Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: ~TW~ on October 12, 2015, 05:11:22 PM
-
Christians how often do you come across the clever chap who tells you,sorry mate forget Jesus/the bible/stop dreaming it's all a joke their is no God. He might ask "tell me how hot is hell " along with a string of daft quips.Just like you get on here.
Well I ask this type of person.----Tell me how did we get here ? Back comes the reply evolution mate,fact.
So I thought I would share some of the questions, I share with this type of person.So Christian friends tell me what you think of the questions and let me have yours.
Here is my first question.------------ If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
some of the questions are taken from other sites but a question is a question complicated or not so, complicated
what came first the chicken or the Egg So Christians over to you. What questions do you have that stump these people.
~TW~
ps I never get many answers back.
-
Christians how often do you come across the clever chap who tells you,sorry mate forget Jesus/the bible/stop dreaming it's all a joke their is no God. He might ask "tell me how hot is hell " along with a string of daft quips.Just like you get on here.
Well I ask this type of person.----Tell me how did we get here ? Back comes the reply evolution mate,fact.
So I thought I would share some of the questions, I share with this type of person.So Christian friends tell me what you think of the questions and let me have yours.
Here is my first question.------------ If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
some of the questions are taken from other sites but a question is a question complicated or not so, complicated
what came first the chicken or the Egg So Christians over to you. What questions do you have that stump these people.
~TW~
ps I never get many answers back.
Probably because not many take you seriously including other Christians! ::)
-
Like I said never get many answers back even easy ones So I think it might be good to dedicate this thread to the floos on this forum.
~TW~
-
You could be the poster child for who not to take seriously floo. (brother doli investigation Tom Ruffles)
-
TW
If it takes intelligence to create an arrow head, what intelligence created your god?
-
Spud,
If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
Evolution. It doesn't need an "intelligence" to occur.
Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
No, but nor would it need to for evolution to be true.
what came first the chicken or the Egg
Neither.
What questions do you have that stump these people.
None, but when questions are asked that are coherent and to which there is no answer available some people do more science to find out rather than call their ignorance "god" and worship it.
ps I never get many answers back.
You have now. You'd get more too no doubt if ever you bothered to find out what evolution and evolutionary theory actually entail rather than post questions based on your ignorance of both.
-
TW
If it takes intelligence to create an arrow head, what intelligence created your god?
So you agree evolution needs intelligence/ life/design.
~TW~
ps------------------ Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
-
TW,
So you agree evolution needs intelligence/ life/design.
No, which is why I said he exact opposite of that.
ps------------------ Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
First, those are separate matters to your ignorance about evolution.
Second, you're trying an argument from personal incredulity here and just special pleading "god" as the answer is logically hopeless.
Third, inasmuch as these things had to "come from" anywhere there are competing hypotheses about that that are being worked on as we speak. Why jump the gun and assert into existence an ancient superstition instead that you just happen to find comforting?
-
No Christian has ever answered the following question sensibly therefore they are wrong ' who does the voluntary hillbilly eat fourteen happily?'
-
Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
It must have, I mean we are here aren't we ? ;)
I like that one TW. How about where are all the transitional fossils?
-
No Christian has ever answered the following question sensibly therefore they are wrong ' who does the voluntary hillbilly eat fourteen happily?'
Now nearly sane that is not true --far from nearly sane would be better------- you implied that God needed to be created OK.Lets run through this a super intelligence creates a super intelligence now the first super Intelligence now shortened to S-I we have not heard from him but the 2nd S-I brings into being from outside of time,time and all we see thus we get creation In the Beginning God=S-I so creation.
I can go along with your suggestion which makes evolution null and void but according to you this S-I that exists has laid out terms which screws you up completely and your scape goat of evolution has gone,
So maybe another question to confirm I am right. Motors do not work until each radically different component is completely developed, in its precise place, and a compatible energy source is available. So how could a bacterial motor evolve?
Away now for football have fun.
~TW~
-
Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
It must have, I mean we are here aren't we ? ;)
I like that one TW. How about where are all the transitional fossils?
Bless you 2 Corrie keep it going football for me.
~TW~
-
TW, care to explain how 'who does the voluntary hillbilly eat fourteen happily?' imply anything about a god, whatever such a thing might be, would need to be created?
-
Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
It must have, I mean we are here aren't we ? ;)
I like that one TW. How about where are all the transitional fossils?
Bless you 2 Corrie keep it going football for me.
~TW~
Presumably Incredulity Rovers are playing tonight!
-
What's depressing is that these 'questions' which some Christians ask - where are all the transitional fossils? for example, are not genuine at all. They're dishonest. If they really wanted answers, they would go off and read or find some resources, where they might get an answer. But they don't.
Here is a question: why are some Christians so dishonest?
-
2Corrie my prophecy about not getting any answers from these eggheads seems to be spot on
eggheads try this--------------------- If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
Must go :)
~TW~
-
Another fake question from TW. He's not interested in the answer at all, hence 'must go'. He is always just about to go!
-
Once again we see Christians not only not answering the classic 'who does the voluntary hillbilly eat fourteen happily?' but even when they refer to it, they completely misrepresent what I have said.
-
Another fake question from TW. He's not interested in the answer at all, hence 'must go'. He is always just about to go!
Just going wiggs no point in waiting for answers from you.One for you wiggs Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
~TW~
-
Since you are still here TW any chance of explaining why you have completely misrepresented what I have said on this thread? Why did you do that?
-
Or indeed made a simplistic crack about my sanity?
-
Or indeed made a simplistic crack about my sanity?
Back for half hour your last two post are incomprehensible so more detail.I notice that you have been a bit slow along with your friends with answers,why am I not surprised.
~TW~
-
Or indeed made a simplistic crack about my sanity?
Back for half hour your last two post are incomprehensible so more detail.I notice that you have been a bit slow along with your friends with answers,why am I not surprised.
~TW~
It really isn't that hard, TW, where did my post imply anything about your god needing to be created which you have stated I implied? That's the third time I have asked you a simple question about you misrepresenting me
Why are you doing it? Is it simply that you are lying? Is it that you are so confused that you cannot work.out what is being said or who is saying it? Why did you make a simplistic joke about my sanity?
-
Or indeed made a simplistic crack about my sanity?
Back for half hour your last two post are incomprehensible so more detail.I notice that you have been a bit slow along with your friends with answers,why am I not surprised.
~TW~
It really isn't that hard, TW, where did my post imply anything about your god needing to be created which you have stated I implied? That's the third time I have asked you a simple question about you misrepresenting me
Why are you doing it? Is it simply that you are lying? Is it that you are so confused that you cannot work.out what is being said or who is saying it? Why did you make a simplistic joke about my sanity?
I am sorry it was Be Rational my mistake but as you can see I did accommodate his request and he seems to have fled.So once again my sincerest apologies.
Any way taking my stance of a S-I type 2 it still leaves evolution stuffed.
~TW~
-
Or indeed made a simplistic crack about my sanity?
Back for half hour your last two post are incomprehensible so more detail.I notice that you have been a bit slow along with your friends with answers,why am I not surprised.
~TW~
It really isn't that hard, TW, where did my post imply anything about your god needing to be created which you have stated I implied? That's the third time I have asked you a simple question about you misrepresenting me
Why are you doing it? Is it simply that you are lying? Is it that you are so confused that you cannot work.out what is being said or who is saying it? Why did you make a simplistic joke about my sanity?
I am sorry it was Be Rational my mistake but as you can see I did accommodate his request and he seems to have fled.So once again my sincerest apologies.
Any way taking my stance of a S-I type 2 it still leaves evolution stuffed.
~TW~
Has he fled? Or just gone for tea? This claiming people have fled or have list the argument or whatever because they haven't replied to one immediately or indeed at all, as you have not to my question, is specious, as the question was meant to show. Note that doesn't matter who does it, it is the tactic of the playground.
-
Here is my first question.------------ If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
If it takes intelligence to create a human why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a god?
Here comes the special pleading....
-
Here is my first question.------------ If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
If it takes intelligence to create a human why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a god?
Here comes the special pleading....
Ah its Junk Post ---------------------- What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
~TW~ away now for football
-
What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
You mean what evidence is there apart from the fact that us being here is testimony that something like that did happen?
What evidence is there that a god came from nothing?
-
Here is my first question.------------ If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
If it takes intelligence to create a human why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a god?
Here comes the special pleading....
Ah its Junk Post ---------------------- What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
~TW~ away now for football
Ah ! Well
Astronomers can get it wrong too.
They can initially get what think sounds like an intelligent signal only to find on a second look that it's source is perfectly natural and a feature of the natural universe.
Sometimes, until they can get more information they have to admit they don't know.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630153-600-is-this-et-mystery-of-strange-radio-bursts-from-space/
All to often religious people with their theology and the rest of it, forget to admit they don't know.
It almost as if admitting not knowing something, is shameful.
Which is why quite a number of religious people end up looking very silly.
Guesses are in time exposed for what they are, guesses.
History is littered with examples of religious guesses that were proved wrong, like the sun revolves around the earth etc etc.
That really is a daft answer,give up do some knitting.
~TW~
-
TW
What intelligence created your God?
-
TW
What intelligence created your God?
BR I see you have crept back When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Try that one.
~TW~
-
TW
What intelligence created your God?
BR I see you have crept back When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Try that one.
~TW~
I play sport every evening and have just returned not crept back.
In answer to your question I do not know. At the moment I do not think anyone knows. That does not mean you can just invent an answer.
You stated that it needed an intelligence to create an arrow head.
Using your logic your God must need an account intelligence to create it.
What intelligence created your God?
-
TW
What intelligence created your God?
BR I see you have crept back When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Try that one.
~TW~
I play sport every evening and have just returned not crept back.
In answer to your question I do not know. At the moment I do not think anyone knows. That does not mean you can just invent an answer.
You stated that it needed an intelligence to create an arrow head.
Using your logic your God must need an account intelligence to create it.
What intelligence created your God?
The same one that created the arrow head.
-
TW
What intelligence created your God?
BR I see you have crept back When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Try that one.
~TW~
I play sport every evening and have just returned not crept back.
In answer to your question I do not know. At the moment I do not think anyone knows. That does not mean you can just invent an answer.
You stated that it needed an intelligence to create an arrow head.
Using your logic your God must need an account intelligence to create it.
What intelligence created your God?
The same one that created the arrow head.
I agree.
-
TW
What intelligence created your God?
BR I see you have crept back When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Try that one.
~TW~
I play sport every evening and have just returned not crept back.
In answer to your question I do not know. At the moment I do not think anyone knows. That does not mean you can just invent an answer.
You stated that it needed an intelligence to create an arrow head.
Using your logic your God must need an account intelligence to create it.
What intelligence created your God?
The same one that created the arrow head.
I agree.
BR the reply to your daft question appeared in reply 11 one thing is certain you never invented the arrow head it seems to be to advanced for you.
But this thread is for Christians to share their questions they use to counter people like you,and so far none have been answered by people like you,not that we want answers.
We know full well you have no answers,all we are showing is you and others have no facts to back up what you say is a fact.
The cult of the JW's operate similar they call it theocratic lying, it means they are told to give out mis information to protect their errors.
So we do understand your problems. Any way Christians another question to use try this one
How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?
~TW~
-
How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life?
~TW~
Chemistry is not blind, dear boy! All chemicals obey the natural laws by which they are governed. Evolution is the result of them.
The only purpose or meaning to human life is that which the more intelligent people give it.
Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?
Students should be learning to live their lives in the best way possible as members of a social species.
-
TW
Can you answer the question about your god needing a creating intelligence if an arrow head does?
-
Here is my first question.------------ If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
It doesn't take intelligence to make an arrowhead - any sharp stick will do. You can refine that with intelligence, certainly. My question for you - if it takes more intelligence to create a human than an arrowhead, how much more intelligence still does it take to create the intelligence that creates humans, and how much more to create that, and on and on and on...
Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
After a fashion, yes. The evidence shows that hydrogen was one stage through which the universe passed between inception and humans. If you were to recreate those conditions enough times, certainly something would emerge - it would be unlikely to be exactly humans, the mutation element of evolution being essentially random, but with enough opportunities, yes, something would be equivalent to humanity at a certain stage.
what came first the chicken or the Egg
The egg. Every chicken has been an egg at some point. The first creature identifiable as a chicken evolved from earlier creatures which were already egg-laying. Chickens came a long, long, long time later. Fish lay eggs, and fish predate the dinosaurs.
O.
-
Christians as you can see BR and OR are both stuck in a groove,for example { If you were to recreate those conditions enough times,}
the problem here is you need intelligence not chance or accidents to recreate those conditions,creation is far more complicated.
Plus we start with nothing so how does one recreate nothing.
~TW~
-
Christians as you can see BR and OR are both stuck in a groove,for example { If you were to recreate those conditions enough times,}
the problem here is you need intelligence not chance or accidents to recreate those conditions,creation is far more complicated.
Why do you need intelligence? Where have you demonstrated this? Evolution is not 'chance or accidents', it's selection of variation (that the variation comes about primarily through random mutation does not make the overall process random). You've asserted that creation (a loaded term in the first place) is complicated, but is it? All of Earthly life is programmed into four different molecules: not just human life, all life on the planet.
Plus we start with nothing so how does one recreate nothing.
Firstly, we do not know for sure what we start with. Secondly, what you consider to be 'nothing' is an unstable quantum foam which continuously fluctuates into and out of small quantities of matter and anti-matter (although it's difficult to accurately convey exactly how that 'fluctuation' occurs in the absence of time - it's a mathematical conceptual fluctuation).
Can I suggest that rather than continue to tilt at Quixotic straw windmills you actually learn something about evolution and/or cosmology?
I can recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Professor Richard Dawkins as an excellent account of how evolution can generate apparent complexity, and 'A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss which explains the origin state that is generally held to be the conditions in which the inception of our universe occurred.
O.
-
Christians as you can see BR and OR are both stuck in a groove,for example { If you were to recreate those conditions enough times,}
the problem here is you need intelligence not chance or accidents to recreate those conditions,creation is far more complicated.
Why do you need intelligence? Where have you demonstrated this? Evolution is not 'chance or accidents', it's selection of variation (that the variation comes about primarily through random mutation does not make the overall process random). You've asserted that creation (a loaded term in the first place) is complicated, but is it? All of Earthly life is programmed into four different molecules: not just human life, all life on the planet.
Plus we start with nothing so how does one recreate nothing.
Firstly, we do not know for sure what we start with. Secondly, what you consider to be 'nothing' is an unstable quantum foam which continuously fluctuates into and out of small quantities of matter and anti-matter (although it's difficult to accurately convey exactly how that 'fluctuation' occurs in the absence of time - it's a mathematical conceptual fluctuation).
Can I suggest that rather than continue to tilt at Quixotic straw windmills you actually learn something about evolution and/or cosmology?
I can recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Professor Richard Dawkins as an excellent account of how evolution can generate apparent complexity, and 'A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss which explains the origin state that is generally held to be the conditions in which the inception of our universe occurred.
O.
So christian friends no answers from them no facts.
~TW~
-
Christians as you can see BR and OR are both stuck in a groove,for example { If you were to recreate those conditions enough times,}
the problem here is you need intelligence not chance or accidents to recreate those conditions,creation is far more complicated.
Why do you need intelligence? Where have you demonstrated this? Evolution is not 'chance or accidents', it's selection of variation (that the variation comes about primarily through random mutation does not make the overall process random). You've asserted that creation (a loaded term in the first place) is complicated, but is it? All of Earthly life is programmed into four different molecules: not just human life, all life on the planet.
Plus we start with nothing so how does one recreate nothing.
Firstly, we do not know for sure what we start with. Secondly, what you consider to be 'nothing' is an unstable quantum foam which continuously fluctuates into and out of small quantities of matter and anti-matter (although it's difficult to accurately convey exactly how that 'fluctuation' occurs in the absence of time - it's a mathematical conceptual fluctuation).
Can I suggest that rather than continue to tilt at Quixotic straw windmills you actually learn something about evolution and/or cosmology?
I can recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Professor Richard Dawkins as an excellent account of how evolution can generate apparent complexity, and 'A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss which explains the origin state that is generally held to be the conditions in which the inception of our universe occurred.
O.
So christian friends no answers from them no facts.
~TW~
Actually you have been given lots of answers.
The fact you ignore them or do not understand them is another thing.
You have failed to answer why your god would not need an intelligent designer?
-
Christians as you can see BR and OR are both stuck in a groove,for example { If you were to recreate those conditions enough times,}
the problem here is you need intelligence not chance or accidents to recreate those conditions,creation is far more complicated.
Why do you need intelligence? Where have you demonstrated this? Evolution is not 'chance or accidents', it's selection of variation (that the variation comes about primarily through random mutation does not make the overall process random). You've asserted that creation (a loaded term in the first place) is complicated, but is it? All of Earthly life is programmed into four different molecules: not just human life, all life on the planet.
Plus we start with nothing so how does one recreate nothing.
Firstly, we do not know for sure what we start with. Secondly, what you consider to be 'nothing' is an unstable quantum foam which continuously fluctuates into and out of small quantities of matter and anti-matter (although it's difficult to accurately convey exactly how that 'fluctuation' occurs in the absence of time - it's a mathematical conceptual fluctuation).
Can I suggest that rather than continue to tilt at Quixotic straw windmills you actually learn something about evolution and/or cosmology?
I can recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Professor Richard Dawkins as an excellent account of how evolution can generate apparent complexity, and 'A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss which explains the origin state that is generally held to be the conditions in which the inception of our universe occurred.
O.
So christian friends no answers from them no facts.
~TW~
Actually you have been given lots of answers.
The fact you ignore them or do not understand them is another thing.
You have failed to answer why your god would not need an intelligent designer?
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
~TW~
-
Christians as you can see BR and OR are both stuck in a groove,for example { If you were to recreate those conditions enough times,}
the problem here is you need intelligence not chance or accidents to recreate those conditions,creation is far more complicated.
Why do you need intelligence? Where have you demonstrated this? Evolution is not 'chance or accidents', it's selection of variation (that the variation comes about primarily through random mutation does not make the overall process random). You've asserted that creation (a loaded term in the first place) is complicated, but is it? All of Earthly life is programmed into four different molecules: not just human life, all life on the planet.
Plus we start with nothing so how does one recreate nothing.
Firstly, we do not know for sure what we start with. Secondly, what you consider to be 'nothing' is an unstable quantum foam which continuously fluctuates into and out of small quantities of matter and anti-matter (although it's difficult to accurately convey exactly how that 'fluctuation' occurs in the absence of time - it's a mathematical conceptual fluctuation).
Can I suggest that rather than continue to tilt at Quixotic straw windmills you actually learn something about evolution and/or cosmology?
I can recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Professor Richard Dawkins as an excellent account of how evolution can generate apparent complexity, and 'A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss which explains the origin state that is generally held to be the conditions in which the inception of our universe occurred.
O.
So christian friends no answers from them no facts.
~TW~
Actually you have been given lots of answers.
The fact you ignore them or do not understand them is another thing.
You have failed to answer why your god would not need an intelligent designer?
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
~TW~
Who created your deity?
-
Christians as you can see BR and OR are both stuck in a groove,for example { If you were to recreate those conditions enough times,}
the problem here is you need intelligence not chance or accidents to recreate those conditions,creation is far more complicated.
Plus we start with nothing so how does one recreate nothing.
~TW~
How do you know we start with nothing?
What created your god from nothing?
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
The fairy tales in the Bible are more like those produced by the Brothers Grimm, as most of them are not very pleasant!
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
The fairy tales in the Bible are more like those produced by the Brothers Grimm, as most of them are not very pleasant!
But still the domain of the simple-minded, hence the attraction for atheists.
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
Jesus is a fairy story for adults.
Idiots like yourself who know little or nothing of how to evaluate evidence fall for it like the fool you are.
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
Jesus is a fairy story for adults.
Idiots like yourself who know little or nothing of how to evaluate evidence fall for it like the fool you are.
People with far, far, far, greater brains then you disagree,and with not one answer, from you,--you are pot-less
I know it you know it not a scrap of evidence.
~TW~
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
Jesus is a fairy story for adults.
Idiots like yourself who know little or nothing of how to evaluate evidence fall for it like the fool you are.
People with far, far, far, greater brains then you disagree,and with not one answer, from you,--you are pot-less
I know it you know it not a scrap of evidence.
~TW~
And people with far far greater intelligence than them disagree.
You have zero evidence for your position and you completely misunderstand the burden of proof.
This alone means you are not intelligent enough to discuss these topics.
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
Jesus is a fairy story for adults.
Idiots like yourself who know little or nothing of how to evaluate evidence fall for it like the fool you are.
People with far, far, far, greater brains then you disagree,and with not one answer, from you,--you are pot-less
I know it you know it not a scrap of evidence.
~TW~
And people with far far greater intelligence than them disagree.
You have zero evidence for your position and you completely misunderstand the burden of proof.
This alone means you are not intelligent enough to discuss these topics.
the only problem with what you say is according to many .Those that believe in this fairy story and say it is true do not want to talk about.
Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate?
also if I said to you I want to believe what you believe and ask you a question like this
. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?"
And you have no answers except I must believe it because you are unhappy about the prospects of hell.
so not the best answer from you.
~TW~
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
Jesus is a fairy story for adults.
Idiots like yourself who know little or nothing of how to evaluate evidence fall for it like the fool you are.
People with far, far, far, greater brains then you disagree,and with not one answer, from you,--you are pot-less
I know it you know it not a scrap of evidence.
~TW~
And people with far far greater intelligence than them disagree.
You have zero evidence for your position and you completely misunderstand the burden of proof.
This alone means you are not intelligent enough to discuss these topics.
the only problem with what you say is according to many .Those that believe in this fairy story and say it is true do not want to talk about.
Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate?
also if I said to you I want to believe what you believe and ask you a question like this
. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?"
And you have no answers except I must believe it because you are unhappy about the prospects of hell.
so not the best answer from you.
~TW~
Hell couldn't be any worse than Heaven with the Bible deity ruling the roost!
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
Jesus is a fairy story for adults.
Idiots like yourself who know little or nothing of how to evaluate evidence fall for it like the fool you are.
People with far, far, far, greater brains then you disagree,and with not one answer, from you,--you are pot-less
I know it you know it not a scrap of evidence.
~TW~
And people with far far greater intelligence than them disagree.
You have zero evidence for your position and you completely misunderstand the burden of proof.
This alone means you are not intelligent enough to discuss these topics.
the only problem with what you say is according to many .Those that believe in this fairy story and say it is true do not want to talk about.
Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate?
also if I said to you I want to believe what you believe and ask you a question like this
. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?"
And you have no answers except I must believe it because you are unhappy about the prospects of hell.
so not the best answer from you.
~TW~
The Big Bang as far as I am aware was NOT an explosion.
So the rest of your question is irrelevant.
Sean Carroll describes it as low entropy event, in possibly an eternal universe.
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
Jesus is a fairy story for adults.
Idiots like yourself who know little or nothing of how to evaluate evidence fall for it like the fool you are.
If I am a fool, then you are off the scale for foolishness. Anyone who discusses a serious subject in the vocabulary of the nursery (ie, "fairy stories") is of poor intellect, to say the least.
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
Jesus is a fairy story for adults.
Idiots like yourself who know little or nothing of how to evaluate evidence fall for it like the fool you are.
If I am a fool, then you are off the scale for foolishness. Anyone who discusses a serious subject in the vocabulary of the nursery (ie, "fairy stories") is of poor intellect, to say the least.
You may well be, but treating as myth when no evidence is offered is completely the CORRECT way to deal with it.
For me to treat it as myth and as a fairy story for gullible frightened adults is the correct thing to do.
-
TW
The questions are for you BR you believe in the fairy story that nothing made itself.
You are the one here believing fairy stories!
A true fairy story is: "a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." I suppose that's why you find them attractive, being of a simple nature yourself. :)
Jesus is a fairy story for adults.
Idiots like yourself who know little or nothing of how to evaluate evidence fall for it like the fool you are.
If I am a fool, then you are off the scale for foolishness. Anyone who discusses a serious subject in the vocabulary of the nursery (ie, "fairy stories") is of poor intellect, to say the least.
You may well be, but treating as myth when no evidence is offered is completely the CORRECT way to deal with it.
For me to treat it as myth and as a fairy story for gullible frightened adults is the correct thing to do.
It is not a question of "right" with you: it is a question of airing your obsession, and in an infantile and totally tedious manner.
-
Christians as you can see BR and OR are both stuck in a groove,for example { If you were to recreate those conditions enough times,}
the problem here is you need intelligence not chance or accidents to recreate those conditions,creation is far more complicated.
Why do you need intelligence? Where have you demonstrated this? Evolution is not 'chance or accidents', it's selection of variation (that the variation comes about primarily through random mutation does not make the overall process random). You've asserted that creation (a loaded term in the first place) is complicated, but is it? All of Earthly life is programmed into four different molecules: not just human life, all life on the planet.
Plus we start with nothing so how does one recreate nothing.
Firstly, we do not know for sure what we start with. Secondly, what you consider to be 'nothing' is an unstable quantum foam which continuously fluctuates into and out of small quantities of matter and anti-matter (although it's difficult to accurately convey exactly how that 'fluctuation' occurs in the absence of time - it's a mathematical conceptual fluctuation).
Can I suggest that rather than continue to tilt at Quixotic straw windmills you actually learn something about evolution and/or cosmology?
I can recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Professor Richard Dawkins as an excellent account of how evolution can generate apparent complexity, and 'A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss which explains the origin state that is generally held to be the conditions in which the inception of our universe occurred.
O.
So christian friends no answers from them no facts.
~TW~
Can I recommend that you try reading the posts to which you are responding - it might make you look less of a fool.
O.
-
the only problem with what you say is according to many .Those that believe in this fairy story and say it is true do not want to talk about.
Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate?
They have. They do. It's the nature of science, that scientists have scientific debates. The reason no scientists are having debates about whether evolution is true or not is because evolution is an observed phenomenon, there is no doubt about the fact that it happens. Scientists do have debates about how evolution happens all the time; every time a scientific paper is published that comments on an aspect, other scientists review it and discuss the findings.
What you mean is 'Why aren't evolution scientists debating with Creationist crackpots'? For the same reason they aren't debating with primary school children, weasels or rock-formations - there is no prospect of a scientifically meaningful input.
also if I said to you I want to believe what you believe and ask you a question like this
. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from?
There is no 'information' in us, there is data in us - there is data in everything. Data become information when it is interpreted within a given reference frame, that's fundamental to information theory.
Has an explosion ever produced order?
Do you think that the big bang was an explosion?
Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?"
Sir Isaac Newton was, without doubt, one of the pioneering genuises of science, but he was not without flaws - a considerable portion of his work was done in alchemy, for instance. To presume that everything Newton proffered is automatically right is fall prey to the argument from authority: Newton is regarded for his successful work because it stands up for itself, it is not regarded because Newton produced it.
And you have no answers except I must believe it because you are unhappy about the prospects of hell.
So we don't believe in your baseless explanation of the origins of reality because we fear the results of that explanation that we don't believe? You've just produced a circular argument that actually disproves itself, which is a special achievement all of its own. We have answers, you just don't like them.
O.
-
Sorry not much point in answering really let me sum it up a large universe teeming with life you tell us been their billions of years yet you cant produce any.
and you never will. :) And the problems that have been produced with a world billions of years old are placed out of sight out of mind.
~TW~
-
Sorry not much point in answering really let me sum it up a large universe teeming with life you tell us been their billions of years yet you cant produce any.
A large universe? Compared to what?
Teeming with life - in the entire univere we know of one planet, so far, where life has emerged - hardly 'teeming'.
Why does it surprise you that life that took billions of years to come about on the one instance we know about has not happened again in billions more? Could it be that you have an inadequate grasp of probability, perhaps?
and you never will. :) And the problems that have been produced with a world billions of years old are placed out of sight out of mind.
Which problems would they be? THey're out of my sight and mind because no-one's raised them.
O.
-
Sorry not much point in answering really ...
That does sum it up really. There is no point posting the same explanations over and over again as you take no notice and continue with your misunderstandings of the Big Bang, Evolution by Natural Selection and science in general.
-
Sorry not much point in answering really ...
That does sum it up really. There is no point posting the same explanations over and over again as you take no notice and continue with your misunderstandings of the Big Bang, Evolution by Natural Selection and science in general.
Forget the big bang that is your idea and it has been rejected it was a theory and it failed,
I am not posting explanations that is your job.And Natural selection has a key word information so what intelligence decides the information is it accidental.
~TW~
-
Forget the big bang that is your idea and it has been rejected it was a theory and it failed,
No, it wasn't my idea, though I accept that it's a decent explanation as far as it goes. No, it hasn't been rejected, at least not by any with any foundation for doing so, because no, it hasn't 'failed' to explain the available evidence.
Nil for three, that's not a good performance.
I am not posting explanations that is your job.
So you admit that you're just pulling assertions out of your arse and throwing them at the screen? "That which can be asserted without evidence...".
And Natural selection has a key word information so what intelligence decides the information is it accidental.
No, natural selection doesn't operate at the information level, it operates at the organism level - that selection has a knock-on effect at the DATA level, there is no information within the system, there is only data that is interpreted as information after the fact. I keep pointing you in the direction of learning something about Information Theory if you're going to keep spouting off about information, and you keep persisting in your wilful ignorance.
O.
-
Sorry not much point in answering really ...
That does sum it up really. There is no point posting the same explanations over and over again as you take no notice and continue with your misunderstandings of the Big Bang, Evolution by Natural Selection and science in general.
Forget the big bang that is your idea and it has been rejected it was a theory and it failed,
Nope.
I am not posting explanations that is your job.
As I say, no point. Explanations have been posted many times and you have ever ignored them or not understood them.
And Natural selection has a key word information so what intelligence decides the information is it accidental.
This has been explained many times and you either ignore it or don't understand it. Which is it?
-
:) This has been explained many times and you either ignore it or don't understand it. Which is it?
--------------------------------------
Try explaining it.
~TW~
-
:) This has been explained many times and you either ignore it or don't understand it. Which is it?
--------------------------------------
Try explaining it.
~TW~
Try looking back at previous threads - its all been covered. And if anyone wastes their time explaining it on this thread you'll just wait awhile then pop up with the same 'questions', plus lots of smilies of course. I'm sure we've all got better things to be doing with our time.
-
:) This has been explained many times and you either ignore it or don't understand it. Which is it?
--------------------------------------
Try explaining it.
~TW~
Here we go... again...
Evolution - the observed phenomena of organisms gaining, changing or losing traits over generations.
The Theory of Evolution - the post-Darwinian theory that suggests the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs via natural selection acting upon otherwise random variation within communities of a given species to favour those traits which give a competitive (i.e. reproductive) advantage within a given environment.
Natural Selection - the process whereby circumstance favours the continuance of traits that offer an advantage to a species in a given environment: i.e. traits which make it more likely an individual will feed, survive and/or reproduce, leading to those traits being preserved in the descendant generations.
Random variation - the emergence of minor (and very occasionally significant) differences between individuals and their offspring.
Natural selection acts upon random variation (which we now know to be primarily genetic in origin) to lead communities of an organism towards localised optimisation. Where different environments place different selective pressures on communities of similar organisms then the communities tend to diverge until they are sufficiently different that we classify them as different species - this is called 'speciation'.
Now, which part of this is that you either a) still don't grasp or b) think you have a reason to discredit?
O.
-
Unless evolution fits in with the Biblical creation fairy tale, the likes of TW are going to dismiss it! ::)
-
Unless evolution fits in with the Biblical creation fairy tale, the likes of TW are going to dismiss it! ::)
Which they can if they wish, but what they can't do is claim that it's been disproven or debunked until and unless that actually happens - to the best of my current knowledge, that hasn't happened yet, and I'm not expecting it to happen now, but the spirit of scientific enquiry is that the status quo is always open to challenge.
O.
-
:) This has been explained many times and you either ignore it or don't understand it. Which is it?
--------------------------------------
Try explaining it.
~TW~
Here we go... again...
Evolution - the observed phenomena of organisms gaining, changing or losing traits over generations.
The Theory of Evolution - the post-Darwinian theory that suggests the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs via natural selection acting upon otherwise random variation within communities of a given species to favour those traits which give a competitive (i.e. reproductive) advantage within a given environment.
Natural Selection - the process whereby circumstance favours the continuance of traits that offer an advantage to a species in a given environment: i.e. traits which make it more likely an individual will feed, survive and/or reproduce, leading to those traits being preserved in the descendant generations.
Random variation - the emergence of minor (and very occasionally significant) differences between individuals and their offspring.
Natural selection acts upon random variation (which we now know to be primarily genetic in origin) to lead communities of an organism towards localised optimisation. Where different environments place different selective pressures on communities of similar organisms then the communities tend to diverge until they are sufficiently different that we classify them as different species - this is called 'speciation'.
Now, which part of this is that you either a) still don't grasp or b) think you have a reason to discredit?
O.
Try this http://creation.com/attenborough-darwin-tree
~TW~
-
From the What We Believe page of that website:
'..... no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.'
Always worth bearing in mind.
-
From the What We Believe page of that website:
'..... no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.'
Always worth bearing in mind.
:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cns_J5qFLDc
~TW~
-
:) This has been explained many times and you either ignore it or don't understand it. Which is it?
--------------------------------------
Try explaining it.
~TW~
Here we go... again...
Evolution - the observed phenomena of organisms gaining, changing or losing traits over generations.
The Theory of Evolution - the post-Darwinian theory that suggests the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs via natural selection acting upon otherwise random variation within communities of a given species to favour those traits which give a competitive (i.e. reproductive) advantage within a given environment.
Natural Selection - the process whereby circumstance favours the continuance of traits that offer an advantage to a species in a given environment: i.e. traits which make it more likely an individual will feed, survive and/or reproduce, leading to those traits being preserved in the descendant generations.
Random variation - the emergence of minor (and very occasionally significant) differences between individuals and their offspring.
Natural selection acts upon random variation (which we now know to be primarily genetic in origin) to lead communities of an organism towards localised optimisation. Where different environments place different selective pressures on communities of similar organisms then the communities tend to diverge until they are sufficiently different that we classify them as different species - this is called 'speciation'.
Now, which part of this is that you either a) still don't grasp or b) think you have a reason to discredit?
O.
Try this http://creation.com/attenborough-darwin-tree
~TW~
Why, it's repeatedly debunked lies, misrepresentation, selectively misquoted nonsense and ad hominem attacks, which even within its own pages accepts all the elements of the Theory of Evolution depicted above but then claims that it didn't happen. Why don't YOU try explaining what YOU think is the problem, seeing as I went to the effort of actually responding to your challenge.
Anyway, here you go:
“He called the process ‘natural selection’. That would explain the differences that he had noted in the finches that he had brought back from the Galápagos.”
Not correct on two counts:
Darwin did not originate the term ‘natural selection’.
No-one said he did - he defined it in a way that hadn't been popularised before, and he did so within a work that explained why that was a vital element in evolution and the presence of the vast diversity of species in the world.
Darwin did not note any differences in the finches he collected in the Galápagos Islands, as his biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore point out. They wrote:
In all, he [Darwin] shot six types of finches from three islands, and his samples from two of these were mixed together. … he had tagged his specimens in a desultory manner and had rarely bothered to label by island. It had not seemed important.2
He remained confused by the Galápagos finches, believing that they fed indiscriminately together, unaware of the importance of their different beaks. Come to that, he still had trouble identifying the species, or their locations; and he still thought that his collection contained finches, wrens, ‘Grossbeaks’, and ‘Icteruses’ (blackbird-relatives). He had no sense of a single, closely related group becoming specialized and adapted to different environmental niches. The birds did not seem that important when he donated them to the Zoological Society, rather badly labelled, on the 4th [January 1837].
From the Wikipedia entry on 'Darwin's Finches' (accessed 15/10/15)
"Darwin had been in Cambridge at that time. In early March, he met Gould again and for the first time got a full report on the findings, including the point that his Galápagos "wren" was another closely allied species of finch. The mockingbirds that Darwin had labelled by island were separate species rather than just varieties. Gould found more species than Darwin had expected,[11] and concluded that 25 of the 26 land birds were new and distinct forms, found nowhere else in the world but closely allied to those found on the South American continent.[10] Darwin now saw that, if the finch species were confined to individual islands, like the mockingbirds, this would help to account for the number of species on the islands, and he sought information from others on the expedition. Specimens had also been collected by Captain Robert FitzRoy, FitzRoy’s steward Harry Fuller and Darwin's servant Covington, who had labelled them by island.[12] From these, Darwin tried to reconstruct the locations from where he had collected his own specimens. The conclusions supported his idea of the transmutation of species."
So no, at the time, not being an ornithologist and not having formulated his theory, he didn't place any particular significance on them. Later, though, with more data... he produced a world-changing scientific theory that has been repeatedly validated over the following century.
However, this is what biblical creationists (both before and after Darwin) believe happened, not as the result of evolution but as a consequence of Noah’s Flood and the subsequent migration of animals (including birds) via continents and islands, following their disembarkation from the Ark on the mountains of Ararat.
There is no evidence of a world-wide flood. Geological, anthropological and cultural evidence suggests that humankind has been around for more than 6000 years. Genetic morphology suggests that humanity has existed for tens or hundreds of thousands of years (depending on the exact cut off in the tree that you consider to be humanity). Archaeological evidence shows that life has been around for billions of years. The distribution of life-forms is not consistent with a six-thousand year diaspora from the middle-
East, but it is consistent with the geological model of plate tectonics splitting a supercontinent around 200 million years ago.
Genetic comparison shows, for instance, that the orders Felidae ("The 41 known cat species in the world today are all descended from the same ancestor.[1] Cats originated in Asia and spread across continents by crossing land bridges. Testing of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA revealed that the ancient cats evolved into eight main lineages that diverged in the course of at least 10 migrations" - Wikipedia 'Felidae') and Canidae (Dogs and wolves) split around 50 million years ago from a common ancestor ('Canids have a long evolutionary history. In the Eocene, about 50 million years ago, the carnivorans split into two lineages, the caniforms (dog-like) and feliforms (cat-like). By the Oligocene, some ten million years later, the first proper canids had appeared and the family had split into three subfamilies, Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae, and Caninae. Only the last of these has survived until the present day.' Wikipedia - 'Canids')
Suppose some finches with the genetic information for a wide variety of beaks came to the islands in a storm. And that some were on an island where the main food source was hard seeds. Birds with genes for thick and strong beaks could cope with them better, so would be better fed, and thus more likely to leave offspring. But birds on an island with few seeds but lots of grubs would do better with longer and thinner beaks, so they could poke deeper into the ground and pull out their prey.
This is indeed an example of adaptation and natural selection. But note that it actually removes alleles (gene variant) from the populations—on seed-rich islands with few grubs, information for long slender beaks would likely be lost; while the information for thick strong beaks would be lost on grub-rich (seed-poor) islands.
Sarfati's hypothesis is perfectly valid, but there is no evidence for a species with all this genetic capacity. Given that the genes that control beak-form all occupy the same spaces on comparative genomes from finch species to finch species, there would have to be a markedly different gene structure on any predecessor according to Sarfati's idea, which would have meant that the first selected bird wouldn't have been able to successfully breed with any others and the species would have died out.
So this change is in the opposite direction from goo-to-you evolution, which requires new genes with new information.
No, evolution does not require new genes or new information - it requires new data, which we see in random mutation of existing genes. There is no information until the data is processed.
It can hardly be over-emphasized: natural selection is not evolution;
Nobody ever said it was - natural selection over time operating on variation leads to evolution. Evolution is the observed phenomenon.
Readers may be surprised to know that some evolutionists are now rejecting the concept of the evolutionary tree of life, as indicated by the cover story of New Scientist 24 January 2009. According to New Scientist Features Editor Graham Lawton (p. 34): “The tree of life … has turned out to be a figment of our imagination.”
Yes... and no. The idea of common ancestry is not the part that's being revised, the part that's being revised is the idea that branches, once separated, remain independent. There is evidence that, particularly in the interactions between unicellular life such as bacteria and more complicated lifeforms, that traits are acquired from other species and passed on, resulting in a form of merging of branches.
Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present. For example, if there are no genes present for producing feathers, you could breed reptiles for a billion years and you would never get feathers.
Except that, with time, we see viable structural changes to genetic structure of organisms and to gene sequencing. Purely as an example, the condition known Down Syndrome is caused by a third copy of an entire chromosome. This is a rather drastic variation, but nevertheless biologically viable and a demonstration of how genetic structure can alter and then be subject to selective pressures which could result in novel features.
Humans can and do produce different breeds of dogs or cattle or horses, etc., but such artificial selection proceeds in the same way as natural selection, i.e. by removing genes.
No, natural selection and artificial selection do not work by 'removing genes'. They work by concentrating particular variants of specific genes to reduce variety.
...and why is this done? For no other reason, I am sure, than to make us independent of a Creator.
Sedgewick is entitled to his opinion, but Darwin's own words suggest that he published because, as a scientist, he though that the evidence supported the idea and it should be discussed.
Why “imaginary illustrations”? Well, when you can’t cite a single real-life example of natural selection producing anything new, the only resources left are imaginary ones.
As we now have sufficient evidence to know that evolution occurs over thousands of generations, which can take tens of thousands of years with macroscopic organisms, that's hardly a surprise. The theory stands, though, on the evidence presented at the time, and has been vindicated by experiments and observations of rapidly reproducing organisms where evolution has been observed to occur.
There's more crap about 'transitional species', but frankly I'm bored with the deceit, ignorance and futile self-indulgence.
Evolution is a fact, we see it happening. The theory of evolution is remarkably well-attested, widely tested and fantastically capable explanation of how evolution happens.
O.
-
:) This has been explained many times and you either ignore it or don't understand it. Which is it?
--------------------------------------
Try explaining it.
~TW~
Here we go... again...
Evolution - the observed phenomena of organisms gaining, changing or losing traits over generations.
The Theory of Evolution - the post-Darwinian theory that suggests the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs via natural selection acting upon otherwise random variation within communities of a given species to favour those traits which give a competitive (i.e. reproductive) advantage within a given environment.
Natural Selection - the process whereby circumstance favours the continuance of traits that offer an advantage to a species in a given environment: i.e. traits which make it more likely an individual will feed, survive and/or reproduce, leading to those traits being preserved in the descendant generations.
Random variation - the emergence of minor (and very occasionally significant) differences between individuals and their offspring.
Natural selection acts upon random variation (which we now know to be primarily genetic in origin) to lead communities of an organism towards localised optimisation. Where different environments place different selective pressures on communities of similar organisms then the communities tend to diverge until they are sufficiently different that we classify them as different species - this is called 'speciation'.
Now, which part of this is that you either a) still don't grasp or b) think you have a reason to discredit?
O.
Try this http://creation.com/attenborough-darwin-tree
~TW~
Why, it's repeatedly debunked lies, misrepresentation, selectively misquoted nonsense and ad hominem attacks, which even within its own pages accepts all the elements of the Theory of Evolution depicted above but then claims that it didn't happen. Why don't YOU try explaining what YOU think is the problem, seeing as I went to the effort of actually responding to your challenge.
Anyway, here you go:
“He called the process ‘natural selection’. That would explain the differences that he had noted in the finches that he had brought back from the Galápagos.”
Not correct on two counts:
Darwin did not originate the term ‘natural selection’.
No-one said he did - he defined it in a way that hadn't been popularised before, and he did so within a work that explained why that was a vital element in evolution and the presence of the vast diversity of species in the world.
Darwin did not note any differences in the finches he collected in the Galápagos Islands, as his biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore point out. They wrote:
In all, he [Darwin] shot six types of finches from three islands, and his samples from two of these were mixed together. … he had tagged his specimens in a desultory manner and had rarely bothered to label by island. It had not seemed important.2
He remained confused by the Galápagos finches, believing that they fed indiscriminately together, unaware of the importance of their different beaks. Come to that, he still had trouble identifying the species, or their locations; and he still thought that his collection contained finches, wrens, ‘Grossbeaks’, and ‘Icteruses’ (blackbird-relatives). He had no sense of a single, closely related group becoming specialized and adapted to different environmental niches. The birds did not seem that important when he donated them to the Zoological Society, rather badly labelled, on the 4th [January 1837].
From the Wikipedia entry on 'Darwin's Finches' (accessed 15/10/15)
"Darwin had been in Cambridge at that time. In early March, he met Gould again and for the first time got a full report on the findings, including the point that his Galápagos "wren" was another closely allied species of finch. The mockingbirds that Darwin had labelled by island were separate species rather than just varieties. Gould found more species than Darwin had expected,[11] and concluded that 25 of the 26 land birds were new and distinct forms, found nowhere else in the world but closely allied to those found on the South American continent.[10] Darwin now saw that, if the finch species were confined to individual islands, like the mockingbirds, this would help to account for the number of species on the islands, and he sought information from others on the expedition. Specimens had also been collected by Captain Robert FitzRoy, FitzRoy’s steward Harry Fuller and Darwin's servant Covington, who had labelled them by island.[12] From these, Darwin tried to reconstruct the locations from where he had collected his own specimens. The conclusions supported his idea of the transmutation of species."
So no, at the time, not being an ornithologist and not having formulated his theory, he didn't place any particular significance on them. Later, though, with more data... he produced a world-changing scientific theory that has been repeatedly validated over the following century.
However, this is what biblical creationists (both before and after Darwin) believe happened, not as the result of evolution but as a consequence of Noah’s Flood and the subsequent migration of animals (including birds) via continents and islands, following their disembarkation from the Ark on the mountains of Ararat.
There is no evidence of a world-wide flood. Geological, anthropological and cultural evidence suggests that humankind has been around for more than 6000 years. Genetic morphology suggests that humanity has existed for tens or hundreds of thousands of years (depending on the exact cut off in the tree that you consider to be humanity). Archaeological evidence shows that life has been around for billions of years. The distribution of life-forms is not consistent with a six-thousand year diaspora from the middle-
East, but it is consistent with the geological model of plate tectonics splitting a supercontinent around 200 million years ago.
Genetic comparison shows, for instance, that the orders Felidae ("The 41 known cat species in the world today are all descended from the same ancestor.[1] Cats originated in Asia and spread across continents by crossing land bridges. Testing of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA revealed that the ancient cats evolved into eight main lineages that diverged in the course of at least 10 migrations" - Wikipedia 'Felidae') and Canidae (Dogs and wolves) split around 50 million years ago from a common ancestor ('Canids have a long evolutionary history. In the Eocene, about 50 million years ago, the carnivorans split into two lineages, the caniforms (dog-like) and feliforms (cat-like). By the Oligocene, some ten million years later, the first proper canids had appeared and the family had split into three subfamilies, Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae, and Caninae. Only the last of these has survived until the present day.' Wikipedia - 'Canids')
Suppose some finches with the genetic information for a wide variety of beaks came to the islands in a storm. And that some were on an island where the main food source was hard seeds. Birds with genes for thick and strong beaks could cope with them better, so would be better fed, and thus more likely to leave offspring. But birds on an island with few seeds but lots of grubs would do better with longer and thinner beaks, so they could poke deeper into the ground and pull out their prey.
This is indeed an example of adaptation and natural selection. But note that it actually removes alleles (gene variant) from the populations—on seed-rich islands with few grubs, information for long slender beaks would likely be lost; while the information for thick strong beaks would be lost on grub-rich (seed-poor) islands.
Sarfati's hypothesis is perfectly valid, but there is no evidence for a species with all this genetic capacity. Given that the genes that control beak-form all occupy the same spaces on comparative genomes from finch species to finch species, there would have to be a markedly different gene structure on any predecessor according to Sarfati's idea, which would have meant that the first selected bird wouldn't have been able to successfully breed with any others and the species would have died out.
So this change is in the opposite direction from goo-to-you evolution, which requires new genes with new information.
No, evolution does not require new genes or new information - it requires new data, which we see in random mutation of existing genes. There is no information until the data is processed.
It can hardly be over-emphasized: natural selection is not evolution;
Nobody ever said it was - natural selection over time operating on variation leads to evolution. Evolution is the observed phenomenon.
Readers may be surprised to know that some evolutionists are now rejecting the concept of the evolutionary tree of life, as indicated by the cover story of New Scientist 24 January 2009. According to New Scientist Features Editor Graham Lawton (p. 34): “The tree of life … has turned out to be a figment of our imagination.”
Yes... and no. The idea of common ancestry is not the part that's being revised, the part that's being revised is the idea that branches, once separated, remain independent. There is evidence that, particularly in the interactions between unicellular life such as bacteria and more complicated lifeforms, that traits are acquired from other species and passed on, resulting in a form of merging of branches.
Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present. For example, if there are no genes present for producing feathers, you could breed reptiles for a billion years and you would never get feathers.
Except that, with time, we see viable structural changes to genetic structure of organisms and to gene sequencing. Purely as an example, the condition known Down Syndrome is caused by a third copy of an entire chromosome. This is a rather drastic variation, but nevertheless biologically viable and a demonstration of how genetic structure can alter and then be subject to selective pressures which could result in novel features.
Humans can and do produce different breeds of dogs or cattle or horses, etc., but such artificial selection proceeds in the same way as natural selection, i.e. by removing genes.
No, natural selection and artificial selection do not work by 'removing genes'. They work by concentrating particular variants of specific genes to reduce variety.
...and why is this done? For no other reason, I am sure, than to make us independent of a Creator.
Sedgewick is entitled to his opinion, but Darwin's own words suggest that he published because, as a scientist, he though that the evidence supported the idea and it should be discussed.
Why “imaginary illustrations”? Well, when you can’t cite a single real-life example of natural selection producing anything new, the only resources left are imaginary ones.
As we now have sufficient evidence to know that evolution occurs over thousands of generations, which can take tens of thousands of years with macroscopic organisms, that's hardly a surprise. The theory stands, though, on the evidence presented at the time, and has been vindicated by experiments and observations of rapidly reproducing organisms where evolution has been observed to occur.
There's more crap about 'transitional species', but frankly I'm bored with the deceit, ignorance and futile self-indulgence.
Evolution is a fact, we see it happening. The theory of evolution is remarkably well-attested, widely tested and fantastically capable explanation of how evolution happens.
O.
How does nothing become something when did you see it happen please post your evidence.
~TW~ :)
-
TW
How does nothing become something when did you see it happen please post your evidence.
We do not know, and scientists are working on it.
Can you handle not knowing, or do you feel the need to make up a comforting answer?
-
:) This has been explained many times and you either ignore it or don't understand it. Which is it?
--------------------------------------
Try explaining it.
~TW~
Here we go... again...
Evolution - the observed phenomena of organisms gaining, changing or losing traits over generations.
The Theory of Evolution - the post-Darwinian theory that suggests the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs via natural selection acting upon otherwise random variation within communities of a given species to favour those traits which give a competitive (i.e. reproductive) advantage within a given environment.
Natural Selection - the process whereby circumstance favours the continuance of traits that offer an advantage to a species in a given environment: i.e. traits which make it more likely an individual will feed, survive and/or reproduce, leading to those traits being preserved in the descendant generations.
Random variation - the emergence of minor (and very occasionally significant) differences between individuals and their offspring.
Natural selection acts upon random variation (which we now know to be primarily genetic in origin) to lead communities of an organism towards localised optimisation. Where different environments place different selective pressures on communities of similar organisms then the communities tend to diverge until they are sufficiently different that we classify them as different species - this is called 'speciation'.
Now, which part of this is that you either a) still don't grasp or b) think you have a reason to discredit?
O.
Try this http://creation.com/attenborough-darwin-tree
~TW~
Why, it's repeatedly debunked lies, misrepresentation, selectively misquoted nonsense and ad hominem attacks, which even within its own pages accepts all the elements of the Theory of Evolution depicted above but then claims that it didn't happen. Why don't YOU try explaining what YOU think is the problem, seeing as I went to the effort of actually responding to your challenge.
Anyway, here you go:
“He called the process ‘natural selection’. That would explain the differences that he had noted in the finches that he had brought back from the Galápagos.”
Not correct on two counts:
Darwin did not originate the term ‘natural selection’.
No-one said he did - he defined it in a way that hadn't been popularised before, and he did so within a work that explained why that was a vital element in evolution and the presence of the vast diversity of species in the world.
Darwin did not note any differences in the finches he collected in the Galápagos Islands, as his biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore point out. They wrote:
In all, he [Darwin] shot six types of finches from three islands, and his samples from two of these were mixed together. … he had tagged his specimens in a desultory manner and had rarely bothered to label by island. It had not seemed important.2
He remained confused by the Galápagos finches, believing that they fed indiscriminately together, unaware of the importance of their different beaks. Come to that, he still had trouble identifying the species, or their locations; and he still thought that his collection contained finches, wrens, ‘Grossbeaks’, and ‘Icteruses’ (blackbird-relatives). He had no sense of a single, closely related group becoming specialized and adapted to different environmental niches. The birds did not seem that important when he donated them to the Zoological Society, rather badly labelled, on the 4th [January 1837].
From the Wikipedia entry on 'Darwin's Finches' (accessed 15/10/15)
"Darwin had been in Cambridge at that time. In early March, he met Gould again and for the first time got a full report on the findings, including the point that his Galápagos "wren" was another closely allied species of finch. The mockingbirds that Darwin had labelled by island were separate species rather than just varieties. Gould found more species than Darwin had expected,[11] and concluded that 25 of the 26 land birds were new and distinct forms, found nowhere else in the world but closely allied to those found on the South American continent.[10] Darwin now saw that, if the finch species were confined to individual islands, like the mockingbirds, this would help to account for the number of species on the islands, and he sought information from others on the expedition. Specimens had also been collected by Captain Robert FitzRoy, FitzRoy’s steward Harry Fuller and Darwin's servant Covington, who had labelled them by island.[12] From these, Darwin tried to reconstruct the locations from where he had collected his own specimens. The conclusions supported his idea of the transmutation of species."
So no, at the time, not being an ornithologist and not having formulated his theory, he didn't place any particular significance on them. Later, though, with more data... he produced a world-changing scientific theory that has been repeatedly validated over the following century.
However, this is what biblical creationists (both before and after Darwin) believe happened, not as the result of evolution but as a consequence of Noah’s Flood and the subsequent migration of animals (including birds) via continents and islands, following their disembarkation from the Ark on the mountains of Ararat.
There is no evidence of a world-wide flood. Geological, anthropological and cultural evidence suggests that humankind has been around for more than 6000 years. Genetic morphology suggests that humanity has existed for tens or hundreds of thousands of years (depending on the exact cut off in the tree that you consider to be humanity). Archaeological evidence shows that life has been around for billions of years. The distribution of life-forms is not consistent with a six-thousand year diaspora from the middle-
East, but it is consistent with the geological model of plate tectonics splitting a supercontinent around 200 million years ago.
Genetic comparison shows, for instance, that the orders Felidae ("The 41 known cat species in the world today are all descended from the same ancestor.[1] Cats originated in Asia and spread across continents by crossing land bridges. Testing of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA revealed that the ancient cats evolved into eight main lineages that diverged in the course of at least 10 migrations" - Wikipedia 'Felidae') and Canidae (Dogs and wolves) split around 50 million years ago from a common ancestor ('Canids have a long evolutionary history. In the Eocene, about 50 million years ago, the carnivorans split into two lineages, the caniforms (dog-like) and feliforms (cat-like). By the Oligocene, some ten million years later, the first proper canids had appeared and the family had split into three subfamilies, Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae, and Caninae. Only the last of these has survived until the present day.' Wikipedia - 'Canids')
Suppose some finches with the genetic information for a wide variety of beaks came to the islands in a storm. And that some were on an island where the main food source was hard seeds. Birds with genes for thick and strong beaks could cope with them better, so would be better fed, and thus more likely to leave offspring. But birds on an island with few seeds but lots of grubs would do better with longer and thinner beaks, so they could poke deeper into the ground and pull out their prey.
This is indeed an example of adaptation and natural selection. But note that it actually removes alleles (gene variant) from the populations—on seed-rich islands with few grubs, information for long slender beaks would likely be lost; while the information for thick strong beaks would be lost on grub-rich (seed-poor) islands.
Sarfati's hypothesis is perfectly valid, but there is no evidence for a species with all this genetic capacity. Given that the genes that control beak-form all occupy the same spaces on comparative genomes from finch species to finch species, there would have to be a markedly different gene structure on any predecessor according to Sarfati's idea, which would have meant that the first selected bird wouldn't have been able to successfully breed with any others and the species would have died out.
So this change is in the opposite direction from goo-to-you evolution, which requires new genes with new information.
No, evolution does not require new genes or new information - it requires new data, which we see in random mutation of existing genes. There is no information until the data is processed.
It can hardly be over-emphasized: natural selection is not evolution;
Nobody ever said it was - natural selection over time operating on variation leads to evolution. Evolution is the observed phenomenon.
Readers may be surprised to know that some evolutionists are now rejecting the concept of the evolutionary tree of life, as indicated by the cover story of New Scientist 24 January 2009. According to New Scientist Features Editor Graham Lawton (p. 34): “The tree of life … has turned out to be a figment of our imagination.”
Yes... and no. The idea of common ancestry is not the part that's being revised, the part that's being revised is the idea that branches, once separated, remain independent. There is evidence that, particularly in the interactions between unicellular life such as bacteria and more complicated lifeforms, that traits are acquired from other species and passed on, resulting in a form of merging of branches.
Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present. For example, if there are no genes present for producing feathers, you could breed reptiles for a billion years and you would never get feathers.
Except that, with time, we see viable structural changes to genetic structure of organisms and to gene sequencing. Purely as an example, the condition known Down Syndrome is caused by a third copy of an entire chromosome. This is a rather drastic variation, but nevertheless biologically viable and a demonstration of how genetic structure can alter and then be subject to selective pressures which could result in novel features.
Humans can and do produce different breeds of dogs or cattle or horses, etc., but such artificial selection proceeds in the same way as natural selection, i.e. by removing genes.
No, natural selection and artificial selection do not work by 'removing genes'. They work by concentrating particular variants of specific genes to reduce variety.
...and why is this done? For no other reason, I am sure, than to make us independent of a Creator.
Sedgewick is entitled to his opinion, but Darwin's own words suggest that he published because, as a scientist, he though that the evidence supported the idea and it should be discussed.
Why “imaginary illustrations”? Well, when you can’t cite a single real-life example of natural selection producing anything new, the only resources left are imaginary ones.
As we now have sufficient evidence to know that evolution occurs over thousands of generations, which can take tens of thousands of years with macroscopic organisms, that's hardly a surprise. The theory stands, though, on the evidence presented at the time, and has been vindicated by experiments and observations of rapidly reproducing organisms where evolution has been observed to occur.
There's more crap about 'transitional species', but frankly I'm bored with the deceit, ignorance and futile self-indulgence.
Evolution is a fact, we see it happening. The theory of evolution is remarkably well-attested, widely tested and fantastically capable explanation of how evolution happens.
O.
How does nothing become something when did you see it happen please post your evidence.
~TW~ :)
Well how did your deity come into being?
-
:) We do not know, and scientists are working on it. :'( :'(
-------------------------------------------
:) Well if you give me their names I will tell them they are not going to find nothing :)
~TW~
-
How does nothing become something when did you see it happen please post your evidence.
~TW~ :)
Who said that it did? I refer you, again, to Laurence Krauss work in which he explains that what you are innacurately calling 'nothing' is in fact most likely a quantum foam in which matter and anti-matter are continually separating and annihilating. There is no 'nothing'.
Nobody that we're aware of 'saw it happen', we have deduced this from the available evidence.
Should I presume that you have accepted the reality of evolution and that you appreciate you'd linked to a fatuous, misleading and fundamentally dishonest piece of nonsense?
O.
-
:) We do not know, and scientists are working on it. :'( :'(
-------------------------------------------
:) Well if you give me their names I will tell them they are not going to find nothing :)
~TW~
You are absolutely right, they are not going to find 'nothing'. Given that you accept this, why ask such a loaded question in the first place?
O.
-
:) We do not know, and scientists are working on it. :'( :'(
-------------------------------------------
:) Well if you give me their names I will tell them they are not going to find nothing :)
~TW~
So you think they are going to find something.
Quite possibly, we will have to wait and see.
Good to see you think they will find something.
-
Look I found nothing in the bank account how much is it worth.
Please answer .
~TW~
-
Look I found nothing in the bank account how much is it worth.
Please answer .
~TW~
You agreed they were not going to find nothing.
That means you agree they are going to find something.
-
Look I found nothing in the bank account how much is it worth.
Please answer .
~TW~
You agreed they were not going to find nothing.
That means you agree they are going to find something.
For you and taking into account the fog in the mind it would seem that way so try this as a cure
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? --
~TW~
-
Look I found nothing in the bank account how much is it worth.
Please answer .
~TW~
You agreed they were not going to find nothing.
That means you agree they are going to find something.
For you and taking into account the fog in the mind it would seem that way so try this as a cure
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? --
~TW~
I have no idea.
Why do you have a problem with something not being known?
Lots of things are unknown. There is not theory of quantum gravity, we do not know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy is. We do not know if there are more hidden dimensions.
Just because something is unknown, that does not give you the right to just make up shit.
-
Look I found nothing in the bank account how much is it worth.
Please answer .
~TW~
I found a piece of pavement that doesn't have a dog-turd on it, does that mean that dog turds don't exist?
How is the physical state of the pre-universal region comparable to a bank account?
Your bank account is, apparently, currently empty - give it a few days, and it will have money in it. Give it a few days after that and it will be overdrawn. Similarly, in any given region of the pre-universal quantum foam there is a zero-balance overall, but there are fluctuations within that such that for short periods there are quantities of matter and anti-matter.
'Nothing' is not static or inert. You seem to view 'nothing' as the bottom of a gravitational well, the point below which nothing can drop, when in reality it's a bit like the balance point of a see saw - overall the average height of the see-saw stays the same, but points on the see saw can be higher or lower than that average.
O.
-
Look I found nothing in the bank account how much is it worth.
Please answer .
~TW~
I found a piece of pavement that doesn't have a dog-turd on it, does that mean that dog turds don't exist?
How is the physical state of the pre-universal region comparable to a bank account?
Your bank account is, apparently, currently empty - give it a few days, and it will have money in it. Give it a few days after that and it will be overdrawn. Similarly, in any given region of the pre-universal quantum foam there is a zero-balance overall, but there are fluctuations within that such that for short periods there are quantities of matter and anti-matter.
'Nothing' is not static or inert. You seem to view 'nothing' as the bottom of a gravitational well, the point below which nothing can drop, when in reality it's a bit like the balance point of a see saw - overall the average height of the see-saw stays the same, but points on the see saw can be higher or lower than that average.
O.
The reason why you are wrong is nothing is nothing and you try and add to nothing a design + information and then on another post you would deny miracles you certainly have a confused mindset.
Your best bet is to sit back and say nothing till the miracle you require {what ever that is} takes place.
~TW~
-
The reason why you are wrong is nothing is nothing and you try and add to nothing a design + information and then on another post you would deny miracles you certainly have a confused mindset.
Except that what you classify as 'nothing' isn't nothing, so you are arguing from a false assumption. There is no design, and no-one can add information, you can only add data.
Your best bet is to sit back and say nothing till the miracle you require {what ever that is} takes place.
That miracle would be you going and actually becoming informed on some of the topics you choose to shoot off about? I won't hold my breath on that one, if it's alright with you, the shade of purple I'd turn would clash with my shirt.
O.
-
The reason why you are wrong is nothing is nothing and you try and add to nothing a design + information and then on another post you would deny miracles you certainly have a confused mindset.
Except that what you classify as 'nothing' isn't nothing, so you are arguing from a false assumption. There is no design, and no-one can add information, you can only add data.
Your best bet is to sit back and say nothing till the miracle you require {what ever that is} takes place.
That miracle would be you going and actually becoming informed on some of the topics you choose to shoot off about? I won't hold my breath on that one, if it's alright with you, the shade of purple I'd turn would clash with my shirt.
O.
I am glad you mentioned your shirt it was designed and made an intelligence was behind it.
~TW~
-
The reason why you are wrong is nothing is nothing and you try and add to nothing a design + information and then on another post you would deny miracles you certainly have a confused mindset.
Except that what you classify as 'nothing' isn't nothing, so you are arguing from a false assumption. There is no design, and no-one can add information, you can only add data.
Your best bet is to sit back and say nothing till the miracle you require {what ever that is} takes place.
That miracle would be you going and actually becoming informed on some of the topics you choose to shoot off about? I won't hold my breath on that one, if it's alright with you, the shade of purple I'd turn would clash with my shirt.
O.
I am glad you mentioned your shirt it was designed and made an intelligence was behind it.
~TW~
Was your god also designed by an intelligence or do you make an exception for it.
That is called special pleading, and means you are being illogical.
Just in case you thought you were being sensible.
-
I am glad you mentioned your shirt it was designed and made an intelligence was behind it.
~TW~
And we have a label in it that tells us who the designer was (indirectly) - just because one thing is designed doesn't mean everything is designed, just like the fact that one persons's argument is rational and based on evidence doesn't mean that all arguments are valid.
O.
-
I am glad you mentioned your shirt it was designed and made an intelligence was behind it.
~TW~
And we have a label in it that tells us who the designer was (indirectly) - just because one thing is designed doesn't mean everything is designed, just like the fact that one persons's argument is rational and based on evidence doesn't mean that all arguments are valid.
O.
No sorry forget the argument stick to design name one part of your computer that designed and made it's self.
~TW~
-
I am glad you mentioned your shirt it was designed and made an intelligence was behind it.
~TW~
And we have a label in it that tells us who the designer was (indirectly) - just because one thing is designed doesn't mean everything is designed, just like the fact that one persons's argument is rational and based on evidence doesn't mean that all arguments are valid.
O.
No sorry forget the argument stick to design name one part of your computer that designed and made it's self.
~TW~
This really is quite obvious but, I'll give it a try. Computers are not living, do not breed, do not have genes and have no mechanism by which natural selection can ccur. Living creeatures do and are different.
-
I am glad you mentioned your shirt it was designed and made an intelligence was behind it.
~TW~
And we have a label in it that tells us who the designer was (indirectly) - just because one thing is designed doesn't mean everything is designed, just like the fact that one persons's argument is rational and based on evidence doesn't mean that all arguments are valid.
O.
No sorry forget the argument stick to design name one part of your computer that designed and made it's self.
~TW~
No-one has ever suggested that anything designed and made itself, with the possible exception of Worzel Gummidge.
O.
-
I am glad you mentioned your shirt it was designed and made an intelligence was behind it.
~TW~
And we have a label in it that tells us who the designer was (indirectly) - just because one thing is designed doesn't mean everything is designed, just like the fact that one persons's argument is rational and based on evidence doesn't mean that all arguments are valid.
O.
No sorry forget the argument stick to design name one part of your computer that designed and made it's self.
~TW~
No-one has ever suggested that anything designed and made itself, with the possible exception of Worzel Gummidge.
O.
Good nice to see you coming onside.
~TW~
-
I am glad you mentioned your shirt it was designed and made an intelligence was behind it.
~TW~
And we have a label in it that tells us who the designer was (indirectly) - just because one thing is designed doesn't mean everything is designed, just like the fact that one persons's argument is rational and based on evidence doesn't mean that all arguments are valid.
O.
No sorry forget the argument stick to design name one part of your computer that designed and made it's self.
~TW~
This really is quite obvious but, I'll give it a try. Computers are not living, do not breed, do not have genes and have no mechanism by which natural selection can ccur. Living creeatures do and are different.
There are plenty of non living things in the creation too, I don't know why you are trying to limit this to living things?
-
Just looking at the first page of this thread..... I think Kent Hovind would welcome you on his team, TW.
-
Just looking at the first page of this thread..... I think Kent Hovind would welcome you on his team, TW.
And many others.Just for you sweet Pea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cns_J5qFLDc&list=PL24F584CBBCC676FD
~TW~
-
Just looking at the first page of this thread..... I think Kent Hovind would welcome you on his team, TW.
And many others.Just for you sweet Pea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cns_J5qFLDc&list=PL24F584CBBCC676FD
~TW~
Very good, I enjoyed the video. But..... steady there TW, modesty is a virtue; seldom in a woman, never in a man. ;)
-
I am glad you mentioned your shirt it was designed and made an intelligence was behind it.
~TW~
And we have a label in it that tells us who the designer was (indirectly) - just because one thing is designed doesn't mean everything is designed, just like the fact that one persons's argument is rational and based on evidence doesn't mean that all arguments are valid.
O.
No sorry forget the argument stick to design name one part of your computer that designed and made it's self.
~TW~
This really is quite obvious but, I'll give it a try. Computers are not living, do not breed, do not have genes and have no mechanism by which natural selection can ccur. Living creeatures do and are different.
There are plenty of non living things in the creation too, I don't know why you are trying to limit this to living things?
Who? Me? TW is trying to use non living items which humans have designed to argue that living things must also have an intelligent designer to achieve the level of complexity seen. This argument is nonsense since living things can evolve since they have genes, breed and have offspring and Natural Selection can act on this. Non living things don't, so natural selection is not a factor. That was my point. Not sure what point you were making.
-
:) This argument is nonsense since living things can evolve since they have genes, breed and have offspring and Natural Selection
-------------------------------------------
From nothing I presume in the beginning nothing and then something.-----------------Please try again.
~TW~
-
Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate?
They have done. From the moment that Darwin and Wallace's papers were presented to the Royal Society evolution was subject to debate. Guess what, the evolutionists have consistently won, because they are right.
-
:) This argument is nonsense since living things can evolve since they have genes, breed and have offspring and Natural Selection
-------------------------------------------
From nothing I presume in the beginning nothing and then something.-----------------Please try again.
~TW~
This has been answered many times and there is no point doing it again because you don't want to listen or understand due to you religious beliefs. I was making a point to 2Corrie so will see if the situation is any different with them and judge whether it is worth posting again.
-
:) This argument is nonsense since living things can evolve since they have genes, breed and have offspring and Natural Selection
-------------------------------------------
From nothing I presume in the beginning nothing and then something.-----------------Please try again.
~TW~
This has been answered many times and there is no point doing it again because you don't want to listen or understand due to you religious beliefs. I was making a point to 2Corrie so will see if the situation is any different with them and judge whether it is worth posting again.
I do not like your answers and I seeing the non existent is not a gift i have.Try again.
~TW~
-
:) This argument is nonsense since living things can evolve since they have genes, breed and have offspring and Natural Selection
-------------------------------------------
From nothing I presume in the beginning nothing and then something.-----------------Please try again.
~TW~
This has been answered many times and there is no point doing it again because you don't want to listen or understand due to you religious beliefs. I was making a point to 2Corrie so will see if the situation is any different with them and judge whether it is worth posting again.
I do not like your answers and I seeing the non existent is not a gift i have.Try again.
~TW~
I am sure you don't like the answers of others because they make much more sense than yours! ::)
-
No-one has ever suggested that anything designed and made itself, with the possible exception of Worzel Gummidge.
O.
Good nice to see you coming onside.
~TW~
I see that references to 'straw-men' is something else that's beyond your understanding...
O.
-
:) This argument is nonsense since living things can evolve since they have genes, breed and have offspring and Natural Selection
-------------------------------------------
From nothing I presume in the beginning nothing and then something.-----------------Please try again.
~TW~
Not from nothing, you've had this explained to you within this very thread. Do try to keep up.
O.
-
:) This argument is nonsense since living things can evolve since they have genes, breed and have offspring and Natural Selection
-------------------------------------------
From nothing I presume in the beginning nothing and then something.-----------------Please try again.
~TW~
This has been answered many times and there is no point doing it again because you don't want to listen or understand due to you religious beliefs. I was making a point to 2Corrie so will see if the situation is any different with them and judge whether it is worth posting again.
I do not like your answers and I seeing the non existent is not a gift i have.Try again.
~TW~
Your not liking it doesn't actually make the blindest bit of difference as to whether it's right or wrong, though.
O.
-
:) This argument is nonsense since living things can evolve since they have genes, breed and have offspring and Natural Selection
-------------------------------------------
From nothing I presume in the beginning nothing and then something.-----------------Please try again.
~TW~
This has been answered many times and there is no point doing it again because you don't want to listen or understand due to you religious beliefs. I was making a point to 2Corrie so will see if the situation is any different with them and judge whether it is worth posting again.
I do not like your answers
Of course you don't because they don't fit with your religious beliefs. Fine, just stop asking for answers.
...and I seeing the non existent is not a gift i have.
I wouldn't say that.
Try again.
No point, as I've said.
-
I think another question is needed ------------- .Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and
where did they exist if there was no space?
~TW~
-
I think another question is needed ------------- .Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and
where did they exist if there was no space?
~TW~
The material and space are part of the universe, their creation is the creation of the universe. They are formed from the energy potential of the quantum foam from which they emerged.
O.
-
I think another question is needed ------------- .Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and
where did they exist if there was no space?
~TW~
The material and space are part of the universe, their creation is the creation of the universe. They are formed from the energy potential of the quantum foam from which they emerged.
O.
from where and what.
~TW~
-
I think another question is needed ------------- .Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and
where did they exist if there was no space?
~TW~
The material and space are part of the universe, their creation is the creation of the universe. They are formed from the energy potential of the quantum foam from which they emerged.
O.
from where and what.
~TW~
No one knows.
Perhaps the universe is eternal and has always been there and had no beginning.
The big bang is a low entropy event in an eternal universe.
Where and when did your god come from?
-
BR On this thread I ask the questions you give the answers :)
And for the record I did answer the question way back.So please try not to keep repeating yourself.
Also I will be away all day and most of next week.So that will give you time to find some facts concerning your beliefs.
~TW~
-
I think another question is needed ------------- .Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and
where did they exist if there was no space?
~TW~
The material and space are part of the universe, their creation is the creation of the universe. They are formed from the energy potential of the quantum foam from which they emerged.
O.
from where and what.
~TW~
From the extra-universal quantum foam.
O.
-
BR On this thread I ask the questions you give the answers :)
And for the record I did answer the question way back.So please try not to keep repeating yourself.
Also I will be away all day and most of next week.So that will give you time to find some facts concerning your beliefs.
~TW~
And make sure you are sitting to attention when you write your answers BR! ;D ;D ;D
-
And for the record I did answer the question way back.So please try not to keep repeating yourself.
Another Hope.
Why is it you guys think that pretending you answered the question once is going to fool us?
-
And for the record I did answer the question way back.So please try not to keep repeating yourself.
Another Hope.
Why is it you guys think that pretending you answered the question once is going to fool us?
Well we know you are incapable of checking .But this thread is where we ask the questions and you answer them :)
~TW~
-
And for the record I did answer the question way back.So please try not to keep repeating yourself.
Another Hope.
Why is it you guys think that pretending you answered the question once is going to fool us?
Well we know you are incapable of checking .But this thread is where we ask the questions and you answer them
We have answered all your questions...
... way back, so please try not to keep repeating yourself.
-
And for the record I did answer the question way back.So please try not to keep repeating yourself.
Another Hope.
Why is it you guys think that pretending you answered the question once is going to fool us?
Well we know you are incapable of checking .But this thread is where we ask the questions and you answer them :)
~TW~
TW is having a 'larf'! ;D
-
And for the record I did answer the question way back.So please try not to keep repeating yourself.
Another Hope.
Why is it you guys think that pretending you answered the question once is going to fool us?
Well we know you are incapable of checking .But this thread is where we ask the questions and you answer them :)
~TW~
TW is having a 'larf'! ;D
And Floo answers to questions is your Q to exit stage left.
-
TW,
Well we know you are incapable of checking .But this thread is where we ask the questions and you answer them :)
Actually it isn't. For the most part asking questions because you want the answers to them is fine, but that's not what you do. Rather your approach is a basic reasoning error called the argument from personal incredulity. You think that, when no answer is forthcoming, then just dropping in "god" as the answer somehow validates that answer when it does no such thing.
And that's your main problem (I'm leaving aside for now the secondary one that you don't understanding the questions you attempt in any case - confusing evolution with the origin of life itself for example): even if there is an answer and even if you understood it, you'd just move to another question until you got to a "dunno" and then proclaim again, "Ha! It must be God then" whereas in fact a "don't know" implies no such thing.
If ever you could grasp the fallacious argument you're relying on it would save everyone here an awful lot of time.
-
TW,
Well we know you are incapable of checking .But this thread is where we ask the questions and you answer them :)
Actually it isn't. For the most part asking questions because you want the answers to them is fine, but that's not what you do. Rather your approach is a basic reasoning error called the argument from personal incredulity. You think that, when no answer is forthcoming, then just dropping in "god" as the answer somehow validates that answer when it does no such thing.
And that's your main problem (I'm leaving aside for now the secondary one that you don't understanding the questions you attempt in any case - confusing evolution with the origin of life itself for example): even if there is an answer and even if you understood it, you'd just move to another question until you got to a "dunno" and then proclaim again, "Ha! It must be God then" whereas in fact a "don't know" implies no such thing.
If ever you could grasp the fallacious argument you're relying on it would save everyone here an awful lot of time.
Good answer!
-
TW,
Well we know you are incapable of checking .But this thread is where we ask the questions and you answer them :)
Actually it isn't. For the most part asking questions because you want the answers to them is fine, but that's not what you do. Rather your approach is a basic reasoning error called the argument from personal incredulity. You think that, when no answer is forthcoming, then just dropping in "god" as the answer somehow validates that answer when it does no such thing.
And that's your main problem (I'm leaving aside for now the secondary one that you don't understanding the questions you attempt in any case - confusing evolution with the origin of life itself for example): even if there is an answer and even if you understood it, you'd just move to another question until you got to a "dunno" and then proclaim again, "Ha! It must be God then" whereas in fact a "don't know" implies no such thing.
If ever you could grasp the fallacious argument you're relying on it would save everyone here an awful lot of time.
Wrong I ask a question which you say is based on fact,but then I find you cannot support the fact.
~TW~
-
TW,
Wrong I ask a question which you say is based on fact,but then I find you cannot support the fact.
Do you want to unscramble that into some kind of comprehensible sentence?
-
TW,
Wrong I ask a question which you say is based on fact,but then I find you cannot support the fact.
Do you want to unscramble that into some kind of comprehensible sentence?
Of course he doesn't. He is the proverbial empty vessel and he thinks being incomprehensible stops people from realising that.
-
TW,
Wrong I ask a question which you say is based on fact,but then I find you cannot support the fact.
Do you want to unscramble that into some kind of comprehensible sentence?
Yes try this, when did nothing start to evolve.
~TW~
-
TW,
Wrong I ask a question which you say is based on fact,but then I find you cannot support the fact.
Do you want to unscramble that into some kind of comprehensible sentence?
Yes try this, when did nothing start to evolve.
~TW~
Around the time your god was created.
-
TW,
Wrong I ask a question which you say is based on fact,but then I find you cannot support the fact.
Do you want to unscramble that into some kind of comprehensible sentence?
Yes try this, when did nothing start to evolve.
~TW~
you'd just move to another question until you got to a "dunno" and then proclaim again, "Ha! It must be God then" whereas in fact a "don't know" implies no such thing.
If ever you could grasp the fallacious argument you're relying on it would save everyone here an awful lot of time.
blue, if you would be so kind as to supply us with six numbers between 1 and 59 before 7.30 Saturday, please?
-
Leave it for the girls to sort out,these people remind me of the JW.s
~TW~
-
Leave it for the girls to sort out,these people remind me of the JW.s
~TW~
Good morning TW and we are left with this
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
-
Leave it for the girls to sort out,these people remind me of the JW.s
~TW~
Good morning TW and we are left with this
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
What a b*stard your version of the deity is! >:(
-
TW,
Yes try this, when did nothing start to evolve.
That's new - usually you just confuse the origin of life itself with evolution (which applies to life once it's started), but now you've added another confusion by including "nothing" into your misunderstanding. I guess that's what you get when you rely for your knowledge of science on a 100+ year old book of nonsense authored by a vicar with no apparent scientific knowledge of any kind.
Briefly, evolution is well understood in a theory and massively supported by evidence and it concerns speciation.
The origin of life on the other hand is a different matter, and we're getting closer to understanding that too - for example with the recent discovery of the spontaneous formation in the right circumstances of RNA (the precursor to DNA).
Why there is something rather than nothing on the other hand is a different matter entirely, and there are competing hypotheses about that but as yet no conclusive answer.
None of which you're actually interested in, and none of which has anything to do with your basic mistake in reasoning - namely that you think that when the answer is "don't know" that allows in your answer of "god" despite no definition of the term, no evidence of any kind for it and no meaningful logic to support it.
That doesn't mean necessarily that there is no god of course, but it does mean that your attempt at reasoning your way to it is hopeless.
-
Seb,
blue, if you would be so kind as to supply us with six numbers between 1 and 59 before 7.30 Saturday, please?
I know - spooky eh?
What's disheartening about TW is that not only does he not understand the question(s) he's attempting, he doesn't understand the stupidity of asking them as a means to establish his god either.
Ah well.
-
Seb,
blue, if you would be so kind as to supply us with six numbers between 1 and 59 before 7.30 Saturday, please?
I know - spooky eh?
What's disheartening about TW is that not only does he not understand the question(s) he's attempting, he doesn't understand the stupidity of asking them as a means to establish his god either.
Ah well.
Minds addled by religious indoctrination can understand nothing but their programming.
-
I can never quite work out if TW is a wind up merchant, and is having a 'larf' when we take his nonsense seriously, or he really believes it to be true? Either way it is rather sad.
-
Why don't you lot take an early bath.Evolution is the height of insanity.
~TW~
-
Why don't you lot take an early bath.Evolution is the height of insanity.
~TW~
If you really believe that to be true, I suggest you seek urgent help of the medical kind! ::)
-
Why don't you lot take an early bath.Evolution is the height of insanity.
~TW~
If you really believe that to be true, I suggest you seek urgent help of the medical kind! ::)
Seconded.
ippy
-
I have a bath on my allotment; I'm expecting life to evolve in it imminently.
-
I have a bath on my allotment; I'm expecting life to evolve in it imminently.
You can count on it. Ask any microbiologist, viruses and bacteria evolve at enormous speeds. Creatures with longer reproduction cycles will obviously take longer ;)
-
Torridon, You're right, bacteria evolve from preexisting bacteria. They would already be present in the bath tub.
-
Spud for the past 50 years atheist and evolutionist have been listening for signs of life out there so far nothing.
Sending up cameras to search,so far nothing.Having found nothing they, now kid each other nothing evolved to produce something.
Not the slightest shred of nothing has been found .
~TW~
-
Spud for the past 50 years atheist and evolutionist have been listening for signs of life out there so far nothing.
Sending up cameras to search,so far nothing.Having found nothing they, now kid each other nothing evolved to produce something.
Not the slightest shred of nothing has been found .
~TW~
It's sad that someone in the 21st Century can still be living in the 16th! Not a good reflection on whatever school tried to educate TW. Where did my taxes go to, I feel robbed!
-
Spud for the past 50 years atheist and evolutionist have been listening for signs of life out there so far nothing.
Sending up cameras to search,so far nothing.Having found nothing they, now kid each other nothing evolved to produce something.
Not the slightest shred of nothing has been found .
~TW~
The Earth is teeming with life TW and has been for many millions of years, which is quite sufficient to demonstrate that evolution is is fact and that the TofE, which is subject to revision as new evidence becomes available, is the best explanation we have for this fact.
Extra-terrestrial evidence, aside from being impractical as things stand, isn't essential since there is plenty of the terrestrial variety to demonstrate that evolution is a fact.
-
TW,
Why don't you lot take an early bath.Evolution is the height of insanity.
Yes we’re ware of your personal opinion on the matter, supported as it is by a century-old book written by a scientifically illiterate cleric and a bunch of lying websites but unfortunately ranged against you is overwhelming evidence to the contrary: countless thousands of experiments that have shown evolution to happen in practice; a theory arguably more robust than the theories of gravity and of germs causing disease that’s been exhaustively tested and whose prediction have consistently been shown to be correct; the whole field of medical applications of new treatments that rely precisely on evolutionary theory and practice and that may for all I know already have been used to treat you and yours of your ailments.
Even if you could disentangle your confusions about the origins of matter and energy, the beginning of life itself, and evolution acting on that life; and even if you could grasp that the argument from personal incredulity you’re attempting is logically hopeless – because even if the answers to your questions were “don’t know” that would move you not one micron towards an argument for a god – you would still be confronted by the monolithic body of evidence that shows you to be flatly, unequivocally, categorically wrong.
Whence then "the height of insanity"?
-
Spud,
Torridon, You're right, bacteria evolve from preexisting bacteria. They would already be present in the bath tub.
Like TW, you seem entirely unable to grasp that the origin of life itself and speciation are entirely different things, and that evolution is only relevant to the latter.
If you really want to parade your ignorance here could you at least try to identify your target before taking fire?
-
TW,
Spud for the past 50 years atheist and evolutionist have been listening for signs of life out there so far nothing.
Sending up cameras to search,so far nothing.Having found nothing they, now kid each other nothing evolved to produce something.
Not the slightest shred of nothing has been found .
First, that's not the job of "evolutionists".
Second have you any notion at all of how vanishingly small 50 years is in comparison with the 14 billion + years of the age of the Universe, and of the time it would take for messages from civilisations even in the next galaxy along to get here let alone the time they would take to get here from the 100 billion or so other galaxies out there?
Any notion at all?
Anything?
For all you know the Universe is teeming with life, and 50 years of looking wouldn't be even a fraction of an iota of a drop in the ocean of the places we've been able to investigate so far.
Good grief!
-
Why don't you lot take an early bath.Evolution is the height of insanity.
~TW~
No, evolution is an observed phenomenon. What do you think causes anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria?
O.
-
Spud,
Torridon, You're right, bacteria evolve from preexisting bacteria. They would already be present in the bath tub.
Like TW, you seem entirely unable to grasp that the origin of life itself and speciation are entirely different things, and that evolution is only relevant to the latter.
If you really want to parade your ignorance here could you at least try to identify your target before taking fire?
Hi Hills,
I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.
-
Why don't you lot take an early bath.Evolution is the height of insanity.
~TW~
Early bath?
No evolution isn't the height of insanity.
It makes more sense to a lot of people, than God creating women out of ribs and the devil running around burying dinosaur bones to confuse everyone.
::)
The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves. Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women) :P So Moses got it right. I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??
Time to leave!
-
Spud,
Torridon, You're right, bacteria evolve from preexisting bacteria. They would already be present in the bath tub.
Like TW, you seem entirely unable to grasp that the origin of life itself and speciation are entirely different things, and that evolution is only relevant to the latter.
If you really want to parade your ignorance here could you at least try to identify your target before taking fire?
Hi Hills,
I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.
What, you mean inaccurately?
-
Why don't you lot take an early bath.Evolution is the height of insanity.
~TW~
Early bath?
No evolution isn't the height of insanity.
It makes more sense to a lot of people, than God creating women out of ribs and the devil running around burying dinosaur bones to confuse everyone.
::)
The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves. Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women) :P So Moses got it right. I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??
Time to leave!
Why did the deity have to use one of Adam's ribs to create the female of the species, surely it could have created her without the need to rip out one of his ribs? Another daft Biblical story which makes no sense whatsoever! ::)
-
The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.
Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?
Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women) :P So Moses got it right. I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??
Nobody because Moses almost certainly never existed. He certainly didn't write the book of Genesis.
-
The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.
Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?
https://news.usc.edu/68485/rib-regeneration-studied-in-mammals/
-
The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.
Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?
https://news.usc.edu/68485/rib-regeneration-studied-in-mammals/
That's a long way from regenerating entire ribs.
-
The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.
Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?
https://news.usc.edu/68485/rib-regeneration-studied-in-mammals/
That's a long way from regenerating entire ribs.
Well I doubt God needed more than a small fragment. But I thought it was clear that mine was a tongue in cheek post, not one intended to spark a long debate of attrition. So I shall leave it at that.
-
DaveM,
The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves. Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women) :P So Moses got it right. I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??
Time to leave!
Good innit, hindsight bias. Makes you wonder why "He" didn't tell Moses about the liver instead as that regenerates much more quickly.
On a similar intellectual level, have you ever noticed that fusilli pasta IS EXACTLY THE SAME SHAPE AS DNA!!!!!!
Now if that's not proof positive of the flying spaghetti monster I don't what is ;)
-
Yo Spud,
I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.
Depends what you mean by "goo". If you mean a living organism then the fact of evolution is readily explicable by its theory. If though you meant instead non-living matter then any discussion of evolution is entirely irrelevant.
That's the point. Start with living organisms and we can discuss how evolution works. Start with something else though and evolution is no more relevant that architecture is relevant to Morris dancing and we need to have a different discussion entirely (about abiogenesis).
TW will never grasp the difference but - naively perhaps - I have a cock-eyed optimism that you might do.
Tell me you're not going to disappoint me here...
...are you?
-
Yo Spud,
I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.
Depends what you mean by "goo". If you mean a living organism then the fact of evolution is readily explicable by its theory. If though you meant instead non-living matter then any discussion of evolution is entirely irrelevant.
That's the point. Start with living organisms and we can discuss how evolution works. Start with something else though and evolution is no more relevant that architecture is relevant to Morris dancing and we need to have a different discussion entirely (about abiogenesis).
TW will never grasp the difference but - naively perhaps - I have a cock-eyed optimism that you might do.
Tell me you're not going to disappoint me here...
...are you?
These educationalists disagree with you
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01
Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'
http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156
-
The word evolution has a number of definitions of course - something unfortunately common in English which can lead to confusion. This can be made worse when discussing science when terms are used and it is assumed that other scientists understand the meaning due to the context. Two different meanings are
a) Biology change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
b) any process of formation or growth; development
The scientific theories/hypotheses regarding the origins of live and the changes in existing life forms are separate, but of course the more is learnt about one part of the overall evolution from non-living matter through to the vast number of different species we now see the more this gives indications about the other - hence the phrase 'Many lines of evidence help illuminate the origin of life'. The links provided do discuss this so hopefully were read rather than just picked due to the headlines. When discussing the science it is important to be clear and accurate as to whether we are discussing the origins of life, Abiogenesis, or changes which take place in existing life forms.The latter is normally what is meant when referring to Evolution. Perhaps biological evolution would be a better term.
There is no generally accepted model of the process that could lead to the emergence of life - as is said in one of the links - whereas the theory covering biological evolution, and speciation, are robust and very well supported by evidence. The lack of an accepted model for abiogenesis does not cast doubt on biological evolution and attempting to use this as an argument is a common ploy. Hence the need to be clear and accurate when using the word evolution.
-
Hence the need to be clear and accurate when using the word evolution.
Sadly, many religious types ignore both clarity and accuracy if either disagrees with the robotic programmes they have been indoctrinated with.
-
DaveM,
The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves. Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women) :P So Moses got it right. I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??
Time to leave!
Good innit, hindsight bias. Makes you wonder why "He" didn't tell Moses about the liver instead as that regenerates much more quickly.
Well I appreciate that you write He with a capital H, even though enclosed with apostrophes.
Maybe He did tell Moses. He certainly told him many things (Lev 1:1) including some health practices which were invaluable for the time and environment of Moses' day.
Oh and He also told Abraham to follow that much maligned practice of circumcising his male offspring. Specifically on the eighth day of life when bleeding is at a minimum as the levels of vitamin K and prothombin are at a peak. Abraham clearly knew his haematology. And today the WHO is engaged in a massive program with a target of achieving 20 million male circumcisions in Africa by the end of next year. All in the interest of public health.
-
Yo Spud,
I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.
Depends what you mean by "goo". If you mean a living organism then the fact of evolution is readily explicable by its theory. If though you meant instead non-living matter then any discussion of evolution is entirely irrelevant.
That's the point. Start with living organisms and we can discuss how evolution works. Start with something else though and evolution is no more relevant that architecture is relevant to Morris dancing and we need to have a different discussion entirely (about abiogenesis).
TW will never grasp the difference but - naively perhaps - I have a cock-eyed optimism that you might do.
Tell me you're not going to disappoint me here...
...are you?
These educationalists disagree with you
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01
Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'
http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156
This is a case of evolution within language. The concept of evolution that was first understood in a strict sense in biology has wide application in a looser sense, meaning development over time. The nature of research in the field of biogenesis is sufficiently distinct to merit its own name currently however there are striking parallels in organic chemistry in the ways that carbon compounds become increasingly complex over time, replacing simpler antecedant forms, gradually becoming more and more life-like in the process. There is, at this boundary, no clear cut division between life and non-life, more there is a spectrum of lifelikeness. As our understanding grows and different branches of science develop interconnections, the vocabulary we use has to move to reflect that and perhaps biogenesis research will come to be regarded under the umbrella term Evolutionary Theory eventually; likewise evolutionary theory itself will come to be subsumed under the even broader term Theory of Everything.
-
Oh and He also told Abraham to follow that much maligned practice of circumcising his male offspring. Specifically on the eighth day of life when bleeding is at a minimum as the levels of vitamin K and prothombin are at a peak. Abraham clearly knew his haematology.
I suspect it is more the case of simple trial and error, Dave, when even back in antiquity it was noticed by those who insisted on the ritual barbarism of routinely chopping bits of otherwise healthy flesh from every baby boy, that if they waited a week or so there would be less bleeding - Abraham, if such a person actually existed, would have no idea about the biochemistry of blood coagulation.
-
Yo Spud,
I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.
Depends what you mean by "goo". If you mean a living organism then the fact of evolution is readily explicable by its theory. If though you meant instead non-living matter then any discussion of evolution is entirely irrelevant.
That's the point. Start with living organisms and we can discuss how evolution works. Start with something else though and evolution is no more relevant that architecture is relevant to Morris dancing and we need to have a different discussion entirely (about abiogenesis).
TW will never grasp the difference but - naively perhaps - I have a cock-eyed optimism that you might do.
Tell me you're not going to disappoint me here...
...are you?
These educationalists disagree with you
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01
Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'
http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156
This is a case of evolution within language. The concept of evolution that was first understood in a strict sense in biology has wide application in a looser sense, meaning development over time.
These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.
-
These educationalists disagree with you
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01
Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'
http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156
This is a case of evolution within language. The concept of evolution that was first understood in a strict sense in biology has wide application in a looser sense, meaning development over time.
These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.
Eerm, ''universal darwinianism'' ? Sounds like a term drawn from the vocabulary of a conspiracy theorist to me.
That aside, I don't see the need to be too precious over terms like 'evolve' as human language is notoriously imprecise and flexible; many terms are used sometimes with narrow definition, in other contexts with broader definition. I might say the language you use today has 'evolved' from ancestor languages, such as latin and greek and german; those in turn have 'evolved' from earlier languages, Indo-European etc. The concepts of inheritance and nested hierachies hold good in the study of human languages. The parallels with biological evolution are sufficient to justify the use of that term in general. And after all, the well studied and well documented particularities of biological evolution are a particular manifestation of deeper underlying principles. Just as Newton was later realised to be a particular case of Einstein, we are now coming to see biology as a particular, rather messy, case of physics.
-
These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.
If by 'Darwinism' you mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, it doesn't really respond in any way to 'encouragement', it's a conceptual description of natural processes. That's a little like saying that poetic language like 'falling in love' will encourage gravity.
O.
-
The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.
Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?
https://news.usc.edu/68485/rib-regeneration-studied-in-mammals/
That's a long way from regenerating entire ribs.
Well I doubt God needed more than a small fragment. But I thought it was clear that mine was a tongue in cheek post, not one intended to spark a long debate of attrition. So I shall leave it at that.
If the deity created Adam, it surely had all the bits and pieces readily available, so didn't need to carve the poor guy up! It looks like the deity screwed up again!
-
These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.
If by 'Darwinism' you mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, it doesn't really respond in any way to 'encouragement', it's a conceptual description of natural processes. That's a little like saying that poetic language like 'falling in love' will encourage gravity.
O.
Non sequitur.
I was commenting that Torridon's suggestion, that the use of the term evolution to describe any change proceeds from the Darwinian notion of evolution, was fallacious and encourages other fallacies such as universal darwinianism.
-
2Corrie,
These educationalists disagree with you
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01
Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'
http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156
No they don't. Others have addressed this already, but Darwin's theory of evolution concerns only changes in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. DNA specifically is needed for it to operate. You can also use the term "evolution" analogously - ideas can "evolve" for example - just as, say, political parties can "give birth" to other parties, icebergs "calve" etc but that's a different matter.
Clearly TW and Spud have been confused about the biological use of the term, not about its analogous use in other contexts.
-
DaveM,
Oh and He also told Abraham to follow that much maligned practice of circumcising his male offspring.
Well, a book says that "He" did (a very different thing) but ok.
Specifically on the eighth day of life when bleeding is at a minimum as the levels of vitamin K and prothombin are at a peak. Abraham clearly knew his haematology.
No he didn't. All he could have known from observation was that bleeding is at a minimum on the eighth day but there's no reason to suppose that he knew the first thing about haemotology, any more than someone who learnt to avoid eating certain mushrooms would thereby be a toxicologist.
-
Vlunderbus,
These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.
Not really. Darwin's theory of evolution is specific to biological systems, but you can sometimes apply its general principles analogously to non-biological phenomena.
-
Well I appreciate that you write He with a capital H, even though enclosed with apostrophes.
Maybe He did tell Moses. He certainly told him many things (Lev 1:1) including some health practices which were invaluable for the time and environment of Moses' day.
Oh and He also told Abraham to follow that much maligned practice of circumcising his male offspring. Specifically on the eighth day of life when bleeding is at a minimum as the levels of vitamin K and prothombin are at a peak. Abraham clearly knew his haematology. And today the WHO is engaged in a massive program with a target of achieving 20 million male circumcisions in Africa by the end of next year. All in the interest of public health.
As expected a number of negative responses to my comments on Abraham and circumcision.
But a deafening silence as regards the WHO actively following a program to carry out this 'barbaric' practice on 20 million men in Africa.
-
DaveM,
But a deafening silence as regards the WHO actively following a program to carry out this 'barbaric' practice on 20 million men in Africa.
This is what the WHO says (from its website):
"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence."
HIV in human populations didn't exist in biblical times, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making.
Note too:
1. The programme is intended to reduce infection from sexual contact so is specific to adults who presumably have a say in the matter, as opposed to babies who do not.
2. The WHO emphasises "provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings" - none of which were available to Abraham. How many babies would have died from botched attempts, infection etc when there was no HIV prevention upside later on to balance the risk?
The WHO continues:
"Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use." (emphasis added).
Given that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms do you not think that the better solution would be change that teaching in the first place rather than to claim that Abraham was right all along?
-
These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.
If by 'Darwinism' you mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, it doesn't really respond in any way to 'encouragement', it's a conceptual description of natural processes. That's a little like saying that poetic language like 'falling in love' will encourage gravity.
O.
Non sequitur.
I was commenting that Torridon's suggestion, that the use of the term evolution to describe any change proceeds from the Darwinian notion of evolution, was fallacious and encourages other fallacies such as universal darwinianism.
Ah, so you meant it encourages the idea that Darwinism is universal... sorry, poor phrasing your part, I understand now.
O.
-
DaveM,
But a deafening silence as regards the WHO actively following a program to carry out this 'barbaric' practice on 20 million men in Africa.
HIV in human populations didn't exist in biblical times, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making.
Given that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms do you not think that the better solution would be change that teaching in the first place rather than to claim that Abraham was right all along?
For the record I am probably as well informed on HIV/Aids as most non-health professionals. I personally knew a brilliant young doctor who was in the same medical class as my daughter and who set up a practice which catered solely for HIV/Aids sufferers. He was always in demand as a speaker at the global conferences on the subject. My daughter also happens to be a blood specialist and is very much up to speed on the issue. In addition I was responsible for getting the national governing body of my church to set up a group in the late 1980's to investigate and develop a response to the looming aids epidemic (which at that time affected some 0.25$ of the population) and which was empathetic, non-judgmental and practical. As a result this church is very much involved in ministering to and caring for those affected.
You clearly think that HIV/Aids is the only disease which has been linked to circumcision. Suggest you revisit some of my posts on the earlier threads on circumcision and reconsider.
You comment that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms simply highlights your total ignorance of Africa, its people, and its tribal cultures. The official position adopted by the hierarchy of the RC church has been no more than a minor issue affecting the progression of the epidemic.
-
DaveM,
For the record I am probably as well informed on HIV/Aids as most non-health professionals. I personally knew a brilliant young doctor who was in the same medical class as my daughter and who set up a practice which catered solely for HIV/Aids sufferers. He was always in demand as a speaker at the global conferences on the subject. My daughter also happens to be a blood specialist and is very much up to speed on the issue. In addition I was responsible for getting the national governing body of my church to set up a group in the late 1980's to investigate and develop a response to the looming aids epidemic (which at that time affected some 0.25$ of the population) and which was empathetic, non-judgmental and practical. As a result this church is very much involved in ministering to and caring for those affected.
That's nice. Did you use your position to campaign for the reversal of the anti-condom policy and, if not, why not?
You clearly think that HIV/Aids is the only disease which has been linked to circumcision. Suggest you revisit some of my posts on the earlier threads on circumcision and reconsider.
Straw man - I clearly don't. What I do think though - because they say so on their website - is that HIV specifically is the reason for the WHO's campaign.
You comment that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms simply highlights your total ignorance of Africa, its people, and its tribal cultures. The official position adopted by the hierarchy of the RC church has been no more than a minor issue affecting the progression of the epidemic.
You wish. There's a substantial body of evidence that directly connects condom prohibition with high incidences of HIV, both in Africa and elsewhere. If you seriously think otherwise, why not tell the WHO that they're wrong when they talk explicitly about the need for condom use as part of the anti-HIV campaign in Africa?
-
The Catholic church's crazy stance on condoms certainly doesn't help the problem of HIV. Surely anything which helps to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies is GOOD. I must have missed the verse in the Bible which states, "Thou shalt not use condoms!"
-
DaveM,
You comment that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms simply highlights your total ignorance of Africa, its people, and its tribal cultures. The official position adopted by the hierarchy of the RC church has been no more than a minor issue affecting the progression of the epidemic.
You wish. There's a substantial body of evidence that directly connects condom prohibition with high incidences of HIV, both in Africa and elsewhere. If you seriously think otherwise, why not tell the WHO that they're wrong when they talk explicitly about the need for condom use as part of the anti-HIV campaign in Africa?
I must have missed the publication, or whatever communication channel was used, which provided the data in support of that statement of yours. Please supply your reference which claims that there is a direct connection between condom prohibition (by the church) and high incidences of HIV, as being the substantial cause of high HIV rates in Africa, as opposed to simple low levels of condom use. Thanks
-
DaveM,
I must have missed the publication, or whatever communication channel was used, which provided the data in support of that statement of yours. Please supply your reference which claims that there is a direct connection between condom prohibition (by the church) and high incidences of HIV, as being the substantial cause of high HIV rates in Africa, as opposed to simple low levels of condom use. Thanks
Then you must have missed an awful lot of them as even a cursory search turns up many of them. Try here for example:
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3127299.html
The study concludes:
"Consistent use of condoms provides protection from HIV. The level of protection approximates 87%, with a range depending upon the incidence among condom nonusers. Thus, the condom's efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to or slightly lower than its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.
Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(6):272-279"
You're welcome.
Oh, and I notice your "nothing to with me Guv" of "(by the church)"as countries in which the RC church was not deeply embedded would somehow also have low condom use. Cute. It's simple enough - if every RC cleric preached condom use from the pulpit then their use would increase, and the incidence of HIV would decrease.
-
DaveM,
I must have missed the publication, or whatever communication channel was used, which provided the data in support of that statement of yours. Please supply your reference which claims that there is a direct connection between condom prohibition (by the church) and high incidences of HIV, as being the substantial cause of high HIV rates in Africa, as opposed to simple low levels of condom use. Thanks
Then you must have missed an awful lot of them as even a cursory search turns up many of them. Try here for example:
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3127299.html
The study concludes:
"Consistent use of condoms provides protection from HIV. The level of protection approximates 87%, with a range depending upon the incidence among condom nonusers. Thus, the condom's efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to or slightly lower than its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.
Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(6):272-279"
You're welcome.
Good Morning bhs,
Thank you for the reference which you provided. No I have not missed that much. We are clearly talking past each other. The issue is not the fact that low condom use in Africa has been a major factor contributing to the rapid spread of HIV/Aids in Africa. There is no dispute on that fact. If you have interpreted any of my posts in this way then please point any actual statements in them which gave you this impression.
Where I took issue with you was your claim that the prohibition on the use of condoms by the (Roman Catholic) Church was the substantial reason why condom use in Africa was so low. Unfortunately the article you have provided is of no use in this regard. As far as I can see the word church, whether RC or not does not appear in the article at all. So if anything it supports my position.
So I will repeat my position. While the low use of condoms is a major issue contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa the prohibition on their use by the RC church is a very minor factor. You need to look deeper at other African cultural and tribal attitudes to identify the reasons for low condom use.
I note with interest that your reference article was published in 1999 and that its opening comments state, ‘heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide. In the United States, male homosexual contact and intravenous drug use account for the majority of HIV infections, but transmission via heterosexual contact continues to increase.
Perhaps I can build on this to illustrate two contrasting examples.
You may recall that in the late 1980’s (if my memory is correct) one of the features of San Francisco were the ‘Gay Bars’ which were very popular with a small section of the gay community and where it was known that sexual contacts with multiple partners were common. That was until a few individuals became seriously ill. It did not take long for the medical profession to realise that these were who individuals were reaching an advanced stage of Aids complications. Further investigations showed that HIV/Aids infection rates were now spreading amongst this community.
But this was a well-educated, sophisticated group who had no problem in recognising and accepting the underlying source of the problem and they rapidly adjusted their lifestyle accordingly. Many resorted to having single partners and were voluntarily tested to establish their HIV status. The use of condoms was widely adopted and the spread of infections was virtually stopped in its tracks.
In South Africa, where it is essentially a heterosexual issue, the level of HIV infections at that time was about 0,25%. Further north in Central Africa it was much higher but grossly under-reported. It is, in fact, interesting that the spread of HIV southwards in sub-Saharan Africa can be followed with remarkable precision down the great trucking routes of Africa. In South Africa the port of Durban (the country’s major harbour) was the biggest single final trucking destination. No surprises that it was in Kwazulu-Natal that HIV infections in this country were highest.
In South Africa the level of infections in 1990 were doubling approximately every eight to nine months. It was clear that there only a small window of opportunity existed in which to persuade people to change their sexual habits if disaster was to be averted. A campaign, the ABC approach, was launched with the objective of achieving this. The vast majority of churches backed the campaign and none publicly spoke out against it.
A – Abstain
B – Be faithful to one partner
C – Use a condom
The emphasis was very much on B & C. Graphic advertising was used to try and get the message across. But to little avail. There was a great aversion and reluctance amongst men to use condoms. In addition there was widespread scepticism and disbelief that the cause of a small number (at that time) of people dying of what was commonly known as ‘Slims Disease’ could possibly be a consequence of a casual act of unprotected sex some seven years previously.
By the time the article in your reference was written in 1999, the level of HIV infection in South Africa was well above 20% and large numbers were dying. Confronted with the stark reality of almost everyone having lost a close friend or family member to the epidemic, attitudes were slowly changing and condom usage increased. But by then the horse had long bolted.
So I hold to my assertion that the attitude of the RC church on condom use is a very minor factor and not a substantial factor contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa.
Enjoy your day
-
DaveM,
Good Morning bhs,
Thank you for the reference which you provided. No I have not missed that much. We are clearly talking past each other. The issue is not the fact that low condom use in Africa has been a major factor contributing to the rapid spread of HIV/Aids in Africa. There is no dispute on that fact. If you have interpreted any of my posts in this way then please point any actual statements in them which gave you this impression.
Where I took issue with you was your claim that the prohibition on the use of condoms by the (Roman Catholic) Church was the substantial reason why condom use in Africa was so low. Unfortunately the article you have provided is of no use in this regard. As far as I can see the word church, whether RC or not does not appear in the article at all. So if anything it supports my position.
So I will repeat my position. While the low use of condoms is a major issue contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa the prohibition on their use by the RC church is a very minor factor. You need to look deeper at other African cultural and tribal attitudes to identify the reasons for low condom use.
I note with interest that your reference article was published in 1999 and that its opening comments state, ‘heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide. In the United States, male homosexual contact and intravenous drug use account for the majority of HIV infections, but transmission via heterosexual contact continues to increase.
Perhaps I can build on this to illustrate two contrasting examples.
You may recall that in the late 1980’s (if my memory is correct) one of the features of San Francisco were the ‘Gay Bars’ which were very popular with a small section of the gay community and where it was known that sexual contacts with multiple partners were common. That was until a few individuals became seriously ill. It did not take long for the medical profession to realise that these were who individuals were reaching an advanced stage of Aids complications. Further investigations showed that HIV/Aids infection rates were now spreading amongst this community.
But this was a well-educated, sophisticated group who had no problem in recognising and accepting the underlying source of the problem and they rapidly adjusted their lifestyle accordingly. Many resorted to having single partners and were voluntarily tested to establish their HIV status. The use of condoms was widely adopted and the spread of infections was virtually stopped in its tracks.
In South Africa, where it is essentially a heterosexual issue, the level of HIV infections at that time was about 0,25%. Further north in Central Africa it was much higher but grossly under-reported. It is, in fact, interesting that the spread of HIV southwards in sub-Saharan Africa can be followed with remarkable precision down the great trucking routes of Africa. In South Africa the port of Durban (the country’s major harbour) was the biggest single final trucking destination. No surprises that it was in Kwazulu-Natal that HIV infections in this country were highest.
In South Africa the level of infections in 1990 were doubling approximately every eight to nine months. It was clear that there only a small window of opportunity existed in which to persuade people to change their sexual habits if disaster was to be averted. A campaign, the ABC approach, was launched with the objective of achieving this. The vast majority of churches backed the campaign and none publicly spoke out against it.
A – Abstain
B – Be faithful to one partner
C – Use a condom
The emphasis was very much on B & C. Graphic advertising was used to try and get the message across. But to little avail. There was a great aversion and reluctance amongst men to use condoms. In addition there was widespread scepticism and disbelief that the cause of a small number (at that time) of people dying of what was commonly known as ‘Slims Disease’ could possibly be a consequence of a casual act of unprotected sex some seven years previously.
By the time the article in your reference was written in 1999, the level of HIV infection in South Africa was well above 20% and large numbers were dying. Confronted with the stark reality of almost everyone having lost a close friend or family member to the epidemic, attitudes were slowly changing and condom usage increased. But by then the horse had long bolted.
So I hold to my assertion that the attitude of the RC church on condom use is a very minor factor and not a substantial factor contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa.
Thanks for taking the time to post this. Clearly people are now dead who would otherwise be alive but for the teachings of their faith - to suggest otherwise would be idle. You seem though to want to be shown that the RC influence is "substantial" before accepting that it's a bad thing. I'd suggest that it's a bad thing even with one unnecessary death, but you'd need to define "substantial" to determine how bad it is.
Clearly the active campaign of disinformation in which the RC church engaged by telling people in HIV/AIDS stricken countries not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass didn't help. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo for example backed the claim, despite the WHO showing it to be false.
Worse yet, in Lwak, near Lake Victoria local priests claimed "that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids"; in Kenya (where c20% have HIV) the Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki said, "the Catholic Church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity" and also repeated the claim about permeability.
I entirely accept that there are cultural issues at play in Africa too, and I'm not sure how with any precision you'd determine whether it's RC 99% to blame/culture 1% to blame, the other way around or somewhere in between. There's a bunch of academic papers on the subject, but they tend to be small scale - "the influence of the church on condom use in students at Lusaka University" type of thing. I accept too that some local priests did (and presumably still do) promote the "C" of ABC on the ground.
The facts remain though that:
1. The RC church is highly embedded in countries with high HIV rates in which it is also highly authoritarian.
2. The RC church has in the past at least actively engaged in a programme of disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV.
3. Official Vatican policy is still that condom use is a no-no.
How many are dead as the result? Don't know, but surely you wouldn't want to claim that its role has been helpful would you?
Enjoy your day
And you.
-
DaveM,
Good Morning bhs,
Thank you for the reference which you provided. No I have not missed that much. We are clearly talking past each other. The issue is not the fact that low condom use in Africa has been a major factor contributing to the rapid spread of HIV/Aids in Africa. There is no dispute on that fact. If you have interpreted any of my posts in this way then please point any actual statements in them which gave you this impression.
Where I took issue with you was your claim that the prohibition on the use of condoms by the (Roman Catholic) Church was the substantial reason why condom use in Africa was so low. Unfortunately the article you have provided is of no use in this regard. As far as I can see the word church, whether RC or not does not appear in the article at all. So if anything it supports my position.
So I will repeat my position. While the low use of condoms is a major issue contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa the prohibition on their use by the RC church is a very minor factor. You need to look deeper at other African cultural and tribal attitudes to identify the reasons for low condom use.
I note with interest that your reference article was published in 1999 and that its opening comments state, ‘heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide. In the United States, male homosexual contact and intravenous drug use account for the majority of HIV infections, but transmission via heterosexual contact continues to increase.
Perhaps I can build on this to illustrate two contrasting examples.
You may recall that in the late 1980’s (if my memory is correct) one of the features of San Francisco were the ‘Gay Bars’ which were very popular with a small section of the gay community and where it was known that sexual contacts with multiple partners were common. That was until a few individuals became seriously ill. It did not take long for the medical profession to realise that these were who individuals were reaching an advanced stage of Aids complications. Further investigations showed that HIV/Aids infection rates were now spreading amongst this community.
But this was a well-educated, sophisticated group who had no problem in recognising and accepting the underlying source of the problem and they rapidly adjusted their lifestyle accordingly. Many resorted to having single partners and were voluntarily tested to establish their HIV status. The use of condoms was widely adopted and the spread of infections was virtually stopped in its tracks.
In South Africa, where it is essentially a heterosexual issue, the level of HIV infections at that time was about 0,25%. Further north in Central Africa it was much higher but grossly under-reported. It is, in fact, interesting that the spread of HIV southwards in sub-Saharan Africa can be followed with remarkable precision down the great trucking routes of Africa. In South Africa the port of Durban (the country’s major harbour) was the biggest single final trucking destination. No surprises that it was in Kwazulu-Natal that HIV infections in this country were highest.
In South Africa the level of infections in 1990 were doubling approximately every eight to nine months. It was clear that there only a small window of opportunity existed in which to persuade people to change their sexual habits if disaster was to be averted. A campaign, the ABC approach, was launched with the objective of achieving this. The vast majority of churches backed the campaign and none publicly spoke out against it.
A – Abstain
B – Be faithful to one partner
C – Use a condom
The emphasis was very much on B & C. Graphic advertising was used to try and get the message across. But to little avail. There was a great aversion and reluctance amongst men to use condoms. In addition there was widespread scepticism and disbelief that the cause of a small number (at that time) of people dying of what was commonly known as ‘Slims Disease’ could possibly be a consequence of a casual act of unprotected sex some seven years previously.
By the time the article in your reference was written in 1999, the level of HIV infection in South Africa was well above 20% and large numbers were dying. Confronted with the stark reality of almost everyone having lost a close friend or family member to the epidemic, attitudes were slowly changing and condom usage increased. But by then the horse had long bolted.
So I hold to my assertion that the attitude of the RC church on condom use is a very minor factor and not a substantial factor contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa.
Thanks for taking the time to post this. Clearly people are now dead who would otherwise be alive but for the teachings of their faith
Are you trying to say that putting it about and seeking out virgins for unprotected sex is not to blame also?
-
Vlunderingabout,
Are you trying to say that putting it about and seeking out virgins for unprotected sex is not to blame also?
No, and nor have I suggested such a thing.
You'll be running out of straw soon won't you?
-
Thanks for taking the time to post this. Clearly people are now dead who would otherwise be alive but for the teachings of their faith - to suggest otherwise would be idle. You seem though to want to be shown that the RC influence is "substantial" before accepting that it's a bad thing. I'd suggest that it's a bad thing even with one unnecessary death, but you'd need to define "substantial" to determine how bad it is.
Clearly the active campaign of disinformation in which the RC church engaged by telling people in HIV/AIDS stricken countries not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass didn't help. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo for example backed the claim, despite the WHO showing it to be false.
Worse yet, in Lwak, near Lake Victoria local priests claimed "that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids. while in Kenya (where c20% have HIV) the Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki said, "the Catholic Church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and the rise of HIV/AIDS in that country and also repeated the claim about permeability.
I entirely accept that there are cultural issues at play in Africa too, and I'm not sure how with any precision you'd determine whether it's RC 99% to blame/culture 1% to blame, the other way around or somewhere in between. There's a bunch of academic papers on the subject, but they tend to be small scale - "the influence of the church on condom use in students at Lusaka University" type of thing. I accept too that some local priests did (and presumably still do) promote the "C" of ABC on the ground.
The facts remain though that:
1. The RC church is highly embedded in countries with high HIV rates in which it is also highly authoritarian.
2. The RC church has in the past at least actively engaged in a programme of disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV.
3. Official Vatican policy is still that condom use is a no-no.
How many are dead as the result? Don't know, but surely you wouldn't want to claim that its role has been helpful would you?
It would appear that such teaching wasn't very well thought through, since it actually caused a reduction in the numbers of their own faithful.
-
Vlunderingabout,
Are you trying to say that putting it about and seeking out virgins for unprotected sex is not to blame also?
No, and nor have I suggested such a thing.
You'll be running out of straw soon won't you?
I'm just asking a question.
I agree that they should be practicing safe sex.....what is the balance between local sexual practice as the cause of dying and the rulings of the catholic church?
-
Oh, and I notice your "nothing to with me Guv" of "(by the church)"as countries in which the RC church was not deeply embedded would somehow also have low condom use. Cute. It's simple enough - if every RC cleric preached condom use from the pulpit then their use would increase, and the incidence of HIV would decrease.
Not sure, having heard accounts of local sexual practices which eschew condom use and traditional local views on monogamy, who in a relationship spreads disease, how much listening to the pulpit is occurring.
If pulpit calls for sexual abstinence are being ignored, how can you then argue a stern authoritarian control over the populace?
-
Oh, and I notice your "nothing to with me Guv" of "(by the church)"as countries in which the RC church was not deeply embedded would somehow also have low condom use. Cute. It's simple enough - if every RC cleric preached condom use from the pulpit then their use would increase, and the incidence of HIV would decrease.
Not sure, having heard accounts of local sexual practices which eschew condom use and traditional local views on monogamy, who in a relationship spreads disease, how much listening to the pulpit is occurring.
If pulpit calls for sexual abstinence are being ignored, how can you then argue a stern authoritarian control over the populace?
People should definitely NOT kow tow to what any authoritarian preacher has to say. They are in charge of their own lives, and have to make their own judgements accordingly.
-
Oh, and I notice your "nothing to with me Guv" of "(by the church)"as countries in which the RC church was not deeply embedded would somehow also have low condom use. Cute. It's simple enough - if every RC cleric preached condom use from the pulpit then their use would increase, and the incidence of HIV would decrease.
Not sure, having heard accounts of local sexual practices which eschew condom use and traditional local views on monogamy, who in a relationship spreads disease, how much listening to the pulpit is occurring.
If pulpit calls for sexual abstinence are being ignored, how can you then argue a stern authoritarian control over the populace?
People should definitely NOT kow tow to what any authoritarian preacher has to say. They are in charge of their own lives, and have to make their own judgements accordingly.
Quite and if they are leaving the pews then indulging in fornication and adulterous shagfests under local custom then that shows they can't be ''Kow towing'', doesn't it.
-
I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?
Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon they must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!
-
I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?
Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!
or the church had a very pragmatic priest. Most English priests probably have unmarried parents and couples in their congregations and things are and have been more Father Ted than Father Torquemada.
-
I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?
Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!
or the church had a very pragmatic priest. Most English priests probably have unmarried parents and couples in their congregations and things are and have been more Father Ted than Father Torquemada.
Father Ted/Father Torquemad, who are they?
-
I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?
Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!
or the church had a very pragmatic priest. Most English priests probably have unmarried parents and couples in their congregations and things are and have been more Father Ted than Father Torquemada.
Father Ted/Father Torquemad, who are they?
Father Ted is a fictional representation of a pragmatic priest.
Father Torquemada ran the Spanish inquisition several centuries ago....or last Tuesday if you are an antitheist................and you are.
-
I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?
Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!
or the church had a very pragmatic priest. Most English priests probably have unmarried parents and couples in their congregations and things are and have been more Father Ted than Father Torquemada.
Father Ted/Father Torquemad, who are they?
Father Ted is a fictional representation of a pragmatic priest.
Father Torquemada ran the Spanish inquisition several centuries ago....or last Tuesday if you are an antitheist................and you are.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh?
-
bhs
Thanks for post #188. I suppose we could continue debating, in ever decreasing circles, our respective views on the % allocation of blame to be attributed to the various parties. But that strikes me as a singularly unproductive exercise. Hopefully we have now reached a reasonable understanding of our respective positions and my view is that we have taken this particular exchange as far as it can usefully go for now. So my feeling is to draw a line under it for the moment.
-
Hi DaveM,
Thanks for post #188. I suppose we could continue debating, in ever decreasing circles, our respective views on the % allocation of blame to be attributed to the various parties. But that strikes me as a singularly unproductive exercise. Hopefully we have now reached a reasonable understanding of our respective positions and my view is that we have taken this particular exchange as far as it can usefully go for now. So my feeling is to draw a line under it for the moment.
Sounds fair enough. I will though come back to it if I find more detail. One of the problems here is that disease spreads as a mathematical progression - what if just one person contracted HIV wholly because of the instructions of his priest to avoid condoms and that person infected ten more people, each of whom then infected another ten for example?
Assuming that all of them died, would the church then have been responsible for one death or for 111 deaths?