gold wrote: ...> (Some qestions induced by Satan in our brain after all Satan wants > to sway us away from the God's Path)So the satan god undermines the jehovah god and you call that monotheism? ... Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
For DSP Evolutionist!! (Free Book)!! Read It During Christmas Holidays.
Started by ●December 22, 2005
Reply by ●December 23, 20052005-12-23
Reply by ●December 23, 20052005-12-23
> when He intends to do He Says "Be"."To do is to be" - Descartes "To be is to do" - Sartre "Do be do be do" - Sinatra Happy Christmas ===================== Chris
Reply by ●December 24, 20052005-12-24
"Chris Bore" <chris.bore@gmail.com> writes:>> when He intends to do He Says "Be". > > "To do is to be" - Descartes > "To be is to do" - Sartre > "Do be do be do" - Sinatra > > Happy Christmas > ===================== > ChrisAnd likewise, Chris. Thanks for the smile! -- % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall." %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Reply by ●December 24, 20052005-12-24
gold wrote:> Hi DSP Gurus, > ... > GoldI see a common recurring problem in discussions about evolution. The assumption seems to be that if God exists, then evolutionary processes do not, and vice versa. We may gain some clarity by separating the "battle flag" of evolution from the God question. Each may then be addressed with less confusion. The evolution issue is easy, even tediously simple for the numerate. Ever notice how antibiotics are becoming less effective? To avoid evolution, all parents must raise the same number of children, all of which must be borne at the same parental ages. Not convinced? Take two equally sized populations and posit that one of them develops an inheritable one per cent reproductive advantage. A 1% advantage, while modest, is easily achieved. It may be as simple as having the women start bearing children 1% earlier (10 weeks earlier for women 20 years of age). You would be unlikely to notice or remark on such a change, yet after 70 generations (1400 years) the favoured population would be twice the size of the other. Fractional numbers could be assumed to indicate gestation in progress. After 32 such doublings (44800 years), for every 6 billion of the total population, there would be only 1.5 people in the non-favoured group. In practice, mountains, oceans and political barriers would prevent such a clean sweep. Assuming that we have only been here for only 6600 years (a common assertion), the favoured group would by now outnumber the other by 26 to 1. The question is not whether evolution happens. The question is: does any other significant factor exist at all? If we are to understand the issue, we may be well advised to examine the factors which have prevented this from occurring. If you run the C program below, you can experiment by editing the figures for generation length, growth factor, etc. // evolve.c #include <stdio.h> main() { int genyrs = 20; // generation length in years int gencnt = 70; // number of generations to run double pop = 1.0; // starting population double adv = 1.01; // reproductive advantage int i = 0; // loop counter printf ("\nCalculate generational population growth\n"); printf ("\nGeneration Growth factor Years"); printf ("\n---------- ------------- -----------"); for (i = 0; i <= gencnt; i++) { printf ("\n %02d %f %i", i, pop, i * genyrs); pop *= adv; // growth happens here } printf ("\nSo there!\n"); } Many issues pop out of the woodwork (my head) on examining program run results. One per cent was chosen as a modest preferential growth factor. Consider - what would the reproductive advantage of parental love of their children be? If you assume only very small figures, the population would rapidly consist of only loving parents and reproductive errors (sociopaths). In fact if love did not 'work', it would soon be dispensed with. I might as well stop now, the issue is susceptible to endless elaboration. Jim A.
Reply by ●December 24, 20052005-12-24
Jim Adamthwaite wrote: ...> We may gain some clarity by separating the "battle flag" of > evolution from the God question. Each may then be addressed with less > confusion. > > The evolution issue is easy, even tediously simple for the numerate.[simple demonstration snipped] That's far too logical and straightforward, Jim, for anybody to be convinced by it. If you could find a way to clothe it in bombast and other trappings of fervor, you would become a Prophet. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 24, 20052005-12-24
"Jim Adamthwaite" <secad@netspace.net.au> wrote in message news:doitqs$1uf7$1@otis.netspace.net.au...> > The evolution issue is easy, even tediously simple for the > numerate. >Sounds like a round-about way of saying, "figures don't lie, but liars do figure!" I hate to break the bad news, but both sides of this argument are starting from a set of irrational, improbable assumptions. Why should I believe that modern-day humans evolved from apes? Why should I believe that humans were created (once only) from clay and then evolved (there's that word again) into 4 or 5 distinct races, and that these races subsequently remained essentially unchanged for millennia? Both of these sound like children's fairy tales. Douglas Adams' story about the Earth being populated by a load of hairdressers and middle-managers from a crashed spacecraft who subsequently killed-off their hominid competitors and then "went native" because they had never really mastered their own advanced technologies is more logically consistent than any of the stupid theories being bandied about in the mainstream. More to the point, only the descendents of a boat load of hairdressers and middle-managers could invent such stupid theories as "evolution" and "creation" to explain their existence.
Reply by ●December 24, 20052005-12-24
John E. Hadstate wrote:> "Jim Adamthwaite" <secad@netspace.net.au> wrote in message > news:doitqs$1uf7$1@otis.netspace.net.au... > > >>The evolution issue is easy, even tediously simple for the >>numerate. >> > > > Sounds like a round-about way of saying, "figures don't lie, > but liars do figure!" > > I hate to break the bad news, but both sides of this > argument are starting from a set of irrational, improbable > assumptions. > > Why should I believe that modern-day humans evolved from > apes? Why should I believe that humans were created (once > only) from clay and then evolved (there's that word again) > into 4 or 5 distinct races, and that these races > subsequently remained essentially unchanged for millennia? > Both of these sound like children's fairy tales. > > Douglas Adams' story about the Earth being populated by a > load of hairdressers and middle-managers from a crashed > spacecraft who subsequently killed-off their hominid > competitors and then "went native" because they had never > really mastered their own advanced technologies is more > logically consistent than any of the stupid theories being > bandied about in the mainstream. More to the point, only > the descendents of a boat load of hairdressers and > middle-managers could invent such stupid theories as > "evolution" and "creation" to explain their existence.Humans came from apes, but not only from apes. Have you considered why fetal pigs are objects of dissection in courses on human anatomy? Where do you think Caucasians' pink skin came from, anyway? Dark skin is from our simian precursors, and light from out porcine. There are taboos against eating pork and primate meat in many societies, just as most have taboos against cannibalism. Now you know why. Here's how it came about: Long ago, a disabled spaceship landed on Earth. Repairs required more effort than the crew alone could exert, and there were no native species that could be recruited. Being expert geneticists, the crew combined porcine and anthropoid genes to create -- pretty much in their own form -- work gangs with sufficient intelligence and communication skills for mining, smelting, and other chores. When the aliens left, they may have taken some of their creations with them, but they left most behind. They returned at least twice; one occasion is described in the Book of Ezekiel, the other, when they told me about it. The Ezekiel account is interesting. They used personal helicopters in the atmosphere powered by small jet engines at the tips of the rotors. To ensure against airborne pathogens, they wore canister-style respirators like http://www.kimdara.com/photochron/gas_mask.jpg or http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/equipment/gas-mask.jpg. It's no wonder that Zeke wrote of circles of fire and dog-faced beings. So there you have it folks, right down to who the Creators were. Jerry -- If you swallow that whole, there's more I can feed you. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 24, 20052005-12-24
John E. Hadstate wrote: > "Jim Adamthwaite" <secad@netspace.net.au> wrote in message news:doitqs$1uf7$1@otis.netspace.net.au... > > >> The evolution issue is easy, even tediously simple for the numerate. >> > > > Sounds like a round-about way of saying, "figures don't lie, but liars do figure!" > > I hate to break the bad news, but both sides of this argument are starting from a set of irrational, improbable assumptions. > > Why should I believe that modern-day humans evolved from apes? Why should I believe that humans were created (once only) from clay and then evolved (there's that word again) into 4 or 5 distinct races, and that these races subsequently remained essentially unchanged for millennia? Both of these sound like children's fairy tales. > > Douglas Adams' story about the Earth being populated by a load of hairdressers and middle-managers from a crashed spacecraft who subsequently killed-off their hominid competitors and then "went native" because they had never really mastered their own advanced technologies is more logically consistent than any of the stupid theories being bandied about in the mainstream. More to the point, only the descendents of a boat load of hairdressers and middle-managers could invent such stupid theories as "evolution" and "creation" to explain their existence. Humans came from apes, but not only from apes. Have you considered why fetal pigs are objects of dissection in courses on human anatomy? Where do you think Caucasians' pink skin came from, anyway? Dark skin is from our simian precursors, and light from our porcine. There are taboos against eating pork and primate meat in many societies, just as most have taboos against cannibalism. Now you know why. Here's how it came about: Long ago, a disabled spaceship landed on Earth. Repairs required more effort than the crew alone could exert, and there were no native species that could be recruited. Being expert geneticists, the crew combined porcine and anthropoid genes to create -- pretty much in their own form -- work gangs with sufficient intelligence and communication skills for mining, smelting, and other chores. When the aliens left, they may have taken some of their creations with them, but they left most behind. They returned at least twice; one occasion is described in the Book of Ezekiel, the other, when they told me about it. The Ezekiel account is interesting. They used personal helicopters in the atmosphere powered by small jet engines at the tips of the rotors. To ensure against airborne pathogens, they wore canister-style respirators like http://www.kimdara.com/photochron/gas_mask.jpg or http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/equipment/gas-mask.jpg. It's no wonder that Zeke wrote of circles of fire and dog-faced beings. So there you have it folks, right down to who the Creators were. Jerry -- If you swallow that whole, there's more I can feed you. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 24, 20052005-12-24
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:37:31 +1100, Jim Adamthwaite <secad@netspace.net.au> wrote:> >gold wrote: > >> Hi DSP Gurus, >> ... >> Gold > >I see a common recurring problem in discussions about evolution. >The assumption seems to be that if God exists, then evolutionary >processes do not, and vice versa. >The problem for the people who adore that middle eastern god is that Evolution conflicts with Genesis, and Genesis is *RIGHT*, period!
Reply by ●December 24, 20052005-12-24
In article <VMerf.23444$Qa1.9699@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "John E. Hadstate" <jh113355@hotmail.com> wrote:> >Douglas Adams' story about the Earth being populated by a >load of hairdressers and middle-managers from a crashed >spacecraft who subsequently killed-off their hominid >competitors and then "went native" because they had never >really mastered their own advanced technologies is more >logically consistent than any of the stupid theories being >bandied about in the mainstream. More to the point, only >the descendents of a boat load of hairdressers and >middle-managers could invent such stupid theories as >"evolution" and "creation" to explain their existence.That doesn't work since human beings have approximately 65% of their DNA in common with flatworms, for example. I think it would be more accurate to say that all the different kinds of creatures on earth have a common ancestor species. I think it isn't true scientifically that people are decended from monkeys. I think it more nearly correct to say that people and monkeys are decended from a common ancestor species. The branch occurred several million years ago.
