I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[Nathan Poe]

I wonder if Atheists will develop a thick skin when they are asked to prove their evolution theory and they fail because they cannot create life from non living matter.

Sorry, clirus, you're in the wrong thread -- this one is "I don't believe in evolution." You're clearly looking to score some brownie points in the "I don't have the slightest clue what evolution is about" thread.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well certainly one of us missed the point of the Good Samaritan parable.

That someone -- as always -- is you.

My position is to evaluate the need and to see if the best way to help is through an offer of spiritual help (Salvation) or an offer of physical help (Christian Charity).

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent your own position? Aren't you honest enough to admit that you've said in the past that the only reason the Samaritan helped the man was because he didn't kow his religious beliefs?

The simple fact of it remains -- you wouldn't lift a finger to help an Atheist in need, but you have no trouble accepting their charity.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I wonder if Atheists will develop a thick skin when they are asked to prove their evolution theory and they fail because they cannot create life from non living matter.

1. Experiments in that direction have already made some headway.
2. The theory of evolution is not even concerned with the creation of life from non-living matter. Which has been explained to you. More than once.

See? This is why no one can take creationists seriously: you flaunt your ignorance WRT the very concept that you so violently oppose.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

No person that has been executed has ever committed another crime, however it requires large sums of money to keep criminals alive in prison or on welfare under Socialism.

Unless you're basically dragging convicts from the court room to immediately face the firing squad, capital punishment WILL cost just as much (or even more) money than imprisonment: all the precautions that need to be taken in order not to accidentally execute innocents swallow an enormous amount of money - if that's all you care about: money.
Just look at jurisdictions that do not execute people any longer. Their budget hasn't skyrocketed, and neither have their crime rates.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No person that has been executed has ever committed another crime, however it requires large sums of money to keep criminals alive in prison or on welfare under Socialism.

So you're interested in wholesale executions in order to save money, is that it?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So you're interested in wholesale executions in order to save money, is that it?

It sure sounds like it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is how I see Clirus' current position on Evolution.... To begin with she had a crude understanding of the theory, perhaps shaped by whatever Creationist sources she has taken an interest in. That misunderstanding was corrected, on multiple occasions, by people who have responded to her charges of 'no proof'. Instead of accommodating this new information and revising her claims she has persisted with the assertion that Evolution cannot be proven because life has not (yet) been shown to arise from abiotic matter. She has persisted with this claim in spite of the fact that her initial assumptions about the theory have been shown erroneous. At worst, this seems dishonest. A charitable (and I stress 'charitable') reading of Clirus' posts would suggest that she is simply not taking anyone's comments seriously.

 

[tulc]

I wonder if Atheists will develop a thick skin when they are asked to prove their evolution theory and they fail because they cannot create life from non living matter.

...what does one have to do with the other?
tulc(seriously)

 

[tulc]

Well certainly one of us missed the point of the Good Samaritan parable.

Let's look at it:

25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Could you explain, in light of the above, how executing the Samaritan would be the thing we're to take away from it?

My position is to evaluate the need and to see if the best way to help is through an offer of spiritual help (Salvation) or an offer of physical help (Christian Charity).

...really? Because what I see? Is the Levite and the Priest evaluated, the Samaritan saw the need and helped. Which of the three were the wounded man's neighbor? Which one are you clirus?
tulc(tries to be the neighbor)

 

[mzungu]

No person that has been executed has ever committed another crime, however it requires large sums of money to keep criminals alive in prison or on welfare under Socialism.

Socialist know there are problems, they just try to solve the problems in ways that increase the problem instead of decrease the problem.

Socialism fails when it runs out of other peoples money.

After reading many of your posts; I find the similarities between the Taliban version of Islam and your social views to be almost identical. Should your version of religion ever become law then the inquisition would pal in comparison!

 

[sdmsanjose]

Originally Posted by clirus http://www.christianforums.com/t7548635-post57555562/#post57555562
No person that has been executed has ever committed another crime, however it requires large sums of money to keep criminals alive in prison or on welfare under Socialism.

Socialist know there are problems, they just try to solve the problems in ways that increase the problem instead of decrease the problem.

Socialism fails when it runs out of other peoples money.
\
After reading many of your posts; I find the similarities between the Taliban version of Islam and your social views to be almost identical. Should your version of religion ever become law then the inquisition would pal in comparison!

No need to worry. Clirus has been preaching her own version of Christianity for 7 years on this forum and has not got but one person that agreed with her position. That one person is now having emotional problems.

However, Clirus may have done some good. Although she did not plan this, she has united Christian and non-Christian together in opposition to her beliefs. Another positive is that non-Christians can see that we Christians are b not going to side with a person just because they tell everyone they are Christian.

We have seen Christians from the left, center, and right oppose Clirus because of her beliefs as have the non-Christians. So who do you have that agrees with her? She has one person in 7 years and that person is in depression. No need to worry about Clirus and her one supporter causing something worse that the inquisition.

 

[HosannaHM]

1. Experiments in that direction have already made some headway.
2. The theory of evolution is not even concerned with the creation of life from non-living matter. Which has been explained to you. More than once.

See? This is why no one can take creationists seriously: you flaunt your ignorance WRT the very concept that you so violently oppose.

Well since you wanted to go back to the original post-

saying "I don't believe in evolution" is a contradicting statment, as I will agree with you that it is not a subject you believe in. It is a science.

Science and faith are two different factors. Now I'm a creationist so please forgive me for my "flaunting ignorance" but evolution still does not pose all the answers. But hey I'm fair creationism doesn't show all the facts either. In fact creationism requires faith, which is why pitting these against each other raises so many arguements that get no where. I can honestly admit they get no where because most Creationists don't take the time to research (Hey guys let's be honest!)

Looking at evolution the questions I can't fathom are these- We find all types of fossils, but no transitional lifeforms. Where is evidence for that? Also, reptiles, mammals, and birds have differerent internal organs. How can one species like a reptile become a bird? If you look at genetics, how does it create itself? How does a lifeform in the precreated form know what to become? Look at a computer for an example. Someone had to create it. Or a program? Computer programs don't make themselves, which is what evolution claims with the genetic code and DNA. They code themselves...

I just can't wrap my mind around it, but now that we are getting back on topic what can you folks tell me?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

We find all types of fossils, but no transitional lifeforms.

What would constitute a "trasitional lifeform" for you?
In terms of evolution, ALL populations of organisms are in transition, all the time.

Where is evidence for that?

We've got some pretty unbroken lines of development, for example the evolution of the horse or the evolution of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises).

Also, reptiles, mammals, and birds have differerent internal organs. How can one species like a reptile become a bird?

Dinosaurs weren't reptiles, exactly.

If you look at genetics, how does it create itself?

Our genetic code isn't utterly deterministic. Even monozygotic twins are nowhere near identical, especially as their life progresses. Changes do happen, all the time. And under the right conditions, some of them may prove to be an evolutionary advantage under certain circumstances. (Our species is pretty "young", and yet you'll find that some populations - those that have been cowherds for millennia - can digest cow's milk, while others - those who haven't been cowherds - cannot. That's evolution at work, right in front of our eyes.)

How does a lifeform in the precreated form know what to become?

The whole purpose of DNA is to encode enzymes: protein chains of various purposes. It's our "programming", so to speak - including glitches, bugs, and some surprising variations.
From the time the first enzyme chains gathered in a meaningful pattern, that development was pretty much inevitable.
To this day, monocellular organisms make up the vast majority of species out there, not only because they are so simple, but also because they are much more malleable, evolving at an incredible speed that cannot be matched by more complex organisms. Just think of antibiotics resistance: if we were like germs, the following scenario would be perfectly normal.
A guy with blond hair enters a cafe and meets a girl with spiky pink hair. They shake hands, and both leave the cafe as spiky-haired females.

 

[tulc]

Well since you wanted to go back to the original post-

saying "I don't believe in evolution" is a contradicting statment, as I will agree with you that it is not a subject you believe in. It is a science.

Science and faith are two different factors. Now I'm a creationist so please forgive me for my "flaunting ignorance" but evolution still does not pose all the answers. But hey I'm fair creationism doesn't show all the facts either. In fact creationism requires faith, which is why pitting these against each other raises so many arguements that get no where. I can honestly admit they get no where because most Creationists don't take the time to research (Hey guys let's be honest!)

Looking at evolution the questions I can't fathom are these- We find all types of fossils, but no transitional lifeforms. Where is evidence for that? Also, reptiles, mammals, and birds have differerent internal organs. How can one species like a reptile become a bird? If you look at genetics, how does it create itself? How does a lifeform in the precreated form know what to become? Look at a computer for an example. Someone had to create it. Or a program? Computer programs don't make themselves, which is what evolution claims with the genetic code and DNA. They code themselves...

I just can't wrap my mind around it, but now that we are getting back on topic what can you folks tell me?

Truthfully the whole reason this thread is here in "General Political Discussion" instead of the "Evolution Fora" is because we haven't been discussing evolution since about the first 10 post.
tulc(you might check over there for someone to talk to about it)

 

[HosannaHM]

What would constitute a "trasitional lifeform" for you?
In terms of evolution, ALL populations of organisms are in transition, all the time.


We've got some pretty unbroken lines of development, for example the evolution of the horse or the evolution of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises).


Dinosaurs weren't reptiles, exactly.

Our genetic code isn't utterly deterministic. Even monozygotic twins are nowhere near identical, especially as their life progresses. Changes do happen, all the time. And under the right conditions, some of them may prove to be an evolutionary advantage under certain circumstances. (Our species is pretty "young", and yet you'll find that some populations - those that have been cowherds for millennia - can digest cow's milk, while others - those who haven't been cowherds - cannot. That's evolution at work, right in front of our eyes.)


The whole purpose of DNA is to encode enzymes: protein chains of various purposes. It's our "programming", so to speak - including glitches, bugs, and some surprising variations.
From the time the first enzyme chains gathered in a meaningful pattern, that development was pretty much inevitable.
To this day, monocellular organisms make up the vast majority of species out there, not only because they are so simple, but also because they are much more malleable, evolving at an incredible speed that cannot be matched by more complex organisms. Just think of antibiotics resistance: if we were like germs, the following scenario would be perfectly normal.
A guy with blond hair enters a cafe and meets a girl with spiky pink hair. They shake hands, and both leave the cafe as spiky-haired females.

So let me ask you this since judging by what you've said previously, you have a good understanding of science. So that brings a question to mind. Amino acids are the "building blocks of life" so to speak, and need to be arranged in certain ways that make sense. Much like arranging letters in a certain order to make words. Different orders of amino acids when joined together make different proteins, which make up all living creatures. Scientists have recently discovered that the odds of amino acids ( which do occur randomly in nature) assembling themselves in such an order that would make sense, are about 1 in 10 to the 75th power. And that's just for one protein. Now it takes at roughly 7 proteins gathered together in the right order to make a functioning cell. So, given that information, scientists have also concluded that amino acids in the "primordial soup" would have to have been around for 10 to the 25 power years for a 95% chance of one strand of amino acids to link together in a functioning protein. That doesn't include multiple proteins finding each other in such a fashion that they create a living cell. The Earth simply hasn't been around that long. Then you factor in that in nature, water acts as a solvent to amino acids among other things. This would lead one to believe that they had to be all together all at once or they would simply break down in their separate forms. This is new scientific fact. Not a "creation" or "intelligent design" based theory. How would you explain, and or, give a plausible scenario as how this could occur naturally in nature. Scientists still don't know.

 

[mzungu]

So let me ask you this since judging by what you've said previously, you have a good understanding of science. So that brings a question to mind. Amino acids are the "building blocks of life" so to speak, and need to be arranged in certain ways that make sense. Much like arranging letters in a certain order to make words. Different orders of amino acids when joined together make different proteins, which make up all living creatures. Scientists have recently discovered that the odds of amino acids ( which do occur randomly in nature) assembling themselves in such an order that would make sense, are about 1 in 10 to the 75th power. And that's just for one protein. Now it takes at roughly 7 proteins gathered together in the right order to make a functioning cell. So, given that information, scientists have also concluded that amino acids in the "primordial soup" would have to have been around for 10 to the 25 power years for a 95% chance of one strand of amino acids to link together in a functioning protein. That doesn't include multiple proteins finding each other in such a fashion that they create a living cell. The Earth simply hasn't been around that long. Then you factor in that in nature, water acts as a solvent to amino acids among other things. This would lead one to believe that they had to be all together all at once or they would simply break down in their separate forms. This is new scientific fact. Not a "creation" or "intelligent design" based theory. How would you explain, and or, give a plausible scenario as how this could occur naturally in nature. Scientists still don't know.

I suspect that you copy pasted from a creo site so please provide a Source for your claims and make sure it is a peer reviewed one too!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

See, the funny thing about probability theory is this: it can predict the likelihood of an event, but it cannot predict when it will occur, or whether it will occur.

To illustrate this, let's look at nuclear power plants: in terms of probability, the risk of a disaster beyond maximum credible accident-level measures at one per ten thousand years. However, this does NOT mean that it'll take ten thousand years until such a disaster takes place - it can happen today, or tomorrow, or on any other day within that time period. The only thing that can be predicted with probability is that there most likely won't be more than one such event per ten thousand years (per power plant, that is...).
Or take the lottery: winning the jackpot is even LESS likely than experiencing a nuclear meltdown - and yet people keep doing it.

The thing is: extremely unlikely events take place all the time, everywhere. An extremely small likelihood does not prevent them from happening - it only means that they're not very probable.

Take a handful of sand. Pour it onto the table. Now, how likely do you think it is that the grains fall *exactly* in the pattern you've just created?
You could spend your whole life picking the grains up and pouring them again, and yet it is almost impossible for you to re-create the original pattern. It could still happen - it's just extremely unlikely. But even more importantly: even that first pouring created an extremely unlikely pattern. You've basically just created something that's statistically impossible. You didn't do so intentionally- it just happened.

To conclude, it may be extremely unlikely for a planet to exhibit all the characteristics that it needs in order to make it sustain protein-based life. The earth does exhibit them, however, and it does not take miracles to explain that. Life forming on a planet with liquid water is no more miraculous than a puddle forming in a cavity.

 

[mzungu]

See, the funny thing about probability theory is this: it can predict the likelihood of an event, but it cannot predict when it will occur, or whether it will occur.

To illustrate this, let's look at nuclear power plants: in terms of probability, the risk of a disaster beyond maximum credible accident-level measures at one per ten thousand years. However, this does NOT mean that it'll take ten thousand years until such a disaster takes place - it can happen today, or tomorrow, or on any other day within that time period. The only thing that can be predicted with probability is that there most likely won't be more than one such event per ten thousand years (per power plant, that is...).
Or take the lottery: winning the jackpot is even LESS likely than experiencing a nuclear meltdown - and yet people keep doing it.

The thing is: extremely unlikely events take place all the time, everywhere. An extremely small likelihood does not prevent them from happening - it only means that they're not very probable.

Take a handful of sand. Pour it onto the table. Now, how likely do you think it is that the grains fall *exactly* in the pattern you've just created?
You could spend your whole life picking the grains up and pouring them again, and yet it is almost impossible for you to re-create the original pattern. It could still happen - it's just extremely unlikely. But even more importantly: even that first pouring created an extremely unlikely pattern. You've basically just created something that's statistically impossible. You didn't do so intentionally- it just happened.

To conclude, it may be extremely unlikely for a planet to exhibit all the characteristics that it needs in order to make it sustain protein-based life. The earth does exhibit them, however, and it does not take miracles to explain that. Life forming on a planet with liquid water is no more miraculous than a puddle forming in a cavity.

One thing I have found out about creationists is that they don't want to read long posts especially if they contain any empirical evidences and or theories or scientific explanations. This is due to their "lets make up an explanation to suit our claims". Such easy way out tactics make for a lazy mind.

I find you post to be precise and to the point. I only hope our creo friends do the same!

 

[Nathan Poe]

tulc quote

...really? Because what I see? Is the Levite and the Priest evaluated, the Samaritan saw the need and helped. Which of the three were the wounded man's neighbor? Which one are you clirus?

Response

What you see is what you want to see, at the exclusion of other information.

Lets say you saw Hitler in a ditch (and you knew it was Hitler), would you help him?

I'd help him -- straight to the nearest allied base.

Nice to see you equate everyone not like you to Hitler.

I do not see any justification in the Bible of Christians helping Atheists, except to offer the salvation of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

What you see is what you want to see, at the exclusion of other information.

The Bible definitely says Christians should help Christians.

Then the Parable of the Good Samaritan means nothing to you.

On an individual level, the decision to help is between God and the person, but from a policy perspective, I do not believe it is best for Christians to help Atheists other than to offer salvation.

Salvation from what? The man lying in the ditch doesn't need salvation, he needs a hospital.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Amen, Amen and AAAmen

The problem is hope. Atheists hope facts never enter into the discussion of the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution cannot be proved, thus it remains a theory because it cannot be proved.

When the word "theory" is used it means it cannot be proved.

For the Atheist, the key is control of the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry that ignores facts and implies the Theory of Evolution is truth.

Does that mean the Theory of Gravity can't be proved either? I mean... it's a theory afterall.