Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty 218 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow're jus' spoofing us, aren't ya, Vidqun?

    Come on really aren't that ummmm.... *insert appropriate word here*? Seriously, you really don't exist, do you? Where da' hell did you come from????

    I'll give you this: you are certainly entertaining and it's better than going to a football game!

  • cofty

    Vidqun - You really are the stereotypical ignorant creationist aren't you?

    Be what you want, do what you want, just don't get caught.

    Why do you think that believing in evolution results in a loss of ethics?

    Millions of christians accept the fact of evolution and are good people. Many fundies who reject evolution are moral reprobates.

    As an atheist/anti-theist I have a reason to be moral that doesn't involve false promises about eternal rewards and punishments.

  • redpilltwice

    Vidqun, "Is a genome a Codeword of an Error-Correcting Code?" was a fascinating read, thanks for sharing.

    There are immense functional similarities between the body cell’s error correction mechanisms and the error correction techniques used in telecommunications





    Many of these words in the article. How have mindless cells ever developed the ability to "learn" these techniques? Although "cancers are caused by errors (mutations) in the DNA sequence that cannot be detected or corrected by the body’s repair mechanisms", biomimetics, which (according to wiki) is the imitation of models, systems, and elements of nature for the purpose of solving complex human problems, thrives on the intelligence of these biological designs.

    If they succeed to improve genome editing techniques, cancer may hopefully be history! I remember that "promise" already from the 90's, but's 2016 folks. Still some time in this present system of things!

  • cofty

    Cancer is an individual cell reverting to what cells have done for 4 billion years. Multicellular organisms have evolved ways of preventing individual cells going rogue.

    It takes eight to ten mutations in the same cell for cancer to begin. Oncogenes get stuck in the on position and tumour suppressor genes are locked off. It's a bit like a car developing faults with the accelerator, brake, steering, clutch and ignition switch one after the other so that there is no way to regain control.

  • OrphanCrow

    Cofty, I think that cancer research would be an amazing field to be in.

    I wish I knew more than I do about it - the subject fascinates me. The way you have described it, confirms that cancer has, indeed, always been with us. Have I understood that right?

    My understanding of cancer is rudimentary and thanks for adding to it

  • cofty
    The way you have described it, confirms that cancer has, indeed, always been with us. Am I right?

    Yes I'm sure you are right.

    On the one hand there is the 4 billion year old imperative for the genes in every cell to make as many copies of itself as possible. On the other hand multicellular existence requires cells to cooperate and delegate procreation to specialised germline cells.

    The details are fascinating. Millions of damaged cells are eliminated every day by a process of apoptosis that leaves no trace. Interestingly the process is triggered by the mitochondria who of course were once free-living bacteria...

  • OrphanCrow
    cofty: The details are fascinating

    They are. The more a person knows, the more the world falls into place. I need some time to absorb what you just posted...have to resurrect some old knowledge files stuck back in my brain somewhere...and fit that in.

    I am reminded of an interview that I watched that had been done with Simone Beauvior. She described her journey to being a non-believer in God and how she had rejected certain ideas about God, explored new ideas, all the while expanding her knowledge of the world around her, and finally "I realized one day, when I was 14 or 15, that I no longer believed. I had refined God so much that he was no longer relevant to the world"

  • Vidqun

    OrphanCrow, so you will tell your child: The "Princess and the Frog" is a fable. It doesn't work like that. But let me explain how it does work. The frog, after a few million years, migrated to the land and gradually improved itself. End product: A human being. So you can kiss the frog. If you wait a few million years it will become a prince. Yes, silly, I know, but that's the gist of what you are saying.

    The parents of this generation of children were either Christian or ex-Christian, so they would have made their influence felt. Deeply ingrained (Christian) ethics were passed on to children. But the next generation, the me-generation, will not have the benefit of a Christian connection. That will be the real test. Natural selection and the survival of the fittest will be the norm. In the end, I believe it would be bad news indeed. I hope I'm wrong.

    According to evolutionists, we are constantly improving ourselves. According to geneticists, we are gradually deteriorating. So when it comes to cancer, it will get worse before it gets better. More and more people will develop cancer, so far the stats indicate one in four. Hopefully the scientists will produce a cure, otherwise the ratio will go up.

  • cofty
    According to evolutionists, we are constantly improving ourselves.


    According to geneticists, we are gradually deteriorating.


    Were you lying when you claimed to be a professional scientist? If Somebody claimed to be a cosmologist and wrote that the moon is made of cheddar cheese we would not be wrong to doubt his claim would we?

  • Vidqun

    Cofty, you are so clever. From a one-celled organism to a human being, I call that improvement. What do you call it? The cancer ratio is now 1:4. We'll see whether it goes up. I say it goes up. What say you? Oh yes, you say No.

    Let me answer for you. Through natural selection those that die of cancer will take themselves out of the equation. It'll be survival of the fittest. Those that survive will be an improvement of what went before. Their offspring will flourish. So, yes, your model predict improvement.

    Let's be specific now. Remember the football analogy? Is the pot not calling the kettle black? Oh yes, and we're back to "claiming to be professional scientist." Really, it's like a stuck record. It's getting boring. How about a variation on the theme?

    You know the problem with the evolution theory? It's based on a lie. The DNA of the organism determines the organism: dog DNA > dog, cat DNA > cat, frog DNA > frog, spider DNA > spider. Nothing more, nothing less. The organism has the ability to adapt, but not to change into a new organism. The latter falls squarely in the realms of evolution and Science Fiction.

Share this