The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[StAnastasia]

Fortunately, the self-induced micro-cephalic dysfunction is fully reversible if diagnosed and treated in time with the appropriate cognitive therapy. The mind will then expand towards its natural size limit to the degree or percentage that one’s belief approximates the actual age of the earth.

Less kindly, I’ve heard it argued that YEC children ought not to be taught how to read and write, as they are in a state of simplicity and happiness, and making them literate would only lead them to unhappiness when they discover how ambiguous the world really is.

 

[ricmat]

Do you really want to know what happens?

If one believes in an earth much younger than its actual age then his (or her’s) mind shrinks by the corresponding percentage that the fantasized age has missed the mark. For example, whatever percentage 6,000 or 10,000 years is of 4.54 billion years , (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%), the mind of said believer shrinks by the corresponding percentage. This effect is fully predictable and calculable with an accuracy of +/- 1%.

Fortunately, the self-induced micro-cephalic dysfunction is fully reversible if diagnosed and treated in time with the appropriate cognitive therapy. The mind will then expand towards its natural size limit to the degree or percentage that one’s belief approximates the actual age of the earth.

Note: YEC’s who believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old in appearance, but was created 6,000 years ago, have been known to experience only one brain hemisphere collapse by the corresponding percentage of their error.

So I guess this means that those who believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old instead of 6,000 years old have been known to experience an inflation of their pride by a corresponding percentage of their error?

Oh yea…

And again, for the record, I’m not a YEC.

 

[itinerant1]

So I guess this means that those who believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old instead of 6,000 years old have been known to experience an inflation of their pride by a corresponding percentage of their error?

Oh yea…

And again, for the record, I’m not a YEC.

Okay, you are not a YEC. So, what is your preferred view?

 

[ricmat]

Okay, you are not a YEC. So, what is your preferred view?

I believe the earth is 4.something billion years. But leave the door open just in case…

How old do you think Venus is?

 

[ricmat]

Less kindly, I’ve heard it argued that YEC children ought not to be taught how to read and write, as they are in a state of simplicity and happiness, and making them literate would only lead them to unhappiness when they discover how ambiguous the world really is.

You certainly rub elbows with nasty people!

 

[itinerant1]

Less kindly, I’ve heard it argued that YEC children ought not to be taught how to read and write, as they are in a state of simplicity and happiness, and making them literate would only lead them to unhappiness when they discover how ambiguous the world really is.

I am compelled to question the initial assumption about ignorance being bliss. That is, if ignorance is bliss, then why aren’t more people happy?

Every once in a while, I must vent my utter frustration over YEC. It is such a dysfunctional world-view, even though the YECs I know, generally, are very fine people.

 

[itinerant1]

I believe the earth is 4.something billion years. But leave the door open just in case…

How old do you think Venus is?

Venus is 6,000 years old. :whacky:

 

[itinerant1]

Did you pay? If so I will be looking forward to the big commission.

Here - I did a search and it is here - free.

That was an good essay, but I’m glad I did not have to do the pay-per-view option. For me the essay speaks to my assumption that evolution theory is still far too simplistic; as more is learned about nature, the theory will mature and change.

I did not see any grand revelations in the essay, and nothing at all about the “core” hypothesis.

Some of statements in the essay were problematic, though. For instance it says,

“Because the drivers of this baseline phenotypic variation acted during
development in the egg, Badyaev says, selection was essentially blind to the
creation of this initial pool of phenotypic variation. It was only later, when young birds began feeding on the foods available in their new habitat, that selection could determine which beaks were more or less suited to the environment. “Selection does not see the developmental process by which this beak was produced,” he notes. “But it’s exactly there that resides the opportunity for diversification.””

I don’t think there is anything new here, it is just what aspect is being emphasized. Selection acts on phenotypes. Whatever is expressed by the genotype can be fair game. The overt behavior of animals (pecking, etc.) is genetically determined. Okay, so, the most effective beak in action is favored, just as is the better length, according to the environment, for a giraffe’s neck.

On another note, the statement “Selection does not see the developmental process by which this beak was produced…” reflects a way of talking about nature that tends to personify nature. This way of talking has been common since Darwin. Perhaps someone should take a critical look at it. Nature does not “select”, and Selection does not “see” or “not see”.

 

[edwest2]

As I suspected, nothing happens. I think the “insistence argument” needs to exposed for what it is - an ideology. Just like certain scientists can take the same ‘mountains of evidence’ and use it to deny God, the same occurs here when blunt and emotional statements are used against those who believe differently than others insist. The truth is the truth. It needs no promotion, but here, it is plain that a certain idea must be accepted now, or some vague, all-encompassing nothing will happen.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

That was an good essay, but I’m glad I did not have to do the pay-per-view option. For me the essay speaks to my assumption that evolution theory is still far too simplistic; as more is learned about nature, the theory will mature and change.

I did not see any grand revelations in the essay, and nothing at all about the “core” hypothesis.

Some of statements in the essay were problematic, though. For instance it says,

“Because the drivers of this baseline phenotypic variation acted during
development in the egg, Badyaev says, selection was essentially blind to the
creation of this initial pool of phenotypic variation. It was only later, when young birds began feeding on the foods available in their new habitat, that selection could determine which beaks were more or less suited to the environment. “Selection does not see the developmental process by which this beak was produced,” he notes. “But it’s exactly there that resides the opportunity for diversification.””

I don’t think there is anything new here, it is just what aspect is being emphasized. Selection acts on phenotypes. Whatever is expressed by the genotype can be fair game. The overt behavior of animals (pecking, etc.) is genetically determined. Okay, so, the most effective beak in action is favored, just as is the better length, according to the environment, for a giraffe’s neck.

On another note, the statement “Selection does not see the developmental process by which this beak was produced…” reflects a way of talking about nature that tends to personify nature. This way of talking has been common since Darwin. Perhaps someone should take a critical look at it. Nature does not “select”, and Selection does not “see” or “not see”.

Just keep in mind the basic idea here.

In the meantime I would like you comments on the following:

In Praise of Subtlety

 

[itinerant1]

Just keep in mind the basic idea here.

In the meantime I would like you comments on the following:

In Praise of Subtlety

Ironically, I find the Torley’s essay more like a roller coaster ride, lacking the subtle and critical distinctions needed for properly addressing the issues.

For instance, he says “specified complexity cannot be explained in terms of chemistry.” This begs the question. To begin with, chemistry is never unspecific. And there is no scientific or other reason to suspect that plant and animal life require anything in addition to the highly specific matter which comprises these organisms.

That is, if one believes in an infinitely wise and powerful God that created the universe, on what grounds does he assert that God could not, or did not, create matter as such, such that it is capable of fulfilling all the natural purposes the Creator intended?

In addition, I think Torley would be a loss to properly explain “design” as it relates to final causality. The critical subtleties involved in the question go beyond his limitations in the area of metaphysical analysis.

Need I say more?

 

[itinerant1]

As I suspected, nothing happens. I think the “insistence argument” needs to exposed for what it is - an ideology. Just like certain scientists can take the same ‘mountains of evidence’ and use it to deny God, the same occurs here when blunt and emotional statements are used against those who believe differently than others insist. The truth is the truth. It needs no promotion, but here, it is plain that a certain idea must be accepted now, or some vague, all-encompassing nothing will happen.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, wake your mind!! :yawn:

 

[itinerant1]

Just keep in mind the basic idea here.

In the meantime I would like you comments on the following:

In Praise of Subtlety

One more comment. Torley says, “Scotus held that since intelligence and goodness were pure perfections, not limited by their very nature to a finite mode of realization, they could be predicated univocally of God and human beings.”

Whether Scotus held that view exactly as Torley explains I would have to check. Whatever the case may be, and whatever good reasons there may be for making that claim, it is flat out wrong. It fails to properly take into account how we acquire natural knowledge and what the nature of our knowledge is in regard to things about sense experience.

This has a direct bearing on the meanings of words we use in relation to God, when we say he is infinitely wise, loving, powerful, merciful, intelligent, etc. Those terms are used analogically and not univocally…

 

[itinerant1]

One more comment. Torley says, “Scotus held that since intelligence and goodness were pure perfections, not limited by their very nature to a finite mode of realization, they could be predicated univocally of God and human beings.”

Whether Scotus held that view exactly as Torley explains I would have to check. Whatever the case may be, and whatever good reasons there may be for making that claim, it is flat out wrong. It fails to properly take into account how we acquire natural knowledge and what the nature of our knowledge is in regard to things about sense experience.

This has a direct bearing on the meanings of words we use in relation to God, when we say he is infinitely wise, loving, powerful, merciful, intelligent, etc. Those terms are used analogically and not univocally…

Correction:
One more comment. Torley says, “Scotus held that since intelligence and goodness were pure perfections, not limited by their very nature to a finite mode of realization, they could be predicated univocally of God and human beings.”

Whether Scotus held that view exactly as Torley explains I would have to check. Whatever the case may be, and whatever good reasons there may be for making that claim, it is flat out wrong. It fails to properly take into account how we acquire natural knowledge and what the nature of our knowledge is in regard to things above sense experience and which transcend the natural world.

This has a direct bearing on the meanings of words we use in relation to God, when we say he is infinitely wise, loving, powerful, merciful, intelligent, etc. Those terms are used analogically and not univocally…

 

[StAnastasia]

You certainly rub elbows with nasty people!

I do communicate with you…

 

[StAnastasia]

Venus is 6,000 years old. :whacky:

Did Noah’s Flood cover Venus too? The firmament may have been damaged when the floods were 29,000 feet deep, causing the planets to drag in the water as their chariots floundered across the sky.

 

[StAnastasia]

I am compelled to question the initial assumption about ignorance being bliss. That is, if ignorance is bliss, then why aren’t more people happy?

Every once in a while, I must vent my utter frustration over YEC. It is such a dysfunctional world-view, even though the YECs I know, generally, are very fine people.

Yes, I too have YEC relatives. We rarely discuss controversial topics like science, theology, climate change, politics, liturgy, etc.

 

[buffalo]

Ironically, I find the Torley’s essay more like a roller coaster ride, lacking the subtle and critical distinctions needed for properly addressing the issues.

For instance, he says “specified complexity cannot be explained in terms of chemistry.” This begs the question. To begin with, chemistry is never unspecific. And there is no scientific or other reason to suspect that plant and animal life require anything in addition to the highly specific matter which comprises these organisms.

That is, if one believes in an infinitely wise and powerful God that created the universe, on what grounds does he assert that God could not, or did not, create matter as such, such that it is capable of fulfilling all the natural purposes the Creator intended?

In addition, I think Torley would be a loss to properly explain “design” as it relates to final causality. The critical subtleties involved in the question go beyond his limitations in the area of metaphysical analysis.

Need I say more?

Do you see where Id leaves off and IDvolution starts?

 

[buffalo]

Of course these findings have to fit the current paradigm. But I predict that will slowly change as this is digested by the 200,000 hungry working biologists.

IDvolution? Yessiree…

The theory of facilitated variation

Robustness and Adaptability

                                  .....Weak regulatory linkage, state selection,  and exploratory behavior underlie the robustness and adaptability of  conserved core                      processes, that is, their capacity to produce  functional (viable) outcomes despite physiological, developmental,  environmental,                      or even evolutionary change. Robustness implies  that a process remains the same because of tolerance or resistance to  changing                      conditions, and adaptability implies that a process  changes with the conditions in ways still to achieve the objective.  Related                      to such properties, several authors have discussed  the positive role of phenotypic plasticity in evolution ([14](http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8582.full#ref-14), [16](http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8582.full#ref-16)); we feel that plasticity reflects the  robustness and adaptability of core processes linked in complex  assemblies. **Robustness                      and adaptability are essential to the kind of  evolution we have described, wherein core processes are used in  different combinations,                      amounts, and states to produce new traits. They  strongly reduce the requirements for regulatory change, and hence  genetic                      change, and increase the frequency of viable  phenotypic variations. **

…Recent advances in cell and developmental biology raise other possibilities for sources and paths of phenotypic variation. As noted previously, cellular adaptations occur repeatedly during development. Embryonic cells usually possess two or more developmental options under the control of a switch-like circuit. Via weak regulatory linkage. they respond to signals from neighboring cells, choosing one or the other option. At different times and places in the embryo, cells have different response options. If the adaptive states of embryonic cells are enumerated (states of gene expression, proliferation, secretion, shape, and signaling), the number is enormous. We suggest that this developmental cellular plasticity, which is based on ensembles of core processes already linked in various regulatory ways, is a major cryptic source of evolutionary novelty by regulatory stabilization. Such plasticity is, we think, rarely evocable by environmental conditions and hence would be omitted from the Baldwin effect.

…

Experimental Evidence for Facilitated Variation
**To summarize, we argue that robustness, adaptability, modularity, capacity for weak regulatory linkage, exploratory behavior, and state selection of the conserved core processes, as well as the regulatory compartmentation of the conserved core processes, are key properties of the animal's phenotype that facilitate the generation of anatomical and physiological variation by regulatory change, which ultimately requires genetic change to be heritable. These special properties reduce the number of genetic changes needed for phenotypic change, increase the number of targets for regulatory change, reduce lethality, and increase genetic variation retained in the population. Although the core processes are constrained in their own change of function, they deconstrain regulatory change. **

 

[itinerant1]

Yes, I too have YEC relatives. We rarely discuss controversial topics like science, theology, climate change, politics, liturgy, etc.

Not much left that can be talked about except what’s for lunch.