MasterofOrion
Footballguy
Please link
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter wazoo11
- Start date
SeveredHorseHeads
Footballguy
Are you kidding me? He's the only one here spending the time to personally respond to all your misinformation, plagiarism, and link spamming. It's clear he actually has an understanding of this concept while you are just regurgitating things that you don't understand.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
Lenski's computer simulation was not well received among piers. In is lab in Michigan State he has produced an astronomical amount of e-coli. The have a life cycle of ~ 20 minutes (by memory) and a beaker has 10's of millions of e-coli. He has been producing e-coli in his lab for decades. The numbers of e-coli in his lab are staggering something like 10^15 e-coli. Yet he uses a computer simulation to prove what he couldn't prove in the lab, after decades or work using with astronomical numbers of e-coli, and then calls it science.Lenski's biggest discovery was the citric acid absorption of e-coli. It required 3 positive mutations. Lenski used one of his computer simulations to show that citric acid adsorption was possible with e-coli. But it wasn't happening. So he looked at what mutations were needed to pull off citric acid absorption. He saves and cataloged all generations of e-coli and saved a sample of each generation in cold storage. He found a generation that had 2 of the 3 required mutations and pulled it out of cold storage. Then he put the e-coli in an environment where the e-coli had to adsorb citric acid to survive, forcing the third mutation. The point is Lenski's biggest accomplishment is tarnished somewhat, because he put a lot of intelligence into the experiment. A computer simulation is not available for organisms in the wild and ironically his finding proves intelligent design more than it does evolution. This was not a random act.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Complexity is a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 0.948. Do you have any idea how many journals there are and how many sub-standard articles appear in B-list journals like this? They operate as a business and require material to publish. Generally speaking, journals with an impact factor less than 2 are probably not worth paying attention to. Why? The rigors of the peer-review suffer dramatically. If the research was noteworthy or particularly interesting to the broader scientific community, it would show up somewhere more visible with a more stringent review process.Since you asked, I do have two PNAS manuscripts. Do you know what the impact factor is for PNAS? 9.681. You have to have a member of the National Academy of Sciences vouch for your work. It's a ridiculously high bar.
The article that Maurile posted, which you basically ignored and posted some discussion from 2007, was published in PNAS in 2010. It has exactly the example you're asking for.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
Look at that thread. James, the person I was talking to is an evolutionist, is a research scientist and spends his vacation looking at the fossil record. We had a civil discussion for like 9- 10 pages. The posts were well thought out by both sides. There are no trolls - it is not allowed.If you really want to lean about evolution, look at he debates between people who know what they are talking about. You learn both sides. It isn't cherry picking from a creation web site or an atheist web site - you hear both sides.Some great reading there. I can't decide if it is shtick or not.
There is a debate about whale evolution in that forum. The persons debating were people who actually handled the bones and made the determinations. Laugh if want to, but the quality of discussion if very high there.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
It is obvious you are not who you claim to be and you did not publish anything in PNAS. BTW that is not where Chemical Engineers publish. I didn't ignore his article. I posted a very long post . WOW.
matuski
Footballguy
I think you have "posted a long post" confused with "cut and pasted a long post from a source that deflects to a new tangent."
Last edited by a moderator:
SeveredHorseHeads
Footballguy
Here comes more personal attacks. Sad.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
From golddigger/Bruce's introductory thread over at evolutionfairytale.com:
I guess I figured it was something strange like that, but it's interesting to see it in writing.
Basically, Bruce's motivation for discussing evolution is to dissuade people from being atheists. Okay, then. Interesting agenda. Facts be damned, let's just talk in circles with the hope that people somehow find God through this ridiculous exercise. Seems like a very weird way to proselytize.
I guess I figured it was something strange like that, but it's interesting to see it in writing.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Again, what debate? What other side is there in biology other than evolution?
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
We've been through this. I put up an enormous bet and you walked away with your tail between your legs. No one is going to lie about a PNAS paper. C'mon, now. And PNAS is multidisciplinary journal. All kinds of folks from different disciplines publish there. My articles were on protein folding and T-cells. You ignored it because you asked for an example of gene duplication adding information and novel function. It's right there in the paper Maurile linked nicely for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I suggest Bruce V. Remember, MasterofOrion told us that golddigger "died" and that he was a very close friend of his.Countdown to golddigger's 5th alias starts now.
matuski
Footballguy
Yes, and what made it so pathetic was that he tried to pull it off in earnest. LinklolI suggest Bruce V. Remember, MasterofOrion told us that golddigger "died" and that he was a very close friend of his.Countdown to golddigger's 5th alias starts now.
Last edited by a moderator:
shader
Footballguy
sn0mm1s and any others. Back to whale evolution for a bit, as it was brought up earlier in the thread and I unfortunately have been too busy to get to it.
Pakicetus is the first fossil I've researched. When it was first discovered, the skull and portions of the mandible were discovered in coastal regions of Pakistan (thus the name). It was immediately hyped as a whale ancestor, and Science magazine put it on the cover: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4595.toc
So for years, Pakicetus was used as a great example of evolution. But as you see here, there was no science involved. What happened was no different than if I found 50 pages of Gone with the Wind and attempted to write the story around it. It's artistic and it's speculative, but its not science.
In 2001, more remains were found. Quickly, it was learned that the pakicetus looked nothing at all like the pictures that had been in people's brains for years. Now it's clear that the animal looked a lot like a dog or a wolf. In fact, it was written by one of the scientists involved that it was a "terrestrial mammal, no more amphibious than a tapir". This same scientist though, argued in 2009 that one reason it could still be argued as a whale ancestor is that it had heavy bones and orbits that were close together on the skull, indicative of aquatic animals that live in water and look at emerged objects.
The artistic renderings that were given to pakicetus are still used inaccurately and give false delusions to many people. As evidence,
http://michigantoday.umich.edu/2011/06/whales.php which was written in 2011. Why do they continue to show these pictures? The pakicetus was not an aquatic mammal, but a terrestrial one.
It was said in a Nature article that if the pakicetus was found without the skull, it would have just been thought of as an artiodactyl. So despite all the differences from whales throughout the entire body, why is the pakicetus listed in the order cetacea?
Another interesting statement in that Nature article was that the ankle bones were adapted for running. It was stated that this adaptation was "once thought to be unique in artiodactyls, but now it is clear that it also occurred in cetaceans".
Why can't they just allow this animal to be the artiodactyl that it obviously is? Well first it would be embarrassing. The very name pakicetus means "whale found in pakistan".
So despite the myriad of differences between whales and this fossil, it continues to get included as an example of whale evolution. Why?
"the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull--are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales"
About the teeth: "Cladistic arguments have been used to link this wear pattern to aquatic predation on fish, but no functional model or modern analogue is known. Moreover, this kind of dental wear also occurs in raoellid artiodactyls. Although this dental wear probably represents a distinctive way of food processing, it does not necessarily imply aquatic life."
So....there are other artiodactyls that have this type of dental wear. So wait a second, it's an animal that lives on the ground, it runs, it shares many characteristics all throughout it's body of land animals, and even shares teeth with other land animals, but it's a whale!
The middle ear is often cited as the best evidence for this animal being a whale. But why? It's admitted that pakicetus had ears that were poorly adapted for underwater hearing and were adapted for hearing above ground.
Notice this statement by Nature: "It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the head is in contact with the ground".
So the all-important middle-ear similarities are probably there so that the mammal can hear vibrations when its head is in contact with the ground!
The facts regarding pakicetus are that is is nothing like a whale at all. The embarrassment of calling it a whale originally, putting it in all sorts of books and articles, and allowing artists depictions to affect students for decades is too much. They stand their ground and insist that this is an ancestor of a whale.
I think this is a perfect example of the problem of evolutionists "knowing exactly where to look" and than finding exactly what they were looking for! They needed a whale link, they found a few fragements of a skull that had some similarities with whales, and they called it a missing link. Time has shown that to be a poor comparison.
Again, there is zero proof that this is a whale ancestor. Whether it is or isn't rests solely in the deductive reasoning of the people analyzing it. The truth is that this was a land mammal with teeth similar to other land mammals, and with ears specially adapted for hearing above ground.
Claiming it is a whale ancestor is not science. Surely you guys can see the difference in calling this a whale ancestor and in other forms of science. So when I say I don't buy "hook, line and sinker" into the entirety of what science tells us, that's why. Fictional drawings, faulty analysis and blatant speculation aren't science. They are science fiction.
Pakicetus is the first fossil I've researched. When it was first discovered, the skull and portions of the mandible were discovered in coastal regions of Pakistan (thus the name). It was immediately hyped as a whale ancestor, and Science magazine put it on the cover: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4595.toc
So for years, Pakicetus was used as a great example of evolution. But as you see here, there was no science involved. What happened was no different than if I found 50 pages of Gone with the Wind and attempted to write the story around it. It's artistic and it's speculative, but its not science.
In 2001, more remains were found. Quickly, it was learned that the pakicetus looked nothing at all like the pictures that had been in people's brains for years. Now it's clear that the animal looked a lot like a dog or a wolf. In fact, it was written by one of the scientists involved that it was a "terrestrial mammal, no more amphibious than a tapir". This same scientist though, argued in 2009 that one reason it could still be argued as a whale ancestor is that it had heavy bones and orbits that were close together on the skull, indicative of aquatic animals that live in water and look at emerged objects.
The artistic renderings that were given to pakicetus are still used inaccurately and give false delusions to many people. As evidence,
http://michigantoday.umich.edu/2011/06/whales.php which was written in 2011. Why do they continue to show these pictures? The pakicetus was not an aquatic mammal, but a terrestrial one.
It was said in a Nature article that if the pakicetus was found without the skull, it would have just been thought of as an artiodactyl. So despite all the differences from whales throughout the entire body, why is the pakicetus listed in the order cetacea?
Another interesting statement in that Nature article was that the ankle bones were adapted for running. It was stated that this adaptation was "once thought to be unique in artiodactyls, but now it is clear that it also occurred in cetaceans".
Why can't they just allow this animal to be the artiodactyl that it obviously is? Well first it would be embarrassing. The very name pakicetus means "whale found in pakistan".
So despite the myriad of differences between whales and this fossil, it continues to get included as an example of whale evolution. Why?
"the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull--are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales"
About the teeth: "Cladistic arguments have been used to link this wear pattern to aquatic predation on fish, but no functional model or modern analogue is known. Moreover, this kind of dental wear also occurs in raoellid artiodactyls. Although this dental wear probably represents a distinctive way of food processing, it does not necessarily imply aquatic life."
So....there are other artiodactyls that have this type of dental wear.
So wait a second, it's an animal that lives on the ground, it runs, it shares many characteristics all throughout it's body of land animals, and even shares teeth with other land animals, but it's a whale!The middle ear is often cited as the best evidence for this animal being a whale. But why? It's admitted that pakicetus had ears that were poorly adapted for underwater hearing and were adapted for hearing above ground.
Notice this statement by Nature: "It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the head is in contact with the ground".
So the all-important middle-ear similarities are probably there so that the mammal can hear vibrations when its head is in contact with the ground!
The facts regarding pakicetus are that is is nothing like a whale at all. The embarrassment of calling it a whale originally, putting it in all sorts of books and articles, and allowing artists depictions to affect students for decades is too much. They stand their ground and insist that this is an ancestor of a whale.
I think this is a perfect example of the problem of evolutionists "knowing exactly where to look" and than finding exactly what they were looking for! They needed a whale link, they found a few fragements of a skull that had some similarities with whales, and they called it a missing link. Time has shown that to be a poor comparison.
Again, there is zero proof that this is a whale ancestor. Whether it is or isn't rests solely in the deductive reasoning of the people analyzing it. The truth is that this was a land mammal with teeth similar to other land mammals, and with ears specially adapted for hearing above ground.
Claiming it is a whale ancestor is not science. Surely you guys can see the difference in calling this a whale ancestor and in other forms of science. So when I say I don't buy "hook, line and sinker" into the entirety of what science tells us, that's why. Fictional drawings, faulty analysis and blatant speculation aren't science. They are science fiction.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
I typed a long reply, but it all boils down to a very simple concept.The Theory of Evolution remains unchallenged as the best explanation of the massive collection of facts we have regarding the topic. It is that simple.sn0mm1s and any others. Back to whale evolution for a bit, as it was brought up earlier in the thread and I unfortunately have been too busy to get to it.
Pakicetus is the first fossil I've researched. When it was first discovered, the skull and portions of the mandible were discovered in coastal regions of Pakistan (thus the name). It was immediately hyped as a whale ancestor, and Science magazine put it on the cover: http://www.sciencema...nt/220/4595.toc
So for years, Pakicetus was used as a great example of evolution. But as you see here, there was no science involved. What happened was no different than if I found 50 pages of Gone with the Wind and attempted to write the story around it. It's artistic and it's speculative, but its not science.
In 2001, more remains were found. Quickly, it was learned that the pakicetus looked nothing at all like the pictures that had been in people's brains for years. Now it's clear that the animal looked a lot like a dog or a wolf. In fact, it was written by one of the scientists involved that it was a "terrestrial mammal, no more amphibious than a tapir". This same scientist though, argued in 2009 that one reason it could still be argued as a whale ancestor is that it had heavy bones and orbits that were close together on the skull, indicative of aquatic animals that live in water and look at emerged objects.
The artistic renderings that were given to pakicetus are still used inaccurately and give false delusions to many people. As evidence,
http://michigantoday...1/06/whales.php which was written in 2011. Why do they continue to show these pictures? The pakicetus was not an aquatic mammal, but a terrestrial one.
It was said in a Nature article that if the pakicetus was found without the skull, it would have just been thought of as an artiodactyl. So despite all the differences from whales throughout the entire body, why is the pakicetus listed in the order cetacea?
Another interesting statement in that Nature article was that the ankle bones were adapted for running. It was stated that this adaptation was "once thought to be unique in artiodactyls, but now it is clear that it also occurred in cetaceans".
Why can't they just allow this animal to be the artiodactyl that it obviously is? Well first it would be embarrassing. The very name pakicetus means "whale found in pakistan".
So despite the myriad of differences between whales and this fossil, it continues to get included as an example of whale evolution. Why?
"the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull--are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales"
About the teeth: "Cladistic arguments have been used to link this wear pattern to aquatic predation on fish, but no functional model or modern analogue is known. Moreover, this kind of dental wear also occurs in raoellid artiodactyls. Although this dental wear probably represents a distinctive way of food processing, it does not necessarily imply aquatic life."
So....there are other artiodactyls that have this type of dental wear.
The middle ear is often cited as the best evidence for this animal being a whale. But why? It's admitted that pakicetus had ears that were poorly adapted for underwater hearing and were adapted for hearing above ground.
Notice this statement by Nature: "It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the head is in contact with the ground".
So the all-important middle-ear similarities are probably there so that the mammal can hear vibrations when its head is in contact with the ground!
The facts regarding pakicetus are that is is nothing like a whale at all. The embarrassment of calling it a whale originally, putting it in all sorts of books and articles, and allowing artists depictions to affect students for decades is too much. They stand their ground and insist that this is an ancestor of a whale.
I think this is a perfect example of the problem of evolutionists "knowing exactly where to look" and than finding exactly what they were looking for! They needed a whale link, they found a few fragements of a skull that had some similarities with whales, and they called it a missing link. Time has shown that to be a poor comparison.
Again, there is zero proof that this is a whale ancestor. Whether it is or isn't rests solely in the deductive reasoning of the people analyzing it. The truth is that this was a land mammal with teeth similar to other land mammals, and with ears specially adapted for hearing above ground.
Claiming it is a whale ancestor is not science. Surely you guys can see the difference in calling this a whale ancestor and in other forms of science. So when I say I don't buy "hook, line and sinker" into the entirety of what science tells us, that's why. Fictional drawings, faulty analysis and blatant speculation aren't science. They are science fiction.
Pakicetus seems to be a popular creationist website topic... what an amazing coincidence you chose this one out of the countless out there to be your first to "research."
Last edited by a moderator:
Time Kibitzer
Footballguy
I completely agree with the bolded; but I don't understand how what you are advocating is any different than what the "vitriolic" evolutionary biologists are advocating, maybe I'm not aware of what exactly the "vitriolic" evolutionary biologists want, but to me it looks like you guys both want the same thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marvin
Footballguy
Just google his name. The hits that come up are divided between his postings or people basically laughing at his theories and writings. My link
BTW: not to get all ad hominem on you but Joseph Esfaniar Hannon Bozorgmehr (aka Atheistoclast) is also a Holocaust denier. My link
Feel free to keep using him as a source for your arguments. He sounds like a sane and rational fellow.
Last edited by a moderator:
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
I didn't go through the entire list. But most of what I saw was from atheist sites who didn't like him. They didn't provide much detail why either.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
you did a lot of work on this article and it shows. Good jobsn0mm1s and any others. Back to whale evolution for a bit, as it was brought up earlier in the thread and I unfortunately have been too busy to get to it.
Pakicetus is the first fossil I've researched. When it was first discovered, the skull and portions of the mandible were discovered in coastal regions of Pakistan (thus the name). It was immediately hyped as a whale ancestor, and Science magazine put it on the cover: http://www.sciencema...nt/220/4595.toc
So for years, Pakicetus was used as a great example of evolution. But as you see here, there was no science involved. What happened was no different than if I found 50 pages of Gone with the Wind and attempted to write the story around it. It's artistic and it's speculative, but its not science.
In 2001, more remains were found. Quickly, it was learned that the pakicetus looked nothing at all like the pictures that had been in people's brains for years. Now it's clear that the animal looked a lot like a dog or a wolf. In fact, it was written by one of the scientists involved that it was a "terrestrial mammal, no more amphibious than a tapir". This same scientist though, argued in 2009 that one reason it could still be argued as a whale ancestor is that it had heavy bones and orbits that were close together on the skull, indicative of aquatic animals that live in water and look at emerged objects.
The artistic renderings that were given to pakicetus are still used inaccurately and give false delusions to many people. As evidence,
http://michigantoday...1/06/whales.php which was written in 2011. Why do they continue to show these pictures? The pakicetus was not an aquatic mammal, but a terrestrial one.
It was said in a Nature article that if the pakicetus was found without the skull, it would have just been thought of as an artiodactyl. So despite all the differences from whales throughout the entire body, why is the pakicetus listed in the order cetacea?
Another interesting statement in that Nature article was that the ankle bones were adapted for running. It was stated that this adaptation was "once thought to be unique in artiodactyls, but now it is clear that it also occurred in cetaceans".
Why can't they just allow this animal to be the artiodactyl that it obviously is? Well first it would be embarrassing. The very name pakicetus means "whale found in pakistan".
So despite the myriad of differences between whales and this fossil, it continues to get included as an example of whale evolution. Why?
"the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull--are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales"
About the teeth: "Cladistic arguments have been used to link this wear pattern to aquatic predation on fish, but no functional model or modern analogue is known. Moreover, this kind of dental wear also occurs in raoellid artiodactyls. Although this dental wear probably represents a distinctive way of food processing, it does not necessarily imply aquatic life."
So....there are other artiodactyls that have this type of dental wear.
The middle ear is often cited as the best evidence for this animal being a whale. But why? It's admitted that pakicetus had ears that were poorly adapted for underwater hearing and were adapted for hearing above ground.
Notice this statement by Nature: "It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the head is in contact with the ground".
So the all-important middle-ear similarities are probably there so that the mammal can hear vibrations when its head is in contact with the ground!
The facts regarding pakicetus are that is is nothing like a whale at all. The embarrassment of calling it a whale originally, putting it in all sorts of books and articles, and allowing artists depictions to affect students for decades is too much. They stand their ground and insist that this is an ancestor of a whale.
I think this is a perfect example of the problem of evolutionists "knowing exactly where to look" and than finding exactly what they were looking for! They needed a whale link, they found a few fragements of a skull that had some similarities with whales, and they called it a missing link. Time has shown that to be a poor comparison.
Again, there is zero proof that this is a whale ancestor. Whether it is or isn't rests solely in the deductive reasoning of the people analyzing it. The truth is that this was a land mammal with teeth similar to other land mammals, and with ears specially adapted for hearing above ground.
Claiming it is a whale ancestor is not science. Surely you guys can see the difference in calling this a whale ancestor and in other forms of science. So when I say I don't buy "hook, line and sinker" into the entirety of what science tells us, that's why. Fictional drawings, faulty analysis and blatant speculation aren't science. They are science fiction.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
I answered MT and I will answer you again. The gene duplication with the fish was a digestive enzyme which was cut into many small parts when is mutated (the process shuddered) making genetic junk i.e going from complex to simple. Some of this junk had a purpose because it was hydrophobic on one end and hydrophilic on the other end which acts like a surfactant. This chopped junk clings to ice crystals at he early stage preventing mass morphing preventing the ice crystals growing. This is not an increase in information. Why, because it is going the wrong direction. An increase in formation is creating something new, going from simple to more complex. You didn't like my gene duplication article and I said ok where is your proof. So this is the third time I have asked you. Where has gene duplication ever increased genetic information?
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
Protein folding and T cells are you kidding me. I can't think of anything further from Chemical Engineering. Maybe Bio- Chemical Engineering or Bio-Medical engineering but not Chemical Engineering. But both those fields are much different than Chemical Engineering. Chemical Engineers are not required to take biology or bio chemistry. If you know anything at all about ribosomes and protein folding you would not be making the asinine comments your make. Your ignorance is monumental.
Dinkle Heimer
Footballguy
I think you are only a couple of more posts away from convincing everyone that evolution didn't happen.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Reread the bolded.And, you talking about all these different kinds of sciences and stuff should give you pause. Where is any of this stuff in your religious texts?
Intelligent Design should be relabeled Ignorant Design. TIA
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Okay.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Whoa.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
Now you want to go head to head with a puplished expert on protein folding... on the topic of protein folding.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Nobody puts Ferris in a corner.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't normally participate in these threads. Am I safe in assuming that these all end the same way for Master of Orion?
Mister CIA
Footballguy
I predict it will end with "I'll bite your legs off."
Last edited by a moderator:
Time Kibitzer
Footballguy
Forgive me if I'm coming off as an agitator, as I assure you that is not my intention. All I'm trying to suggest is that both the vocal and vitriolic people who want fewer people to believe in God and theistic evolutionists appear to me to both want the exact same thing when it comes to teaching evolution in the classroom, which is easily the most vital battlegrounds of the evolutionary debate imo. Although I'll repeat, I may be misinformed about what it is the vocal and vitriolic god-haters are advocating from a evolution in the classroom point of view.'Ferris Bueller Fan said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrok
Footballguy
Were you SaveFerris? At any rate, I'm sorry you feel that way and I apologize if some of my posts were perceived as trying to trap someone. It isn't my intention here. I would like to see if we can agree that evolution doesn't affect teachings of the Bible.
Well to be fair, my intent with "snap of his fingers" wasn't meant to mean he actually snapped his fingers. But I get your point.First you say God literally created man with a snap of his fingers. Then you say God created the first human being from nothing but dirt and a breath into his nostrils while trying to construct an argument for Biblical literalism. I don't think you understand what "literally" means.
Yes, I get all that and I agree.
Well this is kind of what I was thinking. Do you think NT writers, such as Paul, read Genesis and interpreted it as literal? Is it possible he based doctrine on that interpretation? Is it even important? For instance, take the idea of original sin. Paul taught that sin came into this world through one man, Adam. He then taught that Jesus was the second Adam who took away the sin of the world.
If Adam didn't exist and was not literally created, was sin in the world all along? Was early man, through all of his evolutionary adaptations, born with a sinful nature? Or did man, at some point, disobey God and bring sin into the world?
Does it matter if NT leaders thought Genesis was literal? Paul used Adam as a teaching point in his writings. In 1 Timothy, the writer reiterates that Adam was formed first and that Adam was not the one who was deceived. Eve was the one deceived and became a sinner (2:14). Maybe it doesn't matter. Does any foundational doctrine, such as sin and salvation, depend on how Genesis describes how sin came into the world? If there were no Adam and every human being, that came to be, was sinful against God... does that affect NT teaching?
I'm not saying that it does or doesn't. Just curious as to how millions of years of evolution harmonizes with the NT. The gospel of Luke traces Jesus all the way back to Adam, presumably using the OT Scriptures. Perhaps Luke read Genesis as literal history after all. If he was wrong does any of that matter?
I appreciate your thoughts.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
Just because you made the type big does not make it true. In fact PNAS is not mulitidisplianry journal, It primary where you find research about biology and biochemistry. Do some research. It is not a place where Chemical Engineers put their Chemical Engineering research.'Mario Kart said:
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
You have no idea what chemical engineers do in academia. It's not 1970 anymore, Bruce. From the PNAS website:
"PNAS is one of the world's most-cited multidisciplinary scientific serials."
matuski
Footballguy
oof.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
The 50 most read PNAS articles. The articles about physical science is about tools to investigate biological sciences. Seriously tell me how chemical engineers use or study T- cells or protein folding.
T cells - T lymphocytes belong to a group of white blood cells known as lymphocytes, and play a central role in cell-mediated immunity. Are you kidding me, this is absolutely biology not Chemical Engineering.
Protein folding - The process of folding often begins co-translationally, so that the N-terminus of the protein begins to fold while the C-terminal portion of the protein is still being synthesized by the ribosome. Specialized proteins called chaperones assist in the folding of other proteins. Earth to pickels - Protein folding is biological process. It is not a commercial process which chemical engineers use.
Chemical Engineering sometimes uses enzymes, and single site catalyst, metallocenes and other oreganometallic catalyst to process polymers. We have reactors that create specific chiral chemicals using biochemistry. But protein folding is studied and used by biologist not chemical engineeris. You are caught is lie and are now deflecting.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
You are a sad little man.
Marvin
Footballguy
Still
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
It's a trap?
Mario Kart
Footballguy
From the PNAS about page:
Not sure where else you would like to take your debate about what they do. I would think they know what they do.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
You missed the points:1. PNAS is not where Chemical Engineers publish their Chemical Engineering findings.
2. Protein folding is and T cells are not Chemical Engineering topics.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Link? I didn't read that in their "about me" page.
((Morpheus))
Footballguy
HFS
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Good stuff. Keep it coming.
