|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#66646
04/16/06 20:32
04/16/06 20:32
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I shouldn't refer to them as good or bad, that was a bad choice of words to convey what I was trying to say. There are good and bad mutations that we have observed. It would be more accurate to call mutations either progressive or regressive. One is 'upwards' the other is 'downwards' respectively, whether or not they end up being good or bad is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution requires that mutations eventually lead upwards and write data that never existed in the first place. I've since shown you how all the examples where scientists have assumed this has happened have turned out to be false, and are actually regressive, usually leading to a loss of fitness in the wild. Thus the idea of a progressive mutation is a fantastic idea, but an imaginary one nonetheless.
Just because we can observe more regressive mutations than progressive mutations doesn't quite mean anything within evolution. A regressive mutation, which is infact 'damage done' with an effect we would expect, a negative one. Well those last three words aren't actually right, it's more that the mutations didn't decreased the chance of survival, so having this degradation, doesn't really make any difference. For example our ape-like ancestors lost their tails by a mutation, and because in the environment they lived during that evolutionary step, having a tail didn't increase the chance of survival of the species, it dissappeared. Personally I think this degradation of the tail might have taken quite some time, when having no tail, didn't really have a considerable advantage.
Quote:
Evolution requires that mutations eventually lead upwards and write data that never existed in the first place.
Evolution doesn't require anything, evolution is the effect of adaptations to the past by the mechanisms of "survival of the fittest", "natural selection" and "mutations". Wether this means we grow a third hand with data copied from existing gene-info, because we have a big advantage of having that third hand or if we would evolve into a species with fins so we can swim with not yet existing info does not matter. The fin-example might not be very good, because when we look at a certain point in the human's embryo development, then it has fin-like hands, so basically that would be degradation. Maybe wings are a better example then, but then again, when our species would only survive with wings, then there's still the possibility that our species just dies out, because we didn't develop wings with feathers so we could fly. Some things might theoretically be possible, yet may never happen at all. I think that's why regressive mutations play a big role in our evolution. I also think that if those regressive mutations that happened did decreased the chance of survival that the degradation would not have happened, so the degradation or any mutation for that matter will be passed on and only stay within a species when it's either neutral or positive for survival.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: PHeMoX]
#66647
04/17/06 01:31
04/17/06 01:31
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Just because we can observe more regressive mutations than progressive mutations doesn't quite mean anything within evolution.
No, what you mean to say is, "We only observe regressive mutations." There's no such thing as a progressive mutation, except what exists within the imagination of evolutionists.
A progressive mutation doesn't necessarily have to be a good mutation, and a regressive mutation isn't necessarily a bad mutation. When I say progressive and regressive, I'm referring to what happens on the genetic level, not on the natural selection level.
Quote:
so having this degradation, doesn't really make any difference
In the case of evolution it does. If you keep degrading a bacteria species, no matter how many times you degrade it it will never become a human.
Quote:
For example our ape-like ancestors lost their tails by a mutation
An opinion. No one saw this happen. And since the 'tail' bone has a purpose, and we would be worse off without it, it stands to reason that it was in our original design as a human, not as an ancestor of ape. Either way, what you're saying is simply opinion. Prove that we used to have tails once. I'd love to see that happen.
I know you can't show how it devolved from ape tails, but the point is is that you have no physical evidence of it happening. And unless you can prove the mechanism (mutations) for it to happen, then you might as well quit repeating your opinion.
Quote:
Evolution doesn't require anything
This just goes to show how little you understand the theory you believe. Evolution requires that vast amounts of genetic data be written from scratch. Otherwise a germ couldn't become an ape, or a snail, or anything else.
So it has requirements.
Quote:
Wether this means we grow a third hand with data copied from existing gene-info
So you're saying that non-evolutionary changes can lead to change. You're just getting the different definitions of evolution confused. Evolution loosely means change, but that doesn't mean that all change falls within the category of the kind of evolution you're talking about. If creatures are constantly degrading over time, that doesn't show how your version of evolution can happen.
Quote:
when we look at a certain point in the human's embryo development, then it has fin-like hands, so basically that would be degradation.
No. It would mean that ours hands don't magically spring into hands out of nowhere, we have to start as a ball of unformed cells before we become well-formed adults. This has nothing to do with anything. I'm absolutely baffled....
Quote:
I think that's why regressive mutations play a big role in our evolution.
No, you think regressive mutations play a big role in evolution because you don't even know the basics (the extreme basics) of genetic theory.
Quote:
any mutation for that matter will be passed on and only stay within a species when it's either neutral or positive for survival.
I already know how evolution supposedly works. Please, you don't need to try and teach me how evolution works. All the supposed evidence of evolution hasn't stood up to scrutiny or the test of time. Your theory is failing.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/17/06 01:34.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: lostclimate]
#66649
05/17/06 01:23
05/17/06 01:23
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
-The tail bone doesn't have a purpose at all. -Evolution doesn't require new data to be written from scratch the way you think it does. It goes way more gradually, thinking about a germ to ape is a step that's way to big. Yes, it happened in the long run, but you don't wish to see all the steps in between. -Just because you believe there is no such thing as progressive mutation, doesn't mean they can't happen/didn't appear in the past.  -Growing a third hand because of an mutation is basically a form of evolution when it gives an advantage having that 3rd hand. Thus what do you mean with non-evolutionary change here? Just because you don't believe in evolution, doesn't mean you can simply ignore that fact that we see it as part of evolution. (i'm talking mutations, beneficial ones.) You try to fit the evolution theory within your framework of thoughts, that's not going to fit at all when you keep having this biased view on it. No, I'm not saying it's wrong or something to not believe in the evolution theory. -'progressive' or 'regressive' on the genetic level is basically equal in effect to the natural selection level, you make a distinction where there is none to be found and I was referring to the same. A genetic change affects the natural selection process just aswell. Quote:
No. It would mean that ours hands don't magically spring into hands out of nowhere, we have to start as a ball of unformed cells before we become well-formed adults. This has nothing to do with anything. I'm absolutely baffled....
You're not understanding my point here at all. I meant that if there's information that let's us develop hands from fin-like shapes first, then it doesn't surprise me at all that a mutation could cause fins to stay. Just to give an example of an effect of degradation. Well if one way is possible, what makes the other way less possible? The writing of new genetic data from scratch is a non-argument, because is it really impossible like you suggest? No, to say the least there are all kinds of mutations that have caused certain humans to have 6 or even 7 fingers, a second ear, not fully developed hands or feet etc. etc.
Quote:
I already know how evolution supposedly works. Please, you don't need to try and teach me how evolution works. All the supposed evidence of evolution hasn't stood up to scrutiny or the test of time. Your theory is failing.
Honestly your statements keep telling me otherwise.
Quote:
In the case of evolution it does. If you keep degrading a bacteria species, no matter how many times you degrade it it will never become a human.
This for example. You don't believe new genetic data can come into existance through mutations, that's fine, but it is a part of the evolution theory. A little gambling with the building blocks of life sounds more plausible to me then the creation theory and we've got more evidence, were creationists got nothing.
And about that evidence not standing up to scrutiny or the test of time, I don't agree, quite the contrary, your religion is failing. Believe what you wish, 'dark age' and biblical prediction or not, but I would not be surprised when christianity would dissappear within a few decades (50-100 yrs?) because religion itself has failed to withstand the test of time. Again, where is your evidence for creation? Your theory isn't scientific, that means backed-up properly with solid evidence. Your theory is based around a faith, evolution is no religious belief. Yes, the evolution theory has it's question marks in certain areas, but those are only small pieces in the big puzzle. You claim there are too much assumptions going through life as facts, well then I also want to remind you that evolution is a theory and in my opinion a pretty plausible one and not every assumption is false. Infact I could write a book about all the assumptions your belief has. 900 year old people, changing water into wine, parting seas multiple times, floods, eve comming from adam's rib (it would make more sense if it happened the other way around if you ask me.) All this based upon the assumption of the possible existance of a God. Infact the bible is claimed to be a historic overview of what happened, and that's probably the biggest assumption of them all. What if the bible is wrong? What if all those miracles are just the imagination of their respective authors? What if it has been oral tradition written down in multiple books, just folklore? That would explain certain events that appear more than once. You see why I doubt your theory and thus the existance of God?
Darn, I'm starting to sound like a priest now. (I've got nothing against priests, I've only got something against the way they talk.  )
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: PHeMoX]
#66650
05/27/06 05:57
05/27/06 05:57
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Whoa, totally forgot about this thread. Quote:
-The tail bone doesn't have a purpose at all.
I think somewhere along the line we established that I was right on this one, so I won't keep bringing it up.
Quote:
-Evolution doesn't require new data to be written from scratch the way you think it does. It goes way more gradually, thinking about a germ to ape is a step that's way to big. Yes, it happened in the long run, but you don't wish to see all the steps in between.
Who said it didn't have to happen gradually? Whether it happens slowly or not, its still requires new data to be written. If you can, compare just the number of nucleotides of the simplest microbe to that of a human. The number of nucleotides alone will tell you that there's quite a difference, if you can't make the common sense connection.
Quote:
-Just because you believe there is no such thing as progressive mutation, doesn't mean they can't happen/didn't appear in the past.
The burden of proof isn't on me.
Quote:
-Growing a third hand because of an mutation is basically a form of evolution when it gives an advantage having that 3rd hand. Thus what do you mean with non-evolutionary change here? Just because you don't believe in evolution, doesn't mean you can simply ignore that fact that we see it as part of evolution.
It would appear because the 'schematic' for an arm jumped locations. The arm isn't being written up from scratch, the data for it already exists. You're just scrambling DNA into new locations (literally scrambling body parts into new locations). However, this doesn't provide any insight into the possibility of a human having been written from a microbe.
Quote:
You try to fit the evolution theory within your framework of thoughts, that's not going to fit at all when you keep having this biased view on it.
You keep trying to squeeze non-evolutionary events into the theory of evolution because there's no actual record of evolution happening. So you've gotta grasp for some kind of straw I suppose.
Quote:
'progressive' or 'regressive' on the genetic level is basically equal in effect to the natural selection level, you make a distinction where there is none to be found and I was referring to the same. A genetic change affects the natural selection process just aswell.
There is a difference. I'll state the difference again. Let's say that beetles living on a windy island mutate to LOSE their wings. On the genetic level this is obviously a loss. Its regressive. However, now they don't get blown away into the water by the wind. So on the natural selection level is a positive thing. These two ideas are exclusive, and I think if you understood exactly what was going on you wouldn't believe evolution in the least. You would scoff at it in fact because you would realize how many times you've been lied to (incidentally).
Quote:
I meant that if there's information that let's us develop hands from fin-like shapes first, then it doesn't surprise me at all that a mutation could cause fins to stay.
It should. Genetics and cells are really quite amazing. And the millions of specific details of cell behavior in a developing human argue strongly against your point here. The reason our hands aren't fused together is because some cells between our fingers know to commit suicide to give us independent digits.
Its a very complex and yet precise process determined by genetics. From the layman perspective (of which I admit I am part of, although I have studied up a bit and do understand the problem) I can see why it might be easy to jump to the conclusion that our hands are real close to fins. But in fact, they're very far away.
Unless I'm mistaken, a mutation somewhere along the lines of what you were talking about has been recorded in history. Webbed hands. They don't turn into fins, they turn into 'freaks' of nature. I'll begrudgingly give you that this can be a beneficial mutation. I suppose swimming 0.01 km/h faster is something of a benefit, although it comes at the rather detrimental loss of some of the finger independence. Now, we have to lose the data that tells the hand to still become a hand (with the hand skeletal structure, and still distinct fingers between the webbing). Of course, if we lose all of that we just have formless nubs, so the data for the fins has to be written. In this case, not from scratch, but it must be NEW DATA. The data for the fin does not exist. Not to mention that in order to be useful, a rather large rewrite of the arm would be in order.
So I suppose on the most simplistic levels, evolution seems rather plausible. But when you really understand the wonderful nature of God's design, it becomes painfully clear that evolution is entirely lacking.
Of course, its only this rather simplistic level of evolution that's presented to students in school. They don't teach the kids how to grapple with problems like why breasts would grow on lizards when it provides no advantage until all of the other dozens of effects take place. Evolution should only be discussed on the simplest of levels, because that's the only place it seems plausible.
I think if evolutionists were actually fair in presenting their TRUE beliefs to students, they would get laughed out of the classroom. I always hear them complain about how the public is generally lacking in understanding of evolution. But a faulty teaching of evolution is the only way it can be believed. Oh well...
Quote:
No, to say the least there are all kinds of mutations that have caused certain humans to have 6 or even 7 fingers, a second ear, not fully developed hands or feet etc. etc.
Again, these fingers appear from pre-existing dna. They aren't written again. In fact, they happen within one generation which is about a 10,000 times faster than evolution predicts. Its not even in the evolutionary ballpark.
Quote:
Honestly your statements keep telling me otherwise.
Coincidentally, your arguments had nearly required me to say the same thing to you.
Quote:
A little gambling with the building blocks of life sounds more plausible to me then the creation theory and we've got more evidence
You have no evidence. You read your theory into a wide open plethora of natural records that can be 'read' any number of ways. Whereas, conveniently, nothing from your theory can be observed in modern science....except that things look the same! Which is why we know skyscrapers weren't created, but evolved.
Quote:
were creationists got nothing.
We have the creation! It acts exactly in accordance with how God's word says it would.
Quote:
your religion is failing.
Agreed. But I don't agree for the same reason that you do.
Quote:
but I would not be surprised when christianity would dissappear within a few decades (50-100 yrs?) because religion itself has failed to withstand the test of time.
It won't ever disappear actually, though its going to definately become more and more marginalized, which would only rest on ancient predictions.
Quote:
Again, where is your evidence for creation? Your theory isn't scientific, that means backed-up properly with solid evidence.
Do you even know what my theory is.
Every time a dog gives birth to a dog, my theory is backed up. Every time we can make a hybrid from microevolved subspecies of a kind, my theory is vindicated. Every time an animal is micro evolved into a new species that's entirely less fit, more disease prone, and has less genetic potential, my theory is vindicated. Every time we try and find ways that life could have started on its own, and fail miserably, my theory is vindicated. Every time we look around at the chaos of the universe and see just how well designed our world is, my theory is vindicated.
I fail to see not only how my theory (who's predictions pretty much always come true) is not scientific.
Every time a mutation only causes a genetic loss of information (as it always does) my theory is again vindicated. Your theory WON'T die because it can't, not in the mind of atheists who will reject their creator at all costs. However, it has died, and its been dead almost since its inception. Its just running on extreme life support, not to mention ignorance.
Quote:
What if the bible is wrong? What if all those miracles are just the imagination of their respective authors? What if it has been oral tradition written down in multiple books, just folklore?
That's easy. Then I die, and nothing happens to me. I just disappear into the nothingness. What if you're wrong though? Where are you going to spend the rest of eternity? I don't really have anything to lose here, but in fact, in the realm of hypotheticals, you have quite a bit more to lose.
Quote:
That would explain certain events that appear more than once. You see why I doubt your theory and thus the existance of God?
No, in fact, I don't. You believe a theory without evidence, and you also believe that the universe is a self-creating scientific contradiction. Its, in fact, rather hard for me to drop my belief in my God to believe some wordly confusion meant to make me deny my creator. I don't have the arrogance to turn a cold shoulder to a God powerful enough to create our universe.
Remind me to touch on 'similar events' in the bible contradiction thread.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#66651
06/26/06 03:48
06/26/06 03:48
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
MathewAllen
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
|
Quote:
Do you even know what my theory is.
Every time a dog gives birth to a dog, my theory is backed up. Every time we can make a hybrid from microevolved subspecies of a kind, my theory is vindicated. Every time an animal is micro evolved into a new species that's entirely less fit, more disease prone, and has less genetic potential, my theory is vindicated. Every time we try and find ways that life could have started on its own, and fail miserably, my theory is vindicated.
Why don't you tell us your theory please? You seem to know the evolutionary theory better then some of it's supporters.
Because, from what I see of your theory it's not affected positively or negatively by anything humans do, or anything negative that happens to a species' gene pool. Evolutionary theory's detrimment is not creationism's gain when both are considered in abstract, as they should be. It take's just as much faith to believe in either at the moment - Personally I don't buy either. Though I like the idea of evolution, it's poetic, inspiring. Socially useful.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: MathewAllen]
#66652
06/26/06 21:33
06/26/06 21:33
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Why don't you tell us your theory please? You seem to know the evolutionary theory better then some of it's supporters.
The only reason I'm hesitant to start a topic on my theory is I don't want to spend a month answering stupid questions about Noah's ark. If I really thought you guys were interested in learning about the scientific aspects of my theory, then I would start a thread about it. But it wouldn't be a discussion even about the theory. It would end up as a discussion about God and the bible.
"What's the difference?" Well if it gets into a discussion of the bible and God no one is going to even care about the science of my theory, they're just going to try and prove the bible wrong, or say it makes no sense to believe in God. If we can discuss the biological aspect of my theory, we might get some where. But the bilogical aspect of my theory is self-evident. You watch animals reproduce after their kind constantly, etc.
If we get into the biological aspect of my theory, it will inevitably revert back to evolution. I'll say that animals reproduce after their kind, while sexual reproduction allows the shuffling of genes to speciate within that kind. Then someone will be like, "Well evolution this and evolution that." Either outcome of a thread on creation is useless.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#66653
07/24/06 23:33
07/24/06 23:33
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
mpdeveloper_B
OP
Expert
|
OP
Expert
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
|
this thread has completely trailed away from it's original purpose NOOOOOOOOOOOO IT'S OUT OF CONTROL....*sigh* sorry.... Cheers! lol
- aka Manslayer101
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: mpdeveloper_B]
#66654
07/26/06 17:41
07/26/06 17:41
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,206
Innsbruck, Austria
sPlKe
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,206
Innsbruck, Austria
|
i give you somethign new to talk about. it furhter proofs that there is no god, sicne if there would be a god, all of us would be the same. but i tell you something...
i call myself and some others a new species. we are not mere humans, but the next step of evolution.
this may sound drastic, and maybe a bit x-men but let me explain.
i for instance i never got wisdom teeht. i will never get some. there is just nothing there that would make them come, the dentist said. lucky me, sicne 99% of everyone must pull them out anyway.
they are useless nowadays.
im never sick. in fact, i am the worlds healthiest human since im a kid. i never got one illness except the flu after i ran around naked as a kid in winter (i fell out of my window, 3 meters, did not broke anything (i landed in snow) and then i ran arund. when my mum saw me, she was scared to death...) i have perfect eyes, perfect teeth (except the position, wich is by the way not a natural fault but the fault of my old stepfather) i have a skin that is tolerant to pain to a bigger degree than those of most humans, i have a great operating blood system the pulse and blood pressure of a athlet and so on...
in fact, i am bodily speaken the perfect human (healthy, looks is based on opinion of course, though i must admit that most women think im handsome)...
there are dozens of people like me out there...
some people i know are asexual. while most humans do not understand this, i do.
think about it. when youre not interested in sex, youre not giving in to our ancient desires. those people spend their time investigating and doind real stuff while we spend our time having sex or looking for people to have sex with.
if they one day find someone they can really love, they know this because they dont care if he is sexy or not, they care about this person and nothign else. then they can either have sex or not, depending on how they are. but those brains are perfect for a new race, a race that doesn follow animal instincts like our brains...
my bet is, the next step in human evolution will be humans with my kind of body, and the brains of those people, who are (almost all of them) intelligent to a degree (id say 130-140 IQ). people who dont get sick, and who dont fight for thingslike women or pwoer, because they are far above those limits...
and thats why i call myself of a new race. becaue im 100% sure that this will be evolutions next step.
evolution cannot do drastic steps. if you are too different, youll be hunted and killed or hunted and researched...
if yorue to wea to live, you wont die, you will stay alive because its "morally right". its insane. so evolution had to think of a new way to evolve.
and thats why i dont belive in a god. not because i am some bad heavy metal satan guy. i dont belive in satan obviously. i do not belive in god because not only has the bible been proven a bazillion times wrong (you do know that the bible STILL states that earht is flat and fixed in the unvierse and that the sun and the stars surround us?) no it just is obvious, because if there is a god, and if mankind is the last step of evolution, then people like me may exist, but there wont be anything above us.
and weall know we will lose our toes and grow an extra finger within the next million of years...
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: sPlKe]
#66655
07/26/06 21:14
07/26/06 21:14
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,835
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Nardulus
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,835
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
|
@Spike, Wow you sound like one of those cool X-Files Super Soliders.
Anyways, when your super health starts to decline, when your good looks decline and you get laid less often, and your friends move on. You will find there is one constant, that is God.
God will always love you, and accept you. When things are going as good as they are for you, its hard to think God had anything to do with it.
To me, it sounds like God has blessed you very much, and when you need him in your life he will be there for you.
In the meantime enjoy, and maybe think about why you are blessed with such good health, good looks, and a great mind.
Peace,
Ken
|
|
|
|
