If Evolution Were True

[RemnanteK]

I'm not sure I am personally following your argument... Granted I'm a stupid heathen atheist who actively denies the holy spirit but still... Are you arguing that if one believes in creation then the theory of creation all by itself disproves evolution? (In contradiction to most rational religious people and even crazy ones like the pope...)

Or are you agreeing with me? If you take a break from your lemonade mate you can give me your opinion.

I wasn't making an argument, I was just saying.
But in a world of infinite possibilities without infinite [time] your best judgment will have to do I guess. (forgot a word)
The way I believe, it's not my position to "convert" someone to be something they are not.
The religion (i hate that word) I follow is a relationship with my 'God', and how can you convert someone to a relationship? You can't.
So basically the people trying to convert other to be like them are wasting time. If you are right and your happy with that, YOU'RE RIGHT.
Drink your drinks and live. I have a simple 'religion'.

 

[Sententia]

I wasn't making an argument, I was just saying.
But in a world of infinite possibilities without infinite [time] your best judgment will have to do I guess. (forgot a word)
The way I believe, it's not my position to "convert" someone to be something they are not.
The religion (i hate that word) I follow is a relationship with my 'God', and how can you convert someone to a relationship? You can't.
So basically the people trying to convert other to be like them are wasting time. If you are right and your happy with that, YOU'RE RIGHT.
Drink your drinks and live. I have a simple 'religion'.

Relationship implies two people. Granted there is always that guy that stares at some chick from grades 3-12 and finally asks her out in college... But thats not a relationship... that is a delusional relationship.

Im not implying you are delusional... Im just saying that god is not a proven entity... If you think he, she or it - whatever - is not only proven to you but communicates or gives you feedback enough to think that your in some kind of relationship with this 'diety' then I feel for you. Maybe it is delusion then but maybe not. You know your relationship better then I.

I have a relationship with my kids and wife and work buddies and people online etc etc... I dont have a relationship with god but I could imagine having one. I am well versed in the bible and I have watched Mr Diety a few times now. (All the seasons)

 

[painted wolf]

O.K., re: math, here's some books:

Anyone who says there is no math in Biology is full of bull.

We are going over the finer points of the Hardy-Weinburg Equilibrium equation and implications in my University Evolution class right now.
Synthetic Theory of Evolution: Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model
The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

At its simplest it states:
Genotypic frequency for a population to be in Equilibrium = P(squared)+2PQ+Q(squared)= 1
Where P is a given gene in a population and Q is the recessive allele of that gene.
P(squared) = the fraction of the population Homozygous (having two identical copies of the dominant gene ex. AA)
Q(squared) = the fraction of the population Homozygous for the recessive allele (ex. aa)
2PQ = the fraction of the population that are Heterozygous. (that is they have one copy of each allele ex. Aa)

If no evolution is going on you these numbers should equal one. This is what is called a "Null Hypothesis" ... that is, it proposes the conditions that need to be met for an event to not happen. An ideal population would not evolve.

Those conditions are:
Non-Random Mating = there can be no sexual selection, all mates must be chosen at random
No Selection = there can be no pressure that would favor one allele over another.
No Mutation = there can be no change in genes (or their alleles)
No Genetic Drift = there can be no random changes due to chance events.
No Gene Flow = there can be no migration/immigration of members of the population, it must remain constant.

You can imagine how hard this is to find in nature.
cute little flash animation that shows how the above conditions change allele frequencies.
http://zoology.okstate.edu/zoo_lrc/biol1114/tutorials/Flash/life4e_15-6-OSU.swf

So um... yeah... math in Biology but still no laws.

wa:do

ps... an allele just in case I didn't explain it well enough above... is a variation of a given gene. Blood type is an allele, O is the dominant gene with A and B being recessive variations or alleles of the same gene.

 

[RemnanteK]

Relationship implies two people. Granted there is always that guy that stares at some chick from grades 3-12 and finally asks her out in college... But thats not a relationship... that is a delusional relationship.

2 people is right, and I've done the relationship and I'm no expert.

Im not implying you are delusional... Im just saying that god is not a proven entity... If you think he, she or it - whatever - is not only proven to you but communicates or gives you feedback enough to think that your in some kind of relationship with this 'diety' then I feel for you. Maybe it is delusion then but maybe not. You know your relationship better then I.

We all have our delusions. I don't believe 'God' talks to me I think he communicates through.
Nature, Providential Circumstances, Music, People, Inspired Reading Material, Scripture, and Thoughts and Impressions.
But back to the relationship, if you don't know who is talking to you, you might not listen

I have a relationship with my kids and wife and work buddies and people online etc etc... I dont have a relationship with god but I could imagine having one. I am well versed in the bible and I have watched Mr Diety a few times now. (All the seasons)

Well if you have a relationship with your Kids, Wife, and Friends they you know to keep them you have to at least talk to them now and again.
I was raised 'Christian' and thought it was just about being good all the time and not doing this or that.
I took me 29 years to find out it's not about how good I act or what I do, but who I know ('God') and who ('God') knows me.
They don't teach that in any church, I went to.
I don't pretend to know everything in the Bible, I don't even know the order of the books in it.
But I tell you I feel way better about 'religion' than I did before. It was more of a job, or a chore before.
Now it's as easy as talking with someone I'm trying to be more like.

But hey, I just gave us all a little some to chat about for a little longer.
So like I said, I'm not here to convert people. I'm here to learn more and chat.
If you ask me something I don't know, I'll tell you so, and try and look it up.
I could BS you all day, but then that just take time away from me learning more.
So fire away, I promos not to cry.:sad4:

I'd much rather drink some tea! :beach: but not outside caz it just snowed...AGAIN!

 

[RemnanteK]

painted wolf

I see you are Native American, I must give you all many thanks.
I learned a lot from how I believe you try to know your 'God(s)'.
It help me more understand the relationship aspect of it all. If you know what I mean.
I have very little Native American blood in me, but I'm still proud of the little I have.

 

[painted wolf]

Creator is singular.

The only polytheistic First Nations I know of are the Mezo-American civilizations.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I wasn't making an argument, I was just saying.
But in a world of infinite possibilities without infinite [time] your best judgment will have to do I guess. (forgot a word)
The way I believe, it's not my position to "convert" someone to be something they are not.
The religion (i hate that word) I follow is a relationship with my 'God', and how can you convert someone to a relationship? You can't.
So basically the people trying to convert other to be like them are wasting time. If you are right and your happy with that, YOU'RE RIGHT.
Drink your drinks and live. I have a simple 'religion'.

You seem to be suffering under the misconception that there is a dichotomy between accepting a scientific theory--evolution--and being Christian. There isn't. You keep talking about Christianity, which is not the topic of this thread. We're not talking about converting people, we're talking about a scientific theory.

Think about it, Remnant, if being Christian means opposing science, you wouldn't be discussing it on your computer, would you? You wouldn't go to the doctor; you'd pray for recovery, and so forth. I don't think you want to set your religion up as in opposition to science, do you?

 

[Autodidact]

Re: math of whether there has been enough time for evolution to occur.

Here's a cool interactive app for the whole universe, give it a try.
Here's another one for life on earth. You have to slide to the right a long time before any life shows up.
Here's a cute one. If the history of planet earth is a roll of toilet paper with 400 pieces, life shows up on square 120, "complex" multi-cellular life on square 348, life on land square 359, and people on the edge of the last sheet of toilet paper. This kind of exercise helps you picture how much time we are talking about here. A LOT of time.
Here's a pretty good image:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So why ask questions about evolution if you've already reached a foregone conclusion? It's insincere, disingenuous, and no amount of logic, reason, or evidence is going to sway you from believing your myths and fairy tales. What's your purpose other than showing everyone what an amazingly and incredibly talented, clever, and original debater you are?

You assume too much.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Coolness! What have you learned so far?

Not much so far but my instructors have only covered the basics which I already knew. the best is yet to come.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You assume too much.

You avoid addressing salient points.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That would be magic poofing then. But I'm confused, because you said that you agreed that new species arise from existing ones via evolution. Now you're saying God spoke them into existence. Which is it?

Wow, that's odd. You're convinced the math doesn't work; but you haven't done the math, or read any of the many published papers that have, and assume that the scientists who did them are wrong, without ever reading their work. That's weird. I'll work on that for you, if you do the same.



Because you're contradicting yourself, which is confusing. Could you be more specific? Are you saying that around 10,000 years ago God poofed two of each species into existence, and no new species have arisen since then? Because earlier I thought you agree that new species do evolve. Or are you saying that God poofed the genuses? I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying at all. And why do I have to keep repeating myself? We're all agreeing, for the purpose of this thread, that God created the panoply of life we see today. The only question is HOW he did so. I say by evolution. You say by magic poofing, right? Or not? As I say, it's not clear.

I believe I covered that when I said I don't believe in macro-evolution.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You avoid addressing salient points.

you repeat yourself as well.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I believe I covered that when I said I don't believe in macro-evolution.

Salient point: There's no such thing as 'macro-evolution'.

Proceed to avoid.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy, you forgot--we are all assuming that God created everything.

Are you saying He magically poofed them into existance?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

you repeat yourself as well.

You avoid addressing salient points.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Salient point: There's no such thing as 'macro-evolution'.

Proceed to avoid.

that's been covered here as well. Why do you insist on going backwards when there are so many salient points still left to address?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I disagree. It's a debate forum. I have my opinions about things, but am still open to discussing them.

Ditto.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

that's been covered here as well. Why do you insist on going backwards when there are so many salient points still left to address?

Yes, it's been covered here, but you've never addressed the fact there is no such thing as 'macro-evolution'. Of course, if you've actually studied current evolutionary theory, as you imply, then you would know this has all been thoroughly covered....whatever

Why am I arguing with an idiot? Anybody ever hear the quote "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." I think it's priceless wisdom in this case. Good luck.

 

[McBell]

Salient point: There's no such thing as 'macro-evolution'.

Proceed to avoid.

"Macro-evolution" is a term used by Creationists.
For some reason they (Creationists) think that the term makes them look less asinine.
Unfortunately, since the vast majority of people know little to nothing about evolution, it works.