is a very jerky thing to do.


RE: Expected!
By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 4:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, our points of view on the subject at hand share just about everything in common.

I've never argued against the idea the God created the Universe, defined the laws of nature, and so on. I merely argue that Evolution is a reasonably sound theory. I argue against the alternative theory that creation occurred ~6000 years ago, and I disagree with ideas such as humans and dinosaurs existing at the same time.

So, I think it has been my mistake to not be much more clear on this point. Perhaps it would be good for us to come up with two separate terms for discussion. One, creationism, could be limited to the concept that God created the universe. Another term, _____, could be used to more specifically mean that God created everything exactly according to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, and this occurred 6000 years ago, and that species do not evolve: they were made as-is by God.

Anyway, I see that you've replied to a similar clarification I posted elsewhere in this conversation, so I think we have understanding on this. Still, I'd be interested in a better name for the word I'm looking for.


RE: Expected!
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 4:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I argue against the alternative theory that creation occurred ~6000 years ago, and I disagree with ideas such as humans and dinosaurs existing at the same time.

So you believe in a limited God? I don't. I believe that when my God said he created everything in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, then I literally believe that. There is evidence for such a claim also, but evidence is always in the eye of the beholder.

quote:
and that species do not evolve

That's where you are completely ignorant of what others might think. Species DO evolve. It's called MICRO evolution. Which is observable, testable, and perfectly acceptable science.


RE: Expected!
By nct on 7/15/2010 11:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's more amusing that you fail to see that your comment is most applicable to you.


RE: Expected!
By JustSal on 7/15/2010 11:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
That's just LOL!!!


RE: Expected!
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 5:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, younger earth means at the time of first egg, earth was hotter. If you believe in a billion year old earth at least know the theory behind it.


well
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 12:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is certainly better than the last explanation I read on this topic: They both came at the same time.

quote:
Their research project originally aimed to figure out how animals make eggshells because it's an extraordinarily strong yet lightweight material that no human has been able to replicate, and the researchers hoped to learn how to develop a manmade equivalent by learning about the way animals make eggshells.


quote:
Freeman and his colleagues referred to some theories that suggest that chickens' "ancestors evolved to create hard eggs around the time of the dinosaurs."


Yes, humans expending energy, time and resources using their intelligence cannot replicate the egg, but, randomly, without any reason, it just happened in the past.

Right.




RE: well
By adiposity on 7/15/2010 2:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, humans expending energy, time and resources using their intelligence cannot replicate the egg, but, randomly, without any reason, it just happened in the past.


We haven't been trying very long. Also, we've made much better things than eggs, like...plastic.


RE: well
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 2:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We haven't been trying very long.


So? If I could randomly wait for a song to play out of 10000 vs. pick the song via my fingers, how much time does that save?

Or do you think that just waiting for something to happen is going to get you anywhere in life?

quote:
Also, we've made much better things than eggs, like...plastic.


Try making an egg out of plastic and see how well a chicken embryo will breathe out of it. Or how well it can be recyclable compared to the egg.

And, btw, if plastic is better, why are we trying to figure out how the egg works to make a better material?


RE: well
By tigen on 7/15/2010 3:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, humans expending energy, time and resources using their intelligence cannot replicate the egg, but, randomly, without any reason, it just happened in the past.


Yes. I don't see why you have a problem with this.

Random processes are extremely powerful. Anyone who has worked in the fields of product testing, software or hardware verification could tell you that. A random process running according to selection rules and constraints is quite capable of achieving things that would be extremely difficult to design. Especially when it is running over millions and billions of years and generations.


RE: well
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 5:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes. I don't see why you have a problem with this. Random processes are extremely powerful. Anyone who has worked in the fields of product testing, software or hardware verification could tell you that. A random process running according to selection rules and constraints is quite capable of achieving things that would be extremely difficult to design. Especially when it is running over millions and billions of years and generations.


Because there isn't anything or anyone "testing" anything. Besides, there isn't anything to test without something "wrong" happening.


RE: well
By tigen on 7/16/2010 1:38:02 AM , Rating: 3
Sure there is. Lifeforms are constantly being tested on their ability to survive and compete for resources in the environment. When they fail the test, they die out.

That doesn't mean there's a conscious mind behind it.


RE: well
By sprockkets on 7/16/2010 12:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure there is. Lifeforms are constantly being tested on their ability to survive and compete for resources in the environment. When they fail the test, they die out.


If that is the case, why do stupid ugly people still exist?


RE: well
By adiposity on 7/16/2010 1:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't the time for questioning your worth.


RE: well
By sprockkets on 7/16/2010 5:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't the time for questioning your worth.


Ad hominem. Used when the person lost the argument and has nothing else left to say.


RE: well
By Calindar on 7/16/2010 6:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't the time for questioning your worth.

\Thread


RE: well
By Calindar on 7/16/2010 6:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
Stupid people have been riding on the coat tails of innovations made by the intelligent for quite some time. Modern medicine repairs many people after they do stupid things. Watch the beginning of the movie "Idiocracy" for a comedic view on the matter. And not all stupid people survive. Check out the Darwin Awards for a good laugh.


RE: well
By sprockkets on 7/16/2010 6:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stupid people have been riding on the coat tails of innovations made by the intelligent for quite some time. Modern medicine repairs many people after they do stupid things. Watch the beginning of the movie "Idiocracy" for a comedic view on the matter. And not all stupid people survive. Check out the Darwin Awards for a good laugh.


Here's my issue: Evolution is claimed to be responsible for the eye, the egg, and all other fantastic features of life that we have, but when people like me point out it's simple failures, like ugly people, we get stupid excuses for it.

You can't have it both ways. Either evolution works all the time or it doesn't.


RE: well
By Calindar on 7/16/2010 6:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
You are some how implying that the attribute of "ugly" somehow impedes one's ability to survive. You may say that being "ugly" inhibits reproduction, but humanity for the most part practices monogamy, and the majority of the time ugly people would rather mate with other ugly people than to spend their life alone, and not mate.

quote:
You can't have it both ways. Either evolution works all the time or it doesn't.

Our intelligence and innovations have allowed us to become an exception to the rule, to an extent. While earlier human's ability to survive small pox, polio, or cold temperatures directly effected their ability to survive and reproduce, modern medicines, clothing, etc have helped us overcome many of the natural selection process that afflicted us and most animals before. That's not to say that humans are no longer evolving, or no longer abide by "survival of the fittest", it's just that the definition of "fittest" has changed drastically for modern humans when compared to our ancestors and other animals. An example would be, in human ancestors, the ability to store energy gained from food was vital for survival, and those that couldn't store energy as well would be more likely to starve. Today, our high fat/calorie diets, along with a less active life style, have caused the people that store food energy better to be at a disadvantage, causing obesity, and all of the complications that come along with it.


RE: well
By sprockkets on 7/16/2010 7:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are some how implying that the attribute of "ugly" somehow impedes one's ability to survive. You may say that being "ugly" inhibits reproduction, but humanity for the most part practices monogamy, and the majority of the time ugly people would rather mate with other ugly people than to spend their life alone, and not mate.


So being ugly isn't a disadvantage? Even ugly people want to marry good looking ones.

Just like the other poster, he proved my point. Even when not involving humans, this is the problem of getting all the beneficial traits passed on to all and killing the rest. It doesn't happen. Even science experiments proved this point when trying to weed out traits: the undesirable ones keep coming back.

quote:
That's not to say that humans are no longer evolving, or no longer abide by "survival of the fittest", it's just that the definition of "fittest" has changed drastically for modern humans when compared to our ancestors and other animals.


Why should it change when we are the product of evolution, which is selfish?


RE: well
By Calindar on 7/16/2010 7:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So being ugly isn't a disadvantage? Even ugly people want to marry good looking ones. Just like the other poster, he proved my point. Even when not involving humans, this is the problem of getting all the beneficial traits passed on to all and killing the rest. It doesn't happen. Even science experiments proved this point when trying to weed out traits: the undesirable ones keep coming back.


This argument is so abstract and flawed that it's nearly impossible to even address without going into great details about it's short comings. First you have to define "ugly" which is extremely subjective. Then you have to analyze what determines why we perceive certain things as beautiful, and certain things as ugly. Then you have to analyze what possible beneficial things those traits provide when they are in a state of "beauty", and what detrimental things they cause when they are in a state of "ugly". Then you have to look at how those different traits effect the ability to survive and reproduce. Then you have to take into account the desire to reproduce(and beer) can overcome distastes with a persons appearance. Then you can finally address how there are still ugly people around. So as you can see, it is an incredibly deep and complex thing to analyze, and a very flawed argument to make unless you have all of the complete answers to all of the things mentioned above, which I know you don't, because if you did you wouldn't have asked the question to begin with.

quote:
Why should it change when we are the product of evolution, which is selfish?

The attributes that determine the "best fit" for our environment have changed because humans are incredibly good at changing our environment. We gained that ability through our evolved intelligence.


RE: well
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 7:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
Quit the political correctness bull crap. It is a fact that there are people who by looks will not be procreating. Its like in the animal world, every species has a specific set of traits that increases the probability of getting action.


RE: well
By Calindar on 7/19/2010 10:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, there are a few people who will not reproduced based solely on looks, but those are rare(usually the highly deformed). Everyday I see disgustingly ugly fatsos walking around with babies. The truth is ugly people would rather be with other ugly people than alone. People that don't reproduce at all most likely do so due to a number of issues beyond bad looks, like social problems. If you don't think ugly people are reproducing, you need to hang out at the Wal-mart more often.


RE: well
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 7:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
+9001
Science is to look for where it a law or theory is broken, not to prove it.
You don't test software and submit reports about how everything is working, it is the problems that call for re-evaluations.


so
By shin0bi272 on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: so
By wushuktl on 7/15/2010 7:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
i'm pretty sure it's a process that resembles this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_division


RE: so
By Murloc on 7/15/2010 7:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
first there were acquatic animals. Their eggs didn't need a shell.
Then they evolved into dinosaurs with hard shells, then into birds and chicken.


RE: so
By PlasmaBomb on 7/15/2010 9:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
You do realise that the argument you put forward has the egg coming before the chicken?


RE: so
By mcnabney on 7/15/2010 9:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, no.

Eggs have evolved just as the animals that lay them. Eggs are only required for the more advanced chordates, and then only the terrestrial forms require a ridgid covering. Animal life predates that.


RE: so
By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 7:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
Cuz the modern chicken is from the time of the dinosaurs, it survived the cataclysmic destruction that led to the extinction of everything.


RE: so
By sviola on 7/15/2010 9:31:57 AM , Rating: 2
Reptilians came before Dinossaurs...


RE: so
By Proxes on 7/15/2010 10:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
Being precedes becoming. Plato figured this out over 2000 years ago.


The real question is.
By ZimZum on 7/15/2010 7:06:57 AM , Rating: 1
Where do McNuggets come from?




RE: The real question is.
By MindParadox on 7/15/2010 7:35:20 AM , Rating: 2
well, some say they didnt show up till the aliens landed in Roswell :P

Apostrophes Cause Catastrophes!


RE: The real question is.
By swish1114 on 7/15/2010 7:54:03 AM , Rating: 4
From McEggs...


RE: The real question is.
By shaw on 7/15/2010 8:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
McNuggets come from McChicken which are grown on the McFarm using McAntibodies and it helps them taste McFrickengood.


RE: The real question is.
By driver01z on 7/15/2010 11:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
AH SAY AH SAY BOAH


RE: The real question is.
By Shatbot on 7/15/2010 8:22:57 AM , Rating: 3
McDonalds.


That's so simplistic
By EntreHoras on 7/15/2010 7:13:26 AM , Rating: 4
If the protein to make eggs is only present on chickens, how other species lay eggs?
If you only studied chickens, you'll find the protein only on chickens. I'm sure that if you studied lizards, you'll find the protein there too.

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that the first chicken came from an mutated egg laid by a proto-chicken.




RE: That's so simplistic
By tmouse on 7/15/2010 7:57:04 AM , Rating: 5
Yes but KFPC never took off.


RE: That's so simplistic
By AnnihilatorX on 7/15/2010 9:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that the first chicken came from an mutated egg laid by a proto-chicken.


It is also possible that a proto-chicken mutated to a chicken during fetal stage or after mammal birth and lay an egg.


RE: That's so simplistic
By geddarkstorm on 7/15/2010 2:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, reading that made me wince. Especially since other sites reporting on this didn't make quite a folly. But gees, can we get any more short sighted? What about the platypus? Which came first, the platypus or the egg? Or the insane necromancer who stitched all those animals together in some unholy, poison barb toting, chimera?


call me crazy...
By zmatt on 7/15/2010 7:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
.........but how does that answer the question? A protein needed to make chicken eggs is only found in the chicken, the thing that makes them. What's to say that the chicken's direct ancestor didn't also have said protein. We know dinosaurs had to because they had hard shell eggs and they are the ancestors of chickens as silly as that sounds.




RE: call me crazy...
By theapparition on 7/15/2010 8:13:09 AM , Rating: 2
I agree completely.

This is a completely pointless argument.

The first "chicken" must have been hatched. If it were a radial mutation, then it's parents were something other than chicken. But most likely, the chicken as we know it has been slowly mutating for millenia, so where do you draw the line at when a chicken stops being a chicken?

I guess researchers have to demonstrate why they need grant money.


RE: call me crazy...
By 0ldman on 7/15/2010 10:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
We need to apply for a grant to prove that researchers need to prove their need for grant money by coming up with frivolous research to prove their need for grant money.


RE: call me crazy...
By Ticholo on 7/15/2010 12:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
But what come first: the grant or the proof?


RE: call me crazy...
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/15/2010 10:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, this answers the question, "Which came first the chicken or the chicken egg?" not "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"


Of course chickens came first
By sbtech on 7/15/2010 8:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
God doesn't lay eggs!




RE: Of course chickens came first
By acase on 7/15/2010 10:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
No, but the Easter Bunny does...


By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 12:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, he just walks around and picks them up. Haven't you seen that Bugs Bunny cartoon :)


I don't believe it
By dgingeri on 7/15/2010 10:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
Eggs existed long before the first chickens came around. Dinosaurs and bird had eggs millions of years before chickens existed.




RE: I don't believe it
By JustSal on 7/15/2010 10:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
Um... A chicken is a bird.


RE: I don't believe it
By Calindar on 7/16/2010 6:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Um... There are other bird species besides chickens, which can exist without chickens.


Not if you read the study, it doesn't...
By Woodchuck2000 on 7/15/2010 9:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
PZ Myers explains it far better than I ever could...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/no_it_d...




By Woodchuck2000 on 7/15/2010 9:49:38 AM , Rating: 2
Or even this link, if I could learn to use copy-paste...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/chicken...


Chicken or Religion
By leadpoop on 7/16/2010 10:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
What came first? The Chicken or The Religion!




RE: Chicken or Religion
By leadpoop on 7/16/2010 11:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
I know!! I know!! All the stupid comments that come with a question like this.


This is freekin wierd...
By xler8r on 7/15/2010 9:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
No lie, I wore my socks today that have "chicken ? egg" on them... and I never wear these socks. I'm totally sketched out right now




Hehe
By littvay on 7/15/2010 11:25:52 AM , Rating: 2
I also could have told those scientists that humans can't make eggs. We don't have to. We (non-scientists) reproduce through a different method.

But on a slightly more serious note: there was a study in an ag journal that used longitudinal US Department of Agriculture data on chicken and egg production. They used a grange causal model and drew conclusions concerning this question. I can't really remember what the result was :)

PS: I also have a PhD... oooppss.




I knew Christ
By TheNuts on 7/15/2010 1:25:47 PM , Rating: 1
Knew him? Shit, ni**a owes me 12 bucks!




RE: I knew Christ
By leadpoop on 7/16/2010 11:03:12 AM , Rating: 1
That's funny!!! He turned my water into wine. All I wanted was a glass of water!! What an asshole!


Um...
By adiposity on 7/15/2010 2:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
Where is the proof the protein did not exist in a predecessor to the chicken? Maybe that's just semantics, but just because it only exists in chickens today, doesn't mean it didn't exist in the ancestors of the chicken.




So smart yet so far away
By KIAman on 7/15/2010 2:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
So apparently all eggs are hard and therefore the proverbial chicken came first, amirite?




Next Challenge
By Ammohunt on 7/15/2010 2:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
What came first..the alligator or the egg.




By Pan Skrzetuski on 7/15/2010 7:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
Accepting teleology makes answering any question like this pretty simple: The obvious purpose of the egg is to develop into a chicken and not vice versa (the chicken is more complete/perfect).
That being the case, the egg, simply speaking, could not come first, since we would then have something producing what is more perfect than itself.

Evolution is still possible--you'd just have to say that if the egg came first, something else in addition to it (perhaps just environmental factors) was required to make the chicken.

"What do they teach them in the schools these days?" ;)




By eegake on 7/16/2010 12:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
Indoctrinating children in them before they are capable of reason is a form of ritual abuse.




By torahtrance on 7/20/2010 3:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is truly wonderful to hear scientists have discovered this. I am a Jewish Rabbi, and I can tell you we already have known for thousands of years that the Chicken came first. This is because we were told by ....G-d that when He created the world, He created it 'Complete'. Meaning everything was ready, no egg to hatch it was already hatched, etc...

From there I want just mention briefly, about these timeless religion vs science debates:

[My goal is only to state the objective truth and not stir anyone up]

1) Judaism was around over 1000 years before Christianity, and obviously Islam, the two most practiced religions around today. All Jesus and Islam movements are taken from the teachings of Judaism, and for a lack of better word --corrupted by power hungry people and used to manipulate the masses. This is why everyone these days hates 'religion' because religion as they know it is what they know of Jesus and Islam (which are both manufactured and full of lies as anyone can read up on the internet...) [note to 'believers' - you may 'believe' but G-d says: "Know G-d", to know, is to have knowledge, requiring logic, both islam and jesus based religions must throw logic away to exist -- This is why G-d hinted that to avoid the lies that will come from the truth, you must use knowledge - like Science and not just blind faith]

2) Science and Judaism go together like bread and butter. Sadly again, in the modern times our 'hidden' traditions - known now sadly in pop culture as 'Kabbalah' is completely in tune with modern advanced science like Quantum theory etc. In fact I was present at a meeting in Jerusalem in 2005, when an -AUTHENTIC- Kabbalist and a leading Jewish non-religious Physicist of some sort were discussing at the same level some very advanced scientific concepts! It was strange since the kabbalist did not study any science just Kabbalah, and the physicist said he was shocked and impressed. All this is documented everywhere.

Finally I want ask kindly of everyone here to take a moment and really consider what I wrote above. I respect science, technology, and I respect all of you, us Jews are always the scapegoat of the world, but now we are seeing more and more evidence that clearly shows Jesus and Islam are both terribly wrong and based on nothing factual. I laugh with you athiests at the silly things man made religions say. I just ask: please don't throw out the concept of G-d out the window. Because Judaism has yet to be disproven or shown inhumane when you give a listening ear.

And by the way we are the ONLY group that does not do ANY work to accept conversions, we generally advise against converting.

IN the end for anyone actually serious about discovery with Judaism and Science you will be blown away-:
Torah and Science (Just released 2010)
http://tinyurl.com/26z5djj - Part 1
http://tinyurl.com/2asdesj - Part 2
http://tinyurl.com/2domd53 - Part 3

I think anyone will enjoy this eye opening video and good job on the article I'm happy to see science catching up!

p.s. I imagine someone will mention hindu again just wanted to mention - It says the answer to that also in the Torah (Bible) Genesis 25:6 that Avraham gave his other sons gifts and sent them East. We have a tradition that the gifts were philosophy, martial arts, some mysticism, etc.. So that connects very well with Eastern religions which are very similar in a lot of concepts to what Avraham taught.

Bye!




By seamonkey79 on 7/15/2010 9:33:15 AM , Rating: 1
See, there you go, thinking about this stuff... Don't think about it, just believe it, that's the important part.


By CList on 7/15/2010 9:36:19 AM , Rating: 3
...um, no. Evolution doesn't simply go from "creature that lays no eggs" to "creature that lays the perfect egg that we have today". The concept of MILLIONS of years is a little hard to imagine given how short a single human life is.

I'm no biologist, but I imagine the first egg shells were much thinner and less robust than the ones we have today - perhaps more like simple membranes... and had none of seemingly miraculous properties of the current shell. Yet the offspring would have survived in the same way that they survived when they came out with no egg-shell at all.

Cheers,
CList


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 10:24:48 AM , Rating: 3
Yes it is, the problem you have, is that if you can't see it, then it can't be true, yet you believe in a god.

Hypocritical much? ;)


By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 10:52:32 AM , Rating: 2
Mine is called a religion. Don't call yours science. Both require faith to believe. That's why there is a problem.


By JustSal on 7/15/2010 11:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Hypocritical much?"

Same goes for evolution. It almost feels like common sense to believe in a creator. The odds of everything accidentally coming together and forming all we know is equivalent to a tornado ripping through a junk yard. And leaving behind a boeing 747 fueled and ready to go. And with passengers, and a pilot with the intelligence to fly it.


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 11:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
Your watchmaker strawman argument died out twenty years ago.

A simple rebuttal would be what designed the creator since complex designs require a creator, your creator analogy is flawed, unless you can point to what created, your creator.

The rest of us will stick with real science and eventually cure diseases meanwhile you can die out as you wait for your god to save you from cancer or heart disease. :)


By JustSal on 7/15/2010 12:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
I've actually have had cancer, but if it weren't for the ultra sounds it wouldn't have been found. So I thank God everyday that he has given people the gift of knowledge. ...Okay okay lets say your right. Then what do I have to lose when I die? Nothing. I'll die just like you die. And be gone forever. Just like when we sleep we don't even know we're gone. But, what if I'm right? And if I'm right then that means that heaven and hell really exist. So why not play the safe card? Are you to tell me the billions of people who have had near death experiences and have experienced almost the exact same thing are all crazy? Or people that see spirits and loved ones. Don't you want to know when you die that your going to see your loved ones, father, mother, daughter, son, wife, etc... I do!

The bible was written by 1 of 3 beings.
1. A good man. But a good man said that the bible is inspired by the word of God.
2. A bad man. A bad man would not condemn his self.
3. GOD

The bible says that God has always been, and always will be. We are not meant to understand all things. But I know what I understand.


By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 12:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
The idea that time itself is a feature of the Universe has a lot of appeal to me. The very question of "what happened before the Universe" may be just silly nonsense.

The thing you speak of - afterlife, is beyond the scope of science. Science is the study of the natural world, of which Evolution may be a part. This in no way interferes with a belief in God, unless you can't accept non-legalistic religious viewpoints.

There are many logical problems with the book of Genesis besides the idea that everything was created in 6 days. And even those 6 days can be explained by the whole thing that time is meaningless to God (which fits in, for me, with my fascination with the idea that Time is meaningless outside of the Universe). Those 6 days could represent 6 eons, phases... whatever. Actually, taking Genesis literally in no way enriches the ethical and moral lessons given to us in the Bible.

Further, I think it's rather absurd to demand a literal faith in the Book of Genesis. For instance, who did Cain and Able marry? In the end, this is a story about the beginning of the world. It was passed on through many generations through an Oral tradition until finally written down. I think it's quite possible to have faith that God created everything, yet not take Genesis literally.


By JustSal on 7/15/2010 2:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't take the book of Genesis literal then you might as well not take the whole bible as literal.I say this because God said -it happened- that way. And if I don't believe him then I am calling God a liar. And as we know God doesn't lie. He is 100% righteousness, flawless, sinless...

The different accounts of Genesis do seem like they have contradictions. But if one would study how people wrote, and articulated in the Hebrew times,or beginning times if you will, you'll see that its a lot different from ours. (And adding translations from language to language is even a bigger headache.) But the Greek or Hebrew translation of Genesis is meant for 7 literal days.(He created all in 6 days but on the 7th He rested, just to clarify)

There were strange things in the beginning of the bible because obviously they married and mated with their sisters. But if you look into it you'll see that it wasn't until like a thousand years later(may be wrong on the time frame) that incest was wrong and against the law. And now don't forget because Adam and Eve were the very first 2 humans, they were perfect (physically), meaning they had perfect genes. So since all there offspring were obviously close to them in generations that makes them nearly perfect. But now thinking of our generations, look how much disease, cancer, mutations are out there. That's why Cain and Able didn't have offspring that had down-syndrome because they were so close to being physically perfect. But I'm sure that it caught up to them in a hurry. And that's also why they lived to such outrageous ages.

So I think its fare to say that one has his/her own opinion of all our evidence today. And if you think about it we all have the same facts, same planet, same fossils, same stars etc... But its how we interpret our facts.


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 3:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
Serious question, do you actually read ancient hebrew?


By JustSal on 7/15/2010 3:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, I wish I could. It would take 2 life times, for me that is, to learn. Have you ever seen there alphabet? But I have had classes on it.


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 4:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't take two lifetimes to learn to read Hebrew. In fact it is quite easy if you already know one of the successor languages, in this case Arabic.

That being said, since you don't read Hebrew and can't understand it literally, why do you accept political translations like the KJV?


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 2:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry you had cancer, it was't god that saved you, no matter what you want to believe. It was the human ingenuity that developed the drugs, and treaments for it. It is not magic and didn't happen right away, in fact a lot of people died for those treatments and drugs to work.

I actually don't care if I see anyone I know after I die, because logic dictates it isn't the case. I don't need some afterlife imaginary place to keep me sane in this world.

Your false analogy appeal using the what if scenario also makes no sense to those of us with rational thinking skills. Appealing to the emotional side of humans is something religion has done for centuries, a form of control. You won't get sympathy from me for it, nor should you from anyone who actually applies their critical thinking cap(Assuming they have one).

The bible has been proven to be written by humans (I won't claim just men for I am fairly sure some women also had a part in it originally seeing as how it is just stealing older works and re-telling them). It is a rehashing for Egyptian, Hindu, Summerian, and Greek myths, propagated as truth. Eventually, even it will die out much like all the previous other ones have. Sadly, I probably won't live to see it, although I wish I could.


By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 2:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bible has been proven to be written by humans (I won't claim just men for I am fairly sure some women also had a part in it originally seeing as how it is just stealing older works and re-telling them). It is a rehashing for Egyptian, Hindu, Summerian, and Greek myths, propagated as truth. Eventually, even it will die out much like all the previous other ones have. Sadly, I probably won't live to see it, although I wish I could.


Proven by people who are materialists who refuse to believe that the bible can fortell the future by fiat.

Why don't you read Isaiah chapter 13 first and discuss how it is he got that right?


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 2:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
Last I checked, Al Hillah, "Babylon" from your Isaiah Ch 13 has 360K people living there.

quote:
Isaiah Chapter 13:20
It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there


So much for that one eh?


By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 3:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last I checked, Al Hillah, "Babylon" from your Isaiah Ch 13 has 360K people living there. quote: Isaiah Chapter 13:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there So much for that one eh?


That's not where Ancient Bablyon was; it is outside central Iraq. Nothing is left there but ruins. You are more than welcome to travel there and see for yourself.

Same was foretold of Philistia too. What are you going to say to that?


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 3:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh but you see, it was translated wrong and I am actually correct, it is Al Hillah it'll be proven in about five years.

I'm going to say you are wrong there as well seeing as how you don't read Hebrew, let alone ancient Hebrew. :)

Its ok though, it takes quite a while to translate said documents into even partially readable English.

As for your Philistia (ethnic group) not a city, last I checked they weren't wiped out as Egyptians are quite prominent in every single actual historical event.


By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 4:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ahh but you see, it was translated wrong and I am actually correct, it is Al Hillah it'll be proven in about five years. I'm going to say you are wrong there as well seeing as how you don't read Hebrew, let alone ancient Hebrew. :)


Why would I need to read ancient hebrew when it's been translated into many other languages perfectly fine?

What next? God's name is now something other than Jehovah or Yahweh?

My name sounds different in English, spanish, and Russian, but that doesn't mean the meaning of it changes.

Second, we have empirical evidence of where Babylon's ruins are; it isn't even doubted. We have proof of Belshazzar of Daniel, who they thought was a figment of Danie's imagination, dug up at the site.

quote:
As for your Philistia (ethnic group) not a city, last I checked they weren't wiped out as Egyptians are quite prominent in every single actual historical event.


My bad, it was Edom I wanted to mention.


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 4:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
It hasn't been translated into many other languages perfectly fine, look at the whole controversy with "murder" vs "kill". One example, not to mention the whole virgin birth debacle shows you the translations are flawed and unless you can read the original works they need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

As for Edom, there is a huge discrepancy with the timeline of the biblical account of things. The bible puts Edom at a time of around 1400 BCE or there abouts, actual archaeology links it as 700 or 800 BCE at earliest.

You don't think 600 yrs is a huge difference and an uncountable variable for a supposed "perfect" book?

You are reaching for truths, and not to mention what was Edom existed for many centuries after its supposed "destruction". Edom was a nation until 629 CE after the Jewish-Roman wars ended.


By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 5:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It hasn't been translated into many other languages perfectly fine, look at the whole controversy with "murder" vs "kill". One example, not to mention the whole virgin birth debacle shows you the translations are flawed and unless you can read the original works they need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.


So that's why I've considered more than one. Besides, what makes you think you have the "original" hebrew version anyhow? It's already been proven that there has been no change in the Bible we have today compared to what we found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You need to clarify the whole virgin birth "debacle". Those who want it not to be a virgin birth are again people trying to drag Jesus down to their level.

quote:
As for Edom, there is a huge discrepancy with the timeline of the biblical account of things. The bible puts Edom at a time of around 1400 BCE or there abouts, actual archaeology links it as 700 or 800 BCE at earliest. You don't think 600 yrs is a huge difference and an uncountable variable for a supposed "perfect" book?


Archeology isn't perfect. Edom and his people date all the way back to Jacob's brother, Esau who was later called Edom due to his selling his birthright for red lentil stew.

We also don't know who Darius was, but there hasn't been anything to disprove him yet.

quote:
You are reaching for truths, and not to mention what was Edom existed for many centuries after its supposed "destruction". Edom was a nation until 629 CE after the Jewish-Roman wars ended.


Which is exactly what the bible said would happen. They ceased to exist, permanently, both fortold by Isaiah and Jeremiah. It wasn't until around 300-400 C.E. that Babylon ceased to fully exist either, even though it was taken over many years earlier.

Why don't you try to predict which world power today will not only cease to exist, but it's land to never be inhabited, forever ?


By Anoxanmore on 7/16/2010 9:18:57 AM , Rating: 2
Actually there has been changes. Look at the ten commandments we'll start there since that is in Hebrew not Greek (virgin birth).

Original ancient hebrew word for murder is two fold one is: grh, the other is xcr. Transliterated we get harag and ratasch.

The commandment says this in hebrew:

aWkr)y a(ml jM) -t)w jyb) deBK
. jl aetn jyhl) hwhy hmd)h l( jymy xcert.

Originally, people thought the commandment meant kill, but looking at it in context and comparing it to other sources (which is one of the things archaeologists are good at, real ones, not christian) it was determined that the xcert was actually grh, which mean murder, not kill.

The virgin birth one is based on greek, in which the greek for virgin is not written in the gospels in fact the word used means 'young woman', kind of throws the whole virgin part out. :)

Edom is much younger than the bible says it is, which is one contradiction, second it didn't die out till long after predicted. You have to stretch the death listed by the bible by almost 400 yrs to make it reach, and even then some people were still called Edomites in ancient history even dating after their final "death" and "destruction" 600 yrs later. :)

I can make a prediction too watch this:

In the heart of winter, on a dark night,
The firstborn son of a royal line
He’ll come to you, full of magical might
To remake the world in a new design

Look deep into the gaze of mesmerizing blue
You will see truth in those brilliant eyes
Here is yet more advice for you to pursue:
He will need your trust, he will need allies.

There is still one more piece that you must know
His younger brother, the one they shall name
Protect him, his lifeblood must not flow
For without him, your world will be cast into flame


Not bad eh? :D


By sprockkets on 7/16/2010 6:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Originally, people thought the commandment meant kill, but looking at it in context and comparing it to other sources (which is one of the things archaeologists are good at, real ones, not christian) it was determined that the xcert was actually grh, which mean murder, not kill.


Oh my, instead of the command to not kill, it was not to murder! Imagine the confusion that we had about this passage until you mentioned this little nugget of NOTHING!

quote:
The virgin birth one is based on greek, in which the greek for virgin is not written in the gospels in fact the word used means 'young woman', kind of throws the whole virgin part out. :)


Mary wasn't married at that point. If she had committed fornication, God would have known and not let her have the privilege of giving birth to Jesus. It is also explicitly mentioned she had no sex until giving birth to Jesus at Matt 1:22-25

The whole issue I think that people have is that she stayed a virgin, which is ridiculous after reading Matt 13:53-56.

quote:
The virgin birth one is based on greek, in which the greek for virgin is not written in the gospels in fact the word used means 'young woman', kind of throws the whole virgin part out. :)


He used the word par·the´nos, which is virgin in Greek, and is meaning is clear in its use in 1 Corinthians 7.

What you are saying that the scripture he referenced in Isaiah 7:14 mentions al-mah, which can mean maiden, and was applied to virgins such as Rebekah. If you don't want to believe in the Greek scriptures, why believe in the Hebrew ones either? There are only a few hundred prophecies in Isaiah fulfilled in Jesus alone.

quote:
Edom is much younger than the bible says it is, which is one contradiction, second it didn't die out till long after predicted. You have to stretch the death listed by the bible by almost 400 yrs to make it reach, and even then some people were still called Edomites in ancient history even dating after their final "death" and "destruction" 600 yrs later. :)


Since there was no time given as to when it was to happen, your point is irrelevant. The fact remains: it happened, and the claims made are specific, and still remained fulfilled today.

quote:
I can make a prediction too watch this:


So, who specifically is mentioned? How is this foretelling the future?

quote:
Not bad eh? :D


For me to poop on.


By JustSal on 7/15/2010 3:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
My father died from chemotherapy. I was lucky enough to not have to receive any treatments. It was testicular cancer, that I didn't know I had, there was nothing wrong. But when my wife and I wanted to conceive, we were having problems. So I got checked out, and what do you know they found something. So surgery took care of it. But I still will thank God every day for having them find it so early. Even if it wasn't God himself that pointed it to the doctors. God is still the reason for gifts that we have.

That's pretty sad that you would say that you don't care to see anyone after you die. Then whats the point of knowing them now. Or even living a life that you know is pointless.

So, your saying you never used a what if scenario in your life? That's hard to believe because I'm pretty sure a lot of people, if not all people use what if scenarios. You can use it for everything, what if I save a 100 dollars a day, what if we have children, what if I exercise every day I'll lose...etc Oh wait, you don't use those because you have a rational thinking skill, and I don't.

And actually I don't want any of your sympathy. But I will give you my sympathy. For I am okay. I hope I am wrong for your sake.


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 3:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
No, god isn't the reason for the gifts we have. At least not to rational people.

I hate to break it to you, but what is the point in living now then if you are just going to be in utopia when you die? After all, you might as well just not try to live since everyone you know will congratulate you after you die that you made it to utopia.

I'm saying you are using a false analogy and appealing to emotion with your with if scenario, that is known as a "fallacy" in logical reasoning. I take it you've never actually dealt or engaged in a classical debate style in any form. I'd read up on logic first before attempting to convey some fallacy as "truth".

Good, you won't get my sympathy for your fear mongering of people on a tech website. I also don't want yours, for I am going to continue to live my current life to its fullest and enjoy it, while you worry about your after-life and deprive yourself of enjoying this one. :)


By JustSal on 7/15/2010 4:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to break it to you, but what is the point in living now then if you are just going to be nothing when you die?
No I haven't dealt or engaged in a classical debate style in any form. But thanks for the heads up. And I didn't say that I'll see everyone I know in heaven (utopia). But thanks for talking, you made my work day move along a lot quicker then usual. I enjoyed talking. Hope you the best.


By Anoxanmore on 7/15/2010 4:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
This is the only life you get, enjoy it. :)

There is a saying, "Enjoy every day like it is your last, for it very well could be."

Add the basic golden rule of "Do no harm to others, nor to yourself" and life is pretty damn good. :)

You did say you'd see everyone you loved in utopia. Which I'd hope is everyone, otherwise your version of a heaven is going to be incredibly boring.


By JustSal on 7/15/2010 4:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. I'm sure there is going to be more in heaven then I know. And I said I'll want to see my loved ones there. But I even struggle with them. They have their own beliefs and I have no say because everyone is in-titled to there own beliefs.

And I do enjoy my life every day, well except for my job, but I don't need drugs, women, and doing dirty stuff to enjoy my life. A few beers every now and again is okay. I have my hobbies, hunting, camping, football(that is-watching the NFL) And keeping the golden rule is good. But, you go to heaven or hell not because of the bad or good you do here on earth, you go to heaven or hell because of your acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ. But that's not all you have to do. To love God is to obey God. And sure I sin every day and I know its wrong. But in the end I hope God has forgiven me for them.

Question: If you don't believe in the bible, or God, then why was the book of the bible written? And how hard is Arabic to learn?


By Anoxanmore on 7/16/2010 9:00:48 AM , Rating: 2
Unless there isn't a heaven, in which case your false life must be pretty boring. :)

I personally love my job, it isn't what I went to university for but it works out well enough that I don't have to deal with silly people all the time, and I can come on here and talk. :)

I don't know how you can't enjoy women... that is... one of the highlights of life. :)

The bible is a more centralized form of control handed down through the generations, starting with the laws/commandments from Summeria, Egypt, Jewish, and finally incorporating Hindu. After compiling said works, there were huge fights about it (ie wars) because the Pagans prefered to be peaceful but certain other groups wanted them exterminated, RCC, Greek/East Orthodox. Then after the Christians won those conflicts with political movements, control was granted on the masses and they exterminated their own (Gnostics), which concluded with the first Nicean council. Boom, modern RCC was born (mostly) nearly 450 yrs after a supposed god-man died. :)

Arabic was easy for me to learn (I grew up in Egypt), however for the average English speaker, I'd say you could pick it up pretty easily in 6 months, if you use Rosetta stone. Depends on how affluent you are.


By wgbutler on 7/15/2010 11:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

The concept of MILLIONS of years is a little hard to imagine given how short a single human life is.


Repeating the magic phrase "MILLIONS of years" and coming up with a just-so story to explain how very simple structure A transforms into miraculously complex structure B isn't very persuasive to me, and doesn't reflect what we see happening around us in nature.


By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 1:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...um, no. Evolution doesn't simply go from "creature that lays no eggs" to "creature that lays the perfect egg that we have today". The concept of MILLIONS of years is a little hard to imagine given how short a single human life is. I'm no biologist, but I imagine the first egg shells were much thinner and less robust than the ones we have today - perhaps more like simple membranes... and had none of seemingly miraculous properties of the current shell. Yet the offspring would have survived in the same way that they survived when they came out with no egg-shell at all.


So your explanation is the typical "well maybe it was this" or the first implementation argument was much simpler, crude, not refined. Your imagination isn't science. You cannot "wish" away problems and hope they go away like that.

Even Richard Dawkins, a staunch evolutionist/materialist cannot understand why we have male and female reproduction today, because it requires much more in the way of resources, time and is much less efficient, and would never be favored by natural selection, ever.


By HotFoot on 7/15/2010 5:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
I forget what species there is, but it's some relatively primitive thing that lives in water. The species is capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction. The portion that live very deep in the water prefers asexual reproduction for its sheer efficiency. However, in the more biologically competitive shallow waters, the species reproduces sexually. This is interpreted as sexual reproduction more effectively improves the fitness of the offspring.

Even experiments in computer evolutionary programming can test this. I think it's a really interesting field of study.


By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 5:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
You can see the benefits after the fact, but natural selection cannot. These bacteria could not go from asexual to sexual overnight, and that would be necessary for natural selection to "see" the benefits.

Some say that perhaps what you are referring to is the infant stages of sexual reproduction. If I remember right, these bacteria do not have male and female parts. Even so, evolving later would require both parts to be complete to work and thus be favored.

That, is why Dawkins cannot understand it. Which is funny, because this isn't the only scenario this problem applies to.


By Calindar on 7/16/2010 7:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even Richard Dawkins, a staunch evolutionist/materialist cannot understand why we have male and female reproduction today, because it requires much more in the way of resources, time and is much less efficient, and would never be favored by natural selection, ever.

I'd really, really like to see a source on this. Sexual reproduction is preferred in some species because it greatly, greatly increases genetic diversity, which helps survivability incredibly.


By sprockkets on 7/16/2010 7:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's either in "Climbing Mount Improbable" or another book of his.

quote:
Sexual reproduction is preferred in some species because it greatly, greatly increases genetic diversity, which helps survivability incredibly.


Of course it does, but that's after the fact. The road leading to it isn't favored. Expecting it to all show up all complete to "see" the benefits is out of the question, and that's exactly what Dawkins said.


By Calindar on 7/16/2010 7:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course it does, but that's after the fact. The road leading to it isn't favored. Expecting it to all show up all complete to "see" the benefits is out of the question, and that's exactly what Dawkins said.


You don't know it isn't favored because you don't know the exact conditions on which it took place. It could have been a slight mutation that allowed small amounts of genetic information to be exchanged between two members of a species that mostly reproduced asexually. The ability to do both allowed the one that "preferred" sexual to succeed. There are plenty of things that evolution cannot explain YET, but not being able to explain them yet does not imply that they can't be explain in the future, and cherry picking instances where some things are not fully explained does not discredit the theory as a whole.

BTW, I am enjoying this little exchange. Thank you for being a mature and respectful participant, unlike someone else I won't mention.


By sprockkets on 7/16/2010 8:19:40 PM , Rating: 3
Well, if you want his points again, look at needing two partners instead of one to reproduce, complex mating rituals, the overhead of sexual organs, etc.

It makes more sense to keep it simple, or reproduce sexually but not really have any male or female aspects of it, like the bacteria.

quote:
There are plenty of things that evolution cannot explain YET, but not being able to explain them yet does not imply that they can't be explain in the future, and cherry picking instances where some things are not fully explained does not discredit the theory as a whole.


Ha, Richard Dawkins said he would tackle the issue in another book. The whole thing of "ugly" people was brought up by Steven Colbert when interviewing him, the second time I believe. It was the last question, and after a brief hesitation or him saying, maybe next time, the interview was over.


By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 7:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Whut u talkin bout? forplay iz gr8.


By ninjaquick on 7/19/2010 7:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
Cuz hes never got some so he don't know why you would evolve to have it.


0+0=?
By JustSal on 7/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: 0+0=?
By OnyxNite on 7/15/2010 10:46:47 AM , Rating: 3
Where did God come from?


RE: 0+0=?
By JustSal on 7/15/2010 10:55:09 AM , Rating: 1
Where did we come from?


RE: 0+0=?
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 11:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where did God come from?

Maybe one day he will tell us. Until then, my guess is just as good as yours.


RE: 0+0=?
By sprockkets on 7/15/2010 12:48:00 PM , Rating: 3
The claims made by creationists/religion is

God had no creator, and had no beginning because he created the very definition of our existence, which includes time.

Supposedly time also didn't exist until he created matter.

Since God claims to be the sovereign of everything, it requires that there is nothing above him, including the inherent restrictions he set like the laws of thermodynamics, such as "no free lunch" and "you can never break even."

It's hard to comprehend that the buck stops somewhere, that someone doesn't have anyone or anything to answer too except himself, but there it is. I'd love to be able to look into the future to have amazing foresight, or be able to break the laws of physics when I see fit, but that would be chaos if everyone had that ability.

Materialists (those who believe in only the physical material universe, of what they can see with their eyes), not necessarily evolutionists, hate this explanation because it isn't falsifiable and is too easy.

By the way, religions also claim that at one point, all humans will be able to see God, or at least know with direct, physical evidence that he is there, at Psalm chapter 2 and 83 verse 18. But at that time however they say everyone will be sh itting in their pants as to the events going on that precede it.


RE: 0+0=?
By Quadrillity on 7/16/2010 8:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But at that time however they say everyone will be sh itting in their pants as to the events going on that precede it.

LoL, so very true.


RE: 0+0=?
By Spivonious on 7/15/2010 11:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
From a chicken egg. Duh!


RE: 0+0=?
By twjr on 7/17/2010 1:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
In the beginning man created god.


RE: 0+0=?
By unclesharkey on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: 0+0=?
By JustSal on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: 0+0=?
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 11:15:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God.

So true, even though there are a lot of people out there that shove their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA!".


RE: 0+0=?
By Stoanhart on 7/15/2010 11:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Nothing can exist just by accident. So there has to be something with intellect to design something."

That statement alone makes "In the beginning there was God" impossible. An intellectual God who can "design something" is himself a complex something. So God needed a GOd, and GOd needed a GOD, etc, etc. You can never reach the beginning (in our feeble little 3-dimension comprehending brains) unless something just popped into existence. If you like, it can be God that just popped into existence, but something did.

Note : What I meant by my reference to our little brains is that just because it appears to have popped into existence to us, doesn't mean it did so. We don't yet understand the true nature of the physical universe, so things could easily exist in other dimensions or who knows what. It's the same as how we would appear to pop into existence to a flatlander as we move our 3D bodies through their 2D plane.


RE: 0+0=?
By batman4u on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: 0+0=?
By omnicronx on 7/15/2010 11:58:46 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God.
Just because you don't understand it, does not mean evolution is merely based on faith alone. There is absolutely no tangible evidence that any God exists, I'm not saying there is not one, I'm just saying without any real evidence, yours or anyones beliefs are nothing but faith. The same cannot be said about evolution, as there is a lot of tangible evidence to drive the theory. Once again, we cannot definitively say that it exists either, but the evidence certainly does seem to point that way.


RE: 0+0=?
By JustSal on 7/15/2010 12:52:10 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not knocking your beliefs just stating my opinion and my understanding. I'm sorry but I would have to disagree with your point. And I do understand evolution and the same can be said about evolution about evidence. If you could show me where the evidence clearly points to evolution then show me all the transitional fossils. There hasn't been one found. And by fossils I just don't mean an ape like skull that is suppose to be a transition to a human being. I mean like a reptile with feathers. These are transitional fossils that have never been found but are thrown into the evolutionary latter. And how can evolution work when in genetics, if you've ever studied genetics, there is a loss of information every time information is exchanged. There is never a gain of information. So how can something so simple as a single cell organism (which isn't so simple if looked deeply into) become more and more complex. Everything has its original blue prints per species.


RE: 0+0=?
By nidomus on 7/15/2010 1:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh... There are full body fossils of the archaeopteryx which is a lizard with feathers.

http://www.trilobita.de/gallery/others/archaeopter...


RE: 0+0=?
By JustSal on 7/15/2010 1:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
Where are the scales to prove that its a reptile? To me it looks like a big bird.


RE: 0+0=?
By nidomus on 7/15/2010 1:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
It has features belonging to both dinosaurs and birds.

It has teeth, hands with claws which are almost identical in design to that of a Deinonycus. Its ankle bones, interdental plates, obturator process of the ischium (The ischium forms the lower and back part of the hip bone, and obturator foramen is the hole created by the ischium and pubis bones of the pelvis through which nerves and muscles pass.) are more like that of a dinosaur than of any birds. It also has long chevrons in the tail (A chevron is one of a series of bones on the ventral (under) side of the tail in many reptiles, dinosaurs (such as Diplodocus), and some mammals such as kangaroos and manatees.

Then it has avian features such as a wishbone, feathers, wings, and a partially reversed first toe.


RE: 0+0=?
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 5:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
Either you are lying or misinformed. Archaeopteryx was uncovered to be a complete FRAUD years go.


RE: 0+0=?
By Calindar on 7/16/2010 7:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
Sources?
Archaeopteryx is only the first species in a specific group of dinosaurs to be found to have feathers. There are many other dinosaurs that had feathres...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/09...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/dinosaur...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8481448....


RE: 0+0=?
By Quadrillity on 7/17/2010 1:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
National Geographic launched an investigation and found the fossils to be a composite. They had a press release says that "they were furious" to find out that it was faked.

It was found to be a fraud by many other sources too. You can believe whatever you want though; you asked for a source and I gave you one. A major one, at that. Even one of the most major supporters of evolution said this was a fake lol.