fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Correct! Well said, fox.
Is Suffering Part of God's Plan?
- Thread starter PetesSweets86
- Start date
Why do you agree with me over here - and not on the other thread? It is random mutation that works with natural selection when you are talking about Darwinism Evolution...
ID believes that the mutations aren't random but directed - correct?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Creation doesn't support mutation into higher forms of life or different species. I don't speak for ID - I support Creationism.
I agreed with your statement here because it is different than what you said in the other thread. You said new information isn't created. Sorry for agreeing with you - I won't do it again. I'm sure it made you uncomfortable.
Not exactly. I am saying that it depends on the rationale; on the context. What matters is if the conclusion is logically derived from the first leap of faith, the logical proofs and/or the evidence given. If it is not logically draw from those three factors; if there is a logical leap in the rationale, then there is a possible second leap of faith. What matters is the specific rationale; the context.
There is a huge overlap between faith and assuming/believing. I simply look for any rationale that would meet that definition of faith that I gave.
A conclusion that is rooted in faith is not necessarily, in and of itself, a leap of faith. The leap of faith can happen earlier in the rationale.
For instance, the assumption of methodological naturalism can be viewed as a leap of faith in and of itself, or it can be viewed (as I do) as a logical consequence of the assumption of materialism.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
yummy babies :-D
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Admin, please clean up the troll droppings. Thanks.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
you my friend are afraid of stem cell research. Shame on you mr. conservativalot
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153901
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
Adaption and natural selection are proven facts however Darwin's premise of creatures evolving into new different ones is still only a theory.
Something somehow has to add information to create something new.
In the case of man it could have been the results of a catastrophic comet collision that Jupiters gravity didn't protect us from (Earth's guardian angel) entering different elements into the equation or perhaps even extraterrestrials
adding genetic material to the lower primates, purposely or by accident.
There are all these mysterious aligned with the stars pyramid structures and such in various parts of the world that seem to suggest alien visitors.
Something somehow has to add information to create something new.
In the case of man it could have been the results of a catastrophic comet collision that Jupiters gravity didn't protect us from (Earth's guardian angel) entering different elements into the equation or perhaps even extraterrestrials
adding genetic material to the lower primates, purposely or by accident.
There are all these mysterious aligned with the stars pyramid structures and such in various parts of the world that seem to suggest alien visitors.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Tell me Pete, what is the success rate of embryotic stem cell research vs. adult stem cell research?
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually on that subject.... I will assume you know how genetically similar we are to lower primates. We do not really have an appreciable amount of additional genetic information from a lower primate, and this information honestly does not have to come from an outside source. For the most part, the difference between us and lower primates is which genes are dominant and which are dormant. It isn't like children receive exact copies of their parent's DNA.... it is synthesized by chromosome pairs that are passed on to the child. I can't help but wonder how this debate got stuck on the WRONG idea that reproduction is nothing more than a matter of copy-paste.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Sorry if that was unclear. I was referring to the part of the discussion that centers on the idea that new information cannot be encoded into genetics by a natural process.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
the fact that with adult stem cell you get left overs...and I dislike leftovers..doesn't cook or taste as good as when you first prepare it. Plus babies are untampered with as far as STDs and other diseases that plague adults :-D
so babies for the win, yummy yummy yummy...little baby in my tummy
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete, what types of medication are you on? I mean this in a serious way. I don't think you have a firm grasp on reality and you need to get your head examined. You can't just play an alter ego on the internet and expect for people to think you are sane. For the past year or whatever, I've been trying to figure out what makes you tick. I don't know if you have a hard time expressing yourself and thats why you use those stupid demotivational posters, or you use them to piggyback on their success because you need attention from a community of people that you'll most likely never meet. Don't assume this is one of those "hater" type relationships. I don't envy your persona in any way. The only thing I'll say is that for some unknown reason, I'm perplexed that you can live in your skewed reality and assume nothing is wrong. Why can't you just act how you would in real life?
Well I haven't seen any experiments to try and make humans out of monkey or Ape DNA but I can see how people might feel that some of us have started reverting back to monkeys albeit talking ones in a kind of reverse darwinism
So when do you think the current apes will make the leap and become some kind of humans?
Next comet collision or extraterrestrial visit?
And will all the other creatures move up the chain too.
After all if evolution in the darwin sense is going on all the time then it seems creatures are changing all the time.
Why haven't cockroaches changed much over billions of years.
Darwinism only has some of the answers.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
'cause I'm a goof. I enjoy dropping a domino and see the chain reaction. Think of me as a God....a mortal one......with a strange sense of humor
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Well I haven't seen any experiments to try and make humans out of monkey or Ape DNA but I can see how people might feel that some of us have started reverting back to monkeys albeit talking ones in a kind of reverse darwinism
So when do you think the current apes will make the leap and become some kind of humans?
Next comet collision or extraterrestrial visit?
And will all the other creatures move up the chain too.
After all if evolution in the darwin sense is going on all the time then it seems creatures are changing all the time.
Why haven't cockroaches changed much over billions of years.
Darwinism only has some of the answers.
Well, they are difficult questions to answer in a short space.....
Given the current environment, I see no reason for apes to evolve. Humans supposedly evolved due to climate change and the loss of habitat. Monkeys on the savanna instead of in the jungle.
While I am as excited to be anally probed by aliens as the next guy, there is certainly theoretical basis to state that comet collision or extraterrestrial visit could have effected evolution, as either of those could change habitat or the like, or introduce new things a person needs to adapt to.
Creatures are changing over time, the changes are just so slow and small, they are nearly unobservable. Plus, with the enormous human population, human evolution should be at a near standstill. There is no survival of the fittest in human society really, and any genetic adaptations that any one person may form would be nearly impossible to spread amongst the entire population of humans. Plus with so many competing genetic differences, many of these types of traits are washed out. As I mentioned before however, look at native americans prior to the arrival of the europeans. They lacked resistance to the diseases of the white man. Now they have the same resistances, even if they have never interbred with other races. This is evolutionary adaptation. There are other examples. The average height of humans has increased over the years, and other minor differences.
As far as cockroaches go.... well, they are nearly perfect organisms like most insects. They have adapted incredibly well and can survive in nearly any environment. Their method of reproduction limits genetic variation and limits genetic competition.
Of course, any evolutionary theory is going to have SOME holes in it that are difficult to fill with anything more than theory, because it is a difficult science to test and find empirical evidence, but we can make sound theory by testing in similar areas and applying other known science. As I said, microbial research is a good field to apply to the study of genetics, because adaptation and evolution of germs and microbes happens VERY fast, as they are very simple organisms. We can apply many things we learn from that to complex organisms as long as we use fossil evidence and any other evidence surrounding us in the natural world.
So you're saying evolution on earth has reached a mature level due to volume and only very small changes occur.
The missing part is where a lower organism evolves into a higher one and why.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Not so much that evolution has reached a mature level, just that population is so high, evolutionary change is difficult since any adaptive changes spread slowly. So even though humans have spread out FAR beyond the natural environments they evolved to cope with, we are at a point in population where it would be nearly impossible to spread the genetic material from one person to everyone on the planet. We have to go back hundreds of thousands of years to find a common ancestor for all of humanity, and we are taking into account that back then, human populations were INCREDIBLY small.
Next, as I said before, organisms change due to a drastic change in environment. Perhaps thousands of years from now, monkeys bred only in laboratories and zoos in the North American climate will have an appreciable difference from monkeys living in Africa. Their continual interaction and use by humans could very well lead to super-intelligent monkeys. Already most lab monkeys are naturally more intelligent and quicker to learn than monkeys born in the wild, or monkey born in captivity from monkeys born in the wild. Either way, as slow a process of adaptation as it is, who knows. Really difficult to give an affirmative answer for the definite cause for change, as it is a process that should span thousands or even millions of years, and even then, there is no proof against things like intelligent design or the influence of extra terrestrial life and events.
Oh well, you know what they say, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” So, I can accept not having all the answers.
it doesn't take a jump to be athiest. take away everything you know of science and religion.
there still is no god.
the jumps you speak of are only from a religious sided arguement.
atheism is natural. god must be learned.(or brainwashed)
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
+100000000000000000000000000000000
Still ignoring that materialist leap of faith, aren't you. When you are willing to approach this objectively and honestly, we'll talk.
The truth is that approaching this issue from a materialist perspective is approaching it from a very one-sided perspective. Not approaching it from a materialist perspective is simple neutrality; it is not a "religious sided argument" as you claim. But it would take an understanding of what materialism is (a concept you don't even seem to consider real, in any sense).
Self-delusion and projection hardly make for a credible argument.
it's not materialist. as i said, take away all ideals garnered from science and religion.
god would not be known. and you would run around never knowing god.
to have a debate, you would need a god ideal first.
which has to be taught.
but i guess one wouldn't be atheist, as there would be no denial.
god would not be known. and you would run around never knowing god.
to have a debate, you would need a god ideal first.
which has to be taught.
but i guess one wouldn't be atheist, as there would be no denial.
but you do it so well.