Evolution is Precursor to Creation

[Deleted member 619]

In terms of the fantasy flud, the single most damning piece of evidence that categorically blows this arse-gravy out of the water is the massive number of freshwater marine species that could not be alive today had this ever happened. The cichlid fish populations of lakes Victoria and Malawi are laughing their little cocks off at the suggestion that this global flud ever happened. Further, what the holy fuck were the Egyptians doing diggin canals under 9 kilometres of fucking water? The list is endless. It isn't that there is no evidence that the flood happened, although of course there isn't, it's that there is a wealth of evidence that it didn't fucking happen.

 

[dtorge39]

All morality is subjective, and is a result of our evolutionary past.

Subjective to what exactly? And how does doing 'the right thing' today have anything to do with an evolutionary past?
Morality is not just a matter of perspective, as the skeptics would have you believe.
There are standards of behavior which absolutely influence your ability to survive into an infinite future, as well as the group's ability to survive into the future. This is morality. It is the standard which makes infinite survival, or eternal life, possible. Only God has complete knowledge of this standard, which is why you need to listen to Him.

Oh, and before you continue to erect this guff about 'higher forms of love', please demonstrate that they actually exist in a critically robust fashion.

Sorry, but you won't know it exists until you try it yourself. I have. I have done things on behalf of others even when all emotion and natural inclination is telling me not to. That's how I know this higher love exists. Try it yourself.

Science doesn't, in any field of endeavour, postulate 'blind chance' bull well-defined and testable natural mechanisms.

Sorry, but 'blind chance' is very fundamental part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is fueled by random mutation inside of given environments.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Subjective to what exactly? And how does doing 'the right thing' today have anything to do with an evolutionary past?
Morality is not just a matter of perspective, as the skeptics would have you believe.
There are standards of behavior which absolutely influence your ability to survive into an infinite future, as well as the group's ability to survive into the future. This is morality. It is the standard which makes infinite survival, or eternal life, possible. Only God has complete knowledge of this standard, which is why you need to listen to Him.

Firstly, stop fucking preaching at me. I'm not interested in your fucking celestial peeping-tom. I don't fucking need to do anything, thank you very much. Secondly, I have no interest in sucking your magic man's cock for eternity. Eternal life sounds like a fate worse than death. I'll take oblivion, thanks.

Now, on to the meat of the point. All morality is subjective to humans. The only objective standard there is is the universe. The universe is not affected even a little bit by our moral decisions. Further, the simple fact that our morality changes with time is a clear indicator that morality is subjective. Indeed, moral standards differ from place to place and time to time, and only applies to humans. That alone makes it subjective.

Finally, if morality were at the whim of your cosmic curtain-twitcher, that would necessarily make it subjective, because anything that is based in the thought of a single individual, divine or not, is subjective.

I have a question for you, now. If you really believe you get your morals from your astral knob-jockey, and you believed he had commanded you to commit an act that you found morally reprehensible, like, say, killing a child, or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, would you do it?

Take youor time.

Sorry, but you won't know it exists until you try it yourself. I have. I have done things on behalf of others even when all emotion and natural inclination is telling me not to. That's how I know this higher love exists. Try it yourself.

Fuckwitted evasion. Do better.

Sorry, but 'blind chance' is very fundamental part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is fueled by random mutation inside of given environments.

Ignorant dreck. Random doesn't mean 'blind chance'. All mutations are the result of well-defined and testable natural mechanisms. Random, in this context, and indeed in any context in which the word is employed in science, means 'statistically independent', which means that either any given outcome is as likely as any other, or it means that we don't possess enough information about the system to be able to make categorical predictions. Perhaps you could do yourself a favour and look up the word 'stochastic', which is a proper definition of how the mutations of DNA, and indeed evolution in general, actually work.

 

[dtorge39]

I'd say God has a perfect knowledge of the probabilities.

You do realize that this statement is a non sequitur, don't you? It's logically impossible.

How is it non sequitur?
The wave function (Schrodinger) is the most complete description that can be given to a physical system per quantum mechanics. It encompasses all possibilities along with its probability. My statement is essentially the same as stating that God has access to all wave functions. There is nothing non-sequitur about that.

I don't know what evidence you would expect to see today of this flood.

I'm not a geologist, but I would hazard a guess that we would see a uniform, worldwide sedimentary layer. I would expect to find a lot of fossils buried in that sedimentary layer - of all kinds of animals and plants. Sudden floods provide excellent conditions for fossilization.
I'm not a biologist, but I would also predict that we would see evidence that EVERY species on Earth experienced a genetic bottleneck at the exact same time.
Those are just three testable predictions--which have been tested, and falsified.

But nowhere does there even exist a uniform sedimentary layer, even for global events which are scientifically accepted. This is because plate tectonics is constantly shifting the Earth. Differing rates of erosion across the globe also contribute to a lack of uniformity among layers from supposedly the same time period.

The genetic bottleneck argument is perhaps the best argument against the global flood. I agree that it makes it harder to believe in a flood of global scale. But this is also dependent on us having a perfect knowledge of DNA evolution, mutation rates, and reproductive rates. There are some assumptions built in to today's DNA analysis, an analysis which we've only relatively recently begun to undertake.

Perhaps the only marker would be DNA analysis of existing living humans, where we have already established that the human population came to a perilous low at some point in its history.

Yes, that point was roughly 70,000 years ago when humans were reduced to a population of approximately 15,000 individuals. Other estimates put the number as low as 2000 individuals. Nowhere is it reduced to 8 individuals except in the Biblical myth.

I find the studies on most recent common ancestor (MRCA) to be interesting. Current studies place that MRCA at about 5,000 years ago. This means that all living humans today had a common ancestor within the timescales indicated by the Bible. Yes, interesting indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

 

[Deleted member 619]

But nowhere does there even exist a uniform sedimentary layer, even for global events which are scientifically accepted. This is because plate tectonics is constantly shifting the Earth. Differing rates of erosion across the globe also contribute to a lack of uniformity among layers from supposedly the same time period.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Do yourself a favour and look up the iridium layer at the K/T boundary.


Edit: Oh, and this ignorant guff:

I find the studies on most recent common ancestor (MRCA) to be interesting. Current studies place that MRCA at about 5,000 years ago. This means that all living humans today had a common ancestor within the timescales indicated by the Bible. Yes, interesting indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

Perhaps you should actually read the article you link to. Firstly, the conservative current estimate is around 6,000 BCE, which is not within biblical timescales if you believe the made-up genaealogies of Ussher. Secondly, you will find that this MRCA existed within a population. There was no first human, as you would wish it to suggest.

Seriously, dude. You really should try education. Your brain will thank you for it.

 

[DTBeast]

I find the studies on most recent common ancestor (MRCA) to be interesting. Current studies place that MRCA at about 5,000 years ago. This means that all living humans today had a common ancestor within the timescales indicated by the Bible. Yes, interesting indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

if you read the description for why the MRCA would be so recent it is because of modern explorers spreading their seed, not because of a population bottleneck.

An explanation of this result is that, while humanity's MRCA was indeed a Paleolithic individual up to early modern times, the European explorers of the 16th and 17th centuries would have fathered enough offspring so that some "mainland" ancestry by today pervades even remote habitats. The possibility remains, however, that a single isolated population with no recent "mainland" admixture persists somewhere, which would immediately push back the date of humanity's MRCA by many millennia.

 

[e2iPi]

How is it non sequitur?
The wave function (Schrodinger) is the most complete description that can be given to a physical system per quantum mechanics. It encompasses all possibilities along with its probability. My statement is essentially the same as stating that God has access to all wave functions. There is nothing non-sequitur about that.

Do you even grasp the concept of probability? The wave function is not the most complete description that we can have of a physical system, but I'll let that slide for now because I really don't feel like explaining higher mathematics to someone who obviously does not possess the prerequisites to understand it.
As for the non sequitur--god has perfect knowledge of the probabilities--the implies that god knows the wave function of every particle which is nothing more than a probability distribution. Great, he perfectly knows where an electron has a 90% chance of being, where it has an 80% chance of being and where it has a .00000001% chance of being as well as the infinite gradient between. God still doesn't know where the fucking particle is, just where it PROBABLY is.
Perfect knowledge of a probability is perfect uncertainty. Understand?

hackenslash and DTBeast have covered the rest of your idiocy quite well, so I've got nothing further to add there other than to agree that you really should look into a proper education before you attempt to debate those who are educated.

-1

 

[dtorge39]

Eternal life sounds like a fate worse than death. I'll take oblivion, thanks.

I'm sorry to hear you are not interested in eternal life. Good bet you are not happy, otherwise you'd want it to continue. I hope you are able to address your happiness issues.

Now, on to the meat of the point. All morality is subjective to humans. The only objective standard there is is the universe. The universe is not affected even a little bit by our moral decisions. Further, the simple fact that our morality changes with time is a clear indicator that morality is subjective. Indeed, moral standards differ from place to place and time to time, and only applies to humans. That alone makes it subjective.

Ah, but the universe is affected by our moral decisions. When another's life is lifted through the actions of another, there can be a big long-run impact. The universe itself might not care or be capable of caring, but it does become a different place (better or worse) through our actions.

Finally, if morality were at the whim of your cosmic curtain-twitcher, that would necessarily make it subjective, because anything that is based in the thought of a single individual, divine or not, is subjective.

Right, morality is not at the whim of God. God became a god precisely because he followed the moral path. All other paths led to death and non-existence. God discovered morality, He did not create it.

I have a question for you, now. If you really believe you get your morals from your astral knob-jockey, and you believed he had commanded you to commit an act that you found morally reprehensible, like, say, killing a child, or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, would you do it?

Take youor time.

If I were convinced that God wanted me to do something, I would do it. Period.

Random doesn't mean 'blind chance'. All mutations are the result of well-defined and testable natural mechanisms. Random, in this context, and indeed in any context in which the word is employed in science, means 'statistically independent', which means that either any given outcome is as likely as any other, or it means that we don't possess enough information about the system to be able to make categorical predictions. Perhaps you could do yourself a favour and look up the word 'stochastic', which is a proper definition of how the mutations of DNA, and indeed evolution in general, actually work.

Yes, stochastic processes involve processes which are both predictable and non-predictable. Still, there is an element of 'chance' in these processes.

 

[dtorge39]

Perhaps you should actually read the article you link to. Firstly, the conservative current estimate is around 6,000 BCE, which is not within biblical timescales if you believe the made-up genaealogies of Ussher. Secondly, you will find that this MRCA existed within a population. There was no first human, as you would wish it to suggest.

Seriously, dude. You really should try education. Your brain will thank you for it.

Fine, 6000BCE is still plus or minus a reasonable expectation of consistency with the Bible.

Yes, I did read the article, and I did see it pointed out that MRCA would have existed within a population. However, that is still an assumption since we don't have first hand observable evidence. Fact remains that we are all descended from the MRCA, which is within biblical timescales.

 

[dtorge39]

How is it non sequitur?
The wave function (Schrodinger) is the most complete description that can be given to a physical system per quantum mechanics. It encompasses all possibilities along with its probability. My statement is essentially the same as stating that God has access to all wave functions. There is nothing non-sequitur about that.

Do you even grasp the concept of probability? The wave function is not the most complete description that we can have of a physical system, but I'll let that slide for now because I really don't feel like explaining higher mathematics to someone who obviously does not possess the prerequisites to understand it.
As for the non sequitur--god has perfect knowledge of the probabilities--the implies that god knows the wave function of every particle which is nothing more than a probability distribution. Great, he perfectly knows where an electron has a 90% chance of being, where it has an 80% chance of being and where it has a .00000001% chance of being as well as the infinite gradient between. God still doesn't know where the fucking particle is, just where it PROBABLY is.
Perfect knowledge of a probability is perfect uncertainty. Understand?

-1

No, perfect knowledge of probabilities is not perfect uncertainty. As you aggregate the probabilities of linked events over time, you can actually develop a very high confidence interval relative to specific outcome. If this weren't the case then science wouldn't be able to predict anything.

An example in our macro world would be the ability to predict the outbreak of war between two nations at some point in time. There are a multitude of predecessor events which can lead two nations to war (resource competition, ambition, conflicting religious/philisophical views, etc.) Or, there are many paths to the final outcome. The probability of any one specific predecessor event might be low. But in the aggregate, there can arise a very probable chance that two nations will war with each other. This lends a degree of predictability towards the future, but not a perfect ability.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'm sorry to hear you are not interested in eternal life. Good bet you are not happy, otherwise you'd want it to continue. I hope you are able to address your happiness issues.

Two things: First, this is an unnecessary personalisation. Keep this wankery to yourself, or you will find yourself on the wrong end of moderator attentions. Second, on the contrary. I couldn't be happier. Thing is, we don't all have your idea of what constitutes happiness. Just because your fear of death makes you want to live forever doesn't mean we all share that fear. The finitude of life is precisely what gives it zest. I don't fear death, and I certainly don't relish the thought of polishing th knob of your immoral masturbation fantasy for eternity.

Ah, but the universe is affected by our moral decisions. When another's life is lifted through the actions of another, there can be a big long-run impact. The universe itself might not care or be capable of caring, but it does become a different place (better or worse) through our actions.

Evidence for this cretinous assertion? Peer-reviewed paper to suggest that our moral decisions have any impact on the universe? Your rectally extracted blind assertions are not sufficient to support your point here. Perhaps you are used to a different standard of audience, who accept your pathetic wibblings as if they constituted wisdom. The critical thinkers here have more rigorous requirements before accepting such guff.

Right, morality is not at the whim of God. God became a god precisely because he followed the moral path. All other paths led to death and non-existence. God discovered morality, He did not create it.

Evidence that this fuckwitted entity even exists? I tire of your blind ex recto assertions, especially when they don't match the ex recto assertions of your fellow believers.

If I were convinced that God wanted me to do something, I would do it. Period.

Then by your own admission you have no fucking idea of what morality is. Stay away from my children.

Yes, stochastic processes involve processes which are both predictable and non-predictable. Still, there is an element of 'chance' in these processes.

[/quote]

Bzzzzzzzzz. Stochastic means nothing of the sort. Go and actually look up the word. Chance is not involved, but well-defined and testable natural mechanisms. There is an element of statistical independence, not chance.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Fine, 6000BCE is still plus or minus a reasonable expectation of consistency with the Bible.

What?!!! Given that the entire history of the world is only supposed to be 6,000 years, I'd say an inaccuracy of 33% was pretty significant.

Yes, I did read the article, and I did see it pointed out that MRCA would have existed within a population. However, that is still an assumption since we don't have first hand observable evidence. Fact remains that we are all descended from the MRCA, which is within biblical timescales.

No, it's not an assumption, it's how evolution works. This is a variation on the 'you weren't there' fuckwittery, and you can keep it. The fact is that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, to the point where it isn't even remotely in any doubt, except in the minds of the terminally credulous. This being the case, and it also being the case that the principle of MRCA includes an extant population, we absolutely know this to be the case. Further, another principle you seem to be overlooking, is the MVP, or minimum viable population. If the MRCA were not part of a wider population, we wouldn't be here, because a certain size of population is required to prevent too many alleles going to fixation, a problem that we observe in the wild now, with the population of cheetahs. Their population is so small that their gene pool doesn't contain enough diversity to prevent terminal fixation of alleles.

Once again indicating that you don't have the first fucking clue of how evolution or indeed anything else works.

 

[e2iPi]

No, perfect knowledge of probabilities is not perfect uncertainty. As you aggregate the probabilities of linked events over time, you can actually develop a very high confidence interval relative to specific outcome. If this weren't the case then science wouldn't be able to predict anything.

You have almost learned something. Science never says anything with 100% accuracy. Why? Because an aggregate of probabilities can never reach 100% certainty; the error bars can get smaller, but they never go to zero.

An example in our macro world would be the ability to predict the outbreak of war between two nations at some point in time. There are a multitude of predecessor events which can lead two nations to war (resource competition, ambition, conflicting religious/philisophical views, etc.) Or, there are many paths to the final outcome. The probability of any one specific predecessor event might be low. But in the aggregate, there can arise a very probable chance that two nations will war with each other. This lends a degree of predictability towards the future, but not a perfect ability.

Did you seriously just make the leap from a physical system governed by quantum probabilities to a political situation? The two don't equate on any level. :facepalm:

If I were convinced that God wanted me to do something, I would do it. Period.

This makes you a very sick individual.

-1

 

[nasher168]

I'm sorry to hear you are not interested in eternal life. Good bet you are not happy, otherwise you'd want it to continue. I hope you are able to address your happiness issues

I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, but I am one who considers the idea of eternity slightly horrifying. I am content, happy and hopeful for the future, but eternity? Just think what that means. We are not just talking millions or billions of years. We are talking for ever. The way I see it is that either:
1. I will die and face oblivion, or
2. I will die and face eternity. If I don't find eternity monotonous after exhausting every conceivable possible fun thing to do a million times over, then I would not be myself and would therefore have ceased to exist anyway.

Hence, I face oblivion as a consciousness regardless.

If I were convinced that God wanted me to do something, I would do it. Period.

And if God told you to shoot a baby in each kneecap, then the face? Would you do that? Apologies for going way too far in my analogy, but it is essential that you see just how horrifying that statement of your's is.

 

[dtorge39]

Thing is, we don't all have your idea of what constitutes happiness. Just because your fear of death makes you want to live forever doesn't mean we all share that fear.

But its not a fear of death that makes me want to live forever, rather it is my love of life. I'd have to imagine that a similar love of life motivated intelligence beings towards a realization of godhood.

The finitude of life is precisely what gives it zest.

I doubt that those on their deathbeds confronting the finitude of life share your notion of 'zest'.

Ah, but the universe is affected by our moral decisions. When another's life is lifted through the actions of another, there can be a big long-run impact. The universe itself might not care or be capable of caring, but it does become a different place (better or worse) through our actions.

Evidence for this cretinous assertion? Peer-reviewed paper to suggest that our moral decisions have any impact on the universe?

Pick up any newspaper, you'll see that our decisions affect the universe. Granted, they affect a tiny corner of the universe right now. But as technology grows and our powers increase, the impact on the universe will also grow.

If I were convinced that God wanted me to do something, I would do it. Period.

Then by your own admission you have no f***** idea of what morality is. Stay away from my children.

Wrong, I do have an idea of morality, but I defer to God for absolute expertise on morality. I know He will not lead me astray.

 

[dtorge39]

Further, another principle you seem to be overlooking, is the MVP, or minimum viable population. If the MRCA were not part of a wider population, we wouldn't be here, because a certain size of population is required to prevent too many alleles going to fixation, a problem that we observe in the wild now, with the population of cheetahs. Their population is so small that their gene pool doesn't contain enough diversity to prevent terminal fixation of alleles.

And yet we still have cheetahs despite the genetic bottleneck.

And it has also been theorized under the recent african origin theory that a small group of as little as 150 individuals left africa, crossed the Red Sea, and went on the populate the rest of the world with humans.

The MVP must be able to get quite low.

 

[dtorge39]

I'm sorry to hear you are not interested in eternal life. Good bet you are not happy, otherwise you'd want it to continue. I hope you are able to address your happiness issues

I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, but I am one who considers the idea of eternity slightly horrifying. I am content, happy and hopeful for the future, but eternity? Just think what that means. We are not just talking millions or billions of years. We are talking for ever. The way I see it is that either:
1. I will die and face oblivion, or
2. I will die and face eternity. If I don't find eternity monotonous after exhausting every conceivable possible fun thing to do a million times over, then I would not be myself and would therefore have ceased to exist anyway.

Hence, I face oblivion as a consciousness regardless.

But you only live it one day at a time. And if you are going to argue that your consciousness faces oblivion, then it already did so this morning, because you are not the exact same person today as you were yesterday.

I think there are plenty of fun things to do over eternity, but hopefully "fun" is not the only reason that life is worth living.

If I were convinced that God wanted me to do something, I would do it. Period.

And if God told you to shoot a baby in each kneecap, then the face? Would you do that? Apologies for going way too far in my analogy, but it is essential that you see just how horrifying that statement of your's is.

I find the probability of God asking me to do what you described as so extremely remote, that I won't worry about it for another second.

 

[Deleted member 619]

But its not a fear of death that makes me want to live forever, rather it is my love of life. I'd have to imagine that a similar love of life motivated intelligence beings towards a realization of godhood.

Can't wait till you see that realisation. It has to be said that the credulous have only had several thousand years to do so, and not a shred of robust evidence as yet.

I doubt that those on their deathbeds confronting the finitude of life share your notion of 'zest'.

Your doubts are of no consequence. Perhaps you haven't worked this out yet, but nobody gives a flying fuck what you think. All that matters is what can be demonstrated with critically robust supporting evidence.

Pick up any newspaper, you'll see that our decisions affect the universe. Granted, they affect a tiny corner of the universe right now. But as technology grows and our powers increase, the impact on the universe will also grow.

Utter fuckwittery. The newspapers contain the most subjective perspective there is. Indeed, they even contain very specific biases from paper to paper. That's about as subjective as it gets., I asked for peer-reviewed data and you give me fucking tabloids. No wonder you believe the horseshit you do.

Wrong, I do have an idea of morality, but I defer to God for absolute expertise on morality. I know He will not lead me astray.

He already has, and that's without even fucking existing. Imagine what a cunt he'd be if he actually did exist!

 

[Deleted member 619]

And yet we still have cheetahs despite the genetic bottleneck.

For how fucking long? They are doomed to extinction, because their gene pool is too fucking small to maintain a viable population.

And it has also been theorized under the recent african origin theory that a small group of as little as 150 individuals left africa, crossed the Red Sea, and went on the populate the rest of the world with humans.

The MVP must be able to get quite low.

What the holy fuck are you on about. Do you have any idea of how humans propagated? It wasn't anything like the way you suggest. The propagation of humans was almost certainly largely about children moving a bit further down the road. The MVP cannot get too low, or genes go to fixation. What this means in reality is that, where deleterious alleles are recessive, you are guaranteed to get two copies in your offspring, meaning that they are always expressed. Many genetic diseases work like this. I require a critically robust citation for your above ex recto assertion.

You have no idea of what you're talking about, and are clearly one of those people who think that a quick scan of a Wiki article makes you an expert. It doesn't. You need to actually study.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I find the probability of God asking me to do what you described as so extremely remote, that I won't worry about it for another second.

Well, when measured against some of the things your magic voyeur allegedly commanded, that's not too far out of the realm of reason. He did, after all, order the slaughter of the Amalechites, and even berated the Israelites for not killing all the children.

What your respose to this question actually tells me is that you answered without thinking. Think really hard about killing a child, and tell me you would still do it. I bet you anything you wouldn't.