Gnieus

creation is bollocks bashaf iz meshugge באַשאַ ףזײַן משוגעןער Shalom שלום Peace In yiddish as my aramaeic is a bit patchy But if you believe in the literary word as it was written down why don't you read it yourself .. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/320px-Estrangela.jpg Then you can bible bash until the Messiah returns.. Or more here: http://www.peshitta.org/ "With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision." So in case you belong to this church you might have a point somewhere sometime, if not, let's face it you are not reading the original.. so have no point whatsoever.. http://www.peshitta.org/images/Peshitta.gif Read creationists read If you accept translation you accept change and lost your argument. Good bye..

First there was Fear then there was Religion to pretend the world isn't scary. Then they wrote some books the once that didn't want to be afraid and face up to life. These books said the World was made by God and that God protects you and if he doesn't it still makes sense. That is if you believe that stuff in the books. Then some guys in Victorian England said: hey the books aren't correct. The ones with Fear realised they would have fear if this was true. Then they went on and said, it can't be true cause we have the book of no Fear. And they made up even weirder stuff to have no fear, even if it ment to make a step backwards and not use that neo cortex that evolutions oops God gave them. That's how the story continues and they did not live happily ever after.

And sometimes people just like to go against the flow to get some attention. Nature has a lot to answer for. All they do is sneak in commercialisation through the back door to sell their wee pamphlet. While finding new stuff is of course commendable, what the hell can you trust these days. A scientific revolution every month/week/day to get some ads sold?

Galton wanted to select for intelligence not race and treat the non-breeders nicely. IMO Pearson was the more aggressive one. Well that's what my gf says, she studied him for quite a while. The man had imo OCD re counting.

Yes.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm Enough of an atheist agenda or do you need more? IMO he seems to fail to recognise the survival aspect advantages that a religion can bring. If you are calm in the face of death you got in my opinion a higher probability of survival as if you are sh***ing yourself cause you know nobody is gonna help you. He should be intelligent enough to accept it exists and why it exists instead of having a crusade against them. As long as fear is there people will try to make up stuff to cope with it. That's my --->opinion.<--

I think the misunderstanding here is 1.) Of course some form of informed speculation is valuable as long as backed up by some hard science 2.) Yet hundreds of hundreds of pages of speculation is a different matter There are loads of scientists doing 1.) We don't need a Theism/Atheism War. As mokele states creationist never listen to evidence so Dawkins and the creationists can go to some Island and battle it out there, although they might not want to as less money can be earned. The Theism/Atheism War including Evolution has been won in the 18th century with the advent of science... Evolution doesn't disproof God, only the Bible. That Dawkins uses the Creationists for his atheist agenda should hopefully be obvious. He is as bad as them as far as I am concerned. Just the other side of the coin.

Edit

Nope if something grows and it's neutral until it's beneficial that's fine imo. That way a whole lot of complicated stuff can suddenly evolve if useless pieces float about until the final protein/etc evolves that makes a whole complex useful evolutionary. example could be immune system.. Behe's Black Box and minimal functioning systems. My personal opinion is that Dawkins starts to be become as unhelpful to evolutionary scientific progress as the creationists.. Nice contribution yet about as fanatic as the "opposition" and a bit simplistic.... AFAIK Dawkins "probability" seems to always be a uniform pdf . But true (operational) science involves repeatable' date=' observable experimentation in the present, which includes physics, chemistry, experimental biology and geology, etc. (see also Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science). Dawkins has made no notable contributions to any of these, or even to the history or philosophy of science. His main claim to fame is his ingenious story-telling about what might have happened in the unobservable past. [/i'] I can only agree, although I strongly believe in Evolution..

Creationists: Groundhog Day ...

Peacock decorative feathers aren't necessarily helpful in direct survival. ... If having a blue penis is correlated with a direct genetic line to the one who guy who was so cool and had a blue penis it might well be some indicator for genetic fitness ... Like in our society slim is in, while if you have nothing fat is in. When everyone was tanned through hard labour outside white was in as display of riches. Today that can afford the most holidays and is tanned is supposed to be healthy then the fakers aka tan studio come in and that is then frowned upon. All moving ... Then you forget the psychological stabilsation factor of rituals which can increase survival etc etc. So cultural evolution is pretty much the same as "normal" evolution where uses might be obvious.

Adaptive Dynamics. It's all flowing ... Adaptive Dynamics is a theoretical framework for bridging the scales between micro- and macro-evolution. It is based on two main simplifying assumptions: a separation between the population dynamical and mutational time scales, and clonal genetics. These simplifications allow rapid scientific progress, while the analyses of special cases suggests that the predictions obtained usually aggree with those from more sophisticated models. Evolution proceeds by the continual replacement of resident types by novel mutants. The latter originate by chance but their evolutionary fate depends on their fitness, i.e. on their capacity to increase in numbers. This fitness necessarily depends the current environment E which is set by the composition of the resident population. By eliminating E we get the invasion function, i.e. the fitness of potential mutants as a function of the type of the mutant and of the types constituting the resident population. In order to calculate this function we start with describing the dependence of individual population-dynamical behaviour on supposedly heriditary traits. From this we obtain the initial exponential growth rate of a mutant population in the ergodic environment set by the resident population-dynamical attractor. Once this invasion fitness is known, it provides a summary of the underlying processes necessary and sufficient to make the step to macro-evolutionary considerations. The research on the foundation of Adaptive Dynamics deals with (1) justifying and/or modifying the various theoretical steps sketched above in order to delimit as well as enlarge the domain of applicability of the theory, and (2) deducing consequences of the resulting framework in combination with developing tools for dealing with the large range of specific ecological-evolutionary models that fall under the general realm of adaptive dynamics.

One planet collides with other planet, one breaks the other not, it survives. Now imagine the planet changes somehow and reproduces and you are done with evolution.

or anything changing anywhere in the line to you would not make you you.