How does a bully have no incentive to do bad things if he does? There's a reason for everything. Now think of it this way - the bully (in this case the analogy towards humanity) chose to make himself flawed. By making yourself flawed, you set yourself up for blame. Why blame others for your mistake? Its like blaming a teacher for your F. You didn't listen in class. Of course I did. But yet of course Nitrous gets no blame for calling me a moron/idiot multiple times. Oh right, because he's on your side and he's an admin. Shouldn't I be able to call someone ignorant if its blatantly obvious and true? Calling someone what they are shouldn't be offensive, in any way.
Um no. I mean he has no incentive to disrespect the victim (God). Whether humanity/bully had incentives to be flawed is different. The fact that humanity disrespected God though despite his warning not to shows that they might have had it coming... but the point is to show that in the end, having it coming or not, what God/Victim did is Genocide/Homicide. Im not talking about blaming anything on anyone. Im not saying its the teachers fault the student failed. or the victims fault the bully refused to listen. Im saying that say what you want on the part of the humans/victim/student, the point is that plain and simple, Genocide/homicide is just that. Genocide/homicide. Failing the student is simply failing the student. Thats what the teacher did. Incentives/reasons/fault... not important because all that is important is to realize the end result. Can you blame the killings/act of failing on the bully, student or humans? No. They may have had it coming, but they didnt commit the murders. God did. Thats the point. Thats what Nitrous was explaining before. That when it comes down to it, God is Genocidal. EDIT: and calling someone ignorant/moronic/an idiot... thats different. Call anyone that. But calling someone a twat is not what they are. And thats a derogative and rude comment to make of someone. Go call somone an idiot, see what they say. Then call them a twat.
As far as that goes, I wouldn't call God genocidal. The fact that he said he won't do it again and that he had to do it in order to have the world not so slandered I wouldn't call genocidal. I mean, omniscience, its what he knew he had to do. But he didn't kill everybody, at least. And God damn, apparently the definition of twat has greatly changed. I edited my post for correctiveness sake, I was always told (from many people) that a twat is an misunderstanding person who is ignorant. Forgive me.
He might not have killed everyone, and he might not have done it out of pure hatred and malevolence... but last I checked.... gen⋅o⋅cide /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA –noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. He may not have wiped Humanity off the earth, but plenty of Genocidal people haven't done so, still doesn't make what they did less genocidal. Oh and yea maybe it has changed lol... at least you aren't someone who then goes and continues to argue something like that.
Or you could see it as a genocide of benefit (don't get on me for this). I mean, think about it this way. You've got a million people on the earth, and 999,998 of them are people who have done way too many crimes. Murder, rape, anything you can think of. But those last two people are good people. Now in order for goodness to continue a greater force must eliminate wrongdoings for sake of future benefit. So in the end, it would be better than leaving them.
I've explained how DNA and such can become more complex. It is your turn to either refute it or agree with it. However, you obviously don't agree with what I said since you still think evolution is not a fact. Of course, not even homologous structures, vestigial organs, or mutations could convince you that evolution is backed up by facts. Assumptions? He brought up facts to show how evolution is real. Oh, too few facts for you? How about creationism? Facts? So what Darwin observed in the Galapagos Islands was just a bunch of similar finches that God made? Why would God make animals? For us to eat. Why so many kinds? pic unrelated
I understand the reasoning and idea behind his actions, however, that isnt fixing the problem, thats just temporarily slowing it down at the expense of 999,998 lives... Killing anyone with sin to save those that are good is pointless because that flaw is part of the human gene. Just because two people were good, doesn't mean that the gene is gone. And it will/was passed on to future generations, and more bad people came about. So though his actions may have been thought of as a good idea, it really was just the genocide of hundreds of thousands with no real benefit in the end. For an omniscient being, he should have seen that coming.
You never really answered my original question about the genome - you just said because of mutations we get more information about the phenotypes that evolve. You never said how we get more information from the original ancestor. Since I don't exactly know what homologous structures are, I won't bother arguing them. How do vestigial organs disprove creation? IMO it all the more disproves evolution, wouldn't we just naturally adapt to not using it and have it disappear? Or maybe they just don't have a function anymore. Mutations? They go all the way to prove micro evolution even more. You should be trying to tell me how micro evolution turns into macro. Oh but there's no recorded evidence of that, k... Darwin observed micro evolution. He didn't observe an amoeba turning into a dinosaur. The assumption Darwin made is that if one thing can change simply it will eventually change complexly. That's like saying because the fastest mile time ever is 4:00, we will eventually reach 3:00, because a hundred years ago the fastest was 4:10. Oh right it'll take a long time, but then again we won't have recorded evidence. Why so many kinds of animals? Why not, I ask? So we could have variety, I guess. Why would God give us only 7 animals to eat from? Probably because he had in mind that there would be a shortage. If he's omniscient, I'm sure he at least sees the fruit of his labor.
Micro evolution. Adaptation: It is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat. Mutation: Mutation is generally accepted by the scientific community as the mechanism upon which natural selection acts, providing the advantageous new traits that survive and multiply in offspring or disadvantageous traits that die out with weaker organisms. K so micro evolution + micro evolution + environmental effects which support micro evolution = macro evolution. The mile time assumption of it gradually becoming shorter is based on a bias opinion, and an assumption that running speed increases at a constant rate. Which has no observable evidence. That doesn't hold too much weight. 1) Nice "I'm right you're wrong" argument you got there. 2) What about listen to God and he won't curse the earth? Did he just give us the answer to that decision and yet he still gives us grace? Whaaaaaaaaaat?! 3) Yeah, go PETA. Ever heard of the food chain?
What? What is this? Why would an evolved species pull info from an ancestor? Mutations are what change the species and make it more evolved. Phenotypes are the physical characteristics; when I say we "get more info" for them, that's saying the DNA gets more complex or changes with each mutation. In effect, the phenotypes (physical characteristics) change accordingly. It's a bit like having an old kid's book and then adding, replacing, or deleting words. If God created us in whatever period of time, why would he include useless organs? HEYA THERE, vestigial organs are the sign we are adapting and the organ is disappearing. It's not going to magic poof away in the next generation; evolution takes time. MICRO AND MACRO ARE NOT TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF EVOLVING. Macro is an adaptation above the species level, a.k.a speciation. This has been observed, but how? Because, as I have reiterated many times, "macro" evolution (rather, speciation) is caused by a series of related micro evolutions. So it's all just really micro evolution. In fact, there is no point making a distinction. Here is an example of speciation. As you can see, none of them turned into gorillas. This is because such a change would be illogical. Imagine: at the beginnings of life, there were only simple microscopic organisms sitting about. The Protista group. Now, based on need, each... say "tribe" of Protists evolved according to that need. Eventually, with mutations and time, they all evolved into what you see today. Interestingly enough, some Protist phyla show similarities to animals, plants, and fungi. How is that since they look nothing alike? Ah, things are more than just skin-deep observations. Things such as amino acid positions, cell structures, and other "small" factors show how things are related and could have evolved from one another. Image source: Wikipedia.com If they're just to eat, we can always change the flavor up with spices. Variety? Why? The point of life, supposedly, is to choose or not choose God so he only has people who really like him there. So why all this? We could easily control a planet of chickens. A shortage? Imagine if every animal on this planet was a chicken. Where is the shortage?
Creation or Evolution? No. Creation & Evolution? Yes. The Creation of Evolution? Plausible. But in all seriousness, I don't see how anyone can take sides in this debate. If you were to think beyond the box's 500 billion light year radius then you can get a sense of how far into creation we are. Evolution is not a way of disproving any creation belief. If anything, it should be regarded as one of the few miraculous wonders of life. Life adapts to it's habitat, and the habitat of Earth has been slowly changing for hundreds of millions of years. I think of it as an aide to make through the many struggles life has faced. Think of it like this. The more we evolve, the more we can prevent the extinction of our species, and many others.
I just had a big reply to this post, and I pressed some button and firefox closed, so i'll try to keep this simple. 1) humans carried over traits from apes (according to evolution) 2) Yep, that's just micro evolution. Those organs were useful at one point in time. don't you also think the appendix has been around long enough to at least shrink? Don't we have any proof of it shrinking? 3) There's plenty a distinction. That image shows micro evolution from two perspectives. Those aren't two completely different gene pools. 4) You're the one who stated organic life came from single celled organisms. 5) Or could we? Imagine 6.7 billion chickens, then there was chicken pox leading to (another disease I can't seem to remember the name of) but its far more deadly. A deadly strain of disease from 6.7 billion chickens, but that's our only food/meat supply. yaaay 6) Chickens alone don't harvest all the minerals and vitamins our bodies need
1) Yes. The mutations didn't change everything. 2) Time. Not as in a hundred years. A thousand, maybe more. Still, it doesn't disprove evolution. 3) EXACTLY. Through the "micro evolutions" we find that each changed according to need. In the end, both are unattractive to each other and they are unable to make viable offspring. They are different species. (Note that the diagram is just a simplified version of real life.) 4) Yeah... I wasn't disproving that. I was using single-celled organisms to prove how things evolved and are related. Maybe you should re-read my post? 5) So why not make food that won't infect us? Why complicate things? SUMMARY:DNA is the "director" of all cells. Cells make up all organisms. DNA, being the director, carries all the info needed for the cell to work. This DNA in early life was like the text in a simple kid's book; the book being the cell. However, complexity was needed for the book to survive and outsell the others. Editing (mutations) by adding, deleting, and replacing words in the text (DNA) are what caused the book to be more advanced. Eventually, we reach the "books" of today: advanced pieces of literature; advanced life-forms. Now, some books are related because they had similar "readers" (or needs). Some appeal to nerds, some to music fanatics, some to anime lovers, etc. Though the content is different in each genre, the anime books all have a common theme, as do the music books, etc. They're related... all "evolved" from books for young 'uns. And of course, we still have those kids books as well.
Avert your eyes to my newest blog. http://www.forgehub.com/forum/blogs/nitrous/1762-diversity-classifiction-life.html
1) I didn't say that. I was just trying to say we still got traits from them (according to you) even though you said we didn't. 2) So no appendix shrinkage? 3) So gays are different species than straight people because they can't bear offspring. right. 4) Sure. 5) God cursed the earth. Why'd we have to complicate things and disobey him? So young books started from language and language being matter started where?
1) Oh, well never mind. We do. 2) Maybe later. 3) I meant male-female relations. Obviously, two males or two females can't have kids on their own. 4) - 5) This is your reasoning for all the animals? Book analogy: Before we get to that, let's first agree that evolution is real. The analogy only pertains to, and strives to help you better know, evolution.
5) I'm sure I could think of something else. I can understand evolution better without believing it. Continue, considering you didn't answer my question.
Why not both Creation and Evolution. I'm a Christian, and I've grown up believing in creation, but it's hard to deny science sometimes. I believe that some sort of evolution may be possible, but that God is the one who put the whole thing in motion. I'm not sure if I specifically believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't believe that God literally spoke the universe into existence in literal days, either. It says in the bible that a 1000 days to us is like a day to God, and a day to God is like a 1000 days to us. God obviously doesn't view "time" the same way we do. I think the 7 days of creation are a metaphor for something else. I'm just trying to keep an open mind about the whole thing, but no matter how the universe was created, God was definitely the cause of it.
Because there's no evidence of creation? If you want to believe in evolution in creation, why not evolution and flying super-squirrels who made the universe instead?