Evolution, not a fact??????

[Ophiolite]

You are now becoming offensive on several counts.
1) Demonstrate that London is the athiest capital of the world, with valid data.
2) I have clearly stated that I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I may call you an idiot, for you appear to be, but I would not insult you by calling you an atheist, so what makes you feel it is acceptable to falsely and implicitly call me one?
3) The majority of the British population do not live in London. Approximately 90% live outside of London.

May I take it that your switch to discussing my language and nationality are a reflection of your utter failure to make your case? In short, a tacit admission that your ass has been well and truly whupped.

 

[Woody]

Ophi says: Demonstrate that London is the athiest capital of the world, with valid data.

Woody says: Why don't you ask Pavlos, Misty Highs, and Snakelord what they believe? They're all from London. There are several other Londoners on this forum, I still haven't found a BRIT that believes in god. Can you find one? Besides this base has already been covered if you care to research some of the old threads to help educate yourself.


Ophi: I have clearly stated that I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

Woody: Yes, you made that clear from the beginning -- you do not beleive there is a God.

Ophi: May I take it that your switch to discussing my language and nationality are a reflection of your utter failure to make your case? In short, a tacit admission that your ass has been well and truly whupped.

Woody: Well I hope you feel good about yourself because I'm not impressed with you.

 

[Ophiolite]

Point 1: It is very clear that you have no understanding of science: ad hoc counts from some random samplings of a handfull of posters to a single forum do not constitute any meaningful data for the purposes of demonstrating that 'London is the athiest capital of the world'. It is ludicrous to suggest, as you have done, that such a precise claim can be demonstrated with such flimsy trivia.
Point 2: This has wider implications: you are arguing on a science forum without a shred of a scientific approach. Fair enough: this is the religion section, but when you cross into scientific territory then it behoves you to follow scientific ground rules. This you have singularily failed to do in terms of your claim that there is some form of identity between the origin of life and its subsequent evolution. That is my initial dispute with you and yet you refuse to address it directly. You avoid it each time I raise it. You offer irrelevant side issues rather than addressing it. Have you misunderstood what it means to turn the other cheek?

Point 3: You are not so dumb that you do not understand that an agnostic does not not believe in God, but is undecided on the issue. It is trite, rude and unchristian to pretend otherwise. I trust you are suitably ashamed of yourself.

Point 4: from your last post
Ophi: May I take it that your switch to discussing my language and nationality are a reflection of your utter failure to make your case? In short, a tacit admission that your ass has been well and truly whupped.
Woody: Well I hope you feel good about yourself because I'm not impressed with you.

a) May I take it that you have utterly abandoned a defense of your position.
b) How I feel about myself has nothing to do with the lack of identity between evolution and the origin of life.
c) I did not set out to impress you.
d) I have no interest in impressing you.
e) Impressing you has bugger all to do with getting you to accept that evolution and the origin of life are two different things.

Do you yet accept that these two issues (the origin of life and evolution) are different things? If not, why not?
We might then move on to explore the mind numbing myopia that can honestly conclude that a belief in evolution precludes a belief in God. Fifty two years is a long time to wear blinkers.

 

[Woody]

OK Ophi I'll try to make amends with you. But I'll give you a hint. Your communication style is pretty abrasive. Calling other people names, and belittleing them really doesn't win you any points in a discussion. If that's all you are here for (and I don't think that is the case), then I suggest you get a life. I think you are better than that (I hope).

I'm not really here to argue.

Point 1:

Woody: Yes, England is an atheist country. As I said before, this subject has been covered well in this forum, and I'm too lazy to go through the threads for you.

Point 2:

Ophi: This you have singularily failed to do in terms of your claim that there is some form of identity between the origin of life and its subsequent evolution. That is my initial dispute with you and yet you refuse to address it directly.

Woody: There is only a slight link between the two and it's at the molecular level. But that is not the point I'm making. This is a major sticking point for you so I will attempt to explain. People of faith look at this subject differently from you.

Hypothetically you are correct when you say proving abiogenesis has nothing to do with proving evolution, but realistically, who actually BELIEVES God helped evolution but didn't create life to start with, or vice versa. It's basically ALL or NONE for a person of faith -- either they believe all of their faith or they believe none at all. I am a person of faith -- Either I believe all the Bible and its implications on life as we know it, or I believe none of it. It's that simple.

I hope you will realize this instead of rehearsing the mantra provided by others. It is crafted to create communication barriers, and it has worked to that effect in our "discussion."

Point 3: Ophi says: You are not so dumb that you do not understand that an agnostic does not not believe in God, but is undecided on the issue. It is trite, rude and unchristian to pretend otherwise. I trust you are suitably ashamed of yourself.

Woody says: Agnosticism is also called "weak atheism." I do not care to argue over definitions that you can find for yourself. This is not ignorance on my part, but it appears you do not understand your own position as it relates to the history of religion. Please read up on it instead of taking it out on me. Agnosticism is "weak atheism" because it does not acknowledge the existence of God, just like other forms of atheism. I agree with you, that agnostics do not write off the possibility of the supernatural, but that's only a nit, they are still classified as atheists according to religion definitions. I suggest you study the matter before you make a complete fool of yourself.

Point 4: Good I'm glad you are not offended by my observations of you.

I'm not here to argue, I came here to find out what the naturalistic folks have to say about aging, and how it fits in with naturalistic processes. It appears that aging is not under the control of naturalistic processes as we know them, and none of them give a satisfactory account for the reason all creatures age. This remains a mystery. I find mysteries fascinating -- pardon my curiosity

 

[SnakeLord]

Woody: You have your opinion, but I asked you to define "fitness" and you didn't have a definition.

You didn't actually, but nevermind. So, you'd like my personal definition of what "fitness" is, or some universal definition? Would you then like me to extend my definition of fitness and then force that upon all life?

Survival of the fittest.. It does not mean those that can run fastest, those than have the biggest penises, those that live the longest, can fly, breathe underwater etc. Each organism lives by a different definition. While to me, fitness would mean developing some extra lungs so I can run further and breathe easier, it is of little consequence to a fish.

Something that is better adapted to it's environment will stand a better chance of survival, (and passing on it's genes), than something that isn't. My definition of 'fitness' is utterly irrelevant.

Woody: yeah it figures. London is the atheist capital of the world.

Do you have any data concerning this or are you just making it up?

I still haven't found a BRIT that believes in god. Can you find one?

I know many. Time for a retraction of your claims perhaps.

Hypothetically you are correct when you say proving abiogenesis has nothing to do with proving evolution, but realistically, who actually BELIEVES God helped evolution but didn't create life to start with, or vice versa.

Who actually BELIEVES is not of relevance. Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing regardless to who BELIEVES god did whatever. It's not hypothetical, it's reality. Welcome to it.

 

[KennyJC]

Woody: Yes, England is an atheist country. As I said before, this subject has been covered well in this forum, and I'm too lazy to go through the threads for you.

Sure, religion has declined in Great Britain, but I am sure atheists are still the minority. 31-44% are non believers/agnostic/atheist. It is down in 15th of the top atheist nations which I must say atheism is true of modern and wealthy nations, with one or two exceptions.

 

[Mythbuster]

China is full of atheists.

 

[Woody]

S/L said: Who actually BELIEVES is not of relevance. Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing regardless to who BELIEVES god did whatever. It's not hypothetical, it's reality. Welcome to it.

Woody says: That is one logical view of the world from an atheistic point of view. You could show your intellectual capacity by understanding someone with a different view from yours. For the Christian there are two paradigms to consider (not just one): the Bible and a naturalistic approach to life as we know it.

If Genesis chapter 1 is wrong then the Bible isn't credible and we (Christians) really don't give a flying rip about the rest of your argument about abiogenesis vs. evolution -- Our God is dead, there is no hereafter, so what Christian really cares about the rest.

As the apostle Paul said -- if there is no resurrection then we of all men are the most miserable on earth. If the Bible isn't true then it is false -- and this view is just as logical as yours is.

"Who actually BELIEVES" is of utmost importance to a person of faith, you don't give a rip about it because you don't have any faith.

 

[Hapsburg]

Religion is t3h suck. Evolution's is the most logical explanation.
If you cannot understand that, you should not be breeding.

 

[audible]

S/L said: Who actually BELIEVES is not of relevance. Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing regardless to who BELIEVES god did whatever. It's not hypothetical, it's reality. Welcome to it.

Woody says: That is one logical view of the world from an atheistic point of view. You could show your intellectual capacity by understanding someone with a different view from yours.

yes, however if the persons view has no foundation and is a totally baseless assumption, that requires no evidence. and they are asking us to accept that as rational then we cant think the person advocating it, is a rational person, now can we?

For the Christian there are two paradigms to consider (not just one): the Bible

yes a baseless fictional book.

and a naturalistic approach to life as we know it.

of which you need no deity or religion to have.

If Genesis chapter 1 is wrong then the Bible isn't credible and we (Christians) really don't give a flying rip about the rest of your argument about abiogenesis vs. evolution -- Our God is dead, there is no hereafter, so what Christian really cares about the rest.

but your god is'nt dead, it must have existed, for it to cease to exist.

As the apostle Paul said -- if there is no resurrection then we of all men are the most miserable on earth. If the Bible isn't true then it is false

what is written in a fiction book, cannot be quoted as truth, however it is stating the obvious, which is sadly moronic.

"Who actually BELIEVES" is of utmost importance to a person of faith, you don't give a rip about it because you don't have any faith.

well of course, faith is a product of and for religion.
belief in a deity and a religion, is quite plainly not rational.

 

[Woody]

Audible says about the Bible:

yes a baseless fictional book. belief in a deity and a religion, is quite plainly not rational.

Woody says: You could show your intellectual capacity by understanding someone with a different view from yours. Alas, am I'm expecting too much? Around two billion Christians are in this world -- that's reality, and many major scientists of the past were also believers (and rational thinkers) -- that's reality. Christians also make up a big voting block in america - that's reality. Christians will continue to follow Christ even if you try to kill them -- that's reality. So live with it, get over it, or pretend it doesn't exist, because you and nobody else can change it. Har Har

Refresh my memory, weren't you the one that said Isaac Newton was not a rational man because he was a Christian?

 

[SnakeLord]

Woody says: That is one logical view of the world from an atheistic point of view. You could show your intellectual capacity by understanding someone with a different view from yours.

You're completely missing the point. You can believe in whatever you want - I have no problem with that, but if you're going to talk science - do not think that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing, because they're not. Thus if you say: "evolution has not shown how everything started", you'd be making a pointless statement because that's not what evolution is about. You probably still don't get what I'm saying. Nevermind.

If Genesis chapter 1 is wrong then the Bible isn't credible and we (Christians) really don't give a flying rip about the rest of your argument about abiogenesis vs. evolution -- Our God is dead

I wouldn't go that far, because it will probably cause you more harm than good in the long run. The minute you start believing that Adam and Eve, Noah and etc are all literal is the minute your marbles have rolled off down the hill. However, the stories not being literal does not mean you can't believe in god anymore. So, people got it wrong.. that doesn't change anything.

 

[Hapsburg]

Woody says:

Fuck what Woody says. Woody has a retarded name, and a malfunctioning brain that cannot grasp the concepts of "rationalism" and "logic".

 

[Woody]

SL says: do not think that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing.

Woody says:

They are both assumed to be naturalistic processes along with the big bang theory for a completely self-sustaining "natural" view of how we got here.

Abiogenesis perhaps has a little more in common with the theory of evolution than the big bang theory, but the commmonality only exists at the molecular level -- does that one give you the hiccups too?. Why is everyone so hung up on names anyway? If I said "the sum totality of all naturalistic processes" rather than the "total theory of evolution" would that work for you?

Geez I'm so sorry I said "the total theory of evolution", and used the term too loosely for you, and offended your Holy God. Alas, I'm getting nowhere with you so "nevermind" as you say. I understand your point of view but you don't understand mine and I'm tired of explaining it in order to go into yet another abiogenesis -- evolution spiral.

 

[SnakeLord]

Why is everyone so hung up on names anyway?

It's all in the details Woody, and accuracy shows understanding.

 

[Ophiolite]

...... I'll give you a hint. Your communication style is pretty abrasive. Calling other people names, and belittleing them really doesn't win you any points in a discussion.

If you examine posts where I am responding to posters who have been thoughtful and accurate in their posts you will find me to be an amicable, reasonable communicator. But when I see inanities I go for the jugular. Stop being foolish and I shall lay off.
Where have I called you names in this thread? I can't see it.
I am surprised you think I have belittled you. I can only belittle you with your consent. I might make disparaging comments, but only if you believe there is truth in them could you be belittled by them. Did you feel that?

I'm not really here to argue.

I am. Amongst other things, including pointing out gross misinterpretations of science and the scientific method.

Woody: Yes, England is an atheist country.

Ah, so you have moved from London is the athiest capital of the world. You do like to shift the goal posts when you are called on an inaccuracy. Of course, all this avoids facing the fact that the atheism or otherwise of London or England are quite irrelevant to the central point of debate. Now you originally expressed no surprise that I was a Brit, as London is the athiest capital of the world and now we learn England is an athiest country. Since we are on this topic may I ask what it has to do with me. I do not live in London. I do not live in England. I am not English. Where is this connection you think you have found.

Woody: There is only a slight link between the two and it's at the molecular level. But that is not the point I'm making. This is a major sticking point for you so I will attempt to explain. People of faith look at this subject differently from you.

This is a matter of science. Faith has bugger all to do with it.

Hypothetically you are correct when you say proving abiogenesis has nothing to do with proving evolution, but realistically, who actually BELIEVES God helped evolution but didn't create life to start with, or vice versa.

I know plenty of Christians who believe God created the Universe and set in motion the laws that led to life. I have met some who feel that he directly created life, then allowed it to evolve thereafter. Regardless of these points it remains irrelevant.
You seem to be taking the bizarre position that scientists are setting out to prove that God does not exist. Don't be so arrogant. Scientists, if they are atheists, are indifferent to the question of God. If they are theists they delight in gaining a better understanding of his world.
.

I am a person of faith -- Either I believe all the Bible and its implications on life as we know it, or I believe none of it. It's that simple.

I have very little respect for those who lack the intellect to understand the use of metaphor in religious works. Your position is at odds with much, perhaps most, of the Christian world. Your failure to use your God given imagination and logical powers is, in my opinion, an affront to that very same God.
.

Agnosticism is also called "weak atheism." I do not care to argue over definitions that you can find for yourself. This is not ignorance on my part, but it appears you do not understand your own position as it relates to the history of religion. Please read up on it instead of taking it out on me. Agnosticism is "weak atheism" because it does not acknowledge the existence of God, just like other forms of atheism. I agree with you, that agnostics do not write off the possibility of the supernatural, but that's only a nit, they are still classified as atheists according to religion definitions. I suggest you study the matter before you make a complete fool of yourself.

Thank you for your advice. It bears the same relationship to reality that most of your posts do. I am sure we can both agree on that.
.

I am amazed you have not understood the simple explanation provided. Please reread the relevant posts and ask for any clarification you require.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

What do you mean by "quality" of genetic information?

I think you’re playing silly-beggars here. As an organism begins its (so-called) evolutionary journey (changing from one thing to an entirely different thing), either through long or short strands of time, there must be an increase in genetic information. The increase must be favourable so that the organism functions through its journey, hence quality and quantity.

Speciation involves "new" genes, not just "shifting of gene frequencies". You seem to be asserting that all the genes necessary for speciation already exist in an organism....

What genes do you have that differ from your parents?

What's "body type"? What would you regard as a "new organ"?

E.g., From vertebrates to fish.


mountainhare,

Can you cite evidence that an increase in both 'quality and quantity 'of genetic information is needed for macroevolution?

Read above.

And why can't enough 'shifts' cause evolutionary change? And have you ever heard of mutation? Or gene duplication? Or chromosomal duplication?

Is this your answer to how macroevolution occurs, i.e., changes from one species to a completely different species?


Jan.

 

[leopold]

jan
have you ever heard of cosmic rays?
do you know what they do to genetic material?
with those two facts in mind, tell me how evolution cannot occure

 

[Jan Ardena]

jan
have you ever heard of cosmic rays?
do you know what they do to genetic material?
with those two facts in mind, tell me how evolution cannot occure

My questions;

Why is macro evolution (changeing of one type of organism to a completely different type) a scientific fact (something that is known to occur).

What/where is the scientific evidence that supports this claim?

Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am sure James R will address your points Jan, but they really are too ridiculous for words. But I'll try.

As an organism begins its ... evolutionary journey (changing from one thing to an entirely different thing), either through long or short strands of time, there must be an increase in genetic information.

Why must there be an increase in information? I know of no reason why this should be so. There is a change in the character of the information. The quantity may also increase by one of several well recognised mechanisms, but it is not required to..

The increase must be favourable so that the organism functions through its journey, hence quality and quantity.

You are making the common error of assuming that there are good genes and bad genes. While it is true that some genes are decidedly bad, conferring no benefit on their owner, most can be either, depending upon circumstances, i.e. environment. A classic example would be sickle cell anemia which is induced by a gene prevalent in persons of West African origin. In West Africa it confers some resistance to malaria, a decided benefit in that part of the world. In downtown Chicago it is a decided liability.

What genes do you have that differ from your parents?

Several. As do you.

E.g., From vertebrates to fish.

That is really funny. Why are we wasting our time with you Jan. You are not only uneducated, but you resist efforts to educate you. Or were you simply mistyping? Or was it a deliberate error? Perhaps we shall never know.