I couldn’t recommend a book better than anyone else, but if you can give me a book recommendation I can find at my local library, I’m down to read it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tell you what. We’ll engage in a little quid pro quo. I know you are not opposed to reading. In fact, I strongly suspect you are an avid reader. So here’s the deal, I recommend a book on creation and you agree to read it in its entirety. You do the same for me with evolution and I agree to the same terms. What say you?
[/quote]
That sounds like an excellent deal.
I propose the Origins of Humankind by Richard E. Leakey. Granted, it deals primarily with human evolution, but I figure that’s the most interesting kind for people of our species.
What is your suggestion for me?
Darwin in a test tube: Scientists make molecules that evolve, compete, mimick behavior of Darwin’s finches
April 29th, 2009
As described in an article published this week in an advance, online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research shows that when different species directly compete for the same finite resource, only the fittest will survive.
The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources, the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized, each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.
Thought it was appropriate.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Darwin in a test tube: Scientists make molecules that evolve, compete, mimick behavior of Darwin’s finches
April 29th, 2009
As described in an article published this week in an advance, online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research shows that when different species directly compete for the same finite resource, only the fittest will survive. The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources, the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized, each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.
Thought it was appropriate. [/quote]
LMAO and LMAO and LMAO . . . . wheew, I will read the link,
But oh Sweet Jesus - I got the biggest kick out of your post . . .
You missed it didn’t you . . . . I’ll type it slowly
Scientist . . . Make . . . Molecules … . That . . . Evolve!
Creation and Evolution combined in a practical testable experiment!!
LMAO . . . . got to breath . . . . LMAO
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Even as a reasoned believer in scripture, however, I find nothing in it that prevents consideration of any proposed concepts . . . I live by the mantra “Truth never fears a challenge” - but I do hold people to a high level of proof if they wish to change my views.
Fair enough.
I like this version of that mantra: “a searcher of truth doesn’t fear the results of his search.”
[/quote]
that’s good stuff too - thanks
I have an earnest question for the creationists here. God created man in dominion of the animals, and we are set apart from all animals and are made in God’s image. Do you guys believe that neanderthals existed? They were not man (homo sapiens) were they animals instead?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Darwin in a test tube: Scientists make molecules that evolve, compete, mimick behavior of Darwin’s finches
April 29th, 2009
As described in an article published this week in an advance, online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research shows that when different species directly compete for the same finite resource, only the fittest will survive. The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources, the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized, each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.
Thought it was appropriate.
LMAO and LMAO and LMAO . . . . wheew, I will read the link,
But oh Sweet Jesus - I got the biggest kick out of your post . . .
You missed it didn’t you . . . . I’ll type it slowly
Scientist . . . Make . . . Molecules … . That . . . Evolve!
Creation and Evolution combined in a practical testable experiment!!
LMAO . . . . got to breath . . . . LMAO[/quote]
I’m gonna go ahead and assume you didn’t read the article. This is a major scientific break through that supports the idea of evolution as a whole. Seriously. No joke. This kind of thing could lead to the discovery of true abiogenisis and bio-computing. It is all very exciting.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Darwin in a test tube: Scientists make molecules that evolve, compete, mimick behavior of Darwin’s finches
April 29th, 2009
As described in an article published this week in an advance, online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research shows that when different species directly compete for the same finite resource, only the fittest will survive. The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources, the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized, each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.
Thought it was appropriate.
If that is the one you wish to choose, OK. But if I were you I’d choose one that discusses evolution at a higher taxonomic level. It sounds like the book you mentioned is discussing microevolution - something of which I am already convinced.
The reason I say that is you mentioned “species” twice and implied adaptation within that species. Think it over and make sure that’s the book you want to use for our deal.[/quote]
Not a book, just a recent breakthrough study. It really isn’t entirely relevant, but I figured this thread is probably as on topic as it is gonna get.
As for a book… once again, I couldn’t tell ya. I’ve read a few I really loved, but I borrowed those from friends. I’ll try to get the titles for ya.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Darwin in a test tube: Scientists make molecules that evolve, compete, mimick behavior of Darwin’s finches
April 29th, 2009
As described in an article published this week in an advance, online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research shows that when different species directly compete for the same finite resource, only the fittest will survive. The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources, the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized, each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.
Thought it was appropriate.
LMAO and LMAO and LMAO . . . . wheew, I will read the link,
But oh Sweet Jesus - I got the biggest kick out of your post . . .
You missed it didn’t you . . . . I’ll type it slowly
Scientist . . . Make . . . Molecules … . That . . . Evolve!
Creation and Evolution combined in a practical testable experiment!!
LMAO . . . . got to breath . . . . LMAO
I’m gonna go ahead and assume you didn’t read the article. This is a major scientific break through that supports the idea of evolution as a whole. Seriously. No joke. This kind of thing could lead to the discovery of true abiogenisis and bio-computing. It is all very exciting.
[/quote]
His point was that it was an experiment designed by intelligent beings. This will get pointed out any time an experiment is done showing the possibility of spontaneous evolution.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Darwin in a test tube: Scientists make molecules that evolve, compete, mimick behavior of Darwin’s finches
April 29th, 2009
As described in an article published this week in an advance, online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research shows that when different species directly compete for the same finite resource, only the fittest will survive. The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources, the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized, each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.
Thought it was appropriate.
LMAO and LMAO and LMAO . . . . wheew, I will read the link,
But oh Sweet Jesus - I got the biggest kick out of your post . . .
You missed it didn’t you . . . . I’ll type it slowly
Scientist . . . Make . . . Molecules … . That . . . Evolve!
Creation and Evolution combined in a practical testable experiment!!
LMAO . . . . got to breath . . . . LMAO
I’m gonna go ahead and assume you didn’t read the article. This is a major scientific break through that supports the idea of evolution as a whole. Seriously. No joke. This kind of thing could lead to the discovery of true abiogenisis and bio-computing. It is all very exciting.
His point was that it was an experiment designed by intelligent beings. This will get pointed out any time an experiment is done showing the possibility of spontaneous evolution. [/quote]
Oh. Gotcha. Didn’t quite catch that. That really wasn’t the point of the experiment, however…
So… yeah… 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Tell you what. We’ll engage in a little quid pro quo. I know you are not opposed to reading. In fact, I strongly suspect you are an avid reader. So here’s the deal, I recommend a book on creation and you agree to read it in its entirety. You do the same for me with evolution and I agree to the same terms. What say you?
That sounds like an excellent deal.
I propose the Origins of Humankind by Richard E. Leakey. Granted, it deals primarily with human evolution, but I figure that’s the most interesting kind for people of our species.
What is your suggestion for me?
I have a couple in mind. I was going to go dig them out of my library which right now is a bunch of boxes.
Ah what the heck, I know the one that I learned the most from: The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris. Incidentally, Varq, he worked at the University of Minnesota, where he was awarded a master’s degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950).
I’ll go easy on you and say only read Parts I and II for our deal. That’s 278 measly lil ol’ pages.
Beowulf, how’s that sound to you? (Crap, I have to read two books and each of you only has to read one) ;-)[/quote]
PM me the title/author so I’ll have a record of it when I move back down state for the summer. I’ll be able to get you a book then as well.
EDIT: And for the love of God, BeOwolf. O not U. DX
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I have a couple in mind. I was going to go dig them out of my library which right now is a bunch of boxes.
Ah what the heck, I know the one that I learned the most from: The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris. Incidentally, Varq, he worked at the University of Minnesota, where he was awarded a master’s degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950).
I’ll go easy on you and say only read Parts I and II for our deal. That’s 278 measly lil ol’ pages.
Beowulf, how’s that sound to you? (Crap, I have to read two books and each of you only has to read one) ;-)[/quote]
Cool. I’ll look for it tomorrow.
Leakey has written a number of books, but I like his Origins series the best. If you were to read all three, you would get a sense of the evolution, so to speak, of his own thoughts on the matter, but Origins of Humankind, the most recent, is probably the most accessible of the bunch.
I do hope you’ll give him as fair a shake as I plan to give Dr. Morris. If we search for truth, we’re bound to find it in the damnedest places. Conversely, if we’ve made up our minds about the matter beforehand, we won’t find the truth even when it’s right in front of our faces.
Cheers.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varq, I gotta admit this is a whole lot easier than exchanging gunfire. But shootin’ at each other might be more fun and the adrenaline high would’ve been a kick.[/quote]
I’m sure we’ll find some other irreconcilable difference of opinion to shoot at each other over.
Like, say, blondes versus brunettes, pancakes versus waffles, rib eye versus porterhouse, Irish whiskey versus Scots whisky… the list goes on and on.
Oh, and we still have yet to settle the burning question of whether or not a black slave is worth as much as an unborn fetus. That was an arm wrestling match, if I’m not mistaken.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Tell you what. We’ll engage in a little quid pro quo. I know you are not opposed to reading. In fact, I strongly suspect you are an avid reader. So here’s the deal, I recommend a book on creation and you agree to read it in its entirety. You do the same for me with evolution and I agree to the same terms. What say you?
That sounds like an excellent deal.
I propose the Origins of Humankind by Richard E. Leakey. Granted, it deals primarily with human evolution, but I figure that’s the most interesting kind for people of our species.
What is your suggestion for me?
I have a couple in mind. I was going to go dig them out of my library which right now is a bunch of boxes.
Ah what the heck, I know the one that I learned the most from: The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris. Incidentally, Varq, he worked at the University of Minnesota, where he was awarded a master’s degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950).
[b]^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[1]
PM me the title/author so I’ll have a record of it when I move back down state for the summer. I’ll be able to get you a book then as well.
[/quote]
…Ok fine I’ll PM it to myself. I’d write it down somewhere but I’d lose it in the next week or two. It was for convenience.
I’ll shove it in a terminal note or something.
-
/b ↩︎
…many of these scientists are from a time when it was unusual to have no religious affiliation, and when it was even dangerous to your health to come out and say you didn’t believe. I’d say they did their research inspite of their religious upbringing…
…well perhaps, but it has nothing to do with science. You can’t even formulate a hypothesis on the existence of that external cause, can you?
…your evidence for this creator is circumstancial at best, but all you have is hearsay. That is no basis for scientific research, at all. Besides, you want to understand the mind of your god? Is that even possible?
[quote]My faith and my reason cannot be separated . . . I cannot believe something I cannot understand, and I must understand what I believe - it’s no wonder you mock people of faith, if you insist on such a retarded separation.
But, to be perfectly honest, even you do not separate your beliefs from your science - you believe there is no God and you build that into your scientific reasoning . . .[/quote]
…you are confused: there are many things i don’t understand, but because these things are either proven to exist, or their existence is tangible and factual, i don’t have to believe in them. You [general you] don’t believe in facts…
…the existence of the christian god is moot to me. If he exist, he is/was probably an extra-terrestrial who felt like playing with his genetic experiments, but when he saw he failed, he bailed. The christian god is an antropomorphic collage of man’s insecurities, wishes, ignorance and doubt rolled into one. Just like i do not have an active disbelief in Santa Claus or the easter bunny, i do not have an active disbelief in your god. Santa Claus, the easter bunny and the christian god are equal to me…
[quote]pushharder wrote:When you understand that people like Eph and Jab are every bit as faithful, dogmatic, and zealous as any religious person ever was, it all falls into place.
They detest “faith” and smother it with derogatory terms like “magic” but they are indeed the priests of their very own church. I honestly believe some of them would, if they could, burn heretics at the stake for disputing the creed of the Church of the Hallowed Darwin. [/quote]
…making me out to be like one of you just won’t cut it. I’m happy to let you wallow in your own stupidity and leave you be…