Stupid Christians

[Asimov]

So I'm at the beloved christianforums.net (second worst site next to christianity.com).

 

There was this thread called "where do we come from?"

 

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.p...=15231&start=60

 

It's painful to read.

 

So this moron "destiny" comes into play, saying:

 

Evolution is basically flawed and can't be scientifically demonstrated or proven with all it's gaps and assumptions.

I have yet to see a reason to compromise the Word of God in order for it to fit 'so called' science. Factual science lies within the word Of God and (creation).

 

I respond with a query:

 

What flaws, gaps and assumptions?

 

Of course, destiny is such a moron that she gives me this to work with:

 

Where are all the transitional life forms Asimov? Even Darwin knew his own limitations and admitted that in order for his theory to be true this would be crucial proof, he thought they would be found in fossil records yet they haven't been.

The ape to human theory is a joke, purly laughable, talk about a ((missing)) link!

Carbon dating can only be used to date something a few thousand years old.

Holes gaps and assumptions!

You believe what you believe by faith because you have no proof, because you weren't there. I wouldn't gamble eternity for it.

 

Right...it's a big joke. My reply includes some facts on transitional forms, and how stupid her argument is if all she can do is criticize darwin, who lived 150 years ago. I ask her to substantiate her claim that human evolution is a joke, and to substantiate her claim about holes, gaps, and assumptions.

 

She responds with:

 

Even Darwin would admit his limits, this is simply not true. There are no fossil records to support your claims, there are no known transitional forms, the links are missing. I could provide links to support my claims also, it's pointless and arrogant.

So you can ((prove)) human evolution? Then please do it, you are making these sweeping claims.

We should see a host of transitional forms that can't be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this, there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs, different kinds of cats, whales, birds, horses,mammals, animals, etc... They are none changing into other life forms, except in mans "artistic" abilities, and his ability to change facts to fit theories when the fact remains that he doesn't know.

 

Right...I'm so pwned.

 

I explain to her that all she has done is handwave the evidence I've provided, and failed to substantiate her claims once again. I ask her what she means by prove, I tell her that it is impossible to absolutely prove something, but I give her some evidence on human evolution, with timelines, fossils found, etc.

I ask her how she classifies what a dog is, and what a cat is...considereing there are 3 subfamilies of felidae, and that dogs are subspecies of wolves..etc.

I then tell her that evolution takes a little more time than the few hundred years we've been aware and observing.

 

her reply:

 

Call me ignorant if you want, I don't have to keep this up with you, i've made it clear enough at this point where I stand.

 

Oops...struck a nerve! She refuses to substantiate her claims, makes unsupported assertions, and basically pulls it all out of her ass.

[Cerise]

I stopped going to christianforums.net right after its inhabitants started accusing people of being allowed to marry firehydrants if this gay marriage thing ever came to pass.

 

My opinion is that the morons on christianforums.net and their respective firehydrants deserve each other.

[Guest jdrobins2000]

Actually, I am a former-Christian-turned-Deist (2 years ago), but still agree with the points "destiny" made, whether or not she backed them up sufficiently. I have not found sufficient evidence of macro-evolution to believe it.

 

For a more in-depth explanation of my objections, take a look at Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, as he put into words what I had thought for a while, much better than I ever could. He definitely is not "pulling it out of his ass" as you accused "destiny" of doing, although you could say that he does know his shit.

 

The basic argument of the book is that, although on a conceptual level we can fathom a transition from one species to another as being feasible, when the steps this requires on a molecular level are examined, one conceptual step is actually 10 (at least) actual steps, each of which would very often be detrimental or fatal to the host. This was not as evident in Darwin's time, before the high-powered microscopes we have today were avaliable, allowing us to see the complexities of the mechanisms which previously were "black boxes". If macro-evolution were the mechanism which created the vast variety of life we know now, then the fossil layers should be riddled with species exhibiting these mutations. However, this is not what we see (as far as I know, anyway).

 

Being a computer scientist, this is all-too-familiar to me. A problem which conceptually seems very simple on the surface is often more complex, sometimes extremely moreso, once you look under the hood. To think that the incredible complexity that we observe in living organisms happened by pure chance seems far too unlikely to me.

 

I am not an athiest, but a deist, because even if you can prove that, given the laws of nature, everything could have sprung into existence from nothing, there is still one major problem that I have no answer for - who created the laws in the first place? I do not know the nature of this first cause, but I do think that to believe that everything sprang from nothing requires more faith than to believe there was a super-natural first cause.

 

All that to say, my theology does not require me to rule out a creator nor believe in one, and so I could take evolution or leave it, which I believe makes me very impartial. Between the two theories, based on the evidence, I think the existence of an intelligent god or the equivalent is more reasonable than an incredible number of furtunate accidents producing what we see today.

 

However, if you have evidence otherwise, I think I have proven sufficiently (by my recent conversion after many years of strong Christian belief) that I am open minded enough to welcome new ideas and judge them based on their merits.

 

So, convince me.

 

So I'm at the beloved christianforums.net (second worst site next to christianity.com). 

 

There was this thread called "where do we come from?"

 

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.p...=15231&start=60

 

It's painful to read.

 

So this moron "destiny" comes into play, saying:

I respond with a query:

 

What flaws, gaps and assumptions?

 

Of course, destiny is such a moron that she gives me this to work with:

Right...it's a big joke.  My reply includes some facts on transitional forms, and how stupid her argument is if all she can do is criticize darwin, who lived 150 years ago.  I ask her to substantiate her claim that human evolution is a joke, and to substantiate her claim about holes, gaps, and assumptions.

 

She responds with:

Right...I'm so pwned. 

 

I explain to her that all she has done is handwave the evidence I've provided, and failed to substantiate her claims once again.  I ask her what she means by prove, I tell her that it is impossible to absolutely prove something, but I give her some evidence on human evolution, with timelines, fossils found, etc.

I ask her how she classifies what a dog is, and what a cat is...considereing there are 3 subfamilies of felidae, and that dogs are subspecies of wolves..etc.

I then tell her that evolution takes a little more time than the few hundred years we've been aware and observing.

 

her reply:

Oops...struck a nerve!  She refuses to substantiate her claims, makes unsupported assertions, and basically pulls it all out of her ass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Cerise]

Can you explain why exactly your creator has to be a) intelligent or a deity?

 

Can you explain just why you think we are so very complex? Looks extremely simple to me. If everything that doesn't work as well dies off, then in the end you get the best working model, don't you? What's so very complex about that?

 

What laws are you talking about?

[chefranden]

I am not an athiest, but a deist, because even if you can prove that, given the laws of nature, everything could have sprung into existence from nothing, there is still one major problem that I have no answer for - who created the laws in the first place? I do not know the nature of this first cause, but I do think that to believe that everything sprang from nothing requires more faith than to believe there was a super-natural first cause.

 

It is too bad that the "laws of nature" got named laws in the first place. The "laws" are not laws in the sense of commanded proscriptions. No one or thing had to say, "gravity shall suck," and it was so. The so called "laws of nature" are only descriptions of how various aspects of nature behave. If something sprang from nothing it is only because of the nature nothing that requires it to produce something. You might want to study the theory of Variable Speed Light and M theory in this reguard.

[Guest jdrobins2000]

I am not an athiest, but a deist, because even if you can prove that, given the laws of nature, everything could have sprung into existence from nothing, there is still one major problem that I have no answer for - who created the laws in the first place? I do not know the nature of this first cause, but I do think that to believe that everything sprang from nothing requires more faith than to believe there was a super-natural first cause.

 

It is too bad that the "laws of nature" got named laws in the first place. The "laws" are not laws in the sense of commanded proscriptions. No one or thing had to say, "gravity shall suck," and it was so. The so called "laws of nature" are only descriptions of how various aspects of nature behave. If something sprang from nothing it is only because of the nature nothing that requires it to produce something. You might want to study the theory of Variable Speed Light and M theory in this reguard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is how nature behaves, regardless of whether it is a person or force that caused it to be so. In my understanding, science assumes that there is a cause for every effect, else scientific investigation would cease because you could just as well say "that's just the way it is" and stop the search there.

 

Certainly scientists have defined laws as things observed, which have no theories to explain them (law of gravity, fo instance). They have said "it is just so", not on principle, but because of lack of further explanation available. To say, "it is just so" inherently, is outside the realm of science, it seems to me. Once you are at that point, you are in the realm of theology or philosophy.

 

Why is it just so and how do we know that? Can you really say "no one had to say 'gravity shall suck'"? I don't know enough to say that that is true or false. If not, why does gravity suck then? On that point alone I could go either way, but when I take into account the complexity of what I see, the "laws" alone seem like more of a maintenance mechanism than something that could have created the complexity in the first place. So, it makes sense to me that something intelligent defined the laws and did some initial work to kick things off, as opposed to the laws just being so, and taking their course.

 

On whether the creator has to be a deity, I do believe it is "supernatural", though as I said, "I do not know the nature of the first cause". What would the difference between a cosmic supernatural force and god be? It is the same difference to me, so it is simpler to just call it god. As to why it is intelligent, I consider that more feasible for the same reason I consider a god more feasible than evolution. A non-intelligent god could no more easily produce the complex life forms we have today than dumb luck.

 

As to why I believe we are complex, that is readily apparent to me. Just the brain alone blows my mind, and I don't even begin to understand it. Just read a few chapters out of Neurophilosophy by Patricia Churchland, which provides a primer in neuroanatomy (among other extremely fascinating neuro-topics), and the numbness you begin to feel in your head should be enough evidence of this. Think of how many extremely intelligent people have been working to solve the mysteries of the human brain, and have not even scratched the surface. And that is to not even consider the rest of the human body, or the vast number of incredibly complicated and beautiful and interesting creatures all around us. To me, that is evidence enough.

 

Anyway, I have figured out what I don't believe, but I'm still working on the details of what I do believe. I'm trying to avoid drawing conclusions that may not be warranted, so I welcome the inspection. That said, I might ask Cerise (and I am ), why shouldn't the first cause be intelligent or a deity?

 

chefranden, I'm not familiar with VSL and M theories. What are they, and how do these 10 issues affect this conversation (in brief, at least)?

 

Thanks for the thought-provoking replies.

[Cerise]

1) An intelligent being certainly wouldn't have created the earth, in my opinion. It would have left well enough alone. That would have been the "intelligent" thing to do.

 

2) Can you even define "deity" to any exactness? And if not, how can you use the label when it isn't even an exact definition?

 

3) Supernatural is a senseless term. If it exists, it's in nature, it's natural. If it's supernatural, then by all counts it doesn't exist in nature and in that case, why should we even care about it.

 

4) As for complexity, I can only point to what I said before, which, forgive me, I don't think you refuted at all to my satisfaction. I've heard all the "look at the brain, it's soooooo complex" stuff before. Fact is, if after millions of years only the best working models survive, a pretty neato working brain is going to be the outcome. Simple.

 

[Asimov]

Actually, I am a former-Christian-turned-Deist (2 years ago), but still agree with the points "destiny" made, whether or not she backed them up sufficiently. I have not found sufficient evidence of macro-evolution to believe it.

 

Define macro-evolution before you start spouting misnomers.

 

For a more in-depth explanation of my objections, take a look at Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, as he put into words what I had thought for a while, much better than I ever could. He definitely is not "pulling it out of his ass" as you accused "destiny" of doing, although you could say that he does know his shit.

 

Let's see:

 

The basic argument of the book is that, although on a conceptual level we can fathom a transition from one species to another as being feasible, when the steps this requires on a molecular level are examined, one conceptual step is actually 10 (at least) actual steps, each of which would very often be detrimental or fatal to the host.

 

And where is your substantiation for that? You can possibly break down speciation into "steps", but it's such a gradual process that you'd just be pointing to phases in the millions of years. It's impossible that any step would be detrimental to the species, because then the species would never evolve, it would become extinct, therefore your point is irrelevant.

 

This was not as evident in Darwin's time, before the high-powered microscopes we have today were avaliable, allowing us to see the complexities of the mechanisms which previously were "black boxes". If macro-evolution were the mechanism which created the vast variety of life we know now, then the fossil layers should be riddled with species exhibiting these mutations. However, this is not what we see (as far as I know, anyway).

 

You keep using these catch-phrases like macro evolution, and complexity. So far you (or behe) are/is just pulling things out of your/his ass. Macro-evolution isn't a mechanism, evolution is a mechanism. There is no difference between micro-and macro-evolution.

 

Being a computer scientist, this is all-too-familiar to me. A problem which conceptually seems very simple on the surface is often more complex, sometimes extremely moreso, once you look under the hood. To think that the incredible complexity that we observe in living organisms happened by pure chance seems far too unlikely to me.

 

Whoa-hoaaaa....excuuuuuse me mr. computer scientist. Forgive me, obviously since you are a computer scientist, you are qualified to make insubstantiated statements about evolution and Evolutionary Theory. Evolution isn't pure chance.

 

I am not an athiest, but a deist, because even if you can prove that, given the laws of nature, everything could have sprung into existence from nothing, there is still one major problem that I have no answer for - who created the laws in the first place? I do not know the nature of this first cause, but I do think that to believe that everything sprang from nothing requires more faith than to believe there was a super-natural first cause.

 

What does this have to do with evolution?

 

Laws are descriptions of reality, they aren't created.

 

All that to say, my theology does not require me to rule out a creator nor believe in one, and so I could take evolution or leave it, which I believe makes me very impartial. Between the two theories, based on the evidence, I think the existence of an intelligent god or the equivalent is more reasonable than an incredible number of furtunate accidents producing what we see today.

 

Inserting an intelligent God just begs the question. Since:

 

1)Evolution is not goal-oriented.

2)Evolution is not random.

3)There is no evidence for an intelligent God, and since you already a priori assume a God did this, you simply affirm the consequent by stating that complexity could only arise from God.

 

So, convince me.

 

Why should I? You seem to be deeply imbedded in the ID philosphy of making assertions that either have no relevance on Evolutionary Theory, or are just fabricating "problems" with Evolution.

[Thurisaz]

Oops...struck a nerve!  She refuses to substantiate her claims, makes unsupported assertions, and basically pulls it all out of her ass.

 

Wow, what a brand-new creative way to deal with truth!

[Guest godleydemon]

Define macro-evolution before you start spouting misnomers.

Let's see:

And where is your substantiation for that?  You can possibly break down speciation into "steps", but it's such a gradual process that you'd just be pointing to phases in the millions of years.  It's impossible that any step would be detrimental to the species, because then the species would never evolve, it would become extinct, therefore your point is irrelevant.

You keep using these catch-phrases like macro evolution, and complexity.  So far you (or behe) are/is just pulling things out of your/his ass.  Macro-evolution isn't a mechanism, evolution is a mechanism.  There is no difference between micro-and macro-evolution.

Whoa-hoaaaa....excuuuuuse me mr. computer scientist.  Forgive me, obviously since you are a computer scientist, you are qualified to make insubstantiated statements about evolution and Evolutionary Theory.  Evolution isn't pure chance.

What does this have to do with evolution?

 

Laws are descriptions of reality, they aren't created.

Inserting an intelligent God just begs the question.  Since:

 

1)Evolution is not goal-oriented.

2)Evolution is not random.

3)There is no evidence for an intelligent God, and since you already a priori assume a God did this, you simply affirm the consequent by stating that complexity could only arise from God.

Why should I?  You seem to be deeply imbedded in the ID philosphy of making assertions that either have no relevance on Evolutionary Theory, or are just fabricating "problems" with Evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I luv you man, lol *Hi fives asimov* that Is by far the best reply I've seen all day

[Guest jdrobins2000]

1)  An intelligent being certainly wouldn't have created the earth, in my opinion.  It would have left well enough alone.  That would have been the "intelligent" thing to do.

 

I disagree, and I guess we will have to leave it at that. I think the earth and what is on it is pretty damn cool.

 

2)  Can you even define "deity" to any exactness?  And if not, how can you use the label when it isn't even an exact definition?

 

deity (from the dictionary)

n: The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.

 

deist

n: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

 

I assume you are referring to the deist title I give to myself? People can argue about what the definition of the word "is" is. I think there is a god (intelligent creator, at least), so I call myself a deist. It's shorter than "intelligent creator who isn't actively involved in our world anymore-ist", and relatively well-recognized. In fact, I applied that term to myself after I realized that was what someone else had decided to call the belief system I had arrived at on my own. Got a better word to describe it?

 

3)  Supernatural is a senseless term.  If it exists, it's in nature, it's natural.  If it's supernatural, then by all counts it doesn't exist in nature and in that case, why should we even care about it.

 

supernatural

adj : not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material

 

If it is a senseless term, then how were you able to use it in a sentence, and with the same meaning that I would apply to it, and with the same definition Webster's dictionary uses? Very coincidental, I think. Maybe evolution could be true.

 

Time is a natural thing. So for instance, for something to create time, it would have to exist outside of time. That would be supernatural, and we would care because it is an explantion of how time even exists. How time exists is of course a whole separate discussion.

 

4) As for complexity, I can only point to what I said before, which, forgive me, I don't think you refuted at all to my satisfaction.  I've heard all the "look at the brain, it's soooooo complex" stuff before.  Fact is, if after millions of years only the best working models survive, a pretty neato working brain is going to be the outcome.  Simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I had already assumed that I would not convince you with the short explanation I gave, and I would not be giving you much credit otherwise. If you read Behe's book, it may or may not change yor mind, but it is something interesting to think about. I would not be completely surprised if I found out evolution were true, but honestly, it has little bearing on my life.

 

That said, what I see around me exudes design, which I don't care how many billions of years you have, I don't think it would happen through the natural laws we know. I have too much respect for the complexity of what I see. Plus, it's not like we find much of any contorted and messed up missing links between species. To my (limited) knowledge, we have found none, or close to it. (Anyone know of good examples?)

 

Anyway, these neato mechanisms would have to make some leaps, many many of them at the same time, and if not all at the same time, the effects would be disastrous. I think some of the changes require similarly extreme mutations to occur in a member of the opposite sex for the mutated organism to reproduce. Sure, anything could happen.... but forgive me for being skeptical given the astronomical odds and the lack of evidence that I believe should exist, given how much certain scientists would love to find it.

[Asimov]

I luv you man, lol *Hi fives asimov* that Is by far the best reply I've seen all day

 

I hope that's a good thing, and I hope you're going to respond with some more Behe-shit.

[Guest godleydemon]

I hope that's a good thing, and I hope you're going to respond with some more Behe-shit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

lol,na just continue to praise your reply, lol. I some what agree with the evolution theory, but I also believe in reincarnation with in the same species. But there is no proof of the second belief, but we all have desau vu's. but thats not what the topic is about. The theory of evolution can be assurtained by the fact that we did in fact come from a sub species of ape. for one exampl. Apes are some much like humans, that are parts can lamost, and I mean almost be enter changeble. and another, apes nurtue and care for there young the same. and they are built like us, (ecept for the fur and the long amrs and you know all that junk) they are so similar to huans it rediculous, I believe they have evolved slower than humans because of a genetic mis hap back in ol' stone age. But besides that I'v got nothing to prove evolution, besides present day examples.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Ok, so Darwin's exact theory of evolution isn't perfect. But the basic idea of evolution - of gradual change and adaptation - is easily proveable. Shit, what do bacteria and viruses do when confronted with medicines that kill them? They adapt; they evolve; consequently, the same medicines don't kill them, because they have circumvented them through change. A type of snake has recently evolved to the point of being able to digest poisonous toads that have taken over its environment, so it can eat; human beings, through European, Asian, African, and American intermarriage, have changed considerably in even just the last hundred years to not only look different, but pass on weaknesses as well as strengths. The average height of the European man has gained since the time of Keats. Change and adaptation. Isn't that what the basic idea of evolution is?

[Asimov]

lol,na just continue to praise your reply, lol. I some what agree with the evolution theory, but I also believe in reincarnation with in the same species.

 

Dude, I'm not asking you to accept 100% the theory of evolution. I'm asking you to at LEAST use proper argumentation other than Behe!

 

If you're going to challenge it, challenge something about it that a 20 year old art student with 5 years of self-taught study on evolution couldn't rebut.

 

The theory of evolution can be assurtained by the fact that we did in fact come from a sub species of ape. for one exampl. Apes are some much like humans, that are parts can lamost, and I mean almost be enter changeble. and another, apes nurtue and care for there young the same. and they are built like us, (ecept for the fur and the long amrs and you know all that junk) they are so similar to huans it rediculous, I believe they have evolved slower than humans because of a genetic mis hap back in ol' stone age. But besides that I'v got nothing to prove evolution, besides present day examples.

 

Who says humans evolved faster? We just developed differently, with different mutations. Geographical isolation. I'm sure it's possible that a chimpanzee, or even a gorilla could mate with a human and produce fertile offspring. We share something like 95-98% of the genetic information with a Chimp.

 

How can you NOT accept common ancestry?

[Guest godleydemon]

I didn't want to challenge the theory, I think the theory is well placed and fairly accurate I just wished to put my farther knowledge into the subject of proving the theory right. just excuse my ignorance of not accpeting common acenstry, iwas only guessing.

[Asimov]

I didn't want to challenge the theory, I think the theory is well placed and fairly accurate I just wished to put my farther knowledge into the subject of proving the theory right.

 

My bad,

 

I was so into the whole aggression thing that I didn't realise I was talking to two different people!

 

 

[Guest jdrobins2000]

Actually, imov , that was not me that gave you props on your reply. I personally think you are an obnoxious moron that has many words and no substance. But, let's keep it up a little longer.

 

 

Define macro-evolution before you start spouting misnomers.

Let's see:

And where is your substantiation for that?  You can possibly break down speciation into "steps", but it's such a gradual process that you'd just be pointing to phases in the millions of years.  It's impossible that any step would be detrimental to the species, because then the species would never evolve, it would become extinct, therefore your point is irrelevant.

You keep using these catch-phrases like macro evolution, and complexity.  So far you (or behe) are/is just pulling things out of your/his ass.  Macro-evolution isn't a mechanism, evolution is a mechanism.  There is no difference between micro-and macro-evolution.

 

Sure, macro-evolution is a type of evolution. Macro-evolution has to do with major multi-step processes, which you would find by looking it up in dictionaries which are notorious for propagating misnomers:

 

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion

n: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

 

Really, must I be forced to define everything?

 

This large-scale evolution involves small-scale changes which, taken together, represent a large-scale change, such as between species. Some of these changes, when taken alone, would be detrimental or even fatal, though they are required for the macro-evolution to occur. So, the point is relevant, which you would have gotten if you were paying attention instead of searching for the icon.

 

Whoa-hoaaaa....excuuuuuse me mr. computer scientist.  Forgive me, obviously since you are a computer scientist, you are qualified to make insubstantiated statements about evolution and Evolutionary Theory.  Evolution isn't pure chance.

Yes, apparently you are way lower on the totem pole than a computer scientist, since you feel my mention of my occupation in an analogy is somehow a boast about myself, making you feel inferior. I pity you for that, feeling that you are lower than a computer scientist.

 

Anyway, how is evolution NOT pure chance? What is affecting the odds to make it not be pure chance?

 

What does this have to do with evolution?

 

Laws are descriptions of reality, they aren't created.

Actually, I create laws every day I'm at work, and my software obeys them, exactly as I say. In the same way, you either have to believe natural laws were created or have always existed.

Inserting an intelligent God just begs the question.  Since:

 

1)Evolution is not goal-oriented.

2)Evolution is not random.

3)There is no evidence for an intelligent God, and since you already a priori assume a God did this, you simply affirm the consequent by stating that complexity could only arise from God.

So, what was the question being begged? I seem to have missed where you stated the question. Maybe it's over there... no, no not there. Where is it?

 

Anyway, it sounds like you are doing the a priori uming. I think I have given more explanation than you have. It sounds like all you can do is waste my time with stupid insults that don't make any sense.

 

Why should I?  You seem to be deeply imbedded in the ID philosphy of making assertions that either have no relevance on Evolutionary Theory, or are just fabricating "problems" with Evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, that was a thoroughly unimpressive reply imov. Maybe if you threw in a few more or icons, that would improve your arguments.

[Guest godleydemon]

And yet I applaud you jdrobins for your well placed comment, lol. I'm just going to sit back and watch this thread "evolve".

[Guest jdrobins2000]

Thanks gd. Seriously, check out Darwin's Black Box. I'd like to know if anyone has any refutations.... which don't rely primarily on the or icons . I guess maybe I do care if evolution is true, because if it is possible, then that removes one more proof for a god. Not that I'm not an athiest anyway, for all intents and purposes, besides my belief in a god that created everything. Changing from deist to athiest wouldn't make much difference in my life.

[Guest godleydemon]

Your welcome, and as for the book I might pick it up some where. I might actually find it in my overly large eccentric library that I keep in my house. I pick up books just because people are giving them away some times and file them into the book cases and sometimes I don't get around to reading them for two years, because of the fact I'm to busy readong the ones before I got those and before I got those and before I got those, lol. So you never know. When i read it I'll make sure to post about it. I"m going to bed night.

 

sweet dreams and butterfly wings

- godleydemon

[Asimov]

Sure, macro-evolution is a type of evolution. Macro-evolution has to do with major multi-step processes, which you would find by looking it up in dictionaries which are notorious for propagating misnomers:

 

dictionaries are irrelevant in terms of science. Macro evolution is simply more time. Same mechanism of evolution as micro-evolution. Time is the only different.

 

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion

n: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

 

Exactly. Over Geologic time. New Taxonomic groups. Which includes Species.

 

Really, must I be forced to define everything?

 

Of course.

 

This large-scale evolution involves small-scale changes which, taken together, represent a large-scale change, such as between species. Some of these changes, when taken alone, would be detrimental or even fatal, though they are required for the macro-evolution to occur.

 

Every mutation that causes beneficial change is beneficial. If you wish to say "some of these changes, when taken alone...blahblahblahblah" you MUST substantiate what you are talking about.

So, the point is relevant, which you would have gotten if you were paying attention instead of searching for the icon.

 

Repeating the same thing over again doesn't make it any more relevant.

 

Yes, apparently you are way lower on the totem pole than a computer scientist, since you feel my mention of my occupation in an analogy is somehow a boast about myself, making you feel inferior. I pity you for that, feeling that you are lower than a computer scientist.

 

 

Anyway, how is evolution NOT pure chance? What is affecting the odds to make it not be pure chance?

 

Natural Selection....

 

Actually, I create laws every day I'm at work, and my software obeys them, exactly as I say. In the same way, you either have to believe natural laws were created or have always existed.

 

False dichotomy. Since natural laws are descriptions of the universe, they don't have to be created, they are simply the way the universe works. I still don't see what this has to do with evolution.

 

So, what was the question being begged? I seem to have missed where you stated the question. Maybe it's over there... no, no not there. Where is it?

 

Complex life created by a complex creator....I wonder what question is being begged....

Anyway, it sounds like you are doing the a priori uming. I think I have given more explanation than you have. It sounds like all you can do is waste my time with stupid insults that don't make any sense.

 

What are my a priori assumptions? What explanations have you given? Where's your evidence? Where's your substantiation?

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Anyway, how is evolution NOT pure chance? What is affecting the odds to make it not be pure chance?

 

 

Animals don't, as a general rule, procreate with the weak or the sick; they generally for the strongest, or the healthiest, or the one with a cute ass. That is choice, not chance, but still continues the genes, strengthening them and changing them. Humans have much of the same consistancy; who wants to have children with an AIDS patient by choice, or a paraplegic? They go for the handsome or the beautiful or the strong.

[Asimov]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

[Asimov]

hey jd, I gotta head to bed now.

 

Sorry for the initial aggressive reply, I was still in attack mode from being on cf.net.

 

I'll tone down my sarcasm after I've had some sleep, busy day, exciting stuff.

 

Look forward to your reply,

 

 

Asimov