Come one, Come all... Prove God doesn't exist, I'll prove you wrong.

[bromad1972]

you can not prove a negative.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The purpose of evolution


[/ QUOTE ]

How can a mindless process or irrationalilty have a purpose or goal? Purpose implies person.

[ QUOTE ]

And what makes God the ultimate source of rationality?


[/ QUOTE ]

He does. The definition of ultimate source is God. Reason would not exist without God because nothing would.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A sensible approach would be to modify your religious beliefs to accommodate what we know about the way the biological world operates


[/ QUOTE ]

Which one?

[/ QUOTE ]


??? You should try to be clearer.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The very term "atheistic evolution" has no more significance than "Christian bricklaying" or "Bhuddist cuisine". It is empty rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply asserting that it's rhetoric doesn't make it so.


[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously missed my point which was this: Merely juxtaposing two words doesn't necessarily create a new idea. The onus is on you to show why these two words should be considered as a unit. You failed to do this.


[ QUOTE ]



If you really want to debate evolution I have a couple of groundrules. Of course, you're not bound by them, but they are the conditions I have for this debate.

1. I don't care about white moths changing into black moths. I don't deny biological change. And though I don't believe it happened, I'm not that concerned about Cheetah changing into Napoleon. The issues are whether or not life happened by chance from non-life, and whether or not all biological life on earth has a common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Let's talk about a case where a new species is in the process today of separating itself from its ancestors. I refer to the dog.

Genetically, the dog is almost (but not quite) indistinguishable from the wolf. I hope that you can agree that the dog is simply a domesticated wolf. These two populations almost never interbreed, so speciation continues apace. Given the right conditions, of course, they could start interbreeding and speciation woul be aborted.

Can anybody deny that there are enough differences between these two populations to say that they will eventually become separate species?

True enough, most of the differences we see are the result of human selection. I'm not referring to these differences. What I am referring to is the fact that their DNA shows distinct signs of separation. These differences are for the most part random, that is, they are not caused by human selection. And are not yet pronounced enough to justify calling them a different species.

It is important to see the difference between selection and genetic drift. The outward form of the animal can easily be modified by selection, as we have done with the dog. This has nothing to do with speciation The fact that these two populations have been isolated from one another for a few thousand years has led to random differences in their DNA. These differences are what will eventually lead to speciation.

We would have extreme difficulty seeing theis genetic drift were it not for the fact that we can today compare the DNA of the dog with that of the wolf. We know they have a common ancestor, and we know that their DNA is slightly different today. (Again, I must emphasize that this has nothing to do with human selection that has so drastically altered the outward appearance.)

Speciation doesn't happen in a few thousand years. But given a few hundred thousand years of mutual isolation, it is almost certain that dog and wolf would be separate species. And almost certainly, they would be significantly different from what they are today. We could then say that each of these populations had a common ancestor: the present day wolf.

We know from experiments with the fruit fly that changes in the DNA can be caused by radiation. In nature, radiation is the quintessential random process. (Of course, radiation isn't the only cause of mutations.)

[ QUOTE ]







2. The real fundamental issue of evolution, and what has caused the acrimony since Darwin, is the unsupportable assertion that biological change occurs by chance. There were many Christians who believed in biological evolution pre-Darwin. They thought it was part of God's mechanism for creating and filling the earth. It's the idea of randomness in a Godless universe that is totally unscientific, but constantly preached by the priesthood of "science". And as they blithely assert the majesty of "Mother Nature" and the sublimity of "unintelligent design", they seem completely ignorant of the consequences of that belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt you accept the fact that card dealing and dice throwing produce random results. What is "Godless" about accepting that other processes can produce random results?

GG

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
you can not prove a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]
No square triangles exist and I can prove it.

What is difficult to prove is not a negative statement, but a distributed statement. The difference can be seen in these examples:

Non-Distributed Positive: I have orange hair.
Distributed Positive: Everyone has orange hair.
Non-Distributed Negative: I do not have orange hair.
Distributed Negative: Nobody has orange hair.

The distributed statements are harder to prove than the non-distributed statements because you have to show that the rule always applies. They are very easy to falsify because you only have to show one counterexample.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of evolution


[/ QUOTE ]
How can a mindless process or irrationalilty have a purpose or goal?

[/ QUOTE ]
I tried to explain this in an earlier post, but I was apparently unlcear since you continued to talk about "unintelligent design" and "personal impersonality" or whatever it was.

When we speak of evolution having a purpose, or engaging in design, it is a metaphor.

Evolution does not have a conscious purpose. It does not consciously design anything. But its overall result looks, in certain ways, as if it were consciously designing organisms. (Not exactly, though, as I explained in a previous post. A conscious designer probably wouldn't create humans with genetic instructions for a tail that sometimes accidentally get "turned on". Neither would a conscious designer have put remnants of hind limb bones in whales, non-functioning eyes on cave-dwelling fish who live in total darkness, or foetal teeth in baleen whales only to be reabsorbed before ever being used, etc.)

Have you ever heard a physicist say that negative ions want to shed their extra electrons, or that positive ions want to pick up spare electrons? If so, did you jump on him for implying that mindless ions have conscious desires?

It's a metaphor.

[theweatherman]

you are no longer even bothering to support your arguments. Merely saying God needs to exist because he says so is no proof. If it was that easy there would be no thread. This is a circular statement which proves nothing except its own circularity. Just like you cant define a term by using the same term, you cant prove God exists by citing God.

The definition of ultimate source might be God for you but for me its a whosit. I know whosits exist because one of them told me so. They even wrote me a book to hint at their existence. What makes this absurd and your statement perfectly sound? There is no difference just subsituting whosit for God.

With regards to purpose are you so vain to really think that only humans can have purpose? What is the purpose of a bird buliding a nest? A bird is not a person so according to you it has no purpose? Perhaps I missused the word with regards to evolution in order to quickly express an idea. Evolution is the term used to describe the process of change in which organism's DNA continually mutates. Those that mutate for the better hopefully survive longer and pass on these traits. Saying this is evolution's purpose is speaking in layman's terms. In reality there is no "purpose" to evolution however looking at the organisms it shapes it seems that their purpose is to survive and pass on their improved genes.

On the side I have a question for you. Why would an infinite Being such as God bother to create a weak and finite race in order to worship him? The Bible says it is so that we can be saved right? but whats the point of meddling with meak humans in order to save them. If He wanted to we could all be in Heacen since the begining of time right? Or is there some major hole in His power which blocks such an act, but this would make Him not all powerful.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

metaphor

SYLLABICATION: met·a·phor
PRONUNCIATION: mt-fôr, -fr
NOUN: 1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare). 2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol:


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should just say, though evolution has no purpose, it seems to. Or, though evolution creates no design it seems to. I have no argument with that.

As for the tail, see this:

http://www.parentcompany.com/creatio...ation/cx7e.htm

or this:

[ QUOTE ]

all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail. Ledley conceded that there has never been a single documented case of an animal tail lacking these distinctive features, nor has there been a single case of a human caudal appendage having any of these features.


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro07.html

In the 19th century evolution was "proved" by the existence of 180 vestigial organs. I think all or almost all have been abandoned.

[maurile]

On human tails (with citations to real science journal articles).

[NotReady]

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-117.htm
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/zoo00223.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...024.html#tails
http://home.coqui.net/titolugo/PSU24.html

Real science speaks
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/evolutionists.htm
[ QUOTE ]

The subject of human "tails" is an interesting one to say the least. Evolutionists really enjoy bagging this claim around as evidence for evolution. Educated evolutionists usually do not use such "evidence" as support for their theory of origins. This is made aware when Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education was asked about human tails on a 1999 radio debate with Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. Her response follows:

"Actually, that’s [human "tails"] not an evolutionary issue at all ... It’s a matter of developmental biology; it’s a matter of what happens when that sperm fertilized that egg, and that egg grew into a baby, and that baby was born. I couldn’t give you the exact precise biochemical explanation but probably at some point where the genes instructing how many vertebrae to lay down in that vertebral column duplicated itself a couple extra times, by mistake. It was a faulty transmission of information, so to speak. And this particular individual just ended up getting a few extra vertebral segments. And this doesn’t happen very frequently, but, you know there are glitches in the genetic material that produce things like this, just as there are glitches in the genetic material that produce people with six fingers. But if somebody was born with six fingers, you don’t think 'Oh no! That takes us all the way back to Acanthostega', with the earliest amphibians some of them had six fingers. It’s not really an evolutionary issue."


[/ QUOTE ]

A consequence of evolutionary thinking:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html
[ QUOTE ]

Doctors and Scientists never took the time to learn about these organs because evolutionists had told them they were useless. This part of the Evolutionary theory was detrimental to the health of many people, and held up the progression of modern medicine for many years.

Doctors would often remove these organs not knowing that they served a vital role in everyday bodily functions.


[/ QUOTE ]

[maurile]

Come on, dude. I gave you some actual science, and you come back with links to Creationist websites?

Here are some direct citations to peer-reviewed journal articles:

Bar-Maor, J. A., Kesner, K. M., and Kaftori, J. K. (1980) "Human tails." J Bone Joint Surg Br. 62-B: 508-510.

Baruchin, A. M., Mahler, D., Hauben, D. J., and Rosenberg, L. (1983) "The human caudal appendage (human tail)." Br J Plast Surg. 36: 120-123.

Belzberg, A. J., Myles, S. T., and Trevenen, C. L. (1991) "The human tail and spinal dysraphism." J Pediatr Surg 26: 1243-1245.

Dao, A. H., and Netsky, M. G. (1984) "Human tails and pseudotails." Human Pathology 15: 449-453.

Dubrow, T. J., Wackym, P. A., and Lesavoy, M. A. (1988) "Detailing the human tail." Annals of Plastic Surgery 20:340-344.

Fara, M. (1977) "Coccygeal ('tail') projection with cartilage content." Acta Chir. Plast. 19: 50-55.

Grange, G., Tantau, J., Pannier, E., Aubry, M. C., Viot, G., Fallet-Bianco, C., Terrasse, G., and Cabrol, D. (2001) "Prenatal diagnosis of fetal tail and postabortum anatomical description." Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18: 531-533.

Harrison, R. G. (1901) "Occurrence of tails in man, with a description of a case reported by Dr. Watson." Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull. 12:96-101.

Ikpeze, O. C., and Onuigbo, W. I. (1999) "A bisegmented human tail in an African baby." Br J Plast Surg. 52: 329-330.

Keith, A. (1921) "Human tails." Nature 106 :845-846.

Lundberg, G. D., and Parsons, R. W. (1962) "A case of human tail." Am. J. Dis. Child 104: 72.

Spiegelmann, R., Schinder, E. Mintz, M., and Blakstein., A. (1985) "The human tail: a benign stigma." J. Neurosurgery 63:461-462.

Standfast, A. L. (1992) "The human tail." New York State Journal of Medicine. 92: 116.

Sugumata, A., Sato, M., Ikeda, J., Kinosita, J., Tanihira, S., and Makimo, K. (1988) "Two cases of a true human tail." Jpn J Plast Reconstr Surg 31: 1072.