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?

Exactly how did you come up with the claim that the longer Uranium decays, the faster it decays? Last time I checked, the decay of radioactive elements is constant and is not affected by any natural processes.

Also, there are numerous atoms above Uranium that have half-lives much longer than a second including Americium-241(used in smoke detectors) with a half life of 432 years, Neptunium-237 with a half life of 2.1 million years, and Plutonium-244 with a half life of over 80 million years the last two of which DO occur naturally in the earth’s crust.

The current debate is whether creationalism should be taught in school science classes. As others have pointed out, religious beliefs (such as an ultra powerful all seeing invisible man creating everything) are not scientific, in that such beliefs are only backed by faith. Those beliefs can be studied in religious classes, philosophy classes, churches, etc. instead.

I’ve seen very few arguments for banning religion in schools, or religion at all, and there’s nothing wrong with believing in such things if you do. If someone was arguing that people should teach in churches that $deity doesn’t exist, and that creationalism is a falsehood which should be ignored, THAT would be wrong. And by going into a science class, and arguing that evolution is a falsehood which can be ignored, you’re doing something equally wrong. Yet that is exactly what many are arguing for.

In short, if you want to believe that we exist due to the work of God, or Budda, or Allah, or Jehovah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever, that’s your choice. Keep whatever faith you want, and pray that your group will be the one that can escape eternal damnation for being the one that was correct. But if you have nothing scientific to back it up conclusively, keep it out of science class.

I just found these forums today and this is my first post, so I hope I didn’t say anything that was too obvious.

I have, as an amateur and for personal enlightenment, researched a bit online and in books concerning calendars, sundials, astronomy, etc. My studies support that the days of the week are named after the gods, and seem to be similar in many cultures (tied to the planets). On my Sundials page, written a few years ago, I list the day names in Spanish and the equivalent names of gods.

As far as the length of a week: my (again amateur and personal interest) research leads me to think that this is tied directly to the length of time it take for the moon to cycle through its phases.

New Moon to Quarter Moon
Quarter Moon to Full Moon
Full Moon to Quarter Moon
Quarter Moon to New Moon

Each phase takes one week.

Admittedly, this isn’t exact because a lunar cycle isn’t exactly 28 days (it’s a bit more, if I remember), but it’s close.

Look at this month’s calendar, September 2005. My calendar shows the different phases on these dates:

Sunday, September 11
Sunday, September 18
Sunday, September 25

The next one is eight days later, on Monday, October 3

That’s my take on the reason for the length of a week. My web site has links to a small number of interesting sundial and astronomy sites, if anyone is interested.

Albert Franco
alfranco584@yahoo.com

The hydroplate theory began with “if there was a flood.” Looking at a description of the flood in the Bible (the fountains of the deep) and looking at the earths crust (and other information), it turned out that the theory explained why we have comets, mountains, shape of the earths crust, et cetera. Actually, I have found that it is workable into the evolutionary theory and explains the extinction of the dinosaurs and various other fossil remains better than the meteorite theory. Or the Oort cloud theory.

About mutations. The variations, what you are describing, are limited by the gene pool. 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. 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. 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.

I would like to clarify “variation” (change in the code) change in the size of the DNA. 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.

M Duke – How long do I have to go on with you about genes? You continue to ask the same question and I give you the exact same answer, yet you refuse to accept it.

“Also, you said that our genomes change rapidly for every generation. So, are we getting better?” – Yes, slowly but surely. Evolution is a process that has taken billions of years. What do you expect to see, me give birth to Superman? Every second our genes are changing, sometimes for the best and sometimes for the worst. “Are we changing much?” Look above. “Also, changing the order doesn’t do much to change into a species.” If you change the order one nucleotide at a time, and these changes occur every 20 nanoseconds, it’s quite possible to develop the characteristics of a new species over time. “Significant variations in the DNA count (size, whatever) is known to cause severe disabilities.” Maybe your argument should be a little more solid. Any kind of variation within the alleles of a gene is generally a mutation. To most, mutation is a bad word. But this is not the case: it’s simply is another form of a gene that causes a different characteristic to show than the normal gene. A mutation can be the difference between brown eyes and blue eyes. And who says these are bad? “It is also required (however slowly) to change to a new species with a new chromosome count. Do younger generations have more DNA?” In general, different species have a different number of chromosomes. There are many proven genetic processes that can explain for these different chromosome counts, including translocation and additions/deletions of genes. I don’t really know chromosome numbers of different species, but I assume that the number of chromosomes began small and grew to be larger. This can occur through the duplication of one chromosome in the gametes (egg and sperm cells) that is then passed on. Although the offspring will be genetically imbalanced, it is possible for this offspring to survive. To carry on this new chromosome to form a new species, the offspring from the previous mating must mate with themselves (brother and sister must mate = inbreeding). If this occurs, a normal progeny will be produced with the extra chromosome. I’m pretty sure I explained this correctly, but if you want to read it, go here: http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/dec97/875507503.Ge.r.html.

On to the hydroplate theory question: I didn’t need to read it to know it was incorrect because I had read so much critical evidence against it that there wasn’t any reason to begin to believe that it is true. I’d like to ask you to send me some peer-reviewed journals regarding hydroplate theory, because I’d like to know what respected professionals think of it. I’d also like you to show me how that this theory does not, in fact, work backwards, meaning it doesn’t begin with the conclusion (a great flood happened in Noah’s time). Real theories begin with a well-formulated hypothesis due to observation. Oh yeah, visit this site to find some very strong evidence against it: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm.

I believe the question regarding the calendar was already touched on, so I’ll skip that.

Now your last paragraph. I didn’t understand one bit of it except for the presence of uranium now. Maybe someone else can explain the part to you about sinking and such, but I can explain why we still have uranium. I found the following: “238U with a half-life of 4.51 x 10^9 years, has been used to estimate the age of igneous rocks. The origin of uranium, the highest member of the naturally occurring elements – except perhaps for traces of neptunium or plutonium, is not clearly understood. However it may be presumed that uranium is a decay product of elements with higher atomic weight, which may have once been present on earth or elsewhere in the universe. These original elements may have been formed as a result of a primordial creation, known as the big bang, in a supernova, or in some other stellar processes.” This site: http://www.corrosionsource.com/handbook/periodic/92.htm. There’s your explanation. Uranium’s half-life, the time required to deplete its mass by 50%, is 4.91 billion years. The universe is estimated to be around 15-20 billion years. With this in mind, there is no possible way that the uranium found in now is the same as the uranium that was found in the beginning of the universe. However, as explained above, it is generally accepted that most uranium is the product of the decay of higher-atomic mass, which are more unstable and prone to decay. If you want further proof and evidence that stars form new chemical elements, go here: http://photon.phys.clemson.edu/wwwpages/StarLife.html. It’s very interesting.

I’d also like to read this article in Popular Science about disproving the Big Bang Theory. Could you give me the information?

And lastly, I’m not Christian and I do not fear death. Why should you fear death when it’s inevitable? I will cease to function, and there’s nothing I can do about it. That’s something people need to learn to deal with. Had they already, there wouldn’t be a necessity for a god.

If I don’t believe in God, I have no reason to fear not being with him in the non-existent afterlife. I first have to believe for that outcome to have any meaning to me.

>You cannot convince God with good deeds, because they will pail in comparison to God. So the argument that one should live benevolently doesn’t work. What works is to find out what religion is true, and to act on it.

You’ve just negated Pascal’s wager yourself. The whole point of the wager is you don’t know what religion is true, there isn’t enough evidence to tell. If you have the evidence, you don’t need the ambiguous wager.

Geography now is not necessarily indicative of geography then. Much of the Middle East was much more fertile in the past. The pathway for early human expansion was likely up through the eastern part of Africa, not across the Sahara. The developments didn’t occur until after humanity had spread around the world. There really is nothing to need to explain.

>Egypt is very agriculture friendly. For one thing, the Nile floods predictibly and gives very fertile ground. The Fertile Crescent, though it is very easy to grow crops, does not flood predictibly. And Egypt is a very good place to store food. In all respects, the Nile river would have been a preferable place to settle down.

It was not just the fact that the land was conducive to farming, it took a certain amount of mental development (which is why did didn’t happen before humanity got spread around the globe) and it took a certain culmination of events and factors. Mesopotamia developed first. Diamond proposes that what sparked the swap to agriculture was actually a drought. The difficulty of finding water led to the people staying near a good water source and moving plants closer to them. I’m not sure what plants are native the the Nile delta that would have encouraged being farmed.

>>>The reasons of the head start, again, boil down to luck: the author shows how some areas had the good fortune of having both good climate (for a fairly elastic definition of good) and a good starter set of wild species that lent themselves to domestication. The luckiest ones, apparently, were the Mesopotamians that got the wild ancestors of wheat, chickpeas, flax, barley, cows, goats, pigs and other terribly useful species. Close seconds where the Chinese.
>>>Contrast that with the Central America, where the starter set was only the somewhat difficult to select corn, turkey, amaranth, beans and no large pack animal.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=826140

The day sequence is a bit debated, but the best theory is that if you consider the “planets” based upon how long it takes for each to circle the Earth (and use a year for the Sun), then this establishes a certain order. Then assign each name in sequence to the hours in the day, they cycle such that it produces the day order we see.

http://www.friesian.com/week.htm
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/week.html

The Mayan calendar is completely different. It has two types of “week” cycles of 13 and 20 days. It bears little relation to the Western calendar.
http://www.michielb.nl/maya/calendar.html

Selective data = Creationist’s friend

Also, to what was said earlier about the Biblical prophecies being vague, there is something one should point out. The Biblical prophecies tended to name what they were prophesying about. The prophecies about Ninevah, for example. They said that Ninevah would be destroyed, would never be inhabitted agian, and that shepherds would feed their herds in its basin. Well, what happened? Ninevah was destroyed. No people have yet settled there permanently. And shepherds do tend to their flocks in it’s basin. You could also read the prophecy of Tyre, Babylon, or Memphis, to see what they say. And, of course, if they are accurate.

To add on to what Crystal said about weeks, it may be noted that weeks were used by the Romans. And the Chinese. And the Babylonians. We use the same week as they did. The seven days is often said to come from one of two sources: the Babylonians or the Jews. But, of course, here is the problem: how did the Mayans, in central America, have the same week as the Romans or Babylonians?

That is a very interesting question. That question, in fact, was a strong contributor to the basis for Jerrod Diamond’s book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel”. Summary: the early human population spread from Africa around the globe while the people were still in the hunter-gatherer mode. This is a nomadic life, and conducive to spreading. Development of the first step toward what we call civilization was driven by a couple of factors. One was the onset of an ice age, making resources more scarce. Another was certain geographic conditions. The Fertile Crescent is a region that had several high energy density food plants available. Agriculture began by populations learning to stay in one place (scarce water, shelter, etc) and cultivating the food plants rather than migrating to harvest naturally growing plants.

That region of Asia was home to two native grasses that produced edible seeds. The climate was dry, conducive to the creation of the first graineries – storing grain from one year to the next and beyond to tide over the winter, replant in spring, select the best for later crops, and eat during times of famine. Other regions of the world weren’t so lucky. Places like sub-Saharan Africa and New Guinea were not home to native edible plants with high energy density. High energy density means the food goes a long way for the effort to produce/harvest it. Low energy density means a lot of effort goes in to producing a small amount of calories (i.e. food).

The same region was also home to several large animals, what have become typical livestock. Chickens, pigs, goats, sheep, cows, horses, and donkeys are all native to the area. As agriculture developed, so did cultivation of animals – animal husbandry. This produced animals for food sources, including milk, eggs. Also animals for labor. Other regions of the world are not home to such diversity of animals that could be domesticated. For instance, while zebras resemble horses they are actually much more aggressive and tempermental.

Agriculture and animal husbandry provided the extra resources to allow specialization of work – some farmed, some shepherded, some learned to weave, etc. This is what drove the building of civilization. Hunter-gatherer societies that did not have these resources did not develop the agricultural way of life.

I’m sorry if this is incredibly off-topic, but reading this, I instantly thought of that MAD Magazine article “A Typical Religion Fanatic Tract” of issue #372 August 1998 ($2.50 Cheap!)