The evolution of adaptive behaviour in robots.

[rjw]

Because we know the time frame that creation, and the flood occurred, to some degree, and there was no time for any other sort. The evidence indicates a lot of adapting went on, the fossil record.

How can you possibly interpret the evidence you see from the past? How can you even argue that those things you call fossils constitute evidence? How can you even use the word adaptation? Does the Bible use the word?

There is no way on God's earth that all the various millions of kinds of species and etc that we have today were on the ark. Right? So, either it was a lie, or the state of life and the world at the time was far different, and rapid changes were the order of the day. Since science has nothing to say about it, why would anyone assume otherwise?? I am not one to lightly call the Almighty a liar..

How do you even know that it was evolution?

Have you ever seen this evolution in action, or was it some kind of miracle evolution? Or are you just making all this up?

And since you are apparently into miracles here and miracles there, why on earth do you need to physically fit all those species onto the ark?

No, most are so insignificant to the issues of faith, that I don't give much of a hoot about them. However, when they claim to speak to man about how we got here, and enter the creation debate, they better eat their wheaties, and be in shape first!

Better be in shape first? This is from dad, the bloke who apparently still has not read the paper and shows no sign of understanding the concepts he argues against.

But God and His word are not fallible dad. Check.

Even if it was God's word and was infallible, fallible man still has to interpret it. Never witnessed two humans arguing opposite points of view from God's infallible word?

How can that actually be so, or are you the only one who has the infallible understandings every time he makes a pronouncement on God's word.

You can't seem to tell us. Why the secret?

Still don't want to address my questions do you dad:-

1) Did you read the paper?

2) Did you know what darwinian evolution meant before you Googled it?

Let's face it, Darwinism is fantasy from the getgo.

Apparently not ...

Where it might happen to somewhat allign with things going on in the present, the causes, and basis for it the poor dead soul has terribly wrong. Darwin was fallible.

Darwin was fallible in the opposite sense to dad, when dad pronounces something. If dad pronounces from the Bible, then it must be infallible?

To take godless ideas extrapolated from slow present adaptations, mutations, behaviors, and etc, into the time of creation, one requires a same state. Too bad one can't have one.

So now mutations, variation and natural selection, [and genes, fossils, fossilisation etc] - are all godless ideas.

Just above they were ideas that "might happen to align with things going on in the present". Here they are "godless ideas".

Hence I conclude from you that things you accept happen now or may happen now, are indeed "godless ideas". So why do you accept that they happen now? And if they happen now, but are "godless ideas", then how can you claim that they, or something like them happened in the past?







Regards, Roland

 

[Split Rock]

Because we know the time frame that creation, and the flood occurred, to some degree, and there was no time for any other sort. The evidence indicates a lot of adapting went on, the fossil record. There is no way on God's earth that all the various millions of kinds of species and etc that we have today were on the ark. Right?

Huh? Not even if the Almighty wanted to fit them all on the ark?

So, either it was a lie, or the state of life and the world at the time was far different, and rapid changes were the order of the day. Since science has nothing to say about it, why would anyone assume otherwise?? I am not one to lightly call the Almighty a liar..

Or perhaps
A. Your interpretation of scripture is all wrong.
B. The Flood account was a story passed down from earlier civilizations and from one generation to the next before being written down.
C. The Bible is not a history or science text.
D. All of the above.

No, most are so insignificant to the issues of faith, that I don't give much of a hoot about them. However, when they claim to speak to man about how we got here, and enter the creation debate, they better eat their wheaties, and be in shape first!

For what? Certainly not for arguing with you dad, and your Holy Special Lonely Church of One. Just how many converts to your Church of One do you have now?

But God and His word are not fallible dad. Check.

Too bad your interpretation of scripture is Fallible.

You can't seem to tell us. Why the secret? Let's face it, Darwinism is fantasy from the getgo. Where it might happen to somewhat allign with things going on in the present, the causes, and basis for it the poor dead soul has terribly wrong. Darwin was fallible.

Whatever are you talking about now? Poor dead soul of who? Darwin was a fable? Are you saying he never existed??

To take godless ideas extrapolated from slow present adaptations, mutations, behaviors, and etc, into the time of creation, one requires a same state. Too bad one can't have one.

Why not? Who are you to limit God and his creation, Blasphemer?

 

[dad]

How can you possibly interpret the evidence you see from the past?

Easy. I would look at what we actually know, and work from there.

How can you even argue that those things you call fossils constitute evidence? How can you even use the word adaptation? Does the Bible use the word?

I use the word adaptation, or even evolution, because it is part of the communication man uses today. The bible does speak of many changes, such as how a lion will eat grass. If we want to call it adapting in a hurry, fine. Nothing I envision is accidental, or godless.

How do you even know that it was evolution?

If there came great and varied changes to life that came off the ark, call it tomato if you like. However, I think the changes might best be described as evolving, in the lingo of the day.

Have you ever seen this evolution in action, or was it some kind of miracle evolution? Or are you just making all this up?

Think about it. If the new state existed in the far past, and will again exist in the future, why would anyone expect to see new state realities in a temporal state? What we expect here are temporal state realities, and lo, and behold, that is precisely what we see!

And since you are apparently into miracles here and miracles there, why on earth do you need to physically fit all those species onto the ark?

Because all kinds on earth were on the ark. Not rocket science. No animal alive could be anything but a descendant of those kinds. And there are too many to fit on a boat as is.

Better be in shape first? This is from dad, the bloke who apparently still has not read the paper and shows no sign of understanding the concepts he argues against.

The paper I quoted from, and also asked you to present any other relevant point if you could. Let's face it, the ability of man, or his robots, to change or react, traces it's roots to God. To try to isolate things, and use that info to invent godless dreamscapes of a never never past, is a fool's game.

Even if it was God's word and was infallible, fallible man still has to interpret it. Never witnessed two humans arguing opposite points of view from God's infallible word?

How can that actually be so, or are you the only one who has the infallible understandings every time he makes a pronouncement on God's word.

No, I merely make deductions, based on the word, and knowledge of man. The margin of error for interpreting God's word is not so large, as to drive a big bang singularity through it.

Still don't want to address my questions do you dad:-

1) Did you read the paper?

2) Did you know what darwinian evolution meant before you Googled it?

Apparently not ...

I have heard of natural selection, and a few other things. However, I see nothing wrong to a boxer reating to an attempted blow, and 'thinking on his feet'. Now, what about 'Darwinian' evolution, do you think is special here?

Darwin was fallible in the opposite sense to dad, when dad pronounces something. If dad pronounces from the Bible, then it must be infallible?

Let me get this straight. Saying things against God and His revealed word to man is a better sort of infallible? Strange.

So now mutations, variation and natural selection, [and genes, fossils, fossilisation etc] - are all godless ideas.

No, where did you dig that up? Like other features of a doomed, and temporal death state, they are merely how things now work. Since it is a direct result of sin, we could color it all a bit godless, I suppose. Quite a chilling and powerful thought, really...'the universe we know is a direct result of sin!'

Just above they were ideas that "might happen to align with things going on in the present". Here they are "godless ideas".

Hence I conclude from you that things you accept happen now or may happen now, are indeed "godless ideas". So why do you accept that they happen now? And if they happen now, but are "godless ideas", then how can you claim that they, or something like them happened in the past?

The godless idea, in case you missed it, as relates to the robot adapting thingie, is carrying what we see, into the vast reaches of tomorrow, and yesterday.

 

[rjw]

Easy. I would look at what we actually know, and work from there.

But how can you claim to know that what was happening back then was adaptation? You're not into uniformatarianism yourself are you? If someone else uses uniformatarian concepts then they are wrong. When you use them you are ...?

I use the word adaptation, or even evolution, because it is part of the communication man uses today. The bible does speak of many changes, such as how a lion will eat grass. If we want to call it adapting in a hurry, fine. Nothing I envision is accidental, or godless.

But again, how can you adopt uniformatarian thinking when you claim others are wrong for using it? Do you know what uniformatarianism, as it was proposed by Lyell, means?

And given that you don't mind a miracle here, a miracle there, then why do you need a physical process for this?

If there came great and varied changes to life that came off the ark, call it tomato if you like. However, I think the changes might best be described as evolving, in the lingo of the day.

See my two points above - you seem to be into a bit of uniformatarianism yourself; why look for physical explanations when you are, at other times, quite happy to use the miraculous?

Think about it. If the new state existed in the far past, and will again exist in the future, why would anyone expect to see new state realities in a temporal state? What we expect here are temporal state realities, and lo, and behold, that is precisely what we see!

I have no idea what you are attempting to write here.

Because all kinds on earth were on the ark. Not rocket science. No animal alive could be anything but a descendant of those kinds. And there are too many to fit on a boat as is.

You miss my point.

If you invoke miracles here and miracles there, then why do you need a physical process involved in this particular instance? Why not just invoke a miracle to solve your problem?

The paper I quoted from, ...

... does not necessarily mean that you had read the paper at all. To me it seemed most likely that you had not.

... and also asked you to present any other relevant point if you could. Let's face it, the ability of man, or his robots, to change or react, traces it's roots to God.

Even if I were to accept this, "traces it's roots to God" hardly explains how something happens. God seems to be very quiet on how all things actually work, leaving it for we humans to find out.

To try to isolate things, and use that info to invent godless dreamscapes of a never never past, is a fool's game.

?

So just what kind of evolution and adaptation have you been talking about for your past from the Bible? How does it work?

So let me ask you again, are you saying that evolution occurred in the past or not? If you are saying it occurred in the past, then what was its mechanism given that you think the research the article mentioned is nothing more than a fools game?

No, I merely make deductions, based on the word, and knowledge of man.

So again, let me ask you, are your deductions infallible?

The margin of error for interpreting God's word is not so large, as to drive a big bang singularity through it.

?

Yet two humans, both claiming the Bible to be God's infallible and inerrant word, can reach entirely different conclusions. How can this be so, given what you claim?

And why should the Bible be treated as accurate history and/or science?

I have heard of natural selection [but presumably not understanding what it is], and a few other things. ...

Then would you consider that having heard of NS and a few other things gives you an adequate basis to claim ToE to be nonsense?

However, I see nothing wrong to a boxer reating to an attempted blow, and 'thinking on his feet'. Now, what about 'Darwinian' evolution, do you think is special here?

I am unsure of what you are asking.

Darwinian evolution is a well tested concept in biology. Whether it explains every thing relating to evolution is a moot point. The complexity of the genome for example, may well have arisen via non-darwinian mechanisms such as gene, gene family and even chromosome duplication, followed by darwinian mechanisms to bring the duplicated structure back to stability.

Work in laboratories is showing us how this can happen. However, again, this is written up in research articles that require reading.

Let me get this straight. Saying things against God and His revealed word to man is a better sort of infallible? Strange.

I am unsure of what you are saying here - so here goes.

Again, it has to be demonstrated that the Bible is God's word. The only people who can demonstrate this are fallible people. Just as Darwin was fallible, so are you. One big thing about Darwin though, he actually researched his idea, wrote it up, and gave scientists an idea that they could continue to test.

No, where did you dig that up?

From here-

"To take godless ideas extrapolated from slow present adaptations, mutations, behaviors, and etc, into the time of creation, one requires a same state. ".

However, I see what you are saying now.

Like other features of a doomed, and temporal death state, they are merely how things now work. Since it is a direct result of sin, we could color it all a bit godless, I suppose. Quite a chilling and powerful thought, really...'the universe we know is a direct result of sin!'

Why would the universe we know be a direct result of sin.

What are the mechanisms behind this? That is, how does sin cause the universe to become the way it is today?

What evidence do you have for this? Has this mechanism ever been tested.

The godless idea, in case you missed it, as relates to the robot adapting thingie, is carrying what we see, into the vast reaches of tomorrow, and yesterday.

Just because something is carried into tomorrow - how does that make it "godless"?

Churches will presumably be carried into tomorrow - are they therefore "godless"?

How do you know these are "godless"?

Because they help provide insight into the past, how does that make it "godless"?

Where do you get your ideas about evolution in the past from? Because they are applying present day concepts and extrapolating them into the past, how come they are not "godless"?



Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

Huh? Not even if the Almighty wanted to fit them all on the ark?

What He fitted on the ark was just the kinds. Obviously, that would not include all the sorts and species of animals alive today.

Or perhaps
A. Your interpretation of scripture is all wrong.

Nope, otherwise, someone could make at least some feeble case against my current understandings of the word.

B. The Flood account was a story passed down from earlier civilizations and from one generation to the next before being written down.

A God denying little notion, that there is no reason at all to believe.

C. The Bible is not a history or science text.
D. All of the above.

Of course it is history, covering the time from creation to eternity. It, of course, would not specialize in temporal knowledge, that is all slated to vanish forever, as any intelligent person would expect.

For what? Certainly not for arguing with you dad, and your Holy Special Lonely Church of One. Just how many converts to your Church of One do you have now?

For what? For making a case against the words of the Almighty, and yes, even the poor peasants that have some limited understanding of that word, of course.

Too bad your interpretation of scripture is Fallible.

Too bad you do not know what you are talking about, otherwise, you could demonstrate your claims. As it is , I see clouds, but am not getting wet at all. Work on that.

Whatever are you talking about now? Poor dead soul of who? Darwin was a fable? Are you saying he never existed??

Were you really unable to discern that it was his godless conclusions, that was being discussed? Or is that some lame attempt at higher humor?

Why not? Who are you to limit God and his creation, Blasphemer?

Why can they not have a present state in the future, and time of creation? Because nothing but a different nature fits the bill. Nowhere does it tell us of innumerable pixies flying around tweaking present nature, making trees grow fast, holding oceans of water in space over and under earth, cooling friction, defying all present laws, and forces, etc. It is anything but blasphemous to give God the benefit of the doubt, as to not being insane. Don't be childish.

 

[Split Rock]

What He fitted on the ark was just the kinds. Obviously, that would not include all the sorts and species of animals alive today.

You ignored my question. Let me rephrase it. Could not God have fit all of the species alive today, on the ark, if He had wanted to?

Nope, otherwise, someone could make at least some feeble case against my current understandings of the word.

Feeble attempt? How about a very strong attempt?
1. You ignore the context of scripture. Who wrote it, why and for whom.
2. You made up a pre-split world where spirit (which you cannot describe) somehow was mixed with the physical to change the laws of nature and physics. Oh, wait, except for the core of the earth, which is either still mixed or just spiritual, or something.
3. You made up hyper-evolution which has no precident from scripture nor reality.
4. You misread Genesis thinking it was a literal history, when it clearly was not.

Hows that, dad?

A God denying little notion, that there is no reason at all to believe.

Nothing God denying about it. Claim all you want that God wrote the Bible, we both know that is a lie.

Of course it is history, covering the time from creation to eternity. It, of course, would not specialize in temporal knowledge, that is all slated to vanish forever, as any intelligent person would expect.

There is history in The Bible, obviously. But it is not a History textbook.

For what? For making a case against the words of the Almighty, and yes, even the poor peasants that have some limited understanding of that word, of course.

Please answer my question. How many converts do you have to Dad's Church of One? None? Why do you think that is?

Too bad you do not know what you are talking about, otherwise, you could demonstrate your claims. As it is , I see clouds, but am not getting wet at all. Work on that.

There is only one being who is infallible. God. Since you claim to be infallible, you must be claiming to be God. That makes you a Blasphemer!

Were you really unable to discern that it was his godless conclusions, that was being discussed? Or is that some lame attempt at higher humor?

I see. Your sentence made no sense, not even to you. OK, We'll just ignore it.

Why can they not have a present state in the future, and time of creation? Because nothing but a different nature fits the bill. Nowhere does it tell us of innumerable pixies flying around tweaking present nature, making trees grow fast, holding oceans of water in space over and under earth, cooling friction, defying all present laws, and forces, etc. It is anything but blasphemous to give God the benefit of the doubt, as to not being insane.

Here is what "fits the bill." The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Humans evolved on this planet late in its existance. Genesis is made up of stories intended to teach theological truths, not literal histories. Show me how this does not "fit the bill," blasphemer.

Don't be childish.

I'm not the one who believes in talking snakes, a magic garden with magic fruit, a past where the laws of physics on earth were different, or that I am an infallible god.

Try again.

 

[dad]

But how can you claim to know that what was happening back then was adaptation? You're not into uniformatarianism yourself are you? If someone else uses uniformatarian concepts then they are wrong. When you use them you are ...?

Easy. The key is time. At present, it takes a lot of time to adapt, or evolve. How long do you think a bear kind would need to evolve into a polar bear, if it got cold? Well, that was only some 4500 years ago, that the flood occurred. Present evolution is impossible, no? I have so far deduced that the big change happened, or finished happening, somewhere around the days of Peleg. (subject to evidences, but I have looked at that quite a bit over the last several years). So, that means, that since around 4400 years ago, we were IN this state. Therefore, all the adapting, or rather, the vast majority of it, had to occur before that, or, specifically within the century or so right after the flood! How uniformitarian is that!?

But again, how can you adopt uniformatarian thinking when you claim others are wrong for using it? Do you know what uniformatarianism, as it was proposed by Lyell, means?

I think it is safe to say, that evolution in decades for all creatures after the flood was not what he had in mind..

And given that you don't mind a miracle here, a miracle there, then why do you need a physical process for this?

It would not be a miracle needed. It would be trillions of sextillions of them hourly! All the universe changing? All kinds evolving to the various species? Light, and plant growth, and life spans of man, and gravity, and etc etc etc? Occam and me see it better explained as a different nature. Now, if we are talking about miracles of the bible, that is another matter. They happen as well, a localized application of the spiritual on the physical only plane of man. Acts of special purpose. A far cry from some hurry scurry, universal helter skelter confusion!

... does not necessarily mean that you had read the paper at all. To me it seemed most likely that you had not.

The bit I read I understood. That is why I can discuss it. You should be able to also, if you have a grasp of what you are trying to bring out here.

Even if I were to accept this, "traces it's roots to God" hardly explains how something happens. God seems to be very quiet on how all things actually work, leaving it for we humans to find out.

Nope, His ways are past finding out for man!

Job 9:10 -Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.

Ro 11:33 - O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

So just what kind of evolution and adaptation have you been talking about for your past from the Bible? How does it work?

It works with a spiritual also universe fabric. The different forces, and light, and laws work together, to make a different life process, cellular, atomic, and molecular realities, and, of course adaptive ability. We will find that all creatures, such as the lion again resort to the original plan, and diet. Lions will eat grass. We know when...so again, there is no great time for the changes to take place.

So let me ask you again, are you saying that evolution occurred in the past or not? If you are saying it occurred in the past, then what was its mechanism given that you think the research the article mentioned is nothing more than a fools game?

The fool's game lies in extrapolation of results from a very narrow time frame, and in this present state, and imposing that (in your head) on the far past real world.

Yet two humans, both claiming the Bible to be God's infallible and inerrant word, can reach entirely different conclusions. How can this be so, given what you claim?

There are some things that they must agree on, if they believe the thing. The issue becomes one of belief.

And why should the Bible be treated as accurate history and/or science?

Science of the temporal is so insignificant, that it doesn't much matter, and need not be covered in a forever book. However, some aspects of scientific advances are covered. For example, the whole world will see the dead bodies of 2 certain end time witnesses on the street. That was impossible before satellites, and TV. Again, jesus said if He did not come back, no life would survive on earth, again, impossible before modern science. So, the bible is aware of it, but not too concerned with it, since all things will be totally different.

Then would you consider that having heard of NS and a few other things gives you an adequate basis to claim ToE to be nonsense?

Anyone with a basic grasp of the extent of the claims of where evololution started knows that it is la la land material. Not worth the paper it is printed on. The main thing we need to grasp is that it leaves God out of their creation 'knowledge'.

Ro 1:28 -And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; One would expect, if this were true, then, that the centers of learning would be rife with homosexuality, and etc. What do we see? Precisely that. How could any doubt, I have no idea.

I am unsure of what you are asking.

That makes it hard to reply then, I guess

Darwinian evolution is a well tested concept in biology. Whether it explains every thing relating to evolution is a moot point. The complexity of the genome for example, may well have arisen via non-darwinian mechanisms such as gene, gene family and even chromosome duplication, followed by darwinian mechanisms to bring the duplicated structure back to stability.

You seem to be saying that Darwinian concepts are completely after the fact. Therefore, a total creature and product of this present state only, and irrelevant to the creation debate. I agree.

Work in laboratories is showing us how this can happen. However, again, this is written up in research articles that require reading.

What can happen? Some man made machines learn..? Whoopee do.

Again, it has to be demonstrated that the Bible is God's word.

It has ben demoed for many many centuries, nay, millennia now. All that really remains is to study how things came down.

The only people who can demonstrate this are fallible people. Just as Darwin was fallible, so are you. One big thing about Darwin though, he actually researched his idea, wrote it up, and gave scientists an idea that they could continue to test.

Ideas that are so puny, and limited, that who really cares if they apply? I mean, what is the point, unless they apply to the creation debate, which they can't, they are neutered. Man is fallible, that is why God gave us His word. When fallible man studies that, and whatever else he can find together, he can get a clue. Darwin, however was in the dark, and didn't even know where his inspiration really came from. I can tell you it was not God.

Why would the universe we know be a direct result of sin.

Because it was made for us. The stars were made in creeation week. Therefore, all things that happen as a result of sin, like death, and the death state world, are a result odf sin. If, for example, for the sake of argument, debris shot up into space around the time of the flood, or split, and impacted the moon, that affected creation! If the universe state was changed to limit man's life span, or something, that means light, and gravity, etc of the present was very much related.

What are the mechanisms behind this? That is, how does sin cause the universe to become the way it is today?

What evidence do you have for this? Has this mechanism ever been tested.

Well, we do know this universe is temporary. There will be a new heavens, tell me how puny science could test that!? Same thing applies to the past. The can't even test the fall of man at this time..! But I think that the evidences of sin abound.

Just because something is carried into tomorrow - how does that make it "godless"?

Because it isn't really carried there. Present state projections of doom by science do not really go into any real future. They are godless conjecture.

Churches will presumably be carried into tomorrow - are they therefore "godless"?

I am not aware that 'churches' will be carried anywhere? Where did you dig that up? I was under the impression believers would be carried. The churches they leave behind will be burned with fire.

Because they help provide insight into the past, how does that make it "godless"?

Present evolution doesn't do that. Imagining it does is a godless endeavor.

Where do you get your ideas about evolution in the past from? Because they are applying present day concepts and extrapolating them into the past, how come they are not "godless"?



Regards, Roland

Because basing stuff on what the bible says about the past and future is anything but godless.

 

[rjw]

Easy. The key is time. At present, it takes a lot of time to adapt, or evolve. How long do you think a bear kind would need to evolve into a polar bear, if it got cold? Well, that was only some 4500 years ago, that the flood occurred. Present evolution is impossible, no? I have so far deduced that the big change happened, or finished happening, somewhere around the days of Peleg. (subject to evidences, but I have looked at that quite a bit over the last several years). So, that means, that since around 4400 years ago, we were IN this state. Therefore, all the adapting, or rather, the vast majority of it, had to occur before that, or, specifically within the century or so right after the flood! How uniformitarian is that!?

It’s very uniformatarian of you.

You are arguing that processes we observe today were in operation back then (with your additional modifications of course).

I think it is safe to say, that evolution in decades for all creatures after the flood was not what he had in mind..

You use the term “uniformatarianism” as if you are deferring to Lyell’s use of the principle. (Although I don’t think it was he who coined the term. He did articulate the principle though).

How much to you understand what Lyell and his contemporaries meant by the term such that you can label someone as wrong because they use uniformatarianism, when all along you use it yourself?

It would not be a miracle needed. It would be trillions of sextillions of them hourly! All the universe changing? All kinds evolving to the various species? Light, and plant growth, and life spans of man, and gravity, and etc etc etc? Occam and me see it better explained as a different nature.

How did you manage to apply Occam’s razor to distinguish between a universe with a different nature (but not totally different, because it still has evolution/adaption) from a universe with a really different nature in all ways from a universe with trillions of miracles hourly from any other universe our imaginations could conceivably dream up?

Now, if we are talking about miracles of the bible, that is another matter. They happen as well, a localized application of the spiritual on the physical only plane of man. Acts of special purpose. A far cry from some hurry scurry, universal helter skelter confusion!

From my limited perspective, a miracle is a miracle is a miracle and notwithstanding the fact that I doubt that the supernatural really exists, I fail to see how finite, fallible humans have the knowledge to be able to distinguish between miracles that have an underlying different kind of nature.

How do you do this?

The bit I read I understood. That is why I can discuss it. You should be able to also, if you have a grasp of what you are trying to bring out here.

What? A two sentence quote? And that’s the article?

Daaaad - you can do better than this, surely.

Rjw
Even if I were to accept this, "traces it's roots to God" hardly explains how something happens. God seems to be very quiet on how all things actually work, leaving it for we humans to find out.

Dad
Nope, His ways are past finding out for man!

Job 9:10 -Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.

Ro 11:33 - O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

So you reject all science. It begs the question, why do you then use notions of evolution and adaptation to describe events in the past?

It works with a spiritual also universe fabric. The different forces, and light, and laws work together, to make a different life process, cellular, atomic, and molecular realities, and, of course adaptive ability. We will find that all creatures, such as the lion again resort to the original plan, and diet. Lions will eat grass. We know when...so again, there is no great time for the changes to take place.

Sounds like you are waving your arms around here dad, trying to stir up a brew for an explanation.

Since you claim Occam’s razor - any good empirical evidence and experimental verification for the above, such that I can tell that you are not pulling he wool over my eyes, mistakingly thinking that you are really onto something?

The fool's game lies in extrapolation of results from a very narrow time frame, and in this present state, and imposing that (in your head) on the far past real world.

Not really.

Concepts of natural selection and adaptation which you seem to appeal to, at times, are modern in their scientific aspect. Yet you also appeal to them.

We have empirical evidence for vast spans of time and common descent with modification going right back into those time spans.

So, given that we have empirical evidence which is accepted by folk of all faiths, it can hardly be called a fools game.

You can assert it, but that’s about all.

There are some things that they must agree on, if they believe the thing. The issue becomes one of belief.

We all have things we agree on. But the fact remains two (or more) humans often argue contrary points while claiming to be holding to God’s infallible and inerrant word. (Been in that situation myself).

So it begs the question of you, given the above, why should your say so be taken over and above the say so of anyone else.

And why should the Bible be trusted as the infallible and inerrant word if humans can be so mistaken in what it actually says?

The last question I ask in the context of you implicitly using it as some kind of science text.

Science of the temporal is so insignificant, that it doesn't much matter, and need not be covered in a forever book. However, some aspects of scientific advances are covered. For example, the whole world will see the dead bodies of 2 certain end time witnesses on the street. That was impossible before satellites, and TV. Again, jesus said if He did not come back, no life would survive on earth, again, impossible before modern science. So, the bible is aware of it, but not too concerned with it, since all things will be totally different.

How about some references dad?

Anyone with a basic grasp of the extent of the claims of where evololution started knows that it is la la land material. Not worth the paper it is printed on. The main thing we need to grasp is that it leaves God out of their creation 'knowledge'.

I don’t know of any scientific theory that includes God. Modern meteorological theory leaves God out and claims that our daily meteorological phenomena (rain, snow, frost, clouds) are all natural in origin. The Bible begs to differ and claims that these are supernatural in origin (I think we have had this discussion before).

So is modern meteorology as bad as evolution.

Besides, you have no idea of ToE do you? No matter where it came from, when you write that it’s “not worth the material it is printed on”, then you are simply offering a throw away line. You really do have no idea.

Ro 1:28 -And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

One would expect, if this were true, then, that the centers of learning would be rife with homosexuality, and etc. What do we see? Precisely that. How could any doubt, I have no idea.

?

So you know ToE is bunk because 2,000 years ago Paul complained about the centers of learning being full of homosexuals.

And the universities today are full of homosexuals, therefore ToE is bunk.

That makes it hard to reply then, I guess 

Naturally, you could always have a go at rewording it?

Darwinian evolution is a well tested concept in biology. Whether it explains every thing relating to evolution is a moot point. The complexity of the genome for example, may well have arisen via non-darwinian mechanisms such as gene, gene family and even chromosome duplication, followed by darwinian mechanisms to bring the duplicated structure back to stability.

You seem to be saying that Darwinian concepts are completely after the fact. Therefore, a total creature and product of this present state only, and irrelevant to the creation debate. I agree.

You are projecting. No I am not saying that at all. I am saying that darwinian evolution, as a process that operated in the past and operates now, is a well tested concept in biology. That it explains “everything” with respect to evolution is a moot point. Nevertheless, as a past process and a present process, it is a well tested concept.

rjw
Work in laboratories is showing us how this can happen. However, again, this is written up in research articles that require reading. 
Dad
What can happen? Some man made machines learn..? Whoopee do.

Given that you appear to know almost nothing of ToE, then how can you implicitly claim that machine learning is about all there is to experiments on evolution?

Where did you get this idea from?

It has ben demoed for many many centuries, nay, millennia now. All that really remains is to study how things came down.

How has it been demonstrated?

Ideas that are so puny, and limited, that who really cares if they apply? I mean, what is the point, unless they apply to the creation debate, which they can't, they are neutered. Man is fallible, that is why God gave us His word. When fallible man studies that, and whatever else he can find together, he can get a clue.

Fallible man still has to interpret those clues. So again, why should your assertions be trusted above and beyond the assertions of any one else who makes some kind of claim (implicit or explicit) for divine revelation?

Darwin, however was in the dark, and didn't even know where his inspiration really came from. I can tell you it was not God.

If I thought you were God, or in very close contact with God then I would be inclined to believe your pronouncements.

Because it was made for us. The stars were made in creeation week. Therefore, all things that happen as a result of sin, like death, and the death state world, are a result odf sin. If, for example, for the sake of argument, debris shot up into space around the time of the flood, or split, and impacted the moon, that affected creation! If the universe state was changed to limit man's life span, or something, that means light, and gravity, etc of the present was very much related.

I guess there is no point in me asking what evidence you have for this, other than it’s written in the Bible and your interpretation of it must be reality?

Well, we do know this universe is temporary. There will be a new heavens, tell me how puny science could test that!?

I am asking you.

Same thing applies to the past. The can't even test the fall of man at this time..! But I think that the evidences of sin abound.

So you have no evidence other than t’s written in the Bible and your interpretation of it must be reality?

Because it isn't really carried there. Present state projections of doom by science do not really go into any real future. They are godless conjecture.

If your conjectures are wrong then they must be “godless” too mustn’t they.

Does every Christian agree with your conjectures? What about every other theist? Those who don’t agree and have their different conjectures - must they be godless therefore?

I am not aware that 'churches' will be carried anywhere? Where did you dig that up?

Carried into tomorrow in the same sense that the robot adapting thingy will be carried into tomorrow.

Present evolution doesn't do that. Imagining it does is a godless endeavor.

Do you understand what a “nested hierarchy” is and how it provides evidence for what happened in the past?

Rjw
Where do you get your ideas about evolution in the past from? Because they are applying present day concepts and extrapolating them into the past, how come they are not "godless"?

Dad
Because basing stuff on what the bible says about the past and future is anything but godless.

Well this begs an interesting question. This adaptation from the present that you carry into the past - what is its physical mechanism, how does it work?



Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

It’s very uniformatarian of you.

You are arguing that processes we observe today were in operation back then (with your additional modifications of course).

Yes, evolution of the day had to be in effect, as different as the life processes were.

You use the term “uniformatarianism” as if you are deferring to Lyell’s use of the principle. (Although I don’t think it was he who coined the term. He did articulate the principle though).

How much to you understand what Lyell and his contemporaries meant by the term such that you can label someone as wrong because they use uniformatarianism, when all along you use it yourself?

The guy that coined the term was William Whewell

"..he argued against the probability of life on other planets"

William Whewell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also was known for coining the words 'scientist' and 'physicist' It all started from a Christian of course. What else is new??

How did you manage to apply Occam’s razor to distinguish between a universe with a different nature (but not totally different, because it still has evolution/adaption) from a universe with a really different nature in all ways from a universe with trillions of miracles hourly from any other universe our imaginations could conceivably dream up?

Easy, I start with reality. If science or the bible doesn't support you, I don't much care what you dream up.

From my limited perspective, a miracle is a miracle is a miracle and notwithstanding the fact that I doubt that the supernatural really exists, I fail to see how finite, fallible humans have the knowledge to be able to distinguish between miracles that have an underlying different kind of nature.

How do you do this?

A miracle was pretty easy to detect. Often many people saw some astounding event, that defied normal laws. It usually happened to a person, or people. Example, Hebrews fleeing in the dessert, or Elijah calling down fire from heaven. That is a far cry from 'secret miracles' happening that would routinely overturn the laws of nature universally!

What? A two sentence quote? And that’s the article?

Daaaad - you can do better than this, surely.

If my points on one quote were addressed, there would arise a need to move on. However, you seem to be stuck in the mud here.

So you reject all science. It begs the question, why do you then use notions of evolution and adaptation to describe events in the past?

Not at all. Neither do I reject all nursery rhymes. They do exist. If either a fable, or so called science opposes the word of God, however, that is another matter. Nothing in science that I have EVER SEEN IN SCIENCE NEEDED REJECTING! It just needs to be put in it's little place.

Since you claim Occam’s razor - any good empirical evidence and experimental verification for the above, such that I can tell that you are not pulling he wool over my eyes, mistakingly thinking that you are really onto something?

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. That does not apply to the spiritual also future or past of the bible. However, the observations of men were recorded, starting from the first man, so, yes, I have science beat six ways from Sunday.

Concepts of natural selection and adaptation which you seem to appeal to, at times, are modern in their scientific aspect. Yet you also appeal to them.

No natural selection I appeal to, or find appealing, for that matter, leaves out the One that defines nature. Nor would I limit my perceptions of nature, in the future or past, to present nature, without proof, as so called science does.

We have empirical evidence for vast spans of time and common descent with modification going right back into those time spans.

Oh, hec, no, you have nothing of the sort. I guarantee it. Be certain of that, lurkers...

So, given that we have empirical evidence which is accepted by folk of all faiths, it can hardly be called a fools game.

False. Faith is not the criteria for knowledge! Neither would a multifaith hand waving session add any creedence to a faith based myth. No observation you have exceeds the limits of the temporal state! Yet, I, on the other, astounding, interesting, wonderful other hand, do have observations of men that are carefully preserved. really. And the different state is the name of their game.

We all have things we agree on. But the fact remains two (or more) humans often argue contrary points while claiming to be holding to God’s infallible and inerrant word. (Been in that situation myself).

Not on important issues. If you mean, how many angels on the head of a pin, or how much imaginary pre mass in a singularity, that is one thing. If you mean whether there was a flood, Adam, or Jesus, that is another. The main tenets of the bible are sacrosanct.

So it begs the question of you, given the above, why should your say so be taken over and above the say so of anyone else.

That depends on the someone else..

And why should the Bible be trusted as the infallible and inerrant word if humans can be so mistaken in what it actually says?

Because the margin for error, and interpretation is not as broad as you thought.

How about some references dad?

The witnesses seen by all the world are in Revelations 11. Jesus said no life would survive unless He returned here...


Mt 24:22 -And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

I don’t know of any scientific theory that includes God. Modern meteorological theory leaves God out and claims that our daily meteorological phenomena (rain, snow, frost, clouds) are all natural in origin. The Bible begs to differ and claims that these are supernatural in origin (I think we have had this discussion before).

Nope. I agree that weather is nature...present nature.

Besides, you have no idea of ToE do you? No matter where it came from, when you write that it’s “not worth the material it is printed on”, then you are simply offering a throw away line. You really do have no idea.

] Don't kid yourself, I may have been born at night, but not last night. Anywhere the theory diverges from the present is where I shoot it in the face, and heart, chop off it's legs, and grind it into dust, and blow it away.

So you know ToE is bunk because 2,000 years ago Paul complained about the centers of learning being full of homosexuals.

No. He associated the 2 things. The last days also are said to be similar or worse than the days of Sodom.

Darwinian evolution is a well tested concept in biology. Whether it explains every thing relating to evolution is a moot point. The complexity of the genome for example, may well have arisen via non-darwinian mechanisms such as gene, gene family and even chromosome duplication, followed by darwinian mechanisms to bring the duplicated structure back to stability.

May well have is a big concept. I may add....'may well not have'

You are projecting. No I am not saying that at all. I am saying that darwinian evolution, as a process that operated in the past and operates now, is a well tested concept in biology.

Show us here and now how you think you know it operated in the far past???? Paaleeeese.

That it explains “everything” with respect to evolution is a moot point. Nevertheless, as a past process and a present process, it is a well tested concept.

Well, precisely how? How would Darwinian misconceptions be imposed on the past!?? Evolving, yes, God made stuff to do that. But in what way was it "Darwinian"?

Given that you appear to know almost nothing of ToE, then how can you implicitly claim that machine learning is about all there is to experiments on evolution?

I said that? Try to focus. I merely pointed out that there was a whole lot more!

How has it been demonstrated?

How? We saw the pillar of fire and smoke in the wilderness, and the Red sea divide, and Pharoah's armies die. We saw the first born of Egypt die, and Elijah go in a chariot. and Jesus back from death. We saw Peter busted out of jail, and the sick healed, and blind have sight restored. The calendar of man is set to Jesus, and the biggest holiday of the year.

If I thought you were God, or in very close contact with God then I would be inclined to believe your pronouncements.

..almost tempted to pull your leg, but I do have some small modicum of decency left..

I am asking you.

How could a temporal state, physical only, dimensionally challenged, spiritually blind and deaf body of knowledge and belief test the new heavens, and spiritual? You need to ask?

If your conjectures are wrong then they must be “godless” too mustn’t they.

If a river is diverted, the little streams we get are still wet. If I base a case on the bible, as well as science, it can't get into the lost in space, dry, way out in the twilight zone godless areas. Best you could say is that some other stream is a better route from the river of God's word! But you can't...can you?

Does every Christian agree with your conjectures? What about every other theist? Those who don’t agree and have their different conjectures - must they be godless therefore?

Not all who are called christian are believers in God's word. Those that are cannot challenge me..can they? I don't seem to see them...there is a reason for that.

Do you understand what a “nested hierarchy” is and how it provides evidence for what happened in the past?

That is a big topic. But I suggest that we restrict discussion to real, known, actual nests.

Well this begs an interesting question. This adaptation from the present that you carry into the past - what is its physical mechanism, how does it work?

How do things evolve in the new heavens? Mechanism? Who says man would know what is too high for him, and his pathetic, limited knowledge?

 

[rjw]

Gidday dad,



I shall attempt to make this my last reply to you in this thread for reasons I explain at the end. You remain undefeated.

Yes, evolution of the day had to be in effect, as different as the life processes were.

Then there is little point in using uniformatarianism as a point against me if you are only too happy to use it yourself, is there.

The guy that coined the term was William Whewell

"..he argued against the probability of life on other planets"

William Whewell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the link. I see that it contains a link to “uniformatarianism”:-

Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which underscores the point I made. It’s Lyell’s uniformatarianism summarized as “the present is key to the past”.

I make my point. You too are a uniformatarianist.

What else is new??

That not everything was started by Christianity?

rjwHow did you manage to apply Occam’s razor to distinguish between a universe with a different nature (but not totally different, because it still has evolution/adaption) from a universe with a really different nature in all ways from a universe with trillions of miracles hourly from any other universe our imaginations could conceivably dream up?

Dad
Easy, I start with reality. If science or the bible doesn't support you, I don't much care what you dream up.

Well if you insist that you start with reality then I would have thought you would have begun with the existence of the universe, the human mind, the concept that the human mind can (we hope) understand aspects of reality. I would have thought that you would also have begun with some other observations that we can agree on - that the Bible exists; that Occam laid down his principle a few centuries ago etc.

But to go beyond the above and insist that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible reality, then I might just as well go beyond the above and assert that my claims about the past are infallible reality - no evidence and argument is needed.

If you can simply assert that your conjectures are reality - no evidence needed, then we can all do it.

And to go beyond the above and insist that your assertions are reality simply re-begs the question - how do you know this? How did you really use Occam to conclude your assertion about the nature of the past is reality as distinct from every other assertion that could be made (and a few of which I listed).

By the above, you are simply question begging dad.

A miracle was pretty easy to detect. Often many people saw some astounding event, that defied normal laws. It usually happened to a person, or people. Example, Hebrews fleeing in the dessert, or Elijah calling down fire from heaven. That is a far cry from 'secret miracles' happening that would routinely overturn the laws of nature universally!

So how do you come to know all about these “secret miracles” - that they exist, their frequency of occurrence, their nature, what they were etc?

If my points on one quote were addressed, there would arise a need to move on. However, you seem to be stuck in the mud here.

I am waiting for you to confess - did you actually read the article, and do you actually know anything about ToE such that you can declare it to be nonsense?

No reply from you yet.

Not at all. Neither do I reject all nursery rhymes. They do exist. If either a fable, or so called science opposes the word of God, however, that is another matter. Nothing in science that I have EVER SEEN IN SCIENCE NEEDED REJECTING! It just needs to be put in it's little place.

Well I wonder what you have to say about meteorological science then, and its opposition to the word of God?

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. That does not apply to the spiritual also future or past of the bible. However, the observations of men were recorded, starting from the first man, so, yes, I have science beat six ways from Sunday.

?

So empirical does not apply to the past of the Bible, but you have empirical data dealing with the past of the Bible.

The interpretations of those early men, based on what they saw, could be wrong. Possibly those early men never existed. Is everything from history true?

No natural selection I appeal to, or find appealing, for that matter, leaves out the One that defines nature.

How about explaining how this natural selection you use, works.

Nor would I limit my perceptions of nature, in the future or past, to present nature, without proof, as so called science does.

?

As before, I guess you don’t want to spend the effort to explain what you are getting at here?

rjwWe have empirical evidence for vast spans of time and common descent with modification going right back into those time spans.

dad
Oh, hec, no, you have nothing of the sort. I guarantee it. Be certain of that, lurkers...

So you assert. Let’s just pick on one piece of evidence for now - the nested hierarchy. How can it not be evidence for common descent with modification? (As with ToE, do you understand any genetics and hereditary at all?)

... Yet, I, on the other, astounding, interesting, wonderful other hand, do have observations of men that are carefully preserved. really. And the different state is the name of their game.

Now, now dad. Don’t be too underwhelming about yourself.

Not on important issues. If you mean, how many angels on the head of a pin, or how much imaginary pre mass in a singularity, that is one thing. If you mean whether there was a flood, Adam, or Jesus, that is another. The main tenets of the bible are sacrosanct.

?

Well those arguing seem to think the issues are ultra-important. Besides , in an inspired and inerrant book, if you cannot get the little things correct - then how can you be trusted on the big things? Are you now going to tell me that a “faith based hand waving session” really does have some merit after all, particularly when it comes to the big questions?

rjwSo it begs the question of you, given the above, why should your say so be taken over and above the say so of anyone else.

dad
That depends on the someone else..

The question is still sitting there begging.

Because the margin for error, and interpretation is not as broad as you thought.

So how come there are Catholics and Protestants and within the latter, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, JWs, Christiandelphans, .... And there are Jews and Muslims - all who have faiths based around the ‘proper’ reading of sacred scripture, and who differ on just what sacred scripture constitutes, and who will often point the finger at each other as the group who does not have it correct and am on their way to perfidy?

Seems like a big margin of error to me, because, often, when talks of merging occur, these “small” errors turn out to be show stoppers.

The witnesses seen by all the world are in Revelations 11. Jesus said no life would survive unless He returned here...

Mt 24:22 -And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

?

How is the above a reference to this:-

“For example, the whole world will see the dead bodies of 2 certain end time witnesses on the street. That was impossible before satellites, and TV. Again, jesus said if He did not come back, no life would survive on earth, again, impossible before modern science. So, the bible is aware of it, but not too concerned with it, since all things will be totally different.”

such that you can claim that the Bible is some kind of science book? In fact, how does the above even make the Bible a science book?

Nope. I agree that weather is nature...present nature.

O.k. So you want to be “anti Bible” when it comes to meteorology but you don’t want others to be “anti Bible” when it comes to biology.

The Bible is telling you what the origin of these phenomena are, not what they used to be.

Are you now suggesting that the Bible only applies to the past?

Don't kid yourself, I may have been born at night, but not last night. Anywhere the theory diverges from the present is where I shoot it in the face, and heart, chop off it's legs, and grind it into dust, and blow it away.

However, I am correct, you still have no idea.

No. He associated the 2 things. The last days also are said to be similar or worse than the days of Sodom.

You lived in Sodom to know this?

May well have is a big concept. I may add....'may well not have' 

Like I say, that particular point is part of an ongoing debate. However it is nevertheless, subject to investigation and testing - just like any other science.

Show us here and now how you think you know it operated in the far past???? Paaleeeese.

Well I could do as you do and simply assert it I guess.

There are two aspects to this:-

The existence of the nested hierarchy in both the genes and the morphology of organisms tells us that evolution operated on all organisms.

The ability to track some of these genes between organisms and demonstrate how darwinian evolution can work, using existing mutational data and fitness tests.

This does not prove that darwinian mechanisms really were the ones responsible. But it does show their plausibility. Nested hierarchies tell us that common descent with modification happened. Point 2) shows us the plausibility of a particular mechanism.

Here is an example of point 2):-

“Plugging Darwin's Gaps". Or how to do the impossible, Darwin style.” (1)
http://www.christianforums.com/t5128699/

(The above has two sections. It is the second that deals with gene duplication, explaining how duplication allowed a new function to arise, namely the evolution of a novel hormone/receptor system. Existing mutation data and fitness tests were used to explore possible routes via darwinian evolution (mutation + selection) to bring about the formation of this new system. )

Well, precisely how? How would Darwinian misconceptions be imposed on the past!?? Evolving, yes, God made stuff to do that. But in what way was it "Darwinian"?

See above.

rjw
Given that you appear to know almost nothing of ToE, then how can you implicitly claim that machine learning is about all there is to experiments on evolution?
dad
I said that? Try to focus. I merely pointed out that there was a whole lot more!

?

Here is what I wrote:-

rjw
Work in laboratories is showing us how this can happen. However, again, this is written up in research articles that require reading. 

To which you replied
Dad
What can happen? Some man made machines learn..? Whoopee do.

You asked “what can happen?” then answered your own question with an implied only “some man made machines learn”, to which you added “whoopee do.”.

How? We saw the pillar of fire and smoke in the wilderness, and the Red sea divide, and Pharoah's armies die. We saw the first born of Egypt die, and Elijah go in a chariot. and Jesus back from death. We saw Peter busted out of jail, and the sick healed, and blind have sight restored. The calendar of man is set to Jesus, and the biggest holiday of the year.

You saw this?

..almost tempted to pull your leg, but I do have some small modicum of decency left..

I would have loved you to have pulled it dad. It’s not too late, so pull it now.

How could a temporal state, physical only, dimensionally challenged, spiritually blind and deaf body of knowledge and belief test the new heavens, and spiritual? You need to ask?

More undemonstrated speculations from you dad.

If your conjectures are wrong then they must be “godless” too mustn’t they.

If a river is diverted, the little streams we get are still wet. If I base a case on the bible, as well as science, it can't get into the lost in space, dry, way out in the twilight zone godless areas. Best you could say is that some other stream is a better route from the river of God's word! But you can't...can you?

Huh?

So you are implicitly agreeing that you can make a wrong conjecture, but that you cannot get lost.

This is like saying that you can read a street directory, make a mistake but never get lost.

Of course you can get lost.

Besides, given that you make up a story and assert that it is based on the bible and science - and so cannot be lost, is that all I have to do?

I can make up anything, and as long as I assert that it is based on the bible and science, then it too cannot be lost.

Not all who are called christian are believers in God's word. Those that are cannot challenge me..can they? I don't seem to see them...there is a reason for that.

...almost tempted to pull your leg, but I do have some small modicum of decency left...

That is a big topic. But I suggest that we restrict discussion to real, known, actual nests.

Nested hierarchies are real. They are an observation. You mean that you want to deny observations too? Linnaeus would be most upset with you.

How do things evolve in the new heavens? Mechanism? Who says man would know what is too high for him, and his pathetic, limited knowledge?

Is this why you are into assertion only? You don’t know what you are talking about, but you can always claim “Who am I to know the workings of the unknowable. But trust me, I am correct.”

Anyway dad, I shall make this my last reply to you in this thread.

You may have the last word if you like. I think I can resist replying, I think.

Your brilliance is simply beyond me. I now see why you are undefeated.

Besides, I have other threads I wish to start. The next one is about mechanism in evolution, where scientists do actually go and test their ideas.

I am sure you will drop in to deposit a bit more of your wisdom. It’s just that I don’t buy it. Sorry.



Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

Gidday dad,... You remain undefeated. ...

Funny thing, that.

Then there is little point in using uniformatarianism as a point against me if you are only too happy to use it yourself, is there.

I am all for YEC uniformity, within obvious limits.

Well if you insist that you start with reality then I would have thought you would have begun with the existence of the universe, the human mind, the concept that the human mind can (we hope) understand aspects of reality.

Yes, that and apple pie and motherhood is all good. Long as you realize the mind of man has distinct limits.

I would have thought that you would also have begun with some other observations that we can agree on - that the Bible exists; that Occam laid down his principle a few centuries ago etc.

Yes, the bible exists, and the monk had a limited point...happy?

If you can simply assert that your conjectures are reality - no evidence needed, then we can all do it.

They have done it, that is the problem I am trying to expose! By the way, God and His word to man is anything but nothing.

So how do you come to know all about these “secret miracles” - that they exist, their frequency of occurrence, their nature, what they were etc?

A different universe in the future is no secret, it is bible 101. The fact that the creation and flood and etc also had to involve a different nature is logic 101.

Well I wonder what you have to say about meteorological science then, and its opposition to the word of God?

As Dylan said, you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows. And, eveif man see that much, he can't watch it blow into eternity. Long as all you want is a present state weekly forcast, weathermen can be useful at times.

The interpretations of those early men, based on what they saw, could be wrong. Possibly those early men never existed. Is everything from history true?

Genesis is an interpretation now? So, when God talked to Adam, it was an interpretation? No. That is just what you want to call it falsely.

How about explaining how this natural selection you use, works.

God selects. He also created things that had the ability to adapt fast in the past. So, if the poor creature had a rough go of it in nature, naturally, the new genetics were auto selected, sorta thing. Bing and a bang, and a boom.

So you assert. Let’s just pick on one piece of evidence for now - the nested hierarchy. How can it not be evidence for common descent with modification? (As with ToE, do you understand any genetics and hereditary at all?)

How could it? Be specific. Is it the commone building block thing you mean? Or..?

Well those arguing seem to think the issues are ultra-important. Besides , in an inspired and inerrant book, if you cannot get the little things correct - then how can you be trusted on the big things? Are you now going to tell me that a “faith based hand waving session” really does have some merit after all, particularly when it comes to the big questions?

That is what so called science is, and it is redundant, and sidelined. Most of the issues with the bible have to do solely with faith, not interpretation. If one has not a lot of faith, one would tend to pick from the interpretations, so called, that cater to that. If one wants to take God at His word, one avoids most of that.

So how come there are Catholics and Protestants and within the latter, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, JWs, Christiandelphans, .... And there are Jews and Muslims - all who have faiths based around the ‘proper’ reading of sacred scripture, and who differ on just what sacred scripture constitutes, and who will often point the finger at each other as the group who does not have it correct and am on their way to perfidy?

The only proper reading of the bible, is seeing that Jesus is the common thread.

such that you can claim that the Bible is some kind of science book? In fact, how does the above even make the Bible a science book?

I pointed out that it covered the time when present science existed. It also covers more time, when it will not exist. So, it is not limited to mere present science, or it would be a foolish book. Man's wisdom is foolishness. Literally. Absolute belly splitting lunacy. The bible also mentions clothing. Yet it is not primarily a fashion book either.

You lived in Sodom to know this?

Mt 24:37 -But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. The last days also are spoken of as being rife with homosexuality, much like Sodom.

The existence of the nested hierarchy in both the genes and the morphology of organisms tells us that evolution operated on all organisms.

I disagree. That seems to assume no beginning. If a creation started the thing off, than any nesting came after that bird flew.

The ability to track some of these genes between organisms and demonstrate how darwinian evolution can work, using existing mutational data and fitness tests.

Meaningless. It is expected that genetic changes happened.

This does not prove that darwinian mechanisms really were the ones responsible. But it does show their plausibility. Nested hierarchies tell us that common descent with modification happened. Point 2) shows us the plausibility of a particular mechanism.

Here is an example of point 2):-

“Plugging Darwin's Gaps". Or how to do the impossible, Darwin style.” (1)
http://www.christianforums.com/t5128699/

(The above has two sections. It is the second that deals with gene duplication, explaining how duplication allowed a new function to arise, namely the evolution of a novel hormone/receptor system. Existing mutation data and fitness tests were used to explore possible routes via darwinian evolution (mutation + selection) to bring about the formation of this new system. )

But I have no idea why a new function arising is anything but expected...if evolution is a created trait. Really. That moots your point totally.

I would have loved you to have pulled it dad. It’s not too late, so pull it now.

Calm down, FYI, I like women.

If your conjectures are wrong then they must be “godless” too mustn’t they.

Nope. Mine are built on the Rock. And the Rock of ages covers a lot of ages beyond present science.

So you are implicitly agreeing that you can make a wrong conjecture, but that you cannot get lost.

No. The margin for error is small. Nothing can change creation, or the new heavens, for example. I work with the absolutes. I try never to lose sight of them, or climb any tree without holding onto a few of them as branches, not just one.

Nested hierarchies are real. They are an observation. You mean that you want to deny observations too? Linnaeus would be most upset with you.

Not at all, any more than I need to, or would want to deny bird nests. They exist...so?

You may have the last word if you like. I think I can resist replying, I think.

Not like it matters, you have lost. Learn from it, and be happy.

 

[sandwiches]

Funny thing, that.

I am all for YEC uniformity and blah blah blah blah

Empty assertions are just that, empty. You make many claims but show no evidence. If your claim to "winning" is you presenting no properly formed argument which to counter, then I guess, you're one of the best at that. However, I still have to hand it to SkyWriting or Bricklayer for the most incoherent and undefeatable "arguments" ever.

Present evidence or accept you can't. If you can't or won't you have nothing.

 

[The Barbarian]

Man's wisdom is foolishness.

So what does that say for your wisdom in assuming your unconventional religious beliefs are God's Word? Isn't it possible that most Christians have it right, and you're one who is wrong?

 

[dad]

So what does that say for your wisdom in assuming your unconventional religious beliefs are God's Word? Isn't it possible that most Christians have it right, and you're one who is wrong?

In what area? This is a science forum, and no one has that right. It doesn't jive with God's word. period as is. So, what we have, then is the various attempts to make it jive, or rather, usually, trying to make God's word jive with man's science de jour.

Focus on the basics. Look at those that actually believe in creation as told in Genesis, and a real created man, etc. Anyone that doesn't, well, no interpretation they may come up with matters. The garden of Eden, and created creatures, and many things simply need no interpretation, just belief. It doesn't matter at at what most Christians or non Christians think about it. Now, for the ones that believe the bible to be the word of God, there is room for some honest difference of opinion on what the bible says on certain issues. That will not include waving stuff away, trying to make the bible fit so called science foolishness.

We might ask ourselves, why was light able to traverse the universe in days? Then, we might use our expertise in science, if we had any, to try to explain it. Usually, men of faith have tried to come up with some sort of changed light speed, or etc. I, however, was informed early on in the game, that this is not really possible, science would know that if it happened. So, in having a difference of opinion with standard thinking (same state past based) YECs, that difference does not extend to the bible, or what it says. Creation week, and the creation of the stars is still what it is. The difference becomes exactly the same as it is with atheistic same state past based so called science. Both believers, and non believers using the same state future and past universe state assumption, to view all evidences, and filter all evidences through.

 

[dad]

Empty assertions are just that, empty. You make many claims but show no evidence. If your claim to "winning" is you presenting no properly formed argument which to counter, then I guess, you're one of the best at that. However, I still have to hand it to SkyWriting or Bricklayer for the most incoherent and undefeatable "arguments" ever.

Present evidence or accept you can't. If you can't or won't you have nothing.

You need to work on forming a properly formed argument, that needs countering. Forget who you think ate winners or losers, focus on the issues, and make your own case.

 

[sandwiches]

You need to work on forming a properly formed argument, that needs countering. Forget who you think ate winners or losers, focus on the issues, and make your own case.

You have no case without evidence. There's nothing to counter from you.

 

[Smidlee]

What is called Darwinian selection is nothing more than trial and error computer programs. In order for a computer program to find a solution to a problem with trial and error you have to feed it a lot of information to direct it in the right direction or the answer will take forever to find... even on a supercomputer. With computers and robots we are the gods.

 

[dad]

You have no case without evidence. There's nothing to counter from you.

Where there is no evidence against God's different future, there is nothing you can counter with.

 

[sandwiches]

Where there is no evidence against God's different future, there is nothing you can counter with.

It's your job to present evidence of your claim of "God's different future." So, again, there's nothing to counter from you.

 

[dad]

It's your job to present evidence of your claim of "God's different future." So, again, there's nothing to counter from you.

It's your job, and the job of science, to present evidence of your claim of "a same state future"..where all things die. So, again, there's nothing to counter from you.

Adaptive behavior in man made robots, really doesn't speak of how creation came down. It is wild speculation, taken way beyond all limits of possible proof. Which, really, is the name of the so called science game. Kids, aren't you tired of playing that fool's game?