Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...and yet you absolutely, outright, unquestioningly and stubbornly believe all the poorly written, ambiguous stuff in the bible, as well as the apologist press citations on he Web, then what can we say? "It's officially hopeless to talk to you" is what we can say. No matter what, you'll come back with a really nonsense and infuriating answer for the most part. If your sole goal is simply to infuriate us, then you're also simply a troll, and an immature one at that. Personally, I'd not want that reputation, but that's just me....
You've obviously made up your mind, unlike science's approach, which is to continue to question, affirm, solidify or refine and improve their information. That way, it becomes more and more valid, just as the bible's version, which is set in stone, becomes less and less likely or valid.
But of course it's not just a simple case of one guy's ideas versus those of the other guy. Like: which is the best table saw; Delta or Hitachi, or which is the better built sedan: Honda or Chevy? (answer: Japanese, in both cases. Some things are just plain obvious aren't they, but especially when the choice is fully supportable by all the evidence. You know; like Evolution?)
Nope. This, for Christians, is a battle to the finish about their entire belief system. It's a life-long investment they've made, and to even consider that it's been wrong all along? Ouch! That's probably way too much for most religious folks to handle. They'd be tossing themselves off the cliffs in record numbers.
Hmmm.... Much better to run from the truth, eh? But still, there's got to be this nagging little guy on your shoulder, your inner conscience, whispering "But what if they're right, baket?"
So I now fully understand, after 1.6 years of posting on C-D, that noamount of calm logic and discussion, no lists of accomplished proofs or outstanding evidence, or amazing new scientific techniques, will ever convince most Christians to change their minds. For the most part that is. Especially if they are past, say, 25 years old and their minds are beginning to "solidify" forever.
Of course there's always hope. Imagine if you weren't so stuck on defending the indefensible, baket. Imagine that you had the freedom to let your imagination go anywhere, to examine everything without feeling like you're betraying your beliefs, or some menacing God who metes out punishments if you're not "good" and obedient.
Baket, we use a method called radiometric dating to date the earth. This is a very accurate method of dating. I know the bible tells you to believe something different, but try researching science. Also, dinosaur fossils are real. You can go to a natural history museum and see that they are real. Also, the reason you're 'attacked' is because you keep making all of these blatantly ignorant statements and purporting them as fact, even after it has been explained to you why they are untrue.
Hey; even I didn't notice at first the scale of that fossil in the link I provided above. Check out the people in that picture!
Nope. Musta been fabricated down in the basement lab out of plywood or mud by those lying scientists, eh?
"Hey Fred! Finished with that plaster thigh bone yet? Hurry up; there's some Christians in the line!"
Can you imagine these things co-existing with the Jews, unnoticed down by the sea-shore or wandering into town? But then absolutely no-one writing anything more about them than the unrelated stuff in Job? You know, where, in fact, God is simply saying He, being The Main Man, could, if He wanted, make leviathans? Gawd; how gullible can they get?*
I'm thinking that, in fact, I'm the only one who has actually read and studied Job. The guys who use it to defend co-existing dinos are simply parroting The Creation Institute's frantic braying, in hopes that their dedicated congregation won't bother to check on anything.
so rifleman
you say that the chances of mutation effecting the gene positivly are very low -yet the whole world came from positive mutations -and you say thats it me that wont look the truth in the face
come on man, if Einstein and Newton could see that their is intellegent design behind it all then why cant you-
so rifleman
you say that the chances of mutation effecting the gene positivly are very low -yet the whole world came from positive mutations -and you say thats it me that wont look the truth in the face
You're forgetting the fact that it's taken 4.5 billion years for life to become this complex. While mutations generally don't positively affect an organism, when something in an organism's environment changes, those that have the traits that best suit an organism to survive will therefore survive. This is where organisms change. The mutations that help an organism adapt to a given environment will be passed on, while those that don't, die off.
so rifleman
you say that the chances of mutation effecting the gene positivly are very low -yet the whole world came from positive mutations -and you say thats it me that wont look the truth in the face
come on man, if Einstein and Newton could see that their is intellegent design behind it all then why cant you-
I'll bother to instruct you in this one time only. It's easily checked up on in even an intro biology text book if you cared to read one. I really don't hold out that you'll willingly grasp it, but here goes anyhow. BTW, this is statistically valid, but also remember; I'm going to keep it as sort as possible. Right off the top of my silly little pinhead, no rehearsals! Groan.
1) An existing organism has a very large number of codons, gene pairs (alleles) that exactly specify individual proteins necessary to life. This is fact; if we remove some of these pairs, the organism dies, or suffers some sort of serious side effect.
2) Mutations do occur, in more or less reliable frequency. This is due to the impact of ionizing radiation from solar flare bursts from the sun or from medical X-rays, or from the Radon in your basement, or from chemicals you breath in or ingest (like DDT, etc.). All proven mechanisms, and easily demonstrated in the lab. or in life.
Hey: there's a reason they tell you to not have too many X-Rays, or to limit tanning booth time, or to not get a bad sunburn, or to go inside when we know there's to be big solar flares. It's to prevent ionizing radiation from knocking the heck out of the DNA in your body. Get it?
3) We also know that, at least from natural sources, the rate at which these mutations occur is pretty stable. In fact, it's useful as a rough clock when comparing DNA from different species, and can tell us, again roughly, when species diversified from their ancestors.
4) Even though almost all such chance mutations would, logically, be lethal (like you or I trying to make the picture quality better in our new HD TVs by randomly tinkering with the circuit boards), remember: consider the absolute number of participating organisms in even a liter of sea water. That's been calculated as, easily, billions of those cute little buggers! That's with a "B". In just one measly litre!
5) Statistics enters the picture. Each and every cellular division represents a possibility of passing on a chance mutation. If it's lethal, then the offspring die. But the sheer numbers of such trials is billions and billions multiplied by trillions and trillions, times 10 - 15 million years of this happening several each day. Times how many liters of water are there in the ocean, doeable? Quite a really REALLY big number, wouldn't you say?
6) And yet, all that has to happen for a simple, single improvement is, perhaps, an increased sensitivity to sunlight in the photosynthesis process. Or a change that lengthens a rodent's hind leg, allowing it to run faster than the rodent who inherited the opposite: a shorter leg. Or a change in the amount of digestive enzyme, allowing some herbivore to better digest some previously undigestible leaf type.
It's not necessary for a dog to completely change it's genome to that of a cat overnight. That's just stupid on it's face, and yet we hear it all the time from frantic Christians who just don't understand, or who let others do their thinking for them. Just stupid!
7) such improvements tend to group, because a mutation which does not enhance anything with the existing genome, might well suddenly find itself of use in the new organism, given new conditions and a newly occupied niche. Or not. But again, it gets to be tested in literally uncountable numbers of test cases. Eventually, it sorts itself towards a general improvement.
8) Unoccupied niches in the ecosystem are going begging for a suitable inhabitant, so any improvement that allows a new organism to use that previously unused food source will flourish.
9) And thus a new species has evolved. By our definition of "species".
10) Easy huh? of course, you'll deny it, but hey: think it over. It's the way it works, In fact it's all been incontrovertibly demonstrated in the lab two years ago, over the course of a 22 year long experiment, with each generation's DNA kept in the freezer so you can see exactly how many mutations it took to come up with one really good one that also created a new species. Literally millions of lethal or passive mutations, but then, one good one.
Well, here they come. The denials. But I can still hope you see at least a glimmer of light can't I?
Good post as always Rifleman. Interestingly enough, I personally have a genetic mutation that could have been
very beneficial in the no so distant past -- I have no wisdom teeth. I don't mean they just never came
in, I never had any, and xrays to prove it. Perhaps I am a more advanced human, or even a transitional species!!
I'll bother to instruct you in this one time only. It's easily checked up on in even an intro biology text book if you cared to read one. I really don't hold out that you'll willingly grasp it, but here goes anyhow. BTW, this is statistically valid, but also remember; I'm going to keep it as sort as possible. Right off the top of my silly little pinhead, no rehearsals! Groan.
1) An existing organism has a very large number of codons, gene pairs (alleles) that exactly specify individual proteins necessary to life. This is fact; if we remove some of these pairs, the organism dies, or suffers some sort of serious side effect.
2) Mutations do occur, in more or less reliable frequency. This is due to the impact of ionizing radiation from solar flare bursts from the sun or from medical X-rays, or from the Radon in your basement, or from chemicals you breath in or ingest (like DDT, etc.). All proven mechanisms, and easily demonstrated in the lab. or in life.
Hey: there's a reason they tell you to not have too many X-Rays, or to limit tanning booth time, or to not get a bad sunburn, or to go inside when we know there's to be big solar flares. It's to prevent ionizing radiation from knocking the heck out of the DNA in your body. Get it?
3) We also know that, at least from natural sources, the rate at which these mutations occur is pretty stable. In fact, it's useful as a rough clock when comparing DNA from different species, and can tell us, again roughly, when species diversified from their ancestors.
4) Even though almost all such chance mutations would, logically, be lethal (like you or I trying to make the picture quality better in our new HD TVs by randomly tinkering with the circuit boards), remember: consider the absolute number of participating organisms in even a liter of sea water. That's been calculated as, easily, billions of those cute little buggers! That's with a "B". In just one measly litre!
5) Statistics enters the picture. Each and every cellular division represents a possibility of passing on a chance mutation. If it's lethal, then the offspring die. But the sheer numbers of such trials is billions and billions multiplied by trillions and trillions, times 10 - 15 million years of this happening several each day. Times how many liters of water are there in the ocean, doeable? Quite a really REALLY big number, wouldn't you say?
6) And yet, all that has to happen for a simple, single improvement is, perhaps, an increased sensitivity to sunlight in the photosynthesis process. Or a change that lengthens a rodent's hind leg, allowing it to run faster than the rodent who inherited the opposite: a shorter leg. Or a change in the amount of digestive enzyme, allowing some herbivore to better digest some previously undigestible leaf type.
It's not necessary for a dog to completely change it's genome to that of a cat overnight. That's just stupid on it's face, and yet we hear it all the time from frantic Christians who just don't understand, or who let others do their thinking for them. Just stupid!
7) such improvements tend to group, because a mutation which does not enhance anything with the existing genome, might well suddenly find itself of use in the new organism, given new conditions and a newly occupied niche. Or not. But again, it gets to be tested in literally uncountable numbers of test cases. Eventually, it sorts itself towards a general improvement.
8) Unoccupied niches in the ecosystem are going begging for a suitable inhabitant, so any improvement that allows a new organism to use that previously unused food source will flourish.
9) And thus a new species has evolved. By our definition of "species".
10) Easy huh? of course, you'll deny it, but hey: think it over. It's the way it works, In fact it's all been incontrovertibly demonstrated in the lab two years ago, over the course of a 22 year long experiment, with each generation's DNA kept in the freezer so you can see exactly how many mutations it took to come up with one really good one that also created a new species. Literally millions of lethal or passive mutations, but then, one good one.
Well, here they come. The denials. But I can still hope you see at least a glimmer of light can't I?
thanks for the time for posting all that-i can honestly say that ive learned a little about gene mutation from it-but-and i know your goin to love me for this-but
that dosent actually mean or prove that every little or big living thing on this planet has evolved from two cells or whatever
o.k. certain cells can mutate for the better but that dosent mean species can evolve into different species-but i can see where you can get that theory from-just dosent prove it-and i know your goin to say well you cant prove God exists either but the fact that we have a real working universe could be proof enough or look into the vedic literatures and see how much knowledge is given-thanks anyway but im still skeptical
so rifleman
you say that the chances of mutation effecting the gene positivly are very low -yet the whole world came from positive mutations -and you say thats it me that wont look the truth in the face
Seems perfectly consent. The odds of winning the lottery are very low yet all lottery winners did actually win the lottery. What's so hard to understand about that?
Quote:
come on man, if Einstein and Newton could see that their is intellegent design behind it all then why cant you-
Where did Einstein claim there was "intelligent design behind it all"?
And just to be clear, are you advocating Newton's version of Unitarianism here?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Brace Yourselves, folks.....
