Miburo

It's not really that remarkable that the universe that we exist in is one that has the properties that allow us to exist. It couldn't be any other way or we wouldn't be here to talking about this shit, after all. Rolling a die and it landing on a number isn't really remarkable, even if it's a near infinite sided die. It landed on the number that lets us exist. If it didn't, we wouldn't know.

And there could be a near infinite amount of universes that are all different. Might even be weird ass alien creature things living in some of them talking about how they couldn't exist if their universes were different. There could be a universe for every single possible variable. Who knows.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shit on your parade or anything. I also think the universe is fucking amazing. And it is cool that there is such a delicate set of constants that allow all this as we know it to be possible. But I think it's important to make sure not to suggest that the universe is fine-tuned for anything. It makes more sense that everything else is tuned to exist in the universe. Not that I think that you intended to imply the former (And with your edit, I'm almost positive you didn't), it just came off that way when mentioning a creator.

Admittedly, I'm a pretty big dick who is a lot less tolerant of god shit. So I'm a lot more adamantly against people talking about creators and shit than I probably should be. The universe is awesome enough without throwing creators into the mix. If there was evidence that suggested a creator then that would be a whole different thing. But there isn't. So, like all illogical beliefs, I don't want to give any of them any credit or pretend those beliefs have any merit to them or whatever. We do the exact same for anything else that is illogical, theological stuff doesn't deserve any special treatment.


Edit: Also, awesome posts above. Fuck yeah. @Num- Space cowboy theme like cowboy bebop or firefly. Yeah! Edit2: Want to really emphasis how awesome that last post was, Num. Very good shit.

Mal

True, but human evolutionary progress has been severely stunted in recent times with the advancement of modern medicine. We're able to keep even the weak alive to continue breeding and spreading their genes, pretty much counteracting the idea of "survival of the fittest." I personally don't have a problem with this though, as our medical technology will (likely) one day eliminate aging all together and make it a moot point anyway.

stubborn_d0nkey

The advancement of humanity has pretty much put an end to "survival of the fittest specimens" evolution (in developed countries, though its probably not 100% extinguished even there) and is going down the path of "survival of the fittest genes", that is, its becoming less important how "good" the gene is, and more important what is the chance of it being passed on to offspring.

What I said might be wrong (I'm no biologist), so somebody correct me if it isn't possible for a gene to be have a greater likelihood to be passed on than another gene (which would nullify what I said), however if it is true it's kinda scary since it has the potential of ruining humanity through gradual "weakening" of the gene pool.

__________________
I am THE stubborn_d0nkey, thou shalt not have other stubborn donkeys before me.

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER

Quotes for noobs (learn how to break up a quote)

Numinous

The thing is, evolution will occur no matter if the "survival of the fittest" applies or not. Even now, beneficial mutations that can change our species' basic genome are occuring, like an Italian village who has a mutation that raises considerably their cholesterol tolerance or the CCR5-delta 32 mutation which virtually makes a person immune to AIDS if s/he has the mutation in both alleles.

Certainly our phenotype changes will be considerably slowed down since physical tributes will be less decisive on survival in the future, but our collective genotype can still have a steady evolution.

__________________

Human Rasengan

Well I would like to think I've gotten better at things a bit and still have a long way to go but eventually I'm sure I'll get to the point with some studying on how best to present the argument
Yea math is cool.. I agree.. My thing is I find comfort in the idea that a being that created all that I see cares about what he has made.. but I know this probably doesn't sit well with others .. heck I even have questions about why things happen such as famine war pestilence one of my favorite rappers explains it in song how I feel about the situation.. yea I'm a believer and get plagued with doubts but in tough times just knowing that my heavenly parent cares for me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=900ScDcIHvE and also this song that shows that even believers have a complex about God.. Atheists don't corner the market on doubting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtLdHj6p9h0

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

Human Rasengan

There's nothing wrong with a shaggy haired hippie Christian.. they have the best weed and give you cookies shaped like Christ when you get the munchies!



Now for those links you couldn't find AMA
http://www.farrakhanfactor.com/viewt...hp?f=9&t=45715
http://www.myspace.com/elijahmuhammad19/blog/202128876
http://worldwideinfoforum.com/perspe...ientists-.html
http://siteground243.com/~hiram155/2...23-scientists/

For those who wonder what this is about it was brought up because of AMA's post about why the one god deal and this is just to show that not all religions today believe in one god per say.. God or allah is a title and there can be only one but it doesn't prevent others who are just as powerful from existing.. kind of like the president of the United states changes yet the title remains the same.. we only have one president but in fact we have had 43

and Mormons share this as well but here's something interesting i found noting the similarities between them and Muslims http://www.bible.ca/islam/islamic-mo...milarities.htm

and back to the topic of multiple gods.. here's the Mormon version as quoted by it's many leaders.. basically stating that as Man is God once was and how God is man may become
http://voices.yahoo.com/mormonism-te...s-8293525.html
http://www.mormonquotes.com/search.p...id=104&submit=
http://www.mormonquotes.com/search.p...id=111&submit=
http://www.mormonquotes.com/search.p...id=124&submit=
http://www.mormonquotes.com/search.p...id=291&submit=


These quotes go along with their belief in the scientific fact that the universe is expanding constantly and there are other M class planets able to support life and those are the planets who have been populated by those who are worthy to attain the status of God-hood on the journey of eternal progression


So as you can see here 14.1 million and counting Mormons believe in multiple god in one way and roughly 3 million practicing Nation of Islam members in America for a total of over 17 Million people who believe in more than one God.. in one form or another.

Then lets not forget those who separate the Godhood as I do into 3 separate beings of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy spirit who I like to think of as Ceo , Council chief and consultant of a big firm.. they all work toward one goal but are separate and have different functions




Oh and for those posts of evolution I think it was numi who had the disagreement about God and Evolution because for it to be God it would have to have been instantaneous.. well God's time and our time are not on the same scale.. The bible alludes to this difference with the quote of for God 1000 years equals a day.. a figure most humans can wrap their head around.. I know it's bullshit to think it took God 6000 years to create the earth but it's just a figure of speech ( the Bible is full of it) to suggest that things were crafted over many many years.. this Theory of evolution doesn't go against that.. Evolving creatures and being the catalyst for evolution God created what we see today from the primordial soup of creation .. in the book of Genesis it's called the Firmament.

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

ACt

It might seem like evolution has slowed, but in truth, nothing of the sort is happening. Taken from the side of the gene, evolution is about the survival of the genes, each gene persisting because it improves it's own chance of being passed on, i.e. a gene that makes a human run faster (horribly simplistic) makes it less likely to be eaten by a lion because it is fast enough to get away. Our genes have developed to such a point where we have been able to create cures, avoid many forms of natural death though medicine and improved civilization. The genes that have done this are the intelligence genes and in improving their own chances for survival, they have done so for a miriade of other genes, frankly because they had to - it is all one genetic container, so they might as well do their best for the whole.

So, yeah, a lot of evolutionary pressures have been removed to our great success, but that is not to say evolution has stopped. New pressures are being exerted as even as long as we live to procreate, genes will probably do their best to try and push us longer to procreate more. Pressures such as diet related diseases, cancers, environmental load continue.

The biggest problem is time scale - Evolution measures in millions, we in tens of years.

Pretty much correct. By dragging along every gene, there is a weakening and some pressure will eventually exert itself to normalize (we can only hope) but until then disorders and traits that once might have preventing procreation (mental retardation, physical handicaps, poor eye site, allergies, etc) will increase in prevalence and be a burden on our species. How we deal with that will determine the genetic future of humans.

The scary form only comes into play if a similar weakness enters into the majority of the population and it is exploited by another life form (most likely viruses).

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

stubborn_d0nkey

The question is what kind of pressure can come along to normalize it (on an all-encompassing scale)? I cant really think of any (though, like I said, I am no biologist, so my imaginatory power is more limited when it comes to that).

I can pretty much see two things that could "solve" the problem,ie. "normalize" the downgrading of the gene pool, though I wouldn't call them pressures, I would call them leaps (especially on an evolutionary timescale)

1. A doomsday scenario that doesn't annihilate humanity completely (there are survivors), "just" destroys and demotes the advancements of humanity to a state where "survival of the fittest specimen" evolution comes back into play.
2. The advancement of gene manipulation. It's pretty obvious how this could fix it, but this has its issue's of its own.

I said scary not so much because of it affecting the survival of humans, but rather it affecting the "integrity" of the species, making humans "worse" beings.

I know that its not something that is relevant to my relatively short life, or even to relevant to my descendants that will know my name, but it gives my mind the shivers.

__________________
I am THE stubborn_d0nkey, thou shalt not have other stubborn donkeys before me.

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER

Quotes for noobs (learn how to break up a quote)

ACt

The biggest selection pressures (as I recall/tried to think up in 30 seconds - i'll ask the wife later because she teaches let alone did a masters in this stuff) on any given population are as follows: predation, food, habitat size and disease. Beyond that, all genetic traits usually are a method to respond to those pressures or changes within them.

The first one is easy to deal with; humans have risen to the top of the food chain and have done away with any risk of predation (for the most part). There are still species that exist that will hunt and kill humans but they are no longer very successful at it that they turn to other food sources (bears, big cats), are being supplanted to extinction (polar bears, tigers), learned to avoid humans (wolves, big cats) or have made the move to live amongst humans (coyotes, small predators, bears). The risk of having to look over our shoulders is long past. This is where a lot of genetic "weaknesses" come into play as many things that would make us easy prey, such as my own genetic deficiency - poor eyesight -, have been done in by increased population density, technology and medical science. It is easy to argue that "predation" as a genetic pressure is no longer with us.

Unless you want to go into human predation, and we could discuss that war is such a thing, which may or may not be a conscious pressure, though if WWI and WWII are any indication, we lost a lot of the best and brightest senselessly, making war in my books a negative genetic event. Bad for us, we should stop.

Going to skip to the end of the list now. Disease is one of those Russian Roulette pressures for humans (my opinion). Every population deals with some level of disease and this incidence usually grows with population size (for an example against, see Tasmanian Devils - that's a story of lack of diversity). Humans carry a large disease load, thanks again to medical science. The double edged sword to this is that we are allowing more people to live longer and make it to child bearing years with such disease that would have been debilitating or led to public shunning centuries ago. This does increase the genetic diversity but also increases the burden of weaker genetics and incidence of disorders. What this means is that as the population grows ever larger, if medical science can't keep ahead of nature (and I'll bet you it won't), we're due for a very broad spread disease. The flu scares of the last few years are example of that, though they came to naught.

I call it a Russian Roulette pressure because we are not certain what type of disease will come for us and what effects it will have on the surviving genes. If we're lucky, it'll be something that goes after the old, young and infirm, leaving us with a predominately middle aged (20-50) population of survivors who can rebuild our population with skills (wait, do people have skills these days when the computer goes down?) and health, with little impact on the evolutionary course of humans, despite being "more fit". However, it could be far more deadly or directed. I call on Swine Flu. Though an absolute dude in the world of deadly diseases, when infected people from the 20-30 years of age, it actually was pretty severe, killing a few and giving many respiratory problems that were indicative of the elderly with flu. If such a thing happens, it could be disastrous, but would definitely alter the evolutionary course of humans. (It would be akin to what is called a "bottleneck" genetic event.)

The last are the biggest pressures I think humanity will face and are pretty much tied to population size. As we push the billions, space will run out and food will run out. (even faster when you think of the impacts of potential global climate change) How we deal with that will be very important to the species survival and one would expect the groups that band together and act selfishly against the whole would be the ones that survive. These decisions will be determined by genetics and it will be those genetics that survive. Likewise, perhaps some group with very smart genetics will find a way to feed more people and bring more diversity with them. Who knows.

The "integrity" of the species will eventually sort itself out. Any genetic population enjoys diversity to increase the chance of pairing with genes that improve overall survival, but a critical point will be reached when detrimental genes will load down on portion and eventually be weeded out. Our technology and science is merely delaying that process, meaning the probably crash will be harder. There is also an aspect of the bleeding heart genes that make people care and emote onto humans with IQs less that 80 or with horrible genetic illnesses like downs or other degenerative diseases that people fight for their survival and rights and even get some of them to the point of procreation, which for the "health" of a population is a horrible idea. Yet, we live in a time of opulence, that the negatives are to the individual. When times get tougher, these kinds of behaviours will be hard pressed to survive, along with the individuals they are trying to protect. (Cold thinking, but true. Don't think poor of me because I see a time when a defective baby will be left to die. It is how it was before the modern era.)

The fascinating part of this all is that unlike all species, it seems it is our mental and decision genes that are guiding a lot of the genetic evolution. If someone cures a plague, the genes that provided the intelligence to cure the plague and preserve themselves, end up saving countless other genes in the process. Like no other, our behaviour can benefit genes we have no connection with, whereas when food goes scarce for the wolf, the wolfs genes are out for themselves and if they aren't the biggest, fastest strongest combination, they may die out before procreation.

Kinda makes me wish I could be around long enough to see it. But again, it also doesn't.

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Mal

I am the opposite, I would prefer there be no supreme being at all, but no matter how I consider it or what I learn I just can't escape my own convictions and experiences.



I was waiting for your response, and I was not disappointed. Excellent explanation of what's what.

Numinous

I'll stop you right there and introduce to you the term for day used in Genesis 1:5 (and in other verses of the same chapter), yom:

Which also used in Genesis 7:4:

And many, many other verses spread through the Bible. Right away you can tell there's no differentiation between God's day and a regular day and it's not like the Hebrew language is limited in words (it actually has 2 for day, being the other yomam, but it's never used in Genesis 1; also, Hebrew has a lot of words specially made for God, but none for "God's day"), so this was meant LITERALLY.

You might ask "What about Psalm 90:4?" Here's the context:

The verse is in a context of life, death and rebirth, and the thousands years are a reference to the longest human lifespan (Methuselah) and that it was already past in God's eyes.

But I think you were quoting 2 Peter 3:8:

Which is a verse in one of the first cases of Christian Apologetics, since the author spent the entire chapter making up excuses to explain why the Second Coming didn't happen at the time Jesus mentioned (the "this shall not pass this generation" verse I mentioned in another thread about the Rapture) and pulled Psalm 90:4 out of context and now you (as many creationists) pulled once more the verses out of context for this silliness.

So no, the Bible does not indicate at all God took a lot of time to make the universe and mankind, on the contrary, it indicates it was quite quick. But even in the chance you weren't misquoting verses, Occam's Razor, HR. I think life taking myriads of millenia to evolve takes less logical steps that a supposedly omnipotent being taking the same amount of time to do the exact same thing.

Sorry, but the Theory of Evolution directly contradicts Genesis. Fruit-bearing trees preceding fishes, birds preceding land creatures and different types of creatures having different genesis is clearly conflicting with the Theory of Evolution. So what logical sense does it make crediting God for evolution if we know the original link between the two is demonstrably wrong?

You'd be safer by betting on life origin and other popular holes for God, not on things like Evolution and Geophysics.

That's the "waters above the sky", where the Sun, Moon and the stars are. In other words, outer space. How is it possible to confuse that with life?

__________________

Human Rasengan

Ummm where do you see large bodies of water in outer space?


Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.[7]


Before land showed up everything was water and then land appeared and seperated the

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

kael03

Before land showed up the Earth was a ball of molten rock with a very thick carbon dioxide atmosphere. It was like this for ~2 billion years before convection slowed down and the mantle cooled to form the crust. Liquid water is believed to have existed based on zircons that were discovered to have been from the Hadeon era (formation of the earth to ~3.8 billion years ago), and it is possible for water to have existed in liquid form with the intense temperatures due to the thick CO2 atmosphere's immense pressure (think Venus, has Earth like gravity, but about 92 times the atmospheric pressure). But I digress.

Point is, water was not the predominant feature of the planet during its formation.

Human Rasengan

I get your point on the whole I'm a scientific atheist deal but the topic at hand was about a correlation between the bible and if any of it could support evolution which is why I dug all that shit up.. I know you want to add something to the conversation but if it's not pertaining to the Bible and how it could or couldn't support evolution.. then this is just a good fact to know .. thanks but it's not relevant to the discussion as your point is a secular stance

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

kael03

No, the topic was correlations between scientific history and the bible. You made mention that the bible states water existed before land and was divided by the land. That is false and I explained why.