Marius,

There are great many errors here.

The most telling is this. You are not accounting for differential reproduction. Environments are, more or less, non-random in the short term, and can remain constant and unchanging for very long stretches of geological time. Environments form selective pressures. Not all mutations in a given environment will be beneficial to the bearer of said mutation, in fact many (most) will not. Some will benefit the bearer not all, but also impose no costs, these we call neutral mutations. Some mutations will give the bearer a competitive edge. A competitive edge simply leads to a reproductive advantage. Reproductive advantage is the stuff of evolution. An individual with a slight reproductive advantage in a given environment will out reproduce its competitors, and thus spread this advantageous mutation through the population. This kind of thing can happen very fast in small founding populations, but takes longer in larger populations.

In deceptively simple terms, evolution is about changing gene frequencies over time. This can happen in numerous ways, but adaptive change results from a mutation conferring some reproductive advantage on bearers of the mutation. Mutation aren't really free to spread like wildfire through a population, unless, they are neutral, or they confer advantage. Those mutations that do not, are quickly eliminated from populations because those who bear them do not get as many (perhaps not any) reproductive opportunities.

Just so you know many of the posts you are replying to here are by people who have been banned. So don't expect a reply from them. Best not to reply to posts more than a few minutes old. The regular atheist commentators don't survive very long. You can find some of them over here:

http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com.au

The concept you are considering if you are not the author of it, it already exists in your memory; so it is not factually realistic for you to say that the concept does not exist unless and until you are considering it.

Now, how did the concept get into your memory? Simple, you got it from say Dawkins or Stenger or Hawking or Krauss or Hitchens or Harris...

Marius de Jess

Random blind mutation and natural productive selection, how do they exist together at the same time and in the same place?

Or there is a time when and a place where natural productive selection is preserved and thereby conserved and thereby stabilized against the forces of random blind mutation, a time and place not accessible to random blind mutation, so that random blind mutation not being at the same time and in the same place as when and where natural productive selection has occurred, cannot wreak havoc against the fruit of natural productive selection; otherwise whatever natural productive selection has achieved random blind mutation will destroy it immediately -- and there goes every new species of life, or even the very chance of life ever coming to existence at all.

Marius de Jess

Here is the description of God in Genesis and in the Apostles' Creed:

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Gen. 1:1.

"I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth." Apostles' Creed, verse 1.

So, God is not described all the time and everywhere as " mysteriously un-knowable."

First and foremost God is the creator of the universe.

Do you find that to be "mysteriously un-knowable"?

How is it "mysteriously un-knowable" to you anyone who bring up that allegation?

You know the meaning of the word universe, just add God as creator of the universe, now you know what and who is God.

Anyway, I like to hear from you what you find mysteriously unknowable with the description of God as the creator of the universe.

Marius de Jess
mdejess(@)gmail.com

PS we also have to distinguish between Hard Sciences, Soft Sciences like sociology and economics and Science-related concepts like Reason, Logic, Rules of Logic etc.

Odd. Do articles not have to follow the same rules as comments? Because this seems to me to be a blatant violation of Rule #3.

And by what standards can one call theology "bad"?

While I recognize that the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem is typified by its usage as an end in itself as opposed to a means to rhetorically furthering a given point via short, quick attacks whilst discussing a certain issue, the issue is not that the comment was stated an end in itself but part as of a means that was an unwarranted accompaniment in the discussion. Additionally, whether it was misquoted or intentional, "our" is completely different than "your". If I am to use my time in method, A, B, or C, let it be bridged properly by means of a syllogism rather than by stating two different propositions that have been combined without a proper conjunction.

Moreover, if what is stated above (comparing comments) comes out via argumentation through a syllogistic structure, that would be/is logically consistent with this conversation. However, if it is solely a matter of votes (up or down), that what people vote to be true is true, unless constituted by a logical definition of accompaniment, such a method could fall in danger of argumentum ad populum, one way or the other. For now though, I must leave this conversation.

I am completely happy to let people compare my comment to your response and decide which they think is correct.