Ron Paul: Our Liberties Come From Our Creator

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't see how parents dictating what's taught isn't indoctrination, especially if they choose to totally ignore or defame particular portions of science because it doesn't agree with what they were taught as a kid. It's not state indoctrination, but it's indoctrination nonetheless.

It's not indoctrination because the government isn't doing it. I guess you could make a case for the idea that the parents were brain-washing their kids, but most parents try to provide them with the best knowledge they can, whatever that may be. The point is, public schools are not consistent with a free state. Parents deciding their kids' education is consistent with it.

 

[robert68]

Except that God would never say that. In fact, He explicitly tells us NOT to kill.

That clearly is far from the case: link.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

What wasn't clear? For evolution to be true, a necessary condition is the heritability of traits through genes. Artificial selection involves the selection of these traits through breeding through offspring. And for example, every variety of dog we have is the offspring of artificial selection.

Like I said, heritability, natural selection and mutation cannot be used as evidence for the kind of evolution that you are suggesting. There are limits to the genetic changes that can take place. How many environemnts does an amoeba have to adapt to to turn into a man? How can you breed a pig until it is the size of Texas? The problem is that you are confusing normal genetic changes with something far beyond the reach of science that is not observable. Genetic changes take place because there is a built in system to understand the genetic information that is already there. If something doesn't fit the system and can't be "read," then it is thrown out. That doesn't make one kind of animal change into another. That simply keeps the genetic code pure and makes sure mistakes are not allowed to remain. Mutations NEVER result in an increase in information, which would be required for the long process that turns an amoeba into a human being. It simply does not happen.

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

That is correct.

People say our understanding of mutation and adaptation, such as in bacteria, but that is not the same thing as evolution. The terminology gets really fuzzy, but equating mutation and natural selection to the millions of years process of evolution from an amoeba to a man is just blatantly distorted and false. You can teach about mutations and natural selection without ever mentioning evolution as a unifying theory of the history of the earth.

For instance, I would come to the same conclusion about mutation and natural selection from a biblical perspective. The theory just isn't necessary, so leave it out of schools. Better yet, get rid of public schools. Parents should have the right to decide what their kids are taught. Otherwise, it's just indoctrination.

I'm quite sorry, but what are you defining as "evolution" ? I'm not quite sure how you can acknowledge the processes of natural selection and mutation without acknowledging the logical consequences of these things: that life has developed and changed over Earth's history.

I'm also completely in agreement with you about public schools. But I still hold that parents should teach their children the truth, or at least what the truth appears to be based upon the evidence available.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That clearly is far from the case: link.

Actually, that clearly is the sixth commandment. The wars of the old testament were God's way of bringing judgment on a people. That was before Christ, and it was a completely different system then. They had a criminal conviction system similar to our own court system. You are confusing God's use of war with His condoning of war. Anyone who reads about war in the Bible can tell it is talking about specific historical examples and not making open-ended comments on killing. Whenever the Bible speaks of it, it is clear they are using specific examples and not telling anyone it is ok to kill. In fact, that is contrary to everything else in the Bible, including the sixth commandment.

Please, learn a little bit more about the Bible before you make bold assertions about what it says. Context is everything.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm quite sorry, but what are you defining as "evolution" ? I'm not quite sure how you can acknowledge the processes of natural selection and mutation without acknowledging the logical consequences of these things: that life has developed and changed over Earth's history.

I'm also completely in agreement with you about public schools. But I still hold that parents should teach their children the truth, or at least what the truth appears to be based upon the evidence available.

See post #383.

The problem with public schools is that they are so state-controlled now that it is sad people can't see how it would be different without the state involved so much. Heck, some children might have had a chance to make up their own mind before being taught that evolution was an absolute truth in an environment where the teacher has an intellectual and authoritative advantage over the student. Nobody could question it, and so it has caused many people to turn their backs on their faith. I'm not asking you to believe. I'm simply asking you to see what has been done as a result of a state-controlled system. It's in their interest to keep kids from trusting in God because it might cause them to question the government's authority. Whether or not you believe that, you must see the consequences of this. There would not be nearly as much of a "consensus" on the issue or such a dogmatic atheist population if our kids weren't indoctrinated by the state. The failure of education is that it has let itself become secularized.

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

Like I said, heritability, natural selection and mutation cannot be used as evidence for the kind of evolution that you are suggesting. There are limits to the genetic changes that can take place. How many environemnts does an amoeba have to adapt to to turn into a man? How can you breed a pig until it is the size of Texas? The problem is that you are confusing normal genetic changes with something far beyond the reach of science that is not observable. Genetic changes take place because there is a built in system to understand the genetic information that is already there. If something doesn't fit the system and can't be "read," then it is thrown out. That doesn't make one kind of animal change into another. That simply keeps the genetic code pure and makes sure mistakes are not allowed to remain. Mutations NEVER result in an increase in information, which would be required for the long process that turns an amoeba into a human being. It simply does not happen.

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Biological and physical realities would prevent you from breeding a pig from reaching the size of Texas, besides the fact that such a thing is not codified in the pigs genes. I assume by "amoeba" you mean some original, primordial life form, it took an unimaginably large amount of changes over an extremely long time from simple, unicellular life to evolve into Homo Sapiens Sapiens

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

If you need a case of what people define as "Macro" evolution, have you heard of "Darwin's" finches? I find they are useful to useful to illustrate the concept without the associated baggage that comes from discussing Man's origins.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If you need a case of what people define as "Macro" evolution, have you heard of "Darwin's" finches? I find they are useful to useful to illustrate the concept without the associated baggage that comes from discussing Man's origins.

Actually, that is a classic example of micro-evolution. It's really hard to explain it when you equate the two in your mind. You have to understand that there are limits to the changes. There is a system for understanding genetic information, and anything that does not fit within the genetic "language" for that kind of animal is weeded out somehow or it develops into a problem for the host. Mutations never increase information, and are extremely detrimental in the majority of cases. In those cases where they are not, it is usually the result of a loss of a function that would be beneficial in the real world so that it could survive in that specific environment. I liken it to a person who is in a police state with no hands. The cops can't arrest you if you have no hands, so it is beneficial in that environment. However, you will find that, outside of that specific environment, it is quite a detriment to the organism. This is what is happening with bacteria that mutate and even in some rare animal cases.

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

Actually, that is a classic example of micro-evolution. It's really hard to explain it when you equate the two in your mind. You have to understand that there are limits to the changes. There is a system for understanding genetic information, and anything that does not fit within the genetic "language" for that kind of animal is weeded out somehow or it develops into a problem for the host. Mutations never increase information, and are extremely detrimental in the majority of cases. In those cases where they are not, it is usually the result of a loss of a function that would be beneficial in the real world so that it could survive in that specific environment. I liken it to a person who is in a police state with no hands. The cops can't arrest you if you have no hands, so it is beneficial in that environment. However, you will find that, outside of that specific environment, it is quite a detriment to the organism. This is what is happening with bacteria that mutate and even in some rare animal cases.

What evidence is there for limits on the changes? The process by which Darwin's finches developed is, at it's core, the same process by which all species develop.

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

Actually, that is a classic example of micro-evolution. It's really hard to explain it when you equate the two in your mind. You have to understand that there are limits to the changes. There is a system for understanding genetic information, and anything that does not fit within the genetic "language" for that kind of animal is weeded out somehow or it develops into a problem for the host. Mutations never increase information, and are extremely detrimental in the majority of cases. In those cases where they are not, it is usually the result of a loss of a function that would be beneficial in the real world so that it could survive in that specific environment. I liken it to a person who is in a police state with no hands. The cops can't arrest you if you have no hands, so it is beneficial in that environment. However, you will find that, outside of that specific environment, it is quite a detriment to the organism. This is what is happening with bacteria that mutate and even in some rare animal cases.

And I'm not sure how you can posit that "mutations never increase information" either. Bacteria who have developed a genetic immunity to antibiotics is an example of an "increase in information".

 

[robert68]

Actually, that clearly is the sixth commandment. The wars of the old testament were God's way of bringing judgment on a people. That was before Christ, and it was a completely different system then. They had a criminal conviction system similar to our own court system. You are confusing God's use of war with His condoning of war. Anyone who reads about war in the Bible can tell it is talking about specific historical examples and not making open-ended comments on killing. Whenever the Bible speaks of it, it is clear they are using specific examples and not telling anyone it is ok to kill. In fact, that is contrary to everything else in the Bible, including the sixth commandment.

You’re simply justifying aggression in certain instances, as supporters of aggression always do, often citing Bible verses and “God” as justifications. A character that authorizes every sort of barbarism, in certain instances, is not a principled opponent of aggression; the point was not that “God” said murder or aggression was ok at all times, no one says that. The Bible also justifies aggression numerous times in the NT, those verses have been cited in discussions in this forum before, but I see you’re rather new here.

Please, learn a little bit more about the Bible before you make bold assertions about what it says. Context is everything.

Such pious and ignorant remarks are rather unpersuasive.

 

[robert68]

The reality of “Our Liberties come from our Creator” is that the self appointed spokespersons for ”Our Creator” get to tell everyone what their rights are and are not; or put another way, “Our Liberties come from our Creator” gives self-appointed spokespersons for “Our Creator” a justification for aggressions they favor. No thanks.

 

[Ranger29860]

Actually, that is a classic example of micro-evolution. It's really hard to explain it when you equate the two in your mind. You have to understand that there are limits to the changes. There is a system for understanding genetic information, and anything that does not fit within the genetic "language" for that kind of animal is weeded out somehow or it develops into a problem for the host. Mutations never increase information, and are extremely detrimental in the majority of cases. In those cases where they are not, it is usually the result of a loss of a function that would be beneficial in the real world so that it could survive in that specific environment. I liken it to a person who is in a police state with no hands. The cops can't arrest you if you have no hands, so it is beneficial in that environment. However, you will find that, outside of that specific environment, it is quite a detriment to the organism. This is what is happening with bacteria that mutate and even in some rare animal cases.

You clearly have no understanding on what macro and micro evolution is. Speciation is a great example and most likely the point at which micro turns into macro. As for the new information is not provided claim. Again you clearly have no idea of the scope of information provided in DNA. First off the Amoeba (The smallest living organism in the world) has the most genetic information.

Information at the genetic level is poorly defined. What do you consider to be information? Look at real life examples of how we can change the very purpose of something just by rearranging its parts and choosing not include others. A computer is a great example. A computer can change its purpose just back choosing to switch on and off transistors allowing for it the perform different functions with the same equipment. Mutations simply allow for genes to rearrange themselves into a new patterns that can be beneficial or hurtful.

We can drink milk as adults because a protein that was suppose to turn off at adult age mutated and allows us to continue to drink milk. No new information was required.

Now you are going to say that there was not enough genetic information to make it from cell to human. Again i point to the Amoeba it is the smallest living organism but has a ton more genetic information than us. Not to mention dogs are probaly one of the easiest examples to show the scope of changes that can be accomplished in such a short time.

this

from this

They can not interbreed and function completely independent of one another they are different species. (or kind since creationist like that word for some reason.)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

And I'm not sure how you can posit that "mutations never increase information" either. Bacteria who have developed a genetic immunity to antibiotics is an example of an "increase in information".

No, see my example. That's basically what it is. They lose a receptor site that would detect and recept an antibiotic, but they lose that receptor site, making them immune to some antibiotics. However, that is not an increase in useful information or function. That is a loss accompanied by a short-lived benefit to the organism in that specific environment.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You’re simply justifying aggression in certain instances, as supporters of aggression always do, often citing Bible verses and “God” as justifications. A character that authorizes every sort of barbarism, in certain instances, is not a principled opponent of aggression; the point was not that “God” said murder or aggression was ok at all times, no one says that. The Bible also justifies aggression numerous times in the NT, those verses have been cited in discussions in this forum before, but I see you’re rather new here.


Such pious and ignorant remarks are rather unpersuasive.

Why would that remark be unpersuasive? You shouldn't make bold statements about the Bible without knowing about it or having a good sense of the context. This applies to anything. As for justification, anybody can justify anything. Many people have and do use evolution as a justification for killing. The point isn't what people do. People are imperfect and always susceptible to this kind of understanding whether or not religion is involved. It can't be used against the Bible just because some fool misunderstood it. This will happen regardless.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You clearly have no understanding on what macro and micro evolution is. Speciation is a great example and most likely the point at which micro turns into macro. As for the new information is not provided claim. Again you clearly have no idea of the scope of information provided in DNA. First off the Amoeba (The smallest living organism in the world) has the most genetic information.

Information at the genetic level is poorly defined. What do you consider to be information? Look at real life examples of how we can change the very purpose of something just by rearranging its parts and choosing not include others. A computer is a great example. A computer can change its purpose just back choosing to switch on and off transistors allowing for it the perform different functions with the same equipment. Mutations simply allow for genes to rearrange themselves into a new patterns that can be beneficial or hurtful.

We can drink milk as adults because a protein that was suppose to turn off at adult age mutated and allows us to continue to drink milk. No new information was required.

Now you are going to say that there was not enough genetic information to make it from cell to human. Again i point to the Amoeba it is the smallest living organism but has a ton more genetic information than us. Not to mention dogs are probaly one of the easiest examples to show the scope of changes that can be accomplished in such a short time.

this

from this

They can not interbreed and function completely independent of one another they are different species. (or kind since creationist like that word for some reason.)

I think it is you that has the misunderstanding. You think the kind of adaptation that allows for different traits, but you clearly misunderstand the kind of intelligence that is needed to interpret DNA messages. Like letters on a page arranged into words, the information is meaningless unless there is a system in place to understand what the words mean, namely a language, such as English. This system is used in the translation of base pairs in the DNA to specific proteins. Take a look at these two articles before responding further, please. They're relatively short.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mutations-engine-of-evolution

Information theory goes much farther than just looking at heritable traits. It attempts to quantify the meaningful information. Mutations only result in a misunderstanding during transcription of the DNA and result in dysfunctional proteins or an absence thereof. It is silly to suggest that mutation can account for millions of years of evolution when it can't even make up for its own destruction.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

What evidence is there for limits on the changes? The process by which Darwin's finches developed is, at it's core, the same process by which all species develop.

It is not me that has the burden of proof here. You have to prove that the kinds of changes needed for millions of years of evolution between different kinds, not species, can occur. Species are different because the variation within the kind is built into the system for understanding the genetic information. This results in different species that each have a more limited gene pool than the last, limiting their ability for further change or adaptation.

 

[Ranger29860]

I think it is you that has the misunderstanding. You think the kind of adaptation that allows for different traits, but you clearly misunderstand the kind of intelligence that is needed to interpret DNA messages. Like letters on a page arranged into words, the information is meaningless unless there is a system in place to understand what the words mean, namely a language, such as English. This system is used in the translation of base pairs in the DNA to specific proteins. Take a look at these two articles before responding further, please. They're relatively short.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mutations-engine-of-evolution

Information theory goes much farther than just looking at heritable traits. It attempts to quantify the meaningful information. Mutations only result in a misunderstanding during transcription of the DNA and result in dysfunctional proteins or an absence thereof. It is silly to suggest that mutation can account for millions of years of evolution when it can't even make up for its own destruction.

The fist one i read was the one called "copying confusion" the article itself says "many evolutionist believe this" then goes on to not give a source. But they are giving sources for others so this raises my doubt on the validity of that statement.

The second one is an absolutely gross simplification if of DNA base pairs and how they are interpreted.Also the article itself even admits that though its rare new information is possible.

"Besides mutations that cause information loss, in theory there could also be mutations that cause a gain of new information. There are only a few alleged cases of such mutations. "

Also they talk single cells not being able to gain new information. The only problem with this claim is they assume a cell gaining new information can only happen because of that one cell. There a quite a bit of studies on single cell organism turning into multicell by grouping together to fight an outside enemy(i have posted these studies before i'll get the links again.)

Also mutation is one part of evolution not the whole thing.

*edit*

And on anther note the article touts that wonderful word "kind" please define a "kind" you can not claim they haven't resulted in new "kinds" if you don't define it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The fist one i read was the one called "copying confusion" the article itself says "many evolutionist believe this" then goes on to not give a source. But they are giving sources for others so this raises my doubt on the validity of that statement.

The second one is an absolutely gross simplification if of DNA base pairs and how they are interpreted.Also the article itself even admits that though its rare new information is possible.

"Besides mutations that cause information loss, in theory there could also be mutations that cause a gain of new information. There are only a few alleged cases of such mutations. "

Also they talk single cells not being able to gain new information. The only problem with this claim is they assume a cell gaining new information can only happen because of that one cell. There a quite a bit of studies on single cell organism turning into multicell by grouping together to fight an outside enemy(i have posted these studies before i'll get the links again.)

Also mutation is one part of evolution not the whole thing.

*edit*

And on anther note the article touts that wonderful word "kind" please define a "kind" you can not claim they haven't resulted in new "kinds" if you don't define it.

I realize it's only one part, but that's what I wanted to talk about. You raise suspicion, but you don't actually refute the claims. Note that the article said alleged cases of new information. Even if there were a few, there are many more that create a loss of information. You would need thousands if not millions of cases of gain in order to overcome the vast loss of information caused by mutation. I don't know why you would think any differently about the single cell issue. All of the information of that cell is regulated by the cell itself because it decides what it takes in and how to use it. It has specific cell receptors and a semi-permeable membrane for a reason. I think we can agree to disagree on that, however. I think this discussion has gone far enough.

For those who were interested in the Darwin's Finches argument, I would like to present this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNCwCbpX-bc