Religious Filmmakers.

If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: "Most of them are harmful or lethal." Peo Koller states: "The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful."

Excluding any "neutral" mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. "Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization," states the Encyclopedia Britannica. That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined.

Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: "The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process." When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated." They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.

In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: "Most mutations are for the worse." However, he then asserted: "In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward." But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial?

Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better." Thus, does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down?

Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new.

The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water." But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant.

Mutations may change the color or texture of a person's hair. But the hair will always be hair. A person's hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand.

Few mutation experiments can equal the extensive ones conducted on the common fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Since the early 1900's, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased the frequency of mutations to more than a hundred times what was normal.

After all those decades, what did the experiments show? Dobzhansky revealed one result: "The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity." Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal frui

 

I wholeheartedly agree most mutations are bad. So they die. Only the good ones survive. That's the whole trick.

And in all your examples "its still hair", "it's still a plant", you are talking about a handful generations. I'm talking billions of years.

Again, you are just saying "it's unlikely". As said in my previous post, gimme a number on the probablity. Any number.

/Z

 

Any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50th power is dismissed by mathematicians -- people who actually get paid to study probability -- as never happening.

So, if mathematicians say that 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

could never happen . . . does it seem any more likely that 1 in

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000
could?

Because those are the odds at hand of life emerging so that it could, theoretically mutate.

And the odds of me getting a supporting role in Episode III.

How many "good" mutations can you cite for me, Zap? I'm not trying to be offensive, I just don't know of any. But I could just be ill-informed.

Han Solo would hate this post . . .

EDIT: To get rid of that dang scrolly-bar thing.

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

Damnit! Why is the Pro-God camp always beating around the bush!? I'll tell you.

YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD EXISTS!

I don't care how much fancy talking around the point you can do, or how many different cutsie and mostly semantic ways you can refute the facts and observable data that is evolution, you STILL CAN'T PROVE, OR EVEN SUGGEST WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, THAT GOD EXISTS.

Bottom line. The debate at hand is does God exist. The answer can only be accepted through evidence. Faith, while a great way to skirt around the issue, is NOT PROOF.

PROVE GOD EXISTS. That is your task. BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE.

-tm

 

Those mathematicians are being paid for checking if an event occurs within a reasonable amoutn of time.

I, no the other hand, is completely unreasonable when it comes to allocating time to this

Infinity, my friend. Infinity.

(I almost said "To Infinity - and Beyond", but sense got the better of me )

EDIT: Also remember, that presumably you do not only have infite TIME at your disposal, but infite SPACE as well (although the latest idea is that the universe is finite but endless, but the ball is still up on that one too).

When you have both infinite time AND infinite space at your disposal, it is not only certain to occur, it is certain to occur RIGHT NOW. And moreover, at an infinite amount of places. MMmmm. Yummy.

/Z

 

Your arguments on the innefficies of evolution is will done. For this I congratulate you. But evolution is a difficult field to monitor for several reasons. Number one is that it's done by biologists, and number two it requires historians/geology.

Now, I'm a little biased as a physicist, but biology is the youngest of the sciences, and genetics is younger still. Not only that, but any genetic or evolutionary finding would have to be cross-checked with geological information. No easy feat. Science does best when we observe events - not extrapolate them. Just because science as yet does not explain something well, does this mean there's a God?

Now...

"Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new."

I don't know if you've had a good look around you: People have arms, legs, necks, hair, eyes, noses, ears... all of your 2000 parts. Now. Monkeys have arms, legs.... so rats, dogs, cats, elephants, dolphins, whales, sharks, smaller fish... Insects even have hair, eyes, legs... Look around you and all you see is variations on the theme. What out there is really unique? Well... you got your octopus... but you also have your squids snails etc.

"No, it is still the same plant."

In evolutionary theory it's the same plant until it cannot replicate with it's earlier species.

"Mutations may change the color or texture of a person's hair. But the hair will always be hair. A person's hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand."

Like I said... it's still a hand, but now it's a fin.

The problem with all of the God defining "logic" above is that it states "because I don't understand something, and can't think of a way to unterstand it, someone greater than me must of thought of it." Are you all so insecure in your own intellects that you cannot allow simple things to govern the universe? Can you not just say "Hey! I don't know?" Why do you need this "certainty"... what do you gain by it? Humans have an insatiable need to know "WHY"... but maybe "WHY" is simply a human construct.

Edit: The other thing about counter-evolution arguments: "have we ever seen a beneficial mutation?" Well... The notion of evolution is on the order of 100 years old, but the time frame for it to operate is on the order of 100 million years. This is a SIX orders of magnitude difference in time. To most people this is incomprehensible. At any rate - people always seem to expect the "BIG EVENT" is going to happen in their lifetime. Armaggedon is a classic example. Everyone expects that some cosmic event will destroy the world in THEIR lifetime, or their children's lifetime. We are not wired to account for cosmic time scales... For some reason everyone seems to think THEY are the all important condition of the universe.

"You are not a beautiful and unique snow flake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We are all part of the same compost heap. Nothing is static. Everything is moving. Everything is evolving and falling apart. This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time." - Tyler Durden

-Spiff

 

A universe without a purpose is like an effect without a story -- yeah, it's cool and all, but . . . why's it there?

We're not dealing with infinity - we're dealing with the six billion years that this planet's been sitting here, waiting for you to come along.

I will cease to believe in God when some scientist can take the random elements that were around when this planet came into existence and causes life to crawl out of it.

But, even then, someone will have caused that life to come into existence . . .

Something can not come out of nothing. Anything with a seeming design certainly had a maker. I know someone built the computer I'm typing on now . . . and it is far less complex than the brain that I'm using to coordinate my hands, eyes and other body parts - as well as the things my brain regulates without my thinking about it (breathing, digestion, flatulation, etc.).

Even scientists who are trying to purposely create life in labratory conditions -- designed to reflect our understanding of what the Earth was like when life supposedly appeared -- to prove your point have been unable to do so.

So . . . I don't know. I admit it. I don't know. God hasn't reached down and slapped me in the back of the head for sinning, but I don't see any random genetic throwback humans with tails, either. I haven't seen any newborns with gills. When did evolution stop?

Sentience and perception of color serve very little purpose in survival - a good number of animals see only limited color, if any at all, and humans are the only definitively sentience species on this rock. What evolutionary purpose do they serve?

EDIT: Spelling.

 

A universe without a purpose is like an effect without a story -- yeah, it's cool and all, but . . . why's it there?

"It's the question that drives us, Neo" - The Matrix

It's ironic that the question that propels us the most, the "why", is the question I am quite steadfast in believing has no answer. To sound Matrix-y again, "There is no Why".

We're not dealing with infinity - we're dealing with the six billion years that this planet's been sitting here, waiting for you to come along.

...and an infinite amount of OTHER planets, on which I didn't come along. And if you take the "oscillating universe" angle, an infinite of number of previous universa in which I didn't come along either.

Here and Now is It. And there is no "why" to this, it's chance. And before anyone puts any magical significans on "here" or "now", if "here" or "now" were anywhere or anywhen else - it would still be "here" and "now" to us, wouldn't it?

I will cease to believe in God when some scientist can take the random elements that were around when this planet came into existence and causes life to crawl out of it.

As said before, it's not entirely certain life started here.

Actualy the most "primitive" life is the hardest to explain - the single cell. Once you have a single, functioning cell, the rest follows fairly automatically.

Now it's quite plausible that first cell didn't originate on this planet.

But, even then, someone will have caused that life to come into existence . . .

Thats what you think.

Something can not come out of nothing.

Anything with a seeming design certainly had a maker.

Oh that incessance of yours.

So, the ice chrystal in a snowflake, that marvel of structure, symmetry and beauty, had a designer?

I have mentioned many times how deaf, dumb and blind and simple laws of nature (or similar) can come up with remarkable beauty, complexity, and order.

You know how simple the equation is that generates the remarkable complexity of the Mandelbrot set, don't you?

I know someone built the computer I'm typing on now . . . and it is far less complex than the brain that I'm using to coordinate my hands,

Okay GIMME a BREAK. If somone comes up with an analogy between the brain (a collection of replicating cells based on DNA, which are alive and fully at mercy of evolution) and a computer (a bunch of silicon and plastic that can't do jack sh¤(#/&t by itself) I'm gonna HURL, ya hear, HURL.

When did evolution stop?

Never. And you missed the kid with gills? It was on all the new channels.

Besides, you wait way too little. Infinity. Billions. TIME.

see only limited color

Oh wait, you see ultraviolt, imfrared, and gamma rays? Whoah. I didn't know our sense of color was "limitless".

You are conducting a fallacy my friend, but it's okay. I'll give you this mistake I bet you are tired.

What evolutionary purpose do they serve?

Wait, our sentience and intelligence has made us utter rulers of the entire planet. Yeah. No evolutionarey advantage there.

/Z

 

Friends, I have reached a conclusion. There is no other solution than this:

We must agree to disagree.

No matter how reasonable your arguments sound to you, or mine to me, we will never see eye to eye on this.

I would like to continue this discussion . . . but your lack of faith and my delusional nature make it pointless.

The reason that evolutionist dislike comparisons like the one I used in my last post (I won't say which, for the sake of Zap) is quite simple . . . it's simple. It's understandable. It makes sense.

Then again, I'm blinded by faith . . . just as you're blinded by science. This discussion has gone on for a century, with no more progress than what has been attained here.

I withdraw from the proceedings until some startingly new point is made. Like when a test-tube spontaneous life is created.

It's been fun, ya'll.

 

******We must agree to disagree.******


That's about the most intelligent and overdue post in this thread.

 

ApertureCaged, do you plan on staging any of the battles that are mentioned in the Bible? You've probably mentioned that already, but I seem to have lost it amongst all the other posts.



Even at the fight between David and Goliath, there were two entire armies present.

That much armor and that many weapons won't come cheap . . . but would look really, really cool.

I've always hated those made-for-TV Bible films . . . there were no pirates trying to board Noah's ark, all right?!?!

Sheesh. TV producers.

Anyway, I wish you well in your endeavor, ApertureCaged.

 

The reason we do not like the analogy is that it's a strawman. Not even that, it's a completely false analogy.


Alas... agree to Disagree? Sure. I agree that you disagree with me.

Doesn't make me wrong, or you right tho *giggle*

/Z

 

Tumble, the non-pro-God half has been beating around the bush just as much, so don't use that arguement.

Look at the past few pages, it goes allot like this:

-The exhistance of God is illogical.
*No it's not.
-Why? Prove he exhists.
*You can't prove he exhists and you can't prove he doesn't.
-It's illogical, only science and math are logical
*if that's so, you need to deny your own feeling, as emotion in itself is illogical, as it can't be proven to come from a certain source.
-God's illogical
*Haven't we already been here. Let me put my answer in laymans terms
-You're being redundant
*only because you asked me to be.
-You're ignorant
*Good, I think you're pretty ignorant too
-It's bull crap
*So is most of what is considered logic


The arguement goes on and on, we're all beating around the same bush. Here's the point, and I think it was well stated above.

We need to come to an agreeance, that we're never going to convince each other that any one of us is particularly right. We need to agree to disagree.

This arguement has gone from enlightening to, (and I use this term non-offensively, and loosely) dumb and redundant.

It's comign from both sides so don't try to blame it on just the pro-religious, and don't try to blame in on the anti-religious.

If we are to work in harmony, we need to stop this right here. We're not going to agree on this, and that's a cold, hard fact. The human mind is too stubborn, and the source of stubborness can't be proven, just thorized, so I guess we're pretty illogical for being stubborn too, eh? (getting on a tangent, sorry)

So lets all just save this for another day, when someone comes knocking on our door trying to sell us books, LOL. Nobody is going to listen to a person online.

Sorry I'm not your bag of chips, non-pro-religious crowd, I really am, but at least I have the little satisfaction to know you were thinking about me, so hey.

This is a non-winable debate, and I'm throwing in the towel to play another day......again....

BACK ON TOPIC...FIRST TIME IN PAGES

Yeah, I hate those made for TV bible films too. They always add allot of stuff and take allot of stuff out. I never saw Noahs ark with pirates though. That's pretty funny.

-Matt

 

Matt, it comes down to this: The burdon of proof always falls on the positive. Therefore, it is the pro-Gods burdon to prove god exists. There is no burdon of proof on the no-God side of the discussion, I don't even have to present an alternative to God, I don't have to say anything.

The rest of that crap is a sideshow. Bottom line, you must PROVE GOD EXISTS.

-tm

 

And you must prove he doesn't.
And that's the bottom line...period.

Go to a traditional pentacostal revival down in brownsville, or any other strong church and then talk to me about this topic again. I'll probably be more interested.


-Matt

 

I already proved he doesn't - repeatedly - in showing that all the mechanisms necessary for everything WITHOUT a god - are there.

Regardless; We do not hold the positive, the burden of proof is on you - period.

Going to a revival only proves mass hysteria, a well known psychological fact.

/Z

 

You say that, but you haven't been to one.

All of your FACT is thoery.

I'm not saying your 'theory' is impossible, I'm just saying that neither of us can prove ourselves right in any way but theory.

Theres a mound of literature on why God is real, and likewise, another wmound on why he's not. All have good arguements. None can be proven.

Mass hysteria. It happens, I won't argue with that, and maybe I'm delusional, but I'd like you to not totally throw out the possibility of it not being mass hysteria until you've experienced it first hand. I doubt you'll do that though.

I'd also like to question your use of psychology as FACT. Psychology is all theory, and many of them change every so often, and many others vary depending on the doctor. Physchology can be tested, yes, and it may work on some people, yes, but it's still theory, as it doesn't work for everyone.

-Matt

 

And you must prove he doesn't.
And that's the bottom line...period.

HEY IDIOT! You CANNOT PROVE SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST! How many times do I have to write that?!

THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ON THE POSITIVE.

-tm
*I am SO done with this thread

 

As said, lets agree to disagree.

Don't ever even imply I'm wrong and your right, though.

/Z

 

So like, who's a better God? Alanis Morrisette or Morgan Freeman?

 

So like, who's a better God? Alanis Morrisette or Morgan Freeman?

I'd say Dustin Hoffman. But since that wasn't a choice and I haven't seen Alanis Morrisette as god, I'd go with Morgan Freeman.

 

I'm glad we can come to a common grounds Zap. I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong. There's a possibility for both. But I won't say you're wrong, because you had points that I liked, and made that excellent artificial pan tutorial, and you're Swedish, so you have excellent chocolate, and your women are hot




Hey! Tumble called me an "IDIOT." Wow, way to win an arguement dude. That would SO not work in court. And yes, you can prove something doesn't exhist just as well as you can prove something does in this case. It's relative, so you can't.

But like Zap and others have said. Let's all agree to disagree. It's over, we're done. Back to our lives.

As for who's the better God.

I'd say Morgan Freeman in this case. He's good at playing anything. Nothing against Alanis, she doesn't come off as holy, nor a good actor. Apologies to her though.

How many saw the most recent Muppet christmas special? Whoopi Goldburg played God. She wasn't bad, and her heaven was pretty funny, but still...not the person I'd pick.

I guess God could be anyone though, right. So Dustin Hoffman WOULD make an excellent God actor. SO would Kevin Spacy, but after the bedroom scene with Helen Hunt in "Pay it Forward," I don't know...nothing against the movie,just that one scene, just something about it, besided Helen Hunt's nipple, that came by awkward. Maybe it was the diologue or the filming method. Dunno. He's a good actor in any case.

Throw a white suit on Patrick Stewart, and he's probably make a good God character.

I guess it depends on who's watching though.

-Matt

Edit: Swedish, sorry.

 

Swiss, so you have excellent chocolate, and your women are hot

SWEDISH darn it, SWEDISH. The Swiss are the one with alps, bank account, and chocolate. Well actually, that's Belgium.

We do have the Women, though. Mmmmm.

Sorry California, even LA or San Fran' has nothin' on even the most inconsequential rural micro-town in Sweden.

It's Oden and Thor's doi'n, you know.

/Z

 

Philosophers and scientist would disagree with you. You cannot prove something does not exist. There are several texts on the subject.

Sorry I called you an idiot. I get a little annoyed when I am factually right about something and someone keeps insisting I'm not. You cannot prove something does not exist, bottom line. The burdon of proof is on the positive.

-tm
*DEFFINATELY done with this topic. Somebody please lock it.

 

You cannot prove anything does not exist. Exactly. Okay, I think I understand you now...sort of.

Apology accepted...differences aside...no hard feelings.

All right.

I just thought of another God actor:

Arnold Schwarzeneggar. Running for Governor of Cali, and he's already played Hercules!

Arnold as Jesus talking to the desciples before being betrayed and crucified:

"I'll be back!"

-Matt