Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Friend, its a model. You even said so yourself above .. then just completely ignored that important observation .. why?
It's like do you believe fire can burn you? people can tell you it does a belief but until you experience it for yourself either seeing or feeling fire burn your skin. When you do It's no longer a belief base but reality based. When something happens that isn't natural the only word to describe it is supernatural.Changes yes .. and yet the technologies those very people accept and frequently rely on for their everyday existence, was produced by deliberately putting aside notions of such belief based reality.
By way of (a false) comparison there, do 'hauntings' really matter? Why shouldn't they be ignored when such belief-bases basically lead nowhere?
There's not a day goes by thesedays, where I don't look at somethin' and say: 'That ain't natural .. right there!.. When something happens that isn't natural the only word to describe it is supernatural.
Il mio cervello è interamente materiale. Non sono sicuro di come potrebbe essere "troppo materialistico". Non ha senso.
Ho gustato l'Eucaristia. Non ha niente a che vedere con la carne. Proprio come il pane cattivo.
Anche se quei fenomeni eucaristici fossero veri, non avrebbero nulla a che fare con l’evoluzione.
Yes This Eucharic Miracles debunked Darwin evolution theory because Mark Isaak said that evolution can be debunked if a complex organism was being observed in act of creation by a supernatural identity like the Eucharistic that is the corpe of Jesus. Evolution is debunked.My brain is entirely material. Not sure how it could be "too materialistic". That makes no sense.
I've tasted the eucharist. It is nothing like flesh. Just like bad bread.
Even if those eucharistic phenomena were true, it would have nothing to do with evolution.
This does not compute.
Yes This Eucharic Miracles debunked Darwin evolution theory because Mark Isaak said that evolution can be debunked if a complex organism was being observed in act of creation by a supernatural identity like the Eucharistic that is the corpe of Jesus. Evolution is debunked.
According to Wikipedia said hat Evolution could be disproved many times even if we can observed an organism could be created supernaturally or spontaneously.
Evolution could be disproved if Jesus created alive human heart tissue in the Eucharistic with white blood cells without any sort of evolution process.Non vedo come produrre ciò che è essenzialmente un po' di carne smentisca la diversificazione e l'adattamento degli organismi a nuove specie.
Ciò equivarrebbe a dire che la “carne coltivata in laboratorio” smentisce l’evoluzione:
Carne coltivata in laboratorio approvata per la vendita: cosa devi sapere
Evolution could be disproved if Jesus created alive human heart tissue in the Eucharistic with white blood cells without any sort of evolution process.
But I don't think belief is just woo and we can use arguements for why phenomenal belief can be a true source of knowledge about the world.Meaning comes from making and testing models under the auspices of the rules of logic, or from simply choosing beliefs, (eg: @stevevw chooses the latter).
Thats a good analogy, I like that. Except I am quite happy living on the other side primarily, in the Woo even though it may often be actual Woo and then know that there is also the non Woo world as a backdrop. So long as you keep in mind the non Woo realities then I think its more fun in navigating the Woo world lol.Okay, but now I need to take the nonsense which was my previous post, and try to nudge it a little closer to the 'Not Woo'. To do that, rather than referring to a mind, I'm going to refer to a quantum field. And I'm going to suggest that that quantum field lies at the very border between existing and not existing. Between having an extension in space and time, and having no perceptible physical existence at all. Now from that I can invoke Hawking's hypothesis of something spontaneously arising from nothing, and by doing that I can begin to legitimize what had previously only seemed like 'Woo'. It's still 'Woo', I've just reframed it in terminology that a materialist might accept, namely that that quantum field is the fundamental source of physical reality.
And voila, no need for the supernatural, just a simple quantum field lying at the border between existing and not existing. Between what could be, and what is.
Unfortunately, this is where you and I have a problem, because you insist upon referring to that quantum field as 'something'. But I'm going to beg to differ, and suggest that what that quantum field represents is the very first act of consciousness... which is the realization that 'I am'. It may look like a physical thing, and it may be modelable like a physical thing, but our inability to interact with it suggests that strictly speaking it may not be a physical thing at all. And if you want to refer to it as a mind, then you're more than welcome to do so. Who am I to argue otherwise.
It's at this point that we're left with a dichotomy, wherein the materialist can claim that reality simply arises from a quantum field. No mind, nor God, nor supernatural explanation required. While the anti-materialist can claim the exact opposite, that in glimpsing that quantum field we have in fact gotten a peek into the mind of God. A mind in which all things are possible, and existence first comes to the simplest realization of all, that 'I am'.
Now this is all still just 'Woo', and it's pretty apt to remain 'Woo' until someone a whole lot smarter than me or Einstein can figure out how to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity. And even then the question still won't be answered, because quite frankly it may not be answerable.
So the best that I as a solipsist can do is to appreciate this for the mental exercise that it was, and go back to accepting reality and life for the sadly brief and fragile experience that it appears to be. I'll leave God to do God, and you to do you, and I'll wander off into the 'Woo' every now and again, just because I can.
Oh, and I'll sometimes look like an idiot by spouting this nonsense on computer forums as if I have a clue as to what I'm talking about.
But as I mentioned its not necessarily about any specific idea that is the answer but that it requires a paradigm shift in thinking as to how we will be able to understand better even the type of questions to ask to move forward beyond the scientific materialist paradigm.
It depends who you speak to.Serious question: What do you think evolution is? A brief description, please, without looking it up.
As the song continues. Proof. Proof is the bottom line for everyone.
Generally, but I find [and the inner voice in my head wanted to continue this sentence 'your lack of faith disturbing' once I started typing it.] "faith" to be a confusing term when discussed in a place with so much religious context (such as CF). Therefore, I have resolved to never use the word "faith" for anything but the religious kind lest it foster confusion. (As you can clearly see from this site, many posters respond to any use of that word, even in non-religious contexts, as if it is only religious in nature. This leads to vile claims like "science is a religion". I also try not to use "believe" for similar reasons.)
You (and others) keep calling me that, but I don't really care about money.
Science is inherently naturalistic so we must look at potential natural explanations *first*.
[citation needed]
Hardly. I have no problem uncovering frauds or referring to them as such. This is quite common, if not universal.
another assertion presented without reference.
I've been attending conferences and colloquia for 25 years and only have see two things that come even close to this. The first involved an application of applied physics to something outside the normal scope of physics and a professor who seem indignant that the presented work wasn't "really physics". (I was a little embarrassed for the department that day.) The second case involves someone who presented work inspired by his own specialty, but that didn't properly consider the full nature of the new problem he was trying to solve. We pushed back hard on his presentation and argued against his questions later in the conference. To this day, I don't think I've ever cited his work, though he recently cited mine. This is the problem with trying to apply your work outside your expertise -- sometimes you just don't know what you're talking about.
I know of one person who got a "sneaky bad recommendation" (why I don't know), but he got the job anyway. Perhaps some day I'll tell you about the two follow-on papers I probably killed while refereeing the first one.
Hardly. I have no problem uncovering frauds or referring to them as such. This is quite common, if not universal.
What yeast and cardiomyocytes share: ultradian oscillatory redox mechanisms of cellular coherence and survival:In the multiple forensically analysed eucharistic miracles, where once was bread came recently living Cardiac tissue, so it is evidence in disproving darwins theory. Heart tissue from bread does not fit even the biggest stretch of Darwins evoution theory.
Its not surprising your so-called 'scientific researchers could also have been duped in their so-called 'forensic studies', by the evolutionary conferred similarities of the two respective cell types.Minimally invasive continuous monitoring of mitochondrial functions in yeasts (by membrane inlet mass spectrometry), and in cardiomyocytes by two-photon microscopy, reveal that these two evolutionary-distant systems exhibit strikingly similar oscillatory features. The evidence suggests conservation of an indispensable core metabolic function in the form of intrinsically rhythmic organization involving redox balance. Continuous oscillatory states are observable on multiple timescales, an obligatory requirement for the synchronization and coordination of reactions, events and processes of the coherently-functioning cellular network.
Let's see. I was in an exchange with a specific poster, used the second person singular pronoun, and there was clearly a disconnect in understanding, so who do you (2nd person, singlar) think I (1st person singular) was talking to?It depends who you speak to.
Since there is not conversation that is broken and needs clarification, this is pointless.So I throw it back at you. What do you mean by Evolution? A brief description without looking it up please.
A mush you (2nd person, singlar) say. Sigh. I would say that evolution is not just a single claim but a network of them.The answer is the name Evolution refers to a mush of ideas depending on context.
That is one component usually included in modern evolutionary theory.There is no single theory, hypothesis or conjecture.
For some it is common descent.
Common decent is the *best* demonstrated part of evolutionary theory. The genetic evidence is extremely strong for common decent.However that is unprovable and untestable so is not even a valid hypothesis..
Evolution doesn't proscribe a "progression", so yes the change in allele frequencies in a population is one aspect of general evolution theory and what biologists are referring to when they say a population has evolved. (Remember that base word evolution is just change.)For others it is defined in molecular biological process, but the common definition of allele change does not even mention progression Just change!
It is not necessary to know the genetic structure of any particular organism for evolution to be complete idea. The standard evolution theory doesn't break down at the first reproducing organisms, it only starts then. (It is not a theory of the origin of life.)And since it is a complete blur before complex life - the genetic structure of the first cells is a complete unknown - it is not a complete idea anyway.
It would be a gross misstatement as evolution covers the change and diversification of life, not it's origin. This is what the other poster seems to not understand.So the idea "all life came from evolution" , particulary blind watchmaker style is a faith statement not a scientific statement.
As do you (2nd person, singlar).Since nobody has any idea what first life was or how it came to be.
Oh, so there are falsification criteria. So much for your previous claim.So it is all about context.
In the context of this...
For Darwin HIS definition is clear by his falsification criterion.
Going for a classic quote mine, I see. Darwin continued: " But I can find out no such case." Here's the whole paragraph:For him it was progressive small change.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
So that is Darwins definition.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=207If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.
It isn't spontaneous transformation of dead plant cells into human flesh. You are off topic as was the poster I was replying to.In the multiple forensically analysed eucharistic miracles, where once was bread came recently living Cardiac tissue, so it is evidence in disproving darwins theory. Heart tissue from bread does not fit even the biggest stretch of Darwins evoution theory.
Even if it was only five times, (rather than an occasional window on a more general substance change) one is enough to disprove darwin
So I repeat the question out of interest, not intent to argue. What is YOUR definition of the word "evolution" that seems to have so many meanings to so many people?
Yes instead because in the Eucharistic Miracles we have the creation in supernaturaly way of complex organism like human heart muscle tissue in the bread, the Eucharistic created supernaturally without evolutionary process.Vediamo. Stavo facendo uno scambio con un utente specifico, ho usato il pronome della seconda persona singolare e c'era chiaramente una disconnessione nella comprensione, quindi secondo te (2a persona singolare) con chi stavo parlando (2a persona singolare)?
Poiché non c'è conversazione interrotta che necessiti di chiarimenti, questo è inutile.
Una poltiglia che dici tu (2a persona, singolare). Sospiro. Direi che l'evoluzione non è solo una singola affermazione ma una rete di esse.
Questa è una componente solitamente inclusa nella moderna teoria evoluzionistica.
La dignità comune è la parte *migliore* dimostrata della teoria evoluzionistica. Le prove genetiche sono estremamente forti per il bene comune.
L'evoluzione non prescrive una "progressione", quindi sì, il cambiamento nelle frequenze alleliche in una popolazione è un aspetto della teoria generale dell'evoluzione e ciò a cui si riferiscono i biologi quando dicono che una popolazione si è evoluta. (Ricorda che la parola base evoluzione è semplicemente cambiamento.)
Non è necessario conoscere la struttura genetica di un particolare organismo perché l'evoluzione sia un'idea completa. La teoria standard dell'evoluzione non crolla ai primi organismi che si riproducono, ma inizia solo allora. (Non è una teoria dell’origine della vita.)
Sarebbe un grave errore poiché l’evoluzione copre il cambiamento e la diversificazione della vita, non la sua origine. Questo è ciò che l'altro poster sembra non capire.
Come te (2a persona, singolare).
Oh, quindi ci sono criteri di falsificazione. Questo per quanto riguarda la tua precedente affermazione.
Vado per una citazione classica, la mia, vedo. Darwin continuò: "Ma non riesco a scoprire nessun caso del genere". Ecco l'intero paragrafo:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=207
Non è la trasformazione spontanea di cellule vegetali morte in carne umana. Sei fuori tema come lo era il poster a cui stavo rispondendo.
Is a heart an organism? Is a bit of tissue an organism? Where does tissue normally come from?Sì invece, perché nei Miracoli Eucaristici
Yes instead because in the Eucharistic Miracles we have the creation in supernaturaly way of complex organism like human heart muscle tissue in the bread, the Eucharistic created supernaturally without evolutionary process.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?