Jesus DNA?

[Matt16_18]

continued …

The 3-D parallel universe of Paradise would exist outside of these other Witten-Horava parallel universes, because the universe of Paradise is governed by a completely different set of physics, a physics where decay cannot exist, and where entropy laws do not apply.

St. Hildegarde and the Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich are saying that Paradise exists outside our fallen physical universe, but Paradise is, in some mysterious manner, still in communion with our fallen universe. This shouldn’t really be that unusual a concept for Catholics that know their faith. The Catholic Church teaches that when people die, that they go to Purgatory, Heaven, or Hell - which are places outside of the physical universe where we dwell. I don’t think that Heaven is literally above the clouds in the sky, and that Purgatory or Hell are literally someplace in the depths of the earth, and I don’t think most Catholics think this way either. Catholics that know their faith are also aware that the souls in the “parallel universes” of Purgatory and Heaven are still connected to the members of the Church Militant that dwell on the earth, because this belief is part of the infallible doctrine of the Communion of Saints. The concept of the existance of interconnected “parallel universes” is not really an unusual concept for Catholics, although the term “parallel universe” is certainly not typically used when Catholics talk about the Communion of the Saints.

Now consider apparitions of Mary, such as the apparition seen by the children at Fatima. The children of Fatima said that Mary was physically there with them at the time of the third apparition. While the children could see and touch Mary, others standing right next to the children could not see Mary. Think about that for a second.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary already has her glorified physical body. Mary can appear on earth with her glorified physical body, and she can both be seen and not be seen at the exact same time. In an analogous manner, the universe of Paradise can also be here on earth and yet not seen, (unless one were granted special graces by God to see into this realm ).

Show me your face, your original face, the face you had before your mother and father were born.

Zen Koan

 

[Matt16_18]

ghosty

While I hardly agree with everything that Kurt H. Streutker is saying, he does make some good points about the nature of God and the nature of Good:Since God is the Author of Creation . . . Is God also the Author of Millions of Years of Death, Bloodshed, Disease, Suffering, Mutations, and Extinction?

There are many who have rejected the Genesis record of Creation on what they believe are “scientific grounds.” They believe that the current secular (naturalistic / humanistic) teachings of evolution and millions of years of earth history are accurate. Nonetheless, they have involved God in their particular versions of Creation, with “Theistic Evolution” and “Progressive Creation” being some of the more popular opinions circulating among churches today.

This “slippery slope” is dangerous because they are not really defending Creation, but are actually bringing into question the very character and nature of God. By trusting man’s fallible opinions over God’s inerrant Word, they are making God the author of millions of years of death, suffering, bloodshed, disease, mutations, and extinction, etc.

The obvious question is: “Would an all-powerful and loving God actually use this cruel and extremely wasteful process of evolution to create the world?” According to Genesis, God called the process “Good,” and when He finished, God proclaimed His creation “Very good!” If He did create the world using this sadistic method over millions of years, that would mean that suffering and death are “Good” and consistent with the character and nature of God. It is ironic that these same people would insist that there will be no death, suffering, sickness, and disease in heaven, which would be contrary to even their sense of what is good.

Tennyson observed our sin-cursed world and put it this way: “Nature red (i.e. bloody) in tooth and claw.” According to these supposed creationists, science has proven, that it has been that way for millions of years. That’s because they start outside of the Bible with our present “groaning” world (Rom. 8:22) and extrapolate back, and then use that as the basis to re-interpret the Scripture, believing that the “Present is the key to the past.” They fail to realize that it was God who was there, and He has given us His account of Creation in Genesis. Hence, divine revelation is the only trustworthy key to the past, present, and future!

Sadly, many influential Christians have endorsed these teachings by recommending their books, publishing their articles, and even giving them prime air-time. Furthermore, most Christian colleges and seminaries are confusing our young people, teaching that they can believe that death and bloodshed are not the consequence of the Fall of Man (Rom.5:12), which invalidates the reason why Jesus Christ–the last Adam (1Cor. 15:45)–came to die and shed His blood on the Cross.​

 

[hecd2]

RMP:

I challenged you to show me one instance of one species becoming another. If your evidence is so overwhelming then that should not pose you such an overwhelming problem.

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Greig et al, ‘Hybrid Speciation in experimental populations of yeast’, Science 298; 1773 - 1775

della Torre et al, ‘Speciation within Anopholes gambiae’, Science 298; 115 - 117

Rundle et al, ‘Natural selection and parallel speciation in sympatric sticklebacks’ Science 287; 306 - 308

Irwin et al, ‘Speciation in a ring’, Nature 409; 333 - 337

Filchak et al, ‘Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella’, Nature 407; 739 - 742

Sorenson et al, ‘Speciation by host switch in brood parisitic indigobirds’, Nature 424; 928 - 931

Also a book; ‘The Cichlid fishes: Nature’s grand experiment in evolution’ by George Barlow - Perseus Publishing, 2000.

Shall I go on?

In fact there are dozens of observed speciations but dozens is still relatively few. Why? Because speciation does not happen overnight and a human life is not long enough to observe most instances directly. But it is impossible to explain the ordering of taxa in geological strata otherwise. No-one has been able to postulate a credible mechanism for limiting genetic divergence over time.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

These are excellent points…

Well at least we agree about one thing!

Alec

 

[hecd2]

RMP:

In your conclusion you say a fusion had to of taken place for the 2 chimp threads to become a human thread. Give one example where this (fusion) has taken place in the science world at all. Making one species turn into another NEW species.

I gave you evidence for the fusion which is unmistakeable. I haven’t seen a credible alternative explanation from you.

But I never claimed that the fusion caused a speciation - there is no evidence that it did, so in that, you are attacking a strawman.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

If I could show you the precise mechanism, I would be a rich man. The question that you are demanding a precise answer to is, of course, the holy grail for some scientists researching DNA.

You are confusing DNA with the products it codes for. Some proteins influence ageing and apoptosis (we are not talking here about immortality by the way, but the extension of life by a factor of two or three). The hope is that by understanding the mechanisms of ageing - which I pointed out was an area for vigourous research - we can increase longevity.

Claiming that DNA is responsible for death is rather like saying that lungs are the cause of bronchitis; or that insulin is the cause of diabetes.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Charity:

It *was *just a goad…I needed to update my previous claim of 2% difference.

Dear Charity,

Well you got 1.44% on human chromosome 21, chimp chromosome 22 . Since you seem to be subscribed to Nature, you can look this stuff up as well as I can. Don’t be lazy.

Dear Alec–You never did reply to post #182 in this thread.

AHA! Yours would be the 182 that nestles snuggly between 195 and 197.

OK, Alec, you want me to debate you in HARD science, on your turf in comparative genetics and molecular biology?

I don’t want a debate - heavens knows, I am engaged in enough of those - you just said that there was something special about the Y-chromosome. There is - its palindromic structure. But that’s not what you meant and I simply wanted to talk about it.

We would need to have an agreement up front…

Ground Rules:

1. Place journal literature references in blue hyperlink for instant referencing, i.e. DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22
2. Use abundant white space, paragraph breaks, and outline format.

No to both:

a) you can obviously find my references so I’ll stick with journal format
b) my layout is irrelevant and it is my layout - the way I do things.

1. Agree to read something on my turf:

a. The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan, by Pope John Paul II, 1997. ( This is sine qua non.)

b. Mother and Infant: The Moral Theology of Embodied Self-Giving in Motherhood In Light of the Exemplar Couplet Mary and Jesus Christ, by Rev.William D Virtue, PONTIFICIA STUDIORUM UNIVERSITAS A S. THOMA AQUINO IN URBE, 1995. (This may be hard to find.)

Now you are talking… I have always been keen on the idea of swapping books to read - there is hardly a better way to be exposed to new things.

Tell you what - I promise to read the JPII book with an open mind (and comment in detail on it on this board ) provided you read Pascal Boyer, ‘Religion Explained’ with an open mind and comment on it. This in itself is worth a deal. Deal?

1. Accept my limitations: not a geneticist, not a physicist, not a heretic, not facile with numbers, not a man, IQ under 150, etc.

And my limitations, not a geneticist, not a theologian, not a believer (HUGE DOWNER), not a woman (EVEN BIGGER DOWNER), gratuitously and splenetically intolerant, IQ under 140 etc

1. Be respectful of new ideas and Catholic doctrine.
2. Be patient. I live a Catholic incarnational spirituality, and have a busy life, especially with elections coming up on Nov. 2,

OK! OK! I’m as patient as a Brit driver caught behind a farm tractor in the rush hour.

I can’t answer every post or match your tenacity here, as I have many obligations; if you wish any more claim on my time and attention, you‘ll have to send chocolates and propose first.

Funny - when I think about it, I have the odd obligation too, but far fewer than you, of course. Don’t spend time here if it’s not fun and, hmmm, uplifting. I want to hear what you say, but don’t feel obliged if you don’t feel the same. How about Toblerone, the candy that hurts you? Or are you into the bittersweet paradise (which Matt will tell you is elsewhere) of Valrhona?

Oh, and please come back to the Church. Being content is not as sweet as being saved.

I know, but being sweet is not as satisfying as being right. Talk about writing my own epitaph!!

Game?

Charity

Yep
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[ISABUS]

Ah…poor Charity. You don’t get any Godiva Chocolates. The 72% dark cocoa ones made in Belgium. Sorry.

 

[hecd2]

marciadietrich:

I am not exactly sure of Matt16_18’s ideas which have prompted some of the discussion, but it sounds similiar to things my husband has related about quantum physics. Much of that being speculative I’m sure, and in some cases sci-fi ideas being extrapolated, but based somewhat on science for what I understand. One book he wanted me to read is Schroedinger’s Cat - probably spelling that name wrong.

No - the spelling is perfect: Erwin Schroedinger (drop the e and put an umlaut on the o if you have a German keyboard) won the Nobel prize (with the British physicist Paul Dirac) in 1933 for developing eigenvalue solutions to spectral problems. He had the notion of the Schroedinger wave equation which collapses under observation - and it was his famous thought experiment to illustrate the superposition of states - a cat both alive and dead in a box depending on the quantum decay of a single atom until observed, when the wave equation would collapse to one state or the other.

Dale

Hello, Dale!

has mentioned experiments where scientist isolate and send one photon of light thru one of several slots at a time, so that each photon of light cannot interfere with the other, but even then they react in a pattern as if the other photons had all been sent thru together…

Yes - the Young’s double slit experiment.- which has a number of different explanations (someone once said that there are as many explanations of quantum physics as there are physicists) - but my favourite explanation is that the wave equation describes the probability of a particle being detected - in the double slit experiment the probability function does describe a double slit interference pattern - each photon does ‘go through’ both slits.

Ideas about reality splitting off into all possible outcomes in an infinate number of realities. There is a reality where I was never born, where I died years ago, where I married someone else, and on and on and on for every person in every situation thru all of time.

Aha! - if the Schroedinger wave equation evolves deterministically in a unitary fashion, with Hilbert rotations, then we have the situation you describe which in modern phyics is constrained by decoherence and defines the Everett many-worlds interpretation of quantum superposition.

That is what Matt’s ideas sound like to me. That there was a point where the realities split off after the Fall and that we’re living in a reality alternate to what we were meant to live in. So that the Garden does exist, and it would have been physically in the same location, but after that split of reality we have a desert or something in its place.

I’m sure that falls outside of mainstream science (not sure how controversial those ideas are, or just that we simply don’t know enough to do any decent speculation) and probably outside of mainstream religious thought both.
Marcia

The fundamentals of quantum mechanics including decoherence as a basis for many-worlds and the wave equation as a basis for unitary quantum mechancs which approaches the classical results is a foundation for modern physics.
Alec
www,evolutionpages.com

 

[marciadietrich]

Hello Alec

hecd2:

No - the spelling is perfect: Erwin Schroedinger (drop the e and put an umlaut on the o if you have a German keyboard) won the Nobel prize (with the British physicist Paul Dirac) in 1933 for developing eigenvalue solutions to spectral problems.

Spelled like it sounds then.

… a cat both alive and dead in a box depending on the quantum decay of a single atom until observed, when the wave equation would collapse to one state or the other.

I’m sure Dale told me that, but I think I had it as a repressed memory, lol. I like cats and that seems such a guy thing to have it be a dead cat in a box. BTW, Dale is my husband. Just in case we do have a Dale posting here.

Yes - the Young’s double slit experiment
…my favourite explanation is that the wave equation describes the probability of a particle being detected - in the double slit experiment the probability function does describe a double slit interference pattern - each photon does ‘go through’ both slits.

Dale drew this one out for me. I need pictures. They don’t print this stuff in comic form do they?

Aha! - if the Schroedinger wave equation evolves deterministically in a unitary fashion, with Hilbert rotations, then we have the situation you describe which in modern phyics is constrained by decoherence and defines the Everett many-worlds interpretation of quantum superposition.The fundamentals of quantum mechanics including decoherence as a basis for many-worlds and the wave equation as a basis for unitary quantum mechancs which approaches the classical results is a foundation for modern physics.

This is why I took easy Physics for non-science majors. lol Of course, for what I understand, quantum physics is way beyond basic physics. Dale doesn’t even have a bachelor’s degree, he’s just well-read and interested in the subject. Seems he has a decent grasp on the topic. He thought I would like it since I watch Star Trek and Doctor Who (Tom Baker years please).

Always a pleasure talking with you,
Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

Matt16_18:

continued …

The 3-D parallel universe of Paradise would exist outside of these other Witten-Horava parallel universes, because the universe of Paradise is governed by a completely different set of physics, a physics where decay cannot exist, and where entropy laws do not apply.

Hi Matt,

This is interesting.

St. Hildegarde and the Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich are saying that Paradise exists outside our fallen physical universe,

Is this the person who had the visions part of Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ movie was based on? Sorry I don’t know the private revelation and blessed/saints all that well … so might be confused. I am still learning public revelation.

Catholics that know their faith are also aware that the souls in the “parallel universes” of Purgatory and Heaven are still connected to the members of the Church Militant that dwell on the earth, …
although the term “parallel universe” is certainly not typically used when Catholics talk about the Communion of the Saints.

Interesting again.

Now consider apparitions of Mary, such as the apparition seen by the children at Fatima. The children of Fatima said that Mary was physically there with them at the time of the third apparition. While the children could see and touch Mary, others standing right next to the children could not see Mary. Think about that for a second.

I don’t know that much on Fatima, I know it is an approved revelation. I am uncertain about these things. This and Lourdes and Eucharist Miracles. That we’re interconnected somehow via the communion of Saints, yes. That Mary appears to people personally I am unsure on that. That the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ via transubstantiation, yes. That there are hosts that actually bleed, I don’t know .

Anyhow, thanks for expanding on your thoughts.

Marcia

 

[RMP]

ALEC,
Shall I go on?

You better, your experimental evidence does not prove a new species in any macro evolutionary sense.

Hybridisation—the mixing of genes from two distinct species—has been observed to form a third, reproductively distinct grouping. Scientist would hold that the two species which hybridised were likely to have previously formed from a single ancestral population by way of non-evolutionary (that is, non-information-gaining) speciation. (The hybrid species is not necessarily an exact reversion to the ancestral form, of course, since this may have given rise to several other species since the original Creation.) Once again, no information appears de novo which was not already in the biosphere; all that has happened is that two sets of existing information have commingled. This clearly has no apologetic value for macroevolution.

But keep trying.

 

[RMP]

Alec,
You never answered my two questions.
Did Jesus Christ exist?
If so, Did Jesus Christ tell us the truth?

Sooner or later you will have to confront these two questions, whether as a scientist or just plain Alec.
After you answer theses questions I will continue the answer YOUR questions?

 

[hecd2]

RMP:

You better, your experimental evidence does not prove a new species in any macro evolutionary sense.

They demonstrate speciation in the sense of the emergence of a new species. Which is what speciation means.

Hybridisation—the mixing of genes from two distinct species—has been observed to form a third, reproductively distinct grouping. Scientist would hold that the two species which hybridised were likely to have previously formed from a single ancestral population by way of non-evolutionary (that is, non-information-gaining) speciation. (The hybrid species is not necessarily an exact reversion to the ancestral form, of course, since this may have given rise to several other species since the original Creation.) Once again, no information appears de novo which was not already in the biosphere; all that has happened is that two sets of existing information have commingled. This clearly has no apologetic value for macroevolution.

But keep trying.

I gave you six references, links to two websites with dozens more references and a reference to a book, and the best you can do is latch on to a single word in the title of one of the papers that you *think *you understand. In the case of the Greig et al paper, what do you think the new species can do with its tetrasomy?

In other words, this is a ‘fingers in ears’, ‘head in sand’ response. Not really worth any further effort.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

RMP:

Alec,
You never answered my two questions.
Did Jesus Christ exist?

Probably

If so, Did Jesus Christ tell us the truth?

Sometimes.

Sooner or later you will have to confront these two questions, whether as a scientist or just plain Alec.
After you answer theses questions I will continue the answer YOUR questions?

That’ll be a gas!

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

Parallel 3-D universes are all the rage among cosmologists today:

Dear Matt,

Yep and the best summary of this is an article by Max Tegmark here:

arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0302/0302131.pdf

or here:

hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse.pdf

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[RMP]

No, you have not proved your assumption of the evolutionary process. I understand enough to see that your examples fit perfectly into that definition, so your references are a mute point.

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

continued …

The 3-D parallel universe of Paradise would exist outside of these other Witten-Horava parallel universes, because the universe of Paradise is governed by a completely different set of physics, a physics where decay cannot exist, and where entropy laws do not apply.

Dear Matt, Let’s see - can you enlighten those of the subscribers to the message board who are not physicists on the exact definition of entropy (and it would be helpful to point out such things as the relationship between temperature and entropy) - just so they understand what a universe where energy does not flow from bodies at higher to bodies at lower temperatures would be like.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

The Catholic Church teaches that when people die, that they go to Purgatory, Heaven, or Hell - which are places outside of the physical universe where we dwell. I don’t think that Heaven is literally above the clouds in the sky, and that Purgatory or Hell are literally someplace in the depths of the earth, and I don’t think most Catholics think this way either.

Perhaps they don’t now, but that was not the case for most of the history of Catholicism. From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
'Where is hell? Some were of opinion that hell is everywhere, that the damned are at liberty to roam about in the entire universe, but that they carry their punishment with them. … However, that opinion is universally and deservedly rejected; for it is more in keeping with their state of punishment that the damned be limited in their movements and confined to a definite place. Moreover, if hell is a real fire, it cannot be everywhere, especially after the consummation of the world, when heaven and earth shall have been made anew. As to its locality all kinds of conjectures have been made; it has been suggested that hell is situated on some far island of the sea, or at the two poles of the earth; Swinden, an Englishman of the eighteenth century, fancied it was in the sun; some assigned it to the moon, others to Mars; others placed it beyond the confines of the universe [Wiest, “Instit. theol.”, VI (1789), 869]. The Bible seems to indicate that hell is within the earth, for it describes hell as an abyss to which the wicked descend. We even read of the earth opening and of the wicked sinking down into hell (Num., xvi, 31 sqq.; Ps., liv, 16; Is., v, 14; Ez., xxvi, 20; Phil., ii, 10, etc.). Is this merely a metaphor to illustrate the state of separation from God? Although God is omnipresent, He is said to dwell in heaven, because the light and grandeur of the stars and the firmament are the brightest manifestations of His infinite splendour. But the damned are utterly estranged from God; hence their abode is said to be as remote as possible from his dwelling, far from heaven above and its light, and consequently hidden away in the dark abysses of the earth. However, no cogent reason has been advanced for accepting a metaphorical interpretation in preference to the most natural meaning of the words of Scripture. Hence theologians generally accept the opinion that hell is really within the earth. ’

‘At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of the blessed (Apoc., xxi). Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the blessed. Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain.’

Furthermore, ‘heaven’ is used to mean both the extrasolar universe and the Catholic place of happiness for the saved. These parallel meanings have not arisen accidentally.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

Perhaps they don’t now, but that was not the case for most of the history of Catholicism.

None of the speculations about where Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are located are dogmas of the Faith. But I can see that you desperately need Catholic beliefs to be presented in their most naïve form so that you can be smug and complacent as you use your education to disparage these naïve speculations. You have made a choice to be an apostate, and any presentation of the Catholic Faith that is not simplistic is a threat to you.