B. John Jones

I agree. Cease all research on treatments for multidrug resistant bacteria, the artificial pancreas, nuclear fusion,carbon sequestration, affordable electric cars, etc.

Cost-benefit. It's far easier to save millions of lives giving necessary food and water to those lacking it than it is to "develop" drugs for "cures" such as cancer, or "better" air quality through superior automobiles or vaping "technologies," except, of course, "your own," probably aren't included in those losing their lives to hunger and thirst, and lack of $10 medicines which we've had for decades and centuries.

(it should be understood I'm grouping kindle with food--basic goods)

 

It's not being close-minded to acknowledge that the Romans were less ignorant than "the ancients".

In some areas, excluding ancient wisdom, the Romans were indeed less ignorant. In areas that relate to eternity and even perhaps infinity, they might very well have been more ignorant. You make a very blanket statement.

Were the American colonists more civilized than the Africans whom they "enslaved?" In many areas, yes. In many areas, no.

B John Jones,

 

But do you figure the various heavens are populated by gods that transcend reality, or is the universe populated by other real entities like us and grains of sand and helium atoms and suns and such entities that are available for study to everybody in the waking world...or are your heavens populated by imaginary beings that can exist fully in your mind and have no bearing on any model of the place I may be able to construct in my mind?

 

Regards, TAR

None of the above. The heavens are inhabited by one God, who is as real, and as much a part of nature, as your mind and limbs and where you place your feet, and the things in your local environment. They're inhabited by angels and demons, at war for the Kingdom of God, comprised of souls of men, women and children. Satan and his own have nothing to gain or lose. They're bent on destruction, for they themselves are assigned to be being (sic) destroyed for eternity.

[it was a toss-up between "Engineering" and "Other Sciences" since there's no section for "Technologies."]

There is exactly one optimal technology whose development would be most beneficial to humanity at this stage of history--the display technology of the original Kindle Reader. It uses ink-to-paper-like engineering instead of artificial lighting. I am convinced that the only restraining force from our developing this technology to maturity is the cost, with reckless disregard to cost-benefit. Over the short-term, businesses will generate more lucre mass producing video or visual display units that project light, rather than investing over the long-term to develop the Kindle technology. People who prefer money to good deeds don't seem to care about the greater good--in this case optimizing the visual well-being for everyone who uses any kind of video or visual display units.

It took a few seconds to find this picture of the sun and the moon both quite high in the sky in the middle of the day:

 

Okay, but the moon is still visible over the horizon (where it's still night), still governing the dome of night, maintaining with light, while governing at night.

 

Those seem like reasonable examples of evolution by natural selection. Why do you reject them?

 

 

Of course organisms reproduce their own "kinds". What do you expect? A fish to give birth to a lion?

 

But if by "kind" you mean species, then perhaps you are looking for cases where we have seen new species arise? You could start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

(Don't worry, if you go through all of those and reject them one by one for various reasons, there are plenty more to keep you busy.)

A colony of birds' beaks changing structure is a beautiful thing to observe, but the colony of birds hasn't changed into something other than a colony of birds with changed beak structure. New races of human beings came to be, but human beings have always been human beings. Features might change, but we remain human beings. I might even change my hairstyle as a chameleon would put on camouflage. Long-term, familial-communal change is comparable to short-term, individual change. Things change. The nature of things do not.

 

Nope. We observe evolution in the real world. Evolution is a fact.

If this is true, then someone here should be able to give me science's best "example" of evolution occurring in nature, or at least a stellar one. I have plenty of examples of stellar created beings reproducing their own kinds. Give me one pristine example of evolution by natural selection. Please don't tell me about a colony of birds' beaks changing structure or a chameleon changing his color. Time is of the essence.

 

Of course. But even when the moon is visible at day from one view on earth, it's more visible from over the horizon, where it's still nighttime. As far as the intersection, I'm talking about "nighttime" being a mere dome of darkness on the underside of the earth. People on opposite sides of the horizon can both see the moon for this very reason, the moon follows the dome of darkness, but always corresponds with the sun--because he is subject. Gen 1, if you will.

 

You have had another thread about this. We all agreed, I think, that

 

1. night time is the shadow of the Earth

2. That shadow is a cone, not a dome

3. The moon is only in that shadow at times of lunar eclipse

 

 

Not always.

 

 

No, it very obviously doesn't. Sometimes the Moon is directly between the Earth and the Sun.

 

 

I don't know what you mean by "always corresponds with the sun". It is a bit vague. Can you explain that?

 

 

I would prefer we stick with observations of reality.

The shadow would necessarily be darker the nearer it is to the earth. The least dark point of the shadow will be the point of the cone. Therefore the highest concentration of darkness is a dome. Common sense. We all have it.

The control mechanism of the moon's orbit around the earth is it's governance role over the nighttime. It must maintain with light and nighttime.

In order for a solar eclipse to be visible, you must be in the shadow of the moon, so it's still going to be dark. And I'm guessing that the time of day of solar eclipse is always nearer to dawn and dusk.

Humanity- through its own vanity has bred lots of different types of dogs.

Imagine that, by some misfortune almost all of them were killed- perhaps some virulent disease or, given human stupidity- perhaps more likely- a government decree).

Imagine that the only ones left were a bunch of Chihuahuas and a bunch of great Danes.

 

Without help, those two groups can't interbreed. (Jokes about stepladders notwithstanding)

 

And the definition of species (in most cases) involves groups that can't interbreed (and produce viable offspring).

Well, even without the loss of all the other sizes of dogs in between, we still have two groups that can't interbreed.

So, mankind has already brought about the creation of two separate species.

 

Yet BJ Jones says it's impossible.

 

To me , the only conclusion is that he's just not paying attention to the facts.

Worse than that (in the context of a scientific site) he refuses to study the facts. Instead he says things like "I'm sorry but reading this is like spending long hours in a mortuary. I'm given to study. But give life, not death. This is why so many kids dread school. The system makes learning more of a system than a place to learn. And our professionals are dead men walking."

 

Well, I asked it before, and I'm asking again:

Mr Jones: why are you even here?

You refuse to learn and you are not permitted to preach.

You won't debate.

Why have you not left yet?

You must be very smart since you even know that I refuse to learn, which I didn't even know! Which causes me to ponder why I am even here? Go figure.

Fundamentally, a species is as precise as the taxonomy of creatures gets. You guys call humans "homo-sapiens." Beyond this, of course, we have races and nationalities, tribes and clans, etc. These might be compared (by folks who judge merely on a scientific basis) to your chihuahuas and great danes. But remember, the races and nationalities are not by technology but by nature (if judged by a scientific basis), whereas the various "breeds" of creatures are by human technology. Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. And again, that's presumption, not mere assumption.

Governs what, exactly? Werewolves? And what do you mean by "always at the intersection"? You do know it's possible to sometimes see the moon even during the daytime, right?

Of course. But even when the moon is visible at day from one view on earth, it's more visible from over the horizon, where it's still nighttime. As far as the intersection, I'm talking about "nighttime" being a mere dome of darkness on the underside of the earth. People on opposite sides of the horizon can both see the moon for this very reason, the moon follows the dome of darkness, but always corresponds with the sun--because he is subject. Gen 1, if you will.

I noticed that you have been trying to get into (hijacking?) this conversation in an attempt to discuss heavens and the likes. Don't you think that you are perhaps steering this thread off topic? Like the above statement and particularly the last part thereof which you put forward as fact. What would be the relevance and why would the life of a human be another matter? Opposed to what?

The notion of "universe" is a latin notion. Before Rome it was referred to as the "heavens," being several, which answers the OP's question, at least where people aren't close-minded to the ancients.

Can you really ever depend on what you say you see? Have you ever been deceived by an optical illusion? What if those are honored who look beyond the stars, and dishonored who disregard him?

I know the difference between the waking world and the dream world.

Optical illusions are very real devices. They're not presented with ill motive, but those who "see" are in fact deceived. So just because you see something with your physical sensory systems, doesn't mean its dependable.

So we meet with death at some point. We know that the bones and limbs decay. But the life of a human being is indeed another matter altogether.

Science must be based on objective evidence that is not just anecdotal. Moreover, the evidence must be repeatable, that is, any other group of scientits if they wish can conduct the same or different experiments and reach the same result. Of course this is all mod experimental errors and so on.

 

Faith based anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all! If you offer 'non-evidence' as evidence then it is not suprising that the scientific community seems closed to you.

Scripture is hardly anecdotal, nor are the claims of faith-oriented science-enthusiasts. That's prejudice. You could have fun with your students testing the ant-farm scenario. I don't have the means or the team to do it.

Well, we have no rules about who joins, just rules about posting here. We are very open to new members.

 

Also, you cannot equate this forum with the scientific community. I am not sure there really is such a thing, science is now broken up into many smaller branches.

 

 

I have not heard that. But we know Newton had social problems and did show strange behaviour.

 

 

I do not think this is true. It is true that not all science papers really present new ideas, but some do. Imagination and creativity is vital in research, but this does not mean that 'anything goes'. There has to be some methodology.

But any methodology that segments faith-evidence, and human testimony related to faith-evidence, as not acceptable evidence, and admits every human testimony based on that methodology, is prejudiced.

 

I have previously cited observed speciation via natural selection.It does not exclude speciation via neutral evolutionary processes. Are you claiming something else? If so where's the evidence?

I'm claiming that species never evolve from unequal species, except, perhaps at the microbial level (if microbes are considered species).

They're governed too.

I thought the thread was about the scientific community?

Well, so far the scientific community here seems cliquish. Did you know that Newton was once so lost in thought that he stumbled into a well? (So I hear.) I admire him for that. Today it seems that strict adherence and convention prevent dreams and imagination, which fueled some of the greatest inventions of history.

 

A butterfly flaps its wings in China causing a hurricane eight days later. The hurricane causes an earthquake after 100 years. The earthquake results in a perturbation of earth's orbit after a million years. The perturbation causes the destruction of the earth/ moon after 10 million years which leads to a collision of galaxies eventually and then a wholly different universe to be created in the next big bang.

 

But why did the butterfly flaps its wings at all? It might be some errant nerve signal caused by the most insignificant collision of particles days earlier.

 

Some youngsters can hear high speed molecules in their ears. Such a molecule (brownian movement) might start a scientist on life long journey. It could even start a religious scholar on such a journey.

 

The world is an impossibly complex place and infinity has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, none of those events, not even a "big bang" would govern everything.

Fundamentally, the butterfly flaps his wings to live. Life governs everything.

Unsure how this is relevant - it has also been demonstrated that neutral processes like genetic drift are also powerful evolutionary forces, particularly in small populations.

We're contrasting the definition of natural selection as being that which we've agreed it is in its essence; or the definition which far exceeded it, that having its origin with Darwin, if in case Darwin claimed that species have evolved from species other than their own (through natural selection).

 

 

Your first statement is correct, and your second is incorrect.

 

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Did Darwin claim that every species evolved from other (not their own) species, through natural selection?

 

Ignoring the fallacious goalpost shift for a minute - the Framingham heart study demonstrates that natural selection is acting on a human population to, among other things, lower systolic blood pressure and delay the onset of menopuase. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1787.short

I'm sorry but reading this is like spending long hours in a mortuary. I'm given to study. But give life, not death. This is why so many kids dread school. The system makes learning more of a system than a place to learn. And our professionals are dead men walking.

If natural selection is defined in its essence as:

 

It's unfortunate that your best specimen tend usually to be the most inferior organisms--rats, viruses, maggots and flies.

 

As far as the round earth comparison is concerned, if Einstein is correct, then space is probably a plane, in which case, earth is a point in a plane, not a sphere, and certainly not string's brilliant cube.

 

 

The depth and breadth of your misunderstanding of science is indeed profound. Biology and physics covered in such a short passage.

My intent is not enmity. What are your 2 reasonable answers?

And why, exactly, is that "unfortunate"?

Science gets most of it's "answers" for human medicine largely by testing rats, as though their biology can be compared to humans. They arrive at things that work, monetarily, for barons in medicine.

 

 

I am a scientist, and I work in experimental evolution. Natural selection is easily observed and quantified. For e.g. Exposing a virus to heat shock leads to a mutation which changes the protein structure of the capsid to improve thermal stability. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003102

 

Selection leading to the creation of new species has also been directly observed. E.g. apple maggot flies http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/speciationmodes_05

 

Disbelief in natural selection is up there with disbelief in a round earth.

It's unfortunate that your best specimen tend usually to be the most inferior organisms--rats, viruses, maggots and flies.

As far as the round earth comparison is concerned, if Einstein is correct, then space is probably a plane, in which case, earth is a point in a plane, not a sphere, and certainly not string's brilliant cube.

You can look at it in 2 ways--Biblically (Gen 1), which is usually not accepted here, or according to the fact that the moon is always at the intersection of the sun and the earth's shadow (dome of night). The moon governs at night, and the sun at day. The moon is subject to the sun.

And why do you think that your logic is right? What evidence has lead you to that conclusion?

I see God--logos, the Word.

I understand all the words but im not sure what you mean. As I understand it you are asking are they strong headed in their opinion but mostly in agreement or in support of each other but disagree a lot and kind and informative about it. please correct me if I misunderstood. I think people can be strong headed but in disagreement so I wouldn't want to link agreement and strongly set in their opinion. i think scientist are mostly in agreement on things that have good scientific proof behind it.they are usually open minded because science is the pursuit of knowledge and knowledge can form an opinion.

Steely-cold vs warm, cliquish vs arms-wide-open; and united vs divergent