|
Help Me Understand, part duex
|
 (September 21, 2015 at 5:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Nothing says that the bible cannot be instructive on multiple levels. History is full of object lessons and the same failures are repeated throughout history. The basic rule of the Bible and the Koran is to believe and obey without exception. If you don't you will be roasted in the fire.  RE: Help Me Understand, part duex
September 22, 2015 at 10:57 pm
(This post was last modified: September 22, 2015 at 10:59 pm by Faith No More.)
(September 22, 2015 at 10:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: All I know is you can breed dogs for years without a bitch giving birth to a cat. And now I implore you to find one evolutionary biologist that says that it should. You can't, and you won't. So, I would stop hanging my denial in evolution on a strawman if I was you, that is if your proclaimed love of reason isn't just a pretext.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
I've never understood how they actually get to the conclusion that we should see a crocoduck, or that we should see a cat give birth to a dog. Both of those ignore how population (and individual) genetics works, completely. And it's not very complicated.
Since it's apparently more complicated than I perceive it to be, I'll try a metaphor. Think of an old-school, movie-projector-style, reel to reel film of a man jogging. Each image on that tape (cells?) represents one generation. In genetics, a kid is almost exactly like his parents, but sliiightly different, due to recombination effects and the (~10) mutations each new offspring have, most of which occur in non-coding sections. Likewise, each cell of the film must be almost identical to the one before it or we wouldn't have a movie. Now we begin to roll the film-- as we speed though the "generations", we see the changes starting to add up. The man begins to run through a forest and then up a mountain. At the end of the film, the man is standing on top of the mountain, admiring the view. Asking us why cats don't give birth to dogs is akin to asking, "Well in the first frame, he's standing next to his car in a parking lot, and in the last frame, he's standing on top of a mountain. How'd he get to the top of the mountain?"
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. (September 22, 2015 at 10:27 pm)Godschild Wrote: Quote: I understand you want to call adaptable change within a species, evolution, it's only adaptation. You have and never will see one species change into another. Your right I'm not a scientist, why I surrounded myself with them to learn. I do read books in areas that interest me, I've enjoyed five Charles Dickens novels this year and probably will read another by the end of the year. Until you observe one species change to another you will have never seen evolution.So, you believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys, 969 year-old men, a world-wide flood that covered the highest mountain, ghost, spirits, demons, angels, resurrections, eternal life in heaven and hell, a virgin birth, and a ton of other religious BS but you will absolutely draw the line at evolution! Evolution is simply too unreasonable to even be considered as a possible scientific fact. OK. 
So, you believe in talking snakes (allegory)
and talking donkeys (yes) 969 year-old men (yes) a world-wide flood that covered the highest mountain (yes) ghost, spirits, demons, angels (yes to all) resurrections (yes) eternal life in heaven and hell (yes) a virgin birth (yes) (September 23, 2015 at 9:25 am)ChadWooters Wrote: So, you believe in talking snakes (allegory) And you expect people to take you seriously? It's funny how you like to make jabs at how you perceive a naturalist worldview to be philosophically inconsistent, yet you believe in all kinds of wild, impossible nonsense with no evidence. Join the 21st century, Chad, and recognize that reason without empirical evidence is dead and everything you listed there is an impossibility.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
 (September 18, 2015 at 8:00 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Prompted by the thread started by Shuffle (Help Me Understand), this is for the Christians here that do accept evolution. Which is good, since it's been observed many times, in the lab and the field.  omg, that great. No 'proof' of two indivisuals that died 6000+ years ago let start by you defining what it is you think 'proof' is of two specific people over the span of 6K years. Maybe your looking for bones... if you were then I could point out that bones decay in hundreds of years and unless intentionally preserved would be all but dust after the first 1000 years. Maybe your looking for garments, a house, cave drawing... Maybe you don't realize that were know very little of specific indivisuals who lived 6000+ years ago, and don't know you cant honestly make a compareson of 'proof' for someone who live a few hundred years ago to someone who live 6000 years ago. This almost 2000 years before the pyrmids were built, what possible proof could you be looking for that establishes Adam and Eve, that we can compare outside of the bible to any other specific individual of that same time period?  (September 23, 2015 at 10:00 am)Faith No More Wrote:(September 23, 2015 at 9:25 am)ChadWooters Wrote: So, you believe in talking snakes (allegory) (September 23, 2015 at 10:40 am)Drich Wrote:(September 18, 2015 at 8:00 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Prompted by the thread started by Shuffle (Help Me Understand), this is for the Christians here that do accept evolution. Which is good, since it's been observed many times, in the lab and the field. You're actually believe that as the literal account? How old are you? Could you please explain the 100,000 year old human bones that have been found in Ethiopia please? Or were they big bad Lucifer? Do you still believe in Santa?
No, Drich, what he means is we know that civilization was up and functioning more than 4000 years prior to that point, and there were millions of people in the fourth millenium BCE.
We know through Mitochondrial DNA scanning techniques that there are 29 (I think) separate matrilineal lines that have mutated since the woman who (since mtDNA is not passed to offspring by the father) is the source of all modern mtDNA would have had to have lived over 80,000 years ago. They dubbed her "Mitochondrial Eve", but she wasn't the only woman alive, then; she's just the one whose mtDNA made it through the process of elimination, and sub-versions of her mtDNA are how they now track how humanity spread out since then. There's also a way to track the part of the Y-chromosome in men, which is of course not passed to daughters and so gets eliminated the same way, and we can trace all our Y-chromosomes (by the same process of elimination and rediversification by mutation) to a guy who lived roughly 150,000 years ago, whom we have dubbed "Chromosomal Adam". Note that Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve lived roughly as far apart from one another in time as Eve is from us. We have examples of humans making stone tools, found in layers going back millions of years (recent finds suggest even some of the Australopithecus tribes may have used crude tools), and we have traced the migration of modern-type humans out of Africa into what is now Israel as early as 150,000 years ago, and certainly by 80,000 years ago. The idea of there being only two individuals living 6000 years ago is contraindicated by a mountain of evidence to the contrary, of which those examples are just a fraction.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. (September 23, 2015 at 10:00 am)Faith No More Wrote:(September 23, 2015 at 9:25 am)ChadWooters Wrote: So, you believe in talking snakes (allegory) I am living proof that asses can speak. Otherwise I'd like to see you prove that any of those are impossible unless you'd have to prove the negatives. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
