Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence

dad · Jun 21, 2009

earthbound misfit said:
So which Joseph? The son of Heli (Luke 3:23), or the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16)? And where does it place Mary in the line of David? (Notes Joseph as husband in Matthew, but does not indicate patriarchal lineage for Mary.)

MATTHEW, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of SONS properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to GOD himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the original ωνωςενομιζετουιοςιωσηφτουηλι, being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.
As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, νομιζεσθαι bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.
The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Matthew 1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1 Chronicles 3:17, and ; Matthew 1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter.

Luke - Chapter 3 - Adam Clarke Commentary on StudyLight.org

So then, we have one concerned with Mary, the other with Joseph, apparently. Naturally, this is needed.

iremouth · Jun 21, 2009

The Swedish royal family were taken only from descendents of the queens, in that way they can be sure the line is true, they may not know who the father was but they sure know who the mother was, the bible on the other hand don't know who the seeds came from, they could have been anyones, some people build their whole lives around this ???.

dad · Jun 21, 2009

iremouth said:
The Swedish royal family are taken only from descendents of the queens, in that way they can be sure the line is true, they may not know who the father was but they sure know who the mother was, the bible on the other hand don't know who the seeds came from, they could have been anyones, some people build their whole lives around this ???.

Well, unlike Sweden, they didn't come from same sex couples or queens. Call me surprised.

iremouth · Jun 21, 2009

dad said:
Well, unlike Sweden, they didn't come from same sex couples or queens. Call me surprised.

That's it dad if you don't want to see something look the other way, you prove to everyone reading this that every begat in the bible was the son of the supposed father, you can't because we all know they could have been begat from anyones seed, only the people who want to believe the begats believe them, the rest know better.

Try reading the history of the period and see what went on, a woman would not tell her husband she had been raped because he would kick her out or kill her, either way she would die, better to keep their mouths shut, religion is so far out of touch it is beyond belief, a dream world does not even come close, even you must see that religion makes people lose touch with reality.

dad · Jun 21, 2009

iremouth said:
That's it dad if you don't want to see something look the other way, you prove to everyone reading this that every begat in the bible was the son of the supposed father, you can't because we all know they could have been begat from anyones seed, only the people who want to believe the begats believe them, the rest know better.

For your information modern Sweden is an also ran, compared to the traditions of antiquity in how men bore the name and lineage.

The creation debate revolves more around the way God counted it, than how Sweden sees it. Thats just the way it is. You could count the lineage from the cockroaches in your closet if you wanted. Some think they are related. Why not? When talking bible, however, and we were doing that, by the way, men generally carried the line. Don't fight how it is. You can't win a battle like that.

Try reading the history of the period and see what went on, a woman would not tell her husband she had been raped because he would kick her out or kill her, either way she would die, better to keep their mouths shut, religion is so far out of touch it is beyond belief, a dream world does not even come close, even you must see that religion makes people lose touch with reality.

I see, so Joseph was about to take Mary outside and beat her to death, because she got pregnant by Someone else? I think you are dreaming some dark nature into the great characters of the bible. I would think that adultery would have been dealt with severely at that time. It is no light thing, you know. I don't recall David, or Abraham or anyone that was anyone allowing their wife to be raped. (well, with Abraham, it is debatable..thats another story) or beating them to death if they were raped? Where do you get your info? Give us a break, try to debate seriously, if at all.

Thomas Anderson · Jun 21, 2009

Gracchus said:
OK! But here is another of the multiple independent lines of evidence. You dropped this one like a hot potato, but let's go back to the bird reptile divergence and the scale to feather transition:

Evo-Devo of feathers and scales: building complex epithelial appendages
Commentary
Cheng-Ming Chuong*, Rajas Chodankar, Randall B Widelitz
and Ting-Xin Jiang
Addresses
Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Southern
California, Hoffman Medical Research Building 315B, 2011 Zonal
Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA
*e-mail: chuong@pathfinder.hsc.usc.edu
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 2000, 10:449456

http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2000CurrOpinGenetandDev.pdf

There are some big words in this one, but you can easily look them up. After all, it is not a question of whether it matters what you think, if you can't really think at all.

Show us you can think by critiquing this paper.

One of the opening statements in the link to paper you posted.

"The vertebrate body is covered by either scales, feathers or
fur to provide warmth and protection. Comparing and contrasting
the formation of these different integument
appendages may provide insights into their common

embryonic origin as well as evolutionary divergence."

Key words "may provide insights". Yes I can think and am well aware of the many assuptions presupposed by the ToE. There are many in the article you posted.
Talking about dropping like hot potatoe. No one commented on this.

Thomas posted;
Acctually one of the articles I read on tiktaalik in National Georgraphic was one in your search list . Titled "Ancient Fish had Primitive Fingers, Toes." And actually found these statements to be interesting.

First "Curiously, the radial bones of Panderichthys are more finger-like than those of Tiktaalik, a fish with stubby leg-like limbs that lived about five million years later. "

Secondly comes an assumption"
"One possibility, Alhberg said, is that finger development took a step backward with Tiktaalik, and that Tiktaalik's fins represented an evolutionary return to a more primitive form. "

and last comes the confusion"

Michael Coates, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, called the new findings "intriguing" but is not convinced that the digit-like structures in Panderichthys's fin are the equivalent of our fingers.
For one thing, they seem unusually flat for radial bones, Coates said. "Radials are generally cylindrical. When you look at [a] cross-section [of the digit], they're dumbbell-shaped."

So what conclusion am I suppose to come to with all this? What am I to assume?

And also dropped like a hot potatoe is the question "where is all the info coming from?" One answer was DNA. So DNA is evo's god? Where did the info come from in the DNA. Infinite loop, sounds familiar.
12. New article soon!

also;
Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmankin

1. Feathers and scales are embryologically derived from the same tissue.
2. Feathers and scales are both made of B-keratin.
3. Birds retain reptilian scales on their feet.
4. All animals with structurally modern feathers are reptiles or descended from a group of reptile.
5. Velociraptor had feathers as evidenced by quill knobs in its forearms and other members of its group (Dromeosauridae) possesed feathers that were structurally identical to those of modern birds. Dromeosaurids are considered a sister group to birds.

Take note of 2.

"feather proteins (Φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (α-keratins)"

I just get more and more confused.

Gracchus · Jun 22, 2009

Thomas Anderson said:
One of the opening statements in the link to paper you posted.

"The vertebrate body is covered by either scales, feathers or
fur to provide warmth and protection. Comparing and contrasting
the formation of these different integument
appendages may provide insights into their common

embryonic origin as well as evolutionary divergence."

Key words "may provide insights". Yes I can think and am well aware of the many assuptions presupposed by the ToE. There are many in the article you posted.

Can you cite them? The article cited published works, observations of fact. It went into some detail about the development of feathers and compared this to the development of scales, showing what biochemical changes would cause the epidermis to grow a feather instead of a scale.

That of course is not proof, but it is evidence. It is one of "Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence" and that, in case you hadn't noticed, is the title of the thread, and what the thread is supposed to be about.

These lines of evidence all point in the same direction, and when you try to individually dismiss them with ad hoc claims, you make yourself ridiculous.

Talking about dropping like hot potatoe. No one commented on this.

That is obviously false: I did. And you still aren't dealing with the facts and reasoning showing the biochemical modification process involved in the evolution and development of feathers from scales. You merely hand wave and dismiss without comment. You do not deal with the evidence.

Never mind. I didn't expect you would.

CACTUSJACKmankin · Jun 22, 2009

Thomas Anderson said:
Thomas posted;
Acctually one of the articles I read on tiktaalik in National Georgraphic was one in your search list . Titled "Ancient Fish had Primitive Fingers, Toes." And actually found these statements to be interesting.

First "Curiously, the radial bones of Panderichthys are more finger-like than those of Tiktaalik, a fish with stubby leg-like limbs that lived about five million years later. "

Secondly comes an assumption"
"One possibility, Alhberg said, is that finger development took a step backward with Tiktaalik, and that Tiktaalik's fins represented an evolutionary return to a more primitive form. "

and last comes the confusion"

Michael Coates, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, called the new findings "intriguing" but is not convinced that the digit-like structures in Panderichthys's fin are the equivalent of our fingers.
For one thing, they seem unusually flat for radial bones, Coates said. "Radials are generally cylindrical. When you look at [a] cross-section [of the digit], they're dumbbell-shaped."

Welcome to something in science we like to call: discussion and debate. One of the hottest topics of debate in science is the placement of species in the tree of life. The key aspects of tiktaalik that make it important are the incipient stages of shoulder girdle, limb, and rib cage. Perhaps the digits of Tiktaalik are analogous to ours and Panderichthys's isn't or perhaps vice verse. Whatever answer is correct is the one scientists will accept and it will only add to our understanding of life on earth and the origin of major parts of our anatomy.

Hespera · Jun 22, 2009

Thomas Anderson said:
"

Key words "may provide insights". Yes I can think and am well aware of the many assuptions presupposed by the ToE. There are many in the article you posted.
Talking about dropping like hot potatoe. No one commented on this.

This is an interesting statement, that you are "well aware of the many assumptions".

First off, you are not, sorry, well aware of ANYTHING about evolution, as your many odd ideas indicate.

That aside tho... if there are "many assumptions" in the ToE, please tell us what some of them are. If you are as aware as indicated, you should be able to provide a list of say, a half dozen key assumptions.

Oh, and... as far as "dropping like a hot potatoe". Nonsense! I'd love to see you or anyone bring up a serious minded objection to the ToE or any other theory in science. Those are what science and curious individuals thrive on! Anyone interested in reserach goes after a tough question like a chicken on a june bug. What an odd assumption that such ideas are not welcome!

Let's hear some unsupportable assumptions in ToE, and a subject that would be dropped like a hot potatoe. Seriously, this would be great stuff.

Scientists or other people who go for rational thinking dont like unsupportable assumptions, unanswered questions or fingers in its ears, sticking to what is already believed.

So tell us.

LifeToTheFullest! · Jun 22, 2009

Thomas Anderson said:
See what I mean. By your replies it is so obvious. Your head is stuck in the ToE box, you cannot and will not see out side of it. You want me to see things in your biased indoctrinated way but you cannot see my point of veiw. The reason some of my stuff is copy and paste is because its information that is contray to what you evos have in your box. Your still trying to claim tiktaalik is a premium fossil. I do not care how many of your scientists say or the hyperbole fo the 'great prediction" that, all I have to hear is its of "poor quality" and its "fins could not of supported its legs " to know that the assuptions by those with their head in the ToE box are WRONG. But it has to be they say. It fits soooooo well in our fairy tale tree.
Oh and good one on the scales of a chicken, hahahahahahaha, how can one help from not laughing when such stupidity is spewed forth. Its all assumptions. Why cant you see and accept that. I see it with ease, it is so obvious. Has it been repeated in the lab? Do we see it happening now? Were we there when it happened? No, No, No. So whats the problem then? Please, just get your head out of the box just for a moment to see where I am coming from and dont try and turn it around to try and make me put my head in the box to see things in evo's indoctrinated, biased way. Tonights science horror movie is called "The attack of the lizard/bird with their leg/wingy thingies". This takes a million years are so to develope so get yourself a BIG bag of popcorn.

Hmm. Interesting. I'm about half way through Shubin's "Finding Your Inner Fish," and haven't gotten to the part where it talks about 'fins not supportin weight' nonsense. But I'll let you know.

Poor quality fossil. Again, not sure about that. They actually recovered three Tiktaaliks'. So from three fossilized 'fishapods,' they were able to quite accurately describe what and how Tiktaalik would have looked and moved, etc.

BTW, as Owens said, one bone, one bone-two bones, one bone-two bones-little blobs, one bone-two bones-little blobs-digits. Owens was right with his observations, just wrong on how. Turns out the 'designer' was evolution from the bottom up, not the top down.

Great thread though. Really shows how creos understand nothing regarding ToE. Even more funny when they evos can't look outside the box. I guess that would explain why so much is contested within science and academia.

Split Rock · Jun 23, 2009

Thomas Anderson said:
Key words "may provide insights". Yes I can think and am well aware of the many assuptions presupposed by the ToE. There are many in the article you posted.
Talking about dropping like hot potatoe. No one commented on this.

Everything conclusion in science is treated as tentative. Only creationists and Sith speak in absolutes. BTW, this shows how evolution is not dogmatic, as is often claimed by creationists. You did not comment on that.

Thomas Anderson said:
Thomas posted;
Acctually one of the articles I read on tiktaalik in National Georgraphic was one in your search list . Titled "Ancient Fish had Primitive Fingers, Toes." And actually found these statements to be interesting.

First "Curiously, the radial bones of Panderichthys are more finger-like than those of Tiktaalik, a fish with stubby leg-like limbs that lived about five million years later. "

Secondly comes an assumption"
"One possibility, Alhberg said, is that finger development took a step backward with Tiktaalik, and that Tiktaalik's fins represented an evolutionary return to a more primitive form. "

and last comes the confusion"

Michael Coates, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, called the new findings "intriguing" but is not convinced that the digit-like structures in Panderichthys's fin are the equivalent of our fingers.
For one thing, they seem unusually flat for radial bones, Coates said. "Radials are generally cylindrical. When you look at [a] cross-section [of the digit], they're dumbbell-shaped."

Weeeeeeeeeeee. More quote mining. Would you like me to post my creationist quote mine again?

Thomas Anderson said:
So what conclusion am I suppose to come to with all this? What am I to assume?

The conclusion is that the preponderance of the physical evidence infers common descent. You are supposed to learn that common descent is supportee by multiple lines of evidence , not just fossils, or just DNA.

Thomas Anderson said:
And also dropped like a hot potatoe is the question "where is all the info coming from?" One answer was DNA. So DNA is evo's god? Where did the info come from in the DNA. Infinite loop, sounds familiar.

DNA most likely came from RNA which likely served as the earlier form of information storage. BTW, if life can only come from life, where did your god come from?

Thomas Anderson said:
I just get more and more confused.

No comment.

MarkT · Jul 9, 2009

CACTUSJACKmankin said:
The strongest ideas in science are those with Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence (MILOE). The more lines of evidence an idea has, the stronger it is scientifically. Here are a few examples:
Our genome has approximately 20,000 genes which can be independently sequenced, each of these genes codes for a protein which can be independently sequenced, and each of these proteins is composed of amino acid sequences. So when they give the same degree of relatedness with chimpanzees that is as close to proof as you can get in science. We have sequenced both the human and chimpanzee genomes. That’s tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.

There are about a dozen radioisotopes used for dating and in the case of Uranium-Lead decay the lead isotope has a different decay rate so this actually gives us two independent methods to test the same sample. The age given by radiometric methods can be checked against stratigraphy, the retroactive plate tectonics, and the assortment of fossils in the layer. So that’s three additional independent methods ALL of which converge on the same result.

Keep in mind this is the convergence of MILOE on the same conclusion. You may try to reject one or many of these but the true power of this evidence is in the fact that they ALL AGREE.

I could say there are multiple routes to Santa Claus' magical kingdom. So what? Unless you try a route you can't really know whether my statement is true or false. So which experiment proves common descent? But first prove that there is such a thing.

Hespera · Jul 9, 2009

MarkT said:
I could say there are multiple routes to Santa Claus' magical kingdom. So what? Unless you try a route you can't really know whether my statement is true or false. So which experiment proves common descent? But first prove that there is such a thing.

You could say that there are "multiple routes to Santa" but you cant show any. I'd say its false, you have zero evidence.

That is basically the problem that crationism has. Nothing to show. Just claims of a route to Santa. No tracks tho.

You want an experiment that shows common descent? We do have multiple varieties of cabbage / caluiflower / brussel sprouts with a common ancester.

Or do you prefer dogs? Cows? Chickens? Goldfish?

You want an experiment that takes 20 million years? No can do. But, we have the fossil trail.

Kind of like you cant do an experiment to see if Santa went thataway, but, if the reindeer were walking you could track him down.

Studying creationism is like going snipe hunting. No matter how long you sit with the bag no snipe will ever run into it.

Baggins · Jul 9, 2009

MarkT said:
I could say there are multiple routes to Santa Claus' magical kingdom.

And then we could ask you to produce them and you wouldn't be able to.

That's the difference between the creationists with their fairy stories and the scientists, we bring independantly verifiable evidence to the table to back ourselves up. You bring nothing. never have, never will.

Unless you try a route you can't really know whether my statement is true or false.

You have provided no route because all you have is rhetoric. Science provides routes that anyone can check and verify independantly, if they have the intelligence, which is why 200 years of science lead to exponential human advancement whereas 2000 years of Christianity lead to some pretty art and a few churches.

So which experiment proves common descent?

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But first prove that there is such a thing

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good reading

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2009

Baggins said:
That's the difference between the creationists with their fairy stories and the scientists, we bring independantly verifiable evidence to the table to back ourselves up. You bring nothing. never have, never will.

Just don't forget where those atoms in that 'independently-verifiable evidence' came from.

Hespera · Jul 9, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Just don't forget where those atoms in that 'independently-verifiable evidence' came from.

Dont forget your historical novel doesnt provide any verifiable information on that.

MrGoodBytes · Jul 10, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Just don't forget where those atoms in that 'independently-verifiable evidence' came from.

I think they came from that initial inflation that the Bible never mentioned, but I'm not a physicist.

MarkT · Jul 12, 2009

Baggins said:
And then we could ask you to produce them and you wouldn't be able to.

That's the difference between the creationists with their fairy stories and the scientists, we bring independantly verifiable evidence to the table to back ourselves up. You bring nothing. never have, never will.

What would be the point of asking me to produce them? I know Santa's kingdom doesn't exist. So even if I said the route is in a northward direction, so what?

The route argument is an irrelevant pointless waste of time - like your argument that you have multiple lines of evidence. Your argument leads to a Santa's kingdom ... a reality that is only evident to you.

I'm telling you with a 100% certainty you have been deceived.

You have provided no route because all you have is rhetoric. Science provides routes that anyone can check and verify independantly, if they have the intelligence, which is why 200 years of science lead to exponential human advancement whereas 2000 years of Christianity lead to some pretty art and a few churches.

You're wrong about that too. We've always been building and inventing things and to do that we've had to learn things like physics and chemistry. So what?

According to the prophet Daniel

Daniel 12:1-4
1 "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Your knowledge isn't going to save you Baggins.

Good reading

Read the Bible!

MarkT · Jul 12, 2009

Hespera said:
You could say that there are "multiple routes to Santa" but you cant show any. I'd say its false, you have zero evidence.

That is basically the problem that crationism has. Nothing to show. Just claims of a route to Santa. No tracks tho.

His Word is what we have. He is the door to the knowledge of God.

You want an experiment that shows common descent? We do have multiple varieties of cabbage / caluiflower / brussel sprouts with a common ancester.

Or do you prefer dogs? Cows? Chickens? Goldfish?

You want an experiment that takes 20 million years? No can do. But, we have the fossil trail.

Then you have nothing.

Kind of like you cant do an experiment to see if Santa went thataway, but, if the reindeer were walking you could track him down.

So if you saw some reindeer tracks you would conclude Santa exists? I don't get it.

Baggins · Jul 12, 2009

MarkT said:
What would be the point of asking me to produce them? I know Santa's kingdom doesn't exist. So even if I said the route is in a northward direction, so what?

Then what was the point of making the analogy?

We can produce evidence that shows the pathways of common descent. I did so, I linked to a wikipedia page that shows the evidence for common descent with links to primary sources.

The route argument is an irrelevant pointless waste of time -

Well in that case you shouldn't have wasted everyone's time by making it.

like your argument that you have multiple lines of evidence. Your argument leads to a Santa's kingdom ... a reality that is only evident to you.

The multiple lines of evidence for common descent were laid before you. You either did not read them, could not understand them or you refused to accept them because they conflict with your preconceived religious dogma.

You did not reject them for scientifically valid reasons.

That is your problem not ours. The world will go on, reality will continue even if you won't recognise it, the theory of evolution and science in general will continue to make your life easier and healthier whether you accept it or not because the important people who make a difference - the scientists - do accept these things and, more than that, they use them to make mankinds life better.

I'm telling you with a 100% certainty you have been deceived.

I'm sure you are, and I am telling you with 100% certainty you don't know what you talking about, and more than that you appear to be too scared to investigate the matter because you fear it will undermine your faith.

Very sad. But, as I said, science will continue to make mankinds' lot better and healthier without you, you just sit back and accept the fruits of science without understanding how it works or even believing that it does work.

You're wrong about that too. We've always been building and inventing things and to do that we've had to learn things like physics and chemistry. So what?

Physics and Chemistry use the same scientific method as Biology and, specifically, the Theory of evolution. To try and claim that Physics and Chemistry work and that Biology doesn't is silly. Anyway physics and Chemistry date the Earth to 4.6 billion years old - throough the measurement of atomic decay - and as you don't accept that that means you don't accept Physics and Chemistry work anyway.

The fact that there has been more human progress in the last 200 years than in the previous 200 would, I would have thought, been obvious to anyone.

Your knowledge isn't going to save you Baggins.

Save me from what? It has already saved me from the ignorance and superstition you appear mired in

Read the Bible!

I have, at least I've read the interesting bits. I've also read Lord of the Rings and that was better, I recommend it

Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence

Undefeated!

Active Member

Undefeated!

Active Member

Undefeated!

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Scientist

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Conflation of Blathers

Veteran

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

Seeker for life, probably

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency