29 Jun 19
@galveston75 saidThere you go. Your given is blatantly false. Jesus was not created, regardless of what your church says, from a Bible they wrote themselves. You're way, way too literal. And by the way, that's the function of evolution. It creates new animals. God oversees that creation. But all that is too hard a concept to grasp for you, because you are too literal, you can't think around the seeming contradiction.
So are we straight on those other points? If you knew more about us, you know what we believe, it might help you a little in our discussions. Just a thought.
Well the wording in the Bible says many many times that he created humans, animals, etc. He also said his son Jesus was the first of all creations. So just using logic and comparing these two statements in the Bib ...[text shortened]... his being created by his Father. The bible says created in all it's explaining how life came to be.
I'm even left wondering if you believe in free will, or are you a Calvinist? But I suppose that question should be, was Russell a Calvinist? I don't imagine he was, but looking at your religion, that point is not entirely clear.
29 Jun 19
@suzianne saidSo what is your idea of a mutation? Is it a good thing or bad thing? According to everything I look up it is pretty much always a bad thing. But you know that, right? So according to your thinking that for life forms or species to evolve there must be mutations that as you say "occur all the time".
Random mutations occur in nature literally ALL the time.
Given a few billion years and enough fish, some will probably grow lungs. If they're not already in an environment that makes that a benefit, it will die out. Until the next time.
So again all descriptions I've looked up about what a mutation is and the negative issues it can cause and will bring to it's offspring with deformities, messed up DNA and just usually really messes up the reproduction chances to producing normal offspring.
But yet evolution pretty much says these mutations actually do the opposite and make the next generations bigger and better.
So who has this right? You can't have it both ways. Either a mutation is a good thing or it's a bad thing...Right? Please explain ........ If you can.
https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-a-mutation
What is a mutation?
A mutation is a change that occurs in our DNA sequence, either due to mistakes when the DNA is copied or as the result of environmental factors such as UV light and cigarette smoke.
Over a lifetime our DNA? can undergo changes or ‘mutations?’ in the sequence of bases?, A, C, G and T.
This results in changes in the proteins? that are made. This can be a bad or a good thing.
Mutations can occur during DNA replication? if errors are made and not corrected in time.
Mutations can also occur as the result of exposure to environmental factors such as smoking, sunlight and radiation.
Often cells can recognise any potentially mutation-causing damage and repair it before it becomes a fixed mutation.
Mutations contribute to genetic variation? within species?.
Mutations can also be inherited, particularly if they have a positive effect.
For example, the disorder sickle cell anaemia? is caused by a mutation in the gene? that instructs the building of a protein called haemoglobin?. This causes the red blood cells? to become an abnormal, rigid, sickle shape. However, in African populations, having this mutation also protects against malaria?.
However, mutation can also disrupt normal gene activity and cause diseases, like cancer?
Cancer is the most common human genetic disease; it is caused by mutations occurring in a number of growth-controlling genes. Sometimes faulty, cancer-causing genes can exist from birth, increasing a person’s chance of getting cancer.
29 Jun 19
@suzianne saidHow about from a bible we didn't write?
There you go. Your given is blatantly false. Jesus was not created, regardless of what your church says, from a Bible they wrote themselves. You're way, way too literal. And by the way, that's the function of evolution. It creates new animals. God oversees that creation. But all that is too hard a concept to grasp for you, because you are too literal, yo ...[text shortened]... Calvinist? I don't imagine he was, but looking at your religion, that point is not entirely clear.
Colossians 1:15 (American Standard Version)
15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Colossians 1:15 (King James Version)
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:15 (New Revised Standard Version)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Colossians 1:15 (New Revised Standard Version"
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
And finally:
Colossians 1:15
15: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
This is from our Bible that you say we wrote? Really? Looks like it's pretty much the same...
So it looks like all Bibles say Jesus was created. You're wrong and outnumbered.
@suzianne saidYou cannot know what will happen in a few billion years, and what mutations do occur in here and now are more damaging than not, yet have we witnessed the building of something new and useful? Outside of just so stories you have nothing that suggests that actually occurred in the past too.
Random mutations occur in nature literally ALL the time.
Given a few billion years and enough fish, some will probably grow lungs. If they're not already in an environment that makes that a benefit, it will die out. Until the next time.
29 Jun 19
@galveston75 saidSure, you can have it both ways. Mutations occur due to imperfect DNA copying. Most of these mutations will be bad, and the offspring will probably die, so the mutation will not be passed on to future generations. (Hopeful monsters) Sometimes, however, the mutation will give the recipient an advantage over its'peers; longer legs, better grasp of economics, or whatever, and this will give said beastie a better chance of catching its' supper, or avoiding being supper for something else, and thus has a better chance of passing on it's genes.
So what is your idea of a mutation? Is it a good thing or bad thing? According to everything I look up it is pretty much always a bad thing. But you know that, right? So according to your thinking that for life forms or species to evolve there must be mutations that as you say "occur all the time".
So again all descriptions I've looked up about what a mutation is and th ...[text shortened]... s faulty, cancer-causing genes can exist from birth, increasing a person’s chance of getting cancer.
30 Jun 19
@indonesia-phil saidThanks. So say there is a species of bird that gradually over lots and lots of time now needs a longer beak to survive because for some reason his normal food source has changed because of a climate change or a disaster and it ruins most of it's normal food supply now possibly for decades maybe.
Sure, you can have it both ways. Mutations occur due to imperfect DNA copying. Most of these mutations will be bad, and the offspring will probably die, so the mutation will not be passed on to future generations. (Hopeful monsters) Sometimes, however, the mutation will give the recipient an advantage over its'peers; longer legs, better grasp of economics, or whatever, ...[text shortened]... or avoiding being supper for something else, and thus has a better chance of passing on it's genes.
So lets say that evolution is real and eventually that birds beak will gain more length or strength of more power to crack nuts.
So with the way evolution explains this process even by ones here, It can take a really long time to see that it's happen.
So in the mean time this bird has become hungry because it's food source is fading away. And the food that it would like to eat he discovers he can't because his beak will still take a few thousand years to mature into one that he really needs.
So during this time that evolution is doing it's thing, this bird is starving with no food there yet because his beak is useless.
Do you understand why I'm asking this? How can this possibly work millions and millions of times over here on earth and it would actually work? By blind chance? No way!!!
@galveston75 saidYour bird would die without its' food supply, and other species may (or may not) move into the new and vacant ecological niche. (Maybe a bird which already has a longer beak?)
Thanks. So say there is a species of bird that gradually over lots and lots of time now needs a longer beak to survive because for some reason his normal food source has changed because of a climate change or a disaster and it ruins most of it's normal food supply now possibly for decades maybe.
So lets say that evolution is real and eventually that birds beak will gain ...[text shortened]... ions and millions of times over here on earth and it would actually work? By blind chance? No way!!!
The life which we see on earth now is but a tiny percentage of life which has existed on earth, most of it is long extinct. Nature and natural selection are ceaseless, blind, uncaring and meaningless. You won't see much of it during your lifetime, because it isn't long enough. Consider if you will the 'Cambrian explosion' for which there is ample fossil evidence, (why would anyone make it up?) whereby tens of thousands of new species appear in the fossil record over quite a short time. This was reckoned to be fast evolution, and it's measured over tens of millions of years.
So here's a question for you; what did your Eve look like? Was she African, Caucasian, Chinese or what? Science and the study of genetics, the fossil record and so on tells us that 'Mitochondrial Eve' from whence we all come, lived in Africa, and over time our species moved out of Africa and adapted our skin pigmentation, hair colour and so on to better suit the environment in which we lived. (Darker skin for warmer places, lighter skin for colder places). In other words we have evolved, and this has taken only a few tens of thousands of years.
@galveston75 saidNo.
How about from a bible we didn't write?
Colossians 1:15 (American Standard Version)
15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Colossians 1:15 (King James Version)
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:15 (New Revised Standard Version)
15 He is the image of the invisible God ...[text shortened]... uch the same...
So it looks like all Bibles say Jesus was created. You're wrong and outnumbered.
I cannot know why you persist in this fabrication.
Firstborn, in these passages, means preeminent.
This is so easy a concept that I must assume that you are choosing an incorrect definition to further Russell's asinine dogma that Jesus was created. Yes, Michael was created, but neither is Jesus Michael. In order for the script to plainly state that Jesus was created first, it would have said that. That Jesus was "first born". However, the text reads "firstborn". "Firstborn", used in this manner, means "preeminent". The meaning of this verse, therefore, is that Jesus is "above all creation", which he is, because he was not created.
Your little word tricks aside, this is what the passage means. That you stubbornly ignore it, in favor of your own dogma, is tantamount to re-writing the scripture, something your religion is also known to do.
@KellyJay to @Suzianne
"Did you read what I wrote?"
Did you?
Seriously.
"You can only discount anything with some knowledge as to why. If two school kids were debating the square root of 23458 and knew nothing of the math required to get to the real answer, how would they know the answer wasn't 6?"
If two schoolkids knew nothing of the math required, they would be horribly inattentive school kids, and would probably not be debating something they knew nothing about. Just because people do this all the time here at RHP, doesn't mean school kids would, and they most likely would not. My answer stands, however, because the two examples I gave are common knowledge of any 6th grader, and many 5th graders.
Even though they know nothing of how to calculate square roots.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117413
30 Jun 19
@galveston75 saidFirstly, what you are describing is called natural selection through survival of the fittest, and which is an absolutely proven fact of nature.
So lets say that evolution is real and eventually that birds beak will gain more length or strength of more power to crack nuts.
So with the way evolution explains this process even by ones here, It can take a really long time to see that it's happen.
Secondly, it can happen quite quickly depending on the adaptation involved. For example long hair in a type of dog can be bred out in a generation or two.
“Evolution”as a concept of phenotypical adaptation is essential for life of earth to adapt to its surroundings. Evolution as a theory of explaining the origin of species is a theory, but without it science would have to accept creation. The theory of evolution of species does not explain the origin of life.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
30 Jun 19
@kellyjay saidIn the example I gave, 'I know the world didn't begin as a result of a giant pixie having a sneeze.'
You can only discount anything with some knowledge as to why. If two school kids were debating the square root of 23458 and knew nothing of the math required to get to the real answer, how would they know the answer wasn't 6?
You can only know that with some grasp of numbers, and the beginning is no different. You have no explanation at all, none, unlike the numbers the w ...[text shortened]... d. This has to be evidence for something outside of the universe that can react to it on all levels.
1. Do you also discount this possibility?
2. If so, how is that any different from me discounting the Christian creation story?