Genetic mutations have never been proven to have a positive effect on people. Take redheads for example. Red hair is a genetic mutation, do they have superpowers?
More nonsense. Of course genetic mutations aren't always positive. In fact it is probably very rare that they are positive. Most of them are probably irrelevant.
However the ones that are important are the ones that are most likely to be carried on. The ones that are harmful are the least likely to be carried on to future generations. In this way genetic mutation is obviously positive because it allows people, and all living things, to adapt to their environment.
Do you think it is just coincidence that creatures living in Alaska would have thicker fur than those living in southern Africa? The African leopard is basically the same cat as the snow leopard. Which one do you think is better suited to live in the cold? And how did the snow leopard become equiped to live in the cold? Was it just created that way out of thin air?
Mutation is supposed to give superpowers? You have been watching too many cartoons.
The notion that Bush didn't care about them or did nothing for them when the morons had days or advance warning, not to mention that during the previous year before a hurricane hit, there was a chance of it smashing into NOLA and the doomsday scenario that happened was discussed. The people who stayed behind were idiots and a lot of them were/are total degenerate scumbags, as the looting demonstrated. And as the increased crime rates wherever they've gone in large groups really attests to.
New Orleans was ****ed to start with. Great city planning...."Wow..they get a lot of hurricanes here.....let's build a city in that bowl! Brilliant!"
You find it in every hurricane. Hundreds of people (or idiots as some of us call them) that think the hurricanes won't hurt them, won't destroy their home like all the others, and refuse to leave. Then wonder why there isn't help on their front doorstep the second they are in trouble. Guess what, they were warned. In fact, Katrina gave a lot more warning than most hurricanes. Andrew gave little time to Miami, Charley gave little time to Port Charlotte (spent 6 months living in a hotel thanks to this one ). These people knew that they had Levees that were basically designed hundreds of years ago, and thought staying was a good idea....and then pissed when, suprise suprise, they broke.
And why the President is responsible for something that it is suppose to be controlled by City and State goverments, FEMA, and local Nation Guard always confused me. All the president should really be responsible for is saying "Yes, it is a federal disaster" (And if I'm not mistaking, I believe he declared it a disaster before it even made landfall)
And why lay any responsibility at all on the Governor and Mayor of the very city where such a disaster took place? Why, because the President runs everything! It's BUSH driving up the gas prices, it was BUSH who left those people in New Orleans, cackling gleefully at their suffering.
You know what? I bet he SUMMONED Hurricane Katrina!
"Hee hee hee. **** Cheney says there's lots of minorities and poor people in New Orleans. I don't like either of those groups, because as you know, I'm a Republican, and so I must hate anyone who's not rich and white! HEE HEE HEE!"
Let's not blame the city officials for piss poor planning of their city. Let's not blame the people for staying. Let's not blame state officials for not being prepared. I mean...it's not like they have had to deal with major hurricanes before....oh wait....they have...several times.....
I guess they were all sitting on their hands with Katrina bearing down on them waiting for the words of wisdom from Bush.
I'm sure the Democrats will also blame Bush for New Orleans building their city in a bowl 200 years ago. Time travel machine to go back in time and tell them to do it.
Let's not play the normal democrat game of "This is what the republicans are doing wrong" I got enough of that from Kerry. We are gonna play a new game. Why don't you tell us what Bush SHOULD have done after Katrina hit. Not the state officials, not his directors, not the guard...him personally.
I'm not saying the federal goverment has no responisbilty, I'm saying the president's main responisibilty ends at Declaring a Federal Disaster Area. (Once again, I'm fairly sure this was done before landfall) Once he declares that it is the people under him trained in this that are responsible.
BTW, for your reading:
The United States Northern Command established Joint Task Force (JTF) Katrina based out of Camp Shelby, Mississippi, to act as the military's on-scene command on Sunday, August 28. Approximately 58,000 National Guard personnel were activated to deal with the storm's aftermath, with troops coming from all 50 states. The Department of Defense also activated volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol and the United States Coast Guard activated more than 400 reservists.
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, decided to take over the federal, state, and local operations officially on August 30, 2005, citing the National Response Plan.
Seems to me the Government was on this the day Katrina hit. You want a scapegoat, Michael Chertoff is your man.
I think he's done pretty much as good a job as any other person elected president would have done. That includes the war on terror, Katrina (which he gets scapegoated for, the blame belongs on all exective leaders in all levels of government.), the economy and Supreme Court appointments.
Does anyone really think that Katrina would have been handled better is Kerry or Gore was president? If so, tell me why.
Moron, 95% of that post is bullsh*t and has nothing to do with anything at all.
People there wanted to leave, but the MAJORITY COULD NOT LEAVE. Thus the reason so many people fled to the Superdome.
The president said after, no one could have possibly seen that kind of disaster happening, thus the slow delay. But then there are documents dating back to the 80s that showed the exact situation of a hurricane hitting New Orleans, and it was ignored.
The only thing that seemed to be a story was all the "stupid blacks looting" and the whites were "salvaging supplies at local stores" to live another day, pathetic.
You brought up white blood cells earlier, which attack viruses. How do they know what to attack if they can't act on their own?
If you'd learn to read my entire posts instead of writing off the first thing you don't agree with as nonsense, I explained that the brain sends signals through the nervous system to a wounded area. The signals are then relayed back to where the white blood cells are, most likely the nearest lymph node, there the white blood cells are carried to the wound, all in nanoseconds.
First of all you are talking about creation and yet you haven't addressed where these people on Noah's arc came from. Did they come from Adam and Eve? You still haven't said how the first humans were "created".
Yes, they all came from Adam and Eve, you obviously haven't done much studying on the Bible. Like I said, there is a thread with over 600 replies on the Christian religion. Very good discussions. God created Adam and Eve.
Are you really trying to say that all of us are descended from 3 families?
Yes, white, black, and yellow (asian).
Mutation is supposed to give superpowers? You have been watching too many cartoons.
I didn't say mutations were supposed to give them superpowers. You need comprehension lessons. I used that as an example because your basic line of thought is that over the years a cell kept mutating until it formed you and supposedly it will keep mutating years from now making better things. Correct me if I'm wrong there. That's just what I've picked up.
BTW also to whomever pointed out the storms, we actually had far fewer storms this year than in the past. Its just that due to Katrina and its news coverage everyone thinks there were alot more than there were. As for global warming have any of you ever taken a statistics class? In the grand scheme of the history of the earth, an upward trend in temperatures of a fraction of a degree a year for about 20 years is so small that it is EASILY within Standard deviation. Like I said earlier, go research the 50s.
As for the New Orleans stuff, I cant pass judgement on those that looted because ive never been in that situation. I would like to think i wouldnt loot but i cant honestly say that i wouldnt. They were in a situation where they couldnt possibly be punished for it, they were in extreme dispair and many of them needed the supplies to survive(not counting things like tvs and such) but even those that stole electronics, lost alot more than they stole. Did it show the worst in human nature? Yes but it was still human nature.
Like I said, there is a thread with over 600 replies on the Christian religion. Very good discussions. God created Adam and Eve.
I did go back and read through some of the posts. It was quite a laugh. I found some of your quotes.
all of the worlds diseases are the results of sin. God's allows scientists to find the cures.
Many evolutionists still say that there are holes in the theory that still need to be logically explained.
Exactly. When basic Evolution is taught, most of the time it is started at the small single celled organism that began to mutate and spewed out the next step in the chain. But Penny was right, where did that single celled organism come from?
The key is water, which we are mostly made up of. Without water there is no life.
The fact is that many of the building blocks of life have been created artifically in a lab enviroment. Basically it is just a chemical reaction involving water, electricity and various gasses. There were probably other factors involved but it was so long ago that I read about it that i can't really remember. They think lightning was a big key.
And fossilized bacteria have been found on Mars. Maybe God tried to create life there but got bored and gave up. Or maybe there were vast quatities of water that could support life.
Here is one of the more intelligent posts from the thread;
Not judging from here, but from my own experiences, the people who tend to disagree with evolution outright because they dont want to have "evolved from monkeys", are usually fairly self righteous and ingrained in their religious beliefs. The scientific evidence that suggests life evolved for better survival is very solid. Hell, even viruses are still evolving, look at that Bird flu overseas for example (well, depending on where you live).
Personally, I think Creationism/Intelligent Design is nothing but a pseudo science and a farce. I sincerely hope that it is never pushed into public school curriculum nation-wide. Leave it for the churches (or colleges), where it belongs, not highschools and below where young minds are malleable. This is another problem I have with far-right conservatives. There is supposed to be some seperation between church and state, so why would anyone want students virtually learning the bible in public high/middle schools?
Anyway there really isn't much point in arguing with someone who thinks diseases come from sin.
Godcreated his own image through evolution. thats what i think. There is global warming. I hate how people are like "even though there is tons of evidence supporting it but not proving it" bull****. They have to picked the itty bitty part where it doesnt prove it so its not right. ITS RIGHT *****!
Its amazing to me how people spout off about things that they have no clue what they are talking about. then again that is nothing new for you.
As to the post about why this isnt true, you dont have to believe everything or even a majority of things a candidate believes to vote for them. I disagree with alot of the things bush does(no child left behind is very high among them) but i voted for him for several reasons. The thing is, you just have to believe that the candidate is better than the other one either overall or on the most important issues to you. I know that many voted for bush because they feel the country is safer with him as a president which imo it is and that did play a part in my voting for him.
It depends on which theory of evolution you are discussing. Micro evolution is pretty much recognized as fact by just about anyone who has ever taken a biology class. As for Macro evolution, its a completely different story. Macro evolution is essentially the theory that everyone evolved from the same organism. This is pretty clearly false. Even when Darwin theorized it he theorized that we would find a fossil record to back this up because in order for this to be true there would have to be a ridiculously huge fossil record. Micro evolution is the essentially the theory that things that are similar probably evolved from the same thing. We have a fossil record that supports Micro evolution not one that supports Macro.
So we are all inbred. Given the known hazards of inbreeding that is ridiculous. And it doesn't explain how the different races came into being.
Wrong. You are talking about an injury. I was talking about a virus. Your brain would have no idea where the virus was.
I have my own theory about this that as far as I know Im essentially the only one to come up with. Dont get me wrong im sure someone else has thought of this before and probably published it BUT i figured I should at least mention it here and Ive never read it anymore. In Genesis it mentions that the progeny of Adam and Eve went forth and married the children of men(something to that effect not a direct qoute). It is my contention that "the children of men" could have very easily been the people that evolved from apes. As for the time, we have no clue what God considered a Day so for him 6 days could have been a quintillion years(probably not but you never know). I dont think its a great idea to make this into a christian vs non christian debate largely because you can be a christian and not support bush or be a non christian and support bush.
I still want to go back to the Katrina thing and reword my previous post on that situation. It boils down to the fact that I wont judge people for committing acts in a situation that I have never been in when it is entirely possible that I would have committed the same acts myself.
As for Macro evolution, its a completely different story. Macro evolution is essentially the theory that everyone evolved from the same organism. This is pretty clearly false.
In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
Evidence for common descent is inferred from traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds, even those which do not fly, have wings. Today, there is strong evidence from genetics that all organisms have a common ancestor. For example, every living cell makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. The universality of these traits strongly suggests common ancestry, because the selection of many of these traits seems arbitrary.
The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase are found in the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. The core part of the protein is conserved across all lineages of life, serving similar functions. Higher organisms have evolved additional protein subunits, largely affecting the regulation and protein-protein interaction of the core. Other overarching similarities between all lineages of extant organisms, such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer, give support to the theory of common descent. The chirality of DNA, RNA, and amino acids is conserved across all known life
what exactly is your opinions of what evolution ? every THEORY that i have heard starts with the ameba and gradually mutates from fish to amphibian to reptile to birds/mammals(monkeys) to humans. if they found these "missing links" where are they today????? there are still apes and monkeys right? your telling me that something that evolved (improved itself) from the primate apes wasnt able to survive but the orginal species did? that makes a lot of sense! give some solid facts to back your theory and im sure there will be plenty of people that can factually disprove it in a heartbeat. im not trying to prove creation because it takes faith in God to complete my process...above science...so its a waste of time.