RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cloudboy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 9:38:13 PM)
Welcome back.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 1:26:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut ---my last post---It was really only meant for seeksfemslave, who was from the beginning neither an honest nor a respectful participant in the dialogue. Daddy says----- Changes in the chromosomes occur randomly, with equal probability as to whether they are beneficial, detrimental, or neither. Just shows daddys are not always right lol Disrespectful dishonest seeks says that the second quoted statement is UNTRUE. By a large margin, a very large margin, most mutations are detrimental or do nothing at all. Incidently Daddy why do you throw a tantrum when your arguments are challenged. Why dont you try rebuttal

Kedikat -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 2:30:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sharainks Interesting that through all the discussion about which is true no one actually quoted what the Bible says that seems to be the basis of so much argument. Oddly while it does say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It also says "Now, the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Whoa...wait a minute, the earth-apparently something was here. Surface of the deep, and the waters would indicate that this place we call earth was not totally non existent. The following parts of Genesis seem to go on to suggest more what I would call "ordering" or landscaping. My understanding is also that there has been proven life on earth for millions of years. However during one period (maybe those scientists here remember what period) there was a sudden and drastic expansion of the types of life on this planet. If we go with forms of religion most have a creation story, and most have a flood story. Again, I'm content to not have concrete answers. I'm here, we are here. Blaise Pascal had an interesting take on whether we should believe in God its called "The Wager" http://www.probe.org/content/view/807/77/ Just the other night we ran through some Genisis. Glaring gaffs all over the place. I like it when god says he makes man in " our " image. Not his. Ours. Was he hangin out with his buddys? Also, it seems he said to be fruitful and multiply when he hadn't made women yet. On and on......contradictions, slips. The word of God? Infallible? And that's just in the first few pages. Of course when these things are pointed out, the religious folks make allowances for God and translations etc. But when it suits them, it is the perfect word as written. And God created lawyers.....

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 4:25:25 AM)
Seeks pointed out the short time interval after Dinosaurs became exitinct and the next major species appearing, then quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus if you're talking about mammals they were already developing prior to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Zomg more proof for evolution! Those best suited to survive shall survive and flourish! Just wondering how you knew this. The fossil record doesn't reveal it. Of course , silly boy, I should have realised, Evolutionary Theory demands it ! So Evolutionary Theory is True after all. Thats irony folks. By the way some poster commented on Intelligent Design to the effect that it is a new argument. Not true, it just took a long while to cross the Atlantic. Thassal. Seeks chuckles to himself !

Lordandmaster -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 4:27:10 AM)
Uhh...wrong. This is Genesis 1:27-28: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. quote: ORIGINAL: Kedikat Just the other night we ran through some Genisis. Glaring gaffs all over the place. I like it when god says he makes man in " our " image. Not his. Ours. Was he hangin out with his buddys? Also, it seems he said to be fruitful and multiply when he hadn't made women yet.

QuietDom -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 4:47:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Kedikat must be referring to a characteristic of the Elohist source. If you have a decent study Bible, it will use consistent standard when it translates terms for God, so that you know which word was originally used. The Pentateuch source considered to be the earliest is the Elohist or 'E' source. He uses the word Elohim for God. In Hebrew, words ending in -im are plurals. Scholars take that to imply that, at the time of the E-source, the Israelites were not yet monotheistic, but polytheistic just like all the neighbouring cultures. This earlier practice also carried over into the name El Elohim, which your Bible likely translates to "God of gods." This term bespeaks a continuing polytheistic practice, but with an "over-god" in charge of all the others, comparable to the roles of Zeus and Odin in their respective belief systems.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 5:32:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently Daddy why do you throw a tantrum when your arguments are challenged. Why dont you try rebuttal Actually, I did rebutt virtually everything you said. All that you did was ignore my posts and spew more lies. Rather like that one. At first I thought you were just stupid, but then I realized that you are just a spectacular liar with a mission - nothing to be gained by exchanging with that.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 5:57:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently Daddy why do you throw a tantrum when your arguments are challenged.Why dont you try rebuttal quote: ORIGINAL Daddy4UdderSlut Actually, I did rebutt virtually everything you said. .... At first I thought you were just stupid...... Daddy you are a little fibber. All you have done is ladle out large doses of abuse , See above. I now see it was you who said Intelligent Design was a new argument. Someone here has a clever signature saying Great minds examine concepts lesser minds events and mediocre minds gossip. You dont fit in any of the above Daddy. You are a serial abuser unless someone is stroking your feathers. Stick to Biology Man....the generalised concepts are too much for you. I'm sooo happy I evolved and met Superman Daddy.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 6:09:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus if you're talking about mammals they were already developing prior to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Zomg more proof for evolution! Those best suited to survive shall survive and flourish! Just wondering how you knew this. The fossil record doesn't reveal it. Of course , silly boy, I should have realised, Evolutionary Theory demands it ! So Evolutionary Theory is True after all. Thats irony folks. By the way some poster commented on Intelligent Design to the effect that it is a new argument. Not true, it just took a long while to cross the Atlantic. Thassal. Seeks chuckles to himself ! Actually, many, many known examples of fossils have been found that overlapped with dinosaurs, just as captiveplatypus says. Here is an example of a recent paper from the respected journal, Science, finding a Jurassic-period (think Stegosaurus and Allosaurus, for example) beaver-like creature, but there is really nothing new here in terms of mammals and dinosaurs overlapping, it's just a new species of mammal found. http://www.carnegiemnh.org/vp/media/Ji-Luo-etal(2006).pdf Since they've been finding such mammals for a long time, and much is known about them, here also is an entire book on the subject that discusses the origins of mammals, and the anatomy (from fossil remains), taxonomy and descent of Mesozoic era (251 million years ago to 65 million years ago) mammals.http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023111/0231119186.HTM I don't write this for the benefit of propagandist, seeksfemslave, who delights in "The Big Lie", but rather for any interested persons who actually care about the truth.

philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 6:22:36 AM)
" quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently Daddy why do you throw a tantrum when your arguments are challenged.Why dont you try rebuttal quote: ORIGINAL Daddy4UdderSlut Actually, I did rebutt virtually everything you said. .... At first I thought you were just stupid...... Daddy you are a little fibber. All you have done is ladle out large doses of abuse , See above. I now see it was you who said Intelligent Design was a new argument." ....mind you, you have completely skipped over my point about occams razor et al..........

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 6:24:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Daddy you are a little fibber. All you have done is ladle out large doses of abuse , See above. I now see it was you who said Intelligent Design was a new argument. Someone here has a clever signature saying Great minds examine concepts lesser minds events and mediocre minds gossip. You dont fit in any of the above Daddy. You are a serial abuser unless someone is stroking your feathers. Stick to Biology Man....the generalised concepts are too much for you. I'm sooo happy I evolved and met Superman Daddy. Just a few examples of rebuttals of your lies - DNA came from nowhere, 1 in 1E40 chance of amino acids arising by chance, all mutations must have been beneficial, no mammals at time of dinosaurs... you simply ignore my rebuttals, make snide and insulting remarks, and spew new lies then. The person who does that is not just ignorant, they are willfully lying, so to call you a liar is simply factual, not abusive.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 6:34:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ....mind you, you have completely skipped over my point about occams razor et al.......... That's what he does - if you make a point that he has no counter to, he usually just ignores it and changes the subject. Another tactic - simply declare inconvenient facts as invalid, such as when he said there was only a 1 in 1E40 chance of amino acids arising spontaneously - astronomically small chance, impossible odds. I point out a 50 year old experiment that demonstrated that amino acids could arise spontaneously, and he just says - oh, well they must have rigged the experiment then. Then he went on and changed the subject. You basically can't "win" with this guy, any more than you could win with Joseph Goebbels - the truth isn't what he's after.

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 7:10:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Seeks pointed out the short time interval after Dinosaurs became exitinct and the next major species appearing, then quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus if you're talking about mammals they were already developing prior to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Zomg more proof for evolution! Those best suited to survive shall survive and flourish! Just wondering how you knew this. The fossil record doesn't reveal it. Of course , silly boy, I should have realised, Evolutionary Theory demands it ! So Evolutionary Theory is True after all. Thats irony folks. By the way some poster commented on Intelligent Design to the effect that it is a new argument. Not true, it just took a long while to cross the Atlantic. Thassal. Seeks chuckles to himself ! I know this because I paid attention in school.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 7:16:07 AM)
An intermission will follow while seeks has a look at some of the docs. mention by Daddy. With regard to Occam and his Razor; does it mean any more than... of any alternative explanations of complex situations then the simplest is more likely to be nearer the truth ? I actually think I answered the "amino acid " experiment claim rather well.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 7:30:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I actually think I answered the "amino acid " experiment claim rather well. Look, you made the bizzare assertion that there is only a 1 in 1E40000** possibility for amino acids to arise spontaneously. You are way to greedy with your propaganda. If you had just said "unlikely", you could have gotten away with being wrong, but sincere. The experiment I told was (a) terribly famous and (b) more than 50 years old. So it's also highly unlikely that you would be unaware of it. Even if you somehow believed your fanciful numbers and were somehow unaware of a 50+ year old famous experiment, well after I showed it to you, that it was in fact trivially shown to occur spontaneously in the laboratory, you should have conceded that your assertion was wrong - and not only slightly wrong, but a collosal departure from reality. Instead, you said that they must have rigged the experiment, and went on - now that, is incredible. Likewise, with the chronology of mammals and dinosaurs, you make spectacularly incorrect assertions - no fossil evidence of mammals during the time of dinosaurs. Now, this has been known for decades, from fossil evidence, and countless examples exist. You are not just wrong, you are spectacularly wrong, your statements about science are orthogonal to what has been known for decades. So it can't be that you just aren't keeping up with the latest developments - these aren't recent developments. ** P.S. It's a little hard for people to understand how big a number 1E40000 is - but if typed out on paper, that would be a 1, followed by about 9 pages of zeros. Even astronomers don't use magnitudes like this when describing the universe. But seeks asserts that's just how unlikely spontaneous synthesis of amino acids is. The correct answer - 1. So, he was only off by 40,000 orders of magnitude (powers of 10).

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 8:41:05 AM)
Persons who make assertions like "The complexity is too great to have been arrived at by chance".... simply don't understand what evolution really is, and "calculations" that show tiny likelihoods are correct algebraically, they simply don't map onto the physical reality of how evolution works. For just one example of a so-called "genetic algorithm" working before your eyes to solve a problem, see: http://www.missouri.edu/~clj4hf/TravellingApplet.html Now, critics may say, so what, that's not a person. First of all, genetic algorithms aren't used to "prove evolution of humans", they are used to solve difficult optimization problems. For example here, the GA finds a good solution in just 50,000 evaluations, while there are 9 trillion possiblities, and in fact the good solutions only constitute a 1/20million fraction of the possible solutions... yet, it works. The point is, GAs work, and they work well. Although they are stochastic in nature (rely on random changes), they work dramatically better than pure chance selection. The reason is that the final answer is not plucked out in the first try - it is arrived at by iterative improvements in trial solutions that reflect the best examples so far. Deleterious mutations occur all over, and yet, it still works - that's because not every change needs to be beneficial, just as I explained in a prior post. There are tons of such tutorial applets on the web. If you look at more of them, you should understand something else: the GA doesn't necessarily converge on the optimal solution in a finite number of cycles. In other words, the "answer" at any given time is not perfect. That likewise corresponds to known biological organisms, that are absolutely riddled with physiological problems, including humans - we are neither perfect, not "completed". We never will be, we are just a work in progress, muddling along in nature.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 10:46:36 AM)
I should have said the LARGE mammals when I challenged the mammal fossil record. Have found references to an explosion of types of large mammals post dinosaur extinction but I cannot find the time scale. ie how long that explosion is thought to have taken. I believe it to be quite short in evolutionary terms and therefore at variance with the tenets of Darwinian theory. Dont forget I am not reading textbooks as I type my posts. When I say I cannot find , what happens is search results open up my Adobe programme and then appear to lock up.This happens with the doc. Daddy quotes. In saying fossil record for mammals do not exist pre dinosaur I was wrong.

LadyEllen -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 12:12:53 PM)
What a strange thing it is that we spend our time debating the veracity of a book written thousands of years ago by a foreign culture, which has been (mis)translated from its original into Greek then Latin then English with no knowledge of the meaning given the words when they were written, and which was only put into the bible to "prove" the common lineage of Jesus with God (as with the rest of the OT) according to the needs of one sect of Christianity amongst many. Especially when we have our own religion which is every bit as good, and actually better for us, than Christianity, and which not only allows intelligent design and evolution at the same time, but in fact bases its explanation of the cosmos on those two phenomena co-existing. What a great favour those missionaries did us. E

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 12:51:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I should have said the LARGE mammals when I challenged the mammal fossil record. So you were both wrong and inaccurate. Anyhow: size does not matter. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Have found references to an explosion of types of large mammals post dinosaur extinction but I cannot find the time scale. ie how long that explosion is thought to have taken. I believe it to be quite short in evolutionary terms and therefore at variance with the tenets of Darwinian theory. It is called evolution by punctuated equilibria. It happens whenever ecological niches open up. May have taken as little as less than one thousand years. I have been reading one or two pages here. Conclusion: D4US knows what he is talking about; seeks does not. Face it, seeks: evolution is not your thing; never will be, probably, however much you read about it.

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 1:00:45 PM)
yeah I still don't understand how you can't both be a Christian and think Evolution is possible. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the bible.... unless you take the creation story completely literally. Err, yeah if you think God made us out of dirt, well that's just not molecularly possible. If you take the creation story and consider it was written by someone thousands of years ago with only a fraction of the scientific knowledge we posess, I can see how someone completely foreign to such ideas might misinterpret slightly. I am not a Christian, but I am not about to say the Bible is total BS either. I was not there when it was written. It is entirely possible in my mind that it was written with some form of spiritual influence beyond the writers total comprehension.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125