Hyper evolution in the bible

Did he reproduce to achieve these changes? Was he selected for by the environment? No? Then it's not evolution. You don't know what you are talking about.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Yes, because it is part of the definition of biological evolution: diversification by imperfect reproduction and natural selection.What is important to realise here, is that individuals don't evolve. So whatever happened to Nebuchadnezzar, it wasn't evolution, let alone hyper-evolution. Not 'who'. 'What'. The proper question is "What reproduced the first lifeform?"And the answer is: a non-life form.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Apart from the fact that it is a bit tenuous to draw the line between non-life and life as sharply as is suggested by the way you talk about it: yes, the first lifeform was an individual, in the sense that it was an individual example of its kind. The non-lifeforms that preceded it were also individual examples of their kind.I think I know where you want this to go: when I say that the first lifeform was an individual, you come out triumphantly with "Gotcha! So individuals can evolve!"But your ploy fails. All that evolved was a population of non-lifeforms, which subsequently also contained lifeforms. By saying that, I also hope it's becoming a bit clearer that the distinction between non-life and life isn't even all that important for the process of evolution to take place. Well, it's a nice metaphor, but as far as explanations are concerned, yes, it's out. Let's call that A and contrast it with B: "some non evidenced supernatural entity did the deed here". For A, there is a proposed mechanism, it's plausible, and it explains a lot. B, however, has no mechanism, is not very plausible, and has no explanatory power whatsoever. I know which one I prefer. There is no rule in science that says that anything but God is allowed as an explanation. If God really did it, then science will eventually find that out. So far, science is moving further and further away from the God explanation. And since science keeps progressing, and produces some very useful results along the way, its trustworthiness is a lot higher, in my view, than the stagnant creation myth.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

So basically you counter my "science fiction" with fairy tales? Very impressive.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Of course it isn't, how stupid do you think I am? I can open a Bible and read what it says. But "the things that you're liable to read in the Bible, it ain't necessarily so", or to spell it out gently: I think it's a bit naive to take the Bible literally. That's why it's a fairy tale. Wrong. Most people on earth have, for the most part of history, known practically zilch about how the world really works. Only in the last few centuries have some brilliant minds been able to figure out a bit of the truth. And the fact that most people still don't get the message doesn't give much hope that mankind will grow up any time soon.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I hope you realise that this way of reasoning only multiplies the number of competing "theories". Your fellow creationists will not be pleased, I'm afraid: now "God did it" must not only take on evolution, which already proves a formidable task because it actually does come with an abundance of evidence, but also "crazy alien on mushrooms dreamt up the universe", "pink invisible unicorn farted the universe into existence", and a whole host of other, let's be frank, nonsensical fairy-tales, all of which have no evidence whatsoever speaking for them.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

And how is the Bible not opinion? If the Bible is proof, then rabbits and playing cards can talk, because then Alice in Wonderland must be admitted as proof too. Do you believe playing cards can talk and play croquet? Do you believe a little girl can cry a sea? Why not? It's right there in the pages of Lewis Carrol's book! Now, if that isn't proof... then neither is the Bible. Do you see my point? How smart or stupid people are is related to the education they receive. As long as they accept the religious drivel they're being fed as an explanation for how the world works, they will remain stupid. Science tells them stories they can check. Moreover, science gets them results, like medication, which helps cure diseases, something which cannot verifiably be said of things like healing stones, or prayer. Science also performs "miracles": if you tell me God talks to you, I'd say you're nuts, but if I tell you that someone on the other side of the planet talks to me, you'd have to acknowledge that it's science that makes this possible. You yourself are using the results of science on a daily basis, yet you dismiss its validity. How's that?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-Jul-2005 09:52 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

It's not just a matter of not denying other supernatural things. The problem is that the supernatural stories contradict each other. You cannot both believe that God created the world and that a pink unicorn farted it into existence. These two stories are mutually exclusive.Because I don't know exactly how 'simple' you are, let me explain that the pink unicorn is an example and a place holder for other creation myths people really believe in. Indeed, I couln't agree more, about the pigheadedness, that is. If it weren't for certain pigheaded scientific types, we'd still be living in the dark ages.As Mick already pointed out, you cannot make something go away if it isn't there in the first place. But I would like to slightly modify that argument in that I think the supernatural does exist, namely in people's minds, and it's from there that science should try and make it go away.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Haha, you got me there! No need to be sorry, I would have done the same - if I had been smart enough to spot it.

Great idea!I can see the first schism looming on the horizon already, over the question of whether the unicorn itself is pink, or just its farts. Members of the PFF (Pink Fart Faction) will try to suicide bomb into oblivion their rivals of the orthodox Invisible-Pink-Unicorn Fartist church, who believe that both the unicorn and its farts are invisible, although the unicorn is also pink. Then there are the Invisible Pink-Unicorn-Fartists - note the slightly different hyphenation - who think they themselves are invisible, making them invulnerable to suicide bombers.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Don't get me started. Oh well...It's a mystery, you dumb-ass! Of course you can be invisible and pink, as long as it's a mystery. Those non-pinking heathen-christians believe their God is one AND three, don't they? Well, clearly their arithmetic sucks, but they've got their mysteries in order, I'll say.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Now that we have that matter out of the way, we can perhaps concentrate on the next contentious issue, which is that of smell. The discussion focuses on the odorous/non-odorous character of the Holy Fart. Some say that, if the Fart is invisible and non-odorous, the meaning of the word 'fart' becomes somewhat ethereal. Yet others hold that odorous farts make for a detectable Pink Invisible Unicorn, which is a blasphemy in their eyes. The Holy Fart is way beyond our senses, they say. And that includes the olfactory, they hasten to stress.By the way, if some admin starts yelling that this is all off-topic, I have two lines of defense. First, I can say that Pink Invisible Unicorn Fartism happends to be my thing and I just know that if flatly contradicts hyper-evolution. Second, if it is deemed nonsense, I can say that it is no more nonsensical than anything else said in this thread regarding the topic.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Simple, if you don't mind, I'll lump your two posts to me together. The creation debate is about whether creation is true. You cite a book as your evidence. If that is admissible, then any book can be used as evidence for anything. Obviously this is a ludicrous proposition. But if it is, then taking the Bible as evidence is ludicrous too. Do you get it now? You forget that if a science text claims something, for example that an object dropped on earth will fall with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s², you can simply climb a tower, drop an object, and verify the claim. Nobody says you should believe a science text unconditionally. Usually it contains a meticulous description of what experiments were done that merit the claims it makes. You can simply repeat the experiments and see if the results are the same. That's how science works. Granted. Exactly! And in my book, religious drivel is not the thing to be educated with. It's what keeps you ignorant. How on earth can leaving out the supernatural from science be a belief? It's quite the contrary to a belief, it's the absence of a belief in the supernatural that makes scientists not consider it. For how can they do science on things they cannot physically test in any way? Gods? Plural? Last time I checked, polytheism was frowned upon in biblical circles. Anyway, you didn't address my point, which was that many supernatural stories, I'm thinking creation myths here, are contradictory, or negating each other. Here are some examples: Inuit and Australian aboriginal. And if you think Pink Unicorn Fartism is just a ridiculous example of mine, here's one from the real world, with real people believing it, and it involves, brace yourself, vomit. (Read the second story, of the Boshongo.)This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-Jul-2005 09:29 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Then I would like a description of a miracle I can repeat, please. Or a prayer that I can have answered. Oh, but I forget, there has been a split, and now the spiritual is gone and miracles don't work anymore. How sad. Not to mention convenient. Let's have some of those rules, then. Can you cite any?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 16-Jul-2005 09:55 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Let me get this straight: you believe in A + B, and I believe in only A. Yet you call my belief extended? Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word 'extend'?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins