oh,oh (raises hand). That's the easiest part of all.

Because the bible says so! And everyone knows the bible doesn't lie because ...well, you all know how this goes * yawn* ...

Theists for a very long time know they cannot prove their God exists at all, so to counter this, they fight a meaningless losing battle to try to keep the gaps open as long as possible.

(March 25, 2016 at 10:24 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 25, 2016 at 9:41 pm)AJW333 Wrote: From the Atheist in Chief Prof Richard Dawkins,

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all." http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

According to him, the process of natural selection is completely random. The survival of any given organism may be benefited by certain mutations to the DNA but this is in no way responsible for improving the odds that the next mutation will be beneficial. You still have to have an absurd number of successful mutations to get anywhere.

Oh, for fuck's sake! I covered this in the last few days, when you last quoted this: "no purpose" is not the same thing as "completely random."! In fact, here, let me just quote myself verbatim from two days ago, when I put this shit to rest:

Esquilax Wrote:"Blind," does not equal random. While there isn't a pre-planned and guided foresight to evolution, there is an inherent filter built into the fabric of natural selection, which is that those organisms that survive it will be the ones with features that enabled them to do so. Those organisms without the ability to survive the environment they find themselves in... don't survive it.

By analogy, consider a computer program that spits out numbers. That's all it does, is display numbers, but those numbers cannot be even numbers, ever. Would you assert, then, that this computer program works by completely random chance where absolutely anything can happen?

No, of course not. You know, just based on what I've already told you, that the program won't produce a letter, nor will it produce an even number. While there's a randomized element, that element is bounded by restraints, just as natural selection is bounded by the fact that only those organisms it produces that won't die outright will survive. It's not anything more than a definitional part of what the system is- in the same way that you'll never get a married bachelor- but it does limit the output in such a way that the "wacky, totally random evolushuns!" strawman that creationists like to use doesn't apply.

Lacking in purpose and discernment does not mean that the results are entirely random. A dice roll is blind, yet the result is constrained by variables inherent in the makeup of the dice, in the same manner that natural selection isn't entirely random in that the results must be fit to survive within the constraints of any given environment. You need to drop this complete nonsense.

Sometimes I miss posts because I am several pages behind. I did miss this post of yours.

Can we agree that the DNA mutations are random? If not, what is the source of intelligence that guides them?

For an organism to evolve from one thing into another, a great many mutations have to occur and a huge number of AAs need to be laid down in specific order. It matters not whether natural selection kills off the weak and enables the strong to survive, that isn't relevant to the total number of attempts required to create the AA sequences in the first place. Natural selection occurs "after the fact" ie after the random mutation of the DNA and assembly of new proteins.

---

(March 26, 2016 at 1:30 am)Kitan Wrote: No one can watch god, either.

I'm not claiming that you can scientifically prove the existence of God. Christianity requires faith, it is not a science.

That said, I believe there is enough evidence in the scripture to show that the Bible was written with specific foreknowledge of future events. So for those who have faith there is evidence of God scattered throughout the pages of the text . For those without faith, it's all gobbledigook.  Some of the codes in the Bible are very compelling to me, but they  are nothing more than random chance to you.

---

(March 26, 2016 at 2:25 am)dyresand Wrote:

(March 26, 2016 at 1:30 am)Kitan Wrote: No one can watch god, either.

Maybe what if god isn't showing himself to exist because he is touching himself.

One thing I'll never understand is those who mock God. If there is no God I suppose it doesn't matter, but if there is a God and you mock him, what will be your end?

---

(March 26, 2016 at 1:28 am)IATIA Wrote:

(March 26, 2016 at 1:02 am)AJW333 Wrote: The developments from light patch to fully formed eye are presented as fact and yet no one observed these changes when they are alleged to have happened, and unless I am mistaken, there are no tests proving that all of these developments happened as reported. There are still organisms alive today with light patches/eyespots so how do we know absolutely that these became the eye? Isn't it all just speculation?

You refuse to accept evolution because you cannot watch it happen over millions of years, yet if we were able to show evolution in a lab, you would refuse to accept it because it was not natural.

Not exactly. If we look at the definition, evolution doesn't qualify as a science. This became this, which became that which became something else is speculation because it has never been observed. Even when using a lab to try and prove evolution, you are still guessing as to what the conditions were millions of years ago. You have to have faith that evolution happened the way you think it did.

(March 26, 2016 at 8:15 pm)AJW333 Wrote: You have to have faith that evolution happened the way you think it did.

Nope. I have loads and loads of evidence for evolution and enough laboratory testing to establish reason beyond doubt, whereas god has no evidence whatsoever and is a completely illogical concept.

Belief in a god only requires faith, but belief in evolution requires a brain.

(March 26, 2016 at 8:15 pm)AJW333 Wrote: One thing I'll never understand is those who mock God. If there is no God I suppose it doesn't matter, but if there is a God and you mock him, what will be your end?

Oh, boy. Pascal's wager... Thanks, but I'll take my chances!

(March 26, 2016 at 8:15 pm)AJW333 Wrote: You have to have faith that evolution happened the way you think it did.

Not as much, though.

I mean, it's an article of faith for me to assert that I will fall asleep tonight and it won't be yesterday morning when I wake up.

(March 25, 2016 at 9:41 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 25, 2016 at 12:26 am)Stimbo Wrote: Which is why randomness isn't the only factor. You've had this explained to you nearly 10^18 times. I think you've demonstrated the worth of your science degree by now. You really should quit before you embarrass yourself further; hell, I think we're all embarrassed for you at this point.

From the Atheist in Chief Prof Richard Dawkins,

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all." http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

According to him, the process of natural selection is completely random. The survival of any given organism may be benefited by certain mutations to the DNA but this is in no way responsible for improving the odds that the next mutation will be beneficial. You still have to have an absurd number of successful mutations to get anywhere.

You're quite right that a mutation which is successful doesn't mean that the "next" one (I presume you mean the ones that occur in its offspring) will also be beneficial.

The problem is, that's irrelevant because you're thinking in linear terms, not in terms of a gene pool. If a beneficial mutation helps an individual reproduce better than the others in that gene pool, then that gene will become more prevalent in following generations.

How many cousins do you have? I ask because in only two generations, in which my grandmother had six children, each of whom had a minimum of three children, I have acquired over 20 cousins, all of whom would carry the mutation that I acquired (ETA: from grandma). That's in TWO generations! Imagine a genetic mutation which occurs in my great-great-great-grandmother, and how many people now carry it. If only a few of those descendants then go on to develop harmful follow-on mutations, then they will be selected out of the gene pool as they produce fewer offspring.

That's why the process is blind, with no goal in mind except to reproduce. 

Please do us the favor of ceasing to manufacture straw-men of evolutionary biology, and go learn some more instead of pretending you know. It's clear to most of us that you only skim materials in order to push confirmation bias to its limit.

(March 26, 2016 at 8:15 pm)AJW333 Wrote: One thing I'll never understand is those who mock God. If there is no God I suppose it doesn't matter, but if there is a God and you mock him, what will be your end?

There is no god, so I have no fear at all.  If there were a god,  I am positive that it would not need or want my worship.  It would a better 'person' than the warmongering tyrant in that book of yours.

(March 26, 2016 at 8:15 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Some of the codes in the Bible are very compelling to me, but they  are nothing more than random chance to you.

One can find the same shit codes in 'Moby Dick' and 'War and Peace' or any other full length novel.  Humans seek patterns and find them where there is none. <- FACT

(March 26, 2016 at 10:01 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(March 26, 2016 at 8:15 pm)AJW333 Wrote: One thing I'll never understand is those who mock God. If there is no God I suppose it doesn't matter, but if there is a God and you mock him, what will be your end?

There is no god, so I have no fear at all.  If there were a god,  I am positive that it would not need or want my worship.  It would a better 'person' than the warmongering tyrant in that book of yours.

(March 26, 2016 at 8:15 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Some of the codes in the Bible are very compelling to me, but they  are nothing more than random chance to you.

One can find the same shit codes in 'Moby Dick' and 'War and Peace' or any other full length novel.  Humans seek patterns and find them where there is none. <- FACT

Wow... he broke out "Bible Codes"? How did I miss that!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

(March 26, 2016 at 10:06 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Wow... he broke out "Bible Codes"? How did I miss that!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yep! I have not seen anyone do that in a while. When they show me a statistically favorable sample of predictions BEFORE it happens, then I would give it some thought.

(March 26, 2016 at 8:15 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 25, 2016 at 10:24 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, for fuck's sake! I covered this in the last few days, when you last quoted this: "no purpose" is not the same thing as "completely random."! In fact, here, let me just quote myself verbatim from two days ago, when I put this shit to rest:


Lacking in purpose and discernment does not mean that the results are entirely random. A dice roll is blind, yet the result is constrained by variables inherent in the makeup of the dice, in the same manner that natural selection isn't entirely random in that the results must be fit to survive within the constraints of any given environment. You need to drop this complete nonsense.

Sometimes I miss posts because I am several pages behind. I did miss this post of yours.

Can we agree that the DNA mutations are random? If not, what is the source of intelligence that guides them?

For an organism to evolve from one thing into another, a great many mutations have to occur and a huge number of AAs need to be laid down in specific order. It matters not whether natural selection kills off the weak and enables the strong to survive, that isn't relevant to the total number of attempts required to create the AA sequences in the first place. Natural selection occurs "after the fact" ie after the random mutation of the DNA and assembly of new proteins.

---

(March 26, 2016 at 1:30 am)Kitan Wrote: No one can watch god, either.

I'm not claiming that you can scientifically prove the existence of God. Christianity requires faith, it is not a science.

That said, I believe there is enough evidence in the scripture to show that the Bible was written with specific foreknowledge of future events. So for those who have faith there is evidence of God scattered throughout the pages of the text . For those without faith, it's all gobbledigook.  Some of the codes in the Bible are very compelling to me, but they  are nothing more than random chance to you.

---

(March 26, 2016 at 2:25 am)dyresand Wrote: Maybe what if god isn't showing himself to exist because he is touching himself.

One thing I'll never understand is those who mock God. If there is no God I suppose it doesn't matter, but if there is a God and you mock him, what will be your end?

---

(March 26, 2016 at 1:28 am)IATIA Wrote: You refuse to accept evolution because you cannot watch it happen over millions of years, yet if we were able to show evolution in a lab, you would refuse to accept it because it was not natural.

Not exactly. If we look at the definition, evolution doesn't qualify as a science. This became this, which became that which became something else is speculation because it has never been observed. Even when using a lab to try and prove evolution, you are still guessing as to what the conditions were millions of years ago. You have to have faith that evolution happened the way you think it did.

Why is it that in the instance of evolution your requirements for scientific proof are unreasonably high, but in the instance of God, you're happy to take it all on faith without a shred of evidence? How do you justify demanding evidence for one and not the other?