Frances Collins concept of God

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It's a rhetorical device. But if you want to try to fly with one wing then give it your best shot.

Then why use it? It is extremely wrong, and usually only demonstrates the racism of the person that tries to use it. Let's see you explain that claim that does not show that you have no comprehension of the theory of evolution and are not rather racist yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Look at Obama. He is a very intelligent person and yet he may go down into history as one of the most stupid presidents we have ever had. He has LOTS of competition from presidents with lower IQ for this distinction. You would think this is a great enigma but he was corrupted by what is considered to be one of the greatest (best) universities in the world. So you call this enigma a word salad because you just are not able to make any sense out of it. How can one of our most intelligent presidents be one of our most stupid presidents? One clue is that he is a pawn in the pocket of health care professionals. Their job is to match up care givers with care takers. Yet their objective seems to be to put as much money in their pocket as they can. There are many people that can do a much better job of running the health care profession. But these are the ones that paid to get Obama elected so what we end up with is Obama care: one of the biggest rip offs in the history of mankind. It is anything but affordable. Anyways you say this is all word salad to you, so there is no reason for me to continue to talk about it.

More word salad.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
DNA falsified Darwinism and gave us the "modern synthesis" which is the political correct term for Darwinism. Then Gould and Eldredge came along with punctuated equilibrium and that falsified NeoDarwinism and gave us PostNeoDarwinism.

I would pay attention to the bold portion below in regards to what DNA has done to greatly enhance the evidence for Darwin's theory.

And guess what, Francis Collins knows just a tad more about this subject, then you do.

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-and-the-church-part-2#sthash.ZyOJ8AX6.dpuf

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
More word salad.
I will agree with his claim that Obamacare is largely a failure. Yes, it is a boon for those not working at all, but for lower waged people at least they still have the problem of excessively high deductibles before their "affordable care" kicks in. I would like to take a serious look at Bernie's claims that we already pay more in medical taxes per capita, not counting insurance that is added on, than some of the European countries with paid health care. Our backwards system still has the U.S. subsidizing the costs of medications for the rest of the world with the high rates we pay to pharmacies. Obamacare may be the one thing that gets Trump elected as president (shudder).

But this is all off topic. There is no doubt that Francis Collins knows that we are the product of evolution, yet it has not harmed his Christian beliefs. Demanding that the Genesis account is true is akin to demanding that the Earth does not move.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I will agree with his claim that Obamacare is largely a failure. Yes, it is a boon for those not working at all, but for lower waged people at least they still have the problem of excessively high deductibles before their "affordable care" kicks in. I would like to take a serious look at Bernie's claims that we already pay more in medical taxes per capita, not counting insurance that is added on, than some of the European countries with paid health care. Our backwards system still has the U.S. subsidizing the costs of medications for the rest of the world with the high rates we pay to pharmacies. Obamacare may be the one thing that gets Trump elected as president (shudder).

But this is all off topic. There is no doubt that Francis Collins knows that we are the product of evolution, yet it has not harmed his Christian beliefs. Demanding that the Genesis account is true is akin to demanding that the Earth does not move.

I have been in healthcare my entire professional life.

Obamacare was a minor step forward, but it is quite flawed.

Other advanced countries have quality healthcare, at much lower cost per capita compared to the US.

Many reasons for this, which I will not get into here, because it is off topic.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I have been in healthcare my entire professional life.

Obamacare was a minor step forward, but it is quite flawed.

Other advanced countries have quality healthcare, at much lower cost per capita compared to the US.

Many reasons for this, which I will not get into here, because it is off topic.

I agree. One last OT question, if you had your druthers: Hillary or Bernie?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I agree. One last OT question, if you had your druthers: Hillary or Bernie?

It's a tough call.

Hilary is really going to be more of the status quo and some of Bernie's desires are completely impossible to get done.

Since I am quite fed up with establishment politics and the money that has backed establishment politics, I would lean towards Bernie.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I define it from time to time but not in ever post. For example Science (Neo-Darwinism) says: "The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all." Evo-Devo talks about natural laws or the laws of the universe so nothing is left to chance. You can go anywhere in the universe and end up with the same results as we see here because evolution is governed by the natural laws.

Mainstream science says "The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all." You've done nothing to demonstrate that this is not the case, except from arguments from incredulity and confusing the issue with your diatribes.

You keep bringing up "Evo-Devo" for some reason, Just to make sure we're on the same page it's defined as:

Evolutionary developmental biology (evolution of development or informally, evo-devo) is a field of biology that compares the developmental processes of different organisms to determine the ancestral relationship between them, and to discover how developmental processes evolved. It addresses the origin and evolution of embryonic development; how modifications of development and developmental processes lead to the production of novel features, such as the evolution of feathers;[2] the role of developmental plasticity in evolution; how ecology impacts development and evolutionary change; and the developmental basis of homoplasy and homology.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology

I honestly don't know why you think this goes in any way against the main thrust of the TOE ("The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all."), I'd guess it's wishful thinking and a misunderstanding of the subject.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No I attacked your argument as weak. That is no reflection on you. I would question if it is even your argument as for the most part you just repeat what you hear from others. You need to present a stronger argument if you hope to have any degree of persuasiveness.

Stronger argument? Let's have a re-cap (Paraphrasing for brevity)

Joshua: Show me evidence of a beneficial mutation

Me: Specific mutation in SLC24A5, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European ancestry.

Joshua: The key word here is beneficial. You claim that A111T is a mutation and that it is beneficial. Yet as a general rule people with lighter color European skin are not happy with their lighter skin.

Me: As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency.

Joshua: You are the one that is failing to show a benefit. Can you prove that African and Asian people have a vitamin D deficiency in comparison to European people? They facts pretty much blow your off the cuff theory right out of the water.

Loudmouth: "Vitamin D insufficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (blacks) than other Americans and, in North America, most young, healthy blacks do not achieve optimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations at any time of year. This is primarily due to the fact that pigmentation reduces vitamin D production in the skin."
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/4/1126.full

Joshua: You're rascists!

Well done mate, when your arguments have been proven wrong, rather than admit your mistakes you've resorted to the lowest of the low, wrongly accusing people of racism. Sad.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
They show exactly what I said they show that: NeoDarwinism approach of waiting for a new or existing Gene mutation to become common so as to effect a trait is inevitably slow. Darwinism, NeoDarwinism and PostNeoDarwinism have all been falsified. They are waiting for a new theory to come along to explain the mechanism of evolution but to date it is unknown. The evidence shows what I have been saying all along that the variation is there from the beginning. That information in the DNA is lost not gained over time. Some people believe that the universe started off the size of a mustard seed and all the information for everything was already there in the beginning.

Can you not read?

What is written on the first page of the paper is more than enough to falsify your claims:

upload_2016-5-20_9-16-43-png.174773


They are saying that relatively few mutations can have a much larger effect due to the network aspect of gene interactions.

I had a quick look at a EvoSysBio site as I'm not overly familiar with it and this one one of the first things I saw....


A framework for evolutionary systems biology

It seems that they have no problems with Beneficial mutations ......

This framework can address many longstanding topics in evolutionary biology by defining various 'levels' of the adaptive landscape. Addressed topics include the distribution of mutational effects on fitness, as well as the nature of advantageous mutations, epistasis and robustness. Combining corresponding parameter estimates with population genetics models raises the possibility of testing evolutionary hypotheses at a new level of realism.

"EvoSysBio" and "EvoDevo" are building on the TOE, helping us understand it in more detail, not falsifying it.

DNA falsified Darwinism and gave us the "modern synthesis" which is the political correct term for Darwinism. Then Gould and Eldredge came along with punctuated equilibrium and that falsified NeoDarwinism and gave us PostNeoDarwinism.

Right, evidence that you really don't know what you're talking about.

Evolution in general is a racist theory, you just take the theory to a new level of racism.

I'm quite angry about this as it obviously refers to me as I was making the same argument as Loudmouth. Luckily I wasn't able to post at the weekend when I first read this as my response would have got me banned. You know nothing about Loudmouth's or myself's backgrounds or personal views. Pathetic.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
rather racist yourself.
I am in a inter racial marriage and my son is multi racial. Although actually it would be more accurate to say multi cultural. As a general rule racist people do not inner marry with members of a different race then them.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My family is jammed packed full of medical doctors and PhDs and for the most part they are idiots. But they do know a lot about a very select amount of information. For example my bother in law is a PhD in computers, he can tell you anything and everything about Cisco. But there is a lot about computers that he knows nothing about. It amazed me how simple of a question I can ask him and he does not have the answer. Once I asked a friend of mine with a PhD in physics about Quantum Physics and he knew NOTHING about the subject. The only thing he studies was classic physics. That surprised me that he knew nothing about Quantum Physics but it should not have. Is this enough or do you want me to go on to give you more examples? How about my brother. He is director of the Psychology Dept at the local hospital. I asked him a question once about memory and the brain. Perhaps it was more neurological but still he did not know the answer. He had never studied it. Yet he considers himself an expert on Psychology and he claims to know everything about psychology but he is really a dysfunctional idiot as far as I am concerned. How can you claim to know Psychology and know know about the Neurology and the Physiology of the brain? To the point where you can not even answer a simple question about memory and how memory is stored in the Brain. This is no reflection on Psychology in general. I did talk to a Cardio Psychology specialist once and she was pretty knowledge able about her area of expertise. Of course like most other people she knew very little outside of her area that she professionally dedicated herself to.

Why did you post this, it's completely off topic, it's almost as if you're trying to change the subject. You seem to think it's strange that people who specialize in a certain subject are 'idiots' because they won't speculate on subjects outside of their specialization. You mention your brother a lot, if I remember correctly he has his Psychology phd, his masters in business admin and he's a company director.... and you're calling him an idiot?
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why did you post this, it's completely off topic, it's almost as if you're trying to change the subject. You seem to think it's strange that people who specialize in a certain subject are 'idiots' because they won't speculate on subjects outside of their specialization. You mention your brother a lot, if I remember correctly he has his Psychology phd, his masters in business admin and he's a company director.... and you're calling him an idiot?
You got my brothers mixed up. My oldest brother is a medical doctor: pediatrician that specialized in downs syndrome. He did get his masters degree in business administration so he was the director of a clinic. He recently sold that and he is semi retired so he just works part time as a doctor right now. Also he teaches part time at the medical school.

My dad served the community as a doctor for 50 years, but now a doctor can retire after 20 years. Then they are free to do what they want. They can teach or do missionary work. Ben Carson for example is a retired American neurosurgeon. He has gotten active in the political arena and wants to do something to make a difference in that area.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I am in a inter racial marriage and my son is multi racial. Although actually it would be more accurate to say multi cultural. As a general rule racist people do not inner marry with members of a different race then them.
That still does not excuse your error. What makes you thin that evolution is a racist theory? I have only seen racists try to make that claim in the past. Just as racists have used the Bible to justify racism. As far as evolution is concerned there are no different races of people. The different traits such as skin color, eye color, hair color, curly hair, straight hair etc. are all just minor variations and are often a result of adapting to different environments. But over all blues eyes are not superior to brown eyes. Each one has pluses and minuses that are environment dependent. The same applies to dark skin and light skin. A human being in sub-Saharan Africa is much more apt to get skin cancer if he has light skin. And before modern diets a dark skinned person in very northern climates suffered from vitamin D deficiencies more often than light skinned people. Neither color makes either person "better".

So how is evolution racist?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why did you post this, it's completely off topic, it's almost as if you're trying to change the subject. You seem to think it's strange that people who specialize in a certain subject are 'idiots' because they won't speculate on subjects outside of their specialization. You mention your brother a lot, if I remember correctly he has his Psychology phd, his masters in business admin and he's a company director.... and you're calling him an idiot?

Most of his posts are off topic.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What makes you thin that evolution is a racist theory?
I think that because talk origin and wiki reason have failed to offer a convincing argument against what they call "evolution racist theory". If Talk Origin had not told me about the theory I would not have know about it. It never would have occurred to me. The Bible says: "All things are pure to the pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled." Titus 1:15. What you are saying would be true if it was my theory, but it is not my theory it is Talk Origins theory. Because they present the theory so they can argue against it. All I am saying is they failed to present a reasonable argument against a theory that they themselves created. Nice to see that you understand and are beginning to accept some Bible beliefs.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I think that because talk origin and wiki reason have failed to offer a convincing argument against what they call "evolution racist theory". If Talk Origin had not told me about the theory I would not have know about it. It never would have occurred to me. The Bible says: "All things are pure to the pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled." Titus 1:15. What you are saying would be true if it was my theory, but it is not my theory it is Talk Origins theory. Because they present the theory so they can argue against it. All I am saying is they failed to present a reasonable argument against a theory that they themselves created. Nice to see that you understand and are beginning to accept some Bible beliefs.


That is a ridiculous argument. I could say the same about the Bible: Some people have claimed that the Bible supports racism and since no one on the Bible side has failed to offer a convincing argument against it that means the Bible is racist. By the way, nonsense defensive verses in the Bible are not evidence that the Bible is not racist.

Remember, it is always the person that is making a positive claim that has to support it. If you want to claim that the theory of evolution is racist the burden of proof is upon you. I am betting that all you can do is to show that at best you do not understand the theory of evolution. It may also show that you still have some underlying racism.

ETA: By the way, it is not Talk Origins theory. Please this is not honest on your part. If you report that some think that the Bible is racist does that make it your theory? I would never claim that. I might claim, though I have not tried to, that the Bible is racist, but if you said that some believed the Bible to be racist I would not call that "your idea".

The burden of proof is still upon you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0