Seems the nature of science is to put forth a hypothesis and then find facts to prove the hypothesis while ignoring those that don’t fit. (Kind of what your blaming the other side of doing.) All these supposedly great minds on these internet forums and not one of you realizes that the truth PROBABLY encompasses elements from both.
well if that is what science means to you, you are just playing with words.
Science is by definition intolerant for you have defined it so.
why not, have fun…
Sucks when the tables get turned like that huh?
To turn that table you have to do better .
Like singlehandedly undo the Enlightenment. [/quote]
Thanks for setting the rules for me again Mr. Pot.
And the word of God is very clear that Christians are to be evangelists at home and to the ends of the earth. Every single Christian was saved because someone else shared the gospel with them. As Romans 10:14 says: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
[/quote]
This seems like an unconventional system of marketing… something like Amway. Does this make message board proselytizers spammers?
[quote]
btm62 wrote:
Seems the nature of science is to put forth a hypothesis and then find facts to prove the hypothesis while ignoring those that don’t fit.[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
So he is on my side of the fence, he may be a fanatic, but it is still not the same, because his fanaticism has nothing to do with him being a scientist.[/quote]
Then you and I have a fundamental disagreement on how and where to apply the term “fanatic”.
I guess youside of the fence is perfect. Must be nice.
Does that include evolution? Because if it does, then Pope John Paul II is roasting right now.
Did you ever hear me claim that Pope John Paul II was a Christian?
Not only did he believe in a works-based salvation and the worship of false idols, but he led millions down the same path. Now I can’t say for sure that he was not converted on his deathbed, so I’m not going to say that I know for a fact that he is in Hell.
So unless he converted to your whack job beliefs he’s going to hell? Are you kidding?
That man was a better man than most and led an incredible life. He himself is the only reason I still consider myself a Catholic, knowing that amongst all the assholes in that Church, a man as brilliant and noble as he could rise.
That’s ballsy, saying that my pope is burning in hell. I like you less and less everyday.[/quote]
I’m Jewish, but I have Catholic friends. They’d not let someone make such insensate comments like that and get away with it.
This forum if not whole site is spoiled by a minority of truculent individuals. Its one thing being in disagreement for ones attitudes or to bicker, but to openly show enmity for various religous groups and gays is completely ignominious.
When I say openly, most are actually cloaking their attitudes without having to resort to diatribe. Maybe its not so obvious to the majority, but it is to me. On that note, I think I’ll exit.
You can’t have a think tank, when there are people with the intellect and integrity of feculence.
I’m Jewish, but I have Catholic friends. They’d not let someone make such insensate comments like that and get away with it.
This forum if not whole site is spoiled by a minority of truculent individuals. Its one thing being in disagreement for ones attitudes or to bicker, but to openly show enmity for various religous groups and gays is completely ignominious.
When I say openly, most are actually cloaking their attitudes without having to resort to diatribe. Maybe its not so obvious to the majority, but it is to me. On that note, I think I’ll exit.
You can’t have a think tank, when there are people with the intellect and integrity of feculence.[/quote]
Does it not strike you that you are showing enmity towards my religion?
I don’t know why you two are so shocked at my comment. I said that if he wasn’t a born again Christian, (which I did not claim to know if he was or not) then he went to hell. I have never deviated from that message, and I have never claimed that if you are a good enough person you are somehow exempt. So once again, why are you so shocked? This is what the Bible says. But don’t take my word for it, read it for yourselves.
(BTW, I don’t think that the posters on this site are really considered part of the “think tank”.)
Does that include evolution? Because if it does, then Pope John Paul II is roasting right now.
Did you ever hear me claim that Pope John Paul II was a Christian?
Not only did he believe in a works-based salvation and the worship of false idols, but he led millions down the same path. Now I can’t say for sure that he was not converted on his deathbed, so I’m not going to say that I know for a fact that he is in Hell.
So unless he converted to your whack job beliefs he’s going to hell? Are you kidding?
That man was a better man than most and led an incredible life. He himself is the only reason I still consider myself a Catholic, knowing that amongst all the assholes in that Church, a man as brilliant and noble as he could rise.
That’s ballsy, saying that my pope is burning in hell. I like you less and less everyday.[/quote]
JP II should be considered a ‘Great’ pope, one of the best ever. Of course, according to Harris, JP II should suck his dick.
I’m Jewish, but I have Catholic friends. They’d not let someone make such insensate comments like that and get away with it.
This forum if not whole site is spoiled by a minority of truculent individuals. Its one thing being in disagreement for ones attitudes or to bicker, but to openly show enmity for various religous groups and gays is completely ignominious.
When I say openly, most are actually cloaking their attitudes without having to resort to diatribe. Maybe its not so obvious to the majority, but it is to me. On that note, I think I’ll exit.
You can’t have a think tank, when there are people with the intellect and integrity of feculence.
Does it not strike you that you are showing enmity towards my religion?
I don’t know why you two are so shocked at my comment. I said that if he wasn’t a born again Christian, (which I did not claim to know if he was or not) then he went to hell. I have never deviated from that message, and I have never claimed that if you are a good enough person you are somehow exempt. So once again, why are you so shocked? This is what the Bible says. But don’t take my word for it, read it for yourselves.
(BTW, I don’t think that the posters on this site are really considered part of the “think tank”.)[/quote]
No worries about the Pope guys. If he did go to hell it was “born again christian” hell, which of course only exists in their minds. Maybe JPII’s heaven will be getting to save born again christians from the fires of their own self-righteousness
I am sorry if anything about my approach has made you guys angry. I am still sinful, so my own feelings will at times come through rather than the pure gospel. So I am sorry about that.
But I maintain that the gospel itself is an offensive message, as Jesus Himself clearly states. I have found in the past that if I sugar-coat the difficult parts of the gospel at all, it is nearly impossible to eventually bring out the truth.
Anyway, I think I have probably said all I can say here. Since I was saved six months ago I have had a real burden to bring this message to you guys because I feel like I know many of you. I think I have done that now, and I can’t argue you into the faith. So I think my T-Nation days are over.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
I am sorry if anything about my approach has made you guys angry. I am still sinful, so my own feelings will at times come through rather than the pure gospel. So I am sorry about that.
But I maintain that the gospel itself is an offensive message, as Jesus Himself clearly states. I have found in the past that if I sugar-coat the difficult parts of the gospel at all, it is nearly impossible to eventually bring out the truth.
Anyway, I think I have probably said all I can say here. Since I was saved six months ago I have had a real burden to bring this message to you guys because I feel like I know many of you. I think I have done that now, and I can’t argue you into the faith. So I think my T-Nation days are over.
I will continue to pray for many of you.
[/quote]
Yes, we only want to hear about the gospel, not about YOUR thoughts. Because your very own feelings are sinful in essence. We know this since some guys told us it’s in that book which everyone understands differently and which is being rewritten and reinterpreted constantly for over two thousand years.
It also seems to be a good idea to join the reclusive fellowship of hardcore christians because there is NO chance at all that you can be wrong on any issue, since they told you how to understand that book. And since you tried your best -to save us from the painful fire torture of your loving (irony?)lord, who is gonna crucify us for all eternity for not understanding his spiritual jigsaw and following the proper rites- you should give up now and solely post on forums which…
oh crap
JPBear, I’m now gonna cut out the childish cynism since I’m really starting to feel sad…
For you. And also for us.
I’ll try to be honest and serious.
The thread started interesting and provocative.
There was no major namecalling from the nonreligous side (at least till you implied that the late Pope was roasting in hell for his great sin that he wasn’t born in America and thus had no chance to understand the bible newborn-style)
The other side really tried to explain science, or better, what science is not and why a theory doesn’t mean that it’s 100% true yet still the best thing we have to shape the world into something humane we all wanna live in.
Tell you what. If you really think a big old book, stitched together and -even according to you- misinterpreted through hundreds of years contains all ultimate truths, then try to be so honest and study the old texts by yourself. Don’t let others tell you how to think.
And learning a thing or two about history would also help.
I really hope you come to your senses.
You archdevotional guys never fail to give me the creeps.
Oh oh, the creationists had better avert their eyes or risk going out in blaze like a demon entering a church in a horror movie…
UF scientists discover evolutionary origin of fins, limbs
Gainesville, Fla. – Performance on the dance floor may not always show it, but people are rarely born with two left feet. We have genes that instruct our arms and legs to grow in the right places and point in the right directions. They also provide for the spaces between our fingers and toes and every other formative detail of our limbs.
Evolutionarily speaking, the genetic instructions used to construct and position our limbs were being perfected more than half a billion years ago in fishes, not along the sides of the body where the fins that preceded human arms and legs sprouted, but at the midline that runs along the backbone and belly.
This midline – think of the dorsal, tail and anal fins of a fish - is where the genetic template to produce fins originated, about 100 million years before paired fins evolved and about 200 million years before paired fins evolved into limbs, according to University of Florida genetics researchers. The findings, published online today in the journal Nature, also provide insight into the evolutionary history of genes involved in human birth defects.
“Given that paired fins made their evolutionary debut at a particular location on the sides of the body, intuitively one would think the genetic tools for fin development would be brought together in that place,” said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, Ph.D., an associate professor with the UF departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology and a member of the UF Genetics Institute. “We’ve discovered that the genetic circuitry for building limbs first appeared in an entirely different place - the midline of the animal.”
The appearance of paired fins on the sides of early vertebrates was a major evolutionary innovation toward fin - and eventually limb - locomotion, Cohn said. The earliest fishes lacked paired fins, similar to the modern-day lamprey - a species of jawless fish with a dorsal fin and tail but no side fins - considered by biologists to share many features with the ancestor of all vertebrates.
“The emergence of paired appendages was a critical event in the evolution of vertebrates,” Cohn said. “The fossil record provides clear evidence that the first fins evolved along the midline. The sequence of evolutionary events leading to the origin of limbs has been known for some time, but only now are we deciphering how these events occurred at a molecular genetic level.”
Researchers isolated genes from the spotted catshark, a type of slow-moving shark from the eastern Atlantic Ocean. By studying the activity of a dozen genes in shark embryos, they determined shark median fin development is associated with the presence of genes such as HoxD, Fgf8 and Tbx18, which are vital in the development of human limbs.
They also used molecular markers for different cell types to determine which cells give rise to the median fins, finding that they arise from the same cells that form the vertebrae. These same genes dictate the emergence of symmetrical pairs of fins on the animal sides, showing a shared developmental mechanism in completely different locations, according to Renata Freitas and GuangJun Zhang, co-authors of the paper and graduate students in UF’s zoology department.
Extending their genetic analysis to the lamprey - a living relic from the time before fish had paired fins - researchers found the same genetic cues in place.
“That we see these same mechanisms operating in lamprey fins tells us they must have been assembled in the median fins first, and later in evolution this entire genetic program was simply reutilized in a new position to build the first paired fins,” Cohn said. “It tells us our own arms and legs have their evolutionary roots in the dorsal, caudal and anal fins of our fishy ancestors.”
Many of these genetic mechanisms are involved in human birth defects, which provide insight into the evolutionary history of genes and their functions.
“Knowing that many of these genes are responsible for limb defects in humans is intriguing,” Cohn said. “What we’ve done is identify where those developmental pathways originated during our evolutionary past and how they became involved in limb development.”
Learning the mechanics of development enriches our understanding of evolution, according to Ann Campbell Burke, Ph.D., an associate professor of biology at Wesleyan University who was not connected with the study.
“Using modern molecular techniques, this confirms in a lovely way an idea that’s been around for over 100 years about how paired fins may have evolved in the first place,” Burke said. “To translate a 19th century observation about fin development into modern molecular data is a great thing for science. It has become increasingly important to understand developmental processes in our attempts to understand evolution.”
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh oh, the creationists had better avert their eyes or risk going out in blaze like a demon entering a church in a horror movie…
UF scientists discover evolutionary origin of fins, limbs
Gainesville, Fla. – Performance on the dance floor may not always show it, but people are rarely born with two left feet. We have genes that instruct our arms and legs to grow in the right places and point in the right directions. They also provide for the spaces between our fingers and toes and every other formative detail of our limbs.
Evolutionarily speaking, the genetic instructions used to construct and position our limbs were being perfected more than half a billion years ago in fishes, not along the sides of the body where the fins that preceded human arms and legs sprouted, but at the midline that runs along the backbone and belly.
This midline – think of the dorsal, tail and anal fins of a fish - is where the genetic template to produce fins originated, about 100 million years before paired fins evolved and about 200 million years before paired fins evolved into limbs, according to University of Florida genetics researchers. The findings, published online today in the journal Nature, also provide insight into the evolutionary history of genes involved in human birth defects.
“Given that paired fins made their evolutionary debut at a particular location on the sides of the body, intuitively one would think the genetic tools for fin development would be brought together in that place,” said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, Ph.D., an associate professor with the UF departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology and a member of the UF Genetics Institute. “We’ve discovered that the genetic circuitry for building limbs first appeared in an entirely different place - the midline of the animal.”
The appearance of paired fins on the sides of early vertebrates was a major evolutionary innovation toward fin - and eventually limb - locomotion, Cohn said. The earliest fishes lacked paired fins, similar to the modern-day lamprey - a species of jawless fish with a dorsal fin and tail but no side fins - considered by biologists to share many features with the ancestor of all vertebrates.
“The emergence of paired appendages was a critical event in the evolution of vertebrates,” Cohn said. “The fossil record provides clear evidence that the first fins evolved along the midline. The sequence of evolutionary events leading to the origin of limbs has been known for some time, but only now are we deciphering how these events occurred at a molecular genetic level.”
Researchers isolated genes from the spotted catshark, a type of slow-moving shark from the eastern Atlantic Ocean. By studying the activity of a dozen genes in shark embryos, they determined shark median fin development is associated with the presence of genes such as HoxD, Fgf8 and Tbx18, which are vital in the development of human limbs.
They also used molecular markers for different cell types to determine which cells give rise to the median fins, finding that they arise from the same cells that form the vertebrae. These same genes dictate the emergence of symmetrical pairs of fins on the animal sides, showing a shared developmental mechanism in completely different locations, according to Renata Freitas and GuangJun Zhang, co-authors of the paper and graduate students in UF’s zoology department.
Extending their genetic analysis to the lamprey - a living relic from the time before fish had paired fins - researchers found the same genetic cues in place.
“That we see these same mechanisms operating in lamprey fins tells us they must have been assembled in the median fins first, and later in evolution this entire genetic program was simply reutilized in a new position to build the first paired fins,” Cohn said. “It tells us our own arms and legs have their evolutionary roots in the dorsal, caudal and anal fins of our fishy ancestors.”
Many of these genetic mechanisms are involved in human birth defects, which provide insight into the evolutionary history of genes and their functions.
“Knowing that many of these genes are responsible for limb defects in humans is intriguing,” Cohn said. “What we’ve done is identify where those developmental pathways originated during our evolutionary past and how they became involved in limb development.”
Learning the mechanics of development enriches our understanding of evolution, according to Ann Campbell Burke, Ph.D., an associate professor of biology at Wesleyan University who was not connected with the study.
“Using modern molecular techniques, this confirms in a lovely way an idea that’s been around for over 100 years about how paired fins may have evolved in the first place,” Burke said. “To translate a 19th century observation about fin development into modern molecular data is a great thing for science. It has become increasingly important to understand developmental processes in our attempts to understand evolution.”[/quote]