Questions for Jesus-Freak

[jesus_freak]

My impression is that JF likes to ignore any non-Biblical evidence, and I disagree with him just about entirely.

Ok so we disagree with each other and I for one am ok with that, can you give me the one main fact that lead you to believe that evolution is a fact. Keep in mind I am not trying to do any thing here other than learn what facts lead you know evolution was the answer. Thanks

 

[jesus_freak]

On the other hand, some of his statements regarding evolution are so egregiously far from anything that resembles the actual theory of natural selection or any other science that it is impossible to conclude that he is not arguing from a position of profound ignorance, however nice a guy he may be.

I really am trying to not be ignorant can you please give me a few examples of what you consider as me being so.

 

[autumn1971]

Explain the unethical part please...whose sets the standard for what is or is not ethical...you do advocate all legal behavior is that correct?

Not to speak for another, but NO, nobody advocates all legal behavior. People simply use the methods available to try and make legal and ethical match to whatever degree is possible in whatever environment they are in. I do not advocate the publishing of a manual describing how to manipulate minors into sexual situations. I consider it unethical, but it is legal, and I must abide by the rights of those who publish such things. My ethics have nothing whatsoever to do with the law, and in many instances are very likely more Christian than yours.

 

[RandFan]

Explain the unethical part please...whose sets the standard for what is or is not ethical...

JF, I would be happy to discuss ethics. However I'm not sure how sincere you are. I've asked you a number of questions that you've simply ignored. When I pointed out that you didn't answer some of my questions you asked which ones as if you would take the time to answer them. When I pointed out the questions you again ignored them.

Are you sincere in wanting to understand ethics?

...you do advocate all legal behavior is that correct?

JF, that I don't advocate illegal behavior doesn't conversely mean I advocate all legal behavior. That is what is known as a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

Let me attempt to get of this merry-go-round you want to put me on.

1.) I believe that people should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.) I don't believe that anyone has a right to pursue happiness that could or would cause harm to others, is illegal or is unethical.

Yes, these are general and the devil is in the details. If you are sincere in discussing ethics I would be happy to do that. Please let me know. I promise I will answer every one of your questions that I'm capable of answering (have I failed to answer any questions up until now?) That being said, please answer my questions? Thats fair, don't you think?

Where do you get your morals?

 

[H3LL]

I really am trying to not be ignorant can you please give me a few examples of what you consider as me being so.

Constant reference to ID sites and their quotes.

You have been shown that they twist data, cherry-pick and even have been called "liars" by a judge.

'It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy....

The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.... '

John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

How many times does a liar have to lie to you before you decide that they are lying liars?

If you know them to be lying and choose to repeat their lies, what does that say about you?

The ID proponents are an insult to christians everywhere that consider lying and cheating a bad thing.

There are other christians that consider the means justifies the end.

It is about time you decided which group you fall into.

I prefer to think of you as a person that just cannot understand what credible evidence is and we have hit a brick wall, which is a shame.

Stick to your faith that the world is sparkly and new if you must. It's faith, and by definition requires no evidence. I feel it is unlikely that anyone here will convince you otherwise. You have to find your own way as I and many other here did.

However stop supporting lies.

ID is not science, has no evidence, is useless and uses lies and deception to achieve its goals.

It is not a cause worthy of anyone that opposes lying, cheating or deception.

What's your decision?

.

 

[Ladewig]

Ok so we disagree with each other and I for one am ok with that, can you give me the one main fact that lead you to believe that evolution is a fact. Keep in mind I am not trying to do any thing here other than learn what facts lead you know evolution was the answer. Thanks

Personally, I am impressed by the observation of genetic change and evidence of biogeology (comparing species on land masses that drifted apart). Here are 27 more reasons.

Of course, it is easier to accept these facts once one accepts that the Earth is billions of years old.

 

[Ossai]

jesus_freak

You at least admit you’re a hypocrite.

Ok so the fact that I beleive in creation means that I hate all science or at the very least don't believe any of it is true or can be used for good...I am just going to stop there, I don't think it is even worth my time.

Let’s see.
You deny evolution, the cornerstone of the entirety of modern western medicine, yet you have no problems in seeking that medical help; hypocrite.

You deny physics yet your work with electronics to make your living; hypocrite.

You deny, physiology and anthropology, yet your wife works in a hospital; hypocrite.

You deny chemistry, yet gain immeasurable benefits (safer roads, preservation of food, etc) from it, hypocrite.

You deny geology, yet gain and use benefits (oil, coal, etc) because of it, hypocrite.

What it means is that you would rather believe what makes you feel good, instead of facing reality.

Ok so we disagree with each other and I for one am ok with that, can you give me the one main fact that lead you to believe that evolution is a fact. Keep in mind I am not trying to do any thing here other than learn what facts lead you know evolution was the answer. Thanks

For me, there was no ‘one main fact’. It is all the mountains of evidence in support of and demonstrating evolution.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution

Are Mutations Harmful?

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

Comparison of all skulls

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Here is an Index to Creationist Claims. It list common creationist claims and refutes every one with appropriate links and references.

And interesting lists, How does evolution impact my life?
Things Creationists Hate
Subsection of the above Those Naughty Vestigial Bits

Ossai

 

[bruto]

A Jesus Freak tidbit snipped from far back, around page 2:

I believe that a black lab and a poodle have a common ancestor...it was a dog, not a duck or a elm tree, but a dog! as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse

.

A simple but typical one. To suggest that this argument has even the slightest relevance to any idea or claim of natural selection is to betray ignorance so deep and implacable that you should not be addressing the issue at all until you become better informed. It is, as I said before, equivalent to arguing against any idea, any truth, or any faith, using foolish misconceptions that are contradicted and condemned universally by all honest persons who are not fools, liars or bigots.

Jesus freak, your ideas are so far off the mark that whatever you think you are doing, you are not actually arguing against evolution or the theory of natural selection. You are arguing only against a fictitious invention of religious leaders whose aim is to deceive you and others, and deflect you from learning what evolution really is about with lies and hot-button words. Even if out of faith you decide to reject the science of evolution and say "it isn't so," it should be as beneath the dignity of any true Christian to argue the case against it using false and misleading assumptions as it would be for you to argue against Judaism using The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Honest faith is unarguable, but if you bring it here and argue it with misstatements, misunderstandings and parroted lies, you will get a fight. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "Intelligent design" is not science and it is not good Christianity either. It's a sellout by desperate demagogues to the Prince of Lies. You seem in many ways like a person of intelligence and character. You need to start using it now.

 

[Mashuna]

To follow up the same point; Jesus Freak, do you believe that evolutionary theory states anywhere that a dog has or ever would give birth to a mouse? Has anyone ever defended that (frankly bizarre) statement?

 

[jesus_freak]

Confirmation:

Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).

You see one of my main things is that a mutation is just that...a mutation, and mutations do not prove evolution or anything even close to it

 

[cyborg]

An electron is just that... an electron, and electrons do not prove electronics or anything even close to it.

 

[Ossai]

To all, I think in order to actually explain evolution to jesus_freak you’ll have to start at around a second grade level and work your way forward.

jesus_freak

You see one of my main things is that a mutation is just that...a mutation, and mutations do not prove evolution or anything even close to it

NOTE: I only completed one year of biology in college, I was much more interested in physics so I'm sure others can come up with much better examples. I also vaguely recall that this has actually been observed but I don't know who or when.


Simple example (between each step time/generations pass)

String A - A string of bacteria incapable of eating/processing nylon (This is our definition of String A bacteria)


String A has never encountered nylon and is incapable of processing it.

The string encounters nylon for the first time.

The normal food supply dwindles, but there is an excess of nylon.

A mutation occurs and the bacteria can partially process nylon.

The normal food supply dwindles again, but there is still an excess of nylon.

Q1: Would those bacteria capable of partially processing nylon have an environmental advantage? What would happen to those bacteria without the ability to process nylon? Explain why.

Over the course of generation, those bacteria capable of partially processing nylon gain the ability, through mutation, to better, maybe fully, process nylon.

The normal food supply dwindles, again, to the point of nonexistence, but there is still an excess of nylon.

Q2: Would those bacteria capable of processing nylon have an environmental advantage? What would happen to those bacteria without the ability to process nylon? Explain why.

Over generations, the remaining bacteria start to lose their ability to process the original food supply. (Keeping unused processes active is a waste of energy. The bacteria wouldn’t necessarily lose the DNA coding, it would simply go inactive. Once inactive, the DNA coding may be lost.)

Q3: What would this string of bacteria be called? They no longer meet the criteria for String A bacteria. If they were suddenly moved to a String A friendly environment (no nylon, excess of normal bacteria food) what would happen to this new string?

Ossai

 

[Rrramon]

The DNA is, too.

Also, jesusfreak, you have flip-flopped. Originally you said that the Neanderthals were a different species, but now you are implying they are just humans (which is just plain wrong for reasons that have been posted).

So, which is it?

Is this thing on?

 

[Ladewig]

String A - A string of bacteria incapable of eating/processing nylon (This is our definition of String A bacteria)

YEC (young Earth creationists) have no problem with your example. They consider it to be micro evolution. They disagree with the idea that one kind of animal can become another kind of animal.

 

[mylfmyhnr]

Like webster I guess...Why?
1.a domesticated canid, Canis familiaris, bred in many varieties. 2.any carnivore of the dogfamily Canidae, having prominent canine teeth and, in the wild state, a long and slender muzzle, a deep-chested muscular body, a bushy tail, and large, erect ears

i can't help it, i have to go back to this.. by this definition (though i understand Labs aren't "in the wild state") Labs aren't dogs as they don't have large erect ears!

the second point i want to make is a rather odd one i suppose, but i'm gonna make it anyway! evolution is all about slow change. how one defines evolution doesn't make it any less viable. that some here believe that it can happen but only within a species is simply cutting hairs. i had a baby sitter come over and i told her the series of events that can take place... if my daughter asks for milk she just wants you to leave the room. if she asks for milk then juice it's the same thing; however, if she asks for just juice she wants water and won't go to sleep without it. if after giving her water she askes for milk you are good to leave, but if she asks for more juice she's going to want you to come back and either take the cup or get her more. my babysitter looked at me as if i were speaking greek. she then asked me how i could have know all that! i told her that we evolve. we evolved as a family and as individuals. to suddenly have a 3 year old i probably would have no idea what was going on. but we grew together. life and ALL in it change slowly; to assume that genetics can't play the same game is being highly shallow.

 

[Ladewig]

life and ALL in it change slowly; to assume that genetics can't play the same game is being highly shallow.

Again, YECs believe that life can change slowly; but they believe that 10,000 years is not enough time for a pre-anthropod mammal to evolve into monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzies (and they are right about that). As long as JF holds to the idea that the world is less than 10,000 years old, no amount of analogies, examples, or anecdotes will ever convince him of macro evolution.

 

[Ladewig]

To follow up the same point; Jesus Freak, do you believe that evolutionary theory states anywhere that a dog has or ever would give birth to a mouse? Has anyone ever defended that (frankly bizarre) statement?

Quoted for importance. JF, please let us know what you think.

 

[Ossai]

Ladewig

YEC (young Earth creationists) have no problem with your example. They consider it to be micro evolution. They disagree with the idea that one kind of animal can become another kind of animal.

As I said, you’ve got to start simple then work you way up to the big stuff. Once he understands this, then you bring in another step then another and then another. Once you’ve worked your way through five or six steps you are suddenly dealing with two different species, not a base species and a mutated line.

Again, YECs believe that life can change slowly; but they believe that 10,000 years is not enough time for a pre-anthropod mammal to evolve into monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzies (and they are right about that). As long as JF holds to the idea that the world is less than 10,000 years old, no amount of analogies, examples, or anecdotes will ever convince him of macro evolution.

OK, let’s go with this track as well. jesus_freak, what evidence would you require to prove the earth is older than 6,000 years? 10,000 years? Is there any evidence that you would accept?

And on the same track, what evidence would it take to disprove a literal story of Genesis?

Ossai

 

[bruto]

Just to amplify a little:

I would be essentially comfortable (though in disagreement), and largely uncritical (though still in disagreement), if JF or anybody else were to say, outright: "there is no evidence that would convince me that the bible is in error," or "there is no science that will budge my faith." I would not take that position, or favor it, but it is an unarguable and honest one. However, if that is JF's honest opinion, then he should not dabble in false science, cooked evidence, or the sinfully disingenuous misrepresentations of demagogical preachers.

It would be not only impolite and disrespectful, but a show of discrediting dishonesty and arrogance, if I or anyone here were to argue the content and purport of biblical texts we have not read, on the basis only of second hand commentary by atheists dedicated to its destruction. I may not remember it all, and I may not see it as JF or others do, but I have at least read the Bible and taken care to try to understand it. I merely expect the same courtesy from JF when he argues on scientific matters.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Excellent point there.

But I'm expecting deaf ears...