Search results

Then please explain to me what you find unconvincing about the gradual changes and shifts in organisms that eventually lead to speciation in evolution. Please be more specific. No it isn't. Genetic recombination doesn't have to involve organisms changing their own DNA structure directly...

I only think the laziness part is the problem; at least if I made software that made it easier for other people to do something, I still did something about it. I don't think selfishness is an issue because we all do things for selfish reasons. Selfishness doesn't necessarily have to harm others...

I don't exactly agree with the definitions you have given because an organism can adapt through means other than mutation, such as genetic recombination. In fact, the majority of variation and adaptation through natural selection in species occurs through genetic recombination. Well, ja...

Ja, it wasn't obvious because you were complaining that they were being selfish and spoiled rather than saying they should get off their lazy asses. Because you can be selfish and still do something about your own situation; you'd still be selfish if you didn't either. Not choosing to do...

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that it has explained life before. Just because our current model of the biological world doesn't involve so much beneficial mutation now doesn't mean it didn't work before. And there's actually a simple reason for that--it's because the environment was...

I'm not actually really all that concerned about whether or not people personally have much to complain about; as someone who cares about the truth, I only care about whether or not their complaint is valid. So I don't actually care if their complaint might be done out of selfishness or not. If...

What is so biased about not allowing a non-scientific idea to be taught in a science class? What I find biased is giving time to creationism as a non-scientific idea while ignoring other non-scientific ideas, which are equally as irrelevant in a science class anyways. If you want historical...

Yes, I know what you're getting at, but your previous argument was that the bible is the only thing that talks about these events, and that was why you believed it was historically accurate, and I'm saying that just because it's the only book that talks about what happened then doesn't mean it's...

But unlike the bible, not all Egyptian and Greek written accounts are devoted to divination, and because we can identify who the writers are, and what they were writing what they wrote for (eg, philosophy, science or anything but religion), the context makes it clear what they're writing about...

Actually, I think it's not very well preserved. In addition to writing about events that happened 100's of years before the writers were born, the bible has been heavily edited and transcribed by lots of people, and I'm sure lots of details got lost, reinterpreted or completely changed, either...

And that's wishful thinking. Wanting something to be uneducated bliss rather than conspiracy has nothing to do with the true intentions of the authors of those accounts. It's the exact same reason nobody really knows why they wrote the bible in the first place, and why several different...

Okay, but I wouldn't consider that historically accurate enough because the people who recorded the stuff weren't actually alive when the events happened; it wouldn't be any better than the speculation we get now, which we are actually reconstructing from other evidence. In other words, scribes...

And why would you expect it to? Evidence provides us clues for specific things that may have happened in the past. It provides us with concrete details of something that did happen, which is certainly better than speculation. I won't claim that it helps explain everything that happened in the...

No, you've just decided there isn't any evidence of stuff that happened so long ago, despite the fact that there is, and we've been able to discover things that happened billions of years even before the events in the bible happened. Whether or not you think there's any evidence for anything is...

If it has any historical accuracy, then why is it people can't decide what it's actually trying to say? If something is made to be so unclear that people don't understand exactly what it's trying to say, I could hardly call that historically accurate in any sense. There's absolutely no reason...

Yes, but that would also imply that there was a point in time in which differentiation and integration don't apply, which is untrue; we're just unaware of it. It's the same with non-Euclidean geometry; Gauss was aware of its existence way before the people who published their results on it. He...

And you know what? I happen to think there's no good reason for holding onto these silly ideas as being sacred. Can you come up with a good reason for it? If you can't, there's no good reason for people to be clinging onto ideas as being sacred, and no reason why I have to bend over backwards...

If the guy stole someone else's property and destroyed it (as opposed to say buying the book himself and destroying it, or being given a copy from someone else who doesn't want it), I'd agree that he should be punished somehow. But if the problem was that he destroyed a book that happened to be...

Actually, that's your idea of Christianity. There are over several thousand different interpretations of what Christianity is to different people. And the bible is so ambiguous and confusing that people can't seem to agree about what it was meant for. It would be a gross misinterpretation to...

If there was no such thing as privacy, we couldn't enjoy sex. It would be considered public indecency otherwise. If there was no such thing as privacy, you couldn't practice your religion without being badgered by other people who don't agree with your beliefs. We have freedom of speech...