YOUR life may not be for anything: my life is devoted to pleasing myself, pleasing other people, doing useful work and finding out interesting things. Any time I have left over is devoted to exposing silly self-interested nonsense from theists and others.

But let's stretch our imaginations and pretend for a moment that you're correct: our lives are brought to us by a genocidal Sky Pixie who wants us to cut bits off our genitals, avoid seafood and oppose gay marriage.

How is that supposed to make them BETTER?

...Graham Preston neglected to mention another uni-construct of atheism so splendid at present, rampant homosexuality. Homosexuals, the suckerfish attached to the underbelly of atheism, present themselves as tortured little souls (anti-thesis), with human rights butchered by cruel theists, displaying narrow minded and out-dated moral and ethical dictates, inhibiting and conflicting with new age philosophies; derivatives deeply embedded in atheism.

Dear Graham,

Implicit in your article is the idea that young children can't become atheists all by themselves. God is something that children are taught to believe in. When I was a child I heard the story of the binding of Isaac. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God teeling him to sacrifice me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I trusted the old man, but I could no longer believe in a God who would ask a father to do such a thing. God failed the test of decency, and Abraham in being willing to sacrifice his son was an asshole. I do not believe in the God of the Bible, and I do not believe in Allah, Zeus, Thor or all the other Gods that man has invented. I love my children, and I try to be a decent human being. I do not feel additional mumbojumbo is necessary. I will be attending the Atheist Convention and expect to have a good time.

An article so thin, it is transparent.

"...because there is no point to their existence they are not obliged to do anything; and that all moral rules, from the mundane to the seemingly profound, are just constructs made up for the convenience of society and thus have no absolute significance."

There you have it. The author intends you to draw the conclusion that if you don't believe in God, you can do anything that you like.

Oh, that old furphy.

But if you adapt the same sentence, only slightly, the truth emerges.

"Moral rules, from the mundane to the seemingly profound, are the key constructs that bind society, and thus have critical significance."

There, you see?

And the really elegant aspect of that re-work, is that it can both include or exclude religion itself. It is inclusive, not exclusive.

Religion is something that some folk choose to make part of their lives, and is not a replacement for society's moral rules. Which is of course why a friendly local knee-capping of people of a different religious persuasion is still a crime against society, even if the local chapter applauds it. And why suicide bombers who proclaim their faith even as they kill others, are still largely frowned upon.

Why should kids have to be taught to believe in something, if it was any good they would find out for themselves.
Starting life off, on a fictitious character, is hardly believable.
They will learn that something has been imposed on them, without question.
Kids religion is selected for them, still in the womb.

no one is born athiest
but we forget..thus many children are fully ignorant[athiest]by toddling years...

[i use ignorant..cause i see no sense
in you trying to confirm..a thing you believe dont egsist
[thus deliberatly chose..*ignoring any further proof of]

but you are honest..[if deaf]
worse those who blasheme to truth
and nature of the good god of nurture/ligic sustaining light into life that life realise the love..of other[life]

the eternal living good
but missdirect his own..into demonic acts of puresssent vile

as is your right
[and god will still
to treat you no different]

let him of the pig lie with pigs
the wheat is revealed from the tare
[at harvest]

he who dont want any religion..
dont know he can got god with good..that does the things
the religious...are said to do..yet by their concepts/rite..reveal flaws...[lol]..like just wars..

if its not good living
loving gracefull mercyfull

IT AINT OF GOD
nor 'for' god

vile cant do vile
and claim its gods will
if its not good.;.its not of god

many athiests are closer
to him...!..as much as those lovers of the lips..that utter such insanities[such as 'just wars']
are from love

they
WE..only find god
by living his qualities*

"by their wurks
will..*WE KNOW them"

demons..eat human flesh
beasts primatives..drink blood

vilein's cast out...racists judge
fools send fools..to hell

witches cast spells
initiate lol meaning power to ritual[lol]

and as for the imagry...lol
or not having son before father[god]
put no one..!..before god thy god..not daughter nor son!

in short
if its not loving neighbour
its cetainly not leading to the good..[god]

but let the kids teach
not be taught..give them facts...and let them chose

science has feet of clay
it has a theory..but not a better way

So the reason to believe in God and the whole edifice of crazy explanations of the world that go with it is that we need some point to life??

Pericles has nicely put that myth to rest.

Moral education of children is corrupted by the suggestion that to be good we must submit to some non-human entity whom we must follow to avoid damnation. Religious education that pushes this line is brainwashing and not education at all.

This article begins with the question begging, "What is life for?" and travels only downhill downhill thereafter. It assumes that life must have a purpose. Why must it?

no one is not thinking re god
one second after their last mortal breath

go ahead refute that

[heck most..new born 'dead' are so disjointed of mind..
they dont notice..their new soul body]..

they go direct into their own dreaming/delusions
but such is their will..[and freewill is sacrosant*]

[talk to children..you will see the after affect's of their own 'dreaming''..who's animal lusts..realised themselves into 'you'

we are all here via sin
the only way you can get in

let not good athioests
throw stones

dont blame god for religion
men[materialists]..thunk of that one

you made it up
but god is real

one is a body of wurds/ritual
the other is lived..[earned/learned..only by helping other]

seeing good
[god]..in eve-rything..

finding that good living
loving gracefull mercyfull spirit
giving..*each living thing..our life

that we do to athiest
we do to god

not good?
its not of god
dont bame satan..
it was..*you...who went and...*DONE IT!

wurks/not wurds

Pericles – but you miss the point. In an atheistic universe no one is under any obligation to society - no one is under any obligation to anyone or anything.

It may be more convenient to live in a society that functions in a particular way but if it is in an individual’s best interests to rip off the society, while perhaps maintaining a façade of respectability, then there is no reason for the individual not to act in their own best interests.

There is nothing intrinsic to an atheistic universe that requires a person to try to be “good” or to have the slightest concern or interest in others’ welfare.

Kids brought up in a Christian household become christian, muslims have muslim kids. Atheist kids can choose for themselves.

GlenC,

Good question.

It seems that our evolved human minds struggle with the proposition that our existence may have no ultimate purpose - that existence is merely existence. We can't accept that the sum of our lives and experiences have no contingency beyond the days of our material existence. The void we face without recourse to metaphysical belief is an affront to our sensibilities and our idea of Self.

everything has a cause!
in the beginning..[was only..the last beginning]
of an eternity of beginnings [with a bang]
then a slow disolution into 'SEEMING NUTHUINGNESS'

[where matter/creation
and anti mater balance
*
cancelling each other out=zero
[or so lol..science now claims]

fact
E= ability to change form
BUT CANT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED

the alpha./.did speak into the nuthinness
zen state...and asked where did the energy go..?[e=mc2]
he knows its there...but*...lo nuthing

heck at least i know light is
"LET THERE BE LIGHT"...lol

anf lo it was
anyhow the reasoning of life
is god discovering self...[till the athiests proe he dont egsist]

and lo
the void
and the next new beginning

de ja vouse
we been living the same life story the same egsacting way

everytime
athiest convince god he dont egsist
and zennnnnn..oh...mmmmmmmmm..narda narda narda

matter and the dreaming
balance each other..into zen like nuthingness

till
let there be light
[a big bang][was heard]
dispelling the darkness of the deep nuthing

its all vibration/balance/harmonics
but osmosis is the key...funny just how when god comes so close to figuting it out[again]..he gets proof..[lol]..by theor-ry*[and we still cant se/hear or feel the joke]

its not yoyur smallness you fear
but the greatness within*[each and every one of you]

ME
=
WE

ahhh men
the reason of luife is its all about YOU
everyone is needed to capture the amasing E1..*

el
hell
hello

good buy

LOL hi OUG, I see you are just putting forward your assertions still, contradicting yourself etc etc. *waves* it's been a while :)

"everything has a cause!"

Really? Can you show evidence for this, particularly in light of :

"fact
E= ability to change form
BUT CANT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED"

We see energy changing form, but we haven't seen anything 'caused'.

Can you show me an example of 'nothing' in any other sense other than that which physicists recognise?

nah, it'll be like you have always simply asserted without evidence ... the magic man did it!

Let's remember that "atheism" is defined as a disbelief in the existence of any sort of supreme being.
The existence, or otherwise, of such a being has no bearing on our individual choice of behaviour, either to other people, or to ourselves.
Morality comes from personal understanding and experiences of causes and their effects, and leads to your not doing any thing to another person which you would not like done to you.
Surely happiness is one of the driving motives of morality.
That has nothing to do with any "being" outside oneself; we are responsible totally for the outcomes of our lives. The choices are ours, not of some fantasy figure. Logic and truth is what atheism is all about.

*Here is a simple question for theists, especially those theists who won't be attending the Global Atheist Convention: “What is life for?” Simple enough?*

Well, Graham, I wouldn't want to get the answer wrong and even more, I wouldn't want everyone else to either…

So if all the theists in the world wouldn't mind getting together and agreeing on the answer and then telling the rest of us, please.

Since I'm not holding my breath for this to happen any time soon – on the basis that in the entirety of human history it hasn't so far – I'll have to satisfy myself with being a student of life.

Apparently this is acceptable to the author, though I will have to cope with the burden of not having any skills as an illustrator.

Of course it's entirely possible that sound ideas for positive social behaviour can be exactly that, and so agreed, without needing gods.

lets SEEK SOLUTIONS*...
not excuse to further division..[dire-ersion]

those seeking armogeddon..are insane!

buty thery are mindless sheep
you athiests supposed to have SHARP minds

Shame on both sides..for prolonging this destraction.

[ALL LIFE COMES FROM GOD..!]
if not make one just like it[use your own dust]

[one creator god
who weeps for every life..stolen by men’s foolishness]

isn’t it time.to look forward not back?

Time to give to god
that which god alone..!,,did give to all living..[our lives]

time to wake up..from this nightmare,
time to ask god for forgiveness..and give each other

[and our one god]
peace [shalome]

all life is sacred..
BECAUSE only god..can have given us..our lives][E}=alpha
[refuting proof please;richard]

be revealing..the same mercy
he has given us ALL..in letting this insanity go on,
wake up my brothers..[ALL}...is war worth fighting for?]

It all comes clear
there is no end plan.
[except some nutter planned it]

[always a new enemy..[thats phyco thinking]
..to get past the next election]...or end time armogeddon..

[zen..for sin?]

Well there is an enemy..my brrr-others
[POVERTY]..in the land of brothers..let us fight poverty

[from poverty..of ideas/to poperty..of INFORMED/Belief]

[find real leaders..
willing to fight the real problem's!

not the same eternal/enemy's long ago crushed
[old failing//frail..as the main problem?..lol

a[distraction]..from REAL CRIME;..
stealing your values/and valuables]planet

One G-D..gives all life their life to live
[live with it]..MAKE PRETENDERS MAKE ON JUST LIKE IT ..*first!

that..you do to the least[living]..you do to god

God made the dust..to live!
[made all life..is life dust..from dust]

life glories god..as well as our own creation life
[our own gift..of lifeis sustaing life

To take life
is a blasphemy..NOT..just against god..BUT ATHIEST TOO!

how important..
the topics..your diss-cuss-ing?

Death..serves not..*the life giver
but the great deceiver's/decieved[ionsane/nutters]..

to take any life!

[given..of gods living/love..is not serving good/god]

Every man..is your brother
[every woman..is your god/given sister]

Its time to welcome..all god's children
to see gods people..doing service*..*to life..[to god-given/life]

lets declare war..and death..the only enemy!

lets end this division..and full/fill..gods LIVING vision

lets live..a life of love
[let live..that the life giver..gave to live!
each of us..,our lives]

Ponder, if logic and truth is what atheism is about, then why do so many atheists say so many stupid and irrational things?

The real "truth" is that no worldview, belief, or "lack of belief" has a monopoly on rationality. The sooner people realise this, the sooner we'll all be able to have at least a respectful discussion.

I don't think so, JP.

>>Pericles – but you miss the point. In an atheistic universe no one is under any obligation to society - no one is under any obligation to anyone or anything<<

There isn't an "atheist" universe that is separate from a "theist" one. It is exactly the same universe that we both live in. You and I.

And we are both under the same obligation to conform to social norms, or to be regarded as "antisocial". Antisocial behaviour can range from being simply annoying to being criminal, and therefore punishable by that society.

If you choose to impose some extra rules, as a result of your religion, then that is perfectly ok - so long as they do not turn out to be antisocial. Such as kneecapping, blowing up infidels etc.

The clincher, of course, is that even your religious rules have adapted to society over the centuries. Many aspects of a perfectly religious life a few hundred years ago - keeping slaves, burning witches, crusading etc. - are quite properly frowned upon in today's religions. Or, most of them anyway.

So to claim that only your religion provides the one set of guidelines that determine "right" from "wrong", flies in the face of history. And not just history in the abstract, but the history of your own religion.

Because of events that have happened in my life, I happen to believe in a 'higher power'. However, I do NOT believe it is necessary to follow a specific religion in order to feel the spirituality of this belief. Much to my chagrin, religion, in general, houses many hypocrites who do not practise what they preach. The word 'Christianity' should give rise to people living in the way of Christ, who forgave many wrongdoers, and, in fact, sat down with those whom society would have banished. How many 'Christians' actually forgive those who they see as transgressers? I've sat in different churches and basically shook my head at some of the sermons I have been subjected to and walked out wondering why more people do not actually think for themselves, instead of blindly following. After all, is that not why God gave us a brain, so that we could think independently.

As for the Bible, so it is supposed to be the 'word of God'. Maybe it is, but we must remember that this is as it was transcribed by HUMAN hands, and we all know that anything mankind gets its hands on must be altered to fit the transcriber's own slant on things.

The_idiocy...when is a question not a question?

The unstated axiom: atheism therefore 'atheists' have a shared position beyond the rejection of theistic 'god' claims.

Wrong!

The article implies not only that 'God' has created moral codes and social behaviours, but humanity hasn't, and can't.

The Theists view is that's it's God or Nothing. But in fact the alternative to God is a belief in humanity, and human intelligence and the amazing understanding of the world and life that that has brought, and the awesome achievements of art and civilisation and engineering that we, us crazy humans, have accomplished, all by ourselves.

Atheists are not yet confident enough to start offering ideas in full. Criticising religion is their focus at the moment, but slowly the new atheists are positing ideas about how life arrived on Earth. One idea is that an alien civilisation came to Earth and left us here, and new atheists are also following the idea of multiple universes - so it seems atheists have their version of the flying spagetti monster as well.

Dawkins recently said he can't be sure that there isn't a God, which was weird, so he's actually agnostic. That's the problem for atheists who really have men as their God - humans tend to change their beliefs over time - Dawkins may very well go to his grave as a Westboro Baptist! Reminds me of Jane Roe's (of Roe V Wade fame) conversion to pro-life Christianity.

Pat, atheist = 'no god'. Not men, not space aliens, not anybody. Why is that so hard for theists to understand?

And any atheist who posits theories about how life began on Earth does so entirely on their own responsibility. There is no 'party line' in a non-belief. In fact we actually value independent thought -- hadn't you heard?

I thought I had already cleared this up in a previous post, progressive pat.

>>That's the problem for atheists who really have men as their God - humans tend to change their beliefs over time<<

So do theists. History tells us this, quite clearly,

The injunctions delivered by the God of the Bible, for example, are widely different from those observed today by people who profess to "follow" his scriptures.

The various practices and strictures have clearly been adapted by each generation, throughout the centuries. I doubt very much whether you still own slaves, or burn people at the stake, or hunt down witches and so on. Let alone shun shellfish, refuse to wear particular fabrics etc.

Or maybe you do, what do I know?

Customs - because that is after all what they were all about - change over time, whether you are living in "darkest Africa" or Toorak, and whether you are Christian, Muslim or atheist.

Your suggestion, also, that because some folk believe that we were dumped on this planet by aliens, they "have their version of the flying spagetti monster as well", is way off beam. If they do indeed worship at that altar, they are by definition not atheists.

You are still confused as to what atheism is, aren't you. Have you ever wondered why?

Pericles – either there is a God or there isn’t and if there isn’t a God then this is indeed a universe where atheism is true, and vice versa.

There is an important difference between an obligation and social pressure. Yes, people are put under subtle and not so subtle pressure to conform but there is no obligation or duty to conform. If a person can get away with acting in their own self-interest at the cost of society, there is no moral reason, in an atheistic universe, for them not to do so. If they are caught, they may be called names or even jailed but that doesn’t prove they have acted wrongly. They have just gone against the preferences of that society.

Even if you should be right about religions not being able to establish morality that does nothing to get atheism off the hook of not being able to establish morality. All there can be, if atheism is true, are the personal preferences and combined personal preferences of individuals about what to call right and wrong. Those preferences, even if held by many people cannot logically establish morality.

Could he have made it any clearer that the purpose of religion is to control people's behaviour?

1. Even if God existed, we would still be free to do whatever we wanted. Either way, our decisions have consequences, but that doesn't negate free will.
2. To say there is no morality in the absence of God is a logical fallacy, as it assumes all morality comes from God. Morality also comes from evolution, society and reason.
3. Even if morality was 100% social construct, that would not necessarily make it less real or relevant. It would just (arguably) make it less absolute.
4. This life matters, whether or not another follows it. I value it more since becoming an atheist, because now I realise that it's the only life I have and I want it to be joyous and meaningful.

Pericles writes

'You are still confused as to what atheism is, aren't you. Have you ever wondered why?'

Watching the foolish effort of Pell and Dawkins the other night shows that atheist are totally confused themselves despite their often arrogant demeanor. Dreaming up warped definitions of nothing and denying they have faith is hilarous. The fruits of atheism is seen clearly with the worse Government seen in this land's history.

JP,

I have been following you arguments, and you don't seem to understand that all of your criticism is equally applied to people with faith in god as much as those without faith.

As no person lives their entire lives with perfect morality (however defined) then it must be true that all people make subjective decisions regarding what they consider right and wrong. So even if there is a god, and an absolute, never changing set of rules that have been established since 'creation', we all choose to make our own subjective choices which rules to follow. Therefore there is no such thing as absolute morality when it comes to mortal man, theist or not.

This is verging on the tiresome, JP… Here in and in other threads you've had it explained where your thinking is wrong logically, historically, philosophically and religiously.

Again, and as simply as I can put it: the evidence that all morality is subjectively held by individuals is the fact that even people of a shared religious tradition never totally agree. They certainly don't conform in their behaviour.

Try thinking to yourself, "All there can be, even though my religious belief is true, are the personal preferences and combined personal preferences of individuals about what to call right and wrong."

You'll probably be much happier.

progressive pat said "Dawkins recently said he can't be sure that there isn't a God, which was weird, so he's actually agnostic. That's the problem for atheists who really have men as their God - humans tend to change their beliefs over time - Dawkins may very well go to his grave as a Westboro Baptist! Reminds me of Jane Roe's (of Roe V Wade fame) conversion to pro-life Christianity."

Others have done a good job of refuting the substance of your argument, such as it is.. but this is simply untrue and should not go unchallenged. Like any rational person, Dawkins has never denied the possibility of the existence of god. He has consistently stated that since the non-existence of something can never be proved, the only logical position is to keep an open mind and assign relatve likelihoods, c.f. Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot. Praps you shouldn't opine without some basic research.

I'd probably be defined as agnostic (Well, I as I've said before it seems a bit strong a word as I don't really care enough to apply labels as such, maybe an 'undefined', or 'Not Applicable' would be better), but this article makes atheism sound excellent.

'each human being is, in principle at least, totally free to do, think, and say whatever he/she likes.'

Sounds good to me. I wonder what kid of individual would be perturbed by this.

'What is the problem with saying to young people: that we have all come unintentionally into being; that the existence of everything in the universe, from viruses, to rats, to themselves, is the product of mindless, unconscious, uncaring physical forces; that our actions, thoughts and words are merely, and entirely, the chance outcome of molecules interacting; that with death comes eternal nothingness; and that there is ultimately no point to our existence.'

I see no problem at all. It sounds a bit too definitive though. How do you know for sure that physical forces don't care? How do you know you're not part of The Matrix? Or you may be the lead in the Truman Show.

'that our actions, thoughts and words are merely, and entirely, the chance outcome of molecules interacting'

I'd take it further and consider that the people that you see every day are actually figments of your own imagination.

'because there is no point to their existence they are not obliged to do anything; and that all moral rules, from the mundane to the seemingly profound, are just constructs made up for the convenience of society and thus have no absolute significance.'

I would have to agree really. So why not tell kids that's what I think, and to bear in mind I might not really exist, and nor may they.

I would though warn them about actions and consequences, in our current partially shared perceived reality.

Your reality is a concern to all of us, Houllebecq... doesn't stop me agreeing though.

You may recall that previously "I asked a work colleague, whether or not you actually existed. She reminded me she was a projection of my universal consciousness and the question was solipsistic. But she has a bad lisp and I fell off the chair laughing."

You seem a little upset, JP. I'm not sure why, as you seem to have it pretty well sorted...

>>Pericles – either there is a God or there isn’t and if there isn’t a God then this is indeed a universe where atheism is true, and vice versa.<<

Since neither position has any impact on the way in which we human beings behave, I don't see the problem. Neither you nor I in our lifetimes will be faced with a definitive position on this, since your belief in the existence of God relies on faith rather than science, and my atheism will always be aware that it cannot prove a negative.

However, your God is also supposed to determine your actions. If you had been living in the Middle Ages, your God would have been quite comfortable with the idea of burning witches, in the context of the society in which you lived. If you had been living in the twelfth century, your God would have been quite comfortable with the idea of you going off to massacre a city full of non-Christians. Totally appropriate - even encouraged - in the context of society at that time.

These "rules", whether religion-based or not, are the social constructs that allow us to live together in relative harmony. Non-belief is not an excuse to run around murdering people, any more than being religious. Ask a few kneecapped Belfast residents whether they were maimed by atheist or religious social mores, and whether they feel that the law should condemn each, equally.

So you see, it doesn't really matter whether your God exists or not. People are capable of determining the difference between right and wrong behaviour, within the context of their circumstances and responsibilities.

Above all, relax.

No-one is going to tell you what you can and cannot believe. That is entirely up to you.

hi woot[*waves*back*]

you/rote..:""you are just putting forward..your assertions still, contradicting yourself""

lol..go for it

[oug].."everything has a cause!"

woot;""Really?

Can you show evidence for this,""

sure[strike a match[usally]makes the match burn

but lets go bigger...[talk science fact]
the sun emmmits photons....[in particles..
cause light is phtonic emmision of particles

because of..a progressive 'event's..[cause]
that releases these photons in waves...light is said to be wave

thing is waves and individual photons
need a causal event...to release the photons
[takle a light bulb...its 'event' of emmiting photons..[in waves]
is via the cause..of the individual 'event'..[electicity flowing through it..

ok more
babies...need a sperm/egg
lovers need lovers..[everything has a cause]
you waved..i waved back...you test..i push back

""particularly in light of :

"fact
E= ability to change form""

yes...[WOOD dont burn!]
but if you heat it[the heat CAUSES smoke..[un-burned gas]
that does burn...[where there is smoke[there is gas..that can burn,...if it has a spark[a cause]..of course

e=wood
e=gas
e became heat...emited photons [light]

why..cause heat released gas
cause cause needs cause

yet every cause[action]..has a re-action
even reagents..and other actions..stimulations impulsations
provide the yeast..[action/re-action]

still regarding ...E
""BUT [E]..CANT BE CREATED..NOR DESTROYED"
[argue with the science

""We see energy changing form,
but we haven't seen anything 'caused'.""'

the cause wasnt the change
but the re-agent..that caused the change
[youtr confounding form[quality].. with qualitive's of substance]

""Can you show me an example of 'nothing'""

an incorrrect fact..

""in any other sense..other than that
which physicists recognise?""

ok
*lets hear..what they recognise*...lol
lol..their latest theory..is two oppisites...lol
cancel each other out...lol

ie they say in the beginning was nuthin
cause matter and anti-matter [lol]..cancel each other out

its insane
but its consistant with the delusion of science proof[lol]
that refute..but dont validate any other cause [beyond non cause]

chance
accident..alians?
wth/eck

""you have always simply asserted without evidence
...the magic man did it!""

that aint fair woot
i offer how it really is
wood dont burn...[unless you have a heat source..HOT ENOUGH..to initiate gas release..

[wood dont burn..gas do..
[thats not god..thats science fact]

fact..you wernt taught in school!
think..why not!

For arguments sake, let us assume that atheism is true and that every human being is a sincere atheist. Now consider the following:

• Atheists have opinions/beliefs/preferences about what is morally right and wrong
• Not all atheists agree with each other as to what is right and wrong
• There is no known arbiter who can definitively state which atheist, if any, is right and which atheist is wrong when there is a disagreement about moral issues

Therefore atheists are unable to state, beyond expressing their own personal opinion/belief/ preference, what is right and wrong.

I would say that it also follows from the above that “morality” which consists solely of individuals expressing their personal preferences is no meaningful morality at all.

Now if you disagree with my conclusions, could you please tell me which of the premises is wrong, or why the conclusions do not follow from the premises.

JP said:

"• Atheists have opinions/beliefs/preferences about what is morally right and wrong
• Not all atheists agree with each other as to what is right and wrong
• There is no known arbiter who can definitively state which atheist, if any, is right and which atheist is wrong when there is a disagreement about moral issues

Therefore atheists are unable to state, beyond expressing their own personal opinion/belief/ preference, what is right and wrong.

This was too good to resist.

• Christians have opinions/beliefs/preferences about what is morally right and wrong
• Not all Christians agree with each other as to what is right and wrong
• There is no known arbiter who can definitively state which Christian denomination, if any, is right and which is wrong when there is a disagreement about moral issues

Therefore Christians are unable to state, beyond expressing their own personal opinion/belief/ preference, what is right and wrong.

All of which is why we have laws - the best we can do to attempt to ensure stable peaceful societies, subject to change in light of new EVIDENCE about the best way to run a society. Not a 2,000 year old concoction from pre-scientific superstitious types.

Back atcha... For god's sake, let us assume that theism is true and that every human being is a sincere theist. Now consider the following:

• Theists have opinions/beliefs/preferences about what is morally right and wrong
• Not all theists agree with each other as to what is right and wrong
• There is no known arbitration which can definitively state which theist, if any, is right and which theist is wrong when there is a disagreement about moral issues.

Now if you disagree with my conclusions, could you please tell me which of the premises is wrong, or why the conclusions do not follow from the premises.

Titfer, stickman... congrats to the faster typist.

Great minds, WMTrevor ;) Probably better articulated as theists rather than picking on Christianity.

quote..""Therefore atheists are unable to state,
beyond expressing their own personal opinion/belief/preference,
of what they judge is right and wrong.

This was too good to resist.

stickyman/quote.."•There is no known arbiter
who can definitively state which Christian denomination,..if any,
is right..and which is wrong..when there is a disagreement about moral issues""

no the moral issues are wrote in stone
no god before god..[not even a son]
not murder..not adultetrate gods laws

its all pretty clear[morally speaking]
as jesus himself egsampled...at the stoning
[simply by noting the murder law in the dirt]

sticky/re-quote..""Therefore Christians are unable to state,
beyond expressing their own personal opinion/belief/ preference,
what is right and wrong..."""

i can give you chapter and verse
in a book you might even have ...'in your home'

but mate..its in writing
not a youtube edit..or in spoken wurd
in writing..[witnessed..plus a chain of claim]

stibnky/quote..""All of which is why we have laws""

IN WRITING...writing opriests invented
that led to schools/liberies..science maths..geomitry architecture poetry..form and substance

""the best..*we can do""

which we [athiest xtian jew...which which is this 'we'
decendent off the royal wee..that STATES the best we can DO*[physical that leads to it being dun]

""to attempt to ensure stable peaceful societies,""

societies are stable
its individuals within EVERY society
[even yours]..that seek to divide and deride..[others societies]

""subject to change
in light of new EVIDENCE..about the best way to run a society.""

benevolent dictatorships
till the people divide into scocieties..communes...with owning rights

""Not a 2,000 year old concoction""
lol that has evolved OVER 2000 years

""from pre-scientific superstitious types.""

visionaries..envisioning the unseen..
who founded science..to better know their god..[via his creation]

3 athiests types..i know of
you like most...take it on faith...right?

JP and OUG, how do you define the route of information from God to the Bible (Or it's the tablets I think for OUG - Seen Raiders of the Lost Ark BTW?), to the mind of the believer?

These morals need a medium. Now I'm guessing OUG has a direct line to god, which I can kind of respect more, than the Chinese whispers of the ancient book of unknown author(s) interpreted by a priest, further interpreted by the believer. Or maybe straight from Bible to believer.

Anyway, have you ever played chineese whispers? It's great fun. Not sure of my point, but the whole God and Devil (Not mentioned enough, needs a better PR company) Heaven and Hell and such I could relate to if it is all part of the psyche. I see similar concepts in my internal reality.

I mean how much of the Bible is useful as metaphors, and how easy an out is that!, when the reader decides this bit's an Aesop fable and that bits literal, and I'm sure I often see people get a whole different idea of what's going on in Mullholland Drive than I do.

Maybe David Lynch is God, or maybe it's me. I suppose MD has lesbian sex scenes so David has the upper hand.

Anyway, what is your position? I assume it's singular as you are both believers. How accurate is Chinese whispers over so many years, in a different dialect, and how do you account for comprehension of the written word, linguistics, translation, or the human interpretation of voices coming into the head, and how sure are you that the devil isn't trickier than you thought.

ie what if it's the devil's work to constrict and conflict with moral dilemmas, and it's god that would be really cruisy and up for free thought and gong with the flow of natural individual human empathy and intelligence?

Crack me up WmTrevor!

The fruit of moral relativism is seen everyday in our society. Selfishness, abortion, perversion, greed is all justified by 'moral relativism' one of the the humanist favourite doctrine. No wonder Hitler with his social darwinism dogma was able to conscience free slaughter so many. Abortionist have followed the same path. Now they putrify the mind of children who have been made in the image of God. What a pathetic mob.

As for the revisionist including Dawkins who insist that Hitler was a Christian they should stop their deceit. It is a pity Pell displayed such an ignorance towards scripture.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/hitler-escapes-atheists-arguments/story-e6frfhqf-1226324219286

runner,

I believe Oliver Cromwell was rather taken with "conscience free slaughter" in the name of "his brand" of Christianity.

I'm fascinated by the way you pick-and-choose which Christians are "real Christians".

whooolio/quote..""how/define..the route..of information/God..to the Bible""

easy..the good stuff..comes via demons
the better stuff..comes via angels...and others,..
[like swedenberg..by personal reveal..]

the bibles/korans/bagdavuita etc..come's..from men writing

IN-spirated..by demons/angels unseen...[wispering
in that inner-voice..[good or vile];..according to its intended in-flux..and the thought they feed/off

the writers felt..IN*spired..
feelings/emotions..to/be rote

not god..
just other..'like/minded spirits'..]...

recall the law..[more shall be a given]..more of the same!
your mind obsesses over!..[good/bad..nice or vile..
its root..lies within..the mind..
[not the brain]..id*

""Seen Raiders""..[nope]

""These morals..need a medium.""

simply writing..is acting..*as medium

you would be surprised..how little..'we'
actually come_up with..

we are all miracle/workers
[created..in the master..*imagemakers image]

""direct line to god,""
as do you..!

one to one..[according to the christ]
emmanuel..:..[god with/in..with/in you..
within..every living thing

""Chinese/whisper's""

you got..the right concept..[cept]
you..*miss what that does...[its like linking minds..*with the dead]

we live-on..in our words/works..[and when
anyone*..reads them...we..[they]got a possable mind/link..[a mind_meld..if you like]

""into..this realm...AS interpreted..by a priest,""

who should be called..to explain..*the truth
but they..are far from/the truth

god is life/logic/love..etc

""further interpreted..by the believer.""

i believe..the right word..=filterd/weighed..considerd/compared
[sorting the wheat..*from the chaff..spoken/said/rote..by goats or sheep]

""ever played..chineese/whispers?""

great point..lol

thats why we..MUST weigh..our inner/thinking
is this thought..good?..[of god/..worthy of..a good/god]!?

or not..?!?

""Heaven/Hell..I could relate to..*if*
it is all..part of the psyche.""

no mate..its how!..all know..!true good..from mans rule
[much more..of the same..will be given]

those loving sin..can only do sin..upon each_other!..[loving the same sin][better and worse..that ye dear yorrick?

[till in time..they seek
the love/light/logic grace/mercy..[and ACTIVLY..:repent]

in the spirit/realms..there are no secrets..we
[or rather..*our soul/body]..is like a mood_ring

[every one knows..everything*]..

or know AN IMMEDIATE truth..is a given
[wether we chose..to believe it..*or not]

""what if..8it's the devil's/work..to constrict..and conflict""

lol
you chose..*to will to DO..[real-ise]
your own choices..to DO good...or*AND..*vile

sure demons..offerd their mindmeld suggestions
but you..*sang them up..&*by thinking vile thought...*[first]

where vile is..love cant go
where love 'is'..hate cant get in!

fear no evil
god is..*within you...live his eternity..
*FEARLESSLY...:for him..[all love/grace mercyfull..:the light sustaining life to love]

one under god - sorry I don't engage with people who:
1. can't construct a sentence. In English;
2. can't spell;
3. can't format their mental disorganisation into something coherent on a page.

Last time I read such floridly thought-disordered attempted communication, I invoked the Mental Health Act...

runner - whatever drivel you posted by Andrew Bolt, I don't subscribe to that rag, hence can't read it. However I am not the least surprised that you do. If you want to make points, try making them yourself or at least post links that work.

Right - that's my 4 posts, anyone wishing to fulminate will have to wait for a reply. I'm not holding my breath for anything iluminating.

Poirot

'I'm fascinated by the way you pick-and-choose which Christians are "real Christians".'

I could actually say the same about the god deniers. Oh thats right they have no way of determining right and wrong so justify anything. Just look at the slaughter of the unborn. And of course yes PSEUDO science confirms its not really killing.

Yup. Absolutely spot on, runner.

>>Poirot 'I'm fascinated by the way you pick-and-choose which Christians are "real Christians".' I could actually say the same about the god deniers.<<

That makes us entirely equal, does it not.

So you're not that special after all, are you.

As I have pointed out a couple of times on this thread, it is society that determines the mores of the times, and religion is a part of that society. It did in Cromwell's day (his brand of puritan christianity sounds much like yours, by the way), just as it does today.

Religion changes its tune over the centuries, along with the rest of society. So you can stop lecturing us from your holier-than-thou pulpit, and come down and join the human race.

Assuming we accept you, that is.

Runner, Andrew Bolt is your source of information, mate that means you are are just puppet talking.

Kipp

well compared with you Bolt is a genius. Sorry to disappoint however but I can assure you Bolt is not a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Good try but you are wrong.

woot has gone moot
[he forgot my bite[toot toot]

love the way the skinny one run away
with the so typical non response[lol]

""one under god

sorry I don't engage with people who:
1. can't construct a sentence. In English;""

mate...you must have tried
but saw the size of the cat you cou8ldnt skin
and ranaway..from the topic all together..[just like moot woot]

""2.can't spell;""

yep ya got me there[i use many wurds
from many formats..clearly your limited in your comprehention]
or afraid of the fact you cant refute...lol

""3.can't format..their mental disorganisation
into something coherent on a page.""

mate...the stuff in ""
is my quoting others questions

im presuming you didnt read pericules questions
before he too wernt silent[dont sweat on it child]
i once was like you..till i realised..the science mud man
has feet of clay]

""Last time...I invoked the Mental Health Act...""

this seems a constant ATHIEST SOLUTION
last time it was re-education camps
for us deluded religionst's..lol

""I'm not holding my breath..for anything iluminating.""

lol your so funny and clever mr sticky

how about you reply my three questions

name the 'first life'..
the*..first living thing's..*GENUS?

two
name the first 'evolution'..of this named genus..
INTO ITS 'evolved'[lol]..NEW 2de/GENUS*..[name it]

3 present the micro-species/evolution..*dna
that..lol..'evolved'..lol...

THREE SIMPLE QUESTIONS!
mr winky

present your science
but you CANT..lol..you ONLY GOT FAITH...in ..science

you..got no idea of the lies
in the THEORY*..the lie of a tree of life

know fact from theor-ry
present fact..[there aint nun]
get it slinky..not one proof..[ITS A THEORY*]

science dont know nuthin
never evolved..any new genus ever!

ya athiesm..rests on feet of clay*

OUG,

Last time we discussed this I helped you express your evolutionary theory as a testable hypothesis. I also provided you with the tools, freely available online (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) to test your hypothesis.

I see that you continue to assert that evolution is limited by some unknown mechanism. Have you generated any data to back up these claims? If so I would be happy to review and help you prepare for publication. After all, such a major discovery would easily be accepted into the journals Nature, or Science. All you need to do is present your data.

hi stezza..great to see you guys come alive[even if only annually]

anyhow..how many new genus this year
have you evolved?

i note trillions of 'breedings globally
has only made young like their own kind

so your lot isnt doing a real lot
why?..cause its a theory

one that would long ago have been refuted..
if it wasnt taught AS FACT..[to innocent children]

you need link to web sites...as if its some proof

mate..name the first life!

name its first genus!

...name what it evoloved into..what next genus?

thing is..you got no proof!
[your THEOry claims science;..PRESENT IT]

you got theory/links

but not one evolution..*of genus...*EVER
two heads dissappear..one
yet no proof

lol

been cruising your link...
seems ya still trying..to rig the game

How do I find data..that used to be in the old Genome database?

The new Genome IDs..lcannot be directly mapped.;.LOL
to the old Genome IDs..because the data types are very different..lol

Each old Genome/ID..lol
represented a single sequence..that can still be found
in Entrez Nucleotide..using standard Entrez searches..or the E-utilities.

We recommend that you convert..old Genome IDs
to Nucleotide GI numbers..using the following remapping file available..on the NCBI/FTPsite:
ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/genomes/old_genomeID2nucGI

The old tabular format has been changed.!*!
The new tables are available here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/browse/

Text versions of the tables..can be downloaded..from the NCBI FTP site:
ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/genomes/GENOME_REPORTS/

Previously developed tables(lproks.cgi,leuks,cgi)
will be supported for the next 2 months,..[lol]

and are available..on the NCBI/FTP site:
ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/genomes/genomeprj/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/news/17Nov2011.html

The new Genome database..shares a close relationship
with the recently...>>redesigned BioProject database
>>>(formerly Genome Project).

Primary information..about genome sequencing projects
in the new Genome database..is stored in the BioProject/database.

BioProject records of type.."Organism Overview"
have become Genome records..with a Genome ID
that maps uniquely..lol..to a BioProject ID.

The new Genome database..also includes
all "genome sequencing"..records in BioProject.



What are the differences..between the old..and new Genome database?

Single genome records..now represent an organism
and not a genome..for one isolate.

A record..can contain multiple genomes..of different strains/isolates lol

or multiple assemblies
of the same isolate/individual.lol

Examples:

Escherichia coli..is only one record
in new Genome database..as opposed to hundreds of chromosomes..and plasmids for different strains.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/167

Mus musculus..is only one record
in new Genome database..*but it points to six different Assemblies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/52

Organelles and plasmids..that are not part of the whole genome (chromosomes)..are no longer indexed*!*!

and therefore cannot be found..lol
by using Genome Search terms...!!

lol

They can be found..only by an organism search."""

NAME NAMES
give actual proof!

''The scope of Genome..has expanded
from only RefSeq genomes..to all genomes..(both INSDC and RefSeq).

The E-utilities(Entrez API)..interface
to Genome..(db=genome)...[lol]..has changed to reflect
the new data model...

Please see the E-utility documentation..for details:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25500/
For example,the Genome DocSum ..Document Summary)has new fields:
http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esummary.fcgi?db=genome&id=176

mate name genus*names
before the conmerchants..name change..yet again

see how they got nuthin?

nice folks
but decieved..by a bad theory

just like they cant concieve a greater good [god]

hey guys im with you
better no church...than one serving the ignorance

we KNOW*..energy can be created nor destroyed

so here is a link...to what happens next
[ie what the church should be teaching]
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13287

here is what happend to sir laurence[of arabia]..at his death
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13286

here is what happend to the 'dead' from the titanic
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13310

here is a photo
of the greater 'he-aven/he-ll'
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13311

lets bbe brave
present our kids the full facts

too many lie to them as it is
who to trust[one good grace/mercy]

your inner god
spoil you..spoil god

but its so much better when you see the good..in other
and decide to heck with it..im going to try to love other

OUG,

I can't tell from your posts whether you have tested your hypothesis or not. I am happy to help you navigate the genome database if you are having trouble. You want to use the BLAST tool to align genomic sequences of species from within the same genera as well as from different genera. Are you actually interested in testing your hypothesis or are you just trolling?

you are a genius stezza
clever man...willing to help...lol
willing to HELP me...DISPROVE ya theory..[yerah right]

ANYTHING BUT YOU VALIDATING
YOUR OWN THEORY!

its your theory...!
[im saying its based on a creeping collusive fraud]
name changing as it goes..your so clever..you want me to refute what?

WHAT DO YOU SAY HAPPEND
name the first life
name its 'first evolutiion into new genus

thing is GIVE ME THE LINK TO the prrof..!
of YOUR deluding decieving THEORY!

i had to hunt..read through so much delusion
to your general link

its like me saying here is a wiki
it prooves you dont got fact..so you post random links

BE SPECIFIC
name genus names
and if ya decided thats too hard

explain what evolved..by what mechanism..lol..into a new genus

by your theory..you claim a fish[cold blood]..
evolves into a warm blood mammal...SeE THE JOKE

how many monkies evolved into pre human today
it cant just be one...with the origonal and the CLAIMED evolution[man]..being aparently stable..[except for that one..evolution'..into new genus]...not one intermediate..egsists in any genus/that became new genus

think why you dont name three genus
cause you dont got a clue

you got faith/hope..in a kids theory
put up links to cookies and stockings..
hoping that proves santa clause =evolution

its not
present actual proof of genus 'evolving'..into neo genus
or be revealed to belief in fairy tales..you claim science
use it to present ya proof..

[you got nuthin]
so ask me to refute a thing/process/addebndumb
you know you cant prove][lol cant validate any fact..no new genus=no valid theory..

so ya mate rewrite it as we speak
PRESENT PROOF OF EVOLVING OF GENUS*

clever
but obvious to all

If you are going to repeat your assertions without any proof, I will repeat my posts explaining how you can prove your theory.

1. You agree that evolution occurs, and this results in the change of organisms over time to produce different species and sub-species.

2. You do not believe that the evolutionary mechanism is capable of producing change on the scale of genus.

3. You believe that 'god' 'creates' new genera and that species within this 'created' genus cannot evolve past a certain point due to DNA repair mechanisms at the species level when the species are "too far from the genus mean".

However:

1. Your critique of genetics (DNA repair) and fossil records as evidence for evolution is not compatible with the theory you discuss, as evolution is proposed to occur through the same mechanism at the sub-species, species and genus level. Thus your arguments are contradict your own beliefs.

2. The statement that a supernatural being interferes with the material world is both unnecessary and non-scientific. As this aspect cannot be proven or disproved, then the requirement for this aspect means that the theory remains in the same category as all other creationist beliefs.

3. The mechanism you propose that prevents evolution into species of a different genus suggests that DNA repair mechanisms vary in efficacy in relation to distance from the genus mean. This is a testable hypothesis. First you would have to define what the 'genus mean' is, and how you would measure 'distance'. Then using a simple program such as http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi you could measure both the variation in the genetic sequence for various genes and well as predict efficacy in DNA repair mechanisms. You can do this yourself from home.

4. You should also state how any species would 'know' the 'genus mean' and their respective distance from it. If this theory is correct then evidence for these measurements would exist in the genome.

You are arguing entirely from a faith position and are intentionally keeping yourself ignorant out of the fear of what you may find out

Stezza/quote..”” If you are going to repeat your assertions without any proof””

Look stezza
Science makes CLAIM*..to science of ‘evolution’
Im saying if you believe..in evolution..PRESENT FIRST GENeUS,
If you HAD PROOF YOU WOULD NAME NAMES

But you got nothing

“” I will repeat my posts””
Lo

“”explaining how you can prove your theory””

My theory is you don’t KNOW*
So redirect attention..but I wont.

“”1. You agree that evolution occurs,””
ONLY AT SPECIES LEVEL”S
Never into new genus,,,[that is YOUR claim..which YOU need prove

Not use trickery..to validate that you cant prove

SPECIES?LEVEL>>evolution..””results in the change of organisms
over time to produce different species* and sub-species*.”””

Lol
IN YOUR OWN WURDS
Lets go ya second lie

“”2. You do not believe that the evolutionary mechanism
is capable of producing change on the scale of genus.””

No that’s true
Reveal the mechanism..that sees a cold blood fish genus
Evolve into a mammal[warmblood]..genus*

“”3. You believe..that 'god' 'creates' new genera
and that species within this 'created' genus cannot evolve past a certain point due to DNA repair mechanisms at the species level when the species are "too far from the genus mean".””

Yes this I agree
So far I give you 2 out of 3

No proof…but im not any authority

I only ASK YOU>>TO PROVE YOUR THEORY.

Reveal your PROOF…
of [evolution..into new genus*]

EVER

science has never witnessed..observed..
nor initiated..any 'change of genus]..ever
thats a thing for you/your theory to prove[not me]

quote..""1.Your critique of genetics..(DNA repair)
and fossil records as evidence for evolution"""

STOP>>
ITS YOU LOT..who say stone is proof
but phenotypical..is no proof of genotype

many ways[geneticly]..to loks like
without needing a specfic mutation[lol..evolution
fossils got no dna..EVOLUTION NEEDS DNA..to verify[the silence indicates..thats not evidenced[no proof]

>>""is not compatible with the theory you discuss""
lol..ITS YOUR LOT presenting it as proof![not me],

""as evolution is proposed to occur,,,through the same mechanism at the sub-species,..species and genus level."""
\
lol[via fossils/dna repair
YOU GOT NO PROOF!

Thus your arguments are evidence of lack of proof
as well as missrepresentation..that..""contradict your own beliefs"".

""2.The statement that..,a supernatural being interferes
with the material world is both unnecessary and non-scientific.""

sure[thats right..you guys got a theory
lol..alians..or acident/chance...lol

""As this aspect cannot be proven or disproved,
then the requirement for this aspect...means that the theory remains in the same category...as all other creationist beliefs"""

says the POT to the KETTLE.
MATE YOUR THE ONE CLAIMING SCIENCE
present it!

""3.The mechanism you propose that prevents evolution..into species of a different genus,suggests that DNA repair mechanisms..*vary in efficacy in relation..to distance from the genus mean.""

yes i got that from darwins finches
in wet weather thin beaks dominate
dry short fat beaks dominate[yet both are genus finch..!

\""This is a testable hypothesis.""

yes i know it is..THATS WHY I PUT IT UP AS ONE OF 7
process..that ensure the genus limitations

please present the means
that alloows change of genus[as evolution prposes[theor-rises]

""First you would have to define..what the 'genus mean' is,""

scientificly..its when they cant breed
praacticly..its that no fertile matings can occur

but mate..genus..is valid
if you say not..you must prove it

""and how you would measure 'distance'.""

the ability
to live/mate/breed
is near..

the rest never*
define the parameters
what genus into which neo genus?

""Then using a simple program such as http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi
you could measure both the variation..in the genetic sequence for various genes..and well as predict efficacy..in DNA repair mechanisms.""

this proves what
you can cut/paste?
\
""You can do this yourself from home.""

i breed just under a 1000 fish each year
not only fish..but a specific species/genus

I NEVER GET ANYTHING but fish from them
GEE are you surpiszed!

4..state how any species would 'know' the 'genus mean'""

it all works/..like a dream
or it dies...it dont know[yet ignorance is no excuse[not for you nor thye dead theory..GIVE PROOF..NAME NAMES[none..means ya got nuthin]

""You are arguing..a faith position
and are intentionally keeping yourself ignorant
out of the fear of what you may find out""

your good with wurds
but ignorant re the science..you claim underpins ya faithlessness

how go you!
make*..your heart beat?

yet another question you dont got answer for..
natural response wont cut it
[nor natural reflex..

nor anything with natural in it..

[NATURES NURTURE belongs to god]..
doing the whole living/evolving thing..so naturally

so precise..yet so naturally
that science cant even explain it..
yet alone theorise how they could copy it

the theory is fraud
your words offer no means..
no mechanism..no insite..as to how god...does any of it

at least give what belongs TO GOD..back to god
at least untill acience evolves its first new genus

Ah, you see OUG, that is where you are mistaken. There are many theories regarding evolution, from pre-Darwin to modern evolutionary synthesis. None of these theories have been developed by myself, however I do understand them and their implications. You have proposed: That evolution occurs within a species, but is limited by DNA repair mechanisms that vary in efficacy in relation to distance from the genus mean.

This is yet another evolutionary theory. You proposed this theory, although I helped you express it in a coherent sentence on your behalf. Since this theory is testable then it may be correct. However until you or someone else tests this theory, it remains simply an untested idea. The onus is on you to to provide evidence of YOUR theory. If you can provide evidence I will gladly accept your theory. If you remain too cowardly to test your idea then it is obvious that even you do not think that it is true, so why would anyone else.

Time to put up or shut up

stezza/quote''Time to put up or shut up"""

what follows must 'be' his proof of genus evolution

""Ah, you see OUG,
that is where you are mistaken.

There are many theories regarding evolution,
from pre-Darwin to modern evolutionary synthesis.""

lol your funny..ha ha
darwins finches..are my egsample..lol
of fluctuating between the genus [finch genus]..mean

see in dry times..short thick genes'survive best]
in wet times the longbeaked species..survives best
BOTH ARE FINCHES....again lets call on DARWINS pigions

the bluebar columbia
that varies within its genus mean
from fan tail..to jacobin...to pouter to crested tumbler's
ALL VAIRIATTIONS OF THE COLUMBIA GENUS

i love darewin

""None of these theories
have been developed by myself,""

me neither

YOU SHOW ME YOURS
i will show you..MANY OF THE SAME NAMES
but you havnt lol read them...lol..have you

read the four volumes[plus]..from darwin..[origen of SPECIES]
because EVEN he never heard of ewvolution OUT OF genus

""however I do understand them
and their implications.""

lol

""You have proposed:That""
,ocro-""evolution occurs within a species,
but is limited by DNA repair mechanisms..that vary
in efficacy..in relation to distance from the genus mean.""

no
you see even darwin
noted dominant/resesesive..expresions
within the genotype..[finch or rockdove]..acording to phenotype
[after the finches..were all proved to 'be' finches..!

same breeds same
WHY DIDNT DARWIN WRITE..[evolution of genus?

cause he PROVED genus dont evolve
and any one..BREEDING fruitflies..and getting only genus fruitfly
validates my truth too[you claim evolution=new genus..darwin and i state..its only species specific..pre-egsistant..WITHIN the gernomic quotant..of its family genus

"" Since this theory is testable
then it may be correct.""

sure/
the firstnew genus to evolve refutes mine
TROUBLE BEING..not one ever*

please present one proof of a genus evolving into a new genus

NUN EGSISTS
cause its a lie!

""The onus is on you..to to provide evidence of YOUR theory.""

lol

MY THEORY=no change of genus
you say there is proof of evolution of genus

*PRESENT IT*

"MY THEORY=no change of genus"

We have established that. We have also established that you are not willing to perform a simple experiment to prove your theory. Perhaps you have done the experiment and found that you are wrong.

Hey stezza! Ever bashed your head repeatedly against a brick wall? It feels really, really good when you stop..

Best of luck, Stezza. Whatever you do don't try this (my feeble effort)...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12050#210411

despite the cheer squad
no proof...lol

stezzra/quote...:oug:..''"MY THEORY=no change of genus"

stezza replie..""We have established that.""

thank you for that surrender

""We have..*also established
that you are not willing ..to perform
a simple experiment..to prove your theory.""

there you are wrong my child
see i breed chicken and doves and fish
never have i bred nothing NOT WITHIN ITS GENUS*
[ie nothing EVER..not like its parents..EVER*

""Perhaps you have done the experiment""

i do it everyday...my guppies ONLY breed guppies
my dog's only br4eed dogs..my pigions only pigions
and my chooks only breed chooks[my herb garden breeds plants..AFTER THEIR OWN KIND! too

aqnd despite ALL this PROOF..in favour on MY theory
you got the hide to say..""and found that you are wrong""

present facts
present PROOF

name genus that evolved into other genus
[some nutter just commented horseevolution..lol
that was instantly refuted...but he[she?].. at least named a genus

your sayiong im right
then trying to refute me by saying im wrong

in les than 30 words
not one proof..thus opinion
athiests having faith in science..lol

faith..in a lie
present the fauksifyables
that if refuted refute ya theory

what you aint got nun...lol
cause you got a tHEOry*..NOT A SCIENCE*

try takinhg evolution
as a subject...or geting a degree
its so subdivided into little groups..
so as to..*never get to..the huge lie..

NO GENUS HAS EVOLVED EVER*
thats what the facts..[of like breeding like,,,,: says]

humans breed humans
apes breed apes...
dogs breed dogs

lol
you say,,*they dont!

that needs proof!

I know I am just wasting my time, arguing with a creationist. However I think that it is important to challenge creationists when they try to use science to argue their points. After all, while we can't prove that god didn't "dun it"(sic), we can show that we are guided by evidence and not faith. After all, if OUG did perform these experiments, and prove that he/she is correct, I would gladly accept this and even help him/her publish the results. However I think that this discussion has shown that people like OUG are not interested in the truth, rather they wish to argue against science as some blind faith in their god.

I think a common confusion results from how we (humans) have classified life forms into categories -species, genera etc. In reality all life is a continuous spectra, as demonstrated by anthropology, developmental biology, genetics etc. This is evident in current discoveries of species such as Australopithecus garhi and Homo gautengensis, which have so many similarities it is difficult to classify them into one genera or the other. What OUG doesn't understand is that changes happen in small increments over millions of years.

For now OUG can keep his/her head in their fish tank.

ztezza/quote..""""Then using a simple program such as http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi
you...could measure..both the variation..
in the genetic sequence
for various genes""

your link lists 12 sequences
'this link links all[that they got]...lol
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/

plants have 118 sequences
104 floweering plants
9 conefers
4 algie
1 moss
17 fungi

so your THEORY..MAKES YOU SAY,,patent absurdities
REFUTED by your own link[or rather my link from your link

stezzra.."" I think a common confusion..""

YOUR COMMON CONFUSION>>""results from how wehave classified life forms into categories -species, genera etc.""
read the link and weep..LOL

notice that colum on the LEFT?
that uses..lol..'scientific names'

""Cavia{genus}..porcellus{species]
common name..Domestic guinea pig

Cricetulus griseus
Chinese hamster

Rattus norvegicus
rat

ok
lets build a rat..
your tools are
Search or Browse the Genome

BLAST

Clone Finder

Go to region..on a chromosome
ya got nuthin..and now lost ya theo-wry]

Genome Resources page http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=10116

it tells us the liniage..[theoreticly..of the rat]
VIA GENUS>>!..[not species]!
Lineage: Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi; Mammalia; Eutheria; Euarchontoglires; Glires; Rodentia; Sciurognathi; Muroidea; Muridae; Murinae; Rattus; Rattus norvegicus

NOW LETS REPEAT your insanity

""In reality all life is a continuous spectra,""

well mate..your wrong
but lets look at ya proof?

""as demonstrated by anthropology,
developmental biology,..genetics etc.""

so you say

im not a student/..i ask for proof!

you claim science...
and its not proving anything
just UNVERIFIED speculative liniar decent from acolites

NOT THAT YOU GENIOUS NAMED IT
lol..couldnt name first THEORETICAL life[genus

and here you go again

lol

""This is evident in current discoveries..of species*
lol

you claim science
yet still think in species
its clever..but what happend to genus

remember...[first CLAIMED
living genus=Eukaryota]

which evolves into
Metazoa;..Chordata;..Craniata[genus/genious*]

TO WIT
NOT SPECIES..get it yet?

IM NOT LOOKING TO PATENt.. BITS OF GENE sequence$
your big picture..lol..is just minutia

new link[from yourn]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/submit/

leads to
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/genomesubmit-examples

they are just formating stealing genes
prior to patenting..say the fish gene put into strawberries

lets see what they got..on..Australopithecus garhi
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/structure/?term=Australopithecus%20garhi

how do you sleep at night
lying to kids

you know you got nuthin

just like anyone who dared look at the facts realise
but so may were called..so few even have a clue

but lets go..""and Homo gautengensis,..""
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/structure?term=Homo%20gautengensis

that you say""which have so many similarities..
it is difficult to classify them into one genera or the other.""

lol
21031..claims..on bits

not verifying nuthing
its about claiming bits
and ignoring the lie's..of genus..line of accent[lol]

What stezzra doesn't understand
is that changes happen..WITHIN THE FAMILY GENOME*
in small increments over millions of years.,,,wavering within their genus mean

to wit..'fossils'
near identical to 'living fossils'
to wit still crocidile..still algie

to wit MICRO EVOLVING WITHIN ITS GENUS MEAN!
nun so blind as those who take things on faith

so yes you were close
""..and well as predict efficacy..in DNA repair mechanisms.""

yes genes will be big..in time
but evolution didnt evolve nuthin
and science wont ever want to face the truth

but you can
you can DO THE RESEARCH..not just pass on athiest links
that speak in very specific sequences..not genus evolution

I think that this discussion,,has shown that people
like stezza..are not interested in the truth,

rather they wish..to HIDE behind science site
as confirming..their blind faith,in their godfree alternative's.

they abuse science
by not refuting the lie..of evoliution exta[out of]..genus

This must be the first time someone has been accused of "hiding behind science" in a scientific debate.

"wavering within their genus mean"

What is "genus mean"?

Perhaps you could tell me the "genus mean" of Arabidopsis, one of most commonly studied organisms

lok ya got nuthin

Definition for arabidopsis:
Web definitions:

a genus of the mustard family
having white or yellow or purplish flowers;

closely related to genus* Arabis.

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

END QUOTE!

what DNA PROOF YA GOT?
what are you really trying to say?

but lets dig deeper

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5449/2468.full

OH dear the second search term
WANTS CASH*...surprise surprise..lol

oh well we got this..for free

""
www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5449/2468.full

by GP Copenhaver Cited by 304 - Related articles
24 Dec 1999 – Physical maps of the genetically defined Arabidopsis centromeres.""

Physical sizes were derived from DNA sequencing
(chromosomes II and IV) ...

Arabidopsis mutant analysis
and gene regulation define a..."""
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8643469
that sounds interesting

Arabidopsis mutant analysis and gene regulation..lol
define a nonredundant role for glutamate dehydrogenase..in nitrogen assimilation...droll..

next!

""Arabidopsis mutants""..AHHH
finally...

http://www.plantcell.org/content/10/7/1121.full

define an in vivo role..for isoenzymes of ...""..

HUH?
site refused to download

next
""Arabidopsis hot Mutants
Define Multiple Functions Required for...

www.plantphysiol.org/content/132/2/757.full

LOL
redirected
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CHMQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plantphysiol.org%2Fcontent%2F132%2F2%2F757.full&ei=bI-PT-7gOImQiAeehKT6Aw&usg=AFQjCNEaGiEg3NqSUMWSM2LSmlpdUgY2Eg&sig2=PUE1mxlYZ45CiKHLQl_B2Q

Defining the Mitochondrial Stress Response
in Arabidopsis thaliana

mplant.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/6/1310.full.pdf

LOOK PLEASE BE PRECISE
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING THIS PROVES?

im not baffled by your redirection
then sneaking away

its sop
for the faithfull..faithless
needing any excuse...reason..to hate others..thus hating god...too

Well you can lead a horse to water...

yes ya can think your leading a horse to water
but the pond is so poluted..only those loving their ignorances
would call it water..

""What is "genus mean"?

""Perhaps you could tell me the "genus mean"..of Arabidopsis,
one of most commonly studied organisms""

Definition for arabidopsis:
Web definitions:

a genus of the mustard family
having white or yellow or purplish flowers;

thus the genus mean..
[+]wildtype=..will look as defined abouve

it will breed fertile offspring
as long as fertile offspring result..its still arabidopsis genus

Currently the genus Arabidopsis..has nine species
and a further eight subspecies recognised.

these should usually be fertile..in crossbreedng

This delimitation is quite recent,
and is based on morphological and molecular phylogenies

Reclassified species

The following species
previously placed in Arabidopsis
are not currently considered part of the genus....LOL*

A. bactriana= Dielsiocharis bactriana
A. brevicaulis= Crucihimalaya himalaica
A. bursifolia= Beringia bursifolia
A. campestris= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. dentata= Murbeckiella pinnatifida
A. drassiana=
A. erysimoides= Erysimum hedgeanum
A. eseptata= Olimarabidopsis umbrosa
A. gamosepala= Neotorularia gamosepala
A. glauca= Thellungiella salsuginea
A. griffithiana= Olimarabidopsis pumila
A. himalaica= Crucihimalaya himalaica
A. huetii= Murbeckiella huetii
A. kneuckeri= Crucihimalaya kneuckeri
A. korshinskyi= Olimarabidopsis cabulica
A. lasiocarpa= Crucihimalaya lasiocarpa
A. minutiflora= Ianhedgea minutiflora
A. mollis= Beringia bursifolia
A. mollissima= Crucihimalaya mollissima
A. monachorum= Crucihimalaya lasiocarpa
A. mongolica= Crucihimalaya mongolica
A. multicaulis= Arabis tibetica
A. novae-anglicae= Neotorularia humilis
A. nuda= Drabopsis nuda
A. ovczinnikovii= Crucihimalaya mollissima
A. parvula= Thellungiella parvula
A. pinnatifida= Murbeckiella pinnatifida
A. pumila= Olimarabidopsis pumila
A. qiranica= Sisymbriopsis mollipila
A. richardsonii= Neotorularia humilis
A. russeliana= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. salsugineum= Eutrema salsugineum
A. sarbalica= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. schimperi= Robeschia schimperi
A. stenocarpa= Beringia bursifolia
A. stewartiana= Olimarabidopsis pumila
A. stricta= Crucihimalaya stricta
A. taraxacifolia= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. tenuisiliqua= Arabis tenuisiliqua
A. tibetica= Crucihimalaya himalaica
A. tibetica= Arabis tibetica
A. toxophylla= Pseudoarabidopsis toxophylla
A. trichocarpa= Neotorularia humilis
A. trichopoda= Beringia bursifolia
A. tschuktschorum= Beringia bursifolia
A. tuemurnica= Neotorularia humilis
A. verna= Drabopsis nuda
A. virgata= Beringia bursifolia
A. wallichii= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. yadungensis
http://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/Haseloff/teaching/PDFlists/2002_PDFs/AlShehbaz2002.pdf

... but you cannot make her think.

I think it's best if we just leave one under god to her strange rants. She is either a couple of chasers short of a quidditch team or an unusual breed of troll. Like some horrid festering sore from the days of yore before antibiotics she won't just go away: but picking at her is really not going to help.

Cheers,

Tony

I have been following this exchange with some amusement, but now I think you guys are just being mean to OUG. It's obvious that he doesn't know how to use the BLAST tool, or how it is supposed to be interpreted. I am not sure that a simple web blast tool is the most appropriate tool for the job you described anyway Stezza, even if you knew how to use it and interpret it. I have noticed that even though species is supposed to be the basic unit of taxonomy, and that generally they aren't supposed to breed, i.e. they are reproductively isolated (Mayr), it has been pointed out to him that some species can and they are generally closely related, which is why he has switched the usual argument for species up a level to 'genus'. Which is why he talks about a 'genus mean' and thinking that species within genera can somehow interbreed. I do not know what OUG means by 'genus mean', but I gather it has something to do with genetic or phenotypic variability, which is measurable. I also note that OUG has listed about 50 species that were formerly classified as Arabidopsis, but now are not. What happened OUG? Did they evolve out of their genus? If so, this refutes your theory. If they were merely misclassified, this shows us that the genus level name is a taxonomic construct, useful for scientific purposes, but with no real world meaning. Which would refute your theory and reduce your calling for 'naming the first life' etc. to jibberish to anyone who has done first year biology.

The only problem is that for anything he writes to get traction, OUG will have to educate himself in actual theory, rather than just autodidactic stoner speculation. It aint gonna happen, so I usually ignore his posts as internet grafitti. I guess every now and then someone thinks that they have caught the dude with the spraycan and tries to put the boot in, but that doesn't work, he always comes back.

thanks bugsy/quote..""I am not sure..that a simple web blast tool..is the most appropriate tool...for the job you described anyway Stezza,""

yes..maybe if i had the sequence
but clearly no one here has..any claim

its not the proof some want to believe
validates out of genus/fertile offspring

i been waiting for the 'mule'
[the *non breeding horse/donkey]
the gave to settlers[so they couldnt breed anything

but lets return to what you said to teazer
""even if you knew..how to use it and interpret it.""

im gratfull

"" I have noticed..that even though species..
is supposed to be the basic unit..of taxonomy""

I THINK..the links reveal..
[those deleted from genus..DECIEVED BY LOOKS LIKE*
ie like phenotype fossils look like[yet arnt]

want proof looks like is dECEPTIVE,,TO THE EXTREEM

""Reclassified species

The following species
previously placed in Arabidopsis
are not currently considered part of the genus....LOL*"""

""and that generally..they aren't supposed to breed,
i.e. they are reproductively isolated(Mayr),""

like mules?

""it has been pointed out..??..Mayer?
that some species can..and they are generally closely related,
which is why he..[me]has switched..the usual argument for species
up a level to 'genus'.""

which he is me?
neither

i talk in genus..cause its formed..under taxonomic lie

the true limit of genus..is viable young surviving
that breed..*like..after their own kind!

micro evolving between..the mean..of its genus
within the limites of its genes gernomics

the genomic quotant..of its parental genus limits

tell me..if your so clever
how non sexual evolution..changes its genus

it cant
only our man measures...can be in error

mendelism//mendelic inhertors
that alone refutes genus evolving
look at a mendelic ratio chart!

continues

Hey come on guys. If you want to engage with OUG, then engage with his arguments, don't insult him. I must admit to having trouble following him a lot of the time, but that doesn't mean he should be censored on the forum. I wish he wouldn't put so many line breaks into his posts.

Moderator

Le mot juste.

>>OUG... autodidactic stoner speculation<<

Thank you Bugsy.

Ooops...

Sorry Graham

bugsy/quote..""..even though species..is supposed to be the basic unit of taxonomy,..*and that generally..*they aren't..*supposed to breed,i.e...they are reproductively isolated (Mayr),""

usually..till man gets it right
and says livability..limits genus evolution[plus at least 7 repair mechanisms[the clever thing god dun was making two strands[usually]..each a mirrow image of the other[its brilliant]

""it has been pointed out..that some species can
\and they are generally closely related,..""

within the same genus[if fertile]
if infertile related genus[..*mule]

""which is why he has switched the usual argument..for species
up a level..to 'genus'...Which is why he talks about a 'genus mean'""

you got it
even the pope has swallowed the genus illusion
thanks

""and thinking that species..within genera can somehow interbreed.""

and lack of living offspring[from say human to ape
confirms*..a different genus*

of course of proof egsists for ape/human?

naw...lol

""I do not know what OUG means by 'genus mean',..but I gather it has something to do with genetic or phenotypic variability, which is measurable.""

yes that is true too!
again it depends on breeding living offspring

as darwin pointed out!
any of the different domestic pigions[when bred together
get closer..to the common[genus mean]..the wildtype rockdove

fertile return to [wikldtype[+]..[genus mean]
the unfit mutants weak sickly DIFFERNT die*

if you looked at living things
not just book THEORY*..you would get it

[and by explaining it better..do better to getting at the real truth!]
i know god dun it[just cant see how]..

you too will see
evolution of genus is the lie

domesticlly ..WE picked minour erors..
[dominant sports/mutations..as much as resesive's]..
and harmoised their limited gernome..[cannus]..colmbialiva etc

but the parental[wild type]..
is completed..re joined...when the divergent domestiicated lines RE combine..in fertile union..![and breed][and survive]

and thus a pouter\fantail
breed back to their genomic mean[+]
the blue bar rock dove columbia liva wildtype[+]

""listed..50 species
that were *formerly classified as Arabidopsis,""lol

""but now are not...What happened OUG?""

taxonomy failed!
not genetics nor mendelism

looks like=pheno*type
no proof of genomic linkage !
no proof of dna EVOLVING*

they wernt..!
what science said.
[;.!-taxonomicxly]..they SCIENTIFICLY?..DEFINITIVLY said they were!*!

which corupted micro species evolution..fact..[within genus]
into genus evolutionary THEOry...by complicite peer revieuwed deciete[lie]

??Did they evolve
out of their genus?""

no!

the theory self corrected
then silently sneakilly withdrew it

SEE LINK

FOR DECADES they PEER revieued/TAUGHT AS FACT..a huge lie!

""If they were merely \..LOL..misclassified,""

mate i been..to jail
8 times]..by the taxonomic LIES!

that states in court under oath..all cannabis = cannabis sative

I KNOW ITS A LIE!
i proved it in court!
but jury swallowed PEER PRESURE!

and the sin of letting a fixture grow
was born..[because of taxonomic LIES*

taxonomy was sworn true..for 60 years
its now revealed to be a LIE!

""this shows us that the genus level name..is a taxonomic construct, useful for scientific purposes,..but with no real world meaning.""

lol says those who know nought of what they speak
and believe..FED BY DECEPTIVE LIES!

genus is valid
the theory..of evolution of it..is fraud

show me this half cold blod fish
half warm blood mammal...lol

YOU BELIEVE TAXONOMY>>WAS SCIENCE PROOF
but now that lie simply dissappears?

genus been arround for hundreds of years
but taxonomy is a revealed refuted lie
just as evolution OUT OF GENUS

present just one!

please bugsy
dont give up

i really want to know how god done it

and evolution is a theory full of holes
scientific name 'gaps'

the dna testing prooved taxonomy[looks like];phenotype..is wrong

and your about the only one who knows thats proper nomiculture[even if i mis spell it..or call it my word...genus i definitive

it looked like a yellow mustard plant
but 90%..definitivly NOW are not

thats huge

what of the theory
the tree of life project got quietly shut down
after dna destroed it..the genetic displays at the london botanical gardens..been relaid..[cause the theory of evoplutioin..WAS PROVED WRONG

decieved by looks like
phenotype..just like looks life with fossils is full of holes

at least explain to the less informed
its a theory..with feet of clay

bits of this
bits of that

the new age religion for the irreligious
fast failing to validate its own science..or correct past lies

so many times we hear of missing links
what of hidden lies?

the sadness
the silence

not of minds thinking
but minds snapping close

loving the lie

im sader for you
who fein belief..in others

science lies
just as priests lie

many is the professor
loving his status..even if by fraud
[they think your too dumbed down,..to want to..even try
to get the facts..rather than k by blind faith claim an impossability

every bit as insane as santa clause
comming down chimminies

you got no idea of the real values
pearl before swine..you CHOSE human incarnation to help

do try to recall why you were born...man
not beast*

evolve ya thinking
if you cant exoplain it..DEMAND they prove it

you seen it
nuthing

as usual

this board is a resplendent example of the old adage that empty vessels make the most sound.

Posted
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13537&page=0

by..EricG,/quote..""Do you know the scientific method?
Blind faith is the antithesis of science.""

yes an interesting point
how do you explain..the claim..'evolution'[macro..]
;as in mutating..*out of one genus
and creating..[evolving]..into other genus

DO YOU HAVE ONE..fully faulsafyable witness
[let alone any 'science proof.!
of a change of genus..

[as postulated..by many
by faith in..the THEORy of evolution}

i have asked many
but you make this high claim

""The whole idea..is NOT to require faith
but to look for the answer.""

so have you the proof of even one genus
evolving into any other genus

like that postulated..by the now busted..THEORY
[the tree of life project]..and the destruction of taxonomy..as being 'science'

see..as you know
many genus..are loosing their claimed genus relations
[via dna not validating gene linkage[let alone evolution..exta genus

seems many divergent mutations create..a phenotype[looks like]
but..*we now KNOW..their dna..isnt validating the genetic's evolving[as the theory..*would need..to be science]

most hold theory
but you claim fact

please lets get serious..

if you dont got the science
the theory is void..[based on fossil;ie.lookslike..
not genomic linkage proof for genus evolution..by actual[not theoretical..[genotype]

the tree of like..is more a forrest
please..name the first ';life..[by genus]
and what it evolved into[by genus][..with dna..to link fact with fact

not faith with theory

""From my career in genetics and molecular biology..and lecturing on the scientific method,..the worst scientists that I worked with were those...*who had too much faith!!

""in their own abilities and ideas
and consequently did not check if their methods worked correctly every time or test other ideas..to see if they were better explanations.""

i dont want a better story
I WANT SCIENCE PROOF..the dna linkage[genotype]

not looks like..[phentype]
[what are the bounds..of genus]

where is evolution..out/of[from]..parental genus..
in mendelic ratio's..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13479&page=0