Yet another reason why Christianity is pathetic......

[lucky]

You can accept that a computer built by a man can do millions of calculations a second, but an all powerful God (if he/she exists) that created man by an act of will can't handle "judging" one.whatever people a second?

Christian doctrine (basic scriptural "truth") says that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He knows all, is everywhere, and can do anything. When you die, there is no "time" taken to judge you, He knows what is in your heart.

And that's the point of my thread; how is it realistic to think, even on omni-terms that any deity could judge 150k people per day, create these so-called miracles thousands of times per day, and be everywhere everyone, all 6.5 billion people are at all times. This blows way past Twilight Zone stuff. Not saying it isn't real, just that the further we get into this concept, the logistical end, the further I am skeptical of it.

The point of this thread was for you to bash christianity without provocation. yipee for you.

I did not say any source said "proof" of anything. I said evolution is taught as if it were fact.

What we're talking here is strength of language and I find that people who use more absolute language, not saying you, but venues, organizations that use absolute language do so because their argument is weak.

You're not saying me, but it's convenient that it's my argument that you're nitpicking, and misquoting.

Trying to apportion proof is like trying to proportion pregnancy.

The church/religion speaks in the concept that there is no question that there is a god and he has a son named Jesus. This is patently incorrect, even if there is a God/Jesus, since there is no direct evidence...

Even the muslims acknowledge in the koran that there was a man named jesus, son of a carpenter that was a prophet of god. Hmmm, what else? The dead sea scrolls: relatively unmolested 1900 year old copies of much of the modern "New Testament". Lessee, what else, oh yeah, the odds of evolution leading to life as we know it being infintesimal? That a good indicator of the possibility of creation theory (whether long-day, short-day, canopy, pangea, or what have you), and the existence of god(in some form) being at least equally as probable as evolution (which you said yourself has incomplete evidence)?

In 99% of the classrooms that the average american might actually pay attention through, evolution is the only theory on the origin of man that is presented with ANY kind of emphasis.

Agreed. Why is this? Does science own academia? Is it a political thing and that the gov hates Christianity? They give them tax-free organization, so that's hard to believe. Could it be that Christianity has only one peice of paper that supports it; the Bible. Again, all religions I’ve ever encountered are irrational, not based upon logic but hope, which is subjective and intangible.

Christianity has what they believe is the word of God. Don't even bother arguing translation and bias because the same can be said about every piece of paper science has to support it.

This is why there is the occasional Koreshian-type group that spins off Christianity. I can think of the Hale-bop Comet folks who committed suicide, but who else did nutty things in the name of science? Religion, Christianity is intangible, how would a school teach it? There are Bible colleges, but they just teach stories of the Bible I imagine. Oh well, now the Christians can plead religious persecution.

There are many people who have committed many atrocities in the name of religion (anyone recall the crusades?) There have been just as many atrocities committed in the name of science (do some reading about surgery before modern anesthetic).

REALLY? NOW christians can claim religious persecution? Because of what's going on in american schools? You know that there was a time when just calling yourself a christian got you decapitated or fed to a lion, right? Those guys had faith in god to face that and still try to spread the message of god.

Again it may be semantics, but there is a big difference between breeding certain qualities, and a rat giving birth to a bat, or an ape giving birth to homo-erectus (I know there were other "steps").

Evolution doesn't work in 1 generation. Come on, quit trivializing it for the sake of argument.

I'm not trivializing, and who said 1 generation? I said "steps." I was making a point you obviously missed. There is not one shred of fossil evidence from any major species split such as rodent/bat, ape/man, or whatever. Show me one rodent with a partial echo location system, or flipper-foot prewings, or any whale-like flipper-armed mammal or whatever that would have been more viable in its enviornment than it's non-mutant siblings (and therefore more likely to pass on its traits) and you can continue arguing lack of proof of whatever you want.

As far as I'm concerned, natural selection does not constitute evolution, although the chinese tigers whose habitat got flooded and now have webbed paws intrigues me.

Don't know of that incident, but it couldn't have occurred with the same tigers, they don't mutate to adapt. If you look at a cat's claw, there is a sort of web anyway. Post this story, be interested to read it.

As for you not accepting that natural selection is a component of evolution, that brings me back to a thread where I posted that the USA is an Imperialist nation, posted a definition of Imperialism, Will shot back saying he didn't like that definition of Imperialism. Well, sorry, I didn't write the dictionary, I just read it. Same here, if you want to draw up your own definition, have a great time, meanwhile the rest of us will be back here in reality. Please don't take that as an insult, but let's use the common definitions of various elements.

When exactly did I say I don't accept natural selection as a component of evolution? I acknowledge the existence of NS. As you can see what I said was "natural selection does not constitute evolution."

EDIT: Tigers were from a usually well informed friend of mine. It's not a recent development. Google "Sumatran Tiger" they're a near extinct "sub-species" with a very marshy environment, webbed paws and incredible swimming ability.

Your moth story was not an example of evolution.

It’s adaptation to an environmental change. You don’t have to like it, but it fits every definition of NS.

Yes, it fits the definition of NS. Where did I dispute that? I said it was not evolution. You obviously have some sort of blanket belief system which is making you irrational; you should see someone about that.

It's exactly what would have happened if Hitler had succeeded in eliminating all the non-Aryans; the human species would have appeared different, but all that really changed was the moths lost a dominant pigment trait, because those who had it were easy targets. The species is still the same.

Exactly the same, but entirely different in regard to color, the only thing that changed in their environment. So they are very different. Appearance is an element of adaptation and NS. Here we go:

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes.

Observable characteristics are color, do we agree?


Right, which establishes why a moth can evolve in a few generation cycles, whereas human evolution takes waaaaaaaaaay longer. But it’s still the same NS platform.

There you go confusing NS with genuine evolution again. Your moths lost a dominant pigment trait, period. Were these moths reclassified with a new scientific name because they're a "new species", or did someone just jot down in a book that "moth species 'x' " are no longer predominantly white?

As far as all the problems in the world and where is God when people suffer.
Consider it this way: God gave us free will. Freedom to follow His rules or to not follow His rules. Freedom to love and worship Him, or to turn our backs and walk away. If we didn't have free will, there would be no point to existence, we would just be mindless slaves to an unloving creator. Those who don't follow the rules cause most of the suffering in the world by their actions, when God destroyed man in the flood.

Well, that’s nice Christian philosophy that people should live by with or w/o believing in a god, any god, but it doesn’t explain our origin in any kind of complex form.

Could you kindly try to stay on topic with your rebuttals? I was talking about suffering, and how can a merciful god....... where did I say anything about the origin of man there?

[EBSB52]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evoluti ... ition.html

Look, here is a very short article, please read it, it explains some myths and misinformation regarding the word, "evolution." In the responsibel sense, it doesn't mean, "ape to man" it means simple changes, phenotypical and biological/genetic.

The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

Favorable traits are inherited, those that are not favorable do not reproduce. Not magic, not some guy who looks like Charlie from the ZigZag package floating in the clouds above, wavin magic duct everywhere, just millions of generations of favorable genes passing along, unfavorable ones dying out. Some organisms within the same species may not evolve and others will, this is called divergeance. They may at a later time enjoy the same characteristics and converge. Neccessity is the driver here, whether it be climate, food availablity, lack of or abundance of predators and many other envoronmental attributes. Whales have leg bones, I see no one addressed that. Did they at one time walk, whichever organism they evolved from, or was it God's sense of humor? What about our tailbone? No one wants to address that. Your arguments are meaningless and pathetic for being too scared to address that. Was that God having a bad day with his intelligent design? Come on scaredy cats, go there.


Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.


This is one of the sticking issues with evolution; people think it's some kind of mutation within the same generation. If the diversity of a species was that it could survive in temp ranges from 50F to 100F, some at the high end, some at the low end, and the temp drops to 40-50 over a long time, only the organisms within that species at the lower end could survive, the higher would die and not produce, not pass along their higher temperature acceptance, thus the species would become one that can only survive in temps around 50F.

You can even see this at the microbial level. If you have a bacterial infection and you take antibiotics, 98% of that strain succomb to that AB and die, the other 2% then becomes the 100%. They reproduce so you take a different AB and it kills 98% of that strain, so this process continues. This is a form of manufactured evolution; only those who can resist the AB will survive.

The American system is packed with social evolutions. Most workplaces have a norm for behavior/beliefs. If I were to go to redneckville, as if I don't live in it now in AZ, and I speak too openly about my beliefs, my kind won't be desired and I will be removed from the social system via not being able to get work. If I move to a place like Cali, my beliefs would be much more welcome and I would be ingrained into their social system, the necks would be removed. Evolution in the sence it is litterally defined is simply the passing along and maintaining of favorable traits, often phenotypical (physical). No magic guy looking like Charlie from ZigZag, no making of a woman from the rib of a man with a magic wave of his hand.

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is a great example of irresponsible science. I would have to wonder how much religion is behind this to morph the definition of evolution to be different than it was ever meant.

http://www.highbeam.com/The%20Concise%2 ... tions.aspx

This makes me think this is a Christian-based school and disctionary, which explains the bastard version of the defintion. They go on to further explain this bastard version:

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

This defintion ignores the fundamental beings of life, and ignores any gradual process.

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind.


So obviously the defintions are many, but the intended definition is simply that of favorable traits, phenotypical andbiological being passed along, unfavorable ones being dicarded.

Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant.


Exactly. This is what's going on here, others refuse to adhere to the responsible definition, the scientific one, they would rather embrace the Christian version that takes various theories of ape-to-man evolution as general evolution, which it is not. Evolution may have played into ape-to-man evolution IF THAT'S HOW MAN EVOLVED, but man has evolved in the last several years via height as well as other attributes.

This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!


And here's one for you guys, it is silly to exclude religion/Christianity sinc we can't disprove it. I haven't, I just find it improbablebased upon the evidence we now have, we may later get evidence affirming or disproving Christian theories, until either happens, it is just a theory.

On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help. <---- seriously, make it other than the Bible.

Again, there may be a god, but try to understand scientific definitions of evolution, rather than Christian versions meant to skew.

[lucky]

I am not arguing the definition of evolution. You keep inferring that natural selection and evolution are interchangeable terms, when in your own posted definitions we see that they are not.

According to your most recent cut and paste scientific psuedospeak, evolution is a gradual ongoing process. So, if all life as we know it "evolved" from a primordial goo millenia ago there should be lots of dead mutant halfbreed organisms around that were less than completely able to deal with their environment than their non-mutant cousins (and therefore less likely to procreate), why isn't there ANY fossil evidence of any major species split?


THESIS: Creationism is more reasonable than evolutionary theory from a mathematical standpoint.

Assume that since almost all major cultures have global floods in their mythology that it is at least possible that it actually happened. Even if we look at the bible only as an account of jewish history, we can develop a model of what may have actually occurred on this planet.
If we reverse engineer all the timelines we have of geneology and what king ruled when, we find that this flood occurred ~20k years ago. The actual biblical description of the animals Noah took with him lists it as being 7 mating pairs of each "clean" animal, and 1 mating pair of each "unclean" animal (clean and unclean as defined by the same ancient laws that determine kosher and non-kosher). Obviously, a ship big enough to carry that many of every "species" we have today would be mind bogglingly massive. However, it is not unreasonable to suggest that all the subspecies we have today could have developed via natural selection over the last 20k years from many many fewer root species, thereby reducing the size of the boat needed to just below non-mythical.
Given the infinitesimal odds of life as we know it ALL evolving from the first single celled organism that was "alive" by any definition of that term (and the total lack of fossil evidence to support it), the odds are far better that all modern felines developed from whatever was on that boat, that all modern simians, all modern rodents, all modern marsupials, all modern canines, and so on.

[EBSB52]

.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not arguing the definition of evolution. You keep inferring that natural selection and evolution are interchangeable terms, when in your own posted definitions we see that they are not.


Where do I keep inferring that evolution and NS are interchangeable terms? Cite an example. (skip this one since you can’t). Evolution is the big theory that favorable genes get passed on, unfavorable ones do not and NS is one component of this theory. Evolution is the main idea, NS is a supporting component of that theory.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>According to your most recent cut and paste scientific psuedospeak, evolution is a gradual ongoing process.


If it’s false in some way, establish that instead of looking foolish and making yet another unsubstantiated claim. If you have another Ad Hominem, just find a reason to impeach the author, perhaps he’s homosexual, hence knows shit and is probably a descendent from Satan.

As for cut-n-paste, I cited an author’s explanation of evolution, cut-n-pasted a few excerpts from it and all you have to say is cut-n-paste garbage? You argued ZERO points from it and don’t discount the explanation of it, hence agree with the concept of evolution.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, if all life as we know it "evolved" from a primordial goo millenia ago there should be lots of dead mutant halfbreed organisms around that were less than completely able to deal with their environment than their non-mutant cousins (and therefore less likely to procreate), why isn't there ANY fossil evidence of any major species split?


The default theory, since we can’t “PROVEâ€

[lucky]

I call your words psuedospeak because it is not plain language that the average person will understand.

You claim the theory I posted is not valid because I did not actually "do" the math involved in computing the odds. That math is beyond the extent of time I am willing to spend on this argument (and probably over my head). That does not make my description of the odds any less accurate.

You complain about bias over 20k+ years of written "history," yet the theory that you propagate is inexoribly tied to an assumption of what occurred ~6 BILLION years ago that we have no written account of, and no other "proof" of either.

If it’s false in some way, establish that instead of looking foolish and making yet another unsubstantiated claim. If you have another Ad Hominem, just find a reason to impeach the author, perhaps he’s homosexual, hence knows shit and is probably a descendent from Satan.

As for cut-n-paste, I cited an author’s explanation of evolution, cut-n-pasted a few excerpts from it and all you have to say is cut-n-paste garbage? You argued ZERO points from it and don’t discount the explanation of it, hence agree with the concept of evolution.

There you go again twisting my words. Where did I call it garbage? Did I not specifically say that I was not arguing the definition of evolution?

How are my claims any more unsubstantiated than yours? I posted all the salient points of my logic.
And quit going to the "charlie smoking a fatty" - if god didn't want us to smoke pot he wouldn't have created it. :tool:

More later, I have to go to work.

[EBSB52]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I call your words psuedospeak because it is not plain language that the average person will understand.


LUCKY80 wrote: According to your most recent cut and paste scientific psuedospeak, evolution is a gradual ongoing process.


So actually you weren’t refering to my words, but the words of the article that I posted; DID YOU FORGET ALREADY? You revised your own meaning by going from the words I cut-n-pasted from the article to the words of my own from my last post.

Furthermore, I think everyone on this board understands my words and the meanings behind them and if not they can use dictionary.com. Do you think these people are stupid? I don’t.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, if all life as we know it "evolved" from a primordial goo millenia ago there should be lots of dead mutant halfbreed organisms around that were less than completely able to deal with their environment than their non-mutant cousins (and therefore less likely to procreate), why isn't there ANY fossil evidence of any major species split?


To redress this point:
You’re right <INSERT DEFAULT THEORY> since we can’t “proveâ€

[The Dark Side of Will]

I'm not reading this whole thread. I'm sure there's waaayyyy too much here that I've heard before for me to want to read it again.

Suffice it to say: EBS doesn't get it.

Your complaints are about misinterpretation of Christian principles, abuses of authority, etc on the part of corrupt persons in organized religion.

Yet you attack things like the nature of God that are outside your area of complaint.

You're trying to say that I'm dismissing you're valid argument. I am not. I am telling you that your argument is invalid. You're attempting a proof by contradiction, but you're not in the right ontology. You're trying you use natural principles to prove that the supernatural is not possible, when the very definition of the supernatural is that it is that which lies outside natural principles. This is like arguing from the principles Muslim law in an American court room. You're bringing the wrong arguments to the wrong arena.

The Bible is not a science book. It is a spiritual guide.
I think that people who want to interpret it literally are wrong. Christian fundamentalism is a relatively young sect... only 150-200 years or so. Despite being vocal in this country, they are still significantly in the minority in the Christian world.
Prior to fundamentalism, allegory was the preferred level of Biblical interpretation. Jesus, whom Christians are supposed to emulate, used this device extensively in the form of parables.

I think that because the Bible is not a science book, people who try to draw scientific information from it are wrong. People who try to say that the Bible is wrong because a certain interpretation of is contra-indicated by observable reality are off their rocker. Being a spiritual guide, the Bible says nothing about science.

Interpreting the Bible to try to prove or disprove any scientific theory is useless.

For example, lots of people try to draw far reaching economic information from the stock market, with varying degrees of success. This is because the ONLY information on which the stock market is authoritative is the prices of stocks. Trying to draw far reaching economic information from that is an exercise in inferrence (sometimes very tenuous), frequently assumes causality when only correlation is present, and is simply NOT proof.

[lucky]

This is my last post on this topic.

EBSB- I find it funny that you bitch about me misinterpreting you, but you keep misquoting me. Where do you get 2[7(2)] out of the statement "seven mating pairs"?

Where exactly did I claim that that was "mathematical proof of the existence of god"?
I said "more reasonable (mathematically)". And I clarified by stating that the odds that ALL life as we know it evolved from the first single celled organism were more staggering than the odds of all modern animals developing through natural selection from many fewer root species. No where did I say animals were physically smaller 20k years ago. And no where did I say there were only 14 animals with noah, I said "...pairs of each 'clean' animal and 1 pair of each 'unclean' animal."

I also proposed that since all major cultures have a global flood myth then it is at least possible that it actually happened. Those were my exact words, which you again twisted into something else claiming that I claimed mythology was real.

I called for fossil "proof" of any major species split. Not pieces of a puzzle. I do not deny the existence of natural selection, however, as I have said before NS is a long way from evolution. Evolution implies a "changing" towards a more complex organism. As I said before also, Natural Selection does not explain things like bats. For a bat to develop slowly from another form of rodent, there would be several generations of half deaf flipper-footed rat mutants who would have been less viable in any environment than their non-mutant cousins (and therefore less likely to breed and pass on their "positive" traits). An argument which you continually neglect to address.

I am the one who claimed 20k years of written "history." You complained about bias. I'm going to counter with if the jews can't keep track of written history for 20k years, who could.

Whales have leg bones??? That means they were once reptiles? That's a Big Ass Fucking Assumption right there. More likely that man was once whales, at least we're both mammals.

As far as the assumption that God exists. Wow, I thought that was the side of the argument I was on all along. What was I supposed to be arguing, that Ronald McDonald is the real messiah? Hamburgers for holy communion kids!! (Fucking sarcasm)


I find extremely comical that you do all this bitching about me then close your argument with MY point from earlier in the thread that Jesus wouldn't have been white.

I said before this is my last post. It will be. This argument is not "provable" by either of us, and since all you keep doing is misquoting me and bitching about me misquoting you, I'll stop wasting my time.

[EBSB52]

[quote="KIng Will"][/quote]


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not reading this whole thread. I'm sure there's waaayyyy too much here that I've heard before for me to want to read it again.


Whatever King Will wants. Dictionary is BS, America really isn’t Imperialistic, Chriatianity thread is frivolous based on: “I don't need to go through your assertions as they are irrelevant to the point of being frivolous.â€