Evolution vs. Creation

[The Dude]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
Technically, that would suggest that 100,000 thousand people had offspring whose descendants live to this day. With all these nit-picky theories on allele frequency and so on, we still are dismissing the ongoing process of natural and unnatural selection. I doubt the genome is mapped quite that thoroughly either. There's a lot of room for error.

You may be dismissing it.(shrug)

[anonymous]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Erm ... of course there's "room for error," each new offspring will be different than the parent, unless you're a clone.

The prediction is based on math models for the number of alleles that would have existed once you eliminate more recent mutations and then estimate how many individuals it would have likely required to account for that gene pool. It may only be based on only one allele that represents the least diversity in gene pool.

It should, but probably doesn't include alleles that existed at that time but are no longer in the gene pool. The time is probably right, but I suspect the numbers are off.

[Aerobatty]

01Justsayin wrote:

Seriously. You people could argue with a lamppost.

It would be more productive.

[MikeF]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol Friend to the Bible. That's kinda funny. The fact that you atheists are constantly looking for proof makes me wonder if you secretly hope that you'll find some.

The fact that you constantly have to accuse anyone who disagrees with you an atheist makes me wonder just what it is you are so afraid of.

And you didn't take exception anything I said.

[woodtick57]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Is this you being all objective like again?

yes! that is an objective look at the facts.

i do not think that word means what you think it means...

[01Justsayin]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>So you cannot prove your ridiculous claims. Good night indeed.

Funny all of the scientific evidence is on our side and yet these creatards have a false sense of superiority. I guess the Dunning Kruger effect strikes hard and deep in the heart of creationism.

Lol What scientific evidence? In everything you've found, you have yet to be able to use the scientific method to disprove the existence of God. That's just fact. I don't believe in the evidence. I believe in God. Thus you cannot use the scientific method to prove to me why I shouldn't believe in him. The most you can do is disagree. I'm cool with that. What you can't do, however, is tell me that I'm wrong.

I'm not coming from a creationist standpoint. I'm coming from an individual one. Please refrain from putting labels on me when I refuse to put labels on myself.

[woodtick57]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol What scientific evidence? In everything you've found, you have yet to be able to use the scientific method to disprove the existence of God. That's just fact. I don't believe in the evidence. I believe in God. Thus you cannot use the scientific method to prove to me why I shouldn't believe in him. The most you can do is disagree. I'm cool with that. What you can't do, however, is tell me that I'm wrong.
I'm not coming from a creationist standpoint. I'm coming from an individual one. Please refrain from putting labels on me when I refuse to put labels on myself.

there is no evidence of the existence of god. that's just fact.

[01Justsayin]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>It was a serious question. It seems that you are projecting again.

I know that not all of you do fit into boxes, but those that don't are far and few between.

Why did you make the idiotic assumption that I would use the scientific method to try to disprove god. It cannot be done. You cannot use the scientific method to prove that the world and everything in it was not created 15 seconds ago.

You may or may not be a creatard. You started off very badly with your insane assumption. You do seem to be following the creatard script. Deny science, use strawman arguments. Act like a general idiot. So far you have hit three of the biggies. All you have to do for the cycle is to deny the theory of evolution and you will have labeled yourself.

Lol Wow! You talk a lot! I mean A LOT! I'll start at the top. No. I'm not projecting. No. I cannot use the scientific method to say that the world and everything was created in 15 seconds. Really?! 15 seconds? Even God needed 6 days. No. I am not a creatard. A retard. Or a theiatard. My thinking is not slow. I'm not brilliant, but I'm no dummy either. No. I'm not following any script. No one controls me. There are no strings on me. I'm simply saying what is on my mind. Because I do have one. I can think for myself. I don't deny science. I LOVE science. And history. And music. And art. And languages. Hate math. Absolutely hate it. My 9 y/o is better at it than I am. Strawman arguments? WTH is that? Yes. I suppose I can act like an idiot from time to time. I am very light hearted and goofy. Ask anyone who knows me. Total goofball. Did I hit three biggies? I didn't even notice. What were they? I don't deny the theory of evolution. I'm not as well versed on it (especially in regards to its relation to creationism) as I would like to be so I can't honestly hold a discussion about it. It's just never been something i've thought too heavily about. Though you have peaked my interest. Allow me to do some research and formulate my own opinion. I'll get back to you on that.

[MikeF]

01Justsayin wrote:

I don't believe in the evidence.

Pretty well sums it up.

[01Justsayin]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>Here is what I was talking about. We don't have to prove the nonexistence of Adam and Eve. That is a negative statement. All we need to do is to point out that there is no evidence, except for a story told around a fire by some camel shaggers. Not what I would call very convincing material.

So if you want to claim they exist it is logically up to you to present the evidence of their existence.

Lol Y'all kill me with this whole burden of proof nonsense. Listen, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Believe whatever you want. I respect that. At the same time, I don't believe in facts or evidence. I believe in God. Until you can use the scientific method to disprove HIS existence, then I'm gonna keep on believing because I have no reason not to. Your little camel shagger comments just aren't enough to convince me otherwise. Sorry. I know that I can't use the scientific method to prove God exists. Unlike many other free thinkers who have come before me, that fact does not drive me crazy. I'm okay with that. I don't feel the need to prove anything. I don't have to touch God to believe he exists. I'm not Thomas. At the same time, your opinion (cause lets face it. that's all it is) on this particular subject does not make mine incorrect. Neither of us can use the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God. Thus neither of us have a pot to piss in when it comes to telling the other that they are wrong. To do so is both arrogant and presumptive. Not logical or enlightened at all.

[KittenKoder]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Pretty well sums it up.

He has fully submitted to his god delusion.

[01Justsayin]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>Isn't that what creationists are?(shrug)

Lol I don't believe that God and science are mutually exclusive. Call that what you will. I despise labels.

[Cybele]

Even if there is evidence for God, we will never have consensual validation for it.

Context of discovery is the initial phase of research, in which observations, beliefs, information, and general knowledge lead to a new idea or a different way of thinking about some phenomenon.

How would we achieve this if we don't first validate the existence of God or at least be open to the idea?

[01Justsayin]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>I can say that your belief is your opinion. i tis a lie to say that it is a fact. That science cannot say whether it is true or false is what makes it an opinion and not a fact.

I can say that your lack of belief is your opinion. It is a lie to say that it is fact. That the scientific method cannot say whether it (whether or not God exists) is true or false is what makes it an opinion and not a fact.

[woodtick57]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol Y'all kill me with this whole burden of proof nonsense. Listen, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Believe whatever you want. I respect that. At the same time, I don't believe in facts or evidence. I believe in God. Until you can use the scientific method to disprove HIS existence, then I'm gonna keep on believing because I have no reason not to. Your little camel shagger comments just aren't enough to convince me otherwise. Sorry. I know that I can't use the scientific method to prove God exists. Unlike many other free thinkers who have come before me, that fact does not drive me crazy. I'm okay with that. I don't feel the need to prove anything. I don't have to touch God to believe he exists. I'm not Thomas. At the same time, your opinion (cause lets face it. that's all it is) on this particular subject does not make mine incorrect. Neither of us can use the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God. Thus neither of us have a pot to piss in when it comes to telling the other that they are wrong. To do so is both arrogant and presumptive. Not logical or enlightened at all.

Seems you keep bringing up this whole proof business...

[01Justsayin]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>So what does it mean when you say something does not exist? Isn't it *exactly* that there is no way to detect such a thing, even in theory? Otherwise, how do you demonstrate that there is not an elephant in my living room?

Is there an elephant in my living room? Dangit! I told that elephant!

[01Justsayin]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>Nor the Cosmic Sheep of dimension Zog.

Hence both concepts are just as valid.

Sure. Anything is possible.

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

Even if there is evidence for God, we will never have consensual validation for it.
Context of discovery is the initial phase of research, in which observations, beliefs, information, and general knowledge lead to a new idea or a different way of thinking about some phenomenon.
How would we achieve this if we don't first validate the existence of God or at least be open to the idea?

yes observation. as yet there is none for any god, gods or goddessses...

the initial phase of research can begin when someone has such.

[The Dude]

anonymous wrote:

It should, but probably doesn't include alleles that existed at that time but are no longer in the gene pool.

Ah.

So we agree you have no evidence.

[01Justsayin]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>Never once will you see a Hindu bowing before your particular god out of the thousands that have been proposed through history. However you avoided the point that he was correct. Just because you don't personally give two hoots about the FSM doesn't matter. Hindus don't care about your god either.

FSM? I'm cool with Hindus not caring about my God. I don't particularly worship theirs either. I'm cool with the Hindus themselves, though. Let them believe what they want. So long as they don't try to impose said belief system upon me. Or deny that mine exists simply because theirs does. Especially when they can't use the scientific method to disprove my God's existence. How ridiculous is that?