That’s just illogical. If you have truth that can be measured, you don’t need the silly wager. It’s only when you don’t have evidence so can’t judge based on the merits that atheism becomes a question. If you gave some reasonable evidence, 95% of all the atheists out there would concede the point. It’s that lack of evidence that most of them base their position on. Pascal’s Wager is invoked to justify belief in God because there is no evidence to convince the atheist, so something else is required. So again I have to ask, which God, which religion, which set of religious beliefs and practices, which ceremonies and rites?

And how do we know that God would accept our belief based upon some silly Wager anyway? After all, he’s omniscient – he knows what we’re thinking. Do you think he’s approve of someone who believes out of fear? How do you prove God isn’t the type who wants us to use this reasoning process he infested us with? Didn’t he give us this brain, this ability to think, to reason? What if he wants us to use it, and would hold it against us for using the lazy out of believing just because it’s easier?

Also, Pascal’s Wager is based on the assumption that once you’re dead, there’s no second chance to decide. We are born on Earth and live some limited time here with primitive and unsure access to information about god and what he wants, and then we die where we will spend Eternity. Eternity – say it again to make sure you get the comparison – a blip of time to think and decide, and an Eternity to experience the consequences. And God requires that we decide before we know the answer. What? Once you’re dead, it’s too late. Nevermind that that’s the first time most of us get anything like convincing evidence – experience the truth yourself. Why is it that I can be a murderer and rapist and cannibal and mean and spiteful and vicious for my whole life but choose to believe at the last second while alive and get into heaven, but be a decent, loving, polite, pleasant, kind person all my life but wait until after I’m dead to decide and have to go to Hell? That’s a loving God?

>Now, if you have undeniable evidence that evolution most certainly did occur, then go ahead.

Mutation occurs. Natural selection occurs. Genetic recombination occurs. Variation in traits occurs. Sexual selection occurs. Changes in characteristics of species occur. These are all demonstrated in the laboratory and in the wild. Evolution certainly did occur.

Now if you mean that these processes are the sum total of processes that lead to the development and diversity of life on this planet, that’s a little less certain. But they certainly played a role, and we have yet to identify where they are insufficient. As for origins of life from non-life, the details there have not been discovered yet, but scientists are working on it. There are good pointers in the nature of organic molecules in asteroids, and in the ability of some complex molecules to form on inorganic (clay) structures. There are good ideas related to the heat and pressure from early bombardment of Earth, and in undersea vents.

I recently had a talk with my genetics professor at UNL regarding evolutionary biology. He kindly provided me with information to argue your points. I haven’t successfully found proof on the internet that what he has told me is true, though I can not disagree with him, from what I’ve learned. If you understand genetics at all, you will understand that what I am about to tell you is logical.

“About mutations. The variations, what you are describing, are limited by the gene pool.” The current assumption is that variations are limited by the gene pool of that generation, but the next generation will have a different gene pool, and the next will have a different as well. Every generation will have a different gene pool due to relatively high frequency of mutations. In addition, new genes can be produced, mostly due to mutations. New genes can code for new traits, thus enhancing the gene pool and allowing “better” (for lack of a better word) species to arise.
“If one devolopes down syndrome (has one extra chromosome), they would probably be infertile and very incapable of survival. They would still be the same species, however.”
You’re correct with the infertile and very incapable of survival part. And they are, still, the same species. HOWEVER, it is not simply the addition of ONE chromosome that forms a new species, it is the addition or deletion of an ENTIRE SET of chromosomes that forms a new species. This does occur naturally when a cell’s chromosomes spontaneously duplicate. It is rare, but it still occurs. It can also be induced by the introduction of colchicine, which hinders the formation of spindle fibers that attach to the centromeres of the chromosomes to pull them apart during meiosis or mitosis. Therefore, one cell (or two, depending on which process and at what stage) is formed with an extra set of chromosomes. It can lastly be accomplished by the binding of two different diploid or polyploid cells.
“Also, it may be noted that horses have 72 chromosomes, we have 46 chromosomes, and rice, I believe, has over 200 chromosomes. Chickens have around 8 chromosomes.”
I don’t care.
“It must be said that, if new chromosomes were added as you have described, then we should be seeing new species showing up all the time. What you have described can create a species in a few generations.”
Sorry that I explained this process incorrectly before. But look above and you’ll understand.

“I would like to clarify “variationâ€? (change in the code) change in the size of the DNA.”
What?
“The second doesn’t happen very often, and usually is a bad mutation (such as being bombarded with gamma radiation. Your DNA may change, but not orderly as in reproduction, which chooses from a gene pool. Usually, radiation=death). I hope this makes something clear.”
Still lost here. A bad mutation isn’t being bombarded with gamma radiation. Gamma radiation causes damage to the backbone of DNA (the sugars and phosphates) which, unfortunately, completely destroys the viability of the polymer in gametes. So yes, gamma radiation=death. However, it is only the cells that are actually affected by gamma radiation that die. So what does this have to do with genetic variation?

I suggest you read this page, in its entirety: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html. If you have any questions or don’t understand something, I will explain it to you. But you need to read it and understand it before you make any further assumptions regarding genetic mutation, variation, etc.

If I remember correctly, Uranium-Lead dating is usually used as a secondary dating method, the most reliable, acurate, and most often used technique is Potassium-Argon dating. K-Ar dating is usually the first method used and then the numer obtained is compared with other dating methods including U-Pb dating, if the dating obtained from each of the methods agree with each other within the margin of error listed above then we can conclude that the rock had not been significantly altered during the course of it’s lifetime.

I would also suggest reviewing the process of radioactive decay and the defintion of half-life at some the following sites as what you said in your last entry did not make any sense at all.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/radioactivity/radioactivity.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit (section 2.1 near the bottom of the page will be helpful)

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/lawdecay.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

You are also correct that the daughter products of Uranium decay much faster than Uranium itself, but the actual decay of Uranium into these other radioisotopes is constant and is NOT affected by any natural processes.

Sorry, I was wrong. However, elements above plutonium and americinium usually have half lives of less than a second, correct?