Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…by being imperfect we strive for improvement. i put forward the idea that if we were created perfect whatever that may mean we would not IMPROVE ourselves, not PROGRESS because it would be no place left to go..…(my emphasises)

So the reason why “god” made us imperfect is so that we “IMPROVE” ourselves,
-ok, there are 4 main problems I see terlife“.

P.S. I apologise for making such a big post -I cannot seem to condense it down.[/b]

no problem, long posts don't mean idiot posts (not all the time as you saw just in this thread).


1, what do you mean by “IMPROVE” ourselves? Give me an example.
when the early apes discovered they were no match for the predators of that time they started to get together and help each other. until one of the apes picked up a rock and threw it at a predator. using a tool for the first time. and the self improvement didn't stop.

2. yes that sounds about right, that is what i said. you can't deny that being the weakest animal in the forest forced us to adapt in new ways. like socializing, inventing and using tools, cooperating, learning and teaching. if we were created perfect(and again you must say what do you mean by perfect), odds are great we wouldn't have had to invent all those things. i am not saying that intelligence is the sure effect of being dealt by evolution with a losing hand. there are other effects like extinction. in short weak creature must adapt or die. if we were created perfect we wouldn't have had to adapt anything.

3-4: we would design a perfect car if we could. because we need that car. god doesn't need a perfect creation. god doesn't need creation at all. if we accept the premise that god is perfect and always had been, why would he create perfect beings that i say would be exactly as bored as he is? know all, be perfect, all the achievements possible being meaningless because when you are god you can just wish for it to happen. in my opinion god wanted something different. wanted a creature that would earn its achievement, that would overcome obstacles in the face of huge odds.

i submit the idea that god put us and all creation through the messy process of evolution because he wanted a logical (mostly) universe that would not require his constant intervention like creationists claim. instead of intervening in every child conception to make sure that incest between father and daughter or sister and brother didn't produce a retard.

what would we have left to choose if not to better ourselves, to achieve something. if we are all perfect, we could have anything we want with minimum effort. not to mention that once we achieve afterlife we will have that anyway. life is a preparation process, one where you grow as a person in order to enjoy, understand and appreciate eternity. if we would have been created perfect we would have been kind of like the spoiled brat of a filthy rich family who never had to work a day in his life and doesn't know the meaning of struggle.

So you don’t see the idea that god could make us evolve big brains by the very slow changes made by evolution over many millions of years as a “problem“, and yet, you DO see the idea that god could make us perfect as a “problem“ because that would mean we would strive to make progress at a much slower rate?
already answered this question above. god chooses to have his creation follow a logical enough building process. sure he can magically make it appear, but he wants to give the idea(my opinion) that hard work is preferable, more rewarding, that not even when you are god you can't have everything by mere wish. in genesis god creates the world in 7 days. to the ancient man that is impressive. but even then god had to work for 6 days. to create each aspect seperately, and then he had to rest also to give the idea that after a period of work, relaxation is that much more pleasurable.

But people would still study anatomy out of pure curiosity -you don’t need people dying of horrible diseases for that.
pure curiosity would only get you as far as a certain point. sure, if nowadays there would be no more diseases, humans would still research anatomy. but if nobody would have died of diseases in ancient times do you think they would have still studied it? there is a chain of events that leads to a destination. if you remove the cause for the first events, the latter events will not happen because the first did not happen.

Not true, the laws of physics put a limit on how well an optic system can see given the finite diameter of the gap that allows light through.
Although I suppose a “god” could have designed the laws of physics so to allow us to do literally anything?
exactly. how "perfect" would you want to be and how would you have liked god to make the universe to allow you to be that perfect

Actually, we already can see as far as a light year; just look at any star in the sky except our sun. i meant see the ET mowing his lawn with his fusion reactor lawn mower. see the molecules of water in the air if you focus your vision enough.

You seem to think that “difficulties” are a good thing -wouldn’t it be more pleasant if we didn’t have horrible difficulties (such as rabies etc) to “overcome” in the first place?
i as a believer claim that a place with no difficulties exists(afterlife). this another game. why create a life completely devoid of hardships and difficulties if you already have an eternity exactly like that?

by perfect in the afterlife i mean physical perfection. in this life you start attaining psychic perfection.perfection that can be attained throgh work and overcoming hardships. perfection that might take an eternity to accomplish. (god had quite a lot of time on his hands). you would want to be presented with all things good right away, without much work on your hand. and you yell at god for not giving it to you(when you acknowledge his existence for the sake of argument).

you say you might be lazy and wait until the afterlife and not bother with the whole "bettering oneself" process. what if life is a gift, one that you will never receive again? wouldn't it be reasonable to try and enjoy it as much as you can, learn as much as you can from it? twhite and you claim that life would be better without hardships, that an endless party with no worries would be better. i say it would be more pleasurable, not better. i say nobody would invent anything since we already have whatever we want. hardships mean progress. no hardships leads to stagnation.

EDIT: Yikes that is a long post. and i could have made it longer 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok its quite elementary Dr. Watson, you are unable to differentiate between a characteristic and a new species,

Ahh. So it was a typing error on your part. You did not say anything about species, you simply said "not something new".

the mutation as has been shown by endless experimentation results not in a new species but simply a variation of original species, thus there are finches with different types of beak, but they are all finches, there are many variation of dogs, but essentially they are all dogs etc etc etc oh
So tell me, what is the species of the offspring of a dog and a wolf?

and if this is the best you got then i can safely conclude that mutations are unable to provide any valid basis for the variety of species that we see on earth due to lack of evidence on your part.😀
No that is not 'all I've got' and your making a conclusion based on lack of sufficient contradiction from me is ridiculous in the extreme.
The main reasons why I have not bothered to explain it all to you is your original claim was incomplete and clearly false, and also I know that the moment someone provides evidence you have no answer for you simply respond with insults and a refusal to answer. I can guarantee that you will do just that with regards to the dog/wolf issue.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Ahh. So it was a typing error on your part. You did not say anything about species, you simply said "not something new".

[b]the mutation as has been shown by endless experimentation results not in a new species but simply a variation of original species, thus there are finches with different types of beak, but they are all finches, there are many varia ...[text shortened]... l to answer. I can guarantee that you will do just that with regards to the dog/wolf issue.

i can't discuss with the robbie because he thinks i am a bad heathen and heretic who only claims to follow the lord (Praise Jesus!)

so i am asking you:

if professor robbie is corect, would it be fair to suggest that there are no cats and dogs, just mammals with new and different characteristics?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so i am asking you:

if professor robbie is corect, would it be fair to suggest that there are no cats and dogs, just mammals with new and different characteristics?

No, that would be if robbie is wrong. Robbie does not understand the definition of the word species and is convinced that all animals can be classified into distinct species and that every animal (or plant for that matter) can only give offspring that is of the same species as its parent. Clearly he is wrong - but I am sure he will never admit it.

Your idea is correct, every living organism is unique and in sexually reproducing life forms they are usually genetically unique too. The species classification is man made and is little more than a way of categorizing life forms.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Evolutionists know that quite well that not everything gets 'better', some mutations that are passed on because they are not lethal but causes some problem for the life form in question, they know that happens but that kind of thing is in the minority of mutations. Besides, a lot of what happens in evolution is not from mutations, random stuff, it actually ...[text shortened]... ybe even allowing us to make life from non-life, much as you would hate to swallow that one.

"DNA can respond to the stress in selective expression of genes that counter the stress. "

What are you saying here?
Kelly

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no problem, long posts don't mean idiot posts (not all the time as you saw just in this thread).


[b]1, what do you mean by “IMPROVE” ourselves? Give me an example.
when the early apes discovered they were no match for the predators of that time they started to get together and help each other. until one of the apes picked up a rock and threw it a tagnation.

EDIT: Yikes that is a long post. and i could have made it longer 😉[/b]

…you say you might be lazy and wait until the afterlife and not bother with the whole "bettering oneself" process. what if life is a gift, one that you will never receive again?..…

But that is precisely what I think it is! -I do not believe there is an “afterlife”.

….wouldn't it be reasonable to try and enjoy it as much as you can, learn as much as you can from it? .…

Yes.

….twhite and you claim that life would be better without hardships, that an endless party with no worries would be better.…

I am not sure about the “endless party” bit (I hate parties) but I think the “no worries” and “without hardships” bits would be better -why not?

…i say it would be more pleasurable, not better.…

I am not sure about the “more pleasurable” part -I am not really much of a “pleasure seeker”;
but I would say “less pain and suffering is better”.

….i say nobody would invent anything since we already have whatever we want. .…

You are wrong there -I am living proof of somebody that just likes inventing things just for fun rather than practical need -I have so far made zilch money out of my inventions. Even if I had “everything I want” I would still invent things because I enjoy the process of inventing.

….hardships mean progress.…

So are you implying here that the hardship from, say, rabies is a good thing because it make us make “progress” finding a cure for it?
Wouldn’t it be better if there was no rabies problem to make “progress” against it in the first place?

There will always be many people willing to study biology for its own sake without the need of horrible diseases to make them study biology (me included) -because of curiosity! Such people doing research into it may be able to make us have an enjoyable “progress” in understanding human biology EVEN if no human diseases existed and even if that understanding of human biology had absolutely no “practical” application and was done purely so that we can enjoy learning about it and satisfy our curiosity. The same goes for all the sciences.
It may take a bit longer to make scientific discoveries without harsh incentives to make quick progress but if there was no need to make quick progress in the first place then why should the length of time it takes be an issue?
Many scientific discoveries where made with absolutely no harsh incentives to make quick progress nor any human suffering nor any practical need; example: the discovery of evolution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, that would be if robbie is wrong. Robbie does not understand the definition of the word species and is convinced that all animals can be classified into distinct species and that every animal (or plant for that matter) can only give offspring that is of the same species as its parent. Clearly he is wrong - but I am sure he will never admit it.

Your ...[text shortened]... The species classification is man made and is little more than a way of categorizing life forms.

yeah i see where i made my mistake. i just wanted to point out that if he is correct then we would have no point of classifying the animals into cats, dogs, unicorns since they are all one big category.

my point was(and i am sorry if i am repeating myself) that we see clearly that a wolf is much more alike with a dog than a cow is so we say that cow and dog are different species. my guess is that robbie claims that no species can evolve from another(reach the point where there are so many differences that they have to be classified as a new species) because once an organism accumulates too many differences, it will magically croak.

so to summarize, robbie thinks the following.
1. he admits that species can produce mutated individuals but said individuals are still a part of that species and most cannot reproduce.
2. if the mutants can reproduce and produce mutants with new characteristics, they will magically croak generations before being so mutated we would have no choice but to call them a new species.
3. the reason why there are so many different organisms today is that god hand crafted each and everyone of them and told them not to evolve into something different. (this is a logical conclusion to 1 and 2)
4. i am not sure what his stance is on dinosaurs and why there are no fossils of higher organism once we reach a certain point down the planet timeline. why arent there mammals in the triasic, why aren't there vertebrates older than X years, etc.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"DNA can respond to the stress in selective expression of genes that counter the stress. "

What are you saying here?
Kelly

that if there is a drought (massive) and you have genes that allow your organism to better use water, some individuals will be born with said genes. and those individuals will survive to pass on their genes because the other individuals will be dead.

EDIT: someone with a better understanding in genetics please confirm or deny this claim.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…you say you might be lazy and wait until the afterlife and not bother with the whole "bettering oneself" process. what if life is a gift, one that you will never receive again?..…

But that is precisely what I think it is! -I do not believe there is an “afterlife”.

….wouldn't it be reasonable to try and enjoy it as much as you can, ...[text shortened]... progress nor any human suffering nor any practical need; example: the discovery of evolution.

i say that without hardships, monkeys would not have gotten down from the trees. i say we would still be still sniffing each others butts right now if we would have been so strong and fast that there was no predator out there to hurt us, nor diseases to make us want to find a cure, be curious.

curiosity only makes you invent stuff out of curiosity. stuff that makes you zilch money like you said. you might invent a let's say self moving fan to cool yourself. but real progress is made out of necessity. at least at first. once you reach a certain point of civilization, it is natural to want to know more. but as i said, without hardships nobody would get there.

and one more point i would like to make, you deny the existence of god. if we go from that idea and in this point of our civilization we remove (by magic) all diseases, all hardships, how will our civilization fare if a disease appears?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"DNA can respond to the stress in selective expression of genes that counter the stress. "

What are you saying here?
Kelly

DNA responds to stress like heat or lack of food by selectively activating a treasure trove of backup plans that alter the lifeform undergoing the stress. So the next generation has a slightly better chance of survival and the DNA knows it is on to a good thing and continues in like fashion. DNA is like a computer, it responds to inputs and self directs the organization of genes during stressful periods.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yeah i see where i made my mistake. i just wanted to point out that if he is correct then we would have no point of classifying the animals into cats, dogs, unicorns since they are all one big category.

my point was(and i am sorry if i am repeating myself) that we see clearly that a wolf is much more alike with a dog than a cow is so we say that cow and ...[text shortened]... . why arent there mammals in the triasic, why aren't there vertebrates older than X years, etc.

There is a pretty convincing timeline that dino's living relatives are birds, lots of evidence along that line.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is a pretty convincing timeline that dino's living relatives are birds, lots of evidence along that line.

I would love to enjoy you debating with robbie regarding this matter
😵

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is a pretty convincing timeline that dino's living relatives are birds, lots of evidence along that line.

we take things steps by step we don't want robbie to have a stroke by being fed too much information. i would like to hear his stance on this and go from there. maybe he will even say that the flintstones is a documentary so it would be even more imperative to take it one step at a time.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
my point was(and i am sorry if i am repeating myself) that we see clearly that a wolf is much more alike with a dog than a cow is so we say that cow and dog are different species. my guess is that robbie claims that no species can evolve from another(reach the point where there are so many differences that they have to be classified as a new species) because once an organism accumulates too many differences, it will magically croak.

I generally agree with you, but would like to add some comments.
1. It is often claimed by anti-evolutionists that no new species can arise. The mistake made by such claimants is that the species definition is man made and is not even well defined. It is certainly not a magical biological barrier that cannot be crossed.
2. Wolves, dogs, coyotes and a number of other canine species can all interbreed. Different breeds of dog differ in their physical characteristics very considerably. The only real reason why we do not classify dog breeds as different species is because dogs are domesticated.
3. The claim that the offspring of a dog is always 'still a dog' does not really make sense as the only reason why it is 'still a dog' is because we choose to call it that, it does not reflect in any way the degree of difference between the offspring and the parent. It is a case of using a label to make claims about an object.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i say that without hardships, monkeys would not have gotten down from the trees. i say we would still be still sniffing each others butts right now if we would have been so strong and fast that there was no predator out there to hurt us, nor diseases to make us want to find a cure, be curious.

curiosity only makes you invent stuff out of curiosity. stuff ve (by magic) all diseases, all hardships, how will our civilization fare if a disease appears?

…you might invent a let's say self moving fan to cool yourself. but real progress is made out of necessity. …

Why do you believe that to be necessarily true?

doesn’t that simply depend on how you define “progress”?

-if you define “progress” as nothing more than overcoming difficulty then, yes, by that narrow definition, that must be true by definition -but then because that would be true by definition, that argument would be just a tautology. What if you gave the meaning of the word “progress” a wider meaning to include, for example, “progress” in understanding something for its own sake? (i.e. for no practical benefit).
The discovery of evolution is just one example of such a thing -I could define the discovery of evolution as “progress” because it increases our understanding -but that “progress” had no practical benefit (at least, not initially).
Similarly, even if computers have no practical benefit, I would still try to invent one -just for fun!

…and one more point i would like to make, you deny the existence of god. if we go from that idea and in this point of our civilization we remove (by magic) all diseases, all hardships, how will our civilization fare if a disease appears?.…

I think that should have been “…if ALL disease appears”?
Obviously I would think our civilization would fare “better” if all diseases and hardships where removed.
-and I would like to add that I would want to live in such a wonderful civilization!