The Miracle of Water.

[tas8831]

Where did the physical laws come from? Are they all just an amazing coincidence too?

Amazing - this self-asserted science expert thinks physical laws are actual, like, laws.

 

[tas8831]

If it's good: GodDidIt
If it's bad: The Debil made me do it.

It's really sad that some people have such a simplistic view of the world.

Seems pretty self-defeating, also.

I mean, on the one hand, they believe in and even worship a bloodthirsty, narcissistic thug whom they believe to be the Creator of all, and to be all powerful, yet they blame all the bad stuff in the world on... sumptin' else... So much for 'all powerful' ...

 

[tas8831]

Who or what caused the Big Bang? Can you rule out a Creator simply because his existence is not testable by current scientific methods?

Who or what caused the Creator you believe in? Where is the evidence for this Creator you speak of?

 

[tas8831]

Who said there can't be a first cause?

Who said there must be?

If the Creator is an infinite Being, then he is uncaused and was capable of causing everything else.....

Circular arguments are so totally AWESOME!

science cannot prove that he doesn't exist.

Religion cannot prove... anything.

If you cannot prove something, you have no facts

You cannot prove God exists, you have no facts.

You know that species have lived at different times but you have no real evidence that they evolved from one to the other.....you assume that they did.

Your insolence is tiresome and grotesque.

And if this has to be dumbed down - you really have no business writing anything about 'evidence' or science:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

 

[Jose Fly]

Manifestations? I'd go with one of Deeje's favoirite words:

The Jehovah's Witnesses generally discourage education and higher learning. I think Deeje's posts are proof of that.​

Definitely. It's amusing to watch someone with no more than a decades-old high school education, who also belongs to a religion that specifically discourages education, anoint themselves not only qualified to evaluate evolutionary biology, but superior to the professionals who work in that field.

What's really funny though is how one of the reasons Jehovah's Witnesses discourage education is because they see it as a prideful pursuit. Yet when you read Deeje's posts, the level of arrogance and pride in them is off the charts.

 

[nPeace]

I wonder where those lightnings come during a storm. Our best scientists and philosophers cannot grasp what can cause that sudden scary release of energy. Ergo, it must be Thor. Who else?

That is probably what you have said if you lived in Scandinavia in the middle ages, using the same line of reasoning.

And since most Vikings were sure about the Thor scenario, together with millions of similar examples from other cultures from the past and the present, that also clearly show that the awsome machine between our skulls is very unreliable. So, if it is the product of a design, it is stupid design. I would have done definetely better if I had sufficient power to create minds.

By the way, what on earth is spiritual energy? Can you measure it in watt-hours?

Ciao

- viole

I could only mention Thor, if I heard about him. It would not just pop in my head, and roll off my tongue now, would it? Do you get the picture?
It is knowledge, that causes one to make utterances - wherever that knowledge comes from.

Many people being born and given the knowledge that everything came from nothing, will likely believe that.
Others even though taught it, will likely not. Why? Because they think about what they are taught, weight it with other things they hear and see, and guess what?
"Goddidit!" rolls off their tongue.

Can you claim that they grew up in the dark ages? No. They are born in this era.
Can you claim that they were brainwashed by religion? No. The were not raised by godless parents. They are raised by evolutionist - perhaps even atheist.
So what happened?
The skeptic's narrow-minded view of things crumbles, that's all.
There is no truth to what is said by those critics of God or religion. They just feel they are smart.

The real reason ancient people believe in gods, is because of their knowledge and experience.
Later legends and stories were exaggerated and mystified, and people created gods of their own, and gave them names, etc., but it was all based on knowledge in the past.

What else.... That knowledge is here to stay. Do you know why? The creator of the universe isn't going anywhere, and no puny human will get rid of him either. On the contrary...just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
Matthew 24:37-39 The ungodly will be removed - plucked out of the earth just like that.

 

[Jose Fly]

If I remember correctly what she wrote about herself, she used to believe in evolution, but her high school biology class made her skeptical of evolution.

She doesn’t have any qualification after high school in biology or in fields related to biology. She is not teacher or lecturer or researcher in biology or biology-related fields.

So how does she expect us to believe that she have the knowledge to refute or debunk evolutionary biology?

As far as I know, she has never worked in the labs, not just in biology, but in any non-biological lab.

I don’t know what her exact qualification she did or what her employment are or were, because she has never been straight about. I have no idea what she does for a living, but it is certainly not in science.

Well, like all the other Jehovah's Witnesses here, she's an evolution-denialist for one reason and one reason only....because her church specifically forbids acknowledging evolution as reality and severely punishes anyone who doesn't deny it. Everything else she throws at you is just diversion from that main point.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What's really funny though is how one of the reasons Jehovah's Witnesses discourage education is because they see it as a prideful pursuit. Yet when you read Deeje's posts, the level of arrogance and pride in them is off the charts.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling

More Christian anti-intellectualism:

• "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." - St. Augustine

• "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther

• "Since God has spoken to us it is no longer necessary for us to think." - St Augustine

• "The smallest of minds are the easiest to fill with faith" - Pope Leo X

 

[Jose Fly]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling

More Christian anti-intellectualism:

• "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." - St. Augustine

• "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther

• "Since God has spoken to us it is no longer necessary for us to think." - St Augustine

• "The smallest of minds are the easiest to fill with faith" - Pope Leo X

And yet these same people present themselves as being more knowledgeable about science than scientists. Sometimes the word "delusional" is entirely appropriate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What I truly believe is that science itself cannot prove its own theory, so what hope would anyone have of falsifying something that can't be proven in the first place?

Well that's a non-answer if I ever saw one.

Nice dodge.

Evolution is actually easily falsifiable. I have given you several examples of the ways in which it could be falsified, over the course of our many conversations here. A rabbit fossil in the Precambrian layers of the Earth would do it (remember that one now?).

Want to try to answer the question again?

 

[ecco]

The real reason ancient people believe in gods, is because of their knowledge and experience.

Ancient people believed in gods because:

1. Their parents believed in gods and passed that belief down to their children.
2. They were ignorant of reality because science had not been developed.

Modern people believe in God because:

1. Their parents believe in God and passed that belief down to their children.
2. They are willfully ignorant of reality because science conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Matthew 24:37-39 The ungodly will be removed - plucked out of the earth just like that.

Matt said that 2000 years ago. We're still waiting. But that's OK. You just go on hoping and praying.

 

[tas8831]

Just out of curiosity, can any of the anti-chemo types explain, without looking it up, what cancer actually is?

 

[tas8831]

Yet when you read Deeje's posts, the level of arrogance and pride in them is off the charts.

Weird how that works.

I have a troubled relative who, after problems in school, dropped out in 10th grade and hooked up with a Christian cult in New York. Before he went off the deep end, sold his belongings and gave all his money to the cult, and moved out and to live in a commune, he was still living at home and had Facebook, and shared a link to a creationist site and declared that anyone still believing in evolution was an idiot.
I perused the site (and ended up having a rather typical back and forth with the site's author, a retired engineer who, despite claiming to understand evolution and science, ended up - after only 1 exchange - copy-pasting page after page of creationist website garbage and declaring victory...) and replied to this relative, asking if he would like me to explain all of the things that were incorrect on it.

He was at the time only 17 - and recall, a 10th grade drop out - but went on a multi-paragraph tirade against me, calling me an 'academic elitist' and blabbered on about how I was deceived and wrong and how he KNEW 100% that evolution was a lie.

So yeah, most creationists that I have encountered have the same basic mindset. Some express it almost violently like my drop-out relative, others are slightly more nuanced, but it is the same basic psychology at work.

 

[nPeace]

With all due respect, your religious agenda is quite transparent. I have addressed all the underlining assumptions you've presented(in bold). If any of these assumptions were valid, it would indeed support your conclusion. Unfortunately they aren't valid, and based entirely on ignorance.

I know how much saying those words probably meant to you, but I had to actually look back at my post to be sure they were really not logically following from anything I said.
I made no assumptions. I asked questions.
I don't have an agenda. If I do, it's a little different to yours, but that would mean we both have one.
Since I made no assumptions then it wouldn't be me making assumptions or statements based on ignorance.
...and you did give me a whole lot of information based on assumptions.

Both our interpretations of reality are clear. But, because of your religious presuppositions, you seem go one step further than I do. You seem to believe that concepts and beliefs behave like physical things in reality. You seem to believe that emotions and intelligence exist in us, only because a higher intelligence had designed it for us. You seem to ignore the importance of the brain's ability to compartmentalize data, which unfortunately allows for irrational thoughts as well. You seem to ignore the role that evolution and the environment play, in shaping our internal and external human features. You seem to ignore the roles that our genetic and endocrine systems play in shaping our behavior, intellect, emotions, and our cognitive abilities. You seem to ignore the fact that ours's is a Universe based entirely on cause and effect, mathematics, and the laws of probability. My clarity and reason ends, where your ambiguity and faith begins.

You apparently ignore the fact that you don't know that evolution shaped anything beyond what we know it did - which a basically changes in our genetic makeup, and what they allow us to do, and look like.
So there seems to be no clarity or reason coming from that angle.
My faith started from my reason.

When I stated, "You are correct, we do see reality through different lens. Your lens has a religious filter, mine has no filter at all.", I meant that I don't filter out any evidence at all. Since I am not making an argument for an intelligent designer, what direct evidence do you expect from me to support your claim? I have no verifiable evidence to support your claim. On the other hand, you filter out all verifiable evidence against your claim. Even if God himself told you that you were wrong, your religious filters would reject His claim. For example, there are no verifiable miracles, paranormal activities, no testable power of prayer, no resurrection, no breeches or cessations of the laws of physics, no souls or spirits, and no verifiable prophesies. So, unless you can present any objective evidence, my mind will continue to be open to the possibility, but not the belief in the possibility.

What do you mean you don't filter out any evidence at all? You don't accept evidence for intelligent design. Why not?
You have no verifiable evidence of evolution, so what is the difference?
...and now you are making assumptions about what I would or wouldn't do. That is a demonstration of how clear your filter is. It believes assumptions are right because you believe them, so they are right. What is that called? Confirmation bias.
That's not a clear filter, is it.

 

[nPeace]

No, material things have properties. Those properties dictate what sort of interactions they can have. Descriptions of those interactions are what are known as physical laws.

Yes, the patterns of interaction existed before humans existed. But they are not dictated by someone: they simply are a consequence of matter having properties.



Because causality describes how things can interact: that is a physical law.

Are physical laws restricted by anything physical? This seems to me, to be what you are trying to do.

 

[Polymath257]

Are physical laws restricted by anything physical? This seems to me, to be what you are trying to do.

Causality is restricted to things physical. So yes, physical laws are restricted to things physical. But then, I don't know of anything that isn't ultimately physical.

 

[Milton Platt]

Indeed, but without water there would be no plants and hence no flow on effect vital to life. Where does oxygen and CO2 come from?

The properties of water are unique.

The properties of every substance are unique to that substance....what's your point?

 

[Milton Platt]

Are physical laws restricted by anything physical? This seems to me, to be what you are trying to do.

Can you explain what you are trying to say here? Seems like an ill-formed question

 

[nPeace]

Causality is restricted to things physical. So yes, physical laws are restricted to things physical. But then, I don't know of anything that isn't ultimately physical.

How can physical laws be restricted to things physical, and at the same time be omnipotent, absolute, and unchanging?

@Milton Platt Does this help?

 

[Polymath257]

How can physical laws be restricted to things physical, and at the same time be omnipotent, absolute, and unchanging?

@Milton Platt Does this help?

Because physical things have properties, and those properties determine behavior. The same properties will give rise to the same behaviors.