Absurdities of so called science

[dad]

Lol.

Dad can't even make a sarcastic comment correctly.

How cute.

What, you believe in the imaginary creature too?

 

[Danyc]

What, you believe in the imaginary creature too?

Look back at what you said, and look back at what thaum said.

 

[dad]

Look back at what you said, and look back at what thaum said.

Yes, it seems he allude to feeling the same about some imaginary creature.

"

Ha. Yes, I guess it is fitting that they owe an apology to an imaginary creature.
​

As an atheist I often feel that way, too."

So, he apparently feels he owes an apology to the imaginary creature. If he wants to clarify that, it would be up to him. It is just banter anyhow, danyk. I prefer to address posts that address the issues.

 

[BananaSlug]

I see, and you think they never simply tweaked created plants to get it? What, they poofeed them up? Get serious. You think a Chihuahua is a man created dog as well!!??

Sometimes I wonder about you.

No they did not "poof" them up. They selected for certain desirable characteristics. Axial bud development for brussel sprouts. Flower head development for broccoli. Short flower stalk development for cauliflower. Leaf development for cabbage and collard greens. Stem development for kolhrabi. None of these plants are found naturally.

Here is the original Brassica oleracea:

Here is a brussel sprouts plant:

Oh look here is an ornamental kale:

Man, that looks nothing like the original plant! I bet if we knew nothing about the history of the domestication of this plant we would think they are totally different species! And yes the chihuahua is a "man-created" dog. All dogs are essentially "man-created" dogs.

Canis lupus, the grandfather species of dogs:

Through artifical selection, rather than natural selection, we have been able to create many different breeds of dogs.

Alaskan Malamute. Still very "wolf-like".

Corgi:

Chinese crested dog:

English bulldog:

Puli, a sheepdog:

Many of the dog breeds today look nothing like the original wolf species. Can you find wild English bulldogs in their natural habitat? I doubt it because humans created the breed! All of the domesticated species we have today are the result of artifical selection!

 

[Nathan Poe]

So, he apparently feels he owes an apology to the imaginary creature. If he wants to clarify that, it would be up to him. It is just banter anyhow, danyk. I prefer to address posts that address the issues.

And this is why people laugh at you everywhere you go, dad.

 

[Danyc]

Yes, it seems he allude to feeling the same about some imaginary creature.

"

Ha. Yes, I guess it is fitting that they owe an apology to an imaginary creature.
​

As an atheist I often feel that way, too."

So, he apparently feels he owes an apology to the imaginary creature. If he wants to clarify that, it would be up to him. It is just banter anyhow, danyk.

By saying that he feels that way, the "that way" he is speaking of is the thought process of AV. In other words, as an atheist, he often feels that it is fitting that they (Christians) owe and apology to an imaginary creature. That creature would, of course, be God.

I prefer to address posts that address the issues.

lol

 

[thaumaturgy]

By saying that he feels that way, the "that way" he is speaking of is the thought process of AV. In other words, as an atheist, he often feels that it is fitting that they (Christians) owe and apology to an imaginary creature. That creature would, of course, be God.

lol

Wow. My little side comment has generated quite a few comments of its own.

To be perfectly honest the reason I posted it was somewhat complex. I wasn't always an atheist and there's a small part of me that still finds it hard to let go of the "superstition" of religion. It's hard, as a former Christian, to say things that are really blasphemous. Force of habit, no doubt.

So in a sense I am an apologist for Christianity as well! Almost all of my friends are Christianns. One of my good friends is now a relatively well known author and he is quite religious, as are most of his friends. I find at times that my words are perceived too harshly by these good folks and I honestly feel bad for having said things I've said.

Again, I have nothing against Christians (I'd be a fool considering that almost all my friends are Christian!) For me Christianity and religious faith in general were a bad fit. It was too easy for me to obsess on things that, upon further observation, didn't really carry a "reality" to them. It became, toward the end, a slavish devotion to some "hypothetical" that bore no reality for me.

On balance it was a net "negative" for me.

But that isn't for everyone. Some folks actually feel their God. Even if I think they are merely "feeling" something that the human brain can generate on its own, it doesn't matter. It helps them. It brings them joy.

So why do I argue on CF? Well, that's a bit more subtle. I definitely do have something against aggressive ignorance and people who would force their will and "beliefs" on others for no better reason than they simply want to force their beliefs.

I sort of understand that some Christians convince themselves they are doing some "good" by saving the sinner from perdition. But when someone comes along and tries to tell me what science should and shouldn't do, or how science is wrong on this or that when they themselves only care about science insofar as it is yet another thing they must subjugate to their will informed only by ignorance, well that's where I'll be fighting the "good fight".

But in addition, I love talking about religion. I have done a significant amount of time thinking about religion over the course of my life. I don't want anyone to believe what I say simply because I say it. I am, however, more than willing to share what I've read and learned and how it appears to me.

I would no more take AV's belief in God away from him than I would candy from a child. But if AV wants to tell me how science should work right after he tells me when science can "take a hike", well he'll get in response what I can muster.

If Dad wishes to act haughty about concepts he has only the barest grasp of, well then he'll get a response as well.

Do I owe an apology to an imaginary being? Well, in a sense I sort of do. I have much respect for my Christian friends, but then my Christian friends are usually not espousing the kind of stuff folks like AV and Dad espouse. I still argue with some of my Christian friends, but most of them are reasonably well educated and, like me, have some small kernel of humility that we keep as an ember in our bosom to remind us that we are, all, merely human.

 

[dad]

No they did not "poof" them up. They selected for certain desirable characteristics. Axial bud development for brussel sprouts. Flower head development for broccoli. Short flower stalk development for cauliflower. Leaf development for cabbage and collard greens. Stem development for kolhrabi. None of these plants are found naturally.

Here is the original Brassica oleracea:

Here is a brussel sprouts plant:

Oh look here is an ornamental kale:

Man, that looks nothing like the original plant! I bet if we knew nothing about the history of the domestication of this plant we would think they are totally different species! And yes the chihuahua is a "man-created" dog. All dogs are essentially "man-created" dogs.

Canis lupus, the grandfather species of dogs:

Through artifical selection, rather than natural selection, we have been able to create many different breeds of dogs.

Alaskan Malamute. Still very "wolf-like".

Corgi:

Chinese crested dog:

English bulldog:

Puli, a sheepdog:

Many of the dog breeds today look nothing like the original wolf species. Can you find wild English bulldogs in their natural habitat? I doubt it because humans created the breed! All of the domesticated species we have today are the result of artifical selection!

Man created squat, he tinkered. get over it. If there was no dog to tinker with, or plant, what would he create?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Man created squat, he tinkered. get over it. If there was no dog to tinker with, or plant, what would he create?

Listing of Named Man-Made elements
Technetium (Tc), 43
Promethium (Pm), 61
Neptunium (Np), 93
Americium (Am), 95
Curium (Cm), 96
Berkelium (Bk), 97
Californium (Cf), 98
Einsteinium (Es), 99
Fermium (Fm), 100
Mendelevium (Md), 101
Nobelium (No), 102
Lawrencium (Lr), 103

(SOURCE)

Might throw Plutonium on the list as well, but it might be around in small amounts naturally.
(SOURCE)

 

[AV1611VET]

Listing of Named Man-Made elements
Technetium (Tc), 43
Promethium (Pm), 61
Neptunium (Np), 93
Americium (Am), 95
Curium (Cm), 96
Berkelium (Bk), 97
Californium (Cf), 98
Einsteinium (Es), 99
Fermium (Fm), 100
Mendelevium (Md), 101
Nobelium (No), 102
Lawrencium (Lr), 103

(SOURCE)

Might throw Plutonium on the list as well, but it might be around in small amounts naturally.
(SOURCE)

To paraphrase the gag line of a well-known joke: get your own atoms to tinker with.

Quit tinkering with God's stuff if you're gonna brag what you can do in a laboratory, and make your own (ex nihilo, of course).

 

[dad]

Listing of Named Man-Made elements
Technetium (Tc), 43
Promethium (Pm), 61
Neptunium (Np), 93
Americium (Am), 95
Curium (Cm), 96
Berkelium (Bk), 97
Californium (Cf), 98
Einsteinium (Es), 99
Fermium (Fm), 100
Mendelevium (Md), 101
Nobelium (No), 102
Lawrencium (Lr), 103

(SOURCE)

Might throw Plutonium on the list as well, but it might be around in small amounts naturally.
(SOURCE)

No problem, long as man did not use created material to begin with, tweaking, and mixing, and conjuring, and radiating, and etc. Then you have a point. Meanwhile, you have the usual suspects. Squat, Zilch, and Nothing, Nada, and Zero.

 

[dad]

By saying that he feels that way, the "that way" he is speaking of is the thought process of AV. In other words, as an atheist, he often feels that it is fitting that they (Christians) owe and apology to an imaginary creature. That creature would, of course, be God.

In the case of a Christian, yes. For an atheist feeling the same, obviously it is the imaginary creature. So??

 

[AV1611VET]

No problem, long as man did not use created material to begin with, tweaking, and mixing, and conjuring, and radiating, and etc. Then you have a point. Meanwhile, you have the usual suspects. Squat, Zilch, and Nothing, Nada, and Zero.

I beat you to that by one post (#590), bro --- great minds think alike, eh?

 

[dad]

If Dad wishes to act haughty about concepts he has only the barest grasp of, well then he'll get a response as well.
.

I actually have a grasp of what I am talking about. You, on the defeated other hand, obviously have no grasp of the new heavens, the eternal state, the state of the universe in the past, or anything that so called science deals in.

Now, I am not haughty, really, just dishing out a little of the medicine that has been dished out by the buffoonery, and hooliganism, and cunning deceit, of diabolical dreamers. It is not present state concepts we need a grasp of, when we are flying off to infinity and beyond. It is actually letting go of them tht is needed, or you will remain anchored in the dark ignorance that must follow. Only in dreaming can you venture to the interesting, eterenal places, when your knuckles are glued to the present.

 

[dad]

I beat you to that by one post (#590), bro --- great minds think alike, eh?

Yes, the people of the book have one leg up. Not only does science merely just tweak created things, they do it with laws that God set in place! They do it on a created earth! They do it with created intelligence! (gone wild). Etc.

 

[Hespera]

Quoth "dad"
The buffoonery, and hooliganism, and cunning deceit, of diabolical dreamers.<<<<

did you lift this straight out of an old kruschev speech?

 

[dad]

Quoth "dad"
The buffoonery, and hooliganism, and cunning deceit, of diabolical dreamers.<<<<

did you lift this straight out of an old kruschev speech?

No, just made it up as I went along. Try it sometime. No pinko guns at my head, forcing me to grab at truisms. It is volunteer work.

 

[BananaSlug]

Man created squat, he tinkered. get over it. If there was no dog to tinker with, or plant, what would he create?

You forget that even if someone "tweaks" something that is already in existence into something that does not resemble the original object it is creating. If I have some electronic parts laying around I can "tweak" them and build a computer. If I have some vegetables I can "tweak" them and create new kinds of vegetables. It is kinda like how God "tweaked" some mud to create Adam.

The point of my post was that God did not create bulldogs or broccoli. Man created them through artificial selection.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/synthetic_genome

 

[dad]

You forget that even if someone "tweaks" something that is already in existence into something that does not resemble the original object it is creating. If I have some electronic parts laying around I can "tweak" them and build a computer. If I have some vegetables I can "tweak" them and create new kinds of vegetables. It is kinda like how God "tweaked" some mud to create Adam.

The point of my post was that God did not create bulldogs or broccoli. Man created them through artificial selection.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/synthetic_genome

Not really. get over it. Using the word create for tweak is what it is. Humble down.

 

[BananaSlug]

So I guess Edison never invented the light bulb, he simply tweaked it. I guess Bell never created the telephone, he just tweaked it. All of the inventions we have today were never created! They were just tweaked!