evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Its not the Crux of your issues... understanding is

The video i offered on the first page shows a only small time line of bacteria... over many generations said bacteria would become a completely different bacteria

This is evident in studies about MSRA and VRE.... simple microbes that we could eliminate, and still can in most cases

Except we've pumped so many antibiotics into these "bugs" they have become a completely different species... and they kill people regularly... and the regular meds that kill them have no effect

They happen to be the same gut bacteria that is inside all of us right now...

So... just quit your nonsense

Head back to the religion forum where you, at the very least...

understand something

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

Its not the Crux of your issues... understanding is

The video i offered on the first page shows a only small time line of bacteria... over many generations said bacteria would become a completely different bacteria

This is evident in studies about MSRA and VRE.... simple microbes that we could eliminate, and still can in most cases

Except we've pumped so many antibiotics into these "bugs" they have become a completely different species... and they kill people regularly... and the regular meds that kill them have no effect

They happen to be the same gut bacteria that is inside all of us right now...

So... just quit your nonsense

Head back to the religion forum where you, at the very least...

understand something

From a person who confessed that you don't have a clue, you must be joking

As stated in the op

Facts that inform the theory as a rule

So far, you have all failed, got spanked by me and a few others of course

And the crazy thing, if evolution is proven, I can still be a Christian, it's not life and death to me
I don't need to believe in creation

a reply to: Raggedyman

From a person who confessed that you don't have a clue, you must be joking

I did what now?

I said YOU don't have a clue...

So far, you have all failed, got spanked by me and a few others of course

thats rich.. but wait

And the crazy thing, if evolution is proven, I can still be a Christian, it's not life and death to me
I don't need to believe in creation

Seems like an internal struggle you're taking out on the members of this forum through stupidity...

Which is funny because i believe creation happened...

But a fundy might not..



Good to admit your motivation for these threads though


And you might drink too much....

So i've been a lurker for a verrrrrry long time, so long that i had to change my handle just to get back in here because i dont even have the old email address to recover my password.
anywho.... i dont really ever post, (i did many years ago at a much more naïve mindset), as i prefer to just peruse and *ahem* EVOLVE through the digestion of information. however today
i choose to change that. and i choose to do that because i simply cannot allow the religious trolling anymore. its offensive at its core. let me break this down for everyone. we're
all agnostic. nobody KNOWS whether there is or is not a god. NOBODY. Even those who claim to have met him through NDE's and other experiences cannot be 100 percent sure
that it was not simply a hallucinogenic result, or other "brain malfunction."

You guys can feel free to battle over that statement all you want. its a fight none of you will win. with that being said, however, i'd like to address the very obvious troll here while
commending some other members of ATS.

Lets get down to where the current religion war started...

The very easy to search topic THE ISSUE WITH ATHEISM has brought out the best of these trolls. it all started with the false accusation that "atheism is the distantiation of god"
here is the definition of
Atheism: the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.
godlessness.

and

Distantiation: to establish or create an mental or emotional distance.

he then follows up with a very odd assertation that atheist are claiming to be god themselves because they dont believe in god. which, i think goes without saying, makes literally
zero sense. If someone doesnt believe in god, and you are saying they believe they are god themselves, well, thats quite the conundrum as they would not believe that they themselves existed.
talk about a crisis.....

getting back on track.... this simple troll post spawned about 30 odd pages of back and forth rhetoric where they science guys and the deity guys spew childish noise at each other until one of them
creates their own thread asking for facts on evolution (which btw is very readily available via simple google search).

BUT THIS HERE - this..... this one line of dialog almost made me vomit internally.

"Evolution relies on incest"

This is pure admission of trolling this web page. Have you honestly never heard of the Fugate family? if not i BET you can do an ats search on them. Have you ever read anything
AT ALL about incest? its just funny that you would type this immediately after saying...


"Kissing cousins, isn't evolution a religion of kissing cousins.
Do you think before you type. LOL "

holy mother of all that is good..... why do the moderators allow this level of trolling on this page?

you've been asked a multitude of very good questions in a conversation that you have started and you have done nothing to answer them
all i've seen in both threads is constant childish accusation and name calling. act like an adult and have a serious conversation or just abandon ship.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: bulwarkz

or he took a wife from the preadamic races

I am shocked.

You are actually suggesting that the 'First Family' may have participated in bestiality? And that such unions would have resulted fertile offspring? And those offspring would be human? Therefore Adam and Eve and their sons were pre-human, i.e. not human?

I just don't know what to say to that suggestion.

Cains father was preadamic
So why would the son.
Are you suggesting the source of Rh+?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

ahhh, I am way more philosopher than scientist. I grasp the concepts well but lack the clear use of language that you have to elucidate the thoughts clearly.
For instance I usually see physical applications to spritual truths.
In this case I see spiritual applications that express physical.
In this case baptism. Baptism in the spirit is an renewal or rebirth or involution as opposed to evolution, or to roll over.

Your choice to use a medical definition for my use is found wanting in order to express or understand it.
I would rather you use ANY of the other definitions to try to understand or express my thought.
Believe it or not the driver of your body and mind is your soul and it is made to exist forever. Its substance has a builtin system to restart and renewal.
Evolution is "to roll over"
Baptism or involve is the regeneration or renewal of the spirit.
These flesh bodies are temporary vessels.
We can only assume what it would be like if there was no cell death as a result of the fall.
I suspect involution would be better known than evolve.
Because of death we have a hard time grasping some concepts.

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: bulwarkz
Bollocks, children only believe in 'god' when they are taught to.

Well then, are you denying goodness?
Is love a biproduct of chemical goo poo or is it supernatural where a child learns real true love in part through 2 loving parents that love Yah because He first loved them.

That is brainwashing to some I guess.
When a person says brainwashing I think things like,
TV, mass media, commercials, sponsors,
MKultra, trauma based mind control, splintered personalities, monarch, British Royalty, handlers, finders, sex cults, sex slaves, pe dooos, etc, etc,etc...

But you say brainwashing comes from 2 heterosexual loving parents who love Yah because He first loved them.
Did I get that right?

Nope, keep it simple, all children are atheists until people teach them to believe in a deity.
Flower word it as much as you like but its factually correct.

I am running completely on your use of the word "brainwashing"
That is a word that carries huge implications.
Maybe we reach a small consensus and you can use a more accurate word to describe your claim.
I can actually concede back and agree that from birth we need to learn about the love of Yah since we are born into this world naked and unaware of who we are and who made us to love Him.
Now I am aware that is not how you would frame that statement but for me I have to, I am brainwashed that way
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

a reply to: bulwarkz

I'll be honest and admit I consider it to be be brainwashing teaching children to believe in any unverifiable gods.
My point stands though, all children are atheists until people teach them to believe in a god.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: bulwarkz

I'll be honest and admit I consider it to be be brainwashing teaching children to believe in any unverifiable gods.
My point stands though, all children are atheists until people teach them to believe in a god.

Not sure, that is the case. Children see agency even in abstract figures moving about presented to them. They may not come to the belief that there is one sole agent responsible for all, but they could easily come to the belief of agency behind all kinds of phenomena. They may attribute such to spirits or other supernatural agents, if not provided with education. They also have an innate belief in the soul, or uniqueness of identity.

Scientists have shown that when presented with a hypothetical duplicator that copies an animal in all ways, they still hold that there is something unique that cannot be copied or duplicated.

The belief in uniqueness of identity or the soul is held by most individuals. Even some highly educated physicists hold it that quantum properties assign a subatomic magical uniqueness of identity to each individual.

As someone who believes that existence is digital at heart, I believe perfect duplication is possible. Computation is the ultimate resource. And godhood is equivalent to securing unlimited time with unlimited computational resources.

a reply to: Xenogears

Nope, I disagree completely, all religion is learned behaviour, it's why people in India generally grow up as Hindus or Sikhs, children in Pakistan are taught to be Muslim, and the average kid in Southern US states are taught to be Christian.
I had no idea of god claims until I was taught it as a child. My own son had no idea about god claims until I taught him what 'other' people believe, all the major religions, he is in his twenties and has never believed in any gods. And note as well, I never taught him there are no gods, just that I personally don't believe because such claims are unverifiable.

My claim is perfectly rational and logical, children are atheists until someone teaches them to believe in their god - brainwashing, but I am open to change so if you can present some scientific studies which verify children inherently believe in a deity please do share them as I would find it interesting reading.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Xenogears

Nope, I disagree completely, all religion is learned behaviour, it's why people in India generally grow up as Hindus or Sikhs, children in Pakistan are taught to be Muslim, and the average kid in Southern US states are taught to be Christian.
I had no idea of god claims until I was taught it as a child. My own son had no idea about god claims until I taught him what 'other' people believe, all the major religions, he is in his twenties and has never believed in any gods. And note as well, I never taught him there are no gods, just that I personally don't believe because such claims are unverifiable.

My claim is perfectly rational and logical, children are atheists until someone teaches them to believe in their god - brainwashing, but I am open to change so if you can present some scientific studies which verify children inherently believe in a deity please do share them as I would find it interesting reading.

Toddlers have been tested, they believe in ''souls' or 'uniqueness of identity' even in animals. They have also ascribed agency to abstract figures moving about. Their tendency to ascribe agency to things is innate, and is why some random group of children dropped on a remote island, generations later, religion will spontaneously arise, as it did in our distant past.


Of course belief in a particular god or gods is taught. Doesn't mean people don't have an innate inclination to ascribe agency to things.

If it is possible to attain unlimited computational resources, which includes time with said resources, then a god state has been reached and will be reached. What is moral or immoral to one with unlimited resources? As for computation, it is nothing more than a set of rules to change the order in which you look at a collection of numbers, and looking at numbers as a passive act it is neither wrong nor right, neither moral nor immoral, it just is. Writing down numbers or looking at them does not create that which the number represents, it is merely passive observation of existence.

originally posted by: Xenogears
Toddlers have been tested, they believe in ''souls' or 'uniqueness of identity' even in animals.

Again, I'd be interested in reading the studies as you are making the claims.

Children prefer certain individuals over perfect duplicates reference

That study was redone with animals, iirc
edit:
Here's an article about the phenomena which is called essentialism
essentialism in children

But more specifically when it comes to the individual it is individual essentialism, which I'll try to see if I can find a paper about it
EDIT 2:
Found a paper on the topic:

do children believe duplicating the body duplicates the mind

When phrased in the notion of an individual their essentialist view is hypothesized to kick in.

Human development books also suggest that children have teleological thinking where they attribute purpose to animals and facts of the world.

a reply to: Xenogears

Well you get a star for a very interesting read
Cheers for posting the links, I enjoyed reading them.
But, I didn't read anything to indicate that children have an inherent belief in any deities. Belief in deities is learned behaviour.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You do not grok to well Raggy. I don't have students. I TAUGHT in the past, and was good at it, but I loved getting involved in the science, thus I went to industry.

But back to your lack of understanding. Parkinsons cause is not known yet, but it is probably both genetic and environmental. No where have I said a mutation will cause evolution. What I've said is a mutation that leads to an advantage (be that lactose tolerance, antibiotic resistance, or yes in the case of hemoglobin alterations, a resistance to a disease) is going to be more likely to be passed on.

You don't understand evolution. Period. Just because you see something does not make it so. We've established you are not particularly qualified to be a judge of this. BE it because you are willfully ignorant, or dishonestly ignorant.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Did I say there was a loss of information? No I said there was a change in information.

The bacterium which survived had a mutation that allowed them to survive, which in turn (due to them you know surviving) was passed on to subsequent generations. Thus these bacterium have evolved (developed) antibiotic resistance. The intitial cause of that resistance in the first generation is not known.

But again. NO LOSS OF INFORMATION. NO GAIN OF INFORMATION. A change of information.

I understand this much better than you. I await you producing the information information. Say in a heat map, or a sequence