Summations Only

Could be. We know, after all, that evolution goes really really fast so long as creationists approve of it.

I got some good mileage out of this pratt toward explaining punctuated equilibrium.EvC Forum: Does Neo-Darwinian evolution require change ?With pictures !!!

---

So why is the creationist version of widespread speciation due to heritable variance and natural selection called microevolution? It seems to me the terms are reversed.for the wide variety of different critters we now have to all come from one microscopic bug over half a billion years, slowly and sensibly, strikes me as the micro category. For them all to spring from the small number of livestock (7 pairs each) and vermin (2 pairs) that could be represented on a 3-story wooden boat, in less than 5000 years, would seriously be macroevolution.Edited by Iblis, : added content

It is better believing in a tiny God and a gigantic inerrant Bible :=)Lovely greetings from Germany
Liebe Gre aus DeutschlandLothars Sohn - Lothar's son
lotharlorraine | 4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

Greetings yenmor and everyone else reading this post/thread, I have not read much of the thread so I don't know if any of my points have been made or argued. I will respond directly to yenmor as he is the op. You don't seem like an atheist. Atheists don't believe in god at all. Agnostic thought is the gray area between theism and atheism. You seem like an agnostic. Right. First, we are talking about communication from god to us. Next we are talking about god's method for communicating to us, not your method for communicating, not joe the plumber's method, or sid the nasa scientist's method, or carl sagan's method, or stephen hawking's method, or michio kaku's method, etc. Then next we are talking about what god would like to communicate to us. The size of god does not matter. Do you have to be big to be a all powerful all knowing all loving creator god? Who is setting the bar? Isn't it better to claim "I don't KNOW enough about god to draw a picture of god except what is CLAIMED by spiritual folk, religious writings, and so on. So due to that I am not going to draw a complete picture of god. However, IF god does exist, god must be a all powerful all knowing all loving creator god"? Don’t get me wrong, I know there are terrible things happening in the world but it does not mean god is not loving and god does not exist. And if god does exist it does not have to or need to respond or help those in pain in order to be loving. Maybe that is a test for humanity to love each other enough to help each other? We have no idea what this experience is about exactly except what people write and claim. In my view (speculatively) we are being tested in this existence in different ways no matter the pain or happiness for eternal purposes. I mostly agree except some scientific discoveries don’t need to be made. It’s very important to be moral over scientific discovery. Actually in my view no matter how silly the bible may appear (or any other spiritual book/writing for the most part) it is not about science it is about morality. Nature does not teach morality.Thanks
Alias :-)Edited by Alias, : corrections to word usage and added a few other things...Edited by Alias, : editEdited by Alias, : No reason given.Edited by Alias, : last updateEdited by Alias, : last update

Hello Alias!Don't worry about posting stuff others may have talked about. As long as you put it in your own words, it's worth the post.
The only strict thing around here is staying on topic, and that's just a matter of location.
Feel free to go off topic as much as you'd like... just either start another thread for it or do it in a thread where it is on topic. It helps keep the place organized. Actually, it very well might.
Why believe in a small God that cannot prevent these things, even if He wanted to?
Why not believe in a bigger God that could do something to stop terrible things from happening?If the answer boils down to: "because this is the world we live in" ...then we enter the issue of imagining God to fit our world. Which tends to point to God being from our imagination instead of actually existing. Actually, He does, if He has the power to do so. Otherwise He's just mean. Could be. But that would be a very mean test. A mean test is not loving.
No "loving" being would create a test where innocent people are raped and killed in order to see if some other humans can love each other and help each other out. That's a psychotic test. Nature does teach morality, it's just not a great one. Same with the Bible... not a particularly great moral system.
People can imagine better moralities, though. We're good at improving on existing ideas.

Hello Stile, First off, there is no reason to think a "big god" is any more able to help the faithful than a "small god". I think It depends on several things (not just size) as to why or when "god" would help those faithful. Perhaps what "god" deems right/wrong is a factor, AND/or whether or not it has something to teach us prior to helping, and so on. IT could ALSO be that "god" chooses a different teaching style depending on the situation (teach by letting us experience or by revelation). The bigger question is WHY would "god" help or NOT help, it is not about the size of "god". IT only depends on what "god" would like people to learn from the experience OR what method "god" would like to use to teach people. So if we LEARN what is right/wrong from "god" (over "god" removing us from existence) this does quantify to a loving "god" since it is teaching and apparently caring enough to teach. Nope. Read above. It depends on... ^^^You see humanity is very selfish and ignorant. Especially if there is a "god" creating everything that is going to permit us eternal existence within ITS creation with it. We expect so much. It is like being a child expecting things from parents. Sometimes we deserve what we expect and sometimes we don't. And in good parenting this can be extremely loving. I don't think it is mean necessarily (it depends), perhaps to humanity it is mean (which I understand) since we can't see outside this existence. Ever serve in the military? Well I'm sure the mean test is actually a loving test (Read above for what I mean on how it may not be a mean test as well.) You see, in this particular case we're like fish in a fish tank. However, if we could see the BIG picture better (concluding there is a bigger picture and we are fish in a fish tank) it would all make much more sense (I would hope) and we would understand how it is loving (I would hope). Honestly that is what spirituality is about, seeing the big picture. We're trying to understand beyond the vale (concluding there is a beyond the vale).WRT your point "because this is the world we live in" that we enter the issue of imagining "god" to fit our world. AND that it tends to point to "god" being from our imagination instead of actually existing." This is your vantage (The vantage from within your mind), or the vantage of people with this opinion. Hence the fish in a fish tank idea. What you're doing is making a claim. Remember there should be a full 360 degree aerial view of a thought/phenomena. Which should mean that there is a lot more possibilities to that phenomena than the idea you're are claiming regarding this existence. In my view it is possible that we can't have all the answers just like it is possible that we can have all the answers. These are equally right. You pick what answer you want to limit your self too. I choose to limit myself to the possibility that we may not have all the answers ever. I choose to limit myself to the idea that there may be something out there creating things that I don't understand how it is creating them other than within the means of science. Of course we all know the bounds of science or at least we should and science can't answer questions is there a god. Honestly it makes a lot more sense that all of this, including human beings (and other species) with several biological systems working together to give experience, awareness, reproduction, and life came from intelligence vs nothing. I wonder what it would have been like to watch elements randomly shift into amino acids, then watch those acids randomly shift into proteins that actually functioned and were able to exist within the confines of the early earth without there being intelligence involved. Very unlikely. Any biologist will tell you that proteins actually come from cells to serve a specific function within a specific environment not the other way around. Proteins don't randomly happen AND have a function to serve. Hence the interpretation of the facts and thus IDEA that IT makes more sense that particles that work in a specific way came from intelligence. That It makes more sense that certain elements that have certain specific properties came from intelligence. That It makes more sense that an ecosystem that can permit life came from intelligence. I will conclude that intelligence is involved and it is intelligent enough to be confusing to humanity and humanities science so that we all can't conclude the same. In my view, nature does not teach moral. In nature phenomena occurs that is it. When you introduce a brain into nature the brain interprets, depending on its ability, the information/phenomena and sums it up to thought/a conclusion. To teach, after concluding, you have to have that ability which comes from the brain. Moral is thought that is concluded from interpretation due to the brain's abilities. Thus nature teaches nothing. When we discuss "god" we are saying that it created nature and has overall authority of moral. Man has tried to get moral right without god and we're terrible to each other. You get stuff like racism/hitler/the crusaders, etc.Thanks
Alias :-)Edited by Alias, : correctionsEdited by Alias, : correctionsEdited by Alias, : last updateEdited by Alias, : last update

If amino acids are so special and unique to life that a creator must've made them for that purpose only, why are they found on meteors? Maybe god was sloppy?
Furhtermore, amino acids do spontaneously polymerise into polypeptide (protein-like) structures under thermal conditions including volcanic vents. (Melius 1982, Fox 1977).
This does not mean life started that way, it could be due to a completely different molecule (e.g. RNA-like polymers). The important thing to remember is, just because we don't know yet, doesn't make a fairytale true by default. See my first point (also, elements aren't molecules for the record). Which of course isn't helped by God stating that slavery is allowed and that you should kill your offspring whenever he asks.
Nature actually does teach a lot, including collaboration and altruism. Additionally, the most secular countries are among the least violent, best educated and most caring for the poor... no god needed.

A planet with amino acids exploded? I don't know. As for atheism, first we have to show amino acids on EARLY earth absent of intelligence to have been produced from elements randomly. Chemical chains are not proteins. Amino acid chains with a specific function are proteins. RNA is produced by DNA you need to show RNA existing prior to DNA. Also I'm not claiming a fairy tale true by default. Please don't assume its rude.Molecules are more than 1 of the same element. O^2 is a molecule and element. Compounds are more than 1 element bonded such as NaCl. Please ref CH and verse that slavery is OK in the bible. FYI: don't assume I believe that a bible written by man and organized by religious institutions is inerrant. Nature does not teach it can't speak. It has no voice. People interpret and speak. Ref to my last post for more info. Secular countries are not among the most educated, etc... This is a claim and it makes no difference. I'm not religious.Thanks
Alias :-)Edited by Alias, : CorrectionsEdited by Alias, : CorrectionsEdited by Alias, : EditEdited by Alias, : EditEdited by Alias, : Edit

Still that means that god was sloppy and created life on another planet as well? My sincere apologies. I was under the impression you insinuated the presence of a god, which is by all definitions a fairytale. Actually they are: proteins are polymers of chemicals called amino acids. Polypeptides are small proteins and proteins don't necessarily need to have a function to be termed 'protein' (though chances are any polypeptide will have some chemical affinities, that's why they work so well as enzymes, especially through natural selection). This is not true. DNA can just as well be synthesised from RNA by reverse transcriptase. Apart from this assumption, there could've been several molecules involved in the origin of life that are now replaced by more efficient modern contemporaries (e.g. proteins, DNA, RNA)... just because we don't use spears in modern society, doesn't mean we never used them to our advantage (disclaimer: this is an analogy). However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. Titus 2:9

Its absurd to conclude "god" is sloppy if amino acids it created were in a planet that exploded. The insinuation of a god or that there is no god is equally a fairy tale if we go with your claim. Just because "God" chooses to do things different than you does not quantify to it not existing. Atheism is a leap just as much as theism. Please don't draw a picture that theism is limited to cult/religious type thought.I agree that proteins are much bigger chemicals if you want to call them that but it seems bad to refer to them that way when you seemed ignorant on chemistry. I was trying to draw a picture that they are not elements/molecules. The issue is clear, you have to show elements bonding randomly to form acids and proteins void of intelligence in nature which has never been observed. It's a belief not a fact.Your 2nd to last paragraph is a claim void of fact. It also shows a leap of faith on your part. What a fairy tale.Thanks for the reference. Although this draws a couple of points. Slavery was OK historically since "god" is the authority, or this verse is corrupt, or the god of the bible is a fairy tale and I'm sure you can make up some other thoughts.Thanks
Alias :-)Edited by Alias, : EditEdited by Alias, : EditEdited by Alias, : EditEdited by Alias, : EditEdited by Alias, : EditEdited by Alias, : last update

Of course it's absurd, it's fantasy. I just made the observation god was sloppy if he did use those "special" amino acids only to create life. Again this doesn't mean accepting scientific evidence is a "leap of faith" or a fairytale. Throughout history, people created gods for whatever natural event they didn't understand (e.g. lightning, migration of the moon and stars, the origin of species). Now we have scientific theories which explain the natural world around us in detail. Just because we don't know what specifically happened billions of years ago or every possible way molecules interact in every possible environment doesn't mean an intelligent creator set it all in motion. I never called them that, you assumed wrong. Hey I'm just saying there are working hypotheses out there that of course need testing. Remember, just like before the theory of gravity, evolution and baby making. No need to create the god of the gaps. How does this not make a difference? You're welcome.Edited by Yakuzi, : No reason given.Edited by Yakuzi, : No reason given.

Please explain how "god" was sloppy if the Amino acids were on a planet that exploded? Accepting facts and theories is different than believing in atheism. Atheism is not a science. No scientific theory claims there is no god. It's mere speculation. FYI: just because gods have been created does not quantity to atheism as a fact. Yes we have theories that help understanding but none of them quantify to atheism. Nothing you re saying quantifies to atheism. Natural laws could of happened randomly or could of been designed like a machine. The theory of gravity is changing much like the theory of evolution. You're outdated man! Gravity is different than the theory of gravity. As for secular or religious societies, it does not make a difference because you don't know secular countries are actually doing better than religious ones. It's a claim much like god or no god... It's mere speculation and depends on who you listen too, where you get the facts, how much you look into it, etc...Thanks
AliasEdited by Alias, : CorrectionEdited by Alias, : CorrectionsEdited by Alias, : EditEdited by Alias, : Edit

Wow, I've been too busy with work to check this thread out that I started. I came in just now and it says it will close soon because the 300 posts limit has been reached.Anyway, in summation.... blah. At least my thread entertained you guys LOL.Edited by yenmor, : No reason given.

Hi Alias,I have never even mentioned atheism. I was stating that all the existing scientific evidence makes it extremely unlikely that gods/creators exist, pretty much as likely as flying spaghetti monsters, unicorns and other figments of the imagination. Particularly in the context of the making up creators activities observed throughout human history. One of your main arguments was that you could not imagine that proteins formed without a creator, and I presented two research articles stating otherwise. I'm sure you can come up with more gaps now, making a stronger case for your creator of the gaps, just like creationists do with the fossil record. Of course, if you have any evidence that proves a creator, enlighten us by all means. Please note, just because you can't imagine it doesn't count as evidence.Stating that I'm outdated is a psychological projection, but I guess reality bites and it is a decent defense mechanism.Edited by Yakuzi, : No reason given.Edited by Yakuzi, : No reason given.

It's less likely that there is not god. You presented no information/evidence that amino acids evolved without guidance. Ditto to proteins/polypeptides. They are created by DNA in nature to serve a function. Gotta have cells with dna first.Thanks
Alias :-)Edited by Alias, : Add fyiEdited by Alias, : CorrectionsEdited by Alias, : EditEdited by Alias, : last update