22 Nov 08
1 edit
There seems to have been a short debate about salvation and works and Jesus and stuff a while back,to which I forgot to respond. I shall do so now ... {drum roll}...
I believe it is perfectly acceptable to be a Christian and follow Christ's teachings in anticipation of a better life after we leave this earthly coil. There seems to be some revulsion at this thought, but I don't see why. I'm certain Christ wouldn't have told us how wonderful heaven is if he had not wanted to instill in us a desire to be there. So to those of you like me who like it here, but are sure glad that there's something on the other side to greatly look forward to, I'm sure Jesus approves. 😀
22 Nov 08
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhousewhy dont you tell the truth and state that in nearly every case the resultant mutation is incontrovertibly inferior! why because as the encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing 'of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents', also because of the harmful nature of mutations, the very same source states 'the fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.', thus further to this it is well established through years of experimentation that when mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same, as G. Ledyard Stebbins, an american evolutionary biologist observed, 'after a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated,' (and please no more crying babies claiming misrepresentation when a source is cited!) why? quite simply they could not compete, alas alas! they could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage. how then is the reasonable and rational thinking person supposed to equate mutations as a valid basis for evolutionary improvement, which does after all form the basis of the hypothesis itself, and is evidently self contradictory! thus we must ask ourselves the question, does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down, that is destructive rather than constructive, for that is what you are proposing?
Evolutionists know that quite well that not everything gets 'better', some mutations that are passed on because they are not lethal but causes some problem for the life form in question, they know that happens but that kind of thing is in the minority of mutations. Besides, a lot of what happens in evolution is not from mutations, random stuff, it actually ybe even allowing us to make life from non-life, much as you would hate to swallow that one.
let us however give them poor ol putty cat athiests a large consession, say that the mutations did produce something beneficial, would that produce anything new, hardly it would simply produce a different variation. not something new! for example a plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water but has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else. therfore we conclude that mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers or fluffy rabbit hair, oh by the way, i have been trying to get my rabbits to reason, you know as per your other post, and trying to teach my goldfish how to paint, so far the conclusions are indecisive, perhaps if you bought a cat, you could teach it to talk, then we would really be in a position to determine if animals were reasoning entities.
perhaps you can site some examples of transmigration of one species to another to support your hypothesis? for in every attempt at interbreeding even in closely related species such as horses and donkeys, the resultant mutation is impotent and unable to pass its genetic code onto the next generation!
so enough of this condescension with statements like, 'you probably don't understand,or not the kind of intelligence you envision', its relatively easy to make something more complicated than it needs to be, but to take something profound and explain it simply is the real essence and art of teaching!
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydperhaps christs own words may suffice to dispel the myth!
Then, to quote a very famous person from the Bible, "You have erred...." 😀
'Did you not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”
you will of course notice christs reference to reading, where were they reading from, the book of genesis no less, naturally, where else, new scientist magazine? what was Christ teaching, that Adam and eve, the originators of humanity were , the product of non living matter that managed to form itself into proteins and form the basic buildings blocks of life in a pre organic 'soup', no that they were created, see that, created, get that created, undoubtedly created, unequivocally created, without a shadow of a doubt created, read it again created! how can one state then, contrary to Christ own teaching that this is not what he meant, i simply cannot imagine.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonto the first it is easy: god has a plan. (wink wink)
[b]…intelligent design doesn't have as consequence that creation is perfect.,.….
If what you mean by “intelligent design” is intelligent design by god, then doesn’t saying that god created an imperfect design imply that the intellect of god is finite or even imperfect? -why else would he create imperfection?
…after all, death of living ...[text shortened]... that with the fact that we eventually die (if that is what you are doing here) for that reason.
by being imperfect we strive for improvement. i put forward the idea that if we were created perfect whatever that may mean we would not improve ourselves, not progress because it would be no place left to go. if we accept the idea of a creating god, then why would he create something that is static, that cannot evolve? if the meaning of life is to improve ourselves, what would our purpose be if we are perfect?
death is a necessary flaw. because our time is limited, we strive to make as deep an impact as we can. if we were immortal, there would be no pressure, and while some progress will happen, it will happen at a slower rate(very). one doesn't have to go research human anatomy if there are no diseases. one doesn't have to invent telescopes if human vision is perfect. and again i ask, what is perfect? would you settle for a kilometer perfect sight? or would you want to see as far as a light year?
and of course you are missing out the point that if you start debating from the idea that god created us, death isn't such an issue because there will be an afterlife, one that is eternal or so we are told. if perfection is to be had after this existence and this perfection will last for eternity, why can't we enjoy this life, treasure every moment where we actually have to overcome difficulties, better ourselves?
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefor the first part i just say to you: stay away from x-men cartoons. you are starting to take them as a documentary.
why dont you tell the truth and state that in nearly every case the resultant mutation is incontrovertibly inferior! why because as the encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing 'of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents', also because of the harmful nature of mutations, the ve ...[text shortened]... take something profound and explain it simply is the real essence and art of teaching!
"let us however give them poor ol putty cat athiests a large consession, say that the mutations did produce something beneficial, would that produce anything new, hardly it would simply produce a different variation. not something new!"
moving away from the fact that you erroneously assumed only atheists are evolutionists, did you ever find in evolution books something that says new species appear over night? that evolution makes leaps? do you think evolutionists think a monkey had sex with a monkey and produced a homo sapiens? are you that daft? mutations introduce minor variations in the species. if they are beneficial, they are kept and in later generations the mutants are not eliminated, the mutants become the species.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"i cannot imagine" yes you cannot, since you are too brainwashed by your pastors or whatever voodoo people you have messing your brain. imagination has long since been a luxury to you.
perhaps christs own words may suffice to dispel the myth!
'Did you not [b]read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, ...[text shortened]... hen, contrary to Christ own teaching that this is not what he meant, i simply cannot imagine.[/b]
he was talking to brain washed people, to pharisees. what do you think would have made more impact, a lecture on evolution (or whatever is the ultimate truth) or using their own words. he is preaching against divorce. yet you take this as conclusive proof that jesus is preaching creationism.
maybe he didn't want to give any scientifically fact, maybe he wanted to mess with the brain dead creationists of today, maybe he was misquoted by the peeps who wrote the bible. yet you never thought of other possibilities. you hold the bible to be unquestionable. and instead of realizing it is just one source of information and verifying the issues presented you just eat them up whole.
22 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzilol, do you also write for mills and boon?, im sure my granny reads some of your work! for i certainly dont!
"i cannot imagine" yes you cannot, since you are too brainwashed by your pastors or whatever voodoo people you have messing your brain. imagination has long since been a luxury to you.
he was talking to brain washed people, to pharisees. what do you think would have made more impact, a lecture on evolution (or whatever is the ultimate truth) or using the just one source of information and verifying the issues presented you just eat them up whole.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are making the clearly false assertion that red hair is identical to black hair? I think you need to think your claim through a bit then revise it so that it actually make sense.
let us however give them poor ol putty cat athiests a large consession, say that the mutations did produce something beneficial, would that produce anything new, hardly it would simply produce a different variation. not something new! for example a plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plan ...[text shortened]... to talk, then we would really be in a position to determine if animals were reasoning entities.
You mention that a mutation 'produces' something then assert that what is 'produced' is not 'new'. I simply cannot think of any interpretation of such a claim that make any sense.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhitehead'I simply cannot think of any interpretation of such a claim that make any sense.',
So you are making the clearly false assertion that red hair is identical to black hair? I think you need to think your claim through a bit then revise it so that it actually make sense.
You mention that a mutation 'produces' something then assert that what is 'produced' is not 'new'. I simply cannot think of any interpretation of such a claim that make any sense.
if you read the text there was an example given, you would naturaly have to use your brain to make sense of it, is it any wonder that you cannot?
dig
23 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…by being imperfect we strive for improvement. i put forward the idea that if we were created perfect whatever that may mean we would not IMPROVE ourselves, not PROGRESS because it would be no place left to go..…(my emphasises)
to the first it is easy: god has a plan. (wink wink)
by being imperfect we strive for improvement. i put forward the idea that if we were created perfect whatever that may mean we would not improve ourselves, not progress because it would be no place left to go. if we accept the idea of a creating god, then why would he create something that is static, t fe, treasure every moment where we actually have to overcome difficulties, better ourselves?
So the reason why “god” made us imperfect is so that we “IMPROVE” ourselves,
-ok, there are 4 main problems I see with that hypothesis;
1, what do you mean by “IMPROVE” ourselves? Give me an example.
2, I vaguely remember that you gave an “example” to (1) before that went roughly along the lines: “god made our muscles weak so that we would evolve big brains” ? (correct me if I am wrong here -was it you?) but I then pointed out that if god gave us weak muscles so that we would evolve bigger and more intelligent brains then his “aim” would have been to give us bigger and more intelligent brains but then that would beg the question;
“if god had BOTH the power and the desire to make our muscles weak so that we would develop big brains then, given that is the case, this begs the question why wouldn’t god had BOTH the power and the desire to make our brains big directly thus bypassing the absurdly long (hundreds of millions of years) and inefficient and messy evolution process?”
3, many of our imperfections don’t allow us to strive to “improve” ourselves.
Example; the blind spot in our eyes -how does that naturally lead us to strive to “improve” ourselves?
Also, some of these imperfections actually directly make it harder for us to make “PROGRESS” with anything; what about proneness to dementia in our old age? If somebody suffers from dementia then I assume that is going to make it much harder (if not impossible) for him/her to “IMPROVE” himself (whatever that means).
4, “…would not IMPROVE ourselves, not PROGRESS because it would be no place left to go…” -correct; but why create a need to make “PROGRESS” in the first place if you have the power to create perfection thus eliminate the need for progress?
If I was designing a car, it would be stupid of me to deliberately design it with obvious design flaws just so that other people could make “PROGRESS” undoing those flaws.
…if we accept the idea of a creating god, then why would he create something that is static, that cannot evolve?..…
What is so good about “evolving” if you can bypass all that by using your intelligence to create perfection without the long, inefficient and messy evolution process?
…if the meaning of life is to improve ourselves, ….
What is the promise for that belief?
Why couldn’t I or anyone else decide for themselves what their “purpose” in life is?
…what would our purpose be if we are perfect? .….
-Whatever you choose it to be.
…death is a necessary flaw. because our time is limited, we strive to make as deep an impact as we can. if we were immortal, there would be no pressure, and while some progress will happen, it will happen at a slower rate (very).
.….
So you don’t see the idea that god could make us evolve big brains by the very slow changes made by evolution over many millions of years as a “problem“, and yet, you DO see the idea that god could make us perfect as a “problem“ because that would mean we would strive to make progress at a much slower rate?
-this is a logical inconsistency.
…one doesn't have to go research human anatomy if there are no diseases. ..…
But people would still study anatomy out of pure curiosity -you don’t need people dying of horrible diseases for that.
….one doesn't have to invent telescopes if human vision is perfect. .…
Not true, the laws of physics put a limit on how well an optic system can see given the finite diameter of the gap that allows light through.
Although I suppose a “god” could have designed the laws of physics so to allow us to do literally anything?
….and again i ask, what is perfect?…
I do not claim to know what “perfect” is because I don’t.
But I DO claim to know what obvious and stupid design flaws are -big difference.
…would you settle for a kilometre perfect sight?.…
Again, I do not claim to know what “perfect” is.
….or would you want to see as far as a light year? .…
Actually, we already can see as far as a light year; just look at any star in the sky except our sun.
….and of course you are missing out the point that if you start debating from the idea that god created us, death isn't such an issue because there will be an afterlife, one that is eternal or so we are told. if perfection is to be had after this existence and this perfection will last for eternity, why can't we enjoy this life, treasure every moment where we actually have to overcome difficulties, better ourselves?…
You seem to think that “difficulties” are a good thing -wouldn’t it be more pleasant if we didn’t have horrible difficulties (such as rabies etc) to “overcome” in the first place?
And why would we necessarily have to bother to “better ourselves” if we are all eventually going to be “perfect” in the “afterlife” anyway? -I mean, if I believed that there is an “afterlife” where we all will be “perfect” and if I was lazy then I may not bother with the hassle of “bettering myself“ -I would just merely wait until I “die” to get the perfection I desire in the “afterlife“.
P.S. I apologise for making such a big post -I cannot seem to condense it down.
24 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have read it over and over and still cannot make sense of it.
'I simply cannot think of any interpretation of such a claim that make any sense.',
if you read the text there was an example given, you would naturaly have to use your brain to make sense of it, is it any wonder that you cannot?
dig
Can you explain it again? If a mutation results in a new characteristic, how is that characteristic not new? How is the organism having the new characteristic not new?
24 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'll have to find the link but geneticists have just found evidence of lateral transfer of DNA from bacteria directly into human DNA, the more they analyze human DNA the more they find that is not strictly human. We already know herpes virus is ensconsed pretty deep into our DNA and now they are finding evidence for bacteria crossing the species line.
why dont you tell the truth and state that in nearly every case the resultant mutation is incontrovertibly inferior! why because as the encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing 'of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents', also because of the harmful nature of mutations, the ve ...[text shortened]... take something profound and explain it simply is the real essence and art of teaching!
24 Nov 08
Originally posted by sonhouseIts not surprising, its a well known fact that DNA transfer is fairly common in plants.
I'll have to find the link but geneticists have just found evidence of lateral transfer of DNA from bacteria directly into human DNA, the more they analyze human DNA the more they find that is not strictly human. We already know herpes virus is ensconsed pretty deep into our DNA and now they are finding evidence for bacteria crossing the species line.
24 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadok its quite elementary Dr. Watson, you are unable to differentiate between a characteristic and a new species, the mutation as has been shown by endless experimentation results not in a new species but simply a variation of original species, thus there are finches with different types of beak, but they are all finches, there are many variation of dogs, but essentially they are all dogs etc etc etc oh and if this is the best you got then i can safely conclude that mutations are unable to provide any valid basis for the variety of species that we see on earth due to lack of evidence on your part.😀
I have read it over and over and still cannot make sense of it.
Can you explain it again? If a mutation results in a new characteristic, how is that characteristic not new? How is the organism having the new characteristic not new?