Re: Lets keep it simple this time.


"NashtOn" <nana@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:coInf.139028$Ph4.4251401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Grendel" <nadda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:auFnf.203765$Io.197736@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>odin wrote:
>>>
>>>>I recently posted the following question: "Does the bible say anything
>>>>that
>>>>indicates that evolution from one species into another is not
>>>>possible?".
>>>
>>>
>>>Absolutely. The Bible is full of such evidence.
>>
>>
>> Then let's have chapter and verse.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Bible teaches that God is perfect. Perfect in every way. That means
>>>he is perfectly holy and just. So, if that is true, how can a perfectly
>>>holy and just God subject an innocent creation to billions of years of
>>>supposed evolutionary process of death, mutation and suffering?
>>
>>
>> Death is simply part of life, it's not something that's alien to life,
>> and
>> without death, life itself is not possible. Mutations are neither good
>> or
>> bad, they just are.
>
> Mutations are the worst thing that can happen to an organism.
> Do you have any notion of what your saying when you post these inane
> stupidities?
>
Most mutations are neutral. Some, indeed, are "silent:" they produce a new
codon that corresponds to the same amino acid as the old codon. Some
mutations are very deleterious, and a quite small percentage are beneficial,
but it seems odd to say that they are the worst thing that can happen to an
organism. Of course, there are somatic mutations (those occurring in the
body cells of an already existing organism), and again, these may produce
cancer, or they may have no effect at all. Then there are germ cell
mutations, which are passed on to offspring. It seems odd to say that these
could be "the worst thing that can happen to an organism," since if they did
not occur, the organism they "happen to" wouldn't exist; some other organism
would exist in its place.
>
> The vast majority of living things do not have enough
>> mental capacity to even understand the concept of suffering.
>
> Really? And you know this how, exactly, or is this just another one of
> your unsubstantiated factoids?
>
Perhaps he's applied IQ and personality tests to a representative sampling
of bacteria, household plants, amoebas and euglenas, and sea anemones and
empirically determined it. Then again, perhaps he's just assuming that,
since the vast majority of living organisms (whether one counts
individuals -- in which case bacteria would make up probably 99+% of the
count -- or even species, in which case bacteria might still top everything
else) don't have a brain, or even a nervous system worth mentioning, they
probably don't understand any concepts at all, any more than that computer
in front of you does. Now, we tend to notice and take an interest in
animals, and I think a majority of animal species have central nervous
systems (though I might be underestimating the number of jellyfish and small
"worm" species), but note that in most cases we're still talking about a
tiny brain and almost entirely instinct-driven existence.
>
> For that
>> matter, what is the justice of condeming an entire universe to "decay"
>> due
>> to the actions of two individuals, who had no concept of right or wrong?
>>
>>
>>>The entire premise of ToE is incompatible with the nature of God as
>>>revealed to us in the Bible.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. The premise of the Theory of Evolution is that life adapts
>> itself to conditions present on Earth.
>
> This is selection, a manifestation of polymorphism already designed in
> the genome.
> Has nothing to do with the ToE.
>
Natural selection has nothing to do with the theory of evolution by natural
selection?
>
> We observe evolution in action, so
>> it must be compatible with God, if we are to assume that God exists.
>>
>>
>>>The cruel and highly inefficient process of evolution makes the
>>>possibility of God using it as his chosen method of creating a big fat
>>>zero.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is not "cruel", or inefficient. Nor is there any
>> justification
>> for you to tell God what method he can use for creation.
>
> No, but who do you think you are going around spreading lies, such as
> the blatant lie about how mutations are neutral to an organism.
>
> Nicolas
>>
>>
>> DJT
>>
>
-- Steven J.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lets cut to the chase--BIG question (racism thread)
    ... about evolution is really quite limited. ... I also remember learning about "mutations" ... organism is not "improved" by the mutation ... ...  Maybe if your ancestors needed to be able to run real ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Theistic Selection as opposed to Theistic Evolution
    ... After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's ... I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on ... randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lets cut to the chase--BIG question (racism thread)
    ... I admit that I have not studied evolution or genetics or much of any ... organisms have mutations of their genetic makeup that occur from time to ... organism is not "improved" by the mutation ... ... and replicate), human beings came to be ... ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Creation Science
    ... God is real wrote in ... statements with respect to evolution. ... They suggest that microevolution doesn't require increasing ... of "just right" mutations' in order to happen. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution means people werent planned.
    ... intelligent/self-aware/whatever creature which could fairly be descscribed ... mutations couldn't remain random with God programming the process so ... that it terminates with the summit of Evolution, ... is how God DID choose to set it all up and, whilst we might be curious as ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading