rising up out of the back seat-nuh
-
Posts
2456 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by rising up out of the back seat-nuh
-
-
The Small Faces are pretty under-rated. Great singles band.
-
What should he do?
Cry about it?
I'm resisting the urge to make a joke about karma myself.
You know, if someone did that about Americans dying in 9/11 you'd have a fit...
-
Also:
Blame Canada!
-
As does walking.
Dames: Why didn't you go round stealing stuff from shops? I know I would...
-
It is feasible that the human heart evolved, first as a muscle to pump blood (or whatever it was at that time) through the body, evolved into a single chamber (because this allowed greater efficiency) and then evolved into a double chamber (because it also allowed greater efficiency). All it takes is for a double chambered heart to evolve once in a form that allows greater functionality (an on the genetic blueprint, so that it can be passed down through succesive generations) for it to take a hold upon a population.
Indeed, but my question is how the double chambers come about in the first place, and in such a way so that the valves can selectively allow blood in or out.
As for your later question, about God creating animals, my theory has been that he created them to see how humans would interact with lesser beings - some humans are kind to animals, some humans are cruel to them. I've heard from many people that the true mark of a man is not how they treat their equals but how they treat their inferiors, and I'd assume that the human interaction with animals is essentially God's way of putting us to that test.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Deve...t_evolution.htm
This is the best explaination I could find on-line. There's a "next" button at the bottom to scroll through it. If you're interested, http://www.talkorigins.org/ also has a lot of good pieces about evolution.
Personally, I still don't understand how someone can read up on evolution and decide that creationism is more likely than evolutionary theory. I'm not saying for one second that current evolutionary theory is 100% correct, but it's logical, has a root in scientific fact and the majority of predictions made based on these theories that can be measured have proven correct (for example, feathered dinosaurs were predicted for years before they were found, based on this theory)
Also, your explaination for that part of creationism, while a good moral, doesn't make much sense. Why did God put a series of animal, increasingly like man on the planet? Why did God create animals that died out years before humans arrived upon this planet?
The problem with a lot of Creationism is that it's based upon Creationism is that it is based upon assumptions as opposed to facts. While the same is true of Evolutionary theory, this has been backed up with facts where as Creationism never has. If I found one compelling reason why Creationism occured, I would be more likely to believe it.
-
Is Stennick AustinHHH4Life, or whatever his name was?
-
I can't understand, under any circumstances, this theory and I can't understand why anyone would blindly believe Creationism over Evolution against all known facts just because a book said so, but that's beside the point.
What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution.
Evolution is very poorly understood, even by the experts. However, there is a lot of data present that backs up the theory. In addition to the aforementioned facts, there is the following two:
* Evolution has frequently been observed over geological and historical time-scales. For example, palaeontologists are gradually finding more and more links between birds and dinosaurs, forst skeletal similarities, then Archaeopteryx, then recently feathered dinosaurs in China.
* Genetic mutations or cross-breeding have been shown to create morphological change. This is the same theory as evolution, with genetic changes proving difference in morphology and following on from that speciation.
Evolution on it's basic level can be described as morphological or genetic change over time. Leaving aside speciation, this has been seen over time. Evolution has been proved as much as it possibly can be. I don't know what proof you need, but there's enough out there to be getting on with.
I would be interested to know why you're a Creationist. Every single creationist arguement I've encountered has been based on either the lack of concrete evidence or falsities as opposed to an actual reason for creationism. So, anyone got an answer?
I'd tend to agree that some form of evolution must go on. However, I don't feel that it goes beyond what the peppered moth study showed. The human heart, for example, seems far too complex to have evolved over millions of years from a single cell. Also, many of the routines (I don't know the scientific term off the top of my head) that plants go through (photosynthesis) seem like they couldn't have evolved piece-by-piece - to me, they had to have been created to be able to do photosynthesis.
Also, your genetic mutations theory seems to be far too far-fetched to me. I have yet to see a genetic mutation that helped a specie on the whole.
I will admit, of course, that some creatures evolve minor things - the peppered moth is an example of that. However, I find that with the complexities of the human body - and for that matter, most animals - there had to have been a designer.
Ah, this is the struggle between Macro-evolution and micro-evolution, which is basically a debate over how large scale changes occured. Even experts in this field can't agree on this, so I'm not gonna say how it happens.
However, large scale evolutional paradoxes such as the human hearts, or eye, are generally unsolved because the fossil record doesn't show it, either to a lack of soft tissue parts or a gap in the fossil record (i.e. punctuated equillibrium) more than anything else. It is feasible that the human heart evolved, first as a muscle to pump blood (or whatever it was at that time) through the body, evolved into a single chamber (because this allowed greater efficiency) and then evolved into a double chamber (because it also allowed greater efficiency). All it takes is for a double chambered heart to evolve once in a form that allows greater functionality (an on the genetic blueprint, so that it can be passed down through succesive generations) for it to take a hold upon a population.
It's important not to get too caught up with the word "mutations", because that suggests drastic changes. Evolution is, generally, caused by smaller changes. For example, height. The human population is, in the U.K. at least, getting taller. This is for a variety of reasons, diet, health care and genetic disposition. Now, presume that women prefer taller blokes to shorter ones. Then, taller men will be more likely to breed, and the average child will be more likely to have that "tall gene". Therefore, the average height of the population goes up. The same could be said of breast size. If you compare this to, for example, China, where height and breast size were less of a concern than the Western world for many years, you can see a marked difference in height and breast size. That's evolution.
The main problem I have with Creationism is that I have not yet heard one single decent arguement as to why God created animals, apart from criticisms of Evolutionary theory, which are due more to a lack of data than a hole in the theory. Again, I'll ask any Creationist's out there to give a reason why Creationism is more probable than evolution.
-
Overall- He's one of the top ten overall rappers in hip hop, hell I'd go as far as to say he's on of the top five!
I wouldn't go that far, but he's got flow, an eye for controversy and an eye for a good tune. He's not the saviour of rap, but he's not bad at all.
-
I thought he was an idiot at first. Then I realised he's funny.
He's a gimmick, but it's better than 90% of posters here. Myself included.
-
Poor, repressed W.A.S.P's...
-
I can't understand, under any circumstances, this theory and I can't understand why anyone would blindly believe Creationism over Evolution against all known facts just because a book said so, but that's beside the point.
What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution.
Evolution is very poorly understood, even by the experts. However, there is a lot of data present that backs up the theory. In addition to the aforementioned facts, there is the following two:
* Evolution has frequently been observed over geological and historical time-scales. For example, palaeontologists are gradually finding more and more links between birds and dinosaurs, forst skeletal similarities, then Archaeopteryx, then recently feathered dinosaurs in China.
* Genetic mutations or cross-breeding have been shown to create morphological change. This is the same theory as evolution, with genetic changes proving difference in morphology and following on from that speciation.
Evolution on it's basic level can be described as morphological or genetic change over time. Leaving aside speciation, this has been seen over time. Evolution has been proved as much as it possibly can be. I don't know what proof you need, but there's enough out there to be getting on with.
I would be interested to know why you're a Creationist. Every single creationist arguement I've encountered has been based on either the lack of concrete evidence or falsities as opposed to an actual reason for creationism. So, anyone got an answer?
-
If you believe in Creationism, why didn't God give other animals souls? Is he a bastard?
Because animals were not made in His image. Why weren't they? Because He didn't want them to be. And yes, I KNOW it's really irritating to try and debate stuff like this when one person constantly resorts to "Because God says so", but honestly, that's the only reason I can give you for it - He didn't want to.
Also, for the record, I don't really believe in creationism.
Sorry to just point out one part of your post, but how the hell can you believe God created humans in his image and all that stuff, and not believe in Creationism.
Also, if you don't believe in the creationist aspect of Christianity and you also believe that The Bible is totally God's word, how can you believe in Christianity?
-
I don't mind the singles he's done recently. I hated Babylon with a passion, but he's done some good stuff since.
Besides, he's got the greatest drummer ever.
-
Nope, Touch of Gray is the Dead's only hit. As Watchtower is Hendrix's only one.
Wasn't Crosstown Traffic released post-humously over there?
-
TNM's sig>WCW World Title (2000-current)
You damn right. Plus, I can't maintain my hair like Luger.
Especially not in that picture you posted...
would you be referring to the great, COCK THREAD~?
You call your penis THE GREAT COCK THREAD?
Someone's got a high opinion of himself...
-
Where's Avril
-
Ooberman
Blur and Pulp are pretty under-rated nowadays
-
Blah Blah Blah Blah Tool Blah Blah Blah
That's all I've heard since you've been back.
You ought to get your computer looked at.
Or your ears.
Maybe I just need to reupdate my "moron semi-troll to english dictionary."
You know, a flame war between TNM and Banky could be good. It can't be any worse than yesterday's bollocks.
-
TNM's sig>WCW World Title (2000-current)
You damn right. Plus, I can't maintain my hair like Luger.
Especially not in that picture you posted...
-
1)and animals for some random reason, but without a soul, surely animals would be evil, right?
Having a soul does not automatically make you good - after all, many people are evil.
2)
Zoological science has shown that animals and humans are related and that if there is a soul, both have them.I won't deny that humans are simply just a more intelligent type of creature - but how can ANYTHING show that if people have a soul, animals have one too? I really don't understand this.
3)
Religions older than Christianity believe all animals have souls.So? As is my understanding, we're discussing the Christian Heaven and Hell. What difference does it make what other religons believe?
4)
Now, honest question - Are animals capable of abstract thought, or are they only capable to consider things that they know to exist (IE, where their food is)? Because if they're not capable, then that sets us apart.
5)
Also, somehow I doubt animals have a concept of good and evil - Again, set apart.
6)
Is it much of a difference? Probably not. Does that difference leave the potential for people to have souls, while animals don't? I'd say so.
7)
Oh and for the record, I've been browsing through the Bible (Like I said, Catholic home) and while I can't find anything specific, I can see that God "blessed" humans, which he didn't do to animals, and God also TOLD humans that we were to rule over the creatures of the land, sea, and sky.
Somehow, I can't see God telling us that we're allowed to boss around all animals if they, indeed, did have souls.
But then again, this Bible is all fragged up. Apparantly God created the animals twice...damned illogical Bible.
8)
But anyway, I stand by my original point - Because people have souls is no reason to assume that animals have souls, even if we aren't very different genetically.
Because while genetically we may be similar, in God's eyes, we're obviously two totally different things. And what He says goes, really.
1) While having a soul doesn't automatically make you good, absence of a soul (in theory) should make you automatically evil, as it takes away the ability to do good things. It's like the old stand-by of "a soul-less monster".
2) The only reason people would have a soul and not other animals is by using the theory of Creationism, where God created all animals. After studying palaeontology for the last 4 years, I can't understand, under any circumstances, this theory and I can't understand why anyone would blindly believe Creationism over Evolution against all known facts just because a book said so, but that's beside the point.
If you believe humans have a soul, but no other animals, where do you draw the line? Do primates, our most closely related ancestor, have souls? If not, why not? If you believe in evolution, how did humans evolve souls? If you believe in Creationism, why didn't God give other animals souls? Is he a bastard?
3) Christianity is, by and large, based on other religions. While we may be discussing a Christian Heaven and Hell, this is a discussion about souls which are, I believe, not a Christian concept but an older one. It's very likely that the people who wrote the Bible, already believed in souls as common knowledge, not through Christianity.
4) Abstract thought on a large scale does indeed set us apart from other animals, but it doesn't mean it's not there on a smaller scale. If you're asking whether animals have the abolity to believe in things they don't know, then no. But neither do humans. Everything that a rational human being believes in is something he has seen, heard, touched or has been led to believe exists. Same as any other animal.
Humans and all other animals can only believe what they see. Animals may not be able to create, but the major difference between us is that humans have the morphological adaptations to be able to be creative (e.g hands, voices etc). It could be argued that the ability of some primates or elephants to use tools is being creative, but that's up to you.
5) Define a concept of good and evil. if you tell a dog or cat off, it won't do it again. It could be argued that's a concept of good and evil, not too far set apart from humans. Look at kids, the only way they can understand what is good and bad is by telling them, rewarding them for doing good, punishing them for doing bad. Just like pets.
Don't forget that most animals don't have the same need to differentiate between good and evil as humans. If we do something nice, we don't have to worry about being killed as a result: most aniimals do.
6) I really don't think there is enough of a difference between humans and other animals to justify us being set apart from them.
7) If you were writing the Bible, especially in a less enlightened time, would you say that we are on the same level as other animals? Or would you say that we are better than them, and that we are their masters. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you must realise that The Bible is not His true word, it is the word of sycophantic believers.
8) And there lies the problem. If you believe The Bible, then you believe that humans are set apart from other animals, that we are special, that we are God's chosen ones. It's like nationalism for the human race. If any other group believed that over another, it would be prejudice. The fact is that we are not inherently different from other animals. We're the same as them, just way better on many levels.
-
Blah Blah Blah Blah Tool Blah Blah Blah
That's all I've heard since you've been back.
You ought to get your computer looked at.
Or your ears.
-
I hope that there is an afterlife, provided that the one true faith turns out to be the worship of some unknown diety that like three people believed in five thousand years ago. The looks on everyone’s faces in Hell would be worth it.
Thats a good reason to wish eternal damnation on the entire Earths population
-
If there is a soul, every animal on the planet has got one and has got an afterlife.
You're basing that on what, exactly?
I might not be a thelogian (Hell, I doubt I even spelled the word properly) but look at it from this angle: Accept, for the sake of argument, that there is a God, and he created this planet and all the creatures on it.
Of all those creatures, God made ONE type in his own image. God gave ONE type of creature the mental capacity to do what humans do. And God sent His son to save ONE type of creature - Jesus didn't come because some dogs were being mean to each other.
God made man with a soul, and man alone. Dogs don't have one, sheep don't have one, birds don't have one - only people, because God made them that way. At least, that's what I've always been told, and my home is quite Catholic.
I don't see how accepting that there is a human soul means that all creatures have them.
What are the signs of having a soul? Everything we do or feel is mirrored in animals. Of course, you are putting forward the idea that God made humans in his image, and animals for some random reason, but without a soul, surely animals would be evil, right?
The basic idea that only humans have souls comes from the idea that humans are better than animals, set apart from them. While that is the Christian viewpoint, you cannot argue that basic animal morphology and chemistry show that we are the same as other animals, even if we are more inteligent.
The whole logic behine the idea that humans have souls, but animals dont is because God created humans in his image, but not other animals. But everything that makes us alive is there in other animals. Where in the Bible does it say that humans have souls but not other animals? If it does, how can you be sure that it's not the work of years of chinese whispers and put there by God-fearing scholars who think they're better than their pets?
Religions older than Christianity believe all animals have souls. Zoological science has shown that animals and humans are related and that if there is a soul, both have them. When I look into my cats eyes, I can see she's not soulless. I don't understand why Christianity should make me believe otherwise.
-
It'd be good if they do. On the one hand, he probably wouldn't have got over as much in WWE without the gimmick, but he's over now and they need to turn him into a legitimate character in order to push him.
Nintendo stops GameCube production...
in Video Games
Posted
Haven't seen this anywhere else:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/busi...ess/3134651.stm
Discuss...