More Litter On The Road Of Science (2)

[whois]

So... how is this a problem for evolution exactly?

it spells certain death for darwinism.
but let's not let that get in our way.
he's died before and was resurrected.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

Read more: If His name was Yeshua, why do we call Him Jesus?
​

So the name should be Yeshua, considering that is likely how he would have pronounced his own name. One cannot "translate" a name, they can translate the meaning, but my name, Sarah, should not become Sadres and be recognized as the same; I certainly wouldn't respond to it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So the name should be Yeshua, considering that is likely how he would have pronounced his own name. One cannot "translate" a name, they can translate the meaning, but my name, Sarah, should not become Sadres and be recognized as the same; I certainly wouldn't respond to it.

He understands why we call Him Jesus so that is good enough for me.

 

[bhsmte]

We have already established that Koonin is not anti-evolution.

Small details, and readily ignored.

 

[dad]

He understands why we call Him Jesus so that is good enough for me.

Since Gabriel, fresh from the throne of God told his dad what to call Him, that is good enough for God too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since Gabriel, fresh from the throne of God told his dad what to call Him, that is good enough for God too.

 

[SLP]

no.
actually the entire manuscript is on my hard drive.

And yet you gleaned from it things that are not in it.

How did you do that?

What is your biology background such that you were actually able to follow their discussion?

the very first sentence in the abstract is the original TOL has failed.

Did you read beyond that? it appears that not only did you NOT do so, but that you totally misinterpreted it.


Because here is the first sentence of the abstract:

"We examine the Tree of Life (TOL) as an evolutionary hypothesis and a heuristic."

The second sentence:

"The original TOL hypothesis has failed but a new "statistical TOL hypothesis" is promising. "


What WAS the "original TOL hypothesis"?

Do you know?

Do you care?

and yes, the "new" tree will be web based.

What do YOU mean, 'web based'?

Explain.

 

[SLP]

it spells certain death for darwinism.
but let's not let that get in our way.
he's died before and was resurrected.

Creationists are spectacularly good at drawing unwarranted, crazy-extrapolation based conclusions that do not match what their own claimed sources indicate.

Thanks for a great example.

 

[whois]

Do you care?

yes, i care a great deal about the sanctity of science, more than you realize.

What do YOU mean, 'web based'?

Explain.

i can't find the manuscript i was referring to on my hard drive.
a web search yielded the following:
Today, the Tree of Life looks more like a Web of Life than a tree. This web-like appearance is due to horizontal gene transfer, indicated by horizontal white lines between branches of the tree. Horizontal gene transfer allows DNA to transfer from species to a distantly related species.
epicofevolution.com/tree-of-life

the above should make it apparent that darwin was simply wrong, and that the definition of species is not correct.
these genes didn't just jump into distant species you know.

the above site also makes it apparent that the TOL can be represented in a variety of ways, all supported by the evidence.

i, for one, would like an objective opinion about this instead of some kind of agenda.

science has been unable to prove that dogs can become cats or cells can become organized systems, despite its best efforts.

to say all life sprang from a single cell is, at best, an assumption.
a valid one to be sure, but an assumption nonetheless.

 

[crjmurray]

yes, i care a great deal about the sanctity of science, more than you realize.

i can't find the manuscript i was referring to on my hard drive.
a web search yielded the following:
Today, the Tree of Life looks more like a Web of Life than a tree. This web-like appearance is due to horizontal gene transfer, indicated by horizontal white lines between branches of the tree. Horizontal gene transfer allows DNA to transfer from species to a distantly related species.
epicofevolution.com/tree-of-life

the above should make it apparent that darwin was simply wrong, and that the definition of species is not correct.
these genes didn't just jump into distant species you know.

the above site also makes it apparent that the TOL can be represented in a variety of ways, all supported by the evidence.

i, for one, would like an objective opinion about this instead of some kind of agenda.

science has been unable to prove that dogs can become cats or cells can become organized systems, despite its best efforts.

to say all life sprang from a single cell is, at best, an assumption.
a valid one to be sure, but an assumption nonetheless.

Aaaaaand there we have it! No one in science is saying that a dog is going to become a cat. And no one is trying to prove that a dog can become a cat.

Looks like you don't understand the TOE that you think needs to be scrapped.

 

[SLP]

yes, i care a great deal about the sanctity of science, more than you realize.

I think that is a crazy embellishment, given your posts.

i can't find the manuscript i was referring to on my hard drive.

The one you linked to, right?

The one you claimed that told you about errors and fraudulent data?



Imagine that..

a web search yielded the following:
Today, the Tree of Life looks more like a Web of Life than a tree. This web-like appearance is due to horizontal gene transfer, indicated by horizontal white lines between branches of the tree. Horizontal gene transfer allows DNA to transfer from species to a distantly related species.
epicofevolution.com/tree-of-life

the above should make it apparent that darwin was simply wrong, and that the definition of species is not correct.

Please explain that bizarre extrapolation from Darwin (150 years ago) being "wrong" and that means that the definition of species is incorrect, too. Oh and evolution is false.

these genes didn't just jump into distant species you know.

I know the main understood mechanisms of HGT - do you? None of them have anything to do with the definition of species.

I ask again - what is your biology background?

And why did you threaten to report me for referring to you as a creationist?

the above site also makes it apparent that the TOL can be represented in a variety of ways, all supported by the evidence.

Which ways are those?

i, for one, would like an objective opinion about this instead of some kind of agenda.

Is that right? Then why, I do wonder, did you totally misrepresent a paper that you linked to?

science has been unable to prove that dogs can become cats or cells can become organized systems, despite its best efforts.

You threaten to report me for referring to you as a creationist and yet you write one of the more idiotic, totally CREATIONIST-style arguments ever - dogs becoming cats???? REALLY?


Look up STRAWMAN Mr.I'm-not-a-creationist-and-I-dig-science.

 

[bhsmte]

Aaaaaand there we have it! No one in science is saying that a dog is going to become a cat. And no one is trying to prove that a dog can become a cat.

Looks like you don't understand the TOE that you think needs to be scrapped.

No shocker there.

The more one types, the clearer things become.

 

[Davian]

How dare you compare me to him!

My work is far more artistically sophisticated than his.

lol.

At least I try to make mine on topic.

 

[Davian]

A baby has faith a breast will be there, it does not seek evidence for one. God promises that if we suck and thirst He will give us that 'breast'. We will be filled. The key is not to work up faith somehow, but to want it.

God has breasts?

 

[AV1611VET]

God has breasts?

Do you?

 

[Davian]

please don't make these kinds of remarks.
this gives the false impression that a cripple can walk if they believe in god.
this sort of thing blows my noodles.

Indeed. It would seem that the healing powers of deities is limited.

"...the comment of French writer Anatole France: On a visit to the shrine, seeing the discarded canes and crutches, he exclaimed, “What, what, no wooden legs???”

Lourdes Medical Bureau Rebels | Center for Inquiry

 

[Davian]

Do you?

<checks>

No, not really. Yourself?

 

[Queller]

I sometimes make mistakes in my posts, sometimes I might forget something that I've posted and I have even had to edit bad grammar but I am conscious of my arguments.

I didn't claim He didn't. I am claiming that He didn't create everything in one day nor did He create them as they were...as in a cow. He didn't create a cow specifically fully formed but after its kind. All creatures mentioned other than man was after their kind. They were evolved creatures but creatures after their own kind. What Kind means we do not know.

Winged fowl...after their kind; meaning that there was a kind of life form from which the winged fowl evolved from of its kind.

OK, the writers of the Bible considered bats the same "kind" of winged fowl as birds. What winged fowl did they both evolve from?

You claim that God didn't have any thing to do with evolution of life on this planet. You claim that He wound everything up and let it go.

Yes, that's right. There is no need for God to tinker further.

Are you claiming that Luke Barnes theorizes a multiverse? He points out the problems with the multiverse. Stenger says fine tuning doesn't need a multiverse to explain it.

I said nothing about mutliverses. I said that unless Barnes has conducted experiments in this area, then all of his claims are theoretical.

So there is no evidence like I said of precursors for the life forms found in the Cambrian Explosion.

No that is completely incorrect. Here are some Precambrian lifeforms that we know from fossils

DickinsoniaCostata

Tribrachidium

Cyclomedusa

You have none.

What are you talking about? There is no evidence that anything other than evolutionary means alone created the genetic code.

I disagree with your claim that evolution is a mindless, unguided, unplanned process with no goals.

Then provide some evidence for that disagreement that is not based on your religious beliefs.

Can you provide any evidence that their biases are not influencing their positions? We are all human and Victor Stenger has made his biases known quite well so has Richard Carrier.

You are shifting the burden of proof again. If you want to claim that the only reason Stenger or Carrier hold their beliefs is due to their atheism, then it is incumbent on you to provide evidence for your claim. It is not up to me to refute an unevidenced claim that you have made.

I don't understand your nonsensical wording.

What is nonsensical about a simple, straightforward question?

Do you understand the difference between an argument and an experiment? Yes or no?

He tests whether or not there is an explanation for the apparent fine tuning of the parameters of the universe. He does this using the features of the universe and models and mathematics. He gathers information from the constants and varies them to determine what happens when that is done.

Barnes actually conducted experiments where he varied the constants of the universe and observed the resultant effect? That's astounding! Where can I read about it?

There was no sun or moon to determine a day before they were created.

I would say there was no such things a day before they were created.

Why would I claim that?

I don't know, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

You said;

There is no way to determine the hours in that day.

If there is no way to determine the hours of that day then ipso facto that days could have been of any length.

No one was with Him but either was the sun or moon created on that first day.

Either of which contradicts the Bible.

Nor would I expect it to be. However, Genesis is writeen from the earth's time reference.

According to the earth's time reference the sun was created first, which contradicts Genesis.

Why would it?

Well, everywhere on earth a day is defined as the time between one sunrise and the next, the mean average of which is 84,600.002 seconds or roughly 24 hours. I can only surmise that you said this

A day is different in just our galaxy.

you were referring to somewhere else in the universe. Although... you don't have to go very far to find a different length of day. Venus' day is 5,832 hours. On Jupiter is is 9.9 hours.

It is different in many places in our universe.

Agreed. So what?


No you haven't. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?
Let me refresh your memory:

Although the Precambrian contains some seven-eighths of Earth's history, its fossil record is poor, with the majority of fossils being the stromatolites that are often heavily metamorphosed or deeply buried.

So you can brush away no precursor fossils as being due to a poor fossil record for your position but demand fossil evidence for plants prior in the same timeline. Not only that but plant life would be even less likely to be fossilized due to the delicate structure of plant tissue.
[/quote] Do you see the part I bolded above? That would be the Precambrian fossils I'm talking about. Also see above for other Precambrian life for which we have fossil evidence.

It just accentuates the fluid nature of the fossil record and how unlikely something as delicate as plant material would fossilize.

Plants are not that delicate. We have hundreds of thousands of plant fossil. Why would Precambrian plant fossilization be any different?

Don't change my claim. I said there were no precursor of the life in the Cambrian Explosion in the pre-cambrian record, which is correct.

That is quite simply incorrect. We have a lot of Precambrian fossils that are precursors to other Cambrian lifeforms.

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?
Late Precambrian fossil discoveries also now include representatives of sponges, cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish, corals and anemones), mollusks and various wormlike groups. Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air.

There is no evidence that would prohibit plant life evolving prior to sea life.

There is no evidence of plant life evolving prior to sea life. None. Until there is, your claims are nothing more than wishful thinking.

I understand that the only fossil evidence is of Cyanobacteria and it is assumed that they were responsible for the early oxygen.

Which causes your claims to fail. For your claims to succeed you need "grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself" to be responsible for the oxygen, not cyanobacteria.

 

[dad]

God has breasts?

The breast represents the source for what is need for faith in this discussion. He gave us the Scripture to nurse on!

 

[Mediate]

The breast represents the source for what is need for faith in this discussion. He gave us the Scripture to nurse on!

Quite an apt analysis really: fairytales are for suckling children.