RE: Evil Atheists
September 22, 2011 at 11:09 am
(This post was last modified: September 22, 2011 at 11:41 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Firstly, biological evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. I don't have the answers there, and neither do you. The difference between us is that I can be honest about it. 2/3rds of your questions directly relate to this single point. If that's the gap you want to cram god into good luck to you. I would have picked something a little farther out of our reach. You run the risk of having your position absolutely and undeniably discredited in your own lifetime (something that peddlers in bullshit realized was bad practice long ago).
If micro evolution is true to you, then there should be no problem with evolution at all. There is no dividing line between the two. Differences add up over a long time-frame (and we're talking billions of years here). That being said, nothing "changes" into something else. You are still a bony fish. You just have a longer list of modifiers added. The rest of your post seems to be about "needs", which isn't the current understanding of evolution at all. Evolution by natural selection isn't a sentient process that responds to creatures needs. It's not about need, changes occur. Let's not attempt to bootleg your particular brand of idiocy into a place it doesn't belong. It's difficult to reproduce a perfect copy ad infinitum, and on top of that we're being bombarded by radiation constantly (not to mention some of the more novel theories). Sometimes those differences provide one creature with an advantage over another (other times they are deleterious). The effects of which are what we see in the fossil record. Life is a process of elimination, this rock is a killing machine, and the things we see alive and all around us are a tiny fraction of what has been. The "path" evolution took in our own species is no better. We are the only survivors (and that's a tentative position itself). So much for humans being the pinnacle of directed evolution. How are the other hominids doing? Apparently not so hot either (most are endangered http://www.earthsendangered.com/list.asp).
RE Eyes:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-8516-page-2.html
(posts #16 and #18 gg Chuck)
RE Lungs:
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/739.abstract
(I'll try to find you the full PDF if you're interested)
RE Sexual Reproduction
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/80624...t=Abstract
http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html (a breif synopsis on the authors website in the event that you can't access pubmed)
I would be perverse to look at the ever increasing piles of data and conclude otherwise. Evolution isn't "my position" it is the position of demonstrable fact. The "how's" are the point where one must decide where they put their chips. Mine are in with natural selection, broadly, and a whole host of other mechanisms specifically. I'm going to repeat this because it's important. You can disagree on the "how" all you like, that's healthy. If your faith hinges on a demonstrable fact being completely and wholly incorrect, your faith is showing severe fatigue. I don't blame the authors for this, they had no idea what was going on around them. Short of divine intervention they could not have given an accurate description of the origins of the universe or life itself(and that's pretty damning when you realize that they did not possess such knowledge even though they claimed they did in fact receive just such an intervention). You, on the other hand, with a modern education and access to the internet, have no such excuse. You could educate yourself, you choose not to. You prefer to side with magic, and this sort of thinking is childish and ignorant. Get yourself a shovel, dig up a cambrian rabbit, and bring that to the table. Then you'll be taken seriously.
If micro evolution is true to you, then there should be no problem with evolution at all. There is no dividing line between the two. Differences add up over a long time-frame (and we're talking billions of years here). That being said, nothing "changes" into something else. You are still a bony fish. You just have a longer list of modifiers added. The rest of your post seems to be about "needs", which isn't the current understanding of evolution at all. Evolution by natural selection isn't a sentient process that responds to creatures needs. It's not about need, changes occur. Let's not attempt to bootleg your particular brand of idiocy into a place it doesn't belong. It's difficult to reproduce a perfect copy ad infinitum, and on top of that we're being bombarded by radiation constantly (not to mention some of the more novel theories). Sometimes those differences provide one creature with an advantage over another (other times they are deleterious). The effects of which are what we see in the fossil record. Life is a process of elimination, this rock is a killing machine, and the things we see alive and all around us are a tiny fraction of what has been. The "path" evolution took in our own species is no better. We are the only survivors (and that's a tentative position itself). So much for humans being the pinnacle of directed evolution. How are the other hominids doing? Apparently not so hot either (most are endangered http://www.earthsendangered.com/list.asp).
RE Eyes:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-8516-page-2.html
(posts #16 and #18 gg Chuck)
RE Lungs:
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/739.abstract
(I'll try to find you the full PDF if you're interested)
RE Sexual Reproduction
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/80624...t=Abstract
http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html (a breif synopsis on the authors website in the event that you can't access pubmed)
I would be perverse to look at the ever increasing piles of data and conclude otherwise. Evolution isn't "my position" it is the position of demonstrable fact. The "how's" are the point where one must decide where they put their chips. Mine are in with natural selection, broadly, and a whole host of other mechanisms specifically. I'm going to repeat this because it's important. You can disagree on the "how" all you like, that's healthy. If your faith hinges on a demonstrable fact being completely and wholly incorrect, your faith is showing severe fatigue. I don't blame the authors for this, they had no idea what was going on around them. Short of divine intervention they could not have given an accurate description of the origins of the universe or life itself(and that's pretty damning when you realize that they did not possess such knowledge even though they claimed they did in fact receive just such an intervention). You, on the other hand, with a modern education and access to the internet, have no such excuse. You could educate yourself, you choose not to. You prefer to side with magic, and this sort of thinking is childish and ignorant. Get yourself a shovel, dig up a cambrian rabbit, and bring that to the table. Then you'll be taken seriously.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
