Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

Darwinian myth. Hasn't been substantiated.

Where is the picture?

Oh give me a break it was posted inn Evolution thread, do I need to go back and repost it just for you?

 

[PearlWatson]

Why would I worry about mythical pain or suffering in mythical hell?

Of course you ain't worried about something you don't believe in, but you asked how "hell" could be worse than simply "not existing" and I answered that question.

 

[PearlWatson]

Oh give me a break it was posted inn Evolution thread, do I need to go back and repost it just for you?

The picture of the whale legs was posted?

 

[MVP]

[/IMG]

 

[PearlWatson]

Yeah I get it. For some piece and comfort is brought by drugs, for some by having millions in bank account, for some by creating music or sculpture, for some seeing their team win championship. Lots of lots of ways of getting it.
Religion is opium for masses at the end of the day. I am very happy without it though.

lol. Jazz fanzz ain't ever going to experience such "peace and comfort."

Religion provides social order; a way to pass on shared morals.
God is the one who provides peace and comfort.

 

[PearlWatson]

Which part of the blury image is the legs?

What are a, b, and c supposed to be?

 

[babe]

It is about having a connection to something bigger than yourself. It brings peace and comfort during hardship. It ain't about constant "happiness" but the redemptive qualities of faith.

"none so blind as they who will not see" comes to mind. I guess unbelievers and believers can both throw out the charge of "delusion" with no effect.

A lot of the unbelievers in God don't believe in true love. . . either. . . . and wouldn't know how to go about it. Otoh, a lot of professing "believers" are more in love with "belonging to the flock" than in the shepherd. Just like most sheep. I conclude it's not a worthy debate when it's about who thinks what, or why. That's just another meaningless posturing status chase, a 'Tis so/'Tain't so. It's only interesting to me if it's a discussion of reasons/beliefs.

God is as real to me as any other fact of existing things. I say that with a definite idea of who and what I think God is, and I could make the case of how I "know" it. But I am not God, and nobody can show another person what God is. A few people strike me as pretty good examples of some of the characteristics I "see" as "God", and encourage me in my belief. Scientists have chosen a particular format for proof, and that format requires certain characteristic evidences, including physical/spatial demonstrability and coherence with various lines of examination. That God does not conform to our rules is not disproof of existence.

The way I see it, God goes to considerable effort to just not be so overbearing that reasonable or even principled people cannot be free to choose their path in relation to Him. It looks to me sorta like the cowboy who tries to win the love of a fine free-ranging stallion (or mare), and just doesn't believe in putting it in a corral, intellectually-speaking. You can follow God if you choose to, better still if you love Him, but it's your choice.

Strikes me as AKMVP got a dose of the, well, let's say, poorer kind of religious persuasion. Maybe somebody tried to beat religion into him or something, maybe some less articulate advocates of some organized religion used some of the wrong kinds of persuasions. In that context, maybe he's right to establish his thinking on a rational basis of his own choosing. Nobody can really "find God" until they at least have their own autonomy as a human being. God is repulsed by methods of coercion. Whatever the case, God will wait until he's ready to address the Real Issue, in his own way.

 

[PearlWatson]

"none so blind as they who will not see" comes to mind. I guess unbelievers and believers can both throw out the charge of "delusion" with no effect.

A lot of the unbelievers in God don't believe in true love. . . either. . . . and wouldn't know how to go about it. Otoh, a lost of professing "believers" are more in love with "belonging to the flock" than in the shepherd. Just like most sheep. I conclude it's not a worthy debate when it's about who thinks what, or why. That's just another meaningless posturing status chase, a 'Tis so/'Tain't so. It's only interesting to me if it's a discussion of reasons/beliefs.

God is as real to me as any other fact of existing things. I say that with a definite idea of who and what I think God is, and I could make the case of how I "know" it. But I am not God, and nobody can show another person what God is. A few people strike me as pretty good examples of some of the characteristics I "see" as "God", and encourage me in my belief. Scientists have chosen a particular format for proof, and that format requires certain characteristic evidences, including physical/spatial demonstrability and coherence with various lines of examination. That God does not conform to our rules is not disproof of existence.

The way I see it, God goes to considerable effort to just not be so overbearing that reasonable or even principled people cannot be free to choose their path in relation to Him. It looks to me sorta like the cowboy who tries to win the love of a fine free-ranging stallion (or mare), and just doesn't believe in putting it in a corral, intellectually-speaking. You can follow God if you choose to, better still if you love Him, but it's your choice.

Strikes me as AKMVP got a dose of the, well, let's say, poorer kind of religious persuasion. Maybe somebody tried to beat religion into him or something, maybe some less articulate advocates of some organized religion used some of the wrong kinds of persuasions. In that context, maybe he's right to establish his thinking on a rational basis of his own choosing. Nobody can really "find God" until they at least have their own autonomy as a human being. God is repulsed by methods of coercion. Whatever the case, God will wait until he's ready to address the Real Issue, in his own way.

Well he said he would rather fish than attend church, so religion was just an inconvenience to him.
It's the same for most people who reject it. They never discover the redemptive qualities of it.

 

[MVP]

What are a, b, and c supposed to be?

Read all the story here.

https://www.strangeark.com/bfr/archive/historical/Remarkable_case_hind_limbs_humpback_whale.pdf

 

[Deleted member 848]

Duplication does not always lend itself to information loss, but it never lends itself to information gain.

I took my information from a genetics professor. My simplification was for debate purposes.

A simplification? Those statements say completely different things. Your 'simplifications' are misleading, and I'm sure this isn't the only one. If your 'debate purposes' are misleading other readers in this forum, perhaps you should reconsider what your 'purpose' with your involvement in this thread truly is.

I read about translocation before you mentioned it. It seems like that would be comparable to an out of order page in the copy of the book.

Yes, but think deeper. This translocation is more like "one and 30% of a laminated page (if we assume that the gene is in an imprinted area, and therefore the DNA is methylated) being thrown 40 pages ahead into a chapter in the book with pages made of papyrus".

There is simply so much variation in the mere structure of the nucleic acid backbone within a single chromosome-- let alone between chromosomes. Moving half of a gene from chromosome 14 to 8 in the middle of another gene begets new start and stop transcription sites, which can create novel genes-- which, of course, can be beneficial or detrimental. Translocations are in no way intrinsically deleterious.

Please stop it with the simplifications. They both inhibit your understanding of the science, as well as the other readers of this thread.

 

[PearlWatson]

"Please post "creationist explanation" about sexual function of hind limb remnants in whales, I would like to read it".

I can explain to you the sexual function of "hind limb remnants."

A male whale has a 12 foot long dick so when he goes to make babies he needs support for this.
A female whale has to support a 12 foot long dick...

Now do you get it?

 

[babe]

A simplification? Those statements say completely different things. Your 'simplifications' are misleading, and I'm sure this isn't the only one. If your 'debate purposes' are misleading other readers in this forum, perhaps you should reconsider what your 'purpose' with your involvement in this thread truly is.



Yes, but think deeper. This translocation is more like "one and 30% of a laminated page (if we assume that the gene is in an imprinted area, and therefore the DNA is methylated) being thrown 40 pages ahead into a chapter in the book with pages made of papyrus".

There is simply so much variation in the mere structure of the nucleic acid backbone within a single chromosome-- let alone between chromosomes. Moving half of a gene from chromosome 14 to 8 in the middle of another gene begets new start and stop transcription sites, which can create novel genes-- which, of course, can be beneficial or detrimental. Translocations are in no way intrinsically deleterious.

Please stop it with the simplifications. They both inhibit your understanding of the science, as well as the other readers of this thread.

I suppose turnabout is fair play. When Pearl sees advocates of actually Marxist lingo, such as "religion is the opiate of the masses", it's not a scientific debate anymore, and she's entitled to her faithful retorts. Intellectual "bully tactics" by atheists beget non-scientific simplifications at some level of popular religious sentiment.

To be fair, Dal, some people's efforts at particularly accurate statements of science will strike a true expert as woefully misspoken wild errors of fact. I understand your point, and appreciate your contributions to my education. I wouldn't worry too much about all the other readers. In a 'net forum it's "caveat emptor", so to speak, for whatever pearls you have that you're willing to throw out on a thread. People will be people, God only can love them, sometimes. . . .