We conclude that people really should go and learn why the term "junk" DNA was coined.
"Junk" meant DNA that does not specifically code for proteins. Its use was unknown but that fact was known when the genome was sequenced. It was a mystery to be explored, not a conclusion that required no further thought.
" Since there is infinitely more time after death, and assuming you exist after death, wouldn't doing something to improve your existence after death make sense?"
Yes it does. Just as much as it makes sense not to angry up the magic pixies at the end of my street by eating potatoes.
You know - if what the Potato King told me in my dreams is true.
Otherwise the fact that you reference Joseph Smith is not installing in me the belief that you are astute enough to spot a man who started a religion to get laid and as such I'm not guessing you'll be able to give me a lot of solid information on which to base a decision.
" It could turn out that so called evolution doesn't exist at all"
No, you mean that evolution didn't happen to be the cause of the origin of life. The mathematics of the statements of how selection works aren't going to disappear any more than the mathematics of Newtonian mechanics are.
Regardless of ones personal opinions the mathematics of selection aren't going away. Sorry.
There's only been one Nazi party (it was a specific German political party of which Nazi was an abbreviation) - and it wasn't atheistic.
Your hypothesis on the horrors of what would befall a godless society would have more weight if basic facts were correct showing you cared about whether or not such a thing was likely rather than just wanting to arrive at your preformed opinion.
I think you would need to be more specific about the actual study since these things tend to be published with details and you don't specify important things like how were the controls done, what constituted the prayer, what the measurements were of (i.e. what the tangible benefit actually was supposed to be) etc...
The more fucking there is in general the more chance of having children. So it's not really relevant to the species as a whole if there is unreproductive fucking as long as there is enough reproductive fucking.
And fixed notions of human sexuality are a quite modern invention; it is very easy for homosexuals to have sex with the opposite gender. I would go out on a limb to say it's basically as easy as it is for heterosexuals.
It's a scientific theory so as with all other scientific theories the history of its development is filled with badly-missed, not so badly-missed, and correct predictions. To pretend that evolutionary theory is in any way special is simply ignorant and to imply that this in any way should be something people consider in the analysis of the idea is clearly well-poisoning.
It is not a very interesting religious belief system since there is no belief and no system.
You would have to acknowledge that the concept of null to which the empty set and zero belong cannot be considered "just another" - they are clearly special. As such treating it as "another religious belief system" is really missing the point is it not?
The fool says in his heart that I'll believe everything else the first person to come along and tell me not believing everything he says makes me foolish.
"However it doesn’t exist a human tribe that doesn’t believe in God!"
It requires a great deal of equivocation to argue that of the various supernatural beings that have been or are believed in that they are all "God" in some way or the other with the same type of properties.
"When Dawkins tells us not to believe inGod, he might as well be passionately telling people not to like the color blue."
No. There is clearly a difference between having a preference for something and not really caring about what other people's preferences are and making statements about what is or what ought to be.
There's none; and no that doesn't make it a strawman. A strawman would be constructing an argument to knock down that resembles the opponent's. Here I am merely pointing out that it is not even possible to take a man seriously who gets upset over the prospect of not being able to fill balloons with helium for his child as if that were the worst possible thing imaginable.
You do realise that regardless of anything else that filling a balloon with helium for pleasure is hardly fucking important in the grand scheme of things?
It is interesting that anonitards have assumed "starving" = "third world" as if starving people were non-existent in rich countries filling helium balloons for kids - regardless of whether or not it may be put to better uses because damn it, if you can't use precious resources for trivialities then we might as well just be scratching in the dirt.
Wow, I see the anonmitards have been out in force on this one but really - if you think the defining quality of a first world country is whether or not you've got easy access to helium filled ballons for a children's birthday and that if for some reason you did not that was indicative of a serious problem then you require a massive reassessment of your life and society in general.
In short if you're the type of fool who will demand luxuries at the expense of necessities *YOU* will hasten regression of the "first world" into a "thrid world".
Slashdot Mirror
You did the right thing. Calling you a creep and blocking you is merely deflecting her own stupidity outwards so she doesn't have to deal with it.
We conclude that people really should go and learn why the term "junk" DNA was coined.
"Junk" meant DNA that does not specifically code for proteins. Its use was unknown but that fact was known when the genome was sequenced. It was a mystery to be explored, not a conclusion that required no further thought.
" Since there is infinitely more time after death, and assuming you exist after death, wouldn't doing something to improve your existence after death make sense?"
Yes it does. Just as much as it makes sense not to angry up the magic pixies at the end of my street by eating potatoes.
You know - if what the Potato King told me in my dreams is true.
Otherwise the fact that you reference Joseph Smith is not installing in me the belief that you are astute enough to spot a man who started a religion to get laid and as such I'm not guessing you'll be able to give me a lot of solid information on which to base a decision.
" It could turn out that so called evolution doesn't exist at all"
No, you mean that evolution didn't happen to be the cause of the origin of life. The mathematics of the statements of how selection works aren't going to disappear any more than the mathematics of Newtonian mechanics are.
Regardless of ones personal opinions the mathematics of selection aren't going away. Sorry.
There's only been one Nazi party (it was a specific German political party of which Nazi was an abbreviation) - and it wasn't atheistic.
Your hypothesis on the horrors of what would befall a godless society would have more weight if basic facts were correct showing you cared about whether or not such a thing was likely rather than just wanting to arrive at your preformed opinion.
I think you would need to be more specific about the actual study since these things tend to be published with details and you don't specify important things like how were the controls done, what constituted the prayer, what the measurements were of (i.e. what the tangible benefit actually was supposed to be) etc...
Yes, I'm sure THAT will work.
" how can you be so adamant that there is not a creator/god when by your own admission you do not know enough to answer this question? "
This answers itself if you understand the epistemological mindset.
There is no reason to believe. The reasons people do believe arise from suspect sources. Therefore one does not believe.
The desire is to fuck, not to produce children.
The more fucking there is in general the more chance of having children. So it's not really relevant to the species as a whole if there is unreproductive fucking as long as there is enough reproductive fucking.
And fixed notions of human sexuality are a quite modern invention; it is very easy for homosexuals to have sex with the opposite gender. I would go out on a limb to say it's basically as easy as it is for heterosexuals.
Snakes eat dust?
It's a scientific theory so as with all other scientific theories the history of its development is filled with badly-missed, not so badly-missed, and correct predictions. To pretend that evolutionary theory is in any way special is simply ignorant and to imply that this in any way should be something people consider in the analysis of the idea is clearly well-poisoning.
It is not a very interesting religious belief system since there is no belief and no system.
You would have to acknowledge that the concept of null to which the empty set and zero belong cannot be considered "just another" - they are clearly special. As such treating it as "another religious belief system" is really missing the point is it not?
So no ugly Irish girls exists with freckles?
I think the problem of poor logical thought isn't subject to what current beliefs you may hold.
The fool says in his heart that I'll believe everything else the first person to come along and tell me not believing everything he says makes me foolish.
"However it doesn’t exist a human tribe that doesn’t believe in God!"
It requires a great deal of equivocation to argue that of the various supernatural beings that have been or are believed in that they are all "God" in some way or the other with the same type of properties.
"When Dawkins tells us not to believe inGod, he might as well be passionately telling people not to like the color blue."
No. There is clearly a difference between having a preference for something and not really caring about what other people's preferences are and making statements about what is or what ought to be.
And I grant you the Lieutennent Predictable Riposte award.
I am tired from all the celebrating. Can't I just tut and ignore free speech I don't give a fuck about?
There's none; and no that doesn't make it a strawman. A strawman would be constructing an argument to knock down that resembles the opponent's. Here I am merely pointing out that it is not even possible to take a man seriously who gets upset over the prospect of not being able to fill balloons with helium for his child as if that were the worst possible thing imaginable.
You do realise that regardless of anything else that filling a balloon with helium for pleasure is hardly fucking important in the grand scheme of things?
It is interesting that anonitards have assumed "starving" = "third world" as if starving people were non-existent in rich countries filling helium balloons for kids - regardless of whether or not it may be put to better uses because damn it, if you can't use precious resources for trivialities then we might as well just be scratching in the dirt.
You have the right to be upset over stupid things if you choose. I retain the right to point out it is stupid.
Wow, I see the anonmitards have been out in force on this one but really - if you think the defining quality of a first world country is whether or not you've got easy access to helium filled ballons for a children's birthday and that if for some reason you did not that was indicative of a serious problem then you require a massive reassessment of your life and society in general.
In short if you're the type of fool who will demand luxuries at the expense of necessities *YOU* will hasten regression of the "first world" into a "thrid world".
So what we can conclude from this is that people who are ignorant of how to cook will view the cheapest prepared food as "the cheapest" regardless.
Waaah!!!! First world problems suck!!!! Fuck starving people; where's my helium balloons?
Hilarious.