Creationists, please provide evidence

[painted wolf]

What you can say is I listen for an answer and I make a careful note of what I receive. I don't recall taking up any whims so I cannot say how that would go.

How do you eliminate confirmation bias?

The whole premise of wishing to have a connection to a higher intelligence for the sake of whims occurs to me as a good way to tune into a level of intelligence that would not likely be all that respectable.

Any prayer that asks Creator for a favor of any kind is a prayer of whim.

I think what I said was sufficiently clear as a synopsis.

I'm not sure I agree... How do you measure God?

I absolutely agree, but I happen to experience a good many scientists who shall absolutely tell you otherwise. Whether directly or indirectly via tools, devices, computers, etc. they refute any other domain.

Clarification: I mean any other domain that cannot be remapped somehow into a format their physical senses can objectively observe.

They can not comment on what can not be measured, observed and tested.

Huh? I already addressed tools and devices scientists use to remap data from such bands into our visible band so that they can make observations.

I think I've got you here.

You must not get out much.

I have a fairly broad range of friends and acquaintances in the sciences.

Yes, and who funds them? The USA just wanted to have the atom bomb for the sake of having it. They never at all intended to actually use it to kill anyone, right?

You are confusing the application of knowledge with the pursuit of knowledge. The scientists who worked on splitting the atom to discover the secrets of the atom widely denounced the military application of that knowledge.

All I have to do is look in a mirror.

there are quite a few of us here... what's your field?

So do I. I just touched on it. Where were you? Does that mean there are not parallels between the two? Hubris and dogma seem equally plentiful in both realms. Is that a coincidence?

IMHO too many people seek to use science to justify their faith... to the detriment of both science and faith.
Once you start trying to peg your faith to scientific finds you loose faith and replace it with dogma and a need to jump through cognitive hoops.

wa:do

 

[kylixguru]

How is religious belief a falsifiable hypothesis?
Because, if it isn't, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.

Very good question!

If you continue my hypothesis that the realm of religion is mapped into the quantum realm, then you definitely are thrown for a loop where this is concerned.

What is absolutely true (in appearance) to one observer is absolutely false (in appearance) to another observer.

Therefore, how can two observers ever come to an agreement in such a field?

When a person (the active observer) steps forward with much strength of will and desire and they press the powers of their mind upon a goal, there is a domain that responds to this in such a way that they can observe the verity of that which they seek. This can work at the individual level and at the societal level.

But, as with all domains, there are finite bounds. You can only get so much traction out of fantasy before it can no longer be sustained and it will crash down.

So, then, we are left yet again, with the ultimate quest. What is absolute?

 

[newhope101]

I am the least bit uncomfortable with any of the aspects of that research. What I question are the presumptive leaps you make to conclude what you do.
Well I'm pleased to hear you are not uncomfortable. The uncomfortable fact is that this research shows your theories are not happening in the real world. It would have been great for you if the fruitfly morphed sufficiently that another kind could be demonstrated to be emerging. Alas, this is not what happened. Like it or not, this is evidence that your theories do not come to fruition in the real world.
I would still be feeling a need to hold to your line of argumentation if I yet understood the creation account in the Bible in the orthodox manner. However, I have found that to be an incorrect interpretation. The way I read it makes far more sense in a literal and explicit manner that at the same time leaves the door wide open for evolution.
This thread is not about the valididty of the bible, it IS about providing proof/support for creation. Really if one can support the creation of kinds who cares about the copy errors in a book thousands of years old, rewritten by many with their own agendas. If kinds were created and cannot evolve, then there must be a God that created. That is good enough for me.
Yes, it was uncomfortable to make this shift. I had to completely revamp my entire view of everything and give up a lot of fantasies that I really wish were true. It kind of sucked in a way, but I am very grateful for it. Now at least it is all something I can approach and understand in practical terms.

What fantasies have you shifted? Hopefully the ones that conclude one kind can change into another kind, is the fantasy you have lost.

I have provided evidence that one kind did not evolve by the fixing of advantageous alleles. This is the basis of your whole concept. Evos have, in other threads provided evidence of in kind variation eg fruitflys with different numbers of wings or legs hanging off their heads. different colours and sizes. You have also found in cryptic species that two birds genomically almost identical cannot genetically interbreed, illustrating genomic similarity is not the definer of different species, you have found there is no LUCA and tried to explain this via horizontal gene transfer. Now there is evidence that a kind will not select advantageous alleles to start a real evolutionary morph.

Evidence in support of creation is what I have provided.

You will now have to come up with evidence that macroevolution is possible. I do mean evidence, like mine, as opposed to theoretical assumptions this research denies.

I have provided evidence that macroevolution does not appear to be possible in the real world... and I'll bet these researchers were trying their hardest to make it happen for 600 generations.

 

[painted wolf]

Only creationists think evolution is so fast it can produce a new "kind" in 600 generations.

Like how they think that hundreds of species of rodents can evolve from a single pair in only a few thousand years.

wa:do

 

[kylixguru]

How do you eliminate confirmation bias?

First, I must admit, I may not know exactly what you mean by "confirmation bias". So, because I could be showing some ignorance in terminology here, I'll just admit it up front.

What I think you mean is how do I make sure I am not actually tainting things because I am actually wanting to get a particular result. Right?

This very aspect strikes at the core of what separates a person who is adept at functioning in the religious realm and somebody who is a bull in a china closet.

While one person can be an extremely clear medium another person can simply be taking themself on a wild ride down a very deep rabbit hole.

I've found the only way I can be a clear medium is to have the capacity to completely put aside all pre-conceived notions and bias on the front-side. It literally is a complete surrender of the personal ego and replace it with a pure and innocent wish to simply get at the virgin truth.

So, because I am not adept at this, as much as I would like to fancy myself as such, I frequently find that I have to discount a "revelation" I have received because my "spiritual tuning" on the front side of the request wasn't as pure as I thought. Detecting bias and ego motivations is not always easy.

With my close associates we have reduced this concept in a simple phrase:
"Junk in? Junk out!"

As long as we can get our minds completely pure and innocent and free about something, we can get answers to all kinds of things. The challenge in all spiritual and religious pursuits is centered on an individual obtaining this purity of soul.

Any prayer that asks Creator for a favor of any kind is a prayer of whim.

In a round about way it seems we are saying the same thing. Though where I draw the line is if an individual is asking for a favor that could be at the expense of another who that Creator should equally care for is a whim. I leave room for sincere and pure requests.

I think we can both agree the Creator should not be utilized in one person's agenda against another. The only appropriate context for distinctions to arise in how one man might deal with another is if it truly and purely is from their Creator. Which brings us to the challenge of who can be a pure medium to express Creator's will in terms we all can understand.

I'm not sure I agree... How do you measure God?

The most tangible means to measure God is to do as Sir Isaac Newton did. You wear out Bible after Bible exploring the manyfold wonders of His Word. There are a lot of fascinating and tangible things that are encoded there. They may not be real from a physicist's point of view, but they are real in terms of principles and constructs I can observe playing out in real life.

They can not comment on what can not be measured, observed and tested.

Yes, and fortunately a good number of them are indifferent rather than insulting when people use tools and research with which they are not familiar to have what to them are real observations.

I think I've got you here.

You mean you missed what I said before but now you get what I meant?

I have a fairly broad range of friends and acquaintances in the sciences.

Do me a favor, start asking a few of them if they would be interested in having genuine dialog with a source of higher intelligence and see what their response is. I will agree it likely isn't the driving passion behind the vast majority of them. Perhaps I was being too exaggerated.

You are confusing the application of knowledge with the pursuit of knowledge. The scientists who worked on splitting the atom to discover the secrets of the atom widely denounced the military application of that knowledge.

But, in the end, Nimrod subsidized them and still builds his tower. Won't you agree this point yet stands?

there are quite a few of us here... what's your field?

My primary field is in computational science. I got bored with college back in the day and couldn't take it anymore. Oh, except for the psychology, literature and math classes. They were fun.

IMHO too many people seek to use science to justify their faith... to the detriment of both science and faith.

I agree. This takes us back to the "Junk in? Junk out!" principle.

Once you start trying to peg your faith to scientific finds you loose faith and replace it with dogma and a need to jump through cognitive hoops.

I most definitely agree!

 

[newhope101]

How do you eliminate confirmation bias?

Any prayer that asks Creator for a favor of any kind is a prayer of whim.
Many evolutionists believe in some sort of God. Are they not delusional because they accept Toe ALSO?
I'm not sure I agree... How do you measure God? He's a spirit and therefore about as measureable as your multi dimentions with current knowledge.

They can not comment on what can not be measured, observed and tested.
Yet my fruitfly research was measured and tested and is valid research that I note you have not repsonded to. Are you finally lost for words?
I think I've got you here.

I have a fairly broad range of friends and acquaintances in the sciences.
There is a difference between a lab assistant and someone that can be called a scientist!
You are confusing the application of knowledge with the pursuit of knowledge. The scientists who worked on splitting the atom to discover the secrets of the atom widely denounced the military application of that knowledge.
So..you confuse evidence with theoretical assumptions and that doesn't bother you.
there are quite a few of us here... what's your field?
So no creationist will have have the last word here. Fortunately, the last word here is about as valuable as the latest research being taken as the final word on anything
IMHO too many people seek to use science to justify their faith... to the detriment of both science and faith.
What makes you think there is no evidence for a God or creator? I have just posted research that appears to invalidate many of your evolutionary assumptions
Once you start trying to peg your faith to scientific finds you loose faith and replace it with dogma and a need to jump through cognitive hoops.
So you're OK if you accept Toe, and God? One is just a moron if they are skeptical about Toe. This sounds like a similar retort to what one would expect from a religious fanatical terrorist, justifying their hatred of those not of the same belief and doctrine.
wa:do

I see no takers to refute my research.

Great..that means .

CREATIONISTS HAVE FOUND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CREATION.

HOORAY!

 

[kylixguru]

What fantasies have you shifted?

There are a lot of them. For example, one I got from childhood. That my dead sister's body would one day be miraculously recomposed inside of her casket and that she would somehow claw her way out of it and return to life on earth. Therefore, I also gave up the notion that my current body (with its ego) would someday be recomposed and I would scratch myself out of my burial pit and live again with this recomposed physical body for eternity in some kind of a never ending physical realm perfectly suited for my eternal felicity and enjoyment.

Hopefully the ones that conclude one kind can change into another kind, is the fantasy you have lost.

I have provided evidence that one kind did not evolve by the fixing of advantageous alleles. This is the basis of your whole concept. Evos have, in other threads provided evidence of in kind variation eg fruitflys with different numbers of wings or legs hanging off their heads. different colours and sizes. You have also found in cryptic species that two birds genomically almost identical cannot genetically interbreed, illustrating genomic similarity is not the definer of different species, you have found there is no LUCA and tried to explain this via horizontal gene transfer. Now there is evidence that a kind will not select advantageous alleles to start a real evolutionary morph.

Evidence in support of creation is what I have provided.

You will now have to come up with evidence that macroevolution is possible. I do mean evidence, like mine, as opposed to theoretical assumptions this research denies.

I have provided evidence that macroevolution does not appear to be possible in the real world... and I'll bet these researchers were trying their hardest to make it happen for 600 generations.

At this point I am of the opinion that evolutionary principles are the basis upon which life forms are brought to be. I am comfortable letting go of dogmas that would necessitate for me to prove anything one way or another in this field of inquiry.

For another thing, man himself has already shown the capacity to directly manipulate genes and to be able to create new life forms by way of that in the laboratory. So, while the question of how we reached this point of ability continues on, there is nothing saying there aren't also beings of intelligence who can bring about similar transformations and leaps in what kinds of critters are running around down here.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Very good question!

If you continue my hypothesis that the realm of religion is mapped into the quantum realm, then you definitely are thrown for a loop where this is concerned.

What is absolutely true (in appearance) to one observer is absolutely false (in appearance) to another observer.

Therefore, how can two observers ever come to an agreement in such a field?

When a person (the active observer) steps forward with much strength of will and desire and they press the powers of their mind upon a goal, there is a domain that responds to this in such a way that they can observe the verity of that which they seek. This can work at the individual level and at the societal level.

But, as with all domains, there are finite bounds. You can only get so much traction out of fantasy before it can no longer be sustained and it will crash down.

So, then, we are left yet again, with the ultimate quest. What is absolute?

Deepak Chopra much?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I see no takers to refute my research.

Great..that means .

CREATIONISTS HAVE FOUND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CREATION.

HOORAY!

That's nice dear. Say hi to the faeries down by the well for me, will you?

 

[newhope101]

Only creationists think evolution is so fast it can produce a new "kind" in 600 generations.

Like how they think that hundreds of species of rodents can evolve from a single pair in only a few thousand years.

wa:do

Your minimizations will get you nowhere.

There was no fixing of advantageous alleles in 600 generations wolf. That is mightly strong evidence that it aint going to happen. You'd think these researchers wouls have had some success. Alas they did not.

Hence, this is research you can actually see with your own eyes and without the need for probably and maybe. This is also EVIDENCE, something evolutionists find hard to assimilate after being so indoctrinated via theoretical assumptions.

So all you have to say is bla bla. Let all creationists remember that previous fruitfly research was shoved point blank in our faces as proof of microevolution that results in macroevolution ultimately. Let's not forget that the fruitfly is used in research alot because of its high reproductive and generational rate.

Now creationists please note Paintedwolf backtracking, chopping and changing view points, by now alluding to fruitfly research not really reflecting what happens in other species. So a few generations were quite sufficient for evolutionists to say microevolution happens, at more than an epigenetic level and one can use this as evidence of evolution. Yet, 600 generations of not one advantageous allele becoming fixed in the population is not sufficient to be used as evidence. The expectation of these researchers was maybe some advantagious alleles would fix after this time. Hence their findings.

Furthermore they additionally summised that advantageous allele fixation is less likely in the wild. This is what I mean when I speak to hypocricy and unethical misrepresentations by some of you. Quite clearly, this is not good news for evolutionists. No doubt there will be theories that will speak to this in evolutionary terms. However for now, this research speaks to your assumptions not materializing in the real world, where you can actually see what you're doing.

We are not talking of a completely new kind evolving over 600 generations. We are talking about the beginning of the process becoming apparent in the fruitfly. The beginning of the fixation did not happen PW. Now you are misrepresenting what the researchers were expecting to find yet didn't, with your own little rave about rodents. I love the way evolutionists can't even make up their minds on what is real data and what isn't anymore.

You have yet to refute this research. It is valid. It demonstrates that one kind did not begin to fix alleles as the beginning of the process of macroevolution. This supports creation.

 

[kylixguru]

Deepak Chopra much?

I am only vaguely familiar with this person. I couldn't tell you anything about them other than I think they are into new age kind of things, which are mildly interesting to me.

 

[painted wolf]

First, I must admit, I may not know exactly what you mean by "confirmation bias". So, because I could be showing some ignorance in terminology here, I'll just admit it up front.

What I think you mean is how do I make sure I am not actually tainting things because I am actually wanting to get a particular result. Right?

Essentially... conformation bias means that you subconsciously ignore data that goes against your preferred position. For example believing that you have a lucky rabbits foot, because you remember when good things happen but ignoring all the times nothing or bad things happen.

Most of science is built around trying to counteract this.

This very aspect strikes at the core of what separates a person who is adept at functioning in the religious realm and somebody who is a bull in a china closet.

While one person can be an extremely clear medium another person can simply be taking themself on a wild ride down a very deep rabbit hole.

I've found the only way I can be a clear medium is to have the capacity to completely put aside all pre-conceived notions and bias on the front-side. It literally is a complete surrender of the personal ego and replace it with a pure and innocent wish to simply get at the virgin truth.

So, because I am not adept at this, as much as I would like to fancy myself as such, I frequently find that I have to discount a "revelation" I have received because my "spiritual tuning" on the front side of the request wasn't as pure as I thought. Detecting bias and ego motivations is not always easy.

With my close associates we have reduced this concept in a simple phrase:
"Junk in? Junk out!"

As long as we can get our minds completely pure and innocent and free about something, we can get answers to all kinds of things. The challenge in all spiritual and religious pursuits is centered on an individual obtaining this purity of soul.

I think this works perfectly for religious/spiritual experiences... but it's not enough to do science.

In a round about way it seems we are saying the same thing. Though where I draw the line is if an individual is asking for a favor that could be at the expense of another who that Creator should equally care for is a whim. I leave room for sincere and pure requests.

We try to restrict prayer to expressing thankfulness.

I think we can both agree the Creator should not be utilized in one person's agenda against another. The only appropriate context for distinctions to arise in how one man might deal with another is if it truly and purely is from their Creator. Which brings us to the challenge of who can be a pure medium to express Creator's will in terms we all can understand.

Agreed.

The most tangible means to measure God is to do as Sir Isaac Newton did. You wear out Bible after Bible exploring the manyfold wonders of His Word. There are a lot of fascinating and tangible things that are encoded there. They may not be real from a physicist's point of view, but they are real in terms of principles and constructs I can observe playing out in real life.

Except that there are those who do this and get the opposite outcome.

Yes, and fortunately a good number of them are indifferent rather than insulting when people use tools and research with which they are not familiar to have what to them are real observations.

So long as they don't claim those observations are scientific.

You mean you missed what I said before but now you get what I meant?

something like that.

Do me a favor, start asking a few of them if they would be interested in having genuine dialog with a source of higher intelligence and see what their response is. I will agree it likely isn't the driving passion behind the vast majority of them. Perhaps I was being too exaggerated.

Who wouldn't want such a conversation... but most wouldn't assume that greater intelligence is God.

But, in the end, Nimrod subsidized them and still builds his tower. Won't you agree this point yet stands?

Or the point was that Nimrod was harming his own people to glorify himself.... in which case this tale is more about economy than science.

My primary field is in computational science. I got bored with college back in the day and couldn't take it anymore. Oh, except for the psychology, literature and math classes. They were fun.

Good to know... I can adjust my use of jargon accordingly.

I agree. This takes us back to the "Junk in? Junk out!" principle.

I most definitely agree!

Glad to know we can agree on something... it makes discussing the rest so much easier.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I see no takers to refute my research.

Great..that means .

CREATIONISTS HAVE FOUND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CREATION.

HOORAY!

:biglaugh:

Now you've stopped jumping sharks and gone strait to delusion. :bow:

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Hey Jarofthoughts...are you one of those evolutionists that do not accept their own research when it does not suit them? There are plenty out there.

Here is something else to ignore below. Not only is there research re fruitflys inability to fix favourable alleles over 600 generations, but additionally there is evidence that they are unable to adapt to climate change...genetic limitations on variation also support creationist thinking...in case you were not clear.


Nowhere To Hide: Some Species Are Unable To Adapt To Climate Change Due To Their Genes
ScienceDaily (Sep. 4, 2009) — Species living in restricted environments such as the tropics may lack adequate variation in their genes and be unable to adapt to climate change, according to a new study.

The team used various species of the vinegar fly (Drosophila) as a model, examining different species that lived in tropical and more widely distributed environments. They revealed that the flies living in tropical conditions possessed a narrower set of genes for traits such as tolerance to drying (desiccation) and cold resistance, effectively preventing adaptation.

Although it is well-documented that species distributions become narrower towards the tropics, it was previously thought that all traits are highly variable. Instead the new study has found that a species' range is closely linked to its genetic variation for key traits.
"In essence, we now have a genetic explanation for why species are restricted."


Mmmm...so I have evidence of inability of a test species to fix beneficial alleles over 600 generations & evidence that a test species cannot adapt due to genetic limitation and you have nothing but your opinion of me. I WIN! Evos have theories that evolution can happen and how. Creationists have convincing evidence and research, not based on assumptions, that macro evolution will not happen and adaptation is restricted. Point established. WE WIN!

 

[kylixguru]

Essentially... conformation bias means that you subconsciously ignore data that goes against your preferred position. For example believing that you have a lucky rabbits foot, because you remember when good things happen but ignoring all the times nothing or bad things happen.

Most of science is built around trying to counteract this.

Ok, I wasn't too far off it seems.

I think this works perfectly for religious/spiritual experiences... but it's not enough to do science.

I will agree the landscapes between the two fields are distinct. Will you agree there are a significant amount of parallels between the two?

We try to restrict prayer to expressing thankfulness.

I believe a more spiritually progressed person does ultimately reach that point. I guess I have some room to grow. I've found that the only requests that are really worth asking are the ones Creator wants you to ask. I'll add, in any request I offer, I believe it is critically important to make a pure request with zero expectation as to how things should manifest. This is the "Thy will be done." spirit.

Except that there are those who do this and get the opposite outcome.

I accept that.

So long as they don't claim those observations are scientific.

I agree due respect should be given to the general semantics certain idologies have grabbed onto for their own.

Who wouldn't want such a conversation... but most wouldn't assume that greater intelligence is God.

Exactly, this simply opens up a whole new field.

Or the point was that Nimrod was harming his own people to glorify himself.... in which case this tale is more about economy than science.

Actually, I think the majority of the people were right there with him much as many of today are very eager to have our government enslave us so they can build their centralized power and control structures and then watch their great emporer prance around the world with his entourage. I think the people were hurting themselves and we give too much credit to Nimrod.

Good to know... I can adjust my use of jargon accordingly.

Although don't go too deep as I am in a pretty small niche of it. But, I should be able to know all the terminology.

Glad to know we can agree on something... it makes discussing the rest so much easier.

Indeed it does!

 

[jarofthoughts]

Hey Jarofthoughts...are you one of those evolutionists that do not accept their own research when it does not suit them? There are plenty out there.

Here is something else to ignore below. Not only is there research re fruitflys inability to fix favourable alleles over 600 generations, but additionally there is evidence that they are unable to adapt to climate change...genetic limitations on variation also support creationist thinking...in case you were not clear.

Really?
So, how is that hypothesis coming along?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hey Jarofthoughts...are you one of those evolutionists that do not accept their own research when it does not suit them? There are plenty out there.

Here is something else to ignore below. Not only is there research re fruitflys inability to fix favourable alleles over 600 generations, but additionally there is evidence that they are unable to adapt to climate change...genetic limitations on variation also support creationist thinking...in case you were not clear.


Nowhere To Hide: Some Species Are Unable To Adapt To Climate Change Due To Their Genes
ScienceDaily (Sep. 4, 2009) — Species living in restricted environments such as the tropics may lack adequate variation in their genes and be unable to adapt to climate change, according to a new study.

The team used various species of the vinegar fly (Drosophila) as a model, examining different species that lived in tropical and more widely distributed environments. They revealed that the flies living in tropical conditions possessed a narrower set of genes for traits such as tolerance to drying (desiccation) and cold resistance, effectively preventing adaptation.

Although it is well-documented that species distributions become narrower towards the tropics, it was previously thought that all traits are highly variable. Instead the new study has found that a species' range is closely linked to its genetic variation for key traits.
"In essence, we now have a genetic explanation for why species are restricted."


Mmmm...so I have evidence of inability of a test species to fix beneficial alleles over 600 generations & evidence that a test species cannot adapt due to genetic limitation and you have nothing but your opinion of me. I WIN! Evos have theories that evolution can happen and how. Creationists have convincing evidence and research, not based on assumptions, that macro evolution will not happen and adaptation is restricted. Point established. WE WIN!

WOW....Quote Mine Much....???

The article is most definitely talking about evolution and it's all for it and it's what we would should expect given the evidence. Let's see what bit of information in regards to evolution you left out.

Nowhere To Hide: Some Species Are Unable To Adapt To Climate Change Due To Their Genes

"Adaptation is a physiological or behavioural change that makes an organism better suited to its environment, and more likely to survive and reproduce. Because adaptations usually occur due to a change (or mutation) in a gene, species with a more varied set of genes to begin with, are likely to have a better basis for adaptation."

Evolution.

"Professor Ary Hoffmann from the Centre for Environmental Stress and Adaptation Research (CESAR), Bio21 Institute, University of Melbourne says the new findings suggest specialist species have a fundamental evolutionary limit, and will be unable to respond to future climate changes."

Yes you guessed it....Evolution.

"Just as variety is the spice of life, the more varied a species' genetic make-up, the better arsenal it has to respond to change," says Professor Hoffmann.
Habitat specialists make up most of our earth's biodiversity, suggesting that this inability to adapt will affect many species including groups of insects, and potentially other groups including mammals and fish."


Yep....More Darwinian Evolution.

"This work is important because establishing the genetics linked to species distributions will be useful in assessing and predicting the evolutionary potential of species particularly under climate change. This may in turn assist in conservation efforts and identifying vulnerable groups."

Can it be...More Evolution at work...?

Only after the above quote do we see what you have listed above. When viewed in "context" it seems it does not mean what you want it to mean.

"Bless" you dishonest, quote mining little heart..........

 

[painted wolf]

Ok, I wasn't too far off it seems.

I will agree the landscapes between the two fields are distinct. Will you agree there are a significant amount of parallels between the two?

yup, but the distinction is that spirituality is subjective experience while science is objective experience.

I believe a more spiritually progressed person does ultimately reach that point. I guess I have some room to grow. I've found that the only requests that are really worth asking are the ones Creator wants you to ask. I'll add, in any request I offer, I believe it is critically important to make a pure request with zero expectation as to how things should manifest. This is the "Thy will be done." spirit.

We all have room to grow... isn't that why we're here.

I agree due respect should be given to the general semantics certain idologies have grabbed onto for their own.

Something like that.

Exactly, this simply opens up a whole new field.

It makes for an interesting thought experiment if nothing else.

Actually, I think the majority of the people were right there with him much as many of today are very eager to have our government enslave us so they can build their centralized power and control structures and then watch their great emporer prance around the world with his entourage. I think the people were hurting themselves and we give too much credit to Nimrod.

Perhaps.

Although don't go too deep as I am in a pretty small niche of it. But, I should be able to know all the terminology.

Okie dokie.

Indeed it does!

wa:do

 

[David M]

Therefore, this research provides evidence for creationists that a kind cannot evolve into another kind. Hence kinds were created and is evidence in favour of creation.

Here is the extract:

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila.

Exactly where does this paper show that a kind cannot evolve into another kind? The truth is that it does no such thing.

The paper was only examining one single aspect of Drosophila in any case, accelerated development, and that was what was being selected for by the reseacrhers. You are misrepresenting the contents of the paper (which further supports the fact of evolution).

Once again you post a paper that supports evolution and claim it does the exact opposite, your inability to understand what such papers actually say is staggering to say the least.

jbug, Paintedwolf and auto......lost for words are you?

You see, I have evidence that a fruitfly will not morph by fixation of advantageous alleles.

No, you don't, because the paper was not even looking at "morphing".

 

[kylixguru]

yup, but the distinction is that spirituality is subjective experience while science is objective experience.

We all have room to grow... isn't that why we're here.

Something like that.

It makes for an interesting thought experiment if nothing else.

Perhaps.

Okie dokie.



wa:do

Yep, yep, yep... etc. Thanks for all your thoughts!