"Evolution is a chance process"

[Osiris]

Osiris,

Let's say that you won 10 billion dollars and everyone knew it.  All of a sudden people who didn't want anything to do with you before start coming around treating you like you are the greatest thing to ever happen to them and giving reasons why they weren't around before you won the money.  All these people tell you they are going to do this for you and do that for you and how they can make you what you want to be.  Are you going to share your 10 billion dollars with them or those who were your friends when you didn't have all that money. 

About now you are probably asking yourself "what could this possibly have to do with the quote above?"  My answer to that question is this.  If we could prove everything beyond any measure of doubt that everything contained in the Bible was true and factual and everyone on the face of the earth could be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that if they did not accept Christ they were going to die and go to hell and them prove to them without any doubt by showing them that horrible place and then also prove beyond any doubt by showing them Heaven was real then everyone would do it but not for the right reason.

The way I see it, your analogy fails, because if I win a million dollars, I am not planning on giving it away to people. God on the other hand does want to give money away, he wants to give it to everyone, but he is sad that he is not able to. And about the right reasons, what are the right reasons to believe?

You believe that cats exist, is there such thing of believing that cat exists for a wrong reason?

Well given the choice and having seen the two places I sure don't want to live in hell.  God wants us to accept Him believing that all this is true, just like you want people to be your friend for who you are not because you have 10 billion dollars.

Seeing hell and not wanting to go there would give someone more strength to trust in God for the right reasons (if there is such thing).

The Bible says that the Word of God is but foolishness to those who would call themselves wise.  It would be a "no brainer" for anyone if we could prove everything beyond any doubt.  He wants us to accept Him at His Word (The Bible).

Sorry so long.

Respectfully,

Strservant

I don't call myself wise.

I think it'd be a "no brainer" for anyone to believe in something that didn't need proof.

It was a "no brainer" to believe the earth was flat, it took brains to find out it wasn't and then believe the truth.

[Bread_of_Life]

Osiris,

I'll have to pull out a few of my philosophy books for some better arguments here and maybe starting a new thread. The basic premise is this: Certain things are universally immoral, and others are universally moral and none of them require a fear of God to understand.

Good luck on that thread, but it's likely that I will be on the opposition.

We know the number 5

We know that 2 + 3 is 5

We know that something + 3 = 5, something would have to equal 2.

We know that we do not like death.

So, we know death is bad

Ewwww, it pains me to read this argument!!! 2 + 3 has an objective answer by definition - what we do and don't like is not objective.

mscoville

That true moral good is relative and individual so repulsion to murder and rape are just personal preferences built into us by our surroundings.

Or by genetic predisposition, or by our upbringing. But essentially it's just another preference, yes.

So why did we stop those dern old Nazi's? They were just some good old boys like us having a good time.

The simple reason is that most of us prefered to stop them rather than let them go - because most of us valued human life, liberty etc.

It doesn't mean that they were objectively morally wrong of course, because morality and objectivity are mutually exclusive concepts, there is no moral truth. But, fortunately for people like me and others who think being nice is a good thing, most people agree with us to the extent that they stopped the Nazis.

Of course, that's not to say that some were really fighting for more selfish reasons also.

I think I might kill my neighbors tonight, I'm sick of living so close to them.

I don't believe you. Firstly, I don't believe that you actually prefer this, and even if you did actually want to, you would probably be sufficiently put off by a long prison sentence to not actually do it

[artsylady]

Steff: Regarding slavery. The Bible's version of slavery is probably far different from idea of slavery we are accustomed to. It's quite possible the definition has completely changed since Biblical times. When we think of slavery, we have a picture of people being locked up in chains and whipped, worked hard and underfed, their children sold, etc, etc. You know what I'm talking about.

In the Bible, it tells slave owners that after a certain amount of years, a slave should be set free - first off, that's dramatically different, right? Not sold, free. As well, it mentions what to do if the slave comes back to serve you longer? Well, given the above scenario that comes to our minds, would a slave ever come back to that??? Think about it. As well, the Bible gives direction on how a slave is to treat his master. In the above scenario, there's no room for a slave to 'treat' his master any way other than to work and obey or be whipped, right?

Don't you think it might have been a little more like a work for food and lodging agreement back then, considering the way the Bible instructs slaves to treat their masters and how masters should treat their slaves? Automatically, people see the word 'slave' or 'slavery' and think 'how horrific', without really looking at the context of what that word means, or how it might have been much different 5000 years ago.

[Guest LCPGUY]

Don't you think it might have been a little more like a work for food and lodging agreement back then, considering the way the Bible instructs slaves to treat their masters and how masters should treat their slaves? Automatically, people see the word 'slave' or 'slavery' and think 'how horrific', without really looking at the context of what that word means, or how it might have been much different 5000 years ago.

Excellent point my friend! I have often pondered this issue. But maybe you are right that in ancient times slavery was more like employment, albeit forced employment. Not like the more modern forms of slavery.

Keep on truckin Jen

In His Love,

Bro John

[Guest sminulrdy]

[QUOTE] 

Edited June 10, 2004 by sminulrdy

[Guest sminulrdy]

albeit forced employment

forced employment more than likely not "employment" employment.

just me 2cent

[artsylady]

Firstly, fish probably grew stumps independently of their fins, rather than as a replacement, so they could still swim with their stumps.

Do you mean they had stumps and fins? Any fossils like this? I'd like to see them.

Fish hadn't spread to land, but plants had.

Any evidence for this?

What that meant is that there was probably vegetation on land to eat, in plentiful supplies, harvested by noone at all.

What that meant is that, even if stumps were only good for pushing a fish a foot onto the land and back, for a period of a minute or two holding its breath, that's a foot or two of food that their peers without stumps didn't have any access to.

Ok. That's reasonable. The fish with stumps and fins held it's breath, hobbled onto the land, grabbed some food, hobbled back to the water and swam. This is hysterical? Did you write this with a straight face? Oh yeah, and is there any evidence for this?

The more developed their proto-legs got, the further and faster onto land they could go (similarly, the better and better they managed to breath air on land, the longer they could stay) - and therefore the more food they could harvest.

lol! I can just picture it! Is there proof for the faster running fish that ran on the land? Anything fossils with lungs and gills? Or how about lungs and gills and stumps and fins? Anything evidence to support this?

The second answer is predation. If a predator can only swim in the sea, and you can go onto land, even a few inches onto land, and even for a minute or two, that's an advantage over your peers who do not have this option.

So are there fish today that can do this? There are billions of fish that are prey. Surely there must be some can hop out of the water, hold their breath to get away from their predators. Surely, there must be some evidence that this happened.

Sure, after a minute the predator might still be there, but they might also have given up, and gone in search of something easier to catch - or something else might have caught their eye, giving our stumpy fish a chance to escape

.

You really beleive this don't you?

That gives stumpy fish an advantage over their less stumpy peers, and advantage that increases the longer and further they can make it on land.

Wow. I'm convinced.

For example, take camouflage. Clearly mutation didn't lead instantly to perfect camouflage, so what's the point in being 5% camouflaged?

Camoflage is amazing. Truly spectacular. Can you tell me why many predators don't camoflage? Why they are brightly colored and easy to spot? Seems to me God wanted some balance. No proof of camoflaged animals needed. I've seen many and am in awe when I see them.

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence,"

Amen

[artsylady]

This is where evolution becomes absurd. There is no reason to think that the lucky mutation you're thinking of would occur. not only are they born with stumps for no reason (randomly) but then they have to realize they have stumps, and, figure out a usefull purpose for them.

Born with stumps AND fins and before that they were able to see food on the land that was edible and somehow willed the stumps to happen. But it's all random.....

Uh huh.

Has Macro Evolution ever been observed? It's likely that it's going on out there somewhere in our world right now right?

With more than 1 millions species observed and finding more than 10 thousand every year, you'd think it is being observed all the time, if it had actually happened.

[Guest mscoville]

SA,

Or by genetic predisposition,

Great.

The simple reason is that most of us prefered to stop them rather than let them go - because most of us valued human life, liberty etc.

Wow, I wouldn't die fighting for a preference. I doubt you would either. Thank goodness the people who fought didn't just prefer to stop them.

I don't believe you. Firstly, I don't believe that you actually prefer this, and even if you did actually want to, you would probably be sufficiently put off by a long prison sentence to not actually do it

You don't believe me? Geez, why not? Ha. Fear of Prison is all we've got to keep us in line huh? That and loving nurturing philosophy like you espouse. Ha. I was quite a good shop lifter when I was a kid. I preferred that to spending my own money. Now according to you I should take that up again. I know you're not saying I should, you just have no logical moral reason that I shouldn't and without one I could care less about your best argument. That's where your arguements for or against any decision that might be seen as right or wrong become worthless. Unlivable, existentially useless. Not to you since you've assigned personal value to your ideas, but to defend them, or to say anyone should follow what you believe or defend any way of life over and against another is meaningless ( now I get to hear your criteria for useless again right?)

God Bless,

Martin

Edited June 11, 2004 by mscoville

[Bread_of_Life]

artsylady

Do you mean they had stumps and fins? Any fossils like this? I'd like to see them.

No, I'm saying that it could have happened that way, that you shouldn't simply assume one that it happened one way and not another.

Actually, recent fossil discoveries point to the idea that the first amphibians actually adapted their fins to scuttle around the sea bed, only later to walk on land. Here is some of the (fossil) evidence for this:

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/tetrapods.htm#Tetrapods

Any evidence for this?

Good question. Land plants are well established in the fossil record by the Silurian (440 - 410Mya), that is, they are found regularly by this period (btw, a creationist explanation of why many land plants are found from the silurian upwards and not before would be nice).

However, fossils have been found from the Mid-Ordovician (~470 Mya) (http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/index/2NWB35JF2C34PJHG.pdf)

Tetrapods (the first land animals) appeared in the Devonian (410-360 Mya), right after the colonisation of land by plants.

The fish with stumps and fins held it's breath, hobbled onto the land, grabbed some food, hobbled back to the water and swam. This is hysterical? Did you write this with a straight face? Oh yeah, and is there any evidence for this?

The reasons why early amphibians (tetrapods) crawled onto land in the first place can only ever be speculation - since we wern't around to see it happen, or witness their habitat. However, we can at least theorise advantages to such behaviour evolving, especially in coastline communities of animals.

Less predation and more food are obvious advantages of this mode of life. Also, given that tetrapods may well have had fairly well formed limbs by the time they crawled out of the sea, they may well only have had to evolve breathing apparatus from gills.

However, whether either of these had anything to do with it at all, we can only speculate. The fact of the matter is though, your question wasn't "how did it happen?" but rather "how could it possibly have happened, what could possibly be the advantage?

lol! I can just picture it! Is there proof for the faster running fish that ran on the land? Anything fossils with lungs and gills? Or how about lungs and gills and stumps and fins? Anything evidence to support this?

Firstly, only hard parts survive fossilisation. You'll never (or very very rarely in imprint) find any fossil with lungs or gills, only the bone structure will remain.

However, we do (as you've probably seen from the links above) see fish with adapted fins turning into tetrapods in quite a well documented transition (I'm surprised you chose this transition in fact, since fossils do exist here, you'd have been better choosing amphibian to reptile, for which there are no transitional fossils of any note at all).

So are there fish today that can do this? There are billions of fish that are prey. Surely there must be some can hop out of the water, hold their breath to get away from their predators.

Well, of course, there are fish that swim in very shallow waters, but of course, coming onto land isn't the solution it used to be. Why? Because now there's stuff on land that can eat you. In fact, there's even stuff in the air that can eat you if you're in too shallow an area.

So fish today would rather be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire by coming onto land. However of course, there are still millions of amphibians about, who make their living half in land and half in water (such as frogs for example). These are the modern day descendants of the first tetrapods, with a lot of adaption.

You really beleive this don't you?

I really believe that spending time on land when there's noone or nothing to predate you there, and lots of food, could be very advantageous to a creature who is struggling for any food in the water, and to stay away from prey.

Since we've found transitional fossils of fish with adapted fins, who scuttled on the surface of the sea-bed, I don't see a problem with these fish then moving further and further onto land gradually, with adapted gills to breath oxygen pure.

Can you tell me why many predators don't camoflage?

#

Actually, some do. Polar bears for example are rather hard to spot against the ice of the arctic. Lions are hard to spot against the yellow grasses of the African plains. In fact, many ambush predators camouflage themselves also.

In other words, I think you should research this statement.

and somehow willed the stumps to happen.

I think you may have severely misunderstood evolutionary theory, or perhaps you're being deliberately obtuse?

Evolution does not occur because an animal wills it. I can want to be able to climb a tree to get an apple as much as I want, but I don't grow a tail, or gain claws - and nor do my offspring.

Variation is not directed by the will or wishes of the animal or plant - but by random mutations and recombinations. Variation is random - some variations will be advantageous, some dis-advantageous, some disastrous, and many neutral or even non-functional.

With more than 1 millions species observed and finding more than 10 thousand every year, you'd think it is being observed all the time, if it had actually happened.

How long have we been observing species closely? About 200-300 years of recorded history approximately. How long have we been looking for evolutionary change? About 150 years. How many generations of human have gone by in that time? About 8.

Evolution on a large scale takes thousands of generations, even tens and hundreds of thousands.

Also, you should check out ring species, which are examples of speciation occuring right now, such as the Californian Salamander, and Palearctic gulls (http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/rings.htm#Rings)

mscoville

Wow, I wouldn't die fighting for a preference

ACtually, you do just about everything on the basis of preference, we all do. When we choose white bread over brown it's because we prefer to do so - maybe because we prefer the taste, or maybe because we prefer to cater to our children's tastes, or maybe because we prefer the brand - but nonetheless, it's a preference.

Morals are just another type of preference - a very strong preference in some (primary even to a preference for staying alive, in some), a weak preference one in others.

You don't believe me? Geez, why not? Ha. Fear of Prison is all we've got to keep us in line huh? That and loving nurturing philosophy like you espouse. Ha. I was quite a good shop lifter when I was a kid. I preferred that to spending my own money. Now according to you I should take that up again.

No, according to me you shouldn't. Firstly, you might get caught, and you probably prefer not to go to prison.

Secondly, it's likely that you are I share a preference against victimisation of others. We probably also share a preference for making our own money, and owning our own stuff fair and square.