Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

Urgannagru · 1 Feb 2013 at 23:58

V-Spec said:
One of the cool things about plants, is that as you say - some of them have gigantic amounts of chromosomes, the Fern for example has much more DNA than we do.

James Watson explains that the reason for this, is that plants such as Ferns are chemical warriors, they have to sit and take everything that's thrown at them for millions of years, they can't run away from things that try to eat them, parasites etc - they have to sit and take it, as a result the amount of defenses and mechanisms they have incurred over time results in a huge amount of DNA.

Ohh thats awesome, aye the fern is the example I was thinking of. Had never heard of that explaination before, thanks.

Urgannagru · 1 Feb 2013 at 23:59

Jason2 said:
'cause this world is not eternal my good friend.

Who said the universe is alive let alone dying?

m4rk84 · 1 Feb 2013 at 23:59

Jason2 said:
'cause this world is not eternal my good friend.

How convenient, you answered your own question from an atheistic point of view!

Robosapien · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:01

Jason2 said:
So if the suns energy is the major difference, then why do things not come back to life?

Don't understand. Evolution doesn't require that every living thing needs to live indefinitely (in fact I'm pretty sure that death is central to the process).

Jason2 · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:07

Since when does disorder become order? By trial and error? That's stupid. I mean, take DNA. How did evolution know what to code? It had absolutely nothing to go by. And this process certainly doesn't possess a mind.

Dr. Bolton Davidheiser wrote:

"In the development of an egg, there is increasing complexity. The entropy requirements are satisfied, BUT a genetic code is required Without the genetic code the egg ,would not develop regardless of energy or entropy. The question is, what was the source of the genetic code?.

"In cases like birds building intricate nests of the type characteristic of their species, they use energy and entropy increases. BUT without the instinct they could not do it, regardless of their physical fitness and sufficiency of energy.

"Human beings can accomplish great feats of building structures, and there is no problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. BUT intelligence is required. A bunch of morons could play with bricks, sand, etc. and expend more energy than the contractor's workmen, but they would not make a building. Something MORE than the satisfaction of energy requirements is needed.

"The evolutionists say (bluffing, I believe) that there is no problem about evolution in regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the energy requirements are satisfied. This seems like saying there is no problem about building a skyscraper if only there is available mechanical equipment, a source of fuel for the equipment, and enough healthy people selected at random. (The people do not have to know anything about building skyscrapers; the only requirements being that they are healthy and vigorous.)
"In the case of living things there is needed BESIDES a source of energy, one or more of the following: a genetic code, an instinct, intelligence."

In the beginning God CREATED... Genesis 1:1

Jason2 · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:12

You, good Sir, have been reported. Enjoy your ban.

Robosapien · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:14

For Blasphemy?

estebanrey · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:15

estebanrey said:
So Jason2 are you bigger and more complex now than you were when you were a baby? Doesn't that mean you've broken the second law of thermodynamics under your logic?

Urgannagru · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:15

Jason2 said:
Since when does disorder become order? By trial and error? That's stupid. I mean, take DNA. How did evolution know what to code? It had absolutely nothing to go by. And this process certainly doesn't possess a mind.

Dr. Bolton Davidheiser wrote:

In the beginning God CREATED... Genesis 1:1

As has been explained multiple times now that is not an issue. We have explained how your statement of the 2nd law of dynamics is incorrect.

If disorder couldn't become ordered (as a part of a larger system) life couldn't function let alone evolution take place.

m4rk84 · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:19

Honestly he just rewords the same argument over and over. It's his persistence which makes him think he's having a meaningful debate when in fact it's just people continually failing to make him understand anything they are saying.

This is why he thinks he wins Uni debates I imagine, he thinks he has won however in reality people just get tired and give up.

Urgannagru · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:19

Jason2 said:
You, good Sir, have been reported. Enjoy your ban.

Haha looks like the the beginning of the end then, was fun while it lasted.

In before the lock and all that.

Urgannagru · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:25

m4rk84 said:
Honestly he just rewords the same argument over and over. It's his persistence which makes him think he's having a meaningful debate when in fact it's just people continually failing to make him understand anything they are saying.

This is why he thinks he wins Uni debates I imagine, he thinks he has won however in reality people just get tired and give up.

To be honest I'm fairly sure he's trolling, I just like treating it as a thought exercise. But I do wish people had better self control and didn't resort to insults on the off chance that he is genuine, people are entitled to their views, we can only try to educate (you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink n all that). With the slower paces of posting on the internet I'd of thought it would be easier just to walk away if some gets their back up.

On the side, if he's in Uni I'm gutted I never went. Maybe I could have been something after all

Robosapien · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:33

To be honest I'll be fairly gutted if I get banned for that...I thought it tied in nicely with previous post about how death is central to evolution.

So much for forgiveness

If I get banned I hope it's for 3 days so I can resurrect myself.

V-Spec · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:36

For me, everyone is entitled to a view, if people want to believe that the earth is 5000 years old, that evolution is all wrong, that the earth is flat, that the sun goes around the earth and so on - fine, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

What annoys me in all these threads, is these people attempt to take a 'I believe god did it' argument which is just to vague to mean anything, and try to steamroll over all known and agreed theory and observation, all along the message is simply a highly convoluted and tedious version of 'god did it' that's as far as it goes.

Then when you use examples and reasoning to show this, they either ignore you - or repeat the same awful retort like 'BACTERIA DIDN'T EVOLVE INTO HUMANS'

Every single time this goes around in circles for 5000 pages or more, it's simultaneously hilarious and ghastly.

d_brennen · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:38

Everyone needs a pet God botherer, reminds you that you're not going mad

estebanrey · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:39

Telegraph, Reddit, Phandroid artiles? "Sohail" will probably become famous and appear on next year's Celebrity Big Brother.

He'll probably win as he'll have the most experience at living in a wacky coloured empty house with hidden recording equipment.

d_brennen · 2 Feb 2013 at 00:50

Robosapien said:
To be honest I'll be fairly gutted if I get banned for that...I thought it tied in nicely with previous post about how death is central to evolution.

So much for forgiveness

If I get banned I hope it's for 3 days so I can resurrect myself.

Angilion · 2 Feb 2013 at 01:01

ringo747 said:
Is this factually correct or just conjecture?

It's rational thought rooted in the masses of evidence of the same process happening now.

It seems to me that there is intelligence involved in this process.

Why? There's neither need of nor evidence for any intelligence being involved.

What decides what is a good mutation or a bad mutation?

Nothing. There is no decision made. A decision requires intelligence and there isn't any. Evolution is just a process that happens. It has no mind, does not think, does not care and does not decide.

The process has been explained millions of times by millions of people and continuously ignored by creationists:

Premise: There are naturally occuring variations between individuals as a result of mutations. Note that "mutation" has a different meaning in biology than in day to day English - it's just a change, a difference, and doesn't have the connotation of something major and negative (although it can be either or both).

Premise: Some of those variations can be inherited.

Premise: Some of those variations will give an individual an advantage that might result in them having more offspring that survive to adulthood and have offspring of their own.

Conclusion: Over enough generations, variations that confer an advantage in breeding will often become more common within a population by simply outbreeding the others.

How can you see a pattern if it doesn't exist?

For humans, very easily indeed. Our minds are very strongly orientated towards patterns and will interpret almost anything into a meaningful pattern. Even, most famously, meaningless splodges of ink on paper.

Does natural selection have the power to make choices?

No, because it doesn't have any mind. It's not an entity. It's a process.

You are presuming that a person is doing it all, which is why you're using words like "decision" and "choice". That's not what evolution is. It's as mindless as, for example, water flowing downhill. It's just a process. The water doesn't choose to go downhill or uphill, nor does it remain stationary until someone choose what direction it should flow in.

Angilion · 2 Feb 2013 at 01:14

Jason2 said:
I find it amazing that atheists believe the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and just happened to land on all the right parameters for a life permitting universe. If that doesn't take faith then I don't know what does!

If you can only think in terms of faith, you cannot understand anything else. So you must pretend that atheism is faith. Not because it is but because you have made yourself too limited to understand anything else.

I am an atheist. I don't believe what you have just wrongly claimed all atheists believe because I don't believe. I don't have faith. Faith is not the way in which I interpret everything. It is the way in which you interpret everything, so you will not be able to understand this post.

I don't know how the universe came into existence or even if it did. If time is part of the universe then the universe has existed for all time and therefore never came into existence because it has always existed. In order for the universe to have come into existence there would have to have been some time before the universe.

If the universe didn't have the right parameters for life like us, then we wouldn't be here to wonder why it does. If you bought every ticket in a lottery, one of them was the winner and the others disappeared, would that mean that you picked the right lottery ticket against all the odds? Your interpretation is nonsense because it stems not from thought but from trying to force reality to match your rigid faith. It's also backwards - we fit the universe, not the other way around. Your interpretation is like a puddle of water in a hole in the ground having faith that the existence of its gods is proven by the hole being exactly the right shape for the puddle.

You're not even clutching at straws. You're strawing at clutches, which is as meaningless as it sounds, and the clutches you're strawing at aren't even there.

Urgannagru · 2 Feb 2013 at 01:24

Angilion said:
I don't know how the universe came into existence or even if it did. If time is part of the universe then the universe has existed for all time and therefore never came into existence because it has always existed. In order for the universe to have come into existence there would have to have been some time before the universe.

If the universe didn't have the right parameters for life like us, then we wouldn't be here to wonder why it does. If you bought every ticket in a lottery, one of them was the winner and the others disappeared, would that mean that you picked the right lottery ticket against all the odds? Your interpretation is nonsense because it stems not from thought but from trying to force reality to match your rigid faith. It's also backwards - we fit the universe, not the other way around. Your interpretation is like a puddle of water in a hole in the ground having faith that the existence of its gods is proven by the hole being exactly the right shape for the puddle.

You're not even clutching at straws. You're strawing at clutches, which is as meaningless as it sounds, and the clutches you're strawing at aren't even there.

Thanks you much, that puddle analogy is perfect, was really struggling with putting that in words.