Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 16 of 83 (89758)
03-02-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by debbyglee
03-01-2004 11:16 AM


side simultaneity
There are not sides. Did I say there are no sides? Well like yom" means a 24 hour day to K. Ham there are no c/e sides!! Mark24 and I probably dont agree but he doesn't quote my "illusion//" below the fold for no reason.
Now I will say generally why I SAY this is so. I will make the announcement as fact but the statement may be false. It is a sentence nonetheless.
Cell death is a means to reset the "vector' attributes of a central RNA 'clock" (via U) embedded in a tensor surround of immune adapted tensors in some cases. Operon silmutaneity remands this be false if regulation in some cases is acheived by stalling and frequency changes in rate of non-uniform transit across any old attenuator. There are no sides. There is a clock. Different lengths of endonucleolytic DNA not mutually exclusive segement divisions "FORCE" these changes.
Now I will addresss Ned on Newto'n' for the EPR paradox and Bohr's instistence of where there is "room" for new physical laws is only sidelined in this possibility. I think that is impossible for the reason that I think we attempt to find statistics where linear numbers instead are called for. The psychology of 5-D space and baraminology may not be a cross purposes. But there must be some purpose.
Did I say there are no sides? There is failure to heed transcendentalism for probalism but this is NOT what Gould meant by "smoothing the Galton polyhedron". There there ARE sides and a worm ring is not a ringworm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by debbyglee, posted 03-01-2004 11:16 AM debbyglee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by debbyglee, posted 03-02-2004 6:18 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
debbyglee
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 83 (89877)
03-02-2004 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Brad McFall
03-02-2004 9:35 AM


Re: side simultaneity
Hi Brad,
I found your posting very interesting. I would like to understand it better, so I have some questions and some comments:
Your introduction is fairly clear, and it seems to me that the next paragraph is a declaration of your intention to support your claim that there are no sides to the c/e debate, and an acknowledgment that you may be in err. (A refreshing thing to see on a bbs.) The sentence where you mention your statement may be false feels to me like a positive nod to the Skeptic doctrine of probalism, which you indeed reference towards the end of your post.
I must confess that my knowledge concerning RNA, DNA and cell death is restricted to what I learned in college biology and what I have read since in popular vehicles, like the news or Scientific American, so I have been able to garner, for the most part, only a vague intuition of what you are trying to convey in your discussion of RNA, DNA and cell death.
However, I believe I have been able to glean some meaning from your thoughts around RNA, DNA, and cell death. While I have some understanding of your statement that: "There are no sides. There is a clock.", it seems to me that you place this statement in the context of cell death and genetical mutation, not in a context that explains its relationship to the perceived sides of the c/e debate. Note that I do not say that your statement does not have a relationship to the existence of perceived sides of the c/e debate, just that the context the statement is in does not illuminate its relationship to the existence of sides.
When viewed in the context of your discussion of celluar biology, my understanding of your statement that "There are no sides. There is a clock." is that you believe that evolution proceeds according to a timetable embedded in or in some way determined by DNA/RNA. Is that the case?
I cannot address your next paragraph, because I have an educated layman's ability in physics, and that is certainly not enough to construct opinions about the EPR paradox or Bohr's ideas concerning it. I do, however, have two questions:
1. What is baraminology?
2. What is the psychology of 5-D space?
Now, does your statement, "There is a failure to heed transcendentalism for probalism", mean:
"There is a failure to heed transcendentalism *because of* probalism"
or does it mean:
"There is a failure to heed transcendentalism *because the non-heeders replace transcendentalism with* probalism"?
or does it mean something else entirely?
It is clear that you feel that the perception that there are sides to c/e is a misperception on the part of those who perceive the existence of sides. I understand your clever reference to smoothing the Galton polyhedron, for, of course, if one smoothes the sides of a polyhedron, it becomes a sphere and has only one side. I am afraid I do not understand the reference to Stephen Gould, but I will find it and read it.
I think you conclude by saying there are only sides to the c/e debate because of a failure of understanding on the part of the participants on both sides of the debate. The only worm ring I know of is a worm ring gear, and I have to agree that this is not the same as a ringworm, but I'm having some difficulty with this comparison. Assuming that the worm ring you are referring to is a worm ring gear, are you using this comparison to point out the difference between the organic and the inorganic, or are you using it to point out the difference between a human artifact and a natural organism? Or something else that I am missing?
In the end, it seems to me that you believe that, while there are no actual sides, that there are perceived sides in the c/e debate. For the purposes of my question, I would say that you are saying no one, including yourself, can actually change sides, because there are no actual sides to change. On the other hand, it seems to me that you are kindly and politely conceding the existence of perceived sides, which leaves room for those who perceive them to continue to respond to my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 03-02-2004 9:35 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
debbyglee
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 83 (89882)
03-02-2004 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
03-02-2004 1:11 AM


Re: What classification am I?
Phatboy,
I'd say you are a person in transition, who is open to ideas and not adverse to applying them to his worldview. I'd also say that you are confused between what you are comfortable with intellectually, and what you are comfortable with spiritually.
Labels are not very useful, really. Transitional phases are.
cheers!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 03-02-2004 1:11 AM Phat has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 19 of 83 (89907)
03-02-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-01-2004 11:42 PM


"Ah-Ha Erlebnitz (sp?)" (C'mon Mammathus, help us out here!)
Ach, du! Wenn du mit mir sprichst, kannst du mir ueber die Rechtschreibung Deutscher Woerter fragen, weil ich auch ein Bisschen Deutsch kann! Und Rechtschreibung auf Deutsch ist nicht so schwer als Rechtschreibung auf Englisch!
It's Erlebnis. I'll be glad to help.
(statistical model coming up)
I followed your statistical model. I was going to major in statistics and took a couple classes before I decided that I really didn't want to study, so I quit. I was a really lazy teenager; pitiful.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 11:42 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-03-2004 10:35 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 20 of 83 (89908)
03-02-2004 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
03-02-2004 1:11 AM


Re: What classification am I?
Could one of you guys define the beliefs of a theistic evolutionist?
I don't think there's an official definition. When I use theistic evolutionist, I pretty much mean everyone who believes in God and believes in evolution, no matter how unguided or guided they see evolution to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 03-02-2004 1:11 AM Phat has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 83 (90169)
03-03-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by truthlover
03-02-2004 8:46 PM


TL,
Erlebnis, erlebnis. erlebnis .... got it. I passed German to get my doctorate, tranlated a few papers, then got lazy and let it slide. But it remains true, there are some things you just cannot say in any other language.
Good, too, to know that I don't always have to tranlate my mental statistiacl images. I'll send them to you for interpretation, too!
Still chewing on your thoughts about why people change their minds. I can see that I stress training, and, ah, spiritual influences, more than evidence. Because I think the spiritual influences are conspiratorial, it does not surprize me that their negative pressure is greatest where the training curriculum is the best. Hence, creationists seem most opinionated, yet most able to learn. But, I was converted myself to believing in creation by evidence, just as I was converting others the other way by other evidence. So, I've never noticed the evidence going either way. There are as many observations of prayers, even dramatically answered prayers, as of fossils, after all. Much was anecdotal and while such anecdotal evidence carried somewhat less weight, I only had to go and see for myself to replicate.
Anyway, since the evidence for me went both ways, I clearly needed a blended theory, which I have in evolition.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by truthlover, posted 03-02-2004 8:46 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by truthlover, posted 03-11-2004 4:07 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 22 of 83 (91790)
03-11-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-03-2004 10:35 PM


Hi, Stephen. I totally missed this reply. I guess we could discuss this when I see you again, but it seems like there's so much else to discuss at those times, so I'll go ahead and write this here. Writing on a message board is slower, anyway, gives me time to think.
There are as many observations of prayers, even dramatically answered prayers, as of fossils, after all.
I don't really see how answered prayer has anything to do with creation at all. I believe that our God is the Creator, but it seems to me that he could answer prayer even if he wasn't the Creator. I believe, and I would guess you believe, that other spirits answer prayers beside the Creator, so answered prayers, even dramatically answered prayers, don't seem to have much to do with the subject of evolution to me.
But, I was converted myself to believing in creation by evidence, just as I was converting others the other way by other evidence. So, I've never noticed the evidence going either way.
Well, in one sense I'm a creationist. I believe everything was created, and I even think I know who created it! However, I'm generally referred to as an evolutionist on this forum, because I believe evolution happened, and anti-evolutionists seem to have hijacked the term creationist for themselves. There's good, solid evidence for evolution; evidence that you believe, because you believe evolution happened, you just believe it was all artificial, not natural (I think).
On the other hand, the only evidence I have for creation is the say-so of a Spirit. Mind you, I believe that Spirit, and I live my life by that Spirit, and I am in awe continually at the results. Nonetheless, I've got his say-so, nothing else, or at least that's what I think.
I answered my wife with, "If he's fooling me, I'm fooled. There ain't a thing I can do about it. I'm at his mercy. If he said he created the earth, and he's lying, well, then, I'm tricked."
Do you think there's other evidence?
Anyway, since the evidence for me went both ways, I clearly needed a blended theory, which I have in evolition.
Evidence for God, or evidence for some other form of creation than evolution? I don't believe evidence for God implies in any way that evolution didn't happen just as mainstream science says it happened.
Help me follow what you're thinking here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-03-2004 10:35 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-12-2004 12:53 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 83 (91971)
03-12-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by truthlover
03-11-2004 4:07 PM


Ah, Truthlover,
Who else could touch the nerve!
It's all in the definition! Is evolution common descent? Or is evolution "natural selection on random mutations?" When friend Darwin titled his book, The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection one would have thought that this issue would be clear. But, it is not. That we descended, in some sense, from primates, that we are in our flesh, primates, seems clearly proven by science. That Darwin's contribution contributed to settling this, is eternally to his credit. Even, that species are not immutable, also to his credit.
But, somehow, God got thrown out with the bath-water of some sort of six-day, new earth vision of creation.
Which was, I think, the devil's way of side-tracking Darwin.
A forgiveable mistake, of course. And, I think that it is to science's credit that it corrects this mistake. For answered prayers for better living prove that God artificially selects, that He manipulates fitness. Probably Satan does too, as we know that we do. This reduces the importance of natural selection, and says that evolution, as originally defined, is not the whole story. May not be any of the story.
I will concede that evolution is "wrong" only in the sense that Newtonian mechanics is "wrong." Right for most practical purposes, but really untrue, only a useful approximation to truth. And, to ignore the wrongness is a fatal error, just as to ignore relativity today would be fatal to a nation.
Anyway, as I say, to honor evolution's contributions to theology, I call the mixed theory, evolition. The origin of species by means of artificial selection on genetic engineering. It's a better theory because it takes what is good from evolution (common descent, time) and merges it with what is good from creation (Jehovah and others have willfully designed the outcomes in many, perhaps most cases, and ought to be credited for their creativity).
Creationists are not thereby tempted to conceive of God as some sort of distant, finger-snapping omnipotent-but-unapproachable despot, and evolutionists are not tempted to admire (worship?) a glorious creation while ignoring its creator. Instead, we have a baby-stepping daddy, slowly but surely making a better life for all of us in many ways, only asking that we remember His inputs. And we can blame mosquitos and some other disgusting parasites on Satan.
But, as has been pointed out here, the science of answered prayer is not convincingly public. Those who have experienced this personally may be convinced, but there remains room for skepticism. Yeshua and His parables suggest that this may always be the case.
But, when we pray for a genotype (ours) to become more fit (we have more children and grandchildren), and God answers and makes it so, we have artificial selection, by us and Him in cooperation. So, evolution has ceased, and evolition has manifested.
At least, that's how I see it.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by truthlover, posted 03-11-2004 4:07 PM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2004 1:20 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 83 (91986)
03-12-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-12-2004 12:53 AM


It's a better theory because it takes what is good from evolution (common descent, time) and merges it with what is good from creation (Jehovah and others have willfully designed the outcomes in many, perhaps most cases, and ought to be credited for their creativity).
It's an interesting theory, but by what mechanism does God manipulate the genome? Artifical selection? Manipulation on environment? Magic? I'm just curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-12-2004 12:53 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-12-2004 2:43 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 83 (92016)
03-12-2004 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
03-12-2004 1:20 AM


Crash,
by what mechanism does God manipulate the genome? Artifical selection? Manipulation on environment? Magic? I'm just curious.
My operating hypothesis, currently the most plausible that I'm aware of, is this.
Words spoken by a conscious mind transfer energy and matter from the realms of dark energy and matter into the electromagnetic parts of the universe. This always happens, but to varying degrees according to "faith" which in this system operates as a sort of machine that can be of variable size, taking stuff from the one part of the universe and transfering it to the other. Spoken words can also build faith machines, to do other work of transferance.
God, or us, or both speak words that create electromagnetic stuff. I, for example, attempt to speak longer telomeres into my genome, so that I have more youthful cells. God speaks genetic changes that produce new and useful proteins. He also speaks knowledge, and moves objects, by speaking words that channel energy from Einstein's cosmological constant into some electromagnetic, gravitational event.
The words must have meaning, be well defined, and be "truthful." Liars speak lies and almost nothing happens. But, liars can speak truths, and curse themselves. For example, call your children "kids" assigning both them and you to the "goat" category, and "goatishness" as a spiritual behavior syndrome begins to alter their and your personality. This happens even if you normally lie. The changes are both soulish (in the dark energy/matter realm) and biochemical (neural changes that habituate and facilitate selfish, carnal responses). That you "didn't mean it" has little effect on the outcome. Words have meaning and power, independent of your meaning or understanding. Thus, speaking in tongues can be quite powerful. Most people calling their children "kids" are close to cursing in tongues. Of course, those who "testify" to the blood of Yeshua break all curses.
A curse, of course, is a demon with an agenda. Being cursed is like having a hit man on your case. The police will try to protect you, but you will have problems. Count on it.
Satan has his own "creation" agenda, and you are on it only insofar as he can use you and yours to uglify God's creation. There is some indication that Satan is speechless, however. He has to work through our speaking. Not too sure about this, but he certainly goes to great length to get us releasing negative sorts of changes into the electromagnetic world through the use of slang and casual ("idle") words. Spooks are great moaners, but don't seem to say much.
God's prefered way of working now, of course, is through us. He somehow puts an idea into our heads, which we identify as His speaking to us. We speak this, and the electromagnetic world changes.
Brash of me to even attempt to answer this question, actually. Just wanted you to know that I think about these things, get ideas, experiment with them.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2004 1:20 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2004 3:01 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 83 (92022)
03-12-2004 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-12-2004 2:43 AM


Words have meaning and power, independent of your meaning or understanding.
This is obviously false. The meaning of words is defined entirely by the community of speakers using them. That's why dictionaries go out of date and why languages change over time.
If words have no inherent meaning, as they obviously do not, I don't see how they could have the power you ascribe to them. You've got somefunny ideas but don't you think you should have bounced them off a linguist first?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-12-2004 2:43 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-12-2004 3:20 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 83 (92027)
03-12-2004 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
03-12-2004 3:01 AM


Crash,
I am familiar with the hypothesis that you assert, but don't find it compelling, or useful. Certainly, a lot of word evolution takes place, in usage. But there is little effort to keep track of the spiritual implications of this. Daniel Webster was an exception to this, actually, and tried to get to the "real" meaning of words, in order to increase spiritual power in prayer. Remember, the hypothesis includes the devil's perversion of language, his efforts to create (Prov 2:12) "the man who speaks perverse things."
Note too the taxonomic rule, that the earliest name given to something is the one we are to use. All words, in a sense, are the name given to some object, concept, thing, according to the original definition.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2004 3:01 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2004 3:25 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 83 (92028)
03-12-2004 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-12-2004 3:20 AM


I am familiar with the hypothesis that you assert, but don't find it compelling, or useful.
Oh, I imagine you don't. It is, nonetheless, accurate.
Note too the taxonomic rule, that the earliest name given to something is the one we are to use. All words, in a sense, are the name given to some object, concept, thing, according to the original definition.
Has that ever been followed? I doubt it. Go to the cities of Italy and observe how the local name is much, much different than the name you're familiar with. I.e. Florence/Firenze.
The very existence of more than one language proves you wrong, and proves that "hypothesis" to be fact.
There are symbols, and there are referents. But referents themselves can only be decribed in words. All words reduce only to words. There's just no way to define a word except as other words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-12-2004 3:20 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Navy10E, posted 03-12-2004 5:37 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 41 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-13-2004 12:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Navy10E
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 83 (92037)
03-12-2004 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
03-12-2004 3:25 AM


I commend you all on having incredible vocabularies. A lot of IQ bouncing around in here. I do have a question though. It seemed as though you all almost blindly accepted that more people shift from the Creationist Model to the Evolutionist Model. While that may be true reference this site, is that a scientific conclusion overall? I know in the "real world" I have personally convinced several undecided and Evolutionists to "come around" and change stances to the Creation Model. Either I'm A: lucky, B: good at putting together an argument or C: Very good looking. Just wanted to add my own piece of non-sense to the mayhem...
Joe
PS: I'm kinda' leaning towards an "all of the above" on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2004 3:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2004 6:02 AM Navy10E has not replied
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2004 1:48 PM Navy10E has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 83 (92039)
03-12-2004 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Navy10E
03-12-2004 5:37 AM


While that may be true reference this site, is that a scientific conclusion overall?
Well, I for one used to be a young-earth creationist. Now I'm an evolutionist. So there's at least one person for whom that is true.
PS: I'm kinda' leaning towards an "all of the above" on this one.
And that's fine. While I don't personally choose to believe in any gods, I didn't make that choice because of evolution. Evolution is perfectly consistent with the concept of a creator God.
What is isn't consistent with, unfortunately for some, is a literal reading of the Bible. But then, you don't have to believe in a literal Bible in order to believe in God, now do you?
Good luck with whatever you believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Navy10E, posted 03-12-2004 5:37 AM Navy10E has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024