Are you an atheist?

Are you an atheist?


  • Total voters
    351
Since you have such a high education and are all out evolution that should be known to you.
a higher education does not necessitate me knowing everything about every species

Modern lizard jaws are basically the same as the archosaur. The jaw structure of a snake is totally differentb to moden lizard, archosaur and about any other reptile or mammal you could think of.
ok, thanks
To function the snake's jaws are very dependent on all the other attributes of a snake.
that's because the jaw evolved at the same time as all the other things...?

In short, if it took 10 million years to get from lizard to snake about 8 or 9 million of those years would mean an amimal that was useless.
does it?

sorry, i don't follow? why would a snake's ancestors be useless?
 
Quote:
To function the snake's jaws are very dependent on all the other attributes of a snake.


that's because the jaw evolved at the same time as all the other things...?

Well I guess that is the big question. Some evolutionists support the idea of the very large mutation occurring and conditions being OK for it to survive as opposed to the Richard Dawkins (and others) approach of the extremely gradual change.

Quote:
In short, if it took 10 million years to get from lizard to snake about 8 or 9 million of those years would mean an amimal that was useless.


does it?

sorry, i don't follow? why would a snake's ancestors be useless?


Lizards have very powerful crushing bites and very rigid teeth. Snakes have extemely weak bites and very weak but sharp teeth. A snakes upper (skull for other animals) and lower jaws are split and are seperate from the skull which is what enables them to swallow such large animals. A snake is probably the only predator that does not kill or injure its prey from the bite.

Even is breathing system is adapted to the big swallow as it has what amounts to an external airway that comes up to the edge of the mouth. If not there it would suffocate while eating.

OK, so try and imagine, think of, draw it if you like how you can progress a lizard skull through to snake and it must be done so it can survie eons of time. By the way, the reverse is just as bad.

While you are doing this you also have to change the whole body structure. Snakes have long bodies but very short tails. The very large majority of lizards, including legless lizards have bodies that typically range from 1/3rd to 1/2 of total length. A snake has one working lung that is body length. Its whole system is geared to how it hunts and eats.

There is more:D The devopment of the venom/fang system. Two lizards, the Gila Monster and Beaded Lizard (cousins) have venom but it just runs along the bottom jaw, not an injection system.

Then of course you have the fixed fang snakes such as the Elapids (mambas, taipan, tiger snakes) and the hinged fang snakes, Vipers (puff adder, russells viper and Pit Vipers (rattle snakes). Think about the devopment of the hinged fang. That would spend some time in the useless department.

While all this happening we need to do something about the ribs:D like go from a few to hundred:) If you handle a legless lizard and a small snake of the same size they don't even feel similar.

It would be easier for a lizard to evolve to a dog or a cat.
 
Nevertheless, whatever evolved from whatever, however many species failed, however difficult it is for us, mere highly-evolved primates, to understand . . .

. . . however much my brain hurts trying to comprehend quantum mechanics . . .

. . . however difficult it is to grasp the magnitude of the universe . . .

. . . these are as nothing to the incomprehensible, totally off-the-wall idea that there could be such a thing as a god, according to any of the numerous definitions I've seen.
 
Nevertheless, whatever evolved from whatever, however many species failed, however difficult it is for us, mere highly-evolved primates, to understand . . .

. . . however much my brain hurts trying to comprehend quantum mechanics . . .

. . . however difficult it is to grasp the magnitude of the universe . . .

. . . these are as nothing to the incomprehensible, totally off-the-wall idea that there could be such a thing as a god, according to any of the numerous definitions I've seen.

Thank you. Maybe somebody else saying it will make a dent, although all the other times it has been said on this thread haven't made a difference.
 
Alisa, you are agnostic. No other possibilites there

You think that the fact that I allow for the possibility that there is a god makes me agnostic. But the difference is that the god I allow for is a natural god, he is part of the natural universe, and if he really exists, evidence of his actions would be apparent (or will become apparent in the future). I obviously don't think this is at all likely. In fact, it seems quite bizarre that there would be such a being. However, humans haven't been around very long in terms of geologic time, and new pardigm shifting scientific discoveries are made every century. So I must allow for the possibility that this discovery will occur in the future.

You, on the other hand, think it is possible that there is or could be a supernatural god. This despite the fact that no supernatural force of any kind has even been discovered anywhere in the universe. Furthermore, you claim that an explanation for the origin of this supernatural god, if discovered, would not be required by definition.

The possible god that I allow for exists within the constraints of the natural universe, while the possible god that you allow for is firmly outside the natural universe. Two completely different concepts.

Now stop calling me an agnostic!
 
Your rants don't offend me, and I occasionally even agree with you. But surely you are not saying everything was peachy until 2003?

Not generally no, I was referring to these forums. The USA was tolerated as just being 'America':rolleyes: - it was when GWB screwed the world up and the USA became the most hated country in the world that things went downhill.

The 11/9 incident was the catalyst for him - he must have been overjoyed. Then he invaded a country that had nothing to do with it. Now tens of thousands are dead because he wanted to finish off what his daddy started. Oh, and get the oil for the good ol' USA of course.

Col
 
Not generally no, I was referring to these forums. The USA was tolerated as just being 'America':rolleyes: - it was when GWB screwed the world up and the USA became the most hated country in the world that things went downhill.

The 11/9 incident was the catalyst for him - he must have been overjoyed. Then he invaded a country that had nothing to do with it. Now tens of thousands are dead because he wanted to finish off what his daddy started. Oh, and get the oil for the good ol' USA of course.

Col
So are you predicting that once Bush is out and Obama is in, all of the U.S. slandering on these forums will magically disappear? Or is it now impossible to return to the "good old days"?
 
. . . these are as nothing to the incomprehensible, totally off-the-wall idea that there could be such a thing as a god, according to any of the numerous definitions I've seen.

What about the idea that all laws of physics break down at the Big Bang. What about imaginary time.

Do you believe the universe has been here for all time or did it have a beginning.

You sound like the opposite number to some of the Bible bashers, you know the ones.....I don't anything about that stuff, all I know is there is God. You are...I don't anything about that stuff, all I know is there is no god.

:D:D:D:D
 
Alisa

You must be the only person in the world who is 100% something is correct while at the same time allowing for other possibilities.:D:D
 
Alisa

You must be the only person in the world who is 100% something is correct while at the same time allowing for other possibilities.:D:D

I am flattered that you think I am 100% correct. Does that mean I have convinced you that there are no supernatural forces in the world?
 
Plus, it's only right for us to try to educate you in the worldly ways - your censored news is not giving you the correct fuller picture. You should be thanking Rich and Me instead of constantly moaning on.
Col

"constantly moaning"??? I very seldom speak up on anything. Most of the time I just read what you have written and let you strut around like a banty rooster with your tail feathers stuck up in the air. This time you sounded pretty hypocritical on what you were posting. Just my opinion.
 
Whats a "banty rooster"?:confused:

Quote from WikiAnswers


What is a banty rooster?
In: Chickens and Roosters
Answer

Banty is short for Bantam. The old folks back in the day just always call Bantam Roosters, "banty" roosters.

In addition this term is used to describe the behavior of some short men who may tend to walk with a swagger and adopt a somewhat exaggerated male posture. They are called banty roosters after the bantam rooster both because of their size and because their behavior can "out-rooster" the more standard sized rooster.

Answer

Bantams are about 1/4 the size of what is considered a "regular" chicken. They are sometimes referred to as domestic game birds. Most people raise them as pets, unfortunately there are those who still raise and use them to fight. Two informative sites are www.bantamchickens.com and www.bantychicky.com

Answer

Since the banty question has been answered.. I thought I would reply to one of the answers...

Only two Bantam breeds are still commonly used for fighting... and one of those is being "weeded" out because they are just not game-bred enough anymore.
 
So are you predicting that once Bush is out and Obama is in, all of the U.S. slandering on these forums will magically disappear? Or is it now impossible to return to the "good old days"?

The odds in the UK papers are that Obama will be assassinated. The forum will not return to the way it was. The USA will still be arrogant enough to think it rules the world - when we're led to believe the rest of the world seems to be laughing at it. If Hillary gets in and has a bad month - god knows what could happen.

Shaney - I have been called worse than hypocritical on these forums. Someone called me a product of Hitlers youth. A banty rooster seems fairly tame.

Col
 
If Hillary gets in and has a bad month - god knows what could happen.

Col

She's bound to get in after threatening to bomb Iran off the face of the earth, that'll go down well in the south:rolleyes:


Someone called me a product of Hitlers youth
Nah, their all employed by local councils around the country:mad:
 
The odds in the UK papers are that Obama will be assassinated.

You call that news? That's fortune telling. Fortunately for the UK papers, everybody will forget about this prediction and won't call them a bunch of idiots when it doesn't happen. The unfortunate thing is, in the unlikely event that takes place, they'll be touted as "seers."

The USA will still be arrogant enough to think it rules the world - when we're led to believe the rest of the world seems to be laughing at it.

As a member of the citizens of the USA, I think we don't care about ruling the world or what the rest of the world thinks. We just want a safe environment in which we can grow, live our lives with joy, and raise our children. The only reason I've even thought about the topic is because of this forum, and I'm still not concerned about the world's opinion.

If Hillary gets in and has a bad month - god knows what could happen.

ROTFLOL! You know how to brighten up a guy's day!
 
Originally Posted by Mike375
Alisa

You must be the only person in the world who is 100% something is correct while at the same time allowing for other possibilities.


I am flattered that you think I am 100% correct. Does that mean I have convinced you that there are no supernatural forces in the world?

No, you say you are 100% correct while allowing for other possibilities. Hardly scientific. Allowing for other possibities means you are not 100% and thus you are agnostic.
 
Originally Posted by Mike375
Alisa

You must be the only person in the world who is 100% something is correct while at the same time allowing for other possibilities.


I am flattered that you think I am 100% correct. Does that mean I have convinced you that there are no supernatural forces in the world?

No, you say you are 100% correct while allowing for other possibilities. Hardly scientific. Allowing for other possibities means you are not 100% and thus you are agnostic.
In my opinion it is never wrong to consider the possibility that however sure you are of something it is not impossible that you are mistaken.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom