Page 25 of 34 FirstFirst ... 152021222324252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 675
  1. #481  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    It makes me sad when an intelligent independent, such as yourself, mischaracterizes my statement(s) just for the purpose of being contrary.
    Au contraire mon ami...

    You asked me what generalization so my prior statement, you so rightfully disaproved of, IS the kind of generalization I was talking about.

    Remember...such generalizations only serve to deepen our divide.
    Last edited by TreoNewt; 05/16/2007 at 07:08 PM.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  2. #482  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    They are numerous. They clearly believe. They strongly believe. Most of them are well intentioned. None of that makes the proposition any more likely. Most believe because their parents believed and most of their neighbors. Most even adhere to the same sect as their parents and neighbors. Very few Muslims in Saudi Arabia spontaneously convert to Catholicism.
    "Most of them are well intentioned."

    And that was my point, I disagree with their belief system but I know that amongst them there are ones that are good and ones that are bad. Same as amongst atheist, there are those that are good moral people and others are not.

    That is all I was trying to point.


    EDIT: Thanks to moderateinny for kindly point out my linguistic mistakes.
    Last edited by TreoNewt; 05/16/2007 at 07:01 PM. Reason: Typo
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  3. #483  
    I have not been able to find a second source but I heard a report on MSNBC this pm that, after 800 complaints about excessive sex, including depictions of incest, and violence, Japan is considering restricting sales of the bible only to adults and in a brown wrapper.
  4. #484  
    I'd still like to know from Musikman or others who believe the bible is literally true. Were there 2 of each or 7 of of each or 7 pairs of each animal species on the ark? How did all of the approximately 1250000 animal species fit onto the relatively small ark including the food for carnivores and herbivores?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #485  
    I do not take it as being "literally true," I take it as being overall true. Why quibble over details that frankly are not important.
  6.    #486  
    It was two of each kind of animal, except those that were considered clean and birds, of which they took seven pairs of animals, 6 of those pairs would be used for food and sacrifice.

    As for the 1,250,000 species, many of those are insects, which don't take up much room. You also have to subtract the fish, since they can't drown in a flood. The Bible does not state whether the animals were full-grown or adolescents or babies when they were placed on the ark, and so we do not know exactly how much of the ark they would take up.
  7. #487  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    It was two of each kind of animal, except those that were considered clean and birds, of which they took seven pairs of animals, 6 of those pairs would be used for food and sacrifice.

    As for the 1,250,000 species, many of those are insects, which don't take up much room. You also have to subtract the fish, since they can't drown in a flood. The Bible does not state whether the animals were full-grown or adolescents or babies when they were placed on the ark, and so we do not know exactly how much of the ark they would take up.
    How artful.

    http://www.bwf.org/bk/pamayanan/r-howmany.html
  8. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #488  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Why quibble over details that frankly are not important.
    Why, indeed!
  9. #489  
    The 800 is slightly exaggerated. The number was 200. The number then went up to 1,700. Read the article closely, the group has an agenda and especially when you look closely at what it is being judged against.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I have not been able to find a second source but I heard a report on MSNBC this pm that, after 800 complaints about excessive sex, including depictions of incest, and violence, Japan is considering restricting sales of the bible only to adults and in a brown wrapper.
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #490  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The 800 is slightly exaggerated. The number was 200. The number then went up to 1,700. Read the article closely, the group has an agenda and especially when you look closely at what it is being judged against.

    Ben
    Of course it does.
  11. #491  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I do not take it as being "literally true," I take it as being overall true. Why quibble over details that frankly are not important.
    I think that "overall true" is a quibble. At least those who claim that it is "literally true" take a stand.

    What is important is that the "people of the book" do not simply quibble; they take up arms against one another. Some of the rest of us get caught in the cross-fire.
  12. #492  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    As for the 1,250,000 species, many of those are insects, which don't take up much room.
    Spoken like someone who has never had to deal with about 300 or 400 colonized insects, let alone 1.25 million.

    And from what I recall, 1.25 million might be a very conservative estimate. The actual range is usually cited as between 3 and 120 million, with 30 to 50 million as the numbers generally used.

    Even removing aquatic organisms, the biomass alone required to house 1 pair of all animals (or 7 of some) would not be able to fit in the theorized size of the arc.

    In addition, from a biological viewpoint, the genetic bottleneck created by re-establishing the world's population based on two founder organisms of every animal is...well...staggering.

    Chris
    Last edited by cjvitek; 05/17/2007 at 07:47 PM.
  13.    #493  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    Spoken like someone who has never had to deal with about 300 or 400 colonized insects, let alone 1.25 million.

    And from what I recall, 1.25 million might be a very conservative estimate. The actual range is usually cited as between 3 and 120 million, with 30 to 50 million as the numbers generally used.

    Even removing aquatic organisms, the biomass alone required to house 1 pair of all animals (or 7 of some) would not be able to fit in the theorized size of the arc.

    In addition, from a biological viewpoint, the genetic bottleneck created by re-establishing the world's population based on two founder organisms of every animal is...well...staggering.

    Chris
    And yet every species evolving from nothing is not?
  14. #494  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    And yet every species evolving from nothing is not?
    No, it isn't. That 'genetic bottleneck' is reflected in the similarities of life on Earth, e.g. things like how our genetic inheritance is encoded, in our body plans, how we metabolize stuff etc.

    Surur
  15. #495  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    It was two of each kind of animal, except those that were considered clean and birds, of which they took seven pairs of animals, 6 of those pairs would be used for food and sacrifice.

    As for the 1,250,000 species, many of those are insects, which don't take up much room. You also have to subtract the fish, since they can't drown in a flood. The Bible does not state whether the animals were full-grown or adolescents or babies when they were placed on the ark, and so we do not know exactly how much of the ark they would take up.
    It is more than obvious that there isn't enough space even for all the mammals and the food they would need. Even simple calculations show that: http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/noahs_ark/index.html

    No carnivore species can survive on only six of their prey for nine months or more. And of course after they go off the ark (hungry as they were), the carnivores waited for the herbivores to multiply for several months more so that herbivores did not vanish from earth again right away...

    Also your claim that fish survive does not make sense: freshwater fish die in saltwater sea and vice versa. No compromise possible there.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #496  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    And yet every species evolving from nothing is not?
    ONCE AGAIN, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. So the idea of "species evolving from nothing" is not evolution. Species evolving from other species IS evolution.

    And personally, I find it staggering as well, in a good way. When I consider the odds of ME being here, ranging from the odds of human evolving, to the odds of the specific sperm and egg randomly matching, it is incredible and wonderous.

    But as for the concept of two "parents" being the progenetor for all existing organisms today, you need to understand what a bottleneck effect is, and what it does to the genetics of the population. Add to that the inbreeding effects following the attempted re-population of the earth, and you begin to have LOTS of problems.

    Chris
    Last edited by cjvitek; 05/18/2007 at 10:19 AM.
  17. #497  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    ONCE AGAIN, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. So the idea of "species evolving from nothing" is not evolution. Species evolving from other species IS evolution....Chris
    Doesn't evolution rely on some assumptions about the origin of life, though? Doesn't the theory neccessitate there being a source that has certain characteristics?

    For example, I believe Richard Dawkins points to a crystalline struvcture as an example abioitic or prebiotic means of having the type of replication seen in evolution.

    So, while clearly stopping short of declaring how life originated, he recognizes that the theory of evolution has some pre-requisites.
  18. #498  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Doesn't evolution rely on some assumptions about the origin of life, though? Doesn't the theory neccessitate there being a source that has certain characteristics?
    The origin of life is something entirely different from the theory of evolution.

    The origin of life is still a matter for speculation and hypothesize. Some people beleive it generated from abiotic sources on earth. Others may believe that the first "life" on the planet originated from a meteor or something (although this just sidesteps the question, IMO).

    Evolution doesn't rely on any assumption about the origin of life. Evolution deals with how organisms change over time, based on the genetic processes that we know about. Nothing about how those genetic components originated. We know how organisms reproduce, we know how the genetic code works, we know how various factors can change DNA and organisms. These are the influences on evolution, not how life originated.

    For example, I believe Richard Dawkins points to a crystalline struvcture as an example abioitic or prebiotic means of having the type of replication seen in evolution.
    Right, and he is hypothesizing about how lfe originated, NOT how evolution occured. Presumably, he is saying that this crystalline structure replicates in a fashion similar to the way life replicates.

    So, while clearly stopping short of declaring how life originated, he recognizes that the theory of evolution has some pre-requisites.
    No, he is just commenting on how there are similarities. He may be hypothesizing how life originated (devloping from this crystalline structure, because there are similarities) but he is not saying the evolution REQUIRES this method of origin of life, or anything like that.

    Often times people may use the phrase "evolved" when discussing the origin of life, but it is important to remember that there is this distinction.


    Chris
  19. #499  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    ONCE AGAIN, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. So the idea of "species evolving from nothing" is not evolution. Species evolving from other species IS evolution.
    Indeed. The name of the book is The Origin of Species.

    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    And personally, I find it staggering as well, in a good way. When I consider the odds of ME being here, ranging from the odds of human evolving, to the odds of the specific sperm and egg randomly matching, it is incredible and wonderous.
    Literally, awesome and wondrous, not to say, miraculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    But as for the concept of two "parents" being the progenetor for all existing organisms today, you need to understand what a bottleneck effect is, and what it does to the genetics of the population. Add to that the inbreeding effects following the attempted re-population of the earth, and you begin to have LOTS of problems.

    Chris
    If one could accept the story of Adam and Eve as being anything more than a metaphor, one should not have any trouble with Noah and the ark.
  20.    #500  
    cjvitek,

    Would you accept God as creator if there were no other explanation that made sense?

Posting Permissions