You aren't telling the truth. You didn't make any 'challenge' to what I said, you just offered objections. And furthermore, you are too proud to be corrected either by the science or by scripture. So why bother with you?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Apparently Kirkwhisper will only deign to speak to those who won't challenge him on well, anything. Confronted with conflicting views, and especially confronted with real science, his response is to ignore them.
Um, objections to your statements because they were wrong are challenges to what you said.You aren't telling the truth. You didn't make any 'challenge' to what I said, you just offered objections.
I'm not too proud to be corrected; I'm frequently wrong and have no problem changing my views when someone shows that I am. You haven't even begun to do that, though. You've been trying to correct me on subjects that by objective standards I know very well, and some of your statements have been flat-out wrong. Why should anyone take your certainty about Biblical interpretation seriously when you're equally certain, and quite mistaken, about science?And furthermore, you are too proud to be corrected either by the science or by scripture. So why bother with you?
Um, objections to your statements because they were wrong are challenges to what you said.
I'm not too proud to be corrected; I'm frequently wrong and have no problem changing my views when someone shows that I am. You haven't even begun to do that, though. You've been trying to correct me on subjects that by objective standards I know very well, and some of your statements have been flat-out wrong. Why should anyone take your certainty about Biblical interpretation seriously when you're equally certain, and quite mistaken, about science?
How about you? Are you willing to be corrected by Christians who have expertise in science?
I get that as Creationist you cannot get your head around the idea of God creating natural processes and working throught the natural processes he had ordained. But what has this to do my answer to Ronald's anthropomorphized view of natural selection?No of course not, the universe comes into existence without the need for an intelligent mind, the earth becomes suitable for life apart from an intelligent mind, life emerges unaided by an intelligent mind, endless waves of adaptive radiation unfold in all it's vast array without an intelligent mind, the human brain develops from that of apes without an intelligent mind, origins theology can be discussed without any reference to anything in creation being the result of a thought from an intelligent mind. Theology itself can be taken for granted because there is nothing to discuss because even redemptive history because a myth because there is no need for an intelligent mind in that either.
You mean like:Think about what you are arguing against. Trust me, it will make no difference to me but it will make all the difference to you. I would ask you just one question, does God need an intelligent mind and if so what on earth has He been using it for because the Creator, apparently, can do everything in nature without a single thought being manifest in the process.
So they are instruments to improve fitness. Glad you recognise it. The difference between beneficial mutations and natural selection within the existing gene pool is natural selection within the gene pool is limited to what is already there in the gene pool, not only that, the gene pool itself will keep getting smaller through mechanisms like like founder effects and with genes that are less beneficial in that environment being selected out. What beneficial mutations do is allow natural selection to keep operating beyond the limits of the existing gene pool and for the gene pool to keep be refilled as older genes are lost.That isn't natural, beneficial effects from genetic defects (literally copy errors) are the weakest instruments to facilitate improved fitness.
You do realise they have the same cause as harmful mutations and all the neutral ones?Who cares what the benefits of an expressed trait are if they don't have an effective cause in the first place.
MY question was about how beneficial mutations are selected without anthropmorphizing natural selection. It holds whether you want to ignore all the evidence evolution in genes or not.Adaptations occur from genes, fully developed, maintained and highly conserved and these random copy errors are no substitute for an intelligent mind designing them. Your hypothetical begs the question of proof on it's hands and knees. It's not about 'what it', the real question is how.
You don't think molecules have a structure?Are you serious?The structure of the molecule? But then, every molecule has a structure.
I take it you didn't check The Origin of Species to see if he asked any questions?Darwin answered nothing because he asked nothing.
Perhaps if Creationist came up with a better explanations of the fossil evidence, and explained why it fist evolution so beautifully, but in 150 hears they never have.Homology arguments never allow the inverse logic, fossil evidence either discovered or absent is explained away without an alternative to naturalistic causation.
Of course, that is where natural selection operates.Oh and by the way, Darwin almost never mentioned evolution in his magnum opus, On the Origin of Species. He never went beyond the level of genus because nature never does.
Actually Mendel thought there were two types of hybrids, the variable hybrids which reverted to one of the parents if you keep pollinating it with the one parent variety. You keep swamping the hybrid with traits from one parent and the traits of the other parent will disappear, simply though the statistical fact that traits aren't always passed on each generation.That is no minor point, Mendel said that he had noticed a strong tendency of hybrids to return to the grandparent form. That was a great thought, I really hope you don't dismiss it as minor or my remarks as sarcastic. I keep wondering when you guys are going to get it, the problems of how things evolve over time (whether little or a lot) are the same for gradualism as they are for the radical evolutionary adaptive radiation across broad lineal lines.
Or it could be that vastly intelligent mind you are struggling against is the one who created the universe, whose thoughts are not our thoughts and whose ways are not our ways.To be brutally honest I think it's a mistake to even entertain the idea the creationism is opposed to evolution. As usual, we humans have managed to get the whole topic upside down and backwards. That requires a great deal of effort with both sides of the topic working continually and in concert to utterly distort the real issues beyond any reasonable recognition.
I am sure of one thing, getting that done requires an intelligent mind. The feeble minded and simple could never have developed such an elaborate distortion, not even with a million random efforts.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Close enough for government work.let me change that: Get this and get it clearly, O equivocating one: you DID NOT refute what I said in the OP nor anything else I have stated either biblically or scientifically. It wasn't even close.
Close enough for government work.
Let's start with your first claim, that stellar evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Now, stellar evolution is the scientific description of the life history of a star, from its start as a collapsing dust cloud
, through the initiation of fusion, various stages of fusion (depending on its mass), and to its end, which can take various forms. All of this is reasonably well understood physics, with the energy that a star emits coming first from gravitational collapse, and then from nuclear fusion.
You say this central process violates the First Law, which will be news to every astrophysicist on the planet. Please provide the calculations which show how it violates it.
Of course nobody has observed a star from birth to collapse - a large star could live for 15 billion years. That's older than our universe. Furthermore, since it's not clear whether you make this distinction, stellar evolution is not not the same as biological evolution; since stars are not living things they do not reproduce.Kirkwhisper said:No one has ever observed a star from birth, still less from a collapsing dust cloud. Those are mere hypotheses. You're so backward you don't even know that you are describing degeneration, not evolution.
According to this, real science is what you agree with and pseudo-science is what you disagree with. If the Big Bang is false, does that mean the universe had no begining and therefore has existed forever? Wouldn't that mean it didn't have a creator?Kirkwhisper said:I know this won't do you any good because you've made up your mind to live in ignorance after having been brainwashed by pseudo-scientists who don't know what they're talking about. But it might do some good for some earnest seeker who is willing to see through your nonsense.
Yeah right ...Kirkwhisper said:Bye.
You're still out in left field. No one has ever observed a star from birth, still less from a collapsing dust cloud. Those are mere hypotheses. You're so backward you don't even know that you are describing degeneration, not evolution.
Government work? Now I know it's wrong.
Like this incredible backward spinning galaxy, God left enough anti-evolution anomalies in the universe in order that men might know that it was specially created by HIM...and did not evolve. I can list about a dozen of them. But evolutionists don't wish to catch on. They live in ignorance because they have rejected the Word of the Creator about His universe.
So something that is unexpected is proof that evolution didn't happen? If that was the case, there would be no science! Science is founded on people going 'Hang on a minute...'
Without those moments of confusion leading to research and discovery, we wouldn't know anything.
Do the neutrinos which possibly (I emphasise that word) travelled faster than light, which was unexpected, prove evolution wrong?
I know you've probably answered this question before - so apologies - but as you seem to take Genesis entirely literally, do you take every passage in both OT and NT literally? Do you follow all the commands of Leviticus? Do you think that women should not speak in church?
Peace be with you, friend
I can quote extensively on this subject but this is sufficient for now. The universe is degenerating, not evolving.
I know you've probably answered this question before - so apologies - but as you seem to take Genesis entirely literally, do you take every passage in both OT and NT literally? Do you follow all the commands of Leviticus? Do you think that women should not speak in church?
To give credit, the universe evolves in the sense that it's changing.
Evolution IS the degrading of the Cosmos.
Evolution exists, it just doesn't provide anything of value other
than the ability to degrade and adapt to a failing environment.
Heat Death of the Universe : Discovery News
To be clear: that would be called de-evolution. More accurately, degeneration.
Best wishes.
If evolution is just plain old change, then the opposing force would be stabilizing factors.
UNG U 12q23-q24.1 NM_003362
SMUG1 U 12q13.1-q14 NM_014311
MBD4 U or T opposite G at CpG sequences 3q21-q22 NM_003925
TDG U, T or ethenoC opposite G 12q24.1 NM_003211
OGG1 8-oxoG opposite C 3p26.2 NM_002542
MYH A opposite 8-oxoG 1p34.3-p32.1 NM_012222
NTH1 Ring-saturated or fragmented pyrimidines 16p13.3-p13.2 NM_002528
Etc.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5507/1284.full.pdf
Your sense of humor needs a check-up. I don't work for the government.Government work? Now I know it's wrong.
I'm afraid you do not understand the situation here. I do not have a half-baked high school understanding of physics: I have a PhD in physics and something like 70 published papers in the field. (Maybe more -- I forget.)Been there, done that. You don't pay attention to details that might correct your thinking. I gave you those details and you shoved it away prefering some half-baked high school understanding of the issue.
You should bother because you might learn something. My position on matter and energy was not wrong -- it's a completely vanilla, standard physicist position on them. Whether you understood that position I don't know, nor much care. What I want to do is focus on your claims about science.Your position on matter/energy was wrong, but it seems that you won't even believe experts that agree with you on evolution in the first place, much less a lowly creationist like me. So why should I bother?
I asked you to provide support for your claim that stellar evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. I see a lot of handwaving here about energy and matter, but nowhere do I see anything resembling support for your claim. For your convenience, here is a standard statement of the 1st Law (from here): The change in internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system, or ΔU = Q - W.You're still out in left field. No one has ever observed a star from birth, still less from a collapsing dust cloud. Those are mere hypotheses. You're so backward you don't even know that you are describing degeneration, not evolution.
Astronomers have found a spiral galaxy that may be spinning to the beat of a different cosmic drummer. To the surprise of astronomers, the galaxy, called NGC 4622, appears to be rotating in the opposite direction to what they expected.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Reveals "Backwards" Spiral Galaxy (02/07/2002) - Introduction
Like this incredible backward spinning galaxy, God left enough anti-evolution anomalies in the universe in order that men might know that it was specially created by HIM...and did not evolve. I can list about a dozen of them. But evolutionists don't wish to catch on. They live in ignorance because they have rejected the Word of the Creator about His universe.
Name one. First name a star OBSERVED (not a guess or extrapolation) that formed because gases somehow magically came together (instead of dissipating as gases do) against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and formed a brand new star. Give it's name.
I already proved my point but you utterly rejected the truth of it. Neither matter nor energy can be created; they can only change or transform after the available energy is used up.
Matter, occupies space, and has mass.
Therefore, quote: "The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products."
You said your position is commonly known. That isn't true either. It is only 'commonly' believed by those of your persuasion:
Quote: Question: can matter be destroyed?
Answer: NO, it can only change form.
For example, you make cake from a variety of ingrediants, so you are not creating cake. And when you burn paper, it turns into smoke which is a form of matter, so you are not destroying the matter.
Read more: Can matter be created and destroyed
I know this won't do you any good because you've made up your mind to live in ignorance after having been brainwashed by pseudo-scientists who don't know what they're talking about. But it might do some good for some earnest seeker who is willing to see through your nonsense.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.Bye.
Your sense of humor needs a check-up. I don't work for the government.
I'm afraid you do not understand the situation here. I do not have a half-baked high school understanding of physics: I have a PhD in physics and something like 70 published papers in the field. (Maybe more -- I forget.)
You should bother because you might learn something. My position on matter and energy was not wrong -- it's a completely vanilla, standard physicist position on them. Whether you understood that position I don't know, nor much care. What I want to do is focus on your claims about science.
I asked you to provide support for your claim that stellar evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. I see a lot of handwaving here about energy and matter, but nowhere do I see anything resembling support for your claim.
For your convenience, here is a standard statement of the 1st Law (from here): The change in internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system, or ΔU = Q - W.
Now, would you like to try again? Please show how stellar evolution violates the 1st Law. Once you've tried that, we can move on to your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law and stars, and then the other claims you've made.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?