|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
God and Science
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Lord Shiva,"Renfleur Polytechnic"??? -- Vanessa Shane, B. Engg. 1985, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
||||||||
|
Sigma 1, 2, 3 So one sigma is about what is required to remove an impeached president. Since inciting insurrection no longer constitutes sufficient reason for removal impeachment is meaningless and moot. You can’t remove a president for fomenting open rebellion then there are no grounds left justifying it. Consilience isn’t purely an argument from numbers. Granted, the majority can easily be wrong. They certainly were the last election. But in science opinion is much more data driven. A theory growing to one sigma s pretty settled, and one falling below that isn’t. Evolution easily exceeds two sigmas among global researchers in biology, and that is growing, not shrinking. |
||||||||
|
Athena I now recall seeing the movie some time way, way back. Not a bad show! Thanks for reminding me. |
||||||||
|
Shiva 19:51 There are some who say "The Catholic Church" has false doctrines. Such people show immediately their theological ignorance. In Christian theology, the "Catholic" church consists of all who are 'in Christ'. My own church here in Australia is the Uniting Church (a union of most Presbyterian, all Methodist and virtually all Congregationals). Our 'Basis of Union' (our 'constitution') states "The Uniting Church lives and works within the faith and unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Just like it says in the Apostles' Creed! The Greek Church calls itself the "Orthodox Catholic Church". Even the word 'Catholic' is based in Greek, not Latin. It comes from "kat holos" meaning 'according to the whole'. Perhaps those who say 'Catholic' mean 'the Latin Rite' Churches, but let's not make it too obvious for them. Such people often condemn a wider range of traditions than just the Roman Church. Some also hate Calvinism ("It denies free will!") or Lutheranism ("It retains the doctrine of the Real Presence!") or Episcopalism ("No Priest but Christ!") and so on.After all, there is only ONE Truth, and anyone who disagrees with one narrow interpretation is at best a heretic, and possibly Satanic. This heretical little koala, who is known the world over for not being a 'real Christian', sometimes wonders what Paul meant when he wrote to the Ephesians "For He Himself is our Peace, who has broken down the dividing wall between us." That same koala has also put into the mouth of Pope Barnabas... "What we need today is to remember what makes us Christian in the first place. It is not our heritage, it is not our baptism, it is not even our faith. What makes us Christian is Christ himself. Whenever we judge others by any standard but that, whenever we put any qualification in front of our brothers or sisters before we accept them as our co-inheritors, then we make that other standard or other qualification a false Christ. We become idolaters to our own prejudices, our own traditions. Sometimes even idolaters to our own trivial preferences." |
||||||||
|
VS 20:26 I also visited the University of Warsaw, and museums in Romania, Estonia, and Saint Petersburg, Russia. I sadly barely missed touring major exhibits in Riga, Latvia. But the Museum of Natural History in Denver, Colorado has wonderful exhibits on evolution, rivaling those of the Fields Museum in Chicago. I also visited Dinosaur National Monument, where Jurassic beasts lay entombed on a hillside. And fossil beds in Oregon, all Cenozoic critters. There I bought a poster detailing the evolutionary timeline. Fascinating stuff, Earth’s venerable history. Vanessa—did you ever take a biology class? I did not in college, but sat in on one lecture on raptor biology that served as my epiphany into evolution. That subject wasn’t broached in Miss Sweeney’s first year biology. I think they might have gotten into it in year two, where they dissected cats. We never covered it. Mr. White, who taught general science (and did a commendable job with chemistry—though not as well as Mr. Foster with the fragile drains) was a creationist. I wasn’t exposed to it in high school OR college, outside the one lecture. Yet here some folks say they were brow beat with the topic in grade school. A better understanding would certainly have saved me considerable embarrassment in my college experience. Speaking of college, we graduated the same year. You were the smartest person anyone knew back in high school. At BSU I met Jay Lou. Jay started in the math program at Boise State the year after me, at age ten. He graduated the year before me, when he was still only 13. At that time the youngest graduate of an accredited university in the United States. Quite a challenge, according to my professors. I was never in the same class as him. But I met him in the computer lab from time to time. One of my math professors said Jay would stare out the window, or read a book quietly in class. But if they made any mistake Jay would immediately interrupt their lecture and correct them. |
||||||||
|
Lord Shiva Blame the Dutch for the spelling. Never took a biology class, actually. Biology without dissection would have been fine, but dissection and such squicks me out. Fragile drains, that's for sure. I *think* I'm the only person who accidentally destroyed a portion of Elko High School's plumbing system (along with damaging a marble sink and ruining the clothes I was wearing, due to the emergency light acid washdown on the roof). Ah, Good Times. |
||||||||
|
We Were in Hot Water I credit that with saving my hand since Mr. Foster feared we were going to burn down the building over the weekend. And yes, I doubt another student in school history rattled the building the way you did. But when my dad was in high school in Boise someone detonated a bomb in a bathroom that took out an entire wall. I’m just pleased they didn’t evacuate the campus after our event. |
||||||||
|
• There is no reason a species will retain a mutation through successive generations unless it’s beneficial. The idea that a species will retain a neutral mutation that confers no advantage through successive generations until more mutations build upon the neutral mutation to create a beneficial biological system or structure isn’t how molecules-to-man evolution is supposed to work. • I’ve said the Catholic church believes, practices and promotes many doctrines that are not Biblical, which is true. I’ve said some Christians, including Catholics, do not consider Catholicism to be Christian (which is true) but I’ve taken no position on the matter. I only stated many of the Catholic church’s doctrines are either unBiblical or go directly against the Bible. • I have said numerous times that I believe God created humans and animals directly. I came to this belief years after concluding molecules-to-man evolution was nonsense. • I have justified – several times now – my statement that Bob Springett lied. As he has done in the past and as I have demonstrated in the past. And he is indeed engaged in harassment at this point. • There is an obvious difference between evolution within a species (which Darwin observed and which no one disputes) and claiming life began as a single-celled organism and that millions of species of plants and animals, and humans, are the result of an unguided, blind-chance process of random mutations and natural selection. The latter has not been confirmed by a long shot and remains the wild, irresponsible and unscientific guess that it was in 1859. • Darwin said natural selection was “My deity” which obviously has religious undertones. • I’ve said (and demonstrated) numerous times that many of the Catholic church’s doctrines are either unBiblical or in direct opposition to the Bible. That is quite different than Bob’s careless misrepresentation that I (it’s obvious he’s referring to me) said the church has false doctrines, which Bob then concludes (from his false premise) amounts to theological ignorance. • I’ve never said Bob is not a real Christian. I’ve said Bob is not a Christian by the Biblical definition because he has rejected Jesus Christ as his Saviour. I’ve explained this numerous times in the past. |
||||||||
|
At issue is this statement by Bob directed at me… <<You have told me repeatedly that you have nothing better to offer. I believe you! We both agree that you have NOTHING BETTER TO OFFER!! So the rest of what you say is pointless.>> To which I responded (after he repeated it verbatim…) <<You’re lying, Bob. I offered two videos that demonstrated problems with whale evolution. You and L_S ignored them and now you’re trolling, You’re the one who has nothing to offer. Nothing but trolling, insults and lies. Pretty sad.>> I suggest Bob’s formal complaint against me be publicly posted along with his recommendation that I be suspended from this club. Do you agree, Bob? Let your little vendetta play out in the open for all to see… “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” (John 3:20-21) Can I create a separate thread to publicly post your complaint against me and your recommendation that I be suspended from this club? |
||||||||
|
Vic 01:46 However, Vic has made it known that he is subject to a formal complaint. He has further asked for the content of my complaint to be published. I have no problem with what I do being seen by all. That is why I don't hide behind a made-up name, but operate under my known public name. I should also make public that I did nothing behind Vic's back. He was made aware of this formal complaint because I personally and immediately sent him a verbatim copy of what I sent to the Mods. I provided full disclosure to Vic and will continue to do so if and when I further message the Mods on this complaint. Of course, as Founder it was always within my power to simply boot Vic, if that was my agenda. But that was not and is not my aim. What I desire is for him to be brought to understand that he needs to press his opinions courteously and rationally, and that aim would not be achieved by me acting with a high hand. A decision by the Mods acting as a jury would be a better way forward, and a short suspension rather than expulsion would show that we had only a correction in mind rather than an execution. But the Mods will determine this matter, not me acting as judge in my own case. So, here is a copy of a formal complaint sent to the Moderators... <<Hello, apatzer, I formally request that you, Rags and Athena consider the recent posts on the 'God and Science' thread, in which Vic has accused me of lying and persisted in that allegation after my clarification of the statements which he (presumably) considered objectionable. I point out that he has not clearly defined which statements he considers untrue, and has even agreed to the substance of what I suspect is the core of his objection*. Nor has he shown that anything I said was untrue, and has not even attempted to demonstrate that I knew anything to be untrue and intended to mislead. Yet he is obdurate that he will not retract his allegation. This is nothing less than contempt not only for me as a member of the Club, but for the Club as a whole and the principles of honest comment which I try to uphold in this Club. I ask you to discuss with each other and conduct whatever further examinations you consider appropriate, with the end objective being an answer to the question "Did bobspringett lie?" If you come to the conclusion that bobspringett did NOT lie, I would welcome your comment on what sanction, if any, should be placed on Vic. At present my thinking is a suspension for a period of perhaps a month. Ideally, Vic has a differing point of view that should be heard in this club, but I want it to be stated in a way that does not impugn other members. I would hope that a suspension would impress upon him the need for courtesy and rationality. I suspect that this will not be the case, and that he will react much more negatively than my preference. But if so, that will be his decision, not mine. So if you can come up with a better response, then I would be glad to hear it. * "I said months (years?) ago that science is not advanced enough to test the creation account in Genesis – not an alternative theory to molecules-to-man evolution. Science even in the 21st century is primitive – some 96 percent of the universe is made of matter (dark energy, dark matter) that science cannot explain." (18:27) A copy of this message is also being sent to Vic.>> A reading of page 1 of the thread will provide whoever wants to do so with the substance of what triggered the accusation and my responses, etc alluded to in my formal complaint. In response to Vic's request for permission to start a separate thread, I confirm that every member of the Club is free to start a thread on any subject. If any thread is considered inappropriate it might well be deleted, but that applies as a commonsense provision binding all members, not just Vic. If Vic or anyone else specifically wants to post private messages into a public forum, then the permission of the other person should be obtained first. I have no problems with Vic posting anything I have sent him on this matter, or anything he has sent me; provided it is complete, the date of the message is provided and the message is not edited in any way. |
||||||||
|
Suggestion... This is a suggestion on going forward if we all agree then we can proceed in this way. each party gives one opening statement and then the mods get to work "The first opening statement in a trial is given by the party that bears the burden of proof. In a civil case, this is the plaintiff, and in a criminal case, it is the prosecution (the government). After the party with the burden of proof delivers their opening statement, the opposing party (the defense) follows with their own opening statement." So I suggest Vic create the thread, and Bob give an opening statement presenting HIS evidence as HE has the burden of proof. It isn't the Jurys job to look for evidence for either side. That is the prosecution's burden and their burden alone. I then suggest that the defense give their opening statement... then The Jury can get to work.... |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Retaining Mutations This simply isn’t the case. A neutral mutation may accompany a beneficial mutation. Or it may simply be passed on until it just happens to become fixed (is incorporated into 100% of the population). One example of a “neutral” mutation is the GULO gene. The broke in our primate ancestors, and became fixed. All old world and new world monkeys inherited a GULO gene that did nothing. Another example is the 2/3 chromosome fusion. Primates have 24 chromosomes, humans only 23 pairs. The fusion is a neutral mutation that became fixed in hominids. I believe neandertal had only 23 pair also—not sure about Denisovans. Many folks hold misconceptions about how evolution is “supposed to work,” often perpetuated by religious groups undermining science for their odd agenda. |
||||||||
|
Irresponsible Speculation The notion God created species distinct but with minor evolutionary adaptability’s is nonsense, wildly irresponsible speculation. In the real world of science and biology, theories are postulated and then evidence gathered to support or refute the theoretical explanation. This has been the case with Darwinism theory in the century and a half since he first proposed it. How often is evidence found in support of Darwin’s theory? On average, multiple times a day. Every living, breathing, evolving month a dozen journals on evolutionary biology publish peer reviewed research supporting aspects of the theory. Debate at this point is useless. Actually, debate was useless when the forces of darkness and ignorance defeated the voices of science and reason in the Scopes Monkey Trial back in the 1920s. Thanks for reminding me about the whale videos. I think Vanessa may be preparing some response, she is great. But I will take a look, which I should have done when Vic originally put them up. I am reminded of when Thumper promised to post his list of scientists who proved evolution was false back 15 years ago, which were still waiting on. I generally do make an effort to follow through. research-explorer.ista.ac.at |
||||||||
|
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” — Charles Darwin www.goodreads.com From AI… AI Overview The statement "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" is a famous quote by Charles Darwin from his seminal work, On the Origin of Species. Explanation: Darwin's Theory: Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection posits that complex traits and organisms evolve gradually over time through the accumulation of small, heritable variations. These variations, if advantageous, are more likely to be passed down to future generations, leading to gradual change and adaptation. The Challenge: The quote addresses a key potential challenge to his theory: the existence of a complex organ that could not have arisen through a series of small, incremental changes. If such an organ were found, it would suggest that evolution might not always proceed through gradual modification, and that other mechanisms might be at play. "Break Down": The use of "break down" highlights the critical importance of this point. If his theory failed to explain the origin of complex organs, it would undermine the entire framework of evolution by natural selection. In essence, Darwin was acknowledging that the gradual, incremental nature of evolutionary change was a crucial aspect of his theory, and that the discovery of a complex organ that defied this gradual process would be a significant blow to his ideas.>> |
||||||||
|
Evolution Quote from link above. I recommend those with an honest thirst of inquiry check this work out from their local library. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Origin of Novel Complex Organs Gemini offers: Complex organs like the eye evolve through a process of incremental changes over long periods, driven by natural selection. These changes involve modifications to existing structures and functions, with each small improvement contributing to the overall complexity. Here's a more detailed look at the process: 1. Gene Duplication and Divergence: A gene can be accidentally duplicated, and while the original copy maintains its usual function, the new copy is free to accumulate mutations. 2. Natural Selection: Some of these mutations may provide a selective advantage, leading to changes in the organ's structure or function. 3. Co-evolution of Parts: Different parts of an organ often evolve in tandem, ensuring that they function harmoniously. For example, changes in the cornea of the eye would require corresponding changes in the lens to maintain focus. 4. Incremental Improvements: Over generations, small improvements accumulate, leading to the development of increasingly complex organs. 5. Gene Sharing: An existing gene can be expressed in a new tissue or location, leading to the specialization of an organ for a new function without requiring changes to the gene itself. 6. Modifications to Embryonic Development: Changes in the way an embryo develops can also lead to the evolution of new organs. Examples of Complex Organ Evolution: The Eye: . Scientists have found clues in the evolutionary past of the eye, demonstrating how it evolved from simple light-sensitive spots to the complex organ we see today. The Placenta: . The placenta provides a good example of how new organs can emerge through the modification of existing structures and functions. Beetle Gland: . A study of a beetle gland showed how two cell types co-evolved to produce a new organ with a specific function. End quote. So Darwin was right—if it could be shown complex organs cannot evolve as he proposed his theory would break down. Creationists failed to show how this could not occur, despite 150 years of feverish effort. |
||||||||
|
But the reason I quoted Darwin was in response to your claim about retaining mutations. |
||||||||
|
Fire |
||||||||
|
Oops My responses will be on this thread, page 7. |
||||||||
|
Vic 18:27 Just catching up on this thread—I see I missed a lot of activity. The videos I watched did a really poor job of attacking evolution without offering the slightest hint of any improved theory or explanation. Vic has always been overly eager to dismiss opponents as liars, scum, villainous reprobates, and soulless astronomers who have imaginary baby seal clubbing friends. |
||||||||
|
Lord Shiva I'll wait. |
||||||||
|
Also |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Contact Better yet rent the book AND movie. The flick is worth watching again. Jodie Foster is great in everything she does. Agent Starling in Silence of the Lambs. Taxi Driver inspired a guy to shoot Reagan. The Accused. Little Man Tate. I think I have most of these. |
||||||||
|
Bob 23:57 I have never claimed Vic said this. Bob said Vic told him he has nothing better to offer, which I believe was in reference to the theory of evolution, not of life in general. Though to be fair Vic’s offerings have been less than adequate, outside of his comments on Trump—on which we tend to be in good agreement. Specifically, Vic has pointed out Trump’s deficits were a problem, and he made other comments on which we agree. Since Bob s the one making the statement, not me, I must await his addressing this issue. I cannot really comment further, beyond feeling slightly entitled given Vic rolled me into the conversation. I didn’t volunteer. I was Vic rolled. We're no strangers to love You know the rules and so do I A full commitment's what I'm thinkin' of You wouldn't get this from any other guy I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you We've known each other for so long Your heart's been aching, but you're too shy to say it Inside, we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it And if you ask me how I'm feeling Don't tell me you're too blind to see Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debate Watch the videos debunking whale evolution and offer a reply.>> Ok, I’ve replied both here and on thenMolecules thread. I do have a bit more of the second video to finish. Whale lungs and blowholes. The lungs may be a good point. The issues with the Gemini response below is that the Oracle doesn’t explain how this evolution occurred, only that it did. Whale lungs have evolved significantly from their terrestrial mammal ancestors, adapting to a fully aquatic lifestyle. These adaptations include increased lung elasticity and the ability to efficiently exchange gases, allowing for long dives. The blowhole, a remnant of nostrils, has also moved to the top of the head for easier surface breathing. Here's a more detailed look at the evolution of whale lungs: From Land to Water: . The evolutionary journey of whales began with land-dwelling mammals that gradually adapted to aquatic life. As whales transitioned to the sea, they developed features like streamlined bodies, flippers, and a blowhole. Blowhole Migration: . The nostrils, which are the equivalent of a blowhole in whales, gradually migrated to the top of the head, facilitating breathing while submerged. Increased Lung Elasticity: . Whale lungs have become highly elastic due to the deactivation of a gene that normally degrades elastin, a protein that gives lungs their stretch. This allows for rapid expansion and contraction of the lungs during dives. Efficient Gas Exchange: . Whales have evolved to be incredibly efficient at exchanging gases in their lungs. They can renew a larger percentage of the air in their lungs with each breath compared to humans, and they have a large surface area for gas exchange. Oxygen Storage: . Whales also store oxygen in their muscles using myoglobin, which helps them to maintain a dive for longer periods. Other Adaptations: . In addition to these lung-related adaptations, whales have also evolved other features that help them thrive in their aquatic environment, such as streamlined bodies and the ability to slow their heart rate during dives. End quote. I know Vic hates reading my responses and likely never reached down here, but Wells brings up lung elasticity. This wasn’t a trait that evolved so much as a trait that DEVOLVED. Mammals have a gene that blocks lung elasticity. Whales simply deactivated this gene (not intentionally) but it reversed a terrestrial adaptation occurring eons ago in mammalian lines. So this trait is far easier to explain than Wells would have us believe. |
||||||||
|
Blowhole The earliest known precursors to modern whale blowholes were present in Pakicetus, an ancient whale ancestor that lived around 53 million years ago. In Pakicetus, the nostrils were located at the tip of the snout, much like those of land-dwelling mammals. Over millions of years, as whales evolved and adapted to life in the water, the nostrils migrated from the snout to the top of the head, eventually forming the characteristic blowhole. Elaboration: Pakicetus: This ancient whale was one of the earliest known ancestors of modern whales and dolphins. Migration of Nostrils: As whales transitioned from land to sea, their nostrils gradually migrated from the tip of the snout to the top of the head. This migration is a key adaptation for breathing while swimming. Evolutionary Significance: The evolution of the blowhole allowed whales to breathe more efficiently while swimming, as the blowhole is located on the top of the head and can be used for breathing when the whale surfaces. Fossil Evidence: Fossils of early whales, like Pakicetus, provide evidence of the evolutionary transition of the nostrils to the blowhole. Basilosaurids: Fossil skulls of Basilosaurids, a group of extinct whales, show that the blowhole was already positioned further back on the snout than in Pakicetus, indicating a continued migration of the nostrils. Modern Whales: In modern whales, the blowhole is located on the top of the head and is a single opening in most species, while in some, like sperm whales, the blowhole is on the left side of the head. |
||||||||
| |||||||||
