How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Johnthegalactic]

Yes, all matter has an associated energy, and the reverse applies. This is what Einstein's equation states, that E = MC^2. This still supports the law of conservation of energy/matter.

We're back to the beginning again. You say that God could convert his energy into matter, but this is not creating matter out of nothing, like the Bible states.

AltF4, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Energy and matter are the same thing, but in two different forms. Also, one cannot exist without the other. All matter has energy, an example is that most matter is constantly in motion. If this is right, then matter and energy have always existed. There is no period of time in which matter did not exist. If this is true, then God did not create anything.

So far what I'm seeing is that you're simply twisting what people are telling you so that they fit what you are trying to tell us.

Well, according to Genesis 1.1 NKJV, it says here.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
It does not say matter was created out of nothing, it says God created the heavens, all that space around us, and the earth. He created it, it is easy to figure out, he created it from something, most obviously energy.
Just like when I say I made a chicken sandwich, you don't ask from what, it is easy to figure out, from bread and chicken.
Nowadays, with modern science, we can see that energy can be converted into matter, so when the Bible states God made matter, we should be able to go, oh yeah, from his huge amounts of energy.

What you're using is assumptions without any proof to back them up. What reason do you believe that god orchestrated this in such a way? Why create a needless addition?

in the case for the big bang how come you have to include god into the equation? It is far more easier to exclude god and acquire the same results. You're over complicating a process that doesn't need to be complicated.

I have proof, God's prophets that received revelations have written down the things they were told so that we can know it.

How can the Big Bang have occurred without there ever being mass or energy to start the process?
You cannot have the Big Bang without the matter that made it, although i do not believe in the Big Bang.

 

[EC_Joey]

Well, according to Genesis 1.1 NKJV, it says here.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
It does not say matter was created out of nothing, it says God created the heavens, all that space around us, and the earth. He created it, it is easy to figure out, he created it from something, most obviously energy.
Just like when I say I made a chicken sandwich, you don't ask from what, it is easy to figure out, from bread and chicken.
Nowadays, with modern science, we can see that energy can be converted into matter, so when the Bible states God made matter, we should be able to go, oh yeah, from his huge amounts of energy.

Try to read and fully understand the post that you're quoting. I specifically stated that matter has always existed. Therefore, matter was never "created". Your main argument for God's existence is that God created matter, so if he did not create matter, then he does not exist.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Try to read and fully understand the post that you're quoting. I specifically stated that matter has always existed. Therefore, matter was never "created". Your main argument for God's existence is that God created matter, so if he did not create matter, then he does not exist.

And how has matter always existed?
Please explain this to me, I want to know, explain this process to me, I enjoy learning and am ready for a learning experience!

 

[Aesir]

I have proof, God's prophets that received revelations have written down the things they were told so that we can know it.

This proves god created matter how exactly? I've read the bible the authors make no mention of gods work with atoms.

How can the Big Bang have occurred without there ever being mass or energy to start the process?
You cannot have the Big Bang without the matter that made it, although i do not believe in the Big Bang.

Matter has always existed, so theres no need for god to create it. It's a very simple concept why must god create it? if we follow your train of thought that everything has an origin then we run into this infinite regression. It's far more logical to think a force has always existed then a deity.

 

[EC_Joey]

And how has matter always existed?
Please explain this to me, I want to know, explain this process to me, I enjoy learning and am ready for a learning experience!

Again, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter and energy are essentially the same, which is why you can get energy from matter and vice versa. This is why energy and matter have always existed, So when you say "God created matter" you're also saying "God created energy". This is impossible because this is why energy and matter have always existed, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If God did not create matter or energy, then he does not exist, because your argument for the existence of God is that he created matter and energy.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Again, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter and energy are essentially the same, which is why you can get energy from matter and vice versa. This is why energy and matter have always existed, So when you say "God created matter" you're also saying "God created energy". This is impossible because this is why energy and matter have always existed, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If God did not create matter or energy, then he does not exist, because your argument for the existence of God is that he created matter and energy.

I never said God created the energy, he was the source, he is an all powerful being, and used his own energy to create matter.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Again John, you're just citing the Bible as your "proof" when there's no reason to believe the Bible's stories in the first place. You're still begging the question.

Additionally, if you argue that "it had to have been God" because of what you perceive as science's inability to explain it, that is an argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy.

 

[Chaco]

Reality doesn't give a crap what you believe. There are right and wrong answers to things, period.



It's also obvious that an all-powerful flying spaghetti-monster could have crapped his pants and magically created the universe. According to your line of thinking, it's possible.

I'm starting to believe that you don't either.

Are there definite right and wrong answers? Do you know that for a fact? There are always shades of gray, you may see only the two definite answers, but that doesn't mean there aren't shades of gray. Point summed up, seeing isn't always believing. Believing can be seeing.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Again John, you're just citing the Bible as your "proof" when there's no reason to believe the Bible's stories in the first place. You're still begging the question.

Additionally, if you argue that "it had to have been God" because of what you perceive as science's inability to explain it, that is an argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy.

God's prophets brought revelations to the people, and Jesus performed miracles, that is fact.
The Bible is a book with historical facts in it, and even a prophecy about Andrew the great, who wept on the ground when he heard this prophecy.
The Bible is has been considered by some to be taught in history classes, drawing from the documentations of history found in it.
The Bible is a book of facts.
Science explains many things, but the Bible explains things too, I am not disregarding science, just a theory that is in science.
The science explores the world around us, and attempts to make sense of us, laws of physics, chemistry, experiments, we as humans want to expand our knowledge, the Bible is not the only book, and this is probably cause God wanted us to write many books and discover things that he created and understand them.

 

[Aesir]

God's prophets brought revelations to the people, and Jesus performed miracles, that is fact.
The Bible is a book with historical facts in it, and even a prophecy about Andrew the great, who wept on the ground when he heard this prophecy.
The Bible is has been considered by some to be taught in history classes, drawing from the documentations of history found in it.
The Bible is a book of facts.
Science explains many things, but the Bible explains things too, I am not disregarding science, just a theory that is in science.
The science explores the world around us, and attempts to make sense of us, laws of physics, chemistry, experiments, we as humans want to expand our knowledge, the Bible is not the only book, and this is probably cause God wanted us to write many books and discover things that he created and understand them.

There's no evidence in what you claim though, Jesus didn't perform miracles because if he did where is the documentation of it? What are these biblical facts? Everything in the bible has been dis proven to exist.

The flood story? That didn't happen there's loads of evidence which state the contrary, during the time of the great flood many cultures were existing without any mention of this flood.

The creation story?

7 the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

That's absolutely absurd that we would come from dust and dirt. When there's so much overwhelming evidence for evolution.


quick note: History teachers use the bible in their lectures as a way to explain how the people in that era in history thought, where their morals lied and what their mentalities were at that moment. The bible can present this accurately because it was written by man.

 

[Chaco]

There's no evidence in what you claim though, Jesus didn't perform miracles because if he did where is the documentation of it? What are these biblical facts? Everything in the bible has been dis proven to exist.

The flood story? That didn't happen there's loads of evidence which state the contrary, during the time of the great flood many cultures were existing without any mention of this flood.

The creation story?

That's absolutely absurd that we would come from dust and dirt. When there's so much overwhelming evidence for evolution.


quick note: History teachers use the bible in their lectures as a way to explain how the people in that era in history thought, where their morals lied and what their mentalities were at that moment. The bible can present this accurately because it was written by man.

Well, if you're saying that evolution is true, you are agreeing that de-evolution exists. So will we all revert to monkeys overnight? I want to know? You have no proof that evolution occured just like you have no proof that God exists, because you didn't see it happen. Therefore, you have no proof of that.

That is where belief falls into play!

 

[Johnthegalactic]

There's no evidence in what you claim though, Jesus didn't perform miracles because if he did where is the documentation of it? What are these biblical facts? Everything in the bible has been dis proven to exist.

The flood story? That didn't happen there's loads of evidence which state the contrary, during the time of the great flood many cultures were existing without any mention of this flood.

The creation story?

That's absolutely absurd that we would come from dust and dirt. When there's so much overwhelming evidence for evolution.


quick note: History teachers use the bible in their lectures as a way to explain how the people in that era in history thought, where their morals lied and what their mentalities were at that moment. The bible can present this accurately because it was written by man.

Nebuchadnezzar, Andrew the Great, the Roman Empire did not exist, they are in the Bible, you are making a huge claim the everything in the Bible is nonexistent.

And, yes many cultures mention the flood, the Chinese have their story, Christians and Jews have theirs, and those boats were possible to make, the Chinese built huge boats all the time, I have a video on it.

"The creation story?

That's absolutely absurd that we would come from dust and dirt. When there's so much overwhelming evidence for evolution. "

Actually, the theory involving the Big Bang that involves the formation of earth involves dust being pulled together into a planet, and all the elements that are in the human body are found in dust and dirt.

And everything written and thought here on earth is thought by man, despite the Bible being a revelation of God.

 

[Aesir]

Well, if you're saying that evolution is true, you are agreeing that de-evolution exists. So will we all revert to monkeys overnight? I want to know? You have no proof that evolution occured just like you have no proof that God exists, because you didn't see it happen. Therefore, you have no proof of that.

The theory of Evolution doesn't support De-Evolution, so by saying evolution exists I'm not agreeing with De-Evolution.

We have some similarities to our ancestors but we are in no way our ancestors so there's no way to de-evolve into our previous ancestors the DNA just isn't there. Furthermore we didn't evolve from monkey's we came from ape-like creatures, I can't emphasize that enough.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Well, if you're saying that evolution is true, you are agreeing that de-evolution exists. So will we all revert to monkeys overnight? I want to know? You have no proof that evolution occured just like you have no proof that God exists, because you didn't see it happen. Therefore, you have no proof of that.

There are specific types of evolution, I do not know the names of each, but one is where a single
creature evolves, such as a tadpole maturing into a frog, another is called(atleast I think), micro evolution, where there are differences between a species, such as different breeds of dog, thats how we get muts, when a poodle and a golden retriever reproduce, they are the same species, just have different traits.
Then there is the hot topic, I believe this one is known as macro-evolution, but is generically referred to plainly as evolution, and is where, over time, new species and organisms arise, such as humans arising from an apelike creature, or birds being the descendants of certain dinosaurs. I want to dig deeper into my studies on evolution and organize my thoughts on it eventually.

 

[AltF4]

There are specific types of evolution, I do not know the names of each, but...(continues on with nonsense)

If you do not even know the names of the various evolutionary forms, don't try to lecture us about them. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

I have sat through being lectured about the Big Bang when the things stated are not in line with the theory its self, just because I do not know the little word before evolution does not mean i do not know what it is, and it should be obvious that I was speaking about metamorphosis.
And, why do you call it nonsense, I thought you believed in evolution, I do too, just not macro-evolution.
So there is metamorphosis, micro-evolution, a process that occurs but remains in the species, and macro-evolution, which is new species arising.
I was explaining that there are different forms of evolution, why be so harsh, you probably have more of a passion for evolution than me.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

God's prophets brought revelations to the people, and Jesus performed miracles, that is fact.
The Bible is a book with historical facts in it, and even a prophecy about Andrew the great, who wept on the ground when he heard this prophecy.
The Bible is has been considered by some to be taught in history classes, drawing from the documentations of history found in it.
The Bible is a book of facts.

You're not making any progress, you're just asserting that "the Bible is a book of facts." Where is the justification for this? Even if the Bible contains historical facts (and what is a "historical fact" anyway?) about some events, that has no bearing on the other alleged events that happened in the Bible, e.g. the miracles and prophecies. Where is the justification for the claim that those events transpired?

Science explains many things, but the Bible explains things too, I am not disregarding science, just a theory that is in science.

Science only explains things because the theories it puts forth to explain things can be tested to see if the model agrees with what we observe in reality. You can assert all you want that "the Bible explains things" but that will have no bearing on whether that explanation actually corresponds to reality until you provide evidence.

Also, there is no fundamental difference between micro- and macroevolution, they are simply observations of different scale. Macro is really the cumulative effects of micro. Of course, the vailidity of evolutionary theory has absoultely nothing to do with God's existence or non-existence, so why are we even talking about it?

 

[Chaco]

There are specific types of evolution, I do not know the names of each, but one is where a single
creature evolves, such as a tadpole maturing into a frog, another is called(atleast I think), micro evolution, where there are differences between a species, such as different breeds of dog, thats how we get muts, when a poodle and a golden retriever reproduce, they are the same species, just have different traits.
Then there is the hot topic, I believe this one is known as macro-evolution, but is generically referred to plainly as evolution, and is where, over time, new species and organisms arise, such as humans arising from an apelike creature, or birds being the descendants of certain dinosaurs. I want to dig deeper into my studies on evolution and organize my thoughts on it eventually.

This is not near the point I was stating. I am saying, that he did not see the supposed evolution from ape-like creatures. Therefore he cannot say that it is true.

Also, from another point. Things are often classified as true and false, by if it was written or spoken. The bible was written down, during and after Jesus Christ's death. Although, this is a different appriach.

 

[AltF4]

JohnTheGalactic:

Okay, okay... where to begin.

You have already more than demonstrated that you don't understand the Big Bang theory in the slightest. What grade are you in? Somewhere in high school I hope. Remember this is about intellectual honesty. It's okay that you don't know something. There are a great many things I know little about.

But the difference between the two of us is that you go around pretending to be an expert on things which you know nothing about. I do not.

Now, then. Many scientists around the world, all very bright people, far smarter than yourself I may even go so far as to say, all seem to think that the Big Bang theory correctly describes how our universe was created. Yet you seem to think to know better. What reason could you possibly have to contradict the brilliant works of these people? It had better be good. And I would like to hear it.

NOTE: I have already responded to some of your "arguments". Yet you seemed to have ignored them entirely. Go back and read through again.

Similarly with evolution. If you do not believe in macro-evolution, please come on down to ASU some time. (Or likely any other major university) You can literally watch demonstrations open to the public where macro-evolution happens right before your very own eyes. Claims that it does not occur are false. Claims that it happens only on very large time scales are false.

See it for yourself. I mean that. It might just be an enlightening experience.

But most of all... please double post... please... just one more time.

 

[Aesir]

Nebuchadnezzar, Andrew the Great, the Roman Empire did not exist, they are in the Bible, you are making a huge claim the everything in the Bible is nonexistent.

Provide the scriptures then, if it's in the bible you should have no problem finding it.

And, yes many cultures mention the flood, the Chinese have their story, Christians and Jews have theirs, and those boats were possible to make, the Chinese built huge boats all the time, I have a video on it.

Were they all at the same time though? probably not. A global flood is virtually impossible, there isn't enough water on the earth to do that.

The Great Giza Pyramids were built prior to the flood, roughly 200 years. If it globally flooded they would have known, in fact the pyramids most likely would not have been intact.

"The creation story?

That's absolutely absurd that we would come from dust and dirt. When there's so much overwhelming evidence for evolution. "

Actually, the theory involving the Big Bang that involves the formation of earth involves dust being pulled together into a planet, and all the elements that are in the human body are found in dust and dirt.

The human body point: that proves what exactly? the elements that make up the human body are all very common. So it's not unlikely that they would all be in our body. However the bible makes no mention of Water, which is what our body is mostly composed of.

Planet point: Planets from from Dust and gas disks that swirm around their star until they form a planet.

This doesn't really prove god did much of anything as it can be explained without god there.

 

[Chaco]

Similarly with evolution. If you do not believe in macro-evolution, please come on down to ASU some time. (Or likely any other major university) You can literally watch demonstrations open to the public where macro-evolution happens right before your very own eyes. Claims that it does not occur are false. Claims that it happens only on very large time scales are false.

So what would you suggest the time scale on human evolution then?

I'm not arguing that evolution does not occur, I know it occurs, but what I am pointing towards is human evolution.

 

[Jack Kieser]

So what would you suggest the time scale on human evolution then?

I'm not arguing that evolution does not occur, I know it occurs, but what I am pointing towards is human evolution.

What about those women they found in Africa who are immune to the AIDS virus? I'm pretty sure that is human evolution at its finest right there, and they couldn't have had much time to evolve in such a way (the first US cases of AIDS were in June of 1981). Seems to be pretty quick to me.

 

[Chaco]

What about those women they found in Africa who are immune to the AIDS virus? I'm pretty sure that is human evolution at its finest right there, and they couldn't have had much time to evolve in such a way (the first US cases of AIDS were in June of 1981). Seems to be pretty quick to me.

But that is not 'complete' physical evolution. That is an immunity, the body grows immune to something it is exposed to. That is similar to a person taking a medication so mush that it loses it's effect. That is the same principles.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Gah, this conversation moved so far... I am not gonna revive those topics.

But that is not 'complete' physical evolution. That is an immunity, the body grows immune to something it is exposed to. That is similar to a person taking a medication so mush that it loses it's effect. That is the same principles.

Then how come everyone who's exposed to the aids virus doesn't become immune? The virus itself is very effective at escaping the immune system's attempts to adapt to it.


Exactly, these women had SOMETHING biologically different about them that made them immune to the virus before they were ever exposed.

That is a beneficial mutation, and a very real step in the evolutionary process.

 

[Jack Kieser]

But that is not 'complete' physical evolution. That is an immunity, the body grows immune to something it is exposed to. That is similar to a person taking a medication so mush that it loses it's effect. That is the same principles.

What exactly is 'complete physical evolution'? Evolution is evolution; a mutation is these people's genetic structure makes them naturally immune to the virus, no medication or treatment required. Just because it's an immune response as opposed to growing an extra arm doesn't make it any less of evolution.

EDIT: Stupid signatures...

 

[Aesir]

Chaco I suggest you look up works on Ken Miller.

Evidence for our common decent with the great apes is profound, if you look at our genetic codes between us and the great apes you see a difference they have 48 chromosomes and we have 46, but there's something interesting about that.

If you take a closer you look you see two of the chromosomes that the great apes have, we have. The two were fused into one.

If evolution was false then this wouldn't have been the case, if we came from a designer then why would the designer do this?

 

[Chaco]

Gah, this conversation moved so far... I am not gonna revive those topics.





Then how come everyone who's exposed to the aids virus doesn't become immune? The virus itself is very effective at escaping the immune system's attempts to adapt to it.


Exactly, these women had SOMETHING biologically different about them that made them immune to the virus before they were ever exposed.

That is a beneficial mutation, and a very real step in the evolutionary process.

Thats the point it is a mutation, which means it is not evolution because it has the possibility of reappearing on down through heredity, but it also can not reappear.

A complete physical evolution is when all of their physical features are altered.

@adumbrodeus: Immunity has several key factors that plays into it, the main one for AIDs is how bad they are infected with it. A person with a minor infection has a better chance of becoming immune to it. Why? Becuase it is less likely to die from and they live longer, and immunities take time.

@Jack: Yes, it can be considered as an evolution. But growing a third arm would be a drastic evolution that would a take much longer than that of becoming immune to AIDs.

Read this:

A few lucky individuals won't ever contract AIDS they're genetically immune. And the more we learn about how their genes protect them, the closer we come to protecting all of us.

THE STORY BEGINS WITH A MOUSE. WITH A bunch of them, that is; a bustling colony of smallish brown field mice scurrying through the grain bins of a squab farm outside Los Angeles in 1979. They were not quite ordinary mice. They happened to carry a gene that protected them against a devastating leukemia virus that was annihilating the rest of the rodents on the farm. This gene, a "restriction" gene, barred infection by blocking the doorway--the receptor--through which the virus gained entry to the cells it attacked. Denied access, the lethal virus was left futilely hammering at the gate, harmless and vulnerable, to be destroyed in short order by the body's defenses. In other words, these mice were genetically immune to the disease.

Humans are getting this restriction gene from mutation, it eventually can evolve into a complete immunity to all people for AIDs. But that has not happened and will take a long time for it to happen, when and if it does happen.

I am not saying that evolution doesn't happen, this is where you are taking it off into something else. So can we stick to human evolution?

 

[RDK]

Thats the point it is a mutation, which means it is not evolution because it has the possibility of reappearing on down through heredity, but it also can not reappear.

You're thinking of just hereditary traits, like genes. Cases of mosquitos developing immunity to certain pesticides within several generations is a case of evolution, not just a matter of heredity. The same applies to the AIDS immunity.

A complete physical evolution is when all of their physical features are altered.

There is no basis for a "complete physical evolution". Where do you draw the line? Like someone said before--evolution is evolution. All changes are basically physical, just in varying degrees.

@adumbrodeus: Immunity has several key factors that plays into it, the main one for AIDs is how bad they are infected with it. A person with a minor infection has a better chance of becoming immune to it. Why? Becuase it is less likely to die from and they live longer, and immunities take time.

False. Just because someone doesn't die from AIDS doesn't mean they have a better chance at becoming immune. Some genetic trait locked away in the person's gene pool that had been passed down allowed for the development of the immunity throughout the generations.

@Jack: Yes, it can be considered as an evolution. But growing a third arm would be a drastic evolution that would a take much longer than that of becoming immune to AIDs.

It's still evolution.

Humans are getting this restriction gene from mutation, it eventually can evolve into a complete immunity to all people for AIDs. But that has not happened and will take a long time for it to happen, when and if it does happen.

Why will it take a long time? Because it takes genetic manipulation and breeding to achieve this effect. It can't be done within just a few generations. Genetics is a whole field of science, and an enormous one at that.

I am not saying that evolution doesn't happen, this is where you are taking it off into something else. So can we stick to human evolution?

Creation scientists like to throw around the terms "macro-evolution" (vertical evo.) and "micro-evolution" (horizontal evo.). Basically what they're trying to say is that changes within a species / genus, like dogs, cats, finches, etc. are a result of micro-evolution, while macro-evolution (which, according to them, doesn't exist) consists of changes from one species to another.

 

[Chaco]

Creation scientists like to throw around the terms "macro-evolution" (vertical evo.) and "micro-evolution" (horizontal evo.). Basically what they're trying to say is that changes within a species / genus, like dogs, cats, finches, etc. are a result of micro-evolution, while macro-evolution (which, according to them, doesn't exist) consists of changes from one species to another.

That's correct, in what I was saying. It would be like flying pigs, that is macro evolution, it would be considered a whole new species.

False. Just because someone doesn't die from AIDS doesn't mean they have a better chance at becoming immune. Some genetic trait locked away in the person's gene pool that had been passed down allowed for the development of the immunity throughout the generations.

I understand that, I don't know why I said that though. o.o But I stated the second sentence before.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Thats the point it is a mutation, which means it is not evolution because it has the possibility of reappearing on down through heredity, but it also can not reappear.

A complete physical evolution is when all of their physical features are altered.

The scale is VERY long in case you haven't noticed, but we have more then enough evidence to prove that it has happened in a variety of species, including major physical changes.


The fact is, once you prove that changes occur randomly and that restoration to equilibrium does not occur, you've proven the inevitability of complete physical changes.

Why?

Because the changes build up over a period of time, resulting in an ultimate complete physical change. This pattern has been observed (of increasing magnitude) has been observed with all other processes that have been observed without a "return to equilibrium" mechanism.

Take earthquakes for example, because of the movement of tectonic plates, you have continuous pressure on extremely strong areas. There is no "return to equilibrium" mechanic in place, so pressure steadily builds. Eventually, the event occurs, an earthquake, because the magnitude of the pressure has surpassed what the rock formation can endure, so it breaks, explosively releasing the pressure.

It's the same deal here, the event is a complete physical transformation (whatever the magnitude of the change required to qualify is), and change is steadily building until it hits that tipping point.

@adumbrodeus: Immunity has several key factors that plays into it, the main one for AIDs is how bad they are infected with it. A person with a minor infection has a better chance of becoming immune to it. Why? Becuase it is less likely to die from and they live longer, and immunities take time.

Yes, but you seem to forget, at issue here IS how badly they're infected with it. Assuming the same strain of course.

@Jack: Yes, it can be considered as an evolution. But growing a third arm would be a drastic evolution that would a take much longer than that of becoming immune to AIDs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13158089/

I am not saying that evolution doesn't happen, this is where you are taking it off into something else. So can we stick to human evolution?

It's all human evolution, just in tiny tiny parts.

 

[Chaco]

adumbrodeus, you should know that the third arm was just a mutation, it is not evolution or it would be occurring more and more.

 

[adumbrodeus]

adumbrodeus, you should know that the third arm was just a mutation, it is not evolution or it would be occurring more and more.

Mutations ARE evolution in action, mutations are the steps in which evolution occurs.


It was just useless so it's not going to give him an evolutionary advantage so the trait isn't particularly likely to become prevalent.

That said, the kid's offspring (assuming that it was a genetic change) has an increased chance for a third arm, and so on and so forth. If at some later date, a third arm becomes an enormous advantage (assuming the trait survived, which sometimes doesn't happen even for beneficial traits) then suddenly the kid's offspring becomes very desirable, and suddenly EVERYONE has a third arm. It's called "punctuated equilibrium". Learn it.

As for why it might become desirable... a functional arm on the right side to be paired with it, or any number of other possibilities.

 

[AltF4]

Definitive proof that god does not exist:


Massachusetts Sex Offender Wins $10 Million in State Lottery

 

[RDK]

It is the second time in recent months that a convicted felon has won the Massachusetts lottery. Last month, a judge approved an agreement allowing a convicted bank robber to keep a $1 million lottery prize even though his probation terms prohibited him from gambling.

This country just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Chaco]

This country just keeps getting better and better.

I have to agree there.

 

[Deleted member]

 

[adumbrodeus]

Funny, but no. Math works that way because we defined numbers as such, and all the applications of said numbers were discovered based on that initial definition.

Everything besides the axioms(aka, what is a point, what is a real number, etc.) in math is deduction, cold and logical, and the axioms are simply what we defined them as. And we defined them as such because they are useful.

There is nothing to be taken on faith in math.

 

[Deleted member]

It's just a comic, lol.

Actually on second thought, if you really wanted to be nitpicky, the square root of -1 and imaginary numbers in general are pretty silly.

 

[Zero Beat]

Definitive proof that god does not exist:


Massachusetts Sex Offender Wins $10 Million in State Lottery

How could anyone not find humor in this? I wish we could still rep, ALT4. You'd get definitive rep from me for years and years.

The only reason this thread is still going is because the atheists we have in the DH love to pick on the believers.

May the gods bless them.

 

[snex]

i see we still have no evidence for any gods even after 2 full pages since my last post...

if you kooks think the bible is evidence for god, then harry potter books are evidence for hogwarts.

i asked for EVIDENCE, not a story book.

here ill give you an experiment to try.

gather a large number of people with some specific cancer, say 200. randomly split them into two groups. have one group pray to god to be cured, and have the other group receive standard medical treatment. then, after 5 years, report the survival/recovery rates for both groups. if your prayer group even comes CLOSE to the success rates of modern medical treatment based on SCIENCE, you will have evidence that god exists, and you will win the freakin nobel prize. so put your money where your mouths are and do the experiment.