Do you think there is a God? If so, why?

[Apostle John]

The joke is that you believe your god without the slightest hint of objective evidence with nothing but blind faith and you reject evolution despite the endless objective evidence that supports it. It's kind of comical.

Theoretical evidence is objective evidence? I bet you’re one of those comedians handed the Richard Dawkins Award but clearly untrained in science.

 

[ratiocinator]

You have no proof about mutated versions of genes just conjecture by comparing genomes.

It's not about proof - the mere fact that you use the word is evidence that you don't understand basic science.

However, the evidence is not conjecture. If you directly compare parts of the genome between species and see that one has a functioning gene and the other has an almost identical sequence and is non-functional, then you have evidence. When you can do the same thing with many, many different genes, and when you see that exactly the same difference that makes the gene non-functional appears in different species that you've found other evidence to show are closely related, then it is evidence.

These things are easily explained by common ancestors but would have to be some sort of colossal series of incredible coincidences - or deliberate deception (lying) by some designer - if not.

The statistics of different mutations is the same between humans and chimpanzees because they have existed as long, since 6000 years ago side by side. Do you get it?

Whoosh! Hilarious! You really aren't paying attention are you?

It's not the same pattern between different chimps and different humans that is the evidence. It's the comparison of the stats between different humans and those between humans and chimps. Obviously the scale it much larger because there are many more differences but the pattern is the same. This is evidence that the same process that causes mutations in humans today is the one that caused the difference between humans and chimps.

 

[ratiocinator]

Theoretical evidence is objective evidence?

It's not theoretical. More bearing false witness.

I bet you’re one of those comedians handed the Richard Dawkins Award but clearly untrained in science.

And another ad hom and an explosion of irony. "Untrained is science" says the person who has shown zero understanding of science and scientific evidence to date. You couldn't make it up.

 

[Apostle John]

However, the evidence is not conjecture. If you directly compare parts of the genome between species and see that one has a functioning gene and the other has an almost identical sequence and is non-functional, then you have evidence. When you can do the same thing with many, many different genes, and when you see that exactly the same difference that makes the gene non-functional appears in different species that you've found other evidence to show are closely related, then it is evidence.

These things are easily explained by common ancestors but would have to be some sort of colossal series of incredible coincidences - or deliberate deception (lying) by some designer - if not.

It is conjecture and assumption as the process as to why these mutations occur has not been given.

Deception is not lying by God when you have already been given His Word and ignored it.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is conjecture and assumption as the process as to why these mutations occur has not been given.

Nonsense. We already know that mutations occur and how, they go on all the time. Every single human has mutations. That there are differences in genomes is not a mystery. Your problem is that they indicate common descent, not special creation (unless the creator is a liar).

Deception is not lying by God when you have already been given His Word and ignored it.

So where is the evidence that we have been given "His Word"? Come on, I expect it to be totally objective and better than for evolution....

[Not holding breath.]

 

[Apostle John]

Nonsense. We already know that mutations occur and how, they go on all the time. Every single human has mutations. That there are differences in genomes is not a mystery. Your problem is that they indicate common descent, not special creation (unless the creator is a liar).

You have never observed a mutation happen in real time hence have no idea how it happens. Comparing genomes is an in exact science, just because some species have similarities doesn’t mean the have a common ancestor, the evidence to suggest they do is hypothetical and undemonstrated. I explained why the Creator is not a liar but you blatantly ignored that and imagine you will carry on doing that.

So where is the evidence that we have been given "His Word"? Come on, I expect it to be totally objective and better than for evolution....

[Not holding breath.]

Yes and it’s a lot better than humans evolving from apes. The Bible written over 1400 years confirmed by archaeology is exclusively objective evidence.

You will use God hating theatrics to disprove that.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is a God because stars do not make themselves. The remaining dust doesn’t coalesce to form rocks. These theoretical rocks do not collide at super high velocity to create orbiting planets, they would form dust again. Life doesn’t make itself by chemicals reacting in nature on their own without a chemist in order to grow into dna. God is the image of man in Spirit form and is the Creator. He holds the universe together according to the Bible.

Go tell that to those here who believe in evolution of the "material" kind. Maybe they think stars evolved.

 

[Apostle John]

Go tell that to those here who believe in evolution of the "material" kind. Maybe they think stars evolved.

No one has ever seen anything like a star evolve from birth and die in nature. It is only a belief.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one has ever seen anything like a star evolve from birth and die in nature. It is only a belief.

I'd love to hear the rhetorical answers and possibilities coming from @shunyadragon and those believers and adherents of the ToE.

 

[ratiocinator]

You have never observed a mutation happen in real time hence have no idea how it happens.

You really are clutching at straws now. Reproduction isn't perfect. Some errors are obvious copying problems, like duplications or missing segments, some are just changes from one base pair to another.

Do you actually have a point here. What relevance does the exact mechanism of mutation have? What do you think would actually invalidate what I've said?

Comparing genomes is an in exact science, just because some species have similarities doesn’t mean the have a common ancestor

And back we go to repeating creationist propaganda. As I have already pointed out, similarities alone are not the evidence, it's just as much about the exact nature of the differences and how we can trace those changes through different species. There is also the statistics that you continue to ignore.

the evidence to suggest they do is hypothetical and undemonstrated.

Bearing false witness again.

I explained why the Creator is not a liar but you blatantly ignored that and imagine you will carry on doing that.

Nope. If you interpret the bible story literally, then god lied. Either in the bible or in the evidence.

Yes and it’s a lot better than humans evolving from apes.

So where is it?

The Bible written over 1400 years confirmed by archaeology is exclusively objective evidence.

This is just another silly assertion. Almost all the archaeologists (and other relevant experts) in the world disagree. You have to find the very few that believe in your tiny literalist cult to get anybody to agree. So much for objectivity. And that's before we get to the contradictions in the bible itself.

You will use God hating theatrics to disprove that.

Ah, the good old "people who don't agree hate god" trope. This despite the fact that many, maybe most over history, of the people who have worked and do work on evolution, actually believe in god.

 

[F1fan]

No one. I think all texts should be read as the writer intended it to be read, because in my opinion it is the only reasonable and fair way to read.

Why? The writers did not have reason as a mental tool, nor knowledge like we do today, science for example. So how is it useful to think like an ignorant 1st century scribe and not a highly eductaed person in the 21st century? Inevitably you are trapped in modernity and rely on things the 1st century folks didn't know about. So a huge flaw in your approach.

If I would think I can twist the meanings by my whims, I could make any text mean what ever I want it to mean and in my opinion it would not be reasonable to do so.

That's what you do. You have views that differ from other believers, even though they interpret the Bible their way. Can we atheists discern if any of you people are correct? You offer nothing more than it's your belief. Who cares, you are as flawed and self-serving as the other believers. Until you can explain why your interpretation and belief is superior by presenting a factual argument, it's just your whim, and who cares? You like Coke, they like pepsi.

 

[Apostle John]

You really are clutching at straws now. Reproduction isn't perfect. Some errors are obvious copying problems, like duplications or missing segments, some are just changes from one base pair to another.

Do you actually have a point here. What relevance does the exact mechanism of mutation have? What do you think would actually invalidate what I've said?


And back we go to repeating creationist propaganda. As I have already pointed out, similarities alone are not the evidence, it's just as much about the exact nature of the differences and how we can trace those changes through different species. There is also the statistics that you continue to ignore.


Ah, the good old "people who don't agree hate god" trope. This despite the fact that many, maybe most over history, of the people who have worked and do work on evolution, actually believe in god.

Mutations don’t just happen as a result of reproduction, you are showing your ignorance here. Knowing the exact mechanism of mutations is relevant in turning evolution hypotheses into fact. Facts could and would invalidate natural selection ToE and other hypotheses.

Regarding statistics as evidence have you heard the phrase lies, damned lies and statistics? very apt in the hypothesis you describe.

Regarding your argument against the Bible, the last point I made was given exclusively to you and not any Christian that may have worked on evolution. Why do you try to falsify the evidence of the Bible if it is not that you hate God like most militant atheists. God and the Bible do not get in the way of scientific discoveries only ethics do.

 

[ratiocinator]

Mutations don’t just happen as a result of reproduction, you are showing your ignorance here.

Oh really? Funny how you so often tell people they are wrong or ignorant but never actually point out how or why or reference any evidence to back up your assertions.

Knowing the exact mechanism of mutations is relevant in turning evolution hypotheses into fact.

Another bare assertion. In what way?

Facts could and would invalidate natural selection ToE and other hypotheses.

And another. How, exactly? I can't see any possible mechanism for mutation that would have the slightest affect on natural selection, which works on variation regardless of its source. But do enlighten me, please (not holding my breath again).

Regarding statistics as evidence have you heard the phrase lies, damned lies and statistics? very apt in the hypothesis you describe.

A trite phrase and another bare assertion. You haven't addressed the evidence.

Why do you try to falsify the evidence of the Bible...

What evidence? You haven't pointed at any. It's a disjointed and incoherent collection of old books. What relevance does it have to modern science?

...if it is not that you hate God like most militant atheists.

How on earth do you hate something that you don't regard as real? You're not making any sense.

I'm still waiting for the slightest shred of objective evidence from the bible (or anywhere else, for that matter) for your magic creation. Still waiting for anything but bare assertions that challenge the evidence I provided to you for evolution.

So predictable.

 

[Apostle John]

Oh really? Funny how you so often tell people they are wrong or ignorant but never actually point out how or why or reference any evidence to back up your assertions.

Sorry, I thought you would go look it up once pointed out:-

NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms.

The exact mechanism of mutations, if found, would be facts. Natural selection is just a hypothesis. Facts have the potential to disprove hypotheses. Natural selection by variation is a very vague term, like asserting reproduction of a couple in a different environment produces different offspring, it is meaningless.

The rest of your post is the usual empty responses to concise answers I already gave to evade questions I later asked.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one has ever seen anything like a star evolve from birth and die in nature. It is only a belief.

@shunyadragon ? What do you think. Do stars evolve? Please.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sorry, I thought you would go look it up once pointed out:-

NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms.

Which is pretty much what I said.

Of course the only mutations relevant to evolution are heritable ones to germline cells, which often happen during reproduction.

The exact mechanism of mutations, if found, would be facts.

Well, yes, but not useful facts in the context of this discussion because it doesn't really matter.

Natural selection is just a hypothesis.

False. It is an observed fact (e.g. classic peppered moth example - the associated mutation has now been identified too) and it's a mechanism that is very nearly a truism. If it didn't happen, that would require an explanation. Not even most creationists are daft enough to try to deny that natural selection happens.

Facts have the potential to disprove hypotheses.

Even if natural selection was a hypothesis, which it isn't, only relevant facts can disprove hypotheses. What causes mutations is simply irrelevant to natural selection.

Natural selection by variation is a very vague term, like asserting reproduction of a couple in a different environment produces different offspring, it is meaningless.

You really don't have the first hint of a clue, do you? "Natural selection by variation" is nonsense. It just shows you haven't understood. Natural selection acts on variation. It's nothing at all like your silly example.

The rest of your post is the usual empty responses to concise answers I already gave to evade questions I later asked.

Hilarious.

Still waiting for your evidence for magic creation or the slightest hint of a refutation of the evidence I present to you....

 

[Apostle John]

Of course the only mutations relevant to evolution are heritable ones to germline cells, which often happen during reproduction.

Not of course, all mutations would be relevant to your view of natural selection evolution. What have only germline cells, apart from being passed on to progeny, got anything to do with the “natural selection” part of your evolution theory.

False. It is an observed fact (e.g. classic peppered moth example - the associated mutation has now been identified too) and it's a mechanism that is very nearly a truism. If it didn't happen, that would require an explanation. Not even most creationists are daft enough to try to deny that natural selection happens.

That observed fact only demonstrates the permanence of species and the lateral adaptation allowed within a gene pool which is what creationists believe in. The moths remained moths never diverging into another species, no progressive evolution therefore no proof of natural selection as is the case with your other ‘evidence’.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not of course, all mutations would be relevant to your view of natural selection evolution. What have only germline cells, apart from being passed on to progeny, got anything to do with the “natural selection” part of your evolution theory.

Wow, just wow! You really don't understand anything at all about this subject do you? Traits that are passed on are the only ones that contribute to evolution. Ones that aren't heritable die with the individual. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

That observed fact only demonstrates the permanence of species...

It doesn't demonstrate anything at all about the permanence or otherwise of species, it's just natural selection acting on one trait.

...and the lateral adaptation allowed within a gene pool which is what creationists believe in.

So you do accept natural selection. As I said before, most creationists do, they just artificially limit it to (undefined) 'kinds' without justification. You really do need to learn your own side's propaganda a bit better, let alone the real science.

The moths remained moths never diverging into another species, no progressive evolution therefore no proof of natural selection...

Natural selection is not evolution, it's a mechanism by which evolution happens. The peppered moth is not meant to be a evidence (you've lapsed into 'proof' again, which shows you don't understand basic science) of common descent (evolution on a large scale) just the mechanism of natural selection.

...as is the case with your other ‘evidence’.

False. The mutations that can be observed and tracked through species, as I described do provide evidence for common ancestors, and ultimately, when all of it is taken together, common descent of all life.

Still waiting for you to refute it or provide any of the evidence you claimed existed for your magic creation. And waiting, and waiting....

Don't really know why, actually. You've comprehensively shown that there is practically nothing about this subject that you understand anything about at all. Wall to wall ignorance of the subject.

 

[Apostle John]

Wow, just wow! You really don't understand anything at all about this subject do you? Traits that are passed on are the only ones that contribute to evolution. Ones that aren't heritable die with the individual. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

It doesn't demonstrate anything at all about the permanence or otherwise of species, it's just natural selection acting on one trait.
Natural selection is not evolution, it's a mechanism by which evolution happens.

Don’t get manic! Rather think calmly, what precisely have you demonstrated natural selection is in your last two posts on this thread. What ‘mechanism’!? There isn’t one.

 

[ratiocinator]

Don’t get manic!

I'm not. You're just so clueless you're hilarious.

Rather think calmly, what precisely have you demonstrated natural selection is in your last two posts on this thread.

The peppered moth is an example of natural selection. The darker colouring meant that one variant was batter at surviving in the changed environment, so it spread through the population. That is exactly what natural selection is.

What ‘mechanism’!? There isn’t one.

A trait that makes survival and reproduction more likely in the context of the population's environment, will mean that those individuals with it reproduced more than those without it, hence the trait spreads through the population. Conversely, a trait that makes survival and reproduction less likely in the said context, will tend to die out.

That is natural selection - and that is at least the second time I have fully explained it to you. You really do need to concentrate a bit more and learn something - otherwise hilarity is the only reaction you'll get from anybody who does understand the subject.

You're welcome.