swagger: I was sharing one of my favorite Dr. Dawkins gems (I now confess, I truthfully have two.)
I don't recall saying that my post was stating my best argument against macro-evolution. Those are your words, sir.
Dr. Dawkins' choice to "take the un-Darwinian personal decision" violates Darwinian theory on at least two counts:
1. Of course, ALL human behavior is subject to macro-evolution. Nothing one can do is "un-Darwinian". His statement is irrational within his own worldview.
2. Human behavior is detemined by: a) your genes b) your past and present enviroments.
The concept of Contra-causal Free Will is not valid under the atheistic worldview. This is not my opinion. It is , of course, the core of the naturalistic argument.

Rebel: In fairness to swagger, you are making a very common mistake. Those who support macro-evolutionary theory believe that man and ape have a common ancestor; not that man came from apes.
I'm quite surprised swagger didn't call you out on this immediately.

(10-22-2009 06:04 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This hypothetical alien civilization will have still arose in a Darwinian way. I am being very logical.

Look up the Laws of Logic, and see which one it is that your violating at the base, i.e. "Something from nothing"

and yes, Aliens LOL,

"There is no God, unless he arose from macro-evolution means!....then its possible, but more likely Aliens...."

(10-22-2009 07:08 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  Rebel: In fairness to swagger, you are making a very common mistake. Those who support macro-evolutionary theory believe that man and ape have a common ancestor; not that man came from apes.
I'm quite surprised swagger didn't call you out on this immediately.

I consider those things in the drawings that the evolutionists say we evolved from Apes. I'm not being scientific about the name. Sue me.

(10-22-2009 06:49 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There is no proof that one species changes into another. The only thing proven is cell adaptation, I.e. height, weight, size. Brown bears do not become polar bears just because they hang out on the ice.

The most obvious and frequent example that proves this wrong (due to their rapid reproduction cycles) is virus and bacteria. Do you really want me to go dig up examples of them adapting to and even feeding off of antibiotics?

And no, this isn't my only example, it's just the richest one. The next richest one is one where man has forced more rapid than normal change (dogs/cats). But there's also angiosperms, which can produce a new species in one generation through polyploidy, human melanin levels based on geographical local of ancestors, the remnants of legs and mammalian structures and breathing in whales, and.... and.....

(10-22-2009 07:08 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  swagger: I was sharing one of my favorite Dr. Dawkins gems (I now confess, I truthfully have two.)
I don't recall saying that my post was stating my best argument against macro-evolution. Those are your words, sir.
Dr. Dawkins' choice to "take the un-Darwinian personal decision" violates Darwinian theory on at least two counts:
1. Of course, ALL human behavior is subject to macro-evolution. Nothing one can do is "un-Darwinian". His statement is irrational within his own worldview.
2. Human behavior is detemined by: a) your genes b) your past and present enviroments.
The concept of Contra-causal Free Will is not valid under the atheistic worldview. This is not my opinion. It is , of course, the core of the naturalistic argument.

1) Wrong. All human behavior is INFLUENCED by evolution. There is a huge huge difference between the two. I assure you evolution has very little to do with how a psychotic serial killer, with a wild biochemical and neurological imbalance, acts. Suicide ... a decided un-Darwinian act, happens all the time, usually under similar circumstances. Your explanation of human behavior is shallow to the point of being childlike, and not the sort of thing Dawkins describes in any of his literature.

2) Wrong. Once again, it is INFLUENCED by those things. Same examples apply. The atheistic world view simply is that there is no God. EOF. Nothing more. You seem to have bonked your head and gotten natural theory and atheism and evolutionary biology all terribly mixed up.

(10-22-2009 07:14 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

(10-22-2009 06:04 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This hypothetical alien civilization will have still arose in a Darwinian way. I am being very logical.

Look up the Laws of Logic, and see which one it is that your violating at the base, i.e. "Something from nothing"

and yes, Aliens LOL,

"There is no God, unless he arose from macro-evolution means!....then its possible, but more likely Aliens...."

Chuckle all you want (to yourself), you're still doing nothing to address the points I've made previously. You haven't even *touched* any of the arguments made in the above paragraphs I quoted straight from Dawkins himself. Again ... come back when you have even the residue of an argument.

(10-22-2009 09:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-22-2009 06:49 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There is no proof that one species changes into another. The only thing proven is cell adaptation, I.e. height, weight, size. Brown bears do not become polar bears just because they hang out on the ice.

The most obvious and frequent example that proves this wrong (due to their rapid reproduction cycles) is virus and bacteria. Do you really want me to go dig up examples of them adapting to and even feeding off of antibiotics?

And no, this isn't my only example, it's just the richest one. The next richest one is one where man has forced more rapid than normal change (dogs/cats). But there's also angiosperms, which can produce a new species in one generation through polyploidy, human melanin levels based on geographical local of ancestors, the remnants of legs and mammalian structures and breathing in whales, and.... and.....

You're still not convincing me. ....and I'm done. You have your beliefs, I have mine.

This is why I can't stand f'n evolutionists and probably why you can't stand creationists. You believe in evolution. I don't give a ****. Have your beliefs but don't push that **** on me.

(10-22-2009 06:49 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-22-2009 03:30 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-22-2009 03:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  GTS, you can't prove that humans evolved from apes. So, what's the point? You're gonna have your beliefs and others are going to have theirs.

Evolution is a proven thing.

Can I, with 100% certainty, say that humans evolved from apes? No. Can I with a high degree of certainty say that, particularly given loads of evidence from DNA sequencing to the fossil record? Yes.

Can I, with even 0.1% certainty say that humans are here as a product of a God? No. Faith is defined as the belief in something without any supporting evidence. Religion is called "faith" for a reason. Can I prove with 100% certainty that there is, however, no God? No.

But on the balance of things, it seems only one belief is rational. Much like Dawkins I am a defacto athiest.

There is no proof that one species changes into another. The only thing proven is cell adaptation, I.e. height, weight, size. Brown bears do not become polar bears just because they hang out on the ice.

Genetically Brown bears do not change into Polar bears, but they can change through selection. Meaning if you have 1000 Brown bears and 10 Polar bears. If the Brown bears get eaten because they stand out on ice then the Polar bears that are left will reproduce and you will have 1000 Polar bears and 10 brown bears.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

(10-22-2009 09:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Natural selection (the exact OPPOSITE of random chance) is at the very heart of evolution, and ergo relevant.

You really reduced to saying the Universe didn't come into being by Random Chance?

Bottom half of shirt is cut off here but you can tell, Dylan Klebold, big beleiver in Natural Selection


and why not, his atoms are still just floating around bumping up against each other, after all.


By the way, ho do mutations occur? Randomly or non-randomly?

swagger:
Any behavior that survives today must have conferred some evolutionary advantage - otherwise it would have been weeded out by natural selection. Hence, logic demands that behaviors such as rape, pedophilia, and murder be included. Evolution and evolutionary ethics are a package deal. You and Dawkins wish to place arbritrary limits on the evolutionary process. Others are consistent and intellecually honest enough to bite the bullet. Professors such as atheist Dr. Will Provine of Cornell, for example:

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either." Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy April 30 1994

http://bevets.com/equotesp5.htm
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/provine/provine.html

Randy Thornill is another.

Additionally, those "childlike" views of human behavior are not mine. They are from the atheists at the respected Center of Naturalism http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm
If you disagree with Dr. Provine, please take it up with him. Call Randy Thornhill if you wish and tell him you disagree with his rape thesis. I've simply stated their positions. Don't call me. I don't appreciate your tone.

Quote:"Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one-way street to improvement. It needs some luck to get started, and the 'billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that luck. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck, with anthropic justification"

Richard Dawkins, God Delusion (p 141).

Insert the word "Chance" for "Luck" and tell me the meaning is any different.



I think Wilson sums it up well:

"There are 2 Tenets of Atheism:
1) There is no God
2) and they hate him"

(10-23-2009 08:30 AM)GGniner Wrote:  Bottom half of shirt is cut off here but you can tell, Dylan Klebold, big beleiver in Natural Selection

Why does it really matter what a psychopath believes, unless you are going to argue that without belief he would either (1) not be a psychopath, or (2) be a harmless psychopath? Either one of those propositions is stupid prima facie, but, please rant on...

(10-23-2009 08:30 AM)GGniner Wrote:  You really reduced to saying the Universe didn't come into being by Random Chance?

Bottom half of shirt is cut off here but you can tell, Dylan Klebold, big beleiver in Natural Selection

and why not, his atoms are still just floating around bumping up against each other, after all.

By the way, ho do mutations occur? Randomly or non-randomly?

How the universe was or existed PRIOR to the Big Bang is anybody's guess. Science has a few theories with no substantive proof, religion has more rhetoric about a spooky incompetent father figure with an attitude problem.

So once again, just like against Ron Paul, you can't argue on the issue at hand so you point out a psycho who happens to side with the other guys. I don't think you really want to go there, given that your bestest buddies in the middle east flew airplanes into buildings, because they were going to be martyrs and get those 72 virgins in heaven ... you know ... up there with God and everything? And I don't even have to pick on the religious extremists to rip you a new ******* on this one.

Scientist: The world isn't flat? Christians: Burned him at the stake.
Scientist: The Earth isn't the center of the universe. Christians: Burned him at the stake.
Scientist: The universe is infinite. Christians: Burned him at the stake.

Let's go into the Inquisition too, shall we? Hitler and the Pope is another interested topic for discussion. Hey hey hey -- no discussion of Catholics is complete without talking about choir boy pedophile acts.

And to be specific ... Dylan Bennet Klebold of Columbine fame was a devout Lutheran (which is just as irrelevant as your psycho).

So, using GGNiner non-sequitir-non-logic: LOL GGNINER BELIEVES THE WORLD IS FLAT AND IS A NAZI PEDOPHILE WHO ENJOYED COLUMBINE!


Mutations occur semi-randomly (the number of places for entire or parts of genes to swap around during reproduction is too great to enumerate here). HOWEVER, the natural selection that acts on these mutations is the exact opposite of chance. Anybody who claims evolution is random/pure chance doesn't even have a third grader understanding of it.

(10-22-2009 03:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The epitome of human arrogance is the personification of God, which you are demonstrating beautifully. S'gotta be human ... because my feeble mind cannot conceive of anything greater.

Who created your creator? Wouldn't that thing have the power to eliminate your creator? Who created the creator of the creator? "God" answers no questions, and is merely a convenient crutch feeble minded people ascribe all things they cannot explain to.

By that reasoning, what created the inital matter in the universe? Abiogenesis has never been observed. It is a "theory" with no solid scientific evidence to back it up. Although scientists claim to be close to being able to produce it in a lab (a form of "intelligent design" of its own?), even if they do, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it has ever or will ever occur naturally on its own.

Also, how can you stand to support such "feeble minded" politicians such as Ron Paul, Mark Sanford, Jeff Flake, etc. who all strongly believe in God? Furthermore, do you really want to call 90%+ of Americans "feeble minded?" To me, that is the epitome of arrogance.

(10-22-2009 09:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  You're still not convincing me. ....and I'm done. You have your beliefs, I have mine.

This is why I can't stand f'n evolutionists and probably why you can't stand creationists. You believe in evolution. I don't give a ****. Have your beliefs but don't push that **** on me.

I used to harbor a suspicion that most religious believers don't actually believe, but are hedging their bets out of fear.

I used to believe this. But after I finally accepted that I don't actually have an idea of what belief would feel like, I decided I was probably just grasping for an explanation I could understand.

(10-23-2009 01:06 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-22-2009 09:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  You're still not convincing me. ....and I'm done. You have your beliefs, I have mine.

This is why I can't stand f'n evolutionists and probably why you can't stand creationists. You believe in evolution. I don't give a ****. Have your beliefs but don't push that **** on me.

I used to harbor a suspicion that most religious believers don't actually believe, but are hedging their bets out of fear.

I used to believe this. But after I finally accepted that I don't actually have an idea of what belief would feel like, I decided I was probably just grasping for an explanation I could understand.

No, I truly believe every time I look at the beauty created in the world. I don't, however, intend on shoving my beliefs down anyone else's throats and would appreciate the same damn mutual courtesy. It's not my job nor my charge to proselytize anyone.

(10-23-2009 01:06 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I used to harbor a suspicion that most religious believers don't actually believe, but are hedging their bets out of fear.

I used to believe this. But after I finally accepted that I don't actually have an idea of what belief would feel like, I decided I was probably just grasping for an explanation I could understand.

That was probably because of the Gargoyles.



I used to respect people that (1) have a view of the world and how they treat others that is consistent belief system, (2) have the ability to perceive, understand, and empathize with those that do the same but have a different belief system. Then I realized that some of those with aspect (1) fly airplanes into buildings, so I've modified my criteria somewhat. But, in principle, I think that attitude is sound.

But, that does not mean that I respect the beliefs of others, nor does anyone have a right to expect me to do so (unless you are god, in which case **** you, you genocidal mother ****** ... I put that part in just in case).

(10-23-2009 11:26 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  By that reasoning, what created the inital matter in the universe? Abiogenesis has never been observed. It is a "theory" with no solid scientific evidence to back it up. Although scientists claim to be close to being able to produce it in a lab (a form of "intelligent design" of its own?), even if they do, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it has ever or will ever occur naturally on its own.

Also, how can you stand to support such "feeble minded" politicians such as Ron Paul, Mark Sanford, Jeff Flake, etc. who all strongly believe in God? Furthermore, do you really want to call 90%+ of Americans "feeble minded?" To me, that is the epitome of arrogance.

The theories regarding the creation of the universe are do not stem from abiogenesis. Most of them are rather "quantum-esk" in nature. Multiple universes like a bubbling foam... ours split off another ... etc. Neither science or religion can go back to the very beginning with any certainty. But at least science is based on existing observations, laws, and properties of matter. Religion is based off a book of questionable content and questionable origin which has been written and written and adapted and altered throughout time.

Creating it in a lab is not intelligent design, as the creatures creating it arose by Darwinian means.

Unlike most of my fellow Americans, I do not see religion as playing any relevancy in politics. I elect on who can follow the Constitution and maximize my liberty. Religion doesn't enter the mix in that, unless you're talking extremists. Note, btw, that the converse is not true, as less people would elect an atheist President than a gay President, according to Gallup. The human species, as a whole, is feeble minded. It is unclear whether we will exit our technological infancy without destroying ourselves altogether. We've been killing each other by the millions over millenia over who has the better imaginary friend. It has been less than 100 years since we allowed women and blacks to vote. Slavery is still engaged in rampantly across the globe. The overwhelming majority of the planet doesn't have a high school level education. Nearly a quarter of the planet has no potable water or steady food supply. We are an undeniably sad lot. Personification of God as having human-like qualities is an extension of this overconfidence and under delivery of our species.