My Enoch Challenge

[Nathan Poe]

I don't buy it. God is sounding worse than Satan.

.

He is -- who do you think gave Satan his job in the first place?

Where I'm from, if you let a mad dog off its leash, you're responsible for its actions as well as your own.

 

[Jazer]

I don't buy it. God is sounding worse than Satan.

Mass extinction is still the same, if God did it or not. So if you get rid of God then how do you explain it? How can you use evolution to explain the death of Darwin's 12 year old daughter? Actually, all God is going to do is to quit restraining mankind and allow them to destroy themselves. He did not tear down the temple, the Romans did. God will protect people, but if they do not want His protection then He will allow them to suffer the consequences. So you can not really blame Him for what man does to himself.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Mass extinction is still the same, if God did it or not. So if you get rid of God then how do you explain it?

The more formal explanation would be "excrement occurs." You can google the more common parlance.

How can you use evolution to explain the death of Darwin's 12 year old daughter?

Scarlet Fever -- what's to explain?

 

[Jazer]

Scarlet Fever -- what's to explain?

Explain natural selection. How does Scarlet Fever cause the species to be stronger and survive? She died before she could reproduce herself. Natural selection only works if the species is able to reproduce.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Explain natural selection. How does Scarlet Fever cause the species to be stronger and survive? She died before she could reproduce herself. Natural selection only works if the species is able to reproduce.

In case you haven't noticed, the species is reproducing just fine. You don't need every last member of a species to make it in order for the species to survive.

U.S. & World Population Clock

Now, if certain individuals don't make it, that's a tragedy, but the ones healthy enough to make it go on to reproduce, producing healthier offspiring.

Now, let's see if you're genuinely interested in the topic, or have a canned PRATT/strawman ready.

So -- are you genuinely interested in discussing this?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Explain natural selection. How does Scarlet Fever cause the species to be stronger and survive? She died before she could reproduce herself. Natural selection only works if the species is able to reproduce.

In the coldest way of things, natural selection was in action by her death: she was vulnerable to the illness, and thus died. Anyone who had a resistance to it would be more likely to survive and reproduce. Her death ensured that her genes wouldn't weaken the gene pool.

The same thing happens with bacterial resistance. Though penicillin kills most bacteria, a few have random mutations that just so happen to code for resistance to penicillin. Once all the vulnerable bacteria are dead, what's left? The resistant strains. And since their comrades are dead, they are free to explode their population, since there's no one to compete with for resources.

Natural selection is a statistical trend, a phenomenon emergent from the genetic dynamics of an imperfectly replicating population in an environment of attrition. It's the phenomenon whereby natural factors (prevalence of disease, abundance of food, cleanliness of water, temperature, humidity, etc) all determine whether an individuals traits are good or bad. Mutations that make one vulnerable to sickle cell anaemia and resistant to malaria would be bad in countries where there is no malaria, but good in countries where there is a deadly killer malaria.

 

[Jazer]

The same thing happens with bacterial resistance. Though penicillin kills most bacteria, a few have random mutations that just so happen to code for resistance to penicillin. Once all the vulnerable bacteria are dead, what's left? The resistant strains. And since their comrades are dead, they are free to explode their population, since there's no one to compete with for resources.

I do not see where life has any advantage over death. It looks like natural selection gives them equal opportunity.

I remember going to a fish hatchery once. In a man made controled situation they can get most the eggs to hatch and produce fish (97%). In the real world maybe 3% of the eggs survive. Some people feel over population is the problem, when there is nothing to keep things balanced and under control.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I do not see where life has any advantage over death. It looks like natural selection gives them equal opportunity.

No, it does not. A dead organism can't reproduce. A living organism can. That Darwin's daughter died in infancy means she will never have kids, and thus will never disperse her genes. Had she lived into adulthood, she could well have had kids, and thus had a good chance of spreading her genes.

Survival isn't the be-all and end-all, but being alive it's a pretty big requirement to reproduce, don't you think?

Moreover, if you have a lucky mutation that lets you survive in an environment where your comrades die, that means you have the entire environment to yourself. All the food and territory is for you, and your offspring, and your offspring's offspring. Pretty soon, the entire area is filled with your descendants - specifically, descendants which are resistant to the harmful effects of that environment. This is true of both the lucky bacterium surviving in blood filled with antibodies, or the darker-skinned human living in areas of dangerously strong sunlight.

I remember going to a fish hatchery once. In a man made controled situation they can get most the eggs to hatch and produce fish (97%). In the real world maybe 3% of the eggs survive. Some people feel over population is the problem, when there is nothing to keep things balanced and under control.

I'm not sure what your point is. Fish generally produce enormous quantities of fertilised eggs, but that's simply because so many are eaten or otherwise die. Population numbers can be maintained because the vast quantity of eggs is balanced by the vast quantity that are killed.
However, in hatcheries, the mortality is phenomenally less. This means we get vast quantities of eggs that don't die, and so we get many more fish for harvesting.
In other words, we took a naturally evolved system and usurped it for our own benefit. Fish produce many eggs to counteract the high level of predation, but we humans have removed that predation, and harvest the resulting boon of fish.

That said, I don't see how that has any relevance to your objection to natural selection

 

[Nathan Poe]

I do not see where life has any advantage over death.

If you don't see how living is preferable to dying, you've got problems.

It looks like natural selection gives them equal opportunity.

It doesn't -- and neither does the environment.

The following is a very crude analogy, but bear with me.

Consider -- Some people are blondes, some are brunettes.

When it became apparant that the "Son of Sam," David Berkowitz was targeting dark haired women, women dyed their hair, bought blonde wigs, etc., anything they could think of to stay off his radar, as it were.

I'm sure if you walked around New York City in 1976-77, you'd have seen a lot more blondes than the statistical average -- and that was the result of just one man.

Now imagine a hundred Sons of Sam.

Now imagine a thousand.

Now imagine a million -- with no way to get rid of them.

Turn a million "Sons of Sam" loose in New York City for a few years -- how many non-blonde women are you going to see?

Consider that blonde people are that much more likely to have blonde children, you can see how the environment affects a species.

I remember going to a fish hatchery once. In a man made controled situation they can get most the eggs to hatch and produce fish (97%). In the real world maybe 3% of the eggs survive.

Which is why most fish lay dozens, if not hundreds of eggs at a time -- even 3% of 100 is 3 fish -- so the species continues.

It's possible that at one time there was a species of fish that only laid a few eggs at a time, but went extinct. Can you see why?

Some people feel over population is the problem, when there is nothing to keep things balanced and under control.

Thomas Malthus philosophized along those lines, IIRC.

 

[Jazer]

Survival isn't the be-all and end-all, but being alive it's a pretty big requirement to reproduce, don't you think?

Perhaps at one time. But now that they know how to freeze sperm it is no problem for dead men to have babies. If someone somewhere happened to have some Elvis sperm, how much do you think people would pay for that?

 

[Jazer]

It's possible that at one time there was a species of fish that only laid a few eggs at a time, but went extinct. Can you see why?

It's possible, but it's also pure speculation. The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. That does not leave much room for random selection. Even some evolutionists say that evolution is limited by the structure and the materials. Anywhere you go the elements remain consistant and there is only so many different ways you can fit those elements together. So life is going to remain fairly consistant.

Our planet is a fixed position from the sun. The moon holds it at a tilt so we have seasons. Science tells us that two or three degrees can make a big difference. But we know it is the atmosphere that determines the conditions for life here on earth. Not how far we are from the sun. God created the atmosphere and with no atmosphere you have no evolution.

 

[Jazer]

Fish produce many eggs to counteract the high level of predation, but we humans have removed that predation, and harvest the resulting boon of fish.

That said, I don't see how that has any relevance to your objection to natural selection

One tree can produce enough seeds to make a forest. One fish can produce enough to make a whole school of fish. God can create a population very fast and long periods of time are not needed. Evolution seems to think the process is very gradual and that is not the case. Then another evolutionist comes along and says it all happened very fast. So evolutionists can not seem to agree among themselves.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Perhaps at one time. But now that they know how to freeze sperm it is no problem for dead men to have babies. If someone somewhere happened to have some Elvis sperm, how much do you think people would pay for that?

Quite a lot. But it wouldn't be the first time humans have changed the natured of the game - condoms are a deceptively clever piece of technology that allow us to enjoy all the evolved benefits of sex (pleasure, intimacy, etc) with none of the hard stuff (babies, STDs, etc).

Nonetheless, Anne Darwin's death still constitutes a manifestation of natural selection.

One tree can produce enough seeds to make a forest. One fish can produce enough to make a whole school of fish. God can create a population very fast and long periods of time are not needed. Evolution seems to think the process is very gradual and that is not the case. Then another evolutionist comes along and says it all happened very fast. So evolutionists can not seem to agree among themselves.

It's all a question of scales. From a human point of view, these things take very long indeed. But on geological scales, they can happen very fast indeed. So, depending on the context of the question, an evolutionist might characterise population growth and evolution as very slow (as viewed by a single human over his or her lifetime), or as very fast (as viewed through goelogical strata). For instance, a forest can form relatively quickly - at least, relative to the evolution of the species of tree that is growing.

 

[Tiberius]

Not that I know of; that's why God documented it in His Diary.

Now here's another question...

Could God have made it so the world had evidence that the flood occured?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now here's another question...

Could God have made it so the world had evidence that the flood occured?

Yes

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's possible, but it's also pure speculation.

Indeed it is -- which is why there's not much point dwelling on it, since either no such species existed, or one did, and it's now extinct -- for obvious reasons.

The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. That does not leave much room for random selection.

And that matters because...?

Even some evolutionists say that evolution is limited by the structure and the materials. Anywhere you go the elements remain consistant and there is only so many different ways you can fit those elements together. So life is going to remain fairly consistant.

Indeed -- all life on this planet is carbon-based; beyond that, there's almost nothing that they all have in common -- can you think of anything?

Our planet is a fixed position from the sun. The moon holds it at a tilt so we have seasons.

other way around -- we have seasons because the moon holds it at a tilt.

Science tells us that two or three degrees can make a big difference. But we know it is the atmosphere that determines the conditions for life here on earth.

Life as we currently know it.

Not how far we are from the sun. God created the atmosphere and with no atmosphere you have no evolution.

Again, you're operating under the assumption of a literal Bible -- is such an assumption any less faulty than "pure speculation"?

 

[Nathan Poe]

One tree can produce enough seeds to make a forest. One fish can produce enough to make a whole school of fish.

And they would -- except there's always been something around that needed to eat those seeds/eggs to survive.

God can create a population very fast and long periods of time are not needed. Evolution seems to think the process is very gradual and that is not the case.

Pure speculation.

Then another evolutionist comes along and says it all happened very fast. So evolutionists can not seem to agree among themselves.

Punctuated equilibrium -- creatures evolve in reaction to their environment, which normally changes very slowly, if at all. But if something cataclysmic (for example, an asteroid impact, or yes, even a flood) were to suddenly occur to change the environment suddenly, you'd see a lot of change in very short order.

So, where's the disagreement?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes

So why didn't he?

After all, God';s given us two places we can learn about the past. He's given us the Bible, and he's given us the actual world.

Now, if the two of them said the same thing, I wouldn't be here arguing this point with you. I;d be a believer just like you. But the two sources do not say the same thing, even though God could have made sure they did.

So the question is, why didn't he make it so the world had evidence that the flood took place?

 

[Nathan Poe]

So why didn't he?

After all, God';s given us two places we can learn about the past. He's given us the Bible, and he's given us the actual world.

Now, if the two of them said the same thing, I wouldn't be here arguing this point with you. I;d be a believer just like you. But the two sources do not say the same thing, even though God could have made sure they did.

So the question is, why didn't he make it so the world had evidence that the flood took place?

You're talking theology with someone who thinks the Bible is God's diary?

What -- did every religious scholar on the planet suddenly drop dead of a stroke?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why didn't he?

Because He cleaned up the mess.

What would you think if your teenage son spilled milk on the floor, then just walked away and said, "Let nature handle it. It'll be gone tomorrow."?