Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Full Story
KJV

United States

#6995 Nov 27, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, real scientists don't use those terms because it is impossible to determine a boundary, unless you have some new evidence that can demonstrate a real boundary, it's all layman terms and nothing more.
Wikipedia

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3]
KJV

United States

#6996 Nov 27, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<.
The glossary of my college introductory biology text, Campbell's Biology (4th Ed.) states: "macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction." Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, a text I used for an upper-division evolutionary biology course, states, "In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa." (pg. 447, emphasis in original). Similarly, these textbooks respectively define "microevolution" as "a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations" and "slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species." Clearly Darwin-skeptics did not invent these terms.

Other scientific texts use the terms. In his 1989 McGraw Hill textbook, Macroevolutionary Dynamics, Niles Eldredge admits that "most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (pg. 22) Similarly, Steven M. Stanley titles one of his books, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), where he notes that, "[t]he known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (pg. 39)

The scientific journal literature also uses the terms "macroevolution" or "microevolution." In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists' understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology. Lewin reported, "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.)

Two years earlier, Robert E. Ricklefs had written in an article in Science entitled "Paleontologists confronting macroevolution," contending:

The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma.... apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.
(Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)
KJV

United States

#6998 Nov 27, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
Okay, so Derek is in love with Dawkins, I don't think Dawkins would be interested, he's straight.
You won't know straight if it bit you on the nose. LOL

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6999 Nov 27, 2012
Summary of the above:
KJV knows less about genetics than a 1 year old with brain damage.
KJV

United States

#7000 Nov 27, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>KJV wrote, "Well lets look at that. If God created man in is own image that should include the freedom of choice if that's something God has."

Then you're agreeing that your god created sin, sin nature, Satan, evil, and hell,and then gave us freedom of choice. Don't forget leaving a forbidden tree in our garden and a talking snake to deceive the people there. Your god made those, too. One gets the idea that man was designed to sin and set up to fail and burn.

KJV wrote, " And all choices have ramifications."

That's what I'm saying. And the ramifications of the god's choices were devastating for man. I wonder why he made those choices? Did he stop loving us?
"Then you're agreeing that your god created sin, sin nature"

I'm not sure why you are trying to twist my words or insert your words as my own. The Bible specifically states that MAN brought sin and death in to the world. Not God but man. You know this!
Why are you playing the dumb card?
KJV

United States

#7001 Nov 27, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
That's impossible. Nothing is in the world that an omnipotent and omniscient god didn't foresee and want there.

KJV wrote, "He loved us enough to let go. Even when it pained him to do so. "

That is not love. That is serving up souls to the devil. And he would have known it before he did it.

I wonder why you trust such a god.

KJV wrote, "God knew what choices we would make but he allowed us to make them even when it was against his wishes."

Thanks, god.

Is that what you are calling love? Wouldn't love be the kind of thing that helps us rather than leads to the torture of so many?
God did not create the Devil he created an angel.

", Ezekiel 28:12-18, and Revelation 12:1-13.
Theologians believe that Lucifer was the worship leader in heaven, in the very presence of God. He was exceedingly beautiful and endowed with special abilities. As we see in the passage from Isaiah 14, Lucifer looked upon his own beauty and wisdom – attributes created in him by the Lord – and he decided that he would raise his throne above God. He foolishly declared,“I will make myself like the Most High.”:
“How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations! But you said in your heart,'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit. Those who see you will gaze at you. They will ponder over you, saying,'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a wilderness and overthrew its cities, who did not allow his prisoners to go home?'”(Isaiah 14:12-18)"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7002 Nov 27, 2012
KJV wrote:
The Bible specifically states that MAN brought sin and death in to the world. Not God but man. You know this!
I know you claim it, but it's an unacceptable argument. How could man create anything in a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent god? If you can foresee what your creation will do, and have the power to make that be whatever you want it to be, then what it does is your creation as well.

If man can create entire categories of moral behavior, then I am free to speculate that it was your god that created the evil and sin in man and the universe, and that it was man created the good, introduced it into the world, and that your god stole the credit from man. It's just as possible as the other way around.
KJV

United States

#7003 Nov 27, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see why not. Besides, something counterintuitive happened.

KJV wrote, "Every law of physics would be broken."

The laws we know didn't exist yet. They were formed as a result of the expansion in a process called symmetry breaking.

KJV wrote, "It just could not have happened that way."

As I told you, it is invalid to look at one option of many, all of which are counterintuitive, call it impossible because it's counterintuitive, and think that that indicates that an even less likely and more counterintuitive solution obtains as a result.

If you want to discuss the impossible, tell me what is less likely to exist than an undesigned, infinitely complex god?
God creating the universe doesn't break a single law of physics.

And the old stand by that the laws of physics didn't apply until science wanted them to.

You can go here and read a good debate about this.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/59...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#7004 Nov 27, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
God creating the universe doesn't break a single law of physics.
how about the law of actually having some kind of proof that isn't religious lies?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#7005 Nov 27, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
God creating the universe doesn't break a single law of physics.
And the old stand by that the laws of physics didn't apply until science wanted them to.
You can go here and read a good debate about this.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/59...
No matter how you work it, the laws of physics in this universe cannot exist until the universe they exist in exists. Attempting to discredit scientists this way is just dishonest word play.
KJV

United States

#7006 Nov 27, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Who would that be, and why would it matter if it were?

In any even, the universe is generally assumed to have expanded extremely quickly for a fraction of a second. From Wiki: "In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation ... is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 10E78 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density."

KJV wrote, "Also if this speck was a spinning Singularity if it broke apart then everything should be spinning the same way. The Conservation of Angular Momentum tells us that in a frictionless environment, if pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin in the same direction
"

Nothing broke apart.

Also, why do you think that angular momentum is not conserved? So you think that you could discern if the universe was turning? Can you feel the earth turning?
There are planets right in our own solar system that are spinning the wrong way.
The theory of angular momentum claims this is impossible if everything started from a spinning singularity in a frictionless environment.

The theory of gravity does not allow for the expanding singularity.

And what sounds crazier all the matter in the entire universe (all stars and all planets all moons all asteroids all dust)
Were once all in a physical spot taking up less room then this period . Then put aside all laws of physics to expand and create everything?

Or All was created by an intelligent designer?

I believe the later. You believe the first example.
KJV

United States

#7007 Nov 27, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I am. I said so.

But I am also an atheist. I don't believe or accept any god claims yet, and that's an atheist. An agnostic atheist.

This really isn't a debate or a request that you agree. It's a report. I'm telling you how I use the words "atheist" and "agnostic" - what I mean when I say those words - how increasing numbers of others are using and understanding those words, and how language and dictionaries evolve. Languages are dynamic, and dictionaries are descriptive - not prescriptive. They describe how language is actually being used, not prescribe how it must be used.

It is pointless for you to insist on a particular schema of nomenclature. It is pointless for you to insist that I must choose between "atheist" and "agnostic" when it is clear that it makes sense to call people like me both.

What doesn't make sense is arbitrarily insisting that I can't be both - that I must pick only one. One describes what I believe, and one what I claim to know. They are independent variables, like race and gender, not mutually exclusive options on a spectrum of possible values for a parameter.
I can tell you that if you answered all those questions in a survey you would be listed under agnostic and not atheist.
So calling yourself an atheist may suit your needs it just doesn't conform to the use of the words proper use.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7008 Nov 27, 2012
KJV wrote:
God did not create the Devil he created an angel.
Even though he sees all and can do anything, his failures are never his fault.

He made angels, dome good, and some revolted. We are told that he made the good ones good, but the bad ones were bad by themselves.

He made man, and each one ever born has sinned just as he knew they would before he made the first one, but that's out fault.

He commits genocide on entire populations including infants and we hear that his love is perfect, but they were wicked and needed extermination.

You're an enabler for your god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7009 Nov 27, 2012
KJV wrote:
You can go here and read a good debate about this.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/59...
That was interesting. Thanks.

We're really not able to say much about the singularity or the first 10E-43 or so seconds after it.
KJV

United States

#7010 Nov 27, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, I know what you mean - that's sad, isn't it – just not much demand on TV for atheists.

Also, atheists aren't very organized and don't support their atheist churches financially to fund their ministries.
Well tv deals in numbers and seeing as to that fact that atheist is now down to 2.04% of the world population. Not really a big draw.
KJV

United States

#7011 Nov 27, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you believe in God?
"Adam wrote:
Questions for Derek and KJV. Do you think the OT law came from God. Also do you think this law is immoral?"

I have stated my believes on the Bible many times.

How do you believe life started?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7012 Nov 27, 2012
KJV wrote:
There are planets right in our own solar system that are spinning the wrong way. The theory of angular momentum claims this is impossible if everything started from a spinning singularity in a frictionless environment.
With all due respect, your understanding of science is inadequate to be speaking in terms of what must be and what is impossible.

A good whack of a planet's north pole by a glancing planetesimal or larger object could put a planet on its head and cause it to be spinning opposite the remainder of planets in the same solar system, and there would be no violation of angular momentum.
KJV wrote:
The theory of gravity does not allow for the expanding singularity.
I don't see why not. For starters, the laws of gravity didn't apply until gravity separated from the rest of the forces, then still combined as one force themselves. By then, the universe was inflating. Gravity, once it appeared, might slow the expansion, although we are learning about thing like dark energy, negative gravity, and the effects of possible structures outside of the universe - structures such as parallel universes, branes, and multiverses - on the gravity in this universe. Oh yeah, it be true.

And remember, whatever is the correct answer, it is so weird as to sound impossible. You can't use that argument against just one hypothesis at a time, so you can't use it against any of them.
KJV

United States

#7013 Nov 27, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>Churches? No thanks, I'd rather have a lie in or read newspapers on a sunday morning.

If you have any spare money it would be much better spent on secular charities where the money goes to good causes, than lining the pockets of clergy.
Adam are you really going to lump all the churches in to one atheist defined criminal originates?

If you do then we could then lump all science in to the lying money grubbing thief's that have been caught falsifying scientific studies.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7014 Nov 27, 2012
KJV wrote:
I can tell you that if you answered all those questions in a survey you would be listed under agnostic and not atheist. So calling yourself an atheist may suit your needs it just doesn't conform to the use of the words proper use.
OK. I don't mind. I just want to see theism take a back seat to secularism at all levels of public life, and restrict theism to the private lives of volunteers. Whatever the remainder call themselves is fine.
KJV

United States

#7015 Nov 27, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>okey dokey - long as yore happie.....lol
Ya great news flash Adam.

Woke up?

So now that your in this new faith Adam
Please explain how life stared.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 18 min Uncle Sam 233,186
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 27 min One way or another 5,955
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 33 min JOEL 23,278
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 39 min _Bad Company 214
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr thetruth 2,624
Pastor who gave up God for a year after getting... 1 hr thetruth 3
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 1 hr thetruth 177
More from around the web