evolution

[warpspeedpetey]

(assertion of “gaping flaws” in biology)

Barbarian suggests:
Hey, be impolitic, and mention them. Sounds like an interesting source of discussion.

Barbarian asks:
So what makes you think that they exist? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, is it possible that you are just wrong?

Barbarian observes::
I have done that. And it was all hooey. None of it had any value whatsoever.

I restored the context for you.

The one where I asked you for the “gaping gaps?” You apparently don’t know of any; you declined to say what you thought they were.

funny, you seem to skew the context to the idea that i made some serious argument in favor of those gaps, as opposed to pointing out that they exist. you seem angry that anyone would even suggest that such flaws might exist. this behavior is exactly what i would call impolitic.

I’ve seen the claims. They are, so far, all foolish misunderstandings of science. I suggested that you might show us your list, but you seem to have no idea of what you were talking about.

funny but here you both, tell me i have no idea what i am talking about when saying other claims concerning evolution exist, and then admit to their existence yourself. for the second time.

your so busy being pithy and condescending you dont seem to notice that you contradict yourself.

Barbarian observes:
Tell us about your research.
So you never actually looked into it? Why are you telling us about things you don’t understand?
Wouldn’t it have been better to learn about it, before you posted an opinion on it?
I did, but you removed it. I restored the context for you.
I don’t remember anyone saying you didn’t. I’m asking for you to tell us about those gaps. You really don’t know, do you?

please, show me anywhere i said i had research. since you cant, i must assume that you dont know what you are talking about. as you seem to love the phrase. your really impressing me now

Barbarian observes:
Keep in mind, if some part of scripture is figurative or allegorical, a literal interpretation would admit this fact.

St. Augustine, in “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, argued that a literal reading had to acknowledge that it was not a literal history.
In other words, it was allegorical in many ways, and any attempt to make it something else was not a literal interpretation.

its nice that he had that opinion, however i dont think that is my opinion, did aesop say “this is only a fable, dont take this literally” no, it was assumed his audience knew. if you are thinking that i would defend Genesis as a literal account, keep thinking. im not a protestant.

And continues to be regarded as one of the Doctors of the Church. The Church permits you to construe Genesis as completely literal if you want, but Augustine’s point is today as “up-to-date” as it was then.

really?, is phlogiston up to date? what about life spontaneously generating from rotting meat, is that up to date? how bout the idea that men could never fly, is that up to date?

The point is obvious. Whoever tries to set science at odds with Christian faith is at odds with the teaching of the Church.

frankly science has been wrong many times, and likely will be wrong many more, i dont know if i accept the implication that one cannot question sciences relationship to faith.

all that aside

you seem to want to pick a fight over evolution, as though it is an insult to reason, that some may not consider it a “done deal”

as i said i agree with the generalities, more as a matter of a lack of interest than because i know them, but please tell me what position you would like me to take on the issue.

[Edited]

 

[buffalo]

Can we design a cell that can evolve without intelligent help?

Well? Can we?

 

[The_Barbarian]

funny, you seem to skew the context to the idea that i made some serious argument in favor of those gaps, as opposed to pointing out that they exist.

If you can’t tell us what they are, what make you think they exist?

you seem angry that anyone would even suggest that such flaws might exist.

You seem angry that anyone would ask you to substantiate your claim.

this behavior is exactly what i would call impolitic.

Actually, I am impolitic. Frequently so. Declining to substantiate statements, is generally referred to by another term. When can we expect you to support your claim with some evidence?

Barbarian observes:
I’ve seen the claims. They are, so far, all foolish misunderstandings of science. I suggested that you might show us your list, but you seem to have no idea of what you were talking about.

funny but here you both, tell me i have no idea what i am talking about

Well, when you admit you don’t know what you claimed, that is a clue.

Barbarian observes:
Tell us about your research.

(apparently hasn’t bothered)

So you never actually looked into it? Why are you telling us about things you don’t understand? Wouldn’t it have been better to learn about it, before you posted an opinion on it?

I’m asking for you to tell us about those gaps. You really don’t know, do you?

(again declines to offer anything)

Barbarian observes:
Keep in mind, if some part of scripture is figurative or allegorical, a literal interpretation would admit this fact.

St. Augustine, in “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, argued that a literal reading had to acknowledge that it was not a literal history.
In other words, it was allegorical in many ways, and any attempt to make it something else was not a literal interpretation.

its nice that he had that opinion, however i dont think that is my opinion, did aesop say “this is only a fable, dont take this literally” no, it was assumed his audience knew. if you are thinking that i would defend Genesis as a literal account, keep thinking. im not a protestant.

If you’re not a duck, it’s probably a bad idea to quack.

And continues to be regarded as one of the Doctors of the Church. The Church permits you to construe Genesis as completely literal if you want, but Augustine’s point is today as “up-to-date” as it was then.

really?,

Yep. He points out that a literalist reading of Genesis is logically insupportable.

is phlogiston up to date?

You think St. Augustine wrote about phlogiston?

What about life spontaneously generating from rotting meat, is that up to date? how bout the idea that men could never fly, is that up to date?

You think St. Augustine wrote those things?

Barbarian observes:
The point is obvious. Whoever tries to set science at odds with Christian faith is at odds with the teaching of the Church.

frankly science has been wrong many times, and likely will be wrong many more,

Of course. It is continuously revised as new evidence is uncovered. That’s what science is. Many theories have been shown need correction or replacement, but science continues to be the most effective way to learn about the physical universe.

i dont know if i accept the implication that one cannot question sciences relationship to faith.

You seem to be arguing with yourself, here.

you seem to want to pick a fight over evolution

I see that some moderator has been sufficiently unhappy with your words that he felt it right to remove them. You might want to consider how you appear to others here.

as though it is an insult to reason, that some may not consider it a “done deal”

I have a number of friends who are creationists, some of them YE creationists. But they aren’t as bumptious as you are.

as i said i agree with the generalities, more as a matter of a lack of interest than because i know them,

It’s probably a good idea to know something about things you make claims about.

Just saying.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Can we design a cell that can evolve without intelligent help?

Well? Can we?

It’s a bad idea to try to hide God in gaps of human knowledge. A few years ago, some foolish people were asking if science could build a virus.

Before that, it was “can you build a gene”, and so on.

Never define God in terms of what humans cannot do. When someone does design a cell, what will you say, then?

And that will happen.

Scientists are on the verge of creating living cells by piecing together small molecules that are themselves not alive. The result would be the world’s first human-made life forms, synthetic cells made more or less from scratch.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_n24216851

Cell membranes are incredibly simple; anyone can manufacture them. And placing a minimal genome into a phospholipid vesicle (which is what cell membranes are) is the next step to a cell completely from scratch.

It’s on the way.

 

[buffalo]

It’s a bad idea to try to hide God in gaps of human knowledge. A few years ago, some foolish people were asking if science could build a virus.

Before that, it was “can you build a gene”, and so on.

Never define God in terms of what humans cannot do. When someone does design a cell, what will you say, then?

And that will happen.

Scientists are on the verge of creating living cells by piecing together small molecules that are themselves not alive. The result would be the world’s first human-made life forms, synthetic cells made more or less from scratch.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_n24216851

Cell membranes are incredibly simple; anyone can manufacture them. And placing a minimal genome into a phospholipid vesicle (which is what cell membranes are) is the next step to a cell completely from scratch.

It’s on the way.

Will this cell be able to evolve?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you can’t tell us what they are, what make you think they exist?

trust you when you say that you have examined them, thats how

You seem angry that anyone would ask you to substantiate your claim.

you seem angry that anyone may make a claim

Actually, I am impolitic. Frequently so. Declining to substantiate statements, is generally referred to by another term. When can we expect you to support your claim with some evidence?

when you provide evidence of some serious claim on my part

Barbarian observes:
I’ve seen the claims. They are, so far, all foolish misunderstandings of science. I suggested that you might show us your list, but you seem to have no idea of what you were talking about.

petey observes:

you have yet to provide evidence of said actual claim

Well, when you admit you don’t know what you claimed, that is a clue.

innocent men claim ignorance of a crime, why shouldnt they?

Barbarian observes:
Tell us about your research.

(apparently hasn’t bothered)

So you never actually looked into it? Why are you telling us about things you don’t understand? Wouldn’t it have been better to learn about it, before you posted an opinion on it?

I’m asking for you to tell us about those gaps. You really don’t know, do you?

petey observes:

and yet barbarian posts no evidence of said research claimed

(again declines to offer anything)

again offers what he has received, nothing

Barbarian observes:
Keep in mind, if some part of scripture is figurative or allegorical, a literal interpretation would admit this fact.

St. Augustine, in “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, argued that a literal reading had to acknowledge that it was not a literal history.
In other words, it was allegorical in many ways, and any attempt to make it something else was not a literal interpretation.

If you’re not a duck, it’s probably a bad idea to quack.

yes funny you should offer the word ‘quack’

Yep. He points out that a literalist reading of Genesis is logically insupportable.

good for him

You think St. Augustine wrote about phlogiston?

you think he wasnt? makes sense to me to infer that, as the rules for taking inferences now seems to be lacking in actual evidence.

You think St. Augustine wrote those things?

are you saying that he didn’t?

Barbarian observes:
The point is obvious. Whoever tries to set science at odds with Christian faith is at odds with the teaching of the Church.

thats nice, buts whats it got todo with anything?

Of course. It is continuously revised as new evidence is uncovered. That’s what science is. Many theories have been shown need correction or replacement, but science continues to be the most effective way to learn about the physical universe.

yes, i believe the sky is blue too

You seem to be arguing with yourself, here.

ok

I see that some moderator has been sufficiently unhappy with your words that he felt it right to remove them. You might want to consider how you appear to others here.

i am modeling myself on locally observed behavior

I have a number of friends who are creationists, some of them YE creationists. But they aren’t as bumptious as you are.

i have a number of friends who are creationist myself, and i assure you none of them would consider me 'bumptious

It’s probably a good idea to know something about things you make claims about.

its probably an even better idea to provide evidence of these claims you keep talking about, what claim have i really made?

do you have some evidence that i ever claimed anything worth discussing?

if you have said evidence please post it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks about “gaps” in evolutionary theory:
If you can’t tell us what they are, what make you think they exist?

trust you when you say that you have examined them, thats how

I said I had seen claims for such gaps.

Barbarian observes:
You seem angry that anyone would ask you to substantiate your claim.

you seem angry that anyone may make a claim

Asking for substantiation is not evidence of anger.

Barbarian asks:
Actually, I am impolitic. Frequently so. Declining to substantiate statements, is generally referred to by another term. When can we expect you to support your claim with some evidence?

when you provide evidence of some serious claim on my part

You asserted “gaping gaps” in the theory. Now it seems, you don’t have any idea of what they might be.

Barbarian observes:
Well, when you admit you don’t know what you claimed, that is a clue.

Barbarian observes:

So you never actually looked into it? Why are you telling us about things you don’t understand? Wouldn’t it have been better to learn about it, before you posted an opinion on it?

I’m asking for you to tell us about those gaps. You really don’t know, do you?
:
(again declines to offer anything)

Barbarian asks:
You think St. Augustine wrote about phlogiston?

you think he wasnt?

Barbarian asks:
You think St. Augustine wrote those things?

are you saying that he didn’t?

Barbarian observes:
Of course. It is continuously revised as new evidence is uncovered. That’s what science is. Many theories have been shown need correction or replacement, but science continues to be the most effective way to learn about the physical universe.

yes, i believe the sky is blue too

Barbarian observes:
I see that some moderator has been sufficiently unhappy with your words that he felt it right to remove them. You might want to consider how you appear to others here.

i am modeling myself on locally observed behavior

Apparently not. Notice that no one else in the discussion needed editing.

Barbarian observes:
It’s probably a good idea to know something about things you make claims about.

its probably an even better idea to provide evidence of these claims you keep talking about, what claim have i really made?

You have claimed large gaps in theory. When do you think you’ll be able to tell us what they are?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Will this cell be able to evolve?

No individuals can evolve. But it’s descendants will be able to. The descendants of any organism with an DNA genome will be slightly different in their genes than the ancestor.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have claimed large gaps in theory. When do you think you’ll be able to tell us what they are?

when will you offer proof that i, personally, have made any such claims?

you haven’t provided it, you just keep stating i have made claims about some ‘gaps’

please show me evidence that i have put forth any such claim on my behalf.

these posts are all recorded, if i have done so please post the evidence .

:whacky:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Will this cell be able to evolve?

do we want it too? thats the only real question, if you engineer the simplest possible cell that can reproduce, you can stop mutation with feedback systems designed to kill the cell at various points in cell development.

but the more complexity introduced into the system, the more likely a mutation to occur whether you want it to or not.

 

[Orogeny]

when will you offer proof that i, personally, have made any such claims?

you haven’t provided it, you just keep stating i have made claims about some ‘gaps’

please show me evidence that i have put forth any such claim on my behalf.

these posts are all recorded, if i have done so please post the evidence .

:whacky:

Well then, why don’t you just point out the gaping flaws in the theory?

warpspeedpetey:

yes, you may accept it, but be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention.

I believe that Barbarian asked you for the source of this claim and you have yet to provide them. Should be easy to do if they are such gaping flaws.

Peace

Tim

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well then, why don’t you just point out the gaping flaws in the theory?

I believe that Barbarian asked you for the source of this claim and you have yet to provide them. Should be easy to do if they are such gaping flaws.

Peace

Tim

aha! actual evidence! let us examine it in the light of the total conversation.

not my field, but i have heard a few interesting things mentioned by the protestants, i just dont know them well enough to defend them, nor do i care to if you interested i am sure that you could find interesting things by googling intelligent design, though i think you might take some time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

and i also said this

that said, i accept its generalities myself. i don’t see it as anything but a mechanism of Divine Creation.

what are the premises, do you see an intention to make?

what are the assertions you see an intention to make?

there are none, no argument was made.

if you wish to debate the anti evolution claims, just tell me what position you would like me to take.

i would be happy to debate them as i enjoy all intellectual endeavors.

 

[Orogeny]

what are the assertions you see an intention to make?

You asserted that there were gaping flaws. Unless you accidentally wrote that, that is a clear assertion you made. Barbarian simply asked you to identify those gaping flaws. At that point, you admitted that you were only repeating something that someone else said and that you were not qualified to judge the accuracy of those claims. You also said that you were not interested in discussing the accuracy of your claim. Am I right so far?

if you wish to debate the anti evolution claims, just tell me what position you would like me to take.

i would be happy to debate them as i enjoy all intellectual endeavors.

OK, take the position that your claim is accurate - there are gaping flaws in the science. You can then support your argument with evidence.

Peace

Tim

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You asserted that there were gaping flaws. Unless you accidentally wrote that, that is a clear assertion you made. Barbarian simply asked you to identify those gaping flaws. At that point, you admitted that you were only repeating something that someone else said and that you were not qualified to judge the accuracy of those claims. You also said that you were not interested in discussing the accuracy of your claim. Am I right so far?OK, take the position that your claim is accurate - there are gaping flaws in the science. You can then support your argument with evidence.

thats no more a serious assertion than to say some people believe in santa claus

you read too much into it

pointing out that other ideas exist is hardly an argument, or a claim

not to mention he then admitted to the existence of those ideas himself

tempest in a teacup so to speak.

is there a particular flaw about which you care to argue?

if you say my claim again i am afraid the whole cycle will just start again

 

[Orogeny]

thats no more a serious assertion than to say some people believe in santa claus

you read too much into it

So you didn’t mean it? Ok, you can retract it.

pointing out that other ideas exist is hardly an argument, or a claim

You didn’t say other ideas. You said gaping flaws. Bit of a difference, no?

not to mention he then admitted to the existence of those ideas himself

No, he rejected your claim that there were gaping flaws. He looked them up as you suggested and rejected them. Clearly there are ideas out there, but that isn’t what you asserted.

tempest in a teacup so to speak.

is there a particular flaw about which you care to argue?

I know of no flaw in the theory of evolution. Perhaps you can point them out and we can debate them.

if you say my claim again i am afraid the whole cycle will just start again

Well, since you admit that you don’t believe your original assertion, you are right. But once again, in the post I am responding to now, you ask to discuss the flaws in the theory. I will give you the opening shot. What particular flaw do you have evidence for?

Peace

Tim

 

[Rex_Tremendae]

Evolution is modernist heresy. There is NO scientific evidence for it. It is the product of the day dreams of atheists and modernists.

 

[Orogeny]

Evolution is modernist heresy. There is NO scientific evidence for it. It is the product of the day dreams of atheists and modernists.

Right. One heck of a big conspiracy that I guess Catholics like myself are part of.

Peace

Tim

 

[Rex_Tremendae]

Right. One heck of a big conspiracy that I guess Catholics like myself are part of.

Peace

Tim

Sarcasm? I encourage you to do some real research on this.

How is Houston this time of year? I miss that city…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

you are right.

:yeah_me:

But once again, in the post I am responding to now, you ask to discuss the flaws in the theory. I will give you the opening shot. What particular flaw do you have evidence for?

first i need to know the basics of the theory of evolution, can you give me a short synopsis?

 

[Orogeny]

first i need to know the basics of the theory of evolution, can you give me a short synopsis?

No, you can do the research yourself.

Peace

Tim