|
Post by snow on Oct 22, 2019 10:19:54 GMT -5
** In Luke 16 Jesus/God talked about the rich man and Lazarus found out the truth after their death where they spend for eternity. The rich man wish he could come back to life and warned his family and others about this horrible place in Hades where unbelievers souls must stay temporary until the judgment day. I wish people would take Jesus warning seriously because once a person finds out the truth after death then it will be too late to change our eternal destiny. Nathan, I can't make myself believe. My dad says he believes "just in case". Huh? Believing "just in case" is simply going through the motions. And who do they think they're fooling? If there is an all knowing God, I'm sure he knows when people are just believing, just in case! I imagine it's better to be true to what you are believing instead of lying to yourself about it 'just in case'.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 22, 2019 13:01:51 GMT -5
Nathan, I can't make myself believe. My dad says he believes "just in case". Huh? Believing "just in case" is simply going through the motions. *** This is not just in case situation but fact of life! Jesus is the Emmanuel= God is with us. God/Jesus doesn't lie or tell us something isn't TRUE. Jesus was revealing to the humans, where ours souls depart after death. The unbelievers souls go to Hades/inner earth. The believers souls go to be with Christ in heaven. Sure, because all of humankind has been so afraid of death that they have created a myth to get around it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 13:23:57 GMT -5
Marie, are you suggesting he never said such a thing? If so, you are incorrect. If you were to read up on Punctuated Equilibria, you would realize this is an important quote with direct ties to the theory itself. His quote might make more sense to you once you do that. No doubt he made such a statement; -but you and the other creationists take it out of context and attempt to use it to prove that Eldredge and others do not believe evolution was the way that life developed!
Creationists use that dishonest tactic all the time! I have observed their manipulations for many years & I see it time & time again!
It is dishonest, deceptive & one of the very reasons that they are not reliable and can't be trusted!
There is a bit of a paradox when it comes to the original version of Darwinism, and the additions and refinements to it. There were indeed issues in which Darwin was flat out wrong. Darwin conceptualized at least four separate races, whereas now we know that humans consist of one species, with surprisingly little genetic variation despite the exaggerated variety of small traits like skin tone. Other aspects of Darwinism were and are incomplete as well. No doubt that our current understanding of how things work is incomplete, and perhaps portions of it will be shown to be completely wrong in the fullness of time. The term "Darwinism [without Lamarckism]" isn't even commonly used anymore, even though the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is firmly established in science. Some combination of Darwinism, Epigenetics (a new field), group selection and other factors leads to what we now call "The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" So, since strict Darwinism doesn't seem to account for every aspect of change in populations over time, are we to say that the whole process of scientific inquiry is untrustworthy? And with what do we replace it?
It gets to the nature of science. Science refines and modifies itself. In reference to Gould earlier, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, he says "Scientists do not debunk only to cleanse and purge. They refute older ideas in the light of a different view about the nature of things. If it is to have any enduring value, sound dubunking must do more than replace one social prejudice with another. It must use more adequate biology to drive out fallacious ideas."
So here's the paradox for the scientist - using the framework of systematic doubt and questioning to support, add to, or disprove ideas is an open admission that you do not know every literal physical detail about a thing. This presents a percieved weak spot, for which a complete and easy-to-understand answer may be inserted. The fact that strict Darwinism was only part of the equation (and was almost certainly over-emphasized in importance throughout much of history, since we weren't aware of other phenomena like epigenetics) is known now to us by using the scientific method itself to discover other supplemental mechanism of evolution. But it would be correct to be critical of the deterministic outlook that the original all-encompassing view of Darwinism originally took.
So then, it is right for scientists to admit that the data they are working with are subject to being replaced by the innovation and practice of better science with better equipment. However, the track record of the scientific method producing reliable (enough) results means that scientific data are to be updated with better scientific data, and not superstition or divine revelation. If Darwinism was indeed a religion (as some claim), we wouldn't be willing to fairly examine other mechanisms of evolution.
And there would be more tax-exempt funding for the sciences, which I suppose wouldn't be the end of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Oct 22, 2019 13:58:32 GMT -5
*** This is not just in case situation but fact of life! Jesus is the Emmanuel= God is with us. God/Jesus doesn't lie or tell us something isn't TRUE. Jesus was revealing to the humans, where ours souls depart after death. The unbelievers souls go to Hades/inner earth. The believers souls go to be with Christ in heaven. Sure, because all of humankind has been so afraid of death that they have created a myth to get around it. Many are afraid of what lies beyond the grave so have created a myth that there is nothing beyond it. It ends at death. Of late I'm realizing how tunnel visioned athiests are when they make comments from one angle directed at theists when the same finger clearly points back at them.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 22, 2019 14:24:39 GMT -5
Sure, because all of humankind has been so afraid of death that they have created a myth to get around it. Many are afraid of what lies beyond the grave so have created a myth that there is nothing beyond it. It ends at death. Of late I'm realizing how tunnel visioned athiests are when they make comments from one angle directed at theists when the same finger clearly points back at them. Not quite sure what you mean by how "tunnel visioned athiests are when they make comments from one angle directed at theists when the same finger clearly points back at them. "
I Don't understand why you think that my view is a "tunnel vision" of only "one angle directed at theists" or what you mean when you say that the "same finger clearly points back at them."
I haven't "directed" my comments at anyone.
People like Nathan states his views as do theists do as well, but when I state my own view from what I have learned though the years, -you denounce my views.
Maybe you could explain further.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 22, 2019 15:26:05 GMT -5
Of course, this is micro-evolution and is not disputed. The dispute among philosophers and scientists is macro-evolution. Disingenuous to not differentiate. Not at all. What do you think many micro changes does? Many over a long period of time equates to macro in the long term. Why do you deny that? Uhh..because it requires more faith than my scientific mind will allow. And, I'm not the only one. Dear Snow, you would know this already if your mind were even a bit more open to truth.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 22, 2019 15:44:20 GMT -5
No doubt he made such a statement; -but you and the other creationists take it out of context and attempt to use it to prove that Eldredge and others do not believe evolution was the way that life developed!
Creationists use that dishonest tactic all the time! I have observed their manipulations for many years & I see it time & time again!
It is dishonest, deceptive & one of the very reasons that they are not reliable and can't be trusted!
There is a bit of a paradox when it comes to the original version of Darwinism, and the additions and refinements to it. There were indeed issues in which Darwin was flat out wrong. Darwin conceptualized at least four separate races, whereas now we know that humans consist of one species, with surprisingly little genetic variation despite the exaggerated variety of small traits like skin tone. Other aspects of Darwinism were and are incomplete as well. No doubt that our current understanding of how things work is incomplete, and perhaps portions of it will be shown to be completely wrong in the fullness of time. The term "Darwinism [without Lamarckism]" isn't even commonly used anymore, even though the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is firmly established in science. Some combination of Darwinism, Epigenetics (a new field), group selection and other factors leads to what we now call "The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" So, since strict Darwinism doesn't seem to account for every aspect of change in populations over time, are we to say that the whole process of scientific inquiry is untrustworthy? And with what do we replace it?
It gets to the nature of science. Science refines and modifies itself. In reference to Gould earlier, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, he says "Scientists do not debunk only to cleanse and purge. They refute older ideas in the light of a different view about the nature of things. If it is to have any enduring value, sound dubunking must do more than replace one social prejudice with another. It must use more adequate biology to drive out fallacious ideas." So here's the paradox for the scientist - using the framework of systematic doubt and questioning to support, add to, or disprove ideas is an open admission that you do not know every literal physical detail about a thing. This presents a percieved weak spot, for which a complete and easy-to-understand answer may be inserted. The fact that strict Darwinism was only part of the equation (and was almost certainly over-emphasized in importance throughout much of history, since we weren't aware of other phenomena like epigenetics) is known now to us by using the scientific method itself to discover other supplemental mechanism of evolution. But it would be correct to be critical of the deterministic outlook that the original all-encompassing view of Darwinism originally took.
So then, it is right for scientists to admit that the data they are working with are subject to being replaced by the innovation and practice of better science with better equipment. However, the track record of the scientific method producing reliable (enough) results means that scientific data are to be updated with better scientific data, and not superstition or divine revelation. If Darwinism was indeed a religion (as some claim), we wouldn't be willing to fairly examine other mechanisms of evolution.
And there would be more tax-exempt funding for the sciences, which I suppose wouldn't be the end of the world. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good summary. In theory, I agree that is how science should work - starting with disbelief. Unfortunately, molecules-to-man is being taught as fact, so kids aren't being given a fair chance to disbelieve. As an example, you brought up Lamarckism. This was the first theory of evolution (now there are a total of 10 or so). It was introduced in 1801, published in 1809 but it wasn't until the 1930s that it was rejected by most. In 1948, the communists in the USSR revived it (violently) and it became "official" biology for a time. Now, it is completely abandoned. "However, no transmission of a purely bodily modification in a higher animal or plant has ever been verified." link
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 22, 2019 15:48:52 GMT -5
I'm all for compromising and getting along when possible, but the case for molecules-to-man is just so weak - it's actually laughable. Listen to the YouTube of David Berlinski at the Socrates in the City event (I posted a link somewhere). He had the whole audience laughing at the idea. God does use micro-evolution *but* this is possible due to information (DNA coding) and restraints already defined within the organism. Macro-evolution requires new information. Mutation doesn't work. Sorry. Look it up and try to find a mutation that was stable and beneficial. Regardless, it doesn't even matter. "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations." -Niles Eldredge, PhD Paleontologist There is no such thing as (DNA coding) such a 1's and 0's there is only shapes which I don't think counts as code "The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome , which links amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time." www.wikipedia.comYou're welcome. FYI - DNA is the book of life within living organisms. Ever read a book that didn't have an author?
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 22, 2019 15:58:55 GMT -5
Marie, are you suggesting he never said such a thing? If so, you are incorrect. If you were to read up on Punctuated Equilibria, you would realize this is an important quote with direct ties to the theory itself. His quote might make more sense to you once you do that. No doubt he made such a statement; -but you and the other creationists take it out of context and attempt to use it to prove that Eldredge and others do not believe evolution was the way that life developed!
Creationists use that dishonest tactic all the time! I have observed their manipulations for many years & I see it time & time again!
It is dishonest, deceptive & one of the very reasons that they are not reliable and can't be trusted!
Lets be clear, are you suggesting that all creationists use dishonest tactics? I think this is the sin of stereotyping. Have you ever seen evolutionists use dishonest tactics? If not, I can give you plenty of examples starting with Dawkins talking about Jesus (as if he's an expert?) in his book, The God Delusion. In this age of fake news, we all need to do our own research; bias and assumptions need to be recognized. Based on your claim that the quote was taken out of context, I assumed you were unfamiliar with the PE theory. You do understand that Eldredge and Gould (and their theory) were rejected as heretical for a time?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 22, 2019 16:04:48 GMT -5
There is no such thing as (DNA coding) such a 1's and 0's there is only shapes which I don't think counts as code "The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome , which links amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time." www.wikipedia.comYou're welcome. FYI - DNA is the book of life within living organisms. Ever read a book that didn't have an author? Cute sayings wont do your argument any good at all. The workers have been using them for years which usually gets resulkts in them digging themselves holes. Take for instance the wally that preached about the Palm being different to every other tree. His sermon was a result of p.ss poor research. Cute sayings resulted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 16:12:38 GMT -5
There is a bit of a paradox when it comes to the original version of Darwinism, and the additions and refinements to it. There were indeed issues in which Darwin was flat out wrong. Darwin conceptualized at least four separate races, whereas now we know that humans consist of one species, with surprisingly little genetic variation despite the exaggerated variety of small traits like skin tone. Other aspects of Darwinism were and are incomplete as well. No doubt that our current understanding of how things work is incomplete, and perhaps portions of it will be shown to be completely wrong in the fullness of time. The term "Darwinism [without Lamarckism]" isn't even commonly used anymore, even though the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is firmly established in science. Some combination of Darwinism, Epigenetics (a new field), group selection and other factors leads to what we now call "The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" So, since strict Darwinism doesn't seem to account for every aspect of change in populations over time, are we to say that the whole process of scientific inquiry is untrustworthy? And with what do we replace it?
It gets to the nature of science. Science refines and modifies itself. In reference to Gould earlier, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, he says "Scientists do not debunk only to cleanse and purge. They refute older ideas in the light of a different view about the nature of things. If it is to have any enduring value, sound dubunking must do more than replace one social prejudice with another. It must use more adequate biology to drive out fallacious ideas." So here's the paradox for the scientist - using the framework of systematic doubt and questioning to support, add to, or disprove ideas is an open admission that you do not know every literal physical detail about a thing. This presents a percieved weak spot, for which a complete and easy-to-understand answer may be inserted. The fact that strict Darwinism was only part of the equation (and was almost certainly over-emphasized in importance throughout much of history, since we weren't aware of other phenomena like epigenetics) is known now to us by using the scientific method itself to discover other supplemental mechanism of evolution. But it would be correct to be critical of the deterministic outlook that the original all-encompassing view of Darwinism originally took.
So then, it is right for scientists to admit that the data they are working with are subject to being replaced by the innovation and practice of better science with better equipment. However, the track record of the scientific method producing reliable (enough) results means that scientific data are to be updated with better scientific data, and not superstition or divine revelation. If Darwinism was indeed a religion (as some claim), we wouldn't be willing to fairly examine other mechanisms of evolution.
And there would be more tax-exempt funding for the sciences, which I suppose wouldn't be the end of the world. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good summary. In theory, I agree that is how science should work - starting with disbelief. Unfortunately, molecules-to-man is being taught as fact, so kids aren't being given a fair chance to disbelieve. As an example, you brought up Lamarckism. This was the first theory of evolution (now there are a total of 10 or so). It was introduced in 1801, published in 1809 but it wasn't until the 1930s that it was rejected by most. In 1948, the communists in the USSR revived it (violently) and it became "official" biology for a time. Now, it is completely abandoned. "However, no transmission of a purely bodily modification in a higher animal or plant has ever been verified." link Well, it could be said that we are simply large collections of molecules, (and for practical purposes, it probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference), but I do agree that kids should be shown all evidence and allowed to decide for themselves. Perhaps even more, it's my desire that kids be taught how to ask informed questions and search for/ interpret new evidence that our current understanding be modified and improved as needed. Interesting that communism embraced Lamarckism - I hadn't been aware of that until I read your link (thanks, btw ). I know the aspects of Darwinian evolution were applied throughout the western world (Social Darwinism -> Unrestricted Capitalism), and took a sinister turn with forced sterilization of the criminal and "mentally defective", and an even darker turn in Nazi Germany (except the Nazis didn't believe in common descent of man, since it would've implied they were related to the Jews and other minorities). It makes sense that Lamarckism would've thrived in communist countries, I suppose.
It just shows that whether something is true or not in an animal population doesn't necessarily mean that it morally should be applied in the context of human affairs (or leastwise at the discretion of humans).
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Oct 22, 2019 16:16:04 GMT -5
There is no such thing as (DNA coding) such a 1's and 0's there is only shapes which I don't think counts as code "The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome , which links amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time." www.wikipedia.comYou're welcome. FYI - DNA is the book of life within living organisms. Ever read a book that didn't have an author? Dear Ed, Don't know much about you perhaps you are a quite wonderful person and in real life we might be pals. But totally disagree with you on this subject. Can you fit a square object into a round hole? Well, perhaps but you need a really big hammer. Either way I can't see that as a code. I once read a PHD dissertation or perhaps they call it a thesis where you came from . It was submitted by a fellow I Knew at New Mexico State in Los Cruses New Mexico on Natural Language. His topic was the language of missiles. His subject covered the language that the human brain uses to catch a baseball in a mitt from a popup or fly ball. Some of his Professors claimed he had strayed into a coded sequence which would have made it a level of abstraction beyond his scope but the majority on the panel claimed otherwise. Also lets us not forget in object-oriented programming, abstraction is one of three central principles (along with encapsulation and inheritance). Through the process of abstraction, a programmer hides all but the relevant data about an object in order to reduce complexity and increase efficiency. Thus is there anything that is hidden in DNA work? There is a disconnect between function and information content in a cell. If the creationist can get an agreement on coding then there must be a coder. Very smooth trick. Parts of the cell are very simple but can do great function because of their shape. All DNA is shapes. It all about molecules with different shapes interacting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 16:18:45 GMT -5
No doubt he made such a statement; -but you and the other creationists take it out of context and attempt to use it to prove that Eldredge and others do not believe evolution was the way that life developed!
Creationists use that dishonest tactic all the time! I have observed their manipulations for many years & I see it time & time again!
It is dishonest, deceptive & one of the very reasons that they are not reliable and can't be trusted!
Lets be clear, are you suggesting that all creationists use dishonest tactics? I think this is the sin of stereotyping. Have you ever seen evolutionists use dishonest tactics? If not, I can give you plenty of examples starting with Dawkins talking about Jesus (as if he's an expert?) in his book, The God Delusion. In this age of fake news, we all need to do our own research; bias and assumptions need to be recognized. Based on your claim that the quote was taken out of context, I assumed you were unfamiliar with the PE theory. You do understand that Eldredge and Gould (and their theory) were rejected as heretical for a time? I actually don't think that the real earnest apologetic Christians are being dishonest. They are operating from the context of faith, and that requires belief in "evidence of things not seen". Science operates in the context of "evidence of things seen". So I don't think that creationists are being necessarily dishonest, but I do think that the method they use for arriving at their beliefs about the natural world is not scientific per se. This exchange between YEC Ken Ham and Bill Nye really summarizes the difference in mindset of the two. However, I do acknowledge that scientists are human, and are filled with bias and potential errors. The utility of the method is that it seeks to mitigate these biases with things like peer review, and publishing of material and methods.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 22, 2019 18:29:59 GMT -5
Sure, because all of humankind has been so afraid of death that they have created a myth to get around it. Many are afraid of what lies beyond the grave so have created a myth that there is nothing beyond it. It ends at death. Of late I'm realizing how tunnel visioned athiests are when they make comments from one angle directed at theists when the same finger clearly points back at them. Now that's an interesting twist. What makes you think that any atheist is trying to avoid death?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Oct 22, 2019 20:11:09 GMT -5
Many are afraid of what lies beyond the grave so have created a myth that there is nothing beyond it. It ends at death. Of late I'm realizing how tunnel visioned athiests are when they make comments from one angle directed at theists when the same finger clearly points back at them. Now that's an interesting twist. What makes you think that any atheist is trying to avoid death? No mention of anyone trying to avoid death. What do you think is the myth which Dmm is taking about if not life after death? What other myth might she me talking about? Dmmichgood wrote: Sure, because all of humankind has been so afraid of death that they have created a myth to get around it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 20:48:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 22, 2019 21:53:52 GMT -5
No doubt he made such a statement; -but you and the other creationists take it out of context and attempt to use it to prove that Eldredge and others do not believe evolution was the way that life developed!
Creationists use that dishonest tactic all the time! I have observed their manipulations for many years & I see it time & time again!
It is dishonest, deceptive & one of the very reasons that they are not reliable and can't be trusted!
There is a bit of a paradox when it comes to the original version of Darwinism, and the additions and refinements to it. There were indeed issues in which Darwin was flat out wrong. Darwin conceptualized at least four separate races, whereas now we know that humans consist of one species, with surprisingly little genetic variation despite the exaggerated variety of small traits like skin tone. Other aspects of Darwinism were and are incomplete as well. No doubt that our current understanding of how things work is incomplete, and perhaps portions of it will be shown to be completely wrong in the fullness of time.
The term "Darwinism [without Lamarckism]" isn't even commonly used anymore, even though the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is firmly established in science. Some combination of Darwinism, Epigenetics (a new field), group selection and other factors leads to what we now call "The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis"
So, since strict Darwinism doesn't seem to account for every aspect of change in populations over time, are we to say that the whole process of scientific inquiry is untrustworthy? And with what do we replace it?
It gets to the nature of science. Science refines and modifies itself.
In reference to Gould earlier, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, he says "Scientists do not debunk only to cleanse and purge. They refute older ideas in the light of a different view about the nature of things. If it is to have any enduring value, sound debunking must do more than replace one social prejudice with another. It must use more adequate biology to drive out fallacious ideas." So here's the paradox for the scientist - using the framework of systematic doubt and questioning to support, add to, or disprove ideas is an open admission that you do not know every literal physical detail about a thing. This presents a percieved weak spot, for which a complete and easy-to-understand answer may be inserted. The fact that strict Darwinism was only part of the equation (and was almost certainly over-emphasized in importance throughout much of history, since we weren't aware of other phenomena like epigenetics) is known now to us by using the scientific method itself to discover other supplemental mechanism of evolution. But it would be correct to be critical of the deterministic outlook that the original all-encompassing view of Darwinism originally took.
So then, it is right for scientists to admit that the data they are working with are subject to being replaced by the innovation and practice of better science with better equipment. However, the track record of the scientific method producing reliable (enough) results means that scientific data are to be updated with better scientific data, and not superstition or divine revelation.
If Darwinism was indeed a religion (as some claim), we wouldn't be willing to fairly examine other mechanisms of evolution.
And there would be more tax-exempt funding for the sciences, which I suppose wouldn't be the end of the world. Well said, ipsedixit! well said!
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 22, 2019 22:28:00 GMT -5
Lets be clear, are you suggesting that all creationists use dishonest tactics? I think this is the sin of stereotyping. Have you ever seen evolutionists use dishonest tactics? If not, I can give you plenty of examples starting with Dawkins talking about Jesus (as if he's an expert?) in his book, The God Delusion. In this age of fake news, we all need to do our own research; bias and assumptions need to be recognized. Based on your claim that the quote was taken out of context, I assumed you were unfamiliar with the PE theory. You do understand that Eldredge and Gould (and their theory) were rejected as heretical for a time? I actually don't think that the real earnest apologetic Christians are being dishonest. They are operating from the context of faith, and that requires belief in "evidence of things not seen". Science operates in the context of "evidence of things seen". So I don't think that creationists are being necessarily dishonest, but I do think that the method they use for arriving at their beliefs about the natural world is not scientific per se. This exchange between YEC Ken Ham and Bill Nye really summarizes the difference in mindset of the two. However, I do acknowledge that scientists are human, and are filled with bias and potential errors. The utility of the method is that it seeks to mitigate these biases with things like peer review, and publishing of material and methods.
Neither do I believe that earnest Christians are being dishonest. I believe that most all Christians in fact sincerely believe what they have been told. It is that they have never thought to question their belief as to what it really means or where the belief came from.
However, I disagree that creationists are not being dishonest. I have been following them for decades and they are constantly quoting scientists out of context and they have to be aware of what they are doing so!
The average Christian doesn't know that the "creationists" are doing that.
I have heard them quote Darwin' about the eye. In fact they just dearly love that one! However they only quote the FIRST part of what he wrote and leave off the rest resulting in a distortion of what he really meant!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 22, 2019 22:58:59 GMT -5
Now that's an interesting twist. What makes you think that any atheist is trying to avoid death? No mention of anyone trying to avoid death. What do you think is the myth which Dmm is taking about if not life after death? What other myth might she me talking about? Dmmichgood wrote: Sure, because all of humankind has been so afraid of death that they have created a myth to get around it. That is exactly what I meant! I said: "Sure, because all of humankind has been so afraid of death that they have created a myth to get around it."
I was answering Nathan's post!
He stated; -Jesus was revealing to the humans, where ours souls depart after death.
The unbelievers souls go to Hades/inner earth.
The believers souls go to be with Christ in heaven.
It was the fear of death that caused mankind to create myths in order to convince themselves that they would escape death by further existing in some sort of after life.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2019 0:13:55 GMT -5
Marie, are you suggesting he never said such a thing? If so, you are incorrect. If you were to read up on Punctuated Equilibria, you would realize this is an important quote with direct ties to the theory itself. His quote might make more sense to you once you do that. And you won't have to keep making assumptions that I am unaware of his career details. Sorry about my "assumption." But as far as my "assumption" about how little you know about Niles Eldredge's career details, -please remember you gave only one quote of his out of what would have been a longer text.
Just so I don't have to "assume" you don't know more about him, would you please post the surrounding text where that one quote was contained? Thanks.
Mr. Ballard; - I ask you once before for this information. Perhaps you missed it or haven't got around to answering yet; -just want to remind you please for that info so I wouldn't be guilty of making " assumptions" again.
would you please post the surrounding text where that one quote of Niles Eldredge was contained?
Thanks
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 23, 2019 0:37:16 GMT -5
Now that's an interesting twist. What makes you think that any atheist is trying to avoid death? No mention of anyone trying to avoid death. What do you think is the myth which Dmm is taking about if not life after death? What other myth might she me talking about? Dmmichgood wrote: Sure, because all of humankind has been so afraid of death that they have created a myth to get around it. Just because one is afraid of death doesn't mean he has any concern whatsoever for an afterlife. One common and perfectly understandable fears is that one will suffer a prolonged and torturous death. All living creatures have an inbred instinct to self preservation -- so absent the myth of there being an afterlife, the urge to save one's life is simply an attempt to live longer, and avoid the torture of death. The only people who fear death because of an after life are people who have been taught one of the beliefs that have been promoted about the likes of hellfire or whatever peril they have devised to control people in this life. That's the stuff of myth.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2019 0:44:36 GMT -5
Why do you keep calling her Marie? There is no science to creationism. It's all just poofed here, no need for science when something like that happens. On the other hand, science is a process of discovery and we have discovered that we have evolved and all the data that points to that and not being poofed here is enormous. Once a group decides that they have all the answers in their holy book, why would they do any work to discover the world around them? After all it's all been explained already right? How do you explain all the evidence in fossils that have been found? Do you believe what some creationists believe that God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test man's faith? Science denier. “I’m inclined to say that actually there is no evidence for evolution.” “The great problem with science, as it is understood today, is that authority more and more replaces evidence.” Just look at the complete title of Darwin’s book. The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. “How do we know which ones are favored? And it turns out, it’s the ones that are preserved. So the whole thing is sort of circular.” Iconoclast: One Journalist's Odyssey through the Darwin DebatesTom Bethell, author of Darwin’s House of Cards. Read about what Tom Bethell believes, decide for yourself if he is worthy of paying any serious attention. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bethell <except> Tom Bethell born July 17, 1936) is an American journalist who writes mainly on economic and scientific issues, and is known for his writings on the market economy, political conservatism, and fringe science.
In 1976, Bethell wrote a controversial article titled Darwin's Mistake. According to Bethell there is no independent criterion of fitness and natural selection is a tautology. Bethell also stated that Darwin's theory was on "the verge of collapse" and natural selection had been "quietly abandoned" by his supporters. These claims were disputed by biologists. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a rebuttal to Bethell's arguments.
Bethell was a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis which denies that HIV causes AIDS. In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (2005), he promotes denial of the existence of man-made global warming, AIDS denialism, and denial of evolution (which Bethell denies is "real science"), promoting intelligent design instead.
Bethell has endorsed the intelligent design documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 23, 2019 0:54:48 GMT -5
Science denier. “I’m inclined to say that actually there is no evidence for evolution.” “The great problem with science, as it is understood today, is that authority more and more replaces evidence.” Just look at the complete title of Darwin’s book. The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. “How do we know which ones are favored? And it turns out, it’s the ones that are preserved. So the whole thing is sort of circular.” Iconoclast: One Journalist's Odyssey through the Darwin DebatesTom Bethell, author of Darwin’s House of Cards. Read about what Tom Bethell believes, decide for yourself if he is worthy of paying any serious attention. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bethell <except> Tom Bethell born July 17, 1936) is an American journalist who writes mainly on economic and scientific issues, and is known for his writings on the market economy, political conservatism, and fringe science.
In 1976, Bethell wrote a controversial article titled Darwin's Mistake. According to Bethell there is no independent criterion of fitness and natural selection is a tautology. Bethell also stated that Darwin's theory was on "the verge of collapse" and natural selection had been "quietly abandoned" by his supporters. These claims were disputed by biologists. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a rebuttal to Bethell's arguments.
Bethell was a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis which denies that HIV causes AIDS. In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (2005), he promotes denial of the existence of man-made global warming, AIDS denialism, and denial of evolution (which Bethell denies is "real science"), promoting intelligent design instead.
Bethell has endorsed the intelligent design documentary Expelled: No Intelligence AllowedHe is one really stupid fella.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2019 2:36:58 GMT -5
Read about what Tom Bethell believes, decide for yourself if he is worthy of paying any serious attention. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bethell <except> Tom Bethell born July 17, 1936) is an American journalist who writes mainly on economic and scientific issues, and is known for his writings on the market economy, political conservatism, and fringe science.
In 1976, Bethell wrote a controversial article titled Darwin's Mistake. According to Bethell there is no independent criterion of fitness and natural selection is a tautology. Bethell also stated that Darwin's theory was on "the verge of collapse" and natural selection had been "quietly abandoned" by his supporters. These claims were disputed by biologists. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a rebuttal to Bethell's arguments.
Bethell was a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis which denies that HIV causes AIDS. In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (2005), he promotes denial of the existence of man-made global warming, AIDS denialism, and denial of evolution (which Bethell denies is "real science"), promoting intelligent design instead.
Bethell has endorsed the intelligent design documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed He is one really stupid fella. Sounds like he hasn't quite got his head skewed on right, at the least!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2019 6:55:16 GMT -5
Dr. David Berlinski: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XId**eZplUdedicated to the irat who has been weighed in the balances and found wanting - in common, ordinary English.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 23, 2019 11:13:03 GMT -5
Not at all. What do you think many micro changes does? Many over a long period of time equates to macro in the long term. Why do you deny that? Uhh..because it requires more faith than my scientific mind will allow. And, I'm not the only one. Dear Snow, you would know this already if your mind were even a bit more open to truth. My mind is open to the truth. It's not even a debate with a majority of scientists.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 23, 2019 11:44:17 GMT -5
Sorry about my "assumption." But as far as my "assumption" about how little you know about Niles Eldredge's career details, -please remember you gave only one quote of his out of what would have been a longer text.
Just so I don't have to "assume" you don't know more about him, would you please post the surrounding text where that one quote was contained? Thanks.
Mr. Ballard; - I ask you once before for this information. Perhaps you missed it or haven't got around to answering yet; -just want to remind you please for that info so I wouldn't be guilty of making " assumptions" again.
would you please post the surrounding text where that one quote of Niles Eldredge was contained?
Thanks
Thanks.I think you missed the point. The context might as well be the theory of Punctuated Equilibria! They fit together hand and glove. For those who don't know, during the Cambrian Explosion a huge number of diverse animals appeared with no discernible antecedents. Eldredge and Gould theorized that evolution could sometimes occur rapidly! Seems like a reasonable assumption when life just appeared! So, Punctuated Equilibria is the first modified theory of evolution attempting to address facts represented by the fossil record! Mr. Eldredge is simply summarizing the theory with a single statement. "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations." -Niles Eldredge, PhD
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 23, 2019 11:50:29 GMT -5
"The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome , which links amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time." www.wikipedia.comYou're welcome. FYI - DNA is the book of life within living organisms. Ever read a book that didn't have an author? Dear Ed, Don't know much about you perhaps you are a quite wonderful person and in real life we might be pals. But totally disagree with you on this subject. Can you fit a square object into a round hole? Well, perhaps but you need a really big hammer. Either way I can't see that as a code. I once read a PHD dissertation or perhaps they call it a thesis where you came from . It was submitted by a fellow I Knew at New Mexico State in Los Cruses New Mexico on Natural Language. His topic was the language of missiles. His subject covered the language that the human brain uses to catch a baseball in a mitt from a popup or fly ball. Some of his Professors claimed he had strayed into a coded sequence which would have made it a level of abstraction beyond his scope but the majority on the panel claimed otherwise. Also lets us not forget in object-oriented programming, abstraction is one of three central principles (along with encapsulation and inheritance). Through the process of abstraction, a programmer hides all but the relevant data about an object in order to reduce complexity and increase efficiency. Thus is there anything that is hidden in DNA work? There is a disconnect between function and information content in a cell. If the creationist can get an agreement on coding then there must be a coder. Very smooth trick. Parts of the cell are very simple but can do great function because of their shape. All DNA is shapes. It all about molecules with different shapes interacting. The DNA molecule stores information as a 4 character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals inside the DNA helix store the information for building the proteins that cells need to survive. Unless the DNA is properly sequenced, the protein molecule will not form. Evolution: Bacteria to BeethovenBill Gates has said DNA is like a software program. To build new forms of life, the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information—new code. No one doubts that natural selection is a real process and that it produces minor variations, but many biologists now doubt that it produces major innovations in biological form.
|
|