No, but you are scientifically inept and incapable of seeing religious bias.Faust13 wrote:Yeah even them actually use science, logic, and empirical evidence. How about actually reading it instead of mentally blocking it? Do you think I'm religious Dan?
LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
Show me the religious bias Dan
Is it in the science? no it's not, and that's the important part that you blatantly ignore. You can't argue the science so you dishonestly evade the whole issue. I'm an atheist yet I'm using the same scientific arguments, now what?
Is it in the science? no it's not, and that's the important part that you blatantly ignore. You can't argue the science so you dishonestly evade the whole issue. I'm an atheist yet I'm using the same scientific arguments, now what?
Amor fati
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
The difference between science and religion is that science is open to correction by the facts.Faust13 wrote:Show me the religious bias Dan
Is it in the science? no it's not, and that's the important part that you blatantly ignore.
You gave an example where science used to think that we were about 99% genetically the same as the apes, but now are moving towards thinking we are only, say 80% similar. That is an example of how the scientific view changes in accordance with the facts.
That's not how religion works. Religion doesn't care about the facts whatsoever.
In addition, even if we are only 80% genetically the same as the other apes, that still shows that we are closely related.
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
Science and religion, if we wish to be precise, are no more open to correction (by facts) than is a motor car. However, there are scientists who are open and scientists who are closed. There are religious people who are open to facts and those who are not. Ideally religious people are guided by science (and vice versa). Ultimately spiritual development is a science.Kevin Solway wrote:The difference between science and religion is that science is open to correction by the facts.Faust13 wrote:Show me the religious bias Dan
Is it in the science? no it's not, and that's the important part that you blatantly ignore.
You gave an example where science used to think that we were about 99% genetically the same as the apes, but now are moving towards thinking we are only, say 80% similar. That is an example of how the scientific view changes in accordance with the facts.
That's not how religion works. Religion doesn't care about the facts whatsoever.
In addition, even if we are only 80% genetically the same as the other apes, that still shows that we are closely related.
It is ignorant and shows unwise prejudice to say religion doesn't care about facts whatsoever. It is all too easy to slam institutions (which may be corrupt) and not acknowledge core ideas as sound, as in the case of Christianity some of those expressed by Kierkegaard, for example, and some of what is attributed to Jesus.
And on the subject of biology, how are you so sure evolution explains our past? From what I have read there is at least room for doubt, and perhaps quite a different truth behind the establishment theories.
Good Citizen Carl
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
100% sure. Step-by-step causation is the only possible explanation for the existence of anything.Carl G wrote:And on the subject of biology, how are you so sure evolution explains our past?
Even if humans were created by some kind of alien being, or by a computer programmer, that creator must themselves have been formed by a step-by-step cause and effect process (evolution).From what I have read there is at least room for doubt, and perhaps quite a different truth behind the establishment theories.
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
but the evolutionists haven't bothered trying to fix the problems and trying to find more evidence to refute the problems. Sort of like religion. You're being lazy and dishonest when you mentally block the impossibility of evolution as what we know now and what we have seen in the fossils, and resort to just saying that it's right anyways because religious people are promoting it.Kevin Solway wrote:You gave an example where science used to think that we were about 99% genetically the same as the apes, but now are moving towards thinking we are only, say 80% similar. That is an example of how the scientific view changes in accordance with the facts.
That's not how religion works. Religion doesn't care about the facts whatsoever.
you're assuming that evolution is true in order for this to be true. Not only that, but the fact that even humans can be 10-20% different from each other, is a huge blow against evolution. Humans should be 99.9% similar to each other, but they're not. If you actually bothered to study the mechanisms of genetic inheritence and mutations, you would realize that it is impossible for a species of monkeys to somehow "create" NEW genetic DNA never before existing from previous genes. Mutations don't "add" new genes that never existed in the gene pool, they only shut off or damage the DNA, but this doesn't contribute to complexity and speciation. Evolution would require literally an alien anomaly in an animal, such as occasionally seeing feathers in monkeys, or wings in reptiles. This is what is required for evolution. Even a 3rd arm in a human isn't helpful, because it's just a copy of the arm genes in the fetus, it's not wings or feathers.In addition, even if we are only 80% genetically the same as the other apes, that still shows that we are closely related.
The links between ape and human are also thoroughly debunked, as shown for Austrolopithecus in my last post. The fossil evidence shows exactly the opposite, that intermediate forms have never been found for any organism. Unsurprisingly, you provide no real way of how apes can turn into humans given that their bipedalism is completely genetic, and is essential to their survival. No ape has been born bipedal, nor has any mutation turned an ape bipedal, nor do apes genetically pass on bipedalism if they learned how to do it. Bipedalism would be nothing but a terrible disadvantage for apes, as they would not be able to run swiftly or efficiently climb trees. Bipedal monkeys would die in their natural environment.
[ Removed long, unattributed quote - KS ]
Amor fati
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
umm, what about a Supreme Being? You haven't realized that infinite regress is a huge blow against a universal concept of causality yet? To have an infinte chain of causes going backwards in time acting on things, requires that matter or substance be here without cause in the first place.Kevin Solway wrote:Even if humans were created by some kind of alien being, or by a computer programmer, that creator must themselves have been formed by a step-by-step cause and effect process (evolution).
[ Removed long, unattributed quote - KS ]
Amor fati
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
I grant that if we were created by some kind of alien being, it could just be that they simply re-used the same parts in making different animals, because they were too lazy to start from scratch each time.Faust13 wrote:you're assuming that evolution is true in order for this to be true.In addition, even if we are only 80% genetically the same as the other apes, that still shows that we are closely related.
No. Evolution is about variation. If we are all too similar, and catch a disease, then it might wipe out the whole lot of us.Not only that, but the fact that even humans can be 10-20% different from each other, is a huge blow against evolution.
New genetic material comes about through mutation.it is impossible for a species of monkeys to somehow "create" NEW genetic DNA
Genes are just patterns of bases (CGAT, from memory). Different patterns of these bases constitute new genes.Mutations don't "add" new genes that never existed in the gene pool
When bits of DNA are shut off, damaged, removed, or added, this creates more variation, and hence speciation.shut off or damage the DNA
If we were created by an alien being (for which there's no supporting evidence), it's up to you whether you want to call them "supreme" or not. I personally would just call them an "alien being".umm, what about a Supreme Being?Even if humans were created by some kind of alien being, or by a computer programmer, that creator must themselves have been formed by a step-by-step cause and effect process (evolution).
The same can be said of your "supreme being".To have an infinte chain of causes going backwards in time acting on things, requires that matter or substance be here without cause in the first place.
By the way, there's no point in your making long quotes from creationists, as its just like pasting whole chapters from the Bible. You can provide links if you want.
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
why did you remove those "unattributed quotes"??? If you wanted the links I could have given them. Seems to be a case of insecure censorship.
Aside from that, these same apparent "homologous" structures have another problem, they don't even code for the same place or for the same genes on the DNA of these different species. also, many creatures don't have these homologous structures, and some are downright exotic. The problem lies in that mutations would need to be so drastic (which haven't happened) as to create entirely alien structures, regardless if it's "gradual," making it "gradual" doesn't change anything, the problem lies in that these alien structures would kill the fetus.
Unsurprisingly, no true intermediate fossils have ever been found.
http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp
Grassé: "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
Frank Salisbury: "Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim"
J. Darnell: "The differences in the biochemistry of messenger RNA formation in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes are so profound as to suggest that sequential prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell evolution seems unlikely"
of course Kevin isn't interested in scientific validity and evidence, he has contempt for such things you see, as it doesn't fit with his worldview. Instead he calls scientific observations "quotes by creationists"
even being created by alien beings raises other important questions.Kevin Solway wrote:I grant that if we were created by some kind of alien being, it could just be that they simply re-used the same parts in making different animals, because they were too lazy to start from scratch each time.
Aside from that, these same apparent "homologous" structures have another problem, they don't even code for the same place or for the same genes on the DNA of these different species. also, many creatures don't have these homologous structures, and some are downright exotic. The problem lies in that mutations would need to be so drastic (which haven't happened) as to create entirely alien structures, regardless if it's "gradual," making it "gradual" doesn't change anything, the problem lies in that these alien structures would kill the fetus.
Unsurprisingly, no true intermediate fossils have ever been found.
no, evolution is about speciation, which has never happened, nor have we found any conclusive evidence that it has happened.No. Evolution is about variation. If we are all too similar, and catch a disease, then it might wipe out the whole lot of us.
Hah. Mutations don't "create" new genetic DNA that leads to say wings. No genetic mutation has ever created or been led to create alien structures in a creature, not even a feather on a reptile. Mutations destroy genetic information, and reduce complexity, they never increase complexity.New genetic material comes about through mutation.
http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp
not at all. It's not that simple. It's also how these genes are combined and where they are, drastic mutations simply destroy existing information, they always have to get something in exchange for losing something else. Furthermore, mutations that are too drastic (which is what are needed in evolution since mutations don't successively build on each other, and not even in the same location) kill the fetus. It's like cows giving birth to giraffes, and no "gradual" process is going to stop the deformities, because all those gradual steps require drastic mutations that will abort the fetus.Genes are just patterns of bases (CGAT, from memory). Different patterns of these bases constitute new genes.
umm no, variation does not equal speciation. Variation in human height, does not create a new species out of humans. Mutations do not add new bits of genetic info "from the outside" they always use the existing one and hence reduce complexity and information. This is like mutations in bacteria that make it antibiotic resistant, the receptor is damaged so nothing can latch on to it, which reduces complexity, and it certainly has not advanced in becoming something other than bacteria.When bits of DNA are shut off, damaged, removed, or added, this creates more variation, and hence speciation.
I didn't necessarily say that. I said a supreme being could have created humans, and also other aliens.If we were created by an alien being (for which there's no supporting evidence), it's up to you whether you want to call them "supreme" or not. I personally would just call them an "alien being".
yes, but I never said that causality was a "logical absolute." I atleast admit that the supreme being would be uncreated and hence an exception to causalityThe same can be said of your "supreme being".
these aren't just "long quotes from creationists" they are using scientific observations. You conveniently put in "creationists" to defame and mindlessly try to dismiss them. How about I put quotes from atheist evolutionists?By the way, there's no point in your making long quotes from creationists, as its just like pasting whole chapters from the Bible. You can provide links if you want.
Grassé: "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
Frank Salisbury: "Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim"
J. Darnell: "The differences in the biochemistry of messenger RNA formation in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes are so profound as to suggest that sequential prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell evolution seems unlikely"
of course Kevin isn't interested in scientific validity and evidence, he has contempt for such things you see, as it doesn't fit with his worldview. Instead he calls scientific observations "quotes by creationists"
Amor fati
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
It certainly could. Let's say that in US you were financially rewarded for being a basketball player, and punished for doing anything else. In this case the taller people would be expected to breed more than the smaller people. You would then expect the average height of Americans to increase. Now let's say that in another country the taller you were, the more you were punished. In that country the average height would tend to decrease. Eventually you might find that Americans were 15 feet tall, and those from the other country were 1 foot tall. These two types of human may not be able to physically breed, in which case they would be regarded to be two different species.Faust wrote:Variation in human height, does not create a new species out of humans.
Unless the supreme being is identical with the Totality it must be caused.the supreme being would be uncreated and hence an exception to causality
- divine focus
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
How do you figure?Kevin Solway wrote:Eventually you might find that Americans were 15 feet tall, and those from the other country were 1 foot tall. These two types of human may not be able to physically breed,
eliasforum.org/digests.html
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
Their genital parts may not be compatible (too much size difference), or the womb of a 1ft female may not be large enough for a large foetus from a 15ft person, etc.divine focus wrote:How do you figure?
- divine focus
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
LOL
I must not have read your post properly before.
It doesn't matter if they couldn't breed naturally. If the egg of one could be artificially inseminated with the sperm of the other, they would be considered the same species, in scientific terminology.
I must not have read your post properly before.
It doesn't matter if they couldn't breed naturally. If the egg of one could be artificially inseminated with the sperm of the other, they would be considered the same species, in scientific terminology.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
That's nowhere near true. By the textbook definition, sexually reproductive species (with a very few exceptions, like Irish Wolf Hound with Pomeranian) must be able to breed naturally and produce viable and fertile offspring of both sexes.
By your definition, all of the Panthera genus (big cats), for example, would be the same species. They don't even need the artificial reproduction as they can reproduce naturally but one or other of the sexes produced is always sterile. So male Ligers (male Lion + female Tiger) are always sterile.
By your definition, all of the Panthera genus (big cats), for example, would be the same species. They don't even need the artificial reproduction as they can reproduce naturally but one or other of the sexes produced is always sterile. So male Ligers (male Lion + female Tiger) are always sterile.
- divine focus
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
I did not know that was possible--that is, taking your word for it.Dave Toast wrote:By your definition, all of the Panthera genus (big cats), for example, would be the same species. They don't even need the artificial reproduction as they can reproduce naturally but one or other of the sexes produced is always sterile. So male Ligers (male Lion + female Tiger) are always sterile.
In that case, the categorization of "species" is very vague to me and seems somewhat arbitrary. What exactly would be "speciation" and why?
eliasforum.org/digests.html
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
The definition of a species is fairly clear. A species is capable of interbreeding, in natural conditions, to produce fertile offspring.divine focus wrote:In that case, the categorization of "species" is very vague to me and seems somewhat arbitrary. What exactly would be "speciation" and why?
As to "why". Once a group of animals are no longer able to breed with other animals, they will tend to become even more different from those other animals because they are not mixing their genes with them. So it is a useful definition to make.
As far as "arbitrary" goes. It's no more arbitrary than the existence of any other thing, such as "life".
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:55 pm
Wish you have a wonderful Halloween!
Wish you have a wonderful Halloween!
If the time could be regorged and metempsychosis, I really want every day is Halloween.Wish you happy ! haha Happy Halloween!!
If the time could be regorged and metempsychosis, I really want every day is Halloween.Wish you happy ! haha Happy Halloween!!
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:55 pm
hello
Do you enjoy yourselves these days?
Lovely Halloween, fun Halloween, I am still feel excited and happy until now;
Wish all my friends have a good time! Thank you!
Lovely Halloween, fun Halloween, I am still feel excited and happy until now;
Wish all my friends have a good time! Thank you!
Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes
God created souls hence we are conscious souls because of Him who created all things. And, the bible teaches that the " Seed also shall not prosper; but, the ungodly are not so but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away! Hence, the ungodly will not stand at the seat of judgementl; nor, sinners in the congregation of the righteouss!"