• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How so, meet my friend So-How.

Chinese%20man.jpg

Well it's nice to meet someone who has a sense of humor on this thread but I can see your not a very Ceris person. How refreshing! More to life than science and theory and arguments etc. :amen: :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What you mean is that we do not get our morals from the bible.
As i have tried to demonstrate, the morals of the old testament are rape, pillage, slavery, muder, infantacide and make-beleive.
Oh, I guess a little love thy neighbour (or love thy fellow Jew, I believe is the literal translation) and eye for an eye....
Humans get their morality from mankind, from the society they grow up in - that is your biggest conditioner.
Obviously, you got away with asking silly questions over and over again which must have got you out of trouble as a child because you can't seem the break the habit.
And can't see the point of Ken Miller's presentation?
Now that's got to be a fairy story.
It is as compelling as can be.
He is a big gun because he destroyed Behe's lies with evidence - and changed his mind in the process.

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Professor Richard Dawkins.

No, I don't mean that at all. I don't care where you get your morals from but you accused scriptures of being immoral. I was told atheists were amoral but I guess that is so you can pick and choose what you think is immoral or not.

I saw the point of KM's presentation...to gloat. But regardless of that, and I suppose in light of his audience of supporters he didn't need to, I didn't find that he gave much reference to the points he was making. That was why I didn't think it was such a great presentation. He stated things which he never verified but as I said, with his audience of followers he probably didn't need to.
 
Upvote 0

BigDug

Active Member
Aug 8, 2007
165
3
Visit site
✟15,320.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
ok. Thank you MarcusHill!

I only have time to pop in here and tie up some loose ends from my little presentation, further commentary has to wait until much later, several hours from now.

Here are more detailed references.
1)The Kimura chart itself is (as I had said) an adaption of an adaption of the original. The original chart, as well as all the math behind it can be found at:

Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective restraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444

We are lucky enough to have those archives available to the general public at http://www.pnas.org/


2)Gerrish, P.J. and R.Lenski. 1998. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102.103:127-144

These archives are not free to the general public, but the abstract is readable http://www.springerlink.com/content/np187h5878166310/?p=4454ba0ccbf44e608093317ec2aa8059π=13

3)Batallion, T. 2000 Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497-501

No free edition, here is the abstract
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2540.2000.00727.x

4)Elena, S.F. et al, 1998. Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E.coli Genetica 102/103:349-358

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r37w1hrq5l0q3832/?p=c01f4607f275436f9799c3bb616ad0b8π=29


so later in Genesis when it talks about God opening the windows in the firmament to let the water through to cause the flood... hmmm... maybe you want to rethink your previous
No, as a matter of fact it follows my explanation quite well, and you act as if I had never thought of it before and this is some startling revelation for me. No, the existence of copious amounts of water in the clouds is probably due to the thicker atmosphere I postulated previously.
Oh, and also, you're wrong anyway. Genesis is in no practical way correct or accurate
IM sorry you dont like my explanation, however in cases such as this, where everyone's opinion is subjective, it doesnt really matter what you think of it.

Nobody is trying to make a scientific case on Genesis, I am simply makeing an explanation for apparent contradictions. I thought we had abandoned science long ago when you guys started using the Bible as some sort of self-referencing reason why it must be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inan3
Upvote 0

BigDug

Active Member
Aug 8, 2007
165
3
Visit site
✟15,320.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
That was why I didn't think it was such a great presentation. He stated things which he never verified but as I said, with his audience of followers he probably didn't need to.
I personally dont have time to watch 117 minutes of his bragging, there was very little science (in the first 46 minutes I watched), there was no opposing viewpoint, just him bragging over his own overblown sense of success.
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
IM sorry you dont like my explanation, however in cases such as this, where everyone's opinion is subjective, it doesnt really matter what you think of it.

The evidence is not subjective, and the evidence shows Genesis to be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

BigDug

Active Member
Aug 8, 2007
165
3
Visit site
✟15,320.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
The evidence is not subjective, and the evidence shows Genesis to be wrong
Oh OK! Alright. There you go.

**One more note about my chart,...on the left frequency side you might think that the frequency goes down because by putting a directional arrow it would appear to do so. But thats not the case at all, in fact it should be going UP! I only drew it that way to show the vertical direction, as a help, but it may mislead someone to think that the numbers are going down when in fact they are going up.

OK. gotta go.
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Earth formed from the solar dust that surrounded the Sun after its formation. The Sun came first.[/COLOR]

Were you there? Then where did the sun come from and what is the generally accepted scientific view of the Theory of Cosmology?

The Sun existed before the Earth, so clearly it existed before plants did. Furthermore, plants cannot survive without sunlight, so the Sun has to be present for plants to exist.
[/COLOR]


Can plants live at least a day with out sunshine? Especially if they have been infused with the Life of a Creator who is so ingenious as to design it all beyond what man could ever discover. Especially with the natural mind. He and His design is so complex that you are never going to figure it out unless you get on His side and then it still wouldn't be with this finite mortal mind.

For starters, whales evolved from land mammals, as evidenced by the fossil record. So land mammals had to exist prior to whales. And birds evolved from reptiles, so reptiles had to exist before birds. This is all shown by various lines of evidence, including fossils and genetics.

So says science's seemingly "best" accepted conclusion but we know that science is not proven and as to Cosmology it really doesn't have (nor could it) a general acceptance of how it all came about, now does it?

These fossil evidences or genetics are so limited that they really can't prove any of that. They show something no doubt but as to the the existence they barely scratch the surface. You could study it all for several lifetimes and yet not come to the whole truth of it.

Light is produced by the Sun and by stars. If the Sun and stars did not yet exist, light did not exist. There is no firmament above the Earth for the stars to be embedded into, and even if you take a broad definition of firmament to just mean sky or heavens, the stars still are not embedded in it. Finally, nobody has ever detected a huge mass of water above the Earth, much less any sort of firmament holding it up.
[/COLOR]

NO...That is limited thinking. God is Light and because of that, light exists in the natural. Light is much greater than the Sun and the stars. That would be like saying that light bulbs were powered to light on their own and that the were just there without anyone putting them there. God is Light, Life, Spirit and Love. All that is, finds its origin and existence in and from Him.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Were you there?

Were you? Didn't think so.

Then where did the sun come from

A large cloud of dust aggregated until it underwent nuclear fission. Thus, the Sun was born. Shortly after, the planets began to form.

and what is the generally accepted scientific view of the Theory of Cosmology?

The scientific consensus of the Theory of Cosmology is that it is correct.

Can plants live at least a day with out sunshine?

Not all of them, no.

Especially if they have been infused with the Life of a Creator

Could you be more specific? This sounds very New-Agey.

So says science's seemingly "best" accepted conclusion but we know that science is not proven

Science is the method by which humanity gains knowledge via evidence. It's explanations for phenomena are rarely proven (such a thing is for mathematics and alcohol), but the evidence put forward for the more impessive theories is overwhelming.
Though the standard theory of how the Earth's biodiversity arose is unproven, it is so likely to be true that I have a hard time thinking up falsification tests for it.
Except, of course, if a human gave birth to a chimp.


and as to Cosmology it really doesn't have (nor could it) a general acceptance of how it all came about, now does it?

Cosmology is the study of, among other things, the origin of the universe, the solar system, and the Earth. The standard theory is the Big Bang, followed by Inflation, followed by solar aggregation discs.

These fossil evidences or genetics are so limited that they really can't prove any of that. They show something no doubt but as to the the existence they barely scratch the surface. You could study it all for several lifetimes and yet not come to the whole truth of it.

Clearly you haven't studied the fossil record, the genetic evidence.
Read some.


NO...That is limited thinking.

I trust the irony of this isn't lost on anyone...

God is Light and because of that, light exists in the natural. Light is much greater than the Sun and the stars.

Light is a self-inducing EM wave/particle. To call the myriad of photons in our universe 'God' is a bit of a theological stretch.

That would be like saying that light bulbs were powered to light on their own and that the were just there without anyone putting them there.

On the contrary, most people can construct sentences with syntax and grammar.

God is Light, Life, Spirit and Love. All that is, finds its origin and existence in and from Him.
Allegedly.
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
Were you there? Then where did the sun come from and what is the generally accepted scientific view of the Theory of Cosmology?




Can plants live at least a day with out sunshine? Especially if they have been infused with the Life of a Creator who is so ingenious as to design it all beyond what man could ever discover. Especially with the natural mind. He and His design is so complex that you are never going to figure it out unless you get on His side and then it still wouldn't be with this finite mortal mind.



So says science's seemingly "best" accepted conclusion but we know that science is not proven and as to Cosmology it really doesn't have (nor could it) a general acceptance of how it all came about, now does it?

These fossil evidences or genetics are so limited that they really can't prove any of that. They show something no doubt but as to the the existence they barely scratch the surface. You could study it all for several lifetimes and yet not come to the whole truth of it.



NO...That is limited thinking. God is Light and because of that, light exists in the natural. Light is much greater than the Sun and the stars. That would be like saying that light bulbs were powered to light on their own and that the were just there without anyone putting them there. God is Light, Life, Spirit and Love. All that is, finds its origin and existence in and from Him.


You know what, even if all of what you say is true (which it's not), the core of this discussion is whether Genesis is literal. It clearly isn't, even by your explanations.
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know what, even if all of what you say is true (which it's not), the core of this discussion is whether Genesis is literal. It clearly isn't, even by your explanations.

I'm sorry, I don't see your point here. do you mind explaining?
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
I'm sorry, I don't see your point here. do you mind explaining?

My point is that a literal Genesis story is demonstrably wrong. As such, it can not be literal. Following from that, if Genesis is not literal, none of the rest of the Bible can be considered such.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
My point is that a literal Genesis story is demonstrably wrong. As such, it can not be literal. Following from that, if Genesis is not literal, none of the rest of the Bible can be considered such.
I'm not sure how I got your last point: the Resurrection may have happened whether or not Genesis did (I don't believe either did, but anyway).
 
Upvote 0

TheOutsider

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
Dec 29, 2006
2,747
202
Indiana
✟26,428.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
My point is that a literal Genesis story is demonstrably wrong. As such, it can not be literal. Following from that, if Genesis is not literal, none of the rest of the Bible can be considered such.

I'm not a Christian, but I'm going to disagree with this statement too. It is clear that the first 3 chapters of Genesis are not literal (at least, it is clear to me) but that doesn't mean that other section of the Bible can't be taken literally.
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP

I'm not a Christian, but I'm going to disagree with this statement too. It is clear that the first 3 chapters of Genesis are not literal (at least, it is clear to me) but that doesn't mean that other section of the Bible can't be taken literally.

Sure, parts of it may be accurate. But how is that decided? Some parts of the Bible could be literal, but which parts? If Genesis is wrong, how is anyone to know whether other parts are wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Sure, parts of it may be accurate. But how is that decided? Some parts of the Bible could be literal, but which parts? If Genesis is wrong, how is anyone to know whether other parts are wrong?
They don't. But this isn't reason to call the entire Bible unliteral. It is irrational to take the Bible as true (beyond the trivial, of course), so why should they justify thier arbitrary distinction between 'literal' and 'metaphorical'?
If you're going to do something wrong, do it wrong right.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sure, parts of it may be accurate. But how is that decided? Some parts of the Bible could be literal, but which parts? If Genesis is wrong, how is anyone to know whether other parts are wrong?
When the Bible says, "This happened and that happened," that information should be taken literally. When the Bible says, "This is like or as that," that information should be taken as figurative.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
When the Bible says, "This happened and that happened," that information should be taken literally. When the Bible says, "This is like or as that," that information should be taken as figurative.
Unfortunately, Jesus calls himself a door without using such a qualifier. Do we take this literally, and believe that Jesus thought himself to be a literal door?
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
When the Bible says, "This happened and that happened," that information should be taken literally. When the Bible says, "This is like or as that," that information should be taken as figurative.

Yeah sure, but it does say "This happened and that happened" and it is wrong.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.