Evolution

[agangbern]

You actually said there that the Hebrews created the Genesis text and the life of Jesus. Are you denying now what you wrote? That is one effect of your style in writing very long sentences.

Your reply to the above post:

Don’t be naughty now,if you are going to make a big deal of a sentence be sure to quote it in context and exactly as it was written,in your case,don’t bother.

It is impossible to misread the paragraph as anything other than what I originally wrote but misreading things appears to be a common trait among people who call themselves Christian here.

Every word or group of words that you write here are not without big deal, remember that.
For we are not simply playing games here.

You don’t accuse the reader as misreading what you post here when as a matter of fact we simply read what you write. You should instead start to doubt that maybe what you are writing is not what is in you mind. The words and sentences you write probably do not correctly express what you want to say to us. So do not accuse us of misreading. Accuse yourself of miswriting things.

 

[agangbern]

Then what about Biochemistry? Since as you say Chemistry states fact, Biochemistry also states fact:

Thus we have biochemical change, and it seems to have correlation with evolutionary theory, unless I’m mistaken…

God Bless.

Chris.

What I am trying to say is that Chemistry is **a study **of various atoms, molecules, etc…It is a study, not a theory. But evolution theory is not a study but a theory. It is simply a proposition to explain something. It is not sure of itself as yet, hence being called theory.

 

[oriel16]

You answered the above post in the following way:

You did not notice that your answer is too far from the question. For what runs in the mind of the Church as her reason in apologizing for Galileo, if indeed she did that, could not be known by any man except she herself would express it in words. For no man can read another man’s heart and mind. But you pretended to have read what went in the heart of the Church and so you declared that the reason of the Church was "because it understands nothing of its own astronomical heritage"

Your are useful insofar as when it comes to genuine science, you and the empiricists share the same common trait of refusing to acknowledge the major Christian scientific achievements.If you do not like the major Christian astronomical achievement of Copernicus then just say so but the reasoning of bishop Steno in creating the outlines of the biological/geological evolutionary framework in showing the magnificence of an Earth that is millions and millions of years old has the same delightful inspirational joy to it.

So,what do you think of the achievement ? -

apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

If you can’t answer then don’t bother replying.

 

[agangbern]

Your are useful insofar as when it comes to genuine science, you and the empiricists share the same common trait of refusing to acknowledge the major Christian scientific achievements.If you do not like the major Christian astronomical achievement of Copernicus then just say so but the reasoning of bishop Steno in creating the outlines of the biological/geological evolutionary framework in showing the magnificence of an Earth that is millions and millions of years old has the same delightful inspirational joy to it.

So,what do you think of the achievement ? -

apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

If you can’t answer then don’t bother replying.

I do not want to believe in my perception that you have this habit of mumbling words or phrases which you yourself does not know what exactly they mean. Such phrase as "major Christian scientific achievements", what do you mean by that? What specifically do you consider “major Christian astronomical achievement of Copernicus”? If you believe there is so-called *Christian scientific achievement,

• do you mean to say there is also a so-called Non-Christian scientific achievement?

The link you provided here is simply a picture of a white dot moving within a square having a dark back ground. I do not know what you are trying to tell us by that link you gave. I hope you can put to correct writing what in your mind you want to tell us.

 

[cerad]

What I am trying to say is that Chemistry is **a study **of various atoms, molecules, etc…It is a study, not a theory. But evolution theory is not a study but a theory. It is simply a proposition to explain something. It is not sure of itself as yet, hence being called theory.

So are you really saying that chemistry does not try to explain anything? That might come as a bit of a surprise to chemists. And by the way, in science a theory is as good as it gets.

 

[buffalo]

The internal machinary:

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria#Genetics

Also: ^ Denamur E, Matic I (2006). “Evolution of mutation rates in bacteria”. Mol Microbiol 60 (4): 820–7. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05150.x. PMID 16677295.

Unlike humans, bacteria populations can multiply two-fold within every 9.8 minutes.

Source: ^ Eagon R. “Pseudomonas natriegens, a marine bacterium with a generation time of less than 10 minutes”. J Bacteriol 83: 736–7. PMID 13888946. pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13888946.

Within such drastic reproduction, genetic mutations occur more rapidly in comparison to human reproduction, so comparison to which species would more likely survive on Nylon alone, it’s inappropiate. Not to mention the development of humans to obtain a omnivore diet system…

God Bless.

Chris.

Oral Bacteria Can Exchange Genes, Become Resistant

 

[agangbern]

So are you really saying that chemistry does not try to explain anything? That might come as a bit of a surprise to chemists. And by the way, in science a theory is as good as it gets.

Far from what you said. But Chemistry, by definition, is not a theory. Evolution theory, by its name alone, no doubt is a theory. This fact draws out a big and obvious difference between the two.

 

[CGDouglas]

Oral Bacteria Can Exchange Genes, Become Resistant

“These findings could be important in the transfer of antibiotic resistance between plaque organisms, as well as with more harmful bacteria that temporarily colonize the oral cavity,” Kuramitsu said. "In addition, this process could be important in understanding the evolution of plaque bacteria and could explain why some organisms exhibit certain virulent properties, such as the ability to colonize teeth."

Your source seems to advocate evolution if I’m not mistaken…

One organism that can pick up genetic code from a similar organism type, horizontal gene transfer, even benefits evolutionary thinking. We can see that these organisms not only change and adapt to the situation before them, we can see exchange of genes to similar organisms due to their close relationship in the phylogenetic tree, the gene will look the same under this stance.

I don’t see how Horistonal gene transfer opposes an evolutionary process, it just adds to the factor, and that Darwin’s tree could actually process into the shape of a web type.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[CGDouglas]

I very much doubt that Maranatha33 intentionally altered that passage. Almost certainly someone who presented himself as a Christian gave it to him, and he trusted that person.

It’s the usual case. Most creationists are not dishonest, but they are preyed upon by creationists who are.

I don’t think Maranatha33 altered it, no, but Ben Stein actually omitted parts…

sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein’s narration quotes from Darwin’s The Descent of Man thusly:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the

Sorry for the long quotation, but information can be used from Ben Stein himself…

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[buffalo]

Your source seems to advocate evolution if I’m not mistaken…

One organism that can pick up genetic code from a similar organism type, horizontal gene transfer, even benefits evolutionary thinking. We can see that these organisms not only change and adapt to the situation before them, we can see exchange of genes to similar organisms due to their close relationship in the phylogenetic tree, the gene will look the same under this stance.

I don’t see how Horistonal gene transfer opposes an evolutionary process, it just adds to the factor, and that Darwin’s tree could actually process into the shape of a web type.

God Bless.

Chris.

Essentially the bacteria are exchanging DNA language (talking to each other). They are able to send and receive instructions.

 

[CGDouglas]

What I am trying to say is that Chemistry is **a study **of various atoms, molecules, etc…It is a study, not a theory. But evolution theory is not a study but a theory. It is simply a proposition to explain something. It is not sure of itself as yet, hence being called theory.

And Biochemistry is a study on a focus chemical processes within living organisms, which does show, in it’s study, evidence supporting the theory, factual evidence, so we can say a theory supported by fact.

“Fact”
Observation Established Hypothesis
Facts are empirical data, objective verifiable observations.[11][12][13][14]
‘A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.’ Douglas Futyuma. [15]

“Theory”
A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.

So it’s a theory and a fact, no?

Buffalo:

Essentially the bacteria are exchanging DNA language (talking to each other). They are able to send and receive instructions.

Yes, horizontal gene transfer, I still don’t see the problem here?

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, horizontal gene transfer, I still don’t see the problem here?

God Bless.

Chris.

Neither do I.

 

[CGDouglas]

Neither do I.

So then why are you trying to utilize the concept against Evolutionary process?

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[buffalo]

So then why are you trying to utilize the concept against Evolutionary process?

God Bless.

Chris.

I am simply pointing out that bacteria communicate using language. Do you agree?

 

[agangbern]

So does atomic theory. Would you be offended if I suggested you learn what “theory” means in science?

What does your so-called “atomic theory” say? Let us see what similarity it has with evolution theory.

 

[CGDouglas]

I am simply pointing out that bacteria communicate using language. Do you agree?

Not communicate, but actually obtain genetic information (without need of being offspring)from other bacteira, I agree.

God bless.

Chris.

 

[oriel16]

The link you provided here is simply a picture of a white dot moving within a square having a dark back ground. I do not know what you are trying to tell us by that link you gave. I hope you can put to correct writing what in your mind you want to tell us.

.The two white dots are the planets Jupiter and Saturn and they move against the background stars,that is where the name ‘planet’ or ‘wanderers’ come from.They once called the planet Venus ‘Lucifer’ as the brightest ‘star’ that fell from heaven,in any case back to the images -

apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The ‘dots’ are the nearer Jupiter and the further Saturn and they are moving around the Sun just as we are.Every so often ,we overtake these planets heading in the same direction hence the temporary ‘backward’ motion .Galileo explains this -

“The illnesses are in Ptolemy, and the cures for them in
Copernicus. . With Ptolemy it is necessary to assign
to the celestial bodies contrary movements, and make everything move
from east to west and at the same time from west to east, whereas with
Copernicus all celestial revolutions are in one direction, from west
to east. And what are we to say of the apparent movement of a planet,
so uneven that it not only goes fast at one time and slow at another,
but sometimes stops entirely and even goes backward a long way after
doing so? To save these appearances, Ptolemy introduces vast
epicycles, adapting them one by one to each planet, with certain rules
about incongruous motions–all of which can be done away with by one
very simple motion of the earth.” Galileo

Not addressing you individually as you are beyond hope,it is this magnificent bit of thinking affirmed by all great minds the same as that which affirms the great evolutionary framework of Smith and Steno.That’s right,not one person has commented on the spectacular Christian scientific heritage of either Copernicus or Steno

Others are probably congratulating themselves on not commenting on what effectively is a very easy to understand insight,especially nowadays.

 

[agangbern]

.The two white dots are the planets Jupiter and Saturn and they move against the background stars,that is where the name ‘planet’ or ‘wanderers’ come from.They once called the planet Venus ‘Lucifer’ as the brightest ‘star’ that fell from heaven,in any case back to the images -
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Who told you that those two white dots are the planets Jupiter and Saturn?

Not addressing you individually as you are beyond hope,

So now you are revealing your real you! Christians never lose hope…to them, there is no such thing as beyond hope.

 

[agangbern]

So it’s a theory and a fact, no?

Barbaian may answer that this way:

If you knew anything about science, you’d know that “it’s just a theory” is profoundly ignorant of what theories are. Why not learn about it? Libraries are free.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What does your so-called “atomic theory” say? Let us see what similarity it has with evolution theory.

Like all theories, it is the result of investigation. It explains phenomena, by making inferences from evidence gathered to test the hypothesis.

We can’t actually see them, but we can infer their existence from evidence. It was, as recently as the late 1700s, thought that atoms were merely a convenient fiction, to explain why chemicals reacted in specific ratios.

Likewise, evolutionary theory is the result of investigations to explain observed variation in living things. Like atomic theory, it made a number of predictions, which have since been verified.

This is why it is called a theory. To be a theory, it has to have evidence supporting it.