Creationists: Here's your chance

[Jollybear]

A fish born with two heads would be an example of a bad mutation.

Ok, very good.

A good mutation is anything that helps the fish survive and outdo it's competition. A sleeker body, better eyesight, a pouching in it's GI tract that allowed it to continue supplying its bloodstream with oxygen even when it was out of water. All of these would qualify as good mutations.

Ok, and is there any downside to this good mutation? Is there any downside to having a sleeker body? Moving faster in the water may make them hit something harder if they happen to crash. So how is that good?

This is hard to put simply because it isn't a simple subject.

Genes are the instructions for building a living thing. When an animal reproduces, its own genetic "instructions" are copied and passed down to the new generation. However the copies are not always perfect. When the genetic instructions are flawed, that is a mutation, and thus the new generation will be different from the previous.

Since the new instructions are flawed, the new animal will be built in a different way than its parent. The nature of the difference depends on the mutation. Most mutations are neutral and don't affect the animal one way or another. Some mutations are harmful and, if the effects are severe enough, the animal will die before it can reproduce. The mutations that help the animal survive are the ones most likely to be passed down.

In the case of our fish, mutations which help them breathe out of water will be the most likely to survive. If one fish's capillaries are closer to the skin then it might make cutaneous air breathing easier for that fish and he could spend more time out of water than his competitors.

Even if a good mutation happens, the fish is still a fish. All we ever see is it still being a fish.

No, and I just explained why. The evolutionary process has no limit. Given enough time It can depart in endless ways from a parent's original form.

For one, you cannot prove “enough time” like billions of years, which macro evolution needs. And secondly even if it was billions of years, STILL macro evolution would not happen. There are things in the fossil record like (let me job my memory here) bats, those bat fossils are so called millions of years (let’s assume millions of years is correct for the moment) well they are still bats today, therefore that mutation going on all that time DID NOT CHANGE them, they are still bats. And there are many other animals like that in the fossil record.

If we take the fish that we started with and put her next to her offspring and then that fish next to its offspring and so on and so on until we reach our land animal, you'll find that, at no point in the line did one animal give birth to something entirely new, it's simply that the gradual changes in each generation slowly added up until the form we ended up with looked nothing like our original form.

That is macroevolution. The slow build up of gradual changes.

I understand, but there are a few things going against this. First is in the fossil record the bats mutations kept them bats over millions of years, why? Secondly, there are huge gaps in the fossil record, why? Do you believe in punctuated equilibrium, which is macro evolution happening at spurts in time very fast? How can macro evolution happen that fast? Thirdly I still don’t see how “good” mutations are good in themselves, yes good may come from it, just like disasters, good can come from it, but it’s not good in itself. Good can come from a lot of bad things, but that does not make the bad thing good in itself.

For them to change from one form to another, the information in the DNA would simply have to change. Mutation does this. It can add information and it can take information away.

What is the origin of information in DNA?

First off, how do you define complex? Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, so I must ask, complex how?

Complexity is derived of VITAL parts and non vital parts, and all those parts make up a complex machine or organism. All that complexity or those parts make the thing function. Take out one vital part and the organism won’t function or live.

So, no, complexity is not in the eye of the beholder, complexity is based on vital parts. Pretty is in the eye of the beholder, but not complexity. But then, even pretty is not COMPLETELY in the eye of the beholder either.

That's a non-sequitur. Complexity in no way implies design. There are many complex things we know of that are not designed.

There are many things you KNOW that are not designed? I thought you take the “I don’t know” position? Secondly, tell me one of those things that you “KNOW” are not designed? Not a long list either (I need spoon feeding, thanks). Just one for now.

Irrelevant. A river isn't goal-oriented but it carves the canyon just the same.

Irrelevant. The canyon is complex BEFORE the river carves it, and the river is complex, before it carves the canyon. So what I said, still stands

“chance cannot design or cause complex stuff to come to be because first, chance is not goal oriented”

You're confusing chance with god.

I don’t see how?

 

[Jollybear]

Where? I see nothing even resembling evidence.

Then apparently you don’t understand the nature of evidence. There is a difference between proof (which is TANGIBLE evidence) and just evidence, but not tangible. There is evidence for God’s existence.

It's still a non-sequitur. A snowflake can be called "complex", but a snowflake is not designed.

How is it not designed?

The human eye can be called "complex" but again, it isn't designed.

Again, how is it not designed, your just asserting. Account for how it can be complex without design?

Just in case you disagree here; know this. The mistakes made within the eye tell us that, if it in fact was designed, the designer is amazingly incompetent.

Again, “bad” design is STILL design. At the moment I am not arguing that God is a GOOD designer, but that he is a DESIGNER. The universe has the hallmarks of design. Now whether you want to call it bad design or not, it still has the hallmarks of design. If you were God, do you think you could design it better? That’s like a child saying to a father “hey, I know how to run this house better then you”.

But, to counter what you said anyway, hear this: God did not design any mistakes. Like any design that humans make, the design runs down and wears out. But it running down and wearing out does not make it designed anymore, it’s still designed, it’s just design wearing out. And if you ask, why does it wear out? Well, I answered this, Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, that brought the curse and ultimately, death. Plus we have a Satan who can also manipulate nature to make bad stuff and mess up the human body. Sort of like a computer, a computer is complex and is designed in a GOOD way, but then VIRUSES are designed by BAD people and put into computers, does that now make the computer no longer designed because someone designed a bad virus? Of course not!

Your point holds no water.

 

[Jollybear]

Jose_Fly

So the little 1 week old girl who gets malaria and dies deserved it; the boy stillborn due to a viral infection deserved it; the girl born blind because of rubella deserved it.

That's disgusting.

How did I know this was coming? Oh, right, it usually always comes next. The answer is no, babies and kids did not deserve it. But they got it because of Adam and Eves sin. God did not give it to them, Adam who held all the responsibility within HIS GENES and in what he passed down to his descendents, HE gave it to us all, both disease and ultimately death itself. There sin, brought about or activated the curse, which consists of many bad things, both disease and death.

To illustrate, let’s say a person rapes and murders a child. Did the child deserve that? No, of course not, but this bad man who did that to the child, he was irresponsible in his actions, and that effected the child in a negative way.

This sort of thing happens all the time in the world. People who have responsibility and power, when they make bad choices, it effects everyone else who is under their power and responsibility.

So I will use the same term Evelyonian uses “it’s a whole different animal” in the case of children and babies.

Because it's not "justice" in any sense of the word. It's absurdly cruel, arbitrary, and inhumane.

According to your mythology, two people disobey a god thousands of years ago, and in response this god afflicts the rest of humanity with the sorts of things we've been talking about, and you call that "justice"? So if I came to you and said, "Your grandfather stole $5 when he was 10 years old, so I'm going to cut off the hand of every one of his descendants", would you see that as just?

God gave people a measure responsibility and power over other people. Some people have a higher measure of responsibility and power over other people then some others. And each person has a different responsibility and power in different areas. Each person’s responsibility and power over others will affect those others for either good or bad, depending on the persons choices who is in power. In Adams case, he had one of the HIGHEST responsibilities. And his responsibility was in the area of both his relationship to God, and to his descendents.

Now even though I say this, that does not mean babies go to hell, no, they don’t. God permits them to die (he does not MAKE them die) to spar them growing up in this nasty world.

You thought you got me didn’t ya? HUH, you didn’t. As much as you would like to blame God, you still have responsibility.

Also, can we get out of the consequence that Adam put upon us? Yes, BUT it is VERY unlikely that we will. For example, the bible talks about TWO people who did NOT DIE, Enoch and Elijah, they were close enough to God that they escaped the consequence that Adam transferred down the line.

But, that is VERY, EXTREMELY rare. You have to be very close to God for that, VERY.

Yup. Either way, the god you believe in and worship deliberately set up a system whereby children--before they've even done a single thing--are stricken by pathogens created by the same god.

God set it up to where people have a measure of responsibility and power over other people. And they have FREE WILL choices, they can use that to either do bad or good, and that effects those under them in either a positive or negative sense.


Being that this is the case, you CANNOT PUNISH GOD. You must bow to him. He is wise in doing this. You may not think it’s pleasant, but it’s for the BEST. Let’s see you try being God for one day and see if you can do it any better, I bet you would do it worse.

If a person did anything at all like that, we'd lock them up and view them as a horrible monster. But for whatever reason, you hold your god to a lower standard of ethics than people.

There is one problem here, God does not INFLICT the children, he gives a measure of responsibility to people, and those people either inflict or activate the curse upon children.

Get it right.

Do you go to the children's ward at hospitals and tell the kids and their families, "You deserved this"?

No, I am not that insensitive. And I have a funny feeling, you knew the answer before you asked it. But anyway, if the parents ASKED me? What would I tell them? I would first ask them some questions. Lets say for example, there was some parents they KNEW they had HIV, and they had a child KNOWING they had HIV. Therefore they transferred it to their kid. Then low and behold, there kid gets sick and is facing death. Then they cry and say why is this happening. And they ask do they deserve it? I would say YES they do, because they knowingly transferred death to their kid. The KID did not deserve it, THEY deserve their pain for knowingly doing what they knew was wrong.

That’s just a hypothetical example, but you get the point, I hope.

So you are unable to imagine any system of justice other than what your Bible describes? Really?

I can IMAGINE another system, but I don’t agree with any other system. I think God is just.

From my explanations and defense above, tell me how he is not just?

 

[Jollybear]

But the biochemical pathways and such that allow pathogens to cause disease weren't all there to begin with. They had to come from somewhere, and if Satan can't create, then under your belief the only alternative is your god intentionally creating those things with the express purpose of causing disease.

There is a difference between creating and inventing. Scientists cannot create anything, but they can invent machines by using stuff that is already created. Machines can be invented for good or bad purposes. Likewise, Satan cannot create, but he can invent things from using and manipulating things that are already created.

If a person did that, we call them a bioterrorist and lock them up. But you hold your god to a lower standard of ethics than people.

Wow, you got it all backwards. You hold God to YOUR standards, and you then try to PUNISH him if he breaks them. Wow, what a spoiled kid you are. Could you imagine a child having that attitude to his father? That’s a child that needs discipline. God holds you to HIS standard and if you break it, he will punish YOU, and not the other way around.

And the reason why I would say people are wrong if they are bioterrorists is because they are not God, so therefore they are not in the position to judge and administer that justice, while God IS in that position, and he KNOWS all things, which means he makes judgments based on true wisdom. People on the other hand do not have that perfect knowledge.

However if God TELLS a person to carry out his justice, that is to say God uses them has his club of justice, it is then justified what that person does. But if they do it by themselves apart from God’s direction, then it is of the devil.

???????? You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

To you it don’t, to me it does make sense. Tell me why it don’t make sense to you
“If I seen an organism macro evolve right before my eyes, I would believe it, and on top of it, I would call it magical that it happened. Unless God would have done it, then it would not have been magical.”

It's easy to say that when you have no idea what "macro evolve" means. Curious...what do you think it means?

I am getting tired of people thinking I don’t understand there belief. They think me disagreeing with the belief = me not understanding the belief. Now I will give them this that SOMETIMES this is the case, people disagree with stuff they don’t understand. But in this case, I understand macro evolution and I still disagree with it.

Macro evolution is big changes over much periods of time. Another way of putting it is like this, small changes over much period of time, equals out to be big changes in comparison to the first organism.

I understand it, but I disagree with it, I believe it is a fantasy.

(Beneficial mutation) Increase in life span and limited tumor growth

Evolution of resistance in HIV

(Beneficial mutation) Resistance in weeds

(Beneficial mutation) Resistance to male sex pathogen

Gene duplication = morphological variation in tomatoes

Direct observation of horizontal gene transfer

Rapid evolution of structures in introduced lizards

We could go on and on almost forever, but you get the point (maybe). All we've seen is evolution...evolution of new traits, abilities, and even species:

Finches

Fruit flies

Fruit Flies

...and so on and so on.

So how do new traits come about? The evolve. How do new species come about? They evolve. How do new genetic sequences come about? They evolve.

I disagree. New information does not come about by mutations, if anything it’s a loss of information, or a mix up of information.

Notice anything? Where's the direct observation of your god creating anything?

Where’s the direct observation of macro evolution?

So when we ask ourselves: How did things come about in the past, which is the more logical inference, evolution (which is all we've seen) or creation by your god (which we've never seen)?

So when we ask ourselves: How did things come about in the past, which is the more logical inference, creation (which is all we’ve seen by design) or macro evolution (which we’ve never seen).

Two can play at that game, can’t they?

I just did. You claimed that everything in biology is vital and complex, and I just showed you multiple observed cases of biological traits and species coming about via evolution.

You just did? No you didn’t. You did not account for how vitally complex systems can come about without a designer. You can think that to yourself if you want but you haven’t.

Explain to me how your links actually proved it? Because seriously, I don’t see how they have.

To make it simple, explain how ONE of the links proved it.

 

[Jollybear]

But the biochemical pathways and such that allow pathogens to cause disease weren't all there to begin with. They had to come from somewhere, and if Satan can't create, then under your belief the only alternative is your god intentionally creating those things with the express purpose of causing disease.

There is a difference between creating and inventing. Scientists cannot create anything, but they can invent machines by using stuff that is already created. Machines can be invented for good or bad purposes. Likewise, Satan cannot create, but he can invent things from using and manipulating things that are already created.

If a person did that, we call them a bioterrorist and lock them up. But you hold your god to a lower standard of ethics than people.

Wow, you got it all backwards. You hold God to YOUR standards, and you then try to PUNISH him if he breaks them. Wow, what a spoiled kid you are. Could you imagine a child having that attitude to his father? That’s a child that needs discipline. God holds you to HIS standard and if you break it, he will punish YOU, and not the other way around.

And the reason why I would say people are wrong if they are bioterrorists is because they are not God, so therefore they are not in the position to judge and administer that justice, while God IS in that position, and he KNOWS all things, which means he makes judgments based on true wisdom. People on the other hand do not have that perfect knowledge.

However if God TELLS a person to carry out his justice, that is to say God uses them has his club of justice, it is then justified what that person does. But if they do it by themselves apart from God’s direction, then it is of the devil.

???????? You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

To you it don’t, to me it does make sense. Tell me why it don’t make sense to you
“If I seen an organism macro evolve right before my eyes, I would believe it, and on top of it, I would call it magical that it happened. Unless God would have done it, then it would not have been magical.”

It's easy to say that when you have no idea what "macro evolve" means. Curious...what do you think it means?

I am getting tired of people thinking I don’t understand there belief. They think me disagreeing with the belief = me not understanding the belief. Now I will give them this that SOMETIMES this is the case, people disagree with stuff they don’t understand. But in this case, I understand macro evolution and I still disagree with it.

Macro evolution is big changes over much periods of time. Another way of putting it is like this, small changes over much period of time, equals out to be big changes in comparison to the first organism.

I understand it, but I disagree with it, I believe it is a fantasy.

(Beneficial mutation) Increase in life span and limited tumor growth

Evolution of resistance in HIV

(Beneficial mutation) Resistance in weeds

(Beneficial mutation) Resistance to male sex pathogen

Gene duplication = morphological variation in tomatoes

Direct observation of horizontal gene transfer

Rapid evolution of structures in introduced lizards

We could go on and on almost forever, but you get the point (maybe). All we've seen is evolution...evolution of new traits, abilities, and even species:

Finches

Fruit flies

Fruit Flies

...and so on and so on.

So how do new traits come about? The evolve. How do new species come about? They evolve. How do new genetic sequences come about? They evolve.

I disagree. New information does not come about by mutations, if anything it’s a loss of information, or a mix up of information.

Notice anything? Where's the direct observation of your god creating anything?

Where’s the direct observation of macro evolution?

So when we ask ourselves: How did things come about in the past, which is the more logical inference, evolution (which is all we've seen) or creation by your god (which we've never seen)?

So when we ask ourselves: How did things come about in the past, which is the more logical inference, creation (which is all we’ve seen by design) or macro evolution (which we’ve never seen).

Two can play at that game, can’t they?

I just did. You claimed that everything in biology is vital and complex, and I just showed you multiple observed cases of biological traits and species coming about via evolution.

You just did? No you didn’t. You did not account for how vitally complex systems can come about without a designer. You can think that to yourself if you want but you haven’t.

Explain to me how your links actually proved it? Because seriously, I don’t see how they have.

To make it simple, explain how ONE of the links proved it.

 

[Jollybear]

Ah, so you've backpedaled to "how did life first start". Ok, for the sake of argument, I'm perfectly willing to grant you that a god zap-poofed the very first self-replicating organisms onto earth 3.8 billion years ago.

Problem solved.

Ok, if you grant me that, then the debate is over then. Because I am debating how there MUST be a God because of complex design. So if you already granted me this, great, you must now be a believer in God? Also by granting me this, you have shown that you cannot find a natural cause outside a designer God to create life.

Also by granting that this God created life, that shows this God is NOT DEISTIC, but rather THEISTIC, for it shows he cares about life.

But the debate is not over with evelyonian yet.

Chance? Who said anything about "chance"? All the hypotheses about the origins of life revolve around chemistry. Do you honestly think chemistry occurs by chance?

No, I don’t believe in chance, I was asking you if you did. And if you don’t, then how did life start? God? Ok, great, debate is over then. You just threw in the towel.

So you do think chemistry occurs by chance? Really?

No, I was asking you “chance or intelligence”? which one? How did life start?

 

[Jollybear]

DeitySlayer

I would explain about abiogenesis, vesicles, nucleotides, polymerization, replication, and so on...but I kind of get the feeling it would be lost on you.

Well then that just means you need to do a good job at explaining it then, right?

Concerning evolution from a common ancestor...we have observed changes in species, e.g. MRSA, fruit flies, bacteria which gained the ability to digest nylon (note that nylon is not found in nature and so this is NEW genetic information, not recycled/adapted old information). Saying that evolution from a common ancestor is impossible in light of this information is like saying you can walk from your doorstep to your front gate, but you can't walk from your doorstep to the bus-stop.

No new information comes about from mutations. A loss of information happens.

Here is a quote I read from a creation perspective and it puts it quite well

“The DNA in the chromosomes is incredibly complex, yet it can be subject to accidental alterations or mutations. Experiments have shown that the system reproduces itself so accurately, that in bacteria at least, only one error occurs in every 10,000 times the cells divide. Evolution theory claims that these mutations are the backbone of change with time. However observations of presently occurring mutations indicate that this cannot be so. To take one example, haemoglobin (that’s a molecule found in blood) has over 300 known mutants, yet not one has turned out to be helpful for human survival. This includes the haemoglobin mutation associated with sickle cell anemia. Despite the fact that sickle cell anemia sufferers are more resistant to malaria, they are also subject to ‘growth impairment, susceptibility to infection, and chronic organ damage due to repeated vaso-occlusive episodes’.”

So in other words, the good mutation is good in one sense, but bad in another sense. So when evolutionists say it’s good, but don’t tell you that it’s bad in the other sense, it’s either misleading, or purposely deceptive.

And I don’t like that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Look Jolly.
I have explained over and over and over ad nausium about the lack of necessity for cause at both the quantum level and beyond the universe.
I don't know how to simplify it further for you.
But let me just say this.
I have faith that their is a God. Science has not or can not verify this. My faith does not depend on making up evidence or being trapped into special pleading. I do not purposefully remain in ignorance of the laws of nature, and their implications, in order to keep my faith.
I honestly believe that the only way to come to any understanding of God is to fully and honestly understand every aspect of this universe.
On the other side of the issue is you.
You have stated in the past that if you find that the literal interpretation of Genesis is found to be false, you will lose faith in the entire Bible. You have argued over and over, using special pleading, that you can prove God. Your very statements and weak apologetics show that you are willing to ignore and/or twist our scientific knowledge of the universe and it's laws in order to keep your faith in BibleGod.
Your faith is so weak that you fear actual knowledge.


I am done with this thread and this conversation with you as it is going nowhere.
-TW-

 

[DeitySlayer]

Well then that just means you need to do a good job at explaining it then, right?

Look, Jollybear, people have explained evolution to you countless times, exemplifying their statements through fossils and genetic evidence, and yet you continually miss the point and conclusion. You still respond with random answers like 'how is a snowflake not designed?' And you want me to explain abiogenesis to you?

No new information comes about from mutations. A loss of information happens.

Ah, what about the case where scientists isolated bacteria in an environment which contained nothing but nylon, a man-made and very recent material? The bacteria were able to evolve and digest this nylon for its chemical energy. That is new information.

Here is a quote I read from a creation perspective and it puts it quite well

So in other words, the good mutation is good in one sense, but bad in another sense. So when evolutionists say it’s good, but don’t tell you that it’s bad in the other sense, it’s either misleading, or purposely deceptive.

And I don’t like that.

Some mutations will have an upside and a downside. Scientists will only call it 'good' if the upside is bigger. I have never heard anyone claim that sickle-cell anaemia is a good mutation, for that reason. Explain to me, for example, why cutaneous breathing would be bad? Or stronger fins?

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Look Jolly.
I have explained over and over and over ad nausium about the lack of necessity for cause at both the quantum level and beyond the universe.

Yea and I explained to you over and over ad nausium why your wrong and you don’t address my argument against what you said.

So, your wrong, or, you did a bad job.

I don't know how to simplify it further for you.

Correction, YOU CANNOT simplify it further, because your wrong. You cannot answer my argument because….your wrong.

But let me just say this.
I have faith that their is a God.

WHY do you have faith there is a God?

Science has not or can not verify this.

Science (facts) also cannot verify gravity in a tangible way either, but it can still show evidence for gravity. Science cannot directly verify God tangibly but it can verify detections of design and information in nature, and those things are the hallmark of intelligence, yes it is.

I don’t care what you say, yes it is. And I am HONESTLY saying that.

My faith does not depend on making up evidence or being trapped into special pleading.

Are you implying I am making up evidence, thus being dishonest? If so, your wrong, and if you got to resort to this, that just shows how WEAK your case is. And it also shows you doing a bad job at the debate too.

I do not purposefully remain in ignorance of the laws of nature, and their implications, in order to keep my faith.

I don’t willfully remain in ignorance either of the laws of nature. But do the laws of nature, are they governed by chance or intelligence? How did the laws of nature come to be?

I honestly believe that the only way to come to any understanding of God is to fully and honestly understand every aspect of this universe.

I agree partly.

On the other side of the issue is you.
You have stated in the past that if you find that the literal interpretation of Genesis is found to be false, you will lose faith in the entire Bible.

Careful there now, I did not say I would lose faith in the entire bible, I said only in genesis story of creation.

You have argued over and over, using special pleading, that you can prove God. Your very statements and weak apologetics show that you are willing to ignore and/or twist our scientific knowledge of the universe and it's laws in order to keep your faith in BibleGod.

Bull crap, stop asserting stuff and state where and why I twisted it. I could say your twisting stuff, two can play at that game, does not help anything. So why don’t you contribute to helping the issue instead of ticking your opponent off?

Your faith is so weak that you fear actual knowledge.

This is a judgment that you don’t know is true, and I know it is false at that. I don’t fear knowledge, and again, two can play at that game, I could say you fear knowledge of God.

Doesn’t help anything does it mr wise guy! You bet it don’t help crap.

So unless you want to be helpful, then shut up and get lost.

I am done with this thread and this conversation with you as it is going nowhere.
-TW-

Right, because you don’t believe in PROGRESSIVE debate or discussion. Too bad there are folks like you.

Farewell.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Science (facts) also cannot verify gravity in a tangible way either, but it can still show evidence for gravity. Science cannot directly verify God tangibly but it can verify detections of design and information in nature, and those things are the hallmark of intelligence, yes it is.

I don’t care what you say, yes it is. And I am HONESTLY saying that.



Are you implying I am making up evidence, thus being dishonest? If so, your wrong, and if you got to resort to this, that just shows how WEAK your case is. And it also shows you doing a bad job at the debate too.



I don’t willfully remain in ignorance either of the laws of nature. But do the laws of nature, are they governed by chance or intelligence? How did the laws of nature come to be?




I agree partly.



Careful there now, I did not say I would lose faith in the entire bible, I said only in genesis story of creation.



Bull crap, stop asserting stuff and state where and why I twisted it. I could say your twisting stuff, two can play at that game, does not help anything. So why don’t you contribute to helping the issue instead of ticking your opponent off?



This is a judgment that you don’t know is true, and I know it is false at that. I don’t fear knowledge, and again, two can play at that game, I could say you fear knowledge of God.

Doesn’t help anything does it mr wise guy! You bet it don’t help crap.

So unless you want to be helpful, then shut up and get lost.




Right, because you don’t believe in PROGRESSIVE debate or discussion. Too bad there are folks like you.

Farewell.

Juvenile argument. 'Yes it is' doesn't prove anything, nor does shooting back exactly what you accused the other person of. Numerous people have explained how the design is apparent and explained the mechanisms behind this excellently. The sticking point here is not their explanations, but your obstinacy.

 

[McBell]

This thread gets loads more intelligent with Jollybear on ignore.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, more like a CODE of information. If I remember correctly from an article I read, kinda like a computer code of information in a hard drive.

Also just because it has three letters GCA does not mean it’s not information, remember, it’s not English, it’s a different KIND of information or language.

But my point is, if it’s not information, why call it information? Or what is the difference between information and…information?

I just want to know what you consider information.

Has a scientist actually taken the time to look at the HUGE encyclopedia of the DNA? Of course not, it’s too big.

Actually yes we have.
The Human Genome Project for example... and the list of species we have the complete DNA encyclopedia for is growing every year.

The scroll of DNA is the length from here to the moon many times over. So how is he to know if GCAGCC was added? Is he counting? Or am I just misunderstanding the whole thing? If so, please educate me.

Yup, we can count. We do it by breaking the DNA up into "chapters" and then reading those and putting them back together again. Most of the time to look for changes, we just compare "chapters" or specific genes.

I’ll just make the first one longer then GCA, ok, here we go “GCACAG” now a mutation comes along let’s say and turns it to I don’t know let’s say “GCGACG” it did not ADD anything, it just scrambled a letter.

that particular mutation did add any new "information" but there are mutations called duplications that would. You would go from GCACAG to GCACAGCAG and this would make something totally new because of the new information.
What you did is did change somethings function!
By changing that one letter you added the amino acid Serine instead of Glutamine and totally changed the information and thus the function of what would be made.

Kinda like this, if I were to say in English “hello” then it gets scrambled to “holle”

this is why I hate the language analogy... it's very misleading.
What you did is more like changing "rain" to "rein"... you totally change the meaning of the word (keeping it useful) by simply changing a single letter.

Also if I may add, even if your correct that DNA WORDS are being added to GCA to become “GCAGCC” still that does not necessarily mean adding more information, it could mean just adding more words.

Except that DNA isn't anything like words. And adding more "DNA WORDS" totally changes the information held by the DNA and what it can produce.

For instance

“today I got up and cooked 4 eggs” and now watch this I will speak the SAME information, I am not ADDING information, I am just adding an extra word, but it does not change the information “today I got up and fried 4 eggs” or I could say it like this “today I got up out of bed and cooked 4 eggs”.

Except that your example would actually change the sentence to this: "today I got up out of bed and went for a jog".

The information is the SAME. Yea, a few more words, but that is not MORE information, because it’s still informing of the same thing.

but it isn't information of the same thing...you are now making something totally new. This is why I hate the word analogy so much.. it is totally bogus and only makes people get the wrong idea.

The problem with this is it’s very subjective bones. Actually some of them are not subjective, some look as if they would be fully human and some fully ape and some are subjective. Does that mean that the subjective ones are transitions between human and ape? Not really, it would only mean that we don’t know what they would look like if they had flesh on their face; after all, it’s decayed. One would have to interpret based on their imagination. And you and I both know that imagination is not proof.

actually we can do pretty decent reconstructions just like forensic science does, based on the muscle scar marks and other easy to figure out facts.

Also some bones can be mutated bones of either ape or human, thus making it appear as something we don’t know off. I mean I would like to see many different modern human skulls of variations both healthy and mutated and have them lined up to compare with these and just see how similar they all are. And also to have modern apes and gorillas both healthy and mutated lined up as well for comparison.

There are no diseases or accidents that can reproduce these in either human or ape. That is why they are not included.

No, no, no, I accept PRESENT scientific observations, that deals with genetics, taxonomy, morphology and paleontology. But, those observed facts have to be interpreted. I challenge the interpretation of macro evolution and the evolution of the cosmos and atheistic origins. That is what I challenge.

Facts speak for themselves.

Metaphors are still good, they help people understand things that they cannot identify with. They are pretty good actually, in my book, they are VERY good. And if you know your subject well, you can apply a good metaphor to teach it, and if it is the right metaphor, it won’t be misinterpreted and if it is, then you just correct or help give understanding to the person better. To me that is the hallmark of a good teacher.

Yes, but bad metaphors do more harm than good. Like the "DNA WORD" metaphor. All it does is promote confusion by making you misunderstand how DNA functions. I would much rather actually teach you about DNA than fill your head with false ideas.

Ok, why is this doubled?

Because now you have twice as much...
extra copies produce extra gene products... So now instead of making one protein, now it makes two... and now one of the copies can change without harming the organism so you can not only make the old protein but now you can also make a totally new one.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Ok, so let me verify back to see if I understand you correctly. Some fish can both breathe on land and in the water?

Yup... quite a few, but they aren't always very good at it.

What if we put a fish that can ONLY BREATH IN WATER on dry land, it will die right? Or what if we put some kind of creature that cannot breath in water, in water, it will die right? Of course right.

So, how do you know that some fish that can breathe both on land and in water were not ALWAYS like that from scratch?

Because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support that idea.

And even if they were not like that from scratch, tell me now what would make this fish breather on land and water change to something else that can only breath on land ALONE now?

Because keeping the ability to breath in the water severely limits where you can go on land. Amphibians can't live in a dry place, but a lizard can. Bugs did the same thing... they gave up their aquatic gills (except for some larval stages) in favor or a breathing system that lets them live anywhere on land.

I don’t get it?

They were adapting to take advantage of places where their predators couldn't follow them, but where they could still find food. And because there weren't a lot of other fish there, they didn't have a lot of competition for that food.

wa:do

 

[The_Evelyonian]

This thread gets loads more intelligent with Jollybear on ignore.

I'm getting close, believe me.

 

[Gunfingers]

I've been there for a while. It's GREAT!

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Ok, do you have a picture or a video that we can actually SEE gravity with the NAKED EYE? Yes or no? Not a simulation, actual footage? And not any EFFECTS gravity HAS on objects, but ACTUAL gravity SEEN itself? Do you have that?

The Einstein Cross. The light from a single quasar is distorted as it passes through the gravitational field of a foreground galaxy.

I already told you why I deny the pink unicorn and the spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot. I told you why and I keep telling you why and you keep ignoring my reason.

You misunderstood.

You asked how I can deny something even though I don't know for certain that it's wrong. That's why I brought up the FSM and Co. Simply because we don't know an idea is wrong is no reason to assume it's right.

Also, simply because we can't prove something isn't there is no reason to even entertain the possibility that it is.

If that is how you want to debate, well, by the standards of debate, you lost.

"...and then flies back to its own flock to declare victory."

Yes, the plausible reason for something being eternal and something being a first cause is because something coming from NOTHING is LEAST plausible.

This is a variation of the argument from personal incredulity.

"I can't understand how Theory A accounts for Phenomenon X, therefore Theory B must be right."

"The idea of the Universe coming from nothing seems implausible to me, therefore god must have done it."

I told you already, there is only 6 views on the table, as much as you don’t like any of them, ONE of them is more plausible then the rest of them.

So you say.

What conditions does my view have to meet?

Well, first off we have to establish what you're trying to prove. I'm not even sure of what that is anymore.

True science and philosophy are different, but the field of science mixes them a lot. Yes, they do.

Some Scientists do, yes. However you cannot judge the whole based on the actions of a few.

Science is facts; philosophy is explaining or interpreting those facts.

Look up the scientific method.

Says you, but why do you think your right about that? God is complex, but he is not designed, the universe is complex and is the only thing that is designed. There is one thing that is complex and is not designed, it’s God. There has to be something that is eternal and there has to be a first cause.

You still don't see the flaw, do you?

You cannot say complexity = design and then create a loophole. The entire thing falls apart when you do.

"Complexity is evidence of design."
"And you believe god is complex?"
"Yes."
"So what designed god?"
Nothing, god wasn't created or designed."
"So then how is complexity evidence of design? You just said yourself that god is complex but not designed."
"Well, there had to be a first cause."
"Irrelevant. Either complexity is evidence of design or it isn't. So, which is it?"

You cannot make the statement that complexity is evidence of design and then have a loophole. Either complexity is designed or it isn't, it's black and white. To simply say, "All complexity except X is designed." takes your statement from evidence to special pleading.

You not only can't say that all complexity other than god is designed but, as long as you hold that god is both complex and uncreated, you really can't say that ANY complexity is evidence of design because you have a god who proves the contrary.

No matter how you approach it, your loophole is your undoing.

Yes I say, BECAUSE if SOMETHING is not eternal, then the universe came from NOTHING for no reason (is that what you believe?). Also if there is not a FIRST cause, then the eternal something would have an infinite regression of events, thus all events would never happen, or there would be no motion.

Or, the Universe is the result of a process that we don't yet understand.

"We don't know." =/= "God did it."

How do you deal with that? Oh, I know, you DON&#8217;T deal with it, you dust it under the rug. And then shout &#8220;where is the evidence, where is the evidence&#8221; < those words are becoming quite meaningless.

Oh, I know evidence means nothing to you. You've proven that quite conclusively.

Look, there is no WAY OUT FOR YOU. You&#8217;re hemmed in on EVERY side with all the options on the table.

Except for the fact that I'm not the one who's hemmed in. I'm not making a claim as to the origin of the Universe. All I'm saying is that your argument from complexity cannnot stand, that's all.

There is no 7the view and never will be. I don&#8217;t just say that now as a prediction, I say it as a fact, because there is NO CONCIEVABLE way for there to BE a seventh.

So, you do in fact claim omniscience then?

If you say God did not do it, nor mindless eternal energy, nor nothing, nor is the universe an illusion, nor did it make itself, nor was it just always here, then there is NOTHING ELSE LEFT.

Why do you have such difficulty accepting that fact that we just don't know for certain? You demand that, if we don't know for certain, then we must pick the most plausible cause. However, whenever we try to tell you that the cause you've picked is implausible, you simply declare that we are wrong and you are right.

You can&#8217;t say there will be a 7th in the future, there is NOTHING else LEFT. Nothing else. There is no other SIDE or POINT or angle to cover, there is NOTHING left.

Except for the one (or more) that you haven't thought of yet.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

No, I am actually serious, I know it sounds strange, but for real, how do you know that you don’t know the truth?

I do know the truth. The truth is, I don't know how the universe got here. I know that I know that because I know it.

You act like you own the subject. It’s you that does not understand something here, not me. A reason applies for the weirdness that goes on in the quantum level.

You’re wrong.

You continue to prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.

We're used to an ordered reality. The quantum realm is anything but ordered. It's a frenzied and chaotic place. The quantum reality doesn't operate like ours does. You can't predict cause. You can't predict effect. You can't show that cause and effect even apply on the quantum scale.

No, not as a general rule. But probably most times, because macro evolution, the big bang and all of that stuff are inferences, and that is based on philosophy.

Macroevolution and the Big Bang are based on observation and verifiable evidence. They are anything but philosophy.

I get your point and I agree with it. Science is facts, philosophy is a means to explain the facts. Macro evolution is not science, it is philosophy mixed with science, yes it is, because it is inferred. Funny thing is, Jose_Fly even admitted it was inferred and he believes it.

Well, good for Jose_Fly, if he indeed said that macroevolution is just an inference then he's misinformed. Macroevolution can be shown in the fossil record, the genetic code of every living thing, and observed in bacteria and other forms of life.

We've seen it, tested it, and verified it.

Depends on what you mean by all powerful. God is not powerful enough to make himself none existent, if that is what you mean. But he is all powerful to create and manipulate the laws he created and thus do miracles.

Again it depends on what you mean by all knowing. He does not know what it is like to actually sin, he does not know what we will choose, if he did then we would have no free will. He knows all things that can be known.

Yes, but it depends on how you detail what you mean by “all” knowing or “all” powerful. Define “all” for me?

So, god has limits?

He doesn't know before hand what someone will do in a given situation, therefore he is not omniscient.

His power has limits, therefore he is not omnipotent.

Infinite: having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude.

Therefore, by your own admission, god is finite and, by your own standards, cannot be responsible for creation.

Care to try again?

There you go saying whatever that means and I explained it. Finite means contained in space, infinite means space less, not contained. An image is finite, a body is finite. My God is infinite.

Well, we just established that your god has limits, therefore, he's not infinite. Apparently, he is finite and no higher or better than Baal, Zeus, Odin, or any of the other superfriends.

Therefore finite gods are not above him and are thus created beings.

So, I'll ask again, what created god?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The perhaps part is not a perhaps, it&#8217;s a SURE deal, you are suicidal when it comes to this gamble. Because you see, the odds are NOT heavily stacked against god, the odds are heavily FOR his existence. Also if you&#8217;re going to stick in the &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; position, then you cannot be acting like you are so SURE he is not there. It&#8217;s NOT a safe assumption, there are only 6 views on the table, there is no 7, there cannot be a 7 and I told you why. Your not making a SAFE assumption. Even if your assumption were to be correct, it&#8217;s still not a SAFE one because there is only 6 views on the table and you don&#8217;t know if your assumption is correct or not, therefore it&#8217;s not safe. That is the biggest delusion of all, is going through life care free and unconcerned. I am not being an advocate to be a worry wort either and try to control things we can&#8217;t, I am simply saying there should be more concern and reverence for the issue.

I'm sorry but I have no concern or reverence for fairy tales or people's imaginary friends.

I didn&#8217;t ask you if you would expect him to make sense or not. I asked you
&#8220;And what if he gave you that philosophical level of evidence, what would you tell him then? Would you refuse to address those SAME arguments that you refuse to address to me?&#8221;

I am making an argument based on assuming that I am right for the moment, if you die and find out I am right and he gave you this same philosophical evidence for his existence, what would you tell him, how would you address that evidence?

What would you say to it?

Again, if there were a god, I would not expect him to use the arguments you have. I would expect god to make sense.

What would it take for you to believe you were not hallucinating?

I don't know. Perhaps if he left a mark on me that others could see and that couldn't be explained away naturally.

If God would offer you parole, THEN would you be concerned? Concern would simply show him that you care about his authority and about your own soul. That is what concern would be good for. Now true, if he offered no parole, then concern would do not an ounce of good, your right there. But that is not my question, I am saying IF he offered parole, what would you feel then?

If god decided to send me to hell but then offered me a chance at redemption I would ask him what he wanted me to do.

He hides himself from those who accept gravity as having evidence and then in there next breath refuse to realize that the evidence for his existence is just as real as the evidence for the existence of gravity. Those who do that, he hides himself from them, and the reason why is because that is just absolutely foolish. Because gravity is NOT tangible, and even if it were, we have no evidence that it IS tangible. You can&#8217;t see it, nor touch it.

Good, you've given me something else to use against god.

"Why didn't you believe in Me?"
"Why did you take such efforts to hide yourself?"

Yea, and there are many people who have &#8220;experienced&#8221; God, including myself, so we have trust (faith) in him based on the experience and based on history and on a philosophical level as well.

Look up the Forer Effect

Plus, trust is not necessarily always based on past experience. For instance, when I first meet people I give them my trust right away, they don&#8217;t have to earn my trust at all (now that does not mean I am going to be nieve and stupid either) but if they do anything to break that trust, THEN they have to EARN it back. If they don&#8217;t, then I stay away from them.

Still, you don't need faith to know that those other people actually exist.

Again, there is evidence; it&#8217;s just not tangible, like gravity. You can say all you want gravity is tangible, you&#8217;re wrong, simply wrong. You can&#8217;t see it, touch it or smell it.

Plus if you want to insist your basing it on intellectual honesty, well I am also intellectually honest and I believe he exists. So will you then say I am intellectually dishonest? Or intellectual weak?

Not my call to make. I know why I don't believe. I have no idea why you believe.

No, wrong, it&#8217;s something you WON&#8217;T do.

Yes you can, because your mind does not FORCE you to choose something, YOU are the one who chooses what you do. If a thought comes into my head to eat ice cream, is my mind forcing me to go eat it? Of course not, I have my own will, I can say &#8220;the heck with you, I am not eating ice cream&#8221;. Come on now, you know what I am talking about. Your mind can do whatever it wants to do, you don&#8217;t have to FOLLOW IT. You have your own choice. It don&#8217;t choose for you. Seriously, that&#8217;s like saying &#8220;well I eat the ice cream, but my hand and my lips made me do it&#8221; FOOLISHNESS!

Oh, so you don&#8217;t have a choice or free will then? This is absolute nonsense. Atheists and agnostics never cease to amaze me with how far they will go in believing one delusion after another one and then another one on top of it again and again and then yet another.

Ok, after being absolutely amazed at your statement, I have to recover myself and go on the objective now. Why do you have no choice to believe in what you do? I gauss that means you have no choice in believing macro evolution and believing in the &#8220;I don&#8217;t know position&#8221; too huh? I gauss I also had no choice in believing in God you would say? Or do I have a choice, but you don&#8217;t?

Come on now I want some answers to these questions, or will you dismiss them like most of my questions and arguments?

Again, believing isn't something you can make yourself do. If you think otherwise then I challenge you to believe that your name is Ariel Pennyfeather and you are from Mars. If you succeed then head for the nearest psych ward.

I'll respond to the rest later. I have other things to do right now.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Yes, I see what you mean, and it would be a valid point, BUT&#8230;BUT&#8230;being wrong in one area does not make it wrong in ALL areas.

See what I mean? &#8220;what else could it be wrong about&#8221;? yea, you could ask that question, and it be alright to ask it, but the question does not make ALL of it wrong.

It certainly throws the book's trustworthiness into doubt.

No, creating something with the appearance of maturity is not intentionally creating the evidence for it to look old, because you see, he don&#8217;t CARE if it looked old or not, he just wanted to create it with a maturity of appearance.

So, god doesn't care if someone sees that the earth looks old and their faith is damaged or even destroyed because of it?

Like saying, what came first the chicken or the egg? Well, God does the chicken. The chicken looks old, but, he did the chicken first, was he concerned that it looked old or not, no, he did not care about that. But by doing the chicken first, it will look old, but his intention was to create it with maturity and start the process that way. So that is not being deceptive at all.

Right. See he's only telling us one thing and giving us evidence for another. So, really, how can THAT be labeled decepti....oh, wait.

Again you&#8217;re taking no responsibility and that is not right and it will work against you if I am right.

So, if I am to take responsibility for my mistakes then why can god not take responsibility for his?

If god created the world to look older than it is and someone slips because of that, how is that their fault? Because they didn't take the word of a bronze age story book over what they could actually see?

God, it reminds me of that Groucho Marx quote, "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

See, You're saying that I should just ignore whatever science says and walk by faith. However, if god made us in his image then what does that say about the matter? Does god walk by faith?

If god gave me a brain capable of reason and critical thinking then why am I to be blamed for using it? Am I to be condemned for using the best tool that I was given? Am I to be punished and tortured throughout all of the ages of eternity simply because I reached the wrong conclusion? If that is the case then what does that say of god's love or mercy?

"Well, you made a mistake so to hell with you."

What kind of father sits on high and laughs as his children burn?

Because he made it in its matured state, he did not make it through a bang over billions of years of cosmic messy evolution.

No, he just placed all of the evidence for those things.

"Them ain't dinosaur bones, son. The devil done put them there to test yer faith."

If he made it in it&#8217;s matured state, then it&#8217;s going to LOOK OLD.

So, god only gave the earth a deceptive appearance of age and then didn't bother to warn anyone ahead of time about it. He just said, "I made it 6000 years ago, take my word for it."

"Who are you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

Plus all your dating methods are not perfect as you think they are.

Do you have any idea how severely the results would have to be skewed in order to match up with the bible? There are dozens of different, independent methods for determining somethings age, not just one or two, and each of these methods points to an old earth. Each method would have to be skewed in different, massive ways in order to point to a 6000 year old planet. Are we to believe that each and every one of numerous dating methods used are somehow universally wrong and one bronze age book is right.

Jollybear, come on, you claim to be intellectually honest. You have to be honest with yourself here.

That is probably something he would tell you.

So, again you claim to know the mind of god.

Ok, forget the brown or blue eyes. I am lying that I have NEVER debated with Evelyonian. < now you know that this sentence was not a TRUE lie, but was the actual truth. In the same way, God told you he made it in six days. He is not being deceptive. My NEW analogy works just fine, forget the brown or blue eye part of it.

If I said, "I have never debated with Jollybear." and someone looked over all of my posts and saw that I have indeed debated with you then what would that tell them.

The book says the world is 6000 years old. The physical evidence says otherwise. This is not a difficult concept.

Imperfect dating methods. That&#8217;s not proof.

Yes, what rational person in this modern world of ours would refer to mountains of extraordinarily powerful evidence as "proof"?

Also he gave you his word, if you don&#8217;t believe him, then you&#8217;re calling him a liar. That&#8217;s your fault. Now if you seriously THOUGHT his word MEANT it was old (old earth interpretation of genesis) then that is a different story. But if you down right call him a liar, you&#8217;re in hot water.

Yes, it's all my fault for believing what I can actually see instead of the ancient scribblings of a remote desert tribe. Oh, woe is me!