[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Bobboau
momy, what does filabustering mean?

was anyone desputing the past existance of Jesus?

you're little thing on "junk" DNA, what was that suposed to prove?

do you think the moon could have been formed in a maner similar to all the other moons (and \or planets) in the solar system posably?

you have yet to prove to me you have a firm understanding of how evolution works,
and it does work, wether or not it is the cause of all life on earth is the point in despute here,
but evolution does work now, I have seen it with my own eyes

if you are still not beleveing me when I say evolution works, next time you get some sort of bacterial infection and the doctor gives you antibiodics I want you to only take them untill you feel beter, then stop, if you start feeling sick again take some more, when you run out go to the doctor and tell him you're still sick and ask for more, if he asks you if you did this don't tell him, becase he has been brainwashed by us anti-relegon nuts and will think the bacteria are evolving to the antibiotics, do this untill the medicen no longer works then get a diferent type of antibiotic, do the same thing untill this new medicen stops working, and continue this paturn untill there are no more new antibiodics left,
then i want you to see if God will save you, and I want you to pray with all the people how have educated you over the years and all the people who think like you, be sure to get in real close,
if you do this it should provide a winner between evolution and religon

(note: don't do this, it would cause a super resistant bacteria, becase evolution is real, and likely kill you and everyone around you)

That is MICRO-evolution. The bacteria may become resistant to drugs, but it is still the same bacteria.

Edit: Just sorted the quote out

[Blitz_Lightning]

Stationary-phase Mutation: For 50 years the world believed that mutations occur at random. The discovery of "adaptive mutation" in bacteria shook that dogma, implying the existence of a new sort of mutation that differs from normal spontaneous mutations: The "adaptive" mutations occur when they are selected, in cells that appear not to be dividing (the DNA may not even be replicating when the mutations occur!), and had been found only in genes whose functions were selected. We are elucidating the molecular mechanism by which these mutations form. We have found that genetic recombination enzymes are required for some adaptive mutations. We are uncovering a new and unexpected molecular mechanism for mutation in non-dividing cells that includes DNA double-strand breaks, recombination, DNA synthesis, suspension of post-synthesis mismatch repair, and which occurs in a hypermutable subpopulation of the cells. The mutations are similar to those characteristic of some cancers. This new mutation mechanism in non-dividing cells may be an important model for mutations that give rise to some cancers and genetic diseases, cause resistance to chemotherapeutic and antibiotic drugs, lead to pathogenicity of microbes, as well as to many other systems previously thought to follow the rules of classical growth-dependent mutation.

In fact, you may now consider antibiotics to be sex drugs for bacteria. If bacteria detect it's present, they increase the rate that they exchange information with nearby organisms by over 1000 *. They can exchange information with totally different organisms! Bacteria can exchange their information with viruses, other bacteria, and have even been discovered to exchange information with plants!

[Blitz_Lightning]

Note that this could not
be an example of evolution since evolution supposedly occurs through
random mutations without any mechanism controlling the mutations.

[Blitz_Lightning]

"We feel guilt when we do something wrong, because God built us that way, by design, crafting and shaping us directly in his image. Our moral sense could never have been generated by natural selection from animal precursors, no remotely plausible evolutionary explanation exists for the origin of morality, and that whatever makes us moral creatures points to the handiwork of a Creator, before whom we are responsible."

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Note that this could not
be an example of evolution since evolution supposedly occurs through
random mutations without any mechanism controlling the mutations.

Evolution has no such clause.  As long as the life is changing its DNA to adapt to its enviroment, it's evolving.  I'm not going to bother responding to your little thing about stationary-phase mutation because whether it's correct or incorrect is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
"We feel guilt when we do something wrong, because God built us that way, by design, crafting and shaping us directly in his image. Our moral sense could never have been generated by natural selection from animal precursors, no remotely plausible evolutionary explanation exists for the origin of morality, and that whatever makes us moral creatures points to the handiwork of a Creator, before whom we are responsible."

I strongly disagree.  Our moral sense gives us many advantages.  Killing people to get what you want doesn't work very well, because then others will realize that they are potential targets and so will join up against you.  Our current justice system comes in a large part from our sense of morality.  It would be impossible to argue that the justice system does not help society; it's clear that it does.  Considering that people benefit when society benefits, I think our sense of morality helps.

I'll use "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun in the next paragraph.

You may ask why someone would risk his life to save another.  There are a few possible explanations for this.  All of these are unconcious effects.  He may do it so that when he is in risk of his life, the person he rescued may give back some of the saving.  He may do it because it's one of his offspring.  He may do it because his brain has been rewired (not with some kind of device, but through training) to interpret risking his life for another as a beneficial thing.

Because those are all unconcious effects, they can easily be imprecise and make him want to do things that would not actually be beneficial to him.

I think this site says about the same thing I am, but in a clearer fashion, and with more research into the subject.

edit: spelling

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by hotsnoj
That is MICRO-evolution. The bacteria may become resistant to drugs, but it is still the same bacteria.

Edit: Just sorted the quote out

It seems to be a misconception of yours that micro-evolution is somehow different from macro-evolution.  It isn't.  It's the same thing.  If you accept that little changes can happen through evolution, what happens when you get a lot of little changes?  Yep, you get a new species.

The trick it to figure out what the little changes were in some of the more drastic large changes (dinos->birds, for example) and why they happened.  New research is cropping up all the time to figure out why dinosaurs got feathers.  New research is cropping up all the time to figure out why a proto-eye is useful.

Sure, evolutionists haven't figured out absolutely everything yet, but the things that haven't been figured out show promise that they will be figured out at some point in the future.

[CP5670]

"We feel guilt when we do something wrong, because God built us that way, by design, crafting and shaping us directly in his image. Our moral sense could never have been generated by natural selection from animal precursors, no remotely plausible evolutionary explanation exists for the origin of morality, and that whatever makes us moral creatures points to the handiwork of a Creator, before whom we are responsible."

Now explain why criminals exist in today's world. No evolutionary explanation is needed for the question of morality; the answer is sociological. The first men were about as "moral" as the animals of today are. Morality started off as a set of mutually accepted rules more than anything else; people decided that everyone's life would become simpler if everyone cooperated to some extent by following certain rules. This especially started to gain momentum when technology began to advance rapidly and humanity became thinkers and not simply survivors. Over the millennia, cultural inertia has finely embedded these same ideas into our minds while we are growing up, and each generation passes the stuff on to the next. (same system through which religion lives on)

Also, I am the creator of that creator, so |-|4w |-|4w!

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by CP5670
Now explain why criminals exist in today's world. No evolutionary explanation is needed for the question of morality; the answer is sociological.

Actually, I consider criminals more as a defect, considering that they are a reasonably small percentage of the populace (I'm talking serious criminals here).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Humans are moral creatures because we are social creatures.

You can't maintain a group (of at least 2 people) without developing some code of conduct (e.g. morals).

One could easily say that the very basis of human morality comes all the way down from our ape-like ancestors that lived in groups (much like chimpansees do now). Studies of such chimpansee-groups have shown that ther is conflict between the individual and the group, but that in the end the individual submits to the rules of the group... or gets ostracised.

The question is of course: why do they work together? Why a group? The answer is simple: survivability. In a group the individual has more chance to survive (compare it to single-celled and multi-cellurar organisms if you like), so in order to stay alive longer the individual needs to keep the group alive.

So it all boils down to instinct, pragmatism and common sense.

Oh yes, a sidenote. Morality as set by God would be static, definitive. Reality and historical studies have shown this to be false. Morality too adapts to new situations, but only (!!!) if it is beneficial to the group as a whole.

[CP5670]

Actually, I consider criminals more as a defect, considering that they are a reasonably small percentage of the populace (I'm talking serious criminals here).

Well, one could also question how Hitler was able to convince so many millions of the morality of his ideas with such ease; just goes to show that, as Crazy Ivan said, the concept of morality changes with the conditions needed for the time period.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by CP5670


Well, one could also question how Hitler was able to convince so many millions of the morality of his ideas with such ease; just goes to show that, as Crazy Ivan said, the concept of morality changes with the conditions needed for the time period.

we all know that fear-mongering can change quite a lot of morals

[CP5670]

It is true that the population was partially controlled by fear, but the majority of the people undoubtedly liked what he was doing and promised to do. (check out The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich )

Also, why would this creator make defective humans in the first place if he had "unlimited power?"

[DemonInGray]

a a species of nuturing mammals, community morals are instituted to bring stability to the family in order to promote the growth of offspring.  if everything was chaotic, then the children would have difficulty surviving and more genetic libes would die off because of the deaths of children.

by establishing moral codes and behaving according to them, a society, be they raindeer or humans, better ensures the chance that multiple genetic lines will continue to exist.

the fact of an ingrained moral code is even easier.  those that go with the community and abide by its rules are more likely to procure a mate then those that rebel.  how many women actually WANT to date criminals?  ingrained "conscience" was EVOLVED by some genetic lines as a means of ensuring that the children would procure mates and thus continue the line.  those without such evolutions died off because the community rejected them and they were left without mates.

granted some managed to find mates in some way, either through deceit or by mating with other rebels, thus you wind up with people without any inherited sense of morals.  

like me >)~ :devilidea

[Blue Lion]

*gasp*

 DISOG!!!!!

[Kazan]

the biggest difference between theists and atheists is that theists have an unending trust in Deductive reasioning and Atheists have little or none and prefer to use inductive reasoning


oh incase you don't know

Deductive Reasoning

Major Premise ["Big Truth" must be universal,  instant note that opinions can be stuck in here and form the weakness of Deductive reasoning]
Minor Premise [Specific example, Predicate of MajPrem is Subject MinPrem]
Conclusion

an example

Gravity draws objects togeather.
The Sun and the Earth are objects.
There is a gravitational pull between them.

that was sound Deductive Reasoning here's an example of unsound deductive reasoning [crap.. even thinking of an example is hard because i don't think like this]

Surviving Cancer is an act of God [ie miracle]
Bob survived cancer
It was a miracle

there are MANY errors in that... first is it's an opinion [not universally accepted MajPrem] second Predicate doesn't switch to Subject
wtf is that conclusion?

-----------------------------------

Inductive

Moving from expirience [specifics] to generalities

Yesterday I ate ****** and today I was sick, the last time I ate ***** I was sick the next day, come to think of it everytime I eat ****** I am sick the next day.

Everytime I eat ****** I become sick.
I shouldn't eat ******.

much more sound wouldn't you say?

[Ulala]

Originally posted by CP5670


Also, why would this creator make defective humans in the first place if he had "unlimited power?"

Why create something to love you without giving it the choice to love you? If it didnt have a choice, then it wouldnt really love you would it? We had a choice, we screwed up, and we're born screwed up... well, I'm sure you've heard the rest of the story plenty of times and I've made my point now..

[CP5670]

the biggest difference between theists and atheists is that theists have an unending trust in Deductive reasioning and Atheists have little or none and prefer to use inductive reasoning

Well, I'm not too sure about that. Inductive reasoning can be faulty at times because it is based on experimental evidence alone and therefore may include errors, while deductive reasoning is the basis of all logic, but requires starting assumptions to get anywhere. They are both essential for science, though. I would say that theists have an unending trust in their assumptions for no real reason, not even to circumvent difficulties. (as in the "flawed reasoning" example you posted)

Why create something to love you without giving it the choice to love you? If it didnt have a choice, then it wouldnt really love you would it? We had a choice, we screwed up, and we're born screwed up... well, I'm sure you've heard the rest of the story plenty of times and I've made my point now..

So now this god desires love? (and people tell me he is above humans ) Why cannot he simply modify his own brain so that he feels it all the time? Why did he need to create these people which do not work very well?

[killadonuts]

Originally posted by Ulala


Why create something to love you without giving it the choice to love you? If it didnt have a choice, then it wouldnt really love you would it? We had a choice, we screwed up, and we're born screwed up... well, I'm sure you've heard the rest of the story plenty of times and I've made my point now..

Where is this love?!
People are flying airplanes into buildings and saying its the will of God
People are being terrorized constantly for praying to a different invisible man.
People have waged entire wars over square miles of worthless dirt that just happen to have some kind of religious signifigance.
You show me proof of this love becuase I don't see it.

[Bobboau]

Well, that's just human stupidity

Note it's 2:30am and I probably won't make that much since

And why haven't any of you literalists proven to me that you do really know the way evolution (supposedly  ) works, I honestly think that no one who truly understands it doesn't believe it.
from you're coments I am guessing that you were educated (incorectly) that evolution is ether
A) totaly random
B) has some sort of internal guidance
or
C) things sudenly sprout new arms, eyes, stuff like that

Morality is a very very good evolutionary strategy (one which we are not alone in developing), compassion is probably one of the most important features for us becoming the most dominant animals on earth, the strong family bonds insure our children survive and are healthy, our communities have division of labor which allows us to develop agriculture and technology,
I am sure you will agree with me that a community that has no moral code and no common beliefs has less of a chance of surviving in a harsh environment that some community that strives to help each other and work together

An interesting note you can see the laws of evolution at work in your very own religion, as in the old testament God is all powerful and deals out strict laws, gives out a set of punishments for things we would consider trivial (hope you aren't wearing a cotton wool blend:)) but if you look at the situation, the old Hebrews were in they needed to have a separate identity for themselves and they needed a war god and that message was the most successful, as time went on you can see changes, the most evident is the new testament were now we are to love everyone and everything, the Jews were a concurred people and this new message grew popular throughout the world  because it left more people happier and led to more compassion and caring, which as I have pointed out are good things from an evolutionary point (as well as other points), unfortunately this new widespread religion gets hijacked and is used to control people

The thing is, one of the things I think is realy clever about the bible it's first two chapters directly contradict each other if you are reading them in a literal view, this is to make the point (in my opinion and interpretation) that the bible is not a book of literal truths, but one of moral truths, and that the Bible and Christianity (not the organized establishments) are really very good ideals to strive for in you're life,
Unfortunately many people get too caut up in the stupid literalist conflicts,
and between religions this has caused more wars than I can think of, in spite of the fact that the basic message of the religions is generally the same, be compassionate to others

Also let me see the sources for the bacteria communicating with viruses and plants thing, I am aware of some level of this but I don't know the extent of it

[Blitz_Lightning]

"From the facts above enumerated it is clear that certain fishes come spontaneously into existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation. Such fish as are neither oviparous nor viviparous arise all either from mud or from sand and from decayed matter that rises thence as scum; for instance the so-called froth of the small fry comes out of sandy ground."

Modern readers find this quotation from Aristotle amusing. This is an example of how science can easily go wrong. Despite evidence in the 17th century to the contrary such ideas were finally laid to rest only from the work of Louis Pasteur.

Two good reasons for taking young earth creationism seriously and for not relagating it to the same shelf as speculations about the lost city of Atlantis are as follows.

 Firstly, young earth creationism has grown and developed intellectually over time. One need only compare seminal works such as the Genesis Flood published in 1961, and with the papers coming out of the last International Conference on Creationism in 1998, and other examples I have given in previous pages. These papers manifest a great increase in the sophistication of arguments being deployed. If creationism is a pseudoscience, it is only one we are aware of that has grown in this manner.

Second, young earth creationism is intellectually exciting. It has a ton of empirical evidence already in its favour (see the collected Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism ). The pivotal fact is that good and interesting science can now be done in a young earth framework.