Wayne what would intelligent alien life mean for your belief in God?

I believe the LGBT community has all the answers.

My only struggle with this is what makes the Christian bible legitimate? What makes THAT the one thats right. Written by men.

That was damn sexy. Leave it to a woman.

But don't Christians distance themselves from the Vatican? Especially the various North American sects. The Vatican is becoming very progressive, and it seems like at every point in recent history when Papal thought infringes on the ignorance and social order of American protestants the rift grows bigger.

 

"As of October 2012, the E. coli populations have been under study for over 56,000 generations, and are thought to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome has occurred multiple times.[3]"

"Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations"

'Thought to have' ?

Thought to have won't do in a scientific investigation. Either they were identified and counted, or not. If not, then the assumption that millions of 'spontaneous' ( i.e. random) mutations happened is merely an unsupported Darwinian assertion.

Obviously the E Coli is adapting to its environment but the question still remains as to how these adaptations happen. It's no good just stating that they are spontaneous when a) it can't be shown that they are and b) millions of unseen changes are imagined to have happened so that the theory of random mutation can be supported.

.

 

"Random", you anti-evolutionists always throw that word around, when I think you are misunderstanding what we mean by random. Just like, obviously, you hold no grasp on the entire process itself.

By random, we simply mean that the genetic mutations that occur, occur regardless of if they are beneficial to the organism or not. If it is useful, as in, it helps to spread your genes, it is kept and passed through generations. If it is not, it dies off.

Genetic mutations DO happen. We have witnessed them. I already gave an example, sickle cell anemia. It is not a "random" process by the standard at which you define random.

Millions of unseen changes "imagined" to have happen?

Here are three, of many, reasons why you cannot deny evolution.

Biogeography, atavisms and vestigial organs.

 

..you are mistaken, I believe in evolution.

Whether you call the mutations random or spontaneous makes no difference, the question is 'what is it that causes them?'

 

Radiocarbon dating? The assumptions that are made with this technique (constant decay rate) plus the range of dates that it generates combined with the discrepencies that been observed prove that this is an unreliable method.

 

That's an extremely easy question to answer. It's simply a miss printing, a glitch if you will, in the DNA writing.

If that misfire helps the organism to better adapt to his environment, i.e. increse his "fitness", it is propagated through the species. If the glitch does not increase the species chances of adaption, it dies out.

 

No, no one thinks it is unrealiable except for people like you. Scientists all agree that it is an accurate way to assess the age of rocks and fossils.

If it was an unrealiable way, it wouldn't consistently give the same answers. Furthermore, when scientists subject the isotopes to extreme pressures and temperatures in laboratories they do not change.

 

Yeah they agree because it fits the assumptions they come to the analysis with. If they were truly unbiased the way scientists should be and threw out their assumptions they would have to throw out the method.

If you were standing on the highway and saw a car go by at 70 mph eastbound would you assume it has been going 70 mph since california? No, basic logic shows that you could not make that assumption, the car could have gotten on the highway at the previous on ramp and sped up to 70 mph.

Please provide evidence of a beneficial mutation thats not a lie in a textbook that will result in a kind potentially producing a different kind. Ecoli adapting to an environment would no result in it potentially producing anything but bacteria. You will find that mutations are harmful and dont result in a benefit.

 

Scientists agree that its a reliable method for dating rocks and fossils? If you dig into it you will find that when it all boils down, they actually use the rocks to date the fossils and the fossils to date the rocks. If you want to talk about index fossils and the geologic column (that doesnt exist) from the text book we can certainly talk about that too. All I ask is that you come to the conversation with an unbiased perspective. All i want is truth no matter what that is and I think we've been lied to and indoctrinated by people and organizations who have motives that do not include finding the truth..

 

Ok, so, let's get your point of view into perspective here.

1.) All scientists are biased with previous assumptions that they use to distort data.

2.) Everything that is written in a textbook is a lie.

With a process of thought like that, how would I be able to prove anything to you?

As for your analogy of carbon dating and cars going 70 m.p.h on the highway, I have nothing to say, as that is the most moronic comparison I have ever read. I'm not sure you understand the method itself.

And your question, I'm a bit confused what you're asking, since you seem to be lacking in the literary devices to form a coherent statement.

If I'm right, and please, correct me if I'm wrong, you are asking to provide a mutation that will eventually turn a species into another? So, I assume you're speaking of speciation here. But I seem to think, yet again, you are failing to comprehend what this means. Species don't just sporadically turn into another species. Natural selection acts on them for years beyond your comprehension.

But, as for an example in our own time, while its not natural, artificial selection is essentially the same thing. Dogs. We humans took dogs and bread them into hundreds of different kinds to fit our particular needs from one common ancestor.

I could go on and on, but, clearly, nothing I can say will convince you because you do not accept science. There is no getting through to people like you. Your kind of thought process is exactly what would bring us into another dark age. I feel terrible for your children, which hopefully you don't have any, because they will certainly be indoctrinated into some ancient myth composed by ignorant men. I can only hope that your train of thought is slowly dying out, because like natural selection, it certainly does not help us adapt to our environment. Saying "God did it" only further threatens scientific knowledge from being gained.

That's the difference between people who believe in science and people like you. I'm open to interpretation and happy to be proven wrong if confronted with facts, but nothing will ever change your mind.

 

Evolution is not science my man. Its a religion. It takes faith to believe the things that you believe. Since you cannot apply the scientific method, you cannot test it therefore you cannot observe it or prove it.

I am biased but only biased towards seeking the truth. I havent stated anything about what I believe besides that I know evolution is not true.

You can create all the ad hominem attacks you want and say I shldnt have kids or you feel bad for my kids but that reinforces that you cannot dispute the facts and have to resort to trying to defame my character.

As for the dogs go, take a step back and look. dogs produce dogs what you believe is that eventually a dog will produce something other than a dog. It goesback to what type of evolution Iis needed to get to where we are and that is macro evolution amd that does not happen.

Again, im waiting for you to provide information gaining mechanism that would be need for a rock to turn into a single cell organism. That is what you believe isnt it?

 

Where, in the world, did you get that's rocks turn into organisms? This just further, and utterly proves my point that you have, absolutely, no grasp on evolution, whatsoever.

The nature of your rebuttals are assanine and credulous. You're, quite literally, spouting out total, outright garbage.

Rocks do not have DNA, so they can not replicate. I'm incredibly surprised that I actually have to tell you this, (actually, I'm really not).

Rocks, like the Planet we live on, are simply minerals dictated by the laws of physics and its surrounding environment, e.g. mineral content, pressure, weather.

Honestly, at this point, I can't even tell if you're trolling me or not.

If you're not, it is extremely sad.

 

I think what he is trying to say is that while species have evolved within their own families, they haven't jumped species. So dogs have evolved but never became cats. Apes never became men. Fish never became dogs. Is there fossil evidence to support that. I think if God could have created aliens and it would not interfere with what i believe. As always i could be wrong and everyone definitely has the right to their own opinion.

 

Ok now we're getting somewhere. Please tell me where the first organism that had dna came from and how that happened.

 

Why would a dog evolve into a cat? Not only does that make absolutely no sense, it does not serve the dog better to spread his genes. The entire purpose of natural selection is to help the species better propagate their genes into new generations.

This is what I'm talking about. You guys have absolutely no grasp on what evolution is, like most people who deny it.

 

I think he's just using the dogs cats thing as an example. I understand evolution so please stop saying that I dont or insinuating that im ignorant. I can assure you that I am not ignorant. Im not the one on here claiming something is a fact when the truth is that macroevolution has not been proven. Im keepinkeepimng an open mind and when I look at the evidence evolution just doesnt add up. It doesnt even pass the test for a "likely scenario".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. So please tell me your opinion on how natural selection ie: survival of the fittest would result in more kinds or species rather than less kinds or species. And in your humble opinion why when a species is going extinct humans step in to protect the species not allowing natural selection to run its course.

Still waiting on the answer to where dna came from or where the first organism that "climbed" out of the premordial soup came from. If there wasnt always life then that means one day there wasnt life and then there was a day where there was life. If its so obvious then im sure there is no problem with you explaining it to us.

 

Where was the oxygen in that early atmosphere? Dont those experiments always result in left hand and right hand molecules?

 

If alien life finds us humans here on earth, then they will be much more intelligent then us, since they would have had to develop far more advanced technologies for space travel. Given their high intellect, we should just defer the question of god to the aliens as they are sure to know more about the universe then we do.

On the upside, there has been some advancement on theories of actually developing Warp Drive to travel faster then the speed of light making space travel to distant solar systems and galaxies perhaps a possibility for us humans.

To quote the great Carl Sagan, "The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space."