Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

God Vs. "science"


Thumbelina

Recommended Posts

*watches another stupid christard strawman go up in flames*

Thumb, evolution is just a theory, right? Like gravity. Go jump off a building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    9

  • Phanta

    8

  • Purple

    3

  • Shyone

    3

Since this is an old thread and evolution has popped up on the rail/derail.....I would like to ask a question please.

 

The thing that bothers me about evolution is the "in stasis" stuff. Earth, as I remember estimated at approx 4.5 billion years old and we have scientists that say that they have found fossils of things that haven't changed in 300,000,000 years....and this is just the fossils they have found. So if one does the math, there doesn'seem like enough time to have gone from soup to creatures. And then compare that to soup to humans? Seriously, that is my outside, no nothing about this argument. I am going outside to pet my crocoduck while I wait on an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is an old thread and evolution has popped up on the rail/derail.....I would like to ask a question please.

 

The thing that bothers me about evolution is the "in stasis" stuff. Earth, as I remember estimated at approx 4.5 billion years old and we have scientists that say that they have found fossils of things that haven't changed in 300,000,000 years....

They haven't changed *much*. To know if they have point mutations resulting in markers, they would need actual DNA from the original species. There's a great chance that there would be plenty of them.

 

and this is just the fossils they have found. So if one does the math, there doesn'seem like enough time to have gone from soup to creatures.

Actually there are observations of live animals over a couple of generations with clear phenotype changes. If we skip natural selection for a bit, and only focus on artificial selection, dog breeders have brought about hundreds, if not thousands, of kinds of dogs, looking very different from each other, in just a few hundred years. And there are many more examples, even from natural occurrences and changes.

 

And then compare that to soup to humans? Seriously, that is my outside, no nothing about this argument. I am going outside to pet my crocoduck while I wait on an answer.

You do understand that the "crocoduck" would actually disprove evolution, but that aside, the animals that have changed very little over all these years are probably stuck in a niche which doesn't allow new mutations to thrive. The explanation is simply that the natural and environmental pressure keeps the DNA in line. They're top of the line species for their specific niche. If the environment would change drastically, the species would change more dramatically.

 

So, in other words, the unchanging species do fit into the model of evolution quite well, you just have to understand how it works.

 

End3, I know you're willing to learn new things, so I strongly recommend that you pick up Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth." It will explain many of these things. And remember, that book only touches the surface of all the evidence that exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

End3, I know you're willing to learn new things, so I strongly recommend that you pick up Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth." It will explain many of these things. And remember, that book only touches the surface of all the evidence that exist.

 

I second that recommendation, End. You can't be Kirk Cameron stupid.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is an old thread and evolution has popped up on the rail/derail.....I would like to ask a question please.

 

The thing that bothers me about evolution is the "in stasis" stuff. Earth, as I remember estimated at approx 4.5 billion years old and we have scientists that say that they have found fossils of things that haven't changed in 300,000,000 years....

They haven't changed *much*. To know if they have point mutations resulting in markers, they would need actual DNA from the original species. There's a great chance that there would be plenty of them.

 

and this is just the fossils they have found. So if one does the math, there doesn'seem like enough time to have gone from soup to creatures.

Actually there are observations of live animals over a couple of generations with clear phenotype changes. If we skip natural selection for a bit, and only focus on artificial selection, dog breeders have brought about hundreds, if not thousands, of kinds of dogs, looking very different from each other, in just a few hundred years. And there are many more examples, even from natural occurrences and changes.

 

And then compare that to soup to humans? Seriously, that is my outside, no nothing about this argument. I am going outside to pet my crocoduck while I wait on an answer.

You do understand that the "crocoduck" would actually disprove evolution, but that aside, the animals that have changed very little over all these years are probably stuck in a niche which doesn't allow new mutations to thrive. The explanation is simply that the natural and environmental pressure keeps the DNA in line. They're top of the line species for their specific niche. If the environment would change drastically, the species would change more dramatically.

 

So, in other words, the unchanging species do fit into the model of evolution quite well, you just have to understand how it works.

 

End3, I know you're willing to learn new things, so I strongly recommend that you pick up Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth." It will explain many of these things. And remember, that book only touches the surface of all the evidence that exist.

 

I appreciate the info....was just trying to make a joke with the crocoduck thing. And I gather that millions upon millions of years could offer enough time to makes significant changes.....just doesn't seem intuitively correct that 1500x time would be adequate for something to go from nothing to something and then just largely remain unchanged. I see that you are saying that if we had hard evidence we might see more readily the small changes. I will see if a copy ventures my way so I won't send anyone to the hospital due to them beating there heads against the wall.

 

Can we see type changes in let's say the American population in such a small time span?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the info....was just trying to make a joke with the crocoduck thing.

I know you were. :) It was just a chance for me to give a little extra information.

 

And I gather that millions upon millions of years could offer enough time to makes significant changes.....just doesn't seem intuitively correct that 1500x time would be adequate for something to go from nothing to something and then just largely remain unchanged.

Yeah, I know.

 

Actually, evolution is kind of counter-intuitive in several aspects, but unfortunately, it doesn't make it untrue. It's the same with quantum mechanics or relativity, even statistics can actually be counter intuitive in many aspects, but the truth is, our brain makes shortcuts in many areas. We want things to be simple, but they're not.

 

Just think about playing Yatzee. What are the chances that you throw a full Yatzee, all sixes, in the first throw? It's actually the same chance as throwing any other combination. You have the same chance of throwing a 66666 as throwing a 55555 or 44444. So when we get a full six, do we say, "it's impossible, it's a miracle!" or do we understand that even though it's extremely rare, it can happen?

 

It's the same with evolution. To have a species that does not evolve much, is quite within the parameters of the evolutionary process. The genotype has reached an equilibrium, and doesn't change much. (This is something you would read about in biological anthropology, which I'm studying at the moment.)

 

I see that you are saying that if we had hard evidence we might see more readily the small changes. I will see if a copy ventures my way so I won't send anyone to the hospital due to them beating there heads against the wall.

 

Can we see type changes in let's say the American population in such a small time span?

Oh yes.

 

There are at least 3 billion mutations in the current population. I'm not going to spend much time right now explaining the mutation rate of the Y-chromosome or the mtDNA, but it's there, and it's measurable, and it is attested through thorough research. It's no joke at all. Mutations causing micro-satellite markers is a fact. I'll talk about it some other day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

Since this is an old thread and evolution has popped up on the rail/derail.....I would like to ask a question please.

 

The thing that bothers me about evolution is the "in stasis" stuff. Earth, as I remember estimated at approx 4.5 billion years old and we have scientists that say that they have found fossils of things that haven't changed in 300,000,000 years....

They haven't changed *much*. To know if they have point mutations resulting in markers, they would need actual DNA from the original species. There's a great chance that there would be plenty of them.

 

and this is just the fossils they have found. So if one does the math, there doesn'seem like enough time to have gone from soup to creatures.

Actually there are observations of live animals over a couple of generations with clear phenotype changes. If we skip natural selection for a bit, and only focus on artificial selection, dog breeders have brought about hundreds, if not thousands, of kinds of dogs, looking very different from each other, in just a few hundred years. And there are many more examples, even from natural occurrences and changes.

 

And then compare that to soup to humans? Seriously, that is my outside, no nothing about this argument. I am going outside to pet my crocoduck while I wait on an answer.

You do understand that the "crocoduck" would actually disprove evolution, but that aside, the animals that have changed very little over all these years are probably stuck in a niche which doesn't allow new mutations to thrive. The explanation is simply that the natural and environmental pressure keeps the DNA in line. They're top of the line species for their specific niche. If the environment would change drastically, the species would change more dramatically.

 

So, in other words, the unchanging species do fit into the model of evolution quite well, you just have to understand how it works.

 

End3, I know you're willing to learn new things, so I strongly recommend that you pick up Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth." It will explain many of these things. And remember, that book only touches the surface of all the evidence that exist.

 

I appreciate the info....was just trying to make a joke with the crocoduck thing. And I gather that millions upon millions of years could offer enough time to makes significant changes.....just doesn't seem intuitively correct that 1500x time would be adequate for something to go from nothing to something and then just largely remain unchanged. I see that you are saying that if we had hard evidence we might see more readily the small changes. I will see if a copy ventures my way so I won't send anyone to the hospital due to them beating there heads against the wall.

 

Can we see type changes in let's say the American population in such a small time span?

 

Humans are evolving gradually. apparently the appendix is growing smaller due to the change in human diet since we first evolved.

 

The Australian duck-billed platypus is apparently a superb example of evolution:

 

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/platypus.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the info....was just trying to make a joke with the crocoduck thing. And I gather that millions upon millions of years could offer enough time to makes significant changes.....just doesn't seem intuitively correct that 1500x time would be adequate for something to go from nothing to something and then just largely remain unchanged. I see that you are saying that if we had hard evidence we might see more readily the small changes. I will see if a copy ventures my way so I won't send anyone to the hospital due to them beating there heads against the wall.

 

Can we see type changes in let's say the American population in such a small time span?

 

Keep in mind that not all changes manifest themselves morphologically. Changes in body chemistry, blood types, the immune system, soft tissue/organs don't always, and sometime rarely/never, leave fossil evidence. A creature may appear relatively unchanged on the outside but the contemporary specimen may have some new internal organs or it may have lost some. A contemporary creature will almost certainly be immune to some present day diseases or parasites that didn't exist millions of years ago.

 

Its also important to note that the majority of these creatures that appear to be relatively unchanged are almost always found in the ocean. The ocean is one of, if no the most, stable enviroment on Earth. Changes in temperature, pressure and salinity don't change much over time. Geological changes matter less than on land. As long as a creature has a stable food source and is safe from predators there isn't much selective preasure to change. The prime example I can think of is sharks, they can eat almost anything made of meat and they are appex predators so they themselves are rarely preyed upon. Once a creature digs itself into a very stable niche like this not much change is needed. Kind of like modifying a race car. Once it has the optimum form for what it does the only subsequent changes are the subtle fine tunning variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A "science" professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, 'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of" "science" philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

 

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

 

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

 

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

 

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes.'

 

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

 

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

 

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

 

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

 

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

 

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

 

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

 

'Then where does Satan come from?'

 

The student falters. 'From God'

 

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

 

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes.'

 

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer.

 

'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

 

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

 

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.

'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

 

'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

 

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

 

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

 

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

 

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't..'

 

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.'

 

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

 

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

 

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

 

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

 

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

 

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

 

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

 

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

 

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

 

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it?

 

That's the meaning we use to define the word. 'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

 

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

 

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

 

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

 

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

 

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

 

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

 

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from monkey?'

 

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

 

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

 

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

 

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

 

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

 

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

 

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

 

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

 

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

 

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

 

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

 

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

 

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

 

To this the student replied, "'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil [sin] emphasis mine . Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

 

The professor sat down."

 

........

lol. That philosophy professor just had to use his philosophy class to promote his beliefs huh?!

The boy should have told the professor: "When you make people think they are thinking, they will love you. But when you make them THINK, they will hate you”.

 

Sorry my friends, the above jokes were not meant to be condescending to anyone OK? It was just meant to show that evolutionists cannot be dogmatic about an evolutionary theory of origins; just like belief in God, it too is based on faith.

Actually, if the bible did not have the prophecies it would have been merely a philosophical book.

 

Here's a little bit of trivia (seemingly), to the objective amongst you who won't mind playing God's advocate;) lol ; based on the above joke, why would this song : Michael Jackson - We Are the World Lyrics

be utterly evil in the sight of God? (Hint, hint read Luke 4:1-13)

 

 

P.S. Yeah yeah I know some of you would claim to be "common ancestors" with the darn monkeys. But c'mon admit it, we're waaaay cuter than monkeys.

Two problems with your cute little anecdote.

Firstly, no educated science teacher would say that there is such thing as 'cold' unless they were speaking strictly in a colloquial context. The direct question in this anecdote is 'is there cold', and no educated science teacher (I'm qualified to teach science) would say that in this context there is 'cold'. They would say straight from the get go that cold is a word we have to describe a situation where there is an absence of heat.

 

Same with the dark/light analogy. A science teacher would only refer to 'dark' in colloquial terms. As the conversation was not of that nature (it was discussing scientific concepts, not asking whether someone could see to get their key in the door) this cute little story was obviously invented to make the christian protagonist (usually in emails he is given as Albert Einstein or some other famous scientist that uneducated christians know the name of) look smarter than the science teacher. No science teacher in that situation would walk into such obvious mistakes.

 

Furthermore, you don't have to directly see something to prove it is there. THe science teacher would know this. I've never seen my brain, but I've had MRI scans of it. MY head weighs more than something made of bone with an empty cavity inside. I get icecream headaches, which are caused by cooled blood running over my palate and into the blood vessels in my brain (blood vessels are the only tissue in your brain that send pain impulses). I'm not a specialist science teacher, I only covered basic stuff for my degree, but even I know this. A science teacher in real life would not fall for this shit.

 

You DON'T have to take it on faith. The author of this poorly written story knows fuck all about science, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker, Thumbelina, because you know nothing about science either.

 

One last thing. How can evil be the absence of god, when god is omnipresent? I thought god was everywhere at all times. Are you telling us that god is not present everywhere at all times? Or didn't you think of that implication to your theology when you used that as an explanation to excuse away the problem of evil? You didn't think this through, did you?

 

You'd better get out of here, people are laughing at you. I sure am.

 

EDIT

People observe evolution happening all the time.

 

I grew up in the bush, in the high country. There were a lot of feral cats up there. Each generation got progressively bigger because the largest tom cats were stronger and sired the largest amount of kittens, who inherited their genes. You could tell which tom cat had sired what kittens because of their patterning, and the length of their fur. Each litter of cats (litters are often sired by multiple toms) had a mix of kittens of different sizes. The bigger ones tended to do better, survive, and have litters of their own, because they were stronger and were able to access more females than the smaller tomcats. So the larger ones sired more and more kittens. This went on for years, until the cat flu went through.

 

The environment the cats were in meant that a larger, stronger cat would have a better chance of surviving than a smaller, weaker cat. So the population of cats in our area gradually became physically larger. I remember having a few pet cats that were massive, one being so big he sounded like a human being walking around the house at night.

 

Evolution is just tiny changes over time. If that change is favourable for the organism (like size was for the feral cats)then the organism has an easier time of surviving and reproducing, and thus they pass that gene onto their offspring, while other organisms of the same species suffer because they don't have this advantage. Their chances of reproducing and passing on their genes are hindered because they don't have the advantage.

 

Evolution is just the accumulation of these tiny, tiny changes. Anything in an organism's make up that makes it easier for them to survive and reproduce in their environment favours is more likely to be passed on to descendents, who pass it on to their descendents.

 

In human terms, there are some very obvious genetic traits that get passed on.

 

I'm short. My father was short. I inherited the genes for my height from him. My mother is taller. I missed out on her taller genes. I guarantee that if you look at your parents, you'll see traits in them that you inherited.

 

On a deeper level, I will have genes for more specific things. I may pass certain cancer genes onto my descendents. THe more we learn about genetics the more we realise how much we pass on.

 

You should learn a bit about evolution before you come here and present garbage. It would make you less of a laughing stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...just doesn't seem intuitively correct that 1500x time would be adequate for something to go from nothing to something and then just largely remain unchanged

And here is where evolution carries its limits - it does not explain the ORIGIN of life - it can only explain the change in a species over time. The prime assumption for evolution is that life has to already exist.

You may want to go look up Abiogenesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.