Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Bacteria Raises Concern
KDLT ^ | November 29, 2012 | Laura Monteverdi

Posted on 12/03/2012 1:31:48 AM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last
To: allmendream

Uh, no, not criticizing, but recognizing.

I know that I have a presuppositional framework,
and I know you do too. You don’t.

You’re the fish in the water not knowing he’s wet.


101 posted on 12/04/2012 1:40:42 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Well I do have a framework that I view such things, I outline it all the time.

Science is of use in terms of applications and discovery.

Creationism is useless.

Experience, evidence, and history all support my framework. There is no evidence yet presented that has made me even question it, although I am open to such.

Until then -

science = of use.

creationism = useless.


102 posted on 12/04/2012 1:44:44 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
To some Christianity is a reality, others a theology.

How sad that you think there's a difference between Christian theology and Christian reality.

I see the need to macro Genesis 1 and 2 child's play, as if God did not know what He had Moses pen.

No, it's just telling two parts of the same story. No one points at a history of WWII and a history of the battle of Midway and says they are in contradiction. If Genesis 1 describes the Creation Week and Genesis 2 describes a portion of that week, they don't contradict each other or any other part of the Bible. If they describe what you say they do, they contradict parts of the New Testament that teach individual sin as coming into the world with Adam and call him the first man.

Even worldly history describes the time of hunter/gathers before agriculture became a recognized method of livelihood.

You're judging your Bible by the world's thoughts instead of the other way around.

Occam nor his razor is mentioned in the whole of the Bible by name or instrument.

True, but that doesn't mean the concept is unbiblical or anti-biblical any more than the fact that you and I are communicating in a language with completely different syntax rules than Hebrew and Greek is unbiblical.

The Bible does mention truth a lot, though. And it says that sin was introduced through Adam (1 Cor 15:22) and that he was the first human being. You say otherwise. Who do you think I will put my trust in?

103 posted on 12/04/2012 1:48:47 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Cigarettes are like squirrels: Perfectly harmless until you put one in your mouth and set it on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Problem is, evolutionists can’t see past those suppositions.

Darwin sees variation within species and develops a hypothesis from it, and it’s come to the point today where evos see the hypothesis and see the *evidence* to *support* it.

Well, DUH, of COURSE it’s going to *support* the hypothesis, the hypothesis was built on it. Very neat circular reasoning, which has made the evos so confused that they can’t think outside of it.


104 posted on 12/04/2012 1:55:30 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“There is no evidence yet presented that has made me even question it”

and he can’t see that he has pre-suppositional assumptions.

OF COURSE THERE’S NO EVIDENCE TO QUESTION IT,
because it is a pre-suppositional assumption!

I will not cast pearls before swine.


105 posted on 12/04/2012 1:58:21 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Note that you use the term “science” and not evolution.

Whether you realize it or not, there’s a reason you did that.

You may think I’m about to say “evolution isn’t science.” Nope.

I’m going to say this: The vast majority of scientific history is a period where virtually every working scientist, including and especially some of the greatest names in scientific history, believed the world had been created by a God or gods. So it can’t be said evolutionism is necessary for scientific discovery, or we wouldn’t have had Newton’s laws or Mendel’s charts.

In short, belief in creation impedes science not at all.


106 posted on 12/04/2012 1:59:25 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Cigarettes are like squirrels: Perfectly harmless until you put one in your mouth and set it on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; MrB

You are conflating terms. The Christian equivalent of science is.... drum roll.... science.

The Christian equivalent of evolution is creationism.

To compare science to creationism is ridiculous and makes you look ridiculous.

If you want to compare creation accounts, by all means do so, but this single minded mission of yours to dis Christians and creationists by disingenuously comparing two different things is, well disingenuous.

Evolution is a philosophical construct to describe events seen with the exclusion of God built in. Evolution does not equate to science because the ToE is not science. It’s extrapolation of data based on philosophical constructs to explain life on this planet without the need of God. It’s essentially the creation account of the atheist and secular humanist, therefore placing it solidly in the philosophy camp.


107 posted on 12/04/2012 2:02:05 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
No, so long as one is willing to ascribe physical means as being behind that creation, it doesn't impede science at all to believe that God created it.

What does impede science is the belief that miraculous intervention is the explanation behind physical phenomena. That is a useless supposition that leads nowhere, to no further discovery or application.

And as is the case with the idiotic ideas presented that antibiotic resistance comes about through direct intervention by God, or that it had to have already existed in the population infecting the patient - it is a dangerous idea, not just useless - because it discounts the idea that subjecting the bacterial population to a sub-lethal dose of the antibiotic could lead to it evolving antibiotic resistance.

108 posted on 12/04/2012 2:05:57 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
IOWs you pass by 80+% of all written information because of a spelling neurosis.

How much Swiss Cheese will fit in a quart jar?

109 posted on 12/04/2012 2:06:22 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Wrong. And that doesn’t get you out of answering the question about the evidence you asked for but didn’t read or deal with at all.

I am a Christian, as are many who accept evolution.

Evolution is an observation (descent with modification) that is best explained by the theory of natural selection of genetic variation. There is no exclusion of God any more or less than any other scientific theory.

One may as well descibe Einstein and Newton’s theories of Gravity as being an attempt to explain how the universe could form and exist without God. It is ludicrous!

So how about that e.coli information you asked for but didn’t read and obviously do not want to deal with?

110 posted on 12/04/2012 2:09:54 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco

I did not read it.


111 posted on 12/04/2012 2:11:26 PM PST by Arthur McGowan (If you're FOR sticking scissors in a baby girl's neck and sucking out her brains, you are PRO-WOMAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

No more than one quart. Less, depending on how big the holes are.


112 posted on 12/04/2012 2:14:28 PM PST by Arthur McGowan (If you're FOR sticking scissors in a baby girl's neck and sucking out her brains, you are PRO-WOMAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

You got lucky. Apparently there were no spelling errors in your geometry books.


113 posted on 12/04/2012 2:19:57 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Evolution is an observation.

Do you really mean to say this? Tell me, What species has been "observed" to have evolved to another species? Please, just the species to species which has been observed to have evolved. Distill it to its most basic statement and leave off the superfluous.

114 posted on 12/04/2012 2:44:47 PM PST by Texas Songwriter ( i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Yes, I absolutely meant it. Speciation is not synonymous with evolution. Not all evolution results in speciation.

Biological evolution is defined as descent with modification. Seeings as how the mechanism life uses to reproduce DNA is the enzyme DNA polymerase, and it is not 100% accurate - descent with modification (evolution) is not only an observed fact - it is inevitable.

The theory that best helps to explain and predict such descent with modification is the theory of natural selection of genetic variation.

115 posted on 12/04/2012 3:12:35 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
How sad that you think there's a difference between Christian theology and Christian reality.

Sad or not it is a fact. I do not consider the WORD of God theology, it is reality.

No, it's just telling two parts of the same story. No one points at a history of WWII and a history of the battle of Midway and says they are in contradiction. If Genesis 1 describes the Creation Week and Genesis 2 describes a portion of that week, they don't contradict each other or any other part of the Bible. If they describe what you say they do, they contradict parts of the New Testament that teach individual sin as coming into the world with Adam and call him the first man.

Obviously it is not my duty to convince you that the way it is Written came from God Himself, and He did not need any of His children to macro His Words. There is no contradiction by the Creator. However, He did warn there would be consequences to any and all that changed His word. Some do so in ignorance from traditions of men others know full well what they were doing. I do not 'deny' Adam was the first flesh human that sinned. The Bible also records that the devil sinned before this flesh world/age, and is the only named entity that has already been judged to be destroyed from within forever.... a number of his followers, who refused to come through this flesh age have too been judged to eternal death. Neither action has yet taken place.

You're judging your Bible by the world's thoughts instead of the other way around.

This is real confusing. God had Moses pen in Genesis 1:26 what the livelihood for those He created on the 6th day would be. AND before He had Moses pen that He formed the Adam, God had Moses write that there was NO man to till the ground. AND recorded history agrees with what God told Moses to write. I have even read that Chinese history predates 6000 years. I wasn't there so I can't verify but I sure would not be surprised if it their history did predate 6000 years.

True, but that doesn't mean the concept is unbiblical or anti-biblical any more than the fact that you and I are communicating in a language with completely different syntax rules than Hebrew and Greek is unbiblical. The Bible does mention truth a lot, though. And it says that sin was introduced through Adam (1 Cor 15:22) and that he was the first human being. You say otherwise. Who do you think I will put my trust in?

I should have done this in my first post. My Strong's Greek dictionary says that all of the times Adam is used in the New Testament are from the same Greek word. Strong's # 76... ad-am'; Of Heb. or. [121] Adam, the first man; typ. (of Jesus) man (as his representative): -Adam.

Strong's Greek 121 ath;-o-os; from I (as a neg. particle) and a prob. der. of 5087 (mean. a penalty); not guilty: - innocent.

Now the Hebrew meaning of that word Adam is Strong's #120 aw-dawm'; from 119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):- x another, + hypocrite, + common sort, x low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

Strong's Hebrew #119 aw-dam'; to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:-be dyed, made) red (ruddy).

Interestingly David was also described as 'ruddy'. ISamuel 16:12; ISamuel 17:42.

Strong's Hebrew ruddy is #132 ad-mo-nee', or (fully) ad-mo-nee'; from 119; reddish (of the hair or the complexion): -red, ruddy.

Just a little background in what the name Adam as used in Genesis and ICorinthians actually mean.

IF the first Adam showed blood in the face we have a whole lot of quick time evolution taking place to have represented here on this earth right now all the different faces of God's children.

116 posted on 12/04/2012 3:19:38 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Yes, I absolutely meant it. Speciation is not synonymous with evolution. Not all result in speciation.

So you equate mutation with evolution of species? Just incomplete?

When you say "Not all evolution results in speciation?" Does it mean some do? So, we can communicate, you equate mutation as enough to be observed as evolution? This does not necessarily equate to evolution of species. Would it be fair to say that you believe, but have not observed , these mutations will accummulate, perhaps with geographic separations to speciation?

But it is fair that speciation has not been directly observed or do you contend that direct observation has been observed? Are you waiting for that to happen?

117 posted on 12/04/2012 4:27:15 PM PST by Texas Songwriter ( i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Speciation has been observed in fruit flies. They are still fruit flies, but a different species incapable of reproduction with the original strain.


118 posted on 12/04/2012 7:22:38 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Is this a reference to Diane Dodd’s experiment?


119 posted on 12/04/2012 8:09:37 PM PST by Texas Songwriter ( i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: metmom

for those arguing that bacteria resistance beign a form of evolution- a simple google search for “bacteria resistance is not evolution” brings up lots of scientific and biological evidence for why it is NOT evolution and nothign more than adaption- it was also shown not to long ago that bacteria that suppsoedly thrived on nylon already had the necessary coding that was simply reignitesd if you will to survive on nylon when NEEDED however the claism that the bacteria prefered nylon over natural sustanance was misleading and false- and hte scientisits finally had to own up to the fact that htey had intentionally mislead peopel to make it look like evolution was ‘taking place in the present day’

evoltuion is biologically impossible- period- not just improbale, not just highly unlikely, but IMPOSSIBLE- dirty chemicals were not able to produce the clean chemicals needed for even a hint of ‘life’ to begin- and the conditions on earth that evolutionists love to point to as making life possible was infact completely hostile and incompatible to the extrememly fragile beginnings of supposed evolution and chemical configurations as proven out by hte miller experiments which failed miserably and onlyt prove that it was not possible to create and sustain the right sided amino acids in order to ‘get the eovlutionary ball moving’ without some very serious and very intelligent artifically controlled circumstances which ARE NOT possible in nature-


120 posted on 12/04/2012 10:02:46 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

Lot of reason why the FDA bad drug hot line has no human to answer it, a lot of seniors are still not computer literate, a lot of them I know do not own one or want one.

I spent 3.5 days in the bathroom, then tripped into Vertigo then into Meniere’s and ER run for pain and dehydration even though I drank lots of water flavored with cranberry juice or lemonade. Then on to the ENT who changed my meds, and that set off another round or reactions. 9 lb weight loss in 1 month. And I can’t afford to lose any more for my height or health.

I reamed out Sen Corker’s office quite well on this, his girl went through the procedure and never found a human. Flustered her as it did me. I don’t down load gov’t forms biggest place to pick up virus, bugs etc for your computer. If they can hack the Pentagon, they can hack any thing.

According to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JF7TcPsmvI medical field is responsible for one third of all deaths in the US.


121 posted on 12/05/2012 5:25:05 AM PST by GailA (those who do not keep promises to Military, won't keep them to U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: metmom; allmendream; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; xzins; editor-surveyor; P-Marlowe; MHGinTN; TXnMA; ..
AMD: "People who don't accept that bacteria are capable of evolutionary change are less likely to understand science and thus use antibiotics correctly — and so they are more likely to contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistance."

metmom: "Variation within species, [is] not *evolutionary change.*"

It seems to me that AMD's comment is an exercise in circular reasoning from an unexamined premise, while metmom's comment gives us something to think about. For it seems that, to a Darwinist, all change is "evolutionary" (and thus is to be regarded as a progressive development in terms of species [group] survival). But this is an untested — and untestable — presupposition.

BTW, how did an article on the age of the earth get turned into a defense of Darwin's theory — by, e.g., allmendream and tacticalogic?

I am not "anti-science." I strongly doubt metmom is "anti-science." I think it may be fair to say, however, that both of us are "anti-scientism." That is to say, we deplore abuses of science.

Let that go for now, and return to the subject of the article at the top, the age of the earth.

I for one have no difficulty with the scientific finding — inferred from data extrapolated from observations of the Cosmic Background Radiation — that the universe is ~15 billion years old. The Earth system was seemingly a late development, with an estimated age of 4.5 billion years. Within the Earth system, it took another several billion years before the first life forms emerged.

At the same time, I find nothing in the above understanding that conflicts with the Genesis account of Creation.

For while Genesis tells us that the Lord made the whole Creation in six days, we have absolutely no idea of how "long" a "day" is for God; for He is entirely outside of space and time as we humans know/experience it.

Note the interesting juxtaposition of "long" (which refers to spatial extension), and "day" (which refers to a temporal unit). Einstein "unified" space and time, giving us a new concept, spacetime. Provided it is true that the "universal speed limit" is C — the speed of light — then it seems this unification holds up.

The quantum world tells us something likewise:

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10–20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds. [see here]

These statements implicitly recognize a beginning of the Universe. At the same time, they show the Limit that the human mind runs up against when it seeks to understand cosmological origins. To put it bluntly, we do not "see" as God sees: We are utterly captured within the order of spacetime; God is not. The eternal, timeless God sees the "all that there is" from outside the category of spacetime.

So if He tells us He made the Universe in six days, I'm sure from His vantage point, that is entirely true. From our (materialist, reductionist, time-bound) vantage point, such a declaration seems, if not utterly false, then simply unintelligible.

I don''t know what it is with Darwinists, but it seems that they regard the simplest bacterium as the "Rosetta Stone" that yields insight and understanding of all biological organisms. What is "true" about this single-cell crittur applies equally to the most complex biological system in Nature, Man: So once you understand the bacterium and its processes, then you know all you need to know about any biological organism, including Man.

What idiocy!

For in addition to creating the world, God made it intelligible; and created human minds capable of appreciating its intelligibility.

Indeed, this is the fundamental premise of science, without which there would be no science.

Also, it has been pointed out that reason and logic themselves have an irreducibly non-natural element. As Alfred North Whitehead famously pointed out, mental functionings are not completely explained or determined by natural processes alone. If they were, we'd have no warrant for believing they are true. If natural processes are the result of "random flux," then how can logic and reason — which are universals — derive from them?

Thus here is a "lethal self-contradiction" in applying evolutionary theory to the understanding of human cognitive capabilities that can only, in the words of Thomas Nagel, undermine our confidence in them.

But the silly reporter who baited Marco Rubio with a stupid question, the significance of which he does not himself understand, pretty much tells you how idiotic the public discourse has become where scientific issues are involved, and GOP "targets" are at hand.

Marco needs to learn to handle himself better when targeted by such stupid attacks.

JMHO FWIW.

Thanks for the ping, metmom, my dear sister in Christ — and thank you for your outstanding analysis of AMD's "challenge" to you.

122 posted on 12/07/2012 1:09:39 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Cool! Thank you!

Seems that creationists have a better grasp on physics than evos do.


123 posted on 12/07/2012 1:15:27 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
You have your threads confused.

This thread actually IS about biological evolution, not the age of the Earth.

The Rubio age of the Earth thread is a different one.

Yes, all change in living systems from one generation to the next is evolution - evolution is defined as descent with modification.

Creationism is anti-science, and useless. Presupposing supernatural causation to explain physical phenomena leads nowhere and to nothing - it is of no use in further discovery or application.

As to the actual science - the supposition that all variation is there from the beginning can be (and has been) tested - and it FAILS that test.

Please familiarize yourself with the e.coli experiment. They started with twelve identical populations, DNA sequenced them, and expanded them. They have derived variations that DID NOT EXIST in the original population.

Thus, if one is open to evidence, the idea that all variation had to be created from the beginning must be definitively REJECTED.

But if one was open to evidence they wouldn't be a creationist.

So can shoddy use of antibiotics give rise, through evolutionary change, to antibiotic resistant populations?

YES!

And the denial of that by creationists is not just useless, it is dangerous - because their ignorant behavior can put us all at risk.

124 posted on 12/07/2012 1:22:20 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
“BTW, how did an article on the age of the earth get turned into a defense of Darwin's theory — by, e.g., allmendream and tacticalogic?” betty boop

As to how the thread on Rubio and the age of the Earth got on the subject of biological evolution.

Post #6 spoke of the “evolutionist lie”.

Post #24 pointed out that geology isn't evolution.

My first post pointed out that ALL science is “evolution” when it disagrees with a creationist, as defined by creationists. Thus geology is “evolution”, astronomy is “evolution”, physics is “evolution” - just as soon as the results rub the creationist the wrong way - by rubbing their nose in just how wrong they are!

So that is how THAT thread went from being about the age of the Earth to being about “evolution” - because creationists apparently have a very hard time keeping the subjects separate.

125 posted on 12/07/2012 1:33:06 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
BTW, how did an article on the age of the earth get turned into a defense of Darwin's theory — by, e.g., allmendream and tacticalogic?

I haven't been following this thread, so I'm not sure what that's about. There were some comments on another thread to the effect that the physicists are in cahoots with the biologists but mostly it stayed on topic. I don't recall getting involved in any discussion about Darwin or ToE there.

126 posted on 12/07/2012 1:39:25 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; xzins; editor-surveyor; P-Marlowe; MHGinTN; TXnMA; ..
Creationism is anti-science, and useless. Presupposing supernatural causation to explain physical phenomena leads nowhere and to nothing — it is of no use in further discovery or application.

"Creationism" is the very ground on which science stands.

An intelligible universe that contains intelligent minds capable of understanding the universe simply does not happen by "natural" accident.

Physical, material phenomena would do exactly nothing if left to their own devices. They would just be "random" phenomena, unless a natural law "tells" them what to do.

Otherwise we wouldn't even "see" them.

If you have a "natural law," (or a moral law for that matter) you have what philosophy calls a "universal." It is totally illogical to suppose that a universal — which by definition is timeless — can be the product or outcome of "random" material developments over time.

Which is essentially what Darwin's theory says. But then it is in the awkward position of explaining how its new "natural law," called "natural selection," got into the picture. Is "natural selection" itself but an evolutionary development?

A universal law is NOT the same sort of thing as a material phenomenon. They are two entirely and radically different types of being. The first never changes; the second is always changing. And the fact is that the "measure" of change logically can only be provided by comparison to that which does not change.

So, where is your ground of Truth, the criterion by which you make judgments about the phenomena of natural Reality — if not in the realm of the super-natural, the super-material? To which realm both reason and logic themselves belong — for they are universals, too.

If universals are not "natural" phenomena, then they must be — as you put it — supernatural. There's no other possible logical explanation.

And yes, dear AMD, I did get confused about the two threads. Sorry for my mistake!

127 posted on 12/07/2012 2:33:23 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: MrB; allmendream; Alamo-Girl
You’re the fish in the water not knowing he’s wet.

Yep, Mr. B: That's about the size of it!

Very well said.

128 posted on 12/07/2012 2:35:25 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I haven’t been involved in this thread, and really don’t have time to take it up right now.


129 posted on 12/07/2012 2:42:47 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

So are you ready to accept the evidence that variation in a population can arise where it did not exist before?

Or are you going to deny the obvious evidence that such a supposition is ‘all wet’?

Sorry, no science stands on the ground that supernatural causation is the explanation for physical phenomena.

Why do you suppose that if something is random it is out of the control of God? Do you think HIS power stops at the casino door? Read the Bible.

The lots are cast into the lap - but every result is from the Lord.


130 posted on 12/07/2012 2:42:47 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; metmom; tacticalogic; xzins; editor-surveyor; P-Marlowe; MHGinTN; TXnMA; ..
Why do you suppose that if something is random it is out of the control of God? Do you think HIS power stops at the casino door?

Your observation, or "metaphor" would be spot-on, dear AMD, were it not for the fact that, as Einstein noted, "God does not play dice."

You claim to be a Christian. And yet you deny God has an active, ongoing role in this universe. That is to say, He is not only not Creator, but also not active Sustainer of all He created as well — from Alpha to Omega.

But since He does not show up in your "experiments," therefore, on your crackpot logic, He does not exist.

You effectively make yourself the very measure of God here.

Why on earth do you think that is a good idea?

131 posted on 12/07/2012 5:45:19 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

132 posted on 12/07/2012 5:48:25 PM PST by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Are you sure dice are random?


133 posted on 12/07/2012 6:06:31 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
"Are you sure dice are random?"

Can you provide any data that say dice are not "random"?

134 posted on 12/07/2012 8:19:12 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; betty boop
Why do you suppose that if something is random it is out of the control of God? Do you think HIS power stops at the casino door? Read the Bible.

So you're ready to accept that God works by invading the material and manipulating the natural, material when it comes to craps, but not when it comes to weather or life?

Make up your mind, will you?

135 posted on 12/07/2012 8:31:13 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Mules are "incapable of reproduction with the original strain[s]".

Are mules "a new species" - or an evolutionary failure?

136 posted on 12/07/2012 8:35:29 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I can’t help but wonder if anyone has tested these “superbugs” for resistance to “obsolete” drugs — such as the sulfa drugs that saved many GIs’ lives in WWII...


137 posted on 12/07/2012 8:38:53 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono
It's amazing the lies that can be told by means of Photoshop.

Did you have some larger point you'd like to make, JoeProBono?

138 posted on 12/07/2012 9:08:45 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Can you provide any data that say dice are not "random"?

No. Can you provide the data necessary to prove that they are?

139 posted on 12/08/2012 3:13:53 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: metmom; allmendream; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl
So you're ready to accept that God works by invading the material and manipulating the natural, material when it comes to craps, but not when it comes to weather or life?

Great catch, dear sister in Christ!

I have noticed that folks enamored of Darwin's theory tend not to be systematic, logical thinkers. Lots of passion there, though.

Thank you ever so much, dear metmom, for your astute observation!

140 posted on 12/09/2012 11:49:07 AM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

It’s not like anything was ever described as “random” because whoever was describing it didn’t recognize, or have enough data to establish a pattern.


141 posted on 12/09/2012 11:58:00 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom; MrTed; MrB; Alamo-Girl; allmendream; TXnMA; MHGinTN; YHAOS; hosepipe
It’s not like anything was ever described as “random” because whoever was describing it didn’t recognize, or have enough data to establish a pattern.

To me, dear tacticalogic, to even use the word "random" is tantamount to a confession of "what we don't know."

Thus all the "random" in the world cannot establish a "pattern" in principle.

Do you believe that only scientific "data" can reveal "patterns?"

Why don't you just try your eyes: The world itself reveals "pattern." And where you see "patterns," you are probably looking at the outworking of natural laws.

Where do you suppose natural (physical & moral) laws come from? If they were the result of an "evolutionary process," then they couldn't be "laws" in principle.

142 posted on 12/09/2012 12:34:52 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Allowing that could lead to the perception that saying evolution is the result of “random” mutations could just be a misconception resulting from insufficient data, rather than an intentional, calculated act of malevolence against your religious beliefs.


143 posted on 12/09/2012 1:10:13 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; marron; Alamo-Girl; allmendream; joanie-f; metmom; hosepipe; TXnMA; MHGinTN; YHAOS; ..
Allowing that could lead to the perception that saying evolution is the result of “random” mutations could just be a misconception resulting from insufficient data, rather than an intentional, calculated act of malevolence against your religious beliefs.

My "religious beliefs" are not the main driver of my stated objections, dear tacticalogic. Nor do I believe you've said anything that "attacks" them.

Unless one wants to call Socrates' sense of "cosmic piety" a religious belief. Or Einstein's characterization of the Creator of the Universe as "the Old Man" a religious belief. Both these men have been profoundly influential on the way I think about the world I live in and its problems.

However, for the record, my religious beliefs are mainly RC. But I am not interjecting Catholic theology per se into my criticism of Darwin's theory.

Rather than agree with me, that "random" means "something we don't (and perhaps can't) know," you suggest this problem is tractable, provided we find a way that shows —on the basis of a sufficient number (how many???) of "observations" made and subsequently analyzed, in "real time" — if we're just patient enuf — perhaps eons of time are involved here — "random" will finally "resolve itself" (by what principle???) so to enlighten mankind as to how it IS possible to have an ordered universe arise from total disorder, all by its own bootstraps.

Sorry. Still sounds like a fairy tale to me.

Dear tacticalogic, you are a longtime colleague and collaborator, and I thank you for your conversations that, I have not the least doubt, have always been conducted in the spirit of good faith and good will.

May God ever bless you and your loved ones!

144 posted on 12/09/2012 3:32:00 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Rather than agree with me, that "random" means "something we don't (and perhaps can't) know," you suggest this problem is tractable, provided we find a way that shows —on the basis of a sufficient number (how many???) of "observations" made and subsequently analyzed, in "real time" — if we're just patient enuf — perhaps eons of time are involved here — "random" will finally "resolve itself" (by what principle???) so to enlighten mankind as to how it IS possible to have an ordered universe arise from total disorder, all by its own bootstraps.

Doesn't "something we don't (and perhaps can't) know," not imply that it is also "something we don't (but perhaps can) know"? Historically, hasn't this always been the pattern? What at first appears to be random and unexplainable becomes predictable and explainable as we accumulate and corelate observations and deduce the patterns of cause and effect involved?

145 posted on 12/09/2012 4:08:11 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; TXnMA; betty boop; Alamo-Girl

[[ Can you provide any data that say dice are not “random”? / No. Can you provide the data necessary to prove that they are? ]]

I can.... Dice can be and usually are LOADED..

Random is a perception.. based on faith.. faith that the dice are not loaded..
Loaded by the religious or the non-religious..

The data proves that dice can be loaded..
If they are not “the House” always wins anyway...
Then the “game” is loaded.. even with “pure” dice..

Many use the word “random” like Vizzini uses the word “inconceivable” in Princess Bride the movie..

They seem to not know what it means..


146 posted on 12/09/2012 4:22:31 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Random is a perception.. based on faith.. faith that the dice are not loaded.. Loaded by the religious or the non-religious..

That's what passes for data?

147 posted on 12/09/2012 4:24:50 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; betty boop

[ That’s what passes for data? ]

No.. if you can “know” what random “IS” then it is no longer random!...
destroying the meaning of the word..

Random is like the word infinite.. words describing the unknowable..
They are like..... UNDATA.. or question marks..

Humans seem to HATE Undata.. they refuse to “embrace” the UNdata..
And use words like spirit, god, devine.. theory... even Utopia..
Unicorns are a stretch but I like the concept.. for artistic reasons..


148 posted on 12/09/2012 4:42:40 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
I'm not going to do your work for you. Go here:

http://www.random.org/dice/

and generate your own data. And be sure to let us know if you develop data that "prove" that dice are NOT random...

149 posted on 12/09/2012 9:40:29 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
And be sure to let us know if you develop data that "prove" that dice are NOT random...

I'll just note that you want me to have to prove a negative.

150 posted on 12/10/2012 3:42:54 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson