Awesome things "god" does.

[jakee 1,499]

Quote

It is in fact de-evolution in the NDT evolution sense of the term.

Are you fucking kidding me, or do you expect that to be taken seriously?

So what exactly is 'de-evolution' in the neo-darwinian sense of the word?

Quote

I’ll use one quote to describe what you’re trying to do with natural selection. “You can’t lose a little money on every sale and expect to make it up in volume.”

Lucky, then, that natural selection isn't the be all and end all of evolution.

Quote

They had to add random mutation combined with natural selection and billions of years in order to make it work.

Lucky, then, how that is what happens.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Lucky, then, how that is what happens.

"Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember it didn't work for the rabbit."

...and my favorite:
"The lucky person passes for a genius."

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Heatmiser 0]

Quote

Quote

Natural selection has a very gradual increase in complexity. All it takes is for a change, no matter how small, to thrive in the gene pool of a species is it creating a slight favor in reproduction rates. It stands to reason that a "slightly" mobile bacteria, due to porting proteins through its cellular membrane, might have a slight advantage in reproduction due to exposure to a wider environment. Later generations with slightly more sophisticated or efficient "motor" systems allowing them to be more mobile would then carry the torch on and on.

Reproduction occurs and genes are passed along to offspring. Some offspring receive traits which give them a survival advantage in a particular environment. Those genes keep getting passed along and the organism becomes more specialized for its environment. The other offspring, without the genetic advantages, tend to die off. The specialization leads to a net loss of genetic information. This is the exact opposite situation needed for an organism to increase in complexity. It is in fact de-evolution in the NDT evolution sense of the term. Variation occurs and gives a survival advantage to some. We can see that. However, that is not the kind of change you’re looking for in order for molecules-to-man “evolution” to take place. I’ll use one quote to describe what you’re trying to do with natural selection. “You can’t lose a little money on every sale and expect to make it up in volume.” Even modern evolutionists (New Darwinian Theory) don’t agree with what you said. They had to add random mutation combined with natural selection and billions of years in order to make it work. Natural selection is not a creative process. It conserves those traits of the “fittest” and discards those of the “weak” (e.g. loss of information). Those original traits cannot be recovered, even in part, unless you were able to cross-breed them back with some that didn’t die off. Even then, you’d still be working with a quantifiable amount of information that you began with. Nothing would exist by which you could build in complexity to “the next level.” Now, the mutation and millions of years is another argument but you’re going to need something else that what you’re describing with natural selection.

My apologies I'd I wasn't clear, I thought that random mutation over countless generations was inferred. How else do you think I was suggesting that these minute changes could have occurred? Thank you for responding in your words, and not just throwing another AIG link out there.

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[jaybird18c 24]

Just to review what was said:

Quote

The problem, you see, is that is not how natural selection works. Natural selection has a very gradual increase in complexity. All it takes is for a change, no matter how small, to thrive in the gene pool of a species is it creating a slight favor in reproduction rates. It stands to reason that a "slightly" mobile bacteria, due to porting proteins through its cellular membrane, might have a slight advantage in reproduction due to exposure to a wider enviornment. Later generations with slightly more sophisticated or efficient "motor" systems allowing them to be more mobile would then carry the torch on and on.

Variability and natural selection were described in the statement above. It was then implied that more sophistication could develop over long periods of survivability. There was no mention of mutation.

I responded with this:

***Reproduction occurs and genes are passed along to offspring. Some offspring receive traits which give them a survival advantage in a particular environment. Those genes keep getting passed along and the organism becomes more specialized for its environment. The other offspring, without the genetic advantages, tend to die off. The specialization leads to a net loss of genetic information. This is the exact opposite situation needed for an organism to increase in complexity. It is in fact de-evolution in the NDT evolution sense of the term. Variation occurs and gives a survival advantage to some. We can see that. However, that is not the kind of change you’re looking for in order for molecules-to-man “evolution” to take place. I’ll use one quote to describe what you’re trying to do with natural selection. “You can’t lose a little money on every sale and expect to make it up in volume.” Even modern evolutionists (New Darwinian Theory) don’t agree with what you said. They had to add random mutation combined with natural selection and billions of years in order to make it work. Natural selection is not a creative process. It conserves those traits of the “fittest” and discards those of the “weak” (e.g. loss of information). Those original traits cannot be recovered, even in part, unless you were able to cross-breed them back with some that didn’t die off. Even then, you’d still be working with a quantifiable amount of information that you began with. Nothing would exist by which you could build in complexity to “the next level.” Now, the mutation and millions of years is another argument but you’re going to need something else that what you’re describing with natural selection.

Quote

My apologies I'd I wasn't clear, I thought that random mutation over countless generations was inferred. How else do you think I was suggesting that these minute changes could have occurred? Thank you for responding in your words, and not just throwing another AIG link out there.

Most mutations are destructive in nature. Some mutations, however, (e.g. bacterial resistance) may in fact give a survival advantage; however, that is also a net loss of meaningful information. Survivability and specialization does not equate to increase in complexity. Even with the bacterial example, the bacteria has mutated and “lost” the ability to respond to the antibiotic. It may prolong its line but it cannot do anything to make it “change” into something else altogether. Again, you’re back to where we started…simply variation and specialization within a kind. In the end, it’s still just a bacterium.

[jakee 1,499]

Quote

Some mutations, however, (e.g. bacterial resistance) may in fact give a survival advantage; however, that is also a net loss of meaningful information.

The fact that you are intelligent is what makes it so sad to see you spout such ludicrous falsehoods. How do you manage to avoid ever actually thinking about a subject that you spend so much time looking at?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

The fact that you are intelligent is what makes it so sad to see you spout such ludicrous falsehoods. How do you manage to avoid ever actually thinking about a subject that you spend so much time looking at?

You're focusing on me instead of the topic of conversation.

[jakee 1,499]

Quote

Quote

The fact that you are intelligent is what makes it so sad to see you spout such ludicrous falsehoods. How do you manage to avoid ever actually thinking about a subject that you spend so much time looking at?

You're focusing on me instead of the topic of conversation.

There's nothing to be said on the topic except that you (or rather, whoever you're parroting) has simply invented an argument that has no basis in any fact or logic.

The way that you can study it, take it on board and then repeat it without subjecting it to any form of reason whatsoever is far more interesting. How do you manage it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

There's nothing to be said on the topic except that you (or rather, whoever you're parroting) has simply invented an argument that has no basis in any fact or logic.

The way that you can study it, take it on board and then repeat it without subjecting it to any form of reason whatsoever is far more interesting. How do you manage it?

I do understand the need to make it all work out, however, with the magical factor of millions of years. Too much is at stake. The entire framework for the prevailing atheistic/naturalistic worldview that has been fostered and "established" as fundamental to the understanding and study of biology must be protected at all costs. It has become the golden calf of the majority of the scientific community (since the "Enlightenment").

[jakee 1,499]

Quote

however, with the magical factor of millions of years.

I'm pretty sure that wording is a deliberate attempt at provocation, but honestly, you can't have any idea how ridiculous it makes you look to accuse others of relying on magic

Quote

Too much is at stake. The entire framework for the prevailing atheistic/naturalistic worldview that has been fostered and "established" as fundamental to the understanding and study of biology must be protected at all costs. It has become the golden calf of the majority of the scientific community (since the "Enlightenment").

Ahh yes, every creationist's Plan B: when you can't argue the evidence, rant about conspiracies! You're not part of the nano-thermite brigade as well, are you?


But more seriously, I think this sudden change of subject has as much to do with stopping you from having to think about your earlier assertion and how you can't back it up as it does with not wanting to lose face. How do you manage it, believing it's true while at the same time knowing it won't stand up to the faintest scrutiny? Fascinating.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

however, with the magical factor of millions of years.

I'm pretty sure that wording is a deliberate attempt at provocation, but honestly, you can't have any idea how ridiculous it makes you look to accuse others of relying on magic

Quote

Too much is at stake. The entire framework for the prevailing atheistic/naturalistic worldview that has been fostered and "established" as fundamental to the understanding and study of biology must be protected at all costs. It has become the golden calf of the majority of the scientific community (since the "Enlightenment").

Ahh yes, every creationist's Plan B: when you can't argue the evidence, rant about conspiracies! You're not part of the nano-thermite brigade as well, are you?


But more seriously, I think this sudden change of subject has as much to do with stopping you from having to think about your earlier assertion and how you can't back it up as it does with not wanting to lose face. How do you manage it, believing it's true while at the same time knowing it won't stand up to the faintest scrutiny? Fascinating.

Woody Allen, when asked in what he believed in "Sleeper," responded "sex and death." This is the basis of most religions - from whence do we come, and to where do we go?

The issue, while often (but not always) couched in pseudorational terms, is purely emotional. Most people, if they truly comprehended how capricious is the reality of existence, could not get out of bed in the morning.

Having children is often the tipping point. The emotional attachment to a child is so far off the scale that the idea that every day is a crapshoot can be unbearable. History is rife with people who, upon the loss of a beloved child, became permanently unhinged.

The most common form of denial taken upon the loss of offspring is religion - the particular version is largely immaterial.

Then you have soldiers and sailors, who are among the most superstitious people alive. While a soldier may be convinced that the bullet with his name on it has yet to be made, there are an awful lot of them out there marked "to whom it may concern." Similarly, every sailor who has set to sea has navigated over the watery graves of those who went before, and riding out a gale in blue water makes it clear that no amount of ability can trump the power of nature.

Thus, the idea that there is some entity to which one can appeal is an emotional necessity for some (most?). The fact that the statistics are identical for those who make said appeal and those who do not is immaterial, it is the solace provided by the idea that it may not be simply a cosmic crapshoot that is of value.

When someone says, when asked why they believe something or another, says "I believe it because it makes me feel good," I'll buy that.

When someone says "because it's The Truth (tm)," it then comes under the same level of scrutiny as anything touted as "real."

Whether or not it is important to distinguish between emotional and rational decisions is a matter of opinion. I have a problem with people who seem unaware of the difference.

If someone says "I believe...," I can't dispute that. If they say the same thing and claim "this is the truth," we're off to the races.


BSBD,

Winsor

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

...however, that is also a net loss of meaningful information. Survivability and specialization does not equate to increase in complexity.

Although you are not copying and pasting from AIG, it's clear you're getting your misinformation from there. Although the AIG folks have had their many many errors pointed out on numerous occasions they never ever correct those errors, likely because to do so would undermine their campaign to spread misinformation so as to support their magical view of the world.

Specifically, one of the biggest bits of misinformation they intentionally spread, and which you clearly have been deceived into believing, is that there is no evolutionary mechanism for increasing the genetic information/complexity available to an organism. If you were to actually take the time to open any current text on genetics or molecular biology, you would find that several mechanisms that lead to an increase in genome size are extremely well documented. A short (and incomplete) list includes gene duplication, transposon-mediated capture and duplication of segments of the genome, chromosome duplication, duplication of the whole genome leading to increases in ploidy, and endosymbiosis (permanent capture of another cell type, initially as a symbiont and over time developing into an organelle). Most of these occur because the process for replicating chromosomes, and then splitting them up during mitosis/meiosis, does not always occur with 100% fidelity, so sometimes a daughter cell or gamete will end up with extra copies of a chromosome or even a complete set of chromosomes. It seems odd that, if we were "designed" by an omnipotent deity, that design would be for a flawed genetic system that rather frequently makes mistakes.

It is clear that all eukaryotic organisms (those whose cells have a nucleus) have descended from a endosymbiotic event where a larger cell captured a smaller one, probably by phagocytosis (the process of engulfing cells, usually resulting in the internalized cell being killed and digested). We know this because all eukaryotic cells have mitochondria, which carry on the energy-releasing process of oxidation of glucose and storing that energy in ATP. Mitchondria have a double membrane around them, the outer membrane resulting from the vacuole the original larger cell produced around the phagocytized smaller cell, and the inner membrane resulting from the original cell membrane of the smaller engulfed cell. Mitochondria even retain their own DNA, which is circular (as in present day prokaryotes) and retains a codon bias typical of prokaryotes. Plant chloroplasts resulted from a similar process, and chloroplasts have a double membrane and their own DNA (which retains genes with a codon bias typical of present-day blue-green algae).

Plasmodium, the "protozoan" that causes malaria, has organelles that have up to four sets of membranes around them, indication they are the product of multiple rounds of endosymbiosis. Some of the most promising of the new antimalarial drugs were initially developed as herbicides; they work on Plasmodium because certain organelles originated from plant (algae) cells, and they still retain the ability to produce enzymes that drive biosynthetic pathways typical of plants. These biosynthetic pathways are absent in animals, fungi, and other types of organisms, but we need the products of these pathways as essential nutrients so we have to get them by eating plants (or animals that had themselves eaten plants). The ancestor of Plasmodium that first "captured" a blue-green alga no longer was dependent on eating plants to get those nutrients. This is just one of many thousands of examples I could give where evolutionary processes resulted in both an increase in complexity and a fitness advantage.

You are, of course, entitled to your religious faith. I would suggest, though, that your faith may not be on the strongest ground if you need to ignore (or in the case of AIG misstate to the point where one might call it lying) all the results of hundreds of years of objective research in biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, etc to make your case.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[beowulf 1]

Very nice well thought out post.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

It seems odd that, if we were "designed" by an omnipotent deity, that design would be for a flawed genetic system that rather frequently makes mistakes.

What's odd is that non-believers think that "an omnipotent deity" should design anything and everything according to their whims and logic.


Quite typical of mankind's inflated ego.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Woody Allen, when asked in what he believed in "Sleeper," responded "sex and death." This is the basis of most religions - from whence do we come, and to where do we go?

The issue, while often (but not always) couched in pseudorational terms, is purely emotional. Most people, if they truly comprehended how capricious is the reality of existence, could not get out of bed in the morning.

Having children is often the tipping point. The emotional attachment to a child is so far off the scale that the idea that every day is a crapshoot can be unbearable. History is rife with people who, upon the loss of a beloved child, became permanently unhinged.

The most common form of denial taken upon the loss of offspring is religion - the particular version is largely immaterial.

Then you have soldiers and sailors, who are among the most superstitious people alive. While a soldier may be convinced that the bullet with his name on it has yet to be made, there are an awful lot of them out there marked "to whom it may concern." Similarly, every sailor who has set to sea has navigated over the watery graves of those who went before, and riding out a gale in blue water makes it clear that no amount of ability can trump the power of nature.

Thus, the idea that there is some entity to which one can appeal is an emotional necessity for some (most?). The fact that the statistics are identical for those who make said appeal and those who do not is immaterial, it is the solace provided by the idea that it may not be simply a cosmic crapshoot that is of value.

When someone says, when asked why they believe something or another, says "I believe it because it makes me feel good," I'll buy that.

When someone says "because it's The Truth (tm)," it then comes under the same level of scrutiny as anything touted as "real."

Whether or not it is important to distinguish between emotional and rational decisions is a matter of opinion. I have a problem with people who seem unaware of the difference.

If someone says "I believe...," I can't dispute that. If they say the same thing and claim "this is the truth," we're off to the races.


BSBD,

Winsor

I like and agree with your response. Note, in the counseling field, rational thought is not a constant. Rational thought only has to be rational to the person doing the thinking.

Therefore, to the true believer, emotionally based rational thought can be and often is in perfect harmony. Furthermore, the paradigm can be individually unique and 100% functional and may be benevolent or malevolent.

An attempt to denigrate someone's rational thought because it does match to someone else's rational thought is a waste of time.

The only logical question to present to the true believer is, how is that working for you?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

Quote

It seems odd that, if we were "designed" by an omnipotent deity, that design would be for a flawed genetic system that rather frequently makes mistakes.

What's odd is that non-believers think that "an omnipotent deity" should design anything and everything according to their whims and logic.


Quite typical of mankind's inflated ego.

Not at all, Andy. I'm just pointing out the logical difficulty of trying to reconcile the idea that evolution is incapable of allowing the evolution of one "kind" of organism into another (as per the creationist perspective) with a genetic system that has an error rate high enough to pretty much mandate that such change will occur. If life on Earth was "designed" to ensure that one "kind" of organism could only give rise to descendants of the same kind, those organisms would have to have a 100% error-free mechanism for transmitting information from parent to offspring. If life was "designed" then it was designed in such a manner as to ensure plenty of scope for change at the small scale (i.e. point mutations affecting single codons/amino acids within proteins, which is the only type of mutation creationists even acknowledge can occur), at a medium scale (gene duplications), and at a large scale (transposon-mediated duplication of large segments of chromosomes, chromosome duplication, whole genome duplication, endosymbiosis, etc).

Arguing that genetic mechanisms can allow small-scale changes, such as drug resistance, but not larger changes over time is much like saying a car is OK for driving around town but it could never get you across the country, and that you'd need something very different (such as a plane) to handle the longer distance. Anyway, even allowing for the evolution of drug (and insecticide) resistance (which everyone pretty much agrees happens) opens the door to large scale changes. AIG and other creationist sites like to pretend "small" changes like drug resistance occur because of small mutations, but this is not at all always the case. Most examples of antibiotic resistance occur because of the transfer of resistance genes from a resistant bacteria species to a susceptible one by a process called conjugation. The formerly susceptible species now is more complex (because it now has whole functional genes it didn't have before) and it's more "fit" in an evolutionary sense as it can tolerate exposure to a formerly lethal antibiotic. Some cases of insecticide resistance have occurred because of a duplication of genes encoding esterases that metabolize and inactivate the insecticide. The resistant insects (Culex mosquitoes in this case) are more complex (as they have multiple copies of the esterase gene, and so larger genomes as well) and are more fit (as they aren't killed by the insecticide). Because the target insecticides the esterase metabolizes dock into a binding pocket on the esterase surface, single nucleotide changes (if they change an amino acid exposed on the protein surface) can change the shape of the binding pocket and so the range of targets the esterase can metabolize. With multiple copies of the esterase gene, the mosquito can retain the original esterase (and so resistance to the initial insecticide) and the additional esterase genes can mutate in response to new insecticide challenges; in effect the resistant mosquito has much more genetic flexibility and so more "information" in its genome.

Basically, the system is structured so as to allow evolution to happen. If someone was to argue that 1) the system as it exists was "designed" by God", and 2) the system is incapable of allowing evolution, then I submit it is that person who is suffering from an "inflated ego", imposing constrains on "God" that are not at all evident from the way the system was "designed" and all the evidence from biology and paleontology.

Anyway the whole argument is moot for most people. Evolution is a statistical effect (resulting from the combination of: mutate/recombine genomes, select, reproduce, repeat ad infinitum), it's no more "personal" than entropy, or Adam Smith's "invisible hand". That evolution is a biological fact says nothing about the existence or otherwise of "God", it only demonstrates that Genesis (or any other creation myth of any religion) cannot be literally true, and must be taken as allegory.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[maadmax 0]

Basically, the system is structured so as to allow evolution to happen. If someone was to argue that 1) the system as it exists was "designed" by God", and 2) the system is incapable of allowing evolution, then I submit it is that person who is suffering from an "inflated ego", imposing constrains on "God" that are not at all evident from the way the system was "designed" and all the evidence from biology and paleontology.

Anyway the whole argument is moot for most people. Evolution is a statistical effect (resulting from the combination of: mutate/recombine genomes, select, reproduce, repeat ad infinitum), it's no more "personal" than entropy, or Adam Smith's "invisible hand". That evolution is a biological fact says nothing about the existence or otherwise of "God", it only demonstrates that Genesis (or any other creation myth of any religion) cannot be literally true, and must be taken as allegory.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

See all of the good discussions you miss when you don't come out to the DZ.

Hey Max!! Will you be out there this weekend? I've got to go pick up 100 bales of hay Saturday morning, but I'd like to get to the DZ Saturday afternoon or more likely Sunday.

Quote

I always thought the take home message behind Genesis was that God created the universe while not being very specific on how He did it.

That's a safe enough perspective; the lack of specifics ensures that the hypothesis can't be tested in a scientific manner. The details that are given, though, such as the order in which things were "created" and the time scale, don't fit well at all with observable data such as the fossil record. Maybe such details were garbled in the retelling.

Quote

The Bibles is a great resource for understanding the spiritual complexities of life.

I'm glad you find so much comfort there.

Quote

The mysteries of science are for us to discover. Science has yet to explain the meaning of life.

That's something science will never be able to answer, as science can only consider phenomena that can be observed and measured in a replicable manner. The "meaning of life" is inherently a value judgment that can't be measured or tested against a null hypothesis.

Quote

The sheer perfection and consistency of science only makes sense to me if it has a meaningful, purposeful, counterpart.

Maybe we can agree to disagree about that. A snowflake can be a beautiful, intricate structure, but it is assembled by very simple rules of ion pairing and hydrogen bonding as water molecules dock into the growing crystal. No divine guidance is necessary. For me, that doesn't lessen the beauty of the snowflake.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[maadmax 0]

The mysteries of science are for us to discover. Science has yet to explain the meaning of life.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

The perfection and consistency I am referring to is the immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent laws of physics and properties of matter, To me that is what demands an analog of meaning and purpose. To rule out meaning and purpose because it is difficult for some to conceive, is no different from those who associate some mysterious phenomenon to a god because no explanation has been found.

Well, again science can address those laws of physics, but not their "meaning and purpose". The "god" you reference here has been referred to as a "knob-turning God" who set rules of the game (the "laws of physics") so that everything else (formation of galaxies, stars, planets, life, evolution of self-awareness) would necessarily follow without the need for further intervention. I don't think this is what most people conceive when they think of "God". Rather, they believe in a personal, interventionist God who sent His Son to die for our sins (in the particular case of Christians), and who decides everything that happens to us, good or bad. That's quite a different sort of a deity.

Any chance you'll be at the DZ on Sunday? It'd be great to catch up with you.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[maadmax 0]

Well, again science can address those laws of physics, but not their "meaning and purpose". The "god" you reference here has been referred to as a "knob-turning God" who set rules of the game (the "laws of physics") so that everything else (formation of galaxies, stars, planets, life, evolution of self-awareness) would necessarily follow without the need for further intervention. I don't think this is what most people conceive when they think of "God". Rather, they believe in a personal, interventionist God who sent His Son to die for our sins (in the particular case of Christians), and who decides everything that happens to us, good or bad. That's quite a different sort of a deity.

Any chance you'll be at the DZ on Sunday? It'd be great to catch up with you.

Don

[popsjumper 2]

Don,
Just for the record, I wasn't hammering you or your statements...to each his own, yes?

I'm simply poking fun of the entire idea of anyone trying to use science as a tool to disprove the existence of any religious deity. It's just absurd.

Man has a large ego. Individuals have HUGE egos that need to be assuaged. This thread is filled with great examples of that.



BTW, I recently re-told the story of accidentally pulling your PC at 12K years ago.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DanJohnson 0]

***Yes, snowflakes are amazing like the rest of the universe that follows the laws of physics.

Quote

"down the Rabbit Hole " is a video you may want too see.
Snow flakes and electrons when not observed may be outlaws ! They may not follow the laws of physics you believe to be law.

• Quote

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Don,
Just for the record, I wasn't hammering you or your statements...to each his own, yes?

I'm simply poking fun of the entire idea of anyone trying to use science as a tool to disprove the existence of any religious deity. It's just absurd.

Indeed, but the burden of proof is on those who think one exists in the absence of any evidence.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Don,
Just for the record, I wasn't hammering you or your statements...to each his own, yes?

I'm simply poking fun of the entire idea of anyone trying to use science as a tool to disprove the existence of any religious deity. It's just absurd.

Indeed, but the burden of proof is on those who think one exists in the absence of any evidence.

The OP was disputing the existence of God, therefore the burden is on the atheists.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[maadmax 0]

Indeed, but the burden of proof is on those who think one exists in the absence of any evidence.