Learn About God

If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?

That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.

Quote from: sircool on December 08, 2015, 09:12:31 AM

If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?

That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.

it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 08:40:18 AM

Quote from: sircool on December 08, 2015, 09:12:31 AM

If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?

That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.

it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?

Changing from one type of worm to another is a minor change between non living material turning into a worm. The only evolution I believe in is micro evolution, a kind splitting into species (like the canine turning into the fox, wolf, cayote, and dog).

Quote from: sircool on December 12, 2015, 12:52:52 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 08:40:18 AM

Quote from: sircool on December 08, 2015, 09:12:31 AM

If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?

That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.

it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?

Changing from one type of worm to another is a minor change between non living material turning into a worm. The only evolution I believe in is micro evolution, a kind splitting into species (like the canine turning into the fox, wolf, cayote, and dog).

That's reasonable, and you would agree this could happen in a course of a few thousand years?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 12, 2015, 03:48:55 PM

Quote from: sircool on December 12, 2015, 12:52:52 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 08:40:18 AM

Quote from: sircool on December 08, 2015, 09:12:31 AM

If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?

That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.

it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?

Changing from one type of worm to another is a minor change between non living material turning into a worm. The only evolution I believe in is micro evolution, a kind splitting into species (like the canine turning into the fox, wolf, cayote, and dog).

That's reasonable, and you would agree this could happen in a course of a few thousand years?

I don't see why not. Most of the dogs for example were bred by humans for a specific task.

Quote from: sircool on December 12, 2015, 05:25:33 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 12, 2015, 03:48:55 PM

Quote from: sircool on December 12, 2015, 12:52:52 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 08:40:18 AM

Quote from: sircool on December 08, 2015, 09:12:31 AM

If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?

That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.

it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?

Changing from one type of worm to another is a minor change between non living material turning into a worm. The only evolution I believe in is micro evolution, a kind splitting into species (like the canine turning into the fox, wolf, cayote, and dog).

That's reasonable, and you would agree this could happen in a course of a few thousand years?

I don't see why not. Most of the dogs for example were bred by humans for a specific task.

Then can you imagine what kind of changes that will occur in hundreds of million perhaps billions of years?

Well, first off, there are plenty of evidence that prove a young earth which I will provide a link for that later.

Second, there are limits in the gene code. By that logic I could say that we can get dogs as big as Texas because we have dogs as big as the Great Dane.

Here's an article on the young earth.

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

Hopefully at the very least you'll agree that they give more evidence for a young earth than FEs with the flat earth.

Well, first off, there are plenty of evidence that prove a young earth which I will provide a link for that later.

Second, there are limits in the gene code. By that logic I could say that we can get dogs as big as Texas because we have dogs as big as the Great Dane.

Well, science has shown us that mutations allways occurs, because the moore complex a molecule gets, the bigger risk for a structural flaw. There are no reason to "believe" the genes have stopped mutating, and we know by observations that mutations occur in the human genome every day.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 12, 2015, 07:06:13 PM

Well, first off, there are plenty of evidence that prove a young earth which I will provide a link for that later.

Second, there are limits in the gene code. By that logic I could say that we can get dogs as big as Texas because we have dogs as big as the Great Dane.

Well, science has shown us that mutations allways occurs, because the moore complex a molecule gets, the bigger risk for a structural flaw. There are no reason to "believe" the genes have stopped mutating, and we know by observations that mutations occur in the human genome every day.

I have no argument against mutations. They happen all the time. I do however object to them changing one kind of animal (let's say a dinosaur) and turn it into another (a bird). All mutations we see are scrambling existing information, not adding foreign or new information. Also all mutations are either neutral or negative to the organism.

Quote from: sircool on December 13, 2015, 03:17:08 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 12, 2015, 07:06:13 PM

Well, first off, there are plenty of evidence that prove a young earth which I will provide a link for that later.

Second, there are limits in the gene code. By that logic I could say that we can get dogs as big as Texas because we have dogs as big as the Great Dane.

Well, science has shown us that mutations allways occurs, because the moore complex a molecule gets, the bigger risk for a structural flaw. There are no reason to "believe" the genes have stopped mutating, and we know by observations that mutations occur in the human genome every day.

I have no argument against mutations. They happen all the time. I do however object to them changing one kind of animal (let's say a dinosaur) and turn it into another (a bird). All mutations we see are scrambling existing information, not adding foreign or new information. Also all mutations are either neutral or negative to the organism.

It seems you are overthinking this one, when a mutations happens, it can either be good, bad or neutral to the animal.
Good: the animal will produce more offspring (the mutations pass on)
Bad: the animal will produce less offspring (the mutations die off)
Neutral: no effect.

There's really not much more too it.

Have we seen a good mutation?

Have we seen a good mutation?

Blue eyes are one example.
My favourite is the fur on the polar bear.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 13, 2015, 08:59:59 AM

Have we seen a good mutation?

Blue eyes are one example.
My favourite is the fur on the polar bear.

Those are examples of traits already in the gene pool being expressed. My definition of a mutation is a scrambling of existing or adding new information. White hair on polar bears is trait in the gene code being pronounced.

Quote from: sircool on December 13, 2015, 09:03:27 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 13, 2015, 08:59:59 AM

Have we seen a good mutation?

Blue eyes are one example.
My favourite is the fur on the polar bear.

Those are examples of traits already in the gene pool being expressed. My definition of a mutation is a scrambling of existing or adding new information. White hair on polar bears is trait in the gene code being pronounced.

Too bad we can't make up our own definitions on science. A mutation in biology and chemistry is the re-arrangement of the molecular structure of DNA. Those two examples are well known to be mutations in biochemistry. They are actually very well understood too. Basically one electron less or more in an atom in the DNA can cause nothing, or something. What the something is, is hard to say, because it might affect everything from intelligence to bigger nails.
The interesting thing is that if you compare the DNA of the ancestor of a polar bear, with the polar bear, you can see what the mutation is, because the rest of the genome is identical.

Ok, you're right about making definitions but the gene to make white was already in the gene pool. Maybe this video will help.

Hey, wanna agree to disagree?

I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video anyway:p

Hey, wanna agree to disagree?

I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video anyway:p

Sure, I'm right, your wrong, that settles it.

But seriously though I think we can agree to disagree, besides I think we got off topic. The video is there whenever you want to watch. God bless.

There is a kind of bacteria that has been found to be able to eat nylon. The problem is, nylon was invented in 1935, and is a competelly synthetic plastic. One step further: when given a nylon rich enviroment, it has been shown that bacteria that did not have this mutation do eventually evolve this mutation.

There is a kind of bacteria that has been found to be able to eat nylon. The problem is, nylon was invented in 1935, and is a competelly synthetic plastic. One step further: when given a nylon rich enviroment, it has been shown that bacteria that did not have this mutation do eventually evolve this mutation.

This article explains that. In short, they lost information to be able to eat nylon.
http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress

Quote from: Conker on December 13, 2015, 11:10:45 AM

There is a kind of bacteria that has been found to be able to eat nylon. The problem is, nylon was invented in 1935, and is a competelly synthetic plastic. One step further: when given a nylon rich enviroment, it has been shown that bacteria that did not have this mutation do eventually evolve this mutation.

This article explains that. In short, they lost information to be able to eat nylon.
http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress

That would violate conservation of information. Unless you are redefining the word information? Do you actually mean "lost pieces of their DNA"? Because that is a mutation, and by definition is changing the information of the system. Remember: there is not such a thing as a degradation in evolution, only fitter organism and less fit organisms. If a change in DNA makes bacteria fitter (such as in this case), then the trait is kept. If its detrimental under a particular selection pressure, it will result in a disadvantage, and will get cast away over time.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 13, 2015, 11:15:27 AM

Quote from: Conker on December 13, 2015, 11:10:45 AM

There is a kind of bacteria that has been found to be able to eat nylon. The problem is, nylon was invented in 1935, and is a competelly synthetic plastic. One step further: when given a nylon rich enviroment, it has been shown that bacteria that did not have this mutation do eventually evolve this mutation.

This article explains that. In short, they lost information to be able to eat nylon.
http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress

That would violate conservation of information. Unless you are redefining the word information? Do you actually mean "lost pieces of their DNA"? Because that is a mutation, and by definition is changing the information of the system. Remember: there is not such a thing as a degradation in evolution, only fitter organism and less fit organisms. If a change in DNA makes bacteria fitter (such as in this case), then the trait is kept. If its detrimental under a particular selection pressure, it will result in a disadvantage, and will get cast away over time.

Throughout the thread when I said "information" I was reffering to the gene code. Also if you're saying that in the theory of evolution there's no such thing as degradation then I would agree with you, but if you're saying that there's no such thing in nature then I would disagree because the Neanderthals had a larger brain capacity and more muscle mass then is as the video I gave above explains.

I will teach you about God.
He doesn't exist.