PDA

View Full Version : Elephants, evolution, and cancer



Jose Fly
October 9th, 2015, 02:30 PM
What elephants can teach scientists about fighting cancer in humans (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-sci-sn-elephant-cancer-story-20151007-story.html)


It turns out just 4.8% of known elephant deaths are related to cancer. For humans, cancer-related deaths are much higher — between 11% and 25%, scientists say.

The low cancer rate among elephants is particularly intriguing because all things being equal, elephants should get more cancer than we do.

Elephants have about 100 times more cells than humans, and they live for about 70 years. That gives a lot of cells a lot of chances to mutate and become malignant over the course of a pachyderm’s lifetime...

...In a study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., scientists reveal that African elephants have 20 copies of a gene called TP53. This gene is prized by cancer researchers because of its ability to create a protein that suppresses tumors; in fact, scientists often refer to it as the “guardian of the genome.”

Humans, on the other hand, have just one copy of TP53.

The crucial gene keeps cells safe from cancer in two ways, according to Dr. Joshua Schiffman, a pediatric oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City and a senior author of the study.

“When there is DNA damage, it rushes onto the scene and stops your cells from dividing so the DNA can be repaired,” Schiffman said. “It also coordinates cell death or suicide.”

At an evolutionary biology conference, Schiffman happened to listen to a talk by Carlo Maley of Arizona State University. Maley said elephants had multiple copies of TP53, and Schiffman wondered whether they helped elephants fend off cancer.

To find out, he teamed up with Maley, an elephant keeper at Utah’s Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City and the chief veterinarian for the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. (The circus also contributed $250,000 to fund the research.)

Next, they took a closer look at the African elephant genome and tallied 20 copies of TP53. One of them was the original, and the other 19 were retrogenes that found their way into the genome over time. Their spread suggests they were preferentially selected over the course of elephant evolution, probably because they helped elephants in some way.

Perhaps they helped by fighting cancer. To see whether this could be the case, the researchers collected white blood cells from elephants and humans and exposed the cells to radiation that caused their DNA to break.

The researchers expected that the elephant cells with all those extra TP53 genes would repair themselves faster than the human cells. But that's not what they observed.

Instead, they saw that the elephant cells were dying at a much higher rate than the human cells.

While this may sound like a bad thing, it isn't. Part of TP53's tumor-suppression strategy is to cause a damaged cell to destroy itself so that it won’t pass on potentially harmful mutations.

So a few things...

1) We see once again how an evolutionary understanding produces very real, tangible results.

2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?

3) It looks like having multiple copies of a gene...something that occurs via mutation...produces not only a real physical difference, but a positive benefit. So would this be an example of "new genetic information"?

4) Finally, why are these sorts of things always coming from mainstream biology, to which evolution is foundational? Why don't we ever see the folks at AiG or ICR generating such results? Too busy building museums and theme parks? :think:

way 2 go
October 9th, 2015, 07:21 PM
1) We see once again how an evolutionary understanding produces very real, tangible results.
once again just observations viewed from evolution perspective


2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?
he also didn't give us a trunk for a nose or tusks
:confused:



3) It looks like having multiple copies of a gene...something that occurs via mutation...
evolutionist opinion


It looks like having multiple copies of a gene produces not only a real physical difference, but a positive benefit.
every time ?


So would this be an example of "new genetic information"?

the knowledge of it is new
less junk DNA everyday



4) Finally, why are these sorts of things always coming from mainstream biology, to which evolution is foundational? Why don't we ever see the folks at AiG or ICR generating such results? Too busy building museums and theme parks? :think:
Why would you expect evolutionist observations from AiG or ICR

George Affleck
October 9th, 2015, 07:28 PM
What elephants can teach scientists about fighting cancer in humans (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-sci-sn-elephant-cancer-story-20151007-story.html)



So a few things...

1) We see once again how an evolutionary understanding produces very real, tangible results.

2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?

3) It looks like having multiple copies of a gene...something that occurs via mutation...produces not only a real physical difference, but a positive benefit. So would this be an example of "new genetic information"?

4) Finally, why are these sorts of things always coming from mainstream biology, to which evolution is foundational? Why don't we ever see the folks at AiG or ICR generating such results? Too busy building museums and theme parks? :think:

Of course none of this could have anything to do with the fact that sin began with humans and not with elephants. Of course not; there is no such thing as sin!

fzappa13
October 9th, 2015, 07:48 PM
What elephants can teach scientists about fighting cancer in humans (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-sci-sn-elephant-cancer-story-20151007-story.html)



So a few things...

1) We see once again how an evolutionary understanding produces very real, tangible results.

2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?

3) It looks like having multiple copies of a gene...something that occurs via mutation...produces not only a real physical difference, but a positive benefit. So would this be an example of "new genetic information"?

4) Finally, why are these sorts of things always coming from mainstream biology, to which evolution is foundational? Why don't we ever see the folks at AiG or ICR generating such results? Too busy building museums and theme parks? :think:

mmmm ... let's see ... elephants don't eat at McDonald's, they aren't required to endure mandatory vaccinations, they don't drink chlorinated or fluoridated water ... need I go on?

way 2 go
October 9th, 2015, 07:49 PM
mmmm ... let's see ... elephants don't eat at McDonald's, they aren't required to endure mandatory vaccinations, they don't drink chlorinated or fluoridated water ... need I go on?
:chuckle:

patrick jane
October 9th, 2015, 07:50 PM
What elephants can teach scientists about fighting cancer in humans (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-sci-sn-elephant-cancer-story-20151007-story.html)



So a few things...

1) We see once again how an evolutionary understanding produces very real, tangible results.

2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?

3) It looks like having multiple copies of a gene...something that occurs via mutation...produces not only a real physical difference, but a positive benefit. So would this be an example of "new genetic information"?

4) Finally, why are these sorts of things always coming from mainstream biology, to which evolution is foundational? Why don't we ever see the folks at AiG or ICR generating such results? Too busy building museums and theme parks? :think:

and there it is. the typical atheist question - "Well if God can do that then why didn't he do this" ?

what a joke

Lon
October 9th, 2015, 08:01 PM
What elephants can teach scientists about fighting cancer in humans (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-sci-sn-elephant-cancer-story-20151007-story.html)


Cool article :up:


So a few things...

:( :doh:

1) We see once again how an evolutionary understanding produces very real, tangible results.
Not really, imho, just that elephants have cells we don't. Evolution? Not really much of a need here. What you have is, an evolutionary biology conference that sparked the study. Other than that, whatever a scientist's conviction, the results should be the same.


2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?
Well, you don't read your Bible. I can answer questions all day long, but why do you want all your information second hand???



3) It looks like having multiple copies of a gene...something that occurs via mutation...produces not only a real physical difference, but a positive benefit. So would this be an example of "new genetic information"?

It is an example of 'more' scientific knowledge discovery. It isn't as interesting 'that' they have extra, but more important to understand why they don't have the same problems. Science can give us details and scripture helps explain why elephants have more than humans.


4) Finally, why are these sorts of things always coming from mainstream biology, to which evolution is foundational? Why don't we ever see the folks at AiG or ICR generating such results? Too busy building museums and theme parks? :think:

$$$ mostly. I don't have the funds to do that kind of research BUT there are often Christians involved in these. Your 'us/them' mentality isn't what you think it is.

fzappa13
October 9th, 2015, 08:02 PM
... they don't ingest meth, they don't don't smoke, they don't ... am I boring you yet?

Interplanner
October 9th, 2015, 08:10 PM
What elephants can teach scientists about fighting cancer in humans (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-sci-sn-elephant-cancer-story-20151007-story.html)



So a few things...

1) We see once again how an evolutionary understanding produces very real, tangible results.

2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?

3) It looks like having multiple copies of a gene...something that occurs via mutation...produces not only a real physical difference, but a positive benefit. So would this be an example of "new genetic information"?

4) Finally, why are these sorts of things always coming from mainstream biology, to which evolution is foundational? Why don't we ever see the folks at AiG or ICR generating such results? Too busy building museums and theme parks? :think:



It is confusing to hear the expression "an evolutionary understanding produced this..." So the credit is not to evolution, it is to the understanding of the scientists who want it to receive praise? That's a slippery way of putting things.

But perhaps you could help some of us out with a step back. I don't know what there is here that is giving evolution credit. Perhaps a line needs to be unpacked. In the Biblical understanding, there are reasons why the human, through a death that is the result of a rebellion, would succumb or would have weaknesses that animals might not have. This is already part of the record about human longevity. It is down 90% from the period before the flood when there appears to have been different atmospheric conditions.

Interplanner
October 9th, 2015, 08:15 PM
once again just observations viewed from evolution perspective

he also didn't give us a trunk for a nose or tusks
:confused:


evolutionist opinion


every time ?



the knowledge of it is new
less junk DNA everyday


Why would you expect evolutionist observations from AiG or ICR



Try to exhibit some comprehension. Of course he doesn't mean an evolutionary conclusion. He means the helpfulness of the tool. What he has said very harsh, because no one knows where inspiration will come from, but he's right about theme parks.

Interplanner
October 9th, 2015, 08:21 PM
What elephants can teach scientists about fighting cancer in humans (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-sci-sn-elephant-cancer-story-20151007-story.html)



So a few things...

1) We see once again how an evolutionary understanding produces very real, tangible results.

2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?

3) It looks like having multiple copies of a gene...something that occurs via mutation...produces not only a real physical difference, but a positive benefit. So would this be an example of "new genetic information"?

4) Finally, why are these sorts of things always coming from mainstream biology, to which evolution is foundational? Why don't we ever see the folks at AiG or ICR generating such results? Too busy building museums and theme parks? :think:



It's not biology exactly, but you might be interested to know that catastrophist/deluge geologist Michael Oard is working on a slurry simulator because he believes it will produce shale very rapidly. This in turn leads to fuel.

This kind of thing (I've heard of other endeavors like it) will be helpful but will be hated or decapitated by a science community that votes like California and hates fossil fuels, and thinks there is man-made global warming. The crises-mongers of the Left need to stop coal from being used because the West is destroying the planet, which is far more important than the fact that Russia and Islam are destroying civilization.

Dan Emanuel
October 9th, 2015, 10:17 PM
...If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?...Why would God create creature's that die at all?

You don't need to comb through all the various reason's that death happen's to see that this world is full of it.

1 Corinthian's 15:
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
DJ

1.0

Greg Jennings
October 9th, 2015, 11:45 PM
mmmm ... let's see ... elephants don't eat at McDonald's, they aren't required to endure mandatory vaccinations, they don't drink chlorinated or fluoridated water ... need I go on?

That describes every other animal that isn't a human. Why don't they all have this gene?

Lon
October 10th, 2015, 12:39 AM
That describes every other animal that isn't a human. Why don't they all have this gene?
Or why don't we have cells like a frog that can be frozen without shattering? Or why don't we have 8 legs like and octopus? "Doesn't God love me?"

"What if" "why not" are mostly complaints/envy (not sure which Jose is going for). We can, instead, study and learn. I'd like a third arm so I can multitask better. God isn't a poor God because I don't have one. He doesn't have to cater to whim to be 'good' according to our varying definitions. All that is, is a demand that He bow to us and our expectations. Such doesn't prove He is God and so "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." THAT is a difficult place for someone who doesn't want a God to exist. Death is the result of sin. Paul tells us that since Adam, death has reigned.

fzappa13
October 10th, 2015, 05:08 AM
That describes every other animal that isn't a human.

Except for those that have the misfortune of falling into the clutches of some lab, of course.


Why don't they all have this gene?

Because they are not all Elephants. That said, you are missing the point. As ye soweth so shall ye reap.


... or, you can call it karma if that makes the notion more palatable. Judging the proclivity for cancer without taking into account external input is, in a word, silly.

George Affleck
October 10th, 2015, 05:23 AM
The difference between man and animals is that man is the only one of God's creatures that can deny Him.

fzappa13
October 10th, 2015, 08:02 AM
Or why don't we have cells like a frog that can be frozen without shattering? Or why don't we have 8 legs like and octopus? "Doesn't God love me?"

"What if" "why not" are mostly complaints/envy (not sure which Jose is going for). We can, instead, study and learn. I'd like a third arm so I can multitask better. God isn't a poor God because I don't have one. He doesn't have to cater to whim to be 'good' according to our varying definitions. All that is, is a demand that He bow to us and our expectations. Such doesn't prove He is God and so "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." THAT is a difficult place for someone who doesn't want a God to exist. Death is the result of sin. Paul tells us that since Adam, death has reigned.


The difference between man and animals is that man is the only one of God's creatures that can deny Him.


Me? I'd kinda like to be able to dunk a basketball but ... my God doesn't love me enough to let me therefore ... there is no God.


:chuckle:

Hose B, how long doth thou kick against the pricks?

Jonahdog
October 10th, 2015, 09:24 AM
Of course none of this could have anything to do with the fact that sin began with humans and not with elephants. Of course not; there is no such thing as sin!

Did elephants die at all before man sinned?

George Affleck
October 10th, 2015, 11:01 AM
Me? I'd kinda like to be able to dunk a basketball but ... my God doesn't love me enough to let me therefore ... there is no God.


:chuckle:

Hose B, how long doth thou kick against the pricks?

Try dunking donuts!

Mmmmmmmm....donuts!

George Affleck
October 10th, 2015, 11:05 AM
Did elephants die at all before man sinned?

If you can't answer that question by now you have not been paying attention.

https://speakupforthevoiceless.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ellie.jpg?w=590&h=393

fzappa13
October 10th, 2015, 11:27 AM
If you can't answer that question by now you have not been paying attention.

https://speakupforthevoiceless.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ellie.jpg?w=590&h=393

Great pic ...

possible subtitles:

Thus far and no further?

Belly rubs?

Excuse me ... I had the right of way ...?

I need to see some I.D. ... ?

Kiss my gene superiority?

Stripe
October 10th, 2015, 11:52 AM
To an evolutionist, everything is evolution.

Desert Reign
October 10th, 2015, 12:00 PM
What elephants can teach scientists about fighting cancer in humans (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-sci-sn-elephant-cancer-story-20151007-story.html)

2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?


For the same reason he gave us brains, which accounts for why there are billions of human beings all over the planet, as well as in space and have been on the Moon. Whilst the number of elephants is tiny and they are limited in their environments.

It also accounts for why humans are able to build theme parks and why elephants can't.

George Affleck
October 10th, 2015, 12:11 PM
Great pic ...

possible subtitles:

Thus far and no further?

Belly rubs?

Excuse me ... I had the right of way ...?

I need to see some I.D. ... ?

Kiss my gene superiority?

So this is why I am getting such bad mileage!

MrDeets
October 10th, 2015, 12:12 PM
http://en.gtwallpaper.com/fondecran/singes/singe_04.jpg

The responses in this thread. :sigh:

OP: I thought the article was cool. Great post.

fzappa13
October 10th, 2015, 01:07 PM
http://en.gtwallpaper.com/fondecran/singes/singe_04.jpg

The responses in this thread. :sigh:

OP: I thought the article was cool. Great post.

I'm guessing the evolutionary ramifications of the pic you offered were unintentional, no?

Knight
October 10th, 2015, 01:42 PM
mmmm ... let's see ... elephants don't eat at McDonald's, they aren't required to endure mandatory vaccinations, they don't drink chlorinated or fluoridated water ... need I go on?Yeah... and when is the last time you saw an elephant smoking a pack of Marlboros? :cigar:

Although I have seen an Elephant push a camel around.

Lon
October 10th, 2015, 03:26 PM
The responses in this thread. :sigh:

OP: I thought the article was cool. Great post.

:nono: Not sure why you'd suggest as much. You were, perhaps, looking for confirmation bias. That is a 'scientific' concern and expression, not a theological one and you 'should' be avoiding it.

Lon
October 10th, 2015, 03:36 PM
https://speakupforthevoiceless.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ellie.jpg?w=590&h=393

WARNING: Low bridge


"I told you to watch the road!"

"I must have taken that wrong left-turn at Albuquerque"

"See! I told you the GTI would hold the weight!"

"I told you they were color blind...."

"What was that?"
-"I have no idea."

"I didn't really think he'd literally 'never forget!?' He was like 6 months old at the time!"

MrDeets
October 11th, 2015, 06:53 AM
:nono: Not sure why you'd suggest as much. You were, perhaps, looking for confirmation bias. That is a 'scientific' concern and expression, not a theological one and you 'should' be avoiding it.

I wasn't looking for anything. I came to this thread to read the OP, and what I found in the comments spurred my comment. I try not to have a conclusion already in mind when I'm looking at something new. :up:

fzappa13
October 11th, 2015, 10:16 AM
Yeah... and when is the last time you saw an elephant smoking a pack of Marlboros? :cigar:

Although I have seen an Elephant push a camel around.

An evolutionist getting a closer look at the Elephants genetic superiority ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ske8AG5q74

Warning, if your browser is set to auto play elephant procreation or other unintended offerings immediately follow the intended url.

Jose Fly
October 11th, 2015, 10:22 AM
once again just observations viewed from evolution perspective

Yep, observations that produce real, tangible results.


he also didn't give us a trunk for a nose or tusks

So we just don't need cancer-preventing genes? :idunno:


evolutionist opinion

Back up by the data.


every time ?

This time.


the knowledge of it is new
less junk DNA everyday

You're not making sense.


Why would you expect evolutionist observations from AiG or ICR

Geez, think for a second. If evolution isn't true and creationism is, why are evolutionists always the ones making these discoveries under their framework, while creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding in over a century?

Jose Fly
October 11th, 2015, 10:23 AM
Of course none of this could have anything to do with the fact that sin began with humans and not with elephants. Of course not; there is no such thing as sin!

??????? What does that have to do with any of this?

Jose Fly
October 11th, 2015, 10:25 AM
mmmm ... let's see ... elephants don't eat at McDonald's, they aren't required to endure mandatory vaccinations, they don't drink chlorinated or fluoridated water ... need I go on?

You missed the point. Elephants would be able to do things like that and get cancer at lower rates than us, because they have extra copies of the gene that fights cancer. Apparently God wanted us to get cancer more than elephants.

Jose Fly
October 11th, 2015, 10:30 AM
Not really, imho, just that elephants have cells we don't. Evolution? Not really much of a need here. What you have is, an evolutionary biology conference that sparked the study. Other than that, whatever a scientist's conviction, the results should be the same.

You didn't read the paper, did you? There's a reason why the discovery of the genes was presented at an evolutionary biology conference; it was made while working under an evolutionary framework.


Well, you don't read your Bible. I can answer questions all day long, but why do you want all your information second hand???

I notice how you didn't answer the question.


It is an example of 'more' scientific knowledge discovery. It isn't as interesting 'that' they have extra, but more important to understand why they don't have the same problems. Science can give us details and scripture helps explain why elephants have more than humans.

And "scripture's answer" for this is......?


$$$ mostly. I don't have the funds to do that kind of research

Creationist organizations have all sorts of money to build museums, theme parks, go on speaking tours, go on TV, etc. Yet when it comes to doing actual productive science, suddenly their coffers are empty?

Yeah right. :rolleyes:


BUT there are often Christians involved in these. Your 'us/them' mentality isn't what you think it is.

Except those Christians would be working under an evolutionary framework, which is the point. If creationism is the more accurate framework, why hasn't it contributed anything to science in the last century?

fzappa13
October 11th, 2015, 10:32 AM
You missed the point. Elephants would be able to do things like that and get cancer at lower rates than us, because they have extra copies of the gene that fights cancer. Apparently God wanted us to get cancer more than elephants.

You're speculating ... which is ok, but ... it's still speculation. Guided by a preconceived notion born of questionable intent.

Jose Fly
October 11th, 2015, 10:32 AM
It is confusing to hear the expression "an evolutionary understanding produced this..." So the credit is not to evolution, it is to the understanding of the scientists who want it to receive praise? That's a slippery way of putting things.

No, it means that these discoveries were made while the scientists were operating under an evolutionary framework.


In the Biblical understanding, there are reasons why the human, through a death that is the result of a rebellion, would succumb or would have weaknesses that animals might not have.

And those reasons are.......?


This is already part of the record about human longevity. It is down 90% from the period before the flood when there appears to have been different atmospheric conditions.

What does that have to do with this data?

Jose Fly
October 11th, 2015, 10:33 AM
For the same reason he gave us brains, which accounts for why there are billions of human beings all over the planet, as well as in space and have been on the Moon. Whilst the number of elephants is tiny and they are limited in their environments.

It also accounts for why humans are able to build theme parks and why elephants can't.

So God didn't want us to have extra cancer fighting genes. Why not?

Jose Fly
October 11th, 2015, 10:34 AM
http://en.gtwallpaper.com/fondecran/singes/singe_04.jpg

The responses in this thread. :sigh:

It's funny to watch, isn't it? :chuckle:


OP: I thought the article was cool. Great post.

Thanks!

Jose Fly
October 11th, 2015, 10:37 AM
You're speculating

On creationism, definitely. But that's really all you can do with it.

With evolution OTOH, nope. As the OP demonstrates, these are actual, tangible results, not mere speculation.

Interplanner
October 11th, 2015, 12:40 PM
The creation (as in "endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights") has helped billions of people. It is fatalistic-ideology countries where people are treated like crap.

I know of no hospitals named after Darwin or Huxley. I know of thousands named for John, Paul, Theresa, other saints, other features or doctrines of the Christian faith.

Lon
October 11th, 2015, 03:36 PM
You didn't read the paper, did you? There's a reason why the discovery of the genes was presented at an evolutionary biology conference; it was made while working under an evolutionary framework.
Yep, and my comment was that 'evolutionary' understanding wasn't pertinent imho. It was more coincidental with actual/factual findings and not really relevant to what they were trying to discover: Why elephants don't get cancer. Imho, 'evolution' was but a peripheral that might have helped steer 'them' but not essential by any means, to the progress of getting to answers. Yep, I agree they placed their answers within evolutionary context. Again, I see that as a peripheral tag-along completely unecessary to answer the question on the table and do the comparisons.


I notice how you didn't answer the question.
Good! So you are not stupid. NOW, what was the 'reason' I gave for not doing so? :think:

I 'can' answer and easily, but you will just start another thread on your next question, settling for second-hand answers. It is like asking me what the encyclopedia says when you have Wikipedia and Britannica at your fingertips while nay-saying either source then asking me to tell you what it says, knowing you don't read either of them yourself.

Such isn't an honest question. Is it?

And "scripture's answer" for this is......?
Well, God is talking to His own people when He says this, but pay attention. Please. 2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
2Ch 7:15 then my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place.

(prayer, asking a question, in 'learning' humility)




Creationist organizations have all sorts of money to build museums, theme parks, go on speaking tours, go on TV, etc. Yet when it comes to doing actual productive science, suddenly their coffers are empty? Again, 'many' scientists are Christians. You are saying that anybody with a science degree but NOT working for a company with a specific science agenda related to health or government profits, isn't fit to make commentary??? :think:




Except those Christians would be working under an evolutionary framework, which is the point. If creationism is the more accurate framework, why hasn't it contributed anything to science in the last century?

In correct, they working 'despite' that frame-work. You are correct to 'follow' the money, but then turn a blind-eye to the exponentially larger money (a million vs BILLIONS consideration). You are out of balance in your thinking and loyalties.

Interplanner
October 11th, 2015, 07:43 PM
Jose,
the contribution that you speak of may be happening right now with CPT, catastrophic plate tectonics. Problem: it points to the accuracy of Genesis and other writings similar. Of course, the biggest 'concern' of secular elites would be the accuracy of Genesis with its 'horribly' antiquated 2 genders and a Creator who will judge the earth one day, just as he did in the deluge.

Greg Jennings
October 12th, 2015, 01:23 AM
Or why don't we have cells like a frog that can be frozen without shattering?
Only one frog species has this ability, and that's because they live where they can get frozen every year. Humans have no need for such a genetic ability as we don't get frozen over too often. Do we?

Or why don't we have 8 legs like and octopus? Care to explain how eight arms would be evolutionarily advantageous for humans? Do you know how much weight six extra arms would add, and how hard they would be to control in a vertebrate animal? Octopi have no skeleton and live underwater where weight is reduced, allowing for such an extreme adaptation as eight arms to be advantageous and reasonable.

"Doesn't God love me?"
"Yes, Jesus loves me. The Bible tells me so" as I remember the Sunday school song going

Greg Jennings
October 12th, 2015, 01:26 AM
Because they are not all Elephants.

Well your previous argument was that humans don't have this ability because of our ingestion of unnatural substances. I pointed out that all other wild animals don't do this either, just like elephants. So you're not making a ton of sense here

Greg Jennings
October 12th, 2015, 01:28 AM
Me? I'd kinda like to be able to dunk a basketball but ... my God doesn't love me enough to let me therefore ... there is no God.

Unless you're under 5'6", God loves you plenty to be able to dunk a basketball. Everything required is already in you. Go do some squat presses, calf raises, and just generally practice jumping. You can get there, and the reason is because you have the required genetics to do so.

Jonahdog
October 12th, 2015, 07:01 AM
Jose,
the contribution that you speak of may be happening right now with CPT, catastrophic plate tectonics. Problem: it points to the accuracy of Genesis and other writings similar. Of course, the biggest 'concern' of secular elites would be the accuracy of Genesis with its 'horribly' antiquated 2 genders and a Creator who will judge the earth one day, just as he did in the deluge.

A citation to the scientific literature re: catastrophic plate tectonics, please.

fzappa13
October 12th, 2015, 07:56 AM
Well your previous argument was that humans don't have this ability because of our ingestion of unnatural substances. I pointed out that all other wild animals don't do this either, just like elephants. So you're not making a ton of sense here

I think the ability (or lack thereof) to make sense of what I say has a great deal to do with what my namesake once referred to as your "conceptual continuity". My suggestion was stated and renumerated and neither offering looked like the one you ascribed to me. Why do you suppose that is?

fzappa13
October 12th, 2015, 07:59 AM
Unless you're under 5'6", God loves you plenty to be able to dunk a basketball. Everything required is already in you. Go do some squat presses, calf raises, and just generally practice jumping. You can get there, and the reason is because you have the required genetics to do so.

I'm 6'1" but, as we all know, white men can't jump ... and I'm staring 60 right straight in the eye. Ain't happening ... and that's definately genetic. :chuckle:

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 08:33 AM
A citation to the scientific literature re: catastrophic plate tectonics, please.


It's a thread here. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113540


As far as I can tell Silvestru would have the highest profile advocating CPT. But there are several in there. Ager might be next highest profile.

Jose Fly
October 12th, 2015, 09:43 AM
Yep, and my comment was that 'evolutionary' understanding wasn't pertinent imho.

Yet the scientists who actually made this discovery, and are putting it to good use think otherwise. Gee, whose opinion on this science do you think is worth more....the guy who hasn't read it, or the scientists who did it?


I 'can' answer and easily, but you will just start another thread on your next question, settling for second-hand answers. It is like asking me what the encyclopedia says when you have Wikipedia and Britannica at your fingertips while nay-saying either source then asking me to tell you what it says, knowing you don't read either of them yourself.

Such isn't an honest question. Is it?

Another dodge.


Well, God is talking to His own people when He says this, but pay attention. Please. 2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
2Ch 7:15 then my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place.

(prayer, asking a question, in 'learning' humility)

So are elephants more humble than humans, and that's why God gave them extra anti-cancer genes?


Again, 'many' scientists are Christians. You are saying that anybody with a science degree but NOT working for a company with a specific science agenda related to health or government profits, isn't fit to make commentary???

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. I'm just noting that creationist organizations have lots of money for museums, theme parks, and speaking tours, but none to do any actual productive science. That fact speaks for itself.


In correct, they working 'despite' that frame-work.

Yet only one framework...evolution...is producing actual results. The creationism framework hasn't contributed a single thing in over a century. That's just reality.


You are correct to 'follow' the money, but then turn a blind-eye to the exponentially larger money (a million vs BILLIONS consideration). You are out of balance in your thinking and loyalties.

You're not making sense.

Jose Fly
October 12th, 2015, 09:44 AM
Jose,
the contribution that you speak of may be happening right now with CPT, catastrophic plate tectonics. Problem: it points to the accuracy of Genesis and other writings similar. Of course, the biggest 'concern' of secular elites would be the accuracy of Genesis with its 'horribly' antiquated 2 genders and a Creator who will judge the earth one day, just as he did in the deluge.

Given creationism's history of futility over the past 100+ years, you'll understand if I take a "I'll believe it when I see it" approach. :chuckle:

Jonahdog
October 12th, 2015, 10:51 AM
It's a thread here. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113540


As far as I can tell Silvestru would have the highest profile advocating CPT. But there are several in there. Ager might be next highest profile.

a thread to TOL is not a reference to the scientific literature. Your Silvestru reference seems to be to Youtube and I have no clue from your cut and paste references where I might find Ager's work.

If your post is an indication of where you get your science---well then.

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 10:53 AM
It's a three page bibliography with notes... I'll paste it here. Not all of them are totally on topic; as you may know there are some subjects in which the mechanics of creation and the deluge overlap. Usually the secular scientists indicate their dissent from uniformitarianism and/or just 'accidental' celestial encounters; ie, the changes they speak of could not be accidental.

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 10:54 AM
DELUGE OF INFORMATION
Annotated Bibliography


Ager, D. THE NATURE OF THE STRATIGRAPHICAL PROCESS. A peer scientist disputes Lyell's basis for uniformitarianism by evidence about rapid deposition and the Epeiric sea over north America.

Ager, D. NEW CATASTROPHISM.

Baugh, C. PRE-FLOOD ARTIFACT DEVASTATES UNIFORMITARIANISM. Youtube. A hammer made of sophisticated metal from England in a 'strata' where it does not 'belong.'

Baugh, C. THE WORLD AND MANKIND BEFORE THE FLOOD. Youtube. “Bizz-artifacts” of the ancient world re longevity, giantism.

Boudreaux. NEW THEORY FOR THE PRE-FLOOD CANOPY re sugilite, a trace found all over the earth's surface. Youtube.

Bretz, J H. 1920s. Geologic catastrophism in connection with Lake Missoula.

Brown, W. (various titles on the deluge and anomalies left around the world by it, but usually written apart from tectonic theory). Former DOD logistician.

CENTRALIA THEORY. A newer catastrophic view that the entire central 80% of Australia is a rapid deposit sedimentary zone as part of a global event.

Clemens, J. Research on granitic magmatism. Geologist Association of London.

Cooper, B. AFTER THE FLOOD.

Dona, K. ARTIFACTS FROM PRE-FLOOD WORLD & FALLEN ANGELS. Pres. By Habsburg Haus curator. Youtube. “Bizz-artefacts” of the ancient world.

FINDING NOAH. Oct.8.2015 limited screening.

Haynes. MAMMOTHS... Research on the thousands of mammoths in permafrost.

Hovind, K. FLOOD OF NOAH. Youtube. Hundreds of flood legends around the world. Hovind tends to wander off topic.

Hovind, K. THOUSANDS OF DRAGON LEGENDS AROUND THE WORLD. Youtube. Hovind tends to wander off topic.

Howorth, 1887. Early research on mammoths unable to explain the huge numbers found in permafrost.

James-Griffiths, P. TRACING GENESIS THROUGH ANCIENT CULTURE. Youtube. Extensive and well-illustrated comparative legend and literature.

Giem, P. IS PLUTO YOUNG? Youtube.

Guthrie. FROZEN FAUNA... Research on the plant life around the time and place of the huge numbers of frozen mammoths.

Job 9. 'God moves and overturns mountains.'

Johnson, C. THE PRE-FLOOD WORLD: CREATION AND CANOPY. Youtube.

LIVING WATERS. See nrbtv (Direct 378). This is a rich photoessay against several aspects of Darwinism.

Lyell. Mid-1800s scientist who developed the idea of uniformitarianism 'to free geology from Moses.'

THE MAN WHO FOUND TIME. Re Hutton (mid-1700s) and the first attempts to state that there are vast amounts of time manifesting in the universe.

Mial, A. (research on failures of uniformitariansm) Springer International Publishing.

National Geographic Society. (100 mammoths at Hot Springs, South Dakota).

Nurre, P. EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY AND THE BIBLE. Nwcreation.net. Comparing new archeology with Biblical record.

Oard, M. THE LAKE MISSOULA FLOOD. Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Oard, M. WHAT HAPPENED TO WOOLLY MAMMOTHS? Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Psalm 104. The creation psalm with a few verses on the deluge, if not on Gen 1:2.

Psalm 136. The earth is set on top of water.

Siccar Point, Scotland. This site is contested as a clinching site by both uniformitarians and Biblical creation/deluge believers.

Silvestru, E. GEOLOGY AND DEEP TIME. Youtube. Vertical tectonics, rapid sedimentary deposits by a highly-trained ex-uniformitarian.

Snelling, A. WORLDWIDE FLOOD; GEOLOGIC EVIDENCE. Youtube.

Steno, N. Mid-1600s 'father of geology' and his Biblical basis.

Tolmachoff. 1929. Studies on woolly mammoths as anomalies.

Vereshagin. MAMMOTH CEMETERIES. Research on cause of death of thousands of mammoths in permafrost.

Walker, T. (THE GENESIS DELUGE). Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Walker, T. MEGA-CATASTROPHE. Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Waltke, B. CREATION AND CHAOS. Study of ancient near east legend to show how Gen 1's mission is to declare that the LORD is the redemptive-creator.

Ward. CALL OF THE DISTANT MOUNTAINS. Research on the anomalies of woolly mammoths.

Jonahdog
October 12th, 2015, 07:17 PM
It's a three page bibliography with notes... I'll paste it here. Not all of them are totally on topic; as you may know there are some subjects in which the mechanics of creation and the deluge overlap. Usually the secular scientists indicate their dissent from uniformitarianism and/or just 'accidental' celestial encounters; ie, the changes they speak of could not be accidental.

But no citation to the scientific literature for catastrophic plate tectonics. Can you supply just 1 or 2 specifically?

I really do, however, like your reliance on youtube. Very scientific. Chick tracts next?

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 08:26 PM
But no citation to the scientific literature for catastrophic plate tectonics. Can you supply just 1 or 2 specifically?

I really do, however, like your reliance on youtube. Very scientific. Chick tracts next?

Hey now- go easy on the youtube citations. If youtube can't be used to cite scientific fact, then where does that leave the antivaxxers pro virus-ers? :rotfl:

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 08:38 PM
But no citation to the scientific literature for catastrophic plate tectonics. Can you supply just 1 or 2 specifically?

I really do, however, like your reliance on youtube. Very scientific. Chick tracts next?



You're so wrong. You've got to put in some time, buddy. The thing about Boudreaux and Silvestru is their quotes from peer scientists. Astounding. LIVING WATERS spent its final segment on Sternberg's mathematics about mutations; separate topic, but I'm just providing what you want. Wallace's GOD'S CRIME SCENE is also remarkable for secular quotes that rattle uniformitarianism or other 'closed system' beliefs.

I agree that Hovind comes across crass, but individual items he references there are very detailed and very explosive.

Just take the first title. What do you think Ager means?

As for your snide remark about youtube, you sound antiquated. Given the fact that both of us are here on the i.net, it appears that there is nothing wrong with using a new media, OK? Your problem, or fantasy, is that you thought everything out there was going to sound exactly the same as uniformitarianism has sounded since Lyell, and it has indeed been forced on the West as the 'only' truth. You're not really having a problem with youtube. These scientists say the same things in their books and journals. This time they happen to be in front of cameras that feed into the digital-sphere. So what?

6days
October 12th, 2015, 08:41 PM
Given creationism's history of futility over the past 100+ years, you'll understand if I take a "I'll believe it when I see it" approach. :chuckle:I'm sure you must mean the frustration of evolutionists???
* They tried to sell school kids on the belief in ape men like Piltdown.
* They tried to convince people that our bodies were filled with 98%"Junk DNA".
* It was evolutionists who believed our bodies had many useless biological remnants such as appendix.
* It was evolutionists who fell for Haeckels fraudlent drawings.
* It was evolutionists who tried to convince everyone that Neandertals were dimwitted, inarticulate, stopped over meat eating, hairy beasts.
* Evolutionists are the ones who fall prey to the hype about transitionals with fossils that are just lemurs.
* It is evolutionists who believed coealacanths had gone extinct 60+ million years ago.
* Evolutionists scramble for explanations about soft dinosaur tissue.
ETC
ETC
and more.....

Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.

patrick jane
October 12th, 2015, 08:50 PM
Unless you're under 5'6", God loves you plenty to be able to dunk a basketball. Everything required is already in you. Go do some squat presses, calf raises, and just generally practice jumping. You can get there, and the reason is because you have the required genetics to do so.

You can't dunk whitey !!!!

Jonahdog
October 13th, 2015, 05:02 AM
Y

Just take the first title. What do you think Ager means?



The first title? Ager? Have you read more than the title of the work? If so, please explain what Ager means. If not...

Interplanner
October 13th, 2015, 06:16 AM
He is one of the secular (ie non-Christian) scientists who finds uniformitarianism to be inadequate. He says there are too many geologic anomalies and too many kinds of them to pay much attention to the antiquated, uneventful theory. Whether we are talking about folded bedrock, undersea canyons 3x the size of Grand but formed the same way and speed, or 10,000 mammoths buried standing in permafrost in Siberia, uniformitarianism is fantastical trash.

Clemens calls for reform merely on the basis of how granite has manifested: jagged and 'poorly sorted' conglomerate. Jagged granite exposure means things are very recent and arrived very rapidly. It had no time to 'round' out. Poorly sorted means convulsive turbidity. He is a member of the London Geological Association. "The granite domes of Yosemite could have formed in as few as 5 hours."

Silvestru has an excellent set of pages on 'what would sedimentary coverage look like if subjected to a convulsive, vertical-tectonic deluge event?' You might start there, and work back.

You'll have to do a bit more than read the titles. I meant read the material. Don't bother responding until you are up to speed and/or show an honest interest and/or can demonstrate something other than just an ability to ridicule.

fzappa13
October 13th, 2015, 07:41 AM
Hey now- go easy on the youtube citations. If youtube can't be used to cite scientific fact, then where does that leave the antivaxxers pro virus-ers? :rotfl:

Have you noticed you're the only one laughing?

Jose Fly
October 13th, 2015, 09:46 AM
I'm sure you must mean the frustration of evolutionists???

Nope. As this thread, and other material I've posted demonstrates, evolution has been (and continues to be) the unifying framework of the life sciences for the last 150+ years, and continues to generate very useful results.

Creationism OTOH hasn't contributed a single thing in over a century.

6days
October 13th, 2015, 06:53 PM
Creationism OTOH hasn't contributed a single thing in over a century.
As you know... evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science... Actually, it can be argued that evolutionism has harmed medical progress in some situations with evolutionists making false assumptions based on their belief system.

egyptianmuslim
October 13th, 2015, 09:52 PM
What elephants can teach scientists about fighting cancer in humans (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-sci-sn-elephant-cancer-story-20151007-story.html)



So a few things...



2) If God created all this, why would He give elephants extra cancer-fighting genes, but not His special creation, humans?



You will die even you get the special characters of elephants.

patrick jane
October 13th, 2015, 09:56 PM
You will die even you get the special characters of elephants.

No way, what was your first clue ?

egyptianmuslim
October 14th, 2015, 02:55 AM
Any living organism can't avoid diseases senility and death even it given special advantages

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 02:59 AM
Any living organism can't avoid diseases senility and death even it given special advantages

what about giant Sequoias and Redwoods and giant tortoises ?

George Affleck
October 14th, 2015, 06:26 AM
what about giant Sequoias and Redwoods and giant tortoises ?

A better example is the Hydra as Alate One has already mentioned.

I like it because it shows that organisms can, biologically, never die.
These, and other, clues were left by God to show us what life before sin was like.

MrDeets
October 14th, 2015, 06:42 AM
Have you noticed you're the only one laughing?
That's the odd thing about me... I don't really look around to see what if folks are laughing before I cut loose. If I'm amused or find something funny, I laugh. I would imagine it's awfully tedious for you do have to do so. :Plain:

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 08:29 AM
what about giant Sequoias and Redwoods and giant tortoises ?

They all die. Giant redwoods (which are Giant Sequoias) live thousands of years and tortoises a couple hundred under ideal conditions. Some pine trees can live two thousand also (you can tell with trees by the rings).

Unfortunately they all die eventually

fzappa13
October 14th, 2015, 09:12 AM
That's the odd thing about me... I don't really look around to see what if folks are laughing before I cut loose. If I'm amused or find something funny, I laugh. I would imagine it's awfully tedious for you do have to do so. :Plain:

Some of us look around us and some don't. Have fun crossing the road.

MrDeets
October 14th, 2015, 09:46 AM
Some of us look around us and some don't. Have fun crossing the road.

Waitwaitwait... aren't y'all supposed to "walk by faith"?:chuckle:

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 09:46 AM
As you know... evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science.

Still sticking to that lie, even in a thread that's specifically about evolution contributing to science? Still can't advocate creationism in an honest fashion, eh?

Oh well, I guess it's progress that you agree to the fact that creationism isn't science and hasn't contributed anything to science.


Actually, it can be argued that evolutionism has harmed medical progress in some situations with evolutionists making false assumptions based on their belief system.

Meh....you've been shown the data and information and the only thing you seem to be able to do in response is close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and pretend it doesn't exist.

Oh well. The data shows Christianity's hostility to science is one of the factors driving kids away from the faith. Keep it up 6days! :up:

Dan Emanuel
October 14th, 2015, 01:25 PM
A better example is the Hydra as Alate One has already mentioned.

I like it because it shows that organisms can, biologically, never die.
These, and other, clues were left by God to show us what life before sin was like.We can immortalize individual cell's.


DJ

1.0

egyptianmuslim
October 14th, 2015, 03:26 PM
A better example is the Hydra as Alate One has already mentioned.

I like it because it shows that organisms can, biologically, never die.
These, and other, clues were left by God to show us what life before sin was like.

,Many living organisms has the ability of regeneration (cell renewal) ,but can't resist death by any external mean like pollution or any environmental changes

fzappa13
October 15th, 2015, 02:49 AM
Waitwaitwait... aren't y'all supposed to "walk by faith"?:chuckle:

"Y'all?" What, precisely, do you think you are doing, dear? We all walk by faith, ... the question is, "in what?"

MrDeets
October 15th, 2015, 05:46 AM
"Y'all?" What, precisely, do you think you are doing, dear? We all walk by faith, ... the question is, "in what?"

I suppose that's true that we all have faith in something, but by "y'all" I'm referring to Christians, since the Bible tells you to do so.

6days
October 15th, 2015, 07:17 AM
I suppose that's true that we all have faith in something, but by "y'all" I'm referring to Christians, since the Bible tells you to do so.
Very good! Yes, we walk by faith.*

You might be family with a verse that says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

IOW...we have faith based on evidence, and not a blind faith.*

fzappa13
October 15th, 2015, 08:16 AM
I suppose that's true that we all have faith in something, but by "y'all" I'm referring to Christians, since the Bible tells you to do so.

... and I am referring to everyone. We each choose the paradigm that suits us. What suits us quite often changes over time ... that is, for those of us open to continued external input. Some of us become static in our beliefs during what are, possibly misnamed, our "formative years." Ideally, you learn as long as you live, or, as my dearly departed father used to say, "If you're not learning you're dead already." Some folks seem to find their little happy spot and then spend the rest of their life defending that spot against all comers. Go figure.

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 10:32 AM
Very good! Yes, we walk by faith.*

You might be family with a verse that says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

IOW...we have faith based on evidence, and not a blind faith.*



Yet both of those lines sound evidence-free, which is not what he meant. That's why Oct23 explained about how hydrogen is not seen initially...

The Bible is not shooting itself in the foot here. The earth was there, formless and void, but God formed it. To go from the chaotic state to the humanly-viable state is what Hebrews is referring to. The infinite power and design of God is the unseen.

Lyell, OTOH, did shoot himself in the foot. He said that U'ism has to be based on "processes we can see." That's sounds right at first, until you realize the geologic landscape is fraught with evidence of speed, force, convulsion, transfers of thousands of miles, rapid deposition, piles of loess accumulating so fast that thousands of mammoths could not function in it, etc. He, and the followers of U'ism, made way too many broad declarations when they were in very naive stages of the skill of geologic interp.

MrDeets
October 15th, 2015, 10:49 AM
Very good! Yes, we walk by faith.*

You might be family with a verse that says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

IOW...we have faith based on evidence, and not a blind faith.*

If you had facts for what you believe, there would be no need for faith.


... and I am referring to everyone. We each choose the paradigm that suits us. What suits us quite often changes over time ... that is, for those of us open to continued external input. Some of us become static in our beliefs during what are, possibly misnamed, our "formative years." Ideally, you learn as long as you live, or, as my dearly departed father used to say, "If you're not learning you're dead already." Some folks seem to find their little happy spot and then spend the rest of their life defending that spot against all comers. Go figure.

If you're trying to imply that I am in my little happy spot now, you're sorely mistaken. If you'll notice I've been a member here for 5 years... I posted for a LONG time as a christian(which I'd been since I was very young... "my formative years") . I was a part of some secret groups. It's BECAUSE of external input that I find myself no longer believing what I'd been taught. I am now, because of external input, constantly learning and changing. :e4e:

glorydaz
October 15th, 2015, 10:57 AM
If you had facts for what you believe, there would be no need for faith.


Evidence for things unseen..... ;)

You can't see love, but you can experience it.

You can't see hate, but you can experience it.

You can't see greed, but you see the effects of it.

You can't see selfishness, but you can feel it.

ok doser
October 15th, 2015, 11:02 AM
them's the facts! :thumb:

patrick jane
October 15th, 2015, 11:18 AM
I suppose that's true that we all have faith in something, but by "y'all" I'm referring to Christians, since the Bible tells you to do so.

I think your wife/girlfriend talked you into atheism, or your friends. Not necessarily "talked" you into it, but leading by example.

Or that tattoo ink on your neck seeped into your brain y'all !!!


you are blown like chaff -

Psalm 35:5 KJV - Colossians 2:8 KJV - Ephesians 4:14 KJV


2 Timothy 4:1 KJV -

fzappa13
October 15th, 2015, 11:33 AM
If you're trying to imply that I am in my little happy spot now, you're sorely mistaken. If you'll notice I've been a member here for 5 years... I posted for a LONG time as a christian(which I'd been since I was very young... "my formative years") . I was a part of some secret groups. It's BECAUSE of external input that I find myself no longer believing what I'd been taught. I am now, because of external input, constantly learning and changing. :e4e:

As I said previously, I was talking about humanity in general. If something I said pricked your conscious you will have to be the one to account for that. I'm a little curious about your reference to "secret groups". I've never knowingly involved myself in such though I am familiar with several and I've often wondered what the attraction was. I've pretty much "worn my heart on my sleeve" as the saying goes.

As it concerns "external input" my only advice would be to discern the intent of those offering it.

Dan Emanuel
October 15th, 2015, 01:46 PM
We can immortalize individual cell's.By disabling something called --hold on to your hat if you've never heard of this --programmed, cell, death.

:think:


DJ

1.0

MrDeets
October 15th, 2015, 01:49 PM
I think your wife/girlfriend talked you into atheism, or your friends. Not necessarily "talked" you into it, but leading by example. No sir. I was and am the only atheist in my family, except for another anonymous member of my family who told me he was an atheist once I'd told the family. None of my friends are atheists, either, though my two closest friends aren't exactly religious. I have a very honest blog post on my TOL page, if you're interested.


Or that tattoo ink on your neck seeped into your brain y'all !!!
This made me giggle. Thank you. :chuckle:


As I said previously, I was talking about humanity in general. If something I said pricked your conscious you will have to be the one to account for that.
Eh, not too much. I couldn't tell if you were speaking about me or not, so I thought best to address that. I wasn't being rude intentionally. :e4e:


I'm a little curious about your reference to "secret groups". I've never knowingly involved myself in such though I am familiar with several and I've often wondered what the attraction was. I've pretty much "worn my heart on my sleeve" as the saying goes. It was a way of connecting more closely with like minded believers, and having conversations without the endless trolling and flame wars that happen so often around here.


As it concerns "external input" my only advice would be to discern the intent of those offering it.
Definitely, but when people are young, it's very hard to be discerning. Besides, what kid's don't trust their parents to speak the truth? :sigh:

fzappa13
October 15th, 2015, 06:49 PM
Eh, not too much. I couldn't tell if you were speaking about me or not, so I thought best to address that. I wasn't being rude intentionally. :e4e:

I believe you. I have yet to see you be intentionally rude.


It was a way of connecting more closely with like minded believers, and having conversations without the endless trolling and flame wars that happen so often around here.

I understand the inclination.


Definitely, but when people are young, it's very hard to be discerning. Besides, what kid's don't trust their parents to speak the truth? :sigh:

Reeeeeely good point. Most of what we think of the world around us is seen through the prism that is the view of our elders. Sometimes this is good ... sometimes it can be something of a hurdle. I have long been grateful that my parents were agnostic and I didn't have to unlearn anything as it concerned the Bible. :chuckle:

glorydaz
October 15th, 2015, 08:50 PM
This made me giggle. Thank you. :chuckle:




Why do I find it so humorous to think of Mr. Deets giggling? ;)

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 08:57 PM
catch a discussion of the impact of the Enlightenment on epistemology and cosmology at http://cedarpark.churchonline.org/

It's Dr. Nurre, geologist, on right now

MrDeets
October 16th, 2015, 05:13 AM
Reeeeeely good point. Most of what we think of the world around us is seen through the prism that is the view of our elders. Sometimes this is good ... sometimes it can be something of a hurdle. I have long been grateful that my parents were agnostic and I didn't have to unlearn anything as it concerned the Bible. :chuckle:

I agree. I am grateful to my parents for much of what they taught me, and I wouldn't trade them for any other parents, but their faith would fit in well here on TOL. It's very a very conservative, literal type faith. It was not an easy process to lay all that down.


Why do I find it so humorous to think of Mr. Deets giggling? ;)

I've heard many times that I have a contagious laugh... but I didn't know that it could translate through type. :rotfl:

fzappa13
October 16th, 2015, 06:20 AM
I agree. I am grateful to my parents for much of what they taught me, and I wouldn't trade them for any other parents, but their faith would fit in well here on TOL. It's very a very conservative, literal type faith. It was not an easy process to lay all that down.


I don't know that it is necessary to lay it all down ... surely you can sift through it all and come away with some nuggets of value. Another thing to bear in mind is that what is useful to us, or maybe better said what we are able to hear, changes over time ... if we are growing.

Growing seems to be something of a theme with me as of late. Maybe I'm trying to give myself a pep talk. Growing at 60 is a little trickier than it might sound but a tree does indeed grow until it dies.

MrDeets
October 16th, 2015, 06:55 AM
I don't know that it is necessary to lay it all down ... surely you can sift through it all and come away with some nuggets of value. Another thing to bear in mind is that what is useful to us, or maybe better said what we are able to hear, changes over time ... if we are growing. When I said "all" I meant that regarding specifically religion and faith, not some of the morals and a few other things. It's been around 2 years since I really got to an "agnostic" position, and though I've chilled quite a bit, I don't see myself going back to the faith or God(s) anytime soon. That's not to say never, though. Never say never, amiright??


Growing seems to be something of a theme with me as of late. Maybe I'm trying to give myself a pep talk. Growing at 60 is a little trickier than it might sound but a tree does indeed grow until it dies.
What an awesome perspective... " a tree grows till it dies". That's going in my quote list! :up:

fzappa13
October 16th, 2015, 07:17 AM
When I said "all" I meant that regarding specifically religion and faith, not some of the morals and a few other things. It's been around 2 years since I really got to an "agnostic" position, and though I've chilled quite a bit, I don't see myself going back to the faith or God(s) anytime soon. That's not to say never, though. Never say never, amiright??

Yep. I deliberately resisted Christianity because the culture I was born into shoved it down my throat. I only came to inspect the issue much later because intellectual honesty demanded I give it a fair hearing as well.



What an awesome perspective... " a tree grows till it dies". That's going in my quote list! :up:

Well, to be honest, that notion predates me somewhat ...

Mark 8:22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.

23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.

24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.

25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

MrDeets
October 16th, 2015, 07:27 AM
Well, to be honest, that notion predates me somewhat ...

Mark 8:22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.

23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.

24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.

25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

You sneaky son of a gun... :AMR: :chuckle:

fzappa13
October 16th, 2015, 07:33 AM
You sneaky son of a gun... :AMR: :chuckle:

Gotcha ...:D

George Affleck
October 16th, 2015, 10:46 PM
A person never reaches maturity until they forgive their parents for being imperfect.