nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin's theory

lanomist

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Find more posts tagged with

puffins

in limbo

Quick Links

Comments

housetypeb

The Sword of the Gospel
34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;…

That jasus fcuker shure talked a lot of ****e, in my humble opinion.

Vivisectus

Its not me ... I'm a man and a scientist

So far you seem to be a fairly typical creation scientist, judging from your posts. But those always need some extra qualifying as I have seen a lot of them with diplomas issued from some Christian University run out of a shack in New Mexico. You keep claiming to be a scientist: so what is your field? What are your credentials? Can you back up your claim?

As a scientist, are you not a little embarrassed to invoke Dembski, according to whose probability bound NO evolution can happen, while you yourself clearly said that some evolution has occurred since the fall and the flood?

Vivisectus

Vivisectus wrote: »

That is actually not that complicated. The mistake that Dembski makes is assuming that to get from one sequence to another requires the entire genome to be disassembled and then re-assembled randomly. But this is simply not what happens.

What does happen is that the original sequence is copied and multiplied, with some mistakes in it. Some of these mistakes are bad and cause death. Others cause reduced fitness, and will be selected against. Still others will be neutral and have no effect on fitness. A rare few improve fitness and get favored by selection.

Improvements that take a small amount of steps will happen earlier, and then fix themselves in the population. Bigger steps will often be dependent on neutral intermediate steps: the number of evolutionary avenues possible is not limitless.

If you model a 300 position, 20 option string of acids, and set a mutation rate of 1 in 100 and a spawn rate of 10, and then set some combinations as lethal, some as neutral, and some as beneficial, and apply selective pressure to weed out lethal ones (0 survivial chance), and increase the offspring for beneficial ones, we can see that while it takes thousands of generations and lots of organisms to get to the beneficial ones, but it DOES happen.

Anyway - I answered your challenge. I can show you the modelling in Evj if you want - it is hardly rocket science. As a scientist you are surely reviewing your opinion now in light of this fresh evidence?

Canis Lupus

Vivisectus wrote: »

As a scientist you are surely reviewing your opinion now in light of this fresh evidence?

No he won't... the guy has been posting smiley faces and different coloured posts that sort of but not quite answer questions followed by periods of absence only for him to return ignoring anything that was put to him but posting more vague dodging responses with smiley faces and different coloured text for years.

What's most unbelievable is that people still try to engage him.

PopePalpatine

Canis Lupus wrote: »

No he won't... the guy has been posting smiley faces and different coloured posts that sort of but not quite answer questions followed by periods of absence only for him to return ignoring anything that was put to him but posting more vague dodging responses with smiley faces and different coloured text for years.

What's most unbelievable is that people still try to engage him.

I think the Simpsons explained it best with their song "Just Don't Look" from one of the Treehouse of Horror specials.

Squeedily Spooch

Vivisectus wrote: »

So far you seem to be a fairly typical creation scientist, judging from your posts. But those always need some extra qualifying as I have seen a lot of them with diplomas issued from some Christian University run out of a shack in New Mexico. You keep claiming to be a scientist: so what is your field? What are your credentials? Can you back up your claim?

As a scientist, are you not a little embarrassed to invoke Dembski, according to whose probability bound NO evolution can happen, while you yourself clearly said that some evolution has occurred since the fall and the flood?

He won't for fear of being "outed" as a creationist, which any scientist worth their salt would never be. More bs really.

Vivisectus

Aha the plot thickens

Good god I do love a good kook. You just cannot make this stuff up.

floggg

Vivisectus wrote: »

Aha the plot thickens

Good god I do love a good kook. You just cannot make this stuff up.

I thought he was.....?

Vivisectus

Ok, I just cannot make this stuff up. There is something just... wonderful about the sheer creativity behind it.

Brian Shanahan

Oranage2 wrote: »

I want argue with you but doesn't earth being the perfect size, tilt, composition etc just sound to perfect to be possible?

No. Life arose by adapting to the prevailing conditions. Who's to say that a Nitrogen-Ammonia atmosphere is incapable of supporting life, albeit radically different to life here, for example? And you've also to remember that Earth's atmosphere and conditions were radically different when life got started, for one thing free Oxygen concentration in the atmosphere was much lower (link), and there were many other differences too. So actually what has happened is that life first arose from prevailing conditions and adapting to them, then as it got more complicated it adapted the atmosphere around it (chiefly by producing more free Oxygen), making life more easy to produce and diversify. A virtuous circle to be exact.

We simply know far too little about the universe to even speculate how life would look like off Earth (and even at that there are areas where we've discovered life radically different than what we previously would have imagined, frequently in places where we didn't believe it was possible for lifeforms to survive in {e.g. underwater volcano vents}).

Finally what you are trying to argue here is a variation on the anthropic principle (in other branches of knowledge similar arguments are often called "Goldilocks" principles), which argues that even small changes in universal constants (e.g. speed of light, Planck constant) would rule out the possibility of stars forming, leading to life being impossible. Well more recent research seems to indicate that if one constant were different at universe formation then the most likely result would that all other constants would change in line with that one to leave the ratios constant, and star formation to be possible albeit under slightly different physical constraints. And anyway the anthropic principle to my mind has best been characterised as an "argument from lack of imagination", i.e. that just because we live in a specific universe where everything happened as it did, doesn't mean that our way is the only way.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

This is Israelite Law as recorded in the Bible.
Christians are under grace ... and are not under Israelite Law.:)

Love one another as I have loved you, is Jesus command to His Church

Matthew 5:17 puts the lie to this assertion:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

That passage clearly has Jesus talking about upholding the laws of the prophets not abolishing them. And you've also got to remember that at best the historical Jesus (I say at best because we have no evidence for the existence of Jesus, he could be as real as the Great Nuggan or Grand Nagus Zek) was an orthodox Jew, most probably of Phariseean or Sicarii tradition (the Sicarii were a subset of the Zealots, themselves an offshoot of the Pharisees, dedicated to freeing Iudea from Roman rule and restoring the Jewish theocracy), and had no intention of creating a new religion. It was Saul of Tarsus and his successers who on seeing the defeated and demoralised (yet still fanatical) followers of this Jesus decided to create a new religion from the ashes of a failed insurgent group, and thus christianity was born about 100 years after Jesus, and with very little relation to his original movement (as can be seen by the deep antagonism between the Paulines and the followers of James, brother of Jesus in the new testament).

Your apprehension of your own religion, as is common with your apprehension of science, is wrong, and badly so, because you are not intrested in investigating what you believe, but are just content to constantly and mindlessly mouth the untruths you have been told.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Matthew 5:17 puts the lie to this assertion:

Quote:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

That passage clearly has Jesus talking about upholding the laws of the prophets not abolishing them.

In the passage Jesus clearly states that He has come to fulfill the Law of God and the prophecies of the prophets.

The Church era is the era of God's grace, for those who freely ask for it ... and it started with the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets at the atoning death of Jesus on the cross.

... and God's justice (Law) continues to apply to those who don't,

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And you've also got to remember that at best the historical Jesus (I say at best because we have no evidence for the existence of Jesus, he could be as real as the Great Nuggan or Grand Nagus Zek)

No evidence except the evidence of eyewitnesses recorded in the Gospels and all of the books of the New Testament ... as well as accounts from historians like Josephus and Thallus
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/eastman_mark/messiah/sfm_ap2.cfm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Jesus was an orthodox Jew, most probably of Phariseean or Sicarii tradition (the Sicarii were a subset of the Zealots, themselves an offshoot of the Pharisees, dedicated to freeing Iudea from Roman rule and restoring the Jewish theocracy), and had no intention of creating a new religion. It was Saul of Tarsus and his successers who on seeing the defeated and demoralised (yet still fanatical) followers of this Jesus decided to create a new religion from the ashes of a failed insurgent group, and thus christianity was born about 100 years after Jesus, and with very little relation to his original movement (as can be seen by the deep antagonism between the Paulines and the followers of James, brother of Jesus in the new testament).

Your apprehension of your own religion, as is common with your apprehension of science, is wrong, and badly so, because you are not intrested in investigating what you believe, but are just content to constantly and mindlessly mouth the untruths you have been told.

More unfounded shibboleths than I could shake a stick at!!!:)

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

In the passage Jesus clearly states that He has come to fulfill the Law of God and the prophecies of the prophets.

You've missed Brian's point, again. Yes, Jesus was coming to uphold god's law. But god's law as laid down in the old testament, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, amongst other places.

Roger Hassenforder

J C wrote: »

No evidence except the evidence of eyewitnesses recorded in the Gospels and all of the books of the New Testament ... as well as accounts from historians like Josephus and Thallus
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/eastman_mark/messiah/sfm_ap2.cfm

unfortunately for JC and his ilk, there seem to be no (Jewish, Greek or Roman) writers/scribes/historians who lived in the middle east during the time of Jesus' ministry etc., that mention him.

The ones that did, and are frequently cited as non christian evidence for his existance, wrote well after his crucifixion, and were solely based on hearsay.
Josephus: born 37CE, antiquities written in 93CE. Testimonium Flavianum acknowledged to have been tampered with, even by Christian scholars...
Tacitus: born 64CE, mentioned a Jesus in 109CE...
Seutonius:born 69CE...

Philo Judaeus, a historian living in Jerusalem around this time doesn't even mention him.

So other than hearsay and third hand account, and the bible itself, there isnt really much to go on.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus
That is actually not that complicated. The mistake that Dembski makes is assuming that to get from one sequence to another requires the entire genome to be disassembled and then re-assembled randomly. But this is simply not what happens.

It doesn't happen because it's an impossibility.

wrote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus What does happen is that the original sequence is copied and multiplied, with some mistakes in it. Some of these mistakes are bad and cause death. Others cause reduced fitness, and will be selected against. Still others will be neutral and have no effect on fitness. A rare few improve fitness and get favored by selection.

This also doesn't happen because it's an impossibility.

wrote:

Vivisectus
Improvements that take a small amount of steps will happen earlier, and then fix themselves in the population. Bigger steps will often be dependent on neutral intermediate steps: the number of evolutionary avenues possible is not limitless.

You're confusing the selection of pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity with the origin of the CFSI diversity itself.

wrote:

VivisectusIf you model a 300 position, 20 option string of acids, and set a mutation rate of 1 in 100 and a spawn rate of 10, and then set some combinations as lethal, some as neutral, and some as beneficial, and apply selective pressure to weed out lethal ones (0 survivial chance), and increase the offspring for beneficial ones, we can see that while it takes thousands of generations and lots of organisms to get to the beneficial ones, but it DOES happen.

The problem is that this doesn't match what real biomolecules are like. They have specific chains of amino acids ... and even one change in a critical sequence causes functionality to be destroyed.
Many evolutionists accept the odds against such systems being spontaneously generated, as being beyond the UPB ... but they hang onto their beliefs that it happened spontaneously, by inventing an infinity of multiverses acting for an infinity of time to try and mathematically overcome the massive odds against living systems spontaneously arising.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

You've missed Brian's point, again. Yes, Jesus was coming to uphold god's law. But god's law as laid down in the old testament, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, amongst other places.

... Jesus came to fulfill the legal i.e. justice requirement for an adequate atonement for sin.
Humans have always tried to enforce Human justice for wrongs done. It has been an imperfect 'hit and miss' affair sometimes corrupted to the ends (or the pet phobias) of the powerful (often bizarrely so, with some of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy being good examples of this).

God's justice is based on His perfect Law ... and it will be perfectly and universally applied at the Last Judgement ... with the only amnesty from it being Salvation.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

*Waffle Removed*

Many evolutionists accept the odds against such systems as being beyond the UPB ... but they hang onto their beliefs by inventing an infinity of multiverses acting for an infinity of time to try and overcome they massive odds against living systems spontaneously arising.

Since when does the theory of evolution say anything whatsoever about a multiverse ?

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

God's justice is based on His perfect Law.

As laid down in the old testament.

Stone rape victims? Stone gays?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

As laid down in the old testament.

Stone rape victims? Stone gays?

These were the Human Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... and they were very imperfect indeed.

J C

Saganist wrote: »

Since when does the theory of evolution say anything whatsoever about a multiverse ?

The idea of multiverses is being used to try and overcome the statistical impossibility of a universe the size of our Universe having enough matter and time to overcome the odds against the spontaneous production of CFSI.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/multiverses/

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

unfortunately for JC and his ilk, there seem to be no (Jewish, Greek or Roman) writers/scribes/historians who lived in the middle east during the time of Jesus' ministry etc., that mention him.

The ones that did, and are frequently cited as non christian evidence for his existance, wrote well after his crucifixion, and were solely based on hearsay.
Josephus: born 37CE, antiquities written in 93CE. Testimonium Flavianum acknowledged to have been tampered with, even by Christian scholars...
Tacitus: born 64CE, mentioned a Jesus in 109CE...
Seutonius:born 69CE...

Philo Judaeus, a historian living in Jerusalem around this time doesn't even mention him.

So other than hearsay and third hand account, and the bible itself, there isnt really much to go on.

Christians were persecuted and their faith was proscribed by the state right up to the time of Constantine. It is little wonder that all contemporaneous accounts of Jesus Christ should have been suppressed and destroyed, in so far as possible.
The accounts in the New Testament books are accurate and Jesus Christ lives ... and will Save you, if you ask.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

These were the Human Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... and they were very imperfect indeed.

Any other part of the bible imperfect?

Or just the bits you find inconvenient?

Brian Shanahan

Pherekydes wrote: »

You've missed Brian's point, again.

He has a habit of missing other people's points, and trying to turn them into straw-men he can safely attack. The sign of a coward that.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Any other part of the bible imperfect?

Or just the bits you find inconvenient?

There are plenty of accounts of Human imperfection and sinfulness in the Bible.

For example, all of the accounts of the imperfect behaviour of imperfect Human Beings ... ranging from King David's murderous adultery to the murder of Abel by Cain.:)

Dan_Solo

J C wrote: »

These were the Human Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... and they were very imperfect indeed.

As ever, when something in the bible becomes just too laughable for the faithful to ever begin to defend it ceases to be god's word.

J C

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As ever, when something in the bible becomes just too laughable for the faithful to ever begin to defend it ceases to be god's word.

It is the Word of God as its writing was divinely inspired and is a true account of what happened in Old and New Testament times ... 'warts and all'.:)

Brian Shanahan

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Josephus: born 37CE, antiquities written in 93CE. Testimonium Flavianum acknowledged to have been tampered with, even by Christian scholars...

Actually his "Jesus" piece is an obvious fake. It is written in a laconic style, which is the exact opposite of the rest of his writing. The passage mentioning Jesus first appears in 325CE when Eusebius, a man well known for inserting passages which mentioned christ into writings, "found" it. Such major figures as Photius I, Patriarch of Constantinople in the 10th century CE have said that it was an obvious fake and all known Jewish (unfortunately no Jewish texts are extant) and Arabic texts have no mention of Jesus, at all.

Tacitus: born 64CE, mentioned a Jesus in 109CE...

Actually he didn't. In a passage of highly disputed authenticity it is mentioned that Nero had "followers of chrestus" killed for the burning of Rome. All other surviving accounts say Nero went after the Jews of Rome, or had few people killed.

Seutonius:born 69CE...

Seutonius references to a Chrestus. Chrestus was a common name at the time which translates to "the Good" and many prophets or messiahs got appended with that name, and many children given it. It could mean almost anyone and is most definitely not evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

The first truly authentic mention we have for Jesus was Pliny looking for authorisation to kill christians c.111CE.

Read the Historicity of Jesus thread over in A&A, and you'll see bannasidhe comprehensively shredding any claim christians make to having non bible mentions of Jesus until well after his supposed death.

Dan_Solo

J C wrote: »

It is the Word of God as its writing was divinely inspired and is a true account of what happened in Old and New Testament times ... 'warts and all'.:)

You don't even know who wrote it!

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Read the Historicity of Jesus thread over in A&A, and you'll see bannasidhe comprehensively shredding any claim christians make to having non bible mentions of Jesus until well after his supposed death.

... yes the Atheists and Agnostics forum would be somewhere to find objective opinion on God (that they don't believe in) and Jesus Christ (that they also don't believe in).:rolleyes:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

... and you'll see bannasidhe comprehensively shredding any claim christians make to having non bible mentions of Jesus until well after his supposed death.

... yes the Roman's and Jews did an even more comprehensive job of shredding any non-biblical mention of Jesus until well after His death as well.:eek:
Jesus was 'persona non grata' for both the Jewish and Roman establishments ... and they would have used all of the mechanisms available to them to suppress and censor any mention of Him.

J C

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You don't even know who wrote it!

Jesus Christ AKA God wrote it.