Religion dooms you atheism saves you

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes it is a nice quote, with mentioning that jesus was calling them out for paying attention to the wrong details of religion instead of the important ones. like caring more what one ate on sabbath instead of caring for an old lady or an orphan.

so my opinion is that in this case, you are the pharisee jesus is talking about

It is my opinion, you are one of the hypocrites!

Originally posted by RJHinds
To Whom It May Concern:

On Answers.com there is a list of words related to
Genetics, Heredity, and Evolution taken from
Random House Word Menu:

abiogenesis - discredited theory that living organism can develop by
spontaneous generation from inanimate material.

adaptation - any feature that increases fitness of organism to its
environment: ample, for they
are of different "kinds". (The authority is the Holy Bible like it or not.)

“...abiogenesis - discredited theory that living organism can develop by
spontaneous generation from inanimate material. ...”

it has never been “discredited”. In fact, it has been given ever greater credibility due to experiments that give good clues to how the first protocell probably formed etc.

“....evolution - development of species or organism from primitive state
to present or specialized state. ...”

that definition is incorrect. That is not how it would be defined because “primitive” is not scientifically defined and the defining feature of evolution is not an increase in specialisation -it is possible a living thing to evolve to become less “specialised” in some way -why not?
If you want a valid definition, see: http://animals.about.com/od/e/g/evolution.htm

“....See the definitions and note the "true" definition of evolution.
Evolution, as YOU seem to define it, does not exist. ...” (my emphasis)

But we do NOT define it that way. So your "true" definition of evolution is false.

“...There is no such thing as an ape evolving into a human
being or some reptile evolving into a bird for example, ...”

But there was once a long time ago.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is my opinion, you are one of the hypocrites!

And Jesus had a lot to say about logs in the eyes too.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And Jesus had a lot to say about logs in the eyes too.

Yes, maybe that's why you can't see the truth when its
right in front of your eyes. Knowing what I know, I would
be ashamed to declare myself an atheist. But you seem to
be proud of it. Maybe its because of those logs in your eyes.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, maybe that's why you can't see the truth when its
right in front of your eyes. Knowing what I know, I would
be ashamed to declare myself an atheist. But you seem to
be proud of it. Maybe its because of those logs in your eyes.

I see you never did understand what he was saying.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see you never did understand what he was saying.

Yes, I did. I went to his link and saw that definition of evolution.
But that macroevolution part of it is a bunch of crap. It just does
not happen and there is no proof it ever did.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I did. I went to his link and saw that definition of evolution.
But that macroevolution part of it is a bunch of crap. It just does
not happen and there is no proof it ever did.

The evidence for microevolution is so overwhelming that it has been scientifically proven:

http://www.life.illinois.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

can I take it you don't despite the observed microevolution events?
If so, then a macroevolution event is just a series of microevolution events happening to the same lineage of living thing.
If over a relatively short period of time of a few decades, a microevolution events can occur to a particular lineage of living thing to create a small change, then what is stopping a series of such microevolution events from occurring to the same particular lineage of living thing over thousands/millions of years to produce a big change?
If your answer is “nothing” to the above (which is the correct answer) then, given that is what macroevolution IS, then macroevolution would be inevitable given a change in the environment to stimulate such a change.


http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I did. I went to his link and saw that definition of evolution.
But that macroevolution part of it is a bunch of crap. It just does
not happen and there is no proof it ever did.

I meant that you never understood what Jesus was saying regarding logs in the eye.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I meant that you never understood what Jesus was saying regarding logs in the eye.

Give me the reference and tell me what you believe it mean.
Maybe, you can educate me on Christianity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Give me the reference and tell me what you believe it mean.
Maybe, you can educate me on Christianity.

I am sure you can look it up faster than I can. But Jesus basically said not to criticize others unless you are sure you are criticism free yourself, or at least to give priority to your own errors.
In this thread we have two Christians calling each other hypocrites and both trying to use the Bible to back up that claim. Quite funny really.
We also have you, who are so confident in your beliefs in the Bible that you frequently make sweeping statements about things you know nothing about because you believe they contradict the Bible in some way. At some point you need to stop trying to get the twigs out of other peoples eyes (errors you think scientists have made) and realize the log in your own eye (ignorance of science).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The evidence for microevolution is so overwhelming that it has been scientifically proven:

http://www.life.illinois.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

can I take it you don't despite the observed microevolution events?
If so, then a macroevolution event is just a series of microevoluti ...[text shortened]... environment to stimulate such a change.


http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

I went to your links; and I'll take your last like first.
This was from the University of California, San Diego News.
The article, dtd 02/06/2002, is titled, "First Genetic Evidence
Uncovered Of How Major Changes In Body Shapes Occurred
During Early Animal Evolution".
Quoting from the article:
"The problem for a long time has been over the issue of macroevolution,"
says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD's Division of Biology who
headed the study. "How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into
an animal's body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists
have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn't
be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one's been able to
demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific
instructions in the genome."

So, the purpose of the study was to prove the Creationists wrong.
They took a brine shrimp and laboratory fruit flies and showed how
modifications in the Hox gene Ubx would have allowed the ancestors of
this brine shrimp to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years
ago into the six legged insects. They claim, the kind of mutation that's
in this gene is the so-called dominant mutation, so you only need to
mutate one of the chromosomes to get a big change in body plan.

Where is the peer review? Even if this study is true, how does losing
some legs amount to such a big change in body shape that it is proof
of macroevolution? They also use the words, "would, could, may,
suggests" which seems to mean they are not sure. There was a plan
and design in their experiments, which you would not find in nature.
I don't see how this proves anything about how a reptile could
macroevolve into a bird or an ape into a man.

The second link to "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" is long and
I haven't taken the time to read it all yet. The first link, I forgot
what it was. I'll have to go back.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I went to your links; and I'll take your last like first.
This was from the University of California, San Diego News.
The article, dtd 02/06/2002, is titled, "First Genetic Evidence
Uncovered Of How Major Changes In Body Shapes Occurred
During Early Animal Evolution".
Quoting from the article:
"The problem for a long time has been over the issue of mac ...[text shortened]... ad it all yet. The first link, I forgot
what it was. I'll have to go back.

You ask "Where is the peer review?"

"In a paper published in the Feb. 21st issue of Nature, Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine McGinnis, and William McGinnis describe how a simple genetic mutation caused aquatic arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into the radically different body plans of terrestrial six-legged insects."

(http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=36)

Nature's peer-review policy can be seen at:

http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html

I doubt very seriously that a paper of this significance would not be peer reviewed.

Originally posted by JS357
You ask "Where is the peer review?"

"In a paper published in the Feb. 21st issue of Nature, Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine McGinnis, and William McGinnis describe how a simple genetic mutation caused aquatic arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into the radically different body plans of terrestrial six-legged ...[text shortened]... tml

I doubt very seriously that a paper of this significance would not be peer reviewed.

What I got from you link was just a blog repeating the same old
nonsense.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The evidence for microevolution is so overwhelming that it has been scientifically proven:

http://www.life.illinois.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

can I take it you don't despite the observed microevolution events?
If so, then a macroevolution event is just a series of microevoluti ...[text shortened]... environment to stimulate such a change.


http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

I know now why I could not remember what your first link
was about, since it concerned a dogmatic lecture declaring
evolution was a fact. Of course I've heard that before
and dismissed right away. I still have not read the second
link but I printed it out so I could take my time looking it
over when I get more time. I hope I did not waste 22 pages
and the ink required to print it out.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What I got from you link was just a blog repeating the same old
nonsense.

Please try again without the parentheses.

http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=36

The point of my post was to let you know the paper was published in Nature, a peer reviewed journal. You seemed to think that peer review would matter to you. Maybe that's not the case.