Evolution vs. Creation

[Cybele]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you clearly did not know that cells do not reproduce sexually.
If it wasn't made clear to you by Madrone, you still probably would think they do

I did say reply with "assexually" as a joke but of course you missed that on purpose.

Because you got not sense of humor. Watch comedy central.

[Cybele]

*NO sense of humor

[Cybele]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Watch a documentary

I've watched MANY documentaries including extinct animals in NGC and HIST channels.

[Cybele]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
You can think whatever you want. If you want to think that two plus two is five that is okay with me.
Of course you would be wrong.

Math is a different story.

[Cybele]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep. Just like my janitor, the guy who washes my car , as well as my gardener
<quoted text>
Wrong. You are ignorant
<quoted text>
Then, please.
Explain to me this:
Why are the dinosaurs dead? Where are they now? And how old is the earth?

First of all, if you're going to give me crap about social status then FU. I don't believe in social constructs in this sorry ass society. You are the most ignorant person in this forum. And I hope you find someone who will wipe your ass when you start going senile.

[AustinHook]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Got your point. Without Faith on the part of Faraday, there would be no electricity, talk of having light for switching on and off( bulb or globe).

Faraday, amazing fellow. Very pious too. I don't see where his religious faith had anything particular to do with his scientific work. Lots of excellent scientific work is done with great doubts all along the way. Doesn't need faith to keep experimenting, if only to show that, nope, it can't be done that way at all. Whereas according to the bible, I understand you are not supposed to "test" God.

So everyday faith and religious Faith are two different animals. What's the point of saying "Faith" is necessary, and then pretending that there is an analogy to everyday (lower-case) "faith" which is merely a statistical measure of confidence.

[tony1003]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
My point is our children see what we do and they imitate us. Not always 100% of the time but they do. My kids will know about God and already pray and seek him out. My son wants to be a mechanic because I was my daughter wants to be an accountant because my wife is. They both want to have 2 kids and go to college because my wife and I did. I understand that life may get in the way of their dreams an goals but they follow me as I lead them.

Good luck to them, I hope they realise their dreams. It's good to see kids having an aim. Havimg said that, as a kid I always said I would be an accountant, as my father was one. Once I became an adult, I realised it was the last thing on earth that I wanted to be!

[timn17]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
Would human DNA evolve slower due to our technology and our ability to change our environment since the day man made fire we have changed the world to suite us?

Some people think that we have effectively slowed down our evolution. With modern medicine being as effective and widespread as it is, people who would otherwise have died now survive long enough to pass on their genes.

[tony1003]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
So if you believe in the constitution offering freedom to believe as you wish or not to what would you say to this quote.
"What must the United States do to rid ourselves of this blight (creationism) on humanity?"
Which is the post that I replied to begin with.

It is one thing for an individual, or individuals to have a personal faith about the beginning of the world. I don't happen to agree with it for it flies in the face of scientific methodolgy to try to prove its message. I see no problem for christianity in parts of the bible being wrong/inaccurate, given its origins. As an historian, I certainly do not see it as a history book, it is a book of faith.

It is a totally different matter to take creationism into schools as if it was an established scientific fact. Creationists suggest it is a perfectly viable alternative to evolution and should be taught in science classrooms. It is not. It is a religious-based interpretation, not one based on correct scientific methodology. At the heart of it is the conclusion to which facts are ignored or manipulated to prove God did it. You cannot prove faith, you either believe it or you do not. No one can prove the existence of a deity, nor the lack of one. The only possible place it might have in the classroom would be in a religious education lesson, not in a science one.

[tony1003]

Whoops, sorry, double post - no doubt topix will sort it in due course.

[Charles Idemi]

AustinHook wrote:

<quoted text>
Faraday, amazing fellow. Very pious too. I don't see where his religious faith had anything particular to do with his scientific work. Lots of excellent scientific work is done with great doubts all along the way. Doesn't need faith to keep experimenting, if only to show that, nope, it can't be done that way at all. Whereas according to the bible, I understand you are not supposed to "test" God.
So everyday faith and religious Faith are two different animals. What's the point of saying "Faith" is necessary, and then pretending that there is an analogy to everyday (lower-case) "faith" which is merely a statistical measure of confidence.

You are not getting me. Faith is/ are not solely centred on religion, it embraces all areas of life. It was faith that led Faraday to discover electricity.

[AustinHook]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
All people who are faith zealots really have one thing in common..... the sign of something that's outlived its purpose.

I attended a two day seminar with Malidoma Some, from Upper Volta (Burkina Faso) who grew up with dual traditions, Jesuit and witch doctor. He convinced us of how we have an innate attraction to ritual, and it does have a good side, in that it facilitates community building, and can bring a sense of piece if done gently.

Sure, ritual can be a potent force for evil, but for good as well if kept in balance. I would not be too hasty to deprecate it's value.

[Double Fine]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I did say reply with "assexually" as a joke but of course you missed that on purpose.

Which, in itself, is about as funny as a bag of pigs

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Because you got not sense of humor. Watch comedy central.

I watch John Stewart and Colbert on there.

Otherwise, it's Brit comedy - they are the masters

[Double Fine]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I've watched MANY documentaries including extinct animals in NGC and HIST channels.

Then why the ignorance of giraffes?

[Double Fine]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, if you're going to give me crap about social status then FU.

Okay, so can we assume that you are a loser?

Sorry.

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe in social constructs in this sorry ass society. You are the most ignorant person in this forum. And I hope you find someone who will wipe your ass when you start going senile.

How about you answer some questions, girlie?

How old is the earth?

[macumazahn]

tony1003 wrote:

Whoops, sorry, double post - no doubt topix will sort it in due course.

Did.

[macumazahn]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why the ignorance of giraffes?

Hehehe.

Wonder whether she knows they have the same number of cervical vertebrae as we do...

[Double Fine]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>Hehehe.
Wonder whether she knows they have the same number of cervical vertebrae as we do...

That is a question I'd like creationists, fundies and IDiots to answer for me: Why do humans, giraffes, bats and whales have the same number of cervical vertebrae?

[AustinHook]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't until recently. I'm sick of asking a question and the goo clucks clan here calls me stupid because I don't know but if they're so smart why not just give the answer.

I second the motion. When a simple question is asked, and when it's not a loaded question, and when it is purely a request for information, the insults are really choking up the discussion.

[ChristineM]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
The sheer power of such a machine, but yeah, the noise issue is one that has slowed it down considerably as well. Mostly it's that people who code, like me, have become comfortable with binary, it's easy and static so we don't have to worry about precision. Most people don't know enough about computers so they just shrug at the notion not even considering how much computing power such a thing would conceivably possess. If I had a lab for development I'd work on it myself, but alas, you need a bit more funding for hardware tech development than other sciences. I think that analogue computers are the next step, we've reached a ceiling in our digital tech and now we're just adding more processors to the machines instead of actually improving the processors. Oh, and we are improving the PCB layouts, using evolutionary algorithms, that's fun to watch in real time, the computers working out the best PCB layouts is a thing of poetry.

Digital computers have reached their peak, the chips cannot be etched smaller than the wavelength of light and they reached that stage years ago, hence the search for more power with multiple cpus on a chip.

My business (3D animation and graphics) is very computer intensive, the requirement and expectation is now far outstripping the ability of digital processing.

People like Pixar build there own mainframes from hundreds of the most powerful rack PCs simply because there is nothing to do the job otherwise. It’s rather reminiscent of a server room using a custom OS dedicated to one single task.

Perhaps analogue machines will bring about a solution, I hope so because these old SGI’s we use are literally getting worn out and there is nothing economically viable to replace them.