My Evolution Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Some Christians have just not learned from the past of the ridiculousness of avoiding reason and clinging to their outdated personal interpretations of the Bible.

What's an 'outdated personal interpretation of the Bible'?

If it's outdated, how is it unique to one person?

And just out of curiosity, whose interpretation of the Bible do you suggest I start using?

(Please be specific.)

 

[AV1611VET]

And fyi, that article is laughably wrong in pretty much the exact same way as most of those arguments are - they assume that genes are dice.

These probability calculations are useless and have nothing to do with evolution nor even with abiogenesis (which is really what most are supposed to be about).

I'm not really impressed with these "refutations" to the point I made; since I suspect they are aimed at allowing you guys to feign not understanding the Boeing 747 argument.

As one of you would say: Move along now.

 

[Cabal]

What's an 'outdated personal interpretation of the Bible'?

If it's outdated, how is it unique to one person?

Who says it was?

And just out of curiosity, whose interpretation of the Bible do you suggest I start using?

(Please be specific.)

One that does not pretend to "literalism" when it obviously is held inconsistently.

 

[AV1611VET]

One that does not pretend to "literalism" when it obviously is held inconsistently.

Um ... a specific name or denomination would be nice.

That's what I meant by, "please be specific".

(You need to hurry too, please. I don't have all day.)

 

[sandwiches]

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

Knock yourself out

You should've checked the site before suggesting it to me. It doesn't have an entry for 'integrated complexity.'

Do you even know what 'integrated complexity' means or is this merely an attempt at obfuscating the subject?

 

[Skaloop]

You should've checked the site before suggesting it to me. It doesn't have an entry for 'integrated complexity.'

Do you even know what 'integrated complexity' means or is this merely an attempt at obfuscating the subject?

I think he's suggesting that you could look up the definition of "integrated" then look up the definition of "complexity" and then know all you need to know. Just like how you can look up the word "base" and then the word "ball" and then know exactly how the game of baseball works.

 

[Cabal]

I'm not really impressed with these "refutations" to the point I made; since I suspect they are aimed at allowing you guys to feign not understanding the Boeing 747 argument.

I would say that this comment is allowing you to feign understanding basic concepts of probability, but that would assume you do understand it when you clearly don't.

You are WRONG. Get over it and get over yourself - or address the arguments instead of being arrogant enough to presume motive.

As one of you would say: Move along now.

As you would say - take a hike.

 

[sandwiches]

The Improbability of Evolution

The article makes the obvious mistake of thinking of the human genome as a bunch of slot machines. Nature merely pulling the lever on all the genomes at once and hoping they land on humans. That's not how evolution works.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm not really impressed with these "refutations" to the point I made; since I suspect they are aimed at allowing you guys to feign not understanding the Boeing 747 argument.

As one of you would say: Move along now.

And I suspect you really have no idea how these calculations are made, or if they actually apply to either evolution or abiogenesis. Nor do you care. As I said, they are useful only for Creationist Propaganda.

Now we can "Move along now."

 

[Tomatoman]

What's an 'outdated personal interpretation of the Bible'?

If it's outdated, how is it unique to one person?

And just out of curiosity, whose interpretation of the Bible do you suggest I start using?

(Please be specific.)

This, to me, is a depressing question. The answer would be completely obvious to any 10 year old if they hadn't been brought up in a fundamentalist cult. The answer, that you use your own rational interpretation, suddenly becomes horribly twisted when given to a creationist because asking them to make a rational interpretation is like asking someone in a wheel chair to run a marathon.

Look, AV, you start at the beginning. You ask yourself who it was who first told you about the bible and where did they get their information from. You ask yourself the same question about everyone who has ever told you about the bible. Then you test everything in the bible against your own experience of life. If there are glaring discrepancies you adjust accordingly. You take nothing at face value. If after doing this you still find a literal reading of the bible the most convincing interpretation then...well, there is something very wrong with you.

I have a feeling, though, that this exercise may be a little late for you. I think that you, like most ardent fundamentalists, have been so seduced by the lure of a mythical heaven, that you don't even care if your fantasy is true or not, you are going to cling to it like grim death and no-one is going to take it away from you, least of all those crazy evolutionists who are clearly in league with the devil. No, you're too far gone. Incidentally, no-one has ever explained to me what the point of heaven is exactly. It's seems the most pointless concept ever dreamt up, and a peculiarly human concept too. "I may be misunderstood and weak and poor and bullied and inadequate in life but I'm going to get a huge reward one day and all those nasty people are going to be sorry. HaHaHaHa!" Yes. Psychologically not too deep a concept after all.

Ho-hum.

 

[Greg1234]

You should've checked the site before suggesting it to me. It doesn't have an entry for 'integrated complexity.'

Lol. It is not just the integrated complexity but the level. Oh and it is impractical to look at the complexity of the heart separately from the blood vessels, separately from the brain, separately from the nervous system separately from DNA, separately from the digestive system. Each complex in its own right. Each contributing to the whole. Each integrated. Like a 747.

 

[Greg1234]

I think he's suggesting that you could look up the definition of "integrated" then look up the definition of "complexity" and then know all you need to know. Just like how you can look up the word "base" and then the word "ball" and then know exactly how the game of baseball works.

Baseball | Define Baseball at Dictionary.com

 

[Skaloop]

Baseball | Define Baseball at Dictionary.com

My point.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your head.

 

[Tomatoman]

Lol. It is not just the integrated complexity but the level. Oh and it is impractical to look at the complexity of the heart separately from the blood vessels, separately from the brain, separately from the nervous system separately from DNA, separately from the digestive system. Each complex in its own right. Each contributing to the whole. Each integrated. Like a 747.

Greg thinks he's a jumbo jet today. Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Feel free to get back and address the OP anytime --

 

[Naraoia]

I'm curious - I've been here for almost a month now and I've probably heard the argument of "Boeing 747s / watches / computers / [insert any non-biological object here] cannot evolve by fluke lol" about 5-10 times. How many times do you reckon you've heard these kinds of arguments during your time here?

Chuck Norris couldn't handle the number.

 

[rockaction]

Lol. It is not just the integrated complexity but the level. Oh and it is impractical to look at the complexity of the heart separately from the blood vessels, separately from the brain, separately from the nervous system separately from DNA, separately from the digestive system. Each complex in its own right. Each contributing to the whole. Each integrated. Like a 747.

All you have to do is look at simpler organisms to see how it could have happened. Organ systems co-evolved, but they co-evolved from far simpler versions. All you are doing here is yelling "physiology is complex! Therefore no evolution." Quite the non sequiter.

 

[Cabal]

Chuck Norris couldn't handle the number.

But he CAN. *glares*

 

[Greg1234]

All you have to do is look at simpler organisms to see how it could have happened. Organ systems co-evolved, but they co-evolved from far simpler versions. All you are doing here is yelling "physiology is complex! Therefore no evolution." Quite the non sequiter.

Nope. I'm telling you that chance cannot build a human. Looking at bacteria and looking at a man and saying that bacteria can turn into men is against everything we are gathering about adaptation. "Co-evolved" is just the same chance argument. A fancier yet less exposing route of the atheist notion and doctrine that stochastic events can build a man or a 747. Don't take it personally though. If a man came up to me and told me that you could build a 747 via metallic transmogrification multilateral random variances, I would have told him the same thing. Calm down.

 

[rockaction]

Nope. I'm telling you that chance cannot build a human. Looking at bacteria and looking at a man and saying that bacteria can turn into men is against everything we are gathering about adaptation.

"We"? You are not a scientist, stop including yourself into the discussion. Also, as I have to state again and again with you, no one is saying that "pure chance" builds humans. And for the love of all that is good, no one is saying that modern bacteria turn into humans.

"Co-evolved" is just the same chance argument. A fancier yet less exposing route of the atheist notion and doctrine that stochastic events can build a man or a 747. Don't take it personally though. If a man came up to me and told me that you could build a 747 via metallic transmogrification multilateral random variances, I would have told him the same thing. Calm down.

You are worse than AV. At least AV knows when where his knowledge about science ends and admits to making all his decisions on his Boolean standards. You, on the other hand, are using twisted pseudo-pseudoscience in a vain attempt to disprove evolution. The fact that no one in the scientific community agrees with your ridiculous notions is evidence enough that you are wrong. You are an uneducated mouth piece for Creationism that has not looked at the evidence, cannot comprehend the evidence, and has a hobby of urinating on the lifework of the people contributing to science.

You've got a be a Poe.