Religion or Atheism

[Bala]

To me religious zealots over the centuries in the quest for power and domination over people, have and continue to be the scourge of humanity. Interesting premise. One held by a large number of people. But is it true? Zealots of any set of doctrine have in the past distorted and prostituted core principles to gain personal power. But has religion been a scourge or set people free?

Monasteries as they evolved from producing bare necessities for monks to specializing in growing crops and making goods that could be traded, were the forerunners of modern businesses. Modern managerial business skills and methods--production, transportation and the development of credit--began at monasteries and became more sophisticated as their scope expanded.

Contrary to myth, medieval Europe was a font of innovation: water- and wind-powered mills, clocks, eyeglasses, chimneys and the wheelbarrow, as well as advances in shipbuilding, compassmaking and ironmongery (making wagon axles sturdier). The invention of a superior harness enabled a horse to pull loads of far greater weight for longer periods of time, making the horse the primary farm animal. Agricultural output was also greatly stimulated by the creation of three-field farming instead of the old Roman practice of two-field farming.

Modern banking arose in the largely Christian cities of northern Italy. These institutions developed sophisticated networks throughout Europe and did more than lend money and develop ways to facilitate the flow of capital. For example, in Flanders, the textile center of the world, the banks forced productivity-oriented consolidations of hundreds of small producers into a few textile firms.

Christianity generated advances in human rights. Slavery had virtually disappeared from Europe by the 11th century. Several hundred years later the church vigorously protested the rise of African slavery; its edicts, sadly, had as much impact on restricting slavery as its modern-day ones have had on abortion.

So why did England, Holland and later America advance, while the very Catholic France and Spain lagged? Primarily, because religion was decreed and rigidly enforced from the top in those two kingdoms, while elsewhere there was a relatively looser, more tolerant atmosphere. Religiosity, paradoxically, flourished in England and America precisely because it did not emanate from the edicts of absolute monarchs.



____________________________
Poll the wool over your own eyes.

[Bala]

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061121/cm_csm/ydsouza&printer=1

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.

These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

..... problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.


______________________________
Conventional wisdom is often wrong.

[skate]

Bala;


good points.
especially good lesson on "taking out of context".

im not religious, but i can understand good reasons to have religion. at times, people need a crutch. because i do not need a crutch, it would be wrong for me to say "nobody needs a crutch". it very well may be a good idea to have one in the neiborhood.


'""" 'Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."


and im thinking that they had good reason for the Crusades.

[so.cal.fan]

Messianic narcissistic megalomaniac "leaders" ( you know the one's with their pictures on every billboard, statues on every corner) were responsible for 100 million deaths in the past century. One hundred million people, slaughtered.
All these messianic narcissistic megalomaniacs were atheists and they were all nihilists.
I don't care if they shouted and proclaimed "God" was on their side, bullshit.
They believed they were "God". They are still with us today, they believe they are "God".
Look at North Korea and Iran.
Until people of the world identify these megalomaniacs, who now have nukes....it's going to get real grim.

[PlanB]

lol Skate you need 2 crutches. The first to recast your prose into understandable English & the 2nd larger crutch to teach you basic monetary policy. Stop limping like Heather Mills. Come over to our apt for some sushi and vodka.

[PaceAdvantage]

I love it when you comment on the grammer of another's post.

[PlanB]

LOL, grammEr, repeat, grammer, oh PA you're clever.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yup, you got me there....still.....

[skate]

lol Skate you need 2 crutches. The first to recast your prose into understandable English & the 2nd larger crutch to teach you basic monetary policy. Stop limping like Heather Mills. Come over to our apt for some sushi and vodka.

well ( not sure why i should bother), but if you have something to say. could yabe specific. you say " i need 2", then you say "the first to recast..." then you say"the 2nd larger crutch to teach you ???? basic monetary polacy". why would i need the 2nd crutch to teach myself (since i guess, you figure i do not know to begin with)
so, swifty (planX), what you are saying is that i can teach myself, but what would become of yourself???

what do you think, im teaching english?

a little redundant w/ "2 crutches". is that what you wanted???

and if you can be a little specific with your monetary policy problem , maybe i can help.
seems like you should have asked before this post???

aaahh, good old englis

i gots to wonder "however did Franklin manage without his dicktionhery?

[Bala]

Ph.D professor at Princeton University and internationally known bioethicist says that it is ok to kill babies after they are born.

Dr. Peter Singer states “he'd kill disabled newborns if it were in the best interests of the baby and the family as a whole.” Dr. Singer made the comment in response to a series of questions from the UK Independent. He also said that he sees no distinction between the life of a born child and that of an unborn child. Dr. Singer predicted that the next few decades would see a massive upheaval in beliefs about life as a fundamental right, and that only a rump of hard core, know nothings religious fundamentalists would speak out for life as sacred.

Naturally Dr. Singer is an atheist. He has also written a book on positive aspects of pedophilia. http://snipurl.com/13gnc (http://snipurl.com/13gnc)

I kid you not. This is what passes for intellectual thought at Ivy League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League)schools. Dr. Singer makes a case for legalizing pedophilia!!!


____________________________
Pool the wool over your own eyes.

[JPinMaryland]

You seem to be cherry picking your nations here. If you want to count Nazi Germany for atheism on the basis of Hitler than maybe you should count Soviet Union for christianity since Stalin studied in a monastery.

About the only broad generalization that one can make is that religious beliefs seem to be little indicator of whether some leader is good or bad. But then that would contradict your argument, no?

Oh and the key component to the clock, the escarpment, probably originated in the middle east about the 6th cent. Have no idea what this unknown inventor's religion was, maybe Zoroasterian??

Wheelbarrows I thought were actually invented much earlier in Han dynasty of China, not christian. Compasses were also invented much earlier in China. So if you want to get into a contest of between western inventors and Chinese inventors it would certainly be a tough call many so called western inventions, like the printing press, gunpowder, etc. were first created in China.

Your mention of ironmongery and relation to medieval europe is quite amusing. If you are arguing which culture had better metal workers at the time it is probably the murderous Moselms whose created a type of steel that was bendable and sharp. But then again during the middle ages the islamic world probably had more advances in medicine, mathematics, and astronomy then the west.

Sort of silly to try to make an argument that one religion produced better inventions or better culture than the others. Depends a lot on what time and place you are talking about. That's why cherry picking what you want is not a very convincing argument.

[Bala]

"............crutches........" A crutch for whom? What are the consequences when a society adopts secular humanism and/or atheism?

History has tragically documented these consequences. From racism and the Holocaust to the sexual revolution and abortion on demand. Charles Darwin concepts laid the groundwork for them all. For example, in an 1881 letter, Darwin wrote of a not distant future where “lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” Lest anyone mistake his view on the subject of race, he subtitled his magnum opus: the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for life.

Hitler's philosophy that Jews were subhuman led to the extermination of six million of them. I suppose if you are Muslim in todays world - this is a good thing.

Karl Marx the father of communism, revered Darwin. Seeing in his work the scientific and sociological justification for a movement that would eclipse even Hitler's Germany in terms of it carnage.

And least we forget, in early American history – non Christians used the biological theory of evolution to justify Africans as a little above apes. Thereby not only legalizing African slavery but also making slavery an essential part of early American economy. Real Christians eventually overturned this.


__________________________________________________ ____________
Even if you are a lone voice in the wilderness – this does not make you wrong.
Mahatma Gangi

[JPinMaryland]

What religion did you say Lincoln was?

[Bala]

JP you miss the point entirely. Can you really argue for the common man/woman life is better in non Christian nations?

Where are the ancient Muslim culture of yesteryear? Even with their enormous hordes of petro $$ dollars they are stuck in the middle ages. The Zoroastrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism)civilization is long dead and buried.

Your Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin) reference is silly. It is true very early in his life he studied in a monastery. Later Stalin hated all religion. Have you forgotten his famous “religion is the opiate of the masses” axiom? Cherry picking indeed!

After the lose of this 2 year old son and a little later this mother Lincoln suffered from Melancholia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia). Once he came out of his depression – yes he was a practicing Christian. History of Abraham Lincoln: http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln80.html


______________________________
Conventional wisdom is often wrong.

[JPinMaryland]

Was Nazi Germany a christian nation or not?

[so.cal.fan]

The German people cannot be classified the same as their
messianic narcissistic megalomaniac leader, Hitler was. Hitler may have spouted off about God just as the Iranian messianic narcissistic meglomaniac leader shouts about Allah. To use GOD or ALLAH as a bullet point in their political hate rants has nothing to do with spirituality.

[skate]

A crutch for whom? What are the consequences when a society adopts secular humanism and/or atheism?

History has tragically documented these consequences. From racism and the Holocaust to the sexual revolution and abortion on demand. Charles Darwin concepts laid the groundwork for them all. For example, in an 1881 letter, Darwin wrote of a not distant future where “lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” Lest anyone mistake his view on the subject of race, he subtitled his magnum opus: the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for life.

Hitler's philosophy that Jews were subhuman led to the extermination of six million of them. I suppose if you are Muslim in todays world - this is a good thing.

Karl Marx the father of communism, revered Darwin. Seeing in his work the scientific and sociological justification for a movement that would eclipse even Hitler's Germany in terms of it carnage.

And least we forget, in early American history – non Christians used the biological theory of evolution to justify Africans as a little above apes. Thereby not only legalizing African slavery but also making slavery an essential part of early American economy. Real Christians eventually overturned this.


__________________________________________________ ____________
Even if you are a lone voice in the wilderness – this does not make you wrong.


Mahatma Gangi


man, i love the Gandi quote, hes one of my favs, even if i can't spell his name. ( i gots to add that, for others to see and cover my butt-ey).

i try to stay on the simple side. but i recognize the necessity of "albert E=" to make his point confusing (or not at all) while Gandies made his point very very simple to understand.
Hey, and they were both right.

when you ask me " a crutch for whom"?, my answer is, as implied, the crutch is for anyone.
but, why would you ask? your answer would able me to clarify. it would free me from the gruesome chore of guru-ing.

hey hey hey, look, i see and i understand what you say above, all your facts may be correct (probabally are), but they do not say " because of THIS, then THAT happens".. just does not say anything close to "what we see now, is because someone did any ONE certain thing.

so, without refering to history ( which would be fine, but you would have to include "ALL" History) what is your point?
my point is "religion is a crutch". i tried saying "religion is a crutch" diffrentially, but without diatribe. because it (my statement) is not a put-down, imo.

[skate]

The German people cannot be classified the same as their
messianic narcissistic megalomaniac leader, Hitler was. Hitler may have spouted off about God just as the Iranian messianic narcissistic meglomaniac leader shouts about Allah. To use GOD or ALLAH as a bullet point in their political hate rants has nothing to do with spirituality.

yeh, i like that, because god, is not a religion. and a religion is not god.
god can be a god, but not a religion.
and religion was brought about by man. now maybe, without a god, we would not have religion.

[JPinMaryland]

What if you looked at the world in 1400 AD or so. Would you then give the nod to Islam as a superior civilization? Or China? If these civs. go up and down then there is no way to say which religion is superior based upon that criterion.

[Benevolus]

The name of the title is sort of narrow. Religion or Atheism? How about people that believe in God but not organized religion. Deists, who might be a God created the world and has nothing to do with it now, or warm deists, who believe God created the world but only gets involved in certain events, have been many great leaders. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin were all deists.

[JPinMaryland]

What about caveman like the ones you see in the Geico ads? The ones who discovered fire, invented the wheel and paved the way for civilization. Were they christians??

[46zilzal]

go back in time: good/evil, yin/yang, black/white...all the same except the labels, procedures, and the POWER structure that keeps it going.

[Bala]

What if you looked at the world in 1400 AD or so. Would you then give the nod to Islam as a superior civilization? Or China? If these civs. go up and down then there is no way to say which religion is superior based upon that criterion. sophistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistry);
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism

In those bygone days all of Islam practiced slavery in one form or another. As is still the case in some parts of the Islamic world. The Sudan (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html) immediately come to mind. Can you honestly argue from your world view that western, Christian heritage is relative to Islam or any religion? {rhetorical question}

Relative arguments hold no water. Christian world view is the primary force in freeing people form tyranny. There are more free people on this planet precisely because of Christian martyrs. No other faith can claim this. Certainly not Islam not even Tibetan Buddhist. TB a faith where the all powerful Dalai Lama forbids intellectual discovery and progress.

If you wish to study more on relativity I recommend Einstein's theory (http://www.bartleby.com/173/).


________________________________________________
When Freedom is Outlawed, Only the Outlaws will be Free.

[Bala]

What about caveman like the ones you see in the Geico ads? The ones who discovered fire, invented the wheel and paved the way for civilization. Were they christians?? How far back can we go? My studies have lead me to the determination that humans have always believed in a transcendental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)) realm of existence. Some call it the spirit world other heaven/paradise and hell.

Even cosmological evolutionist state that this universe had a beginning. The Big Bang Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang). Same for Darwinian evolution - states a very early form where all other forms came from. Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis).

No one out side of the endless reincarnations of Buddhism believe in and INFINITE universe.

The three great monotheistic religions all believe that a supreme intelligence “GOD” who is infinite by his nature, created the universe out of nothing. Only an infinite mind “GOD” can create something out of nothing.

The point being God has always existed even in cave man days. However, humankind being willfully defiant and stubborn chose man's way and rejected GOD's ways. This is where all strife originates. Man's inhumanity to his fellow man {read brother against brother} {for the PC, sister against sister} started in the beginning of the human race because of his disobedience to the one true GOD.

______________________________________________

Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life. It can be viewed as a special form of spontaneous generation (see "The Origin of Life: Philosophical Perspectives," published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1997, by Michael Ruse). Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past.

[chickenhead]

I disagree with what you are saying Bala. Big Bang theory still contains all the matter, there is no theory for creation of that matter, or any hint that it ever was "created". Big Bang is a theory of how our universe got to be how it is, not where the "stuff" came from.

Plenty of people outside of Buddhists believe in an infinite universe.

[Bala]

"........Plenty of people outside of Buddhists believe in an infinite universe......." Here in N.Y.C. we have Dr. Michio Kaku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku). He has a weekly radio show on WBAI and has authored four books (http://www.mkaku.org/articles_essay.htm)on physics. Dr. Kaku also has made several documentaries for public television and for the BBC. Along with Dr. Brian Greene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene), Dr. Kaku is considered by his profession to be the premier physicists to bring complicated theories to the lay person.

Neither of these two distinguished physicist believe in an infinite universe. The problem of where the stuff {original component} of the big bang came from is problematic. To solve the problem there are string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory), super symmetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_symmetry), and grand unification theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_theory).

In a nutshell, what we call the three dimensional universe is actually a ten dimensional multiverse that continually go in and out of existence. We are just one universe in an otherwise multidimensional existence. This is no exaggeration. This is what passes for intellectual thought in modern physics. Any fantasy will do as long as it is not an intelligent designer.

Look at it this way: you wrote your post on a computer whose parts assembled itself. Those same parts somehow miraculous created itself thru random chance. Just as your DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna) came to be by accident. Therefore, your post is irrelevant because you are a process of random mutations.

So your thoughts are not even your own.


____________________
Penny for your thoughts.

[chickenhead]

"Where" the stuff came from is not problematic to me at all...I have no reason to think it came from anywhere. I've never heard of or been able to think up any reason why it's logical to assume that all of the matter in the universe hasn't always been in existence.

It doesn't sound like you believe in evolution? I can understand that, it does seem outlandish. But it also apppears to be an underlying process of life. Is it any more outlandish to assume that since it's hard to understand, then something else, some infinite entity that exists outside our realm, created everything (as it is now) so it would look like everything used to be something else, and had common ancestors?

Does that really make it easier to understand? No, of course not, it doesn't really explain anything.

God is what some people call things they don't understand. I have no problem with that, I just prefer to call them things I don't understand. In a very deep way then, I agree with the very religious who say that God is within everything, inside us and all around us.

One one level existence is understandable, and on another it is completely beyond comprehension. That's one thing I sometimes don't like about certain assumptions people make. As an agnostic/atheist, I am still filled with utter and total AWE at this thing we call life, whatever it is.

Anyone who is certain they know what this world is all about needs to be given a wide berth, be they atheist or religious. They're the ones you need to look out for.

[JPinMaryland]

sophistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistry);
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism

In those bygone days all of Islam practiced slavery in one form or another. As is still the case in some parts of the Islamic world. The Sudan (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html) immediately come to mind. Can you honestly argue from your world view that western, Christian heritage is relative to Islam or any religion? {rhetorical question}

Relative arguments hold no water. Christian world view is the primary force in freeing people form tyranny. There are more free people on this planet precisely because of Christian martyrs. No other faith can claim this. Certainly not Islam not even Tibetan Buddhist. TB a faith where the all powerful Dalai Lama forbids intellectual discovery and progress.

If you wish to study more on relativity I recommend Einstein's theory (http://www.bartleby.com/173/).


.


Why dont you try to answer the question what is unfair about it? What is the logical fallacy?

There is no fallacy. At differnt pts in time one can find different civilizations were ahead of others. Do you disagree with this very obvious observation?

IF that is so, then why do you focus on the present? If we were having this conversation in 1400 AD, then wouldnt your reasoning lead you to believe that islam was superior to christianity? Then you would be proven wrong in another 2-300 years.

Why cant you respond to this?

[JPinMaryland]

The three great monotheistic religions all believe that a supreme intelligence “GOD” who is infinite by his nature, created the universe out of nothing. Only an infinite mind “GOD” can create something out of nothing.[/size][/font]

.


I dont get it, I thought you were arguing that Christianity was superior Islam, now you are saying they are all part of the same thing? So there is no competition between these religions, they are all part and parcel of the same thing?

By the way where does jewish culture fit in? Are they superior to Christians or inferior?

[so.cal.fan]

I believe creation and evolution are one of the same.

[Tom]

Me too, SoCal....God created meat and cheese, and I found some fully evolved in my fridge tonight! :p

[Bala]

".....There is no fallacy. At differnt pts in time one can find different civilizations were ahead of others. Do you disagree with this very obvious observation...." No, your statement is factually accurate.

However, your premise is a hypothetical one. I cannot transplant myself back a 1000 years. Follow your logic. At one time Islam was the most powerfully and influential faith in the world.

So what happened? Where are all the great innovators? This once great world view is now relegated to second class status behind the Christian West. Compound this with the enormous transfer of wealth in the form of Petro $$ Dollars from the west. One has to wonder how is it that the ordinary citizen is so poor. And woman are essentially slaves in many parts of the Islamic world.

The answer to me is self evident. The Christian west cherishes the individual. Freedom and personal liberty are the very core of our Constitution. The very first sentence of our constitution attest to the Christian God. The Christian west is the only culture to give birth to Niels Bohr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr),Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein),Louis Pasteur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur),Thomas Edison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison),Marie Curie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie), etc.... These type of people cannot flourish anywhere but a civilization open to personal freedoms.

Knowing what you now now, would you rather live in an Islamic culture or the Western Christian inspired culture? If we had this debate a 1000 years ago we both would not know any better.

Thank heavens we do now better. Despite all our flaws, quality of life is far superior in the Capitalist and Democratic west than at any other time in human history.

An analogy > when you handicap do you fall in love with your methods of do you judge your handicapping prowess by results. I am a results ordinated handicapper. What I did 10 years ago seems primitive to what I know today. I do not want to go back 10 years. Today is what is important.

In the same vain, what are the consequences {results} of Western thought compared to eastern thought? If tomorrow the USA losses it's preeminent stature in world affairs, we will only have ourselves to blame. Christian western culture is superior in most every way that matter.

Does this mean we should be smug about our bounty? Hell no! We should attempt to raise the quality of life for our brothers and sisters around the world. That is the Christianity thing to do.


I thought you were arguing that Christianity was superior Islam, now you are saying they are all part of the same thing? So there is no competition between these religions..... The one true God reveled himself to the Israelites first. The Jews are but one tribe of the house of Israel. There are 12 tribes in total. Another prominent tribe are the Arabs. That is right! Both Jews and Arabs are of semitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic) decent. Both claim their father is non other than Abraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham).

Christianity is a continuation of Jewish traditions. Jesus the Christ is the Jewish Messiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah). The Jews rejected such a blasphemes claim. Islam revers "The Christ" as a prophet just below the final prophet Muhammad.

Although it may seem we worship the same one God, the truth is our definition of God are all different. But the ancient history is in fact the same.

[Show Me the Wire]

Bala:

Your above post answering JPinMaryland is well reasoned, well referenced and to the point. I enjoyed reading your composition.

[JPinMaryland]

What about the Romans? THey were poly theistic and they were the strongest power and the greatest civilization of the ancient world. Other than perhaps the Han Chinese, I think these two would be considered the greatest civs.

Neither was monotheistic as far as I can tell....

[skate]

Bala;


a supreme put the world together, without religion.
man came along and started religion.

man will someday find the correct path, without religion, as the Supremey wanted.

[Show Me the Wire]

What about the Romans? THey were poly theistic and they were the strongest power and the greatest civilization of the ancient world. Other than perhaps the Han Chinese, I think these two would be considered the greatest civs.

Neither was monotheistic as far as I can tell....

Both assertions regarding strongest power and greatest civilization are debatable. Three Roman Emperors and their armies could not defeat the Persians and Rome did not produce any intellectual giants in mathematics or science.

[Bala]

What about the Romans? THey were poly theistic and they were the strongest power and the greatest civilization of the ancient world. Other than perhaps the Han Chinese, I think these two would be considered the greatest civs.

Neither was monotheistic as far as I can tell.... My handicapping analogy would apply to all previous civilizations. Whether it be the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman), Greek city-states, Persian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire), Assyria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria), Genghis Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan) who at one time had an empire larger then Rome, Ancient Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt), Babylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon), etc....

All of these once great cultures were based on a military economy. They had better battle tactics than their foes and divided and conquered the opposition. They took slaves and other resources from those they conquered. Build infrastructure to move their military apparatus to the next victim. Within these empires there were numerous assassinations of leaders and civil war broke out every 25 years or so. Life for most people outside of the King {Caesar, emperor,pharaoh, czar, caliph, etc..} and his court made for a dreary and often cruel existence.

Once you get past the nostalgia of past civilizations, life for the common man was brutal. For woman it was even worse.

“Women were a class apart whose status in Roman society varied over time. Roman women could not vote or stand for civil or public office, and were, at least in theory, subject to the almost complete power of their paterfamilias, in many legal areas being just a bit better than slaves. Inside of Republican high society the marriages were used to cement political alliances and therefore combined by the paterfamilias. The paterfamilias could even force a divorce and then remarry his daughter to another politician.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizen

I cannot seem to convey to you that compared to the past, the Christian inspired west has freed more people from this dreadful life above. Human civilization under Christian leadership has “evolved” faster and farther than ever thought possible under other economic and political systems. 53 of the 56 signers of our constitution (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html) referred to the Christian God as the most important aspect of their life and the Christian bible gave birth to both the Declaration of Independence (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html)and the Constitution.

To reprise something from my previous post, I am not smug nor caviler. I am not an idealist, I am a pragmatist. I fully acknowledge the USA has some horrific and shameful history in your past, as all nations do. However, Christian thought has overturned much of past wrongs and made this country into a freedom center for the world to emulate. In some states gays and lesbians even have the freedom to marry. This kind of freedom is freaky to most of the modern world! Some exemptions of course, where lawlessness abounds. The golden triangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Triangle_(Southeast_Asia))come to mind.

Slavery in the US was overturned in part by the underground railroad (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2944.html). A Christian concept of charity for the underprivileged. This freedom later given to slaves was granted internally. We the people decided it was the right thing to do despite opposition from the ignorant.

Have you ever asked yourself why so many Mexicans, Russians, Cubans, Indians, Nigerians, etc... are in some causes dying to come the the West?

I am proud to be an American. God bless this lighthouse of freedom.


_______________________________

Declaration of Independence (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html);

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed......

[Bala]

I believe creation and evolution are one of the same. I respect your view. A great many people hold fast to this viewpoint.

There is much talk in the major broadcast media about the Christian right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Right)as a scientifically illiterate people. The left is good at going on the offensive with their smear campaigns. The Christian left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left) {yes there are Christian liberals!} rarely gets mentioned.

Among learned Christians there is no dichotomy between science and religion. Intelligence is a gift from the ultimate intelligence {God}. We are directed to use our faculties for the betterment of human kind. That includes discovery, innovation and manipulation of our surrounding to benefit all. The learned Christian not only studies the physical world but also adds to the body of cumulative knowledge in math, chemistry, cosmology, computer sciences, biology, etc...

There are a sub group, the Amish (http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish.htm) and Mennonites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite), how choose not to participate in the broader culture. Whatever floats their boat. But this is a very small subset of Christians.

The learned Christian revels in new discovery. Did you know if not for Albert Einsteins' theory of light (http://www.learner.org/teacherslab/science/light/) there world be no Cathode Ray Tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube)? Aka: television. This does not mean science never makes mistakes. On the contrary, past and recent history is replete with blunders by scientist particularly in medicine and chemistry.

One of those misguided theories is Darwinian evolution – Macroevolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution).
Not to be confused with Microevolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution) which is and established fact.

Microevolution is variation and adaptation within a species.
Macroevolution is random mutations and chance thru out all life forms.
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm

Macroevolution states that sometime in the distant past a fish crawled onto a beach and discarded it's fins for limbs and evolved into a cow. Millions of years latter thru blind chance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness) evolved into an ape, monkey, orangutan and eventually a human.

Nonsense. We have seen random mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations) in the wild. We have another name for it – Cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer)!!

The learned Christian only issue with science is Darwinian Evolution - Macroevolution. The fossil record for Macroevolution is an embarrassment. The Cambrian explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion)disproves Darwinian evolution.

The Cambrian explosion has generated a great deal of interest and controversy among scientists and the public. Darwin saw it as one of the principal objections that could be lodged against his theory of evolution by natural selection ("The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy.

Darwinian evolution cannot explain the incredible diversity of life and the complexity of ecosystems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystems). Believing in this kind of evolution is akin to believing a hurricane can rummage thru a junkyard and assemble a space shuttle. It takes more faith to believe in Darwinian evolution then does an intelligence designer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design).


________________________________________
In the words of the sometimes brilliant JustRalph, no wait lest I inflate someones ego; In the words of the sometimes brilliant JustRalph
drownin in diversity.
Darwin (http://www.aboutdarwin.com/) eat your heart out.

[JPinMaryland]

Are you sure the creator is an intelligent creator? He seems more like a repetitive creator to me. After all every single animal reproduces using the same double helix, made of DNA that divides.

Every single one. Dont you think he'd get tired of using the same method to create the same things? And everyone has two eyes, and two ears, and two legs and two arms. They all defecate the same way, what a coincidence.

He must be an obsessive compulsive creator to do the same things over and over.

Or maybe he's a humorous creator. He created man with appendices that have no functional purpose. And male nipples. What a laugh, what can a man do with those? And tonsils. "Here's something man can remove when he has nothing better to do."

Did you know all the muscles in our back run sideways and against the direction of gravity? This is why we have so much back trouble, unlike animals that walk on all fours where the muscles run in the direction of gravity.

I guess the creator must have been both bored and in a funny mood that day:

"Hey lets use the same back muscle structure that four legged animals have and put it on man. What a joke, Hoo boy! that will give him back pain for years. I really am too tired to think of a better way to put these muscles on him."

Or maybe he's a lazy creator? 95% of the genes in man are found in mice. The creator must have been awfully lazy to borrow the structure from mice to put in man.

So I dont believe in an intelligent creator. I believe in a bored, lazy, obsessive-compulsive, creator with a sense of humor.

[Tom]

[QUOTE=So I dont believe in an intelligent creator. I believe in a bored, lazy, obsessive-compulsive, creator with a sense of humor.[/QUOTE]

With a post like that, you better HOPE He has a sense of humor. then agin, maybe not?

Ever read the Uncle Remus story about Brer Rabbit and the Laughin' Place?

:lol::D:lol:

[PlanB]

With a post like that, you better HOPE He has a sense of humor. then agin, maybe not?

Ever read the Uncle Remus story about Brer Rabbit and the Laughin' Place?

:lol::D:lol:


Tom, Truer words were never spoken (or typed) before. I am a firm believer in an Almighty and I see no advantage in doubting.

[JPinMaryland]

Tom: Dont tell me you believe in this crap ? I mean I can understand voting for Bush over Kerry, who isnt any smarter and possibly dumber. I can understand wrapping yourself up in the american flag just out of sheer sense of self preservation. And sure, most of the Moslem world probably will slit our throats upon the word of the Iman. Not sure it's 99%, maybe 65% though.

But now you are a religious looney as well as right wing looney too?

[Tom]

Tom: Dont tell me you believe in this crap ? I mean I can understand voting for Bush over Kerry, who isnt any smarter and possibly dumber. I can understand wrapping yourself up in the american flag just out of sheer sense of self preservation. And sure, most of the Moslem world probably will slit our throats upon the word of the Iman. Not sure it's 99%, maybe 65% though.

But now you are a religious looney as well as right wing looney too?

Check your PM's butt- face.
My reply violates TOS.

[46zilzal]

Check your PM's butt- face.
My reply violates TOS.
watch out he willl call for a nuke in Baltimore

[Bala]

JP – all very good questions. Lets follow your logic even further out. Why do we have to grow old and die?

Biologist of course, tend to study from their discipline. They are not engineers. Darwin himself admitted he didn't know everything about everything. "When I see a tail feather on a peacock, it makes me sick," he once said, before he understood it was for mating.

To give you a sensible answer we must look to engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering) principles. I have been to a number of evolution lectures. I often get the feeling what biology professor are really saying is;

a motorcycle has 2 rubber tires - a Ferrari F1 Enzo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzo_Ferrari_(car))also has rubber tires – ergo the two machines are close cousins.

Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould),late professer at Harvard University, wrote many books in his long career. One of those books - “The Panda’s Thumb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Panda's_Thumb:_More_Reflections_in_Natural_His tory)” discuss many supposed inefficient in common forms throughout nature.

Dr. Gould, in his article, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in the May 1981 issue of Discover Magazine, attempted to refute creationism by saying, "We have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and the laboratory." His point: evolution is an irrefutable fact, and creationists ignore this certainty.

No wise and benevolent designer, they say, would have constructed the panda’s thumb (Gould, 1980), the vertebrate retina (Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins), 1986), or the human urogenital tract (Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Williams), 1987). The engineering flaws exhibited by these and many other biological systems cannot be reconciled with the direct intent of a “sensible God,” in Gould’s memorable phrase. Only evolution, in the blind process of natural selection, explains their origin.

Yet, the evidence they cited supported microevolution, involving changes that take place within separate species. Intelligent design proponents have no problem with the concept of microevolution. Not to be confused with macroevoltion.

Another prominent example, evolutionist Richard Dawkins’s critique of the mammalian eye in his “The Blind Watchmaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker):” Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design:

"Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. . . . This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!)"

Never mind that it has been clearly demonstrated that the backward wiring of the mammalian eye actually confers a distinct advantage by dramatically increasing the flow of oxygen to the eye.

All life shares a common biochemical basis. In engineering this type of creative diversity from the same basic building blocks is good design. All life begins with the carbon atom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_atom). Why? Because it is the most efficient (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/efficient)!

Bye, Panda:

An engineer’s best solution is must also be the most efficient. The panda’s true thumb is committed to another role, specialized for a different function to become an opposable, manipulating digit. So the panda must use parts on hand and settle for an enlarged wrist bone and a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable, solution. "The sesamoid thumb wins no prize in an engineer’s derby."

By Gould’s account, the panda’s thumb makes a fine peeler for bamboo, the panda’s principal food, and investigation may demonstrate that it is actually superior to an opposable thumb for such work.

Just as all life forms are based on the carbon atom, should the movements of Beethoven’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven) Fifth Symphony be censured for continuing to build off an original motif? All classical music is based on a similar, early composition. {design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design)} Should we invalidate all other music because it is not completely original?

Athletes do things that seem incredible to the untrained -- and they can also do things that are incredibly stupid. They choke, trip and dope. Washington Redskins quarterback Gus Frerotte gave himself a concussion by running helmet-first into a wall in a fit of exuberance.

Racehorses are much faster, and, for that matter, so are birds. We seem to have a basic quest to go higher, farther, faster. Our bodies break down a lot. If we were “designed more intelligently”, presumably we would not have osteoporosis or broken hips when we get old. Some evolutionists suppose that the process through which people evolved from four-legged creatures to two, has had negative orthopedic consequences.

We are flawed cardiovascularly. Horses carry much more oxygen in their blood, and have a storage system for red blood cells in their spleens, a natural system of blood doping. Humans don't. Also, while a lot of aerobics can make our hearts bigger, our lungs are unique. They don't adapt to training. They're fixed. We're stuck with them, and can only envy the antelopes.

Try telling a baseball fan that pure Darwinism explains Joe DiMaggio. As Tommy Lasorda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Lasorda)once said, "If you said to God, 'Create someone who was what a baseball player should be,' God would have created Joe DiMaggio -- and he did."



__________________________________________________ _

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.
-- Albert Einstein

[Bala]

Intelligent Design : The Bridge Between Science & Theology
William A. Dembski PH.D

Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement
William A. Dembski PH.D

Darwin on Trial
Phillip E. Johnson PH.D

The FACE That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution
Hank Hanegraaff

Darwin's Black Box
Michael J. Behe PH.D

Collapse Of Evolution
Scott M. Huse

What's With the Mutant in the Microscope?
James R. White, Kevin Johnson

All the above noted ph.d's have doctorates from major universities in the hard sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science).

[JPinMaryland]

Have you ever asked yourself why so many Mexicans, Russians, Cubans, Indians, Nigerians, etc... are in some causes dying to come the the West?

Yes I wonder about this all the time. In the case of Mexicans, they have told me that they have plenty enough religion where they live. They are coming here for american dollars and fertile american women with robust birthing hips. I guess it's a mexican thing.

But religion they pretty much have enough of...

In the case of africans, I think you may be right. Here is a recent email I received:

"Dear Mr. JP.

Goodday to you, sir, my name is Doctor Julian Nkrume of Sierra Leone. I would here crave your distinguished indulgence. It is with deep sense of purpose and utmost sincerity that I write this letter to you knowing full well how you will feel as regards to receiving a mail from somebody you have not met or seen before. There is no need to fear, I got your address from a christian directory which lends credence to my humble belief. I also assure you of my honesty and trustworthiness

My father, Sir Etienn Nkrume, the [former] General Manager of Sierra Leone Paraffin Corporation, left behind a large surplusage of votive candle materials. 32,800,000 to be exact. These votive candles, were accrued from overpayments and personal wax making venture in the government votive candlemaking industry." As a result of my father's death, and with the news of my uncle's involvement in an air crash in January, dashed our hope of family survival. The untimely deaths caused my mother's heart failure and other related complications of which she later died in the hospital after we must have spent a lot of money on her.

When I was a director in the Ministry Of Parafin and Natural Waxes, I was the link between the foreign buyers of votive candles and the SIERRA-LOENIAN Government. Just before the out broke of the Civil War in SIERRA-LEONE, there was some payment made to the Government of SIERRA-LEONE by our foreign candle buyers for these many votive candles they had purchased. Due to the ongoing civil war in my country I had to divert these candles Totaling up to Thirty-Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand (32,800,000) into a warehousing company in Holland for safe keeping because of the fraility of the previous government and that it would not survive the violence.
With your kindest indulgences we need a go between to act intermediary to act as an agent for the exchange of these votive candles with the foreign markets. Neither I nor my family can perform any of these services owing to the ongoing persecution in my country as I am under constant surveillance.

Westerners are revered in our country for their having good Christian values and superior work ethics to those of polytheistic faiths. Knowing that you are a good Christian person, from a western land and telling from your credentials that you have interest in seeing that votive candles get to their proper places of worship I make the following proposal..

That I will transfer over to you upon completion of our understanding the sum of 30% of the total in stock, volume of votive candles estimated at 32,800,000 at this time in the warehouse in Amerstam, Holland. In order to receive this transaction we will need your personal banking routing number from the bank upon which you perform transactions.

Please, understand that if you do not want to partake of this venture, I shall understand fully your unwillingness to risk your reputation and good name.I assure this mission is in a good cause in order that many votive candles shall make their way to free Christian markets and ultimately reside on the offering plates of alters in churches. I trust that whatever decision you make shall be in the best interest of Christ and the world paraffin market.

Sincerely:
Doctor Julian Nkrume
[signed]

[Bala]

:jump: fertile american women with robust birthing hips. :jump:




:mad: ......Sierra Leone. I would here crave your distinguished indulgence...... :mad: cons (http://ohioline.osu.edu/ss-fact/0154.html) always hard at work taking advantage of our good nature.

[JPinMaryland]

The learned Christian only issue with science is Darwinian Evolution - Macroevolution. The fossil record for Macroevolution is an embarrassment. The Cambrian explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion)disproves Darwinian evolution.



I am not sure if the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution are technically accurate but I think I know what you are saying and I have the same sort of doubts about this. It might be that we dont know nearly enough about how evolution works in order to understand these gaps in the fossil record. Future theories and discoveries may make this debate moot once more is understood.

However, the evolutionists have an answer to all this, that does make some sense. I am referring to the gaps in the fossil record, where one would expect an intermediate variety. For example a "Missing link" on the road from primates to man, for example. We keep find homo habilis and australeopithecus but nothing to bridge this gap. I think this is the sort of thing you are referring to when you say "macro evolution" these great changes from one species to another.

Or the example you gave earlier of fish discarding fins and turning into cows! I think it is the same macro evolution thing we are talking about so I will refer to both of these in a broad sense.

The simple evolutionary answer is that, these sort of changes arise in a mutation, an animal somewhat different than the rest of the species. By def'n he is going to be one creature or perhaps a small clan of animals; i.e. a "bottleneck population" that the Out of Africa theorists argue for.

In any case, this different species is in very small numbers, the chance of one of them being caught up in a mudslide or dust storm so as to preserve his skeleton is next to nil. It must be billions to one odds of finding a mutation such as this in the fossil record.

Okay, but assuming this mutation gives its owner a distinct advantage over its competitors it will begin to expand its numbers in some sort of exponential fashion. The reason for this is obvious, if something has an advantage in ability to reproduce or obtain food or whatever, this is going to be multiplied by each generation. So that in say 50 years, our bottleneck population has grown to several thousands; in say 1,000 years, they have taken over a region; in say 10,000 years they have taken over Africa. So it is some sort of exponential curve and we only see fossils when the population has reached huge numbers, you are unlikely to see the intermediate forms because their numbers are so small and fosssilization is so unlikely.

So you dont see an intermediate between australeopithicus and habilis, you see Aust. at say 5 million yr an habilis at 2 mil. and they are so distinct from one another; where is the in between member with features of both? There is a gap there in the record. Well so there is but the missing links must have been there in tiny numbers that were not fossilizized. Once they reached the pt. where they were superior hunter gatherers, they then burst on the african scene at 2 m.y. and suddenly they take over the fossil record.

Hard to picture, but that is an explanation.

Gould claimed he had discovered this effect calling it an explosoin or something or other. But really it is obvious from thinking about what Darwin postulated.

To be sure, there some problems with this theory. I share that concern with you. Have you ever tried to study the origin of dinosaurs and their rise out thecodonts? Scientists look at the ankle structure as it is shared by all dinosaurs, then you find dinosaur like Rauischians that dont have the ankle. And scientists tell you they are not dinosaurs.

But gee, they walk on two legs and have fins down their back?? That little ankle makes them different origin?

So you see there are problems with all that.




Darwinian evolution cannot explain the incredible diversity of life and the complexity of ecosystems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystems). Believing in this kind of evolution is akin to believing a hurricane can rummage thru a junkyard and assemble a space shuttle. It takes more faith to believe in Darwinian evolution then does an intelligence designer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design).






But you are not arguing against faith are you?

[Show Me the Wire]

I am not sure if the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution are technically accurate but I think I know what you are saying and I have the same sort of doubts about this. It might be that we dont know nearly enough about how evolution works in order to understand these gaps in the fossil record. Future theories and discoveries may make this debate moot once more is understood.

However, the evolutionists have an answer to all this, that does make some sense. I am referring to the gaps in the fossil record, where one would expect an intermediate variety. For example a "Missing link" on the road from primates to man, for example. We keep find homo habilis and australeopithecus but nothing to bridge this gap. I think this is the sort of thing you are referring to when you say "macro evolution" these great changes from one species to another........................................... ...............................................



In any case, this different species is in very small numbers, the chance of one of them being caught up in a mudslide or dust storm so as to preserve his skeleton is next to nil. It must be billions to one odds of finding a mutation such as this in the fossil record. .................................................. ....



So you dont see an intermediate between australeopithicus and habilis, you see Aust. at say 5 million yr an habilis at 2 mil. and they are so distinct from one another; where is the in between member with features of both? There is a gap there in the record. Well so there is but the missing links must have been there in tiny numbers that were not fossilizized. Once they reached the pt. where they were superior hunter gatherers, they then burst on the african scene at 2 m.y. and suddenly they take over the fossil record. .................................................. ................................................

Hard to picture, but that is an explanation.



So you see there are problems with all that.



But you are not arguing against faith are you?




If I underatand correctly, the missing link will not be found (no empirical proof) becuase evolution works through small populations. Convenient excuse.

As an aside, I am not arguing against faith, I am arguing against misguided faith in a theory masquerading as provable empirical fact.

[JPinMaryland]

No, actually know that I think about it, the population could actually be quite large and it could simply "burst" upon the scene. There really is no need for an intermediate species;there is no missing link.

I'll try to explain it again....

Gould called this idea "punctuated equilibrium" that species would suddenly arise on the scene and then occupy a niche for millions of years. In equilibrium after the initial burst. It's nothing new really, it stems directly from Darwin's ideas; once an animal reproduces say 10% faster, it wont take many generations to out strip its relatives.

THe problem you are having here is visualizing all this. Bala sees a fish crawling on land and then a cow and it's hard to understand the connection. The macro evolution, as he calls it.

It is a convenient argument becaues it is based on what we see, i.e. the fossil record. You dont "see" the DNA. That is what is going on.

There are genes in the the genetic code that are dormant, they are turned off. Changes in the animals environment like pH, or oxygen or different enzymes can turn these genes off and on. Most likely the changes happen to an embryo. There is a real good example of this going on now, they are finding "mutant" frogs in ponds all over north america (not really mutants). They have like 2 heads or something. They are not the result of a mutation, as the odds of thousands of mutations, all the same one, happening at the same time are too great.

Whta is happenig is there is something in the environment, that is turning on a gene. Pehaps it is CO2 or PCBs or whatever. The pt. is their environment is changing and it activating some gene, that has been dormant for a long time.
THat gene must have existed for millions of years in frogs, but you wont see any in the fossil record because the gene was not turned on.

This should not be too large an intellectual leap. Think about man/mouse there is only about a 5% difference in DNA, and man and chimpanzee is maybe 1% difference. Only a few small changes in the DNA can produce an animal with better reproduction, etc. But then the animal goes off into its environment and other genes are activated. So there are many differecnes between man and chimp but this could simply be genes that are shared by both that are turned off and on.

Take this example: A pond has a bunch of 6" goldfish. Suddenly the temp. drops 10 degrees. Only a few survive, these gold fish had some mutation or some pre existig gene that allowed them to survive.

Okay, so there are only 5 or 6 of them left in the pond, they multiply in a few generations and fill up the pond. However, because of the temp. drop they now eat sea weed rather than insects, this produces a different enzyme in the embryo and these fish now have blue stripes.

So this blue stripe gene already existed in the orginal gold fish. It was turned off due to lack of enzymes. You never saw it in the fossil record, but that is your problem, it was there just not preserved by fossils.

So you have these blue/gold fish that survive in cold water. but thats not all. Now they are in different water with different O2 content, this in turn activates another gene, one for rectangular fins. The gene for Rectangular fins was always there, but it was dormant.

SO now you have blue/gold fish that survive in cold and have rectangular fins. But that's not all, now there is less sunlight because they dive deeper to find the seaweed, this in turn changes another enzyme which activates a gene to allow them to get 12" big and tapered.

So now you have blue/gold fish, that survive in cold have rectangular fins and are 12" long and tapered. Totally different in appearance from the original 6" gold fish. All in one or two generations.

"Oh how did this happen?" You wail. "How did they grow rect. fins?" "where is the intermediate square fin?" "They could not have gone from 6" to 12" where is the 9" variety?" WHere is the 10" variety?" WHere is the 9" fish?"

Where is the fish w/ a green stripe?" These changes could not happen at once?"

"Where is the gold fish w/ a square fin? Where is the solid gold fish that resist cold? WHere is the 9" gold fish that resists cold?

See? You are wedded to the idea, that first there must be a 9" fish, then a thosand years later there is a 9" fish with cold resistance, then a thousand yr. later three is a 9" fish w/ cold, w/blue stripe; then there is 9" fish, blue stripe, cold resistance, with taper shape....

That is the fallacy, you think these must be out there. They are not in the fossil record that you see.

Yes all these changes can happen at once, once you realize that these traits are already contained in the DNA and only have to be turned off or on. So your argument about macro evolution and finding intermediates, is rather simplistic.

STill dont believe in Macro evolution? Try this one:

Here is an animal with fuzzy hair, a round oblong body, a hundred legs, eats grubs, and has no eyes or antenna. Here is animal two, with no hair, has wings, has a straight body, has no legs, eats milkweed, has two antenna and some eyes.

Are the two animals related to one another? Yes!

"WHere is the intermediate form?" "How could it develop 5 different traits in one generation?"

"Where is the animal that has oblong body with no hair? Where is the animal with oblong body, no hair, and two antenna? Where is the animal with straight body, no hair, two antenna and bunch of eyes? WHere is the animal with straight body, no hair, two antenna, bunch of eyes and wings?"

See you want to argue that each change has to occur in series of steps?

Take a look at a caterpillar and a butterfly. They are the same animal! the exact same DNA! Only difference is enzymes that turn off and on genes.

Do you see how silly your argument is now?

[Show Me the Wire]

So now we do not need miising links (transitional species), because the population dies out and a new one emerges. Not really my problem as I am not buttressing a theory as empiracally proven, while saying the theory may not be provable empiracally because that is the way it is. Okay, so why are there still monkeys (excluding Tom)?

According to the above referenced THEORY they should have been replaced at the very least by neanderthals.

[Bala]

".....Think about man/mouse there is only about a 5% difference in DNA, and man and chimpanzee is maybe 1% difference....." Warning: This post is not for the scientifically challenged.

Primate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate) to man similarity – We hear a lot of this in popular media. {NY Times Tuesday science section etc……} But does it have merit. We live in a time of true scientific enlightenment. What does the best current data show?

In 2001 the complete human genome was published. Many thought knowledge of the human genetic code (the genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome)) would provide a complete understanding of what makes a human. A new scientific field called "genomics." Genomics is a science that tries to make sense of the mountains of DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) sequence data that is being compiled.

Genome sequences can be found at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/)

Evolutionists are using certain fossils and the general similarity of man and chimpanzee as proof of their common ancestry. As molecular data (including amino acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid) sequences in proteins) have accumulated over the past thirty years, this evolutionary link has supposedly been confirmed. Many protein-coding sequences in the genome have been reported to have a 98.5% sequence homology (the percent of DNA that matches between two organisms) for humans and chimpanzees. However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiological) similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content.

The homology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29) frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology. In a recent analysis by Britten et al., inclusion of "indels" in human and chimpanzee sequences reduced the human/chimpanzee homology to 95%

Source: Britten, R. J., 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science 99(21):13633-13635.

Scholarly articles on indels available here (http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020005), here (http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2722), here (http://genomebiology.com/2004/5/3/R17), here (http://helix.biology.mcmaster.ca/721/outline2/node41.html) and here (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/6/972).

Major differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes are increasingly being documented in scientific journals. An example of this was reported in an article in Genome Research identifying chromosome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome) rearrangements between human chromosome 21 and the homologous chimpanzee chromosome 22.4 Using many long-range human PCR primers (primers used to sequence 10,000 bases at a time) that spanned 32.4 Mb (1Mb = 1 million bases) of human chromosome 21, approximately 27 Mb of chimpanzee chromosome 22 were successfully sequenced. This left 5.4 Mb of corresponding human sequences undetectable in chimpanzee chromosome 22. Assuming the 5.4 Mb of DNA that was unable to be sequenced in the chimpanzee genome was 70% homologous to the corresponding human sequence (very generous for sequences that are not alignable!) and combining this with the 27 Mb of sequenced chimpanzee DNA (assuming this region is 95% homologous, see above) would give a homology of 90% for human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22. If the unalignable region is less than 70%, the homology of human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22 will be even less than 90%. Considering all the elements that determine sequence homology, when an entire sequence comparison is finally made between the human and chimpanzee genomes, the actual amount of DNA sequence homology is almost certainly going to be less than 90%.

Source: Frazer, K. A., et al., 2003. Genomic DNA insertions and deletions occur frequently between humans and nonhuman primates: Genome Research 13:341-346.

The differences between humans and chimpanzees cannot be determined simply by the amount of sequence homology. The regulation of genes is also an important factor. Differential expression of proteins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein) in humans and chimpanzees has been identified in brain and liver cells. In a comparison of 538 proteins expressed in brain and liver cells in both humans and chimpanzees, 31% of these proteins showed different levels of expression between humans and chimpanzees.

Source: Enard, W., et al., 2002. Intra- and interspecific variation in primate gene expression patterns. Science 296:340-343.

_____________________________

There is something perplexing to this student. Why are we the only
species that doesn’t fit the ecosystem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem) naturally?