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 last
To: hosepipe

If, within the limits of statistical capabilities, one can establish that there is no pattern, then random is the appropriate descriptive word. Where statistical analysis is not reliably applied, then the use of random is subjective.


151 posted on 12/10/2012 7:32:02 AM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I don't think every dice roll implies divine intervention in order for God to know beforehand and be in total control of every result.

God need not “invade” the material world via miracle in order to be in control of and have for-knowledge of the material world.

Now what do you think of the e.coli experiment that destroys your presupposition that every useful variation had to be present in the population from the beginning?

152 posted on 12/10/2012 10:34:46 AM 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 135 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
So you take Einstein, who was pretty much a Deist, over the Bible in this regard?

God is not “playing” dice if God knows beforehand every result.

The Bible says that the every result of a random drawing of lots is “from the Lord” - but you prefer to take Einstein's comment about his dissatisfaction with Quantum Mechanics over the Bible. Interesting.

You claim to be a Christian and yet take the word of Einstein over the word of God? /s

Amazing that at its core the basic creationist argument is that science = atheism and that nobody who disagrees with their ideas could possibly be a Christian.

Now are you ready to admit reality that in the e.coli experiment the useful variations derived were NOT present in the original population?

Your inability to admit reality, or learn anything about a subject you have discussed for years - really speaks volumes!

153 posted on 12/10/2012 10:40:44 AM 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 131 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; tacticalogic; metmom; TXnMA
So you take Einstein, who was pretty much a Deist, over the Bible in this regard?

Jeepers, AMD, I didn't realize that Einstein was a "Deist." I rather thought he was a Platonist. HUGE difference there!

On the facts of his biography, Einstein was a non-observant Jew who passionately identified himself with "The Tribe" all his life, and made constant references to "The Old Man" as the creative and organizational principle of the universe.

You wrote: God is not “playing” dice if God knows beforehand every result.

Well of course, dear AMD, that is the entire point: "God does not play dice" because He doesn't have to: He already knows all things, all at once (so to speak), from "outside" the order of His Creation.

But we humans, captured within the net of space and time (so to speak), do not know as God knows, or what He knows from His Eternal Now.

You wrote: The Bible says that the every result of a random drawing of lots is “from the Lord” — but you prefer to take Einstein's comment about his dissatisfaction with Quantum Mechanics over the Bible.

Jeepers, AMD, that's a wild conclusion to leap to! I gather what troubled Einstein about QM was the "problem" of non-local causation. He was an exponent of Newton's elegant model of mechanics, which holds that all causation is local, the result of near-neighbor relations of bodies possessing mass. I do not at all see what this issue has to do with the Holy Scriptures: The Bible is not a scientific text, and it isn't primarily interested in "massive bodies"; it is interested in souls.

You also wrote this, which to me is a total canard:

Amazing that at its core the basic creationist argument is that science = atheism and that nobody who disagrees with their ideas could possibly be a Christian.

This is news to me, a lower-case-"c" creationist, and a Christian: I do not equate science with atheism. There are simply too many theist scientists in history to disprove that holding — including Newton. (Also, e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Gallileo, Mendel, LeMaitre, etc., etc.)

You asked: "Now are you ready to admit reality that in the e.coli experiment the useful variations derived were NOT present in the original population?"

The fact that useful variations were not present in the original population, but arose "later," doesn't tell me much about any actual causal linkage between the former and the latter, which can only be subjectively inferred. (This is where the doctrine of natural selection comes from.)

But are our inferences necessarily "true?" Or are they more like "more-or-less-likely stories" that cover up our ignorance, thus to make us "feel better" in a world that we increasingly experience as hostile?

Because increasingly, the world is Godless?

Thank you so much for sharing your views, dear allmendream! God bless!

154 posted on 12/10/2012 11:47:34 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 153 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Where do you think the useful variations (including the ability to metabolize citric acid) came from?

It was obviously NOT in the original population. They DNA sequenced the e.coli that gave rise to the twelve populations that they then let develop independently. The useful variations that arose in those twelve populations were NOT in the original e.coli that gave rise to those twelve populations.

So where did it come from?

Are you ready to admit reality? Are you ready to admit that it was NOT in the original population?

The supposition that all useful variations were created from the beginning CAN be tested. It was tested - it FAILED that test. But I guess asking a creationist to accept evidence that contradicts their presuppositions is, evidently, asking WAY too much!

And accepting that e.coli can develop useful variations that did not previously exist in their direct ancestry is in no way “Godless” - but it is illustrative of why you have a major roadblock to accepting evidence that runs contrary to what you think about God, and thus why you have failed to actually learn anything about a subject you have discussed for years.

155 posted on 12/10/2012 12:24:15 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 154 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; tacticalogic; marron; metmom; TXnMA; hosepipe; xzins; spirited irish; ...
DNA sequenced the e.coli that gave rise to the twelve populations that they then let develop independently. The useful variations that arose in those twelve populations were NOT in the original e.coli that gave rise to those twelve populations.... So where did it come from?... Are you ready to admit reality? Are you ready to admit that it was NOT in the original population?

But I have ALREADY ADMITTED the possibility that "The useful variations that arose in those twelve populations were NOT in the original e.coli that gave rise to those twelve populations."

I have no dispute whatsoever that Nature constantly "reconfigures" herself.

The question is: By what means, and to what end???

I do not believe in the least that Darwin has proposed any "rational" solution to this problem. I.e., the problem of biological speciation, let alone origin.

FWIW.

156 posted on 12/10/2012 2:31:29 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 155 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Ok, well it is nice that you admit reality.

Too bad the same cannot be said for the many who claim that any such useful variations had to be there from the beginning.

Darwin's theory of natural selection of genetic variation is a useful and predictive theory in regards to predicting and explaining what happened with this e.coli experiment.

You may find it unconvincing about the origins of life - something this theory has no capacity to explain and is not at all covered by the theory - and no wonder!

As for speciation - do you think every single species that presently exists could FIT on the Ark? If not then you accept speciation.

What theory are you going to use to explain the speciation that has been observed and that must be inferred if all current species derived from those species that could fit on the Ark?

What theory explains it?

157 posted on 12/10/2012 2:52:50 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 156 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; tacticalogic; marron; metmom; TXnMA; xzins; spirited irish

I’m always amazed by people that like to read “GODs” mind..
Some taking the “bible” as a psycological primer to God mind reading..

It seems to me that for 20 people reading the bible honestly you can come up with 20 different images of whats going on.. Says a lot for “the book” that this is so.. Where Jesus is never proved to have recommended bible reading.. Not that there many bibles to even read then.. or many people that could even read.. most all couldn’t..

Which is why I deduced there are many bible worshippers out there.. Not turning to the Holy Spirit as Jesus recommmend but turning to the bible instead.. Not that the exploits and opinions of the writers of the bible are flawed but that the books of the bible are merely “testimonys” of a few “believers”.. Course some say that having an “invisible friend”(Holy Spirit) is a mistake as well..

How could a lump of flesh read Gods mind anyway?.. If there is no God “we” all are in a heap of trouble I would say.. My preference is that there is a God.. Merely a preference cause I cannot prove it.. Could be thats my greatest asset.. being able to take a “leap of faith”.. and it is a leap...

Excusing that I actually have had a “VISION”.. from “someone” “somewhere”.. I choose to call the Holy Spirit.. Since the Holy Spirit has no actual “name” I cannot “bag” him/it... I must merely accept the “experience”.. and what an experience it was/is... I learned things I didn’t even have the intelligence to ask the right questions about..

A Hallucination?.. maybe, maybe not.. it was sure real to me.. What I learned “there” seems to be becoming more and more real every day.. Heck I know of no one that even read MY MIND..

One of the things I learned (( WAS ))..... Everything is happening exactly as it is supposed to.. Everything on this planet is totally is under control.. Might not seem like it to ME desireing other things to happen.. But it is.. GOD is in control.. Men are blessing and curseing themselves on their own.. Which is “What we are HERE for”... Spirits here for a human experience.. NOT humans here for a spiritual experience.. AND everything is proceeding just the way it is supposed to.. Perfect..

Is God KOOL or what?..


158 posted on 12/10/2012 4:46:59 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I have no dispute whatsoever that Nature constantly "reconfigures" herself.

Nor do I. For me, discussions about speciation (and even possible theories about the generation of life) are discussions about the nuts-and-bolts "how" of creation. For me this stuff is enormously fascinating, but I seldom do more than lurk and read along. I readily admit the science guys (and the philosophers) are a lot smarter than me on the subject.

Some people look at an apparently automatic process and see a self-directed system; others marvel at the formula and the princple that undergirds it, and the marvelous intelligence behind it all. The more they discover about the nuts and bolts of creation, the more I marvel.

The "who" of creation is a settled issue for me. Once you know God that issue rather evaporates. The "why" of it I look forward to seeing unfold as eternity itself unfolds.

159 posted on 12/10/2012 6:10:03 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
It seems to me that for 20 people reading the bible honestly you can come up with 20 different images of whats going on.. Says a lot for “the book” that this is so..

There are a lot of layers. The more you live, the more things you see. Some of which you can express and some you keep to yourself I think. Some don't rise to the level of words.

Is God KOOL or what?..

Amen brother.

160 posted on 12/10/2012 6:17:02 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: marron; Alamo-Girl; allmendream; tacticalogic; xzins; metmom; spirited irish; TXnMA; YHAOS; ...
Some people look at an apparently automatic process and see a self-directed system; others marvel at the formula and the principle that undergirds it, and the marvelous intelligence behind it all. The more they discover about the nuts and bolts of creation, the more I marvel.

I marvel too, dear brother in Christ!

I marvel "at the formula and the principle that undergirds it, and the marvelous intelligence behind it all" — which alone accounts for why Nature "constantly 'reconfigures' herself" in lawful ways.

Which answers one of Leibniz's two great questions, "Why are things the way they are, not some other way?"

His other great question was: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?" The answer to this question is arguably entirely beyond the competence of science. That is, a methodology based on direct observation has no means to address this question in principle. For no one has ever seen "nothing," better put "no-thing." This concept indicates more than simple "absence" or "empty space"....

So, I'm glad for the work of the "nuts and bolts" guys of science. It seems they mainly engage in "the instrumentalization of Nature," and their work has produced amazing benefits for mankind — but also some amazing risks.

If Nature were "lawless," or random in her deportment, she would be immune from such "instrumentalization" by scientists. This seems to be the point that orthodox evolutionists are always trying to forget.

In conclusion, I entirely agree with your statement:

The "who" of creation is a settled issue for me. Once you know God that issue rather evaporates. The "why" of it I look forward to seeing unfold as eternity itself unfolds.

Amen!!!

Thank you so very much for your penetrating insights — May God ever bless you, dear brother in Christ!

161 posted on 12/11/2012 12:16:54 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 159 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
in lawful ways

Who's making the law that draws a "red line" in taxonomy that says "nothing can reconfigure itself beyond this line."

162 posted on 12/11/2012 12:24:41 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; marron; joanie-f; xzins; allmendream
Who's making the law that draws a "red line" in taxonomy that says "nothing can reconfigure itself beyond this line."

Why, GOD IS the lawgiver here, dear tacticalogic. Where else did you think universal law could possibly come from?

Or do you believe that "finite man" creates universal law? Methinks he only discovers it. Universal law exists quite independently of human desire and will. And man is inescapably subject to it.

One can only "opt out of it", in the unreality of "one's dreams."

FWIW.

163 posted on 12/11/2012 2:12:59 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 162 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Where is this "law" that says an organism can adapt to it's environment, but cannot cross that line we've created that says it is a new species? Everybody agrees adaptation happens. It only falls into disagreement when it's submitted that adaptation can manifest itself in a way that makes an organism cross that line that makes them a new species. That's our taxonomy, not God's.
164 posted on 12/11/2012 2:22:26 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: marron; betty boop
marron, you are an unfailing blessing.
165 posted on 12/12/2012 11:57:55 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Or do you believe that "finite man" creates universal law? Methinks he only discovers it. Universal law exists quite independently of human desire and will. And man is inescapably subject to it.

SO very true, dearest sister in Christ!

Another example: geometric form, e.g. circles, exist and the geometer merely comes along and discovers it.

166 posted on 12/14/2012 9:57:56 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; TXnMA
Another example: geometric form, e.g. circles, exist and the geometer merely comes along and discovers it.

This would be the view of the mathematical Platonist (e.g., Einstein, Tegmark), in contradistinction to the view of the mathematical Formalist (e.g., Hilbert, Russell).

If I had to describe the principal difference between these two foundational mathematical "philosophies": Mathematical Platonism assumes the nature of universal reality is "given," and explores it on such terms. Mathematical Formalism assumes there is nothing "given"; that man creates the reality he explores as he goes along, via abstract methods.

Which usually don't work. See: Hilbert's attempt to reduce mathematical language to its syntactical elements only, in the attempt to remove all semantical elements by reducing them to syntactical structures.

To put it another way, both Hilbert and the great Bertrand Russell found axiomatic expressions perfect examples of "circular reasoning" — detestable impredicativities that could not be expressed at all in "yes/no," "true/false," "0/1" mathematical language. In Hilbert's formalism, they needed to find a way of expression in purely syntactical terms.

But then Kurt Gödel showed up, and demonstrated the sheer logical impossibility of trying to remove semantics by re-expressing them in terms of syntax only.

[Syntax refers to the rules of the road (so to speak) of any given language, preeminently including the universal language of mathematics; semantics carries meaning in any given language, the successful communication of which is highly dependent on there being agreed-upon "rules-of-the-road."]

It seems to me Platonists take the "long view" of the universe: They see it as something they are born into and depart from, in due course. It is what it is before they got here; and will be the same after they depart. In short, they recognize themselves as parts and participants in a vast cosmic enterprise.

On the other hand, for the Formalists, it seems the universe didn't begin until the day they were born, and will be extinguished on the day that they die. They don't consider themselves as "parts and participants" of it, but as the very lawgivers that determine and run it, via their sui-generis "creative" acts....

Looks to me like the birthplace of a Second Reality.... FWIW.

Thank you so very much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

167 posted on 12/15/2012 11:59:04 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 166 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
It seems to me Platonists take the "long view" of the universe: They see it as something they are born into and depart from, in due course. It is what it is before they got here; and will be the same after they depart. In short, they recognize themselves as parts and participants in a vast cosmic enterprise.

On the other hand, for the Formalists, it seems the universe didn't begin until the day they were born, and will be extinguished on the day that they die. They don't consider themselves as "parts and participants" of it, but as the very lawgivers that determine and run it, via their sui-generis "creative" acts....

I couldn't agree with you more, dearest sister in Christ!

Looks to me like the birthplace of a Second Reality.... FWIW.

And I believe you just hit the nail on the head. The popularity of second realities may likely have sprung from man's desire to be his own "god."

168 posted on 12/15/2012 8:33:29 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]


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