Evolution vs. Creation

[Drew Smith]

You started this thread by accusing atheism of not preventing disasters, such as earthquakes or tsunamis (those were specific examples you yourself gave).
When I asked you to identify an earthquake or a tsunami that did not take place because of religious belief, you now try to change the subject.
You are such a fraud.

Charles Idemi wrote:

I also asked you the same question, that if religion is fake, according to atheist, why its growth, to date?

A lack of education. We notice that in those countries that have higher levels of education (for instance, the ones I have mentioned in Europe), the percentage of theists is going down.

[Aura Mytha]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
The hypothesis is that if evolution is a blind, naturalistic process, that there ought to be DNA with no function, as any number of processes could account for its appearance, and there is no way to manicure it out.
For example, imagine a gene is duplicated, and one copy suffers a mutation that renders it inactive. There is no conceivable process that could identify that sequence as useless, and pare it out. Genes are only selected against when they do something they shouldn't, or fail to do something they should without a backup gene to fill in for them. That is because, as you know, selection occurs in the individual organism, not its genome directly.
So strong is this argument, that ultimately demonstrating that all DNA is functional and essential would be inexplicable. I can't imagine how that would be possible given evolutionary theory. Other than intelligence, what could prevent useless DNA from appearing, and what could remove it after it did?
This isn't my area of expertise, and some of what I post may need some tweaking. The following is what I understand the prevailing thinking to be today:
Deciding whether there was nonfunctional DNA in the genome was all pretty much out of reach before the advent of DNA sequencing. Now, much of the DNA which function was previously unknown has been shown to have function.
The creationists are claiming victory here, stating that evolutionary scientists have been humiliated. You've seen HTS's posting on the subject.
But the fact is that there is still a lot of DNA for which no function is known. Even still, in some cases, it is possible to determine that a sequence is functional and another is not before finding its function.
There are the sequences that are conserved over many species in a clade, meaning that they are nearly identical in every individual in many related families of species. If every vertebrate has some sequence with little or no variation between this fish, that snake, and some marsupial, then that's a gene or genes that has been selected for. Mutations were selected against.
But another sequence may vary wildly from individual to individual. The only way that DNA could suffer such intense mutation without being selected against is for it to be inert - true junk or litter in the genome.
To me this confirms the "junk DNA" hypothesis.

I agree there may be non functional DNA, but what I was referring to was the hypothesis that there were large volumes of non functional DNA due it having become obsolete. This was a hypothesis resulting from the appearance that there was.

That was simply a misinterpretation that in no way discredits evolutionary theory. When dna was first sequenced of the 3 billion base pair it was expected that 100,000 lines of functional code would be found. Instead they found about 35,000 , so it was interpreted there was a large degree of junk dna.

That is where the junk dna myth originated , but as our understanding increased we found large portions of dna is dormant
and not just "junk". HOX genes and the switches that can cause mutation in it. etc.

But creationists try to say that because we do not know everything from the start , we do not know anything and that's why science is wrong. But the beauty of science it yes it can be wrong, but it can correct this as it continually does correct it's miscalculations over time.

So that our understanding become better and better which it decisively has become better since that particular misconception.
The major strong point in scientific understanding is that when things like this are improved , it is improved worldwide.
The advance is world wide in the understanding.

Try that concept with religion. It's 3,000 years of arguments between different factions that can't agree on the issue.
As they never will either.

[It aint necessarily so]

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
For as much as I rant about the "creationists", and while I agree with the general tone of your post, I think it important to point out that the VAST majority of CHRISTIANS around the world think that HTS and his ilk are idiots and are damaging Christianity with their insistence on a rigid and dogmatic "literal and inerrant" FAIRY TALE interpretation of the Bible.

MOST Christians are NOT "creationists" and get infuriated with them just as much as we do. That is why I always differentiate Christians (with a large "C") from "fundamentalist christians" (with a little "c").

You can usually tell the difference easily enough by how much LYING they do about science. The "fundamentalist christian creationists" don't seem to think it's a sin.

Sorry. I apologize.

I mostly post on the atheism threads, where there is not much distinction between Christian and fundie. I have somehow wandered out of my element into another forum with another crowd, and I need to choose my language more carefully.

Please convert my comments about Christians to comments about antiscientific bible literalists. I'll try to remember to do better in the future, but old habits die hard. I also refer to Christianity, the church, religion, faith, and theism in ways that may offend you. Again, I apologize. I don't respect faith, but I don't object to it in consenting adults when it is private, and doesn't bleed into my life.

My principal target is politicized American Christianity, and its propensity to scapegoat skeptics and gays, debase scientific education, impose its faith based preferences on reproductive and marital law, insert its icons into the pledge and onto the currency, and other manifestations of bad religion in a secular state - not the individual Christian, except when he is individually deserves rebuking.

And I realize that that is off topic here. I'm not sure how that happened - how I got here. You rarely see me in evolution threads.

Perhaps I should take myself back to the religious cultural wars where my posting habits were forged. I almost never find myself among Christians that I respect there, and many are even more over the top than HTS.

In fact, I am almost never allied with Christians in those threads. I had only just recently begun to realize that some of you might be Christians - this morning, actually - and first suspected that I may have offended many of you. I hope that you believe that I am sincere when I say that I don't want to do that. I mean you no ill will or disrespect. Personal religion is not my problem.

It's that church and what it does that I resent. It's invasive and divisive. And it's not a good neighbor.

So, once again, my apologies.

[anonymous]

Religion should always be a personal thing. Perhaps it extends to family but personally, I am not too beholding to hubris over it.

To those of us who reject faith, they are still talking to the voices inside their head. They may or not be rationalizing bad behavior but there's every reason to consider the possibility.

I consider it their obligation to not expect respect from those outside their faith. Show me that your faith is not linked to your expectations of others and you may earn my trust. Religion isn't a good start though.

[timn17]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha - hang on, hang on - ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh.
Sorry, sorry ... HA, HA, HA, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, Oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, my ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, oh ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho. OK, what were you saying?
Oh no, ho ho [snort] ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, oh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, Sorry, sorry HA, HA, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho [pisses self].
Ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. I can't finish, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh my oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, your post is just too ridiculous.
SORRY, but ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, please stop!
Oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, Sorry, sorry HA, HA, HA, HA, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, my ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, oh-ho, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, oh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

I just barely caught "pisses self" hidden in there.

[Karma is a_______]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> I also asked you the same question, that if religion is fake, according to atheist, why its growth, to date?

GULLIBILITY
NAIVETY
STUPIDITY

Take your pick

[Dogen]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>It is your duty, to defend your self. You have failed in that aspect.

It is your duty, to defend your self. You have failed in that aspect.

[Dogen]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> I also asked you the same question, that if religion is fake, according to atheist, why its growth, to date?

I warned you about complex sentences. You fumbled all over yourself and made no sense. Keep your sentences shorter till you get more skilled with English.

[Dogen]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Irony!
The word, "truth", is your enemy.

Here again is my post which you failed to adequately respond to:

You must be lying, there are no references to him being an atheist on wiki or google.
No biggie, we are used to you lying.

---

If you cannot provide evidence of your claim then you are a liar.

Period.

[Dogen]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>Mr. Judge, syntax is really either your strong suit...

Bwhahaha. Illiteracy is your strong suit!

[Buffalo Bull]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
GULLIBILITY
NAIVETY
STUPIDITY
Take your pick

It's spoonfed to children
Alot of closet agnostics are too lasy to constantanly counter each and every irrational assult
Or....

[thewordofme]

wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>
No Sir.....Any Imports Would Be Taxed At A High Rate, As To Keep The Playing Field Level.
This Could All Be Achieved With-in A Few Years, And We Would Never Again Be Squeezed By Forieners.
Its Not Rocket Science...Its Commonsense.

Everything I wrote there still stands. You were not able to defend your position at all.

[MIDutch]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry. I apologize.
I mostly post on the atheism threads, where there is not much distinction between Christian and fundie. I have somehow wandered out of my element into another forum with another crowd, and I need to choose my language more carefully.
Please convert my comments about Christians to comments about antiscientific bible literalists. I'll try to remember to do better in the future, but old habits die hard. I also refer to Christianity, the church, religion, faith, and theism in ways that may offend you. Again, I apologize. I don't respect faith, but I don't object to it in consenting adults when it is private, and doesn't bleed into my life.
My principal target is politicized American Christianity, and its propensity to scapegoat skeptics and gays, debase scientific education, impose its faith based preferences on reproductive and marital law, insert its icons into the pledge and onto the currency, and other manifestations of bad religion in a secular state - not the individual Christian, except when he is individually deserves rebuking.
And I realize that that is off topic here. I'm not sure how that happened - how I got here. You rarely see me in evolution threads.
Perhaps I should take myself back to the religious cultural wars where my posting habits were forged. I almost never find myself among Christians that I respect there, and many are even more over the top than HTS.
In fact, I am almost never allied with Christians in those threads. I had only just recently begun to realize that some of you might be Christians - this morning, actually - and first suspected that I may have offended many of you. I hope that you believe that I am sincere when I say that I don't want to do that. I mean you no ill will or disrespect. Personal religion is not my problem.
It's that church and what it does that I resent. It's invasive and divisive. And it's not a good neighbor.
So, once again, my apologies.

Apology accepted. And I do understand the difficulty dealing with theological issues. I very often have to catch myself as well when dealing with "fundamentalist christians", the Biblical literalists as you call them, versus Christians (with a capital "C"), and I WAS a Christian. There are a LOT of Christians around the world, many on these Evolution vs. Creation threads, who would align themselves more with your worldview than they would those of "politicized American Christianity".

Finally, I enjoy reading your posts and I certainly hope that you DO continue posting here.

[drink The hive]

Religion And - Political Ideology Are Not 2 Far Apart - The Only Difference Is That Both Had Different "Gods"...

http://clouddragon.files.wordpress.com/2010/0...

http://quantumkool.files.wordpress.com/2012/0...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D29mKa3rqRM/TcNeHGe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[water_nymph]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
What if you see a sign for "Milliways, the Restaurant and the End of the Universe"?

Have lunch and then head home.

[water_nymph]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
Understood and it was not my place to say it, I think I just really wanted to say something to you :)
I haven't much done so in the past , but please forgive me for being a shallow and condescending moron , I am the worm and melt to your grace and eloquence. You really are a kind person.

Oh, sheesh. Now I feel kinda funny. Do you have any smelling salts? You know I'm a southern girl with a fainting couch, right?

[water_nymph]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
Alright, if you are offended by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, how about we use the Church of the Subgenius for our analogies?

Or we could use the Church of All Worlds; Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth;
Universe People; Nuwaubianism; The Church of Euthanasia; Jediism; Woodism (The Church of Ed Wood); or the Prince Phillip Movement. All of them are recognized religions, as is the Church of the Subgenius.

All of them are registered churches with tax exemption.

What we need is The Church of Live and Let Live and Leave Everyone Else the Hayull Alone.

[water_nymph]

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
There was that Coptic papyrus I linked to ...
It is as much evidence as anything we "know" about Jesus.

You're correct in saying 'it is as much evidence as anything we "know" about Jesus.'

What we will never know are his exact thoughts and teachings, as he (nor anyone else) wrote them down as he spoke the words.

If you look at the teachings of Jesus before the account of his death and resurrection, and then look at those words attributed to him after that time, you will see such opposition and contradiction that it seems like the writers are talking of two different people. Paul then teaches in exact opposition to Jesus' teachings and if you ask a Christian what Jesus said about something, 99% of them will give you a quote from Paul and don't even know that they are putting him above Jesus(God).

[Thomas Robertson]

3 card drag wrote:

Read the Bible.

I have.
I've read the Bible, gone to church, gone to Sunday School, gone to church camp, and prayed.
I've read books by Evolutionists, but I've read just as many books by Creationists.

I don't see how I could be a more impartial judge than that.

[water_nymph]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

HTS wrote:
"The reason I brought up Einstein was to counter the ridiculous flying spaghetti monster analogy. The suggestion that no rational person can find objective evidence of God is a lie perpetrated by atheists."
I can't speak for anyone else, but I contend that if there is an all-knowing and all-wise god, he doesn't endorse any of the major religions which millions of people blindly adhere to.
A talking snake? A mountain where one can see all the nations of the world? Krishna simultaneously dancing with all the milkmaids for miles around? 75 prostitutes for every loyal Moslem male but nothing for every loyal Moslem female?
I'm sorry if you are offended, but I don't see how any of this is less ridiculous than a flying spaghetti monster.
"The flying spaghetti monster parody is an insult to thousands of respected scientists who believe in God."
You say they're offended?
Then invite some of them to come on this thread.
I'll listen.
"It only underscores that atheistic evolution is a veritable religion, and those who actively promote it are religious zealots."
I don't know how you define "religion," but I would like to see all those millions of dollars and millions of man-hours rechannelled to teaching evolutionary psychology.
I think that Evolutionary psychology could help people understand themselves and understand each other better than any established religion could.
However, there is one function which Evolutionary theory can NOT serve, and that is to explain the origin of the universe itself.
But then again, neither can religion.
"Just listen to the likes of Richard Dawkins with his incessant ranting about the "evils" of religion."
Oh? What about it?
Anything in particular which you would like to take issue with?
"He is not a scientist..."
He was assistant professor of zoology at UC Berkeley.
"he is a religous fanatic."
How is that any different from YOU being a religious fanatic?

Being a 'religious fanatic' involves believing in a deity. Most people who don't believe in your God do believe in another deity of some sort or other, but there are those few who don't believe in any deity whatsoever and do not make a deity out of any man (or many men).

It is a novel new concept that Christians are being taught that atheism is a religion and that evolution is a religion. It seems to me that theists are easily led to believe that everyone has to have a God of some sort, even when that is untrue.

I would suggest you try to look at things from several points of view before repeating these extremely uninformed ideas taught to you by those who have an agenda to keep you believing what they wish you to believe.