PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Religon Debates
     the reality of spirit
       the absurdity of evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not putting this post in the creation/evolution forum because neither creation nor evolution can be proved by science.  They are both theories which try to use science to bolster their premise.  

No scientific experiment has ever been conducted which proves God created life.  No scientific experiment has ever successfully produced life spontaneously from conditions in the natural environment (i.e. anything close to RNA, DNA, or proteins).  Creation and evolution are both hypotheses.

Yet if we look at both theories, the premise of creation and the supernatural maintenance of living systems is the only answer to what we see in nature.  You have to live in a state of utter darkness, denial, and deception to believe that creation of an original RNA->DNA->protein system and the consequential high degree of system maintenance needed through molecular transport is not intelligently governed by spirit or an unknown "energy" form.  This is fact to all who have the slightest feel for the probabilities against spontaneous creation of complex organic compounds.  This is fact to all who have the slightest grasp on the intricate molecular movements which take place within living cells.


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 2:20 PM on February 23, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not putting this post in the creation/evolution forum because neither creation nor evolution can be proved by science.  They are both theories which try to use science to bolster their premise.


Bzzt! Try again. A Theory is as good as it gets. Evolution is a Theory; Creation is not.

No scientific experiment has ever been conducted which proves God created life.  No scientific experiment has ever successfully produced life spontaneously from conditions in the natural environment (i.e. anything close to RNA, DNA, or proteins).  Creation and evolution are both hypotheses.

Yet if we look at both theories


You clearly do not know the difference between a Hypothesis and a Theory if you call Evolution both of them.

Yet if we look at both theories, the premise of creation and the supernatural maintenance of living systems is the only answer to what we see in nature.


No it isn't. On this very board, this whole issue has only been argued over twenty times in the last month. It's one of the weakest claims you could possibly make.

Subbie explains it best:

Quote from subbie at 10:47 AM on February 25, 2006 :
Wrong.

The basic idea behind evolution is descent with modification.  Popluations change over time and those organisms better suited to the environment tend to survive in greater numbers at the expense of those that are not.

The Theory of Evolution says nothing, absolutely nothing, about how it all began.  So, even if that question is, at this point, unanswered, it's inconsequential to evolutionary theory.


In other words:

Evolution =/= Abiogenesis

Continuing on...

You have to live in a state of utter darkness, denial, and deception to believe that creation of an original RNA->DNA->protein system and the consequential high degree of system maintenance needed through molecular transport is not intelligently governed by spirit or an unknown "energy" form.


So, now you're not only claiming that life was intelligently designed, but that's it's intelligently "maintained" by a higher form.

This is fact to all who have the slightest feel for the probabilities against spontaneous creation of complex organic compounds. This is fact to all who have the slightest grasp on the intricate molecular movements which take place within living cells.


The millions of scientists with degrees in these specific fields disagree. Guess it isn't much of a fact.



The argument from increduality is over 15 years old, and it just gets weaker with each passing moment. You fail to understand the concepts of what Scientific Theories,  Hypotheses, and Laws are. You fail to understand the difference between the start of life and the change of life. With that in mind, you can stop pretending to know what you're talking about now.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/25/2006 at 6:33 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:29 PM on February 25, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You want to legitimize the work of "millions" of scientists attempting to prove evolution is true.  I don't.  To me (you may bow before the institution of science - I don't) evolution is an absurd hypothesis.  Yes, the minds of those "millions" of scientists are darkened.  I use "theory" as well because I am well aware that evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists as such.  I do have knowledge of what a scientific law, theory, and hypothesis mean.  I purposely used them loosely.

Evolution through random mutations and natural selection is "more probable" than abiogenesis, but still absurd.  To the degree that changes to genetic codes have occurred through time, they have been designed.  It's strange that you would limit evolution to the random mutations of RNA, DNA, and proteins, but not apply it to the random arrangements of atoms which may prove "favorable to life."  You are in essence claiming that evolution can only be applied to sets which have more favorable probabilities (according to your acceptance of the fantastic probabilities of evolution).

Yes, I am asserting that life is intelligently maintained, over the better judgment of millions of darkened minds.




-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 10:12 PM on February 25, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You want to legitimize the work of "millions" of scientists attempting to prove evolution is true.


No, I'm merely showing how the following statement is nothing but false:

"This is fact to all who have the slightest feel for the probabilities against spontaneous creation of complex organic compounds. This is fact to all who have the slightest grasp on the intricate molecular movements which take place within living cells."

Yes, the minds of those "millions" of scientists are darkened.


You keep placing quotation marks around millions. Are you trying to suggest that you doubt millions of scientists accept Evolution?

Evolution through random mutations and natural selection is "more probable" than abiogenesis, but still absurd.


And exactly what statistical calculations are you going off of here? I find it curious you keep mentioning probability, when in fact no such numbers exist.

To the degree that changes to genetic codes have occurred through time, they have been designed.


That's a nice stand-alone assertion. Back it up next time.

It's strange that you would limit evolution to the random mutations of RNA, DNA, and proteins, but not apply it to the random arrangements of atoms which may prove "favorable to life."


You're not making sense. Evolution is not the arrangement of atoms. That's Chemistry's reign--which, no less, supports nothing against Evolution.

You are in essence claiming that evolution can only be applied to sets which have more favorable probabilities (according to your acceptance of the fantastic probabilities of evolution).


What in the world do you mean by 'favorable probabilities'?

Yes, I am asserting that life is intelligently maintained, over the better judgment of millions of darkened minds.


Now let's define maintained. Are you actually trying to say that if the same supernatural deity that allegedly created us happened to go away, we would all perish without Him here to continue helping us?





-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:02 AM on February 26, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You use the scientific results of "millions" of scientists as your proof that my statement is false.  I'm telling you that I see the work of those "millions" of scientists as false.  Don't lecture me on the "truth and facts" of science.  Initial assumptions and the interpretation of results give science subjectivity.  These allow a subjective consensus to take institutional science in just about any direction it wants to go.  Science is not the "pure and objective" idol you would like to make it out to be.

It is difficult to identify the number of scientists appropriate to our discussion: is it tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions?  It depends on which time period and which types of scientists you want to include in the discussion.  I conceded that the vast majority would agree with you - let's move on.

There have been attempts by creationists to calculate the odds of producing usable genes from random mutations.  You and I both know that it is impossible to be precise with these numbers since the problem is so complex.  Any attempts by creationists to get rough figures are attacked by evolutionists as inaccurate for one reason or another.  However, since all the figures produced by creationists determine that useful genes from random mutations are grossly improbable, I think they are useful for getting a feel for the issue.  Evolutionists don't like to tackle this problem because they suspect it might disprove evolution.  A quick search produced this: "With all the concessions given, one could expect a usable gene in 10^147 years, from the tremendously rapid efforts of all the nucleotide sets of all the atoms of the universe."  Do I really have to give you the reference for this since I know you will either pick apart the individuals involved, the assumptions used, or the interpretation of the results?  We both know that all of science can be attacked in this manner.  Perhaps an analogy would help (like science, no analogy is perfect, but alas I will try):  Those who claim that mutation and gene duplication produce meaningful evolutionary changes are like those who claim that a meaningful object-oriented computer program could be written in which portions of it were randomly deleted while the program duplicated sections of itself.  It's an absurd hypothesis.

Ah - I'm not making sense is it?  Or maybe you don't want to understand my point.  I like how you try to compartmentalize "evolution" from the rest of science - a typical tactic of priestcraft.  Evolution depends upon a plausible scenario from chemistry and bio-chemistry, or it's just the absurd hypothesis that it is.  Evolution is the idea that the variety of plants and animals descended from earlier types.  As we both know, this can be translated into more complex language as the idea that the bio-chemical diversity in plants and animals are descended from earlier bio-chemical types.  The point I was making is that there is no clear dividing line in evolution between "where life begins," i.e. abiogenesis, and "when it evolves," i.e. changes.  Does it begin with DNA, RNA, or proteins?  The current hypothesis is that it began with "TNA."  A few years ago it was "PNA."  Evolution has no idea what the first evolutionary type was (on which all other types depend).

For the third time, I am saying that an intelligent spirit or unknown "energy" (whether it is god or a hierarchy of god, it makes no difference) upholds life.  Yes, we would all perish without this intelligence.


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 9:46 PM on February 27, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For the third time, I am saying that an intelligent spirit or unknown "energy" (whether it is god or a hierarchy of god, it makes no difference) upholds life.  Yes, we would all perish without this intelligence.


Since this is your most ridiculous claim, let’s start with it. Show how life cannot function without a supernatural being to control it.

The point I was making is that there is no clear dividing line in evolution between "where life begins," i.e. abiogenesis, and "when it evolves," i.e. changes.  Does it begin with DNA, RNA, or proteins?  The current hypothesis is that it began with "TNA."  A few years ago it was "PNA."  Evolution has no idea what the first evolutionary type was (on which all other types depend).


Evolution took off from the first life. You’re starting with prokaryotic cells. Helpful?

You use the scientific results of "millions" of scientists as your proof that my statement is false.


No—merely to show that your logic isn’t nearly as strong as you suggest. To explain once more, you said anyone with knowledge of difficulties Natural Selection would face in working correctly knows that it’s too absurd to work… which obviously is not so if you’re in a minority of under .01%.

I'm telling you that I see the work of those "millions" of scientists as false.  Don't lecture me on the "truth and facts" of science.  Initial assumptions and the interpretation of results give science subjectivity.  These allow a subjective consensus to take institutional science in just about any direction it wants to go.  Science is not the "pure and objective" idol you would like to make it out to be.


Scientists are human, yes. And I’m telling you that the subjective opinion of the scientific community—including the countless scientists of organized religions, among them Christianity—sees no logic in your assertions from “absurdity.” The majority opinion is not wholey significant simply because it’s against you (although that is nevertheless significant, as the majority have degrees in their fields, while you and I have none), but because the majority lacks any motive for seeing things the way it does. You can argue that you just happen to be one of several thousand people on this entire earth gifted enough to recognize common sense when you see it, or you would have to show that the majority opinion has a compelling reason for denying the “absurdity” of Evolution and pretending it’s real. Religion, as I shouldn’t have to mention, however, has no part to play in it.

Those who claim that mutation and gene duplication produce meaningful evolutionary changes are like those who claim that a meaningful object-oriented computer program could be written in which portions of it were randomly deleted while the program duplicated sections of itself.  It's an absurd hypothesis.


You claim it is impossible for DNA to beneficially mutate. The fact is, it happens all the time:

AIDS
Influenza
E. Coli

On that note, you are entirely incorrect. In advance, don’t move the goal posts and try to say you were only talking about speciation—which, no less, happens before our own eyes too.




On a closing note, I don't really care how much you insist Abiogenesis couldn't have happened. How life could have naturally occured is still in dispute everywhere. No one is claiming a supernatural deity can be ruled out. On the contrary, if a deity did create life, science would never be capable of finding that out, due to its restriction to studying natural properties of our world. But to jump ahead and conclude that simply because we don't know now, it has to be a supernatural creator, is nothing but a blatantly religiously-motivated fallacy.

Meanwhile, Evolution is in a position as strong as the Theory of Gravity. You can continue battling Abiogenesis with some credability left in you, but on the issue of Evolution, your only viable option is to bail out before your ship sinks any further.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/27/2006 at 11:10 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:00 PM on February 27, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You said: "Since this is your most ridiculous claim, let’s start with it. Show how life cannot function without a supernatural being to control it."

Molecular transport/movement.


You said: "Evolution took off from the first life. You’re starting with prokaryotic cells. Helpful?"

"Cells" is as broad as the sea.  Evolutionists like to play both sides of this debate.  Some like to trace the beginnings of life to single organic molecules such as "TNA."  Others like you (at least for convenience of discussion) like to compartmentalize evolution to only deal with "cells."  How complex are these cells?  Do they begin with DNA, RNA, and proteins?  Again my point is that there is no consensus among scientists of where "life began."

You said: "No—merely to show that your logic isn’t nearly as strong as you suggest. To explain once more, you said anyone with knowledge of difficulties Natural Selection would face in working correctly knows that it’s too absurd to work… which obviously is not so if you’re in a minority of under .01%."

What I said was that you have to live in darkness to believe evolution.  If you live in that darkness you won't have the feel for the probabilities against evolution.  You give "the specialists" a special privilege to facts and truth which I do not give them.

You said: "Scientists are human, yes. And I’m telling you that the subjective opinion of the scientific community—including the countless scientists of organized religions, among them Christianity—sees no logic in your assertions from “absurdity.” The majority opinion is not wholey significant simply because it’s against you (although that is nevertheless significant, as the majority have degrees in their fields, while you and I have none), but because the majority lacks any motive for seeing things the way it does. You can argue that you just happen to be one of several thousand people on this entire earth gifted enough to recognize common sense when you see it, or you would have to show that the majority opinion has a compelling reason for denying the “absurdity” of Evolution and pretending it’s real. Religion, as I shouldn’t have to mention, however, has no part to play in it."

First of all, I believe that all institutions are darkened just by being an institution - whether scientific or otherwise.  So don't give me your list of people in institutional science or religion who meet my quality of enlightenment.  They don't.  The majority opinion denies the truth because they can't deal with the truth.  As far as my definition of enlightment being "religious", it is.  As I implied by my last post, "science" is subjective: don't try to put it on a pedestal above religion.  If I call evolution absurd because of my private religion, so what?  This is the religion forum.


You said: "You claim it is impossible for DNA to beneficially mutate. The fact is, it happens all the time: AIDS, Influenza,E. Coli"

Come on, you can do better than that!  My position is that there are higher intelligences creating AIDS, Influenza, E. Coli.  Whether an earlier virus or bacteria was used as a starting point is completely irrelevant.  The probabilities involved in "uncreated" evolution (the one that your majority believes in) are absurd.

You said: "On that note, you are entirely incorrect. In advance, don’t move the goal posts and try to say you were only talking about speciation—which, no less, happens before our own eyes too."

No, you are entirely incorrect.  I don't have to move the goal posts, evolutionists move them among themselves.  Whether it's the evolution of speciation, the evolution of a cell, or the evolution of a molecule ("TNA") - they are all absurd.


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 12:44 AM on February 28, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You said: "Since this is your most ridiculous claim, let’s start with it. Show how life cannot function without a supernatural being to control it."

Molecular transport/movement.


You’ve accomplished absolutely nothing with that response. Why aren't you arguing against Astronomy too? Molecular Transport is a natural property of cells, just as orbital revolutions of the earth around the sun are natural properties of gravity. And what's truly depressing, is that your argument seriously has stooped down to claim that God is required in order to keep the earth moving around the sun. As the ancient Greeks worshipped Apollo for raising and setting of the sun, you're accrediting God with the maintenance of natural processes like genetic mutation and cellular transportation.

You said: "Evolution took off from the first life. You’re starting with prokaryotic cells. Helpful?"

"Cells" is as broad as the sea.


Did you note the word ‘prokaryotic’?

Evolutionists like to play both sides of this debate.  Some like to trace the beginnings of life to single organic molecules such as "TNA."


Molecules, whether they’re DNA, TNA, proteins, or lipids, are not alive. The first cells were. I don’t understand why you keep running in circles around this one. We define life as anything having cells and the ability to reproduce. Viruses are not defined as alive because they cannot reproduce by themselves. Abiogenesis would be the formation of the first cells. Evolution is the change of those first living cells. The debate over which organic macromolecules first formed is totally irrelevant to both the definition and possibility of Evolution.

You said: "No—merely to show that your logic isn’t nearly as strong as you suggest. To explain once more, you said anyone with knowledge of difficulties Natural Selection would face in working correctly knows that it’s too absurd to work… which obviously is not so if you’re in a minority of under .01%."

What I said was that you have to live in darkness to believe evolution.  If you live in that darkness you won't have the feel for the probabilities against evolution.  You give "the specialists" a special privilege to facts and truth which I do not give them.


Now provide the compelling reason scientists would have to keep living in this world of darkness. It certainly isn’t because scientists don’t know of any low odds you claim Evolution would have for functioning properly, because I’m well aware of the odds you’ve mentioned… and yet I’m still living in the darkness.

First of all, I believe that all institutions are darkened just by being an institution - whether scientific or otherwise.  So don't give me your list of people in institutional science or religion who meet my quality of enlightenment.  They don't.  The majority opinion denies the truth because they can't deal with the truth.  As far as my definition of enlightment being "religious", it is.  As I implied by my last post, "science" is subjective: don't try to put it on a pedestal above religion.


I see. To paraphrase you, the Christian scientists who accept Evolution can’t deal with the truth, that God exists.

If I call evolution absurd because of my private religion, so what?  This is the religion forum.


This is a debate forum. It doesn't matter what topic it is, you still need to back up what you say if you expect anyone to participate. (Though, if your only goal was simply to inflame people with completely unsubstantiated claims, without any intent to actually support what you say, just say so, and I won't give you more trouble with a response to your next post.) You do realize that in debates over imaginary/hypothetical philosphy, people provide evidence for their ideas, don't you?

Come on, you can do better than that!  My position is that there are higher intelligences creating AIDS, Influenza, E. Coli.  Whether an earlier virus or bacteria was used as a starting point is completely irrelevant. The probabilities involved in "uncreated" evolution (the one that your majority believes in) are absurd.


What is uncreated evolution?

Your stance on the issue of bacterial evolution is absurd. The evidence points one way. It is not a subjective conclusion to say that genes beneficially mutate, because we watch it happen, and we can know how the genes mutate. We know natural processes have the ability to mutate genes, because we scientifically observe it, the same way we scientifically observe chemistry, physics, psychology, and meteorology. You might as well claim every science to be fraudulent and subjectively invented if you’re going to deny observed facts.

It may appear as if I didn't quite respond to what you were trying to say. That's because, as the underlined portion reveals, you tried to move the goal posts, and actually changed your position. Before, you said genes could not even beneficially mutate. Now, from what you have written suggests, you're only saying something needed to create the first pathogens.

You said: "On that note, you are entirely incorrect. In advance, don’t move the goal posts and try to say you were only talking about speciation—which, no less, happens before our own eyes too."

No, you are entirely incorrect.  I don't have to move the goal posts, evolutionists move them among themselves.  Whether it's the evolution of speciation, the evolution of a cell, or the evolution of a molecule ("TNA") - they are all absurd.


I’m awfully sorry, I can’t argue with someone who claims 2+2 doesn’t equal 4. Naturally, I can expect to hear something of the same from you at the end or beginning of your next response, but it wouldn’t be justified. I am willing to try to understand your points, and I’m willing to ease through them and show how they are false. But you aren’t doing this in return. You are not actually debating with me. You’re simply stamping your feet in denial. To back up your assertions, you provide the same assertion. To back up my assertions, I provide evidence. And to counter my evidence, you provide... an assertion. If your entire point is only that you can’t scientifically prove anything you have to say, so be it… but don’t turn around and say you can’t scientifically prove evolution, when I just did in my previous post.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/28/2006 at 7:02 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:47 AM on February 28, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You said: "You’ve accomplished absolutely nothing with that response. Why aren't you arguing against Astronomy too? Molecular Transport is a natural property of cells, just as orbital revolutions of the earth around the sun are natural properties of gravity. And what's truly depressing, is that your argument seriously has stooped down to claim that God is required in order to keep the earth moving around the sun. As the ancient Greeks worshipped Apollo for raising and setting of the sun, you're accrediting God with the maintenance of natural processes like genetic mutation and cellular transportation."

I suspected you would respond the way you did, with a load of trash, so I took my time before looking at your response.  As a matter of fact I do believe God upholds the universe including the atomic forces and the very fabric of space and time.  I don't pretend to be able "prove" this with science which you blindly and tediously think is necessary.  The fact that there is observable chemical magnification of underlying spiritual processes involved in cell functionality proves nothing.  In fact, the complexity of the processes demands an integrating and organizing intelligence.  In the case of cell functionality (unlike just DNA), the systems have unbounded complexity in their inter-relationships with one another, so it's impossible to quantify the probabilities against unintelligent supervision.


You said: "Molecules, whether they’re DNA, TNA, proteins, or lipids, are not alive. The first cells were. I don’t understand why you keep running in circles around this one. We define life as anything having cells and the ability to reproduce. Viruses are not defined as alive because they cannot reproduce by themselves. Abiogenesis would be the formation of the first cells. Evolution is the change of those first living cells. The debate over which organic macromolecules first formed is totally irrelevant to both the definition and possibility of Evolution."

The only one running around in circles is you.  The question at hand is where does life begin in evolution.  The answer is that there isn't any firm starting point in evolution.  "Molecular evolution" based on the TNA molecule is currently a "state of the art" concept in the evolution field.

You said: "Now provide the compelling reason scientists would have to keep living in this world of darkness. It certainly isn’t because scientists don’t know of any low odds you claim Evolution would have for functioning properly, because I’m well aware of the odds you’ve mentioned… and yet I’m still living in the darkness."

I already said but you do not want to hear.  Most people can not deal with the truth, i.e. they prefer the darkness.  Isn't that just the issue, the probabilities are plain to see and yet you choose to live in darkness.

You said: "I see. To paraphrase you, the Christian scientists who accept Evolution can’t deal with the truth, that God exists."

That god not only exists, but is very close indeed.

You said: "This is a debate forum. It doesn't matter what topic it is, you still need to back up what you say if you expect anyone to participate. (Though, if your only goal was simply to inflame people with completely unsubstantiated claims, without any intent to actually support what you say, just say so, and I won't give you more trouble with a response to your next post.) You do realize that in debates over imaginary/hypothetical philosphy, people provide evidence for their ideas, don't you?"

If I say something requires an intangible experience, i.e. rare Christian enlightment, to be understood that is a type of evidence as well: testimonial evidence.  It may not be the type of evidence your looking for, but that's your problem.  As I said, testimonial evidence for religion belongs in the religion forum.

You said: "What is uncreated evolution? Your stance on the issue of bacterial evolution is absurd. The evidence points one way. It is not a subjective conclusion to say that genes beneficially mutate, because we watch it happen, and we can know how the genes mutate. We know natural processes have the ability to mutate genes, because we scientifically observe it, the same way we scientifically observe chemistry, physics, psychology, and meteorology. You might as well claim every science to be fraudulent and subjectively invented if you’re going to deny observed facts. It may appear as if I didn't quite respond to what you were trying to say. That's because, as the underlined portion reveals, you tried to move the goal posts, and actually changed your position. Before, you said genes could not even beneficially mutate. Now, from what you have written suggests, you're only saying something needed to create the first pathogens."

You completely misunderstand me and conveniently avoid the issue.  If you consider an intelligently designed change to an existing gene to be "evolution" then your the one changing the goal posts.  The evolution that we have been discussion from the beginning is evolution based on random mutations and natural selection, i.e. "uncreated evolution."  While I firmly believe that god created species diversity from the beginning, I also believe that the hierarchy of god (which includes the hierarchy of fallen angels) dynamically engineers changes to existing genes anytime they want (as in the cases you mentioned).  The debate at hand is the reality of intelligent design, i.e. through spirit, versus evolution.  

You said: "I’m awfully sorry, I can’t argue with someone who claims 2+2 doesn’t equal 4. Naturally, I can expect to hear something of the same from you at the end or beginning of your next response, but it wouldn’t be justified. I am willing to try to understand your points, and I’m willing to ease through them and show how they are false. But you aren’t doing this in return. You are not actually debating with me. You’re simply stamping your feet in denial. To back up your assertions, you provide the same assertion. To back up my assertions, I provide evidence. And to counter my evidence, you provide... an assertion. If your entire point is only that you can’t scientifically prove anything you have to say, so be it… but don’t turn around and say you can’t scientifically prove evolution, when I just did in my previous post."

As I said before, I will say again: evolution through random mutations and natural selection is absurd.  You have proved nothing other then your knack of accusing others of the very things which you do:

You said that "no such numbers" existed which give a feel for the absurdity of evolution (by random mutation and natural selection).  I gave you such a number as well as an analogy.  You did not address these and instead went off making unfounded accusations such as the above against me.

You said that the field of evolution defines the "beginnings of life" as the "prokaryotic cell."  I gave you an example from the field of "cutting edge evolution" which believes the "beginnings of life" may have occurred at the molecular level as in the evolution of the TNA molecule (that was anciently suppose to be able to reproduce itself by itself).  You do nothing but give me "definitions of life" accepted by some evolutionists (certainly not the ones in "cutting edge" evolution), and thereby avoid the issue at hand.

Your heavy-handed attempts to use science to disprove my religious founded beliefs in the necessity of a governing intelligence, i.e. god and his hierarchy, have been shown to be misguided and in great error.  I would urge you to reevaluate your position or at the very least to keep your shallow, fleshy, materialistic opinions to your self in this religion forum.

Since I believe that the debate has begun to lose it's beneficial aspects because of your avoidance of the issues and unfounded attacks, this may be my last post on this thread.

(Edited by serp 3/1/2006 at 10:35 AM).


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 10:26 AM on March 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I feel that you are justified in not wanting to continue this debate should our (yes, our—your posts are sprinkled with nasty rhetoric as well) hormones get in the way of polite discussion, so I will back off. I hope you find this next post’s attempted lack of ad-homonyms satisfactory.

I suspected you would respond the way you did, with a load of trash, so I took my time before looking at your response.  As a matter of fact I do believe God upholds the universe including the atomic forces and the very fabric of space and time.  I don't pretend to be able "prove" this with science which you blindly and tediously think is necessary.


I’m going to quote exactly what I said, in hopes of showing how you are incorrect about my position on this subject.

Again: If your entire point is only that you can’t scientifically prove anything you have to say, so be it… but don’t turn around and say you can’t scientifically prove evolution

I am not asking you to show how it’s possible to scientifically prove Intelligent Design. However, when you challenge the scientific foundation of a proven scientific theory, you do require evidence. As of yet, you have provided not one single source for a single word of your entire argument. Instead of showing how evolution fails to fit into the definition of science (which would make it unscientific) you simply claim that human beings are incapable of making scientific observations, due to their subjectivity. What you should have said is that nothing in this world is scientific, since that is your position. You are not only arguing against Evolution. You are arguing against the Theory of Gravity, proposing, for lack of a better term, ‘Intelligent Falling’ as its replacement; you are arguing against the definition of Chemistry, of Physics… of every scientific field ever invented. (In my defense, should this not be your position, keep in mind that I have asked you various questions meant to elucidate exactly what you’re saying. The statements directly above are not an attempt to take you out of context, but the only answer I ever gathered you were giving me.)

The fact that there is observable chemical magnification of underlying spiritual processes involved in cell functionality proves nothing.


Underlying spiritual process that have never been observed. Therefore, the current definition of Natural Selection, Cellular Transport, and Gravity, are the only scientifically valid conclusions… no matter how incorrect of conclusions they may in fact be.

In fact, the complexity of the processes demands an integrating and organizing intelligence.


A forest is a complex pattern of combinations of various foliage and trees, but nothing demands anyone planted the trees in certain positions. The image of the forest 300 years after everything started growing is random, just as Natural Selection is. In fact, you can even accredit the same mechanism to the growth of specific trees. Because a particular tree’s position wasn’t favorable, such as its position under another tree, where the sunlight couldn’t reach it, the tree died, just as species die off when finding themselves in unfavorable conditions in the environment.

In the case of cell functionality (unlike just DNA), the systems have unbounded complexity in their inter-relationships with one another, so it's impossible to quantify the probabilities against unintelligent supervision.


If you were to flip a coin an infinite number of times, the probabilities against a certain pattern of heads/tails are 100% impossible to quantify. This makes no case for an intelligent force.

The only one running around in circles is you.  The question at hand is where does life begin in evolution.  The answer is that there isn't any firm starting point in evolution.


How can you say that, when I’ve already directly answered your question two times? Life begins with the first cell. TNA is not a cell. It is a lifeless molecule. In fact, it is a very firm standing. Molecular evolution is a process of chemistry, not biology. The evolution of TNA is stoycheometry, not Natural Selection, and here’s how:

"Molecular evolution" based on the TNA molecule is currently a "state of the art" concept in the evolution field.


Well, there is no “Evolution field.” Since biology is invariably linked to evolution, however, biologists would obviously be the ones doing this particular study. But, anyway, Molecular Evolution is not a process of evolution that requires life. There is also such a thing as Chemical Evolution, when through chemical reactions, compounds change into different compounds. The evolution of TNA into another nucleic acid has NOTHING to do with life, just as the change of Iron and Carbon into Steel has nothing to do with life. TNA would have evolved into RNA before any life occurred.

You said: "Now provide the compelling reason scientists would have to keep living in this world of darkness. It certainly isn’t because scientists don’t know of any low odds you claim Evolution would have for functioning properly, because I’m well aware of the odds you’ve mentioned… and yet I’m still living in the darkness."

I already said but you do not want to hear.  Most people can not deal with the truth, i.e. they prefer the darkness.  Isn't that just the issue, the probabilities are plain to see and yet you choose to live in darkness.


No, that is not quite the issue, because everyone already knows about the alleged probabilities. I could care less if the probabilities were tenfold what you believe they are. It is not a case against Evolution anymore than the odds of winning the lottery are a case against someone having just won the lottery. In addition, having such a probability is an admittance on your part that, however improbable, natural explanations are possible.

You said: "I see. To paraphrase you, the Christian scientists who accept Evolution can’t deal with the truth, that God exists."

That god not only exists, but is very close indeed.


Explain how that means Christian scientists have a compelling reason for denying the validity of probabilities against Evolution. I see no contradiction from their beliefs and what you just stated.

If I say something requires an intangible experience, i.e. rare Christian enlightment, to be understood that is a type of evidence as well: testimonial evidence.  


It most certainly is. But, as someone very familiar with the inflexibility of testimonial evidence, I can tell you that you need more in order to debate this topic. I could claim that Dick Cheney meant to murder the man he accidentally shot, but I would need evidence to back up what I say.

It may not be the type of evidence your looking for, but that's your problem.  As I said, testimonial evidence for religion belongs in the religion forum.


See above response.

ou completely misunderstand me and conveniently avoid the issue.  If you consider an intelligently designed change to an existing gene to be "evolution" then your the one changing the goal posts.


And here’s the problem: you have provided nothing to show that any change whatsoever is intelligently designed. It is possible that genes were all genetically changed via an intelligent decision, just as it’s possible Dick Cheney tried to murder his colleague, but without evidence to back up your assertion, you have no case. This goes beyond science, too. Plato, though almost strictly a philosopher, cited the evidence to back up his statements.

The evolution that we have been discussion from the beginning is evolution based on random mutations and natural selection, i.e. "uncreated evolution."  While I firmly believe that god created species diversity from the beginning, I also believe that the hierarchy of god (which includes the hierarchy of fallen angels) dynamically engineers changes to existing genes anytime they want (as in the cases you mentioned).  The debate at hand is the reality of intelligent design, i.e. through spirit, versus evolution.  


Okay, but again, this is a debate, not merely a contest over who can provide the most rational-at-a-glance opinion.

As I said before, I will say again: evolution through random mutations and natural selection is absurd.  You have proved nothing other then your knack of accusing others of the very things which you do:


Although I disagree, I will overlook that statement in hopes our discussion will improve.

You said that "no such numbers" existed which give a feel for the absurdity of evolution (by random mutation and natural selection).  I gave you such a number as well as an analogy.  You did not address these and instead went off making unfounded accusations such as the above against me.


If I did not respond to the numbers separately, I did not feel the need to, but if you would prefer, I will ask you where you obtained “With all the concessions given, one could expect a usable gene in 10^147 years, from the tremendously rapid efforts of all the nucleotide sets of all the atoms of the universe.”

To answer the rhetorical question you placed afterward: Yes, I’m afraid you do need to reference it, because I have yet to see such a number (that conflicts with others, by the way) that has been conjured by an actual biologist, as opposed to just another mathematician.

You said that the field of evolution defines the "beginnings of life" as the "prokaryotic cell."  I gave you an example from the field of "cutting edge evolution" which believes the "beginnings of life" may have occurred at the molecular level as in the evolution of the TNA molecule (that was anciently suppose to be able to reproduce itself by itself).


Merely the ability to reproduce is not the definition of life. Prions, which are lifeless protein pathogens (ie: Mad Cow Disease) reproduce, but they are not alive.

You do nothing but give me "definitions of life" accepted by some evolutionists (certainly not the ones in "cutting edge" evolution), and thereby avoid the issue at hand.


And according to what source is the ability to reproduce now the only factor in determining if something is alive?

Since I believe that the debate has begun to lose it's beneficial aspects because of your avoidance of the issues and unfounded attacks, this may be my last post on this thread.


I sincerely hope not, but if you would rather not carry on this debate, I have no objections.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:40 PM on March 1, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I said in my last post, this debate has lost its beneficial aspect.  You continue to use underhanded debating  techniques such as putting words in my mouth and accrediting ideas to me that are not mine.  You avoid the focus of the debate, i.e. the feel for the statistical impossibility of evolution, and continue to insist that evolution is proven when I have shown it is anything but proven - it is absurd.


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 1:58 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WARNING!  OFF-TOPIC POST!  WARNING!

Ok, that said... I do want to give out some kudos to the people on this board (yes, even the once that don't agree with me ).  While tempers have sometimes flared, some names have been occassionally called, and some people have gotten way too little sleep and spent too much time thinking about these subjects... I've on more than one occassion seen people prompted to continue on this board, even when not agreed with.  It is good to see people respect other people (if not their opinions ) and not ignore them simply because of differences of opinion.  I could've posted this in any one of many threads, but I just wanted to let everyone know that my experiences on this board have been beneficial (at least to me) even when I've been wrr..., er wro..., er wrooonnnn. er what Richie said (by the way, if you got that reference, you're too old).  

END OFF TOPIC POST!


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:08 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I said in my last post, this debate has lost its beneficial aspect.  You continue to use underhanded debating  techniques such as putting words in my mouth and accrediting ideas to me that are not mine.  You avoid the focus of the debate, i.e. the feel for the statistical impossibility of evolution, and continue to insist that evolution is proven when I have shown it is anything but proven - it is absurd.


I specifically asked you for verification of any ideas that I thought were yours in my last post. I asked you foundational questions before hand, in order to come to those conclusions over yours ideas.  I put no words in your mouth whatsoever, because you answered yes to my questions about your positions.

While it's obvious I've won, your refusal to acknowledge even my attempt to be courteous is  upsetting of any victory. There wasn't a single sentence in your entire post that I failed to address, and you claim I'm trying to avoid the real issue. Even more heinous is your claim that I fiercely attack you, when your own posts are full of constant shelling against my own position.

I have to admit, your the most effective circumvative artist I've ever seen on these boards.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:40 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No he's not, I am!  You take it back!

Oops, sorry.




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:14 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 3:40 PM on March 2, 2006 :
I have to admit, your the most effective...artist I've ever seen on these boards.

Thank you, Entwick!

(O.K. I admit it, I took you out of context)



(Edited by serp 3/2/2006 at 11:41 PM).


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 11:11 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.