Right and Wrong Reasons for being (A)theist

[lewisnotmiller]

I am not excepting much. Humans will have same attributes, hands, feet, head… …obviously individuals are not exact copies, but the main attributes are the same, even if lengths or colors slightly change.

So, you wouldn't see blue eyes as an example of evolution? Why not?

Evolution seems to have idea that being can gain some new attributes. While degeneration means species only lose things.

Those two terms are not antonyms. Regardless, evolution does not suggest that species only 'gain' attributes. Again, consider blue eyes.

And all the evidence indicates that species are only losing, which means, in the beginning all was good, until the degeneration begun.

All the evidence? I dread to ask what 'all the evidence' consists of...

Signs of this are for example the mutations in DNA that are mistakes in the DNA copy process. In my opinion this all means Bible is correct and knows best.

Wait...you think mistakes in DNA indicate biblical inerrancy? Two questions then...
1) Give me an example of the type of 'mistake' you mean, so I can better understand your point.
2) Do you consider common retroviral markers between humans and primates a 'mistake'?

 

[1213]

So, you wouldn't see blue eyes as an example of evolution? Why not?

I don’t see that as an example of evolution. There is nothing evolving, if the eye color is different.

All the evidence? I dread to ask what 'all the evidence' consists of...

Everything we can really see and observe in nature. For example, mutations in the DNA copy process.

Wait...you think mistakes in DNA indicate biblical inerrancy? Two questions then...

1) Give me an example of the type of 'mistake' you mean, so I can better understand your point.

All mutations are mistakes in the copy process of DNA. Mutations are explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Wait 2) Do you consider common retroviral markers between humans and primates a 'mistake'?

Not at this moment.

 

[1213]

How does that demonstrate a god or intelligent designer, if things are sub-optimal?

Human for example is not optimal swimmer. But human has ability to survive on earth, breathe, eat, drink and reproduce. Human is optimal for what he is created. Same is with all things God created. Being not optional for everything, doesn’t mean it is somehow bad, or imperfect. It is just not necessary to be optimal for all things.

 

[1213]

Why on Earth would you make that claim?

To inform you how things are.

Because the evidence for evolution is undeniable.

What evidence? I don’t think you even understand what evidence means.

It would require a lying god to create all of that evidence.

I think that is absurd claim. If you interpret thing to mean evolution, it doesn’t mean God has lied.

We know how mountains were formed, it was not by a magical flood. We know how old he Earth is

I don’t think you know. But I agree, it was not magical flood.

 

[1213]

The problem is the number of nucleotides in a genome. There are 3 billion in the human genome which is kind of middle of the pack as far as mammalian genomes go. What are the chances that the same mutation would happen at the same base? That would be 1 in 3 billion. What are the chances that two mutations would happen at different bases? 2,999,999,999 in 3 billion. The probability of different mutations happening in isolated populations is much, much higher than the same mutations occurring.

And still people believe in evolution theory. It is amazing and unbelievable.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And still people believe in evolution theory. It is amazing and unbelievable.

Since there are mountains of evidence supporting the theory, why wouldn't we?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To inform you how things are.

Please, when you have superstitious beliefs yourself? I do believe there is something in a book that you have that says something about beams.

What evidence? I don’t think you even understand what evidence means.

So you don't know what evidence is either. I will be happy to take a detour and discuss the nature of evidence with you. As a creationist it is almost a dead certainty that you are the one lacking an understanding.

I think that is absurd claim. If you interpret thing to mean evolution, it doesn’t mean God has lied.

The only interpretation of the evidence out there is that life evolved. This is why you need to understand the concept. If you want to claim that there is no evolution then you are in effect calling God a liar.

I don’t think you know. But I agree, it was not magical flood.

Good, so we can agree on one point. The flood of Noah in the Bible is a myth. At least we have a starting point.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don’t see that as an example of evolution. There is nothing evolving, if the eye color is different.

Only if you are sticking with 'evolving' meaning 'improving'. Whilst that might apply in common vernacular, that simply isn't the scientific meaning.

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor

Everything we can really see and observe in nature. For example, mutations in the DNA copy process.

So...heterochromia would be an example then? Can you give some context?
Sorry, I still don't really understand the connection you are inferring.

All mutations are mistakes in the copy process of DNA. Mutations are explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Thanks, but I wasn't questioning what constitutes a mutation...
Rather, how does this indicate biblical inerrancy.

Not at this moment.

Then why are they there?

 

[1213]

Only if you are sticking with 'evolving' meaning 'improving'. Whilst that might apply in common vernacular, that simply isn't the scientific meaning.

When “evolution” seems to be always same as losing, mistakes in copying the original DNA, it means DNA always loses information. And when DNA always loses, it must have started with fuller information. It can’t have happened from simple information and we don’t have any evidence for increasing information in DNA, in nature. That means, species were with all information at the beginning, which is strong evidence for creation.

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor

Really, and some have said here that that kind of thing is not possible or true.

The problem is that there never were only two people.

 

[1213]

The only interpretation of the evidence out there is that life evolved.

That is not true.

…If you want to claim that there is no evolution then you are in effect calling God a liar.

God has not said there is evolution, therefore, it would not be calling God liar.

The flood of Noah in the Bible is a myth.

I disagree with that. I think it would be irrational to claim it didn’t happen.

 

[1213]

Since there are mountains of evidence supporting the theory, why wouldn't we?

That is interesting. All that is shown to me is the claims, no real evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When “evolution” seems to be always same as losing, mistakes in copying the original DNA, it means DNA always loses information. And when DNA always loses, it must have started with fuller information. It can’t have happened from simple information and we don’t have any evidence for increasing information in DNA, in nature. That means, species were with all information at the beginning, which is strong evidence for creation.

But this is wrong and indicates that you have been listening to either incredibly ignorant or dishonest people. Every mutation is by definition an increase in "information". Harmful mutations are selected against by natural selection, they tend to disappear. Beneficial mutations are selected for. They tend to amass as time goes by.

You should try to avoid sites where people have to swear not to use the scientific method. It tends to make all of their work worthelss.

Really, and some have said here that that kind of thing is not possible or true.

Nope, the fact that one person was probably the source of blue eyes, his or her eyes would have almost certainly have been brown by the way, does not refute my earlier claim. You need to learn how evolution works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not true.

Really? There is another interpretation that has not been refuted? I would like to see it please. Of course if you bring up some old claim that has been refuted a thousand times it will reflect badly upon you.

God has not said there is evolution, therefore, it would not be calling God liar.

You do not appear to be reasoning logically. Since the evidence tells us that the diversity of life is from evolution and if a God exists that made life through a creation event as in the Bible then that same God would also have had to make the evidence that tells us that life evolved. By intentionally misleading people that version of God would be lying. This is why you are constantly claiming that God lied when you claim the Adam and Eve myth is ture.

I disagree with that. I think it would be irrational to claim it didn’t happen.

But that is only because you are not reasoning rationally. Once again the evidence only supports the idea that there never was such a flood. And you are claiming once again that God is a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is interesting. All that is shown to me is the claims, no real evidence.

You probably do not even understand the nature of evidence. Most creationists won't let themselves do so. Would you care to discuss the nature of evidence?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

That is interesting. All that is shown to me is the claims, no real evidence.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

We could look at just the shared ERVs between the chimp and human genomes. The human genome contains just over 200,000 endogenous retrovirus insertions. We share all but ~100 of those insertions with chimps. That is 200,000 pieces of evidence just with ERVs.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

When “evolution” seems to be always same as losing, mistakes in copying the original DNA, it means DNA always loses information.

Until you can show how information can be measured in DNA you can't make that claim.

If I were to show you two DNA sequences that differed by a change in a single base could you calculate the information content of both DNA sequences and show how one has less information? Probably not, right?

Really, and some have said here that that kind of thing is not possible or true.

People said that the Earth moving about the Sun was not possible.

 

[Quintessence]

Can someone explain to me how this thread got derailed into an incredibly off-topic EvC debate?

Actually, no, that's rhetorical. Don't answer that. Instead, take the conversation to the right area. Since folks seem to have gotten lost, here's some directions - Evolution Vs. Creationism

 

[Milton Platt]

Human for example is not optimal swimmer. But human has ability to survive on earth, breathe, eat, drink and reproduce. Human is optimal for what he is created. Same is with all things God created. Being not optional for everything, doesn’t mean it is somehow bad, or imperfect. It is just not necessary to be optimal for all things.

You are making no sense. What objective standard are you using to judge optimization? You are just using your own opinions as to what constitutes optimization of a life form. A life form that is not optimal is all ways is by definition sub-optimal.

All life is more or less evolved to survive within it's specific environment. There is no evidence that life forms were created as they are and then just dropped into their environment. There is plenty of evidence that life forms either evolve to survive in their environments or cease to exist.

Over 90% of the life forms that have ever existed are now extinct. What happened to their "optimization"???

Even if we are to pretend that such a being exists for the sake of the argument, you have no way of knowing what such a supernatural creator really thinks. You have no way to verify it's motives, or objectives, or truthfulness, or abilities.

Bottom line here......you have provided nothing but a continuous string of opinions and conjecture and not one particle of evidence to substantiate your claims.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When “evolution” seems to be always same as losing, mistakes in copying the original DNA, it means DNA always loses information.

I get that it 'seems to be' that way for you. I'm asking more what evidence led you to that belief?

And when DNA always loses, it must have started with fuller information. It can’t have happened from simple information and we don’t have any evidence for increasing information in DNA, in nature. That means, species were with all information at the beginning, which is strong evidence for creation.

Obviously if you make certain suppositions, it's possible to draw conclusions which appear logical. But they only hold if the supposition holds any truth.

Really, and some have said here that that kind of thing is not possible or true.

Whether it is wilful or not, this is a profoundly ignorant/disingenuous statement. You really should be careful putting words in the mouths of others. Since I am at some small risk of doing the same, I'll ask @Subduction Zone to either confirm or reject what I'm saying here...

Humanity cannot come from a single pair of originators. If you want to avoid Biblical implications, consider instead a future state where only 2 people survive some cataclysmic event...
Could just two people repopulate Earth?

So on that, myself and @Subduction Zone are in alignment. My link about blue eyes (which I guess you must not have read) is not suggesting that all blue eyed people came from the same tiny gene pool of two people, which is basically the point. Rather than a very small, controlled population logically enforcing inbreeding, you simply have a blue eyed person able to procreate with non-blue eyed people (of which there were many), and their blue-eyed children then able to do the same. They weren't forced to inbreed, they weren't forced into situations where the gene pool was limited to only their own siblings or parents. Rather, the blue eyed humans had a diverse set of potential partners, and subsequently diverse genetic information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get that it 'seems to be' that way for you. I'm asking more what evidence led you to that belief?



Obviously if you make certain suppositions, it's possible to draw conclusions which appear logical. But they only hold if the supposition holds any truth.



Whether it is wilful or not, this is a profoundly ignorant/disingenuous statement. You really should be careful putting words in the mouths of others. Since I am at some small risk of doing the same, I'll ask @Subduction Zone to either confirm or reject what I'm saying here...

Humanity cannot come from a single pair of originators. If you want to avoid Biblical implications, consider instead a future state where only 2 people survive some cataclysmic event...
Could just two people repopulate Earth?

So on that, myself and @Subduction Zone are in alignment. My link about blue eyes (which I guess you must not have read) is not suggesting that all blue eyed people came from the same tiny gene pool of two people, which is basically the point. Rather than a very small, controlled population logically enforcing inbreeding, you simply have a blue eyed person able to procreate with non-blue eyed people (of which there were many), and their blue-eyed children then able to do the same. They weren't forced to inbreed, they weren't forced into situations where the gene pool was limited to only their own siblings or parents. Rather, the blue eyed humans had a diverse set of potential partners, and subsequently diverse genetic information.

I agree with one very small quibble. Since the gene for blue eyes is recessive the person that first got the blue eyed gene probably had it in only of the two sites, one brown colored gene from his mother and one brown gene from his father, one mutated. It is highly doubtful that both would mutate in one generation. So he would have had brown eyes. As would all of his children. It was not until there was some degree of inbreeding that one of his progeny would have a blue colored gene from both of his parents. The first blue eyed child probably did not happen until after several generations (I hope) from the first appearance of the gene in our genome.