if god created man,why is the modern vocal tract posited so people are more likely to choke to death.. cf.
eve spoke-human language and human evolution,pp139-140.
the position of the larynx means that modern humans are more likelier to choke to death.. would a loving god create man in such a way that he would be likely to choke to death
mozzer: i think youve totally missed the point of this line of questioning. all the examples you mentioned have obvious benefits, a trade-off you receive at giving up the benefits of the alternatives. the ones being cited by janh and badboy have no discernible benefit. the question is, why would an all-powerful creator make choices like this? was he unable to come up with a better approach?
mox
if god created man,why is the modern vocal tract posited so people are more likely to choke to death.. cf.
eve spoke-human language and human evolution,pp139-140.
the position of the larynx means that modern humans are more likelier to choke to death.. would a loving god create man in such a way that he would be likely to choke to death
i think that this question, along with the well-known 'backwards eye design' issue, falls under the umbrella of the popular creationist argument: "let's see you do any better, smart-ass."
mox
has anyone ever spotted a gay cartoon character?
i firmly believe that peppermint patty in the "peanuts" cartoons was gay.
she was pretty much a tomboy and did you ever notice that patty's friend marcy always called her "sir" even though patty was a girl?
what about smithers?
in defense of the inerrancy of the bible, many believers make the assertion that the gospel writers wrote about what they witnessed firsthand.
let's consider the case of the gospel called "mark.
" the writer of those jesus stories does not tell us he walked and talked with jesus, or that he witnessed any of the events he described, so why should we not believe that he was only reporting what someone else said happened, or perhaps what he thought should have happened to fulfill scripture?.
joseph: i noticed that in your david-jesus parallel, you hadnt included an item found in matthew but not mark: ahithophel and judas both hanged themselves and both had the location of their burial noted.
mox
maybe not.. anyway here are some problems i see with the current theory of evolution as a complete explanation of how life got to the state it is in on earth.. of course i no expert (as some will no doubt point out )and am not fully up to date with every idea so please let me know were i have gone wrong.. also i am not saying that evolution is or isnt true or fully responsible for life, just that there are end s that haven't been tied up yet the results of which could lead us in another direction.
i defiantly not saying that this proves there must be a god or anything like that.
just trying to understand what is known and what is not.. (please dont laugh if i have said something stupid it just my naivety on the subject).
i thought these were pretty good questions. i should like to point out something else re point 3. certainly no one would expect a complete fossil record, for the number of fossils of everything ever living would not fit comfortably on the entire earth's surface! however, a more relevant issue is whether we have a representative fossil record--whether we have a fairly random and distributed sampling of organisms from different time periods and locations or whether it is instead bunched up. if it was the former, we could naturally draw better conclusions from the record. if it was the latter, which evidence indicates it is, then the record has natural gaps introduced into it and makes a paleontologists work more difficult. certain areas at certain eras under certain climates are more conducive to fossilization than others and we therefore have a very spotty record, even with the little we have. for example, there is almost no hominid fossil record in africa during a window of 1.5 million to .5 million years ago, but plenty from earlier. its unfortunate, but it can only improve over time. the last 15 years alone have seen a mushrooming in the availability of fossils to the world.
mox
(edit - added decimal points in dates - big difference)
part 9: the summer of love jw style .
a moment of reflection: looking back my family and me had come a long way.
there was much more to do, but i could taste sweet victory just ahead, just around the corner.
hi amazing and thanks for the periodicals - im enjoying much. one question for anyone:
they came out with a new policy: Those who miss meetings are to be viewed as WORLDLY!could someone elaborate on what this part was and the change in thinking. i cant specifically recall what this might be.
mox
chinese scientists made progress on decoding the p16 gene in.
humans and in providing evidence that it is a major factor.
in causing aging.. www.lef.org/news/aging/2002/01/31/xh/0000-0863-china-aging-cell.html.
did u all read the recent Time magazine that featured anti-aging advances? It pretty much advanced the idea that aging and death were so thoroughly hard-coded into our genes that, despite dramtically increasing the life expectancy, we might be a long way from significantly extending our lifespans.
of course that sounds like the kind of article that will be featured in the next Awake Watching the World, but the reasoning made good sense to me. namely that evolution has built life from the very ground up on the premise that old generations must pass up resources to the young if life is to advance. it is simply too intrinsic to our makeup to even think about toying with at our still rather rudimentary level of understanding. it touched on various fields of study like telomerase and the types of brick walls theyve run into.
ah - here it is: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020121/aging.html what do u think?
mox
it's the borg's fault that there's no more joy associated with being a jw.
i'm posting this previous reply of mine to tr's "my visit to the hall last night" because i got so overwhelmed by these things i remembered i had to do it as a new post.. the borg not only has proscribed all the holidays and birthdays, but also clamps down on jws' choices in entertainment and association, and it looks like they've pretty well eliminated fun from worship.
and they have the nerve to remind people of how jehovah is a happy god!!!
the BRH has always been one of favourite talks for that reason. it is the most free-form talk left. you are provided nothing except the chapters and some general guidelines. it looks as though the new school format will take away some of this freedom. can someone refresh me on the details?
mox
einstien's theory of time and space, made from the observation that the speed of light is a constant (in a vacuum) no matter what speed we,.. the measurer is traveling,.. either away from, or towards the light source.. as he says time not a constant,.. and length in the direction in which one is moving is not a constant.. only the speed of light is a constant.
(all true laws of physics are absolute.
)the speed of light is an absolute.. so from this he concluded that space and time our relative but the speed of light is absolute.. here's a question for all you physic buffs:.
quantum theory is funny in that way. it involves a lot of very specific, very advanced formulae that work absolutely perfectly and yet describe things that are absolutely impossible - it works best if you just dont think about it too hard.
mox
einstien's theory of time and space, made from the observation that the speed of light is a constant (in a vacuum) no matter what speed we,.. the measurer is traveling,.. either away from, or towards the light source.. as he says time not a constant,.. and length in the direction in which one is moving is not a constant.. only the speed of light is a constant.
(all true laws of physics are absolute.
)the speed of light is an absolute.. so from this he concluded that space and time our relative but the speed of light is absolute.. here's a question for all you physic buffs:.
it is useful sometimes to apply this 'loss of dimensions' idea to photons. by the strict definition of general relativity, distance and time do not exist for a photon. a photon has the same age today as when it first emerged from the big bang, that it is to say, no age at all. and whatever distance it appears to have travelled in that time is, from the photons point of view, no distance at all.
i sometimes see language like this in quantum physics discussions, but since no one can ever reach the speed of light and a photon can never slow down, trying to make comparisons about our 'points of view' doesnt really have any real world significance.
mox
