Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Yes, they are only very rarely beneficial, but the ones that are beneficial tend to stick around. This is why evolution takes so long. As for specifics: HIV, which I imagine you've heard of, speciated within the last century as a result of beneficial mutation (beneficial to the virus, that is, not to us).

---

This kind of "one step forward two steps" progression of mutations seems mighty questionable: if the majority of mutations are negative (as you seem to be saying here), then how is it logical that a minority of positive mutations could sustain life? Are we to assume that all positive mutations were a "first try" (because some negative mutations, I'm guessing, would result in the death of the life form). I'm speaking rather simplistically here, but considering the idea philosophically, how can progress occur when the odds for positive movement are largely minor (and - like much of evolution, requires immense time and seemingly insurmountable odds).

Second, it's interesting how you've defined "beneficial" here - it's all about perspective, I guess. Since HIV involves mutations that are hostile to life (because once the host is dead, HIV has nohwere to go) I would say that its mutation is generally negative in nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

If I come across some, I'll send it your way - but would you even take it seriously? I don't tend to engage in the "battling evidence" game because I think "evidence" comes in a number of categories; some categories are irrefutable facts; other categories involve "reasonable hypotheses," "logical conclusions" and/or "facts" that require interpretation. As such, complete certainty as to the "truth" of certain types of evidence is contingent upon probability - and probability is not certainty. That is primarily what I'm arguing. Evolution - in the absence of the existence of God - is perfectly reasonable because it is the best hypothesis that explains our existence. I'm perfectly capable of seeing the logic of evolution - but that "logic" only holds water if I approach it from outside the framework of believing in a Divine Being.

---

Well, I see your problem entirely.

You note in several places that you're unable to accept facts unless they fit into your god-centric view of the universe. Accordingly, why are we even discussing this? If I point you to facts which you refuse to acknowledge, why bother seeking them?

Evidence only comes in two varieties - that which has been tested and re-tested by peers and become accepted and that which hasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Your response reveals that you did not read my post very carefully. I did not suggest anything about the existence of God - I asked you if you judged the contents of reality based only upon that which is observable/experiencial - and you didn't answer the question. I'd prefer an answer rather than your attempts to belittle my questions.

---

I did answer it, but I will again, briefly.

There is more to reality than observation. Any slight understanding of quantum physics would show this. Did you/are you doing science at school? These questions you're asking are the same as the ones I deal with when my seven year old asks questions. Reality is what it is. This is a Phil 101 discussion and not really worth my time.

Reality is a combination of science and philosophy. Obviously the philosophical points cannot be proven, but the science can. When the two complement each other, we find truth. When they contradict, we either lean to the scientific, or we deny facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Deflection. The example is valid - and if it's not, you have failed to explain why it's not. Your second comment is a non sequiter and has nothing to do with my posted comment.

---

Completely incorrect.

My point was that love is fickle, and demonstrably so. People marry "till death us do part" then get divorced. Love is a chemical reaction in your brain + habit. Nothing more.

Using "love" as any basis for faith is unenforceable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Bravo - and has all of that "evidence" stood the test of time? Or has some of it required revision because - oops! - we discovered it was wrong.

---

See, this is where you go wrong. The fact that science has been wrong and had to change is a strength, not a weakness. Science changes with evidence. It is reviewed and constantly updated as new discoveries are made.

Does religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The Bible wasn't written to perform as a science text-book. Books are written with a particular purpose/intent and audience. The Bible was written as a revelation of God's character. God, apparently, was not as concerned that human beings comprehend how He created what He created. Sorry.

---

But you need to remember that science grew out of man's quest for answers. To deny science is to deny the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Any "facts" I might offer will be meaningless inside your frame of reference - just as my frame of reference makes many of your "facts" seem absurd to me - despite their status as "hard facts" from scientific investigation.

---

No. I have stated times without number that I am open to evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I'd like you to explain precisely how infinite regression (which involves the existence of actual infinities (which do not exist in reality)) is "bunkum" (is that a scientific term?). Instead of telling me where I should go to post, why don't you educate me by answering my questions? Explain to me where the universe came from, please.

---

I can't. I have no idea, nor do I care. Asking me to explain something which happened 15+ billion years ago, for which an actual science has been around for a century or so isn't feasible.

Given time, there will be answers, but to expect one now doesn't work. If lack of knowledge of what caused the big bang leads you to god, that's fine, but you have no need to ignore all of the facts we know about the universe and life since then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I'm sorry - I read through the link and saw nothing about odds or numbers. I saw a lot of talk about transitional life forms but that's it. Was that supposed to answer my question? It didn't. My original statement had to do with the mathematical odds of evolution. Care to try again?

---

OK. Because you asked, I had assumed you would be able to do advanced calculus. If you could, the algorithm can be gleaned fromt he results there. If you can't anything I post is going to be meaningless, and I can't post LaTex superscript here, so I can't give you the equation.

If you are able to work with calculus and are likely to believe the results, please PM me and I will send you more data, but please don't waste my time if you won't understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

OK - then could you direct me to the source that would show that the Drs are lying - something more substantial than just your opinion?

---

Ditto, once you can work out the algorithm for yourself, you'll see that they are not only lying, but stating enormous lies.

No opinion involved, the facts are there, if you choose to accept them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I don't need to defend the doctors - they can defend themselves. I'd like you to show me how they're misquoting/lying, please.

---

Ditto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Not at all - believing in evolution does not indicate "idiocy" at all. I think very intelligent people accept it as true.

---

I guess that depends on your view of "intelligent". To me, an "intelligent" person will look at evidence and be able to separate fact from fantasy. I know no intelligent people - on that basis - who do not believe that evolution is real. Many of those who accept the fact of evolution are christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

How is my suggestion of presuppositional foundations "demonstrably false"? I'd like you to "demonstrate" (as your verb implies) how my suggestion is false. Atheism becomes reasonable once one rejects the reality of God. You must reject God first in order to embrace atheism.

---

No, you simply do not understand.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god - a position that no, or insufficient evidence is available to support belief in god. Lack of god is a result of a search for evidence, not a starting point. You yourself admit that everything starts with a god. I, on the other hand start with an open page, which may include god. As the page is filled up and none of it points to "god", I become an atheist.

Atheism is not a reverse religion.

Atheism is reasonable on its own with nil suppositions and assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The only nonsense that I can see here is your refusal to accept that human beings are incapable of full objectivity - and that we are all subject to various "filters" through which we process what we call reality.

---

Mate, you need to realise that The Matrix was only a movie. Reality is real. How you perceive it does not affect how it actually is. Can I suggest you take a very elementary Philosophy course, because your questions are really basic stuff. Schrodinger's cat et al.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

"Demonstrate" away, then. "Evidence" for the existence of God negates faith; once you can prove God, faith is unnecessary and that works against the plan God has for our development as human beings into the creatures He designed us to be. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You cannot have an automechanic give you psychological counseling. Likewise - the spiritual reality of God cannot be discerned via the "objective" tools of scientific inquiry.

---

The Babel Fish!

Instead of giving you a pat answer to your pat comment, I'll ask a question:

If everything is part of god's master plan, why do you see the need to try to tell other people about your disbelief of science? If it's all god's master plan, then he must have wanted us to accept scientific fact.

Or are all scientists agents of Satan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Maybe I overstate the speculative nature of science's discoveries, but the main thrust of my post stands: facts make sense inside a framework.

---

Unfortunately, facts don't work like that. Things aren't true because you want them to be, they either are or they aren't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

We don't reject science; we question its conclusions when they come into conflict with what the Bible teaches (especially when the conclusions are based on hypothesis and probablility [probability with massive odds]). From your current position, evidence of God would be meaningless to you. You have to "open" to the idea of God for Him to even start becoming real to you.

---

See, again, you're dismissing facts which don't gel with your god. I can't change that, but it saddens me.

I will reiterate my comments about the odds, however.

Please, either learn calculus and work it out yourself, or don't quote false statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Once again, you've avoided addressing the issue. For someone with such a "superior" position - one bolstered by mountains of evidence, you are surprisingly unwilling to answer my questions. Why is that? Is dismissing questions some sort of effective arguing technique? Can't you deal with the points I'm making? Your making humor at my expense does little to advance your argument because I'm seeking answers.

---

Given your own statements that facts which don't fit with your view of god can be ignored, I don't believe you.

I don't believe you are seeking answers at all. I believe you've been taught a load of fallacies by a pastor and have come in here to parrot them. Not one comment of your so far has suggested that you are seeking to learn anything at all and I doubt your ability to learn if you won't address facts.

In the case of why a computer program is cunningly designed and life isn't, you can only get trite answers, because it's not a real question. It is, as I said, like asking what blue squared is. The two have nothing to do with each other. In what way does a computer program resemble life? Both are complex, so couldn't exist without design? That's wrong and you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Ditto here. You've not addressed the point - only deflected it off somewhere else. Instead of crowing about how silly, predictable or whatever my points are, why don't you simply provide me with the counter-argument or explanation that would show me the error of my thinking?

---

Impossible. I point you to facts and you ignore them. I have tried to address the point and you fail to spend any time looking for answers yourself. You cannot be helped because, in reality, you don't want to be. Your faith is a little shaky and for some reason you seem to think that coming in here and denying evidence will strengthen your faith. I've indulged your fantasy long enough.

I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?

---

Did you go to the link I showed Red?

As someone already noted, the fact that mutations are rarely beneficial is pretty obvious - those which aren't become extinct and those which are survive.

Given that you're a creationist, how do you explain all of the extinct species?

Edit - as to names of people to read to refute the wildly incorrect odds quoted, I suggest starting with Francis Crick himself and read as much of his work as you can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

These questions you're asking are the same as the ones I deal with when my seven year old asks questions. Reality is what it is. This is a Phil 101 discussion and not really worth my time.


Can I suggest you take a very elementary Philosophy course, because your questions are really basic stuff. Schrodinger's cat et al.



I doubt your ability to learn if you won't address facts.


Your faith is a little shaky and for some reason you seem to think that coming in here and denying evidence will strengthen your faith. I've indulged your fantasy long enough.

I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.

Cheers.

---

The boldfaced line is a stereotype and is in poor form coming from an educated person.

I'll have to pass on your offer of "education," thanks. But, in view of your generosity, I will reciprocate: if you ever want to truly understand the God who rules the universe, feel free to send me a PM and I will be happy to lift you out of your elementary understanding of the Almighty. It's the least I could do.

Cheers. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Are we to assume that all positive mutations were a "first try" (because some negative mutations, I'm guessing, would result in the death of the life form).

---

Yes, some mutations do result in the death of the individual organism, thereby removing that mutation from the gene pool. However, when a beneficial mutation occurs, the organism that it occurs in has (by definition) an evolutionary advantage, and therefore that mutation spreads throughout the gene pool. Mutations occur in individuals, not species. A harmful mutation in one individual has almost no chance of causing the extinction of the entire species (which is what I assume you mean by "the death of the lifeform").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I'm speaking rather simplistically here, but considering the idea philosophically, how can progress occur when the odds for positive movement are largely minor (and - like much of evolution, requires immense time and seemingly insurmountable odds).

---

Because when a beneficial mutation does occur, that gene is rewarded with more copies of itself; and when a harmful mutation does occur, the gene in question is punished by extinction. The odds are indeed long, but one-in-a-million odds aren't so bad when you're allowed several billion trials and several billion years with which to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Second, it's interesting how you've defined "beneficial" here - it's all about perspective, I guess. Since HIV involves mutations that are hostile to life (because once the host is dead, HIV has nohwere to go) I would say that its mutation is generally negative in nature.

---

Negative to you, maybe, absolutely wonderful for the virus. Once the host is dead, it likely has a few billion HIVs in it, and has more than likely passed it on to another host. If this was not true, you would never have heard of HIV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Negative to you, maybe, absolutely wonderful for the virus. Once the host is dead, it likely has a few billion HIVs in it, and has more than likely passed it on to another host. If this was not true, you would never have heard of HIV.

---

Fair enough; I kind of sensed that the point I was making would result in this answer.

I read the article you suggested, The Atheist, but before I began I was inclined to doubt its veracity because it's a Wikipedia article and anyone, trained and untrained, is free to get in there and edit it. The article itself was full of unecessary jargon and I would like to know who is the "we" of whom the author speaks.
Furthermore, if there is such an influx of missing links, how come I've never heard of them before? Even Darwin said that the fact of the missing links is the weakest point in his theory.

For me, the extinction of the dinosaurs is explained by this verse from the Bible:

Quote:

---

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Genesis 7:11

---

Of course this verse is talking about the flood. Since the fountains of the great deep broke up and the windows of heaven were opened, the climate and atmosphere of the world changed and was unable to support the dinosaurs; so, soon after, they became extinct.


I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.

Quote:

---

What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?

??? What about them?

---

The Atheist said we have hundreds of years of scientifically proven fact. The Cro-Magnon, Java, and Neanderthal Men were all thought to be missing links until they were proven to be forgeries and fakes. In such an important matter as science, one loses veracity by deliberately suppressing or misleading the scientific community.

Quote:

---

To deny science is to deny the bible.

---

That's creationist thinking and I think Redzeppelin already said that the Bible and science are not incompatible. Did you mean to say it that way or did I misunderstand you? Sorry.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, facts don't work like that. Things aren't true because you want them to be, they either are or they aren't

---

Precisely! Now how does that fit in with the whole forged embryo mess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave

The Cro-Magnon, Java, and Neanderthal Men were all thought to be missing links until they were proven to be forgeries and fakes. In such an important matter as science, one loses veracity by deliberately suppressing or misleading the scientific community.

---

Well, the jury is still out on Java Man (or men, rather, there were two different specimens), but it certainly wasn't an intentional forgery. Cro-magnons and Neanderthals aren't individual finds, but rather entire species. Neaderthals aren't a missing link between anything, they're simply antoher species of ape, now extinct. No word on either of those species having been forgeries. You're postulating a rather large conspiracy if you claim that they are.

The "missing link" betwen humans and other apes is not a scientifically valid concept, and is in any case unnecesary, as we can compare human and chimpanzee genomes to determine common ancestry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

Furthermore, if there is such an influx of missing links, how come I've never heard of them before? Even Darwin said that the fact of the missing links is the weakest point in his theory.


I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.




?

---

1)darwin said the missing links were the weakest part of his theory, this is true. but that was over a hundred years ago. since then, we've found austrolopithacean (lucy) and even a few pre-lucy's (name eludes me).

2) so people lived for 300 years on average pre-floud thanks to the climate? the world as it is today is full of all the climates on the spectrum. no one lives past 120. our medicine is head and shoulders above the medicine of old too. so why would people live longer back then?

Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

1)darwin said the missing links were the weakest part of his theory, this is true. but that was over a hundred years ago. since then, we've found austrolopithacean (lucy) and even a few pre-lucy's (name eludes me).

---

The return of the "missing link." I've been doing so thinking and reading on this subject and I think the dismissal of the importance of transitional/intermediate forms is more important than (at least some) evolutionists seem to want to admit. First off, I don't believe there is such thing as a "missing link/transitional form" in terms of singular. Since most living creatures (including microscopic creatures) are composed of multiple intricate/interrelated systems that often must function together to function at all, then it seems logical to assume that there should be many many transitional forms to allow for the multiple alterations that many (if not all ) forms of life had to go through to become what they currently are. Since the process apparently went on for millenium after millenium, it seems logical that the fossil record should (must) be littered with numerous transitional forms to indicate the various stages that the creature went through. I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions. I get cuppajoe's argument that "common ancestry" can be established, but the "6 degrees of separation" phenomenon pretty much establishes that being related isn't necessarily a linear progression (as I think he's implying).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

Of course this verse is talking about the flood. Since the fountains of the great deep broke up and the windows of heaven were opened, the climate and atmosphere of the world changed and was unable to support the dinosaurs; so, soon after, they became extinct.


I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.

---

Same applies as I said to Red.

If you're actually able to believe that a global flood happened, then you clearly have no knowledge of reason, science, or physics and no understanding of what facts or evidence actually are.

There is a level of wilful disregard for scientific fact at which I have no interest. Belief in a the Noah's Ark/global flood far surpasses my tolerance level.

I hope you have a pleasant discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reccura

Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)

---

And yet all scientific evidence points to ever-increasing longevity of humans. Funny how all of the remains, bodies from peat-bogs and tombs, which match, or pre-date biblical times have been under 70 years of age at death.

Hi there, Mr. Atheist -

I think it was Einstein who said (roughly paraphrased) that "creativity is more important than intellect."

Trust me, we'll enjoy our discussion.