(September 6, 2013 at 11:37 am)Drich Wrote: Where your arguements continue to fail is that there is not an enviorment on this planet nor ever has been according to 'science' that would allow for such a mutation. Name one species of anything that 'over performs' when the enviromental elements it orginally developed in doubles. Or more specifically put anything in the sun at double it current intensity and tell me what thrives.

And as I explained, evolution isn't bound by the environment, because evolution isn't a thing that can be aware of the environment. It just produces variation, nothing more. The environment factors into things in that it plays a role in whether those traits persist or not (by eliminating negatively affecting ones, not enhancing positive ones) but it plays no part in what traits develop.

Mutations can happen randomly, none of them happen in response to outside stimuli. What the sun is doing, has been doing, or will be doing, has no bearing on the plants at all.

Quote:It's not one species though so it can not be idnentified as a mutation. just about all plant life can benfit from modified artifical light exposure.

Cool, so the plants have higher tolerance to sunlight than one might think, and the trait is a common one. So what?

Quote:Not the question i ask or presented. I asked what caused them to exist IF there was not an enviorment avaiable for them to develop in.

Because things don't evolve in response to the environments that they're in, this question makes no sense. Animals in cold areas don't grow thicker fur because it's cold, they develop thicker fur over generations because the ones with thinner fur die out. It's a matter of surviveability, not location; whatever mutation or trait is causing this thing to happen isn't causing the plants to die, and that's enough for it to persist. Perhaps it carries some additional benefit- being too good at something often does- that allows it to propagate more widely, but none of this came about because of the environment.

Quote:again no. Because all of those things at one point served a purpose supposedly. They served a purpose because our enviroment demanded them for survival. Again where your arguement fails is according to the global warming fear mongers there has never been a time on this planet long enough to have plant life develop this ablity to process this extra energy.

And you're assuming that this photosynthetic overspecialization didn't serve some other purpose at some point in the past? Or doesn't serve one now? Where's your basis for saying that?

Quote:Your examples are not valid. because you can not pin point an 'orgin' for the diversity in which you speak.

Okay, fine: the origin was that in one specific generation of plant, one plat, or a population of them, had a mutation that allowed it to process more sunlight than it needed to. Because that mutation didn't outright kill the plant, or cause it to be unable to do what it needed to to survive, the plant was able to breed and create more, each carrying that same mutation, into the modern day.

Happy?

(September 5, 2013 at 10:06 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 5, 2013 at 7:37 pm)Tonus Wrote: Errr... so is everyone bound by the OT law, or not? You seem to be saying that everyone is until they accept the sacrifice of Christ, at which point they are not. Is that what you mean to say?

In essence yes. The law serves one purpose now. That is to identify sin for the purpose of repentance. Once one repents of sin, righteousness/'morality' is no longer determined by how you up hold the law.

Just to be clear, you are referring to the OT law, right? You're saying that once a person accepts Christ, the OT law is no longer in force, so to speak. That person can wear mixed fabrics and work on the Sabbath with a clear conscience, but to contemplate adultery would still be wrong (as per Jesus in his sermon on the mount).

(September 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm)tokutter Wrote: What version/translation of the bible do you use and why???


.

To whom are you speaking?

GC

---

(September 7, 2013 at 8:17 am)Tonus Wrote:

(September 5, 2013 at 10:06 pm)Drich Wrote: In essence yes. The law serves one purpose now. That is to identify sin for the purpose of repentance. Once one repents of sin, righteousness/'morality' is no longer determined by how you up hold the law.

Just to be clear, you are referring to the OT law, right? You're saying that once a person accepts Christ, the OT law is no longer in force, so to speak. That person can wear mixed fabrics and work on the Sabbath with a clear conscience, but to contemplate adultery would still be wrong (as per Jesus in his sermon on the mount).

Being that Christ paid the penalty for the sins of those who accept Him as savior, our judgment is not from the law. However those who do not accept Christ as savior, will become their own sacrifice because of the law.

GC

(September 7, 2013 at 11:02 am)Godschild Wrote:

(September 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm)tokutter Wrote: What version/translation of the bible do you use and why???


.

To whom are you speaking?

I was talking to Drich..unless I'm screwed up here (wouldn't be the first)...but you can answer to if you want.


.

(September 6, 2013 at 1:32 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(September 6, 2013 at 11:37 am)Drich Wrote: Where your arguements continue to fail is that there is not an enviorment on this planet nor ever has been according to 'science' that would allow for such a mutation. Name one species of anything that 'over performs' when the enviromental elements it orginally developed in doubles. Or more specifically put anything in the sun at double it current intensity and tell me what thrives.

And as I explained, evolution isn't bound by the environment, because evolution isn't a thing that can be aware of the environment. It just produces variation, nothing more. The environment factors into things in that it plays a role in whether those traits persist or not (by eliminating negatively affecting ones, not enhancing positive ones) but it plays no part in what traits develop.

Mutations can happen randomly, none of them happen in response to outside stimuli. What the sun is doing, has been doing, or will be doing, has no bearing on the plants at all.

Quote:It's not one species though so it can not be idnentified as a mutation. just about all plant life can benfit from modified artifical light exposure.

Cool, so the plants have higher tolerance to sunlight than one might think, and the trait is a common one. So what?

Quote:Not the question i ask or presented. I asked what caused them to exist IF there was not an enviorment avaiable for them to develop in.

Because things don't evolve in response to the environments that they're in, this question makes no sense. Animals in cold areas don't grow thicker fur because it's cold, they develop thicker fur over generations because the ones with thinner fur die out. It's a matter of surviveability, not location; whatever mutation or trait is causing this thing to happen isn't causing the plants to die, and that's enough for it to persist. Perhaps it carries some additional benefit- being too good at something often does- that allows it to propagate more widely, but none of this came about because of the environment.

Quote:again no. Because all of those things at one point served a purpose supposedly. They served a purpose because our enviroment demanded them for survival. Again where your arguement fails is according to the global warming fear mongers there has never been a time on this planet long enough to have plant life develop this ablity to process this extra energy.

And you're assuming that this photosynthetic overspecialization didn't serve some other purpose at some point in the past? Or doesn't serve one now? Where's your basis for saying that?

Quote:Your examples are not valid. because you can not pin point an 'orgin' for the diversity in which you speak.

Okay, fine: the origin was that in one specific generation of plant, one plat, or a population of them, had a mutation that allowed it to process more sunlight than it needed to. Because that mutation didn't outright kill the plant, or cause it to be unable to do what it needed to to survive, the plant was able to breed and create more, each carrying that same mutation, into the modern day.

Happy?

As witnessed by my last discussion about the HIV virus, and now this one, I've noticed the the word 'mutation' is used like a crutch to explain anything and everything that you can not explain. It's almost like how you people stereotype christians defaulting to "God did it." In other words you all use 'mutation' to maintain a blind faith.

Not that genetic mutations are not possible. It's just none of you have provided any evidence to support your 'mutation' fall back arguements, which makes your use of the mutation arguement a crutch to explain what your not able to explain. Without supporting evidence to back your assertions your grasping at straws. (Your rules not mine.)

Again, I do not care enough about the subject to further discuss it. I simply want to take this arguement to the point to expose your use of hypocritical faith in what you believe. All to ask, why is it not ok for Christians to show faith, but it is ok to have faith in science?

---

(September 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm)tokutter Wrote: What version/translation of the bible do you use and why???


.

Easy to read, because it is easy to read.

NIV, because I have it in a study version

King James because it is the primary translation of the blue letter and other lexicon/concordances.

New king James because it is easier to understand at a glance.

It depends on who I am speaking with and why as to which translation I will use.

For you guys just outright, ERV.

Most Christians NKJV

If a topic goes to research the KJV or blueletter.

To explain Jewish culture or circumstances that surround a book the niv study bible. As it has commentary.

(September 7, 2013 at 6:43 pm)tokutter Wrote:

(September 7, 2013 at 11:02 am)Godschild Wrote: To whom are you speaking?

I was talking to Drich..unless I'm screwed up here (wouldn't be the first)...but you can answer to if you want.


.

I was curious, didn't know if you were speaking to an individual or most Christians. I use the New American Standard Version for serious study, I use the English Standard Version for quicker references and to compare the wording of translations, I have a New International Version with tons of notes in it from sermons and other studies, I'm currently reading a chronological study Bible that's a New Living Translation, to do a reading from being to end. It is a translation that is very modern, yet accurate and easier to understand for daily living. The NASV is the best translation and why I use it for studying, I will compare all against each other to make sure one is not out of line with the others. I have a King James Version but, since I do not do well with Old English and some words in Hebrew and Greek were uncertain at the time of it's translation I rarely use it. If someone can read the King James old English well I would rather hear it read than any other, it seems to flow very well. I have a couple others that rarely get used now.

GC

(September 6, 2013 at 12:48 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Why in the world would a perfect god show his creation in an imperfect way, that is, having the sun come up after the earth is established?

by who's standard makes God's effort present as imperfect?

Quote: Did he actually stop the rotation of the earth for the first three days before making the sun and moon appear (an appeal to which would be special pleading) or did the writer simply not have all the observable information?

again the writer recorded what he saw from a singular perspective. From the pov he had these are the things that happened in the order he saw them happening. It does not mean God formed them as the writer saw them. It just means the writer recorded what he saw when he saw it. Again like John of Patmos in the book of revelation.

Quote:If god were to reveal his creation of the cosmos and earth to a prophet, one would expect, based on scientific studies of the way stars and solar systems are formed, that the sequence of events would look much different than what is described in Genesis.

why would one expect that? Is the end of the world presented in this format? Or did God give the writer a glimpse of what was to come and let him to the best he could to describe what he saw?

Quote:If god was really showing man the creation account from an earthly perspective, we should expect the sun to at least already be in place, as well as night and day, a necessity with a rotating planet. At night, the only thing visible at first would be the stars, and then eventually the moon would come into the picture.

Again why? This presupposition assumes that the earth as it is today is how it was when it was created. Even your beloved 'science' does not agree with your assessment.

If the people who believed that the world had a very heavy cloud cover above it pre-ark are correct then it may have been a few days before one could make out the sun moon and stars. Have you every been under heavy cloud cover? Even at noon there is just light with no way to pin point the sun. If we can experience these conditions today in bad weather then why is it ok to assume that during the creation of the world would happen under a clear blue sky? Or to put it another way, why wouldn't something like the creation of a planet cause bad weather or at least heavy cloud/dust cover?

Quote:Water, a necessity for the eventuality of life, would appear next. He could then claim the spark of primitive life, showing that the first things created were the plants, and then the sea-dwelling creatures. Following this would be the introduction of land-based animals: amphibians and reptiles, followed by mammals and birds.

If you read my thread on evolution, I purpose that God created Eden apart from what naturally was allowed to evolve outside the garden. That Eden was made to resemble earth about 5 or 6 thousand years ago, so it's two inhabitances would not have any trouble adapting to the rest of the planet as they left the garden.

Quote:It follows that man would be the latest thing created, even though this should be included in the introduction of mammals. However, since this Bible is anthropomorphised, the writers thinking that man is the greatest achievement of their god, it stands to reason that man would be last on the list i.e. made in the image of god, etc.

See above.

Quote:This is not at all how the creation story is told. It's told from an unscientific, geo-centric perspective that has no knowledge about what the cosmos actually look like. The story makes sense from a man-made perspective, and not from the perspective of an all-knowing god.

see above or the link below.

Quote:Drich, I want to know how you reconcile this.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.ht...=Evolution

Quote: many Christians do not accept the Genesis account as it stands in the Bible because there is no reason to believe it to be accurate at all, based on current knowledge.

Many 'Christians' will not waist their time speaking to atheists because they have a very specific view or understanding of predestination. I am not 'many Christians.' I am a biblically based Christian. One who can easily reconcile the teaching of predestination, as well as the command/example Christ modeled of reaching out to the lost. Like wise it is easy to recosile the two origins accounts if you do not presuppose that either are 100%correct as taught/believed.

Quote:They will not apologize for it because they are smart enough to not even touch the story with a ten-foot pole. Many more are coming around to the story of Noah and the ark because of the many absurdities contained within it, and some are even suggesting that the numbers talked about in the Exodus are greatly exaggerated, if not completely made up.

the only time the story of Noah's ark becomes an absurdity is when one assumes that Noah built the ark to save the world from an angry God. When in fact that could be the furthest thing from the truth. God saved the planet through the faith of Noah. The tale of the ark is not about the logistics of saving the world from God. It's about how God use the meger efforts of Noah to miricualiously save the world. Noah nor the ark saved all the life on the planet, God did.

Quote:The thing is, if you are ready to believe even the mightily dubious creation account in Genesis, you are ready to believe just about anything else that conflicts with reason.

and I can point out that if you can not reconcile the two accounts of orgins given what both side have to say then you are a sheep simply picking whichshepard to follow. From a Christian perspective, no big deal. But, from yours, that is one of many unforgivable sins your lord science will not tolerate, nor can avoid.

Quote:I see that you've had some thoughts about the mindsets of the writers of that time, how their perspective was skewed because of their limited knowledge, but I want to bring it back to how this shouldn't be the case if they were actually getting their information from a perfect being.

So.. You've never heard of the book of revelation? I didn't just pull this theory out of thin air. I see it modeled in the end time accounts of John of Patmos. If God used this method to have the last days of man documented, then why not the first???

So why do it this way and not your way? The answer should be obvious to such a well educated and modern man such as yourself... Give up?

If God had the orgins accounts in genesis written like a text book who would He have been speaking to? Genesis would have been gibberish to everyone up to these last few generations. So the question is, why alienate every generation of man save the last few who live in the end times? Simple logic would dictate that he speak to the first generations first establish a strong foundation, and then teach a few the appearent Midas secret that first 5500 years of man found easy to comprehend. So those lucky few who have the Midas secret can bang their heads against the wall trying to teach people who believe they are descendants from monkeys, who also have surmised that the universe just appeared out of a vacuum.

(September 8, 2013 at 12:45 am)Drich Wrote: As witnessed by my last discussion about the HIV virus, and now this one, I've noticed the the word 'mutation' is used like a crutch to explain anything and everything that you can not explain. It's almost like how you people stereotype christians defaulting to "God did it." In other words you all use 'mutation' to maintain a blind faith.

The difference, of course, being twofold: first of all, since evolution is just genetic mutation and variation, it would be incredibly odd of a discussion of evolution not to include that term. You'd essentially be asking us to discuss evolution without discussing evolution. Stop being childish.

The other important distinction between mutation and your god is that we can demonstrate that mutation happens. Just saying.

Quote:Not that genetic mutations are not possible. It's just none of you have provided any evidence to support your 'mutation' fall back arguements, which makes your use of the mutation arguement a crutch to explain what your not able to explain. Without supporting evidence to back your assertions your grasping at straws. (Your rules not mine.)

Except that we're not making any assertions. Evolution is a fact. It happens, it's observable, and therefore it's not actually a leap to conclude that, whatever the state of a given biological organism is, evolution is the cause. Just like I don't need to give any evidence to prove that you breathe air; things that are functions of biological organisms need evidence to the contrary, not evidence for something that has been true for every other organism on the face of the earth through all of recorded history.

You, however, are making an assertion of design, something you nor any other source has been able to demonstrate at any point and in any capacity, and to justify your assertion you present your own lack of understanding as to the evolutionary process, and an argument from ignorance: you can't think of a way this could have evolved, and therefore it must have been designed. This is a failure of argumentation on every possible level.

For one, the lack of an answer currently from the evolution side does not lend any more credence to your inane proposal. Secondly, an argument from ignorance such as yours, especially when its foundation is nothing more than your further ignorance as to how evolution works, has absolutely no credibility or weight. And finally, your basis for even making the claim at all is complete idiocy; you actually need to provide proof of your assertions, not just poke holes in the prevailing science.

Oh, and I'm still being charitable: the hole you're trying to poke isn't even a legitimate hole, because, as I mentioned, you don't have the first clue as to how evolution works. You're just fractally wrong, here.

Quote:Again, I do not care enough about the subject to further discuss it. I simply want to take this arguement to the point to expose your use of hypocritical faith in what you believe. All to ask, why is it not ok for Christians to show faith, but it is ok to have faith in science?

All you're exposing is your own lack of understanding of the things you deem yourself knowledgeable enough about to disprove, and the utterly banal schoolground depths you'll sink to in order to drag down everyone else into the mud you wallow in. Sorry, but I'm not playing that game; you're simply wrong here. Maybe you should go and pick up a biology textbook, like I did, and learn about this stuff.

You'll see that there's no faith involved in things that can be tested, and replicated no matter where you are.

When you say that a given paradox in the evolutionary progress of a given plant that i point out, is an attribute to a genetic mutation,and yet you provide absolutly no proof such a mutation has been specifically identified and so labled. your appeal to genetic mutation becomes an appeal to faith. Because what is happening is that I have provided a paradox you can not solve in the theory as you understand it. So rather than further discuss you dismiss to genetic mutation. This again with out documented proof such a mutation exists, your efforts can be likened to a theist who simply answers 'God works in mysterious ways.' Your default to mutation is an appeal to faith. Not faith in God but faith in science,in that such a mutation does indeed exist. Which means, your laziness to look up whether such a mutation exists or not says you either do not care about what is being discussed, we have reached your potential limit of what is being discussed, or that your indeed a man of faith.

I don't like calling people stupid, so I have left two options on the table. Lazy or man of faith. I don't think your lazy. I believe you re just a shmoe who has the capacity for blind faith. And because your faith in science is good enough for you it in turn should be good enough for me.

(September 8, 2013 at 3:15 am)Drich Wrote: When you say that a given paradox in the evolutionary progress of a given plant that i point out, is an attribute to a genetic mutation,and yet you provide absolutly no proof such a mutation has been specifically identified and so labled. your appeal to genetic mutation becomes an appeal to faith.

Okay, I need you to listen to me, very carefully: evolution, the mechanism of evolution, is genetic variation and mutation. The chances of the explanation for this issue being a mutation or genetic variation, from an evolutionary perspective, is one hundred percent. There is literally no other form of evolution but variation and mutation. You're right, I don't know the specific mutation involved, but then, I don't have to: evolution is an observed fact, it happens, and therefore the mechanism by which it happens is the mechanism by which this specific trait has been inculcated.

My not being able to point to the specific mutation involved doesn't mean that a proved, demonstrated and observable accepted theory of mainstream science isn't happening. That's an argument from ignorance, and again, you're saying that accepting a proposition that is observable and consistent with reality requires proof in every specific instance of it. I'm happy saying evolution is the process behind this thing: at least that's demonstrable.

Quote: Because what is happening is that I have provided a paradox you can not solve in the theory as you understand it.

Oh right, and there's also this: the "paradox" that you're posing here isn't an issue at all, because evolution doesn't factor in the environment when producing variation. The environment dictates the frequency by which the organisms survive, but not the type and function of the initial traits and variation in the first place. Does this plant's ability to process more sunlight harm it, in a normal environment? If not, then there's no reason for it to be excluded.

This isn't like Pokemon. Your Castform might change depending on the environment, but real animals don't. Actually read my posts before you persist with this incorrect objection. Better yet, actually research what evolution is.

Quote: So rather than further discuss you dismiss to genetic mutation. This again with out documented proof such a mutation exists, your efforts can be likened to a theist who simply answers 'God works in mysterious ways.' Your default to mutation is an appeal to faith. Not faith in God but faith in science,in that such a mutation does indeed exist. Which means, your laziness to look up whether such a mutation exists or not says you either do not care about what is being discussed, we have reached your potential limit of what is being discussed, or that your indeed a man of faith.

Or rather, that your objection is nonsensical. If you'd actually provided an objection that conforms to what evolution actually is, you bet I'd go out and research this. But since your objection has absolutely no bearing on evolution, doesn't actually pose a problem for it, I don't need to answer in any detail.

You are saying that this plant poses a problem for evolution due to x. I respond that x has nothing to do with evolution, and so the mechanism by which evolution functions can explain the details of x, because it does, even if I don't have complete knowledge of it.

It's like how you can not know how a combustion engine works, yet still drive a car.

Quote:I don't like calling people stupid, so I have left two options on the table. Lazy or man of faith. I don't think your lazy. I believe you re just a shmoe who has the capacity for blind faith. And because your faith in science is good enough for you it in turn should be good enough for me.

Once again, evolution is an observed, scientific fact. It occurs, across every organism on the planet. I've seen it occur- my family breeds dogs- and I've researched it occurring in nature. It happens. So when I say that mutations and variations explain this thing, it's not faith, because mutation is what evolution is, and again, evolution is a demonstrated fact.

You can't lump me in with you god botherers, because of the two of us, only one actually has the ability to demonstrate the process behind our belief here.