One thing never evolves into something else!

[dad]

Actually, it's called empirical evidence.

empirical

2 entries found for empirical.


Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

The day you observe no spiritual in the future or past is the day hell freezes over.

Some of us have reason and logic.

Yes indeed. Keep working at it. I'd say you have a limited degree already!

 

[dad]

I don't think you have any basis for that hypothesis. The verse you use as evidence is:



Taken literally, this passage would mean that whatever new heaven/earth is coming would have no resemblance whatsoever to any current or former heaven/earth.

I'd have to agree, that's how different it is! Add the spiritual, and presto.

So there is no reason to believe the future is an any way indicative of the past (in addition to the fact that speculated future events cannot be used as proof of anything).

Living forever is an indication. How many do you know who will live forever in a PO sense? Yet Adam could have and would have. Light is different, as I pointed out. In the past we also had light before the sun and stars were made. Coincedence? Plants grow faster and differently in heaven, and we see they must have in the past as well. Decay in the future could nor exist as in the temporary universe or we would have no earth to live on, it would one day do like the sun and stars, fade away and die. Rust does not corrupt there, in case you want something from Jesus on that bit!!!!!!
We still have a sun and stars, and an earth that is forever, so it is not so different in the future we can't recognize it at all.
The tree of life is there, as is the ark of the covenant, so is the bible! So are we!

 

[urbanxy]

You missed my point. Anyway, I will bump one of your old threads about "spiritual light" or some such rather than derail this one.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I want to see how far Don Quixote will take it.

Have fun. I got tired of wasting time though for a while it was fun getting him to post more and more absurd fantasies.

 

[Loudmouth]

empirical

2 entries found for empirical.


Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

The day you observe no spiritual in the future or past is the day hell freezes over.

The day that the spiritual is observed it will become part of science. Until then, the spiritual is just part of your sky daddy stories.

No matter what theories are held the following observations are true:

1. Cosmic Microwave Background.
2. The radioisotope ratios found in rocks.
3. The decay of cobalt isotopes in Supernova 1987a.
4. The ratio of isotopes in the Oklo reactors.
5. Redshift of distant galaxies.

All of these are observed facts that do not depend on a theory.

 

[Edx]

All of these are observed facts that do not depend on a theory.

Actually I beg to differ. Facts are meaningless without a theory to explain them.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

All of these are observed facts that do not depend on a theory.

not a true statement.

google a topic in the philosophy of science
the theory ladenness of the data

my favorite formulation is:
all facts are theory-laden, all theories are value-laden and all values exist only within an ideology or world view.

from an extraordinary must read paper at:
http://human-nature.com/science-as-culture/paper15h.html

 

[Edx]

All of these are observed facts that do not depend on a theory.

not a true statement.

google a topic in the philosophy of science
the theory ladenness of the data

Im not sure, do you actually agree with me or not?

my favorite formulation is:
all facts are theory-laden, all theories are value-laden and all values exist only within an ideology or world view.

Oh I dont agree with that.

Ed

 

[Aron-Ra]

If the fish spent all it's time in water, why did it develop lungs?

Many of the early bony fish had lungs, oddly enough. The development of the lung appears to immediately follow the of divergence of bony fish from sharks, and that lung was nothing more than another sort of birth defect, an asymmetrical distension of the buoyancy bladder common to all bony fish. Initially, these not only served to help maintain mid-water buoyancy, but also could absorb oxygen from gulps of air when the water was either too warm or too stagnant to sustain the fish normally. This double-respiration system allowed these fish moved into swampy freshwater shallows, and even out of the water on occasion.

 

[Aron-Ra]

wow. this is just a lie. You know full well that there are no posts in which I don't explain why I believe like I do.

I never saw one where you did.

There are no "nuh-uh" posts, as you imply, where I just don't have an answer

Every one I saw so far.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Natural selection ? What "natural" law prevents zebra and lion mating ? WHY ?

Genetic divergence, speciation.

 

[Lilandra]

If a zebra was stupid or amorous enough to attempt such a thing. Ba....dump....dump.

Natural selection ? What "natural" law prevents zebra and lion mating ? WHY ?

Genetic divergence, speciation.

 

[dad]

...
The day that the spiritual is observed it will become part of science. Until then, the spiritual is just part of your sky daddy stories.

No matter what theories are held the following observations are true:

1. Cosmic Microwave Background. [creation or split remnants]
2. The radioisotope ratios found in rocks. [things decay now, they didn't generally before]
3. The decay of cobalt isotopes in Supernova 1987a.[things decay now, no surprise]
4. The ratio of isotopes in the Oklo reactors. [A reaction took place leaving the traces we see. What about it?]
5. Redshift of distant galaxies. [Galaxies are distand, no doubt, what's wrong with some redshift?]

All of these are observed facts that do not depend on a theory.

Right. Least of all old age theory!

 

[Aron-Ra]

This turns all we know about reality upside down.

Truth is really a big concern for you, is it?

The word "also" is misleading. We are not "also" human.

We are "also" apes for exactly the same reason that ducks are also birds.

Those differences make us completely different.

Do the differences between ducks and birds make them completely different?

On top of the fact that humans are no where near as hairy as apes, those differences don't make us "also" human. They make us human period.

Except that humans are as hairy as apes, at least the great apes anyway.

Also, all apes spend at least part of thier dwelling in trees. That's ALL apes. Humans do do not do this.

ALL apes are forest dwellers. This is not true of most humans.

So are humans apes only if they live in the forest?

Australopithecines/Paranthropines lived in savannahs, not forests. So they didn’t live in trees. Gorillas are really too big to be tree dwellers anymore, and Gigantopithecus was much MUCH bigger than any gorilla. It certainly didn’t live in any tree. But many people actually do, particularly in northern California, and Washington. Hawaii even has at least one luxury tree house for rent.

So, if you went out into the African savannah, and you found what looked like a chimpanzee/gorilla-looking sort of thing, but it slept on the ground and lived on the ground all the time, would that not be an ape –simply because it didn’t live in a forest or sleep in a tree?

ALL apes are adept to hand over hand swinging in trees. This does not come naturally to humans, and only humans in top physical shape can do this comfortably. But average humans cannot do this for more then a few seconds, if they can do it at all.

I can swing through either trees or gymnasium equipment that way. So are humans only not apes if we're so out of shape we can't do what comes naturally anymore?

Thus, humans are NOT apes.

No, I'm sorry but we are still apes. And not to add insult to injury, but we're still monkeys too!

 

[Aron-Ra]

That's not the logic I used. I didn't mention anything humans are able to do. Nothing.

Except swing through trees like any other ape.

I posted a list of things that fits ALL apes. Humans didn't fit any of those descriptions. I could probably post a lot more, like all apes having lots of hair as one.

Then, according to you,

this is not a dog.

And this is not a cat.

And humans are infact primates.

Why? How do you determine/decide that?
to vast differences in mental capacity, and other physical differences.

Yes. This is true. And humans are infact primates. Apes are the most similar animals to humans, with only incredibly slight differences in DNA.

Even with all this, humans are not officially scientifically classified as apes. I believe that it is because of all the differences differences I've named plus many more, from movement and the ability, to vast differences in mental capacity, and other physical differences.[/quote]What differences? Seriously, no one's been able to answer that question for 259 years so far.

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so."
--Carolus Linnaeus, February 14, 1747

Who knows. Maybe one day humans will be classified as apes. I would still disagree.

We are classified as apes and monkeys for precisely the same reasons why we're also classified as mammals and primates.

 

[Aron-Ra]

So at one time, humans were just as able as other apes to swing through trees with thier arms?

Yeah, until my late thirties.

 

[Aron-Ra]

So at one time, humans were just as able as other apes to swing through trees with thier arms?

Depends on what you mean by "humans." Strictly, the answer would be no. We don't even call our most recent hominid ancestors "humans" and they couldn't swing like gibbons either.

He didn't specify gibbons. Besides, gibbons are "lesser" apes. He was talking about Great apes. I know I could swing every bit as well as a chimpanzee or a gorilla, and I'll bet even you could outswing gigantopithecus.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You mean the fish category, not fish. It's an important distinction. Defining a category is not defining the fish.

Yes it is. There is no distinction, not with fish, nor with any other group you'd care to classify.

I would be ignoring or minimizing the most important fact - amphibians don't have any fish characters. They have similar characters that perform similar functions but they are not fish characters.

Yes they are. Before you can describe the characters specific to amphibians, you first have to have a template for them. And that template is a fish:
Any organic (Carbon-based) replicative RNA/DNA protein organism consisting of multiple diploid cells which each contain a nucleus, which perform chemical reactions and acheive homeostasis, who's gammete cells have a posterior flagella, which must ingest and digest other organisms in a digestive tract in order to sustain themselves, bilaterally-symmetrical coelemate deuterostomes with a spinal chord.

This is the most basic definition applicable to all "fish".

But wait, there's more!

Craniates are a special sub-set of fish which also have a skull. Vertebrates are a special sub-set of craniates which also have backbones. Gnathostomes are a special subset of crainiates which also have jaws. Osteichthyes are a special subset of Gnathostomes which also have heavily-calcified [bony] skeletons. Sarcopterygii are a special subset of Gnathostomes which also have lungs and legs. Stegocephali are a special subset of Sarcopteygii which also have legs and toes.

And that's this kind of fish.

And did I mention that some amphibians still have dermal bone scales, fin bars, and even gills?

Even the brain is that way! Let me explain: The gray part is the mammal brain", which is built on the yellow, "reptile" brain, which is built onto the red amphibian brain which is built on the pink fish brain.

No fish characters? I'll bet you can't find two characters common to all amphibians that aren't fish characters!

 

[trase]

Natural selection ? What "natural" law prevents zebra and lion mating ? WHY ?

Genetic divergence, speciation

Wow ! Genetic divergence, speciation. You mean to tell me that evolution follows a certain set of "natural" laws ? Where did these "natural" laws come from ?
Big Hint (God ) !!

Again I invite you to learn something about evolution. Please don't be lazy and give it a try. I am sure that by the time you are done, you will believe in God again. Good Luck !!


http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper65.html

 

[Lilandra]

from reading this, perhaps you can point out where, in the post you are responding to, he is wrong and why.

That would be good for starters.

Should be easy since you know enough to tell him to go learn something.

Again I invite you to learn something about evolution. Please don't be lazy and give it a try. I am sure that by the time you are done, you will believe in God again. Good Luck !!


http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper65.html