Evolution works in mysterious ways

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

And if they never reach that scale then those things cannot evolve, making my point precisely.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: I never said that they cannot reach that scale, just that they cannot reach that scale in one mutation. The fact that you thought that was an argument proves my point.

I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion

[Matthew Faithfull]

Thomas George wrote:

Any belief system that does not recognize the right of others to hold a different belief is undemocratic.

Agreed. I have no problem with that as religion is clearly more fundamental than democracy and believe me I'm a democrat.

Thomas George wrote:

People with differing beliefs cannot coexist without this imposition

They can as long as the belief systems include that you should treat others as well as yourself despite their lack of a right to behave the way they do and let God be their judge. Hence Christianity can co-exist peacefully for its part anywhere except in a radical post-modernist sciety which imposes it's belief that you should not actually beileve in your beliefs, i.e. you should live a lie and believe nothing. we have not quite reached that situation in the west yet but there are many who would welcome it.

Thomas George wrote:

There cannot be unrestricted freedom for everyone.

I think you mean license and no there can never be unrestricted license for everyone ever, anywhere, even in an entirely post-moderinst belief denying distopia.

Thomas George wrote:

That is exactly the problem with radical Islam

It is one of the problems with radical Islam a close second after it being completely wrong perhaps.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Matthew Faithfull]

No, I said they cannot reach that scale and you failed to provide any argument as to why they can. I never at any stage talked about them reaching that scale in one mutation that was your false assumption. You persist in the 'your an idiot' line of argument entirely at your own expense. It detracts from your already weak argument and just makes you look foolish.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

No, I said they cannot reach that scale and you failed to provide any argument as to why they can.

Yes, I did. But given the exponentially better odds of developing a small change that will be helpful, it is much more likely that this will happen. And by taking small steps this way, one small positive mutation "selected" by natural selection at a time, it is exponentially more likely that X will be reached then by one extremely lucky random mutation. And Wrong. If organisms with a certain small positive change are more likely to survive then ones without that change, over time organisms with that small mutation will be the norm in a species, then from there organisms with another positive change will be selected by natural selection the same way as before. It is not two random steps in the dark.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

. I never at any stage talked about them reaching that scale in one mutation that was your false assumption.

You said it was equally probable As you're clearly an expert tell me now, if a single step has a probability of X and another subsequent step a probability of Y. How do you calculate the probability of X occuring and then Y occuring. I look forward to seeing how this comes out as more probable than just X occuring Now I could keep on copying and pasting my rebuttals to your same argument that you will no doubt re-word again, but I am going to let you have the last word.

I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion

[Oakman]

Al Beback wrote:

Does that mean Eve got busy with her own sons

Nope. It turns out that there were some "Sons of men" living nearby for the "Sons of God" to cohabit with. No real explantion of where they came from - but then again there is some kind of a reference to Adam's first wife (Lilith) so maybe she had a litter.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Matthew Faithfull]

DemonPossessed wrote:

But given the exponentially better odds of developing a small change that will be helpful, it is much more likely that this will happen. And by taking small steps this way, one small positive mutation "selected" by natural selection at a time, it is exponentially more likely that X will be reached then by one extremely lucky random mutation.

Which is nonsense.

DemonPossessed wrote:

Wrong. If organisms with a certain small positive change are more likely to survive then ones without that change, over time organisms with that small mutation will be the norm in a species, then from there organisms with another positive change will be selected by natural selection the same way as before. It is not two random steps in the dark.

Which is also nonsense.

DemonPossessed wrote:

You said it was equally probable

No I did not. I asked you to admit that a long chain of contingent proababilities gets exponentially less likely with each step. You did not because that would mean macro evolution was impossible. There is no last word on this because you cannot accept that your religious faith in a discredited barmy theory is undermined. Say what you will, I have to get dinner. :)

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[73Zeppelin]

:rolleyes:

[73Zeppelin]

DemonPossessed wrote:

Obviously, I have been talking to Matthew Faithfull for a over an hour now and he still can't (or refuses to) grasp that natural selection is not random and that evolution does not deal with impossibly improbable single step changes.

Enjoyable isn't it?

[73Zeppelin]

I know you're trying to be civil. Don't say I didn't warn you when you get a reply.

[Christian Graus]

Well, that's a contradiction, evolution is the default position of an athiest, that goes without saying.

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

[Christian Graus]

Oakman wrote:

The quote regarding Giants is directly from the Bible, as I am sure you know.

Yes, I do know that. I meant the young earth bit. My point really, was that I saw in the paper that 'the platypus proves evolution'. It really doesn't. If you accept the basic premise then working within that premise, the platypus does not disprove it, and can be made to fit. The same is true for those who believe in a young earth ( I don't, as I think I made clear ). So, I guess my point was more about the media presenting things that people will blindly accept, that are plainly not true.

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

[Oakman]

Christian Graus wrote:

So, I guess my point was more about the media presenting things that people will blindly accept, that are plainly not true.

Absolutely. I have been twitting Mr. Faithful about his limited understanding of Evolution, but in fact the Creationists have no worse an understanding of the Theory of Evolution than the popular media - which seems to think that there is intelligent design, just done by a god named 'Evolution.' Their talk about higher beings and 'top of the evolutionary ladder,' etc. sounds like Revelations.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Christian Graus]

Yes, at the core, the main problem is that most people don't understand evolution at all - a recent issue of Scientific American talked about this at length. I am certain that most creationists are arguing with a straw man, not with what the theory actually states, and as certain that the man in the street thinks that what they argue against is true, that fish decide to grow legs, etc.

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

[DemonPossessed]

73Zeppelin wrote:

Enjoyable isn't it?

Absolutely. Ilion and Matthew Faithfull make up ridiculous arguments faster then someone can do the homework to prove them wrong and call rebuttals "nonsense" or "foolish" without any explanation. And they always pretend to be assumed right, and use that as a starting point for most of their "arguments".

I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion

[Ilion]

Paul Watson wrote:

Ilíon, please don't think that because I am an aethist that ...

I would be overjoyed to see you as a rational human being ... who happens to be massively incorrect on the single-most important question in life. But, there is history, you know. I'm thinking particularly about your reaction and behavior a few months ago when I used the specific occasion of the asteroid that either was or was not going to impact Mars as a small hammer with which to hit the nail of 'scientism.'

Paul Watson wrote:

... or that I have fellow atheists around me or ...

We all can see only what we can see. What I had seen of you so far was a typical "internet atheist" (that's the old-fashioned "village atheist" with an ethernet connection) who reacts practically automatically and generally predictably when certain hot-button issues are raised. If what I saw was incorrect, I am very glad to learn this. And, I am not a grudge-holder; I have no difficulty setting that past aside ... it's just that I hadn't yet seen a reason to think I ought to set it aside, I hadn't yet seen a reason to view you as other than another typical "internet atheist."

Paul Watson wrote:

I dislike radical atheists and dislike what many atheists are doing; repeating the mistakes of religion (radicalism, vitriol, arrogance, ignorance etc.)

And if you pay attention to me, you will find that I am "non-partisan:" I do not let fellow Christians off the hook when/if they argue illogically/irrationally. Though at the same time, in the context of CP's SoapBox, the illogic and irrationality comes almost exclusively from 1) anti-Christians, 2) those with leftish political opinions. [these two frequently overlap extensively]

Paul Watson wrote:

In the context of this thread Matthew said that I cannot be moral as I have no God to give me moral guidance. ...

No, that *isn't* what he said[^]. He certainly worded what he was saying very, very badly and sloppily ... though, even when it's phrased carefully and properly atheists rarely seem to get, or at

[Ilion]

73Zeppelin wrote:

I know you're trying to be civil.

Poor thing, always getting what he dishes out!

[RichardM1]

The 5 is for your signature. I laughed till I stopped :laugh:

Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

[Ilion]

You're going to have 4 kids: Paula, Paul, and the twins, Paulette and Pauline. ;) But seriously; sometime in the next couple of years, you're going to be watching your baby play (or playing directly with him or her), and a fierce love will overpower you. In that instant, for that instant at least, you will know that the whole point of the universe is that one instant and that one laughing baby. Of course, then you'll have to go back to being an atheist. But in that instant, you will be beyond both atheism and "theism;" you will be experiencing God, for God is Love. So, my request is that when/if this happens to you, and reqardless of how you "deal" with it, please let me know. Just knowing about the experience will be interesting to me. We'll just have to trust that HotMail doesn't toss the note into Junkmail (which I rarely check): ilion7@hotmail.com

[leckey 0]

That's kind of the point. Some religious people can't even fathom that evolution might be true. Why not have the other way?

I have a blog for those with a sense of humor. The codeword is "scuttlebutt." http://craptasticnation.blogspot.com/[^]

[RichardM1]

Ilíon wrote:

But, there is history, you know. I'm thinking particularly about your reaction and behavior a few months ago when I used the specific occasion of the asteroid that either was or was not going to impact Mars as a small hammer with which to hit the nail of 'scientism.'

Ilion. I am a card carrying fundy, who believes the Bible, as given by God, is true and without fault. Jesus died, personally, for all the sins that I, personally, committed. Accepting Him is my (or anyone else's) only way to be spared God's wrath. But you totally blew that asteroid thread. You showed no understanding of error in observation and how to account for it in modeling a situation. If God's glory is evidenced in His Creation, and you can't understand how to correctly observe His Creation, then you can not learn of Him through His Creation. God made statistics. Quantum theory is a pale attempt to explain how (not why) God's Creation works. Math, physics and engineering follow from God's work. They are not God's enemy, though the enemy uses them. The enemy uses religion, and hate, and anything else it can. So please stop picking on science, and assuming bad things about those, like Paul Watson, who support it.

Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.