religion

[Neyphlite]

Species, kinds, classes, all the same thing right?

So sharks and gators pressed the stop button on evolution.

Thought that was impossible.

I never said that a stop button couldn't be hit. Things evolve for a reason. My guess to that reason would be survival and as such theres really no need for a shark or gator to evolve to survive when they have survived the millions of years that they have.

[Glenzig]

No, it hasnt been proven with 100% certainty. Nothing ever is. Not sure how that negates the thousands of fossils we find, DNA results, etc that all point to evolution being an undeniable fact though.

Perhaps, you could explain why the fossil record shows a clear progression from simple proto-life to the complexity we see today. Why dont we find rabbit fossils in the Precambrian era for instance?

◾Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet. ◾Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer, A View of Life, pp. 638.

◾Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms. ◾Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer, A View of Life, p. 651.


Maybe the better question to ask is why and how very suddenly all of these complex skeletonized vertebrate animals appeared during the same exact geological period with no apparent evolutionary premise.

[G13]

I never said that a stop button couldn't be hit. Things evolve for a reason. My guess to that reason would be survival and as such theres really no need for a shark or gator to evolve to survive when they have survived the millions of years that they have.

The walking sharks and gators are still sharks and gators

Try again

[Neyphlite]

The walking sharks and gators are still sharks and gators

Try again

Errr, I never said anything about new gators being found. To evolve doesn't mean to completely change what you are. Evolution isn't a shark becoming a gator its a shark that slowly gains the ability to do something it could not before. For instance, In the link I posted there is a species of moth that evolved its tone to better blend in to its surroundings for protection against its predators. THAT is evolution not a moth becoming a bird.

[Glenzig]

Errr, I never said anything about new gators being found. To evolve doesn't mean to completely change what you are. Evolution isn't a shark becoming a gator its a shark that slowly gains the ability to do something it could not before. For instance, In the link I posted there is a species of moth that evolved its tone to better blend in to its surroundings for protection against its predators. THAT is evolution not a moth becoming a bird.

Its a form of evolution yeah. But its confined to the limits of adaptation. It also isn't what the premise of the theory of evolution is all about. People had been observing adaptation for millenia, yet there was never any change that could be attributed to Darwinian evolution.

[Neyphlite]

Its a form of evolution yeah. But its confined to the limits of adaptation. It also isn't what the premise of the theory of evolution is all about. People had been observing adaptation for millenia, yet there was never any change that could be attributed to Darwinian evolution.

So your saying evolution is real on a small scale but completely impossible on a large scale?

[leewong]

Species, kinds, classes, all the same thing right?

So sharks and gators pressed the stop button on evolution.

Thought that was impossible.

No, they are still evolving but they are very well suited to their environment. When you are extremely well suited to the environment then nature is going to reinforce your current traits because they are beneficial traits. Also, it isnt as if sharks are still the same species they were a few hundred millions of years ago. Hundreds of variations have happened since then so today we have over 400 distinct sharks species all arising from a common ancient shark.

[Glenzig]

So your saying evolution is real on a small scale but completely impossible on a large scale?

No I'm saying that the word evolution was around for a long time before Darwin. It has more than one meaning. If your setting the definite meaning of Darwinian evolution on what you described, then no, that would be well short of showing Darwinian evolution.

[leewong]

◾Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet. ◾Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer, A View of Life, pp. 638.

◾Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms. ◾Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer, A View of Life, p. 651.


Maybe the better question to ask is why and how very suddenly all of these complex skeletonized vertebrate animals appeared during the same exact geological period with no apparent evolutionary premise.

When a geologist says sudden they arent talking about minutes or hours or years. This period lasted about 53 million years or more. Suddenly is a very bad term to use when referring to it.

[G13]

Errr, I never said anything about new gators being found. To evolve doesn't mean to completely change what you are. Evolution isn't a shark becoming a gator its a shark that slowly gains the ability to do something it could not before. For instance, In the link I posted there is a species of moth that evolved its tone to better blend in to its surroundings for protection against its predators. THAT is evolution not a moth becoming a bird.

Still a moth and that whole moth changing it's color was proven to be a hoax btw. Oh you didn't know that? Peppered moths don't even rest on tree trunks during the day. They glued dead moths to the trees. It's been proven to be a total fabrication just like Piltdown Man.

Changes within existing types/kinds is not being argued. Just look at the Russian Silverfox experiments. Lot of different varieties within existing genetic types. Still foxes though. Just like the "walking sharks" are still sharks.

Not completely new genetic code that creates a never before seen kind/type from pre-existing or spontaneously new ordered and functioning genetic code.

Evolution = A Religion

[leewong]

Its a form of evolution yeah. But its confined to the limits of adaptation. It also isn't what the premise of the theory of evolution is all about. People had been observing adaptation for millenia, yet there was never any change that could be attributed to Darwinian evolution.

Because it takes millions of years not a few millenia to witness what you are describing.

[RobotElvis]

No, they are still evolving but they are very well suited to their environment. When you are extremely well suited to the environment then nature is going to reinforce your current traits because they are beneficial traits. Also, it isnt as if sharks are still the same species they were a few hundred millions of years ago. Hundreds of variations have happened since then so today we have over 400 distinct sharks species all arising from a common ancient shark.

You sure like to anthropomorphise nature.

I thought it was random mutations that produced evolutionary processes, not mutations reinforced by Nature.

[RobotElvis]

No, they are still evolving but they are very well suited to their environment. When you are extremely well suited to the environment then nature is going to reinforce your current traits because they are beneficial traits. Also, it isnt as if sharks are still the same species they were a few hundred millions of years ago. Hundreds of variations have happened since then so today we have over 400 distinct sharks species all arising from a common ancient shark.

Because it takes millions of years not a few millenia to witness what you are describing.

Time!

[Neyphlite]

No I'm saying that the word evolution was around for a long time before Darwin. It has more than one meaning. If your setting the definite meaning of Darwinian evolution on what you described, then no, that would be well short of showing Darwinian evolution.

No what you said was that what I described was a "form of evolution" implying that evolution is there. Adaptation and evolution go hand in hand in order to adapt you must evolve in one way or another. Darwinian evolution is just the theory that we humans evolved from apes which scientifically has solid backings with mannerisms, bone structure and similar DNA. Though im not totally convinced on that myself. What I am convinced about is that evolution happens and is not just some made up theory.

[Glenzig]

When a geologist says sudden they arent talking about minutes or hours or years. This period lasted about 53 million years or more. Suddenly is a very bad term to use when referring to it.

That's hardly an answer. Still doesn't explain the appearance of highly.complex vertebrate animals only during and after the Cambrian period with no evolutionary premise.

[RobotElvis]

When a geologist says sudden they arent talking about minutes or hours or years. This period lasted about 53 million years or more. Suddenly is a very bad term to use when referring to it.

And during that 53m years surprise...... No fossils to back it up

[leewong]

You sure like to anthropomorphise nature.

I thought it was random mutations that produced evolutionary processes, not mutations reinforced by Nature.

What? I have always maintained that the environment (nature) plays a key role in selecting the traits.

[Neyphlite]

You sure like to anthropomorphise nature.

I thought it was random mutations that produced evolutionary processes, not mutations reinforced by Nature.

This is infact backwards it is not random mutations at all nor are the reinforced by nature. It is nature that dictates what a species needs to evolve to survive.

[Whirled]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/277/502/27f.jpg

Some people even worship some spaghetti dude too.

[leewong]

That's hardly an answer. Still doesn't explain the appearance of highly.complex vertebrate animals only during and after the Cambrian period with no evolutionary premise.

Sigh, you arent even going to check for evidence before you say there is none. I guess I will have to do all the work while you sit back in your chair demanding answers instead of trying to learn on your own.

Here is a link that will get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate

Getting tired of answering things that you could very well look up on your own.

[RobotElvis]

This is infact backwards it is not random mutations at all nor are the reinforced by nature. It is nature that dictates what a species needs to evolve to survive.

Anthropomorphizing nature!
That's pseudo-science to the extreme.

[leewong]

And during that 53m years surprise...... No fossils to back it up

You are right. We dont have any fossils from the Cambrian era. None, zilch, zero. The entire period is a complete mystery that scientist only guessed happened because it makes evolution look neat.

[Glenzig]

Sigh, you arent even going to check for evidence before you say there is none. I guess I will have to do all the work while you sit back in your chair demanding answers instead of trying to learn on your own.

Here is a link that will get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate

Getting tired of answering things that you could very well look up on your own.

Yeah I had absolutely no idea. Thanks. Here's a quote from that wiki page for you.

"Vertebrates originated about 525 million years ago during the Cambrian explosion, which saw the rise in organism diversity."

So the question still remains.

[leewong]

Anthropomorphizing nature!
That's pseudo-science to the extreme.

No one is anthropomorphizing nature. You just dont understand the term "nature selects" implies or are being purposefully dense. When I refer to nature I am simply talking about the species surrounding (the enviroment) in which it lives. If food is scarce...that is a pressure that organisms will have to cope with. The ones that can will be able to pass on their genes. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Neyphlite]

Anthropomorphizing nature!
That's pseudo-science to the extreme.

Your acting like I said that Nature calls the animal and is like "yo, you need better ears so that you can hear that thing sneaking up on you better". When I say nature dictates evolution im talking about Weather, Climate, terrain, other species in the same vicinity, sometimes even different types of the same species can cause the other type to evolve(Darwin's Finchs on the Galopagos islands).

[leewong]

Yeah I had absolutely no idea. Thanks. Here's a quote from that wiki page for you.

"Vertebrates originated about 525 million years ago during the Cambrian explosion, which saw the rise in organism diversity."

So the question still remains.

It also talks about the earliest known vertebrates and give you names for them. If you want an answer I am not going to hold you hand through the entire process. We have search engines like google that anyone, including yourself, can use. Quite demanding that I know every single fact...I am not a biologist. If you want deeper explanations all you have to do is look.

[RobotElvis]

Your acting like I said that Nature calls the animal and is like "yo, you need better ears so that you can hear that thing sneaking up on you better". When I say nature dictates evolution im talking about Weather, Climate, terrain, other species in the same vicinity, sometimes even different types of the same species can cause the other type to evolve(Darwin's Finchs on the Galopagos islands).

So Nature is the external force that drives evolution.

[RobotElvis]

No one is anthropomorphizing nature. You just dont understand the term "nature selects" implies or are being purposefully dense. When I refer to nature I am simply talking about the species surrounding (the enviroment) in which it lives. If food is scarce...that is a pressure that organisms will have to cope with. The ones that can will be able to pass on their genes. What is so hard to understand about that?

All those starving children in Africa will make a very fit species in a million years.

[Thulack]

Government and Religion. Both people trying to tell you how to run your life and get money from you at the same time. They came up with religion so people would be fearful of doing bad things in this life and be punished for it in the "afterlife".

[RobotElvis]

Government and Religion. Both people trying to tell you how to run your life and get money from you at the same time. They came up with religion so people would be fearful of doing bad things in this life and be punished for it in the "afterlife".

This thread isn't for rational thoughts.
SCRAM! You little cockroach.

[RobotElvis]

This is fun stuff. Sitting in my dump truck, moving dirt around, talking about the theories of life.
Pissing off Leewong.

[leewong]

All those starving children in Africa will make a very fit species in a million years.

They may develop a new strand of bacteria in their gut to extract more nutrients for food or something similar so yes...they may end up being able to eat less than the humans you see there today.

There are a few factors which offset this though:

1. It isnt a static population locked to one environment. Humans move from one country to the next all the time. It isnt just starving African genes being passed to each new generation there. Some generations will lack food and some not so much. If we walled off Africa for a million years and starved them all it would be far more likely that they would develop traits to suit that environment.

2. Africans are very numerous. When you have a massive population, genetic drift takes longer to permeate through the entire species. Small populations change much faster than a large one.

I am sure there are quite a few factors that I am not accounting for but you get the idea.

[leewong]

This is fun stuff. Sitting in my dump truck, moving dirt around, talking about the theories of life.
Pissing off Leewong.

Actually, I am in a great mood today. I may come off harsh from time to time but then again...who in this thread hasnt?

[RobotElvis]

They may develop a new strand of bacteria in their gut to extract more nutrients for food or something similar so yes...they may end up being able to eat less than the humans you see there today.

There are a few factors which offset this though:

1. It isnt a static population locked to one environment. Humans move from one country to the next all the time. It isnt just starving African genes being passed to each new generation there. Some generations will lack food and some not so much. If we walled off Africa for a million years and starved them all it would be far more likely that they would develop traits to suit that environment.

2. Africans are very numerous. When you have a massive population, genetic drift takes longer to permeate through the entire species. Small populations change much faster than a large one.

I am sure there are quite a few factors that I am not accounting for but you get the idea.
That's racist

[Patriam1066]

Government and Religion. Both people trying to tell you how to run your life and get money from you at the same time. They came up with religion so people would be fearful of doing bad things in this life and be punished for it in the "afterlife".

Yeah, because atheist anarchists would clearly have a great society

You've just described Penn and Teller running the world

[RobotElvis]

That's racist

Sorry troll post

[Patriam1066]

also nice job guys you've added 50 pages in one day, impressive

[leewong]

also nice job guys you've added 50 pages in one day, impressive

Around 30 by my count.

[RobotElvis]

Actually, I am in a great mood today. I may come off harsh from time to time but then again...who in this thread hasnt?

No get it. I have already determined in my life not to get offended at other peoples perspectives.

But it keeps me on my toes.

[RobotElvis]

No get it. I have already determined in my life not to get offended at other peoples perspectives.

But it keeps me on my toes.

I get it****

[Patriam1066]

Around 30 by my count.

Could be, I wasn't paying close attention

[Whirled]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znpjVWNjym0
2014 but not recent

[Faron]

155 pages of nerds trying to sound smart as they argue about whether or not wizards exist irl.

[Neyphlite]

also nice job guys you've added 50 pages in one day, impressive

Heh I just think the idea of religious people screaming for proof of evolution while quoting a book that has zero proven factual information in it as there proof of creationism is hilarious. Both sides of this argument have rose tinted glasses on in one way or another. To say that evolution isn't real is silly since its all around us but at the same time to not believe that there are things greater then us at work in our world is just as silly. If you believe in things like karma then you believe in a higher power of some kind for without a higher power karma could not be possible. Many scientists have said that the possibility of there being a "god" is very slim and that they would be more inclined to believe that there are many. I personally think the romans/greek/Vikings etc had it right with religion of specialized gods(eg. Zues, Odin, Hades, Apollo etc etc). As I said I believe in a higher power I just don't need someone shoving rewritten books from thousands of years ago down my throat and telling me its the only thing that is right. I am very against organized religion.

[leewong]

155 pages of nerds trying to sound smart as they argue about whether or not wizards exist irl.

A single post by an asshat that believes being a condescending dick makes him superior to the people willing to discuss and exchange ideas with one another.

[leewong]

Heh I just think the idea of religious people screaming for proof of evolution while quoting a book that has zero proven factual information in it as there proof of creationism is hilarious. Both sides of this argument have rose tinted glasses on in one way or another. To say that evolution isn't real is silly since its all around us but at the same time to not believe that there are things greater then us at work in our world is just as silly. If you believe in things like karma then you believe in a higher power of some kind for without a higher power karma could not be possible. Many scientists have said that the possibility of there being a "god" is very slim and that they would be more inclined to believe that there are many. I personally think the romans/greek/Vikings etc had it right with religion of specialized gods(eg. Zues, Odin, Hades, Apollo etc etc). As I said I believe in a higher power I just don't need someone shoving rewritten books from thousands of years ago down my throat and telling me its the only thing that is right. I am very against organized religion.

The time to believe something is when there is proof for it. Show me evidence for a higher power or karma or Zeus. Yes, there are things outside human knowledge. You have no idea what those things are though. They are by definition...outside human knowledge. Quit acting like you know something (there is a higher power) when you dont.

[Glenzig]

The time to believe something is when there is proof for it. Show me evidence for a higher power or karma or Zeus. Yes, there are things outside human knowledge. You have no idea what those things are though. They are by definition...outside human knowledge. Quit acting like you know something (there is a higher power) when you dont.

The other side of this coin is that there is so much that is unknowable, so why act like you know God couldn't exist and jam that down other peoples throat?

[Whirled]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkJEt1UsUcs

wait, this is funny^

[Neyphlite]

The time to believe something is when there is proof for it. Show me evidence for a higher power or karma or Zeus. Yes, there are things outside human knowledge. You have no idea what those things are though. They are by definition...outside human knowledge. Quit acting like you know something (there is a higher power) when you dont.

Errr im not acting like I know something at all...and also you sound super rustled bro.

[leewong]

The other side of this coin is that there is so much that is unknowable, so why act like you know God couldn't exist and jam that down other peoples throat?

I dont claim that a God couldnt exist. I claim that we have no evidence for one yet and we dont need a God to account for the abundance of species on the planet. If you look at some of my previous post I even state that a deity could have placed the first cellular life on the planet and evolution took off from there.

[Glenzig]

The time to believe something is when there is proof for it. Show me evidence for a higher power or karma or Zeus. Yes, there are things outside human knowledge. You have no idea what those things are though. They are by definition...outside human knowledge. Quit acting like you know something (there is a higher power) when you dont.

To me the point has always been that when faced with the really big questions, some of which are unanswerable, people have to use some sort of faith to fill in the gaps. Whether that be God or Evolution. People on one side have no problem admitting they use faith to fill in certain gaps, the other denies that it is faith at all.

[leewong]

Errr im not acting like I know something at all...and also you sound super rustled bro.

You stated you believe in a higher power. You definitely are claiming you know of something which clearly lies outside of human knowledge at this given time.

Rustled? Hardly. I responded to you in my typical fashion. Let's assume I am SUPER RUSTLED. How does that negate what I said?

[Neyphlite]

You stated you believe in a higher power. You definitely are claiming you know of something which clearly lies outside of human knowledge at this given time.

Rustled? Hardly. I responded to you in my typical fashion. Let's assume I am SUPER RUSTLED. How does that negate what I said?

Your just as bad as a bible thumper trying to shove the bible down someone's throat and tell them that its the only thing that is real in life and that you are not allowed to think for yourself. I used greek/roman/Viking mythology as an example of what I THINK are closer to what "gods" are if they do exist. I use words like believe/think because I DONT know for sure and neither do you. Believe and Think do not mean that I know there is a higher power. I simply stated that if you believe in Karma then you believe in higher powers as Karma is something that by definition is supernatural. I don't claim to know there is/are a god(s) I said I believe in higher powers.

[Neyphlite]

To me the point has always been that when faced with the really big questions, some of which are unanswerable, people have to use some sort of faith to fill in the gaps. Whether that be God or Evolution. People on one side have no problem admitting they use faith to fill in certain gaps, the other denies that it is faith at all.

The problem here is that closed minded people associate faith with religion. Faith is not just for religion. You don't need to be religious to have faith in something.

[leewong]

To me the point has always been that when faced with the really big questions, some of which are unanswerable, people have to use some sort of faith to fill in the gaps. Whether that be God or Evolution. People on one side have no problem admitting they use faith to fill in certain gaps, the other denies that it is faith at all.

There are lots of things you can infer based on the available evidence. Tire tracks for instance typically mean a vehicle produced them. You could argue that there is no way to be 100% certain that a vehicle produced them and you would be right. That doesnt negate the fact that vehicles produce tire tracks and we can observe this phenomenon.

You can also narrow the scope by finding more evidence to support the claim. A camera showing a car producing the tire tracks you are investigating would be a strong indication that a car produced the tire tracks. Now, you have two circumstantial pieces of data to support the theory. You could argue that the video was doctored and you could possibly be right.

What if we added witnesses to the mix? Now we have 3 pieces of circumstantial evidence to back the claim. The witnesses could be mistaken, the video could be doctored, and the tire tracks could have been made by something else but with each new piece of evidence we are making that scenario less and less likely.

Does it take faith to believe that a car produced the tracks? Well, it depends on how you define faith. I define it as, "belief without evidence". So I would say no...it doesnt require faith. Are there gaps in the information still? Yes, but there is evidence there too.

That is why we have a separate word for faith and belief. Do I believe a car produced the tracks. More than likely. Am I certain? No. Do I have faith? No, because there is evidence available for me to digest.

[leewong]

I don't claim to know there is/are a god(s) I said I believe in higher powers.

You have faith there is a higher power not a belief. You cannot believe something for which there is no evidence. See my last response to Glenzig for a deeper explanation.

[Neyphlite]

You have faith there is a higher power not a belief. You cannot believe something for which there is no evidence. See my last response to Glenzig for a deeper explanation.

Sorry but it isn't up to you what I can cannot believe in.

[Neyphlite]

can and cannot***

[Glenzig]

The problem here is that closed minded people associate faith with religion. Faith is not just for religion. You don't need to be religious to have faith in something.

Absolutely. I agree.

[leewong]

Sorry but it isn't up to you what I can cannot believe in.

I didnt say you couldnt believe in anything you choose to. You are using the wrong terminology though. You have faith in a higher power...not belief.

[leewong]

Absolutely. I agree.

I agree as well. It is important to make a distinction between faith and belief though. I can have faith that the Cubs will win the world series just as you can have faith that a God exists. Belief requires some tangible evidence, though. Faith requires none.

[Gaffin 7.0]

u r all faggots

[Neyphlite]

u r all faggots

Do you believe we are all faggots or do you have faith in the thought that we are faggots? We need to know where you stand on this important piece of information.

[Glenzig]

I agree as well. It is important to make a distinction between faith and belief though. I can have faith that the Cubs will win the world series just as you can have faith that a God exists. Belief requires some tangible evidence, though. Faith requires none.

Faith has more than one definition.

[leewong]

Faith has more than one definition.

Many words have multiple definitions. Words arent a sum of all their definitions simultaneously. Words are defined by the context in which they are used.

[Glenzig]

Many words have multiple definitions. Words arent a sum of all their definitions simultaneously. Words are defined by the context in which they are used.

Exactly my point. You keep assigning one meaning to the word faith.

[Gaffin 7.0]

i grew up in nothing but religion for 15 years before moving out

FUCK IT all i dont give a shit life is short

[leewong]

Exactly my point. You keep assigning one meaning to the word faith.

I assign the value based on the context it is used in. He isnt talking about these definitions:

A specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith.

Was he referring to a religious belief system? No

(Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises

Was he referring his trust in God, his actions, or promises? No

(Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

Was he referring to a doctrine of religion? No

Complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc

Was he referring to complete confidence in a person, remedy, etc? No, he stated he "thought" these things not that he was 100% certain of them

Any set of firmly held principles or beliefs

Was he referring to a set of firmly held principles? No, he stated, "Errr im not acting like I know something at all"

Allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith, break faith)

How about this one? Nope.

Bad faith insincerity or dishonesty

This definition? Nope

Good faith honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith)

Not this one either. So what does that leave us...

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

[leewong]

I assign the value based on the context it is used in. He isnt talking about these definitions:

A specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith.

Was he referring to a religious belief system? No

(Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises

Was he referring his trust in God, his actions, or promises? No

(Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

Was he referring to a doctrine of religion? No

Complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc

Was he referring to complete confidence in a person, remedy, etc? No, he stated he "thought" these things not that he was 100% certain of them

Any set of firmly held principles or beliefs

Was he referring to a set of firmly held principles? No, he stated, "Errr im not acting like I know something at all"

Allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith, break faith)

How about this one? Nope.

Bad faith insincerity or dishonesty

This definition? Nope

Good faith honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith)

Not this one either. So what does that leave us...

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

I would also like to point out that no where in any of these definitions is a requirement for evidence.

[Neyphlite]

I assign the value based on the context it is used in. He isnt talking about these definitions:

A specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith.

Was he referring to a religious belief system? No

(Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises

Was he referring his trust in God, his actions, or promises? No

(Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

Was he referring to a doctrine of religion? No

Complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc

Was he referring to complete confidence in a person, remedy, etc? No, he stated he "thought" these things not that he was 100% certain of them

Any set of firmly held principles or beliefs

Was he referring to a set of firmly held principles? No, he stated, "Errr im not acting like I know something at all"

Allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith, break faith)

How about this one? Nope.

Bad faith insincerity or dishonesty

This definition? Nope

Good faith honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith)

Not this one either. So what does that leave us...

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

Im glad that you changed the wording on my sentence and then found a definition of a word I did not use to support doing it. I didn't say I had faith in a higher power I said I believe in higher powers and it is not up to you what I can believe in. If I wanted to believe in magic leprechauns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows it is not up to you to tell me I cant. For the record:

Verb phrases
6.
believe in, a.to be persuaded of the truth or existence of:
"to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts."

[Glenzig]

Belief in something without evidence or proof.

So kind of like this.

They may develop a new strand of bacteria in their gut to extract more nutrients for food or something similar so yes...they may end up being able to eat less than the humans you see there.

[leewong]

....

"I didn't say I had faith in a higher power I said I believe in higher powers and it is not up to you what I can believe in."

You are right. I said you have faith not belief. Which is exactly what you have. You can misuse the word belief all you want but that doesnt change the fact that you have faith not belief.

I like how you cherry picked the definition. Word are defined by context though:

Belief -conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Context..words are defined by their context.

Were you persuaded of the truth or existence of a higher power? How is that possible to be persuaded without evidence? The definition you cherry picked does not apply. You have faith a higher power exists.

[leewong]

Belief in something without evidence or proof.

So kind of like this.

That statement was merely an illustration of what could happen. Nice try though. I never claimed I believed it would happen. I claimed it was possible. Nothing more, nothing less.

[RobotElvis]

I agree as well. It is important to make a distinction between faith and belief though. I can have faith that the Cubs will win the world series just as you can have faith that a God exists. Belief requires some tangible evidence, though. Faith requires none.

I think any atheist would agree that the chances of god existing is higher than the cubs winning the World Series.

[leewong]

I think any atheist would agree that the chances of god existing is higher than the cubs winning the World Series.

Lol, for the first time I think I agree with you.

[Neyphlite]

"I didn't say I had faith in a higher power I said I believe in higher powers and it is not up to you what I can believe in."

You are right. I said you have faith not belief. Which is exactly what you have. You can misuse the word belief all you want but that doesnt change the fact that you have faith not belief.

I like how you cherry picked the definition. Word are defined by context though:

Belief -conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Context..words are defined by their context.

Were you persuaded of the truth or existence of a higher power? How is that possible to be persuaded without evidence? The definition you cherry picked does not apply. You have faith a higher power exists.

Sorry I Forgot That You Know Me And Everything Ive Seen In Life. I Have In Fact Had Real Paranormal Experiences In Well Known Haunted Places The Have Lead Me To BELIEVE That There Are Higher Powers At Work In Our World.

[RobotElvis]

Lol, for the first time I think I agree with you.

Yesssssss!

[leewong]

Sorry I Forgot That You Know Me And Everything Ive Seen In Life. I Have In Fact Had Real Paranormal Experiences In Well Known Haunted Places The Have Lead Me To BELIEVE That There Are Higher Powers At Work In Our World.

Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

1. You could be mistaken

2. You could have been fooled by someone

3. You could be delusional

4. You could be lying

[Toofliss]

The problem here is that closed minded people associate faith with religion. Faith is not just for religion. You don't need to be religious to have faith in something.

Bingo! One of the better posts I've read - wish I had been able to phrase it this way.

[leewong]

Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

1. You could be mistaken

2. You could have been fooled by someone

3. You could be delusional

4. You could be lying

Ever watch the show Ghost Hunters? Nuff said.

[leewong]

Bingo! One of the better posts I've read - wish I had been able to phrase it this way.

I dont think anyone here is disputing this. I do have a problem when he substitutes words like belief for faith though.

[leewong]

I dont think anyone here is disputing this. I do have a problem when he substitutes words like belief for faith though.

Oops, wrong person. Doh!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Its the aliens made the shitty casino book episode.
I knew the episode, I just didn't remember Riker doing the bringing it back thing in that scene. I've since rewatched the scene and it appears my memory was lacking (it was a shitty episode regardless).
Has nothing to do with the thread. Has everything to do with you. You fucking lied and you're still lying about it. You provided jack shit besides a school name when all you need to do is provide the names which are public record. Provide the names and prove your claims you lying POS or come clean. No more games.



Laughable buffoonery. You just aren't very smart. Instead of deflecting how about answering the question? If evolution is "proven science" there should be thousands of examples you could cite that would prove it's true.

DNA is 4-bit 3 dimensional code. There is no junk code contained within it. It has to be EXACT for each type or kind of animal which are limited to their genetic kinds. Species can work with pre-existing code within their genetic types/kinds, nobody is disputing that, but a dog's genetic coding can only work within other breeds of dogs. It won't work in a cat. Just like EQ source code would never work in WOW. They are two entirely different packages of software.

There is no genetic code within a dog that can turn it into a cat. It's like claiming a virus/malware (mutation) rewrote EQ source code and turned it into WOW. Not only that, but this happened purely by random chaotic chance. How did that code come into existence from nothing? How did it write itself (for each type/kind) by chaotic and unpredictable random chance?

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/dna-strand-blue-tgac-640x353.jpg

We're also losing code as time goes on because time = entropy. We're a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy over generation after generation. You're aware that we're losing species right? Probably at least 1k a year (mostly ocean life). DNA is weakening and degrading over time. If Evolution were true why aren't there any new species popping into existence? Why isn't there new and improved genetic code being written spontaneously from nothing?



I've been on these forums FAR longer than you. You're not going to be able to weasel your way out of this by calling me a troll. The "it's my phone" excuse is absolutely pathetic and desperate. What a hilariously small and weak person you are and a fucking lying fraud to boot.



It's a malformed question if you don't know the answer? Hahaha I thought it was settled science? We gotta have faith right?



Pure gobbly****. Scientists already acknowledge that Matter/Time/Space was created with "The Big Bang".



Hahahahahahahaha ...



They simply are? You sound like a religious zealot. The laws of the universe created themselves? How did the laws of mathematics create something let alone itself? Go ahead Einstein, tell us all how it was done. Grabs popcorn.



Time/Space/Matter started with "The Big Bang" according to science. Where did the Matter and Energy to produce/power this Big Bang come from? Hawking is a human being just like anyone else. Flawed and corrupt. He doesn't know everything about everything. He wasn't there when it happened.



You're trying to hide behind this pompous BS and the only thing you're accomplishing is looking like a total moron. You can't answer the questions. You're a religious zealot.



If there was "Nothing" before "The Big Bang" where did it come from? I thought you were logical?



Why don't you do some research and learn about what it is? Hint: Do you play guitar? Tune it. Each note is a specific frequency. The Universe is fine tuned this way so precise the odds that it's random chance are far beyond absurd.



Random Chance. Random Chance. Random Chance. Random Chance.

What word should be used? Creation? Design? Which one. Mutations are random chaotic chance. There is no Structure or Order to them. They are also 99.9999999999999999% harmful and destructive. Go sit in radiation for a few hours. See if you mutate into a superhero.



Oh you mean Evolution is a BS theory? You finally coming around?



Wait ... hold the phones. You won't touch abiogenesis and are now floating a theory that a "Creator" created the process of Evolution (which is random chaotic chance)? Lawl

Why would a Creator "create the process of Evolution" when all He would need to do is create DNA?



So what causes the gradual rewriting or spontaneous new genetic code to come into existence over time? If the theory is true, where is the evidence to support this assertion?



Jawless fish are still fish

Marsupials are still mammals

Kinds/Types

Their genetic code can only work within their respective genetic types. The Bible is 100% accurate in it's description btw. This was a book that written thousands of years before that idiot Darwin and his finches. How was it able to explain and have the foreknowledge of how life is genetically structured in this Universe when not even a microscope existed? In Darwin's time, cells were just blobbed. The entire premise of Darwin's theory rested on cells being simple. Not these complex and vast microbiological genetic cities with the most amazing real time error checking/debugging systems (not to mention self replicating) that make our latest technology look like legos.



I already have multiple times. You're just too stupid to understand it. Everything decays and becomes more disordered over time naturally. It doesn't randomly structure and order itself by random. The Universe is a closed system. Not our galaxy. The Sun adds to this decay over time. Look at the roof of some cars and houses for examples that your tiny brain can grasp.



I wasn't the one that asserted time is a force. You religious zealots are the ones that are asserting magical "gradual changes over time".



Fact actually. You fucking lied about having a personal connection to victims of Sandy Hook to try and shut down debate. You tried to hide behind an emotional lie because you are a lying fucking coward and low life POS. You need to start doing some personal reflection and make some badly needed changes. Your smug arrogance can no longer hide your lack of character and ethics.



Wait, so Evolution has gone from "settled and tested science" according to you bozos to now "the most plausible explanation"? Based on what? Certainly not Fossil or genetic evidence. So then what? Faith?



You wouldn't know logic if it stomped you in the face

If you had responded to a single point directly instead of relying on ad-hominem for literally all points, I'd care enough to address you. I'm also going to take from your response that you indeed think logic is sine sort of conspiratorial government control hoax.

[Neyphlite]

Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

1. You could be mistaken

2. You could have been fooled by someone

3. You could be delusional

4. You could be lying

So that because YOU are skeptical of MY life experiences gives you the right to tell me im wrong in what I BELIEVE in?

[Glenzig]

Did anyone notice that the mods changed the name of the thread?

[Neyphlite]

Ever watch the show Ghost Hunters? Nuff said.

And also yes I have and that show is total BS. Try actually witnessing an apparition first hand and explaining it. I know what I experienced and why I BELIEVE there are higher powers.

[iruinedyourday]

Did anyone notice that the mods changed the name of the thread?

thats fucking so fucked, they wont censor people using the Nword, creating posts about how Rust1d hates black people, but they censor a fucking childish word like, fuck?

MODS YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG

[leewong]

So that because YOU are skeptical of MY life experiences gives you the right to tell me im wrong in what I BELIEVE in?

What is wrong with skepticism? Should I also believe in Scientology? They swear up and down that thetans are reality. What about those that claim unicorns exist? Nessy? Bigfoot? Witches?

When you make a claim, it isnt the listener's job to believe you. It is your job to convince them with tangible evidence. Personal anecdote is not reliable source at all.

If I used your criteria then all religions would be, by definition, true. So would aliens, Atlantis, the boogieman, etc.

[leewong]

And also yes I have and that show is total BS. Try actually witnessing an apparition first hand and explaining it. I know what I experienced and why I BELIEVE there are higher powers.

Nope, you have faith. As I stated before you have no evidence. I dont doubt you had an experience. What produced that experience could be a number of things but you have zero proof of what caused them.

[Azure]

I'm certain you are all wrong. Pretty religious about it 2. Just letting you all know.

[Neyphlite]

What is wrong with skepticism? Should I also believe in Scientology? They swear up and down that thetans are reality. What about those that claim unicorns exist? Nessy? Bigfoot? Witches?

When you make a claim, it isnt the listener's job to believe you. It is your job to convince them with tangible evidence. Personal anecdote is not reliable source at all.

If I used your criteria then all religions would be, by definition, true. So would aliens, Atlantis, the boogieman, etc.

Being skeptic is fine. Hell I was skeptic as hell until about 6 yrs ago. Im not saying that you shouldn't be skeptical, im saying don't tell me im using the wrong word when talking solely about me if its you that needs the proof. I don't need to have faith in a higher power since I have already seen that there are higher powers at work based on the paranormal experience I had years ago. I BELIEVE in a higher power because proof was already presented to me. Personal experience is the best source when it comes to myself considering it was my own eyes that witnessed the events and is all I need for myself to believe it. based on your own definitions I do not have faith in a higher power I believe in one.

And I never told you to believe in anything. In fact it is you who is telling everyone else that what they believe is not right. Im not trying to make you believe in anything im telling you its not up to you what anyone believes no matter what definition you wanna use for either word.

[Azure]

amen, amun, shem, om, whatever floats ur boat

[radditsu]

I truly believe that this forum draws in the least reasonable human beings ever.

[paulgiamatti]

Being skeptic is fine. Hell I was skeptic as hell until about 6 yrs ago. Im not saying that you shouldn't be skeptical, im saying don't tell me im using the wrong word when talking solely about me if its you that needs the proof. I don't need to have faith in a higher power since I have already seen that there are higher powers at work based on the paranormal experience I had years ago. I BELIEVE in a higher power because proof was already presented to me. Personal experience is the best source when it comes to myself considering it was my own eyes that witnessed the events and is all I need for myself to believe it. based on your own definitions I do not have faith in a higher power I believe in one.

And I never told you to believe in anything. In fact it is you who is telling everyone else that what they believe is not right. Im not trying to make you believe in anything im telling you its not up to you what anyone believes no matter what definition you wanna use for either word.

Well, there you have it folks. He doesn't need the evidence of the much more credible scientific community at large. One experience where he believes a suspension of the laws of physics occurred is enough for him. Never mind that humans are fallible, easily confused mammals. Never mind that there is absolutely no evidence he wasn't simply under a misapprehension - no, it was definitely a paranormal experience and therefore evidence of a supreme creator of the universe.

This is the death of skepticism. When we require proof, that is us being skeptical and having doubt. Don't try and tell us we're using the wrong word when we're not. No one is telling anybody what to believe, we're simply saying that this line of thinking is not rational, it's not logical, and it's definitely not skeptical.

[Azure]

You sound unhappy. If that's what the larger more credible scientific community of flailing monkeys does. What good are they?

[radditsu]

I watch ghost adventures. I know the devil exists.

[leewong]

I don't need to have faith in a higher power since I have already seen that there are higher powers at work based on the paranormal experience I had years ago.

There are a number of reasons I will still call it faith and you should too.

1. You could be mistaken - what if the ghost or whatever you seen really werent ghosts. Maybe they were something else (aliens, inter-dimensional beings, etc, etc). You have no proof of what they actually were. You only assume what they were and draw your conclusions from there.

2. You could have been fooled - Perhaps, a mischievous individual duped you. It was a trick of light. Maybe, aliens were messing with you. Who knows? Not me...not you.

3. You could be delusional - pretty self-explanatory but it happens all the time

4. You could be lying - pretty self-explanatory but it happens all the time

Until, you have tangible evidence you are basing your belief on faith.

[leewong]

And I never told you to believe in anything. In fact it is you who is telling everyone else that what they believe is not right.

I never once stated that your experience didnt happen. Not even close. I said you should be using the word faith...not belief. You have no evidence other than personal anecdote. There is a major difference between what I said and what you assigned me as saying.

[iruinedyourday]

Ghosts lol

[leewong]

Ghosts lol

I had a friend once that swore she had ghosts in here house. Turns out it was just her cat flushing the toilet. True story!

[leewong]

I had a friend once that swore she had ghosts in here house. Turns out it was just her cat flushing the toilet. True story!

*her house

[G13]

I knew the episode, I just didn't remember Riker doing the bringing it back thing in that scene. I've since rewatched the scene and it appears my memory was lacking (it was a shitty episode regardless).


If you had responded to a single point directly instead of relying on ad-hominem for literally all points, I'd care enough to address you. I'm also going to take from your response that you indeed think logic is sine sort of conspiratorial government control hoax.

Says the guy who in your first response ever to me on these boards called me disgusting and reprehensible and then LIED about your personal connection to Sandy Hook

You won't respond to any of the points because you can't. You're trying to find any laughable excuse you can to turn tail and run. Go ahead and run coward.

Why did you lie and claim you had a personal connection to "victims" of Sandy Hook?

Why did you lie about that?

Coward

[radditsu]

I once saw one of those shows turn on hot water and then try to convince people the shower curtain moving was a ghost. And a light reflected of his watch was a spirit. Good job.

[leewong]

I once saw one of those shows turn on hot water and then try to convince people the shower curtain moving was a ghost. And a light reflected of his watch was a spirit. Good job.

Sounds spooky!

[leewong]

Sounds spooky!

Time to go home...let's hit 200 tomorrow :P

[radditsu]

Says the guy who in your first response ever to me on these boards called me disgusting and reprehensible and then LIED about your personal connection to Sandy Hook

You won't respond to any of the points because you can't. You're trying to find any laughable excuse you can to turn tail and run. Go ahead and run coward.

Why did you lie and claim you had a personal connection to "victims" of Sandy Hook?

Why did you lie about that?

Coward

At least change how you argue when you change accounts dude

[radditsu]

Sounds spooky!

It proves ghosts dude

[paulgiamatti]

What good are they?

I'm not a scientist, but if you're asking "What good is skepticism?" then I'd just ask you to reread the thread. Science is predicated on skepticism and doubt, and not being satisfied with an answer until it is substantiated with empirical evidence and can bear the weight of scrupulous peer review and crosschecking. This is because of skepticism and doubt.

Faith, or at least the kind of faith that leads one to believe in creationism, is predicated on belief without evidence. Personal experiences that can't be repeated and tested are not evidence. Long, serious contemplation about the universe and the origins of life is not evidence. Man-made books and scripture are not evidence. Using these things to jump to an irrational conclusion that there is a creator of the universe is not skeptical in any way whatsoever.

[G13]

At least change how you argue when you change accounts dude

Obvious troll is obvious

[radditsu]

Empirical evidence God Exists: GO!




Oh wait the richest churches in the world dont do research into that

[radditsu]

Obvious troll is obvious

I mean.. you are pretty obvious.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Empirical evidence God Exists: GO!




Oh wait the richest churches in the world dont do research into that

Something tells be that you may enjoy Madoka.

[radditsu]

Something tells be that you may enjoy Madoka.

[Azure]

Oh no skepticism is great. Be skeptical about religion. That doesn't mean religion doesn't exist and it's not a factor in life and that miraculous shit doesn't happen every day.

Some things just aren't going to be explained. Either ignore it as aberrant data or take faith in what it is.

[radditsu]

Fuck.


Quote was meant to be rebutted with.

I like hot robot action and the purchasing of japan.

[iruinedyourday]

Obvious troll is obvious

you mean yourself right? i cant imagine anyone would be honestly what you profess to be.

[Azure]

I'm a force of nature. Herself.

[G13]

I mean.. you are pretty obvious.

You've spent every page of this thread trying to be a comedian and have only succeeded in looking like a buffoon

Congratulations

[radditsu]

you mean yourself right? i cant imagine anyone would be honestly what you profess to be.

What exactly. .am I to you sir?

[G13]

you mean yourself right? i cant imagine anyone would be honestly what you profess to be.

1100 posts since April outside RnF

lol

[RobotElvis]

I'm certain you are all wrong. Pretty religious about it 2. Just letting you all know.

Did anyone notice that the mods changed the name of the thread?

Oh glenzig that's not at all what happened.

Let me explain,

When the thread hit 100 it gained relevance in the natural world around it, now nobody noticed this but since then the word fuck has gone through slow gradual change with every post.

These tiny micro evelutionary changes led to a macro change in the word . But one that was an evolutionary roadblock do it died of.

I'll show you how it works.

Aardvark

Nardvark

Nardvaro

Noadvark

Noadsark

Noahsark

Oh.......

[G13]

Something tells be that you may enjoy Madoka.

Proof that you knew Sandy Hook victims! GO!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Fuck.


Quote was meant to be rebutted with.

I like hot robot action and the purchasing of japan.

"The Money and Soul of Possibility Control"

Look into that one then.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Proof that you knew Sandy Hook victims! GO!

I won't tell you again. Wrong thread.

[radditsu]

You've spent every page of this thread trying to be a comedian and have only succeeded in looking like a buffoon

Congratulations

Says the fellow who believes in an entity that can't be proven to exist besides a book people wrote hundreds of years after the fact. In a time when cultural progress and education was at its nadir.


Take it away jlaw:


http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120904161949/victorious/images/1/12/Jlaw-okay.gif

[Patriam1066]

Says the fellow who believes in an entity that can't be proven to exist besides a book people wrote hundreds of years after the fact. In a time when cultural progress and education was at its nadir.


Take it away jlaw:


http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120904161949/victorious/images/1/12/Jlaw-okay.gif

Did you mean zenith? The New Testament is Platonism + the virtues of tolerance and altruism. Please explain to me how that represents a cultural nadir

Christianity was born from Hellenistic greek culture melding with the Levant. Neither group was stupid or unimportant in Western Civ

[Patriam1066]

FUck I got trolled into responding again great

[radditsu]

I believe in the concept of 52 earths. One of them is inhabited by black superman who is also the president of the US. One has all the DC superheros. One of them has captain Carrot. All of them are lorded over by the monitor Nix Uotan.


If I have a choice in myth. I would prefer it be written by Grant Morrison

[radditsu]

Did you mean zenith? The New Testament is Platonism + the virtues of tolerance and altruism. Please explain to me how that represents a cultural nadir

Christianity was born from Hellenistic greek culture melding with the Levant. Neither group was stupid or unimportant in Western Civ

[radditsu]

Wtf is going on. Sorry.


Culture has only progressed since the time people could sit around thinking all day until they died at 50.

Believe it or not every generation since the 3rd century has become smarter , stronger and more sophisticated then the previous. RAP Music and cell phones be damned.

[radditsu]

And until recently religion has been open to the changes.

[G13]

I won't tell you again. Wrong thread.

Won't tell me what?

You told me nothing

The name of a school is not proof

Why are you a lying pathetic fraud?

[Patriam1066]

I believe in the concept of 52 earths. One of them is inhabited by black superman who is also the president of the US. One has all the DC superheros. One of them has captain Carrot. All of them are lorded over by the monitor Nix Uotan.


If I have a choice in myth. I would prefer it be written by Grant Morrison

This is what you guys keep missing. Myth or not, there are tons of lessons in all holy books that are valuable for us. The Bible is a collection of cultural wisdom passed down for hundreds of generations. So is the Avestan, the Quran, Upanishads etc...

Ignore the lessons of you want, but there is something valuable in them if only for philosophical purposes. Who said you had to believe in God? Do you honestly think the Bible offers you nothing even if you don't believe in a deity?

I suppose you shouldn't gaze upon the Parthenon because it was dedicated to Athena or the Sistine Chapel because it has "God" frescoed on its ceiling. I'll never understand how you could not feel the impact of all of our ancestors when you see the Hagia Sofia. Religious belief has been integral to our species for a variety or reasons... ALL of the heritage, art, culture, and philosophy of many generations of various different cultures are expressed primarily through religion

[Patriam1066]

Typing on my phone so yeah numerous Fuck ups but I'm sure you follow my meaning

[G13]

Says the fellow who believes in an entity that can't be proven to exist besides a book people wrote hundreds of years after the fact. In a time when cultural progress and education was at its nadir.


Take it away jlaw:


http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120904161949/victorious/images/1/12/Jlaw-okay.gif

Can't be proven to exist beyond a book? Now that's a hilarious strawman if there was ever was one. At least you're actually trying now instead of hiding behind attempts at being a shitty comedian

The ATP Synthase Molecule must exist before Life can exist

http://mmbr.asm.org/content/72/4/590/F12.large.jpg

How did it build itself

I also like how you keep claiming the existence of God is only based upon a book, yet shitty comedians like you will point to the textbooks, or hoaxes like peppered moths/Piltdown man and claim Evolution is 100% fact and tested science.

Hilarious

[paulgiamatti]

This is what you guys keep missing. Myth or not, there are tons of lessons in all holy books that are valuable for us. The Bible is a collection of cultural wisdom passed down for hundreds of generations. So is the Avestan, the Quran, Upanishads etc...

Ignore the lessons of you want, but there is something valuable in them if only for philosophical purposes. Who said you had to believe in God? Do you honestly think the Bible offers you nothing even if you don't believe in a deity?

I suppose you shouldn't gaze upon the Parthenon because it was dedicated to Athena or the Sistine Chapel because it has "God" frescoed on its ceiling. I'll never understand how you could not feel the impact of all of our ancestors when you see the Hagia Sofia. Religious belief has been integral to our species for a variety or reasons... ALL of the heritage, art, culture, and philosophy of many generations of various different cultures are expressed primarily through religion

This is a good post. I agree with all of this.

However, I think there are far too many immoral things in religious literature for it to be considered sound teachings of philosophy or morality altogether. I'm not refuting that there are things in it worth taking, but to most people would need a healthy dose of skepticism and unbelief before diving in to come out of it better off than they were before. Simply ignoring the immorality that is hugely prevalent in all religious scripture would be a daunting task indeed.

[radditsu]

This is what you guys keep missing. Myth or not, there are tons of lessons in all holy books that are valuable for us. The Bible is a collection of cultural wisdom passed down for hundreds of generations. So is the Avestan, the Quran, Upanishads etc...

Ignore the lessons of you want, but there is something valuable in them if only for philosophical purposes. Who said you had to believe in God? Do you honestly think the Bible offers you nothing even if you don't believe in a deity?

I suppose you shouldn't gaze upon the Parthenon because it was dedicated to Athena or the Sistine Chapel because it has "God" frescoed on its ceiling. I'll never understand how you could not feel the impact of all of our ancestors when you see the Hagia Sofia. Religious belief has been integral to our species for a variety or reasons... ALL of the heritage, art, culture, and philosophy of many generations of various different cultures are expressed primarily through religion


Never said it wasnt a good tool to teach people about love, not eating pork because it gives you diseases. And dont bang your wife on the rag. But it does not teach you to think critically or be an individual.

It teaches parables in one hand and restricts behavior in the other, cause god said so. No, some writer said so to as a form of population indoctrination.

[paulgiamatti]

But it does not teach you to think critically or be an individual.

QFT

[G13]

Never said it wasnt a good tool to teach people about love, not eating pork because it gives you diseases. And dont bang your wife on the rag. But it does not teach you to think critically or be an individual.

It teaches parables in one hand and restricts behavior in the other, cause god said so. No, some writer said so to as a form of population indoctrination.

You have zero understanding of The Bible

[Patriam1066]

Never said it wasnt a good tool to teach people about love, not eating pork because it gives you diseases. And dont bang your wife on the rag. But it does not teach you to think critically or be an individual.

It teaches parables in one hand and restricts behavior in the other, cause god said so. No, some writer said so to as a form of population indoctrination.

You know why it says don't eat pork? Because pork production isn't suited to the Middle East. So the Jews passed an edict and said god will punish you, so that people wouldn't waste resources on pigs. That's why cows are sacred in Hinduism... because cattle are necessary to work the monsoon drenched soil in India...

Again, you guys are missing the intellect of your ancestors. You think the Romans and Egyptians and Jews were just some bums who couldn't explain shit so they sat down one day and made up a myth to corroborate their poor udnerstanding of their environment?

As far as the thinking critically part... I addressed this earlier. Protestant culture was founded upon literacy and critical thinking. Admittedly, this is because they wanted their followers to reject Catholicism. Nonetheless, it worked out... Ask America, Sweden, Canada, NZ, Aus, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Estonia, the Netherlands, Switzerland... etc etc

Protestantism was a religious creed that emphasized critical thinking and individualism. As to what it is now, that's a differetn debate

And seriously I'm done this thread is getting us no where haha LST POST for realz

[radditsu]

Can't be proven to exist beyond a book? Now that's a hilarious strawman if there was ever was one. At least you're actually trying now instead of hiding behind attempts at being a shitty comedian

The ATP Synthase Molecule must exist before Life can exist

http://mmbr.asm.org/content/72/4/590/F12.large.jpg

How did it build itself

I also like how you keep claiming the existence of God is only based upon a book, yet shitty comedians like you will point to the textbooks, or hoaxes like peppered moths/Piltdown man and claim Evolution is 100% fact and tested science.

Hilarious

Oh im still not trying. I can give a shit...in this argument. . About the scientific basis behind a diety. A molecule does not a Allah make. If real empirical evidence existed, it would be plastered all over every periodical and news station in the world. Until the catholics or jews fund research into this...I wont subscribe to conjecture by religious mouthpiece.


I prefer to think about the cultural impact of such things.

[iruinedyourday]

how come only idiots use the words 'strawman' & 'ad hominem'..

Ive never heard those words spoken in real conversation, ever. Only used in stupid internet arguments and its always the idiots of the group that use em.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

how come only idiots use the words 'strawman' & 'ad hominem'..

Ive never heard those words spoken in real conversation, ever. Only used in stupid internet arguments and its always the idiots of the group that use em.

You are a social justice warrior. If you honestly want us to believe that you would be capable of having a legitimate discussion with someone who has a dissenting opinion, you're going to need to step up your game. The only people who associate with you are other professional victims and oppression Olympics athletes.

[radditsu]

how come only idiots use the words 'strawman' & 'ad hominem'..

Ive never heard those words spoken in real conversation, ever. Only used in stupid internet arguments and its always the idiots of the group that use em.

I never do!

[paulgiamatti]

You know why it says don't eat pork? Because pork production isn't suited to the Middle East. So the Jews passed an edict and said god will punish you, so that people wouldn't waste resources on pigs. That's why cows are sacred in Hinduism... because cattle are necessary to work the monsoon drenched soil in India...

Again, you guys are missing the intellect of your ancestors. You think the Romans and Egyptians and Jews were just some bums who couldn't explain shit so they sat down one day and made up a myth to corroborate their poor udnerstanding of their environment?

As far as the thinking critically part... I addressed this earlier. Protestant culture was founded upon literacy and critical thinking. Admittedly, this is because they wanted their followers to reject Catholicism. Nonetheless, it worked out... Ask America, Sweden, Canada, NZ, Aus, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Estonia, the Netherlands, Switzerland... etc etc

Protestantism was a religious creed that emphasized critical thinking and individualism. As to what it is now, that's a differetn debate

I agree with all of that as well, and it's good to see someone who can focus on the good aspects of religion that are actually worth paying attention to.

It's very much a part of our cultural and intellectual history. It was our first attempt at literature, our first attempt at cosmology, at philosophy, at morality, at an understanding of our place in the universe and so forth. But because it was our first attempt, it was also our worst. It's how we tried to rationalize the world when we didn't know anything. For example, we didn't know we lived on a spherical planet, and we didn't know our planet revolved around the sun. We didn't know that there were microorganisms that explained disease; we thought diseases came from curses, or witches, or demons.

We now have better explanations for all of these things. Yet we still dwell, and in some countries and societies not just dwell, but live under a totalitarian regime that forbids us to even think about the progress that's been made, or denies us the knowledge that these advances have in fact occurred. Although once it probably once was an aid to our survival, is has become a great peril to our continued ability to live as a civilized people.

[G13]

Oh im still not trying. I can give a shit...in this argument. . About the scientific basis behind a diety. A molecule does not a Allah make. If real empirical evidence existed, it would be plastered all over every periodical and news station in the world. Until the catholics or jews fund research into this...I wont subscribe to conjecture by religious mouthpiece.


I prefer to think about the cultural impact of such things.

Dodge noted

[paulgiamatti]

And kudos to the moderators for removing the profanity from the thread title. As much as I enjoy a good heated, polemical debate, I thought that remark was simply defamatory.

For the record, it's people like the OP that give me any kind of pause about identifying as an atheist, which I still think is a silly thing to do. There are imbeciles on our side too.

[radditsu]

These are not debates. These are idiots slinging fecal leavings at each other. Nothing is moved here. No minds are changed. Just two sets of trolls trolling each other until our universe unravels in entophy

[radditsu]

Loved you in Fred Claus btw.


3rd billing to Ludacris and Vince Vaughn in that one.

[G13]

These are not debates. These are idiots slinging fecal leavings at each other. Nothing is moved here. No minds are changed. Just two sets of trolls trolling each other until our universe unravels in entophy

No you're an idiot slinging fecal leavings at people

Since you dodged the last question, how about taking a stab at this one?

There is enough information in one stand of DNA to fill a library with 10K books. How did that data get there? Can such ordered and detailed data which powers and organizes life been written purely by accidental chance or "gradual changes over time"?

You popped into this thread trying to mock and pretend you are smart

Show us how smart you are

[Barkingturtle]

10k books seems like a lot of books, but I bet if I had almost 14 billion years I could write several billion books.

So, basically, God ain't got shit on me. Suck it you fucking bitch.

[G13]

10k books seems like a lot of books, but I bet if I had almost 14 billion years I could write several billion books.

So, basically, God ain't got shit on me. Suck it you fucking bitch.

So you agree that the information must have been written by an intelligent source and not random chance

Thanks for playing

[iruinedyourday]

I remember when I started playing EQ i was like, man this game is OK but I hope it introduces me to people I normally wouldn't ever meet so i can talk about religion with them.

[Aviann]

So you agree that the information must have been written by an intelligent source and not random chance

Thanks for playing


Maybe it was a series of random chances that happened over the course of millions of years.

That being said, doesn't seem like 10,000 books is much to write over the course of the universe's known existence. Really, maybe it wasn't written at all, and it was pieced together in a series of fusions that happened.... Accidentally not accidental. We aren't mistakes, in reference to how we have become to evolve into what we are.

Or maybe it was aliens.

Isn't that easier to believe than in an all-powerful, all-seeing deity of selfless discipline that was written about by MEN only a couple thousand years ago?

Not trying to be offensive, but I find the alien theory the easiest to reach closure on.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I remember when I started playing EQ i was like, man this game is OK but I hope it introduces me to people I normally wouldn't ever meet so i can talk about religion with them.

Is this an indirect way of confirming that you put no effort into and have no desire to, participate in a face to face discussion with someone that may have a dissenting opinion about a topic?

[indiscriminate_hater]

kaga if you're going to try and win arguments by sounding smart at least use correct grammar

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I'll put commas, wherever I want to!

[Aviann]

I'll put commas, wherever I want to!

omg I just died

[leewong]

There is enough information in one stand of DNA to fill a library with 10K books. How did that data get there? Can such ordered and detailed data which powers and organizes life been written purely by accidental chance or "gradual changes over time"?

The mutations are random. I will give you that. You forgot about one thing. Natural selection. Would you expect to find an unordered library? What do you think happens to an organism if it has unordered DNA?

Life has had trillions and trillions and trillions of random mutations either selected for or against by nature. That is what arranges the library. If you follow a species heritage backwards you will see every single generation that spans back to the first cell produced that library. Not by random chance alone but by being forged by their surrounding environment.

[G13]

Maybe it was a series of random chances that happened over the course of millions of years.

That being said, doesn't seem like 10,000 books is much to write over the course of the universe's known existence. Really, maybe it wasn't written at all, and it was pieced together in a series of fusions that happened.... Accidentally not accidental. We aren't mistakes, in reference to how we have become to evolve into what we are.

Or maybe it was aliens.

Isn't that easier to believe than in an all-powerful, all-seeing deity of selfless discipline that was written about by MEN only a couple thousand years ago?

Not trying to be offensive, but I find the alien theory the easiest to reach closure on.

10K books in ONE strand of DNA. Can you read?

The perimeters that you outline are pure fantasy. How does ordered, structured and purposeful code write itself randomly from nothing? Not only that, but because of certain laws that govern the universe, data and information degrade over time, so to claim that information that magically writes itself becomes more ordered and complex over time violates basic fundamental principles that government The Universe

I know that's probably way over your head so let's just talk simple proteins. A simple protein (not even creating life just one part of many complex parts needed) requires a precise sequence of 125 amino acid molecules with 20 types to choose from. The odds of every piece forming into the exact sequence needed is 4 x 10 to the 162nd power. In other words a mathematical impossibility.

So how did they magically form in the primordial goo and create life from Nothing?

[leewong]

Can't be proven to exist beyond a book? Now that's a hilarious strawman if there was ever was one. At least you're actually trying now instead of hiding behind attempts at being a shitty comedian

The ATP Synthase Molecule must exist before Life can exist

http://mmbr.asm.org/content/72/4/590/F12.large.jpg

How did it build itself

I also like how you keep claiming the existence of God is only based upon a book, yet shitty comedians like you will point to the textbooks, or hoaxes like peppered moths/Piltdown man and claim Evolution is 100% fact and tested science.

Hilarious

"Today's bioenergetic process of fermentation is carried out by either the aforementioned citric acid cycle or the Acetyl-CoA pathway, both of which have been connected to the primordial iron-sulfur world. In a different approach, the thermosynthesis hypothesis considers the bioenergetic process of chemiosmosis, which plays an essential role in cellular respiration and photosynthesis, more basal than fermentation: the ATP synthase enzyme, which sustains chemiosmosis, is proposed as the currently extant enzyme most closely related to the first metabolic process.[170][171]

First, life needed an energy source to bring about the condensation reaction that yielded the peptide bonds of proteins and the phosphodiester bonds of RNA. In a generalization and thermal variation of the binding change mechanism of today's ATP synthase, the "first protein" would have bound substrates (peptides, phosphate, nucleosides, RNA 'monomers') and condensed them to a reaction product that remained bound until after a temperature change it was released by thermal unfolding.

The energy source under the thermosynthesis hypothesis was thermal cycling, the result of suspension of protocells in a convection current, as is plausible in a volcanic hot spring; the convection accounts for the self-organization and dissipative structure required in any origin of life model. The still ubiquitous role of thermal cycling in germination and cell division is considered a relic of primordial thermosynthesis.

By phosphorylating cell membrane lipids, this "first protein" gave a selective advantage to the lipid protocell that contained the protein. This protein also synthesized a library of many proteins, of which only a minute fraction had thermosynthesis capabilities. As proposed by Dyson,[172] it propagated functionally: it made daughters with similar capabilities, but it did not copy itself. Functioning daughters consisted of different amino acid sequences.

Whereas the iron-sulfur world identifies a circular pathway as the most simple—and therefore assumes the existence of enzymes—the thermosynthesis hypothesis does not even invoke a pathway, and does not assume the existence of regular enzymes: ATP synthase's binding change mechanism resembles a physical adsorption process that yields free energy,[173] rather than a regular enzyme's mechanism, which decreases the free energy. The RNA world also implies the existence of several enzymes. It has been claimed that the emergence of cyclic systems of protein catalysts is implausible.[174]"

There is the answer for you. Hope you understand it.

[G13]

The mutations are random. I will give you that. You forgot about one thing. Natural selection. Would you expect to find an unordered library? What do you think happens to an organism if it has unordered DNA?

Life has had trillions and trillions and trillions of random mutations either selected for or against by nature. That is what arranges the library. If you follow a species heritage backwards you will see every single generation that spans back to the first cell produced that library. Not by random chance alone but by being forged by their surrounding environment.

On the contrary I was hoping you would bring Natural Selection up

Let's talk about that shall we?

All Natural Selection proves is that weak life forms die. It is a principle of breeding. Not Evolution. It is also a destructive principle. Not a creative principle. It doesn't write new legible genetic code that creates a new form of life never before seen on the planet.

[leewong]

......

"How does ordered, structured and purposeful code write itself randomly from nothing?"

Who in the hell claims the entire 10k library popped up from nothing? It started very simple and worked it's way to its current state over a 3.5 billion year span. You cant even fathom 3.5 billions years...10k is nothing.

"Not only that, but because of certain laws that govern the universe, data and information degrade over time, so to claim that information that magically writes itself becomes more ordered and complex over time violates basic fundamental principles that government The Universe"

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

Well, I guess the sun throws your whole closed system right out the window. The sun is constantly adding energy into the system. There goes your theory.

[G13]

"Today's bioenergetic process of fermentation is carried out by either the aforementioned citric acid cycle or the Acetyl-CoA pathway, both of which have been connected to the primordial iron-sulfur world. In a different approach, the thermosynthesis hypothesis considers the bioenergetic process of chemiosmosis, which plays an essential role in cellular respiration and photosynthesis, more basal than fermentation: the ATP synthase enzyme, which sustains chemiosmosis, is proposed as the currently extant enzyme most closely related to the first metabolic process.[170][171]

First, life needed an energy source to bring about the condensation reaction that yielded the peptide bonds of proteins and the phosphodiester bonds of RNA. In a generalization and thermal variation of the binding change mechanism of today's ATP synthase, the "first protein" would have bound substrates (peptides, phosphate, nucleosides, RNA 'monomers') and condensed them to a reaction product that remained bound until after a temperature change it was released by thermal unfolding.

The energy source under the thermosynthesis hypothesis was thermal cycling, the result of suspension of protocells in a convection current, as is plausible in a volcanic hot spring; the convection accounts for the self-organization and dissipative structure required in any origin of life model. The still ubiquitous role of thermal cycling in germination and cell division is considered a relic of primordial thermosynthesis.

By phosphorylating cell membrane lipids, this "first protein" gave a selective advantage to the lipid protocell that contained the protein. This protein also synthesized a library of many proteins, of which only a minute fraction had thermosynthesis capabilities. As proposed by Dyson,[172] it propagated functionally: it made daughters with similar capabilities, but it did not copy itself. Functioning daughters consisted of different amino acid sequences.

Whereas the iron-sulfur world identifies a circular pathway as the most simple—and therefore assumes the existence of enzymes—the thermosynthesis hypothesis does not even invoke a pathway, and does not assume the existence of regular enzymes: ATP synthase's binding change mechanism resembles a physical adsorption process that yields free energy,[173] rather than a regular enzyme's mechanism, which decreases the free energy. The RNA world also implies the existence of several enzymes. It has been claimed that the emergence of cyclic systems of protein catalysts is implausible.[174]"

There is the answer for you. Hope you understand it.

Pure nonsense. Lot of pretty words though.

Read above. Even to build the simplest proteins require mathematical odds that are an impossibility. There needs to be an exact sequence of 123 amino acids with 20 different types to choose from. What is your source for shit you are pasting that you don't understand?

It mentions photosynthesis. How did photosynthesis come about? Do you understand how the complex design for photosynthesis? The information you posted broad brushes extremely important details to come to it's conclusions as well as some wild assumptions and speculations. For example their "energy source" to make these wild assumptions even remotely plausible is a "volcanic hot spring" while offhandedly dismissing the implausibility that ATP Synthase Molecule would randomly structure itself in such perfect order with every functioning part working in complete symbiosis with one another. If any of these parts were to break down in it's formation it wouldn't work.

It's a very complex molecule and motor that is far more complex than anything Man has ever created. How did it form itself? The gibberish you copy/pasted never addresses that

[G13]

"How does ordered, structured and purposeful code write itself randomly from nothing?"

Who in the hell claims the entire 10k library popped up from nothing? It started very simple and worked it's way to its current state over a 3.5 billion year span. You cant even fathom 3.5 billions years...10k is nothing.

"Not only that, but because of certain laws that govern the universe, data and information degrade over time, so to claim that information that magically writes itself becomes more ordered and complex over time violates basic fundamental principles that government The Universe"

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

Well, I guess the sun throws your whole closed system right out the window. The sun is constantly adding energy into the system. There goes your theory.

How did it write itself?

Time is not a plausible answer. Time doesn't write genetic code.

Our Planet and Sun are not a closed system. Laws that govern the entire universe apply to everything contained within it. The Sun is a destructive force and very random. Ever seen what it does to roofs of cars and houses? How about the damage it does to your skin? You're bringing up nonsense that has already been swatted aside.

[Faron]

I don't know, so it must have been magical man in the sky. FUCKIN DERRRRRRRR

[Aviann]

10K books in ONE strand of DNA. Can you read?

The perimeters that you outline are pure fantasy. How does ordered, structured and purposeful code write itself randomly from nothing? Not only that, but because of certain laws that govern the universe, data and information degrade over time, so to claim that information that magically writes itself becomes more ordered and complex over time violates basic fundamental principles that government The Universe

I know that's probably way over your head so let's just talk simple proteins. A simple protein (not even creating life just one part of many complex parts needed) requires a precise sequence of 125 amino acid molecules with 20 types to choose from. The odds of every piece forming into the exact sequence needed is 4 x 10 to the 162nd power. In other words a mathematical impossibility.

So how did they magically form in the primordial goo and create life from Nothing?

I read just fine, thank you. But I'll leave this for you here to dwell on, unless you are so certain a fake deity created you that you blatantly refuse to check out the shit that can be fathomable. Enjoy.

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/194762/resized_ancient-aliens-invisible-something-meme-generator-fuck-you-op-its-always-been-aliens-8d4812.jpg

[leewong]

....

"All Natural Selection proves is that weak life forms die. "

Ughh, were do you come up with this crap? Natural selection doesnt prove weak life forms die. Dont be dense. If an organism can live long enough to procreate then it is going to pass along it's DNA. Nature works with what it's got. Put a large species on a small island and in a few hundred generations they will be smaller in stature. Smaller organisms eat less so it is a favored trait in harsh times.

"It doesn't write new legible genetic code"

Wrong. Scientists have even seen it in the lab.

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

There you go...research papers and all. Tested and verified.

[G13]

I read just fine, thank you. But I'll leave this for you here to dwell on, unless you are so certain a fake deity created you that you blatantly refuse to check out the shit that can be fathomable. Enjoy.

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/194762/resized_ancient-aliens-invisible-something-meme-generator-fuck-you-op-its-always-been-aliens-8d4812.jpg

Dodge noted

Have a great day. Take care

[FoxxHound]

I read just fine, thank you. But I'll leave this for you here to dwell on, unless you are so certain a fake deity created you that you blatantly refuse to check out the shit that can be fathomable. Enjoy.

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/194762/resized_ancient-aliens-invisible-something-meme-generator-fuck-you-op-its-always-been-aliens-8d4812.jpg

Soooo are you a scientologist? Cause that would be p hawt. I'd let you jump on my couch ;)

[Aviann]

Dodge noted

Have a great day. Take care

There was no dodge, although you ignored the points I was making, or at least a partiality of them... The point is that maybe our DNA was altered by beings who actually did have the right proteins needed on their planet to create life, much longer ago than ours did, considering they'd need the technology to make it here, and make the badass gumbo that created life on Earth.

Regardless, we are here, God isn't real, prove me wrong Mr. Jesuscientist.

[leewong]

How did it write itself? Time is not a plausible answer. Time doesn't write genetic code.

See now I think you are trolling. Are you a poe? You really cant be this dense, right?

No one "wrote" anything. Mutations happen and nature selects for, is indifferent to, or kills the organism. That is how DNA gets added to or subtracted from...mutations. Who the fuck said time wrote something? God fucking damn...

[G13]

"All Natural Selection proves is that weak life forms die. "

Ughh, were do you come up with this crap? Natural selection doesnt prove weak life forms die. Dont be dense. If an organism can live long enough to procreate then it is going to pass along it's DNA. Nature works with what it's got. Put a large species on a small island and in a few hundred generations they will be smaller in stature. Smaller organisms eat less so it is a favored trait in harsh times.

Hilarious

You really have no idea wtf you are talking about. Natural Selection has always been about survival of the fittest. Weak life forms die. Duh. So now your magical force for Evolution lies are reproductive organs? How did those evolve and come about from Nothing? Secondly, all reproduction does is create variations of existing genetic code. There isn't a single example that can be given of spontaneous new genetic information and data being written to the genome from pure randomness and Nothing.

My suggestion to you would be bow out of this discussion while you still have some dignity left. All you're doing is digging more holes with each response and showing you have a complete lack of understanding of the BS theory you are trying to trumpet.

"It doesn't write new legible genetic code"

Wrong. Scientists have even seen it in the lab.

Nope

New, legible and completely never before seen information spontaneously creating itself has never been witnessed. Never will be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

A mutation is a random chaotic and destructive force. Not a creative force. The odds that a mutation would add legible information that actually works in harmony with existing code is like putting a chimp at a typewriter and expecting him to write the next Masterpiece of Literature. Even those odds are better than the book completely writing itself from Nothing with the only creative mechanism being harmful mutations which scramble genetic code and Time.

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

There you go...research papers and all. Tested and verified.

You're just copying and pasting shit without thinking it through because you don't have a proper grasp and understanding of it. Pretty sad actually.

[G13]

See now I think you are trolling. Are you a poe? You really cant be this dense, right?

No one "wrote" anything. Mutations happen and nature selects for, is indifferent to, or kills the organism. That is how DNA gets added to or subtracted from...mutations. Who the fuck said time wrote something? God fucking damn...

Mutations scramble genetic code and are very rare. They don't write legible, structured, precise and ordered genetic code that works in complete harmony with existing genetic code.

Want me to post some pictures of mutations? You really want to claim mutations are the creative force behind Evolution? Secondly where is the evidence on The Fossil record of all these transitional animals that spontaneously mutated into new, never before seen types/kinds of animals?

[G13]

There was no dodge, although you ignored the points I was making, or at least a partiality of them... The point is that maybe our DNA was altered by beings who actually did have the right proteins needed on their planet to create life, much longer ago than ours did, considering they'd need the technology to make it here, and make the badass gumbo that created life on Earth.

Regardless, we are here, God isn't real, prove me wrong Mr. Jesuscientist.

No you dodged

No worries

For someone who mocks and scoffs at the idea of an Intelligent Design and Purpose of our reality, you sure make some wild speculations based upon Faith

Have a great evening /wave

[leewong]

....

"Even to build the simplest proteins require mathematical odds that are an impossibility. There needs to be an exact sequence of 123 amino acids with 20 different types to choose from. What is your source for shit you are pasting that you don't understand? "

Flat out false claim. I would give you a lesson on statistics but you wouldnt understand.

"For example their "energy source" to make these wild assumptions even remotely plausible is a "volcanic hot spring" while offhandedly dismissing the implausibility that ATP Synthase Molecule would randomly structure itself."

Lol, wrong on both parts. I suggest you read it again. Most important is this:

"In a generalization and thermal variation of the binding change mechanism of today's ATP synthase, the "first protein" would have bound substrates (peptides, phosphate, nucleosides, RNA 'monomers') and condensed them to a reaction product that remained bound until after a temperature change it was released by thermal unfolding."

I will give you a hint: They are talking about an ATP precursor.

The rest of what you wrote isnt even worth addressing. How many questions have you answered for me? ZERO. Why should I even respond to you anymore if you arent going to have a two way conversation?

Here is how this conversation has been for 80+ pages:

1. you make a claim against science

2. I respond

3. you ask a question

4. I respond

5. you ask another question

6 I respond

7. you ask another question

8. I respond

9. you ask another question

10. I respond

and so on...

At the very least, acknowledge I answered the last question adequately before moving on to the next. If I give an unsatisfactory answer to you then DONT ASK ANOTHER UNRELATED QUESTION. Ask me to clarify.

I am tired of the constant moving of the goal post and quite frankly sick of answer the same questions over and over. How many times do these things need to be repeated? Dont you own a computer? Use it.

[leewong]

hey don't write legible, structured, precise and ordered genetic code that works in complete harmony with existing genetic code.

You keep saying that but we have witnessed it in a lab already. You are wrong. I even sited the fucking scientific papers for you. Either prove the studies false IN A LAB or dont bother me with this nonsense again.

[RobotElvis]

"All Natural Selection proves is that weak life forms die. "

Ughh, were do you come up with this crap? Natural selection doesnt prove weak life forms die. Dont be dense. If an organism can live long enough to procreate then it is going to pass along it's DNA. Nature works with what it's got. Put a large species on a small island and in a few hundred generations they will be smaller in stature. Smaller organisms eat less so it is a favored trait in harsh times.

"It doesn't write new legible genetic code"

Wrong. Scientists have even seen it in the lab.

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

There you go...research papers and all. Tested and verified.

Genetic Divergence and Fitness Convergence Under Uniform Selection
in Experimental Populations of Bacteria Ryszard Korona
Centerfor Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 and Institute of Environmental Biology, Jagiellonian University, 30-060 Krakow, Poland
Manuscript received November 13, 1995 Accepted for publication March 13, 1996


Replicate populations of bacteria were propagated for 1000 generations in the laboratory. The growth
substrate was periodically renewed, so that duringmost generations (cell doublingsi)t was not limiting. The final clones demonstrated about a 40% fitness inrease when competed against their common ancestor.
This increasweasuniform both among and within populations despite extensive differentiation in correlated traits: cell size, resistance to starvation and dry culture. It is suggested that genetic diversity developed because selection promoted any changes directing cella ctivity toward a higher maximum growth rate. Evolution of this trait halted at a similar level when some basic constraints on bacterial metabolism were met. The selective values of emerging mutations must have depended on the genetic background. Theyvwould be beneficial early in rv olution but Ineffective near the limit of adapta-
tion. This hypothesis was tested for one mutation that affected both fitness and colony morphology. In some clones it was the first adaptive mutation and provided a third of the total fitness increase, but it was not assimilated by the clones that reached the adaptive ceiling in some other way. Near the limit of adaptation,epistasis levels off the fitnesses of genetically variable clones.

[G13]

You keep saying that but we have witnessed it in a lab already. You are wrong. I even sited the fucking scientific papers for you. Either prove the studies false IN A LAB or dont bother me with this nonsense again.

Nope

New code never before seen was written in a Lab? Witnessed or written and attempted to be patched into existing genetic information? What specific example are you talking about? A new, never before seen life form magically came into existence within a lab? Amazing! Show me the proof.

Do you understand that DNA is the language of life? It's code. Code is symbology. Symbology is representation and intelligent communication. DNA code writing itself into a new life form never before seen and/or working in harmony with existing code has never been observed in the field and never been witnessed in a lab. It never will be either.

[G13]

You keep saying that but we have witnessed it in a lab already. You are wrong. I even sited the fucking scientific papers for you. Either prove the studies false IN A LAB or dont bother me with this nonsense again.

BTW an example was already given to dispute this several pages ago

They've been trying with fruit flies for decades. Still fruit flies

The Russians have been trying with silver foxes. Still foxes

Next

[leewong]

....

"Natural Selection has always been about survival of the fittest."

The fittest for the environment you numbskull. That can mean smaller. That can mean less hairy. That can mean just about anything. If the mutation is beneficial for surviving the environment the organism lives and reproduces.

"So now your magical force for Evolution lies are reproductive organs?"

Where are you getting this? Sexual organs did not spring out of thin air and arent the only way of reproducing. If you are curious about how sex organs evolved you can easily google it.

"There isn't a single example that can be given of spontaneous new genetic information and data being written to the genome from pure randomness and Nothing. "

Except it does and it has been observed in a lab. I sited the papers but you wont even acknowledge them. I am about done with you.

"A mutation is a random chaotic and destructive force. Not a creative force."

FFS, I have corrected you on this how many times now? I am done. Welcome to /ignore because you are being completely unreasonable and repeating the same nonsense while ignoring every correction and piece of data thrown at you.

[leewong]

"Natural Selection has always been about survival of the fittest."

The fittest for the environment you numbskull. That can mean smaller. That can mean less hairy. That can mean just about anything. If the mutation is beneficial for surviving the environment the organism lives and reproduces.

"So now your magical force for Evolution lies are reproductive organs?"

Where are you getting this? Sexual organs did not spring out of thin air and arent the only way of reproducing. If you are curious about how sex organs evolved you can easily google it.

"There isn't a single example that can be given of spontaneous new genetic information and data being written to the genome from pure randomness and Nothing. "

Except it does and it has been observed in a lab. I sited the papers but you wont even acknowledge them. I am about done with you.

"A mutation is a random chaotic and destructive force. Not a creative force."

FFS, I have corrected you on this how many times now? I am done. Welcome to /ignore because you are being completely unreasonable and repeating the same nonsense while ignoring every correction and piece of data thrown at you.

*cited not sited...it's late :(

[G13]

"Natural Selection has always been about survival of the fittest."

The fittest for the environment you numbskull. That can mean smaller. That can mean less hairy. That can mean just about anything. If the mutation is beneficial for surviving the environment the organism lives and reproduces.

Variations within species. Not a change of kinds. Not macro-evolution. Not the intelligent creation of structured and legible genetic code that works in complete harmony with existing code.

"So now your magical force for Evolution lies are reproductive organs?"

Where are you getting this? Sexual organs did not spring out of thin air and arent the only way of reproducing. If you are curious about how sex organs evolved you can easily google it.

/boggle

You're the one who claimed breeding = prove of macro evolution. These terms such as macro and micro really don't fit anyways. It would really push the discussion along if you're tiny brain could understand the difference between the two and their relationship to Universal Laws but alas ....

"There isn't a single example that can be given of spontaneous new genetic information and data being written to the genome from pure randomness and Nothing. "

Except it does and it has been observed in a lab. I sited the papers but you wont even acknowledge them. I am about done with you.

Bacteria that is still bacteria. It's not my problem you aren't grasping the points i'm making because you aren't very bright. You're googling a bunch of nonsense that isn't addressing the real points being made. That is not my problem. That is your problem.

"A mutation is a random chaotic and destructive force. Not a creative force."

FFS, I have corrected you on this how many times now? I am done. Welcome to /ignore because you are being completely unreasonable and repeating the same nonsense while ignoring every correction and piece of data thrown at you.

Even the most prominent Evolutionists acknowledge mutations are not a creative force. Go ahead and ignore me. Take your ball and go home because you simply don't have a proper understanding of the subject. Mutations are random. They wouldn't create ordered and structure (and elegant design) within animals. For example eyes/nose/mouth on a face in perfect symmetrical structure equaling the golden ratio of 1.618. A precise mathematical calculation not only seen on the face, but everywhere in the entire Universe.

Show me ONE example of a mutation creating an entirely new, never before seen type/kind of animal upon this planet or anywhere else.

Just one

[leewong]

BTW an example was already given to dispute this several pages ago

They've been trying with fruit flies for decades. Still fruit flies

The Russians have been trying with silver foxes. Still foxes

Next

So stupid...

No one is trying to morph fruit flies into a new species. Cite the study if it has happened. Fruit flies are used in experiments for the same reason mice are. They breed fast and they are cheap so you get to see the results quick.

The study on foxes in Russia is a behavior study involving genes. They arent trying to make a new species. They are studying the effects of genes on behavior and other traits. This is why they are breed in two separate distinct lines. One line is being breed to be less aggressive and the other is being bread to be super aggressive.

Ok, now I am done with you. Couldnt let this nonsense go unchecked.

[RobotElvis]

I just wish everyone would stop being abilists.

#abilism

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_FvCG29P85U

[G13]

So stupid...

No one is trying to morph fruit flies into a new species. Cite the study if it has happened. Fruit flies are used in experiments for the same reason mice are. They breed fast and they are cheap so you get to see the results quick.

The study on foxes in Russia is a behavior study involving genes. They arent trying to make a new species. They are studying the effects of genes on behavior and other traits. This is why they are breed in two separate distinct lines. One line is being breed to be less aggressive and the other is being bread to be super aggressive.

Ok, now I am done with you. Couldnt let this nonsense go unchecked.

Oh I get it. They are stupid examples because they refute your BS claims. You're the one that brought up breeding. Now you want to run away from it? :rolleyes:

They've been breeding fruit flies for generations. Still fruit flies.

The same with foxes. Still foxes.

Go ahead and take your ball and go home. Dodger game is on anyways and it's not very challenging to have a discussion with someone who doesn't have a fundamental grasp of the topic and is resorting to copy/pasting shit he doesn't even understand

/wave

[leewong]

This message is hidden because G13 is on your ignore list.

I hope it was a long winded message. No hope for you unfortunately. I tried.

[G13]

I hope it was a long winded message. No hope for you unfortunately. I tried.

/shrug

You're a coward

Not surprising

[Tenlaar]

I got bored trying to follow his logic, but I like the way that G13 is basically going "nuh uh nuh uh nuh uh, if there's no god then EXPLAIN TO ME THE ORIGINS OF LIFE AND EXISTENCE!" Because that is a totally reasonable thing to expect.

Here is an irrefutable fact: the answer to anything and everything that has been figured out in the history of humans as we know it has never, ever, not once been magic.

[leewong]

If G13 actually puts his money where his mouth is and cites the fucking paper showing a lab trying to morph fruit flies into a new species someone please tell me. He wont but I still have to cover my bases.

[Cecily]

I hope it was a long winded message. No hope for you unfortunately. I tried.

You missed out on a quad-quote, with a reply to each, post. Lucky.

[leewong]

Here is an irrefutable fact: the answer to anything and everything that has been figured out in the history of humans as we know it has never, ever, not once been magic.

That should be on a plaque somewhere. Maybe a t-shirt.

[leewong]

You missed out on a quad-quote, with a reply to each, post. Lucky.

Lol, I bet he is calling me a coward or some shit now. Too bad it took me so long to realize he was completely unreasonable.

[leewong]

I just wish everyone would stop being abilists.

#abilism

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_FvCG29P85U

Was already subscribed to the channel. You have been awfully quiet, btw. Throw me a tough question :P

[RobotElvis]

Was already subscribed to the channel. You have been awfully quiet, btw. Throw me a tough question :P

Ok but I will have to look at your reply tomorrow. Got to get some sleep.


Who taught the bee to build its cell, displaying greater knowledge than that of many a college graduate? Darwin says (Origin of Species), "It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely those of the honey bee, could not possibly have been acquired by habit." We quote from Granville's Calculus, p. 119: "We know that the shape of a bee cell is hexagonal, giving a certain capacity for honey with the greatest possible economy of wax."
How could the working bee conserve the gains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and the queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither parent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their knowledge or their habits to the working bee? Every new swarm of bees would not know how to build their cells. There is no improvement from generation to generation. Even if instinct in other animals could be accounted for, evolution can not account for the instinct of the working bees, since they are not descendants of other working bees, from which they might inherit habits or instinct.

[leewong]

....

"Who taught the bee to build its cell, displaying greater knowledge than that of many a college graduate?"

I dont know the complete answer and dont feel like looking it up but I will still take a stab at it.

Bees werent always bees. They evolved from wasps. Wasps build nests as well. If you look at the structure of a wasp nest it is very similar to a honeycomb structure. As the wasp species that evolved into bees became more like bees with each successive generation, the hives they built were being selected for as well. The more efficient the honeycomb structure the greater the odds that the bees would benefit and pass along genes. Poor honeycomb building instincts would not be rewarded.

"How could the working bee conserve the gains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and the queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither parent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their knowledge or their habits to the working bee?"

This is because of gene regulation. Each cell and in turn each organism expresses, or turns on, only a fraction of its genes. The rest of the genes are repressed or turned off. Genes are turned on and off in different patterns during development to make a brain cell look and act different from a liver cell or a muscle cell, for example. The information is all there in each bee but that doesnt mean it is switched on.

In other words, a worker bee and a queen have matching DNA (minus small variations) but different genes are switched on and off for each.

[leewong]

This is because of gene regulation. Each cell and in turn each organism expresses, or turns on, only a fraction of its genes. The rest of the genes are repressed or turned off. Genes are turned on and off in different patterns during development to make a brain cell look and act different from a liver cell or a muscle cell, for example. The information is all there in each bee but that doesnt mean it is switched on.

More on gene regulation:

Organisms can even change sexes by making use of gene regulation. Here is an interesting article from the NYT showing sex changes in fish are common:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/04/science/sex-change-in-fish-found-common.html

"WHEN a school of reef fish loses its single male, the largest female begins acting like a male within a few hours and will produce sperm within 10 days. Some other species repeatedly switch back and forth between the production of eggs and of sperm during a single mating. Among deep sea fish that only rarely encounter potential mates, reproduction is often possible only if one changes sex.

Such opportunistic sex changes in fish, once thought to be a rare oddity, are proving far more common than supposed. Conversions from female to male are now known to occur in species belonging to at least 14 families, while conversions from male to female are known in eight families."

[Cecily]

WTB that technology.

[Toofliss]

WTB that technology.

Pretty sure it's available at a certain cost. Isn't there someone on these very boards that can give you the details?

[G13]

I got bored trying to follow his logic, but I like the way that G13 is basically going "nuh uh nuh uh nuh uh, if there's no god then EXPLAIN TO ME THE ORIGINS OF LIFE AND EXISTENCE!" Because that is a totally reasonable thing to expect.

Here is an irrefutable fact: the answer to anything and everything that has been figured out in the history of humans as we know it has never, ever, not once been magic.

Wrong

I'm just asking for one example of an entirely new kind/type of animal (new, never before seen written genetic code spontaneously writing itself to work in complete harmony withe existing genetic code). He couldn't provide one. When backed in a corner, he ran away like a little girl.

The coward put me on ignore because he couldn't prove it. Why couldn't he prove it? Because no such example exists. No such example has ever been observed in a lab (he lied or he as too stupid to understand what we were talking about). No such example has ever been observed in the field. When pressed, the answer is always the same. "millions and billions of years did it".

Except there is one small problem with that answer. Time doesn't write genetic code. Mutations don't write ordered, legible, structured and precise genetic code. They scramble genetic code. Carbon 14 is now being found in fossils thought to be "millions and billions" of years old (such as dinosaur fossils) with the latest technology that we have. So is skin tissue. Skin tissue on Dinosaur bones.

Carbon 14 doesn't last any longer than 100K years. Carbon dating has also dated living animals at 20K years old. In other words, it's never been a reliable model for properly dating fossils.

In every example he tried to show (copy/pasted nonsense) the life form was still the same life form. Still bacteria. Still finches. Still fruit flies. still foxes. Adaptation and Natural Selection are parts of "micro evolution". Not "macro-evolution". If you don't understand the difference between the two like the little girl running away like a coward than than I feel sorry for you.

It's not my problem he's a pathetic coward and is now trying to claim victory after having run away like a little girl from the discussion. You want to try and pick up where he left off or are you a coward too?

[G13]

More on gene regulation:

Organisms can even change sexes by making use of gene regulation. Here is an interesting article from the NYT showing sex changes in fish are common:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/04/science/sex-change-in-fish-found-common.html

"WHEN a school of reef fish loses its single male, the largest female begins acting like a male within a few hours and will produce sperm within 10 days. Some other species repeatedly switch back and forth between the production of eggs and of sperm during a single mating. Among deep sea fish that only rarely encounter potential mates, reproduction is often possible only if one changes sex.

Such opportunistic sex changes in fish, once thought to be a rare oddity, are proving far more common than supposed. Conversions from female to male are now known to occur in species belonging to at least 14 families, while conversions from male to female are known in eight families."

Still the same animal coward

No new never before seen family of animals magically sprout into existence in this example either. No new, never before seen genetic code is magically being written spontaneously by random chance.

Not Darwinian Evolution

[BurgyK]

As someone who studied cell biology for 4 years I'll just call you retarded and be happy with it. Also the word you are looking g for is epigenetics.
Ps. Best troll thread 2014

[G13]

As someone who studied cell biology for 4 years I'll just call you retarded and be happy with it. Also the word you are looking g for is epigenetics.
Ps. Best troll thread 2014

So then you then understand how complex a cell actually is. How did such complexity organize and build itself from dirt, or some primordial goo? It's basically it's own little microscopic city powered by super computers. How did such complexity organize itself without any intelligence to guide it? Did the computer you used to type your buffoonery build itself?

I'll ask you the same questions, since you seem to want to take a stab at it

How did DNA write itself from Nothing

How did even the most basic proteins organize themselves from pure randomness. You know the mathematical odds right? Zero. These proteins have to be organized from a specific sequence with a variety of different amino acids to choose from. This requires very specific instructions. It's an impossibility that such complexity could arrange itself by pure random chance.

Epigenetics is also working within EXISTING genetic code. Where is the evidence it creates never before seen complex life forms or genetic code? Explain how epigenetics writes new DNA that works in absolute harmony with existing DNA. It's a hereditary process. An environmental and behavioral process. Breeding. Traits within an existing kind that can be reversed through behavior. On and off switches. It doesn't create a new type/kind/form of animal. Not Macro-Evolution.

Nobody is disputing variations within existing genetic code. I'm asking for one example of entirely new, never before seen genetic code that creates a never before seen kind/type of life form. Show me all the Transitional Forms that should exist if Darwinian Macro Evolution is proven testable science.

I'm actually surprised you brought it up, since it actually hurts your cause instead of helping it. The changes that are made within existing kinds/types can actually be reversed which puts the entire process back to square one. In other words, it hinders the Natural Selection process. It doesn't help it.

[iruinedyourday]

this is u, just calm down ffs

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7er31mv941qflscro1_400.gif

[G13]

this is u, just calm down ffs

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7er31mv941qflscro1_400.gif

You're one post shy of 1100 posts outside RnF since April

lol

[BurgyK]

Complexity arose with time. In my opinion it started with a piece of self replicating rna and got more complex from there.

[iruinedyourday]

You're one post shy of 1100 posts outside RnF since April

lol

yeah cus I contribute, you dip shit. Every one of those posts is either to help someone with a problem, show a sweet gif screen shot of classic EQ, or post information about using text triggers or playing a class

oh yea, and selling my fucking 7337 ass motherfuckn solo kill loot in EC.

you have 1,100 fucking posts, IN THIS THREAD.

so please. Take a step back, and fuck your face.

[G13]

Complexity arose with time. In my opinion it started with a piece of self replicating rna and got more complex from there.

How did RNA build itself from nothing?

As time goes on things become less organized, especially information. It's one the fundamental laws governing the entire Universe.

Time doesn't write genetic code. How did RNA write DNA? DNA is a very specific code. Precise instructions. How did "self replicating RNA" write this code? Also, are you claiming to have the answer to abiogenesis and how all life started from a single source? Can you reproduce this in a lab? Do you have peered reviewed papers you have written? Observable testable results? Where's your proof?

How did one self replicating RNA become something as complex as a cell? How did self replicating RNA create the ATP synthase molecule, where all parts would have been needed to be present (at the exact same time) and ordered/structured in a precise way in order for it to function properly? Remember, this is a motor with several moving parts more complex than anything man has yet to produce. How did self replicating RNA build that?

I thought you studied this shit for 4 years?

[BurgyK]

Hence you're retarded.

[leewong]

Complexity arose with time. In my opinion it started with a piece of self replicating rna and got more complex from there.

I am guessing you are responding to G13 (he's on my ignore list). I wouldnt waste my time if I were you. This thread is basically 100+ pages of me correcting his bullshit just to have him repeat the same line that I corrected two pasts later.

Here is a great example of it:

"russian's been trying to make foxes a different species...still same foxes" -G13

My response...no, they are breeding two distinct lines of foxes. One is breed for aggression and the other is breed for non-aggression. It is a genetic study on how genes affect behavior.

"the foxes are still foxes" - G13

Lol, 100+ pages of argument just like that. Dont waste copious amounts of time like I did :P Some folks are just beyond help. He is either one of the dumbest individuals on planet earth or he is a troll of the highest degree.

[G13]

I am guessing you are responding to G13 (he's on my ignore list). I wouldnt waste my time if I were you. This thread is basically 100+ pages of me correcting his bullshit just to have him repeat the same line that I corrected two pasts later.

Here is a great example of it:

"russian's been trying to make foxes a different species...still same foxes" -G13

My response...no, they are breeding two distinct lines of foxes. One is breed for aggression and the other is breed for non-aggression. It is a genetic study on how genes affect behavior.

"the foxes are still foxes" - G13

Lol, 100+ pages of argument just like that. Dont waste copious amounts of time like I did :P Some folks are just beyond help. He is either one of the dumbest individuals on planet earth or he is a troll of the highest degree.

This idiot doesn't even understand what we are talking about

The foxes are still foxes

The bacteria are still bacteria

The fruit flies are still fruit flies

Doesn't prove Macro-Evolution

It's laughably embarrassing he has to respond to me by proxy because he's too much of an insecure chickenshit to face me directly. Good times.

Hence you're retarded.

Ahh you're hurting me with the insults =/

JK Dodge noted BTW

[iruinedyourday]

This idiot doesn't even understand what we are talking about

The foxes are still foxes

The bacteria are still bacteria

The fruit flies are still fruit flies

Doesn't prove Macro-Evolution

It's laughably embarrassing he has to respond to me by proxy because he's too much of an insecure chickenshit to face me directly. Good times.



Ahh you're hurting me with the insults =/

JK Dodge noted BTW

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130102104737/breakingbad/images/8/8c/Shut-up.gif

[Archalen]

So then you then understand how complex a cell actually is. How did such complexity organize and build itself from dirt, or some primordial goo? It's basically it's own little microscopic city powered by super computers. How did such complexity organize itself without any intelligence to guide it? Did the computer you used to type your buffoonery build itself?

I'll ask you the same questions, since you seem to want to take a stab at it

How did DNA write itself from Nothing

How did even the most basic proteins organize themselves from pure randomness. You know the mathematical odds right? Zero. These proteins have to be organized from a specific sequence with a variety of different amino acids to choose from. This requires very specific instructions. It's an impossibility that such complexity could arrange itself by pure random chance.

Epigenetics is also working within EXISTING genetic code. Where is the evidence it creates never before seen complex life forms or genetic code? Explain how epigenetics writes new DNA that works in absolute harmony with existing DNA. It's a hereditary process. An environmental and behavioral process. Breeding. Traits within an existing kind that can be reversed through behavior. On and off switches. It doesn't create a new type/kind/form of animal. Not Macro-Evolution.

Nobody is disputing variations within existing genetic code. I'm asking for one example of entirely new, never before seen genetic code that creates a never before seen kind/type of life form. Show me all the Transitional Forms that should exist if Darwinian Macro Evolution is proven testable science.

I'm actually surprised you brought it up, since it actually hurts your cause instead of helping it. The changes that are made within existing kinds/types can actually be reversed which puts the entire process back to square one. In other words, it hinders the Natural Selection process. It doesn't help it.

I'm quite curious, how do you think the universe and life began?

[leewong]

This thread is moving along slow today. Thought I would post this again:

I am going to explain evolution again for the creationist here. More than likely will regret this decision in 30 pages or so.

Creationist admit to small changes in a species. What they have trouble with is speciation. "A dog will always be and always has been a dog", they say.

http://i57.tinypic.com/2eztkjt.jpg

With small changes over time you can end up with completely different species.

http://i58.tinypic.com/96yhlj.jpg

The individual symbols on this picture dont represent a single animal. They represent a species as time progresses. The amount of time between each snapshot is irrelevant for this explanation. Feel free to imagine a 100 millennia or 100 million years.

Creationist believe the blue symbol (pictured above) would produce the purple star symbol in a few short generations. The illustration above is a nice but it does not show the hundreds or thousand of generations with smaller changes that existed BETWEEN each symbol. Each of these generations would be a small step closer to looking like the next symbol in the picture. This is micro-evolution in action and the sum total is called macro-evolution. The same exact mechanisms are responsible for micro and macro evolution. Those mechanisms are mutations, natural selection, and time.

Honestly, if I thought horses gave birth to squirrels or that blue symbols gave birth to purple stars then I wouldnt believe the shit either. That isnt what the theory claims though.

[Whirled]

needs more wat lady in here.

http://www.smashinglists.com/top-10-theories-on-beginning-of-life-on-earth/2/

[leewong]

needs more wat lady in here.

http://www.smashinglists.com/top-10-theories-on-beginning-of-life-on-earth/2/

"None of them were found to be a suitable companion for the man, so God caused the man to sleep and created a woman from a part of his body (Tradition describes the part as a rib)"

Too funny. God brings a bunch of animals to Adam and says, "Hey, Adam I see you are lonely. How about some goat or dog vagina?". Imagine the look on Adam's face. Then instead of snapping his fingers and creating Eve, God has to perform some sort of surgery to remove Adam's rib to create her. This shit is classic. It's like a Monty Python skit.

[Whirled]

It's probably best to ask the author of that article. I was just sharing since it had relevant info is all.

[leewong]

It's probably best to ask the author of that article. I was just sharing since it had relevant info is all.

Who was asking a question? I was just poking fun at the story of Adam and Eve.

[Whirled]

Who was asking a question? I was just poking fun at the story of Adam and Eve.

oh... i gotcha... yea I could see that, hehe

[RobotElvis]

Complexity arose with time. In my opinion it started with a piece of self replicating rna and got more complex from there.

Ha!

The RNA molecule is con- structed of smaller molecules called nu- cleotides. A nucleotide is a different mol- ecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been re- ported as products of spark-discharge ex- periments or in studies of meteorites.”He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule random- ly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.

[G13]

I'm quite curious, how do you think the universe and life began?

I don't think you can look at how complex and finely tuned The Universe is and come to the conclusion it structured and ordered itself from Nothing or by random chance. The probabilities that our reality was built this way are just not workable mathematically.

The laws that govern the Universe did not write themselves. The obvious engineering and design behind kinds/types/body plans show an obvious creative mind behind their development. You don't see mis-happen and randomly formed life. Quite the contrary. You see life with specific functions that supports other life.

The harmony and symbiosis between plants and animals. The seasons. The self healing and self replicating functions of all life. It's too complex. Time doesn't make things more complex. Quite the contrary actually. Time = Entropy and Entropy damages and erodes genetic code. Things become more disorganized over time.

Clearly aliens didn't build the universe. Didn't write it's laws. If aliens existed they would be ruled under the same laws that govern the entire universe. Time/Space/Matter came into existence with "The Big Bang". If you look at the essence of Matter, a table for instance, 99% of what you perceive as solid matter is actually only about 1-2% Matter. Your reality is governed by how your brain is processing data and electrical signals. Think of your life as literally a virtual reality. Your body an organic machine that temporarily hosts your eternal soul in this reality. There is a creative mind that exists outside Time and Space that is behind our Reality. It's all about perception and perspective.

Time/Chance is not a creative force. Consciousness, Moral absolutes and Love are Spiritual forces and Creative forces beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the physical world. A Creator would obviously let himself be known to his creation. He would want his creations to behave in certain ways to protect them from themselves (sin). He would lead by example through actions, not words, as to what the Love of a parent really is for their children (Self Sacrifice) but at the same time He would want his children to "choose" to love Him willingly out of their own Free Will. He wouldn't create "I Love You" robots.

I firmly believe that Jesus Christ answers all of those questions perfectly. His life. His teachings. His Death and His resurrection. That's not about a religion either by the way. Religion has nothing to do with it. Mankind by his very nature is deceitful and corrupt. If you rely on mankind for Truth you are putting your "Faith" in the wrong place.

Now it's perfectly understandable if you do not share that view and there are plenty of people that believe in Intelligent Design who are not Christians. They are perfectly logical and reasonable people that see the obvious intelligence and creativity in all life. Personally I don't think anyone can be "convinced" to believe in God. Through your own journey in Life you're going to go through shit that leads you down that path, but you're never going to take that first step until you learn grace, humility and forgiveness. These are spiritual things. Intangible things, but it doesn't make them any less real.

This is the problem that Evolutionists can't deal with. They've become too comfortable in their ivory towers dictating how things are to everyone else, except all of their assertions are based upon frauds like Piltdown Man, The Peppered Moth, the bogus embryo drawing ect. When challenged they run from the debate like Leewrong or they call you retarded without offering any rebuttal.

I hope that answers your question.

[Tenlaar]

I like how you chose to ignore the part of my post that you should have tried to wrap your brain around. I'll repeat it just for you.

Here is an irrefutable fact: the answer to anything and everything that has been figured out in the history of humans as we know it has never, ever, not once been magic.

How about you show us all just one thing that was determined to have been caused by magic, then I'll start to consider magic as an answer to other questions.

[Glenzig]

I like how you chose to ignore the part of my post that you should have tried to wrap your brain around. I'll repeat it just for you.



How about you show us all just one thing that was determined to have been caused by magic, then I'll start to consider magic as an answer to other questions.

Didn't the universe pull itself out of a hat at one point?

[G13]

I like how you chose to ignore the part of my post that you should have tried to wrap your brain around. I'll repeat it just for you.



How about you show us all just one thing that was determined to have been caused by magic, then I'll start to consider magic as an answer to other questions.

What do you perceive "magic" to be?

Define "magic" as you perceive it to be

If you were to somehow fly a spaceship to some planet and discover a complex language/code more elegant and precise than anything mankind could ever possibly envision within the power of his own brain, would you call that magic? What would you call it?

[Whirled]

Jesus was said to use magic

[G13]

Jesus was said to use magic

Really?

Please cite the passage

[Tenlaar]

Magic = supernatural forces.


If you were to somehow fly a spaceship to some planet and discover a complex language/code more elegant and precise than anything mankind could ever possibly envision within the power of his own brain, would you call that magic? What would you call it?

I would call it something that I don't yet understand.

[Tenlaar]

Didn't the universe pull itself out of a hat at one point?

I don't know how the universe was formed. Based on that, I can only assume it was somehow related to a giant space turtle who watches me with a disappointed frown while I masturbate.

[Whirled]

Really?

Please cite the passage

Well I apologize if I butcher anyones religion since I'm not Jewish.

The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy

http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

It is important to note that all of these magical effects were achieved through the power of G-d, generally by calling upon the name of G-d. These practices are no more "evil" than the miracles of the prophets, or the miracles that Christians ascribe to Jesus. In fact, according to some of my mystically-inclined friends, Jesus performed his miracles using kabbalistic techniques learned from the Essenes (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/essenes.htm), a Jewish sect of that time that was involved in mysticism. .

[G13]

Magic = supernatural forces.



I would call it something that I don't yet understand.

What's a "supernatural force"? Elaborate

You wouldn't understand it to be something creatively and intelligently brought into existence? Why wouldn't you call it "magic" if you didn't know the exact fashion in which it was formed?

[G13]

Well I apologize if I butcher anyones religion since I'm not Jewish.

The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy

http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

It is important to note that all of these magical effects were achieved through the power of G-d, generally by calling upon the name of G-d. These practices are no more "evil" than the miracles of the prophets, or the miracles that Christians ascribe to Jesus. In fact, according to some of my mystically-inclined friends, Jesus performed his miracles using kabbalistic techniques learned from the Essenes (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/essenes.htm), a Jewish sect of that time that was involved in mysticism. .

Are you seriously going to paste a Kabbalistic link (which is Jewish Mysticism) to try and prove Jesus said to use Magic

Just SMH @ your buffoonery

[Whirled]

Other possible allusions to Jesus or his teachings may be found in b. Sabbat 116b (a possible reference to Mt 5:17) and b. Sanhedrin 107b, where one manuscript tradition refers to "Jesus the Nazarene [who] practised magic and led Israel astray."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/talmud.html ^^

sorry couldn't edit/add this one but says in here too Jesus used magic or mysticism.

[RobotElvis]

I like how you chose to ignore the part of my post that you should have tried to wrap your brain around. I'll repeat it just for you.



How about you show us all just one thing that was determined to have been caused by magic, then I'll start to consider magic as an answer to other questions.

Abiogenesis

[G13]

Other possible allusions to Jesus or his teachings may be found in b. Sabbat 116b (a possible reference to Mt 5:17) and b. Sanhedrin 107b, where one manuscript tradition refers to "Jesus the Nazarene [who] practised magic and led Israel astray."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/talmud.html ^^

sorry couldn't edit/add this one but says in here too Jesus used magic or mysticism.

Lol

Pure nonsense

[Tenlaar]

What's a "supernatural force"? Elaborate
No, because you already know the answer.

You wouldn't understand it to be something creatively and intelligently brought into existence? Why wouldn't you call it "magic" if you didn't know the exact fashion in which it was formed?

Why would I call it magic? I don't know how the exact fashion in which a jet engine is formed, that doesn't mean I think it's magic.

[Whirled]

Odd...I would think you would be religiously tolerant with your views so far.

[G13]

No, because you already know the answer.

I don't actually. Please enlighten us all.

Why would I call it magic? I don't know how the exact fashion in which a jet engine is formed, that doesn't mean I think it's magic.

What would you call it? Why do you selectively apply the term magic to things that you don't understand?

[Tenlaar]

Abiogenesis

Yet again, not knowing why something happens yet is not proof that it was done through magic.

[G13]

Odd...I would think you would be religiously tolerant with your views so far.

Who said anything about religion?

Stop googling shit you don't understand

[Tenlaar]

I don't actually. Please enlighten us all.
You do, so no.

What would you call it? Why do you selectively apply the term magic to things that you don't understand?

I told you what I would call it. Something I don't yet understand. I don't apply the term magic to ANYTHING, because there has been no evidence to suggest that it is real.

[G13]

You do, so no.

Don't dodge. Explain yourself

I told you what I would call it. Something I don't yet understand. I don't apply the term magic to ANYTHING, because there has been no evidence to suggest that it is real.[/QUOTE]

Then why bring it up?

[Whirled]

Who said anything about religion?

the thread title did, maybe instead of acting rude you could remember that

Stop googling shit you don't understand

I gain nothing by even still trying to be nice & help but I did.

o wait we're in RnF ... GDIAF

[G13]

the thread title did, maybe instead of acting rude you could remember that

You claimed Jesus said to use magic

Point to scripture where he says this. Not some BS Kaballah website.

I gain nothing by even still trying to be nice & help but I did.

o wait we're in RnF ... GDIAF

Obvious troll is obvious

[Tenlaar]

Don't dodge. Explain yourself
Supernatural = of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc. But you already know what the word means.
Then why bring it up?
Because you are the one attributing things to magic.

[Tenlaar]

Point to scripture where he says this. Not some BS Kaballah website.

http://www.asianjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/StephenSmithROFL.gif

[G13]

Supernatural = of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc. But you already know what the word means.

Again, you don't need a supernatural explanation to see design and creation in all life. 1.618 is not "magic". It's a precise and intelligent mathematical equation. Mathematics on it's own didn't do that equation. The laws of the universe don't create anything on their own

Because you are the one attributing things to magic.

Really? Where did I ever do such a thing? Again, if you find intelligent and creative design, laws that govern the entire universe and reality as you know it, why does it have to be called "magic"?

[G13]

http://www.asianjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/StephenSmithROFL.gif

Wait, do you agree with him?

rofl

[Tenlaar]

Again, you don't need a supernatural explanation to see design and creation in all life. 1.618 is not "magic". It's a precise and intelligent mathematical equation. Mathematics on it's own didn't do that equation. The laws of the universe don't create anything on their own

Really? Where did I ever do such a thing? Again, if you find intelligent and creative design, laws that govern the entire universe and reality as you know it, why does it have to be called "magic"?

If the laws of the universe don't create anything then anything created has to be by a force outside the laws of the universe. AKA magic.

[Tenlaar]

Wait, do you agree with him?

rofl

No, I find it hilarious that you said "don't use something from that other made up book, use something from MY made up book!"

[G13]

If the laws of the universe don't create anything then anything created has to be by a force outside the laws of the universe. AKA magic.

Why do you keep it calling it magic

The laws of The Universe are not a creative force. They didn't create themselves and they certainly didn't create life. They are laws that predict certain probabilities by working with existing information and data. Like I said before, if you discover some extremely advanced and complicated code that are the very keys to life itself, acknowledging that it exists and was created via Intelligence and Creativity is not the same thing as claiming it came about by "magic"

You're just engaging in a strawman and a pretty weak one at that

No, I find it hilarious that you said "don't use something from that other made up book, use something from MY made up book!"

You have no concept or understanding of The Bible. That isn't my problem. That's your problem. You're just knee jerking back into the usual ignorant cliches and which doesn't interest me. Jesus Christ existed. Anyone who claims he said to use magic and uses Kaballah of all things as a source is not worth taking seriously