JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
"2nd grading creationists"? Nah, they have no class or honor. That ben stein is just as vile and dishonest as his sad little roots to sunburnt pile of dog shit.
Did they ever get an answer from the film producer as to why PZ Meyers was banned from the screening of a film in which he was featured? What a mess. was creationist celebrity Ben Stein a producer as well?
" why PZ Meyers was banned from the screening of a film in which he was featured?"
there were several answers before he finally gave the true answer which was pure infantile spite. the producer wanted PZ to pay to see the film- its as childish as that.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Serious questions: how can intelligent scientists, Harvard media group, and PZ Meyers get fooled - even once - into being included into a propagandist anti-science film like "Expelled"?
At the beginning of an article on richarddawkins-net (search for /articles/2394 ) Dawkins states the initial theme of the movie was different when Myers and others were asked to participate - or at least they were told so.
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
@RaytillaTheHun "no god = no afterlife. No afterlife makes this life infinitely more valuable."...Wow! That is so very well put. I love that. you are a genius.
@RaytillaTheHun ''no god = no afterlife.'' That's not necessarily true. There could be a god and no after life just like there could be and afterlife and no god.
@Moh5Itachi1 Ok, granted; there /could/ be any number of things after death.
but js was, I think, talking about the Christian God specifically. And the point remains that humans don't and shouldn't need a carrot dangled in front of their faces to be good.
@RaytillaTheHun Rom 2:14 For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law--to themselves are a law;
Rom 2:15 who do shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also witnessing with them, and between one another the thoughts accusing or else defending,
Rom 2:16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my good news, through Jesus Christ.
@chadd990 "people like you". You mean people who don't need some promise of a magical happyland reward at the end of their lives in order to be good? Oh yes, what a terrible, terrible shame.
@chadd990 Golly, I'm so very sorry if I offended you by not believing in something that I have no reason to, and I'm also sorry you saw my comment as some arrogant claim to "enlightenment", despite me... let me check... yes, despite me making no such claim. (Not believing something isn't an assertion of knowledge to the contrary.)
What? I'm not talking about the fact that you're atheist, I'm talking about the fact that you claim to "infinitely" enjoy life more because you know there is no afterlife. You're basically saying that you're better than religious people. You actually say that religious people are immoral. You're a tool.
@chadd990 I didn't even see this comment, where do I begin?
I did not claim to "enjoy life infinitely more", I claimed that in the absence of an afterlife, a mortal life, by definition would become infinitely more valuable. This is not debatable. If you have an infinite amount of something, it's essentially valueless, but if you have only one of something, then it's infinitely /more/ valuable than having an infinite amount of it.
>You actually say that religious people are immoral.
Again, quite simply, I did not. I don't think for a second that if God was proven beyond any doubt to not be real, that all of the religious people in the world would start murdering and raping. I said that if people need an infinite reward as payment for finite good deeds, their motives are immoral, and therefore they are. Most religious people are not like this, whether they know it or not.
Why am i being childish? Because I called someone a douche bag? I'm sorry, but when you tell people that they're not worthy of charity work because they're only doing it to get good with god, they're a fucking douche bag. Maybe if you weren't such a bigot you'd understand that. And I'm not a Christian.
@cinesimonj I agree one hundred percent, that's why I blocked him. All he did the entire "discussion" was keep putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I had to say. I got tired of typing up long, detailed responses just to have him ignore them entirely, tell /me/ what /I/ was saying again, and call me a "douche bag". As if "You're not a good person if you do good things for bad reasons" is such a difficult concept to grasp. Not worth the time.
Let me start over. Its always a good thing when you donate to charity or do volunteer work, no matter what your motive is. I do volunteer work for meals on wheels and I get a lot of people on my team who need to do community service because a crime they committed. I dont think that I'm a better person than they are just because I'm there for a different reason. IMO, the elderly and the homeless dont give a shit why you're doing it, as long as they get food.
@chadd990 >Its always a good thing when you donate to charity or do volunteer work, no matter what your motive is.
Of course a good deed is a good deed (unless, on an odd occurrence, it's done with intent to eventually cause harm), I did not contest that. I stated that if the person is doing good solely for personal gain, then they're not moral. They're acting moral.
@chadd990 I hear many people ask, including the person my original comment was responding to, "if there is no god, then why should we be good?" I find that question to be morally reprehensible. If you stopped believing in an afterlife tomorrow, would you stop doing charity work?
@chadd990 If the answer is "no", then I would consider you to be a moral person, if not, and you're /only/ doing charity work, as well as any good deeds, because you believe it will get you into heaven, then I consider you an immoral person doing moral things.
@RaytillaTheHun Most Buddhists do not believe in a god, but do believe in an afterlife. Many people who are atheists who may not even have a religion still hold beliefs about an afterlife, ghosts, and other supernatural things. You probably knew that, but I think someone had to clarify.
@DevonWhorton I did, but thank you. With jscottupton, though, I think it was a fair comment I made in that if /his/ God, doesn't exist, then /his/ afterlife doesn't exist. And with Buddhists at least, even though they do believe in an afterlife (reincarnation if I'm not mistaken), then it's not really a continuation of their lives in the sense that a typical afterlife would be; their consciousness isn't simply continuing, they're coming back as someone/thing else, so they wouldn't even know.
@Markus77x7 Every moral atheist in the world today destroys your argument with their very existence.
I'm sorry that /you'd/ be inclined to start tealing, killing, torturing, and raping for pleasure if you stopped believing in your god, so I hope you never do.
Th rest of us don't need an imaginary friend to not do bad things.
@Markus77x7 Actually, if it means that for you, you're a sociopath. And you scare me. If you need god to be a good person, your nature is that of a very bad person.
@RaytillaTheHun Not disagreeing but Chris Hitchens made some great comments about the afterlife. "How about an afterlife and no god? Why N about 100 gods and no after life? What if god had a sense of humor and sent good people to hell and bad people eaven?
@JoeDSileo1988 agreed, I actually somewhat regret the wording of my comment. No god does not necessarily equal no afterlife, and no afterlife does not necessarily equal no god.
@Quiras2 Jas 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
@Godfather7full Job 13:5 "If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom." Beholdeth! Even your bronze age necronomicon asks of you to stfu! Such revelation!
Why is that, what makes the internet any different from real life? Nothing but distance it's no different than talking face to face or over the phone,now physical violence threats over the internet is a bit asinine but to call someone retarded for arguing a point just because it's the internet, well you might as well never argue a point at all with that view point.
FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS IS FINE. But I respectfully suggest SOME monitoring of content posted wherein normal English is required. I find 'WildCatKitten1* posts underwhelming in ANY contribution to an intelligent discussion. Why post anything from one who does not care what others think? It has no logical sense at all. What are posting for? GIVE ME A BREAK!
@George J. Shit, You couldn't think of anything else but GJS? Limited intelligence and imagination? OR what? BTW we don't "GIVE" anything. YOU have to earn it ChickenBeak.
@WildCatsKitten1 " Darwinists provide great comedy with their stupidity. "
- Keep laughin Einstein... the production company didn't go bankrupt because the movie was good ; )
As Roger Ebert said " This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions "
Obviously you like that sort of thing in a movie.
You can keep being defensive about being a dawkinite if it makes you feel better about yourself If it takes your mind off the fact that you cannot think for yourself.
keep trying sparky. were I slavishly following dawkins I'd know his politics, taste in music, favourite movies etc. I dont and I don't care. on this particular issue which is his field of expertise and not yours, he's right and you're not.
No need to deny it, You are what you are Mcdawkinite, You can't help the fact that You swallow what Dawkins tells you uncritically because you cannot think for yourself.
MCDawkinite was never a Christian, he was trying to prove that he is not an unquestioning Dawkinite that he came out with that response in sheer desperation. He says he does not give a fuck but if that were true then he would not be here whining like a little bitch, Poor McDawkinite can't think for himself and needs people like Dawkins to tell him what to think and when called out on it then he starts crying like a girlyman.
@WildCatsKitten1 Why are you attacking dawkins, what did he do? Are you against free speech? He is a brilliant man, with tons of credibility in the academic community. To deny that will kill your credibility, regardless of whether you agree with him. Dawkins promote free thought, challenging widely held beliefs, the search for truth, etc. Maybe you just prefer fairy tales.
McDawkinite, Using your sock account to defend yourself is not going to help you, You uncritically believe in Darwinian Fairytales because Dawkins tells you to.
@WildCatsKitten1 Your an idiot. Im 30, and never heard of Dawkins until a few years ago. I rejected the churches fairy tales when i was ten. Uncritically? How do you get that? Your just making shit up at this point, because you dont know what your talking about. Sure Dawkins isnt right on everything, no one is. But as soon as someone speaks out against your beliefs you set about to find anyway to slander him. Im sure you havent spent much time in academia, have fun with your fairy tales
Stop Lying Mcdawkinite, Hiding behind your sock account is not going to help you, You believe in your darwinian fairytale because you cannot think for yourself and accept what Dawkins tells you uncritically.
Sorry McDawkinite but there is no middle school science book that says you should believe what Dawkins says uncritically, You cannot think for yourself McDawkinite, You believe what Dawkins tells you uncritically because you are an unthinking sheep.
@WildCatsKitten1 now your just sounding dumb, by insisting that people dont think for themselves over and over again, like a broken record. Are you really any better than people that you insult. Listening to everything Dawkins says and listening to nothing Dawkins says is the same level of stupidity. Im sure you wont like this, since you are probably allergic to logic
Premise Media who made this shite film is now bankrupt. "Expelled- the bullshit" is up for acution. Talk Origins is putting in a bid, Dawkins has chipped in. so have I. You can contribute via the Panda's Thumb site. I can PM you the address if you like. I'm sure you'd like a piece of it!
@WildCatsKitten1 following your thread here is just hilarious. You have pwned mcdummass and now he's crying his eyes out and telling us he doesn't care. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Barbara Mclintocks discovery of jumping genes was shut out of peer review for over 30 years, she turned out to be right and in the end had to get her findings published informally, if something is true then it is true regardless of whether it is reviewed or not.
I already posted some studies that verify what he was saying
Furthermore what scientific test was done on the claim that non peer reviewed claims are not valid and which publication was this published in?
Dr Sanford of Cornell University pointed out that Darwinism is wrong because the rate of genetic deterioration is so high that natural selection could not arrest it. AS natural selection(defined as filter by Extant) cannot arrest genetic deterioration, then it cannot be a means for Evolutionary improvement.
It's the same process that rids the pseudo science stuff such as cold fusion, astrology, psychics and other stuff is what governs the choices for the masses and personally I'm more than happy with that. Self-correcting.
Maybe stuff that's not passed peer review is right but it takes the same testable process for all hypothesis to become accepts theories.
If it's true then it should welcome peer review and scrutiny just like evolution did.
Can you give me a long term review of the peer review system that shows that it has improved the process of science rather than enforcing orthodoxy or having a negligible effect?
Seeing as you believe in untestable, unrepetable and unobservable just so stories then you are not really in a position to talk about what is pseudo science.
Are you being ironic? You've said google will not help me when a huge amount of your posts are direct copies from wiki articles and the like which are fetched from google or a similar search engine.
What is your real motive here? To prove science is false despite the mammoth amount of evidence supporting it such as the life we live, water we drink, food we eat, car we drive?
You can't have it both ways, accept what's nice and deny what doesn't meet your doctrine
The car you drive is technology, technology is something concrete, Science is an abstraction, furthermore it is ridiculous to compare Darwinian just so stories which offer no benefit to man with technology.
"You've said google will not help me when a huge amount of your posts are direct copies from wiki articles and the like which are fetched from google or a similar search engine."
My posts are not from wiki, stop posting such ridiculous crap because you have no decent comeback.
Yes google and other search engines can help me because those studies that I have provided are out there.
However Google or any other search engine cannot help you and The evidence for that is in the fact that you cannot provide a long term review of the peer review system that shows that it has improved the process of science rather than enforcing orthodoxy or having a negligible effect.
Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents of industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries, with significant incapacitation at the morphological, physiological, and neurobiological levels. "
Moecular spectrum and Consequences Of Human Mutation- Michael Lynch-PNAS
Thus, the preceding observations paint a rather stark picture. At least in highly industrialized societies, the impact of deleterious mutations is accumulating on a time scale that is approximately the same as that for scenarios associated with global warming—perhaps not of great concern over a span of one or two generations, but with very considerable consequences on time scales of tens of generations
"it has become increasingly clear that most of the mutation load is associated with mutations with very small effects distributed at unpredictable locations over the entire genome, rendering the prospects for long-term management of the human gene pool by genetic counseling highly unlikely for all but perhaps a few hundred key loci underlying debilitating monogenic genetic disorders (such as those focused on in the present study).
“These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population’s fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations,”
Referring to the study by Khan et al, they claimed that “across these two distinct model systems 7 of 10 alleles consistently showed antagonism, whereas only 2 exhibited synergy.”
“These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.”
Another paper that was published in the same issue of f Science reported similar bad news. The groupd of researchers in Massachusetts put “diminishing returns” in the title of their paper They introduced beneficial mutations into bacteria, but found them decelerating adaptation.
Khan et al., Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population, Science, 3 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6034 pp. 1193-1196. DOI: 10.1126/science.1203801
"epistatic interactions contribute greatly to this deceleration by reducing the effect-size of the remaining beneficial mutations as a population approaches a fitness peak. In other words, epistasis acts as a drag that reduces the contribution of later beneficial mutations.”
There was no observed increases in adaptation or fitness and no explanation for how neo-darwinism could overcome the downward trend in fitness.
"We observed an overall negative relation, indicating that epistatic effects became more negative as the expected fitness rose"
Genetic entropy witnessed
“A conspicuous feature of the mean-fitness trajectory for this population—and indeed for most experimental populations evolving in a constant environment—is that the rate of adaptation declined over time.”
Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. "
"Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect
Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents of industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries, with significant incapacitation at the morphological, physiological, and neurobiological levels. "
Michael Lynch PNAS- Moecular Spectrum and Consequence Of Human Mutation.
"the prevalence of antagonistic epistasis measured by the two groups ensures a predictable tempo of adaptation characterized by diminishing marginal returns"
This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after "compensatory mutations")
htt p ://w w w.nature.c om/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.ht m l
This mutation rate of 100 to 200 is far greater than even what evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate for an organism:
@mcmanustony she was referring to this ridiculous article that comes with a disclaimer that it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the staff of sciencedaily that only 6 mutations per genome per generation were tolerable without leading to extinction. I pointed out several problems with this. WCK has not responded.
Damian, Nothing dishonest, You believe what drives evolution is natural extinction and errors in the genetic Code.
With the metaphor natural selection as ernst mayr pointed out there is nothing that is that is being selected (selection is a function of intelligence only), organisms are being eliminated because they are not suited to the enviroment, And then you believe in mutations which are genetic errors, so you believe natural extinction and errors= evolution
@WildCatsKitten1 i guess there's no accounting for those that are too stupid for words. I think filters are filters, don't think they are intelligent. Obviously the alternate word "selection" raises connotations in your mind of things that it's not intended to. People don't usually assume the folks they are talking to are so stupid as to need to stating "for the record" that natural selection is an effective unintelligent filter.
Extinction means the last of the species, not a portion.
Will Provine On Evolutionist/Biologist John Endler.
"As John Endler has argued eloquently in Natural Selection in The Wild (1968), natural selection is not a mechanism. Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust.
Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Becker/Stahl phlogiston (Endler 1986) or Newton's "ether"
@WildCatsKitten1 are you shitting me? Oh I get it. Stupid is as stupid does. If you've got nothing to say just say something stupid,even if it's a lie.
Does the phrase "Sadly we have to depend on the brainless process of merely eliminating those that can't make it from the genepool." ring a bell?
Does the phrase "LMFAO @ the notion of you teaching ME about evolution you stupid bitch" ring a bell? I'm sure you must have heard it a million times.
@WildCatsKitten1 Why do we seem to be encountering more and more retards who can't even allow the obvious fact of differential selection? (EXCUSE ME, Filtering). If you deny selection/filtering then you noy only deny evolution, you deny adaptation as well. I don't think I can talk to anyone so stupid. Give me any reason to continue this conversation.
Extinct farto has publicly admitted that he is a liar.
WITNESS --@ExtantFrodo2 "countering one set of lies with another is always a pleasure."
FARTO, your credibility is now gone. You have self-pwned yourself. Now that we know that we can't believe anything you say that makes things much easier.
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 3 weeks ago
@HamzaAndreasTzortzis الله القرف في فمك ، وينزل في عينيك
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@HamzaAndreasTzortzis الله برعشيت
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@kotoroshinoto for those wondering, used a translator, it says god is shit.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I guess they weren't kidding about the "No Intelligence Allowed" part when they expelled PZ. :D
Arancaytar 1 month ago
"2nd grading creationists"? Nah, they have no class or honor. That ben stein is just as vile and dishonest as his sad little roots to sunburnt pile of dog shit.
preetor1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I heard Dawkins got in a debate with Dwane Gish. Can anyone upload it? I can't find it anywhere.
sidwerd1hater 2 months ago
Comment removed
sidwerd1hater 2 months ago
Did the egg come first or did the fish??
855842 2 months ago
@855842 The egg seeing as how some amoeba have a primitive ovum and those predate fish by quite a lot.
MonTag666 2 months ago
@855842 the egg. For it was not a fish that laid the egg but a creature very similar.
JoeDSileo1988 1 month ago
@JoeDSileo1988
So what was the FIRST creature that magically appeared on this planet??
855842 1 month ago
@855842 None of them. There was is magic. Trick question.
therealjammit 1 month ago
@therealjammit I can haz engrish? Let me correct.
None of them. There is no magic. Trick question.
therealjammit 1 month ago
@855842 Me!
VeritasLuxMea100 2 weeks ago
@855842 Me!
VeritasLuxMea100 2 weeks ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 Wow you must be really old and smelly ewwwwwww
855842 2 weeks ago
Did they ever get an answer from the film producer as to why PZ Meyers was banned from the screening of a film in which he was featured? What a mess. was creationist celebrity Ben Stein a producer as well?
freeurmind2 3 months ago
@freeurmind2
" why PZ Meyers was banned from the screening of a film in which he was featured?"
there were several answers before he finally gave the true answer which was pure infantile spite. the producer wanted PZ to pay to see the film- its as childish as that.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Richard Dawkins is a hell-bound Godless sodomite and he will PAY DEARLY for his hubris.
enigma19833 3 months ago
@enigma19833 If that makes you feel better...
morningstomper123 3 months ago
He probably should've asked if the producer owned the theatre.
billyjoejimbob75 3 months ago
So, the producer of a movie can actually authorize a person being evicted from the theater?
Popperite 3 months ago
Serious questions: how can intelligent scientists, Harvard media group, and PZ Meyers get fooled - even once - into being included into a propagandist anti-science film like "Expelled"?
mphello 4 months ago
@mphello
At the beginning of an article on richarddawkins-net (search for /articles/2394 ) Dawkins states the initial theme of the movie was different when Myers and others were asked to participate - or at least they were told so.
Radonatos 3 months ago
Dawkin's should be a comedian because he has me in hysterics.
TCupUK 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Morality has a source.
Any religious person KNOWS this source, when they read the Bible.
Their morality chooses what is moral and what is a "metaphor".
The text itself, is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is their emotion when read something, ANYTHING.
superhamzah85 5 months ago
After all He is all powerful and could stop it anytime He wanted right?
Quiras2 6 months ago
If there is no god then what is wrong with death camps, guillotines, etc??
jscottupton 6 months ago
@jscottupton no god = no afterlife. No afterlife makes this life infinitely more valuable.
As a social species, it is in everyone's best interest to cooperate which each other peacefully.
If you need an excuse like God to be good to other people, you're simply an immoral person.
RaytillaTheHun 6 months ago 48
@RaytillaTheHun "no god = no afterlife. No afterlife makes this life infinitely more valuable."...Wow! That is so very well put. I love that. you are a genius.
0hs0Zen0 5 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun ''no god = no afterlife.'' That's not necessarily true. There could be a god and no after life just like there could be and afterlife and no god.
Moh5Itachi1 5 months ago
@Moh5Itachi1 Ok, granted; there /could/ be any number of things after death.
but js was, I think, talking about the Christian God specifically. And the point remains that humans don't and shouldn't need a carrot dangled in front of their faces to be good.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun Rom 2:14 For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law--to themselves are a law;
Rom 2:15 who do shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also witnessing with them, and between one another the thoughts accusing or else defending,
Rom 2:16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my good news, through Jesus Christ.
Godfather7full 5 months ago
@Godfather7full You're quoting scripture to someone who does not believe in God and believes the Bible is a work of fiction. It holds no weight.
If you need the thought of a god rewarding you when you die in order to be good, that's fine. I'm not that selfish.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun
It's a shame that anyone actually listens to people like you.
chadd990 5 months ago
@chadd990 "people like you". You mean people who don't need some promise of a magical happyland reward at the end of their lives in order to be good? Oh yes, what a terrible, terrible shame.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun
no, douchebags who think they're enlightened because they dont believe in an afterlife, that kind of person.
chadd990 5 months ago
@chadd990 Golly, I'm so very sorry if I offended you by not believing in something that I have no reason to, and I'm also sorry you saw my comment as some arrogant claim to "enlightenment", despite me... let me check... yes, despite me making no such claim. (Not believing something isn't an assertion of knowledge to the contrary.)
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun
What? I'm not talking about the fact that you're atheist, I'm talking about the fact that you claim to "infinitely" enjoy life more because you know there is no afterlife. You're basically saying that you're better than religious people. You actually say that religious people are immoral. You're a tool.
chadd990 5 months ago
@chadd990 I didn't even see this comment, where do I begin?
I did not claim to "enjoy life infinitely more", I claimed that in the absence of an afterlife, a mortal life, by definition would become infinitely more valuable. This is not debatable. If you have an infinite amount of something, it's essentially valueless, but if you have only one of something, then it's infinitely /more/ valuable than having an infinite amount of it.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@chadd990
>You're basically saying that you're better than religious people.
No, quite simply, I did not say that.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@chadd990
>You actually say that religious people are immoral.
Again, quite simply, I did not. I don't think for a second that if God was proven beyond any doubt to not be real, that all of the religious people in the world would start murdering and raping. I said that if people need an infinite reward as payment for finite good deeds, their motives are immoral, and therefore they are. Most religious people are not like this, whether they know it or not.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun
I'll be sure to tell all the people I do volunteer work that they're immoral if they're doing the work so they can look good for god.
chadd990 5 months ago
@chadd990 Good, you do that. Doing good for selfish reasons doesn't make you a moral person. I should hope that this is fairly obvious to everyone.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun
and thats why you're a douche bag.
chadd990 5 months ago
@chadd990 Congratulations, you ignored my argument entirely, didn't answer my question, and evidently learned absolutely nothing.
I hope you never stop believing in your God.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@chadd990 And you are rather childish - and certainly not behaving like the stereotypical good christian you seem to want to be portrayed as.
No surprise, things like logic and honesty are not in your grasp.
Maybe when you grow up.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj
Why am i being childish? Because I called someone a douche bag? I'm sorry, but when you tell people that they're not worthy of charity work because they're only doing it to get good with god, they're a fucking douche bag. Maybe if you weren't such a bigot you'd understand that. And I'm not a Christian.
chadd990 5 months ago
@cinesimonj I agree one hundred percent, that's why I blocked him. All he did the entire "discussion" was keep putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I had to say. I got tired of typing up long, detailed responses just to have him ignore them entirely, tell /me/ what /I/ was saying again, and call me a "douche bag". As if "You're not a good person if you do good things for bad reasons" is such a difficult concept to grasp. Not worth the time.
RaytillaTheHun 4 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun
Let me start over. Its always a good thing when you donate to charity or do volunteer work, no matter what your motive is. I do volunteer work for meals on wheels and I get a lot of people on my team who need to do community service because a crime they committed. I dont think that I'm a better person than they are just because I'm there for a different reason. IMO, the elderly and the homeless dont give a shit why you're doing it, as long as they get food.
chadd990 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chadd990 >Its always a good thing when you donate to charity or do volunteer work, no matter what your motive is.
Of course a good deed is a good deed (unless, on an odd occurrence, it's done with intent to eventually cause harm), I did not contest that. I stated that if the person is doing good solely for personal gain, then they're not moral. They're acting moral.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@chadd990 I hear many people ask, including the person my original comment was responding to, "if there is no god, then why should we be good?" I find that question to be morally reprehensible. If you stopped believing in an afterlife tomorrow, would you stop doing charity work?
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@chadd990 If the answer is "no", then I would consider you to be a moral person, if not, and you're /only/ doing charity work, as well as any good deeds, because you believe it will get you into heaven, then I consider you an immoral person doing moral things.
RaytillaTheHun 5 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun Most Buddhists do not believe in a god, but do believe in an afterlife. Many people who are atheists who may not even have a religion still hold beliefs about an afterlife, ghosts, and other supernatural things. You probably knew that, but I think someone had to clarify.
DevonWhorton 4 months ago
@DevonWhorton I did, but thank you. With jscottupton, though, I think it was a fair comment I made in that if /his/ God, doesn't exist, then /his/ afterlife doesn't exist. And with Buddhists at least, even though they do believe in an afterlife (reincarnation if I'm not mistaken), then it's not really a continuation of their lives in the sense that a typical afterlife would be; their consciousness isn't simply continuing, they're coming back as someone/thing else, so they wouldn't even know.
RaytillaTheHun 4 months ago
@RaytillaTheHun Actually, no god means stealing, killing, torturing, raping for pleasure if you think you can get away with it.
Markus77x7 4 months ago
@Markus77x7 Every moral atheist in the world today destroys your argument with their very existence.
I'm sorry that /you'd/ be inclined to start tealing, killing, torturing, and raping for pleasure if you stopped believing in your god, so I hope you never do.
Th rest of us don't need an imaginary friend to not do bad things.
RaytillaTheHun 4 months ago 4
@Markus77x7
" no god means stealing, killing, torturing, raping"- probably for you but you only speak for yourself. yourself being a dimwitted bigoted halfwit.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@Markus77x7 Actually, if it means that for you, you're a sociopath. And you scare me. If you need god to be a good person, your nature is that of a very bad person.
Helge129 2 months ago 9
@RaytillaTheHun Not disagreeing but Chris Hitchens made some great comments about the afterlife. "How about an afterlife and no god? Why N about 100 gods and no after life? What if god had a sense of humor and sent good people to hell and bad people eaven?
JoeDSileo1988 1 month ago 2
@JoeDSileo1988 agreed, I actually somewhat regret the wording of my comment. No god does not necessarily equal no afterlife, and no afterlife does not necessarily equal no god.
RaytillaTheHun 1 month ago
@jscottupton They're inefficient
razorlikeblue 6 months ago
@jscottupton If there is God and the fact that He even ALLOWS it to happen says a lot about Him doesn't it?
Quiras2 6 months ago
@Quiras2 Jas 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
Godfather7full 5 months ago
@Godfather7full Job 13:5 "If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom." Beholdeth! Even your bronze age necronomicon asks of you to stfu! Such revelation!
keeper253x 5 months ago
@jscottupton The fact that you asked that question shows that you have no morals whatsoever.
silveryt2 6 months ago 2
PZ Meyers cheated and was punished. Still, I appreciate when he refers to creationism as creationist nonsense
Hammilton2 6 months ago
@Hammilton2
how did PZ Myers cheat?
mcmanustony 6 months ago 2
Children Please kiss and make up!
semrausky 6 months ago
i want a little "A" lapelle pin...i know it means atheist, but i always think Hawthrone's Scarlet Letter
UtopiaMinor666 7 months ago
There's a saying...
Arguing on the internet, is like being in the Special Olympics...
Even if you win, you are still retarded.
SinnFein4ever 7 months ago
@SinnFein4ever
Why is that, what makes the internet any different from real life? Nothing but distance it's no different than talking face to face or over the phone,now physical violence threats over the internet is a bit asinine but to call someone retarded for arguing a point just because it's the internet, well you might as well never argue a point at all with that view point.
ByronicWriter 7 months ago
FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS IS FINE. But I respectfully suggest SOME monitoring of content posted wherein normal English is required. I find 'WildCatKitten1* posts underwhelming in ANY contribution to an intelligent discussion. Why post anything from one who does not care what others think? It has no logical sense at all. What are posting for? GIVE ME A BREAK!
GJS9967 7 months ago
@George J. Shit, You couldn't think of anything else but GJS? Limited intelligence and imagination? OR what? BTW we don't "GIVE" anything. YOU have to earn it ChickenBeak.
MaximusArurealius 7 months ago
@DishrackDarwin
yes, my life revolves around an infantile troll and sundry sock puppets.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
The production company behind Expelled is now bankrupt and is selling off the rights to it.
Perhaps Dawkins and co. should buy it... and screen it as a comedy!
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122
excellent. stein still got his thirty pieces of silver for his role- including publicly soiling himself in dachau. vulgar, disgusting little man.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Roper122
The funniest part in expelled was michael ruse silly just so story for abiogenesis.
Darwinists provide great comedy with their stupidity.
hahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 " Darwinists provide great comedy with their stupidity. "
- Keep laughin Einstein... the production company didn't go bankrupt because the movie was good ; )
As Roger Ebert said " This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions "
Obviously you like that sort of thing in a movie.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122
That's like saying the spice girls music is of a high standard because they sold a lot of cds.
hahahahahah
I am einstein compared to you and your fallacious reasoning.
The other funny part of the movie was when dawkins appealed to aliens.
hahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildCatsKitten1 " I am einstein compared to you and your fallacious reasoning. "
- Actually ... you're a prime example of the minority of people, gullible enough to actually fall for this movie...
and the examples you keep pointing to just underline that fact.
Maybe you should buy the rights to the film, if you think it's so good.
But you're right about one thing.. you'd be better off watching the Spice Girls than Expelled...they're more intellectual.
Roper122 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
"The other funny part of the movie was when dawkins appealed to aliens"
what's funnier is you entirely missing his point. I guess that was the film makers intent. good of you to comply.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony
aww talking about compliance, what a good little Dawkinite you are getting defensive for your hero that you follow uncritically.
Good boy.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
what's a dawkinite? answer that to yourself please.
he's not my hero. I don't follow him or anyone else uncriticaly.
he made a point. you missed it. quite simple really.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony
Aww poor dawkinite pretending you do not know what you are., Don't be defensive about the fact that you accept what Dawkins says uncritically.
What a good compliant little Dawkinite you are.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
you can chant that slogan if it makes you feel better about yourself, takes your mind off missing a fairly simple point being made. amusing...
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony
You can keep being defensive about being a dawkinite if it makes you feel better about yourself If it takes your mind off the fact that you cannot think for yourself.
:)
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
keep trying sparky. were I slavishly following dawkins I'd know his politics, taste in music, favourite movies etc. I dont and I don't care. on this particular issue which is his field of expertise and not yours, he's right and you're not.
there- does that make it easier for you?
mcmanustony 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mcmanustony aka mcdawkinite
I know you do care because if you didn't then you would not be trying to prove to me you are not a dawkinite.
But the truth is you are only lying to yourself.
I am sorry if I hurt your internet feelings by pointing out that you are an uncritical follower of dawkins.
hahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@mcDawkinite
"on this particular issue which is his field of expertise and not yours, he's right and you're not"
Said like a good unquestioning dawkinite.
hahahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
good unquestioning dawkinite
yes......no and......no.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcdawkinite.
No need to deny it, You are what you are Mcdawkinite, You can't help the fact that You swallow what Dawkins tells you uncritically because you cannot think for yourself.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
"you cannot think for yourself."
were that the case I'd still be a christian.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcDawkinite
Pretending you used to be a christian is not gonna deflect from the fact you swallow what dawkins tells you uncritically.
Try again Mcdawkinite
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
you're confusing me with someone who gives a fuck about what you think.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony tell us what thinking your did for yourself so that you are no longer a Christian?
MaximusArurealius 7 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
MCDawkinite was never a Christian, he was trying to prove that he is not an unquestioning Dawkinite that he came out with that response in sheer desperation. He says he does not give a fuck but if that were true then he would not be here whining like a little bitch, Poor McDawkinite can't think for himself and needs people like Dawkins to tell him what to think and when called out on it then he starts crying like a girlyman.
hahahahahahahahahha
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Why are you attacking dawkins, what did he do? Are you against free speech? He is a brilliant man, with tons of credibility in the academic community. To deny that will kill your credibility, regardless of whether you agree with him. Dawkins promote free thought, challenging widely held beliefs, the search for truth, etc. Maybe you just prefer fairy tales.
MrKGatl 7 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@MrKGatl
McDawkinite, Using your sock account to defend yourself is not going to help you, You uncritically believe in Darwinian Fairytales because Dawkins tells you to.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Your an idiot. Im 30, and never heard of Dawkins until a few years ago. I rejected the churches fairy tales when i was ten. Uncritically? How do you get that? Your just making shit up at this point, because you dont know what your talking about. Sure Dawkins isnt right on everything, no one is. But as soon as someone speaks out against your beliefs you set about to find anyway to slander him. Im sure you havent spent much time in academia, have fun with your fairy tales
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl
Stop Lying Mcdawkinite, Hiding behind your sock account is not going to help you, You believe in your darwinian fairytale because you cannot think for yourself and accept what Dawkins tells you uncritically.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 You need to read a middle school science book
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl
Sorry McDawkinite but there is no middle school science book that says you should believe what Dawkins says uncritically, You cannot think for yourself McDawkinite, You believe what Dawkins tells you uncritically because you are an unthinking sheep.
hahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 now your just sounding dumb, by insisting that people dont think for themselves over and over again, like a broken record. Are you really any better than people that you insult. Listening to everything Dawkins says and listening to nothing Dawkins says is the same level of stupidity. Im sure you wont like this, since you are probably allergic to logic
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl the sock account of McDawkinite
You have comprehension problems McDawkinite I have insisted that you cannot think for yourself, I have said nothing about other people.
As for being allergic to logic, There is nothing logical about acepting what Dawkins says uncritically and this is what you do McDawkinite.
hahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Comment removed
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl
There is no logic in you accepting what dawkins says uncritically.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Then I accept what Dawkins says Critically!
MrKGatl 7 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildCatsKitten1
Premise Media who made this shite film is now bankrupt. "Expelled- the bullshit" is up for acution. Talk Origins is putting in a bid, Dawkins has chipped in. so have I. You can contribute via the Panda's Thumb site. I can PM you the address if you like. I'm sure you'd like a piece of it!
anyone? anyone?? anyone???
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
lolol look more people calling you retarded! lololol
transtlantic 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I call poe's law on you. It's gotta be.
Daiblix 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 following your thread here is just hilarious. You have pwned mcdummass and now he's crying his eyes out and telling us he doesn't care. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
HE'S PWNED
MaximusArurealius 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 "dawkins appealed to aliens".HA HO HO HO I cant stand up for laughing
Godfather7full 5 months ago
judgewest2000
Barbara Mclintocks discovery of jumping genes was shut out of peer review for over 30 years, she turned out to be right and in the end had to get her findings published informally, if something is true then it is true regardless of whether it is reviewed or not.
I already posted some studies that verify what he was saying
Furthermore what scientific test was done on the claim that non peer reviewed claims are not valid and which publication was this published in?
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Dr Sanford of Cornell University pointed out that Darwinism is wrong because the rate of genetic deterioration is so high that natural selection could not arrest it. AS natural selection(defined as filter by Extant) cannot arrest genetic deterioration, then it cannot be a means for Evolutionary improvement.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
Dr Sanford's work has not yet met peer review from what I've read, infact it's not even been submitted.
He was one of the Intelligent Design advocates in the Kansas Evolution Hearings in 2005 and testified on it's behalf.
The argument was rejected by the board 6 to 4.
I don't know what's worse, that a court gets to decide on pseudo education or that they even bothered bringing it up in the first place.
How embarrassing for Kansas, how little the rest of the world was bothered.
judgewest2000 7 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
It's the same process that rids the pseudo science stuff such as cold fusion, astrology, psychics and other stuff is what governs the choices for the masses and personally I'm more than happy with that. Self-correcting.
Maybe stuff that's not passed peer review is right but it takes the same testable process for all hypothesis to become accepts theories.
If it's true then it should welcome peer review and scrutiny just like evolution did.
judgewest2000 7 months ago
@judgewest2000
Really?
Can you give me a long term review of the peer review system that shows that it has improved the process of science rather than enforcing orthodoxy or having a negligible effect?
Seeing as you believe in untestable, unrepetable and unobservable just so stories then you are not really in a position to talk about what is pseudo science.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@judgewest2000
Which theory of evolution do you believe in?
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
Calm down - one question at a time
judgewest2000 7 months ago
@judgewest2000
google is not gonna help you.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
Weird response.
Are you being ironic? You've said google will not help me when a huge amount of your posts are direct copies from wiki articles and the like which are fetched from google or a similar search engine.
What is your real motive here? To prove science is false despite the mammoth amount of evidence supporting it such as the life we live, water we drink, food we eat, car we drive?
You can't have it both ways, accept what's nice and deny what doesn't meet your doctrine
judgewest2000 7 months ago
@judgewest2000
"To prove science is false"
Science is a process not a position.
The car you drive is technology, technology is something concrete, Science is an abstraction, furthermore it is ridiculous to compare Darwinian just so stories which offer no benefit to man with technology.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Which of the three replies would you actually like me to respond to?
judgewest2000 7 months ago
@judgewest2000
"You've said google will not help me when a huge amount of your posts are direct copies from wiki articles and the like which are fetched from google or a similar search engine."
My posts are not from wiki, stop posting such ridiculous crap because you have no decent comeback.
Yes google and other search engines can help me because those studies that I have provided are out there.
cont:
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@judgewest2000
However Google or any other search engine cannot help you and The evidence for that is in the fact that you cannot provide a long term review of the peer review system that shows that it has improved the process of science rather than enforcing orthodoxy or having a negligible effect.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildCatsKitten1
I don't 'believe' in evolution.
I accept the findings of random mutation with natural selection as the primary and only driver of all life forms on this planet.
judgewest2000 7 months ago
Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents of industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries, with significant incapacitation at the morphological, physiological, and neurobiological levels. "
Moecular spectrum and Consequences Of Human Mutation- Michael Lynch-PNAS
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Thus, the preceding observations paint a rather stark picture. At least in highly industrialized societies, the impact of deleterious mutations is accumulating on a time scale that is approximately the same as that for scenarios associated with global warming—perhaps not of great concern over a span of one or two generations, but with very considerable consequences on time scales of tens of generations
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Another paper supporting genetic entropy
"it has become increasingly clear that most of the mutation load is associated with mutations with very small effects distributed at unpredictable locations over the entire genome, rendering the prospects for long-term management of the human gene pool by genetic counseling highly unlikely for all but perhaps a few hundred key loci underlying debilitating monogenic genetic disorders (such as those focused on in the present study).
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
“These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population’s fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations,”
Cooper said.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Tim Cooper, one of the participants in the first study:
The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other,”
“It was as if the mutations got in each other's way as they all tried to accomplish the same thing.”
“The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative"
,”
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Referring to the study by Khan et al, they claimed that “across these two distinct model systems 7 of 10 alleles consistently showed antagonism, whereas only 2 exhibited synergy.”
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
The abstract said:
“These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.”
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Another paper that was published in the same issue of f Science reported similar bad news. The groupd of researchers in Massachusetts put “diminishing returns” in the title of their paper They introduced beneficial mutations into bacteria, but found them decelerating adaptation.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Khan et al., Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population, Science, 3 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6034 pp. 1193-1196. DOI: 10.1126/science.1203801
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
"epistatic interactions contribute greatly to this deceleration by reducing the effect-size of the remaining beneficial mutations as a population approaches a fitness peak. In other words, epistasis acts as a drag that reduces the contribution of later beneficial mutations.”
There was no observed increases in adaptation or fitness and no explanation for how neo-darwinism could overcome the downward trend in fitness.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
"We observed an overall negative relation, indicating that epistatic effects became more negative as the expected fitness rose"
Genetic entropy witnessed
“A conspicuous feature of the mean-fitness trajectory for this population—and indeed for most experimental populations evolving in a constant environment—is that the rate of adaptation declined over time.”
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. "
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
"Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents of industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries, with significant incapacitation at the morphological, physiological, and neurobiological levels. "
Michael Lynch PNAS- Moecular Spectrum and Consequence Of Human Mutation.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
"the prevalence of antagonistic epistasis measured by the two groups ensures a predictable tempo of adaptation characterized by diminishing marginal returns"
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
pollychocker 7 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009
Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after "compensatory mutations")
htt p ://w w w.nature.c om/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.ht m l
This mutation rate of 100 to 200 is far greater than even what evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate for an organism:
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildCatsKitten1
greater than even what evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate for an organism"- do you have a source for that?
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony she was referring to this ridiculous article that comes with a disclaimer that it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the staff of sciencedaily that only 6 mutations per genome per generation were tolerable without leading to extinction. I pointed out several problems with this. WCK has not responded.
ExtantFrodo2 7 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2
Damian, Nothing dishonest, You believe what drives evolution is natural extinction and errors in the genetic Code.
With the metaphor natural selection as ernst mayr pointed out there is nothing that is that is being selected (selection is a function of intelligence only), organisms are being eliminated because they are not suited to the enviroment, And then you believe in mutations which are genetic errors, so you believe natural extinction and errors= evolution
hahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
*that is being selected
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildCatsKitten1 Apparently now, filters that filter are suddenly intelligent. HAHAHAHAHA
I guess you are laughing because you know how ridiculous you have become.
ExtantFrodo2 7 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2
So you think there is literal selection going on?
hahahahahahahha
You are dumb
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 i guess there's no accounting for those that are too stupid for words. I think filters are filters, don't think they are intelligent. Obviously the alternate word "selection" raises connotations in your mind of things that it's not intended to. People don't usually assume the folks they are talking to are so stupid as to need to stating "for the record" that natural selection is an effective unintelligent filter.
Extinction means the last of the species, not a portion.
ExtantFrodo2 7 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2
Will Provine On Evolutionist/Biologist John Endler.
"As John Endler has argued eloquently in Natural Selection in The Wild (1968), natural selection is not a mechanism. Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildCatsKitten1
can you give the sentence before and after this quote from Provine?
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2
Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Becker/Stahl phlogiston (Endler 1986) or Newton's "ether"
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 crickets... the sound of opposition silenced :-)
ExtantFrodo2 7 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2
I agree, After I taught you what selection means and that it is just a metaphor then you were silent on the matter, Glad you learnt your lesson.
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 are you shitting me? Oh I get it. Stupid is as stupid does. If you've got nothing to say just say something stupid,even if it's a lie.
Does the phrase "Sadly we have to depend on the brainless process of merely eliminating those that can't make it from the genepool." ring a bell?
Does the phrase "LMFAO @ the notion of you teaching ME about evolution you stupid bitch" ring a bell? I'm sure you must have heard it a million times.
ExtantFrodo2 7 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2
You still think that death by natural causes is evolution
hahahahahaha
Go back and read mayr, marguilis, provine and endler
WildCatsKitten1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildCatsKitten1 Why do we seem to be encountering more and more retards who can't even allow the obvious fact of differential selection? (EXCUSE ME, Filtering). If you deny selection/filtering then you noy only deny evolution, you deny adaptation as well. I don't think I can talk to anyone so stupid. Give me any reason to continue this conversation.
ExtantFrodo2 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildCatsKitten1
"You still think that death by natural causes is evolution"
say what? where was that said? any luck on the references I asked for? or are you just cutting and pasitng from a creationist quote mine list?
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2 No but this rings a bell!
ATTENTION FOLKS PUBLIC NOTICE
Extinct farto has publicly admitted that he is a liar.
WITNESS --@ExtantFrodo2 "countering one set of lies with another is always a pleasure."
FARTO, your credibility is now gone. You have self-pwned yourself. Now that we know that we can't believe anything you say that makes things much easier.
I OWN YOU
MaximusArurealius 7 months ago