Churches rejecting science altogether

  • Thread starter Thread starter PerfectTiming
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
Citation of published research, please.
Click to expand...
Looking up the story in the New York Times quickly leads to a reference of a journal article abstract at sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2J-51N7RRD-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F08%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=483d469f2c83752f3cb690103df8bbdf&searchtype=a

Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents

Purchase $ 31.50

John W. Pilleya, , and Alliston K. Reidb, ,
a 101 Seal St., Spartanburg, SC 29301, USA
b Department of Psychology, Wofford College, 429N. Church St., Spartanburg, SC 29303, USA
Received 6 August 2010; revised 16 September 2010; accepted 30 November 2010. Available online 8 December 2010.
 
When I hear about all the apparent similarities between man and monkey, I’m actually a little surprised at all the differences that exist between them. I should think with so much genome sameness that monkeys and humans would have more in common.

Monkeys, for instance, cannot speak and the have neither the ability for language nor the correct brain anatomy to learn speech; monkeys cannot build the institutions that provide medical care to help their fellow monkeys out - or even have the knowledge to create a single tool needed to build these institutions for care; the body chemistry of monkeys is different from humans; and monkeys feet look like hands and they walk on their knuckles.
 
shoe said:
When I hear about all the apparent similarities between man and monkey, I’m actually a little surprised at all the differences that exist between them. I should think with so much genome sameness that monkeys and humans would have more in common.

Monkeys, for instance, cannot speak and the have neither the ability for language nor the correct brain anatomy to learn speech; monkeys cannot build the institutions that provide medical care to help their fellow monkeys out - or even have the knowledge to create a single tool needed to build these institutions for care; the body chemistry of monkeys is different from humans; and monkeys feet look like hands and they walk on their knuckles.
Click to expand...
Monkeys cannot speak because their voice box is not built the same way. But chimps and gorillas have both shown the ability to learn language through signing. Further, apes in the wild do organizes themselves, showing some type of communication (even dogs communicate through body language as well as bark intonations.).

Monkeys do use tools, and do rudimentary refining of tools. There are random instances of apes that walk upright basically all the time (one was even recently on the news recently) but their hips and legs are different.

Some differences in species may not be genetic. Recent studies show that animals that mature differently can actually have very similar DNA, but the difference in hormones causes a difference in DNA interpretation leading to the synthesis of different proteins. Some people speculate that man is the way he is in part because of the difference in the maturation process - even though the DNA is largely similar.

I can see if I can find this for you, but I believe it was a Russian biologist who decided to test this theory by breeding Siberian wolves. He took a few, and allowed only the most docile males and females to breed. He occasionally brought in fresh wolves to replenish the gene pool. He bred them, if I recall correctly, for 20 generations.

At the end what he had were still genetically Siberian wolves, but they were much smaller, with floppy ears, spots and acted domesticated. If you didn’t know that they were wolves, you’d think they were dogs. And what he found of interest is that these traits arose from breeding them toward being docile.

So it’s not just DNA. Stuff happens in the interpretation of DNA that makes everything a bit less clear.
 
kbachler said:
Humans are animals. We clearly are not plants or fungus. Forget Darwin, just look at the entities. Ask your doctor next time you visit if you are an animal. Be open to the truth.

The misinformation you quoted in this thread on macro-evolution is known to be incorrect, and is generally a misuse of the term macro-evolution. Interspecial change has been witnessed. We have also witnessed that some speciation derives from “immature development” of an animal - a change in protein synthesis rather than in DNA. (DNA messages are interpreted differently rather than changed.) As mutuation then occurs speciation occurs. Dogs and wolves appear to be an example of this.
Click to expand...
Well, kbachler,

You are entitled to your interpretation of the data, to justify you opinion.
I don’t forget the evolutionists god-man Charles Darwin, who is a false Christ that misleads many people.
His books were philosophical treatises, not biology text books.
Believe me, their are atheists and skeptics who glorify Charles Darwin like we glorify St. Peter or Christ Jesus himself.
Go see for yourself at the Bad Astronomy web site. Go there, ask them about Charles Darwin. Ask them how they rate him.

There are other posters here who give links to substantiate their assertions about what science says. I wish you would do the same for your quoted post.

God does love you,
Don
 
Hi, All,

First, one basic difference between humans and animals demonstrates humans designing, manufacturing, selling and wearing clothing.
Animals have not been observed, nor reported, to have designed clothing.
Animals have not been observed, nor reported, to make more items than for an individual animal’s use. IE, even primates do not design and manufacture great numbers of items for sale or trading.
Animals have not been observed, nor reported, buying and putting on clothes. Animals have been observed wearing the clothes which humans have designed, manufactured and sold to the other human which dressed the animal in said clothes.
A synopsis of the above states, humans dress themselves in clothing and animals don’t.

So, I respectfully submit that the above difference and inferences plainly drawn from that difference describes a great division between humans and primates. As well as the same great division between humans and other animals.

With this difference and its inferences in mind, I respectfully repeat, all protests to the contrary not withstanding: humans are not animals.

God loves all of you,
Don
 
shoe said:
When I hear about all the apparent similarities between man and monkey, I’m actually a little surprised at all the differences that exist between them. I should think with so much genome sameness that monkeys and humans would have more in common.

Monkeys, for instance, cannot speak and the have neither the ability for language nor the correct brain anatomy to learn speech; monkeys cannot build the institutions that provide medical care to help their fellow monkeys out - or even have the knowledge to create a single tool needed to build these institutions for care; the body chemistry of monkeys is different from humans; and monkeys feet look like hands and they walk on their knuckles.
Click to expand...
There is not as much genome sameness between monkeys and humans as commonly believed.

nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Peace,
Ed
 
kbachler said:
Looking up the story in the New York Times quickly leads to a reference of a journal article abstract at sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2J-51N7RRD-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F08%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=483d469f2c83752f3cb690103df8bbdf&searchtype=a

Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents

Purchase $ 31.50

John W. Pilleya, , and Alliston K. Reidb, ,
a 101 Seal St., Spartanburg, SC 29301, USA
b Department of Psychology, Wofford College, 429N. Church St., Spartanburg, SC 29303, USA
Received 6 August 2010; revised 16 September 2010; accepted 30 November 2010. Available online 8 December 2010.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this interesting and useful link. I am especially interested in your interpretation of the data.

Regarding thread topic: Churches rejecting science altogether.
I suggest rereading post 1.
Teaching or even implying that science is something evil is seriously detrimental to children’s education especially in the area of critical thinking. Children should be learning how to question. Isn’t that one of the goals of science? We question in order to seek information.

I did not read all 12 pages of the link in post 219. Nonetheless, the beginning can demonstrate what kind of questions need to be asked. The abstract identifies the subject of 4 experiments as Chaser, an extremely bright border collie.

The first question is how do border collies rate on the intelligence scale? How developed is this breed’s sentience? What are all the positive qualities?

What is interesting to me is that United States Border Collie Club, Inc. (USBCC). is dedicated to preserving the border collie as a working stock dog as opposed to the showing, judging, and breeding of Border Collies based upon their appearance. The USBCC promotes careful breeding for the preservation of working ability and the avoidance of genetic defects. One of their aims is to give people a better understanding and appreciation of the traditional Border Collie bred for work. In other words, these particular dogs are smart from the get-go.

According to the research paper, “Border Collie Comprehends Object Names as Verbal Referents”, Chaser is a registered female Border Collie. She was acquired when she was 8 weeks old and lived in the researcher’s home primarily as a pet as well as a research subject."

In other words, Chaser started life in a loving environment which is good for dog development as well as for child development. Interestingly, this paper refers to a 1978 research that included a scenario in which 3 and 4-year old children figured out which object they should choose. It is my understanding that Chaser was trained to choose.

Does this mean that young children are animals? What is the difference between them?

Experiment 1: investigating the ability of a border collie to learn proper nouns.
Section 2.1.1. Subject. “She [Chaser] exhibited the usual characteristics of her breed: intense visual focus/concentration, instinct to find, chase, herd, attentive to auditory cues even during complex visual stimulation (such as herding sheep), responsive to soft levels of praise and verbal correction, and boundless energy.”

In other words, this dog had a leg or two up as far as learning the steps of the experiments. Yet, experiment 1 provided four to five hours of daily training over a 3-year period to teach Chaser the proper-noun names of 1022 objects. If my math is correct, that would compare to children in first and second grade. (the previous 3 and 4-year olds plus three years of learning)

I don’t have a clue about the size of vocabulary in first and second grade. I do know that the curriculum for these grades includes a lot more than proper-noun names of 1022 objects. This is where the difference between a human and animal is observable.

In fairness to the researchers, other school subjects were not included in the study of Chaser. Chaser remains a very smart animal in the limited area being studied. This is where the difference in kind is observable.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
kbachler said:
Science describes all of reality.
Click to expand...
This basically sums it up, though I would limit it to our “perception” of reality.

Science is not something that popped out of nowhere with some agenda. It simply exists, along with math, to describe what we observe. Modifications occur over time as our knowledge of our environment increases.

Interestingly enough, science also describes what we cannot observe. This is a direct result of our interaction with our environment. This has very interesting consequences, because if a being can observe the environment without interacting with it (which is currently beyond our understanding), a different set of rules would apply.
 
donsnow said:
Well, kbachler,

You are entitled to your interpretation of the data, to justify you opinion.
Click to expand...
What interpretation. Speciation has been observed, donsnow.
donsnow said:
I don’t forget the evolutionists god-man Charles Darwin, who is a false Christ that misleads many people.
His books were philosophical treatises, not biology text books.
Click to expand...
Darwin avoided saying most of the things he is accused of saying. “Two New Sciences” was not a text book. “Principia Mathematica” was not a text book. Writings by Young, Fresnel, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc were not text books.

Darwin’s book was about biology.
donsnow said:
Believe me, their are atheists and skeptics who glorify Charles Darwin like we glorify St. Peter or Christ Jesus himself.
Click to expand...
But that doesn’t mean that Darwin was wrong. All it means is that he is being used out of context, just like Hitler used BOTH the Bible AND Darwin out of context. Don’t paint good ideas with the brushes of bad men.
donsnow said:
Go see for yourself at the Bad Astronomy web site. Go there, ask them about Charles Darwin. Ask them how they rate him.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you rate any change due to the expansion of knowledge as a condemnation of Darwin. It isn’t. This would be like saying Galileo was an idiot, or Aristotle was an idiot because their understanding of physics or the elements was so wrong. It’s like you breath to besmirch Darwin. It’s unbecoming of a Christian.

Darwin developed an excellent theory. The primary underpinnings are correct. Are new details coming up all the time (especially as we learn more about genetics, about which Darwin knew basically nothing?) Absolutely. Does this make Darwin an idiot? No.
donsnow said:
There are other posters here who give links to substantiate their assertions about what science says. I wish you would do the same for your quoted post.
Click to expand...
LOL, I DO give links and have in the past. But some of this information is so readily available, such common knowledge, I’m sometimes surprised that it needs links, and don’t anticipate such a request. Often the material can be easily found in Wikipedia and linked to references from there. In this case the information you seek is easily available there, with subreferences as well, including this quote:
The term “macroevolution” frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species (“microevolution”), but deny that one species can evolve into another (“macroevolution”).[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (“macroevolution”, i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[12]
Click to expand...
This with the references seems to answer your objection adequately.

However, the same information is available under evolution in Encyclopedia Britannica including information on “quantum speciation” which is another name for what you would call rapid macroevolution, quantum referring to the time interval for speciation.

This is not new or vague science, donsnow. It is well accepted.
 
donsnow said:
Hi, All,
First, one basic difference between humans and animals demonstrates humans designing, manufacturing, selling and wearing clothing.
Click to expand...
Well, one issue with this is that this is not a defining characteristic of animals. It would be like saying that a house is not a building because it isn’t 50 stories high, and skyscrapers are 50 stories high and are buildings, so houses must not be.

Animals aren’t defined on the basis of what they design or think. If so, why wouldn’t you argue that a dog is an animal but a mollusk is not?

Even so, the differences are usually less than what they appear.
donsnow said:
Animals have not been observed, nor reported, to have designed clothing.
Click to expand...
Some instances of apes using hides has been reported.
donsnow said:
Animals have not been observed, nor reported, to make more items than for an individual animal’s use. IE, even primates do not design and manufacture great numbers of items for sale or trading.
Click to expand...
Apes have been observed sharing food, tools and making multiple tools for use by another. They have been observed in some primitive barter.

The lack of this is likely primarily due to an inability to communicate well.
donsnow said:
Animals have not been observed, nor reported, buying and putting on clothes. Animals have been observed wearing the clothes which humans have designed, manufactured and sold to the other human which dressed the animal in said clothes.
Click to expand...
And mollusks haven’t been reported fishing termites out of a hole with a stick, but apes and mollusks are both still animals.
donsnow said:
A synopsis of the above states, humans dress themselves in clothing and animals don’t.

So, I respectfully submit that the above difference and inferences plainly drawn from that difference describes a great division between humans and primates. As well as the same great division between humans and other animals.

With this difference and its inferences in mind, I respectfully repeat, all protests to the contrary not withstanding: humans are not animals.

God loves all of you,
Don
Click to expand...
And you’d be completely wrong. If one house is blue and another is red - they are both still houses.

Consider:
animal, Any member of the kingdom Animalia (see taxonomy), a group of many-celled organisms that differ from members of the two other many-celled kingdoms, the plants and the fungi (see fungus), in several ways.
Click to expand...
Animals have developed muscles, making them capable of spontaneous movement (see locomotion), more elaborate sensory and nervous systems, and greater levels of general complexity. Unlike plants, animals cannot manufacture their own food and thus are adapted for securing and digesting food. In animals the cell wall is either absent or composed of material different from that of the plant cell wall. Animals account for about three-quarters of living species. Some one-celled organisms display both plant and animal characteristics. See also algae; arthropod; bacteria; chordate; invertebrate; protist; protozoan; vertebrate.
Click to expand...
The above are the things that define animals. I had assumed you knew what the word animal meant, and now I see I am wrong.

Given the list of the above, in what ways is a human not an animal?
 
grannymh said:
Thank you for this interesting and useful link. I am especially interested in your interpretation of the data.

Regarding thread topic: Churches rejecting science altogether.
I suggest rereading post 1.
Teaching or even implying that science is something evil is seriously detrimental to children’s education especially in the area of critical thinking. Children should be learning how to question. Isn’t that one of the goals of science? We question in order to seek information.

I did not read all 12 pages of the link in post 219. Nonetheless, the beginning can demonstrate what kind of questions need to be asked. The abstract identifies the subject of 4 experiments as Chaser, an extremely bright border collie.

The first question is how do border collies rate on the intelligence scale? How developed is this breed’s sentience? What are all the positive qualities?

What is interesting to me is that United States Border Collie Club, Inc. (USBCC). is dedicated to preserving the border collie as a working stock dog as opposed to the showing, judging, and breeding of Border Collies based upon their appearance. The USBCC promotes careful breeding for the preservation of working ability and the avoidance of genetic defects. One of their aims is to give people a better understanding and appreciation of the traditional Border Collie bred for work. In other words, these particular dogs are smart from the get-go.

According to the research paper, “Border Collie Comprehends Object Names as Verbal Referents”, Chaser is a registered female Border Collie. She was acquired when she was 8 weeks old and lived in the researcher’s home primarily as a pet as well as a research subject."

In other words, Chaser started life in a loving environment which is good for dog development as well as for child development. Interestingly, this paper refers to a 1978 research that included a scenario in which 3 and 4-year old children figured out which object they should choose. It is my understanding that Chaser was trained to choose.
Click to expand...
Rico, however, a border collie that brought this ability to light, was not trained to choose, and demonstrated the ability anyway. Chaser is phenomenal in part because abilities observed in Rico and I think Betsy (don’t recall the name for sure) another border were tested to see what the LIMITS were. Chaser is the result of pushed situation to demonstrate what is possible.

As I recall, when Rico’s vocabulary (around 200-300 words) was tested by researches, they were the first to pose the reasoning test of sending him to get a toy he had not heard of before. His successful return rate was, IIRC, over 95%
grannymh said:
Does this mean that young children are animals? What is the difference between them?
Click to expand...
Of course they are animals. I’m beginning to wonder if people in this thread know what the definition of an animal is? See my response to donsnow from earlier today.
grannymh said:
Experiment 1: investigating the ability of a border collie to learn proper nouns.
Section 2.1.1. Subject. “She [Chaser] exhibited the usual characteristics of her breed: intense visual focus/concentration, instinct to find, chase, herd, attentive to auditory cues even during complex visual stimulation (such as herding sheep), responsive to soft levels of praise and verbal correction, and boundless energy.”

In other words, this dog had a leg or two up as far as learning the steps of the experiments. Yet, experiment 1 provided four to five hours of daily training over a 3-year period to teach Chaser the proper-noun names of 1022 objects. If my math is correct, that would compare to children in first and second grade. (the previous 3 and 4-year olds plus three years of learning)

I don’t have a clue about the size of vocabulary in first and second grade. I do know that the curriculum for these grades includes a lot more than proper-noun names of 1022 objects. This is where the difference between a human and animal is observable.

In fairness to the researchers, other school subjects were not included in the study of Chaser. Chaser remains a very smart animal in the limited area being studied. This is where the difference in kind is observable.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
Click to expand...
As I noted, no one is claiming that ALL BORDERS have that ability. Chaser is an attempt to show what are the limits for borders, after Rico and Betsy(?name).

The point is, to claim certain reasoning skills ONLY FOR humans is an incorrect claim.
 
buffalo said:
Source?
Click to expand...
I gave two sources in my response to donsnow. How many do you need? This is common science Buffalo.

The argument that this doesn’t happen is an old Creationist argument that for some reason won’t die, even though the science is known to be otherwise.
 
kbachler said:
I gave two sources in my response to donsnow. How many do you need? This is common science Buffalo.

The argument that this doesn’t happen is an old Creationist argument that for some reason won’t die, even though the science is known to be otherwise.
Click to expand...
Just link me your best source showing a species that evolved into a higher species.
 
davidv said:
You are free to believe this if you so choose. As far as I can tell all these supposed similarities are question begging projections and anthropomorphisms. God said He created us in His image, not in the image of the animals.
Click to expand...
So Michelangelo got it right when he painted God looking like an old man with a beard? God has no body therefore our body is not an image of God. God is spirit so it is our spirit that is made in the image of God.

As far as our bodies go they fall in with the scientific understanding of primates, which are mammals, which are animals. I do not find it insulting or demeaning to have my body classified as animal. Animals are God’s creation and beautiful in his eyes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top