the self replicating watch argument

[truefiction1]

This story is extremely weird when the bible is kept in mind, because, from the words of the bible, prophets that are not of YHWH are inaccurate liars, so this "psychic" shouldn't have been able to be more accurate than the average cold reader.

The "spirits of the air" sometimes communicate information that they can easily come by (because they can travel very quickly and operate in vast networks) knowledge of what a person is doing and infer what is on their minds by close observations of their bodily behaviors (sort of like the worlds' greatest somatic psychotherapist -- only on steroids and adderall amplified 1000 times). They can give this information to certain people whom they have managed to enter into an ongoing spiritual dialogue with (i.e. psychic mediums, false clairvoyants, false prophets, diviners, etc.), so as to deceive these people into feeling/thinking they are special, having unique powers and abilities. The spirits gain access to these people through their pride and vainglory (which are evil passions). The psychic in my case was able to be so accurate because she was supplied with highly accurate information. Happens. There have been some very accomplished, sainted medical surgeons who were well aware of the reality of the spiritual realm I'm alluding to here. Where modern medicine left off being able to save their patients they resorted to prayer, and had many times healed their patients by the power of God as a last resort. These doctors knew God. They could see God because of the purity of their own hearts; cleansed by the grace that comes only through humbling themselves in repentance.

-_- most people think a lot of the same things in response to the loss of a loved one.

Maybe so, but my father passed away 24 years ago, and neither this woman nor my wife, or anyone else, knew that I had been at his grave recently.

Again, a very personal experience that I can't evaluate because you have no recordings of it and you won't even try to give relevant details. If the psychic gave you a bunch of what your deceased father "felt", it's entirely meaningless. Now, if they told you that, for example, your father secretly buried a safe in his backyard and that the code to it was 7783, and this turned out to be true, that would at least tell me you aren't incredibly gullible. It wouldn't mean that this person was an actual psychic necessarily, but it'd make the information impressive.

The psychic was told that I was recently visiting a specific grave, that of my father. Unless she had a drone following me around or was monitoring my every move through a telescope camera on satellite, there's just no way. I'm assuming that this poor patient access administrator does not have such resources. I think it's safe to assume. Besides, there have been instances of people being informed in visions or dreams about the whereabouts of something long buried and not known about, and the things were found there. Doubtful that you would believe these incidents actually occurred either. No proof. You didn't see it so it's just somebody's word with nothing to back it up: Mere pious legends without substantiation.

-_- I meant assuring me that I will believe one day as long as I keep trying. You don't have any way of knowing if I'll ever believe or not.

Christ said if we seek we will find. I believe Him. But what is the nature of this "seeking"? It is humbling oneself in repentance.

-_- the reasoning is common because a lot of the newcomers on here have had practically no interactions with atheists so they have no idea how atheists actually think. The dumbest argument, I have to say, is that "atheists don't want to believe because they just want to keep sinning". Seriously, it's as illogical as trying to not believe in the police to get away with murder.

If an atheist is gifted with genuine, Christlike humility, then it might be plausible that they don't want to keep sinning. However, if the atheist is consumed with the evil passion of pride, then they are unmistakably enslaved in sin because pride is an evil affect that prevents us from Loving God, and from knowing God's Love for us. How many of those who don't believe in God are devoid of pride? How many are arrogant, conceited, self-justifying? Not that many religious people aren't the same way. Pride is evil no matter who it is found in.

Yup, because it is in a thread I was already active in, and I respond to all posts like it that I see.

I'm not active here. I was invited and I don't know why, or the person who invited me. I would never have come in here without some strange, external prompting. So it's weird.

That implies destiny, which makes free will meaningless. Since free will is the major argument for why YHWH doesn't reveal itself, you are digging a hole for yourself.

No, its a paradox. Freewill is most precious to God, because without it Love can't be. But God knows all things for all times and orchestrates all things throughout all ages and Eternity, freewill fully operational throughout. YHWH is much larger than our feeble creature brains will ever be able to even begin to comprehend -- are as His ways -- to a point beyond where freewill and destiny can both be true at once.

Post a picture of the cotton balls next to a cross made out of shoelaces so I can tell you actually have them.

I'll try, but my phone might not cooperate.

I only have your word for that, and that alone doesn't mean a whole lot. Also, what cancer can't be treated at all? As a person that just passed their Cancer Biology course, there aren't any I know of that can't be TREATED, at the very least, in a way that lessens the pain. Treatment and cure are not the same thing.

The physicians followed their best courses for curing, or slowing the progression of the cancer, but things weren't working as they'd hoped, so they had given up and stopped the procedures. There just wasn't much more they felt they could or should do but to keep the person as physically comfortable as possible until the end. Happens a lot with terminal cancer patients.

-_- those ill people were forced to labor in this fallen world for that much longer because their terminal illnesses went away. Exactly what was merciful about that? Furthermore, if this stuff was actually curing people on a regular basis, don't you think I, a person in the medical sciences, would know about it? The answer is simple; this stuff doesn't cure anything. Unless you knew those people extremely well, you have no way of knowing if they lied to you or not. Not about being cured, but about being sick in the first place. I especially wouldn't trust them if they were associated with the church hosting the painting. Furthermore, I cannot recommend that you try to use it to treat a serious illness in good conscience. How about trying to use it to get rid of a mild illness, though? Something that doesn't have to do with inflammation, like a rash, though, because myrrh has anti-inflammatory properties normally Frankincense and myrrh suppress inflammation via regulation of the metabolic profiling and the MAPK signaling pathway

What's merciful is that God revealed His presence with a miracle, gave the person some more time on this earth to get himself more fully in Communion with God, while giving others both hope and signs so that they may come to truly know Him, through increased faith. We will all die. Miracle healing and cures, resurrections, and all other such good things nourish us with Eternal Life.

Good to know about the medicinal use of myrrh. I've gotten several large and painful sores on my upper back and shoulder and I've no clue what they are or how I got them. Maybe I'll try some myrrh on them tomorrow (or else go to the clinic and get checked out). Thanks.

Also, funnily enough, people are researching if it helps cancer patients, so even if those people did have cancer and treated it with myrrh, that might just be a result of properties myrrh happens to have that aren't actually miraculous at all. Obviously, if the painting was actually generating the stuff that would be a miracle. Unfortunately, most churches don't let scientists near the paintings. I wonder why
-_-.

The reader Nectarius (now deacon) told us that some chemists came and asked for a sample of the myrrh from the Hawaiian Iveron icon and he gave them a small vial of it. After a little while they contacted him, all agitated and confused, and very adamant about finding out more about this "stuff" and where they really got it, because they couldn't figure it out: it just didn't agree with anything that they knew about the molecular structures of such compounds. The way he described it to us, is that they said is was so molecularly unstable that it's chemical composition would undergo such rapid changes that it was not the same physical substance from one moment to another. Thus, they could not identify it as anything commonly occurring in nature. I wish I had the names and contact info of these gentlemen. I'd certainly like to hear their story myself. I don't think its entirely fair or accurate to claim that we don't let scientists have any of it.

 

[truefiction1]

I'll accept that offer if you provide evidence that you actually have it. I'd rather not reveal my address for nothing. I really hope you take my advice and test the stuff and take a video of it for all to see, because I am sure that you have a finite number of them. Plus, it would really suck if you saved it for when you have a terminal illness and you rely on it for treatment, and it happened to do nothing.

If I have a terminal illness I'll likely die soon, with or without medical intervention. I believe in miracles, but also that God knows best about who benefits from them and who benefits from something else. I liked the documentary "The Science of Fasting", and I really think there's a lot stated in it that's beneficial and true. If I got cancer I'm pretty sure I'd combine fasting with chemo based on what I believe to be realistic claims by the researchers and doctors interviewed for the movie. If you're not too busy (but you probably are) you ought to check it out.

Aside from the cotton ball offering, you're actually more vague than the average person that claims to have experienced a miracle. Sorry to be blunt, but it's true.

No need to be sorry. The average person gives you something more tangible than I, but it's still not enough to generate faith in God in you. Only the Holy Spirit can give you faith, and only if you seek to learn God's humility from Him. The Holy Spirit cannot be grasped through left hemispheric cognitive reasoning. The Holy Spirit is like the wind -- intangible to the mind, but quickening it, like breaths of fresh air in the lungs of a living body. Orthodox Christians are regularly perceived as being uselessly vague, even to most of the heterodox Christians of the Roman and Protestant traditions. So your impression of me was anticipated and is quite understandable.

Oh, there are tons of these all over the place, so I am sure I'll get an opportunity to observe one for myself at some point.

I wonder why there are tons of them all over the place these days. Maybe you will get a chance at some point.

There's a psychic I know that I've been thinking about how to test lately, since their claimed ability and the nature of what they see makes it very, very difficult to test. I might be posting something in Physical and Life Sciences later.

Cool. Hope to get around to checking it out if you do.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The "spirits of the air" sometimes communicate information that they can easily come by (because they can travel very quickly and operate in vast networks) knowledge of what a person is doing and infer what is on their minds by close observations of their bodily behaviors (sort of like the worlds' greatest somatic psychotherapist -- only on steroids and adderall amplified 1000 times). They can give this information to certain people whom they have managed to enter into an ongoing spiritual dialogue with (i.e. psychic mediums, false clairvoyants, false prophets, diviners, etc.), so as to deceive these people into feeling/thinking they are special, having unique powers and abilities. The spirits gain access to these people through their pride and vainglory (which are evil passions). The psychic in my case was able to be so accurate because she was supplied with highly accurate information. Happens. There have been some very accomplished, sainted medical surgeons who were well aware of the reality of the spiritual realm I'm alluding to here. Where modern medicine left off being able to save their patients they resorted to prayer, and had many times healed their patients by the power of God as a last resort. These doctors knew God. They could see God because of the purity of their own hearts; cleansed by the grace that comes only through humbling themselves in repentance.

You know atheists experiencing anything like a possession is almost unheard of, right?

Maybe so, but my father passed away 24 years ago, and neither this woman nor my wife, or anyone else, knew that I had been at his grave recently.

-_- weren't you looking at the grave? I got the impression that this took place at the graveyard.

The psychic was told that I was recently visiting a specific grave, that of my father.
Unless she had a drone following me around or was monitoring my every move through a telescope camera on satellite, there's just no way.

-_- graveyards are a public space, so I highly doubt you can eliminate the possibility that someone saw you go in.

I'm assuming that this poor patient access administrator does not have such resources. I think it's safe to assume. Besides, there have been instances of people being informed in visions or dreams about the whereabouts of something long buried and not known about, and the things were found there. Doubtful that you would believe these incidents actually occurred either. No proof. You didn't see it so it's just somebody's word with nothing to back it up: Mere pious legends without substantiation.

I never believe personal experiences that are only preserved as stories. However, from the perspective of a person actually experiencing it, it would at least make sense to me that if the teller was being truthful that they would interpret it as miraculous.

These aren't evidence for any specific religion or deity, though, because every religion has examples of these unverifiable personal miracles.

Christ said if we seek we will find. I believe Him. But what is the nature of this "seeking"? It is humbling oneself in repentance.

-_- and that's just vague enough that anything I say I do could be explained as "not enough".

If an atheist is gifted with genuine, Christlike humility, then it might be plausible that they don't want to keep sinning.

-_- as if all believers don't lie. Clearly, sinning is not something which prevents people from believing. I lead a far more restricted life than most Christians do, as a matter of personal preferences.

However, if the atheist is consumed with the evil passion of pride, then they are unmistakably enslaved in sin because pride is an evil affect that prevents us from Loving God, and from knowing God's Love for us. How many of those who don't believe in God are devoid of pride?

-_- how many devout Christians are devoid of pride? I flat out hate myself and interpret pretty much anything I work on as garbage, so pride is not the problem. Pride has never been my problem. It's this same line of thinking that leads theists to assert that atheists worship themselves (we don't). Why assume that my lack of faith is the result of some character flaw?

How many are arrogant, conceited, self-justifying?

Not a ton, actually. Think about the fact that most atheists are extremely private about being atheists and that they don't even care about having these discussions.

Not that many religious people aren't the same way. Pride is evil no matter who it is found in.

I don't see an overabundance of pride among atheists.

No, its a paradox. Freewill is most precious to God, because without it Love can't be. But God knows all things for all times and orchestrates all things throughout all ages and Eternity, freewill fully operational throughout. YHWH is much larger than our feeble creature brains will ever be able to even begin to comprehend -- are as His ways -- to a point beyond where freewill and destiny can both be true at once.

Attributing properties to a being we can't evaluate is pointless.

I'll try, but my phone might not cooperate.

Best of luck with it.

What's merciful is that God revealed His presence with a miracle, gave the person some more time on this earth to get himself more fully in Communion with God, while giving others both hope and signs so that they may come to truly know Him, through increased faith.

Yet, it was with myrrh, which may actually just normally have properties which could apply to cancer treatment. What would be far more miraculous would be if it was just water, which doesn't treat anything but dehydration normally.

Good to know about the medicinal use of myrrh. I've gotten several large and painful sores on my upper back and shoulder and I've no clue what they are or how I got them. Maybe I'll try some myrrh on them tomorrow (or else go to the clinic and get checked out). Thanks.

I'd get checked out first. From what I have read, there is only significant evidence that it helps with inflammation, so it might make swelling around sores go down a little, but it is not an antiseptic and it certainly won't inform you of the source of the sores.

The reader Nectarius (now deacon) told us that some chemists came and asked for a sample of the myrrh from the Hawaiian Iveron icon and he gave them a small vial of it. After a little while they contacted him, all agitated and confused, and very adamant about finding out more about this "stuff" and where they really got it, because they couldn't figure it out: it just didn't agree with anything that they knew about the molecular structures of such compounds.

A link to the actual research articles relating to it would be nice. Plus, that'd only tell you what was coming out of the painting (these conclusions would mean that it isn't myrrh), not where it was coming from. That's what the hoax is; the hoax isn't that liquid isn't appearing, but rather where it actually comes from.

The way he described it to us, is that they said is was so molecularly unstable that it's chemical composition would undergo such rapid changes that it was not the same physical substance from one moment to another.

-_- as a chemistry minor, this sounds like a description from a person that doesn't understand how chemical reactions work. That is, it sounds like complete baloney.

In their attempt to make the fluid sound more miraculous, they gave it a property that would make it useless.

Thus, they could not identify it as anything commonly occurring in nature.

Source, please.

I wish I had the names and contact info of these gentlemen. I'd certainly like to hear their story myself. I don't think its entirely fair or accurate to claim that we don't let scientists have any of it.

If scientists were actually allowed to study the phenomena, you wouldn't be hearing about it ONLY from people at the church. Where are the scientific papers on the materials?

 

[truefiction1]

You know atheists experiencing anything like a possession is almost unheard of, right?

Of course. Why would they need to be attacked in such a way by the enemies of salvation (demons), they are already defeated. The first and best approach is simply to keep people entirely unaware of their existence and operations in the world. The other strategies are reserved for those who aren't convinced of this.

-_- weren't you looking at the grave? I got the impression that this took place at the graveyard.

I was all by myself in a very remote and isolated graveyard. Nobody knew about my being there (so I thought). Nobody knew of the secret thoughts I was having while there.

-_- graveyards are a public space, so I highly doubt you can eliminate the possibility that someone saw you go in.

If you ever went to this graveyard you would retract this statement for sure. Paigeville is anything but a public space. People hardly go near there, let alone go to the cemetery unless your visiting one of the few people buried there. Since I moved away from that area over thirty years ago and don't have any contact with residents of that area, anyone who had seen my would not have even known who I am.

I never believe personal experiences that are only preserved as stories. However, from the perspective of a person actually experiencing it, it would at least make sense to me that if the teller was being truthful that they would interpret it as miraculous.

My experience is unmistakably miraculous to me, because I know all the details and am fully aware of the supernatural nature of what happened. I understand that this doesn't serve as proof to you. When dealing with the supernatural, proof tends to always be subjective only, because of the almost purely spiritual nature of supernatural phenomena.

These aren't evidence for any specific religion or deity, though, because every religion has examples of these unverifiable personal miracles.

It's evidence that there is something more going on in our world beyond the purely material reality of physical nature: things spiritual are just as real, and exert influence into the affairs of men, while most men remain ignorant of the spiritual forces underlying things.

-_- and that's just vague enough that anything I say I do could be explained as "not enough".

It's not vague to a spiritual person who has entered into the struggle against the evil passions with which their heart has become more and more infected with, since childhood. Not vague at all.

-_- as if all believers don't lie. Clearly, sinning is not something which prevents people from believing. I lead a far more restricted life than most Christians do, as a matter of personal preferences.

Those believers are of little to no faith who are sinning a lot. An atheist leading a more restricted life can very well be closer to the Truth than spiritually deluded Christians, and closer to the possibility of coming to know God.

-_- how many devout Christians are devoid of pride? I flat out hate myself and interpret pretty much anything I work on as garbage, so pride is not the problem. Pride has never been my problem. It's this same line of thinking that leads theists to assert that atheists worship themselves (we don't). Why assume that my lack of faith is the result of some character flaw?

Pride doesn't always manifest in the same way. If a person is overly hard on themselves when they find they are at fault for something that hasn't gone right, it is because of pride. I'm not sure that this is what you are relating about yourself, but it could be.

Not a ton, actually. Think about the fact that most atheists are extremely private about being atheists and that they don't even care about having these discussions.

The atheists who murdered my great aunts just because they were Orthodox Christian nuns, dumping their bodies into old water wells after killing them with bullets, and all of the other tens of thousands of bishops, priests, deacons, monks, and other women monastics in Russia at the beginning of the communist revolution were brazenly, impiously, irreverently, and blasphemously outspoken about their beliefs. Having become afflicted with insane levels of hubris (pride), they deemed themselves worthy of all the offices of judge, jury, and executioner, and being filled with the hatred and bloodthirstiness that faithlessness always surmounts to, they murdered in cold blood all of those whom they deemed not worthy to live. They did these awful things in their attempt to rid the world of the "evil" poison of "religious faith" once and for all, by destroying all of its living constituents. This is what happens whenever societies forget about God. Unbelief parades itself (with the influence of demonic forces) as something noble and sensible so that more and more members will be willing to accept and embrace it. Then it all goes unimaginably bad. You'll see.

I don't see an overabundance of pride among atheists.

Pride is so imperceptible, which is why it is so hard to be out from under the yoke of. It takes the light of the Holy Spirit to shine on this insidiously filthy passion and expose it, before a person can admit to owning it and therefore repent of it, wishing for it to be removed from them by God's mystical power.

Attributing properties to a being we can't evaluate is pointless.

How can a toe evaluate the brain? It doesn't have to. The brain gives it life. We are unfathomably less than a toenail clipping in comparison to the Uncreated Being from Whom we receive Life. We can experience the uncreated energies being emmitted from God, we can even see these with the eyes of our souls, which is what I'm talking about when I say that I see God, but we can never know God's essence, nor exhaust our learning about all of His wondrous attributes and infinitely great works.

Best of luck with it.

Photo will be coming, God willing.

Yet, it was with myrrh, which may actually just normally have properties which could apply to cancer treatment. What would be far more miraculous would be if it was just water, which doesn't treat anything but dehydration normally.

Sometimes cures take place without any physical medium involved whatsoever, sometimes with holy water as the medium, and sometimes holy oil.

I'd get checked out first. From what I have read, there is only significant evidence that it helps with inflammation, so it might make swelling around sores go down a little, but it is not an antiseptic and it certainly won't inform you of the source of the sores.

Yes, thanks.

A link to the actual research articles relating to it would be nice. Plus, that'd only tell you what was coming out of the painting (these conclusions would mean that it isn't myrrh), not where it was coming from. That's what the hoax is; the hoax isn't that liquid isn't appearing, but rather where it actually comes from.

We know about where it comes from. It comes from somewhere in the spiritual dimension that we usually call "the Kingdom of Heaven".

-_- as a chemistry minor, this sounds like a description from a person that doesn't understand how chemical reactions work. That is, it sounds like complete baloney.

Could be baloney. Maybe you can get some myrrh from the icon and study it yourself, being that you might have a working knowledge of how to determine the presence of whatever elements can be found is something and their amounts (PPM ?). I doubt, however, that the knowledge and ability to research in this way needs to be a prerequisite for knowing if something is miraculous or not. We don't see myrrh mysteriously gushing from the surface of our TV screens or family portraits. We don't see it forming on our end tables or coffee tables in our homes, or anywhere else, I think. We do see it being produced inexplicably on the surface of holy icons of the Orthodox Christian Church. Not only that, it smells really wonderful, and each icon produces it's own fragrance, and all are wonderful.

In their attempt to make the fluid sound more miraculous, they gave it a property that would make it useless.

It could only be deemed useless by a person who has allowed themselves to be convinced that this world, this life, is the only thing that there is that is of any value. This, here, is the be-all-end-all of existence. After death there is nothing more... a total annihilation of consciousness. Thus, only those things that can be used to maximize comfort and happiness in the present life are of any value.

The myrrh is of value even if it has properties that render it useless in this world, because it serves as medicine for the strengthening of belief of the Orthodox faithful, whose faith is currently under fierce attack by all of the enemies of salvation, whether purely spiritual or human. Our faith leads to Eternal Life: an expression that denotes a "quality" of Life in addition to being life without end.

Source, please.

I'm sorry, but I don't know the source, but the myrrh is usually available to anyone who wishes to have some. So, if you can, you ought to get yourself some and have it chemically tested, or test it yourself and produce a report on its chemical properties.

If scientists were actually allowed to study the phenomena, you wouldn't be hearing about it ONLY from people at the church. Where are the scientific papers on the materials?

Do you not think that there are invisible forces at work in the world, largely successful because of the influence they have over much of humanity via the human passions, that are suppressing/preventing awareness of the truth of these miracles. Do you think that most scientists are passionately seeking out God? Isn't it mostly true that when scientists are attempting to analyze something that is claimed to be miraculous that they are doing so in order to debunk it? Besides, aren't most scientists having to discover things that will result in their getting a paycheck to get the material things they need/want, pretty much like most all of us? I won't even delve into the corruption of the medical/pharmaceutical industries due to greed (another evil passion). The scientific papers on the materials don't exist, or if they do the are lost and buried somewhere do to a lack of interest in the Kingdom of Heaven and a preference/love for the things of this world:

"The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12)

I don't think there's much more I have to offer, other than the things I've already said and alluded to. If I were any sort of wonder-working saint then I'd be able to do or say more, I'm sure. But I'm not. Maybe you'll be fortunate enough to meet one of those some day. I'll try to get that image you asked for on here shortly.

...

Congrats on having had the good fortune of becoming engaged, by the way. I don't know you, but I feel happy for you nonetheless, and hope that you have many blessed years ahead.

 

[truefiction1]

Best of luck with it.

Thanks again. Here it is. I'm afraid I couldn't take the time to remove the shoelaces from the shoes to form the "cross made out of shoelaces" that you instructed me to place the myrrh soaked cotton filled baggies next to, but hopefully the picture will do. I hope you don't mind. I added some small paper copies of the three myrrh streaming icons I've personally come into contact with.

 

[DogmaHunter]

you mean similarity in their DNA?

No.

I mean the same kind of tests that can be done to determine that your cousin is your biological cousin and your sibling your biological sibling.

What such tests do, is inform you on how closely related 2 organisms are.

 

[PhantomGaze]

While I agree in general with what you say, as a practical matter the creation/evolution debate does not generally turn around the question of the existence of God. In fact, it is more usually a debate between those who hold to an fundamentalist Protestant interpretation of scripture and everybody else--Christians, other theists and atheists together.

Well, often times non-fundamentalist Christians, and Non-Christians of different faiths, or even Atheists and Agnostics will hold to positions that can be termed "Intelligent Design". When making an argument for generic Design, that's rather all-encompassing, it's a little disingenuous to try to guilt it by association with Christian Fundamentalism.

My generation does NOT have the same distribution of genes as the one before me, and the generation after mine won't have the same distribution of genes as mine does.

That's a fact, but the idea that the changing distribution of those genes and random mutations ultimately add up to changes in higher level taxonomic classifications is largely theoretical. Consider that genotype and phenotype are not directly related, there are at least some non-random mechanisms for producing phenotype changes, epigenetics and epigenetic inheritance seem to tune phenotype to existing selective pressures based upon pre-existing information by altering the expression of particular genes. There is a surprising amount of convergence that occurs in life despite populations being completely isolated and having no genetic interaction, there is really so much to consider, that I personally find any claim to certainty very suspicious in this regard.

it came about by human speculation and conjecture and is maintained by faith in the false doctrine of inspiration.....which was created by the same sort of shaman.

I think you don't give authors of literature enough credit. Genesis was written as a response to other myths, I would say it's primary purpose was to teach truths of theological significance as a story to live within the context of. I don't think its not being literal history would have been a problem to the writers or the readers/listeners in the time it was composed. We're just really really dry nowadays.

 

[DennisTate]

Just wondering: Would a designer have to come into being by a "naturall (sic!] process" or by "design"?

Good question..... I lean toward natural...........

I have nominated Dr. Chaim Tejman for the one million dollar origin of life prize.



Wave Theory and Gender: Why Sex

"Pulling and gravitation, which resemble basic feminine traits, are the dominant properties of the magnetic loop. Consequently, magnetic loops have a capacity for storing energy and act to maintain the structural integrity of the entire wave formation. The electronic/energetic loop consists of expanding properties that disperse energetic matter that "disappears" into space. This is synonymous with masculine characteristics." (Dr. Chaim Tejman)

I believe in G-d evolving and learning over INFINITE TIME in the past... .but Adam and Eve being created / invented.......

and long before Adam and Eve were invented in Eden.... Covering Cherub Lucifer led a rebellion in heaven.....

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's a fact, but the idea that the changing distribution of those genes and random mutations ultimately add up to changes in higher level taxonomic classifications is largely theoretical.

Taxonomy is a human invention, and the way its categories work doesn't result in any standard by which organisms transition from sharing the same genus to no longer sharing the same genus, let alone transitioning away from even higher levels of categorization. Members of the genus Triops don't even have consistency in their reproduction method and distances between individual species can be tens of millions of years. I wouldn't let a bit of an arbitrary categorization system be a good measure of population changes. Especially considering how much of it hasn't been changed for decades just because people have no particular interest in those organisms.

Consider that genotype and phenotype are not directly related,

-_- those things are heavily related. Unless a trait is completely the result of environmental influences, like having only 1 arm because the other was lost to injury, it has some genetic component to it. In fact, I can think of no traits a person could be born with that wouldn't have at least some genetic component to them. Even adaptive traits, such as getting tan from being out in the sun, are tied to genetic components, it just isn't a permanent change in genes that causes it so it isn't inherited.

there are at least some non-random mechanisms for producing phenotype changes, epigenetics and epigenetic inheritance seem to tune phenotype to existing selective pressures based upon pre-existing information by altering the expression of particular genes.

Epigenetics is, to summarize, various influences on GENE EXPRESSION that are, to an extent, independent of the genes themselves. The study is fairly new, and it certainly seems that this is inherited to some extent, but epigenetic factors CANNOT change what you already have the potential to express as per the genes of your genome. Due to the study of epigenetic items being fairly new, I couldn't honestly tell you if they can directly influence evolution or not. From what I understand, they influence long term health outside of the reproductive years more than anything else.

There is a surprising amount of convergence that occurs in life despite populations being completely isolated and having no genetic interaction,

-_- is it really that shocking that similar environments make similar traits beneficial? Plus, it is not as if the organisms that experience convergent evolution are entirely unrelated, just not as closely related as their outward physical appearances would make people think. Marsupial moles and eutherian moles are both mammals, after all.

there is really so much to consider, that I personally find any claim to certainty very suspicious in this regard.

I'm not entirely sure you know what epigenetic influences do. It seems to me that you think they can actually change phenotype in ways that are independent of the genome, but they don't. They are influences on gene expression which are not in and of themselves entirely a product of genes that seem to have a sort of inheritance pattern to them despite not being entirely a product of genes. But at the end of the day, it just boils down to what genes you tend to methylate in your cells over others (methylation makes genes inactive).

I'm not claiming certainty either, only that evidence heavily supports the conclusion that populations evolve and that the changes can accumulate over enough generations that a future one can be very different from the original generation.

 

[xianghua]

Different species of finches.

but they are still finches.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thanks again. Here it is. I'm afraid I couldn't take the time to remove the shoelaces from the shoes to form the "cross made out of shoelaces" that you instructed me to place the myrrh soaked cotton filled baggies next to, but hopefully the picture will do. I hope you don't mind. I added some small paper copies of the three myrrh streaming icons I've personally come into contact with.

-_- you didn't have the time to pull shoelaces out, which would take less than 10 minutes, but you did have the time to find 3 pictures of different supposed myrrh streaming paintings? Weird. -_- in the future, never ADD anything to the photo request, because it makes it seem like you were searching for one that met the requirements and settled on one you deemed "close enough". A Google image search at least doesn't pick up another image, though it weirdly redirected me to a Russian event calendar that doesn't have the image at all, so I do believe you took the picture.

I find videos of tons of people getting cotton balls soaked in this stuff and even vials of it, but not a single person has gone through a children't hospital to cure everyone. That's what I would do if I thought I had a miraculous liquid that could cure illnesses. I'd even spread it around at the cost of some jail time, if necessary. I don't believe for a second that if this stuff was actually curative that everyone that got it would selfishly cling to it.

Also, from the looks of those cotton balls, if any myrrh oil is coming out of those paintings, it must be quite dilute. Myrrh oil is yellow or brown, but both of your cotton balls are white/off white. It doesn't look like they've soaked this up:

Now, why would YHWH dilute miraculous myrrh oil?
I can't think of any reason a deity with limitless resources would do that.

Cotton balls soaked in liquids seem to take on the color of those liquids pretty well

So, I think your cotton balls should look very yellow or brown if they soaked up myrrh oil.

 

[PsychoSarah]

but they are still finches.

-_- humans are the ones that define what a "finch" is.

 

[xianghua]

There's great similarity between a car and a truck, and both have evolved in terms of their construction. The first cars and trucks were pulled by horses, now they are propelled by combustion engines. Modern day cars did not get instantaneously created in their current form. They evolved, and they did so from a common ancestry. If mankind can create things over a course of time, by gradual changes in design that make for radical changes over very long periods of time, then why is God not permitted to create in this way also? In Genesis, it is written that God took dirt from the ground and formed the first man out of it. What is not disclosed is the duration of earth years that this process of forming man from the earth took, neither does it disclose any details about the actual process used in the formation of man from the earth. This leads a lot of people to cling to the impression that the creation of man was in a single moment. Looking at the evidence available on earth, however, it appears very likely that the formation of mankind had actually taken many millions of years. The Bible doesn't really say that it didn't take millions of years.

ok. but first: trucls and cars didnt evolvled from each other. secondly: all designed objects we know about were made by a fast creation and not by millions of years. so what make you think that it will be different in nature case? by the way: as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but they are still finches.

Different species and genera of finches.

You asked for an example of evidence for evolution. You seem to agree that all these different species evolved from one species. So there is your example.

 

[doubtingmerle]

ok. but first: trucls and cars didnt evolvled from each other. secondly: all designed objects we know about were made by a fast creation and not by millions of years. so what make you think that it will be different in nature case? by the way: as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general.

You have already agreed that animals can do some things that cars can't do. So since you and I both agree that animals can do some things that cars can't do, why do you claim that if cars have a limit, animals must have the same limit?

 

[doubtingmerle]

but they are still finches.

Uh huh, and it is no big deal that blackbirds and bluebirds evolved from a same ancestor, because they are both birds?

 

[truefiction1]

-_- you didn't have the time to pull shoelaces out, which would take less than 10 minutes, but you did have the time to find 3 pictures of different supposed myrrh streaming paintings? Weird.

I usually keep these little paper icons in the same place as the myrrh, so that I can show those interested in anointing themselves with it what the icons that the myrrh streamed from look like, so it didn't take time at all. I don't have a lot of time, so why would I waste ten minutes (or more) taking the laces out of my shoes and putting them back in? Weird.

-_- in the future, never ADD anything to the photo request, because it makes it seem like you were searching for one that met the requirements and settled on one you deemed "close enough". A Google image search at least doesn't pick up another image, though it weirdly redirected me to a Russian event calendar that doesn't have the image at all, so I do believe you took the picture.

Okay, I get that.

I find videos of tons of people getting cotton balls soaked in this stuff and even vials of it, but not a single person has gone through a children't hospital to cure everyone. That's what I would do if I thought I had a miraculous liquid that could cure illnesses. I'd even spread it around at the cost of some jail time, if necessary. I don't believe for a second that if this stuff was actually curative that everyone that got it would selfishly cling to it.

One, you don't know if anyone has never gone to a children's hospital with it. They probably have. Two, A believing Christian named St. Basil the Great established the first formal hospital in the fourth century and then other "Christians" built more of them. Three, I don't think you quite understand the Church's approach to healing. Four, I'm admittedly selfish a lot of the time, but I managed to share quite a bit of the oil with others in need. Just saying, because just because we have it in our possession doesn't mean we're not sharing it. I offered you some of it, remember? And I don't even know you.

Also, from the looks of those cotton balls, if any myrrh oil is coming out of those paintings, it must be quite dilute. Myrrh oil is yellow or brown, but both of your cotton balls are white/off white. It doesn't look like they've soaked this up:

Now, why would YHWH dilute miraculous myrrh oil?
I can't think of any reason a deity with limitless resources would do that.

Why would God's myrrh be clear, or light yellow? I don't know, but who are we to criticize God? Besides, how do you know what colors heavenly myrrh come in? Is there a "heaven's holy miraculous myrrh" color chart on Google? The myrrh from the Kardiotyssa icon of Taylor, PA is clear. The myrrh from the Iveron icon of Hawaii is yellow. I had only a very small amount of the Iveron myrrh and I placed it in one of the baggies with the clear myrrh, and the yellow coloration went away. It must have combined with the clear or something.

Cotton balls soaked in liquids seem to take on the color of those liquids pretty well

So, I think your cotton balls should look very yellow or brown if they soaked up myrrh oil.

Yes, if the myrrh is earthly myrrh that was very yellow or brown. If the myrrh is not earthly myrrh, and then probably not.

The thing is, scientists don't understand where the myrrh that streams from icons is coming from. They don't have any "scientific" explanation for why it appears on and flows from these blessed icons made out of dead wood and some paint. They don't even know what this "myrrh" is, because it doesn't come from the sap of a tree like the myrrh of this world does. This phenomena simply doesn't agree with science, so scientists who don't care to believe in God always just walk away and ignore it -- then they forget about it altogether and go on with their Godless lives, because that's what they do. Not just scientists though. Many people forget about miracles they saw and believed. This is because of the hardness of the average human heart.

You argued earlier: "Where are the "scientific papers" on this stuff"? Well, it's because science doesn't care to acknowledge the existence of things that it fails to explain (even though it should be able to explain it if it is natural as opposed to supernatural phenomenon) as it has again and again failed to do in this case.

 

[truefiction1]

ok. but first: trucls and cars didnt evolvled from each other. secondly: all designed objects we know about were made by a fast creation and not by millions of years. so what make you think that it will be different in nature case? by the way: as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general.

Modern day automobiles (cars and trucks) were not made by fast creation. The technology was developed over many thousands of years, starting with the invention of the wheel. The same goes for most all of our technology. In nature, changes in physical traits can be observed over successive generations, so we can see that living creatures undergo changes.

Thanks for the general note about your use of English.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Taxonomy is a human invention, and the way its categories work doesn't result in any standard by which organisms transition from sharing the same genus to no longer sharing the same genus, let alone transitioning away from even higher levels of categorization. Members of the genus Triops don't even have consistency in their reproduction method and distances between individual species can be tens of millions of years. I wouldn't let a bit of an arbitrary categorization system be a good measure of population changes. Especially considering how much of it hasn't been changed for decades just because people have no particular interest in those organisms.

Do you have a better way of measuring large scale genotype and phenotype difference?

That taxonomy is a human invention seems like a pretty trivial point when it still effectively communicates the fact that we're talking about large scale change.

-_- those things are heavily related. Unless a trait is completely the result of environmental influences, like having only 1 arm because the other was lost to injury, it has some genetic component to it. In fact, I can think of no traits a person could be born with that wouldn't have at least some genetic component to them. Even adaptive traits, such as getting tan from being out in the sun, are tied to genetic components, it just isn't a permanent change in genes that causes it so it isn't inherited.

Yes, I am well aware that phenotype variation has to do with genes. Should I rephrase then? Changes to genotype and changes to phenotype aren't directly related. Happy?

Epigenetics is, to summarize, various influences on GENE EXPRESSION that are, to an extent, independent of the genes themselves. The study is fairly new, and it certainly seems that this is inherited to some extent, but epigenetic factors CANNOT change what you already have the potential to express as per the genes of your genome. Due to the study of epigenetic items being fairly new, I couldn't honestly tell you if they can directly influence evolution or not. From what I understand, they influence long term health outside of the reproductive years more than anything else.

Yes I believe I mentioned that epigenetic changes have to do with the expression of genes.

I believe you're mistaken. There are epigenetic mechanisms that can alter what organisms have the potential to express. Take the bacterial SOS response for example.

All organisms possess a diverse set of genetic programs that are used to alter cellular physiology in response to environmental cues. The gram-negative bacterium, Escherichia coli, mounts what is known as the “SOS response” following DNA damage, replication fork arrest, and a myriad of other environmental stresses.

The SOS Regulatory Network:
The SOS Regulatory Network

In fact to go a little further on that, you might want to see Timescales of Genetic and Epigenetic Inheritance:

recent findings suggest that organisms have evolved mechanisms to influence the timing or genomic location of heritable variability. Hypervariable contingency loci and epigenetic switches increase the variability of specific phenotypes; error-prone DNA replicases produce bursts of variability in times of stress. Interestingly, these mechanisms seem to tune the variability of a given phenotype to match the variability of the acting selective pressure.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(07)00121-3

-_- is it really that shocking that similar environments make similar traits beneficial? Plus, it is not as if the organisms that experience convergent evolution are entirely unrelated, just not as closely related as their outward physical appearances would make people think. Marsupial moles and eutherian moles are both mammals, after all.

Ok, the difficulty I have with this is that you're banking on the same or similar (allegedly random) mutations to occur universally. Either nature isn't very creative and has to regularly wait on the correct type of variability, (which may or may not come) or it might be reasonable to think that there are programmed default responses.

I'm not entirely sure you know what epigenetic influences do. It seems to me that you think they can actually change phenotype in ways that are independent of the genome,

No. You are obviously very wrong about what I think.

I'm not claiming certainty either, only that evidence heavily supports the conclusion that populations evolve and that the changes can accumulate over enough generations that a future one can be very different from the original generation.

I don't buy the idea that *random* changes accumulate over enough generations. I think the weight of the evidence supports the idea that biology has a programmed path.

 

[GenemZ]

OK .. what's more impossible?

An inorganic watch replicating itself?

Or, an inorganic watch suddenly becoming a living organism?

Too many ignore that fact, and just begin the argument with... "It was just there!"

To become a living organism from inanimate elements is impossible.. unless its constructed to be an autonomous entity with sustaining life. Yet, life does not come from the mere combining of the elements. Life is a mystery.

What we see here has become an argument that is outside of the real argument, that now serves as a distraction away from the real issue!

Inanimate matter can not spontaneously become organically alive! God gives life. Yes. God is the source of all life. Its a futile argument designed to argue over distracting details away from the truth. Its being an argument that blocks honest inquiry, and is unwilling to logically walk its way back to the origin of the beginning of life.

Its become vanity. For, non living matter can not spontaneously become alive and an instinctive driven life. Let alone life with the ability to reason and make decisions.

In the mean time.. We remain distracted with these arguments when we think the crux of solving the argument lays in its details. When its really how the details came into existence in the first place... (which is denied a hearing).

Its like a rigged court.