warri0r45

I'd tend to say yes, but only if it's highly regulated and for serious patients only. I've heard some stories of people with a horrid existance. Wouldn't wish such a thing on Hitler (well, maybe :P ). Poor buggers. Makes me feel lucky I'm alive and healthy.

Perhaps. I generally won't rule anything out that could possibly be explained by nature.

Its essentially due to our over agriculturalising of semi-arid land. Whatever theory you go by, this occurance would have been minimal before we came along. I hardly see how your idea that we would be totally desert holds any water, sorry. I've never even heard this argument before which makes it admirable that you didn't rehash someone elses, at least. This is why desertification holds water. If the earth is becoming noticeably more desert over time that we can measure then no matter how minimal desertification has been in the past, even to the .1% of what desertification is today, over 5 billion years it would still have shallowed the earth. I'm not really all that interested in desertification, to be honest. Find me some sources and I'll have a look though. If it did really hold sufficient water, I would most likely have heard it. Seeing as I haven't I'm not going to deny it untill I eventually get around to having a look later on. Edit: Not the best source, but it counters the argument that it's constant and moving in one direction, which I hardly see it doing before we came along. I'd really rather we talk more on macroevolution, though.

You're intitled to your opinion and all, but yes, there is a way that a single cell could adapt into what we have today. That's why we have the theory. Sorry about the asumption that you weren't up to speed with genetics, nothing untoward intended. The example you gave of microevolution being a non-permanent occurance is interesting. Well, considering it is permanent, it's just the tendancy to have the organisms with the new mutations reproducing more itsn't always permanent. It can be though. What if a population of an organism moved to a geographically different area and stayed there. Period. It's not like they would migrate somewhere, become adapted to that environment and move away again. They'd have to adapt to thier new environment and sometimes may not even survive! The organisms with traits best suited to thier environment will thrive and thier genes will be passed on from generation to generation to an extent where we humans may come along and label them as permanent changes which have formed a new (again, just another label) species. Would you say, for a population that has split and whose subpopulations stay in thier respective geographical areas for a long time, that there is any barrier in thier DNA preventing the subpopulation that moved from the original population to no longer be able to mate with them to form fertile offspring? What is stopping it? That's the specific line of questioning I'm presenting here.

I'll look into that. EDIT; Its essentially due to our over agriculturalising of semi-arid land. Whatever theory you go by, this occurance would have been minimal before we came along. I hardly see how your idea that we would be totally desert holds any water, sorry. I've never even heard this argument before which makes it admirable that you didn't rehash someone elses, at least.

It doesn't reflect macroevolution. It reflects the inability of macroevolution occuring. That means macroevolution isn't capable of happening. If you need your dough to rise you add the yeast. No matter how much yeast you add if it doesn't have time it will never rise. Time is part of the recipe, if time is not there it is not capable of achieving the steps it needs to be fully developed. Time is a major part of macroevolution and if its not there its not going to happen. Why would you say there hasn't been enough time? The earth is estimated at 4.8 billion years old. If you think otherwise, then you missed reading a bit of my post. If you don't like that info, then take it as a hypothetical. What I'm getting from you is that you think if there were time enough for it to happen, which you believe there isn't, then it would and could happen. Am I interpreting your message correctly? And I'm struggling to see what point you're trying to make with your quote on desertification... And Barihawk, could I reccomend a bit of reading on genetics? I'm assuming that you aren't all that fluent with it, so if my assumption is incorrect, I apologise. It's just that for me, studying genetics made evolution so clear cut, understandable, comprehendable and logical. As a final note I still haven't heard of any barriers which prevent macroevolution from occuring (apart from time, which I specified wasn't realy a factor here as an old earth is assumed with evolutionary theory, albeit a proven assumtion. Again, if you don't like the piece of information which offends you/you don't believe in/whatever, take it as a hypothetical situation).

I'm making this topic because I am genuinely interested in the issue. ANY STRAYING FROM THE TOPIC AND I WILL HAVE IT LOCKED. Because, well, clearly there is a place for other discussions however supplimentary you think they may be to this one. Specifically, I have one question that I want everyone to focus on. Generally everyone accepts microeolution as a given as we have seen it happen thousands of times; it's a no brainer, really. But people seem to be resistant to accept macroevolution. Why is that? Do any of you guys think that macroevolution is not possible? Why? What barriers are stopping a whole lot of microevolutionary changes leading to speciation (macroevolutionary) events? Why? What evidence can you guys find for or against macroevolution from a credible source? (preferably something with no religious motivations, for bias reasons.) As a final note I would really appreciate it if we could center the dicussion around the questions I have posted here. I'm keen to know what, if any, barriers stop macroevolution from occuring. As a final final note, this topic assumes the fact of an old earth, so if you want to debate for a young earth, please, make another topic. To end this off, I'll have a first dig. DNA and the mutations it undergoes have no limitations. This is clear when we see such things as bad mutations which end up forming severe disabilities or killing the organism. DNA dosen't discriminate nor does it have any barriers to stop any mutational changes occuring. If you think otherwise, explain clearly why. For the purpose of this discussion, the term species, from my perspective (and a widely used definition), will be a specific group of organisms unable to produce offspring with any other organism but those in it's groups. Now I'll present a scenario which leads me to have the view that macroevolution is no where near impossible, given enough time. Consider a population of an organism, sexually reproducing. Consider a split in the population through flood/fire/volcano/storm/predation/lack of food/whatever. Consider the difference of the geographical location of the two subpopulations. Consider the ensuing microevolutionary changes that occur which conform to natural selection for that particular environment. Finally, consider, after many, many generations of mutations that each subpopulation now looks different. It all happens, it's all been seen before and it's all old news. But, consider that the mutations are so extensive, that these two subpopulations can no longer mate with each other to produce fertile offspring. What barriers would stop this from occuring? Go for it but just remember to keep it on track, please. (as many of you can tell by now evolution interests me)

I'll go out on a limb and bet if pot were legalised, there would be far less problems with it. People seem to think of the law as some sort of taboo barrier or something. It's amazing how it can shape some people's perceptions.

Nope, toxic gas in high amounts. Here's a useless bit of information - a partial pressure (look up Dalton's law of partial pressures if you're curious) of 15 mm Hg (millimeters of mercury; I'm not even going to attempt to explain that, so just know that 760mm Hg is standatrd atmospheric pressure) of carbon dioxide is borderline toxic. To anyone who knows the source of this interesting info I will be EXTREMELY impressed, and you will get a cookie :P (and no, it's not from wikipedia. Infact, to help you out if you're at all interested, it's not an online source at all).

Your sig is great. : :P I'm a very complacant person. Wierd? Perhaps. I could listen to the Tool song 'Disposition' forever and literally watch the weather change. Listen to the song and you'll know what I mean. Hmm. I feel like sleeping.

It prevents blindless and cancer. Forgot which type of cancer :wall: . Also a little story: My friend david was diagnosed with cancer last year. For a month straight, he puked had severe pains. They gave him marinol, for those who don't know it's simply a THC pill. For those who don't know what THC is, it's the chemical in weed that gets you 'high'. Ever since he started on those, doctors saw immediate recovery. He said he almost felt no pain and was no longer throwing up all day. Needless to say, he made it through cemo (sp), back in school and is doing great. If a THC pill does the same as pot does, why not just pop a pill? More convenient... Unless you like smoking a bong or something. I've got nothing against medical marijuana myself, as long as we can keep perfectly healthy stoners looking for an excuse out of the system so it dosen't clog it up for people who really do need it.

Although I haven't been active here on TIF (OT specifically) for that long, I can tell that there are quite a few decent people here and as corny and gay as it sounds, I wan't to thank you all for not being [wagon] holes. :P

Probably because you'd question whether there's morals into having a poo. You're a walking discussion. Ahh, the most revered philosophical question since how to define what makes something beautiful: when to cut the cable. To cut the cable, or not to cut the cable; that is the question (and so on and so forth, insert joke here yada yada). :XD: :P

I absolutely adore the oldschool DOOM games. Currently playing the second last level (aside from secret levels) of Final Doom, TNT; Evilution WAD file. :oops: As a matter of fact, I feel like a bit of a zombie/demon carve up right about now.

Niether do facts. They have to have a weakness... holy water? volcano mud? uhhh... that stuff under your fingernails, perhaps? Or how about drain cleaner... :x We're doomed! There's nothing. :evil: The only way to argue with them is by using Socrates's method - you have to pretend to agree with them initially, then show them how their ideas could be wrong Totally true. Garner fake trust. People are so open to change that way. It's not as evil if it sounds if you actually use the correct knowlege and facts to do it.

I have a very simple way of looking at this issue. We will run out of non-renewables. Ween ourselves away from them and switch to something else, which, coincidently, will be much more eco-friendly. And as for people exaggerating and saying it's mostly our fault, where's the gain in that? I've heard one reason before, but what do you think the gain would be from making such a claim? Note I'm not saying we definately are the cause or are definately not.

Niether do facts. They have to have a weakness... holy water? volcano mud? uhhh... that stuff under your fingernails, perhaps? Or how about drain cleaner... :x We're doomed! There's nothing. :evil:

I hate phones but I have a mobile (I like to call it my radio, as that's all I use it for :P ). I'm a germophobe, although people probably can't tell. (In real life, I mean. Of course you can't tell over the internet). I'd say it's payed off somewhat. Haven't been sick in about half a year. I'd say I'm a germophobe because last time I was sick, I got really weak and found it hard to breathe while vomiting up thin air after the entire contents of my stomach were in a puddle in front of me. :-X The scary part was that I was really physically weak from not eating properly and really didn't have much energy at all to try and breathe. Hmm. I'd rather never be sick again. :uhh: :anxious:

Same thing in terms of what it means. Pointless. The whole Bible was written by man and you clearly don't believe in it. But if want to know WHY the Bible says to do something, you have to understand the context that it's written in, and that it is the word of God. No difference. In order to ask, "Why would God tell them to do this?" you must first assume God. You can't ask "Why would God tell them to do this?" and then later on bring up the point that you don't believe in God. What verse is it, book, chapter, verse wise? I should really read it myself before going any furthur into this. It's still not clear to me, as you didn't really anwer my question, whether it is from the mouth of god or from the mouth of man. The gospels are in the bible and they aren't the word of god. They are the apostle's version of events regarding Jesus Christ. I vaguely recall the letters of Paul, too. You could argue that they were inspired by god, but it's all steeped in belief. Originally, I made a comment on why I think kids shouldn't be stoned to death. I was taking the bible for what it is - a book. A piece of literature. I'm assuming you knew I was an atheist (well, if you didn't, you know now) which would mean I don't believe that there is anything godly or divine about the bible. It's just a book to me and bringing in the idea that it was god inspired and thus we shouldn't question the all knowing nature of god really had nothing to do with my original post. Again, if you know, the verse number would be helpful.

Have you never heard the Bible being referred to as "the Word of God?" Did you honestly not know that Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word from God? Of course I knew that. I just wasn't aware that the verse about stoning kids was from the tounge of god, if you like. If I'm not mistaken some of it is an account from the human perspective, which iswhat I mistakenly assumed for the stoning kids verse. I know it's not so I learnt something. :P Right. But the belief is that it is divinely inspired. Let me clear this up. So is the verse (a) from the mouth of god, or; (B) inspired by god. The reason I ask is because if it's (B), due to my atheism I don't subscribe the the belief that the bible is divinely inspired and only see it as the word of man, in which case I will argue the facts of it, which is what I was doing in my original post (to some extent). If it's (a), on the other hand, I'm not going to argue as it's much more steeped in theism for me to seriously comment on (i.e. I don't believe that there is a god or if there were, I don't belive that it would be the christian god, but I digress).

Have you never heard the Bible being referred to as "the Word of God?" Did you honestly not know that Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word from God? Of course I knew that. I just wasn't aware that the verse about stoning kids was from the tounge of god, if you like. If I'm not mistaken some of it is an account from the human perspective, which iswhat I mistakenly assumed for the stoning kids verse. I know it's not so I learnt something. :P

Me too! But mainly these days it's because of our rediculous drought.

Your argument and lack of logic did that. I only pointed it out. Who do you think gave the instruction to stone the kids? God. That's why your point is irrelevant. God has everything to do with your initial question - you just didn't make the connection. Now we're getting somewhere! You see I didn't know that, hence why I was asking about the verse. I can see why what I was saying seems so silly now. :oops:

Yes you did imply that. Let me break this down to you logically: 1. The kids were told to be stoned. 2. Kids brains do not mature until later. 3. You should not stone people who have not had time to mature. 4. Therefore, you should not stone kids. That is the argument you gave when you said: However, you have since acknowledged that God knows everything (if He exists, including how a kids brain will eventually mature). If God knows everything, then he knows how a kid's brain will mature, therefore making your statement irrelevant. It no longer matters if a kid is or is not mature because God knows what the final result will be anyway. Note: This is a logical point, not a theological point. Therefore, your point about the maturity of kids is irrelevant because it implies that God does not know how their brains will mature. IF God does know how their brains will mature (which you acknowledge he would) then the point about their brains not being mature, the point you made, is irrelevant. You see, I'm not sure which claims are right and which aren't. I found the claim that the bible promotes the stoning of children to be odd, so among giving my 2 cents, I basically asked for clarification. People here generally know more about the bible than me. I didn't respond to that question. If you look at my post, I only responded to your line about the maturity of the brain to point out the logical flaw of your thinking. I hope this clears up the point that I am merely pointing out the logical flaw in your thinking, because I believe it is important that those do not exist. I can see very clearly the logical dilemma I'm in, but you backed me into that corner when you brought up the all knowing nature of god, which, wether you wan't to believe me or not, had nothing to do with my original post. I was arguing using what people know. Not what god knows. You see, that's what I do, I'm an atheist. I acknowleged your comment on the all knowing nature of god because, if there is a god and he were all knowing, it's a total no brainer that he knows why the practice of stoning kids occurs. See what I'm saying? The fact that god is all knowing and knows why kids get stoned, therefore it happened, had nothingto do with my initial argument. What we know thrills me much more than what faith tells us. I hope that clears some things up.

Your original point: Your implying that God doesn't know how their brains will mature. If you agree that the God who created them would know how their brains would mature, then the maturity of their brains is irrelevant to the decision to kill them. So if you agree that God knows how their brains will mature, your "original" point is irrelevant. I didn't imply anything about what god knows or dosen't know. It's a no brainer that an all knowing god knows everything. If that's what you thought I was implying, I wasn't, sorry. My original line of questioning was: You see, I'm not sure which claims are right and which aren't. I found the claim that the bible promotes the stoning of children to be odd, so among giving my 2 cents, I basically asked for clarification. People here generally know more about the bible than me.