O
Ortho
Guest
abcdefg said:
Why didn’t Jesus point out tht trinity, or simply tell us he was God?
- Status
Why didn’t Jesus point out tht trinity, or simply tell us he was God?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Why didn’t Jesus show people of His time how to make airplanes, telephones, steam engines, or chronometers? Why didn’t He tell them there was another “world” west of the Atlantic ocean? Why didn’t He develop penicillin or a cure for cancer?
Why don’t we have sense enough to understand that His plan is beyond our simplistic questions?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
O
Ortho
Guest
vern humphrey:
“Genesis was written well before Jesus’ time. and there’s no doubt apostles believed in Creationism all their lives, Why Jesus, who is aware of what everyone is thinking, didn’t point out the mistake?”
That’s a good answer for abcdefg who asked:
“Genesis was written well before Jesus’ time. and there’s no doubt apostles believed in Creationism all their lives, Why Jesus, who is aware of what everyone is thinking, didn’t point out the mistake?”
B
buffalo
Guest
He did!
O
Ortho
Guest
Can you cite the book and verse?
B
buffalo
Guest
41 In like manner also the chief priests, with the scribes and ancients, mocking, said: 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he will have him; for he said: I am the Son of God. 44 And the selfsame thing the thieves also, that were crucified with him, reproached him with. 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole earth, until the ninth hour.
36 Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. 39 They sought therefore to take him; and he escaped out of their hands. 40 And he went again beyond the Jordan, into that place where John was baptizing first; and there he abode.
Jn 1;1 - the Word was God
Jn 1:14-15 - glory of Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth
Jn 8:19 - if you knew me, you would know my Father
Jn 8:58-59 - I assure you, before Abraham was, I AM
Jn 10:30-33 - the Father and I are one (see Ex 3:14, 20:7; Lev 19:12, 24:14-16)
Jn 10:38 - the Father is in me and I am in the Father
Jn 12:45 - whosoever sees me sees the one who sent me
Jn 14:8-12 - whoever had seen has seen the Father
Jn 20:28 - Jesus accepts Thomas’s “my Lord and my God”
Col 2:9 - in him dwells whole fullness of deity bodily
Acts 20:28 - church of God he acquired with his blood
Eph 1:7 - in him we have redemption by his blood
1Jn 1:7 - blood of his Son Jesus cleanses from all sin
Tit 2;13 - glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
O
Ortho
Guest
buffalo said:
How many others were referred to as the Son of God?
Is the son the same as the father?
What are the first two words of the Lord’s prayer?
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Leatherman stated, "Thanks, interesting, as evolutionary proof must be scientific and scientists relay the science, what happens to reality when I see this?: ‘Experts Question Evolution On Scientific Grounds’ Two eminent biologists from Moscow State University, Lev Beloussov and Vladimir Voeikov, have joined more than 400 scientists in signing a declaration questioning Darwin’s theory of evolution."Dr.David Berlinski, a mathematician with the Discovery Institute, has described Darwin’s theory of evolution as ‘the great white elephant of contemporary thought.’ It is, he said,‘large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.’
Wildleafblower replied, “Get a new pair of glasses Or take the blindfolders off. You have a choice.”
Leatherman answered, "Thats exactly what I’ve done, I’ve put on my glasses and actually read something written by scientists about science. And without my blindfolds, I find that all is not well in the Garden of Science - regardless of what people told me (when I had the blind folds on ).
Leatherman again answered, “For supposedly intelligent, honest, scientifically dissinterested people, ye havent answered my question very well at all. Maybe Heretical Science needs a Jesuit Equivalent to offer a reasoned argument as to why 400 scientists have left the Faith.”
REALLY???
Here’s the information that pertains to our discussion. You must slowly and carefully review with scrutinizing eyes and mind all three documents then share with us your findings.
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45377
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
Wildleafblower replied, “Get a new pair of glasses Or take the blindfolders off. You have a choice.”
Leatherman answered, "Thats exactly what I’ve done, I’ve put on my glasses and actually read something written by scientists about science. And without my blindfolds, I find that all is not well in the Garden of Science - regardless of what people told me (when I had the blind folds on ).
Leatherman again answered, “For supposedly intelligent, honest, scientifically dissinterested people, ye havent answered my question very well at all. Maybe Heretical Science needs a Jesuit Equivalent to offer a reasoned argument as to why 400 scientists have left the Faith.”
REALLY???
Here’s the information that pertains to our discussion. You must slowly and carefully review with scrutinizing eyes and mind all three documents then share with us your findings.
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45377
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
W
wildleafblower
Guest
wildleafblower asks Petra in the last paragraph of message 67, “Would you mind telling me what gentleman stated that he believed in a theistic evolution? Was it a scientist? Seeing the beauty in evolution doesn’t imply a person agrees with a theistic evolution. Theistic Evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being Atheistic Evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian Evolution) and Special Creation. Which of one are you referring to?”
Jason Meyers reponds in message 71, "I just have to object to this characterization Atheistic Evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian Evolution) ]. First of all, from a scientific perspective there is no difference between theistic and atheistic evolution. Evolution is evolution. The researchers may have different opinions about the existence of God, but science, by its nature, has nothing to say about God. As far as the research goes, all evolution is strictly agnostic (that is does not prove or disprove the existence of God). Second, Darwinian evolution is about 150 years old. Science has changed a lot since then and while many of Darwin’s core principles still stand, evolution today is a complex synthesis of genetics, ecology, molecular biology, population biology, developmental biology, biostatistics, etc. Finally, your characterization of theistic evolution as separate from Darwin is mistaken. All of the scientists I know who believe in theistic evolution also believe in the general ideas of Darwin’s proposal of natural selection (or more appropriately, as I noted above, the modern synthesis of evolution based on Darwin’s ideas).JRM
Hi Jason,
I do appreciate your response, but you took out of content text that was presented to Petra and have misrepresented what I was attempting to convey to her with hope of an honest exchange that could have proven to be beneficial for everyone. Do you think there is a possibilty that as a man you may have told her what to think? I have grave concerns when men do this to women and they do it quite often! There seems to me within the forums a few men who aren’t encouraging woman to express their viewpoint and when they do, some men don’t respond or blantly tell them what’s right from wrong. Please don’t take offense, but that is definately based on my observations. I’m beginning to think I’m back to the days of hunter and gatherer mode. 
As far as the quote you borrowed from my message to Petra, ‘Atheistic Evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian Evolution)’, I took it from this url because she did seem to lean in that direction within her entire message not only the paragraph I’m presenting to you.
gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html
All my questions to her go unanswered, especially those questions above in regards to Petra’s remarks, “I don’t know whether it was this thread or another, but someone mentioned that he sees beauty in evolution (theistic evolution, that is). I completely agree. The more I learn, the more intimate I see that this process has been. It has been a work of love, and like His love for us, He has allowed creation to express itself it a way that is not purely deterministic.”
Many viewers might have misunderstood what a scientist may have stated. I do have concern if this be the case.
It would have been most courteous of you as a gentleman to simply acknowledge with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to Alec’s msg. 129 and my msg. 173. Also, I hesitated mentioning to Phil I was a woman so I wouldn’t be stereotyped, but I had to be honest when he called me a dude! Truth is an essential ingrediant in an open cooperative. Truth is that men do dominate the sciences! Don’t you think it would be wonderful for ladies to think they are welcomed too even if their ideas might need redefining on certain topics? We need an environment where everyone feels comfortable to learn and realizes it’s only about sharing. 
Quick note, most every fellow I’ve ever dated was an atheist, agnostic, or Jew. I’m not biased! I recall one of those fellows, an atheist at the time became a creationist! IT’S TRUE!!!
Heave hoe down the road he went…
Thanks!
Jason Meyers reponds in message 71, "I just have to object to this characterization Atheistic Evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian Evolution) ]. First of all, from a scientific perspective there is no difference between theistic and atheistic evolution. Evolution is evolution. The researchers may have different opinions about the existence of God, but science, by its nature, has nothing to say about God. As far as the research goes, all evolution is strictly agnostic (that is does not prove or disprove the existence of God). Second, Darwinian evolution is about 150 years old. Science has changed a lot since then and while many of Darwin’s core principles still stand, evolution today is a complex synthesis of genetics, ecology, molecular biology, population biology, developmental biology, biostatistics, etc. Finally, your characterization of theistic evolution as separate from Darwin is mistaken. All of the scientists I know who believe in theistic evolution also believe in the general ideas of Darwin’s proposal of natural selection (or more appropriately, as I noted above, the modern synthesis of evolution based on Darwin’s ideas).JRM
Hi Jason,
I do appreciate your response, but you took out of content text that was presented to Petra and have misrepresented what I was attempting to convey to her with hope of an honest exchange that could have proven to be beneficial for everyone. Do you think there is a possibilty that as a man you may have told her what to think? I have grave concerns when men do this to women and they do it quite often!
There seems to me within the forums a few men who aren’t encouraging woman to express their viewpoint and when they do, some men don’t respond or blantly tell them what’s right from wrong. Please don’t take offense, but that is definately based on my observations. I’m beginning to think I’m back to the days of hunter and gatherer mode. As far as the quote you borrowed
from my message to Petra, ‘Atheistic Evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian Evolution)’, I took it from this url because she did seem to lean in that direction within her entire message not only the paragraph I’m presenting to you.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html
All my questions to her go unanswered, especially those questions above in regards to Petra’s remarks, “I don’t know whether it was this thread or another, but someone mentioned that he sees beauty in evolution (theistic evolution, that is). I completely agree. The more I learn, the more intimate I see that this process has been. It has been a work of love, and like His love for us, He has allowed creation to express itself it a way that is not purely deterministic.”
Many viewers might have misunderstood what a scientist may have stated. I do have concern if this be the case.
It would have been most courteous of you as a gentleman to simply acknowledge with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to Alec’s msg. 129 and my msg. 173. Also, I hesitated mentioning to Phil I was a woman so I wouldn’t be stereotyped, but I had to be honest when he called me a dude!
Truth is an essential ingrediant in an open cooperative. Truth is that men do dominate the sciences! Don’t you think it would be wonderful for ladies to think they are welcomed too even if their ideas might need redefining on certain topics? We need an environment where everyone feels comfortable to learn and realizes it’s only about sharing. Quick note, most every fellow I’ve ever dated was an atheist, agnostic, or Jew. I’m not biased! I recall one of those fellows, an atheist at the time became a creationist! IT’S TRUE!!!
Heave hoe down the road he went…Thanks!
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
Excellent!, you found the list.
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
The point under question is whether Darwinian evolution is the answer.
The point is not what people think the answers might be.
But just that Darwinian evolution, as an answer, is unsatisfactory.
“The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” said John G. West, associate director of the CSC. “We expect that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen this past year.”
A few excerpts, as you asked for them:
“The major steps leading from Bacteria to Man” -
“Randomness of mutations:
The whole concept of randomness of mutations is currently under scrutiny and there are some senses in which mutations are absolutely not random.” -
“Neutral Theory:
Kimura suggested that much of the direction of evolution over time comes not from beneficial mutations being selected but from the pressure of more or less random genetic drift.” -
Punctuated Equilibrium:
They noticed that the fossil record could be better interpreted by long periods of species stasis with shorter periods of species change." - (this is one observation that I like)
“catastrophism:
after having been suppressed for decades by strict Darwinian gradualism.” -
“With the imminent publication of the full human genome (so far we have had only a draft) and the draft chimpanzee genome, the stage is set for further revelations as we compare the two.”
I did hear that, genetically, we are closer to pigs.
But, Darwin agrees with me, he did not believe his own theory in the end.
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
- signed by 400 scientists.
The point under question is whether Darwinian evolution is the answer.
The point is not what people think the answers might be.
But just that Darwinian evolution, as an answer, is unsatisfactory.
“The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” said John G. West, associate director of the CSC. “We expect that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen this past year.”
A few excerpts, as you asked for them:
“The major steps leading from Bacteria to Man” -
“Randomness of mutations:
The whole concept of randomness of mutations is currently under scrutiny and there are some senses in which mutations are absolutely not random.” -
“Neutral Theory:
Kimura suggested that much of the direction of evolution over time comes not from beneficial mutations being selected but from the pressure of more or less random genetic drift.” -
Punctuated Equilibrium:
They noticed that the fossil record could be better interpreted by long periods of species stasis with shorter periods of species change." -
(this is one observation that I like)“catastrophism:
after having been suppressed for decades by strict Darwinian gradualism.” -
“With the imminent publication of the full human genome (so far we have had only a draft) and the draft chimpanzee genome, the stage is set for further revelations as we compare the two.”
I did hear that, genetically, we are closer to pigs.
But, Darwin agrees with me, he did not believe his own theory in the end.
J
Jason_Meyers
Guest
I have no idea why you assume that my response has anything to do with gender. My response made no note of gender. My response was simply that “Darwinian evolution” had been characterized as “atheistic evolution” which is incorrect.Hi Jason,
I do appreciate your response, but you took out of content text that was presented to Petra and have misrepresented what I was attempting to convey to her with hope of an honest exchange that could have proven to be beneficial for everyone. Do you think there is a possibilty that as a man you may have told her what to think? I have grave concerns when men do this to women and they do it quite often!
What may have been misunderstood? I’d be happy to correct anything that is a misunderstanding.
I replied to both you and Alec in private messages and included one message on the board here to avoid hijacking the thread. If you want a private discussion, send a private message. If you wnat to have a discussion about a particular question, start an appropriate thread.
I’m more than happy to discuss science where and when appropriate.
JRM
J
Jason_Meyers
Guest
I Leatherman:
As evolution is primarily driven by availability of niches, changes to the environment will allow evolution into new niches, while during periods of environmental stasis, there are no new areas to colonize and thus species are more at stasis.
And as far as the complete genome, so far it has largely confirmed what was known from the individual genes.
JRM
Looking at this, though, can you not see how weakly worded it is? Most scientists are skeptical by nature, and believe that all evidence should be carefully examined whether supporting or against your favored hypothesis. The statement is pretty useless.
What is meant by “random” here? Some mutations are more likely than others. Some regions have been identified as places where mutations are much more likely. What is the specific nature of the challenge you are presenting?
Punctuated equilibrium is in harmony with the modern evolutionary synthesis. It is best seen as a form of gradualism rather than an opposition to it. It does challenge certain aspects of Darwins original writings, but modern evolutionary theory is more than just Darwin.Punctuated Equilibrium:
They noticed that the fossil record could be better interpreted by long periods of species stasis with shorter periods of species change." -
As evolution is primarily driven by availability of niches, changes to the environment will allow evolution into new niches, while during periods of environmental stasis, there are no new areas to colonize and thus species are more at stasis.
I’m not sure where you heard that we are closer to pigs than chimps. It is completely incorrect. Pig organs are more closely similar to humans than most other domesticated animals, and therefore are used frequently for research and such things as heart valve transplants. But genetically they are much more distantly related than chimps or any other primates. If chimps were as common as pigs, it would be far better to use their valves, but pigs are much more common and easily kept. It doesn’t change the evolutionary relationships.
And as far as the complete genome, so far it has largely confirmed what was known from the individual genes.
JRM
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
I couldnt remember where I heard the pig thing, but I found this:
"The Russian scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the best-known theoreticians of evolution, once stated that the irregular relationship between living things and their DNA is a great problem that evolution cannot explain:
More complex organisms generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler ones, but this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is nowhere near the top of the list, being exceeded by Amphiuma (an amphibian), Protopterus (a lungfish), and even ordinary frogs and toads. Why this should be so has long been a puzzle.293
Other comparisons on the molecular level produce other examples of inconsistency which render evolutionist views meaningless. When the protein strands of various living things are analysed in a laboratory, results emerge which are totally unexpected from the evolutionists’ point of view, and some of which are utterly astounding.
For example, the cytochrome-C protein in man differs by 14 amino acids from that in a horse, but by only eight from that in a kangaroo. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake. When this situation is viewed from the evolutionist point of view, a meaningless result will emerge, such as that turtles are more closely related to man than they are to snakes.
Similar facts have been discovered with respect to hemoglobin. The hemoglobin protein found in human beings differs from that found in lemurs by 20 amino acids, but from that in pigs by only 14.
The situation is more or less the same for other proteins.294
This being the case, evolutionists should arrive at the conclusion that, in evolutionary terms, man is more closely related to the kangaroo than to the horse, or to the pig than to the lemur. But these results conflict with all the “evolutionary family tree” plans that have so far been accepted. Protein similarities continue to produce astounding surprises.
For example:
Adrian Friday and Martin Bishop of Cambridge have analyzed the available protein sequence data for tetrapods… To their surprise, in nearly all cases, man (the mammal) and chicken (the bird) were paired off as closest relatives, with the crocodile as next nearest relative…295"
"The Russian scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the best-known theoreticians of evolution, once stated that the irregular relationship between living things and their DNA is a great problem that evolution cannot explain:
More complex organisms generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler ones, but this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is nowhere near the top of the list, being exceeded by Amphiuma (an amphibian), Protopterus (a lungfish), and even ordinary frogs and toads. Why this should be so has long been a puzzle.293
Other comparisons on the molecular level produce other examples of inconsistency which render evolutionist views meaningless. When the protein strands of various living things are analysed in a laboratory, results emerge which are totally unexpected from the evolutionists’ point of view, and some of which are utterly astounding.
For example, the cytochrome-C protein in man differs by 14 amino acids from that in a horse, but by only eight from that in a kangaroo. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake. When this situation is viewed from the evolutionist point of view, a meaningless result will emerge, such as that turtles are more closely related to man than they are to snakes.
Similar facts have been discovered with respect to hemoglobin. The hemoglobin protein found in human beings differs from that found in lemurs by 20 amino acids, but from that in pigs by only 14.
The situation is more or less the same for other proteins.294
This being the case, evolutionists should arrive at the conclusion that, in evolutionary terms, man is more closely related to the kangaroo than to the horse, or to the pig than to the lemur.
But these results conflict with all the “evolutionary family tree” plans that have so far been accepted. Protein similarities continue to produce astounding surprises.For example:
Adrian Friday and Martin Bishop of Cambridge have analyzed the available protein sequence data for tetrapods… To their surprise, in nearly all cases, man (the mammal) and chicken (the bird) were paired off as closest relatives, with the crocodile as next nearest relative…295"
O
Orogeny
Guest
I Leatherman:
Peace
Tim
Could you please cite your reference for this?
Peace
Tim
Z
zian
Guest
I Leatherman:
The conclusion -
Every scientist will agree with the bolded portion of this statement. In fact, it is what they are doing when they are doing their research
Here we go, the old (indeed, fossilized) assertion that Darwin recanted at the end of his life. Even Answers in Genesis has information refuting this dusty canard here.
The conclusion -
See also here
O
Ortho
Guest
I am often puzzled by the insistence that modern natural science relies on Darwin. He died in 1882. Natural science has progressed for 123 years since then. Who cares what he thought?
Suppose we found a long lost letter among Darwin’s papers saying he embraced young earth and creationism? So what?
Suppose we found a letter saying he embraced Catholicism? So what?
Suppose we found a long lost letter among Darwin’s papers saying he embraced young earth and creationism? So what?
Suppose we found a letter saying he embraced Catholicism? So what?
J
Jason_Meyers
Guest
I am not going to respond point by point to your pasting of old arguments. There are plenty of internet resources that will explain why most of these arguments are incorrect.
I Leatherman:
Just a few points about this. First of all, the chimp and human sequence are 100% identical. The human and monkey only vary by a single amino acid. The tree drawn by Elsberry from these sequences shows pretty much the standard tree of life.
Second, few biologists today use a single protein for their analysis, but use many genes and proteins. Nearly all of them correspond to the predictions of common descent.
JRM
I Leatherman:
For a good reference explaining this see this article by Wesley R. Elsberry
Just a few points about this. First of all, the chimp and human sequence are 100% identical. The human and monkey only vary by a single amino acid. The tree drawn by Elsberry from these sequences shows pretty much the standard tree of life.
Second, few biologists today use a single protein for their analysis, but use many genes and proteins. Nearly all of them correspond to the predictions of common descent.
The original work by Bishop and Friday in the mid 1980s has been largely superceded by many studies of more genes that find a very close relationship between birds and crocodiles. Just as one example: “A Molecular Phylogeny of Reptiles” by SB Hedges and LL Poling in Science 283:998-1001 (1999).
JRM
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
Orogeny: Please don’t laugh. Here is the link.
darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_04.html
Zian: “Every scientist will agree with the bolded portion of this statement. In fact, it is what they are doing when they are doing their research”
That’s all I’m saying too.
But I’m trying to make the point that amongst scientists there does not appear to be unanimity, as some would imply to other posters here.
Which was why I said I liked this idea:
“Punctuated Equilibrium:
They noticed that the fossil record could be better interpreted by long periods of species stasis with shorter periods of species change." - (this is one observation that I like)”
Ortho: “I am often puzzled by the insistence that modern natural science relies on Darwin.”
Hello Ortho. Yes, it is not so much Darwin and his theory which are the problem, as the age that they were released into society. Evolution as an idea, was made sound like a universal truth long before there was any real science, - as you would recognize science.
It was accepted, or foisted on the population some might say, before anyone, least of all Darwin, could say with hand on heart, that it was true.
That is what science inherited, and the point I make is that Evolution has now fragmented into all sorts of special evolutionary ideas, and divisions, as a result.
And all still continue along the evolutionary tramlines – are there really no choices other than, Literal 6 Day Creationists or Man from Bacteria…we might not know everything yet….
GENOMICS & PROTEOMICS
REED BUSINESS INFORMATION
“Being Naïve Is A Start
While satisfied with the progress made to date in genomics, Eric Green does not hold back with a call for modesty: “We have been obsessed with genes, finding them, and all of that . . . in reality, I think we will look back on these days of sweat and hard work . . . and we will say ‘boy was that easy’ because we are so, so, so naïve about the remaining functional part of the human genome. That’s the noncoding part.” One major challenge, Green says, is that “we simply do not know what we are looking for.” While there are rules that govern what a gene sequence should be, such as codons, start, and stop sequences as well as computer tools to find them, the genes, says Green, are going to turn out to be only a minority of the functionally important part of the human genome. Mouse-human comparisons reveal that 5% of the human genome is functionally important, and one- third of that sequence is composed of protein-coding genes. “We have been so fixated on genes and now we are waking up to realize that genes are going to be less than half the story, maybe only a third of the story,” he says. “
darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_04.html
Zian: “Every scientist will agree with the bolded portion of this statement. In fact, it is what they are doing when they are doing their research”
That’s all I’m saying too.
But I’m trying to make the point that amongst scientists there does not appear to be unanimity, as some would imply to other posters here.
Which was why I said I liked this idea:
“Punctuated Equilibrium:
They noticed that the fossil record could be better interpreted by long periods of species stasis with shorter periods of species change." - (this is one observation that I like)”
Ortho: “I am often puzzled by the insistence that modern natural science relies on Darwin.”
Hello Ortho. Yes, it is not so much Darwin and his theory which are the problem, as the age that they were released into society. Evolution as an idea, was made sound like a universal truth long before there was any real science, - as you would recognize science.
It was accepted, or foisted on the population some might say, before anyone, least of all Darwin, could say with hand on heart, that it was true.
That is what science inherited, and the point I make is that Evolution has now fragmented into all sorts of special evolutionary ideas, and divisions, as a result.
And all still continue along the evolutionary tramlines – are there really no choices other than, Literal 6 Day Creationists or Man from Bacteria…we might not know everything yet….
GENOMICS & PROTEOMICS
REED BUSINESS INFORMATION
“Being Naïve Is A Start
While satisfied with the progress made to date in genomics, Eric Green does not hold back with a call for modesty: “We have been obsessed with genes, finding them, and all of that . . . in reality, I think we will look back on these days of sweat and hard work . . . and we will say ‘boy was that easy’ because we are so, so, so naïve about the remaining functional part of the human genome. That’s the noncoding part.” One major challenge, Green says, is that “we simply do not know what we are looking for.” While there are rules that govern what a gene sequence should be, such as codons, start, and stop sequences as well as computer tools to find them, the genes, says Green, are going to turn out to be only a minority of the functionally important part of the human genome. Mouse-human comparisons reveal that 5% of the human genome is functionally important, and one- third of that sequence is composed of protein-coding genes. “We have been so fixated on genes and now we are waking up to realize that genes are going to be less than half the story, maybe only a third of the story,” he says. “
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Jason Meyers in message 289, " I replied to both you and Alec in private messages and included one message on the board here to avoid hijacking the thread. JRM"
Thank you, Jason. I noticed you sent me a private message today, which I will read later, and assume that you have also sent today an email to Alec in response to his questions (msg. 129) dated 1/1/06 generated as a result of your message 95 dated 1/1/06. I’m glad my persistance paid off when I asked you in message 287, “It would have been most courteous of you as a gentleman to simply acknowledge with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to Alec’s msg. 129 and my msg. 173.” 
Jason, this is the second time you’ve ‘hijacked’ a conversation that I was having with a person.
First it was with Petra and now with ILeatherman. I have the evidence to prove my statement made to you in message 287 is true, " There seems to me within the forums a few men who aren’t encouraging woman to express their viewpoint and when they do, some men don’t respond or blantly tell them what’s right from wrong. Please don’t take offense, but that is definately based on my observations. I’m beginning to think I’m back to the days of hunter and gatherer mode."
Jason, please consider in the future my feelings as a result of your lack of consideration, especially after I brought to your attention my heartfelt concerns in message 287. I’ve been dialoging with brilliant, mature scientists for a very long time and have never before run into a problem with forum etiquette (ladies before gentleman)! . You’re a young and eager man. Let’s hope you’ll reflect upon what I’ve asked of you, keeping in mind that just because I’m not a scientist doesn’t mean I’m a dumb bunny. :nope:
The truth is that no-one except myself provided the research material that was necessary to discuss the issues with ILeatherman. I would have thoughly enjoyed the opportunity to converse with him prior to your involvement, unless I had expressed otherwise, or several days have gone by which then would, in my opinion, be up for grabs! And, if I needed help, politely asking, “I’d appreciate the assistance of a scientist. Are their any in-house scientists available that can provide accurate, peer-reviewed knowledge that can support or dispute these claims? Thank you in advance for your help.”
Jason, I’d appreciate your help as a scientist. Please find within the documents (urls from msg. 286) that I provided ILeatherman, the most important piece of information that should be brought to public attention regarding the people supporting the Intelligent Design movement. ( I hope that won’t take you 20 days. ) I’d appreciate your thoughtfulness in this matter.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jason.
I noticed you sent me a private message today, which I will read later, and assume that you have also sent today an email to Alec in response to his questions (msg. 129) dated 1/1/06 generated as a result of your message 95 dated 1/1/06. I’m glad my persistance paid off when I asked you in message 287, “It would have been most courteous of you as a gentleman to simply acknowledge with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to Alec’s msg. 129 and my msg. 173.” Jason, this is the second time you’ve ‘hijacked’ a conversation that I was having with a person.
First it was with Petra and now with ILeatherman. I have the evidence to prove my statement made to you in message 287 is true, " There seems to me within the forums a few men who aren’t encouraging woman to express their viewpoint and when they do, some men don’t respond or blantly tell them what’s right from wrong. Please don’t take offense, but that is definately based on my observations. I’m beginning to think I’m back to the days of hunter and gatherer mode."Jason, please consider in the future my feelings as a result of your lack of consideration, especially after I brought to your attention my heartfelt concerns in message 287. I’ve been dialoging with brilliant, mature scientists for a very long time and have never before run into a problem with forum etiquette (ladies before gentleman)!
. You’re a young and eager man. Let’s hope you’ll reflect upon what I’ve asked of you, keeping in mind that just because I’m not a scientist doesn’t mean I’m a dumb bunny. :nope:The truth is that no-one except myself provided the research material that was necessary to discuss the issues with ILeatherman. I would have thoughly enjoyed the opportunity to converse with him prior to your involvement, unless I had expressed otherwise, or several days have gone by which then would, in my opinion, be up for grabs! And, if I needed help, politely asking, “I’d appreciate the assistance of a scientist. Are their any in-house scientists available that can provide accurate, peer-reviewed knowledge that can support or dispute these claims? Thank you in advance for your help.”
Jason, I’d appreciate your help as a scientist. Please find within the documents (urls from msg. 286) that I provided ILeatherman, the most important piece of information that should be brought to public attention regarding the people supporting the Intelligent Design movement. ( I hope that won’t take you 20 days.
) I’d appreciate your thoughtfulness in this matter.Thank you.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
wild << Also, I hesitated mentioning to Phil I was a woman so I wouldn’t be stereotyped, but I had to be honest when he called me a dude! Truth is an essential ingrediant in an open cooperative. Truth is that men do dominate the sciences! >>
Don’t worry dude, you’ll always be a dude in my book.
These forums are like that deodorant, strong enough for a man, but made for a woman. Thank you and good night. :yawn:
Phil P
Don’t worry dude, you’ll always be a dude in my book.
These forums are like that deodorant, strong enough for a man, but made for a woman. Thank you and good night. :yawn:
Phil P
- Status