With no goal in sight and by purely accidental mutations .... how did the 16 step Cascade System of Blood Clotting when a cut occurs to the human body , come about ? In case the Reader is not aware of this process....upon a cut occurring, a chemical is released which triggers another chemical to be formed which releases another chemical, etc...for 15 steps ...then on the last 16th step, vitamin B which is not related to any of the prior chemicals being released, is produced which completes the biological process. The entire human bodys skin has this waiting to occur .
Please offer the evolutionary truth of how this first came about ? Please do not antagonistically suggest I read an Evolution Book , or 'get schooled' , or become educated as lame excuses. Instead, please tell how Evolution did it specifically , cogently, and step by step which supports your atheistic view of life and biological systems. If you care to, post an online treatise for this specifically which lends credibility to your Evolutionary mindset. Thanks.
blood clotting mechanism evolution (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=blood+clotting+mechanism+evolution&l=1)
First result in the list... (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html)
Because the organism in question had the right DNA sequence to make it happen. Eventually, the ones that didn't probably died out as a viable species because not enough of them lived long enough to reproduce.
Don't be silly, only a god could have done that simply by thinking it into existence, the same god so terrified of menstrual "juice" that he banned women away during that awful icky messy stuff...ewwwwww.......cause that's what real gods do ya know.
I have no fucking clue how that works. You should ask an evolutionary biologist, he probably knows. Or use google.
How come God never poofed a fully functioning Boeing 747 into existence using nothing more than a tornado and a junk yard?
Quote from: SGOSHow come God never poofed a fully functioning Boeing 747 into existence using nothing more than a tornado and a junk yard?
Well he did sort of. He poofed a 777 right out of existence! :o
Well, that's something, I guess.
Quote from: Jason78blood clotting mechanism evolution
First result in the list...
Psssh! You and your data. We can't have that here. God did it. You need Jesus in your life.
Quote from: Shol'va on March 14, 2014, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: Jason78blood clotting mechanism evolution
First result in the list...
Psssh! You and your data. We can't have that here. God did it. You need Jesus in your life.
Why would you need a zombie?
Quote from: josephpalazzoQuote from: Shol'va on Today at 01:33:46 PMQuote from: Jason78blood clotting mechanism evolution
First result in the list...Psssh! You and your data. We can't have that here. God did it. You need Jesus in your life.
Why would you need a zombie?
The way to the kingdom is through TWD silly. ::)
Whatever. All y'all are just upset that Dave just checkmated the shit out of you.
Quote from: Shol'vaWhatever. All y'all are just upset that Dave just checkmated the shit out of you.
Drats! Foiled again!
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 14, 2014, 02:50:59 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzoQuote from: Shol'va on Today at 01:33:46 PMQuote from: Jason78blood clotting mechanism evolution
First result in the list...Psssh! You and your data. We can't have that here. God did it. You need Jesus in your life.
Why would you need a zombie?
The way to the kingdom is through TWD silly. ::)
Robert Kirkman... is that you?
But does this also mean that it could not have evolved? Not at all. The key to understanding the evolution of this intricate system, as Russell Doolittle has pointed out, is the fact that the clotting factors share an exquisite and revealing similarity.Building the MachineTo paraphrase Darwin, the notion that evolution could have produced a system as intricate as the blood clotting cascade seems, we might freely confess, "absurd in the highest possible degree." This is especially true if you believe, as Behe seems to, that clotting is not possible until the entire cascade of factors is assembled.But we already know that evolution doesn't start from scratch, and it doesn't need fully-assembled systems to work. Remember the lobster system as an example. Blood clotting evolved there from two pre-existing proteins, normally found in separate compartments of the body, that had a fortuituous interaction when damage to a blood vessel brought them together. Once that interaction was established, natural selection did the rest.Could something like this have happened here?Remember, we're not starting from nothing. We're starting about 600 million years ago in a small pre-vertebrate. with a low-volume low-pressure circulatory system. Just like any small inverterbate with a circulatory system, our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks. In addition, that ancestral system would have had something else. Most of the time, hemorrage starts with cell injury, meaning that cells are broken in the vicinity of a wound and their contents are dumped out. That means, among other things, that all of a cell's internal signalling molecules are suddenly spilled out into the damaged vascular system. Included among the contents are a whole slew of internal signalling molecules, including prominent ones like cyclic adenosine monophosphate (abbreviated: cAMP), all dumped into the tissue surrounding a wound.Why would a sudden gusher of cAMP in a wound be significant? Well, it turns out that vertebrates use cAMP as a signalling molecule to control the contractions of smooth muscle cells, the very sort of muscle cells that surround blood vessels. Therefore, the release of internal cAMP from broken cells would automatically cause smooth muscles around a broken vessel to contract, limiting blood flow and making it more likely that the blood's own sticky white cells would be able to plug the leak. That means that we already have some ability to limit damage and plug leaks in a primitive, low-pressure system. Not a bad place to begin.Our next step is to consider the nature of blood itself. For reasons relating to osmotic pressure, the tendency of water to move across cell membranes, blood plasma is a viscous, protein-laden solution. And it's also important to note that the extracellular environment of ordinary tissue is very different from blood. These spaces are laden with protein signals, insoluble matrix molecules, and extracellular proteases that cut and trim these molecules to their final shapes and sizes. In fact, such proteases constitute one of the major forms of extracellular signalling. So the tissues of our ancestral vertebrate would be laden with protein-cutting enzymes for reasons completely unrelated to clotting.Keeping all of this in mind, what would happen when a blood vessel broke in such an organism?Well, protein-rich plasma flows into an unfamiliar environment, and sticky white cells quickly "glom" up against the fibers of the extracellular matrix. Tissue proteases, quite accidentally, are now exposed to a new range of proteins, and they cut many of them to pieces. The solubility of these new fragments vary. Some are more soluble than the plasma proteins from which they were trimmed, but many are much less soluble. The result is that clumps of newly-insoluble protein fragments begin to assumulate at the tissue-plasma interface, helping to seal the break and forming a very primitive clot. (Could one object that this is too primitive and too nonspecific to work? That it wouldn't be sufficient to seal breaks? Well, it turns out that you can't make this objection for the very simple reason that this is pretty much the clotting mechanism used today by a large number of invertebrates. Works for them, and therefore there is no reason why it wouldn't have worked for the ancestors of today vertebrates, either!)Now we get down to business. A mutation duplicates an existing gene for a serine protease, a digestive enzyme produced in the pancreas. Gene duplications happen all the time, and they are generally of such little importance that they are known as "neutral" mutations, having no effect on an organism's fittness. However, the original gene had a control region that switched it on only in the pancreas. During the duplication, the control region of the duplicate is damaged so that the new gene is switched on in both the pancreas and the liver. As a result, the inactive form of the enzyme, a zymogen, is relesased into the bloodstream.This causes no problem for the organism - most pancreatic proteases are inactive until a small piece near their active sites can be cut away by another protease. However, when damage to a blood vessel allows plasma to seep into tissue, suddenly our previously inactive plasma serine protease is activated by tissue proteases, increasing the overall protein-cutting activity at the site of the hemorrage. Blood clotting is enhanced, so our duplicate gene (with the mistargeted protein) is now favored by natural selection.That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence. Because the selective value of the plasma protease is pretty low (it doesn't help clotting all that much), most of these changes make very little difference. But one day, through a well-understood process called "exon shuffling," a DNA sequence known as an "EGF domain" is spliced into one end of the protease gene. EGF stands for epidermal growth factor, a small protein used by cells throughout the body to signal other cells. EGF is so common that just about every tissue cell has "receptors" for it. These receptors are cell surface proteins shaped in such a way that they bind EGF tightly.The fortuitious combination of a EGF sequence with the plasma protease changes everything.In a flash, the tissue surrouding a broken blood vessel is now teeming with receptors that bind to the new EGF sequence on our serum protease. As a result, high concentrations of the circulating protease bind directly to the surfaces of cells near a wound. The proteases are activated in the same way, but now their proteolytic activities are highly localized. The production of a clot of insoluble protein fragments is now faster and more specific than ever. Organisms with the new EGF-protease can clot their blood much more quickly than before, and therefore are favored by natural selection. To emphasize its role in the clotting process, that cell surface protein with the EGF receptor is called Tissue Factor.What happens next? Well, remember the case of the lobster in which a duplicate of a circulating protein (vitellogenin) became specialized to produce a clot-forming protein (lobster fibrinogen)? Once we have a situation in which every hemorrage activates a protease bound to tissue receptors, a gene duplicate of one of the major plasma proteins would then be under strong selective pressure to increase its ability to interact with the bound protease. Fibrinogen, the soluble protein that now is now the primary target of proteolysis in the clotting cascade, clearly arose in this way. Natural selection would favor each and every mutation or rearrangement that increased the sensitivity of fibrinogen to the plasma protease, dramatically enhancing the ability of the new protease to form specific clots of insoluble protein.There is no doubt that these three steps, each one supported by classic Darwinian mechanisms, would have been sufficient to fashion a rudimentary clotting system. This would leave us with system in which circulating plasma contains both an inactive serine protease and its fibrinogen target. The protease would activated by contact with tissue factor, and the active protease, in turn, would cleave sensitive sites in fibrinogen to form a clot. This system wouldn't be nearly as quick, as responsive, or as sensitive as the current system of vertebrate clotting, but it would work a little better than the system that preceeded it, and that's all that evolution requires.Adding ComplexityCould evolution take this rudimentary system and produce a multilayered cascade of factors? Just watch. Most serine proteases, including trypsin and thrombin, are auto-catalytic. That means that some extent they can activate themselves, in many cases by cleaving a few amino acids to switch on their active sites. So, we could diagram the actual functions of our ancestral plasma protease (which we'll call protease A) like this:As we have seen, the inactive form of the protease (A) is changed into the active form (A*) when two things happen: it is bound to tissue factor (TF) and it is activated by tissue proteases, including our protease itself (that's the autocatalytic part). This means - and this is important - that our protease is actually involved in cutting two things: Fibrinogen, and also itself, converting A's inactive precursor protein into A*.Now, let's suppose that a gene duplication occurs in the gene for our protease, producing a new (B) version of the gene:At first, just like most gene duplications, this is no big deal. Proteins A and B are identical. Each can bind to TF, each can cleave fibrinogen into fibrin, and each can activate itself or its sister serum protease. So nothing has really changed - we've just got two copies of the same gene. But now let's suppose that a mutation in the active site of B changes its behavior, making it a little less likely to cut fibrinogen and a little more likely to activate protease A. In essence, this would change the relationship between these previously duplicate genes to something like this:Suddenly, the ability of A to bind to TF becomes much less important. If B can saturate all of the available TF-binding sites itself (by virtue of its EGF domain), then the TF-mediated activation of B, combined with B's affinity for A, will result in a rapid activation of A, producing plenty of activated A to convert fibrinogen into clottable fibrin. Sounds good. But why would natural selection favor a mutation like this in B's active site? Simple: it would increase the efficiency of the clotting process by producing a 2-level cascade. Look closely, and you'll see that our 1-step clotting system required a direct interaction with TF to activate each protease. The new 2-step system allows each TF to activate a protease B, each of which in turn can activate scores or hundreds of A's. With so many more active proteases in the neighborhood of the injury, clotting can now occur more quickly, increasing the chances of surviving a hemorrage. Exactly the sort of stuff that natural selection favors.Step back for a second and think about what we've just seen. A simple gene duplication sets the stage for the selection of active site mutations that would dramatically improve the clotting process. Gene duplications are neutral mutations, the sort that occur all the time and therefore, given enough time, are highly probable. Once the duplication has taken place, any mutation in the active site that shifts the preferences of the active site in the direction I have mentioned will be strongly favored. And that means that a true 2-step system will evolve very quickly.Two additional points have to be mentioned. The first one is obvious. If gene duplication and subsequent mutation of the duplicate protease can change a 1-step system into a 2-step one, they could certainly change a 2-step system into a 3-step one. This means that increases in biochemical complexity are not only accomodated by evolutionary theory, they are actually predicted by it. The second point is a little more subtle. Early stages in the evolution of a clot forming-system are bound not to work very well. But as the system starts to work better, as it increases in complexity and efficiency, it begins to present a danger to the organism. That danger, simply put, is that clotting might get out of hand. As the clot-forming cascade evolves larger and larger, there is a chance that a small stimulus will start a reaction that might cause all of an organism's blood to clot, or at least enough of it to cause serious problems. Does evolution have an answer to that, too?Well, it turns out that it does. First, keep in mind that a primitive clotting system, adequate for an animal with low blood pressure and minimal blood flow, doesn't have the clotting capacity to present this kind of a threat. But just as soon as the occasional clot becomes large enough to present health risks, natural selection would favor the evolution of systems to keep clot formation in check. And where would these systems come from? From pre-existing proteins, of course, duplicated and modified. The tissues of the body produce a protein known as a1-antitrypsin which binds to the active site of serine proteases found in tissues and keeps them in check. So, just as soon as clotting systems became strong enough, gene duplication would have presented natural selection with a working protease inhibitor that could then evolve into antithrombin, a similar inhibitor that today blocks the action of the primary fibrinogen-cleaving protease, thrombin.In similar fashion, plasminogen, the precursor to a powerful clot-dissolving protein now found in plasma, would have been generated from duplicates of existing protease genes, just as soon as it became advantageous to develop clot-dissolving capability.In short, the key to understanding the evolution of blood clotting is to appreciate that the current system did not evolve all at once. Like all biochemical systems, it evolved from genes and proteins that originally served different purposes. The powerful opportunistic pressures of natural selection progressively recruited one gene duplication after another, gradually fashioning a system in which high efficiences of controlled blood clotting made the modern vertebrate circulatory system possible.Mining the Biochemical PastCan we know for sure that this is how blood clotting (or any other biochemical system) evolved? The strict answer, of course, is we cannot. The best we can hope from our vertebrate ancestors are fossils that preserve bits and pieces of their form and structure, and it might seem that their biochemistry would be lost forever. But that's not quite true. Today's organisms are the descendents of that biological (and biochemical) past, and they provide a perfect opportunity to test these ideas.Even a general scheme, like the one I've just presented, leads to a number of very specific predictions, each of which can be tested. First, the scheme itself is based on the use of well-known biochemical clues. For example, most of the enzymes involved in clotting are serine proteases, protein-cutting enzymes so-named because of the presence of a highly reactive serine in their active sites, the business ends of the protein. Now, what organ produces lots of serine proteases? The pancreas, of course, which releases serine proteases to help digest food. The pancreas, as it turns out, shares a common embryonic origin with another organ: the liver. And, not surprisingly, all of the clotting proteases are made in the liver. So, to "get" a masked protease into the serum all we'd need is a gene duplication that is turned on in the pancreas' "sister" organ. Simple, reasonable, and supported by the evidence.Next, if the clotting cascade really evolved the way I have suggested, the the clotting enzymes would have to be near-duplicates of a pancreatic enzyme and of each other. As it turns out, they are. Not only is thrombin homologous to trypsin, a pancreatic serine protease, but the 5 clotting proteases (prothrombin and Factors X, IX, XI, and VII) share extensive homology as well. This is consistent, of course, with the notion that they were formed by gene duplication, just as suggested. But there is more to it than that. We could take one organism, humans for example, and construct a branching "tree" based on the relative degrees of similarity and difference between each of the five clotting proteases. Now, if the gene duplications that produced the clotting cascade occurred long ago in an ancestral vertebrate, we should be able to take any other vertebrate and construct a similar tree in which the relationships between the five clotting proteases match the relationships between the human proteases. This is a powerful test for our little scheme because it requires that sequences still undiscovered should match a particular pattern. And, as anyone knows who has followed the work in Doolittle's lab over the years, it is also a test that evolution passes in one organism after another.There are many other tests and predictions that can be imposed on the scheme as well, but one of the boldest was made by Doolittle himself more than a decade ago. If the modern fibrinogen gene really was recruited from a duplicated ancestral gene, one that had nothing to do with blood clotting, then we ought to be able to find a fibrinogen-like gene in an animal that does not possess the vertebrate clotting pathway. In other words, we ought to be able to find a non-clotting fibrinogen protein in an invertebrate. That's a mighty bold prediction, because if it could not be found, it would cast Doolittle's whole evolutionary scheme into doubt.Not to worry. In 1990, Xun Yu and Doolittle won their own bet, finding a fibrinogen-like sequence in the sea cucumber, an echinoderm. The vertebrate fibrinogen gene, just like genes for the other proteins of the clotting sequence, was formed by the duplication and modification of pre-existing genes.Now, it would not be fair, just because we have presented a realistic evolutionary scheme, supported by gene sequences from modern organisms, to suggest that we now know exactly how the clotting system has evolved. That would be making far too much of our limited ability to reconstruct the details of the past. But nonetheless, there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be tested and verified against the evidence.References:Doolittle, R. F., (1993) "The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation: A case of yin and yang," Thrombosis and Haemostasis 70: 24-28.Doolittle, R. F., and Feng, D. F., (1987) "Reconstructing the evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation from a consideration of the amino acid sequences of clotting proteins," Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 52: 869-874.Doolittle, R. F., and Riley, M. (1990) "The amino-acid sequence of lobster fibriongen reveals common ancestry with vitellogenin." Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 167: 16-19.Xu, X., and Doolittle, R. F., (1990) "Presence of a vertebrate fibrinogen-like sequence in an echinoderm." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 87: 2097-2101. Does this answer the question? Solitary
How does something like this come about via blind random accidental'evolution' ? (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4043.msg1002391#msg1002391)
Because evolution is fucking awesome.
I haven't evolved enough to read all that without falling asleep. :P
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 14, 2014, 02:31:40 PM
Well he did sort of. He poofed a 777 right out of existence! :o
Because instead, he did the greater miracle of bringing a time and space Universe into existence from NOTHING including all the matter . Any other miracle is lesser than that .
How come blind random mutational accidents ultimately gave us a Human Brian that the worlds best Scientists cant begin to duplicate on purpose using their intelligence , will, with an end result in mind ? I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist and neither do you. It is, however, very aesthetically appealing because it frees us up to be our own little 'god' .
Are you done researching and falling back into the general "I'm a theist and also an asshole and I'm going to come with the same tripe arguments that hundreds have done before me" thing?
Because if that's the case, just say so and I'll give you a permaban. It'll be better for everyone.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 15, 2014, 02:27:44 AM
I haven't evolved enough to read all that without falling asleep. :P
No, its an insane impossibility but a good current excuse for not wanting anything to do with our Creator . And after macro evolution has been scrapped from the textbooks....there will be other excuses on the horizon to choose from. The only reason macro evolution and abiogenesis is hanging on by a thread is because the general public would loose faith in the scientific community , and, theyd have to re-write all the school textbooks including getting rid of the titillizing air-brushed Monkey Men lineup . When Evolutionists themselves speak out against their field, you know its been fallacious all along :
" It is therefore a MATTER OF FAITH on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of
biogenesis happens to suit him personally ; the evidence for what did
happen is not available" --- Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut of the
University of Southampton. Source : Implications of Evolution. London.
Pergamon Press, 1960, page 150.
" The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on FAITH ALONE" -- Evolutionist Prof. T.L. Moor .
Origins ? The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 page 22.
" We Palenontologists have said that the history of life supports (the
story of gradual adaptive change) , all the while really knowing that it
does not" -- Dr. Niles Eldredge. Darwin on Trial. Regnery Gateway,
1991, page 59.
" The record of reckless speculation of human origins is so astonishing
that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in
this field at all" -- Evolutionist Dr. Solly Zuckerman. Darwin on
Trial. 1991. page 82.
From an article in Science Digest Special---
" Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest
growing controversial minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting
this posiiton hold impressive credentials in science" . -- Educators
Against Darwin. winter 1979, page 94
" I believe that one day the Darwinnian myth will be ranked the
greatest deciet in the history of science "--- Prof. Soren Lovtrup,
Embriologist. Darwinism : The Refutation of a Myth. 1987. page 422.
" The more i examine the Universe and the details of its architecture,
the more evidence i find that the Universe in some sense must have known
we were coming"--- Prof. Freeman Dyson, Physicist from Princeton Univ.
'Disturbing the Universe' . 1979. page 250.
" The more man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the
firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature (than a Creator)"
-- Albert Einstein. His LIfe and Times. page 286.
And finally, the bottom line from an "agnostic" Astronomer (and my
favorite) ----
" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak and as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of Theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries reading Genesis 1:1 : In the
Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" --- agnostic Prof. Robert
Jastrow founder of Nasa's Goddard Institute. His book, 'God and the
Astronomers. page 116.
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
Because instead, he did the greater miracle of bringing a time and space Universe into existence from NOTHING including all the matter . Any other miracle is lesser than that .
"Nothing" is not an object of discourse, but the absence thereof. No, treating it as if it were an object in its own right does not make it so. Your statement is incoherent.
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PMHow come blind random mutational accidents ultimately gave us a Human Brian that the worlds best Scientists cant begin to duplicate on purpose using their intelligence , will, with an end result in mind ? I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist and neither do you. It is, however, very aesthetically appealing because it frees us up to be our own little 'god' .
Having an absence of a mechanism for the evolution of the human brain does not allow you to place anything in the spot and have it be taken seriously.
The "I do not have enough faith to be an Atheist" is quite silly considering that the entire position of 'atheism' is characterized by the absence of such faith. It does, however, take mental discipline and courage to say, "I do not know" when you do not know something that is troubling to you. You've just chosen the easy way out.
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:50:47 PMWhen Evolutionists themselves speak out against their field,
There's no such thing as an 'Evolutionist.' It's a creationist buzzword.
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
How come blind random mutational accidents ultimately gave us a Human Brian that the worlds best Scientists cant begin to duplicate on purpose using their intelligence?
Because evolution is so awesome that it ends up doing what man cannot. If God existed, he would have done it better.... maybe. But God works in strange ways, because the God concept is strange. Who can argue the point that God is so far beyond us that it is impossible for us to understand him? Except of course, those who say that out of one side of their mouths, but then continue by explaining his nature and a whole bunch of other incomprehensible specifics.
^TL;DR
EDIT: also, here's a shocker: I'm not, and I dare say that applies to most other atheists too, an atheist because evolution is true; evolution is true regardless of my atheism.
I'm, personally speaking, an atheist because the Bible is full of shit, not because some evil evolutionist convinced me it was false. Why can't theists get this into their thick, deluded skulls?
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist and neither do you.
Do you have enough faith to murder your own child if your god told you to?
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist and neither do you.
Says who?
I've never been anything but an atheist.
QuoteI don't have enough faith to be an Atheist and neither do you
thats because you are not one. I am, and I assure you, I need no faith to be an atheist. You on the other hand, need all the faith in the world. Good luck with that brother.
Quote from: Sal1981 on March 17, 2014, 04:02:05 PM
I'm not, and I dare say that applies to most other atheists too, an atheist because evolution is true; evolution is true regardless of my atheism.
I'm, personally speaking, an atheist because the Bible is full of shit, not because some evil evolutionist convinced me it was false. Why can't theists get this into their thick, deluded skulls?
Yes, evolution is just one more reason to reject the divine authority of the Bible. It's hardly the deal breaker, however.
Atheism exists because the whole body of evidence for every known religion now or in the past comes down to nothing more than empty claims.
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
Because instead, he did the greater miracle of bringing a time and space Universe into existence from NOTHING including all the matter . Any other miracle is lesser than that .
How come blind random mutational accidents ultimately gave us a Human Brian that the worlds best Scientists cant begin to duplicate on purpose using their intelligence , will, with an end result in mind ? I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist and neither do you. It is, however, very aesthetically appealing because it frees us up to be our own little 'god' .
You didn't even read the link I posted did you?
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 14, 2014, 12:36:02 PM
With no goal in sight and by purely accidental mutations .... how did the 16 step Cascade System of Blood Clotting when a cut occurs to the human body , come about ? In case the Reader is not aware of this process....upon a cut occurring, a chemical is released which triggers another chemical to be formed which releases another chemical, etc...for 15 steps ...then on the last 16th step, vitamin B which is not related to any of the prior chemicals being released, is produced which completes the biological process. The entire human bodys skin has this waiting to occur .
Please offer the evolutionary truth of how this first came about ? Please do not antagonistically suggest I read an Evolution Book , or 'get schooled' , or become educated as lame excuses. Instead, please tell how Evolution did it specifically , cogently, and step by step which supports your atheistic view of life and biological systems. If you care to, post an online treatise for this specifically which lends credibility to your Evolutionary mindset. Thanks.
Suppose the answer to your question wasn't the first thing to come up when you Google it. Suppose science didn't have an answer to your question. Do you think if science were ignorant on this matter, it would make some particular alternative explanation correct? If so, you might also want to Google Argument from Ignorance.
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
Because instead, he did the greater miracle of bringing a time and space Universe into existence from NOTHING including all the matter . Any other miracle is lesser than that .
Broadly speaking, the universe is everything that exists. If there is more than one universe, what we've been calling THE universe is A universe, a cosmos if you will. If God existed eternally then the universe existed eternally, and prior to God creating this universe, God and the universe were one and the same. There was never any 'nothing' for God to create a universe out of...he would have had to have created the 'nothing' first. You might want to go with the Hebrew idea that God emanated the universe, it's more internally consistent.
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
How come blind random mutational accidents ultimately gave us a Human Brian that the worlds best Scientists cant begin to duplicate on purpose using their intelligence, will, with an end result in mind ?
'can't begin to duplicate' is pretty strong wording. A modern laptop has processing power about equal to the brain of a guppy. I like to use that as a crude measurement of processing power. A guppy is about one 50,000th of a human brain. It's not much, but it's a beginning...and at the current rate of increase in computer power, we hit a laptop with the processing power of a human brain within 20 years. It took nature nearly 4 billion years to get from single-cell to human brain, but an actual intelligent designer is much, much faster.
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist and neither do you.
It doesn't take faith to be skeptical of other people's claims. You say the Christian God is real. We don't believe you. No faith necessary.
Quote from: YouCanCallMeDave on March 17, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
It is, however, very aesthetically appealing because it frees us up to be our own little 'god'.
How so? Even a minimal definition of a 'god' is that its superhuman in some way. We aren't gods, not even little ones. Just schmoes doing the best we can with what we've got just like everyone else.
This guy has a serious case of space bar tourette's.