Believeing Christian myths

[Amethyst]

Were any of you christian and not believing in miracles at all?

 

I believed in miracles because everyone around me did. If you are told "the sky is green" enough times while you're a child, and everyone else around you seems to believe it, eventually you will believe it, too.

[Taphophilia]

It is very difficult for me to believe that the Earth, which is in the scope of the universe is a tiny insignificant speck in an insignificant arm of one of billions of galaxies, is the most important place in the universe.

Christainity supports this belief.

Considering how unfathomably big the universe is. It is only logical to assume there is life elsewhere in the universe.

 

The Bible says that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Considering the possibility of other life in the universe, did Jesus go to other planets and die for the sins of other beings in the universe?

[crazy-tiger]

Mr. Grinch,

 

"I'm no expert on what Evolutionary theory teaches, but I'm certain that your simplistic explanation is wrong"

 

No, my explanation is accurate. It's just that when you see evolution in stark, summarized terms, you recognise that something is missing or incorrect.

No... your explaination "Evolutionary theory would have you believe that all life forms on this planet came about through wholly accidental, random events. The ultimate thought is that all life forms came from rocks and some undefined/undiscovered/undemonstratable stimulus." though stark and summarized, is inaccurate. All it is, is a stark, summarized inaccurate explaination...

 

ToE does not mention "wholly accidental, random events" or "undefined/undiscovered/undemonstratable stimulus." That kind of statement is only found in the mis-informative strawmen that Creationist like to trot out all the time.

"why MUST life be an "accident" just because you've removed "God" from the spurious equation? Why cannot the universe be predisposed to create Life? We live in an infinite universe, with eternity for a measure. Who is to say that this universe can NOT create Life, in one form or another, after a period of "time"?"

 

Like I already said, everyone believes in something.

As in? Believes in something that's "higher" than them?

 

Don't make me laugh...

"No one says Evolution is random or accidental"

 

You are uninformed about this.

You're right... some people say that. But they're the ones who don't know what they're talking about OR they're the ones who DO know what they're talking about but are lying anyway. (Hovind, anyone?)

 

 

Which are you?

 

And more to the point, will you admit it?

[Ouroboros]

Hans,

 

"you believe all races, eye colors, hair colors and all different unique alleles came from Adam and Eve, one common ancestor. Actually you have to believe in mutations too"

 

Absolutely. The difference is that I accept mutations for what they actually do. They are copy errors in DNA replication. I believe that the bulk of the info in the genome, "junk DNA" as it is called, was once viable.

So if mutations are only negative and destructive, how can "micro" evolution happen without destroying the species?

 

If someone is born with a mutation that is more positive for that persons survival, and he gives it to his offspring, why wouldn't that affect the survival of that family in a positive way? (Micro to macro)

 

"What about your God as the common ancestor, don't you believe in that?"

 

Yes, but I don't think it would be in terms that you would immediately understand.

Why? How do you know I wouldn't?

 

"You believe God is the source of everything, and not only that, but you believe God created humans from dirt!"

 

Affirmative. You on the other hand, believe in the same thing, only with no intellect involved whatever. Your belief substitutes random error and chance for purpose and intent. I notice that it is often difficult for evolutionists to stay pure about this. I can illustrate what I mean if you are interested.

Evolution is not only about the random mutations but also about the selection. They go hand-in-hand; one can not be without the other. So it's not only "chance" but guided chance. Guided by environment, survival and selection by the peers.

 

I'm interested, show me the illustration.

 

"You're the one that believe that Noah were able to squeeze in two of each 1440 or more different species of iguanas in a boat! Or do you subscribe to the idea that it was only a pair of each kind? Just two iguanas? Which means they must have evolved since Noah!!!"

 

Again, this goes to the heart of the debate and requires mention of the distinction between micro and macro evolution. Creationists accept the micro as we believe that original kinds were gushing with coded information. Speciation, I believe, happens as the instructions in DNA are deleted or rendered inactive. Micro-evolution is still about iguanas unspiraling into other iguanas, not primitive birds.

1440 species of Iguanas. As I read it, they're separate species of them. Not just different kinds of breeds, like the dogs. But different incompatible species (or sub-species). But I could be wrong. Now, iguana have recently been discovered to be related to snakes. Some iguanas have the same poison as some snakes, but not as potent. (Just a sidenote)

 

What about cat animals? Can you breed panthers with lynx? Did panthers, lions, cougars, house cats, lynx etc come from one cat on Noah's ark or were they separate?

 

And explain why micro evolution doesn't effect macro. The DNA structure and function is exactly the same, like a common language. Every living thing on this planet speaks the same language in the DNA. But the DNA just say different things. The only thing you're trying to say is that a DNA string can't be extended. But if you compare two animals with the same length of DNA encoding, you could take the DNA from one, replace evey locus with a code the other animal has, and then end up with an identical DNA as the other animal. Don't you agree?

 

So the question is can DNA be extended into more genetic codes through a mutation.

 

Evolution, on the other hand, has to count on mutations, and nothing else, to account for upward development and macro-evolution whereby fish mutated into amphibs, etc.

 

The destructive effects of mutations are easily documentable and observable as is non-functioning DNA material. Our theory, or belief if you choose to characterize it as such, accomodates the evidence. Yours does not. You have nothing in the way of examples of new genetic information being generated.

If there's only destructive effects of mutations, then we shouldn't have any live animals, and no humans living on the planet today. There's a truckload of generations since "Adam", and the mutations would have destroyed us by now. Or do you say mutations don't happen often enough? Consider the eye color and hair color example again. Eye color is not only blue, brown and green, but many different shades. These properties are changing, without destroying us. So you have to at least admit there is neutral mutations too! Right?

 

-edit-

Sorry, this is not the topic of the thread. I'm not going to post any responses about evolution anymore.

 

To separate evolution into macro and micro is a very stupid concept by the apologists.

 

Windows XP and Mac OS are two different kinds of operating system, and there are a lot of incompatibilites.

But yet they both are running by, and only by, the machine code instructions it's compiled to.

Not some magical, super-spiritual guidance that contradicts the machine-code.

 

This is what creationists believe, that regardless of the DNA, an animal develops to its species, not through the code in the DNA, but through a supernatural hand that guides it into becoming a human, monkey, fish or whatever. But it's not true. The species is defined whole and complete by its DNA, and no outside, external source for it's design.

 

Ergo, macro and micro are 100% correlated to each other. Macro is only the end result from a complete microlevel of DNA code.

[crazy-tiger]

Again, this goes to the heart of the debate and requires mention of the distinction between micro and macro evolution. Creationists accept the micro as we believe that original kinds were gushing with coded information. Speciation, I believe, happens as the instructions in DNA are deleted or rendered inactive. Micro-evolution is still about iguanas unspiraling into other iguanas, not primitive birds.

 

Evolution, on the other hand, has to count on mutations, and nothing else, to account for upward development and macro-evolution whereby fish mutated into amphibs, etc.

 

The destructive effects of mutations are easily documentable and observable as is non-functioning DNA material. Our theory, or belief if you choose to characterize it as such, accomodates the evidence. Yours does not. You have nothing in the way of examples of new genetic information being generated.

You know... this isn't that far off-topic after all, since TX here is talking about a Christian Creationist myth...

 

I mean... just count the Christian Creationist myths that he's coming out with. The Micro/Macro myth, the Speciation myth, (he just needs to work out what it really is) the Mutations myth, the New Genetic Information myth...

 

 

 

Yes, TX is a fine example of someone who believes in Christian myths and doesn't question them.

[Checkmate]

Allow me ONE final observation, before we get back on track about believing myths.

Interesting dichotomy you live in, since you believe all races, eye colors, hair colors and all different unique alleles came from Adam and Eve, one common ancestor. Actually you have to believe in mutations too. Sorry, but you have to.

Very good point! In fact, I'll go you one example better.

 

Does not "God" flood the earth, and leave Noah and his family to repopulate the earth? Even had they been of eight distinct races, that still won't account for the various racial differences today. There just HAD to be some mutating and evolving going on.

 

Just look at two basic examples. Caucasian vs African. Is anyone going to tell me that such distinctly different races descended from the same genetic stock WITHOUT changing? Caucasians are designed BY NATURE to survive best in Northern/COLD climates. Africans are designed by NATURE to survive in Southern/HOT climes.

 

You just cannot get around evolution, no matter how you try to slice the pie. Darwin or the Bible. There was some "evolving" going down SOMEWHERE.

[Thurisaz]

However, the scientific alternative, in my mind, is much more difficult to digest.

 

Says much about what you call your "mind".

 

Evolutionary theory would have you believe that all life forms on this planet came about through wholly accidental, random events.

 

So...

...what kind of cultist are you? The ignorant one or the dishonest one? For what you just babbled is pure nonsense... but if you can convince me that you didn't know that until now, I'm ready to forgive you. Once.

 

The ultimate thought is that all life forms came from rocks and some undefined/undiscovered/undemonstratable stimulus.

 

See above. Evolutionary theory says no such thing, and regurgibabbling cretinist/IDiot nonsense will not make people take you seriously.

Not here, that is.

 

No, my explanation is accurate.

 

It's only an "accurate explanation" of the common cretinist/IDiot strawman of the real thing. And it's not like we never saw that strawman before, death cultist.

[Ouroboros]

TxViper got me thinking. Do I believe in Evolution the way he thinks? Is it that I believe in Evolution against proof, evidence, logic and reason? I spent about a half hour, and I clearly could see that Evolution is evident. It's so frigging logical that a person denying its functions have to deny that 1+1=2.

 

Let me explain (and I probably will do a crappy job at it, and if a faith-addict refuse to understand, it's not my fault )

 

First let us make the DNA simple, but just having two codes: A and B. And we'll make the DNA string really short, just 10-20 characters.

 

Let us start with some premises:

 

1. An individual of any species is described and developed from, and completely from the DNA code. There is not supernatural hand making an individual into a dog, cat, human or rat during the development. I'm not talking about creation or no creation, I'm talking about someone is pregnant, and the individual they carry will become the same species, not because there is some mystical or spiritual link between mother and fetus that makes the fetus to become the particular species. In essence, I could take the fetus and "grow" it in a tank and it still would develop into the species. And furthermore I could create a DNA string from scratch and implant it into a "mother" that could carry the individual to full term and the individual would develop into the species. In other words, it's only the DNA that makes us into the species we are, and nothing external.

 

2. Lets accept that mutations occurs. That has been proven, and can be proven, and is the reason why we get cancer, get new strains of flu virus etc.

 

3. Selection occurs in nature. Someone with better abilities will have better chance of survival. How can you deny that? Have you ever gone to a job interview, trying to get a job, and you really needed this job, but someone else, better equipped and educated got it? Won't he have money to buy food, and you won't?

 

 

The question is, can the DNA string mutate from one species to another?

 

 

So, let's say the DNA code for a rat is: ABBAABBA

And for the human is: BABBAABAABBA

 

Let's compare them

ABBAABBA

BABBAABAABBA

 

There are similarities in the code here.

 

Let's mutate:

 

First change position 7 in rat DNA from B to A: ABBAABAA

 

Then add one B in the front: BABBAABAA

 

Then add BBA at the end: BABBAABAABBA

 

Result:

BABBAABAABBA

 

Same as the human DNA.

 

Was this magic? Did it take faith to do this? Did I pray while I was typing this, to make sure the Evolution-God would blind your eyes and fool you so you had to believe this against the logical reasoning? Damn! I didn't! How in the world could I get from a rats DNA to a Human DNA so simple and without a 2000 year old book, or prayer, or fasting, or casting out demons, or chanting in church for 2 hours straight? How can this be so evident, and yet people with faith claims this requires belief too?

 

Denying evolution as a principle, requires that you have make yourself blind to what is logical and rational.

 

The only way to claim that macro-evolution is not based on micro-evolution, is by saying that God is creating every individual on a constant basis, and that the DNA is not the only code that drives an individual to develop into its species. But the evidence in medicine proves the contrary. DNA is the only code that makes you a human or not. Not some kind of spirit that hovered in your mothers uterus before you were born.

 

It takes faith to believe the soul/spirit makes you human or rat, or any other kind of species, while it doesn't take any faith to understand the principles of evolution, only logic.

[txviper]

Hans,

 

"Evolution is not only about the random mutations but also about the selection. They go hand-in-hand; one can not be without the other. So it's not only "chance" but guided chance. Guided by environment, survival and selection by the peers."

 

Forget about selection Hans. The changes can only occur by way of the mutations. You guys deal with mutations and selection like they are twin sisters with different personalities. One being erratic and temperamental, the other steady and deliberate. I can understand the need to morph the concepts but the reality is that pure naturalism can neither require nor allow anything except accidental, directionless, arbitrary events. There is no guidance of any kind.

 

 

"I'm interested, show me the illustration" [regarding evolutionists having trouble staying away from design concepts]

 

Okay. Here's a very recent example:

 

"These beetles usually lay their eggs in rotting animals, so this plant pretends to be a dead animal," he said. [This is from the chairman of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History's botany department, hardly a creationist or he wouldn't have the job]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory...TC-RSSFeeds0312

 

"pretends to be a dead animal" shows that this guy recognises the design features and purpose, but he is miles away from the core expectations of evolution. There is nothing willful or intentional involved. Random copy errors and nothing else. All accidents, all the way. For the plant and the beetles, and the countless mechanisms involved in the relationship. And this is only one of millions.

 

"pretends to be" and statements like this are hardly rare. They happen when TOE adherents stray away from the parameters of the faith, notice the obvious and the next thing you know they are proclaiming the results of purpose and intent. Blasphemy against the sisters.

[Ouroboros]

Hans,

 

"Evolution is not only about the random mutations but also about the selection. They go hand-in-hand; one can not be without the other. So it's not only "chance" but guided chance. Guided by environment, survival and selection by the peers."

 

Forget about selection Hans. The changes can only occur by way of the mutations. You guys deal with mutations and selection like they are twin sisters with different personalities. One being erratic and temperamental, the other steady and deliberate. I can understand the need to morph the concepts but the reality is that pure naturalism can neither require nor allow anything except accidental, directionless, arbitrary events. There is no guidance of any kind.

But they do go hand in hand! The natural selection is the Key to Evolution, and if you don't understand the two feet evolution stands on, you can't critique it. It's like me being angry at you because you don't teach about Jesus, and yet you do, and I claim you have to stop it, so I can claim you don't. It's idiocy!!!

 

You're asking me to "forget" natural selection, so you can claim evolution stupid "because it it's only by chance". It's a straw man! You can't exclude natural selection!!!

 

(It's chapter 4 of 14 chapters, in The Origin of Species.)

 

"I'm interested, show me the illustration" [regarding evolutionists having trouble staying away from design concepts]

 

Okay. Here's a very recent example:

 

"These beetles usually lay their eggs in rotting animals, so this plant pretends to be a dead animal," he said. [This is from the chairman of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History's botany department, hardly a creationist or he wouldn't have the job]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory...TC-RSSFeeds0312

 

"pretends to be a dead animal" shows that this guy recognises the design features and purpose, but he is miles away from the core expectations of evolution. There is nothing willful or intentional involved. Random copy errors and nothing else. All accidents, all the way. For the plant and the beetles, and the countless mechanisms involved in the relationship. And this is only one of millions.

 

"pretends to be" and statements like this are hardly rare. They happen when TOE adherents stray away from the parameters of the faith, notice the obvious and the next thing you know they are proclaiming the results of purpose and intent. Blasphemy against the sisters.

He's talking in allegorical expressions. I thought you understood that concept. Didn't Jesus teach in allegories? You understand those, but you can't understand how he makes a symbolic comparison, to make it easier for kids to grasp. Why does that mean that he believes in a creator? You agree to there are mutations, so then you're an evil evolutionist, by your own associative standards!

[crazy-tiger]

Hans,

 

"Evolution is not only about the random mutations but also about the selection. They go hand-in-hand; one can not be without the other. So it's not only "chance" but guided chance. Guided by environment, survival and selection by the peers."

 

Forget about selection Hans. The changes can only occur by way of the mutations. You guys deal with mutations and selection like they are twin sisters with different personalities. One being erratic and temperamental, the other steady and deliberate. I can understand the need to morph the concepts but the reality is that pure naturalism can neither require nor allow anything except accidental, directionless, arbitrary events. There is no guidance of any kind.

No intelligent guidance, true... but there is still guidance.

 

Two animals, both identical except that one has a thicker coat... along comes an ice-age and the one with the thicker coat is more likely to survive. Evolution guided by environment and survival.

Two animals, identical except that one, due to a mutation, can survive without food for a bit longer... along comes a drought... Yep, evolution guided by environment and survival.

Two animals, identical except that one has a mutation that gives it a little more strength... along comes a mate, the first two fight, the one with the mutation "wins" and you have evolution being guided by peer selection.

 

 

Without selection, mutations are meaningless... without mutations, selection is meaningless...

To insist that only one is to be used is to create a strawman of evolution.

"I'm interested, show me the illustration" [regarding evolutionists having trouble staying away from design concepts]

 

Okay. Here's a very recent example:

 

"These beetles usually lay their eggs in rotting animals, so this plant pretends to be a dead animal," he said. [This is from the chairman of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History's botany department, hardly a creationist or he wouldn't have the job]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory...TC-RSSFeeds0312

 

"pretends to be a dead animal" shows that this guy recognises the design features and purpose, but he is miles away from the core expectations of evolution. There is nothing willful or intentional involved. Random copy errors and nothing else. All accidents, all the way. For the plant and the beetles, and the countless mechanisms involved in the relationship. And this is only one of millions.

 

"pretends to be" and statements like this are hardly rare. They happen when TOE adherents stray away from the parameters of the faith, notice the obvious and the next thing you know they are proclaiming the results of purpose and intent. Blasphemy against the sisters.

The use of the word "pretend" does not imply design or purpose... All it does is say that it simulates something else.

 

These statements are common because the common person doesn't have the language skills neccessary to understand the specifics, so non-specific words and phrases are used instead... then you get people like you coming along who use the wrong meaning of these non-specific words and insisting that the non-specific words ARE the specific words and meanings.

 

You're so damn sure you are right that it never occurs to you to find out what they mean in the first place. You're too determined to show them wrong that you won't even bother to learn what it's all about. Instead, you rely on non-specific words and phrases that are twisted by the belief that there must have been a designer...

 

 

Just answer this question... since everything needs a designer, what designed the designer?

[Samurai Tailor]

The changes can only occur by way of the mutations. You guys deal with mutations and selection like they are twin sisters with different personalities. One being erratic and temperamental, the other steady and deliberate. I can understand the need to morph the concepts but the reality is that pure naturalism can neither require nor allow anything except accidental, directionless, arbitrary events. There is no guidance of any kind.

There is guidance, but it does not need to be purposeful or teleological. Mutations are the main source of phenotypic change, but whether they are beneficial or detrimental is a question necessarily delimited by the environment.

 

A mutation that, for example, alters the pelvic angle of a tree-dwelling ape. making ground-travel somewhat easier, is beneficial if that opens up a food 'market' previously untapped by large mammals.

 

"pretends to be a dead animal" shows that this guy recognises the design features and purpose, but he is miles away from the core expectations of evolution. There is nothing willful or intentional involved. Random copy errors and nothing else. All accidents, all the way. For the plant and the beetles, and the countless mechanisms involved in the relationship. And this is only one of millions.

 

"pretends to be" and statements like this are hardly rare. They happen when TOE adherents stray away from the parameters of the faith, notice the obvious and the next thing you know they are proclaiming the results of purpose and intent. Blasphemy against the sisters.

Actually all it shows is the limitations of language, on the parts of both the speaker and the listener. A plant can "pretend" without a prior intention, but you insist on applying the interpretation that entails intelligence and self-awareness.

 

If you interpret something inconsistent with the position or paradigm from which the speaker is likely operating, then the charitable thing would be to revise your interpretation.

[Mr. Neil]

Forget about selection Hans. The changes can only occur by way of the mutations. You guys deal with mutations and selection like they are twin sisters with different personalities. One being erratic and temperamental, the other steady and deliberate. I can understand the need to morph the concepts but the reality is that pure naturalism can neither require nor allow anything except accidental, directionless, arbitrary events. There is no guidance of any kind.

You know, I really can't figure out what point you're trying to make. In fact, the way you've described natural selection leads me to believe that you absolutely have no idea what it is.

 

Have you ever heard the phrase, "one man's junk is another man's treasure"? It's kind of that sort of principle, except that you exchange man for the environment. Some mutations produce changes that result in junk, and thus they are "thrown away" when they encounter environmental conditions, like a specimen with a mutation that causes fur to grow thick in a warm environment. Such a specimen would be unable to adapt and thus he would be "deselected". But if the same mutation happened in a cooler environment, then the specimen would be better adapted for cold weather.

 

Do you see the fallacy of your argument yet? In evolution, the context of beneficial mutations depends on the environment, but you keep wanting strip away the context. Why are you doing that? Natural selection is not only entirely relevent when discussing the specificity of evolutionary adaptations; it's essential to the topic!

[Ouroboros]

And lets not forget that the original book published by Darwin, in the 19th century, was called: "The Origin of Species : By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

 

That was the breakthrough in the thoughts about biology, and he didn't know about heredity or DNA or any of the mechanics of mutations.

 

-edit-

 

Sorry, of course he knew about heredity and traits passed on, but he didn't know about the mechanics of it.

[txviper]

"But they do go hand in hand! The natural selection is the Key to Evolution........You're asking me to "forget" natural selection

 

No intelligent guidance, true... but there is still guidance........Without selection, mutations are meaningless

 

There is guidance, but it does not need to be purposeful or teleological. Mutations are the main source of phenotypic change, but whether they are beneficial or detrimental is a question necessarily delimited by the environment."

 

 

Okay, let's try something different. Let's presume that selection is a really powerful steering mechanism, anxious and waiting for something really phenomenal to happen. Either beneficial or deleterious. You can assign any and all potency to it. Forget the randomness idea and let's just say that natural selection is going to be very helpful and cooperative in its "guidance". She is now in your corner, a force to be reckoned with.

 

One of the twins is now declared reliable and effective to support your theory. Let's try and look at the other one with some measure of objectivity.

 

Mutations are nothing more than copy errors. 100% unintentional screw-ups. Accidental. Non-directional. No purpose or intent. No anticipated consequences, good or bad. They occur very infrequently. They are usually, to the tune of around 99%, neautral and have no impact at all. When they do, ti is usually destructive and the organism either dies or is "deselected".

 

So far then, you have:

 

-one enormous amount of nothing happeneing

-pared down to a minute amount of anything consequential happening

-this narrowed to the likelihood that if something does happen, it will be harmful

 

In consideration of the razor-thin possibility that a beneficial mutation might occur, you have to factor in that the recipient:

 

-might not survive anyway

-might not pass it on

 

and that:

 

-if it is passed on, it will not be cancelled by another, more probable, deleterious mutation or

-that the entire species, millions of them having supposedly come and gone, will not be dlaimed by the ugly sister of extinction from any of a number of natural causes Add to the equation,

 

-no serious, undisputed examples of beneficial mutations can be presented as evidence

-nothing in the way of additional genetic information being added to any genome can be empirically documented

 

 

All that in mind, can't you say "I believe in miracles!"?

 

 

----------------------------------

 

 

In regards to the remarkable corpse plant and its confused caretaker:

 

"-He's talking in allegorical expressions.............he makes a symbolic comparison

-the common person doesn't have the language skills neccessary to understand the specifics, so non-specific words and phrases are used instead

-Actually all it shows is the limitations of language, on the parts of both the speaker and the listener"

 

No, this was not a metaphorical description, the concept is not difficult and the language is not limited. All mister botanist did was note the obvious; that the plant was designed to reproduce in a very peculiar and particular way. He could have put it in evolutionary terms and mentioned the millions of copy error mutations that occurred coincidentally, but cooperatively, and were selected to allow this amazing reciprocation between bug and corpse plant. But who wants to look like a total moron in an interview?

[Vigile]

 

Really interesting answers Hans.

 

*moving on*

 

I for one am really tired of xtians coming here trying to chip away at the foundations of scientific discovery promoting thier mythology by every means provided them by the latest, greatest appolgist.

 

TX, take it up with the scientific community. Take it up with your professor. Why should we educate you? Why should we defend evidence available to humanity? Your beliefs are nutty. Defend them.

[Ouroboros]

 

You know what TxViper, we have several threads about this topic, and now this is going to far of from the OP of this thread.

 

I have answers for you, but this thread wasn't about Evolution vs Creationism, so I'm sorry I'm not going to give you those answers. You have to start searching them for yourself, which you won't. I used to believe in Creationism too, for 30 years. But after studying the principles of evolution in conjunction with emulations through genetic algorithms in computer science, it's very evident that the process of evolution is extremely viable and solid theory. Even though you can't see it.

 

It's not a belief in evolution, but very logical, sound and rational. So without moving this thread further away from its original topic, I'm just going to tell you TxViper that, No, to "believe" in evolution is not the same as to believe in Creationism. I used to live in a faith system, so I can, with many others here on this site, tell you that it's a huge difference between those two ideas.

 

/edit/

To answer a few of your posits:

 

-no serious, undisputed examples of beneficial mutations can be presented as evidence

The bird flu. It's a mutation beneficial, not to us, but to the virus. You have to look at it independent and objective, and from the context the virus have evolved. The same thing with drug resistant viruses too.

 

-nothing in the way of additional genetic information being added to any genome can be empirically documented

Down's syndrome. Do you consider them a different species and not humans?

 

Really interesting answers Hans.

Thanks. I hope it made sense.

 

I even have thougth out how to write a simulation or emulation of the evolution process as a computer program. But it would take to much of my time (which I have to little of right now), and I know it would work.

 

And why am I so confident? Because genetic algorithms have already with great success been used and still are used all the time, everywhere, but most people don't know about it.

 

The first genetic algorithm was used to control a oil pipeline, and the evolved program did a better job than the traditional mathematical algorithms. The program evolved into controlling the flow and pressure of the piplelines and by time it had become superior to any previous method. Only by random mutations of the program and trial and error. The faulty procedures were killed and the successfull were kept to the next copy/mutation sequence. This is no bullshit.

[crazy-tiger]

"But they do go hand in hand! The natural selection is the Key to Evolution........You're asking me to "forget" natural selection

 

No intelligent guidance, true... but there is still guidance........Without selection, mutations are meaningless

 

There is guidance, but it does not need to be purposeful or teleological. Mutations are the main source of phenotypic change, but whether they are beneficial or detrimental is a question necessarily delimited by the environment."

 

 

Okay, let's try something different. Let's presume that selection is a really powerful steering mechanism, anxious and waiting for something really phenomenal to happen. Either beneficial or deleterious. You can assign any and all potency to it. Forget the randomness idea and let's just say that natural selection is going to be very helpful and cooperative in its "guidance". She is now in your corner, a force to be reckoned with.

 

One of the twins is now declared reliable and effective to support your theory. Let's try and look at the other one with some measure of objectivity.

 

Mutations are nothing more than copy errors. 100% unintentional screw-ups. Accidental. Non-directional. No purpose or intent. No anticipated consequences, good or bad. They occur very infrequently.

And stop right there...

 

As has been pointed out before, mutations happen extremely frequently. Approximately 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutations per person at any one time is not infrequent.

They are usually, to the tune of around 99%, neautral and have no impact at all. When they do, ti is usually destructive and the organism either dies or is "deselected".

 

So far then, you have:

 

-one enormous amount of nothing happeneing

-pared down to a minute amount of anything consequential happening

-this narrowed to the likelihood that if something does happen, it will be harmful

Lets say that only 1% of impacting mutations are beneficial... that would be 1% of 1% of all mutations.

Sounds pretty unlikely, doesn't it?

 

Now, lets do the maths... 1% of 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000... 1% of that is 432,000,000,000,000,000,000

Thats 432,000,000,000,000,000,000 BENEFICIAL mutations per person at any one time...

In consideration of the razor-thin possibility that a beneficial mutation might occur, you have to factor in that the recipient:

 

-might not survive anyway

-might not pass it on

 

and that:

 

-if it is passed on, it will not be cancelled by another, more probable, deleterious mutation or

-that the entire species, millions of them having supposedly come and gone, will not be dlaimed by the ugly sister of extinction from any of a number of natural causes .

So far we've seen that your idea of infrequent is anything but, and that your razor-thin possibility is incredibly wide...

 

But don't stop yet... you've not done setting up a strawman yet.

Add to the equation,

 

-no serious, undisputed examples of beneficial mutations can be presented as evidence

Ok... skin colouration. It's a mutation and it's undisputedly beneficial. (and it's serious)

-nothing in the way of additional genetic information being added to any genome can be empirically documented

Altered genetic information can be enough... additional information isn't essential and the claim that it is, is nothing more than Creationist bollocks.

 

Of course, what would you call the existence of an extra chromosone in ADDITION to the standard amount? The fact that it's been found to happen shows that your second claim is false.

All that in mind, can't you say "I believe in miracles!"?

No... with all that in mind, I can say "you believe in strawmen and lies"

In regards to the remarkable corpse plant and its confused caretaker:

 

"-He's talking in allegorical expressions.............he makes a symbolic comparison

-the common person doesn't have the language skills neccessary to understand the specifics, so non-specific words and phrases are used instead

-Actually all it shows is the limitations of language, on the parts of both the speaker and the listener"

 

No, this was not a metaphorical description, the concept is not difficult and the language is not limited. All mister botanist did was note the obvious; that the plant was designed to reproduce in a very peculiar and particular way. He could have put it in evolutionary terms and mentioned the millions of copy error mutations that occurred coincidentally, but cooperatively, and were selected to allow this amazing reciprocation between bug and corpse plant. But who wants to look like a total moron in an interview?

When you are able to comprehend the existence of more than one meaning to the word "pretend", and when you are able to accept that the meaning you ASSUME was being used is not the one that was, and when you finally understand that sticking an unproven wish that has no evidence in where there is already a very rational explaination with more evidence than any other field of science is a waste of time and intelligence, then you might drag yourself above the level of village idiot...

 

You've shown that you use strawmen, that you quote-mine, that you will deliberately use the wrong meaning, that you will use an argument that has ALREADY been shown wrong, and that you don't understand the basics of possibility/probibility.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, modification to my previous post. Not oil pipeline but a gas pipeline. The number of false alarms decreased over time with the GA (genetic algorithm) program while the traditional Non GA maintained a high number of false alarms. GA adapted and improved over time. This has been around since the 80's.

 

There are network hubs and routers, right now, that are trafficing the internet packages, built on GA. The routers adapt over time through random mutations and selections. I think I heard that GA even is used in cellphone towers too, but I'm not sure.

[Kuroikaze]

txviper, you keep saying that everyone believes in something. yes thats true, but there is a difference between faith and belief.

 

definitions from dictionary.com

 

Belief: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

 

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 

The main difference between the two is that faith does not require evidence.

We all believe things, its just that christianity has no proof to back up thier beliefs. I'm sorry but I chose my beliefs bassed on evidence. You chose your beliefs on.....well nothing.

 

There is a huge difference between believing that evolution happened because one feels that the evidence supports it and having faith God created everything without any kind of proof.

[Vigile]

ID doesn't mean acceptance of the Judeo Christian god TX, that is where you all fall pathetically short.

 

Well, not the only place he/she falls short.

[Checkmate]

Okay. In an attempt to get this thread back on track, I've got a question or three for TxViper:

 

Why do you prefer to believe the MYTH that "God" made man from dirt, and that woman came from Adam's rib? Why is THIS story more believable than evolution? How is believing that "God" created man from DIRT any better/different than believing we evolved from protozoa or whatever?

 

All of these different ethnic peoples. Descending from TWO people with the same genetic code. Why do you WANT to believe something so silly?

[Mr. Neil]

Because no matter how fucking stupid silly an idea sounds, it can always be justified with "God did it".

[Samurai Tailor]

Okay, let's try something different. Let's presume that selection is a really powerful steering mechanism, anxious and waiting for something really phenomenal to happen. Either beneficial or deleterious. You can assign any and all potency to it. Forget the randomness idea and let's just say that natural selection is going to be very helpful and cooperative in its "guidance". She is now in your corner, a force to be reckoned with.

 

One of the twins is now declared reliable and effective to support your theory. Let's try and look at the other one with some measure of objectivity.

 

Mutations are nothing more than copy errors. 100% unintentional screw-ups. Accidental. Non-directional. No purpose or intent. No anticipated consequences, good or bad. They occur very infrequently. They are usually, to the tune of around 99%, neautral and have no impact at all. When they do, ti is usually destructive and the organism either dies or is "deselected".

 

So far then, you have:

 

-one enormous amount of nothing happeneing

-pared down to a minute amount of anything consequential happening

-this narrowed to the likelihood that if something does happen, it will be harmful

 

In consideration of the razor-thin possibility that a beneficial mutation might occur, you have to factor in that the recipient:

 

-might not survive anyway

-might not pass it on

 

and that:

 

-if it is passed on, it will not be cancelled by another, more probable, deleterious mutation or

-that the entire species, millions of them having supposedly come and gone, will not be dlaimed by the ugly sister of extinction from any of a number of natural causes Add to the equation,

 

-no serious, undisputed examples of beneficial mutations can be presented as evidence

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

Of course "undisputed" is a classic weasel-word. I'm sure there is an obscure AiG page that superficially 'disputes' some of them, which you will no doubt use to extract yourself from the corner.

 

-nothing in the way of additional genetic information being added to any genome can be empirically documented

Pure creationist philosobabble. "Genetic information," in any sense of the term, can be increased by reproducible means.

 

In regards to the remarkable corpse plant and its confused caretaker:

 

"-He's talking in allegorical expressions.............he makes a symbolic comparison

-the common person doesn't have the language skills neccessary to understand the specifics, so non-specific words and phrases are used instead

-Actually all it shows is the limitations of language, on the parts of both the speaker and the listener"

 

No, this was not a metaphorical description, the concept is not difficult and the language is not limited. All mister botanist did was note the obvious; that the plant was designed to reproduce in a very peculiar and particular way. He could have put it in evolutionary terms and mentioned the millions of copy error mutations that occurred coincidentally, but cooperatively, and were selected to allow this amazing reciprocation between bug and corpse plant. But who wants to look like a total moron in an interview?

Dude... he was giving an interview. We don't always use the best or most precise terminology when we are thinking and talking at the same time. Your neo-Freudian analysis is completely unwarranted.

[Thurisaz]

Okay, let's try something different.

 

Hic Rhodos. Hic salta.

So far all we see coming from you is basically like "Okay, you don't want this pile of shit, so here's another pile of shit".

 

They occur very infrequently.

 

S. O. S. (Same old shit)

 

...who wants to look like a total moron in an interview?

 

Judging from the evidence available, you do.

 

I see no reason in continuing to reply to you. You clearly don't know shit about science and thus have

 

NO

 

right to criticize it. Until and unless someone tells me that you actually took the time and learned what science really says, you will remain in my ignore list until hell freezes over, or Ragnarok comes, or whatever else might one day terminate our combined existence.

 

*PLONK*