why that was nice

[zealous 10+ year member]

kcdc, do you believe that justice is a good thing? And if there is a God, do you believe that he should be just? Justice is the answer to the conundrum you believe to be God's character.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

kcdc, do you believe that justice is a good thing? And if there is a God, do you believe that he should be just? Justice is the answer to the conundrum you believe to be God's character.

i disagree. i understand that the american way is that rights are given by god therefore can't be taken by man. i like that. but you can't actually believe that explains god and our relationship to him. decent start. i'm a scientific guy though, so......

 

[zealous 10+ year member]

How do Darwinists respond to the fact that Geneticists have discovered that a species does not gain genetic information over time, but rather loses information instead? Keep in mind that this is a scientific fact, while evolution is but a theory. How are the two reconciled in the mind of a Darwinist?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

How do Darwinists respond to the fact that Geneticists have discovered that a species does not gain genetic information over time, but rather loses information instead? Keep in mind that this is a scientific fact, while evolution is but a theory. How are the two reconciled in the mind of a Darwinist?

That is utter nonsense. Information can be gained anytime there is a random mutation or gene duplication. A popular example is the nylon-eating bacteria.

You are misusing the word theory in the scientific context; you are using it in the colloquial sense. In science, a fact is an observation, and a theory is an explanation of that observation. Evolution is both fact and theory; we have observed evolution as fact, and the explanation for the current biodiversity is a theory called the modern evolutionary synthesis.

 

[zealous 10+ year member]

i disagree. i understand that the american way is that rights are given by god therefore can't be taken by man. i like that. but you can't actually believe that explains god and our relationship to him. decent start. i'm a scientific guy though, so......

Just because your scientific doesn't mean that you cannot value justice, and my questions weren't meant to take you away from your scientific views. I do, however, believe that justice, along with mercy, are key elements in many peoples relationship to God. After all, how can God be merciful if he is not just to begin with? And how can God be just if he is as flimsy as a spaghetti noodle, as weak as wet paper bag? And if God were not just, what value would there be in Him being merciful to you? As I stated before, God's character is a conundrum to you because you are missing a key element: justice.

 

[BigPerm 10+ year member]

That is utter nonsense. Information can be gained anytime there is a random mutation or gene duplication. A popular example is the nylon-eating bacteria.
You are misusing the word theory in the scientific context; you are using it in the colloquial sense. In science, a fact is an observation, and a theory is an explanation of that observation. Evolution is both fact and theory; we have observed evolution as fact, and the explanation for the current biodiversity is a theory called the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Neat thread. I accept evolution as well. I have nothing against religious people, but I do question the intelligence of people who interpret any of the major religions literally.

It was mentioned earlier that infanticide is an act and has no relevance in the discussion of evolution. That generally makes sense. Unless maybe the discussion is based on the evolution of human behavior and whether or not our feelings are "moral" or "instinctual."

People generally don't condone infanticide and I don't believe that it can be explained through morality, but rather human nature. Humans have to be compassionate in order to survive and perhaps compassion is an evolutionary advantage. We wouldn't be here if humans overwhelmingly wanted to kill each other.

 

[zealous 10+ year member]

That is utter nonsense. Information can be gained anytime there is a random mutation or gene duplication. A popular example is the nylon-eating bacteria.

And a popular example of how information is lost is through the breeding of dogs: a dog that has been bred to lose the genetic traits of it's predecessors is not going to regain that lost information through random mutation.

You are misusing the word theory in the scientific context; you are using it in the colloquial sense. In science, a fact is an observation, and a theory is an explanation of that observation. Evolution is both fact and theory; we have observed evolution as fact, and the explanation for the current biodiversity is a theory called the modern evolutionary synthesis.

There are two "types" of evolution: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is what has been observed by scientists as changes within a species, but not the changing of one species into another. This is also known as "adaptation", and is proven scientific fact. This is not to be confused with macro-evolution, which is large scale change (from goo to you style), and has not been observed by any scientist, at least, to my knowledge, thus making it conjecture. Darwinists are macro-evolutionists who put their faith (yes, macro-evolution requires faith) in a theory (the theory of macro-evolution) that has yet to be "demonstrated" or "observed". So, yes, I am using the word in a colloquial sense in describing Darwinist Evolutionary Theory, and feel quite comfortable (and correct) in doing so. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[SocialStealth]

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-OopM0ejyzSZ/p_136ZR525CS/JL-Audio-ZR525-CSi.html

this is what I thought of when I saw evolution.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Ajumma (아줌마) : A term used to address an adult female individual of married age and/or runs a business or restaurant. The stereotypical 'ajumma' image is that of a short, stocky, tough old woman who wears purple pants and permed hair, and has sharp elbows on the subway. The word ajumma is also used to call older women when in a restaurant or simply when getting a person's attention

English needs an acceptable word for this.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

these ajuamma are bad ***:



Can your grandma do that?!

 

[97gp 5,000+ posts]

Bitch?

"yo bitch bring me my food"

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Bitch?
"yo bitch bring me my food"

see that's where the problem lies. If you say "hey bich bring me a cheese burger" it wouldnt be acceptable. They'd want to spit in your food if they even served you...

Its completely acceptable to say "ajumma gamjatang mul jusayoh" which basically means "hey you middle age lady with a perm and a crazy sun shade bring me some pork spine bone soup and water"

waiters only coming around when you yell at them is a nice touch too.. if you just yelled "hey you over there, you come here!" at a waitress here. they'd be pissed.

plus you dont tip.

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

So it basically means "badass old woman?"

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

So it basically means "badass old woman?"

i dont think that "bad *** is incorporated into definition really, its just that bad assness is so highly correlated with being an ajumma.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Pascal's wager is complete poppycock. Here we have an individual who is feigning belief in god for the sake of reward, but surely an omniscient being would be able to see through that?
Also, Pascal's Wager presents another false dichotomy: either god exists and requires belief, or god does not exist. There are, however, more than these two options. It can just as easily be argued that god exists and rewards skepticism; either argument can be demonstrated as equally true.

You have completely missed the meaning behind pascal's wager. First of all it does not present a dichotomy or attempt to pose a provable solution but instead attempts to make the best "ignorant" (if you will) choice when no option truly outweighs another from the skeptic's perspective. Thats why it's call pascal's "WAGER" not theory or model. It is not a dichotomy because it poses no mutually exclusive possibilities. There are in fact infinite possible outcomes anyone with a brain can realize. But pascal's wager says that even though the possibilies are indeed endless, the human element is limited. There are choices we have and do not have.

Thus, When the problem in question is: whether or not you should take a course of action when failing is theorized to destroy you... Inaction or refusal for the sake of inaction or refusal is an unwise decision.

Then we have Michael Behe's mousetrap. It is simply a re-vamp of the telelogical argument, most famously put forth by Thomas Aquinas and then again by William Paley in his Watchmaker analogy. This is wrong on a number of levels.

The mousetrap is not merely a knockoff on a previous theory, And does not only mean complexity infers design, let me explain per your statements.

First, we again have an infinite regress built right in.

Infinite regress in built in to every statement, every action, every thought and every twinkle of existence that falls within the minute boundaries of the human perspective. Put simply there is doubtable fallacy in everything, because everything can be complicated to a level beyond human understanding. Literally, the only reason the mind can successfully function is by ignoring the impossibility of the universe around him. By arguing infinite regress you might as well be selectively choosing the theories you are choosing to ignore while accepting others just because you can.

Second, complexity does not necessarily infer design; evolution has shown that.

No but complexity in purpose does require design. Here is a poor example that attempts to explain the logic. I'm sure you've played the game sim city. Well if you start up the game and leave it running on your computer you have the possibility and vehicle of the growth of a city (evolution) but until the user inputs design, there is no method to facilitate development (Conscious input.) This is the point of Behe's mousetrap, not simply that the complexity of an item implies design, but that elements of the complexity of an item require design to function. And I'm curious as to the "evolution" that has proven complexity doesn't infer design.

Third, it ignores documented exaptation.

I'm unaware of any documented exaptation that is not purely theoretical and circumstantial. But this arguement has ties to the above. Specifically concerning extremely complex organisms, species must evolve complex structures gradually which is contradictory considering the process of evolution is to strengthen a population and the force endangering a species would very likely kill it off before the gradual change of evolution could facilitate saving a species. And furthermore, why and at what point does the functionality of a trait necessitate the removal of an appendage?

Fourth, it is another argument from ignorance.

Point of reference.

Fifth, at best it would imply that the development of the world has been guided, and says nothing about the degree of the designer's perfection nor if he is infinite nor that he has made matter from nothing

That's all it's meant to imply. The rest is still speculative and mostly the product of man made religion.

Sixth, there is completely broken logic in the idea of comparing a designed item against nature, which you are also claiming to be designed. If both the designed item and the natural item were designed, then there exists no distinction to be made between the designed artifact and the natural artifact.

It's just an example. But it implies that in fact there is no distinction between designed artifacts and natural. The distinction instead is in the designer. From that perspective, as you said above, perhaps if a creator exists, he is not the perfect god religion opines, but simply an existence above our own.

Have you read or seen Ken Miller's rebuttal of irreducible complexity?

eh i know the arguements

How did you possibly arrive at that conclusion? It is basically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, so we never say "Because you can't prove it to be wrong, it must be true". You must put forth a logical argument as to why evolution only makes sense if it is controlled by a higher being.

Are you listening to what you just said? Give me any statement you would consider "true" and i'll show you something you only say is true because you cannot prove otherwise.

You are engaging in a lot of hyperbole and appeal to emotion. It seems you are arguing that consciousness is the only thing that gives anything in life a reason to live. If so, I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.
Perhaps nothing at all "drove" the first living organism to eat. Again, please understand that being unable to understand how life began (or any particular idea) does not equate to demonstrating that evolution (or life) is driven by a god.

On what basis did you arrive at the position that it is an existence that shouldn't happen? That is the nature of perception. Certainly we are infants in our understanding of the universe, and absolutely there are many things which can and should be doubted (yet here you are certain of god's existence). We can, however, acquire a degree of operative certainty. Again, you are completely engaging in hyperbole (we shouldn't a conscious being exist?).

We shouldn't exist because every observable force in the universe opposes life. There are none that support it. Please don't respond with a statement referring to the fact that the earth supports life. things on earth die and everything is damaging to health. Every breath you take causes your body to decay. The earth is not a healthy cradling place but simply a less hostile place than others.