• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

religion

Ms. Glitch...it's obvious that you are very loyal to your faith, but you are also very condescending to others who don't agree. The words in the bible may be very true TO YOU, but to others, they're simply words in a book. Your condescension is what many poeple despise in christians. Please stop trying to use the bible as proof of anything. My bible may be "Green Eggs and Ham."

And before you lay your drama on me, understand that I accepted christ on July 12, 1985.

Wait... I don't understand... I was being nothing if not cheerful. I'm not angry, upset, or heated at all. I'm enjoying the debate and I haven't, even internally, felt distaste or repulsion for any one of you. I was merely talking and we're all sharing our views. I've stated before that I don't expect to convert anyone, I'm just participating in banter. I GREATLY apologize if I've offended anyone; that was the farthest thing from my mind when I was writing.

It's been said before that you can't tell a text message by it's font (or was it "book by it's cover"?). At any rate, nothing I've said was meant to be hurtful towards anyone and if I've personally offended anyone then please show me where or let me know so that I can apologize personally.

Jadie, evolutionary changes aren't fuellled by the wishes of the individual organism. The 'being' doesn't decide it would like to have slightly longer legs, more efficient digestion of food or whatever.

Understandable, but with the pollution we've pumped into the air, especially in the last hundred years or so, you'd think that out of necessity we'd have (or at least city dwellers) developed or shown the process of developing lungs that filtered that out or something along the same lines.
 
God is LOVE: 1 John 4:8



Honestly, I've come to realize that when someone has to get so ridiculously heated over something that they don't know much about, it's a good indication at how insecure they are about the topic. You say that there is no solid proof of God then find me proof that there isn't a God.

There are three scenarios that could come from this challenge:

#1 - You'll yell at me or be rude and then ignore the challenge because you're afraid of what you'll find.
#2 - You'll just plain ignore the challenge because, once again, you're afraid of what you may find.
#3 - You'll attempt to prove me wrong and be changed for the better.

The option is yours.



There is no hell. This is a scare tactic that the Roman Catholic church dreamed up back in the day in order to scare people into coming to church to pay their tithes.

God stated that Satan and his followers will eventually be "burned in hellfire", but nowhere does it ever state that humans will be tormented for all eternity. That's awful and honestly, it does more to scare people away from God and the truth than to bring them in. Satan works on us in many ways, and he just happened to snag the Roman Catholic church long enough to ruin the chance for a lot of people to make it.

Well, this is one of the posts I was referring to, but there are others. You continue to act as if your word based on your Word is the authority that we should all live by. Sorry, it shall never be.
 
Well I apologize if I came of rudely. It wasn't my intention at all.

I firmly believe that people can debate heartily and still remain friends. People that think exactly alike would never get along; diversity is a good thing, imho, and I hope to still be on good terms with everyone, despite my different views on things.

Once again - I apologize if, textually, anything seemed harsh.
 
It should also be noted that just like your faith should not be mistaken for weakness or stupidity, someones lack of faith should also not be mistaken for weakness or stupidity. i.e., lack of faith does not mean people are 'insecure in their beliefs'. People argue for their beliefs strongly because that is what they believe, be it atheism or theistic. Saying that someone who argues strongly for atheism must be insecure in their lack of belief is like saying that someone who argues strongly for Christianity or Judaism or Islam etc.. is also insecure in their belief. It just doesn't make sense.


Excatly, it make no sense, that is why I posted that. If you read through all the post in this thread, there was a few instances of aetheist stating they thought Christians who argued really strong was a sign of their own insecurities in their beliefs. So, I was making the same point that if a believer arguing strongly meant one thing, then the same must be true for non believers who argue strongly for thier beliefs


dc
 
People who don't believe in evolution make me lulz. A lot. I admire people who actually take the time to try and help them, though.

Again, the whole, "We should have lungs that can filter out blah blah blah because in the last hundred years or so blah blah blah." :roflmao: Yeah, a hundred years, that A LOT time for organisms to develop suitable mutations and then proliferate those mutations. *insert sarcasm font*

See, this shows just how little you really know about evolution. For one thing, what happens in this country when somebody gets, let's say, lung cancer from pollution. Well, first off, they would likely have already had children, so point null and void, as they've already reproduced. But, even, if they hadn't, we have enough support care for various maladies that it's highly likely they would survive to reproduce anyway.

So how are the people who are most resistant to pollution supposed to get their genes out there, again?

Like I said before... about the whole... if you know nothing... refrain from commenting.

I don't much at all about the bible, so I won't try to engage in an analyses. I just wish people would show me the same courtesy when it comes to evolutionary science.

Sidenote: for any Evo-nerds out there, an evolutionary biologist I used to work for had a bumper sticker that read, "Honk if you understand Punctuated Equilibrium!"
 
People who don't believe in evolution make me lulz. A lot. I admire people who actually take the time to try and help them, though.

Again, the whole, "We should have lungs that can filter out blah blah blah because in the last hundred years or so blah blah blah." :roflmao: Yeah, a hundred years, that A LOT time for organisms to develop suitable mutations and then proliferate those mutations. *insert sarcasm font*

See, this shows just how little you really know about evolution. For one thing, what happens in this country when somebody gets, let's say, lung cancer from pollution. Well, first off, they would likely have already had children, so point null and void, as they've already reproduced. But, even, if they hadn't, we have enough support care for various maladies that it's highly likely they would survive to reproduce anyway.

So how are the people who are most resistant to pollution supposed to get their genes out there, again?

Like I said before... about the whole... if you know nothing... refrain from commenting.

I don't much at all about the bible, so I won't try to engage in an analyses. I just wish people would show me the same courtesy when it comes to evolutionary science.

Sidenote: for any Evo-nerds out there, an evolutionary biologist I used to work for had a bumper sticker that read, "Honk if you understand Punctuated Equilibrium!"

I don't know what lung cancer has to do with evolution... weeding out the weaklings maybe? I dunno, it just seems unrelated. Also, I never said we'd have fully functioning "pollution resistant" lungs. I said, and I quote: "developed or shown the process of developing", meaning, those living in cities would most likely be producing offspring that had an ever so slight enhancement to their breathing ability, getting stronger and more enhanced with each generation. By now we would have seen something. Of course not an entire replacement or completely new method of breathing, but something would have been different.
 
QUOTE=Jadie.Glitch;1081621]

Once again - I apologize if, textually, anything seemed harsh.[/QUOTE]

It did. Come across harsh that is. I did NOT appreciate being called insecure for being upset at the OP (and boy was I upset, but not for your reasons Ms. Glitch.), I did not appreciate your assumption that I would choose one of YOUR listed reactions, and I do not appreciate your 'lumping' of groups who may or may not belive what you do. There is a HUUUUUGE difference between the Agnostic (who don't know what to believe just yet) and the Atheist (who know very clearly what they DON'T believe in). Those two groups are as different as Islam and Catholicism. If those two religions were described "really all the same group" there would be offense taken. You OWE the respect you seem to expect, YES, even to a group that thinks differently than you. Please be aware of that. This is one of the biggest problems with religious discussion. There is always someone who thinks they are "right" and feel they have to show it, which is fundamentally disrespectful to anyone who thinks differently. Is there anything more offensive than someone telling you your faith is wrong? Probably, but none I can think of off the top of my head. The best religious discussion takes place when everyone involved REALLY makes the attempt to keep everyone at an equal level...everyone respecting each others belief and arguments. Thats why this thread was doomed and so upseting, it started with an obvious act of disrespect. ("I can prove God is real" does not leave room for another point of view)
I do appreciate the depth of your faith. I'm glad you have such a comfort. I do not share your belifes, I do not choose to discuss what I belive. Do not lump me in with other groups, you do not have the information to do so. I've put the origional poster on my ignore list, and probably shouldn't have checked this thread again, but as Lucille said these threads are like potato chips...never can put them down...;)
 
Those whatever they were moths that had to turn dark to match the soot on the birch trees evolved fairly rapidly...

This is very true! I wonder if the fact that it was a man made disaster had anything to do with it? The trees changed color almost instantly...right? Perhaps for a natural evolution both the trees and the moths would have changed gradually along side each other? the trees gradually getting darker, and the moths getting darker to match...does someone who knows more have an answer?
 
I hadn't read about the moth subject for a number of years, and see now that as the trees clean up, the moths are changing back!

"...the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants."
 
I have to agree that crazyDave is acting... somewhat crazy, for lack of a better word. I'm not going to argue that fact, lol. Please don't misunderstand my comments as a defense on his behalf. I'm just having fun talking with all of you. I really miss the forums! I don't know why I was away so long. <3



I've seen my fair share of Christian school teachers that have been terrible human beings and they assume that they're better than those around them, then when they can't explain something they simply shout "IT'S THE DEVIIIIL!!!!" so I can somewhat sympathize with this and I'm sorry that you were treated so poorly so young.



Well my response to that is: There is no "luke-warm". You are either hot, or you are cold. Being Agnostic groups you right in with the Atheists. I'm not saying you share the same belief system, of that you have any solid beliefs at all. But when you're cold, you're cold. Jesus didn't say "As long as you don't say "I don't believe in you", you'll be saved." He said "He who believes in me will have eternal life". There is no room for "Ehh, maybe?". How hurtful and unfair is that to Him?



See, this is one of Satan's tricks. God may have been "angry" but he wasn't angry in the primal sense of the word that us humans comprehend. If your child has a friend that comes over and rudely says "Everything here is disgusting. The food you served me was nasty. How come you never take us to the zoo?" and then starts bullying and beating up on your child, wouldn't you say "ENOUGH." and remove the child from you house, and even ban the child from coming over again? There are things that God has done, not to satisfy his own sick pleasures, but to protect his children. Those people that were "done away" with during the 40-year-walk, were telling God "This food you give us is good, but why can't it be better? I'm fed and clothed; my clothes haven't worn AT ALL in 40 years. I haven't been starved or needed for food. You've supplied me with everything I can ever imagine.. but You're STILL not good enough for me. Not only are you not good enough for me, but I'm going to do everything I can to drag those around me down as well."

They began worshiping idols because they were misguided into thinking that the guilty pleasures of this world were more important than taking care of one another. They never once said "I don't believe God is the one helping us", they just said "God isn't doing enough".

As for the tree of knowledge. This was placed DEAD CENTER in the Garden of Eden. Not fair you say? Well before Satan became spoiled and proud there was no temptation for humans to want to do bad things at all. Life was everlasting. They knew nothing of death. When Adam sinned for the first time, God had pre-warned him that "You would die". Well he did. He became mortal and at that point there was an expiration date stamped on him that had never been there before. God showed Adam what death meant by having him make his first sacrifice to atone. He took one of his pets, a lamb, and slit it's throat and watched it die. This was Adam's first taste of death. Can you imagine? Not even having a comprehension of death, and then having something slowly die in your arms? That would be devastating.

Adam didn't receive INSTANT knowledge like Satan said he was going to. But guess what? You and I have an extensive knowledge of Good and Evil, yes? This is what was promised. I for one would rather not have known of all the terrible things we could be capable of. I'd rather we remain ignorant to that fact and spare those of us who have been needlessly hurt by one another.

I have to note, a lot of people think that sacrifice was payment and that God just liked seeing things murdered. This isn't the truth. God made it easier for people to understand that their mistakes have penalties by showing them when they sinned, what would happen to them. Back in the day people rarely sinned at all because who wants to kill their lambs? Then Jesus died for us so that we no longer have to go through that ritual to teach ourselves what happens when sin is allowed to run free. A lot of us have forgotten that sacrifice and have become lazy, making Jesus' death in vain.

Before Satan rebelled, God simply wouldn't allow his people to be tempted at all, in order to protect us from what sin does to us. Satan then began telling all of creation that God was wrong because Satan wanted to rule everything for his own selfish (not selfless, like God) desires, and in order for God to prove that He was "love" and not "hate", He allowed temptation into our lives and therefore gives us the choice to follow him or not.

Satan lies to us all the time, but God has never once lead us astray.

Our first father and mother made the choice for all of us when they said "I'd rather be just like God than to be taken care of by God." If God didn't give us the option, then one day we all would have turned on him. A lot of us have to suffer because the rest of us are still being selfish. I'm not perfect. I have the capacity to be perfect, just like everyone else, but there are times that I choose the low road instead of the high one. That's where Jesus comes in. He was God in Man's form, with all the temptations we must face every day, yet he never gave in to them. He showed the rest of creation that had doubts about the fact that there could be good in humanity, that there indeed was a shred of hope for us. Then he paid the price for all our sins so that we could have the chance to have eternal life again. He didn't have to do that. He wasn't obligated in any way. He didn't WANT to do it, in fact it tormented him, but he knew what must be done. He didn't run and hide; he offered himself up freely once he had reached as many people as he thought he could reach in his life. He gave himself up knowing that it was for the greater good.





There's been change? Really? Show me.

All I've seen is a lot of different species that have similarities. A lot of them are extinct now, but that doesn't mean they were the same thing, only pre-evolved. If the common mouse had been extinct, and we pulled up it's bones one day as a fossil, would we say "OH MAH GAWSH! It's a pre-historic bunny rabbit! It's one of their ancestors!". No, because they live during the same time period, and we can see them side-by-side, so we know that isn't true. We see them plainly right next to each other and can say "Yeah.. same family, but not the same animal."

Just because they aren't around today (or.. they aren't around us at least. Who knows, a lot of the "extinct" animals could still be running around out there in small, uncharted colonies) doesn't mean that they were some pre-evolved form of something. This ain't no Pokemon game.

Semi-related (but not really) note: Sometimes I feel like a Pokemon trainer, LOL! Gotta catch 'em all! Okeetees, Sunglow Motleys, Lavenders, Charcoals, etc, haha.

Sorry, back on track:



So you're saying that in all the time we've been able to document history, not ONE being has decided that there would be a benefit to having something different about themselves? I for one would love to have a couple extra arms. That would definitely help. OOoo! Or eyes in the back of my head! Wouldn't that be handy. Babysitting would never be the same again.



So because love is an emotion, it's not real? I've had love sucker punch me so hard before that it knocked the wind out of me. Love is real. It may be an emotion, but it's most definitely real.

For you, I will re-word my statement before: God is the epitome of love. Everything he does and everything he creates is to show us how much he loves us. Every action, every breath we can breathe, every beat our heart makes, that's love. If he didn't love us then he would have wiped us out years ago. We're a self-serving, pitiful race and I for one can't wait until it's over so we can get back on track and not have to hear every day that babies have been raped (by humans, not by God), that elderly have been abused (by humans, not by God), that animals have been neglected (by humans, not by God), etc.

<3<3<3

Please reread my statements and try to understand them literally. Maybe saying it in a different way will assist you in understanding. Love is not tangible. Love is an emotion. So, if God = Love, God = an intangible emotion.

Here is the linked definition of tangible, a.
B. as n. A thing that may be touched; something material or objective.
 
This is very true! I wonder if the fact that it was a man made disaster had anything to do with it? The trees changed color almost instantly...right? Perhaps for a natural evolution both the trees and the moths would have changed gradually along side each other? the trees gradually getting darker, and the moths getting darker to match...does someone who knows more have an answer?


The fact that the trees became darker so rapidly probably had to do with why the moths changed so rapidly as well. The lighter colored moths very quickly became eaten, leaving the darker colored moths to reproduce.
 
I don't know what lung cancer has to do with evolution... weeding out the weaklings maybe? I dunno, it just seems unrelated. Also, I never said we'd have fully functioning "pollution resistant" lungs. I said, and I quote: "developed or shown the process of developing", meaning, those living in cities would most likely be producing offspring that had an ever so slight enhancement to their breathing ability, getting stronger and more enhanced with each generation. By now we would have seen something. Of course not an entire replacement or completely new method of breathing, but something would have been different.

Why would people in cities be producing offspring better equipped to deal with pollution?

Like I said, that makes zero sense. In order for evolution to occur, those with special traits must have a REPRODUCTIVE ADVANTAGE. In cities in 21st century America, everybody gets to reproduce. Because, LIKE I SAID, first and foremost, we have enough medical technology to prevent those who suffer from the effects of pollution (SUCH AS LUNG CANCER) from dying before they can reproduce. So let's say there's somebody walking around with really awesome lungs, equipped to be in the city smog. Are they going to have significantly more children because of it? No. Because of various factors, including supportive medical care, having extraordinary lungs does not presently lend a reproductive advantage.

Just so we can be clear, this is how evolution works:

Organisms exist. The environment exists. Random mutations occur in the organisms. One mutation happens to be beneficial given the random circumstances of the environment. The organism(s) with that mutation have an advantage, and reproduce more. The mutations that are advantages fall through the "sieve" that is the environment.

Mutations DO NOT occur as some kind of conscious response to what's going on in the environment.

So, once again, even if people are randomly carrying a mutation for stronger lungs, it does not present any significant reproductive advantage. Therefore, your argument it totally null and void.
 
The fact that the trees became darker so rapidly probably had to do with why the moths changed so rapidly as well. The lighter colored moths very quickly became eaten, leaving the darker colored moths to reproduce.

Intense selection can result in intense change - but that's usually in artificial (man-made) circumstances. Like with domestic animals.
 
Why would people in cities be producing offspring better equipped to deal with pollution?

Like I said, that makes zero sense. In order for evolution to occur, those with special traits must have a REPRODUCTIVE ADVANTAGE. In cities in 21st century America, everybody gets to reproduce. Because, LIKE I SAID, first and foremost, we have enough medical technology to prevent those who suffer from the effects of pollution (SUCH AS LUNG CANCER) from dying before they can reproduce. So let's say there's somebody walking around with really awesome lungs, equipped to be in the city smog. Are they going to have significantly more children because of it? No. Because of various factors, including supportive medical care, having extraordinary lungs does not presently lend a reproductive advantage.

Just so we can be clear, this is how evolution works:

Organisms exist. The environment exists. Random mutations occur in the organisms. One mutation happens to be beneficial given the random circumstances of the environment. The organism(s) with that mutation have an advantage, and reproduce more. The mutations that are advantages fall through the "sieve" that is the environment.

Mutations DO NOT occur as some kind of conscious response to what's going on in the environment.

So, once again, even if people are randomly carrying a mutation for stronger lungs, it does not present any significant reproductive advantage. Therefore, your argument it totally null and void.


Yeah, its not that organisms develop advantages, its just random mutations that occur spontaneously that just so happen to give an organism(s) an advantage to living in their environment do better than the rest and therefore have a reproductive advantage over the others. Thus, more are produced, and said mutation becomes much more common.
 
Blergh, need edit button:

Evolution was once thought to be totally gradual, but now the idea of punctuated equilibrium is fairly prevalent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

The more intense the selection pressure, the more intense the change. A lot of change can occur over short periods of time (although the moth example is unnaturally and uncommonly short, to my knowledge).

But nothing will happen when there's no selective pressure... as in the lungs vs. pollution scenario.
 
Back
Top