Two Questions for Christians

[Loffler]

I don't think you're close-minded. You're obviously just uneducated on the subject of biology. Since you don't know the basics of evolution, you lack an 8th grade science education.

(Waiting for McQ to jump in, berate the ad hominem, and keep things on track. Not holding my breath, though.)

It's only an ad hominem if I use an attack of your character as an argument against your points. This is the opposite: I'm using your bad points to make a judgment about you.

Unless and until evolution can explain this, it is a point against evolution.

Evolution has explained it, as I mentioned in an earlier post:
"This is explained in two ways: temporary environmental factors could make a generally deleterious mutation neutral, and so it would have a tiny but nonzero chance of fixation; or, the piggy-back effect, in which a deleterious mutation appears in the location of a much more beneficial mutation. These explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability."

Then it's not a point against evolution.

In the same way a mosquito could conceivably kill an elephant.

One of the two primary mechanisms of evolution is shown to be either falsified, or non-falsifiable. To me, that's a serious consideration.

It hasn't been falsified and it hasn't been shown to be falsifiable. There is so much you don't understand.

most birds use wings to fly- another strike against natural selection, as flight has several strong benefits

How is this a strike against natural selection?

wood-eating animals use their appendix to digest cellulose - ability to eat wood sounds handy, wonder how that went away
females use nipples for nursing - if this is vestigial, that means males could formerly nurse - a huge advantage that has been lost. Another blow to natural selection.

It's not that males had the ability to nurse, it's that males start out female in utero and become male during development. Male nipples are "vestigial" from earlier in their own lives.

animals with less-crowded mouths can keep their wisdom teeth comfortably - smaller jaws are another deleterious mutation that fixed.
This is all evidence species evolve from one into through natural selection. - the above are all evidence that natural selection doesn't work

You provided zero good evidence. We don't know what caused the above changes, and "gosh, sure sounds advantageous to me!" isn't even an hypothesis or even a conjecture. It's an emotive feeling.

You're worse at this than most evolution critics.

[Voter]

Then it's not a point against evolution.

No kidding. Neither is it evidence for evolution, as you thought.

It hasn't been falsified and it hasn't been shown to be falsifiable. There is so much you don't understand.

Let's see. Deleterious traits fix in species, which goes directly against the prediction of natural selection. At this point, natural selection is false. Then, explanations for these observations are proposed without any independent evidence. If you accept these, natural selection is not falsifiable.

How is this a strike against natural selection?

Natural selection predicts that deleterious mutations will not fix in a species. Flight has strong benefits. Loss of it is deleterious.

It's not that males had the ability to nurse, it's that males start out female in utero and become male during development. Male nipples are "vestigial" from earlier in their own lives.

That's different from the vestigial organ argument.

You provided zero good evidence. We don't know what caused the above changes, and "gosh, sure sounds advantageous to me!" isn't even an hypothesis or even a conjecture. It's an emotive feeling.

Wedon'tknow what caused these changes? If evolution is true,they were caused by mutationand natural selection. You're correct that a jaw too small for all the teeth is a disadvantage. Therefore, if natural selection were true, we wouldn't have small jaws.

[Loffler]

Let's see. Deleterious traits fix in species, which goes directly against the prediction of natural selection.

Tell me what deleterious traits you're referring to I'll correct your misunderstanding about nature. The general idea is that deleterious traits will disappear when they impede successful reproduction enough to be outpaced by the reproductive efforts of specimens with a reduced form of the deleterious trait. This is why vestigial organs don't disappear all at once, but rather gradually reduce in size.

Flight has strong benefits. Loss of it is deleterious.

The cost of flight is carrying around large wings, if a habitat has other requirements which make flight less valuable and smaller wings more valuable, I predict this would make wings shrink. I predict birds living in places too cold for trees to grow or land invertebrates to live will stop flying and start swimming.

That's different from the vestigial organ argument.

Still not very intelligently designed. God is pretty stupid.

Wedon'tknow what caused these changes? If evolution is true,they were caused by mutationand natural selection. You're correct that a jaw too small for all the teeth is a disadvantage. Therefore, if natural selection were true, we wouldn't have small jaws.

Unless a greater need made big jaws deleterious.

And again, I have to point out that God is a dipshit. He can't even get a mouth right. Why is he such a lousy designer?

[Voter]

Tell me what deleterious traits you're referring to I'll correct your misunderstanding about nature.

I already mentioned, and you agreed to, loss of ability to synthesize vitamin c, a vitamin which is essential for survival.

Flight allows a bird to easily escape most predators,and cover long distances in search of food or mates. Loss of flight is deleterious.

The cost of flight is carrying around large wings, if a habitat has other requirements which make flight less valuable and smaller wings more valuable, I predict this would make wings shrink. I predict birds living in places too cold for trees to grow or land invertebrates to live will stop flying and start swimming.

There's plenty of trees and land invertebrates around ostriches and several other species of flightless bird.

Still not very intelligently designed. God is pretty stupid.

An opinion against intelligent design is not evidence for evolution. This is a sign of desparation.

You should have stuck to examples which can be explained by change of habitat, like whale hip bones. If you're done trying to claim that deleterious changes aren't deleterious, I'll move on to those.

[jcm]

Voter, please explain the reason why god would create the following:

fleas? what purpose do they serve to humans?

stars that can only be observed with photographic film, why are they there?

asteriod, like the one that crashed into earth near yucatan...why not get rid of at least the ones that would crash into earth.

magnetic field to protect us from the sun? i thought the sun was a good thing? poor mars.

black holes? who needs 'em?

expanding universe? why not a still and unchanging universe. certainly would avoid a big crunch or a big rip down the road.

pluto? why is it there? must serve some purpose to man right?

extremophiles? some live at the bottom of the ocean near hot vents and others swim around in nuclear waste. again what purpose do they serve man?

exploding stars? after the earth is destroyed, then what?

human beings that live their entire life and die never hearing anything about your religion. god allowed that?

[Whitney]

I don't think you're close-minded. You're obviously just uneducated on the subject of biology. Since you don't know the basics of evolution, you lack an 8th grade science education.

(Waiting for McQ to jump in, berate the ad hominem, and keep things on track. Not holding my breath, though.)

Voter, your insistence on trying to stir things up here is simply unacceptable.  If you do not want to comply with the good nature of this forum I will put you on a time out (ban, that may or may not be lifted later) to allow you to reflect on how to approach others in conversation.    I will remind you that being respectful of others is part of the forum rules and I have already let past incidences slide without taking official action (a mistake on my part). There will be no additional warnings before action is taken; your behavior needs to change now.

Btw, that was not an ad hominem, it was an explanation of why Loffler does not consider you closed minded...it just so happens that part of his reason relates to your demonstrated lack of understanding the basics of evolution.  An ad hominem would have been if he completely ignored something you said in your arguments then responded by saying that you are a moron who cannot understand anything and therefore your arguments are false.  See the difference?

[Loffler]

I already mentioned, and you agreed to, loss of ability to synthesize vitamin c, a vitamin which is essential for survival.

Man, you sure do love bearing false witness.

I said if there's no explanation for the above, it's a strike against natural selection. You informed me that there is. So it's no longer a strike against natural selection.

There's plenty of trees and land invertebrates around ostriches and several other species of flightless bird.

Still not very intelligently designed. God is pretty stupid.

An opinion against intelligent design is not evidence for evolution. This is a sign of desperation.

What's the matter? You Christians can dish out the desperate arguments but you can't take em?

So male nipples stretch the definition of vestigial organs. Unless you can think of a way this proves anything, move on. This isn't church, we don't have to pore on every little word over and over. This is because the science data grows every day, rather than remaining the same for thousands of years.

You should have stuck to examples which can be explained by change of habitat, like whale hip bones. If you're done trying to claim that deleterious changes aren't deleterious, I'll move on to those.

What claim are you referring to?

[Asmodean]

Voter, can you please start presenting us with something solid which could be at least remotely considered evidence for ID... Or whatever it is you're trying to prove?  

[Loffler]

Voter, can you please start presenting us with something solid which could be at least remotely considered evidence for ID... Or whatever it is you're trying to prove?  

Voter's one of those people who thinks he's engaged his opponent as long as he can keep coming up with any response at all. The longer threads get, the more he thinks he's accomplished.

And actually, I agree. I love thinking about the thousands of marginal creationists out there who will come across this thread in the future, see our arguments, and finally receive the full education they failed to receive in school. Voter is helping us do a public service.

[Dickson]

Voter, please explain the reason why god would create the following:

fleas? what purpose do they serve to humans?

stars that can only be observed with photographic film, why are they there?

asteriod, like the one that crashed into earth near yucatan...why not get rid of at least the ones that would crash into earth.

magnetic field to protect us from the sun? i thought the sun was a good thing? poor mars.

black holes? who needs 'em?

expanding universe? why not a still and unchanging universe. certainly would avoid a big crunch or a big rip down the road.

pluto? why is it there? must serve some purpose to man right?

extremophiles? some live at the bottom of the ocean near hot vents and others swim around in nuclear waste. again what purpose do they serve man?

exploding stars? after the earth is destroyed, then what?

human beings that live their entire life and die never hearing anything about your religion. god allowed that?

I know I wasn't asked, but I'd like to take a stab at most of these.

Most of the things in the universe don't serve the purposes of humans, but that neither proves nor negates God's existence.  But, I'm one of the majority of Christians who isn't a strict creationist, so I'm obviously full of shit.  Only the obnoxious few are correct, according to them.  

Except for Black Holes.  Those are obviously portals into the Bizzaro universe where everything's reversed.  In the Bizzaro universe, Taco Bell doesn't induce gastrointestinal events and it's never, never peanut butter jelly time.  

As far as natural disasters (like your asteroid) I suggest reading C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain.  It does a great job of answering questions like this.

[Asmodean]

Voter's one of those people who thinks he's engaged his opponent as long as he can keep coming up with any response at all. The longer threads get, the more he thinks he's accomplished.

And actually, I agree. I love thinking about the thousands of marginal creationists out there who will come across this thread in the future, see our arguments, and finally receive the full education they failed to receive in school. Voter is helping us do a public service.

So we just sits back and watches them convert?  

[jcm]

I know I wasn't asked, but I'd like to take a stab at most of these.

Most of the things in the universe don't serve the purposes of humans, but that neither proves nor negates God's existence. But, I'm one of the majority of Christians who isn't a strict creationist, so I'm obviously full of shit. Only the obnoxious few are correct, according to them.

Except for Black Holes. Those are obviously portals into the Bizzaro universe where everything's reversed. In the Bizzaro universe, Taco Bell doesn't induce gastrointestinal events and it's never, never peanut butter jelly time.  

As far as natural disasters (like your asteroid) I suggest reading C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain. It does a great job of answering questions like this.

as a christian, you would have to agree that the bible clearly states that man was create in god's image and the universe, stars, earth, plants, animals and insects were all designed for man's survival. humans were created with a soul so they can experience the world and choose good over evil and live forever in heaven after they die.

humans are the reason we have a universe at all. is that not the message the bible teaches?

in bizzaro universe wall-e was a shitty movie

taco bell doesn't induce gastrointestinal events, but you have to eat it everyday to avoid it.

yeah...it is more like mustard and ice cream time there, which is pretty nasty.

pay me a couple hundred bucks and i might read cs lewis.

[Dickson]

as a christian, you would have to agree that the bible clearly states that man was create in god's image and the universe, stars, earth, plants, animals and insects were all designed for man's survival. humans were created with a soul so they can experience the world and choose good over evil and live forever in heaven after they die.

humans are the reason we have a universe at all. is that not the message the bible teaches?

in bizzaro universe wall-e was a shitty movie

taco bell doesn't induce gastrointestinal events, but you have to eat it everyday to avoid it.

yeah...it is more like mustard and ice cream time there, which is pretty nasty.

pay me a couple hundred bucks and i might read cs lewis.

Sure, the Bible states that stuff, but that doesn't make it true.  This is actually the view a majority of Christians have.  

And, I'd venture to say that an uber conservative literalist would take issue with the "universe is here for us" idea.  To them, the universe was God's creation and we're just an addendum.  I actually jive with this view, too:  humans aren't as important in the grand scheme of things as we'd like to be.

Good call on Taco Bell preventing GI meltdown.  How awesome would that be?

[jcm]

Sure, the Bible states that stuff, but that doesn't make it true.  This is actually the view a majority of Christians have.  

isn't the bible the word of god and that is what makes it true? if you don't believe the bible, then how can you call yourself christian.

[Voter]

Voter, please explain the reason why god would create the following:

Interesting that you'd try to divert me from the discussion of evidence for evolution.