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.
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?
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?
and how many people out of all the people that do the lotto actually win-not very many
go back a page or two and you'll see the link about einstein
So doeable...... a day after I explained it, did you "get it" but don't want to admit it? Do you now, "aha!", see how it works, but are going to deny it still?
Or are you perhaps going to say: "Oh. I see! Yep: makes complete sense now that someone has actually logically explained it to me!"
Just curious, and I have a bet with someone. You can help me lose that bet!
So doeable...... a day after I explained it, did you "get it" but don't want to admit it? Do you now, "aha!", see how it works, but are going to deny it still?
Or are you perhaps going to say: "Oh. I see! Yep: makes complete sense now that someone has actually logically explained it to me!"
Just curious, and I have a bet with someone. You can help me lose that bet!
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
I would like to suggest that you read the following:
(this is a very brief Wiki discussion; there are other far more elaborate reviews of all of his work up to this year)
There are many others, including some barely-disguised ugly attempts to discredit his work, but those efforts only serve to show the true colors of the fanatic literalists behind them.
Richard Lenski watched a particular species of e.coli bacterium for well over 22 years, "religiously" keeping samples of each and every generation's genome in the freezer under optimum conditions for DNA stability. When the new technique of DNA genome mapping became available, he set to the task of charting and comparing the genome maps of each of those generations. When he also noted that one new generation was capable of doing something that none of the previous generations were able to do (digest a particular substrate component), he checked the genome of the newbie and saw exactly where and when it had naturally mutated.
One of the definitions of "species" is that a new species can accomplish some unique task that it's predecessor absolutely could not accomplish. Like a new type of African cat that evolved to outrun it's prey in a solitary attack, high-speed charge, versus a mob attack at slow speeds. Lions and cheetahs are different species, but there are also different species of lions within the lion group. Differences do not have to necessarily be "gross morphological" ones.
As defined, Lenski witnessed natural speciation, and the citrate substrate that the new species could and did utilize was always there, but the original species couldnot and didnot use it. Wrong genetics. There were also literally tens of thousands of useless mutations Lenski documented that appeared to lead nowhere at the time. As well, by differentiating, the new citrate-eating bacterium no longer competed with it's ancestor for food, so competition was reduced, making this speciation beneficial to both species.
Finally, this independent development did facilitate several other previous mutations that were quietly waiting in the wings, so to speak, neutral until this benchmark change. Then, they were able to express themselves, and several new characteristics them became obvious and active, demonstrating another often-seen-in-nature phenomenon: groupings of positive mutations and what appears to be high-frequency positive mutation rates.
It's not that they implausibly all occurred together by chance, but rather that they sort of "patted each other on the back" and expressed themselves, having been quietly accumulating, being non-lethal and thus temporarily benign, and not showing themselves until a key mutation had occurred which then allowed them to operate and benefit the organism.
Quite the study! Logical, straightforward and well-documented. Irrefutable, in fact, though AiG and other websites are hard at it with nutball efforts to debunk an absolute proof of evolutionary speciation.
and how many people out of all the people that do the lotto actually win-not very many
So we both agree - the fact that something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible.
Quote:
go back a page or two and you'll see the link about einstein
All I see is an unsupported assertion that like Einstein believed in some sort of personal creator god. That's obviously nonsense - "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"
So we both agree - the fact that something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible.
Quote:
Quite so, KC, and when we bake in the unimaginably large numbers of test events and consequent trials in a global ocean full of organo-chemical precursors, it's a no-brainer. After all, what are the chances of my winning the lottery if I (magically) were able to buy, oh let's say, a trillion, quintrillion, bah-zillion tickets over 14 million years? The question then is not whether I'll win, but rather how many millions of times I'd reliably win. And then, if I re-invested my winnings in even more tickets, pretty soon I"d be known as ""Mr Lucky," now wouldn't I?
So, trying to conflate the chances of a single win (almost zero) with this alternate of mass testing is absurd, but entirely predictable and in tune with the statistically illiterate statements of those who don't want to accept Evolution.
All I see is an unsupported assertion that like Einstein believed in some sort of personal creator god. That's obviously nonsense - "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"
Perhaps the persistent and documented need of the generalized religious mindset for group acknowledgment, for assertion that their beliefs are valid just because a bunch of other people have been equally convinced, is the "driver" for this sort of behavior. Atheists, having achieved critical psychological escape velocity, are now in free-float, absent the tugs of spiritual gravity (oh gawd; I'm on a role now, huh?) that would otherwise trap them and limit their ability to see and consider real (rational, valid) alternatives.
When someone of significant scholarly achievements, coupled with an ability to communicate to the masses, does come along, they are automatically and routinely denigrated, despised and mocked. On purpose, orchestrated and Look at Dawkins, who is arguably one of the nicest guys out there. Or Darwin, who struggled with telling his story because he knew it's impact on his religion. Or David Suzuki up in Canada. Or Carl Sagan. Or, most recently, Richard Lenski. Or literally anyone who dares to mutter the truth.....
BTW, all of these notables completely dismiss the Intelligent Design silliness, on it's irrational face.
But if the Christian doctrine- holders can suggest that some other notable scholar, especially a scientist, is Christian, why then, it's full steam ahead with the orchestrated mis-information! They also often mis-quote or quote-mine these folks, or simply lie, as is so often the case when Einstein or Oppenheimer are quoted. It's all Oky-Doky in the holy wars, apparently, But hardly the stuff of a righteous Christian ethic, huh?
Here's the bottom line: anyone who comes up with a really good argument or study that puts the boots to long-held religious dogma will be righteously attacked without mercy until the typical trained and ingrained knee-jerk reaction from the congregation is one of utter disdain. That is coupled with an all-knowing smirk and "nod of the head" amongst the coffee clatch clan (the "CCC"??) who, coincidentally, are utterly without any true scientific training. Doesn't stop 'em from rendering "knowledgeable" opinions though huh?. The gossip and lies spread like the plague, and the church minions smirkingly assume they've won another battle.
It worked for the Jews since the Maccabean Revolt, IS the basis for Hanukkah.
Why do you people habitually make such assumptions?
Yeah, yeah, IF you had read the Bible, IF You REALLY KNEW the Bible then....
Here's your problem, there are Biblical scholars who are fluent in Greek, Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew who have spent their lives studying the Tanakh, the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the non-canoncal books of the Bible, all are devout Christians and Jews and they DON'T AGREE on what the Bible may or may not say. So, please... spare me.
Yes, Ezekiel really didn't mean the Second Temple that was built 500 years after his prophecy, he meant the THIRD TEMPLE, the one that still hasn't been built!
Of course the Maccabean Revolt worked for the Jews, because they replace the Word of God with whatever work for themselves. And that is why the God of the Bible was so disgusted with the Jewish people. Because they made their religion all about themselves, and not about God. And Gods Word is not an assumption, it is a truth the Jewish people work at ignoring. And of course Ezekiel would have to of been speaking of a third Temple, because Jerusalems Porch Gate did not exist during the second temple. (IT EXIST TODAY). And Jesus Christ told us before hand, that the second temple would be destroyed. And when the third Temple is rebuilt, Jerusalems Porch Gate will exist at the sametime. Of course, you would have to be able to add 2+2 to understand this. You see, prophecy is like a combination lock. Unless all the tumblers line up, no matter how hard you try to force open the lock. It will not open. And hears your problem. You are looking at certain scholars who agree with what you want to believe. Yet you ignore what the Scriptures so plainly state. And then try to force fit the prophecy into an impossible historical perspective. If you pay no attention to the details of the prophecies, you will just repeat the same mistakes the Jewish people made in the past.
Yes, as expected...you're expecting to see a fish-frog aren't you? Shouldn't have expected anything else really. Act of pure optimism to have posed the question in the first place.
What was refuted was your claim that there are more Jews in Israel and Jurusalem now than in the USA. You were wrong. Others have pointed out to you that your figures don't add up and that there is no massive rush of Jews back to Israel. Your constant harping about this and denying what has been clearly pointed out to you is bordering on insanity.
My claim that there are more Jews today in Israel than in America was never refuted with facts, but with B.S. And according to the Jewish Virtual Library. As of 2006, there were 5,313,800 Jews living in Israel. And in that same year, there were 5,275,000 living in America. And according to recent demographics, the number of Jews in Israel will dramatically continue to increase from this time on. And I don't care about your others. And unless your willing to post facts, please don't waste our time with your empty rhetoric. Clearly, the only thing I see being pointed out to me is the personal opinion of others, that is not supported by facts.
And yes, I am expecting to see a fish frog. And as soon as National Geographic thought they had a real dino bird. They plastered all over the cover of their magazine. So it appears I am not the only one expecting to see something like this. However, as it turned out, it was just another fake fossil from China.
When creationists claim that evolution is false, they often say that life is to complex to have arisen without divine intervention. This is a problematic argument though. Evolution has withstood 150 years of rigorous empirical testing and has always been proven to be true.
No, it has not. If it was "proven" true, there would be no issue. But just saying it happened without proof is the reason it fails. Especially when facts are interpreted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
Flaw #1: When creationists claim design, they are never able to provide evidence for such a claim. What they're really saying is that they look at something such as the Grand Canyon and see how beautiful it is, and then are not able to understand how life could have arisen through natural(meaning nonsupernatural for those who want to claim I'm using the natural 'just is' argument) processes. They don't understand that evidence comes from scientific testing.
Yet, isn't it amazing that designers constantly study nature to find new and amazing ways to manipulate nature for man's benifit. For example studying the complex structural components of a spiders web helps us develope cables far stronger then steel for the same size and weight.
So, you cannot see the design in nature, but designers cannot help but copy this design in nature? Makes sense to me...Not!
BTW, just because we do "science", that dose not mean anti-God! It is the Christians that developed science in the first place to attempt to understand the design in the handiwork of God. So science is based in Christianity. If you don't know God, you can't do science. You actually do things that are anti-scientific like feeding crockadile dung to teething children. Without a belief in God, science could not arise in the first place. For a belief in God is required to have science accually work. If there is no God, there is no reason to believe that there is an order to the world around us. Since God said that every thing will continue according to his laws, we can then study these laws. If you do not believe in God, there is no reason to assume that things that happened in the past will happen in the future. You cannot see this because you are living in a time where Christian science has been developed. You are unaware of the resoning for science to even work in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
Flaw #2: The Design argument is immune to disproof. Creationists claim that the design argument is scientific, but their core concept(god) is undetectable by empirical testing.
God is spirit and is outside of creation. If he was detectable, then he would be in nature bound under the creation. This would then not be the God who created the Universe.
God is the creator and as such is outside of the creation, outside of time itself, since time is only a function of matter in space and does not exist in and of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
Flaw #3: Another flaw is that they compare two completely unrelated phenomena. The first is man made(usually a watch), the second is natural phenomena(the world). They assume that the two work the same, but they don't. Another problem with this argument is that you can go to see the watchmaker to learn how he/she makes the watch, but you can't go to God's magic universe factory.
I'm sure others can think of more flaws, but here's a start.
Do you not see a design in a watch? Do you see the design in a childs see saw? This fulcrum is used in the human body, at you elbow at your joints. Or a camera? Yet we can compare the eye. Through the design arguement, they have not attempted to discover God somewhere in nature. You seem to be ignorant of this. But, to find design. Evolutionist constantly refer to the design of nature. For example the bad design of the human eye with the optic nerve and vesels in front of the retna. Yet how many people with 20/20 complain about not seeing correctly? That is absurd! The human eye is a perfect design when working properly. Just because the evolutionist cannot understand how the human eye works (or how it came about by evolutionary means) does not make it a bad design! In fact many times the more we study nature, the more complex and perfect we find it to be. The more design we see into it.
You are attempting to find flaws with the design arguement for creation, yet you don't even understand the basics of the arguement itself. Historical scientists has not even been able to prove that evolution exists. You say that our arguement is bad, stating basically our arguement is "God dunit", but evolution is no better saying "evolution dunit". Futher evolution is embarrasing, it buries its lack of evidence into million, no billions upon billions of years. Evolution is an embarrasment to the scientific community because it cannot produce what it has constantly claimed. For the past 200 years the evidence mounts against it. The discoveries become less and less and the old arguements are proven false. Sadly evolution is the old arguement that many scientist claim to be true, yet don't want to bring up because it is a useless arguement. It is always sited as an after thought. After the work is done, the claim and "Thsi proves evolution" regardless of what is being studied. It has to be their for scientist to get their funding, but it is never used for real scientific study. Any who claim that are not doing science anymore. They're probably retired old men up in Alaska sitting at their computers, hen pecking away for hours. Arguing old historical science hypotheses, yet enjoying God's creation in all it's beauty.
My claim that there are more Jews today in Israel than in America was never refuted with facts, but with B.S. And according to the Jewish Virtual Library. As of 2006, there were 5,313,800 Jews living in Israel. And in that same year, there were 5,275,000 living in America. And according to recent demographics, the number of Jews in Israel will dramatically continue to increase from this time on. And I don't care about your others. And unless your willing to post facts, please don't waste our time with your empty rhetoric. Clearly, the only thing I see being pointed out to me is the personal opinion of others, that is not supported by facts.
Aside from every other source I've looked at placing more Jews in the U.S. than anywhere else, that doesnt' even address the issue that more jews live outside of Israel than inside.
Quote:
And yes, I am expecting to see a fish frog.
Than you're an idiot. Evolution doesn't suggest any fish-frogs.
Quote:
And as soon as National Geographic thought they had a real dino bird. They plastered all over the cover of their magazine. So it appears I am not the only one expecting to see something like this. However, as it turned out, it was just another fake fossil from China.
And as everyone knows, National Geographic is a scientific peer-reviewed Journal and not a popular science magazine.
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.
As The World Turns
