ednos

No, actually, it isn't. Atheism is dependent on the statement "God does not exist" as a means to prove God does not exist. Theists, on the other hand, rely on the statement "God exists" to prove that He does. The statements come from varying sources, but that's the root of it.

If you're referring to the first bit of Genesis as disagreeing with Evolution, you're wrong. I don't know if you've ever studied the Bible at all, but different literary styles are employed in various regions, and almost none of it pretends to be a recollection of history. There's always that classic example of reading a textbook as a poem and a poem as a textbook, but I'm sure you've all heard that ad nauseam.

Well, science (real science) DOES contradict *your* interpretation of the Bible. You're pinning all this stuff on the existence of God, but that's not really what it comes down to. The existence of God really only comes into play when it comes to the value of humans over other creatures, and even then the principles of homogeneous priority are present in atheist philosophy.

__________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell
I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede

Switch

As I had said earlier, Requital... lets do this argument in 3 steps... General evolutionary theory, human evolution, and then 'creation'.

If we follow this pattern you will realize that the process of evolution makes no claims about the beginning of the universe, etc etc. Man, I had to write up something about this for an exam and I think I threw it out just a few weeks ago.... If i find it, i'll copy verbatim. Anyway, evolution does not argue for or against initial creation of 'all' by god/gods. It simply makes factual statements about the process by which species develop over time.

Evolution HAS been PROVEN. Despite millions of books, papers, studies, experiments, etc you don't seem to be convinced. The beauty of this whole science process is that it contains the burden of 'proof'. Reproducibility in design. Others need to be able to confirm your claim. Others have. There IS NO DEBATE about the existence of evolution as a process. There is considerable debate about particular mechanisms.... Homeobox gene evolution, for example. This topic considered the ability of a stable species to undergo dramatic mutation/evolution very rapidly by observing a cascade effect in a promoter / controlling region of DNA translation. Initially, this was though to counter a long held belief of a slow gradual evolution. But, as science often does, it has been integrated and is now recognized to act in conjunction with previous known mechanisms.

Your biggest problem with this whole evolution debate seems to be initial creation of all. Please, don't confuse this argument with what we are saying. No one here has asserted how 'all' was created. We've only said that we have the scientific knowledge to know how life has evolved over time. Nobody here claims to know how matter and energy came into being. Once you reconcile those separate arguments with yourself, you may be more inclined to learn about the factual process of evolution.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

Requital

Again God was taken out of the equation to call it not possible. I agree. It is not possible without God.

It is factual. Santa Clause was based on a real person, but is not believe to be the same character that coincides with Rudoff. Again, that is acknowleged as fiction and written as such. The Bible was not written as fiction. So, trying to lessen my stance by compairing it to fictional writting is simply poor argumentation. Instead of arguing that what the Bible says is fiction try starting with the premise that what the Bible say's is true even if you don't believe it and see what it says.

Since, as you have suggested I know nothing of Biology or how evolution works how is it that this paragraph seems to refute evolution in general? If you have mutations and changes in lifeforms that form chains of both extinct and living species do you not have to start with 1 mutation and that mutation is viable to "repopulate a species" even if it is new? That change in blueprint can replicate itself without inbreeding? Does that require it to become a dominant trait or would it more likely be a recesieve trait?

You took God out again. It can't be true without God. I agree with that. I don't see how Alien life is more plausible. They would have evolve from Matter Spontaneously as well. I still think spontaneous life is not possible. If spontaneous life were true and proven then you would be correct. I would say that Aliens put us on this planet and more than likely guided evolution so we could exist as we find ourselves today. It would be easier that way. Typically the simplest solutions are the most offten correct.

Beatnik said that.

I am going to see about getting one of those books. Depends on if the library has one. Yet, you haven't really given any instances that show the creation of life from matter, so I am not sure if any of these books is going to really help you. The premise isn't microevolution, or natural selection I fully agree with you on those. I get hung up on fish becoming dogs and chemicals becoming bacteria. That is the leap of Faith I am refering to. Which of those books addresses that?

__________________

Requital

So, nothing is really stated here of value. Both statements are true to the indivdual party. That's what I read this as.

No, I was talking about logical falicies. Not in how to interpret Genisis. I simply stated a Logic issue. You can not have both "an apple siting on the table, and no apple on the table" in Logic. That is a false statement. Logic is not material but it can describe matter. It is an unseen truth.

Actually, I pin everything on the existance of God. God is an absolute. Without something as an absolute things fall apart.

It really does come down to the existence of God and has nothing to do with other creatures. If God does not exist then it really doesn't matter if life exists because it has no purpose other than to live, which is no purpose at all. I have an innate need that i can't quantify to be useful to be love to love. Athiesm says you live, consume, procreate, and die. That is it. Why should I fight for my existence? Why do I have thoughts and emotions that demand I fight for life? Biological processes? Weeee. Cool. Live to Live. Ran's climaxes have something to be desired.

In the scheme of things it really isn't important that man continue existing or light refracts at different angles in different indexes. We could all simply be imagining that life is real, and we are just the figment of someones dream. Nothing is real. You could run around shooting kids in schools and then kill yourself, it doesn't matter because it's all a biological process. Ran is depressing.

__________________

Switch

A mutation doesn't repopulate a species. Individuals having sex repopulate a species (a higher order non-asexual species, that is). When you only have 2 such individuals that species is limited to the diversity carried by that founding couple. In extremely simple organisms, archae / prokaryotes a single individual may be able to produce an entire population asexually thanks to a small genome and a high rate of mutation. In complex, sexually reproducing species, this is not the case. When you say
I don't understand what you're trying to say. In sexual reproductive species, nothing can pass down without sexual reproduction. When there are only 2 individuals then inbreeding is a requirement. Now, your understanding of genetics is further demonstrated when you bring up dominant and recessive traits. That is only a type of genetic dominance. There are plenty of traits that aren't so simple as dominant and recessive. There are plenty more that ARE that simple though, and thats the biggest problem with inbreeding. You immediately introduce many problems due to compounding recessive genes (or in some cases dominant genes, since some dominant genes cause defects).


So far, I have not been arguing for abiotic gensis. If you decide to educate yourself on evolution, we may be able to get that far, but right now i've been trying to make sure you get the development of species over time. You say you're not against the premise of micro evolution and naturally selection. But you dont get the fish to dogs. Micro evolution and natural selection IS fish to dogs.

Read Evolutionary Analysis. Part 4 is titled the history of life.
Chapter 14: Reconstructing Evolutionary Trees
Chapter 15: Mechanisms of Speciation
Chapter 16: The origins of life and precambrian Evolution
Chapter 17: The Cambrian Explosion and Beyond
(The Cambrian explosion refers to an intense period of speciation, not some disaster event)
Chapter 18: Development and Evolution
Chapter 19: Human Evolution

The book is from 2004, there may have been some noteworthy developments since then, but this is text will be extremely comprehensive for someone without a degree in the field.\

Your local library probably won't have these books. If you have a university in your area, try their libraries. They have many more resources for science texts that are uber expensive.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

tau_neutrino

For those too lazy to go to the library to find biology textbooks, there's always this, just 1 click away:

Online biology textbook

__________________



TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Beatnik

mmmmmm....nope!

__________________

CingularDuality

You seem to have a very small understanding of the theories of the origin of life. I know Wikipedia isn't the best reference on topics with religious controversy, but it is a short, easy read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Like a theist believes in a god, an atheist does not. Belief has little to do with the ability to prove something. You may not believe that I'm Bill Gates using a false persona to entertain myself at TacticalGamer, but you can't prove that I'm not without significant information that you just don't have. Does that make sense?

Theist believes in god.
Atheist believes there isn't a god.
Agnostic (whether theist or atheist) believes that god's existence cannot be proven or disproven.

Man, you made me watch the first minute of that damned video...

But I agree with you!

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Switch

A little bit more of miss 1:09. She got 100x more attractive when she started talking. Thats almost the exact opposite of most women.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

ednos

We know that if we do that, it provides all the justification for your views. Unfortunately, a large portion of the Bible *was* written as fiction, even though the fiction has meaning and, like most fiction, does contain truth, disguised in literature.

Absolute truth is defined by some as their beliefs and by others as mathematics. You employ the former; I suspect most people, including Christians, although not fundamentalists like yourself, engage in the latter.



Your "logical issue" is not relevant to the discussion, which is what *I* stated (quite clearly).

What you're pinning on the existence of God really isn't dependent on such. Whether or not creatures evolve and have evolved into different species is not dependent on God. At that point, the only contradiction you can come up with comes from an absolute literal "textbook" interpretation of the Bible. This sort of interpretation is wildly inappropriate, and you should be ashamed of presenting it in a family-friendly environment.

If I recall correctly, CingularDuality posted a GREAT little paragraph about the reasoning behind an atheist's morality. Scroll up a bunch to find it.

Consider this. Let's assume the existence of God *AND* the viability of evolution and even spontaneous life. We'll assume that the Big Bang Theory and everything else that's reasonable and generally accepted is true. What, exactly, prevents you from believing that God created everything from the beginning (prior to the Big Bang, et cetera), including the mechanisms governing the universe, which led (in His infallible plans) to the eventual creation of life, all the way down the line to humans and sentience? Also, from a purely aesthetic perspective, doesn't it make God look *more* awesome if He created not every individual tidbit of the universe like an artist with OCD, but rather *one* algorithm to produce exactly what He wanted after billions of years of complex processes?

__________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell
I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede

Requital

But in order for the mutation to be passed along the spiecies with the mutation must be viable. I read that mutations that are both viable and non detramental let alone benificial are atypical and more rare than not.

The point of what I was saying. The mutation in a genetic sequence in a non-asexual entity seems to require a few things. During the breeding process the mutation must remain viable and at least not harmful as well as, able to be repeatedly be passed on. If, (through human interference), we can get a dog's forehead to slope over the course of a century we get another species (for arguments sake) of dog because this dog has a sloped forehead. How do we get from the same species to a different kind without the issues of inbreeding you described? What kind of evidence do we have of fish to dog? Or is it the process of specie variability that assumes the fish to dog?

The reason the Arc is valid. It wouldn't be difficult for God to simply prevent inbreeding issues. I see the species variablity being more a very clever creation rather than godless proof of evolution.

Also as you pointed out the mutations that we observe are more often than not rapid. It seems like the rapid change would be a more viable solution to mutations than the theory of millenium for a change.

__________________

Requital

I reread your post and what you put here and understand more clearly what you meant by the "god exist", "god does not exist." Trying to respond to too many individual arguments. What I pointed out is I am willing to star with the premise "god does not exist" and see where it leads, but I keep getting hung up on a lot of the evidence I see.

It is actually relevant, in the concept of the unseen having laws to govern it.

Why should I be ashamed of presenting it in a family-friendly environment? Why would you interpret it as non-literal? You can't arbitrarily pick up the Bible and say, "This is literal." "This is non-literal". There are contextual and linguistical styles that give something it's literal and non-literal context. I read the Bible in the way it was intended. The creation portion of the bible is a story similar in context to the story of Johna and the Whale. Jesus confirmed the story of the Whale in an analogy he was using at one point. I believe it was "Just as Johna was in the Whale for three days...." So, when you read that God created the world in six days you have to take it in the context it was written. Could God create the world in six days? Yes. Could God use evolutionary principles to create life? If God guided it, I am sure He could make it work, but in the same breath that is not what He says He did. That is the point. Either I believe God, or I don't. I either believe all of it, or God is not who He said He is.

I will look at the wikipedia link and see if that is what you are talking about. Just glanced at the forum.

The reason this doesn't work for me. God described it differently. If you want to say Big Bang Algorithm evolution and that took six days, and you had each day being the creation model, then it would probably work for me (haven't thought through all the possible conflicts that might present except for one, which is enough). God still designed it, God still began it, God still created it. The issue is that God didn't appear to do it that way, nor did God say He did it that way. Each day was a specific act of a unique creation as illustrated in the Tora. Really the question should be why did God do it the way He described?

__________________

Switch

Please define your use of the word viable. The first sentence quoted doesn't really make any sense. "The species with the mutation must be viable" If we're taking a species that already exists and putting a male and female together, they are viable. They can reproduce.

You've just argued my point for me, and don't even realize it.
This is one reason why having only 2 individuals repopulate an entire species is not likely to be successful.

As far as dogs are concerned, they all actually belong to a single species. They can all interbreed. The 'breed' of dog is a result of selection for specific traits. Dogs are still the same species. Its like saying Africans are a different species than Europeans because they have different color skin. Most breeds of dog are a very modern demonstration of artificial selection producing a desired change in a population. Now, if you kept two breeds separate for a very very long time (say a blood hound on one continent and a husky on another) they may begin to diverge to the point where they can no longer identify eachother as dogs and no longer breed. Now they are two different species. This would only be true though, if they did not mate with other types of dogs that could then spread gene flow between the two as an intermediary. This is called a panheletic species. Anyway, back to the issue of interbreeding. When a population has thousands or millions of individuals, interbreeding (i.e. sex with a direct descendant) is not an issue and you avoid accumulating detrimental recessive traits. When the species is being populated by two individuals, it is impossible to avoid this and the species will often fail miserably. Now, i think you're trying to ask how does a new species form because you're assuming that suddenly, at the snap of a finger, animal A will produce animal B. Thats not necessarily how it works. In most cases theres a gradual shift of traits from a once recognized species to another, so you don't get a natural '2 people only' new species. While two individuals may found a new population and eventually a species (founder effect in population biology) that is influenced by whatever traits those original two had, species that are populated with founder effect criteria fail as often as they succeed. Their general success really depends on the environment and whether or not the first two had any disease/maladaptive traits. If the environment is friendly (Galapagos finches) and there are no diseased traits, they'll have plenty of time to streamline themselves through adaptive radiation. If you threw something in an environment where it was still undergoing selection pressures and then add a negative trait or two to the small gene pool (two individuals) you will not see that new population in existence for very long.

I'm not sure that you realize this, but there are somatic mutations and mutations involved with sexual reproduction. Somatic mutations are those that occur in an individual after conception. This includes cancers, tumors, etc. This has no bearing on mutation in a species as these things cant be passed on. The mutation that matters occurs in sperm and eggs. Some mutations occur within the sperm or the eggs, some mutation occurs when they converge at inception.

Anyway, fish to dog: There is plenty of detailed evidence that traces species development from one type to another. Whales, for example, were fish, turned into land animals, then returned to the sea. You can look it up if you like. The lung fish is an excellent example of how prehistoric animal life found its way onto land. You seem to be operating under the assumption that this information hasnt been developed. Go get the evolution text book I told you about and read it very slowly and very carefully.