Sign in to follow this  
cuchulain

history and faith

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

It is so much worse than that.  Pretend for a moment that all of these events actually happened.  It rained and rained until the oceans of the world covered the entire planet.  The entire planet was soaked in salt water.  You know what happens when land is covered in salt water?  Nothing grows there.  All plant life, everywhere, is gone.  Good by photosynthesis.  Good by oxygen/carbon cycle.  The planet's biosphere is dead.

 

So, the Ark finally lands, in the center of the ultimate bog.  Imagine the stench from dead bloated animals and rotten vegetation.  No food anywhere.  What does Noah do?  An animal sacrifice.  What are the carnivores going to eat?  What are the herbivores going to eat?  How are the penguins going to get to the south pole?  How are the Kangaroos going to get back to Australia?  How are the Lions going to get to Arica?  How are any of them going to breath?

 

Oh, yes.  Bio diversity.     Who are Noah's children going to mate with?  There is no one else.  That leaves incest.

 

 

Gods and monsters, yes!  I was only picking the low hanging fruit at that!  Those things that I mentioned are usually enough to make some peoples' heads implode.

 

Also:  That's a game that the whole family can play!  (duck and run)

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Geordon said:

 

Gods and monsters, yes!  I was only picking the low hanging fruit at that!  Those things that I mentioned are usually enough to make some peoples' heads implode.

 

Also:  That's a game that the whole family can play!  (duck and run)

 

I'm only getting started.  Who do you suppose got to host the bacteria responsible for dysentery?   Who had to host the worms/flukes that invade the intestines?  They had to save ALL the animals.  Imagine being host to the last pair of fleas.  What fun.  Head lice had to be accommodated.  So did crotch lice.  Somebody had to feed the bedbugs.  

 

ALL THE ANIMALS.  ALL MEANS ALL.

 

Do you know how much poop one elephant produces in a day?  Man the shovels.  Think of ALL the animals pooping and peeing.  What an output.  What were they all eating?  Do you know how much meat one lion needs?  Do you know how much fresh water a horse needs?

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post

And where are you going to store enough herbivore feed?  Which animals will be fed to the carnivores?  (uh, whoops...)

 

I see you are a professional gadfly and iconoclast.  I like you!  :drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Geordon said:

And where are you going to store enough herbivore feed?  Which animals will be fed to the carnivores?  (uh, whoops...)

 

I see you are a professional gadfly and iconoclast.  I like you!  :drinks:

 

Hardly a professional.  Nobody's paying me.       

 

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

If this is true it doesn't really change my basic premise. I may need to pick a "new favorite" but the concept remains. 

So, what was the complaint about evolutionary theories? We see the characteristics of animal groups change through the generations. We see that animal remains change as we go back through the geological record. We make theories about the whys and hows of this evidence. We then use the hundreds of years worth of new evidence to refine our theories, discarding any that can't explain the new evidence.

This is just how science works.

 

At the same time, as we get further and further into the process, people become more and more personally convinced. Reputations get wagered on pet theories. A certain level of fraud becomes inevitable.  The general public finds themselves taking sides in debates they don't fully understand.

This is just how humans operate. 

 

So what is the complaint? What makes evolutionary scientists unique? How are their theories treated differently than those involving Dark Matter?

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mererdog said:

So, what was the complaint about evolutionary theories? We see the characteristics of animal groups change through the generations. We see that animal remains change as we go back through the geological record. We make theories about the whys and hows of this evidence. We then use the hundreds of years worth of new evidence to refine our theories, discarding any that can't explain the new evidence.

This is just how science works.

 

At the same time, as we get further and further into the process, people become more and more personally convinced. Reputations get wagered on pet theories. A certain level of fraud becomes inevitable.  The general public finds themselves taking sides in debates they don't fully understand.

This is just how humans operate. 

 

So what is the complaint? What makes evolutionary scientists unique? How are their theories treated differently than those involving Dark Matter?

 

Dark Matter is still being debated.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wow!

Now I remember why I've stayed out of these type discussions for the most part. Such excitement over a difference in theory. Yet I still don't think everyone understands the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. Let me elaborate on the difference, as I understand it.

 

  • Micro evolution says that a species can change over time but that species remains in the same family of animal. This can be tested and observed.
  • Macro evolution says that a species can change, over long periods time, into a completely different family of animal. This can not be observed nor can it be tested.

IMO, micro evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is seen in every domesticated breed of animal man has to offer. From Bull Mastiff to teacup Poodle , Siamese to Mexican hairless cats, from Rhode Island reds to black sex link chickens, From White faced Hereford Bull to the Brahma Bull with the camel looking hump. It can be tested and observed. It has been tested and observed.

 

Again .... IMO, The is no evidence that any animal has changed families. Macro evolution can not be proven. It can not be tested. It has not been reproduced. It can not be observed. It is but one possible explanation for how the various families of animals came to be.

 

I choose to believe a different explanation. I choose to believe that life was put here on Earth by an intelligent force. I believe that intelligent force has been influencing the development of life on earth since life began. I'm not telling anyone they have to agree with me. You choose what you believe. I am just trying to open your mind to another possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Pastor Dave said:

Wow!

Now I remember why I've stayed out of these type discussions for the most part. Such excitement over a difference in theory. Yet I still don't think everyone understands the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. Let me elaborate on the difference, as I understand it.

 

  • Micro evolution says that a species can change over time but that species remains in the same family of animal. This can be tested and observed.
  • Macro evolution says that a species can change, over long periods time, into a completely different family of animal. This can not be observed nor can it be tested.

IMO, micro evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is seen in every domesticated breed of animal man has to offer. From Bull Mastiff to teacup Poodle , Siamese to Mexican hairless cats, from Rhode Island reds to black sex link chickens, From White faced Hereford Bull to the Brahma Bull with the camel looking hump. It can be tested and observed. It has been tested and observed.

 

Again .... IMO, The is no evidence that any animal has changed families. Macro evolution can not be proven. It can not be tested. It has not been reproduced. It can not be observed. It is but one possible explanation for how the various families of animals came to be.

 

I choose to believe a different explanation. I choose to believe that life was put here on Earth by an intelligent force. I believe that intelligent force has been influencing the development of life on earth since life began. I'm not telling anyone they have to agree with me. You choose what you believe. I am just trying to open your mind to another possibility.

 

 

Fair enough.  I think I'm done here.  

 

:mellow:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I said I'd get back to you von . I've made my opening statement, I still have a little real keyboard time so let's see where I can go with your post. lol haha:lol::D

 

On 4/9/2018 at 7:21 AM, VonNoble said:

For evolutionary biology - with a historic reckoning in the neighborhood of 65 billion years in the making.....even the much briefer history of life in this planet requires a wee bit more than 100 or do years to reconstruct in detail...perhaps.   

...

 

von

 

Really von? Are you trying to give evolution a little extra time to work? The last time I checked (just now :D) the universe was only about 13.8 billion years old.

I will give you the last part, ... We haven't had enough time to reconstruct the whole thing.

 

On 4/9/2018 at 7:21 AM, VonNoble said:

Allowing young people to understand the process and allowing them to marvel at what is possible might well expedite the few missing proofs.   Eh.... not to mention not all physical evidence survives millions of years in the making ;)

.... organic material does decompose over time. 

 

von

 

Yes!!! Allowing young people to explore all of the possibilities might move things along at a faster rate.

 

As to fact that not all physical evidence survives, this is true. Never the less, shouldn't at least a few of the fossils show that intermediate stage when an animal family creates a new and different family of animal? The last time I had this discussion on these boards (probably more than 10 yrs ago) a term was thrown out that I had never heard before. Punctuated equilibrium. I had really expected some one to have brought it up by now. perhaps it has fallen out of favor in the evolution arena. Ah well, I will. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory  that was used by the evolutionist to explain why these intermediate fossils are not found. Punctuated equilibrium says that there are long periods where there are only small micro evolutionary changes to the gene pool. Then, solar radiation, x-rays from a quasar ... whatever... cause puncuations of rapid mutations causing macro evolution for a brief period of time which then settle into the "new" family of animals and begin the micro evolutionary stage again. Because of the brevity of the time period that macro evolution occurred there wasn't enough chances for them to find the right conditions to fossilize. That's one possibility I suppose. If that's what they choose to believe.

 

On 4/9/2018 at 7:21 AM, VonNoble said:

 However  the fragments, bones and DNA collected so far has caused proofs to leap forward at exponential rates of late.    I find it all pretty amazing in the last 50 years.    It is amazing what is knowable now.    Adding to that is big chunks of information made possible by the Hubble telescope.    And in less than two years the data streaming in from the new Webb telescope will jump our understanding forward at rates that will astound us still.   

 

von

 

That's all cool stuff but I'm not sure how it ties in. Unless you're trying to bring cosmology into the discussion too.

 

On 4/9/2018 at 7:21 AM, VonNoble said:

... It is also a good thing that science is more than willing to correct the record whenever better evidence is provided.    I am happy the record no longer is offered to us to have a “flat earth” point of view.   

von

 

Agreed

 

On 4/9/2018 at 7:21 AM, VonNoble said:

I feel  fortunate to have lived long enough to see what is likely ( or even possible) to know.   I won’t live long enough to see the conclusion of the story :blush: but it is grand to see how far we have come.    I am happy with the chances humans have for the next 1,000 plus years.   On whatever planet they might add for inhabitation.;)

 

In the last three million years the evidence points to an ever increasing brain power for humans.    I have met a couple of people that might cause a person to question that as fact  :lol:.... but a glance at our collective advances is convincing.   

 

von

 

Agreed

I know a few of those people too. :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

I said I'd get back to you von . I've made my opening statement, I still have a little real keyboard time so let's see where I can go with your post. lol haha:lol::D

 

 

Really von? Are you trying to give evolution a little extra time to work? The last time I checked (just now :D) the universe was only about 13.8 billion years old.

:oops: First my admiration for your continued reasoned and reasonable responses.

 

2nd... kudos for your gracious handling of the age of the cosmos-I have zero reason to doubt your number... I never looked it up....I took the number from two biology students who sit in front of me (arguing about it after their mid-term).... I took the more conservative number of the two numbers they were tossing about ....:lol: I  do :P suspect neither of them got a 100% on the mid-term.... my apologies for being lazy and not actually looking it up.    For purposes of the discussion -your number works just fine.

 

i am familiar with punctuated equalibrium and for me the jury is still out... we share an interest in needing a bit more evidence to accept that as VERY LIKELY.

 

with continued respect 

von

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Geordon said:

So very much wrong with the tortured logic that I have read here.  

 

In no particular order:

 

There is no evidence of the Great Flood.  Furthermore, there is not enough water on the planet, including the polar ice caps, to have raised the sea level to the point where the Ark would be able to float around for 40 days and 40 nights without scraping bottom.  And then, when the Flood receded, where did all that water go?

 

 

Not sure what that has to do with evolution.

21 hours ago, Geordon said:

Evolution can be directly observed in high school biology class.  I did it in the early 90s by selectively breeding fruit flies (life span of about 30 days, reproductive phase of about 7 days) for chosen traits, like eye color and wing shape.  ....

 

Ok, so what were they when you got through? They were sill flies weren't they? In fact they were still fruit flies weren't they? All that proves is micro evolution. No change of family. You are trying to infer that macro evolution is true because micro evolution is true.

 

21 hours ago, Geordon said:

Evolution is always happening due to environmental pressures preferring certain traits over others.  Darwin observed this directly with the "Darwin Finches" of the Galápagos Islands.

 

Darwin's Finches. Thank you for bringing them up. For all of the changes that Darwin's Finches have developed one thing remains the same.... they are still birds, in fact they are all still Finches. Micro not macro.

21 hours ago, Geordon said:

Please, for the love of all that you (each) hold holy, stop leaning on Wikipedia as a source of information.  As it can be edited and changed by basically anyone, it is generally unreliable on it's own.  Rather, read the post and scroll down to the bottom and search through the linked references.  THAT is where reputable information will be found.  In my university studies (about 6 years' worth, including an Associate's degree, a Bachelor's degree, and ongoing Master's degree work), the use of Wikipedia as any reference earned an automatic zero for any assignment.

 

Look Geordon no wiki since you asked so nicely. This isn't university and I'm not interested in a grade. The information is generally reliable and easily linked to. Perhaps I should start using Ecyclopedia Britannica which was an acceptable research tool when is still took up a whole shelf on the bookcase.

Oh, since we are giving credentials now, good for you going for a Masters. That gives me an idea of how much time you've spent being indoctrinated by the very ones who would have us believe that micro evolution somehow proves macro evolution. So let me give you my credentials. I haven't done this since the last time I let myself get into this conversation. I've had the opportunity to take a few IQ tests over the last half a century. My lowest score was a 120 ... in the 5th grade. I got stuck with the gifted tag the rest of my primary education. My highest was a 159 in my mid 30s. But let's throw those 2 out since neither of them were Stanford-Binet or Wechsler tests since those are the 2 most reognized tests. Instead let's look at the 3 Stanford-Binet scores I received. I offer you a 137 a 135 and a 139, giving me an average of 137. At 140 - 145 they hang a new tag on you ..... Genius. So, while i may not be a genius I'm a lot closer than most. Here is a interesting piece that suggests that the average IQ of someone with a PHD is around 125. reducing the average PhD to their actual IQ which is around 125 (still very high!).

 

21 hours ago, Geordon said:

The dependence on a monoculture (one general set of genetic stock) is an inherently unstable system.  That's one of the things that caused the reduction and extinction of previous species of banana.. Did you know that what we have today is not the same fruit as we had 20 years ago?

 

 

Yeah, and we've genetically modified corn, soy and wheat too. But here we have an intelligent force guiding those changes.

Edited by Pastor Dave

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, mererdog said:

So, what was the complaint about evolutionary theories? We see the characteristics of animal groups change through the generations. We see that animal remains change as we go back through the geological record. We make theories about the whys and hows of this evidence. We then use the hundreds of years worth of new evidence to refine our theories, discarding any that can't explain the new evidence.

This is just how science works.

 

At the same time, as we get further and further into the process, people become more and more personally convinced. Reputations get wagered on pet theories. A certain level of fraud becomes inevitable.  The general public finds themselves taking sides in debates they don't fully understand.

This is just how humans operate. 

 

So what is the complaint? What makes evolutionary scientists unique? How are their theories treated differently than those involving Dark Matter?

 

Sorry mererdog, I almost skipped over you.

 

Are you trying to bring cosmology into the conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, VonNoble said:

:oops: First my admiration for your continued reasoned and reasonable responses.

 

2nd... kudos for your gracious handling of the age of the cosmos-I have zero reason to doubt your number... I never looked it up....I took the number from two biology students who sit in front of me (arguing about it after their mid-term).... I took the more conservative number of the two numbers they were tossing about ....:lol: I  do :P suspect neither of them got a 100% on the mid-term.... my apologies for being lazy and not actually looking it up.    For purposes of the discussion -your number works just fine.

 

i am familiar with punctuated equalibrium and for me the jury is still out... we share an interest in needing a bit more evidence to accept that as VERY LIKELY.

 

with continued respect 

von

 

Yeah I had to look it up. I was thinking 12.6 but maybe that's just what it was estimated to be when I was younger. I haven't found any supporting evidence as of yet. :lol:

 

Gotta be careful which students are helping you. LOL :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

I choose to believe a different explanation. I choose to believe that life was put here on Earth by an intelligent force. I believe that intelligent force has been influencing the development of life on earth since life began. I'm not telling anyone they have to agree with me. You choose what you believe. I am just trying to open your mind to another possibility.

 

That's called faith.  It is not science.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Geordon said:

 

That's called faith.  It is not science.

 

 

When faith trumps science, there is small point in continuing.  Facts are no longer the point of disagreement.     :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 8:09 PM, Pastor Dave said:

 

Yes I see speculation in some things theists say. I also see some facts in evolution theory. I guess my big gripe is in the way the speculation is what seems to tie the facts together but is presented in a way that the less discerning might see the conjecture as if it were fact. 

Yes...I agree.  The spin on any "theory" or determinative truth...the bane.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Sorry mererdog, I almost skipped over you.

 

Are you trying to bring cosmology into the conversation?

Not really. I'm still trying to get you to clarify your earlier question. You asked "Why is it that evolution theory is not held to the same strict standards of observable, testable, predictable, repeatable, falsifiable  evidence as other areas of science?" 

I was giving Dark Matter as an example of part of the "other areas of science" your question assumes are held to stricter standards than evolution theory. This was an invitation for you to highlight the contrast you implied.

Share this post


Link to post

i think its very important to speculate, or using scientific lingo, 'hypothesize'.  its also important to attemp to verify or falsify that observation and hypothesis.  a big difference between most science and most religion seems to be that one tests and then accepts or rejects a claim, while the other claims its initial hypothesis as fact without observation or apparent testing...often even if shown to be wrong.  Galileo comes to mind...although eventually(though too late for Galileo) they acknowledged the truth that they were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/9/2018 at 5:36 PM, Pastor Dave said:

 

Selective breeding. 

 

Btw all races of people are one species. 

 

Selective breeding? Still sounds like evolution to me. How else to get black from white, or vice versa?

Evolution theory, btw, also can cover changes in just one species.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this