Do u beleave in God

[billvon 2,991]

>Of course most people would find that things considered sinful are typically hurtful.

You have a sort of odd way of equating things that are fun, sinful and hurtful. They're not that closely related in my book.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

>Of course most people would find that things considered sinful are typically hurtful.

You have a sort of odd way of equating things that are fun, sinful and hurtful. They're not that closely related in my book.

Aren't they? Seems to me that most of the top sins to be found in the bible are either things that are hurtful or things that are fun (murder and sex mostly).

In common parlance, particularly advertising speak sin is very often connected with things that are fun or indulgent.

If you meant things that are fun, hurtful and sinful all at the same time then the above can be ignored

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

If things are tending to steady state, why should "higher" forms of life evolve from lower ones?

1) 2nd law of thermo dynamics applies to closed systems only. The earth is not a closed system, energy pumps into it and energy leaks out of it.

2) Increasing entropy does not neccesarily equate to increasing disorder or apparent complexity.

3) Even in closed systems it is perfectly acceptable for there to be areas of decreasing entropy as long as the overall trend is increasing.

Trying to apply thermodynamics to evolution is further proof that the ID movement is not about science, its about flashy, superficial arguments that fall flat the moment any critical thinking is applied.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Who can give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen (observable/demonstratable) to increase the information in the genome?

I believe this argument has cropped up before.

I think it stalled then because you had some very strange ideas about the definitions of the words increase, new and information.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Tink1717 2]

In a word, no. I am an atheist. I hold no belief in anything supernatural.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[shortyj 0]

Yes I was in church when I was growing up sometimes but I never felt like it was being shoved down my throat. However when I went to a private school we had to learn bible verses and I did feel like they were shoving it down my throat I didn't like it so I don't do that to people if you want to know about my faith I'll tell you, or if the opportunity arises I will. I'm not for shoving it down people's throats. At the end of day you can't live off of someone else's faith you have to have your own.

Playtime is essential.

[billvon 2,991]

>Seems to me that most of the top sins to be found in the bible are
>either things that are hurtful or things that are fun . . .

Right, but the axes fun, hurtful and sinful are not really all that parallel. They're more orthogonal.

Skydiving - fun, not sinful, not hurtful.

Having sex with another woman if your wife is OK with it - fun, sinful, not hurtful.

Telling a gay guy he is going to hell - not fun, not sinful (to some people) hurtful.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Yes I was in church when I was growing up sometimes but I never felt like it was being shoved down my throat. However when I went to a private school we had to learn bible verses and I did feel like they were shoving it down my throat I didn't like it so I don't do that to people if you want to know about my faith I'll tell you, or if the opportunity arises I will. I'm not for shoving it down people's throats. At the end of day you can't live off of someone else's faith you have to have your own.

But what if the Hindus got it right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Yes I was in church when I was growing up sometimes but I never felt like it was being shoved down my throat. However when I went to a private school we had to learn bible verses and I did feel like they were shoving it down my throat I didn't like it so I don't do that to people if you want to know about my faith I'll tell you, or if the opportunity arises I will. I'm not for shoving it down people's throats. At the end of day you can't live off of someone else's faith you have to have your own.

But what if the Hindus got it right?

We'd have to do this again, again, again and again ...

steveOrino

[shortyj 0]

Don't the hindu believe in you die and come back as something else?

Playtime is essential.

[bigtexan 0]

yep.. they don't know when to quit either

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Having sex with another woman if your wife is OK with it - fun, sinful, not hurtful.

What if the sex involves S&M?

[champu 1]

Quote

>but what if we are right?

Pascal's Wager. Perhaps a worthwhile wager, but since the stakes are high on one side and zero on the other, not much evidence that it means the premise is correct.

Pascal's Wager, which masquerades as an application of what later became known as bayesian decision theory, is intellectually bankrupt. It presents only a weighting function and no probabilities, and then claims any probability function will result in a likelihood function that always chooses, "believe in god." As it happens, that latter claim is not only false, but furthermore, the only valid probability functions in regard to whether or not god exists, all result in a likelihood function whose value is undefined.

In other words, because god is, by definition, not allowed to exist in a probabilistic sense, the best choice between believing and not believing is not a function of the consequences attributed to either decision.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Pascal's Wager, which masquerades as an application of what later became known as bayesian decision theory, is intellectually bankrupt. .

What do you expect of a Frenchman?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>What if the sex involves S&M?

Then clearly it's all three.

[gontleman 0]

Quote

>Of course most people would find that things considered sinful are typically hurtful.

You have a sort of odd way of equating things that are fun, sinful and hurtful. They're not that closely related in my book.

I clearly made a blanket statement. My bad. But the core of that post was to show that Christians restrict themselves from certain things that non-Christians may not. (Since morality is individual, I obviously understand that Christians and non-Christians can share the same morals) It just so happen that some of those things are fun, some of them are sinful, some of them are hurtful (not just emotionally, think narcotics), and some/many of them are mixtures of all those things. Of course your later post gives examples. Thanks for clearing that up though.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

One that merely increases the amount of information in the genome? Trisomy-21. Increases the amount of genetic code in the human genome by approximately 2%.

Better yet, algae Some species of algae cycle between haploid and diploid. When it is in its diploid phase, it suddenly acquires twice the genetic material it had before.

Wheat has SIX sets of chromosomes - two from each of three plants that were cross-bred to produce what we now know as wheat. Cross-breeding, of course, is merely an intensive attempt by humans to duplicate what happens in nature (crossbreeding is pretty common.)

Adding new sequencing to a genome is still working with a pre-existing finite instruction set. You can only come up with variations of the same basic thing. Gills aren’t going to develop or “evolve” into lungs without adding “new” instruction. Duplication or recombining the same information isn’t coming up with something new in the basic sense. It’s just coming up with more of the same.

Number of chromosomes is unimportant. The chromosome is simply the packaging and not a good indicator of quantity of information. Some amoebas have more chromosomes than we do.

Quote

Untrue; see above for examples of natural additions of information to the genome. Adding sequences to a genome is the easy part. Adding _useful_ sequences is the hard part, and is why dramatic changes in phenotype are rare. Most evolutionary change happens very, very slowly by modifying existing structures a bit at a time.

All natural selection does is create more specialized groups lacking information that was previously naturally selected out for survival.

[billvon 2,991]

>Adding new sequencing to a genome is still working with a pre-existing
>finite instruction set.

That is exactly right! Just as authors work with a pre-existing alphabet. It doesn't mean that they can't write new books; it just means that they are constrained to use specific letters. Fortunately, that's allowed for everything from the Odyssey to the Bible to Harry Potter.

>You can only come up with variations of the same basic thing. Gills aren’t
> going to develop or “evolve” into lungs without adding “new” instruction.

Incorrect! Heck, we humans exchange gas through our skins, so we already have "gills" in a sense. Nothing truly new has to be created there; old structures just have to be modified a bit.

> Duplication or recombining the same information isn’t coming up with
>something new in the basic sense. It’s just coming up with more of the
>same.

If that's the case, then no author has ever come up with something new. They are just coming up with more combinations of the same old alphabet. But I think most people would agree that J. K. Rowling DID create something new with her books, even if they use the same letters that this very post does.

Similarly, all chromosomes contain the same base pairs in their DNA. Most organisms use the same codons (groups of genes) and most organisms use the same strings of codons to encode basic instructions, like the HOX complex. Those are the tools that are used to create everything from starfish to nematodes to whales to flies. Just duplication or recombination of the same old base pairs, codons and genes, but from that rearrangement comes all life that we know of.

>All natural selection does is create more specialized groups lacking
>information that was previously naturally selected out for survival.

Or adding information. Look at the single cartilaginous wing spar in African flying squirrels. Nothing special there; probably a mutation of one of its floating ribs. A defect, in most squirrels, caused by well-understood mechanisms during meiosis. I'm sure you will agree that random mutations can create excess structures - we see them all the time in humans, and usually the extra toes/fingers/limbs don't help us. But in the African flying squirrel it gives the animal a slightly better glide.

Fast forward a million years, and what will we see? Perhaps just a longer, stronger spar that gives the animal longer glides and better landings. Perhaps two spars that give it a much wider wingspan with some decent chord. Both are easy to imagine; duplication or lengthening of an existing structure is a piece of cake for our evolutionary process.

Or perhaps, if the right niche opens up for an animal that can fly, a wing made of several of these spars (and some adapted musculature) that will let the squirrel gain altitude. And someone will be saying "well, that wing couldn't have just APPEARED. It must have been created by an intelligent designer!" The reason they say that, of course, is that they weren't around when that squirrel just had a single malformed rib, and was just hopping from tree to tree.

[badenhop 0]

Hello,
God is truly wonderful for creating evolution!

==================================

I've got all I need, Jesus and gravity. Dolly Parton

http://www.AveryBadenhop.com

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Adding new sequencing to a genome is still working with a pre-existing finite instruction set. You can only come up with variations of the same basic thing. Gills aren’t going to develop or “evolve” into lungs without adding “new” instruction. Duplication or recombining the same information isn’t coming up with something new in the basic sense. It’s just coming up with more of the same.

As I said, you have some serious problems with the words new, add, increase and information.

Tell me, exactly, how you measure the amount of information in a creatures genome?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Tell me, exactly, how you measure the amount of information in a creatures genome?

tell me, exactly how you measure the amount of info in a Gnome's genome?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Tell me, exactly, how you measure the amount of information in a creatures genome?

Tell me, exactly how you measure the amount of info in a Gnome's genome?

Trick question, they run on fairy dust!

Pfft, give me a tougher one next time

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mikempb 0]

Quote

There is no evidence of a god or gods.



Theres just as much proof that there is a god as there isnt. Noone can prove their side. So why is it when someone doesnt believe they lean on this theory?? ......by the way I believe!

• Quote

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

fairy dust!

Did you know that you have to dehydrate nearly 1000 fairies (of standard build, not the big ones from west Ireland, wings NOT plucked of course) to get even 1 full teapoon of fairy dust?

They are really mostly water and air, not even enough meat to make a decent broth.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

Well with that said then you could say the same thing about Odin or Vishnu or Allah or any other god out there. If you can't prove that something is there, then why would you bother trying to prove that it isn't there? I can't prove there isn't an invisible space ship hoovering over the office I work in, but then again I can't prove that it isn't there, sooo I guess there must me an invisible space ship there! Right? Does that make sense to you??