The Probability of the Big Bang

[jaimehlers]

The eyes and ears aren't all that extraordinary.  I mean, the eye probably started as a photosensitive membrane, just a patch of tissue that could sense light.  Put the patch in a hollow, and you have directed sensitivity.  Divide the patch into two separate halves, and you have binocular sensitivity Put lids of less-photosensitive tissue over the hollow, and you have the ability to control how much light gets through.  Differentiate the photosensitive tissue into different types that register different wavelengths of light, and you have the ability to distinguish objects from each other.  Raise the tissue within the hollow so that you have a chamber the light enters, and you can get a clearer image.  And guess what, you have eyes that are remarkably similar to ours, that don't require all that many changes to make, and could have happened on their own because they were mutations that enhanced the basic photosensitive membrane and gave organisms with a survival advantage over organisms without.

This is probably not the exact pathway that the evolution of eyes took, but it is a feasible pathway.  It works as an explanation to help us understand how eyes came to be.  It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work based on what we know.  And it does work.  For all of the nitpicking I suspect you'll engage in to try to "show" that the specifics are too complicated, the fact is that you're massively overstating your case.  You're obsessing about the missing info and ignoring all the info we do have, and that is the least effective way to convince anyone of anything.

[jaimehlers]

Prove to us that you aren't just throwing mud in the hopes that some of it will stick.  Because right now, that's exactly what it looks like you're doing, especially on an atheist site which is about God not healing amputees, rather than a scientific site about evolutionary biology.  You won't convince people by just claiming you understand, yet betraying your lack of understanding in the subsequent questions you ask.

Why are a bunch of athiests blogging to each other about how God doesn't exist?

The fact that you asked a completely unrelated question instead of addressing my concern suggests that you really don't get the basics of evolution.  Do you concede this, or would you prefer to demonstrate that you do actually understand evolution?  If you try to dodge the question again, you will clearly demonstrate that you don't understand evolution and are just trying to cover it up.  So, don't try to dodge.

[jakec47]

Does anyone else find it odd that 2 new members joining at roughly the same time and spouting roughly the same rhetoric would also have such similar screen names (rockv12 & jakec47)? I'm not sayin' they're the same guy, but I would bet they've never been photographed together . An investigation may be in order if they suddenly start giving each other tons of karma points!

Interesting theory, but I don't know anything about him and have never even messaged him.

[ParkingPlaces]

Why are a bunch of athiests blogging to each other about how God doesn't exist?

If you mean here, we aren't blogging. We're finding a world of friends that is otherwise full of people like you. We enjoy each others company and harassing theists who haven't the slightest idea of what they're talking about. We don't like it that 16 year old girls in muslim countries have to commit suicide because they are ordered by the courts to marry their rapists. We don't like it that in America people like Rick Santorum can get more than three people to listen to him. His ways are so backwards we're going to have to invent a new word to describe them. Christianity is already taken.

I don't deny your god. If he exists, all he has to do is show me and I'll know. Not believe, know. It won't do him much good though. He has proven himself to be either incompetent or cruel, and neither is worthy of my respect. And those of you who get all exited about him seem to display rather backward ideas about what is good and what is bad. That irks us.

So we talk about it.

That's why.

Isn't that your mother calling?

[jakec47]

I didn't neglect anything, you weren't talking to me.

I was trying to make a general point about the nature of this website, which is that it isn't made up of evolutionary biologists.

Very good, I have to commend you for that, I really didn't think you would actually go and check that, but nonetheless, it is still a definition of the word, and notice inside your definition "commonly regarded as correct" so it is regarded as correct not actually correct. But seriously nice job, I'm going to have to give you some karma points for that.

Most people on this site do actually at least look at the sources of someone's information, something to keep in mind.  And while you are correct that it is a definition of the word theory, that does not mean it is the correct definition used for scientific theories (which includes facilitated variation, evolution, and other such theories).  Also, "commonly regarded as correct", in this case, is the same as using 3.14 as the value for pi.  It is commonly regarded as correct, even though it is possible to be far more accurate than that (for example, a calculator will give the value 3.14159265, and pi has been calculated past a million digits), but for everyday practical purposes, 3.14 is correct enough.  The same principle applies to scientific theories.

I wouldn't say I didn't base it off anything, however I can base it off the Bible, but using logic I can see that it makes sense. And correct again it is a definition of theory.

Indeed.  One of the key mistakes many creationists make is the assumption that the Bible is an accurate depiction of events, when in fact many of the stories in it are metaphorical in nature.  Parables were a common thing in that day and age, and many stories commonly accepted as true in the Bible were the equivalent of parables - metaphorical stories meant to make a moral point, rather than literal retellings of history.

Perhaps if I said natural selection, maybe not I've never really studied to much on the theories. So many words. The only words the Bible says are, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Why couldn't the scientific theories on the origin of the world be so simple.

First off, I'm glad for your honesty.  You have no idea how many people pretend that they understand something, when in fact they don't.  Being willing to admit that you don't understand something is one of the hardest things that anyone can do.  You deserve credit for being willing to make such an admission, especially in front of people who you disagree with so dramatically.

In answer to your statement, I actually do understand where you're coming from.  I work with a lot of people who don't really understand computers beyond how to use them, so I'm faced with the dilemma of trying to explain concepts which I understand because I've studied them, but are so much Greek to them.  What usually works is to relate the concepts to simpler things that they already understand, because they can then make the connection.  It isn't perfectly accurate, but it's good enough for someone who'll never have to make a living with computers.  Same thing goes with scientific theories like evolution which don't seem like they can be explained as simply as, say, gravity.

Again I did not dodge your question because you were not asking me. However I'm sure that the amount of people needed in a room to have those probabilities is probably not very high. And I generally consider impossible to be a 0% chance. If I have a box with 6 green balls in and I try for a yellow ball it is impossible for me to get it. (Note I did not give such an elementary example because I think its all you could understand I just added it for ease of reference to what I was thinking, simplest way I could put it).

For what it's worth, it takes only 23 people to have a 50% chance of two matching birthdays, and 57 to have a 99% chance.

Now, as for your example, that's a good way to define impossible.  And since simple examples are usually good, because they avoid ambiguities that cause confusion, let me compare evolution to a jigsaw puzzle.  Now, imagine that the pieces to the puzzle aren't all in a convenient box, but instead, they got scattered all over the place.  Many of them were destroyed - burned up, washed away, crushed into pieces, even eaten - and most of the remainder are buried underground and hard to find.  So, you've found some of the pieces, enough to start trying to put the puzzle pieces back together.  But you don't have the box, so you don't know what the picture is supposed to look like.  The only way you'll get anywhere is to start trying to put the pieces together, knowing that you might get it wrong and the pieces won't fit, but you can fix that once it happens.

Does that make sense?

Yes, that does make sense, thank you for your non aggressive answers. I appreciate that. So if in order to understand life we need to put together this "jigsaw puzzle" then why doesn't the Bible help us with this. It explains the jigsaw puzzle but why is it not accepted if it gives the answers everyone is looking for? 

[jakec47]

Of course its stupid, just like your theories. But in reality, small guns wont kill a Grizzly Bear because of how thick their skin is, if you hit a Grizzly Bear in the head with a baseball bat it would do nothing, their skulls are harder. So if they have such hard skulls does that mean that in order for that to happen they had to have been two mutations one with hard skin and one with soft and the soft skins died and no we only have the hards. So what of humans, why do defects still exist, why aren't they being put out like the other problems. Humans have been here for a long time and yet it seems we have not gotten stronger but in fact weaker then our ancestors.

Okay, you need to bear with me on this. And that's not a pun.

I just accidentally gave you a thumbs up when I meant a thumbs down. So you owe me.

What you wrote in the above shows that you have no idea what evolution is. You seem to think it is a process that has defined purposes, like making humans more invulnerable. That's for comic books, not real life. Before a human could become safe from gunshots and baseball bats, we would have to slowly evolve some sort of thick skin that protected us. And that developing thick skin would have to be at least neutral in it's effect on the life of the individual who underwent the genetic change. If it made them more vulnerable for other reasons (made cracking noises while trying to cut in line at the grocery store or caused incredibly more obvious tan lines and turned the girls off), then the thicker skin would be detrimental.

And that thicker skin would be an accident, not a response to bullets and bats. And such a variation would have to occur at a time in history when we're shooting each other and wielding large wooden clubs. If it evolved right after the hippies won the culture war and all we did all day was hug each other and have sex, it probably wouldn't take long for folks to decide that old thick-skin Eddie is no fun in either activity and he probably wouldn't get a chance to reproduce.

You are not taking into consideration several things. Time, measured in millions of years and including tens of thousands of generations, at least. And you're not taking into consideration all the failed alterations. The frogs born with stronger legs but no webbed feet, the cows with bigger udders but fewer lactating glands so they make too little milk, the genetic change that might cause an elephant or a cat have fragile cartilage, which would fail when too much pressure was put on it by muscles. Scads of critters had potentially evolutionary changes, but they didn't survive long enough to procreate, or if they did, their kids didn't do so well. The changes that we are talking about were completely random, and just like being lucky and having some dude accidentally give you a thumbs up, at times it works out to the individual's advantage. Most of the time it doesn't.

So the short answer. Vulnerabilities still exist in humans because a) no random mutation that would make us less vulnerable to various threats has yet occurred and b) in those rare instances where a mutation might be advantageous (six fingers, so you can grab a sword blade swung at you and still have one or two fingers left) might happen in the wrong environmental conditions. Six fingered people might die of frostbite because they can't get gloves that fit. (There are six and seven fingered and toed people, by the way. They evolved. A change that is generally neutral. Or slightly less so, if potential mates are put off by the extra digits.)

Evolution is not guided. It is a by-product. Until you can understand that basic fact, you are easy to confuse with creationist drivel. And evolution does not have a purpose. Sh*t happens, and sometimes it doesn't stink as bad and we benefit. Most of the time it is useless, if not downright bad. The only thing going for us is sheer numbers, both in population and time, measured in years and generations.

A god that put you on a planet that is 75% water, has high cliffs and big predators and didn't take that into consideration when he gave you air breathing lungs, non-gravity proof bones and skin, nor built in 50 caliber machine guns isn't much of a god. If he wants me to love him but I drown in the tub when I'm three, he's out one loving soul. If he wants me to love him but I fall off the roof when I'm 15, he's lost another. If he wants me to love him and a bengal tiger has me for lunch, he's out of luck again. But each of those vulnerabilities is completely understandable in a world that was created without purpose. It just happened. Hence you just happened and I just happened. And we each have enough genetic differentiation that you can envision and believe in a god and I can't.

/end of lecture

That was pretty good, thanks for the explanation. And thanks for the thumbs up, even if it was an accident.

[jakec47]

The problem creationists have with dismantling evolution, is they take on too much at one time.

Let's start with the basics.
There are three main components of evolution.

1) heritability
2) mutation
3) natural selection

Which of these would you deny, and why?

I don't know enough about any of them to answer. I know some about natural selection but not much at all.

[kin hell]

Yes, that does make sense, thank you for your non aggressive answers. I appreciate that. So if in order to understand life we need to put together this "jigsaw puzzle" then why doesn't the Bible help us with this. It explains the jigsaw puzzle but why is it not accepted if it gives the answers everyone is looking for?

...because the picture on the box (that is the bible) has proven too often to be a wild guess, that does not correlate at all to any of the so far assembled jigsaw puzzle pieces.

And please don't mistake my brevity for aggression.

The frustration you might perceive emanating from atheists here who've replied to you, is no doubt an artifact of the relentlessness of the untutored theists/creationists attempted onslaught.

Have a good look at how much effort some posters here have taken to educate you.
Have a think about how determinedly you have refused to acknowledge anything that clashes with your beliefs (no matter what evidence you are shown).
.......please note that the last was not an all-inclusive statement.
Recognise, that if it was the other way, ....where you were able to educate these atheist posters with sound demonstrable verifiable fact, contrary to their beliefs, they (unlike theists with vested interests) would embrace the new knowledge, admit their error and change their position.
Realise, that that willingness to learn, that ability to adapt to advances in knowledge, is the only true reasonable way of advancing thought/knowledge.

All else, is dogma.

Dogma is presented on a daily treadmill here, and yet still the "generous" atheists attempt to engage and educate each and every theist who shows up here presenting the same old tired and bankrupt and dishonest apologetics. (which is not describing the theists, but is describing their pitch)

If you are feeling a certain frustration from some here, just understand that even if by some miracle of intellectual honesty we manage to get you to understand that your questions have been well answered before, your theories have been totally debunked already, and the pitch you push is a weary and worn hand-me-down that should've been discarded decades ago,

...even if you finally "get it!" after everybody's efforts, tomorrow no doubt we'll be confronted with the next variant of the same old ...same old.

So if you sense some frustration, and a tendency to aggression, congratulate yourself for at least having the survival instincts to accurately pick up what some here must be feeling.....

....but at the same time understand that those people have every right to be expressing such frustration, and consider the fact that they treat you so well considering.

[rockv12]

Why are a bunch of athiests blogging to each other about how God doesn't exist?

If you mean here, we aren't blogging. We're finding a world of friends that is otherwise full of people like you. We enjoy each others company and harassing theists who haven't the slightest idea of what they're talking about. We don't like it that 16 year old girls in muslim countries have to commit suicide because they are ordered by the courts to marry their rapists. We don't like it that in America people like Rick Santorum can get more than three people to listen to him. His ways are so backwards we're going to have to invent a new word to describe them. Christianity is already taken.

I don't deny your god. If he exists, all he has to do is show me and I'll know. Not believe, know. It won't do him much good though. He has proven himself to be either incompetent or cruel, and neither is worthy of my respect. And those of you who get all exited about him seem to display rather backward ideas about what is good and what is bad. That irks us.

So we talk about it.

That's why.

Isn't that your mother calling?

Fair enough.  I wished I hadn't asked that question once I posted it.  I hear your frustration about what Christians call good and bad.  I understand how it may seem "hateful" to be against gay marriage or whatnot.  I don't know what you are talking about, but suppose it may include gay marriage or something like that.  It our defense, it is NOT hate that makes us disagree with gay marriage.  That is the farthest thing from a true Christian's mind.  (boy does this thread go far off topic of the Big Bang, I apologize)....  but God is a holy God.  He determined what is pure and holy.  To God, according to the way He created things, was for purity and holiness.  Those are two very good things.  They don't include something out of His plan.  Marriage was instituted by Him to be between a male and a female.  We simply view anything else as sin.  That doesn't mean we hate anyone or want anyone to not live a happy life.  Marriage is a sacred thing.  We want to preserve it the best we can.  That's all.  Ok, done....sorry. 

[Anfauglir]

Of course, natural selection exists.  If I was trapped on a deserted island with a bunch of others and we had to survive and some of us were short and some were tall, I suppose that if we had to survive by reaching fruit up in a tree (and didn't share), then the tall ones amongst us would survive, while the others didn't.  Then we may have a family of tall people.  However, this is as far as it has ever been witnessed to go.  Nobody amongst us would mutate frog legs to jump higher than the tall people, and eventually have a bunch of grasshopper legs on us.  Mutations don't work that way.  Nor have we ever seen this happen, therefore it is NOT proven.

Thank you Rocky.  I would be grateful too if you would answer this part of my question also.

I asked a couple pages back for you to say whether you thought that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua both evolved from the same wolf-like ancestor. 

It's very important.  Were Great Danes ALWAYS Great Danes, and Chihuahuas ALWAYS Chihuahuas?  Or were they both once something very different?  I'm just trying to establish exactly what "Nor have we ever seen this happen, therefore it is NOT proven" actually covers.

- - - - -

(And, on a tangent.....

God ..... determined what is pure and holy.  To God, according to the way He created things, was for purity and holiness.  ..... Marriage was instituted by Him to be between a male and a female. 

I don't think you witnessed any of that happen.....so I guess you agree that none of THAT is proven, either?)

[Tero]

Why did God create foreskins in the perfect man, then tell ancient Jews to cut it off?

[monkeymind]

Rock:
I will be glad to go through evolution with you step by step. As I have stated twice before, we need to start at the basics and work our way up to your "bigger" questions.

Although I am not an expert, I will happily work through it with you and promise to stay with you through the whole process. Maybe we will both learn something. Deal?

Once more, here are the three basic components:
heritability
mutation
natural selection

First we can look at each one individually. Work out any difficulties we may have with them and then see how they work together.

I appreciate the kind response and willingness to explain things.  I understand all of the above, however.  Can we begin by moving straight to the "meat"?

Sorry, but no you don't and no we can't move straight to the meat.

Although important, how life began is NOT part of evolution theory. That is a different study we can address all together. The Big Bang is not part of evolution theory either.

So we have to remove those from the discussion. Then we need to lay a groundwork for our discussion. We need to define some terms, such as, scientific method, hypothesis, theory, fact, law, falsifiability and so on.

We do have to start at the basics, because there are things that we need to know about at the most basic level before we can proceed to more advanced concepts.

One can not study Thevinins Theorm, until one has studied Algebra, and one can not study Algebra until one has acquired some very basic math skills. Once one has a grasp of these things then one can navigate through the electrical circuit theory of linear networks.

Concepts in evolution are as complex as electronics, so we must familiarize ourselves with the basics. You say you have studied these things, but I suspect that you have a lopsided education on this by reading from particular sources like Darwin Refuted.com or the Discovery Institute.

By starting with the basics we may be able to unravel the inaccurate information that you and I may have. This will help you, me, Jake and everyone else reading along. We can all learn through the process. I know that I have a lot to learn, and I don't understand all that I  do know.

[monkeymind]

(boy does this thread go far off topic of the Big Bang, I apologize)....

Yes Jake, and the topic of the Big Bang has nothing to do with the topic of evolution.

Of course it is necessary to have a universe to live in before life can begin, but that is not a topic for biology, but for cosmogony. It seems to be an issue for creationists, because they do not understand this. That is why I am trying to get you to start with the basics.

If you would like to discuss the Big Bang, start a thread in Science, and we can discuss it there.

[Tero]

Hmm, new threads needed?

I had a story on Small Bang theory, it is in
my sig link about a year ago.

[ParkingPlaces]

Fair enough.  I wished I hadn't asked that question once I posted it.  I hear your frustration about what Christians call good and bad.  I understand how it may seem "hateful" to be against gay marriage or whatnot.  I don't know what you are talking about, but suppose it may include gay marriage or something like that.  It our defense, it is NOT hate that makes us disagree with gay marriage.  That is the farthest thing from a true Christian's mind.  (boy does this thread go far off topic of the Big Bang, I apologize)....  but God is a holy God.  He determined what is pure and holy.  To God, according to the way He created things, was for purity and holiness.  Those are two very good things.  They don't include something out of His plan.  Marriage was instituted by Him to be between a male and a female.  We simply view anything else as sin.  That doesn't mean we hate anyone or want anyone to not live a happy life.  Marriage is a sacred thing.  We want to preserve it the best we can.  That's all.  Ok, done....sorry.

If only. Were our differences only over gay vs. straight, life would almost be tolerable. But if you look carefully, you'll see we quibble here with christians about far more subjects than that. Science, for instance...

[jaimehlers]

Yes, that does make sense, thank you for your non aggressive answers. I appreciate that. So if in order to understand life we need to put together this "jigsaw puzzle" then why doesn't the Bible help us with this. It explains the jigsaw puzzle but why is it not accepted if it gives the answers everyone is looking for?

That is exactly the problem.  The Bible gives answers based on the questions people were asking thousands of years ago.  For their purposes, those answers were good enough for them, but we need to ask how relevant those answers, and more importantly the questions that prompted those answers, are today.

To relate it to the jigsaw puzzle, it's like they found some of the pieces, say the ones that were fairly easy to find (given that they didn't have a whole lot of time to spend looking), and put them together to form a picture.  Fine and good, it gave them something they could understand and use.  The problem is, we've found lots of puzzle pieces since.  And lots of those puzzle pieces don't fit very well with the picture that the writers of the Bible put together.  For exampe, Genesis 1 speaks of a literal seven-day creation, and by referring to the "begats" a little later on, they came up with an approximate figure of about 6,000 years for the age of the Earth.

However, we have dating methods which can determine the age of something reasonably accurately, and even using the simplest one, carbon-14 dating[1], we can accurately date things up to 60,000 years.  In other words, there's a conflict; if the Bible is correct, then there shouldn't be any organic matter whatsoever that is dated past the 6,000 year benchmark, but we've found lots of organic matter which dates to older than that.  We've even found organic matter which has no carbon-14 in it, which means it's at least 60,000 years old.  One of the reasons we can be sure of carbon-14 dating is that we've tested it against organic matter which we can accurately date via other methods, and it checks out.

If we know there's a contradiction between the Bible and something we've subsequently discovered, that's a problem.  I mean, imagine you put together a picture using a jigsaw puzzle, and then you start discovering more pieces, which don't fit with the picture.  That doesn't mean that some parts of the Bible "picture" might not be correct, but we can't assume they are.  Does that make sense?

1.

I'll try to define it as simply as possible, though if you don't understand something, please ask.  Carbon (carbon-12) has six neutrons and six protons.  Basically, the actions of cosmic rays cause neutrons to occasionally hit nitrogen atoms (nitrogen-14), which have seven neutrons and seven protons.  The neutron knocks a proton loose, so you end up with eight neutrons and six protons, known as carbon-14.  Carbon-14 is exactly like carbon-12 except for the extra neutrons, so plants use it in their respiration, and animals get it through eating things; the key is that no more carbon-14 is consumed once an organism dies, and carbon-14 slowly degrades back into nitrogen-14, so you can date the approximate age of the organic matter based on the time it it takes for this to happen

[monkeymind]

"Explanations of how the amino acids, nucleotides and sugars were formed, how they assembled in the form of DNA and RNA, and then "how these building blocks of life came to replicate themselves and acquire the enzymes to facilitate this process, are all still speculative."

"A compelling explanation of the origin of life here on Earth has not yet emerged."

"...it is difficult to understand how RNA — a notoriously unstable polymer — could have supported self-replicating systems in the hostile chemical and thermal environment of early planet Earth."

http://biologos.org/questions/the-origin-of-life

Shall we start at the beginning?  I mean to have evolution, we must have life.  Nobody knows how life started?  But I thought evolution was soooo simple to understand?

Selective reading there my friend. A little further down we find this:

The study of life's origins is an exciting area of research.  The jury is still out on how life first emerged. A simple response would be to give a God-of-the-gaps explanation: that some supernatural force, namely God, must have intervened to bring life into being.

See "What is evolution?".

But consider the timeline of these scientific quandaries.  Life on this Earth appeared approximately 3.85 billion years ago, yet serious scientific study of its origins began just 60 years ago.  A convincing scientific explanation may still emerge in the next 50 years. Though the origin of life could certainly have resulted from God’s direct intervention, it is dangerously presumptuous to conclude the origin of life is beyond discovery in the scientific realm simply because we do not currently have a convincing scientific explanation. Although the origin of life is certainly a genuine scientific mystery, this is not the place for thoughtful people to wager their faith. All that has happened in the history of life has happened in response to God's creation command (John 1:3).  Furthermore, God is immanent in creation, upholding the natural laws.  Colossians 1:17 tells us, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."  What we do not know at this point is the extent to which God may have intervened supernaturally in the history of life.  Some believe that the creation command was carried out through the natural laws which have been continuously upheld by the ongoing presence of God in creation.  Others believe that since the God of the Bible and the God we experience in our lives intervenes in supernatural ways at times, that this would also likely have been true in the history of life itself.  Neither of these views are inconsistent with scientific findings.  The important thing is that in the BioLogos view, God’s sustaining creative presence undergirds all of life’s history from the beginning to the present.

Finally, as a purely technical matter, the theory of evolution does not propose an explanation to the question of the origin of life at all. The theory of evolution becomes relevant only after life has already begun.

Bold added

[velkyn]

oh boy.  All of the sudden the human eye is a silly, simple, bad example of extraordinary.  I don't know what to say...

of course you don't since you've been shown that your claims are bullshit.  Human eyes are not special in anyway.  They are what we evolved with and they serve adequately.  Just like evolutionary theory predicts.  You fail so well, rockv. 

but God is a holy God.  He determined what is pure and holy.  To God, according to the way He created things, was for purity and holiness.  Those are two very good things.  They don't include something out of His plan.  Marriage was instituted by Him to be between a male and a female.  We simply view anything else as sin.  That doesn't mean we hate anyone or want anyone to not live a happy life.  Marriage is a sacred thing.  We want to preserve it the best we can.  That's all.  Ok, done....sorry. 

  Baseless claims and the words of an ignorant sycophant, afraid and full of greed.    And dear, your god says that homosexuals *deserve* death.  It's so cute to watch Christians back away from their god's horribleness, trying to claim that it's "god" saying such things, not that they are.  Unfortunately for you, your religion is completely man-made and is only a reflection of primitive human desires and hatreds.  You're stuck with that.

[Omen]

It our defense, it is NOT hate

It is in every conceivable way, hatred.

   but God is a holy God.  He determined what is pure and holy.

No one has to be concerned with your superstitious value system.  The fact that your superstitious value system dehumanizes the out group in comparison to the in group only supports the case that Christianity is insular, xenophobic, and hateful.

[screwtape]

rockv12,

how old are you?

[kin hell]

^ I must admit I wondered that...

[rockv12]

rockv12,

how old are you?

I was born in 1976.  Can you do the math, or should I do it for you?  Seems evolutionists aren't too good at numbers.  But with enough of them, anything is possible.

[rockv12]

It our defense, it is NOT hate

It is in every conceivable way, hatred.

Hatred means extreme dislike.  How do Christians "hate" anybody?  You can disagree with someone and not hate them.  If your son decides to get a nose ring, and you don't particularly like it, do you hate him?  Of course NOT.

[rockv12]

of course you don't since you've been shown that your claims are bullshit.  Human eyes are not special in anyway.  They are what we evolved with and they serve adequately.  Just like evolutionary theory predicts.  You fail so well, rockv. 

Human eyes are not special in any way?  Is anything remarkable about our bodies?  Or are they just insignificant little machines?

[kin hell]

rockv12,

how old are you?

I was born in 1976.  Can you do the math, or should I do it for you?  Seems evolutionists aren't too good at numbers.  But with enough of them, anything is possible.

....irrational numbers can prove difficult (sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything negative by using a word with "cult" in it)

[Tero]

of course you don't since you've been shown that your claims are bullshit.  Human eyes are not special in anyway.  They are what we evolved with and they serve adequately.  Just like evolutionary theory predicts.  You fail so well, rockv. 

Human eyes are not special in any way?  Is anything remarkable about our bodies?  Or are they just insignificant little machines?

Oppposable thumbs are cool, and hands. Toes are not all that much use.

Back to my previous off topic, located Small Bang story:
http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2011/03/physicists-study-small-bang.html

[rockv12]

of course you don't since you've been shown that your claims are bullshit.  Human eyes are not special in anyway.  They are what we evolved with and they serve adequately.  Just like evolutionary theory predicts.  You fail so well, rockv. 

Human eyes are not special in any way?  Is anything remarkable about our bodies?  Or are they just insignificant little machines?

Oppposable thumbs are cool, and hands. Toes are not all that much use.

Back to my previous off topic, located Small Bang story:
http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2011/03/physicists-study-small-bang.html

I bet you yawned all during Science class in school.  Holding a newborn baby...."oh is that the ball game on?"...

[pianodwarf]

Hatred means extreme dislike.  How do Christians "hate" anybody?

Christians are people just like anyone else, and just like anyone else, they're capable of any emotion, including hatred.  Most of the regulars here have experienced hatred from Christians in one form or another.  If you doubt us, start a thread asking for our stories.  For that matter, a random sampling of the Mailbag will probably enlighten you.  One Christian, for example, wrote in telling us to "be quiet because Christians never did anything to us".  About nine or ten of us responded telling stories about what Christians have, indeed, done to us.  David Mills has a "fun" story about his treatment at the hands of Christian police officers, too.

[Tero]

I bet you yawned all during Science class in school.  Holding a newborn baby...."oh is that the ball game on?"...

I don't know about you, but I have been a scientist for 35 years. I did some of those biology experiments you mention as well.  Changed diapers and fed them. The older one is in college, the younger one will be in the fall. What have you accomplished on the planet?