A question from a Christian

originally posted by: UNIT76
a reply to: Margana

no.

it's about *life* (...remember?)

you don't seem to follow this because your version of God doesn't require morals..

..as for that sun (neither of us can say for sure if it is alive or not) but what we can agree on- if it wasn't there none of us would even be here, would we? on account of how we like, need the sun so we can be alive an' stuff

 

oh, the irony

Who are you to question the purpose of something the all knowing and all powerful God created?

...why don't these same people simply respect God's product and leave it alone?

Oh, so you too have noticed that some members here are playing both sides of the fence. Ahem...

a reply to: mOjOm

..i thought that was a really cool response.
some opinions of my own..
God doesn't need anyone to defend him, but there are people out there who need to know God better.
(even though that sounds weird & preachy, i think it's true, the bible even says 'draw closer to God and he will draw closer to you', this is true also.. fwiw, i'm probably as skeptical of churches & fundamentalist types as the next person)

keeping to the original statements on the two opposing schools of thought..

the contention is simply this, if they don't actually know what they're tinkering with... should they do it?
(the analogy to computer programming and critical errors)
does it matter if they build with bones, sinews & fluids in the physical world?
or protons, electrons & quarks in the atomic world?
(or 1's, 0's and arrays in the computer world?)
if they do not acknowledge any kind of limitation, set upon themselves any kind of restriction, regard anything as precious & sacred?

quite simply, if they do not care, where will they take us?

"the beginning of wisdom is fear (reverence) for the Lord, and to depart from evil- that is understanding"
--it's not so much about them fearing the lord, or even fearing the unknown.. it's about an arrogance to assume they know as much as the creator does (whoever the creator is) it's that potential, that possibility, that maybe they've overlooked a variable somewhere..
we know the scientific method is experimentation, and we know experiments sometimes "go awry"
..*life* is not an experiment

surely that is reasonable?

..and i keep using the word "they" to describe these kinds of people..

..not backyard enthusiasts who may be posting here (and having their posts redacted), i'm talking about the ones with the million dollar laboratories who are crossing goat & spider DNA
(so the next time someone claims to believe in "God" without the required morals, think about those spider goats and whatever else "they" decide to cook up next)

here is the morality tale yet again..
will steadfast academician & truth-seeker (scientist) experiment on his own mother, father, siblings etc in the name of science & progress? (and let's puff it up even more, with some vainglorious justification) for the advancement of knowledge for all future generations, for the good of humanity (presidential music plays in the background) (it's almost the same enigma as sacrificing one life in order to save many more)

...we call that stuff "playing God"

as for being made in the image of God, and maybe we're *supposed* to be playing with ourselves (pun intended) we need only look to the book of Genesis and read the account of genetic corruption, and everything that ensues > before the fall of man, he was given dominion over the earth.. things were different afterwards..
i'd go as far to say the bible offers a complete explanation for all this stuff provided one can wrap their head around it, it's not that one has to be a genius to figure it out, it's just that one has to put their heart & soul into the matter... and not many are willing to do that, for varying reasons..

people who sit on fences often get caught in the crossfire..
But that's just my random measured opinion on the subject. Who knows for sure???

feel free to stop reading but ima rant some more

i know there's a lot to swallow when it comes to the bible (i didn't sign up on the first day either) but most of the criticism comes from people who haven't even read the thing!? the book even tells you to "test all things" so study & read as much occult & scientific material as you care to, then just go back and compare it all to the bible.. somehow the same stuff is in the bible but you get the added bonus of morality & guidance (science completely lacks that, does it not?) i think this is because the bible perspective is written from an all knowing source looking backwards as it were, so it can say what is wrong & what is right, and when one reads it *and studies it*, meditates on it, searches for more info on it, it makes sense..
the problem is, the bible does not "tell you" how to make your life comfortable (rather, it says "friendship with the world, is enmity towards God") but we'll have none of that, we want plasma TV's and heated toilet seats, and we're only going to get those things through science (mans own efforts) thus the only other alternative method is through science, which is not all knowing, which is looking forward as it were, which is trying to ascertain right from wrong, and is trying to make sense


"evolution" (when it's presented in the same way darwin presents it) contains these things;
the belief that there is no God
the belief that everything started from nothing (the big bang)
the belief that *life* came *from* this event (a single cell)
the belief that man can become (evolve into) 'a god'

to adhere to any part of it is to become mired in the "God" debate.. even if you just want to smoke a little evolution, and you think maybe some groovy god set it all in motion, and is hip to the idea of things just evolving along *puff*

this is the problem as i see it; (well, parts of it..)
they have it that life comes *from* the event (not before)
there goes all your afterlife/pre-existence right out the window
there goes God and/or a "creator" also
however, the idea is to become the very thing they claimed was impossible, which is to transcend their allotted time & space (that is to say, "become immortal" by becoming like gods)

things like quantum physics, quantum entanglement, multiple universe, parallel universes etc.. these are all just patches, band-aids, loopholes, honeypots & workarounds for the anti-God world system that we are building for ourselves

intermittent through all this, i'm using words like "we" and "they"
we and they is not simple like you and me (it's not bible people vs. science people)
"we" are average joe, people like you and me who are probably posting here (re: backyard enthusiasts) people with no agenda per se..
"they" are the ones with the underground laboratories who hold to a completely different ideology & agenda

"no man can serve two masters"

a reply to: UNIT76

1. survival has been the most sacred and precious thing since the beginning of life.

2 if anything threatens number one it immediately becomes less precious or sacred than that which it is threatening.

3 the more anything falls under number 2 the less precious or sacred it is.

I was recently having a conversation with a friend of mine in which I ponder the idea that self sacrifice might be a trait which surpasses animalism. what this means for humans however I do not know. I do know however that the concept of serving any master at all is both archaic and obsolete. no man can serve two masters but I feel that no man should have to serve any.

and one more thing: you say that we aspire to become the very thing we claim is impossible. while I will not argue against the possibility that one day we will become something that could be described as godlike, i will argue against the assumption that we will become like your God, or any god recognized in today's world.

There is growing interest in the evolutionary dynamics of molecular genetic pathways and networks, and the extent to which the molecular evolution of a gene depends on its position within a pathway or network, as well as over-all network topology. Investigations on the relationships between network organization, topological architecture and evolutionary dynamics provide intriguing hints as to how networks evolve. Recent studies also suggest that genetic pathway and network structures may influence the action of evolutionary forces, and may play a role in maintaining phenotypic robustness in organisms.

a reply to: Margana

Thats your first source and it says absolutely nothing about a genetic pathway within which Apes can change to humans nor does it give evidence for the types of morphological changes you are saying occurs through natural selection and random mutations. Not only that, but your own source says, " Recent studies also suggest that genetic pathway and network structures may influence the action of evolutionary forces, and may play a role in maintaining phenotypic robustness in organisms." This says recent studies suggest that genetics may influence action of evolutionary forces. How does it suggest that genetic pathways play a role? In maintaining phenotypic robustness in organisms. This disagrees with macro-evolution does it not? A character state that has evolved under natural selection is phenotypically robust if the variability of the character under a given source of variation is significantly reduced in this state as compared to a set of alternative states. This definition of phenotypic robustness was given by Joachim Hermisson and Gunter P. Wagner Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University. So with that definition in mind lets look at part of that sentence again:

"...genetic pathway and network structures may influence the action of evolutionary forces, and may play a role in maintaining phenotypic robustness in organisms,"

So genetic pathways may play a role in causing character states to remain in state of low variability. Meaning that animals will not produce offspring that vary exceedingly far from the parent. Meaning a baby finch may vary in beak size from its one of its parents or both, but the variance will remain significantly reduced according to your source part of that limitation of the state of variability could be due genetic pathways.

That could be because they cant find a genetic pathway that would allow for the morphological changes macro-evolutionist claim occurred.

The below is from your second link, my commentary will be in parentheses:

Although the study of evolvability offers new insights into many important biological questions, the conceptual bases of evolvability, and the mechanisms of its evolution, remain controversial.(That means No conclusive evidence, not even in this short article) We used simulated evolution of a model of gene network dynamics to test the contentious hypothesis that natural selection can favour high evolvability, in particular in sexual populations. Our results conclusively demonstrate that fluctuating natural selection can increase the capacity of model gene networks to adapt to new environments (conclusively proved micro evolution ok I said I agree with that). Detailed studies of the evolutionary dynamics of these networks establish a broad range of validity for this result and quantify the evolutionary forces responsible for changes in evolvability. Analysis of the genotype-phenotype map of these networks also reveals mechanisms connecting evolvability, genetic architecture and robustness. Our results suggest that the evolution of evolvability can have a pervasive influence on many aspects of organisms.(Once again no evidence of the morphological changes that are said to occur during Macro-evolution).

Your third link is all about lattice proteins and micro-evolution as that experiment does not show any vertical morphological changes, but show that organism can adapt to their environment. I agree with that I have said it many times and in the OP.


4th link again is micro-evolutionary changes. No evidence in any of them of genetic pathways that would allow for apes from humans or mesonychid to whale....

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Explain the mechanism that stops genetic mutations from accumulation too much, i.e. what stops "micro" from a culminating to "macro".

Explain an experiment we can devise to observe this.

State the useful testable predictions this hypothesis makes.

Put your money where your mouth us for a change.

Natural selection. The limits of the genetic material available.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

so you feel that all of the graphs and charts we have compiled illustrating the evolutionary progress of many of today's species dating back millions of years are complete nonsense? they may be incomplete but they are grounded in facts that are even now tested and examined in the interest of professional and scientific accuracy.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

so you feel that all of the graphs and charts we have compiled illustrating the evolutionary progress of many of today's species dating back millions of years are complete nonsense?

If someone believes in creation 10,000 something years ago, doesn't it necessarily imply to deny and reject all other evidence? You cannot reconcile creationism and evolution, so of course he MUST say it's nonsense, false, erroneous, whatever. His belief doesn't give him the choice : )

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

so you feel that all of the graphs and charts we have compiled illustrating the evolutionary progress of many of today's species dating back millions of years are complete nonsense?

If someone believes in creation 10,000 something years ago, doesn't it necessarily imply to deny and reject all other evidence? You cannot reconcile creationism and evolution, so of course he MUST say it's nonsense, false, erroneous, whatever. His belief doesn't give him the choice : )

I dont believe in a 10000 year old creation.... but nice one

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

so you feel that all of the graphs and charts we have compiled illustrating the evolutionary progress of many of today's species dating back millions of years are complete nonsense?

If someone believes in creation 10,000 something years ago, doesn't it necessarily imply to deny and reject all other evidence? You cannot reconcile creationism and evolution, so of course he MUST say it's nonsense, false, erroneous, whatever. His belief doesn't give him the choice : )

But you 'believe' in the tooth fairy, witches and Harry Potter?

What an extreme #ed up view point.



I dont believe in a 10000 year old creation.... but nice one

you 'believe' in micro evolution, but not macro evolution, without understanding the difference. The fact you don't understand the differences sums up your ability to not understand reality. Simple people will always exist, look at most of the middle-eastern world - you, sir, are part of that deep misunderstanding of nature. You are stupid, you will always be stupid...

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

so you feel that all of the graphs and charts we have compiled illustrating the evolutionary progress of many of today's species dating back millions of years are complete nonsense? they may be incomplete but they are grounded in facts that are even now tested and examined in the interest of professional and scientific accuracy.

Lets not be so broad with our replies. how about you show me one chart of one organism, and let me decide if it is good or bad evidence for macro-evolution.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
you 'believe' in micro evolution, but not macro evolution, without understanding the difference. The fact you don't understand the differences sums up your ability to not understand reality. Simple people will always exist, look at most of the middle-eastern world - you, sir, are part of that deep misunderstanding of nature. You are stupid, you will always be stupid...

Lol, ad hominem attacks way to go you are bursting with true wisdom and understanding sir.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Margana
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
In science there is no differentiation between macro and micro-evolution... they are the same thing.

If you admit that "microevolution" happens, then, end of argument.
______________________

There are examples of bacteria and some larger scale organisms that have specifically changed genus through 1000's of generations. This is what creationists call microevolution... they are wrong... they ask for an example of one species "changing" into another, and it has been shown multiple times with multiple species up to some small insects... then the goalposts get moved and they ask for "bigger" (macro) examples.

If recorded history keeps going for another few thousand years, then larger examples will be shown in time, in a natural progression that has been under analysis for hundreds of years already, which is why evolution is the only theory to hold water to date (god did it isn't scientific)... basically ever more examples will be shown as time affords us the ability to see long span generational changes across increasingly long lived and complex creatures... including humans.

As such, the definitions of micro and macro-evolution keep sliding... which is why there is no differentiation in science, because inaccurate definitions can't be relied upon.

Evolution happens... accept it, or remain ignorant.

I agree with this user and would like to see you & OptimusSubprime address it. Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales

Watch BBC: Planet Earth. You can see how different animals have evolved to be able to survive in their environment.

Show me a genetic pathway then? You are speculating. There is no evidence that shows variance within species over long periods of time will produce a new organism entirely. If you have some of that evidence please share it.

I don't understand how you can put yourself in a position to judge evidence when you come to us asking for clarification on evolution. If anything, you've already made it clear your comprehension is lacking. So are you here to listen, or to argue?

I am here to entertain myself in the boring times. Conversation is entertaining. Now He made a claim, and I asked Him for evidence that is vital for the claim. I asked him the same question I asked everyone in the OP. Micro becomes Macro is not logic it is speculation based off inconclusive evidence. Now can we quit attacking my intellect and attack the information I present, or present evidence for the claims that are made?

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have already answered your own question. Of the 6 types of evolution, and they are: Cosmic, Stellar and Planetary, Chemical, Organic, Macro, and finally Micro, only Micro Evolution can be, and has been, observed using the scientific method. The other 5 categories of evolution are not observable, nor have they EVER been observed, nor can the scientific method, in totality, be applied to them. If the scientific method cannot be applied then it isn't science. There are certainly theories, for example, the big bang in regards to Cosmic Evolution, however there have never been any observations of the other 5. A theory is not a fact, and even though most theories are formed by using gathered evidence, that evidence is often very subjective and often a bias is applied when intellectualizing the evidence because of a predetermined belief by the "scientist". To conclude, regardless of what the atheist/agnostic says, it takes just as much faith for them to believe in the theory of evolution as it does for me to believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, and there is actually much more historical evidence that Jesus existed than there is for the other 5 categories of evolution. Let the trolling, insults, and unsubstantiated regurgitation of standard anti-creationist talking points begin!

1 Timothy 6:20-21

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

Very nice words, but there is no reputable evidence that Jesus existed. Good try.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have already answered your own question. Of the 6 types of evolution, and they are: Cosmic, Stellar and Planetary, Chemical, Organic, Macro, and finally Micro, only Micro Evolution can be, and has been, observed using the scientific method. The other 5 categories of evolution are not observable, nor have they EVER been observed, nor can the scientific method, in totality, be applied to them. If the scientific method cannot be applied then it isn't science. There are certainly theories, for example, the big bang in regards to Cosmic Evolution, however there have never been any observations of the other 5. A theory is not a fact, and even though most theories are formed by using gathered evidence, that evidence is often very subjective and often a bias is applied when intellectualizing the evidence because of a predetermined belief by the "scientist". To conclude, regardless of what the atheist/agnostic says, it takes just as much faith for them to believe in the theory of evolution as it does for me to believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, and there is actually much more historical evidence that Jesus existed than there is for the other 5 categories of evolution. Let the trolling, insults, and unsubstantiated regurgitation of standard anti-creationist talking points begin!

1 Timothy 6:20-21

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

Very nice words, but there is no reputable evidence that Jesus existed. Good try.

Lol no serious Historian claims that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a real person. All of the NT books have been proven to have been in circulation in the 1 century AD. The Bible isn't a book. Its a collection of ancient documents and letters. They were written by people who lived in that day and age.

Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote: Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . .

Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus

www.probe.org...

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21] Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have already answered your own question. Of the 6 types of evolution, and they are: Cosmic, Stellar and Planetary, Chemical, Organic, Macro, and finally Micro, only Micro Evolution can be, and has been, observed using the scientific method. The other 5 categories of evolution are not observable, nor have they EVER been observed, nor can the scientific method, in totality, be applied to them. If the scientific method cannot be applied then it isn't science. There are certainly theories, for example, the big bang in regards to Cosmic Evolution, however there have never been any observations of the other 5. A theory is not a fact, and even though most theories are formed by using gathered evidence, that evidence is often very subjective and often a bias is applied when intellectualizing the evidence because of a predetermined belief by the "scientist". To conclude, regardless of what the atheist/agnostic says, it takes just as much faith for them to believe in the theory of evolution as it does for me to believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, and there is actually much more historical evidence that Jesus existed than there is for the other 5 categories of evolution. Let the trolling, insults, and unsubstantiated regurgitation of standard anti-creationist talking points begin!

1 Timothy 6:20-21

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

Very nice words, but there is no reputable evidence that Jesus existed. Good try.

Lol no serious Historian claims that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a real person. All of the NT books have been proven to have been in circulation in the 1 century AD. The Bible isn't a book. Its a collection of ancient documents and letters. They were written by people who lived in that day and age.

Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote: Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . .

Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus

www.probe.org...

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21] Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]

Seriously please provide a historically reviewed source for this information. The source you quoted was compiled from 375 - 427 CE, at least 300 years after the man supposedly died, not to mention that scholars consider it to be unattributed.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I ponder the idea that self sacrifice might be a trait which surpasses animalism.

Self-sacrifice is a 'trait of animalism'. At any rate, animals regularly sacrifice themselves for other animals.

a reply to: Astyanax

Have any examples of self sacrifice by animals???

I'm aware of animals putting themselves in harms way but I'm not sure about self sacrifice. In fact I think to some degree you would first have to establish if they understood the concept of their own death first wouldn't you??? IMO some animals would also obviously be more difficult to show that understanding than others.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

so you feel that all of the graphs and charts we have compiled illustrating the evolutionary progress of many of today's species dating back millions of years are complete nonsense? they may be incomplete but they are grounded in facts that are even now tested and examined in the interest of professional and scientific accuracy.

Lets not be so broad with our replies. how about you show me one chart of one organism, and let me decide if it is good or bad evidence for macro-evolution.

What credentials in the scientific world would allow you the ability to decide if it is good or bad evidence? Not really challenging you, just curious. I am public school educated, with a lot of degrees in the College of Hard Knocks, and I am an expert in nothing.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

The source I quoted was for the two quotes of information, not for the information about NT books. What I posted were non-christian sources that mention Jesus . One was from Tactius in 64 A.D. if you think that information is incorrect please show me information to the contrary the other was from one of the earlier references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud.

I mean dont take my word for it lets just listen to Bart Ehrman he's an atheist so he isnt stupid because belief in God makes people dumb.....