Are there any Atheist cyclists out there?

[jhuskey]

Balderdash and piffle. I've a custom made dream of an imaginary bike. It evolves on a daily basis, and sheds upto half of its weight on steep climbs.

BS, for half of nothing is nothing...can I use than as an argument because of it's logical content?
Maybe in this case half of something is still nothing.
Besides my virtual bike virtually pedals itself.

 

[meehs]

It's not my theory that steel is the best frame material. I'm simply a believer and I don't need logic to justify it.

Does this make me an aliminium atheist and/or a carbon agnostic?

(p.s. I'm in agreement - some great observations from the Beast.)

Amen bro! I worship at the ferrous alter when it comes to frame material too! But if others prefer aluminum, carbon, titanium or whatever, I'm not gonna try to jam steel down their throat and tell them that it's the only way to salvation!

 

[meehs]

It's not my theory that steel is the best frame material. I'm simply a believer and I don't need logic to justify it.

Does this make me an aliminium atheist and/or a carbon agnostic?

(p.s. I'm in agreement - some great observations from the Beast.)

Amen bro! I worship at the ferrous alter when it comes to frame material too! But if others prefer aluminum, carbon, titanium or whatever, I'm not gonna try to jam steel down their throat and tell them that it's the only way to salvation!

 

[wiredued]

It's observable that dogs produce dogs cats produce cats when a farmer plants corn he gets corn. It has been that way for thousands of years a dog will not produce a non dog it is always producing within it's kind. One kind of animal never changes into another kind there are limits. Mutations happen but they never ad new information to the gene code it is always either a doubling of information ie a cow with a fifth leg or a strawberry twice the size or a loss of information ie cow missing a leg. You never see a frog developing a wing because that information is not in its gene code.

What do you propose as the factor which prevents multiple instances of microevolution from resulting in macroevolution?

 

[wiredued]

It's observable that dogs produce dogs cats produce cats when a farmer plants corn he gets corn. It has been that way for thousands of years a dog will not produce a non dog it is always producing within it's kind. One kind of animal never changes into another kind there are limits. Mutations happen but they never ad new information to the gene code it is always either a doubling of information ie a cow with a fifth leg or a strawberry twice the size or a loss of information ie cow missing a leg. You never see a frog developing a wing because that information is not in its gene code.

What do you propose as the factor which prevents multiple instances of microevolution from resulting in macroevolution?

 

[DiabloScott]

It's observable that dogs produce dogs cats produce cats when a farmer plants corn he gets corn. It has been that way for thousands of years a dog will not produce a non dog it is always producing within it's kind. One kind of animal never changes into another kind there are limits. Mutations happen but they never ad new information to the gene code it is always either a doubling of information ie a cow with a fifth leg or a strawberry twice the size or a loss of information ie cow missing a leg. You never see a frog developing a wing because that information is not in its gene code.

Do you believe there were dinosaurs on the ark? How many of them do you suppose were necessary to repopulate and create all the various species? They couldn't have been extint yet because the flood was only a couple hundred years after the creation, right? How big would the cage have to be for a pair of baby apatasaurs?

Of course someone has already posted a web page about this - I'll go on the record here and say he's a nutjob but kind of a fun read to see how far people will go to defend their beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictions:

http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1.html

 

[DiabloScott]

It's observable that dogs produce dogs cats produce cats when a farmer plants corn he gets corn. It has been that way for thousands of years a dog will not produce a non dog it is always producing within it's kind. One kind of animal never changes into another kind there are limits. Mutations happen but they never ad new information to the gene code it is always either a doubling of information ie a cow with a fifth leg or a strawberry twice the size or a loss of information ie cow missing a leg. You never see a frog developing a wing because that information is not in its gene code.

Do you believe there were dinosaurs on the ark? How many of them do you suppose were necessary to repopulate and create all the various species? They couldn't have been extint yet because the flood was only a couple hundred years after the creation, right? How big would the cage have to be for a pair of baby apatasaurs?

Of course someone has already posted a web page about this - I'll go on the record here and say he's a nutjob but kind of a fun read to see how far people will go to defend their beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictions:

http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1.html

 

[Beastt]

It's observable that dogs produce dogs cats produce cats when a farmer plants corn he gets corn. It has been that way for thousands of years a dog will not produce a non dog it is always producing within it's kind. One kind of animal never changes into another kind there are limits. Mutations happen but they never ad new information to the gene code it is always either a doubling of information ie a cow with a fifth leg or a strawberry twice the size or a loss of information ie cow missing a leg. You never see a frog developing a wing because that information is not in its gene code.

Okay, but that's not what I asked. If you agree that tiny changes can occur within the genetic code and that these small changes can make almost imperceptible changes to the offspring, what factor limits these tiny changes from adding up, over thousands, hundreds of thousands, (or even millions), of years into what you would term, "macroevolution".

While it's very clear to us that cats always produce cats, it's equally clear that the cats produced today are, many times, greatly dissimilar to cats produced many thousands of years ago. If anyone is waiting around for a dog to give birth to something which is other than a dog, they can put their time to better use because this simply isn't going to happen. That's not the way evolution works.

When you buy a car and drive it home from the dealer, you'll notice that every few seconds, the tenths indicator, (rightmost digit), on the odometer changes. The whole series of digits don't all flip at one time. It starts with several small changes at the rightmost digit. But eventually, those changes add up and the next digit flips. That's more or less the way evolution works. But to say that macroevolution doesn't occur is pretty much like saying that those small changes to the rightmost digit will never add up to the point that they affect a change at the leftmost digit. We know they do and we know this for two reasons. First, that's the way the mechanism is designed to work. And secondly, we can observe this to occur. Evolution isn't quite so convenient. We can peek into the mechanism, but observing macroevolution, as it occurs, simply isn't in the cards. Macroevolution takes a bit more time than most of us have to spare. Even among single-celled organisms, it can take a very long time for all of the small changes to add up into a change significant enough to be readily apparent. You need to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years or more. And evolution is not a linear process. A species can go for a considerable period of time without any notable changes. It usually requires some new challenge presented by the environment to spawn a change.

Hopefully, with that behind us, the question will be less murky now. What factor do you see as the limitation preventing multiple microevolutionary events from adding up to a macroevolutionary change? What keeps the rightmost digits on the evolutionary odometer from ever affecting the leftmost digits?

 

[Beastt]

It's observable that dogs produce dogs cats produce cats when a farmer plants corn he gets corn. It has been that way for thousands of years a dog will not produce a non dog it is always producing within it's kind. One kind of animal never changes into another kind there are limits. Mutations happen but they never ad new information to the gene code it is always either a doubling of information ie a cow with a fifth leg or a strawberry twice the size or a loss of information ie cow missing a leg. You never see a frog developing a wing because that information is not in its gene code.

Okay, but that's not what I asked. If you agree that tiny changes can occur within the genetic code and that these small changes can make almost imperceptible changes to the offspring, what factor limits these tiny changes from adding up, over thousands, hundreds of thousands, (or even millions), of years into what you would term, "macroevolution".

While it's very clear to us that cats always produce cats, it's equally clear that the cats produced today are, many times, greatly dissimilar to cats produced many thousands of years ago. If anyone is waiting around for a dog to give birth to something which is other than a dog, they can put their time to better use because this simply isn't going to happen. That's not the way evolution works.

When you buy a car and drive it home from the dealer, you'll notice that every few seconds, the tenths indicator, (rightmost digit), on the odometer changes. The whole series of digits don't all flip at one time. It starts with several small changes at the rightmost digit. But eventually, those changes add up and the next digit flips. That's more or less the way evolution works. But to say that macroevolution doesn't occur is pretty much like saying that those small changes to the rightmost digit will never add up to the point that they affect a change at the leftmost digit. We know they do and we know this for two reasons. First, that's the way the mechanism is designed to work. And secondly, we can observe this to occur. Evolution isn't quite so convenient. We can peek into the mechanism, but observing macroevolution, as it occurs, simply isn't in the cards. Macroevolution takes a bit more time than most of us have to spare. Even among single-celled organisms, it can take a very long time for all of the small changes to add up into a change significant enough to be readily apparent. You need to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years or more. And evolution is not a linear process. A species can go for a considerable period of time without any notable changes. It usually requires some new challenge presented by the environment to spawn a change.

Hopefully, with that behind us, the question will be less murky now. What factor do you see as the limitation preventing multiple microevolutionary events from adding up to a macroevolutionary change? What keeps the rightmost digits on the evolutionary odometer from ever affecting the leftmost digits?

 

[Beastt]

Do you believe there were dinosaurs on the ark? How many of them do you suppose were necessary to repopulate and create all the various species? They couldn't have been extint yet because the flood was only a couple hundred years after the creation, right? How big would the cage have to be for a pair of baby apatasaurs?

Of course someone has already posted a web page about this - I'll go on the record here and say he's a nutjob but kind of a fun read to see how far people will go to defend their beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictions:

http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1.html

I would have to lend my agreement concerning the mental status of the author of the site for which you provided a link. But if we start to get into all the reasons that the Noah's Ark story never happened, it would require several threads on its own. I'll just comment that wood isn't rigid enough to build seaworthy craft over 300 feet long and the Ark was said to be more on the order of 500+ feet in length. Along that kind of span, the wood simply flexes too much, resulting in gaps between the planks. Whether or not you use pitch, tar or glue, the water simply comes gushing in. The U.S. Military showed this to be the case in building the U.S.S. Oklahoma which was 329-feet in length and made of wood. Despite the best work of military engineers, she was considered to be a complete structural failure.

People can believe what they want but reality tends to be worth noting for me. And reality's take on the Noah's Ark story, for dozens of reasons is -- didn't happen.

 

[Beastt]

Do you believe there were dinosaurs on the ark? How many of them do you suppose were necessary to repopulate and create all the various species? They couldn't have been extint yet because the flood was only a couple hundred years after the creation, right? How big would the cage have to be for a pair of baby apatasaurs?

Of course someone has already posted a web page about this - I'll go on the record here and say he's a nutjob but kind of a fun read to see how far people will go to defend their beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictions:

http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1.html

I would have to lend my agreement concerning the mental status of the author of the site for which you provided a link. But if we start to get into all the reasons that the Noah's Ark story never happened, it would require several threads on its own. I'll just comment that wood isn't rigid enough to build seaworthy craft over 300 feet long and the Ark was said to be more on the order of 500+ feet in length. Along that kind of span, the wood simply flexes too much, resulting in gaps between the planks. Whether or not you use pitch, tar or glue, the water simply comes gushing in. The U.S. Military showed this to be the case in building the U.S.S. Oklahoma which was 329-feet in length and made of wood. Despite the best work of military engineers, she was considered to be a complete structural failure.

People can believe what they want but reality tends to be worth noting for me. And reality's take on the Noah's Ark story, for dozens of reasons is -- didn't happen.

 

[jhuskey]

People can believe what they want but reality tends to be worth noting for me. And reality's take on the Noah's Ark story, for dozens of reasons is -- didn't happen.[/QUOTE]


If you are not familiar with the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh,then you should read it, being one of, if not the oldest know texts.
See if you denote any similarities to any other stories and keep an open mind.

 

[jhuskey]

People can believe what they want but reality tends to be worth noting for me. And reality's take on the Noah's Ark story, for dozens of reasons is -- didn't happen.[/QUOTE]


If you are not familiar with the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh,then you should read it, being one of, if not the oldest know texts.
See if you denote any similarities to any other stories and keep an open mind.

 

[achtervolger]

Okay, but that's not what I asked. If you agree that tiny changes can occur within the genetic code and that these small changes can make almost imperceptible changes to the offspring, what factor limits these tiny changes from adding up, over thousands, hundreds of thousands, (or even millions), of years into what you would term, "macroevolution".

While it's very clear to us that cats always produce cats, it's equally clear that the cats produced today are, many times, greatly dissimilar to cats produced many thousands of years ago. If anyone is waiting around for a dog to give birth to something which is other than a dog, they can put their time to better use because this simply isn't going to happen. That's not the way evolution works.

When you buy a car and drive it home from the dealer, you'll notice that every few seconds, the tenths indicator, (rightmost digit), on the odometer changes. The whole series of digits don't all flip at one time. It starts with several small changes at the rightmost digit. But eventually, those changes add up and the next digit flips. That's more or less the way evolution works. But to say that macroevolution doesn't occur is pretty much like saying that those small changes to the rightmost digit will never add up to the point that they affect a change at the leftmost digit. We know they do and we know this for two reasons. First, that's the way the mechanism is designed to work. And secondly, we can observe this to occur. Evolution isn't quite so convenient. We can peek into the mechanism, but observing macroevolution, as it occurs, simply isn't in the cards. Macroevolution takes a bit more time than most of us have to spare. Even among single-celled organisms, it can take a very long time for all of the small changes to add up into a change significant enough to be readily apparent. You need to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years or more. And evolution is not a linear process. A species can go for a considerable period of time without any notable changes. It usually requires some new challenge presented by the environment to spawn a change.

Hopefully, with that behind us, the question will be less murky now. What factor do you see as the limitation preventing multiple microevolutionary events from adding up to a macroevolutionary change? What keeps the rightmost digits on the evolutionary odometer from ever affecting the leftmost digits?

I love it--thanks so much for your posts here. I admire your ability to present extremely credible arguments without dismissing the other point of view, and keep the other parties from re-routing the discussion when the questions become difficult.

I'm very interested to hear an answer that addresses your question--it certainly seems an interesting area of investigation for both evolutionary scientists and anyone wishing to disprove evolution.

 

[achtervolger]

Okay, but that's not what I asked. If you agree that tiny changes can occur within the genetic code and that these small changes can make almost imperceptible changes to the offspring, what factor limits these tiny changes from adding up, over thousands, hundreds of thousands, (or even millions), of years into what you would term, "macroevolution".

While it's very clear to us that cats always produce cats, it's equally clear that the cats produced today are, many times, greatly dissimilar to cats produced many thousands of years ago. If anyone is waiting around for a dog to give birth to something which is other than a dog, they can put their time to better use because this simply isn't going to happen. That's not the way evolution works.

When you buy a car and drive it home from the dealer, you'll notice that every few seconds, the tenths indicator, (rightmost digit), on the odometer changes. The whole series of digits don't all flip at one time. It starts with several small changes at the rightmost digit. But eventually, those changes add up and the next digit flips. That's more or less the way evolution works. But to say that macroevolution doesn't occur is pretty much like saying that those small changes to the rightmost digit will never add up to the point that they affect a change at the leftmost digit. We know they do and we know this for two reasons. First, that's the way the mechanism is designed to work. And secondly, we can observe this to occur. Evolution isn't quite so convenient. We can peek into the mechanism, but observing macroevolution, as it occurs, simply isn't in the cards. Macroevolution takes a bit more time than most of us have to spare. Even among single-celled organisms, it can take a very long time for all of the small changes to add up into a change significant enough to be readily apparent. You need to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years or more. And evolution is not a linear process. A species can go for a considerable period of time without any notable changes. It usually requires some new challenge presented by the environment to spawn a change.

Hopefully, with that behind us, the question will be less murky now. What factor do you see as the limitation preventing multiple microevolutionary events from adding up to a macroevolutionary change? What keeps the rightmost digits on the evolutionary odometer from ever affecting the leftmost digits?

I love it--thanks so much for your posts here. I admire your ability to present extremely credible arguments without dismissing the other point of view, and keep the other parties from re-routing the discussion when the questions become difficult.

I'm very interested to hear an answer that addresses your question--it certainly seems an interesting area of investigation for both evolutionary scientists and anyone wishing to disprove evolution.

 

[wiredued]

A better analogy would be a pair of dice you will never roll a 21 because that combination isn't there to begin with. You can believe it's possible but that isn't science.

Okay, but that's not what I asked. If you agree that tiny changes can occur within the genetic code and that these small changes can make almost imperceptible changes to the offspring, what factor limits these tiny changes from adding up, over thousands, hundreds of thousands, (or even millions), of years into what you would term, "macroevolution".

While it's very clear to us that cats always produce cats, it's equally clear that the cats produced today are, many times, greatly dissimilar to cats produced many thousands of years ago. If anyone is waiting around for a dog to give birth to something which is other than a dog, they can put their time to better use because this simply isn't going to happen. That's not the way evolution works.

When you buy a car and drive it home from the dealer, you'll notice that every few seconds, the tenths indicator, (rightmost digit), on the odometer changes. The whole series of digits don't all flip at one time. It starts with several small changes at the rightmost digit. But eventually, those changes add up and the next digit flips. That's more or less the way evolution works. But to say that macroevolution doesn't occur is pretty much like saying that those small changes to the rightmost digit will never add up to the point that they affect a change at the leftmost digit. We know they do and we know this for two reasons. First, that's the way the mechanism is designed to work. And secondly, we can observe this to occur. Evolution isn't quite so convenient. We can peek into the mechanism, but observing macroevolution, as it occurs, simply isn't in the cards. Macroevolution takes a bit more time than most of us have to spare. Even among single-celled organisms, it can take a very long time for all of the small changes to add up into a change significant enough to be readily apparent. You need to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years or more. And evolution is not a linear process. A species can go for a considerable period of time without any notable changes. It usually requires some new challenge presented by the environment to spawn a change.

Hopefully, with that behind us, the question will be less murky now. What factor do you see as the limitation preventing multiple microevolutionary events from adding up to a macroevolutionary change? What keeps the rightmost digits on the evolutionary odometer from ever affecting the leftmost digits?

 

[wiredued]

A better analogy would be a pair of dice you will never roll a 21 because that combination isn't there to begin with. You can believe it's possible but that isn't science.

Okay, but that's not what I asked. If you agree that tiny changes can occur within the genetic code and that these small changes can make almost imperceptible changes to the offspring, what factor limits these tiny changes from adding up, over thousands, hundreds of thousands, (or even millions), of years into what you would term, "macroevolution".

While it's very clear to us that cats always produce cats, it's equally clear that the cats produced today are, many times, greatly dissimilar to cats produced many thousands of years ago. If anyone is waiting around for a dog to give birth to something which is other than a dog, they can put their time to better use because this simply isn't going to happen. That's not the way evolution works.

When you buy a car and drive it home from the dealer, you'll notice that every few seconds, the tenths indicator, (rightmost digit), on the odometer changes. The whole series of digits don't all flip at one time. It starts with several small changes at the rightmost digit. But eventually, those changes add up and the next digit flips. That's more or less the way evolution works. But to say that macroevolution doesn't occur is pretty much like saying that those small changes to the rightmost digit will never add up to the point that they affect a change at the leftmost digit. We know they do and we know this for two reasons. First, that's the way the mechanism is designed to work. And secondly, we can observe this to occur. Evolution isn't quite so convenient. We can peek into the mechanism, but observing macroevolution, as it occurs, simply isn't in the cards. Macroevolution takes a bit more time than most of us have to spare. Even among single-celled organisms, it can take a very long time for all of the small changes to add up into a change significant enough to be readily apparent. You need to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years or more. And evolution is not a linear process. A species can go for a considerable period of time without any notable changes. It usually requires some new challenge presented by the environment to spawn a change.

Hopefully, with that behind us, the question will be less murky now. What factor do you see as the limitation preventing multiple microevolutionary events from adding up to a macroevolutionary change? What keeps the rightmost digits on the evolutionary odometer from ever affecting the leftmost digits?

 

[artmichalek]

Amen bro! I worship at the ferrous alter when it comes to frame material too! But if others prefer aluminum, carbon, titanium or whatever, I'm not gonna try to jam steel down their throat and tell them that it's the only way to salvation!

You've got it all wrong. The Dogma is magnesium.

 

[artmichalek]

Amen bro! I worship at the ferrous alter when it comes to frame material too! But if others prefer aluminum, carbon, titanium or whatever, I'm not gonna try to jam steel down their throat and tell them that it's the only way to salvation!

You've got it all wrong. The Dogma is magnesium.

 

[DiabloScott]

A better analogy would be a pair of dice you will never roll a 21 because that combination isn't there to begin with. You can believe it's possible but that isn't science.

Choosing the analogy to fit your desired result does not make it a "better" one.


"God does not play dice with the universe" - a great quote from Albert Einstein, except he was talking about quantum mechanics and HE WAS WRONG!