Reply With Quote
I think you misread my post. Those were two things I think religion advanced.
ElNono already touched on it, but to reiterate, religion's role in Western culture is about where it needs to be today. In the very back of the bus.
Unfortunately, if you limit the subject to only the USA, it isnt back of the bus.
Does religion and the religious hold back art, science and advancement today? No, no, no.
But I would contend that here in the States, religious people do waste a lot of people's time and science's effort trying to change education in this country.
Side note; I always seemed to chuckle about the ID vs Evolution debate because ultimately the end user of the debate were/are children. Science proponents dont care who reads, writes or teaches their theories and laws. ID/Creationists on the other hand, have their sights set strictly on the children of this country. Early education and introduction to ID and its principles.
Seems rather obvious to me what theyre attempting, and it isnt the merits of debate on the subject. Spell brainwashing.
I think you misread my post. Those were two things I think religion advanced.
My bad, LNGR.
Of course. It's done in a more subtle fashion. One could argue that it oppresses indirectly. You could say that religion oppresses intellect, thus leading to the naivety of the hive-mind. In that, the oppression of women and science, and the warped views of politics and slavery, stem from.
So, going all the way back to this, I will take PM's word that the physical copy of the article he has in his office, different than the online version, supplied him with the figure. So we have fact 3 supported, in some round about way.You mean tweak it like you tweaked it to make it conveniently *unfeasible*?
Let's dissect this here, as I think it is pretty symbolic of the kind and quality of arguments being made.
Facts stated:
1) "Two genes were altered in an asexual organism after 31,500 generations"
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"
3) "it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…"
Assumptions made to complete calculation:
1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)
2) a human generation to be all of 20 years
Calculation:
20*31500= 630,000
I will grant, assumption #2, and fact #3.
The rest of it, will require some facts to be confirmed to fully see if this calculation has been "tweaked". I think the fatal assumption in this calculation is the first one, that an asexual bacteria will mutate as fast, generationally speaking, as a sexually reproducing (vive la difference!) human being. It is a very messy, flawed assumption, as far as I can tell.
Bull has been called. Back up fact 1 and 2, and show me on what you base assumption 1.
We will see who is tweaking what.
(edit)
Although it is ultimately YOUR responsibility to back up YOUR claims and assertions. If you can't, or won't, try after a few days, I will do so myself, so don't at me for getting something wrong, when you can't be bothered to back up your claims.
PM has also in some round about way stated that bacteria will mutate at a rate much faster than humans for a few reasons, on a per generation basis in any given single lineage. This will make his calculation a bit "generous". I will accede this, as I can buy his given reasons.
Now we get to the difference between "beneficial mutation" and "mutation".
The calculation here concerns "beneficial".
"Beneficial" had a very specific meaning in Lenski's experiment. It meant one thing, and one thing only. Did it increase the ability of the bacteria to reproduce on a medium with citric acid, and digest it.
If that were the ONLY "beneficial" trait that affected genes, that might mean something.
How many other "beneficial" genes were introduced that were not considered part of the experiment?
The environment determines what is "beneficial" and what isn't, for both humans and bacteria.
Evolutionary theory states that selective pressures are the other shaper of change.
Lenski very actively selected for only one trait.
Did past human environments only select for ONE trait and the genes that affected that trait?
Did the bacteria exibit other changes that would, in a more complex environment have also changed genes?
PM himself acknowledged that mutations happen all the time at VERY high rates for bacteria.
(repost, don't want it to get missed/buried) Gotta get going.
It would seem PM has abandoned his defense if this turd sandwich.
at some point people are going to either believe or not going to believe and it's going to come from something other than brainwashing, but actual life experience. i've felt the presence of God in my life. i was lucky, it happened without me even looking for God. before i was a non-believer. some people have to actively look for God. anyway, i made the choice to believe in God after that. apparently you haven't encountered God. or maybe you have but you'll do anything to deny it (since that's the cool thing to do these days). if you're anything like i was before (hard-nosed a athiest) you probably won't look for God either. i don't know. i'm not going to be a condescending ass about it though and call you brainwashed for not believing in God. you have your reasons for your position and i have mine.
If you were a full-grown adult and it was your first time hearing it, would you believe someone could be born of a virgin, die, rot and stink for 3 days, and then... abracadabra, he's back!? Would anyone believe he could survive his own death if he was first told this beyond the age where older people are to be obeyed?
It sounds crazy, but life after death isn't that crazy of a concept at all. Plenty of people have encountered spirits, or ectoplasms or whatever you want to call it. Hear me out, because I thought it was all bull until something happened to me.
I was brushing my teeth in the public restroom of a college dormitory at night when behind me I feel this presence of something run past me. I looked behind me only to see nothing. I didn't even believe in ghosts before, but I knew what had ran by me was a a ghost. I eventually found out from the staff working there that a kid died in that restroom I don't know how many years before. He slipped and hit his head in the shower.
Am I just brainwashed? Is that going to be the explenation to everything one experiences that cant be corroborated with evidence. If your looking for empirical evidence to answer questions about God or the immaterial you're not going to find them. It's faith. You're obviously going to have to make leaps of faith. But are they sensical leaps of faith? From my own they are I think.
Last edited by mingus; 08-13-2011 at 04:39 AM.
Oh really? Is there any evidence of this besides stupid stories?
No, you don't.I didn't even believe in ghosts before, but I knew what had ran by me was a a ghost.
Hmmm lets see, because of the Church, scientists were discriminated against for nutty, "Satanic" views like the Earth being round and the Earth rotating around the Sun.
If the Church had its way, we'd still believe the world was flat and Planet Earth was the center of the Universe.
Lol dying and going to a dorm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
