riVeRraT responds to me...I think...he didn't use the correct Reply button so we don't know (hint: It's the red one in the post to which you are responding, not the Reply button at the bottom of the page):
quote:
quote:
not to say you haven't already, but maybe you were miss guided
I say all that I have said with the utmost respect and Love.
No, you don't. You say that with the arrogance and haughtiness of one who is so sure that he cannot possibly be wrong that he hold utter contempt and disdain for those who disagree.
Take me up on the challenge. I'll read your book if you give up your god.
quote:
The problem comes when people such as yourself start preaching a religion that takes far more faith than God.
And what religion, pray tell, am I preaching? Again, I have been very careful to keep my religious opinions out of this. They are irrelevant. Things are true because they are true, not because I believe or not.
Surely you're not about to imply that evolution is a religion, are you?
How can it be a religion when we can watch it happen right in front of our eyes? Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.
Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.
But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.
How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.
But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.
Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.
But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.
So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.
There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.
You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
So if we can see evolution happen right before our eyes, by what justification is there to imply that it is a something based on faith?
quote:
Were you a born again christian? What religion did you subscribe too?
Why does it matter?
Would the veracity of my statements change if I was? Would they be any more or less accurate if I weren't? How does my affiliation with any particular sect change the validity of what I say?
quote:
There are so many reasons why you would feel that the voice in your head was fake.
Indeed. And one of those reasons is that it was just yourself.
Unless and until you are willing to accept that, this "challenge" is nothing more than a childish game.
Put your money where your mouth is: Give up your god for a month and see what happens.
quote:
Why is it that you get so angry when someone trys to share the truth with you?
Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, you have no idea what I am like when I am angry.
What I want to know is why you are so resistant to taking the test along with those you dare. Surely your god can live without you for a month.
quote:
Have you truely tried to do the things Jesus asks of us?
What makes you think I haven't?
Now answer me the same question: Have you truly tried to live your life with nobody to turn to except yourself? To be truly responsible for everything that you do right here and now?
Hint: If you can answer yes to my quesiton, what makes you think I can't answer yes to yours?
We're back to the original point: You seem to think that atheists are simply lazy. What an arrogant statement to put forward.
If you cannot respect the integrity of others, then how can you expect them to respect yours?
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2