Logic dictates that there is a God!

[morph]

....this was almost dead NNOOOO WE ARE ALL DOOMED DOOMED I SAY

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

(i wuvs bender)

[s.xkitten]

and i wuvs you...whats new?

[flashleg8]

by dna mapping,plus they have a neantheal man body in the london natrual history museum that was found in hard peat in somerset

I assume you are basing all this on the 2001 Oxford University study by Dr Harding?. If so then the researcher himself does not believe that this was the reason for the mutation.
Quote:

"Dr Harding, a population geneticist at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, said: 'This research is part of other work we are currently doing in genetics. We wanted to put the red hair gene into an evolutionary context, and the model used for examining this gene is a good basis for further research on other genes. We are doing more sequencing which will hopefully give us more data that are sensitive for revealing natural selection and therefore better results and clearer answers.'

It has been widely reported that the gene originated in Neanderthal man. Dr Harding says this just isn't true: 'We have never stated in our research that this gene is Neanderthal, but at the moment I cannot statistically prove that it isn't which is why others have drawn these conclusions.'"

I prefer to believe the exiting theory that the mutation was common to all humans but was "selected out" from those in hotter climates where fair hair/pale skin would be an environmental disadvantage.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... d=10733465

Is a more detailed study proposing this view.

Also I would refute your proposition that we know Neanderthals hair colour. The DNA of Neanderthal bones has not yet been fully analysed - we currently have no idea what their skin colour and hair colour is. It is merely speculation that because they existed in the European cold/temperate climate they might have had pale skin/fair hair - not scientific fact.

This news report in the National Geographic highlights some of the latest work on the DNA mapping of the Neanderthal Genome.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... l-dna.html

[WL_southerner]

research done in 2000 and 2001 is old info, the neanthal man found in somerset peat bogs was found in jan-feb 2004, his squash flat remains was taken to london.
dr harding is only one of many dr's working on it,
i am all so looking for info on the homo sapein body that they found in the alps that was bury in the snow on the italian and austian border that dates back to just after the last ice age

[Guiscard]

I'm afraid we're gonna need some actual sources. I've been checking up and I found the same one as flashleg8, and many more, which really don't support your argument.

Just saying you read something somewhere isn't quite enough I'm afraid.

[WL_southerner]

well oxford uni has a open public web site all so check out cambridge uni bristol uni another good site to look at

[AlgyTaylor]

Pffft. From a purely logical standpoint, and according to your assumptions - yes, there must be a god.

Although I would make the following assertions on this argument.

1) This is based only on our scientific knowledge at the moment, it has not been *proven* that life cannot come from non-life. Only that it's been impossible so far to recreate conditions where life can come from non-life.

2) We are restricted as we are to being able to see the universe in three dimensions. This isn't getting all sci-fi - we can't see back or forward in time (to all intensent purposes anyway - I know that technically we are always looking back in time).

So really, one cannot make a sound logical judgement about whether or not there is or is not a god, because we aren't in possession of all the facts, and are never likely to be.

Therefore, logically the answer is "don't know". We only have personal conjecture as to whether or not a god, or indeed many gods, exist.

[Wisse]

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.

Where did it come from?

The ONLY answer is someting or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).

There must be a God.

Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).

ever heard of vulcanoes? thats the thign that maked all the things live, so you say god is a vulcano?

[AlgyTaylor]

Last I knew it was called the theory of evolution...not the fact of evolution.

hahaha ..... I wonder if you believe in the THEORY of Gravity or not. [note a slight tone of sarcasm]


Honestly dude, just READ "The Origin of Species". I read it as a mild sceptic, tried to poke holes in it ... impossible. The evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Honestly. The 'problems' that you find in his theory? Pretty much all of them are answered in that book by Darwin himself.

It's a theory only in name, as such a theory can't be proved beyond all doubt. But it's certainly the most complete theory available, and it's certainly been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[Guiscard]

well oxford uni has a open public web site all so check out cambridge uni bristol uni another good site to look at

We have done, thats what we're saying. Personally I have a uni account as well so I can access sites like Jstor for journal articles. Can't find any mention of what you're on about. The burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid, to find us a link, otherwise I'll take it as junk you've read in the paper somewhere which has been misinterpreted.

[heavycola]

Last I knew it was called the theory of evolution...not the fact of evolution.

hahaha ..... I wonder if you believe in the THEORY of Gravity or not. [note a slight tone of sarcasm]


Honestly dude, just READ "The Origin of Species". I read it as a mild sceptic, tried to poke holes in it ... impossible. The evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Honestly. The 'problems' that you find in his theory? Pretty much all of them are answered in that book by Darwin himself.

It's a theory only in name, as such a theory can't be proved beyond all doubt. But it's certainly the most complete theory available, and it's certainly been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

:shakes head patronisingly:

Your pluck is admirable. I would read the first few pages of this thread, however. Creationists are, by definition, not rational people.

[WL_southerner]

take a look at prof barns works he was into species migration, i meet him in 1975 in antarctica, he now retired but alot off things he said is now begining to be prov right

[jay_a2j]

Creationists are, by definition, not rational people.

ROFL! Oh yeah, we are nut jobs. Like the Earth coming from some eternal ooze is "rational". Or that aliens started life of Earth as an experiment. Or some gases with no known origin created a "big bang". Yeah, give me a straitjacket and throw me in a padded cell.

[Anarkistsdream]

Creationists are, by definition, not rational people.

ROFL! Oh yeah, we are nut jobs. Like the Earth coming from some eternal ooze is "rational". Or that aliens started life of Earth as an experiment. Or some gases with no known origin created a "big bang". Yeah, give me a straitjacket and throw me in a padded cell.

So you're finally coming around are ya? j/k

[RenegadePaddy]

Second Law of Thermodynamics:

In a closed system, everything tends towards entropy.

Creationist propaganda against evolution states that it is impossible as the second law of thermodynamics says:

Everything tends towards entropy.

You'll notice the two don't match. Those three little words are all the lie needed. In the top version, evolution is possible, in the bottom, it isn't. Why is this lie spread? Make up your own mind.

[heavycola]

Like the Earth coming from some eternal ooze is "rational". Or that aliens started life of Earth as an experiment. Or some gases with no known origin created a "big bang".

Jay, I agree with you. None of this makes any sense at all.

[flashleg8]

take a look at prof barns works he was into species migration, i meet him in 1975 in antarctica, he now retired but alot off things he said is now begining to be prov right

I'm not saying that Neanderthals and humans didn't possibly interbreed at some levels (as I stated in my first post about this) all I'm questioning is this DNA mapping that proves Neanderthals had red hair, and your assertion that this is the same gene that is found in humans. I see no evidence of it (quite to the contrary in my brief online research - as far as I can ascertain as of late last year the DNA genome project for Neanderthals was incomplete and required an estimated 2 years till completion and final publication. Now I couldn't find out about your Prof Barns' research and I admit you could have access to unpublished data, but if so could you share some with me because I am genuinely interested in this subject and would love to catch up. I'm sure if the good Prof has published some early findings Guiscard could maybe access it for us (using his Uni account which I'm thankful he offered) so we can have a look.

[WL_southerner]

i tell you about some things i can lead you to aria but you should know the rules on unpublish works, oh dna mapping was finished on homo sapeins 3 years ago,maybe more
one thing you might be intrested in neatheal man has not got chimpanzee dna in them like homo sapeins have

[Guiscard]

Southerner, just so you know at the moment you're at the status of 'read an article in national geographic a few years ago and from what I can remember...'

Post some sources and we'll take you seriously, becuase pretty much everyhting I've found, and Flashleg8 too, has said pretty much the exact opposite of what you are saying.

edit: And just to avoid hypocracy:

No real evidence of corssbreeding (from Berkley)

Quotes from the genome project saying that Neanderthals share 4% with Chimps

Neanderthal Genome Project estimated to take 2 years (started in July 2006, so at least a year left)

[unriggable]

Creationists are, by definition, not rational people.

ROFL! Oh yeah, we are nut jobs. Like the Earth coming from some eternal ooze is "rational". Or that aliens started life of Earth as an experiment. Or some gases with no known origin created a "big bang". Yeah, give me a straitjacket and throw me in a padded cell.

Oh, that's too complicated, it all just "happened". Well, tell me, where did your god come from? "He's always been there" is not a valid answer as you don't accept it.

Also, whoever said the universe is decaying is an idiot. Aspects of the universe die, and from those new suns and planets are formed.

[benmor78]

Creationists are, by definition, not rational people.

ROFL! Oh yeah, we are nut jobs. Like the Earth coming from some eternal ooze is "rational". Or that aliens started life of Earth as an experiment. Or some gases with no known origin created a "big bang". Yeah, give me a straitjacket and throw me in a padded cell.

Oh, that's too complicated, it all just "happened". Well, tell me, where did your god come from? "He's always been there" is not a valid answer as you don't accept it.

Also, whoever said the universe is decaying is an idiot. Aspects of the universe die, and from those new suns and planets are formed.

However, in an open universe, because of stellar physics, we'll eventually have a dead universe. Whether we live in an open or closed universe is unknown, of course, but you see my point.

[vtmarik]

We do have one bit of evidence that shows a trend towards an expanding universe: red shift.

As galaxies move away, the wavelengths of light have a trend towards a red shift. As per the doppler effect, it shows that galaxies are retreating from one another.

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Sta ... shift.html

[Jolly Roger]

If redshift is the only way to confirm that galaxies are moving away from each other, how do you confirm that redshift is indicative of the movement? Is there anything to corroborate Hubble's story? The site says that redshift appeared to be larger for faint, presumably further galaxies. This hardly seems conclusive.
In addition, unless Hubble planned to revive the "Earth is the centre of the universe" philosophy, shouldn't the planets on one side the Earth be moving slower than us (having had a lower initial big bang velocity) while those on the other side move faster? If so, the Hubble constant should not be constant since a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on one side should be travelling more slowly than a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on the other side or vice versa.

[vtmarik]

If redshift is the only way to confirm that galaxies are moving away from each other, how do you confirm that redshift is indicative of the movement? Is there anything to corroborate Hubble's story? The site says that redshift appeared to be larger for faint, presumably further galaxies. This hardly seems conclusive.

I never said it was the only way, I said it was one way. I'm not going to research the entire topic of universal expansion for you, I post one link and if you want to learn more I suggest you visit your local library not complain on some random forum. Sheesh.

In addition, unless Hubble planned to revive the "Earth is the centre of the universe" philosophy, shouldn't the planets on one side the Earth be moving slower than us (having had a lower initial big bang velocity) while those on the other side move faster? If so, the Hubble constant should not be constant since a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on one side should be travelling more slowly than a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on the other side or vice versa.

What? A lower big bang velocity? So one side of the universe got less push than the others? Is that what you're trying to say?

Visit your local library or use EBSCOhost, try looking for this information on your own, don't come after me. I'm not an astrophysicist.

[flashleg8]

If redshift is the only way to confirm that galaxies are moving away from each other, how do you confirm that redshift is indicative of the movement? Is there anything to corroborate Hubble's story? The site says that redshift appeared to be larger for faint, presumably further galaxies. This hardly seems conclusive.
In addition, unless Hubble planned to revive the "Earth is the centre of the universe" philosophy, shouldn't the planets on one side the Earth be moving slower than us (having had a lower initial big bang velocity) while those on the other side move faster? If so, the Hubble constant should not be constant since a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on one side should be travelling more slowly than a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on the other side or vice versa.

It's a long time since I've studied this subject but a good model to use to get your head round the difficult idea is to imagine the universe is like a balloon. Once big bang happened the universe rapidly started to expand (ie the balloon is inflated. The solar system is in the balloon somewhere. The Doppler effect shows us that all stars are moving away from us (as vtmark correctly states), what the balloon model will help you realise is that all stars are actually moving away from every other star - as the skin of the balloon is stretched when inflating, each point on the skin will be moving away from every other point.
The speed of expansion of the universe is slowing down according to current research, and there are three possible scenarios: 1) the universe continues to expand. 2) the universe stops expanding and reaches a balance 3) the universe starts contracting (in which case it either cease to exist as we know it or re-expand again [some physicists speculate that this might have happened before - possibly many times])
I hope this model is useful to help you grasp this phenomenon.