Yes. Just accept it and move on. Soon things will all be better. Dolt.

Well, yeah, unless I'm in a position to change it. I guess I could just hit the forums and whine about unfair life. Crap happens. There's no point sitting around feeling angsty just because your guy didn't get elected or acting like it's the end of the world because some idiotic war is going on. If you feel strongly about it, and you have some reasonably way of making a difference, do it.

But the fact is, there are far too many morons who sit around all day listening to talk shows and getting mad about politics but are too lazy to do anything about it other than sit back and watch it until it all becomes shallower than a sports rivalry.

By accept it and move on, I mean learn to realize that it will never be perfect or ideal, but try to make the best out of it you can with out getting so angsty about unrealistic expectations that you can't do any good at all.

What a wonderfully solid argument. You've convinced me!


Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. Hear me? NOTHING. NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING. Evolution doesn't "care" if god created life or if it was the result of some other process. Evolution is about change in existing life, not its origins.

Abiogenesis is a theory about the creation of life from non-living matter.

If you're really interested I suggest you check out TalkOrigins.

I knew it! Those black Africans are inferior to us since we as the master race evolved further, while they're still in Africa, where they were unable to keep up with our speedy evolving process. It all makes perfect sense! I feel it's time to start a political movement for a new age of racial realism! Join me, brothers and sisters! Unite into one people, one nation, and one leader: GOD!

godwin'd for the finn finn

I have a palmaris muscle on my right arm but not my left.

Would like to know implications for masturbation, etc.

I'm well aware of that Emon, thanks. Notice when I spoke about the origin of life I referred to it as "origin theories" not "evolution theories"? I'm just curious about what those theories are (if any), because I've never had anyone tell me. Any time I ask "So how did life begin in the first place?" they change the subject.

Yeah, stupid Christians taking partial statements out of context to prove a point.. What idiots.. No one else *ever* does that.

lol

Huh, from the way Wikipedia says to find that muscle, I seem to have one on both arms.

Talkorigins is a website that has been posted many times here (I believe just a few posts up actually), and can explain this better than I. I just wanted to be sure you had an accurate definition of "life" floating in your head.

Yeah, I have no idea who Ambrose is, or how he came up with five. Until I see something explaining who Ambrose is, and why he came up with five (I'm willing to bet even before I see it that it's some random number he twisted facts to get...) as the requirement, I don't really care what's written past the first paragraph of that article.

The Akdamut.

Right, I forgot, only a dinosaur could fulfill the requirement of being nearly impossible to kill in a time of primitive weapons and lack of understanding of the animals at the time...

No, the difference is, I was joking, you might actually believe dinosaurs and man lived together. Legends of mermaids have been around for a long long time, am I to assume that it's because people actually saw a mermaid, or because people are easily fooled? (here's a hint, that thing in your head is the best reality simulator on this planet, but it can be easily confused). What about the other legendary chimeras? Or unicorns? Ooo! Ooo! What about fairies? Legends of fairies have been around for a very long time, am I to believe at one point fairies existed?

Because they are?

Because the idea of evolution goes against spontaneous 7 day creation?

There are many theistic evolutionists who believe that creation took place over a course of a long time through guided evolution. Creation and theories like abiogenesis are more along the lines of being mutually exclusive.

But that ISN'T how it is described in the bible.

Maybe, that's still how many interpret it though as they believe it to be metaphorical.

There is so much overwhelming evidence in favour of natural selection as the means of species evolution that to deny it at this stage is to suggest a severe lack of understanding of how natural selection works.

The evolution that is taught in schools is also incredibly dated, modern evolutionary theory is much more interesting and compelling. In addition, one of the biggests suprises about evolution is just how fast it really is. For a really long time not much happened evolution-wise (at least visibly) but then a lot of changes happened very rapidly (this is also explained by modern evolutionary theory).

Another thing, regarding the fact that science changes over time and old theories being debunked. The really good old theories like newtonian physics weren't incorrect, they were just incomplete. F=ma is a perfectly adequate equation for almost all purposes. It is basically guaranteed that evolution as we currently know it is wrong, but it's very likely that what is "correct" will be an elaboration on the current theories rather than something completely different. The way natural selection works is so mind-numbingly obvious that I honestly cannot believe that people can disagree with it. When I was introduced to it at school I was expecting something much more difficult to comprehend.

Regardings the intial spark of life. Firstly, it only had to be happen once (though it's more likely that it happened many times), but the point is that billions of chemical reactions happen all the time, so even if the probability of one of these reactions sparking into life is tiny, life is still a highly likely outcome given enough time (which we had).

We don't know how life began, but it's very likely to be so simple that when we work it out everyone will say "oooooh, so that's how it happened" rather than "this is really hard to understand, can someone really clever explain it to me?". Just because we don't know yet doesn't mean it is logically acceptable to just assume a deity must have done it because that raises even more difficult questions rather than answering any.

In other words, "Rather than actually do any research on what you're pointing out, I'm going to ignore it, because I don't know the name of that Professor." You've got Google, I'm sure it wouldn't be terribly difficult to determine exactly who Professor Ambrose is. The fact is, you're not looking into it because you've already decided it's wrong because it goes against what you already believe. Way to keep an open mind.

Can you be more descriptive?

I never said that. The claims I made were as follows. 1) The bible describes a very powerful creature. 2) That creature fits the description of a dinosaur. Show me exactly where I said it was a dinosaur, and I'll eat my left sock.

Anyway, the additional problem with your statement is that the other animals that might fit the description (and there's surprisingly few when you consider that 1) they would have been animals that existed around that area at that time, and 2) most large mammals that would otherwise fit that description have tiny little tails) were all animals that were often hunted and/or captured with very little difficulty, even in that time.

Have we ever found mermaid bones? No. Have we ever found chimera bones? No. Have we ever found unicorn bones? No. Have we ever found Fairy bones? No. But wait.. We have found bones that match the description of dragons. If you want to make me look like a moron, at least use an analogy that fits.

Oh? how do you define day? It could very easily be referring to a period of time. (For example, one "day" was what we call the Ice Age.)

-------

I think I've made this clear, but apparently some of you are a bit dense. For the record, I do not believe that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together. I also don't believe they didn't. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. It doesn't matter to me, and I don't have an opinion on it. I lean towards the idea that they didn't as a result of scientific information suggesting that dinosaurs were extinct long before humans showed up, but I can afford not to make a commitment to one side or the other, because it has no bearing on my life and no bearing on my salvation. Please quit putting words into my mouth. Just because I'm presenting a theory does not mean I agree with it. If you'd like the debunk the theory, please feel free to present evidence against it, but don't insult my intelligence.

Complexity really isn't a good argument against evolution. Given enough time, and enough mutations that actually increase information instead of destroy it (I'm not sure weather this has been observed or not. Takes a good long time at any rate), anything is possible. The problem lies in the evolution of interdependent systems that cannot function, one with out the other. Natural selection must provide a real and tangible benefit every step of the way. It is not possible for several interdependent system to evolve uselessly until one day they become functional. Weather these systems actually exist and weather they really were useless until the time that they achieved their independent status is a bit beyond my field of knowledge though.

I'm not sure if this is an exact refutation to that point, but there are tons of "inactive" genes just laying there that code for something, just without a proper promoter sequence. So you can have proper machinery just "sitting there" in a way, waiting for the other steps to "exist" so that when they are activated (say by just either crosslinking or transposon insertion) they provide a benefit.

On a sort of tangent, in things like bacteria, whole swaths of genetic information can be traded between different species, families, etc. Whole systems can be "implanted" so to speak. The earliest systems (from the TCA/Urea/Thyamine/Blah blah cycles) were probably easy to "come up with" because it isn't that hard for simple organisms to trade away information.

I would define day as the amount of time that spans 24 hours. Because that is what a day is on earth. As measured by people. Who wrote the crazy BS you worship as the law of the universe.

However, Rob, the word we translated from does not refer to a 24 hour cycle of the sun, but an unspecified period of time.

Doesn't this contradict the idea that unnecessary organs just take up resources and therefore would have been weeded out? For example, animal 1 gives birth to animal 2, who has a potentially beneficial mutation. However in order for the mutation to function, there is an additional mutation that must occur. Because of the extra resources required to maintain that existing mutation that is not providing a benefit, Animal 2 has to eat more and sleep more than his sibling animal 3, and because of that has, in fact, a disadvantage over animal 3, reducing the likelihood of animal 2 breeding.

Or am I missing something here?

Way to dodge the bullet just like everyone else does.


BUT BUT BUT! THAT.. UHMM! YEAH THEY MEAN YEARS INSTEAD LOL!

KIND OF LIKE WHEN HITLER SAID HE WAS GOING TO STOP EUTHANIZING RETARDS HE WAS JUST BEING SARCASTIC! LOL!

zomg Godwin

No



Yes, I was talking about DNA, not organs. As in non-coding DNA that just sits there in the genome without ever going to RNA.

You talk about dodging the bullet but then you say things like this?

Umm. I never said anything about dodging bullets. That was Rob.


And, Lord Kuat, ok. But eventually, those genes are going to create organs, and somehow it doesn't seem to me like they'd sit around dormant until everything was in place and then "bam" they all click on at once, unless there was something guiding that to happen...

(if I sound like an idiot here though, forgive me. This is definitely not my area of expertise.)

it's nobody's.

The last I heard, the state-of-the-art was that 'unused' DNA is either leftovers from numerous viral infections or it's like the data segment of a program. DNA, as a self replicator, tends to favor simplification since it reduces the possibility of a nonviable mutation.

It's entirely possible that the only non-active parts of DNA (at some point during our life cycle) are the telomeres, which can be extremely crudely compared to the tab on a zipper. They wear away and are only replenished through sexual reproduction.

Funny you should say that...

Jon, as far as I'm aware, the current theory is that the "unused" DNA isn't actually unused at all it just doesn't have the same kind of use as the rest of the DNA.

Our genome also contains the complete DNA structure of a virus that prevents the immune system attacking foreign thingies, conveniently snipped up so that it's not easily activated though. It's this virus that allows pregnant women to avoid rejecting their unborn babies, handy!

Oh. :saddowns:

Giggity!

I used google, guess what? There are many "Professor Ambrose." Even when I try to add "evolution" "five mutations" etc etc. So, I tried researching what I'm guessing is someone from a diploma mill, but a title and a name that could be a first or last name doesn't help.

It's a jewish poem?

No, you did however make it sound as if "nearly impossible to kill" left no other alternative than a dinosaur, because man had killed big animals or some such. See below.

This is the fun part, some scholars think "tail" means "penis." An elephant's "tail" is quite large. A hippo's "tail" is also quite large. The both fit the description of being like cedar at some points. And You need to show me proof that men were constantly killing elephants and hippos back then. Until you do that, then it'd make sense they'd claim these animals as "nearly impossible to kill."

No, we've found dinosaur bones, which are large lizards, which only a very small percentage would ever "match" the description of a very small percentage of mythological dragons. Unless you know of some large snake-like dinosaur with wings.

Why say day instead of era then? Why use a phrase that has been established to mean approx. 24 hours as something much much larger? And which of the major ice ages are you counting? It can't be all of them, you'd run out of "days" before you got to us.

I find it more likely that men of the ancient world would create dragon myths and legends based upon dinosaur bones than living dinosaurs, but maybe that's just me.

I don't believe in gravity.

Having a big "tail" isn't exactly impressive. Horses have big "tails". Most large animals do. Besides that sounds like a pretty crackpot theory. It's comparing job to the might of God's creation. Why would a reference be made to his penis when the verses preceding it and preceding it are clearly talking about physical strength and size. It doesn't fit or flow. These scholars are obviously just trying to rationalize it.

Besides, it says it eats grass like and Ox. Elephants and hippos don't eat grass like and Ox.



Unless you're are looking at a source for raw facts, a man's ideas are more important than his credentials.



Well, if something is rare enough not to be seen by the average person and later becomes extinct on top of that, I wouldn't expect legend to preserve an accurate account of his anatomy, would you?



That's neat, but I'm really talking about the evolution of interdependent structures and organs. Sort of like the heart and lungs, but those obviously don't apply in this case. Separate organs or structures with very specific functions that would not ever work in any form with out both them existing in full simulatiously. Irreducible complexity.

No, but an ox would. And oxes have horns too.

[Edit - And arguing "the Bible says it eats grass like an ox!" doesn't help your case when the Bible has many false claims about animals. Bats being birds comes to mind... And you think "penis" is out of context? "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." Tell me how that couldn't be taken as "look at this creature's manhood!"? Strength in his loins? Stones wrapped together? Yeah, that's such a crackpot theory. A dinosaur is clearly more logical.]
Not when he some how came up with some "5 mutation" theory. I want to know how he came up with it and why we should believe it takes 5 mutations. His theory seems to hold the idea that individual mutations do nothing, that only when 5 mutations are combined do they begin to effect the organism. He seems to lean away from the idea that evolution and simple natural selection could eventually lead to the combination, if he's correct, and it sounds like he thinks the mutated genes would have to be extremely different from the original, instead of minor changes creating the "new" gene. It sounds to me that he's out to make evolution far more complicated than it has to be. So, really, who is Ambrose, how did he come up with five mutations, and why should I care?

No, which is more of a reason to think it was based on encounters with large lizards than dinosaurs.

Like what?

I am interested in hearing all these examples of irreducible complexity.

Your penis isn't going to just fall off because you've never gotten any.

I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. These things aren't be used, so they are in the PROCESS of being phased out.

But it might fall off if you get too much.

What is Three Dog Night - Mama Told Me Not To Come?

You really have no idea what I'm trying to say do you? I suppose I should try to find an example.

No, I have a pretty clear idea of what you're trying to say.


You're wrong.