I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Caino]

There are no transitional fossils for the simple fact that they never existed. The evolution of life (fostered by the celestial beings who initiated the life patterns on earth) was characterized by mutations. Will conscious man sprang from the dawn mammals roughly 1,000,000 years ago.

Preserved in the stratified layers of the earth are the fossilized remains of the different stages of the evolution of life over hundreds of millions of years.

The earth doesn't look anything like the Israelites creation myth. However Genesis does retain something of the ancient arrival of the material Son and Daughter who were to replace the previous fallen administration of planetary spiritual leadership of The Planetary Prince. In truth the conversations between the "Crafty Beast" character and Adam and Eve were conversations between the rebellious former leader and the new leadership.

 

[7djengo7]

This is how it works. Men wrote about their concept of God, they projected human emotions onto him. Where the voice of God occurs is in actuality the narration of their opinion about how God thinks and acts.

It works by you not answering the simple, yes/no questions I asked you, eh?

You've not answered this question:

[Is] the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob a created being?

Yes or No?

You've not answered this question:

Was the God Whom Jesus revealed a created being?

Yes or No?

You've not answered this question:

Men of the Bible created, in their own image, the God Who created those men of the Bible in His own image?

Yes or No?

 

[Caino]

It works by you not answering the simple, yes/no questions I asked you, eh?

You've not answered this question:


Yes or No?

You've not answered this question:


Yes or No?

You've not answered this question:


Yes or No?

I assumed that you would be able to follow along. My bad.

The Father revealed in the life of his Son is the true eternal God, not a created being.

The God written about in the Old Testament is a conceptual reflection of the holy men who wrote the Old Testament. Therefore, it’s a God conceived in their own image with human attributes of vengeance, genocide, child rape, torture etc.

 

[7djengo7]

Try meaning something by your word, "child", and try meaning something by your phrase, "all grown up", and then try asking me an actual question using them.

Okay I think we need to stick a fork in this particular conversation.

Doy! Of course you need to stick a fork in this particular conversation, because you did not mean anything by your phrases, "child" and "all grown up", when you said "How do you know when a child is all grown up?", and you're certainly not about to go back and retroactively try to have meant something by them.

:rotfl: Oh you're trying to be serious?

Yeah. You should try to be serious, too....but I'm not gonna hold my breath in expectation that you're going to do so.

I see why we're not getting anywhere.

I'm not getting anywhere? To where do you imagine I've been trying to get?
You're not getting anywhere? To where were you trying to get? (Answer: To where I would, somehow, magically fall into line and play by your rules of your language game. Sorry, Professor, that ain't gonna happen.)

It's not argumentation when you simply deny the other side's position exists, or could exist.

I do not deny that anything exists. Everything exists. I do not deny that what you call, here, "the other side's position", and elsewhere, "the theory of evolution", exists. I just deny that what you're calling "the other side's position" is a position; nonsense is not a position, and a position is not nonsense. You're calling nonsense "the other side's position", and "the theory of evolution", etc. Nonsense being neither true nor false, calling nonsense (as you do) a "position", or a "theory", is simply a misnomer.

When I refer to certain people, calling them "evolutionists", I'm not ascribing a position, or theory, or belief to them; I'm ascribing to them a particular language game involving patterns of usage of various slogans and verbal formulas which they are conditioned to employ in certain social situations. And, of course, it seems that the most cherished among these folk, of all their slogans, is the word "evolution"; hence, why not call them "evolutionists"? (And, when you stop and think about it, it's really quite strange that, given how much y'all love your meaningless slogan, "evolution", you nevertheless often get a bit hot under the collar when you're referred to as evolutionists.)

You evolutionists are not calling any position, nor theory, "the theory of evolution"; what you're calling "the theory of evolution" is simply your nonsense language game. You're not calling anything that is true, "the theory of evolution", and (as unusual as it may be for you to hear) you're not even calling anything that is false, "the theory of evolution". Hence, when you play your language game, by saying something like, "Dinosaurs evolved into chickens", or "Dinosaurs evolved into dinosaurs", you'll not find me reacting to, or playing along with, your language game by saying something like, "Prove it!", or "That's true!", or "That's false!", or "There's no evidence for that!", or "Dinosaurs did not evolve into chickens!"--for exactly the same reason that I would not say, "There's no evidence that dinosaurs reglogimated into chickens!", or "There's no evidence that boogles evolved into thragborites!"

Are you saying that gene frequencies changing in a population due to natural selection (a simple definition of biological evolution) is not something that happens?

No. I'm not saying that. And, frankly, your phrase "natural selection" is yet another piece of nonsense jargon. What an incredibly ridiculous thing to say that something other than a thinking being, an intelligence, selects, or can select, something. It's no less stupid to say that some impersonal thing called "nature" selects this or that than it is to say that a hurricane selects which cities to crush, and which cities to leave in peace.

I think you're doing a very good job of demonstrating how vacuous your conversation/debating skills are.

Is that why you have been consistently stonewalling against virtually every question I've asked you?

You're quite literally a one trick pony.

Quite literally? You believe horses can write TOL posts? Have you ever seen a horse? Do you often write posts with the intention of having them read, and replied to, by horses? Actually...now that I think of it, you are the one who likes to play make-believe (in this very thread) that a horse has fingers... So, you're saying that I'm a horse, and my one trick is that I can write TOL posts??

Would you not say that your phrase, "one trick pony", is a figure of speech?? And yet, you did not write, "You're quite figuratively a one trick pony."

Well I think I'm going back to ignoring you

That's a-OK with me. You virtually always stonewall against the questions I ask you, anyway, so what's the difference? Just don't imagine that I'll be ignoring you, reciprocally. You can just keep pretending like you do not notice my inexorable criticisms of your irrational language game. It's funny to think of it: a PhD running away from the most elementary questions--questions about the very stuff of your PhD, at that--posed by some nobody from nowhere.

Well, back to Super Mario Bros. for me. So long for now.

 

[7djengo7]

I assumed that you would be able to follow along. My bad.

The Father revealed in this life of his Son is the true eternal God, not a created being.

The God written about in the Old Testament is a conceptual reflection of the holy men who wrote the Old Testament. Therefore, it’s a God conceived in their own image with human attributes of vengeance, genocide, child rape, torture etc.

I didn't assume you were going to be able to answer my simple yes/no questions; in fact, I knew you would stonewall against them, as you've done. My good.

That's why I asked you them. More on the way, but I gotta split for today.

 

[Stuu]

There are no transitional fossils for the simple fact that they never existed.

There are plenty of well-documented examples. One of the best-detailed is the evolution of horses.

The evolution of life (fostered by the celestial beings who initiated the life patterns on earth) was characterized by mutations.

It is characterised by the usefulness of the mutations that become common in a population. And the process does not require celestial beings, unless you have evidence for their existence.

Will conscious man sprang from the dawn mammals roughly 1,000,000 years ago.

Not sure who Will Conscious is, but whatever dawn mammals are, there is a matter of many tens of millions of years between the first mammals and humans. 1,000,000 years ago our ancestors were not that much different to us.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

It works by you not answering the simple, yes/no questions I asked you, eh?

You've not answered this question:


Yes or No?

You've not answered this question:


Yes or No?

You've not answered this question:


Yes or No?

There are plenty of well-documented examples. One of the best-detailed is the evolution of horses.


It is characterised by the usefulness of the mutations that become common in a population. And the process does not require celestial beings, unless you have evidence for their existence.


Not sure who Will Conscious is, but whatever dawn mammals are, there is a matter of many tens of millions of years between the first mammals and humans. 1,000,000 years ago our ancestors were not that much different to us.

Stuart

There are modifications after mutations such as the first small horse mutation 45 million years ago.


PRIMITIVE MAN IN THE ICE AGE


61:6.1 “The great event of this glacial period was the evolution of primitive man. Slightly to the west of India, on land now under water and among the offspring of Asiatic migrants of the older North American lemur types, the dawn mammals suddenly appeared. These small animals walked mostly on their hind legs, and they possessed large brains in proportion to their size and in comparison with the brains of other animals. In the seventieth generation of this order of life a new and higher group of animals suddenly differentiated. These new mid-mammals—almost twice the size and height of their ancestors and possessing proportionately increased brain power—had only well established themselves when the Primates, the third vital mutation, suddenly appeared. (At this same time, a retrograde development within the mid-mammal stock gave origin to the simian ancestry; and from that day to this the human branch has gone forward by progressive evolution, while the simian tribes have remained stationary or have actually retrogressed.)“

1,000,000 years ago Urantia was registered as an inhabited world. A mutation within the stock of the progressing Primates suddenly produced two primitive human beings, the actual ancestors of mankind.

61:6.3 “This event occurred at about the time of the beginning of the third glacial advance; thus it may be seen that your early ancestors were born and bred in a stimulating, invigorating, and difficult environment. And the sole survivors of these Urantia aborigines, the Eskimos, even now prefer to dwell in frigid northern climes.

Invisible celestial beings can’t be shown for the simple reason that they are invisible.

 

[7djengo7]

No, he's blathering, just like he did in the adjoining thread where his ignorance in regards to what the theory of evolution is actually about was pointed out.

Nothing that is called "the theory of evolution" is about anything, since what is called "the theory of evolution" is sheer nonsense. Remember, I agree with you that what you call "the theory of evolution" is not about the origin of life; since what you call "the theory of evolution" is not about anything, whatsoever, then one of the things it is not about is the origin of life.

It's up to him to think it's a whole load of bunk and whatever but the theory itself has nothing to do with how life itself came into being.

What you call "the theory itself" is not about anything, whatsoever, since it is nonsense.

That and his continual "LOL" shtick and childish antics deserve what exactly? Time and effort?

lain:

LOL

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nothing that is called "the theory of evolution" is about anything, since what is called "the theory of evolution" is sheer nonsense. Remember, I agree with you that what you call "the theory of evolution" is not about the origin of life; since what you call "the theory of evolution" is not about anything, whatsoever, then one of the things it is not about is the origin of life.



What you call "the theory itself" is not about anything, whatsoever, since it is nonsense.



LOL

Um, yeah, you should stick to Super Mario Bros.

:thumb:

 

[User Name]

Um, yeah, you should stick to Super Mario Bros.

:thumb:

I think that might be too advanced for him.

He should start with something more age appropriate, like "peek-a-boo."

 

[7djengo7]

Um, yeah, you should stick to Super Mario Bros.

:thumb:

LOL

And you should stick to Super Mario Bros. 2.

 

[Stripe]

Quite literally? You believe horses can write TOL posts? Have you ever seen a horse? Do you often write posts with the intention of having them read, and replied to, by horses? Actually...now that I think of it, you are the one who likes to play make-believe (in this very thread) that a horse has fingers... So, you're saying that I'm a horse, and my one trick is that I can write TOL posts??

Would you not say that your phrase, "one trick pony", is a figure of speech?? And yet, you did not write, "You're quite figuratively a one trick pony."

:darwinsm:

:mock: Darwinists.

 

[ok doser]

Quite literally? You believe horses can write TOL posts?

it appears that a lot of the pro-evo posts are written by individual unevolved proto-humans (because, as we've learned, individuals don't evolve)

if monkeys can write TOL posts, why not horses? :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

it appears that a lot of the pro-evo posts are written by individual unevolved proto-humans (because, as we've learned, individuals don't evolve)

if monkeys can write TOL posts, why not horses? :idunno:

That's racist.

 

[ok doser]

That's racist.

:banana:

 

[Yorzhik]

It is partly code, but that's not all it does, it's also the switches and how it works is based on shape and location, not just the "code".

You misunderstand. No one is claiming that all that matters is the ATCG order. If shape and location matter to the system, then that get's modeled, too.

But I was trying to help your case by sticking to the simpler example. If you really want to add more complication to the system, it's your rope.

And the nifty thing is, to model mutation+natural selection, we don't even need to model the ATCG code and/or all its other chemical factors. To model mutation+natural selection, we just need to know that random happens and then it get's filtered. What we are trying to find out when we model DNA is just how the random works so it can be filtered. When we stick with the simple ATCG code, there is no way to get a simulator to work with what we know about the code. And ATCG code is the best case scenario - when we start adding epigenetic factors, it makes things worse for the hope that random mutation+natural selection can make common descent work. If you thought mutating ATCG to create new features was hard, just wait until you try "mutating" epigenetic factors to get those changes! The best you can hope for is to declare yourself correct, fire anyone that questions your dogma, and hope the system stays in the realm of black box magic.

A mechanical switch is either on or off.

It's actually not. This is a good example that when we model things we aren't concerned with how we'd like things to be, but with the way the system works including all externalities that can affect the model. When we model a mechanical switch we have to be concerned with shape and location as they affect, in turn, elasticity and momentum. So your insistence that DNA is code+magic is unfounded.

A DNA switch is not just on or off and it may interact with other proteins that may modulate the action of the switch protein, depending on the situation.

What really makes the difference is how often a protein interacts with DNA, these are molecules that jump around. If it's attached to DNA 60% of the time, maybe that's one level of on, then 40%, 20% etc. Then maybe it interacts with two other proteins 10 and 5% of the time. But for every DNA switch you'd have to find ALL of that out before you could even model a single cell and *then* try to model mutation and selection with multiple iterations of said cell.

Which is why I said it would be easier to model the chemical basis of proteins and DNA, then you wouldn't have to know everything beforehand because the model would act the way a real cell does automatically.

You realize that you are just making the impossible more impossible? When we first saw DNA it would have been nice if ATCG order was all there was to it. But now we know the code is a lot more complicated than that. Epigenetic factors is one thing that's driving scientists, without religious or political bias, away from Neo-Darwinism because changing ATCG is easy compared to changing epigenetic factors to improve fitness, and the irony is that the reason to look outside changing DNA was because improving fitness by mutations to ATCG was looking more and more impossible without magic.

Anything you use to model evolution is going to have to have some kind of selection criteria. I'm guessing you will complain this is a "goal" no matter what.

Quite wrong. The question would only be how the model achieves the goal, not that there is a goal. In Ev there was a search algorithm that was buried in the code with no claim that it was there (please note that no one is accusing the coders with malicious intent). That algorithm had properties that were far more generous than what we understand mutating ATCG can do to make new features in successive generations.

And I think the reason there is no new attempt to simulate mutation+natural selection is for two reasons. The first is that there are more (not that there are a lot of) scientists that are allowed to look at simulation code and announce its flaws wherein in the past they would have been fired for questioning something that made common descent look good. Secondly is the epigenetic factors that are making random mutation+natural selection look even more unworkable than it was to begin with and trying to imagine something that could be coded that worked can't even be wildly speculated on. But perhaps you know of a new attempt.

Yes, he's only looking at microevolutionary change. The evidence for common descent is already well supported by fossils and DNA.

Lenski's findings are that the majority of fitness improvements come from breaking things, not making things. That's why if his work is applied to common descent it fails to show common descent works because common descent requires more things to be made than broken to work.

Common descent is devastated by fossils. The more we find out the quicker we realize that timeframes for evolution to happen are getting squished impossibly small. Soft tissue in fossils makes the long timeframes scientists claim for common descent make them look like clowns. Fossil plants going through many layers of sediment has anyone skeptical of geological age claims see the emperor has no cloths. And fossil transitions, especially the Cambrian Explosion, should make anyone skeptical that fossils have anything good to show for common descent since it shows common descent to fail every prediction it has ever made. And there are other things about fossils that show a lot more that common descent is highly improbable but these few ought to be enough.

And, of course, we are discussing how DNA makes common descent look like a silly notion.

Scientists compare organisms and see that larger changes are made by small adjustments in developmental genes. This is already known so I don't know why you think it is some kind of "failure".

That was the point I was making. 'Fewer changes' is easier than 'more changes'. Easier was required to try and keep the idea of common descent alive because mutating ATCG to create features was looking harder and harder to the point of impossibility.

But it's a double edged sword. Mutations, not to be conflated by epigenetic adjustments, are almost always very bad in HOX genes. Has a good mutation in HOX genes ever been found? Don't we know about some tiny mutations in HOX genes because of genetic disease? So how does common descent explain working HOX genes if mutating them into fruition is so precarious? Why, the fact that they exist and work is proof enough for a common descentist, the rest of us rational people prefer evidence of development. And if you want to claim that there are genes similar to HOX genes that you are going to claim mutated their way into HOX genes, you would be forgetting how precarious HOX genes are.

I didn't see any predictions made.

The predicted relationships between functions is a great deal more accurate than common descent predictions of what groups should be related according to function.

Not at all. He goes through individual stages, each of which have a selective advantage. A cup shaped eye patch, a more and more constricted eyepatch, then the evolution of a transparent layer.

That was the point. He declares the eye patch and eye are related because... reasons. Just because different eyes exist is not evidence they are related. Accepting something without evidence when there is evidence against it could rationally be called accepting magic.

Why then do mitochondria and chloroplasts have circular DNA like bacteria? Ribosomes that are most similar to bacteria?

A better reason for common "looks" would be a common designer. Why do you continue to insist on the philosophical idea that God would have to make each set of code (and epigenetic systems if you really want to make your life harder) unique for each original organism?

Sure you can make the argument, but we have no reason to accept your philosophy.

But you didn't answer the question unless you want to claim "looks" is strong evidence. The claim was "The changes required for bacteria-like organisms to become parts of cells take a lot of mutations." So the question should be what evidence you'd have that mutation+natural selection can pull off a trick like that?

Again, though, endosymbiosis is a theory based mostly on looks. If it wasn't based on looks, common descentists would at least want to know a rough answer to the question of how many mutations it would take to pull off a trick like that. But they *don't even ask the question*.

How many? Is that really the question when plenty of organisms are able to keep chloroplasts alive for extended periods within their tissues?

That's funny! You just got done telling me I need to accept your explanation based on "looks" and then you read how scientifically we shouldn't base things on "looks"... and you didn't go back and you didn't bat an eye. Facts be damned, you'll believe what you want to believe. :darwinsm:

No, that isn't the question. The question, if you bothered to read, is: "why don't common descentists even ask the question?". For any real scientists it would be an obvious question if one really believed in common descent.

Hydroplates are a cartoon version of the flood.

Hydroplates or not, the evidence is clear that the flood was worldwide and not long ago. Eventually you'll have to face the evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

I guess you're not interested in that book I mentioned?

Who said that? I look at information presented by the other side all the time. I'm always looking for the best evidence against my position but books take somewhat of a large investment. And just like you won't read every book I mention, you'll have to at least give me time to look at books you mention.

 

[Alate_One]

You misunderstand. No one is claiming that all that matters is the ATCG order. If shape and location matter to the system, then that get's modeled, too.

But I was trying to help your case by sticking to the simpler example. If you really want to add more complication to the system, it's your rope.

It's the complexity of the system that allows it to work.

Common descent is devastated by fossils. The more we find out the quicker we realize that timeframes for evolution to happen are getting squished impossibly small. Soft tissue in fossils makes the long timeframes scientists claim for common descent make them look like clowns. Fossil plants going through many layers of sediment has anyone skeptical of geological age claims see the emperor has no cloths.

Do you really think scientists are dumb enough to think those represent ages? Or ever thought that?

How about the fact that Flowering plants and bees appear only after a certain point in the fossil record?

That was the point I was making. 'Fewer changes' is easier than 'more changes'. Easier was required to try and keep the idea of common descent alive because mutating ATCG to create features was looking harder and harder to the point of impossibility.

Not even remotely accurate.

But it's a double edged sword. Mutations, not to be conflated by epigenetic adjustments, are almost always very bad in HOX genes. Has a good mutation in HOX genes ever been found? Don't we know about some tiny mutations in HOX genes because of genetic disease? So how does common descent explain working HOX genes if mutating them into fruition is so precarious? Why, the fact that they exist and work is proof enough for a common descentist, the rest of us rational people prefer evidence of development. And if you want to claim that there are genes similar to HOX genes that you are going to claim mutated their way into HOX genes, you would be forgetting how precarious HOX genes are.

HOX genes are old enough I am not sure we know their origin. Regardless, even if HOX genes themselves were specially created, that would still include every bilaterally symmetrical organism on earth as having a common ancestor. Clearly you don't believe in that, do you?

That was the point. He declares the eye patch and eye are related because... reasons. Just because different eyes exist is not evidence they are related. Accepting something without evidence when there is evidence against it could rationally be called accepting magic.

The protein (PAX6) that signals the creation of the human eye, works perfectly for creating the drosophila eye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAX6

That's funny! You just got done telling me I need to accept your explanation based on "looks" and then you read how scientifically we shouldn't base things on "looks"... and you didn't go back and you didn't bat an eye. Facts be damned, you'll believe what you want to believe. :darwinsm:

You keep insisting these parts of *function* are just "looks". It's as if any physical evidence can be just waved away, as "looks".

"Looks" implies that it is a superficial similarity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mitochondria do not just look like bacteria, they behave like them. And even more amazingly they behave the same way in virtually every eukaryotic organism!

Why give them a circular chromosome like bacteria? That's hardly a superficial character when the chromosome in the nucleus is linear.

Hydroplates or not, the evidence is clear that the flood was worldwide and not long ago. Eventually you'll have to face the evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

I think we're talking past each other at this point. I don't see any evidence for a worldwide flood.

Who said that? I look at information presented by the other side all the time. I'm always looking for the best evidence against my position but books take somewhat of a large investment. And just like you won't read every book I mention, you'll have to at least give me time to look at books you mention.

You just didn't mention it at all. . .

 

[Right Divider]

How about the fact that Flowering plants and bees appear only after a certain point in the fossil record?

:rotfl:

The "fossil record" is far more representative of a global flood than a nice timeline of life "evolving" into being.

 

[mtwilcox]

A late one;
So if the Pax whatever and so on is turned off in fruit flies, than they don’t have eyes...
Animals lose anatomy over time through mutation quite often, but do you have an example where a creature has gained any anatomy that wasn’t already present in the genome?

I mean, if evolution was the means by which single celled organisms became macro organisms, anatomy had to be gained along the way at some point...

It seems to me animals were created with all the functional anatomy initially, and some lost anatomy along the way through mutation, and it’s impossible for an animal to gain new functional anatomy that wasn’t already written in the genome to begin with.

This being true, it makes it hard to believe that evolution happens at all; given mutation appears to be a destructive force and never a creative force in nature.

Not that I’m claiming to know all about DNA sequences, but the idea that new functional anatomy just springs up on its own seems a bit far fetched.

=M=

 

[Stripe]

Do you really think scientists are dumb enough to think those represent ages?

Rock layers?

Yes.

How about the fact that Flowering plants and bees appear only after a certain point in the fossil record?

Asserting the truth of your ideas again?

How about the fact — an actual fact this time — that Darwinists had to push back their belief about the latest supposed arrival of certain types of plants?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788615/

Remember the point that you're trying to disguise?