Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

[Thief]

because you translate it to meet your imaginational needs in my opinion.




it was not delivered, it was written by jews after they stole it from a previous religion with a different god/

im glad you admit being pagan now lOL

again all I ask is youu get a education in either the bible or science.

but to walk around quoting both blindy is beyond me.

As if you know better!......nay.

And you would argue the source is everything?....

I actually don't care who wrote it.
I actually don't care your opinion.

And none are so blind as those who will not see.

(And my education happens to be quite extensive.)

 

[Bereanz]

Really? Where did Jesus advocate willful ignorance?



(And bragging on your spelling skills, then following up with the misspellings of espousing and Doctrines shows misplaced arrogance.)

Well, we know that Jesus didnt advocate willfull ignorance, but He was quite scathing towards those who did and I have to say I'd love to see Him going loose up in this crib with a knotted rope. Any idea what Jesus did advoate while where on that subject?

Point taken with my spelling. Although to be fair I was making a statement that I know how to spell the word "Christian", not that I was the high school spelling champ.

 

[micrurus]

Point taken with my spelling. Although to be fair I was making a statement that I know how to spell the word "Christian", not that I was the high school spelling champ.

Im dyslectic and english isnt my primary language, but feel free to comment on my spelling, it has no argumental value anyways.

 

[Bereanz]

Im dyslectic and english isnt my primary language, but feel free to comment on my spelling, it has no argumental value anyways.

Im dyslexic aswell, and if English is your second language, then your doing very well. I appologise for being critical of your spelling, given that mine, at times, is atrocious.

Actually I also must say, even though there are a great many protangonists towards christianity in these threads, the level of civilty in the discussion is quite impressive. I've seen a lot worse.

 

[LuisDantas]

Almost....
A misconception presented by just one person could have long standing influence.

Was it not Aristotle who taught spontaneous generation?

And that teaching stood firm until someone did a proper experiment...
with fly maggots of all things...
to show otherwise.

I've seen one report that now disputes the skeleton of "Lucy".

I wish it were easy.
One discovery...one law unchanging.

But each time someone pronounces...'eureka!...I found it'....
Someone else comes along....'you jerk!.....no you didn't!'

Fortunately, that is not even remotely the case with Evolution. It is tested and found to be true repeatedly, every year.

 

[idea]

It is tested and found to be true repeatedly, every year.

it is tested, and the theory changes every year...

let's see... wiki defines evolution as: Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" the change in the
1. inherited traits of a population of organisms
2. through successive generations"
3. Random mutations
4. Adaptation occurs through the gradual modification



hmmm, here is another article:
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HGT: it's
1. not inherited (new traits come through viral infections, not from your parents)
2. not through successive generations (one group of animals all gets the same infections, all makes the same change at once, not generation by generation)
3. not random (specific information is inserted into the genome by another living creature, not from a random mistake)
4. it is not gradual (one group of animals all gets the same infections, all makes the same change at once - they can all mate with one another, unlike traditional evolution where small changes were needed so that the single mutant was still able to produce offspring with the rest) - see punctuated equilibrium...Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


not traditional evolution, that's for sure...

it seems common genes between species might mean they both got bit by the same mosquito instead of both descending from the same ancestors? The entire family tree is now in question (link - scroll down to all the linke3d articles) because genetic material comes from more than just your parents? The assumption that same DNA = same ancestor was wrong?

what's this?
""What elevated common descent to doctrinal status almost certainly was the much later discovery of the universality of biochemistry, which was seemingly impossible to explain otherwise. But that was before horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which could offer an alternative explanation for the universality of biochemistry" - Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HGT is why evolution is now considered fact - even though HGT completely changes the mechanism, and is a completely different theory than what Darwin first proposed...

The name "evolution" is the same, but the theory drastically changes every year as new information is found...




btw: "horizontal gene transfer is a form of genetic engineering"... HGT works well with ID.

Cambrian explosion ("explosion" - not gradual) - want to see where some of the info used in HGT comes from? watch this:
[youtube]5-XWAXe4xJg[/youtube]
YouTube - Origin of Life - Panspermia (2 of 3)

The original evolutionary theory assumed the Earth was a closed system... the Earth is not a closed system.

I believe life was brought here from heaven.

 

[LuisDantas]

it is tested, and the theory changes every year...

Of course it does. It is not dogma. It takes new findings into consideration, as it well ought to do. It has changed a lot since the original proposals by Darwin and Wallace.

That is in fact to be expected, and in no way a sign of "weakness". Are you aware of how significant those changes are these days? Not a whole lot, although what little controversy there is ends up being trumpeted way out of scale for propaganda effect.

 

[painted wolf]

Why is HGT not "traditional" evolution?
It's still a change in gene frequencies over time.

Wiki actually says this is the definition of evolution

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common.

HGT can be inherited... it is often random (viral genes are snipped out of our DNA, but not all of it... what bits remain are random)
Not every member of a species will catch the same virus... lots of humans have never had Chicken Pox, Polio and so on.

wa:do

ps... the core definition of evolution does not change from year to year... "gene frequencies change in populations over time"... it hasn't changed for a very long time.
What changes is our understanding of how that process works in the very complex world we live in.

 

[outhouse]

it is tested, and the theory changes every year...

thast right its a tree and it grows stronger every year

while your failing religion becomes more and more fiction

 

[Bereanz]

thast right its a tree and it grows stronger every year

while your failing religion becomes more and more fiction

Like a tree that's dieing a little more each year.

Since when does any life form on earth grow stronger and stronger each year? You'll need to think a little about your analogies in future. Youve dropped yourslef right in it with that one.

Id' like to see how science defines "death". Particularly the wanna be evolutionist "non" scientists.

 

[outhouse]

As if you know better!......nay.

And you would argue the source is everything?....

I actually don't care who wrote it.
I actually don't care your opinion.

And none are so blind as those who will not see.

(And my education happens to be quite extensive.)

well its obvious you do not have any education in history or science and very little education in the bible.

yes the source of the bible is everything. It was written by man, for man. It filled in mans questions by imagination for the things he did not know.

you live your life based around fiction and dont care, i find this sad. when your kind gets around children it makes me angry because you share your fiction with children who breed ignorance among themselves. I think there should be a law besides the one that OUTLAWS creation from public schools. we have ESL we should also have YEC young earth challenged and make then ride the short bus and keep them segregated to protect my daughters intellect.

 

[idea]

Why is HGT not "traditional" evolution?

it is a completely different mechanism...

Of course it does. It is not dogma. It takes new findings into consideration, as it well ought to do. It has changed a lot since the original proposals by Darwin and Wallace.

Fortunately, that is not even remotely the case with Evolution. It is tested and found to be true repeatedly, every year.

LOL - in one post you say "it's repeatable" and in the next post you admit "it changes"

... the evolution theory evolves, all science evolves... repeatable? LOL.

you are right, it's not dogma.

 

[idea]

thast right its a tree and it grows stronger every year

while your failing religion becomes more and more fiction

the tree got chopped down, haven't you read the new papers? There is no more tree - it is now a bush - a net.

[SIZE=-1] Jessica E Light et al., "Evolutionary history of mammalian sucking lice (Phthiraptera: Anoplura)" [[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]abstract], doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-292, v10 n292, BMC Evolutionary Biology, 22 Sep 2010. "We find significant conflict between phylogenies constructed using molecular and morphological data."

Ruben E Valas and Philip E Bourne, "Save the tree of life or get lost in the woods" [abstract], doi:10.1186/1745-6150-5-44, v5 paper 44, Biology Direct, 1 Jul 2010.

Douglas L. Theobald, "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry" [abstract | Editor's Summary], doi:10.1038/nature09014, p219–222 v465, Nature, 13 May 2010. Also see commentary —

Mike Steel and David Penny, "Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test" [html], doi:10.1038/465168a, p168-169 v465, Nature, 13 May 2010. And —

W. P. Hanage, "The Trouble with Trees" (review of The New Foundations of Evolution: On the Tree of Life by Jan Sapp), [summary], doi:10.1126/science.1185784, p 645-646 v 327, Science, 5 Feb 2010.
11 Dec 2009: ...the percentage of genes transferred ...could be close to 100% — Cordero and Hogeweg.
21 Aug 2009: I find it fascinating that this prokaryotic symbiosis could so profoundly shape the evolution of life....
20 Jun 2009: The tree of life was always a net. Nature was always a genetic engineer.
16 Mar 2009: ...gene transfers of various types... and other forms of acquisition of 'foreign genomes' ...are more important....— Lynn Margulis (see tree at left | larger version)
8 Mar 2009: HGT also turns out to be the rule rather than the exception in the third great domain of life, the eukaryotes.
11 Apr 2008: Earth's first animal... was probably significantly more complex than previously believed.
14 Jan 2008: ...Only rarely have phylogenetic studies of morphology and DNA data agreed in plant studies....
10 Dec 2007: When eukaryotes are included..., the phylogeny of life seems better represented by a network than a tree....

Patrick J. Keeling, "Deep Questions in the Tree of Life" [summary], 10.1126/science.1149593, p 1875-1876 v 317, Science, 28 Sep 2007.

Laura Spinney, "Evolution: hacking back the tree of life" [preview], online 13 June. Print version, "Back to their roots," p 48-51 v 194, New Scientist, 16-22 Jun 2007. "We have vastly underestimated evolution's fondness for pruning."
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]etc. etc. etc.
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

The tree is old school, catch up with the times man! there is no tree.[/SIZE]

 

[LuisDantas]

LOL - in one post you say "it's repeatable" and in the next post you admit "it changes"

... the evolution theory evolves, all science evolves... repeatable? LOL.

you are right, it's not dogma.

Indeed it isn't.

Laugh all you want, but that is how things happen. Science does not expect things to be completely predictable, yet it keeps seeking patterns and attempting to describe and predict things as faithfully as possible.

You seem to believe that you caught me in contradiction or something. You did not. I am aware of the nature of the scientific method and I understand its core workings and purpose, that is all.

It will never meet your expectations of "never changing", but then again, with all due respect, it is your expectation that is faulty.

 

[Bereanz]

I think there should be a law besides the one that OUTLAWS creation from public schools. we have ESL we should also have YEC young earth challenged and make then ride the short bus and keep them segregated to protect my daughters intellect.

Wow, this truly is insanity (not the part about truth being challenged), and it's this attitude that I found exceedingly scary about the God delusion. Dawkins inferred that its Child abuse to bring up Chilrden with a faith in God and the Bible. I know you believe this and mean every sad twisted sentiment. If you and people like you get your way, extermination camps for Christian are not too distant in man's EVIL -utionary future. The dark ages will be a brighetr than the sun, if the TRUTH is OUTLAWED. But I wont be in the slightest bit surprised if it happens. The more power you hand over to Satan, the darker it will become.

You can "accronym" Biblical doctrine all you like, what you want thrown out of human society is the Bible. The word of God will exist for eternity. But sadly men will contiue to seek to destroy it and all those who believe in it, and you call that Evolution. I just call it Evil.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know you believe this and mean every sad twisted sentiment. If you and people like you get your way, extermination camps for Christian are not too distant in man's EVIL -utionary future. The dark ages will be a brighetr than the sun, if the TRUTH is OUTLAWED. But I wont be in the slightest bit surprised if it happens. The more power you hand over to Satan, the darker it will become.

I can only wonder if you truly believe in that. I can't decide whether it is worse if you do or if you don't.

You can "accronym" Biblical doctrine all you like, what you want thrown out of human society is the Bible. The word of God will exist for eternity. But sadly men will contiue to seek to destroy it and all those who believe in it, and you call that Evolution. I just call it Evil.

So is that what you believe the ToE to be about?

 

[Autodidact]

I would like to know why it matters and why anyone should really care.

If it doesn't matter to you, and you don't care, why are you in this thread?

Personally, I think advancing human knowledge of the natural world is important and interesting. But that's just me.

 

[Autodidact]

by Paul James-Griffiths

While studying ancient history at University, I came across the pagan beliefs about origins. It was this study that caused me first to question evolution and the vast ages given for the Universe. It was later, after many years of scientific investigation, that I finally broke free from a liberal understanding that sought to harmonise naturalism with biblical Christian faith.

Many tears of scientific investigation? The man is a theater chaplain. I doubt that he has done a minute's scientific investigation in his life.

 

[Autodidact]

Am I accountable to explain to YOU the point of my posts, particularly when the post was addressed to some other than YOU? No! So stop harrassing me "Christian". Lol.

It's a public forum. If you don't want to discuss the subject with the entire forum, you shouldn't be here.

 

[Bereanz]

I can only wonder if you truly believe in that. I can't decide whether it is worse if you do or if you don't.



So is that what you believe the ToE to be about?

How long do you think it took for the Germans to accept it was a brilliant idea to exterminate the Jews? Decades of progaganda. The PR campaign that Christianity and faith in God is evil, is relatively new in its wicked inception. If it keeps being widely accepted, then people will be quite comforatable in thinking they are doing the world a favour by wiping out this evil wicked scourge form the earth, i.e those who are thwarting mankinds progress.

I'm quite serious. The bible predicts that those who won't obey the party line will be beheaded.