Why Evolution Is True
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
A recent article from the Christian Science
Monitor:
- - -
Why Evolution Is True
An academic argues that evolution must
be embraced as fact.
by Todd Wilkinson
March 16, 2009
http://features.csmonitor.com/books/2009/03/16/why-evolution-is-true/
- - -
Complete article [with one insert, not
part of original article, included in
brackets]:
Jerry A. Coyne is left utterly incredulous
whenever he hears the term "theory of evo-
lution." As a point of fact, he suggests,
the phrasing is an inaccurate and unfor-
tunate pairing, though the word in ques-
tion is not the one synonymous with pion-
eering British naturalist Charles Darwin.
In Why Evolution is True, his new book,
the University of Chicago professor ex-
presses sharp disdain for the modern por-
trayal of evolution as mere speculation
and biological conjecture.
"The battle for evolution seems never-
ending," he writes. "And the battle is
part of a wider war, a war between ra-
tionality and superstition. What is at
stake is nothing less than science it-
self and all the benefits it offers to
society."
Nearly a century has passed since the
"Scopes Monkey Trial" pitted celebrity
attorneys Williams Jennings Bryant, a
self-described Christian, against Clar-
ence Darrow, an agnostic, in a Tennessee
courtroom. Famously, they squared off
over the legality of teaching evolution
in a Bible Belt public school.
Although the Scopes case ultimately
helped establish evolution as a bedrock
element of public science education in
America, the clash between Darwinism
and religious creationists rages on.
Coyne says the proponents of intelli-
gent design often leave out a critical
detail in their challenges to evolution:
the ever-growing body of empirical evi-
dence, which he insists is irrefutable,
that moves evolution squarely from
theory to scientific fact.
He opens his provocative narrative by
visiting a 21st-century version of the
Scopes trial. The case, Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area School District in Pennsyl-
vania, involves members of a local
school board mandating that intelligent
design be treated as evolution's equal
in explaining the origin of species
on Earth.
Coyne methodically lays out the com-
plete trail of evidence supporting evo-
lution, ranging from the fossil record
of dinosaur bones to sophisticated
DNA analysis, and many decades of
rigorous peer-reviewed scrutiny in
between.
In this 200th anniversary year of Dar-
win's birth, "Why Evolution Is True"
ranks among the best of new titles
flooding bookstores.
For those who may embrace Darwin's
hypothesis but have a difficult time
defending it, Coyne, a university pro-
fessor of evolution and ecology, sup-
plies readers with more ammunition
than they ever will need.
He makes the case for evolution in a
way that is eminently understandable,
colorfully articulated, and relevant to
our time.
Mentioned are politicians and pundits,
including former Congressman Tom
DeLay of Texas and conservative fire-
ball commentator Ann Coulter, both
of whom he finds guilty of gratuitously
pitting evolution against organized reli-
gion.
"Critics of evolution seize upon [the
controversies], arguing that they show
that something is wrong with the theory
of evolution itself. But this is specious,"
Coyne writes.
"Far from discrediting evolution, the
controversies are in fact the sign of a
vibrant, thriving field. What moves
science forward is ignorance, debate,
and the testing of alternative theories
with observations and experiments."
He notes: "A science without contro-
versy is a science without progress."
Coyne celebrates the amazing wonder
of a world that is not eviscerated by
scientific inquiry but further illumin-
ated. The special ways that life adapts
and perpetuates itself is a marvel to
behold, he writes.
It is apparent, he notes, in the shapes
and behavior of species, differences
between sexes, and special relation-
ships such as the one between faunal
pollinators (bees, butterflies, bats,
and birds) and blossoming flowers
that yield not only food but also
beauty. Even the book's cover illus-
trates the descent of birds from
dinosaurs millions of years ago.
In the end, Coyne does not find a
science and those who practice it to
exist in exclusion from those who
seek spirituality in either nature or
a church sanctuary.
He quotes Albert Einstein, who
once remarked: "The fairest thing
we can experience is the myster-
ious. It is the fundamental emotion
which stands at the cradle of true
art and true science.. [I]t was the
experience of mystery - even if
mixed with fear - that engendered
religion."
[insert -- actually, it was mystery
mixed with fear, deceit, human
imagination, superstition, hate,
encouragement of brainwashing,
encouragement of delusion, and
a host of other emotions, many
of which were anti-human, that
engendered religion -- end insert]
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> A recent article from the Christian Science
> Monitor:
>
> - - -
> Why Evolution Is True
Evolution is not true.
> An academic argues that evolution must
> be embraced as fact.
We, who are true scientists, do not embrace anything but the truth.
The evolution hypothesis as proposed by Charles Darwin is untrue
because there has not been the plethora of newly emergent species
predicted by it.
A rational explanation for why we have been seeing a decrease in
biodiversity instead of the emergence of new species thereby
increasing biodiversity can be found in the Bible:
"And GOD blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He
rested from all the work of creating that He had done." (Genesis 12:3)
Amen.
Bottom line:
GOD has stopped creating new species since the beginning of His
seventh day.
We are presently at the very end (evening --> morning) of GOD's
seventh day.
One day for GOD, Who is a timeless infinite Being, is a countless
number of years for us.
The light of the truth is growing ever stronger as we approach within
seconds of high noon thereby ending GOD's seventh day and starting the
Lamb's Day of Judgement, which would be GOD's eighth day.
May GOD soften your heart, Pro-Humanist, so that you would come to
trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human geneticist and molecular biologist
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Andrew E. Chung, MD/PhD
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:06974006-914a-4067...@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>>
>> A recent article from the Christian Science
>> Monitor:
>>
>> - - -
>> Why Evolution Is True
>
> Evolution is not true.
You're right, it's fact. To state otherwise makes you *extremely* deluded.
Andrew E. Chung, MD/PhD
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:06974006-914a-4067...@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> A recent article from the Christian Science
>> Monitor:
>>
>> - - -
>> Why Evolution Is True
>
> Evolution is not true.
>
>> An academic argues that evolution must
>> be embraced as fact.
>
> We, who are true scientists, do not embrace anything but the truth.
>
> The evolution hypothesis as proposed by Charles Darwin is untrue
> because there has not been the plethora of newly emergent species
> predicted by it.
No one ever said all his theories were correct. However, the evidence
supporting the fact that life on earth evolved over about a billion years
is insurmountable. To state otherwise makes you beyond deluded. It makes
you retarded with a possible touch of Mongolism. Your mind hasn't the
capacity to understand this.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Evolution, not ID
- - -
By Paul Rincon,
BBC News science reporter
Science magazine, 23 December 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4552466.stm
- - -
Excerpt:
Research into how evolution works has
been named top science achievement
of 2005, a year that also saw fierce
debate erupt over "intelligent design".
The prestigious US journal Science pub-
lishes its top 10 list of major endeavours
at the end of each year.
The number one spot was awarded jointly
to several studies that illuminated the intri-
cate workings of evolution.
The announcement comes in the same
week that a US court banned the teaching
of intelligent design in classrooms.
[...]
- - -
Posted on Thu, Dec. 22, 2005
Judge maps out defense of Darwin
'Intelligent design' ruling offers key
ammunition in fight to keep religion
from [science] classroom
BY DAVID BROWN and RICK WEISS,
Washington Post
[link to article no longer active]
- - -
Complete article [my comments added
in bracketed inserts, not part of original
article]:
The opinion written by Judge John
Jones in the Dover, Pa., evolution trial
is a 2-in-1 document that offers both
philosophical and practical arguments
against "intelligent design" likely to be
useful to far more than a school board
in a small Pennsylvania town.
Jones gives a clear definition of science
and recounts how this vaunted mode of
inquiry has evolved over the centuries.
He describes how scientists go about
the task of supporting or challenging
ideas about the world of the senses -
all that can be observed and measured.
And he reaches the unwavering conclu-
sion that intelligent design is a religious
idea, not a scientific one.
His opinion is a passionate paean to
science. But it is also a strategic defense
of Darwinian theory.
When evolution's defenders find them-
selves tongue-tied and seemingly bested
by neocreationists - when they believe
they have the facts on their side but do
not know where to find them - this 139-
page document may be where they turn.
"That will be extremely useful not only
in future cases but to the scientific com-
munity, to science teachers and others
who are struggling against this tremen-
dous pressure to bring religion into the
classroom," said Alan Leshner, chief
executive of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, the
largest general science organization in
the country.
Halfway through his opinion, Jones asks
"whether ID (intelligent design) is science."
It is a question at the core of the case
- and he does not shy from it.
"While answering this . compels us to
revisit evidence that is entirely complex,
if not obtuse," he writes, "after a six-week
trial that spanned 21 days . no other
tribunal in the United States is in a better
position than are we to traipse into this
controversial area."
He makes plain his hope that many months
of intellectual heavy lifting "may prevent
the obvious waste of judicial and other re-
sources which would be occasioned by a
subsequent trial involving the precise ques-
tion which is before us."
The ruling gives two arguments for why
intelligent design is not science but is, in
the judge's words, "an old religious argu-
ment for the existence of God."
The first is that intelligent design invokes
"a supernatural designer," while science,
by definition, deals only with natural phe-
nomena.
Second, the court found that intelligent
design suffers from blatant flaws in logic,
one of the chief tools of science.
Since the scientific revolution of the 16th
and 17th centuries, "science has been
limited to the search for natural causes to
explain natural phenomena," Jones writes,
noting that the scientific revolution was
about the rejection of "revelation" in favor
of empirical evidence.
Since then, he writes, "science has been
a discipline in which testability, rather than
any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical
coherence, has been the measure of a sci-
entific idea's worth."
As part of that fact-based approach, Jones
emphasizes, science goes out of its way to
avoid a search for "meaning" or "purpose."
By contrast, intelligent design's views on
how the world got to be the way it is offer
no testable facts, choosing instead to rely
on authoritative statements.
Adherents posit, for example, that animals
were abruptly created (many in the same
form in which they exist today) by a super-
natural designer.
- - -
[insert -- Actually, that is but one of the views
on the religious side of the argument, with
religious opinions varying widely on exactly
how and when and why the supposed su-
preme be-all end-all of all (the entity referred
to as God or Allah or Jehovah or other) inter-
acts with the naturalistic universe self-evident
to science -- end insert]
- - -
The court found that intelligent-design docu-
ments are quite open about the movement's
goal of changing "the ground rules" of sci-
ence to accommodate much more than
natural phenomena - a broadening so great,
one witness for intelligent design testified,
that science would embrace even astrology.
The judge also cites several ways in which
he says proponents of intelligent design
failed to think logically, each example offer-
ing a take-home lesson that could prove
useful to people trying to rebut challenges
to evolutionary theory.
First, Jones writes, people would be well
advised to remember that an argument
against one thing cannot necessarily be
interpreted as an argument for something
else.
For example, the fact that the fossil record
is incomplete
- - -
[insert -- Uh, well, since almost all matter
decays to a non-fossilized form, it's worthy
of note that it's the rare *exception*, rather
than the rule, when a set of naturalistic
events leads to fossils surviving -- in other
words, fossil finds are but a glimpse into
a tiny fraction of life that has existed in the
billions of years since life first appeared
on the planet --
Furthermore, multiple mass extinction events,
occurring more frequently at first, the latest
well-known one being the impact event 65
million years ago, the earliest most devas-
tating one being the impact of a small planet
upon the earth shortly after its formation,
an impact which eventually led to the forma-
tion of the earth's moon, a moon which orig-
inally was so close to earth, it filled the night
sky, are part of the scientific exploration.
In addition, continent formations and drift,
the presence of exotic life forms near vol-
canic ocean ridges and in the deep dark-
ness of the world's oceans and far below
the earth's land surface, the presence of
life chemistry in the far reaches of the par-
ticular solar system we reside in -and- in
distant solar systems, massive freezes
causing the entire earth to be locked in ice,
and much much more ...
... makes the scientific exploration in the
past few decades far more dynamic than
that which is implied by IDers who surmise
now, as IDers have been doing for centur-
ies, that God is the answer to all mysteries
-- end insert]
- - -
is not evidence that human beings must
have been created in their current form.
The world, in other words, is not a zero-
sum, dichotomous one in which a vote
against one candidate equals a vote for
another.
"Just because scientists cannot explain
today how biological systems evolved
- - -
[insert -- Uh, well, scientists can, in detail,
explain how biological systems may have
evolved, but convincing evidence regard-
ing the precise naturalistic modality re-
mains one of the most captivating and
exciting exploratory endeavors at the cut-
ting edge of scientific research -- end
insert]
- - -
does not mean that they cannot, and will
not, be able to explain them tomorrow,"
the judge says.
Another logical failing cited by the court
concerns one of intelligent design's cen-
tral arguments: "irreducible complexity."
That argument states that some biological
systems - such as the bacterial flagellum,
a whiplike appendage that offers some
microbes a means of propelling them-
selves - are made of components that,
individually, do not have any purpose.
Because there would be no evolutionary
advantage for those individual parts, they
must have arisen all at once - and ex-
pressly for the purpose of serving in that
complex organ.
But Jones notes that just because a
complex organ cannot work today with
one component removed, that does
not mean the component did not evolve
independently to serve a different pur-
pose and later took on a new role when
combined with other parts.
The judge notes multiple examples
involving the immune system, the blood
clotting system and even the bacterial
flagellum itself, in which this appears to
have been the case.
Irreducible complexity is in many ways
a theological argument - and a rather
old one.
A theologian testified at the trial Thomas
Aquinas argued in the 13th century that
wherever there is complex design, there
must be a designer and that because
nature is complex, it must also have a
designer.
While many of the scientists who defend-
ed intelligent design in the Pennsylvania
trial stopped short of saying the idea re-
quires belief in God, the defense's chief
expert, biochemist Michael J. Behe of
Lehigh University, noted intelligent design's
plausibility depends on the extent to which
a person believes in God.
- - -
[insert -- Michael J. Behe, by the way,
the instigator of the recent so-called "Intel-
ligent Design" movement, a Roman Cath-
olic adhering to the Roman Catholic theol-
ogy that naturalism -and- evolution has, at
its core, an ultimate cause, God, with God
itself the ultimate mystery ...
... (even -if- one buys into a particular ver-
sion of it, its existence is perilously close to
dubious, at best, the more one researches
the notion -and- the way the notion has
been used, in contradictory and irrecon-
cilable and oft-times illogical ways, over
historical time, by the assorted versions of
religious entities in their disparate theolog-
ical attire) -- end insert]
- - -
"As no evidence in the record indicates
that any other scientific proposition's val-
idity rests on belief in God . Professor
Behe's assertion constitutes substantial
evidence that in his view . ID is a reli-
gious and not a scientific proposition,"
Jones notes in his opinion.
[...]
Science magazine's breakthroughs of 2005
* Winner: Evolution in action. Genome
sequencing and painstaking field obser-
vations shed light on the intricacies of
how evolution works.
[...]
- - - end of article - - -
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>Evolution, not ID
The hypothesis of evolution remains false.
The concept of "survival of the fittest" which undergirds the
hypothesis of evolution is simply incompatible with the observed
existence of many different species of fish and birds.
If evolution were true, there would have never been more than one
species of either fish or birds.
Biodiversity remains evidence of Creation and not of evolution.
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Pro-Humanist, so that you would come to
trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human geneticist and molecular biologist
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Dinosaur Fossils Reveal Evolution's Big Picture,
Says Paleontologist
Date: Posted 6/25/1999
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990625074549.htm
Excerpt: Dinosaur fossils are providing the answers to some
of scientists' biggest questions about evolution, according to
paleontologist Paul Sereno, who has assembled the most up-to-
date picture yet of dinosaur evolution in the 25 June 1999 issue
of Science.
In his article, which is part of Science's special issue about
evolution, Sereno shows how dinosaur fossils hold the clues
to questions such as: How does an upstart group of species
beat out the dominant group? How do organisms develop nifty
new tricks like flying? And how does the breakup of a super-
continent affect the course of evolution? ...
- - -
Butterflies Help Reveal The Source Of Life's Little Luxuries
Date: Posted 1/25/1999
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990125072521.htm
Excerpt: How the elephant got its trunk, the deer its antlers
and the rattlesnake its rattles may seem like disparate questions
of developmental biology, but the origins of these novelties,
according to the genes of butterflies, may have much in common.
Writing in this week's edition (Jan. 22) of the journal Science,
scientists from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison describe a genetic trick that
helps explain the staggering diversity of patterning and color
exhibited on butterfly wings.
The same trick, the scientists suggest, is widely used among
animals and may be one of the underlying mechanisms that
helps explain how new morphological characteristics -- from
teeth and tortoise shells to fur and feathers -- arise through the
course of evolution.
... In the big scheme of animal evolution, according to Keys,
a graduate student in Carroll's lab, the decoration of a butterfly's
wing is a much more recent invention than the building of the
wing itself: "Evolution, somewhere along the line, took this
system and came up with a way to reuse it in an entirely new
context while maintaining its original function."
"To our thinking, the reuse of genes makes innovation easier,"
said Carroll, a biologist whose work has helped resolve the
role genes play in making such things as arms, legs and wings .
"Evolution," he said, "is working by integrating sets of things
it already has. You're using a circuit over and over again."
How butterflies co-opt existing genetic programs to create
eyespot patterns that help them fool predators, said Carroll,
may in fact be a general mechanism animals use to create
"luxury items -- teeth, antlers, shells, hair, coloration -- in the
course of evolution."
"The invention of these novelties is an important facet of animal
evolution," said Lewis, a UW-Madison post-doctoral fellow.
"They impact hugely the lifestyles of the organisms."
Moreover, according to Carroll, since these luxuries are genetic-
ally wired to a specific developmental output, they can be further
tinkered with at the genetic level to create new variants.
Think, for example, of the enormous diversity of pattern and
color in butterflies, or the array of antlers sported by different
members of the deer family such as elk and moose.
"Once you make a new connection, it can independently evolve"
through the interplay of development and genetic change, Carroll
said. "Evolution can muck with that by changing things in the
circuit. At the ends of these (genetic) pathways, the output can
be very different."
"One of the amazing things about butterflies is that these genetic
programs result in a tremendous variety of color patterns, not
structures," said Lewis.
"Few would have guessed," said Keys, "that those beautiful
color patterns evolved from the same genetic processes which
all insects use to shape their wings."
- - -
Evolution Seems To Have Speed Limits, Microbial Study Shows
Date: Posted 1/19/1999
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990119080707.htm
Excerpt: Some of the world's most notorious disease-causing
organisms are ones that evolve quickly to cope with their envir-
onment. Now, a team of MSU scientists has learned about what
controls the speed of evolutionary adaptation.
... "People find it intrinsically interesting to watch evolution in
action," Lenski said. "And there is special interest in understanding
the evolution of disease-causing organisms."
... For an organism to adapt, it needs two processes: mutation
and natural selection.
Mutation is a random change in the organism's genetic structure.
Most mutants are harmful and don't survive.
Occasionally, however, a mutation brings a useful change.
Natural selection is the process that amplifies the useful mutations.
If the mutations are useful, they survive and multiply. ...
- - -
Study Of Origin Of Species Enters The Molecular Age
Date: Posted 11/20/1998
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981120080106.htm
Excerpt: Nothing brings two people closer together than sex,
but for closely related species of fruit flies, it may be what keeps
them apart.
Researchers at the University of Chicago have recently discov-
ered a gene that appears to play a crucial role in causing one
species to split into two--and stay that way.
The gene causes the male progeny of two recently separated
species to be sterile--a condition known as hybrid male sterility.
"How speciation occurs is one of the central questions in evolu-
tionary biology," says Chung-I Wu, Ph.D., chairman and pro-
fessor of the department of ecology & evolution at the Univer-
sity of Chicago, and senior author of the paper in the Novem-
ber 20 issue of Science.
"Geographic isolation and changes in the environment are only
a part of what drives speciation. There are also changes at the
genetic level that are driven by sexual selection. As a result, two
newly formed species can't mix back into one." ...
- - -
Ancient 'Volcanic Winter' Tied To
Rapid Genetic Divergence In Humans
Date: Posted 9/8/1998
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980908074159.htm
Excerpt: A new hypothesis about recent human evolution
suggests that a horrific "volcanic winter" 71,000 years ago,
followed by the coldest 1,000 years of the last Ice Age,
brought widespread famine and death to modern human
populations around the world.
The abrupt "bottleneck," or decrease, in our ancestors' popu-
lations, in turn, brought about the rapid "differentiation" - or
genetic divergence - of the surviving populations.
The hypothesis, offered by anthropologist Stanley Ambrose
of the University of Illinois, proposes that a volcanic winter
reduced populations to "levels low enough for evolutionary
changes, which occur much faster in small populations, to
produce rapid population differentiation," Ambrose said.
If, as he believes, the eruption of Mount Toba in Sumatra
caused the bottleneck, "then modern human races may have
diverged abruptly, only 70,000 years ago," Ambrose wrote
in the June issue of the Journal of Human Evolution.
... Ambrose has linked geneticists' research to that of vol-
canologists Michael Rampino, Stephen Self, Greg Zielinski
and colleagues, which shows the super-eruption of Toba
caused a volcanic winter that lasted six years and signifi-
cantly altered global climate for the next 1,000 years.
Those six years of "relentless volcanic winter" led to sub-
stantial lowering of global temperatures, drought and famine,
and to a global human population crash during which, if
geneticists are correct, no more than 15,000 to 40,000 peo-
ple survived.
"The standard view of human evolution has been that modern
populations evolved from an ancient African ancestor. We
assumed that they differentiated gradually because we assumed
ancestral populations were large and stable," Ambrose said.
But, he noted, genetic research now demonstrates that changes
in population size were sometimes dramatic. The new model
resolves the paradox of the recent African origin model: If we
are all so recently "out of Africa," why don't we all look like
Africans?
"When our African recent ancestors passed through the prism
of Toba's volcanic winter, a rainbow of differences appeared,"
Ambrose said.
- - -
Yale Scientists Recreate Molecular "Fossils," Now Extinct,
That May Have Existed At The Beginning Of Life
Date: Posted 6/10/1998
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm
Excerpt: Yale scientists report they have synthesized mole-
cules like those that probably gave rise to the earliest life
forms on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago, thus creating a
biochemist's version of "Jurassic Park" populated by exotic
molecular "fossils" that have long since become extinct.
... The feat was accomplished using a technique known as
test-tube evolution.
Breaker's tailor-made enzyme is the first known nucleic
acid enzyme that uses an amino acid to trigger chemical
activity, and it brings scientists a step closer to finding
the precursor of all life -- a single molecule containing
both genetic code and an enzyme capable of triggering
self-replication.
Which Came First -- DNA, RNA Or Proteins?
The discovery provides important clues to the chicken-or-
egg dilemma of which came first -- DNA, RNA or proteins.
Most scientists agree life as we know it cannot exist without
DNA as the storehouse of genetic code, RNA as the genetic
messenger, and proteins to carry out the chemistry of repro-
duction.
Can any one of these three key molecules have existed as
the precursor of the other two, serving as both chicken and
egg?
Evidence is mounting that "it was an RNA World at the dawn
of life as the Earth began to cool," said Breaker. ..."
... "Our latest findings not only improve our understanding
about the origins of life, they also expand our skills in mol-
ecular evolution," he said.
"While we may not be able to resurrect fossilized creatures
like they did in 'Jurassic Park,' we very well may be able to
recreate many of the ancient enzymes that were needed at
the very beginning of life nearly 4 billion years ago."
- - -
Gene Study Shows Mammals Lived
Before Extinction Of The Dinosaurs
Date: Posted 5/6/1998
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/05/980506081653.htm
Excerpt: Overwhelming evidence from the largest evolu-
tionary study of gene sequences ever performed shows
that the major groups of mammals emerged well before
the extinction of the dinosaurs.
... The evolution of mammals appears to have occurred
gradually by the isolation of breeding groups when the
continents broke apart, not suddenly by the rapid filling
of ecological niches left vacant when the dinosaurs became
extinct," Hedges says.
The massive gene study suggests that modern orders of
mammals first evolved when the continents were separating
during the Cretaceous era about 100 million years ago--much
earlier than some previous estimates based on fossil studies,
which link the evolutionary event to mass extinctions 65 mil-
lion years ago.
"This is the first time we ever have been able to estimate
when all these lifeforms appeared on Earth," Hedges says.
"Fossils can't give us this information, partly because there
are huge periods of Earth's history from which not enough
fossils have been found to make reliable estimates."
... The scientists sifted through many thousands of vertebrate
gene sequences from hundreds of species to find those that
develop mutations at a constant rate over time, which Kumar
and Hedges used like the ticking of a molecular clock to trace
the history of each species back to its origin.
The researchers found that their molecular clock yielded
origin dates similar to those based on fossil dating for many
species, but for others the genetic clues lead back to a much
earlier time. ...
- - -
Evolution Re-Sculpted Animal Limbs By Genetic
Switches Once Thought Too Drastic For Survival
Date: Posted 8/18/1997
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/08/970818053017.htm
Excerpt: Extremely powerful genes that govern the shape of
an embryo from the earliest stages of development have been
tinkered with by nature over the course of evolution to create
the enormously wide range of animal forms ...
Homeotic, or Hox genes specify the identity of segments along
the embryo's body axis and regulate the formation of major
structures in every animal studied.
... changes in the pattern of activity of two Hox genes in crusta-
ceans are linked to the relatively sudden evolutionary develop-
ment of useful, distinctive feeding limbs called maxillipeds
(literally jaw-feet) where swimming or walking legs once were.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O - r - i - g - i - n - s /
E - v - o - l - u - t - i - o - n (072101)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/origins_evolution.htm
"... Links to a comprehensive view (the
standard origins links which I've been
maintaining for the last few years) and
links expanding on -and- complementing
that view are included in this post. ..."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Creationism Evolves
Review by Eugenie C. Scott
Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism
by Robert T. Pennock
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0899issue/0899reviews1.html
[link no longer active]
Excerpts:
... Intelligent-design creationists are primarily conservative
Christians greatly concerned over the increasing secularization
of U.S. society.
They wish to promote Christian theism over philosophical
materialism, the view that there are no supernatural forces in
the universe, only matter, energy and their interactions.
Because science rules out supernatural explanations, intel-
ligent-design creationists believe that it promotes philoso-
phical materialism and thus devalues faith.
They accuse scientists of clinging to their naturalistic explan-
ations because of preexisting materialist prejudice rather than
the power of empirical evidence.
Because evolution deals with theologically sensitive issues,
such as humanity's place in the universe, it becomes the
special target of intelligent-design creationists.
Movement leader Phillip E. Johnson, a professor of criminal
law at the University of California at Berkeley, argues that by
showing the weaknesses in evolution, they will drive a wedge
into the ideology of materialism, and theism will emerge tri-
umphant.
One of the goals is to replace modern science with a "theistic
science" in which supernatural explanations will be allowed.
It is therefore a religious movement that is both antiscience
--at least as science is practiced today--and antievolutionary.
... Johnson and other leaders try hard to hide theological dif-
ferences in and outside their camp, claiming that such "details"
as the age of the earth, Noah's Flood and the like should be
set aside until theism triumphs over the evils of materialist
science.
Intelligent-design creationists try to keep the peace by avoiding
any specific empirical claim about what the designer might have
done, relying instead on bashing evolution.
In this way, the movement shows its inheritance from its cre-
ation science ancestor, which specialized in the negative argu-
ment of "if evolution is wrong, then creationism is right."
... Intelligent-design creationism versus evolution is not just a
philosophical and theological intellectual exercise: it's also a
fight over what will be taught in our public schools.
... At heart it is religious (Pennock relates how, on creationist
Web sites and among believers, "intelligent designer" is des-
cribed as the "politically correct term for God") and to qualify
as scientific, it has to argue for the redefinition of science to
include "intervention"--miracles, by any other name.
... Intelligent design remains a virtually empty bandwagon.
To understand why, instructors might consult Pennock's index
for long lists of "problems with arguments" of intelligent-design
creationism, of Johnson and other leaders and of terms-of-art
like "irreducible complexity," "information" and "explanatory
filter." ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Since the religion of creationism (or the latest evolved version
of it, intelligent design) is present as an implied or overt aspect
of some religions, especially fundamentalist ones, the following
excerpts from a recent Scientific American article are provided
to help folks understand the way in which science, evolution,
and open-minded pursuit of verity are inconsistent with the crea-
tionist philosophies and their intelligent design offshoots ...
---
Scientific American - July 2002 issue
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF
---
- - - begin excerpts - - -
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism
by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
- - -
...
Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law pro-
fessor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of
Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design
theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms
to discussions of God.
...
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution.
The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeat-
edly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"
The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organ-
isms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those
transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and
compelling.
...
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural
selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential
rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling
species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring
they are likely to leave under given circumstances.
...
Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes
that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of
species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record
and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may
be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolu-
tion has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells,
plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving
beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other
mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybrid-
ization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference
from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the his-
torical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology,
as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by
checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether
they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
...
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up
any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find
articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace
evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific
publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent.
...
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects
their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and
other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even sub-
mitted.
...
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how
speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral
relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a
species apart from modern humans, and much more.
These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science.
Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding prin-
ciple is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to
take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort
the disagreements.
...
New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when
populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch
of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever
distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or
it may become extinct.
...
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists
have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and
other building blocks of life could have formed and organized
themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the
foundation for cellular biochemistry.
Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds
might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a
scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents
arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was
young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing
to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even
if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for
instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago),
evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless
microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
...
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random muta-
tions that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend
on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities.
Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism
of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable"
(adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones.
As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can
push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures
in surprisingly short times.
...
the Second Law [of thermodynamics] permits parts of a system to
decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting
increase.
Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the
sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated
with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales.
Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming
other forms of life and nonliving materials.
...
biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations
(changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial
resistance to antibiotics, for example.
...
molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change
that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which
new traits can appear.
...
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural
selection could produce new species.
...
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms,
but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are
constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for
causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms.
...
the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation
events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments,
researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for
anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and
other traits--and found that they had created populations of organ-
isms that did not breed with outsiders.
...
paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils interme-
diate in form between various taxonomic groups.
...
evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular
biology.
All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution pre-
dicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among
species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships.
Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage
of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are
transitional within evolution.
...
Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits
(such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive
for further evolutionary refinement.
Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive
eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and
have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through compar-
ative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms,
eyes have evolved independently.)
...
It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only
of random processes or designing intelligences.
Researchers ... have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes
can yield extraordinarily complex patterns.
Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge
through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But
that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have
arisen naturally.
...
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism
can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informa-
tive answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature
of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works.
Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world
took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual
value to the effort.
- - -
Other Resources for Defending Evolution
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000276B7-6792-1D0A-8E49809EC588EEDF
- - - end excerpts - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The evidence for evolution is literally overwhelming. Here
are a few pertinent links from the online version of the
Encyclopedia Britannica (paid subscription required
for comprehensive access beyond a few sentences for
each link) ...
- - -
Biology
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=119730&tocid=0
Excerpt: "Study of living things and their vital processes.
... Biology is often approached today on the basis of
levels that deal with fundamental units of life. ..."
- - -
Creation Myth
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117208&tocid=0
Excerpt: "Philosophical and theological elaboration
of the primal myth of creation within a religious com-
munity. ..."
- - -
Creationism
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=27252&tocid=0
Excerpt: "Counterrevolutionary, fundamentalist theory
or doctrine that postulates that matter, the various
forms of life, and the world were created by God out
of nothing. ..."
- - -
Dinosaur
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108935&tocid=0
Excerpt: "The common name given to any of certain
extinct reptiles, often very large, that thrived worldwide
for some 150 million years and that died out at the end
of the Mesozoic Era, about 66.4 million years ago. ..."
- - -
Evolution
http://search.britannica.com/search?miid=1150951&query=evolution
Excerpt: "Theory in biology postulating that the various
types of animals and plants have their origin in other pre-
existing types and that the distinguishable differences are
due to modifications in successive generations. ..."
- - -
Genetics
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?idxref=176349
Excerpt: "Study of heredity in general and of genes in
particular. ... Genetics may be defined as the study of
the way in which genes operate and the way in which
they are transmitted from parents to offspring. ..."
- - -
Human Evolution
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=127615
Excerpt: "Evolution of modern human beings from
nonhuman and extinct hominid forms. The main
stages of hominid evolution are represented by the
australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus,
and Homo sapiens. ..."
- - -
Life
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=109620&tocid=0
Excerpt: "The state of a material complex or individual
characterized by the capacity to perform certain func-
tional activities, including metabolism, growth, repro-
duction, and some form of responsiveness and adapta-
tion. ... The profusion of life on Earth has been studied
in great detail, and a number of general principles have
been revealed. Foremost among them is the principle of
evolution by natural selection-the stepwise adaptation
of organisms to their environment with increasing preci-
sion by small random mutations, or changes, in their her-
editary material-which is the feature that distinguishes
living from non-living matter. ..."
- - -
Morphology
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=119733&tocid=0
Excerpt: "In biology, the study of the size, shape, and
structure of animals, plants, and microorganisms and
of the relationships of the parts comprising them. The
term refers to the general aspects of biological form
and arrangement of the parts of a plant or an animal. ..."
- - -
(end 3 of 3)
Posts in this series:
Preponderance of Evidence for Naturalistic
Origins and Evolution of Life (1 of 3)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/evidence_for_evolution_1_of_3.htm
Preponderance of Evidence for Naturalistic
Origins and Evolution of Life (2 of 3)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/evidence_for_evolution_2_of_3.htm
Preponderance of Evidence for Naturalistic
Origins and Evolution of Life (3 of 3)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/evidence_for_evolution_3_of_3.htm
- - - Additional Information of Relevance - - -
Origins of Energy, Matter, Space, Time, and Life (1 of 2)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/origins_1_of_2.htm
Origins of Energy, Matter, Space, Time, and Life (2 of 2)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/origins_2_of_2.htm
Andrew E. Chung, MD/PhD
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in message
news:om20s49vmrbb1vloi...@4ax.com...
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>>
>>Evolution, not ID
>
> The hypothesis of evolution remains false.
>
> The concept of "survival of the fittest" which undergirds the
> hypothesis of evolution is simply incompatible with the observed
> existence of many different species of fish and birds.
>
> If evolution were true, there would have never been more than one
> species of either fish or birds.
Your logic is mystifying...as in your brain-dead state is mystifying. Also,
survival of the fittest is no longer considered the base of evolution. Your
"education" is a farce. Go out into the field and stop perusing NGs for
young boys.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5f6ca8a70d9e98d0?
May GOD soften your heart, Pro-Humanist, so that you would come to
trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certifed Cardiologist
http://WDJW.net
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
- - -
Excerpts:
ScienceDaily (Feb. 27, 2009) - Ancient footprints
found at Rutgers' Koobi Fora Field School show
that some of the earliest humans walked like us and
did so on anatomically modern feet 1.5 million years
ago.
- - -
Graphic : Hominin footprint at Ileret, Kenya. Photo
of 1.5 million year-old footprint (center) beside
a foot (right) and color-contoured 3D laser scan
image (left) of the print.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2009/02/090226141102-large.jpg
- - -
The footprints were discovered in two 1.5 million-
year-old sedimentary layers near Ileret in northern
Kenya. These rarest of impressions yielded informa-
tion about soft tissue form and structure not norm-
ally accessible in fossilized bones. The Ileret foot-
prints constitute the oldest evidence of an essentially
modern human-like foot anatomy.
Foot bones are rarely preserved because they are
small, encased in flesh, and easily consumed by
carnivores. Consequently, our knowledge of foot
anatomy and function in early hominins is poor.
...
Based on size of the footprints and their modern
anatomical characteristics, the authors attribute the
prints to the hominid Homo ergaster, or early Homo
erectus as it is more generally known. This was the
first hominid to have had the same body proportions
(longer legs and shorter arms) as modern Homo
sapiens. Various H. ergaster or H. erectus remains
have been found in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya and
South Africa, with dates consistent with the Ileret
footprints.
Other hominid fossil footprints dating to 3.6 million
years ago had been discovered in 1978 by Mary
Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. These are attributed
to the less advanced Australopithecus afarensis,
a possible ancestral hominid. The smaller, older
Laetoli prints show indications of upright bipedal
posture but possess a shallower arch and a more
ape-like, divergent big toe.
Based on the size and the stride pattern of these
newly discovered footprints, the team determined
that the individuals responsible would have been
approximately 1.75 meters (about 5'9") in height.
...
- - - end excerpts - - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Bible:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22b5ed94f1fd2510?
Bottom line:
In the Bible, there is knowledge that fish and birds have been on
earth longer than humans as is consistent with the fossil record.
Genesis was written by humans when there was no human understanding of
the fossil record.
How is this possible?
"With man this is impossible but with GOD all things are possible." --
LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:26)
Amen.
Yes, the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Bible.
The Holy Spirit is GOD ! ! !
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b09e7cbbd7183135?
The Holy Spirit keeps non-christians from publicly saying "Jesus is
LORD"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5f6ca8a70d9e98d0?
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Pro-Humanist, so that you would come to
trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
http://WDJW.net
Blinky Bill
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:c0749ebc-06e0-401b...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> ... while fish and birds have been around for 2 according to the
> Bible:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22b5ed94f1fd2510?
>
> Bottom line:
>
> In the Bible, there is knowledge that fish and birds have been on
> earth longer than humans as is consistent with the fossil record.
However they weren't created at the same time as claimed - fish appear in
the fossil record long before birds.
And apparently there was no knowledge that land existed before water, or
that life existed in the water long before it did on land, or that bodies in
the solar system are the same age as Earth while many of those outside the
solar system are considerably older.
>
> Genesis was written by humans when there was no human understanding of
> the fossil record.
>
> How is this possible?
It is quite easy to be wrong about the fossil record, cosmology and many
other modern sciences if you don't know of their existence.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> ... while fish and birds have been around for 2 according to the
>> Bible:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22b5ed94f1fd2510?
>>
>> Bottom line:
>>
>> In the Bible, there is knowledge that fish and birds have been on
>> earth longer than humans as is consistent with the fossil record.
>
Actually, it is not written in the Bible that fish and birds were
spoken into existence at the same time but rather than GOD spoke fish
into existence **before** speaking birds into existence during GOD's
day#5:
"Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the
earth across the expanse of the sky." -- LORD Almighty GOD (Genesis
1:20)
Amen.
Simply note the comma, which indicates a pause ! ! !
> - fish appear in the fossil record long before birds.
One of GOD's days is epochs for us.
Moreover, GOD speaking plants into existence on His day#3 long before
either fish or birds is also consistent with the fossil record.
> And apparently there was no knowledge that land existed before water ...
Incorrect. It is written in the Bible that the land (earth) was
created during GOD's day#1:
"In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis
1:1)
Amen.
> , or that life existed in the water long before it did on land ...
Incorrect.
It is written in the Bible that life on land was not spoken into
existence until GOD's day#6 which would be a long time **after** the
fish were spoken into existence during GOD's day#5:
"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals,
each according to its kind." -- LORD Almighty GOD
Amen.
> or that bodies in
>the solar system are the same age as Earth while many of those outside the
>solar system are considerably older.
It is written in the Bible that during GOD's day#1, that He created
the heavens **before** creating earth:
"In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis
1:1)
Amen.
>> Genesis was written by humans when there was no human understanding of
>> the fossil record.
>>
>> How is this possible?
>
>It is quite easy to be wrong about the fossil record, cosmology and many
>other modern sciences if you don't know of their existence.
Otoh, quite impossible to get it right as has happened for Genesis 1
without divine knowledge.
"With man this is impossible but with GOD all things are possible." --
LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:26)
Amen.
Dear Blinky Bill,
Can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human geneticist and molecular biologist
Andrew E. Chung, MD/PhD
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in message
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>>> ... while fish and birds have been around for 2 according to the
>>> Bible:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22b5ed94f1fd2510?
>>>
>>> Bottom line:
>>>
>>> In the Bible, there is knowledge that fish and birds have been on
>>> earth longer than humans as is consistent with the fossil record.
>>
>>However they weren't created at the same time as claimed ...
>
> Actually, it is not written in the Bible that fish and birds were
> spoken into existence at the same time but rather than GOD spoke fish
> into existence **before** speaking birds into existence during GOD's
> day#5:
<snip delusions>
It also says in the Bible that God stopped the sun in the sky. Doesn't work
that way since
the earth rotates on its axis. Brilliant.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
February 12, 1809, a monumental day in
the evolution of humankind from ignorance
and myth -to- a much deeper understanding
of the place of homo sapiens and all life in
a naturalistic world.
The following excerpts briefly touch on the
subjects in each article. For complete informa-
tion, access each of the links listed below.
- - -
January 2009
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/39754/title/SN_Special__Darwin_turns_200
- - -
Excerpts:
This special web edition of Science News
includes expanded versions of articles from
the magazine's print edition plus two addi-
tional features, all commemorating the
200th anniversary of the birth of Charles
Darwin.
- - -
Darwin's Evolution
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/40014/title/Darwins_Evolution
- - -
Excerpts:
Two centuries ago, modern biology's found-
ing father was born in England. He became
the most celebrated scientist of his time, deci-
phering the records of life's history from
creatures extinct and living and thereby ex-
plaining the genesis of life's diversity.
Charles Darwin was born into a world that
today's scientists wouldn't recognize.
When baby Darwin arrived on February 12,
1809, modern science was also in its infancy.
o Dalton had just recently articulated the modern
theory of the chemical atom, but nobody had
any idea what atoms were really like.
o Physicists had not yet heard of the conservation
of energy or any other laws of thermodynamics.
o Faraday hadn't yet shown how to make electri-
city from magnetism, and no one had a clue
about light's electromagnetic identity.
o Geology was trapped in an ante-diluvian para-
digm, psychology hadn't been invented yet and
biology still seemed, in several key ways, to be
infused with religion, resistant to the probes of
experiment and reason.
Then came Darwin. By the time he died in 1882,
thermodynamics possessed two unbreakable laws,
chemistry had been codified in Mendeleyev's peri-
odic table, Maxwell had discovered the math merg-
ing electricity and magnetism to explain light.
Lyell had established uniformitarianism as the
basis for geology, Wundt had created the first
experimental psychology laboratory, and science
had something substantial to say about how life
itself got to be the way it was - thanks to Dar-
win's perspicacious curiosity, intellectual rigor,
personal perseverance and power of persuasion.
...
Today Darwin's original idea survives, although
it has spawned many mutated forms, with nuances
and complexities that make evolutionary science
a constantly advancing field of research.
And Darwin's logic has been borrowed by other
investigators in diverse disciplines:
o Psychologists try to explain behavior based on
what mental habits would have enhanced sur-
vival as human ancestors were evolving.
o Biomedical researchers grapple with evolution-
ary principles in fighting microbial resistance
to antibiotics.
o Computer scientists mix and select segments
of binary code to generate optimal computer
programs.
o Even in physics, the word "Darwinian" appears
in papers on thermodynamics, quantum physics
and black holes.
Darwin would have been fascinated by such research
and would no doubt have understood a lot of it, as
so much of the underlying reasoning was his.
Darwin would also have been happy with the many
modifications and adaptations to his ideas found in
modern reformulations of evolutionary theory:
o Speciation isn't always gradual, change isn't
always the result of selection, organisms are not
the only units of selection, evolutionists now
believe.
o Darwin foresaw some of these views, and he
would have embraced them all - as a man of
science willing "to give up any hypothesis, how-
ever much beloved ... as soon as facts are shown
to be opposed to it," in his words. "If I know
myself, I work from a sort of instinct to try to
make out truth."
And in the battle to wrest truth from nature, none
fought better than Darwin.
"He found a great truth," Huxley wrote in Darwin's
obituary, "trodden under foot, reviled by bigots, and
ridiculed by all the world; he lived long enough to
see it, chiefly by his own efforts, irrefragably estab-
lished in science, inseparably incorporated with the
common thoughts of men."
- - -
Evolution's Evolution
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/39999/title/Evolutions_Evolution
- - -
Excerpts:
Darwin's dangerous idea has adapted to modern
biology.
Just a decade after he published On the Origin of
Species, Charles Darwin was already worrying
about the evolution of his idea.
In an 1869 letter to botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker,
Darwin lamented:
"If I lived twenty more years and was able to work,
how I should have to modify the Origin, and how
much the views on all points will have to be mod-
ified! Well, it is a beginning, and that is something."
Calling the Origin a mere "beginning" is like saying
the Beatles were just a rock band or that Shakespeare
wrote some decent plays.
Darwin's gifts to science were radical. He not only
proposed that all of Earth's diverse beings shared
a common ancestry, but also described an elegant
mechanism to explain how all that diverse life came
to be.
Darwin was a master of merging data from different
disciplines, pain-stakingly drawing from zoology,
botany, geology and paleontology to build a solid
foundation for evolutionary biology. Today, 150
years later, scientists continue to grapple with ideas
descended from that foundation. Still, Darwin's
central tenets survive, fit enough to frame the
questions posed by modern biology.
...
- - -
Molecular Evolution
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/40006/title/Molecular_Evolution
- - -
Investigating the genetic books of life reveals new
details of 'descent with modification' and the forces
driving it.
Charles Darwin didn't know about genes and DNA.
In fact, hardly anyone noticed when Gregor Mendel,
a monk whose pea experiments eventually led to
modern genetics, published his findings in an ob-
scure journal a few years after Darwin's On the
Origin of Species appeared in 1859.
It would take nearly a century more before James
Watson and Francis Crick deciphered the structure
of DNA, the molecule that contains the manual for
building an organism.
Yet Darwin was still able to describe a mechanism
- natural selection - for how evolution shapes
life on Earth. That's like describing how a car
works without knowing about the existence of
internal combustion engines.
But while Darwin achieved his insights without
molecular help, biologists today are intimately
familiar with the molecules responsible for the
diverse array of plants, animals and other organ-
isms that populate the planet.
The study of genes has revealed evolution as
essentially a high-stakes poker game in which
organisms draw randomly from a deck of genetic
choices.
At stake is the chance to pass along genes to the
next generation. Sometimes the hand is good
enough to get ahead in the game, but some hands
are losers, perhaps to the extent of extinction.
By studying the winners, scientists are learning
how the forces of evolution work on DNA, the
biochemical repository of an organism's entire
natural history.
DNA records the mutations that helped some
animals to survive ice ages while others perished,
the nips and tucks that make animals more attrac-
tive to mates, the big leaps that allowed plants to
become domestic crops - they're all there, writ-
ten out in a simple alphabet of four letters.
Each organism has its own book of life, but it's
not a just-so story. The genomes of living things
are constantly undergoing editing and revision.
And each individual has its own edition of its
species's book, shaped by natural selection and
the other, perhaps less-appreciated forces of
genetic mutation, recombination and drift.
...
Scientists are now beginning to learn how tweaks
and major changes on the molecular level enable
adaptation to environments. The picture is painted
in DNA, but it's far from a completed masterpiece.
Changing environments coupled with the forces
of natural selection, mutation, recombination and
drift are continually reworking the painting. Only
time will tell how the landscape will morph - and
its inhabitants with it.
- - -
Step-by-step Evolution
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/39974/title/Step-by-step_Evolution
- - -
Excerpt:
Mining the gaps: The in-between fossils are the hard-
est to find, but they tell the best stories.
When Charles Darwin proposed the idea of evolution
in On the Origin of Species, he wrote "if my theory be
true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most
closely all the species of the same group together,
must assuredly have existed." At the same time, he
bemoaned the dearth of such transitional fossils as
perhaps "the most obvious and gravest objection
which can be urged against my theory."
Surely it was serendipity when, just two years later,
quarriers unearthed fossils of Archaeopteryx. This
creature, now recognized by many scientists as the
first known bird, has a mosaic of features that links
it with the disparate groups of species on either side
of it in the fossil record: While its teeth, tail and
overall body shape are distinctly reptilian, its fea-
thers have the same complex structure as the lift-
generating feathers of modern birds. In other words,
it is just one of the "numberless intermediate vari-
eties" that Darwin predicted must have existed.
"It was the right discovery at the right time," says
Richard Fortey, a paleontologist at the Natural
History Museum in London.
Darwin blamed the lack of transitional fossils in
part on the poorness of the paleontological record.
It's a rare accumulation of fortuitous events when
a creature is fossilized, its remains are preserved
over millions of years and then those remains are
discovered.
...
Many of the gaps in the fossil record that remained
unfilled in Darwin's time now throng with creatures,
such as the ones used to chronicle the 48-million-
year series of evolutionary changes between whales
and their predecessors. And particular biomarkers
- chemical fossils, if you will - in rocks more
than 240 million years old have provided clues
about the evolution of flowering plants.
Paleontologists still randomly stumble across tran-
sitional fossils these days, such as a creature found
in Texas that falls in a 50-million-year gap in am-
phibian evolution and helps pin down when the
groups that include salamanders and frogs arose.
As often as not, however, transitional fossils are
found when researchers head into the field with
a specific target in mind: By focusing on rocks
deposited during an interval where gaps in the
fossil record exist, scientists can boost the chances
of making a critical discovery. That's how research-
ers unearthed Tiktaalik, a 2.7-meter-long beast that
plopped into a 9-million-year gap in the chronicle
of vertebrates' transition from water to land.
...
- - -
Computing Evolution
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/40012/title/Computing_Evolution_
- - -
Excerpt:
Scientists sift through genetic data sets to better
map twisting branches in the tree of life.
Among its many prose-filled pages, Charles Dar-
win's On the Origin of Species includes only one
illustration. It's a diagram of short lines leading
upward from the base - a few lines at the bottom
branch out repeatedly as they extend up.
Darwin meant for the image to depict what he
dubbed the "tree of life." This figure embodied
Darwin's vision for how the tremendous diversity
of life on Earth arose.
A few species - the base of the tree - mutate and
evolve over time, sometimes branching to form new
species. An ancient species of bird might colonize a
chain of islands and slowly evolve narrower beaks or
other features specialized for the birds' new habitats.
Eventually, groups in different habitats become separ-
ate species, and each species continues to evolve and
adapt, perhaps branching again. In this way, the first
fishlike land animals gave rise to the great diversity
of amphibians, lizards, insects, rodents, marsupials,
primates and birds.
It was a sweeping vision of life, revealing it to be a
giant family with a vast genealogy.
Branches of the tree show the kinship among creatures
and the history of change and adaptation.
Darwin toiled for much of his life to understand the
relationships among species, the branches of this
immense tree, by gathering countless specimens and
scrutinizing their similarities and differences - a
longer neck, a brighter-colored shell. Expanding this
tree has been the painstaking work of generations of
naturalists, biologists, taxonomists and paleontolo-
gists during the 150 years since Darwin published
his seminal book.
Now that slow slog has quickened to an all-out sprint.
Rather than divining clues to an organism's evolution-
ary history from observed traits, scientists are going
straight to the genetic ledger sheet. Modern tools for
rapidly reading species' DNA are laying bare those
species' genetic inheritances, the patterns of genetic
code shaped by eons of mutation and natural selection.
And ever more powerful computers are churning
through gigabytes and gigabytes of this genetic data
to decipher which species are like sisters and which
are only distant cousins.
"We've really learned more about relationships
[among species] in the last 10 years than we did in
the previous 200 years," says Doug Soltis, an evolu-
tionary biologist at the University of Florida in
Gainesville. "This is definitely going to be viewed
as a golden era in our study of biodiversity. And
it's just now taking off."
Already, large branches of the tree are being redrawn
as scientists compare the DNA of dozens or hundreds
of distantly related species. Within years, rather than
decades, this computational excavation of life's past
will achieve an important milestone in the history of
science: a highly accurate map of the major branches
in Darwin's tree of life.
"It's Darwin come full circle," Soltis says. "Starting
from his tree figure [in the Origin], we're now put-
ting together a basic tree of life for a large portion
of known species. It's just incredibly exciting."
...
- - -
A Most Private Evolution
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/40016/title/A_Most_Private_Evolution
- - -
Excerpts:
Dumb Designs for Sex: Evolutionary biology walks on
the weird side.
...
Trying to understand counterintuitive sexual parts and
habits follows in the best of scientific traditions. As
Charles Darwin worked up his ideas on evolution, he
pondered male phenomena that looked useless, or even
harmful, for surviving. Outsized horns on male beetles
puzzled him, as did male birds with gorgeous plumage.
Out of this consternation came his insight into a process
he called sexual selection, which he distinguished from
natural selection. There may be survival of the fittest,
but there's also survival of the sexiest.
Today the sex-related selection process doesn't get much
attention outside scientific circles, but it's a powerful
tool for making sense of downright peculiar stuff. Arnq-
vist and other biologists are expanding Darwin's frame-
work, exploring the counterintuitive aspects of sex from
flirtation to family life. And theorists are discussing fe-
male behavior that Darwin never recognized, or perhaps
just didn't care to discuss in print.
Not-so-natural selection
When Darwin first put his full idea of natural selection
into print, he knew it wasn't enough.
In 1859, he argued in On the Origin of Species that org-
anisms best adapted to their environment survive in
greater numbers and leave more offspring than do their
less fit neighbors. Thus more suitable traits gradually
replace clunkier versions.
Yet antlers on stags and tails on peacocks could hardly
be adaptations to the environment. Both antlers and tails
may be so familiar that it takes a minute to summon a
sense of their absurdity. They're huge. They must drain
energy to produce. There's no way they improve agility
in locomotion or foraging.
"The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever
I gaze at it, makes me sick!" Darwin wrote in a letter
to the botanist Asa Gray, albeit in a whimsical paragraph.
Nauseated or not, Darwin was willing to step beyond
survival of the fittest.
He devoted a few pages in the Origin to introduce sex-
ual selection as a sort of wild oats younger brother of
natural selection. Sexual selection, as Darwin formu-
lated it in the sixth edition of Origin, depends "not on
the struggle for existence in relation to other organic
beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle
between the individuals of one sex, generally the
males, for possession of the other."
[insert -- the degree to which it's a male struggle for
females -or- a female struggle for males, -or- both,
varies from species to species; in homo sapiens, the
additional element of cultural evolution is in play,
interlocked with evolutionary struggles on genetic,
sexual, and memetic levels (see Richard Dawkins'
discussion of the 'meme') -- end insert]
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
February 20, 2009
The Times of India
http://tinyurl.com/OriginofLifeMysterySolved
- - -
TORONTO: Canadian scientists claim to have
solved a major mystery about the origins of life
on earth. The claims come at a time when the
world is celebrating the bicentennial anniversary
of the Father of Evolution, Charles Darwin.
Two Montreal University scientists have pro-
posed a new theory to show how a universal
molecular machine, called ribosome, self-assem-
bled or self-organized itself to become a critical
step in generating all life on earth.
"While the ribosome is a complex structure, it
features a clear hierarchy that emerged based on
basic chemical principles'' ... He said his theory
explains what people imagine as "unseen forces
at work when such complex structures emerge
in nature.''
The Canadian scientist said the ribosome is an
enormous molecule responsible for translating
the messages (carried in the genetic code of all
organisms) into proteins that carry out all func-
tions, including replicating the genome itself.
Compared to biological molecules, he said, ribo-
somes are immense and very complex.
"Though visible only through lenses of the most
powerful microscopes, comparing most other
biological molecules to this behemoth (ribosome)
is like comparing a tricycle to a jumbo jet,'' said
Steinberg. He said he spent years pondering how
a complex ribosome could have assembled itself
from smaller building blocks that existed on the
early earth.
His work, he said, led to the discovery that the
ribosome must have assembled itself from basic
building blocks "in a very specific order; other-
wise it would have fallen apart. Though chemists
have observed examples of self-organizing behav-
ior in simple molecules, there has been no such
explanation about the complex self-assembly of
ribosomes to this date," he said.
"Thanks to the research ... scientists now have
a glimpse of one key event that emerged spon-
taneously out of the primordial chemical soup
of the early earth.'' ...
"Perhaps in the near future we may look forward
to more discoveries that will take us beyond the
world of Darwin into an understanding of the
basic chemical principles that drove the emer-
gence of life on our planet and perhaps beyond.''
- - - end excerpts - - -
- - -
Origin of Life On Earth: Scientists Unlock
Mystery of Molecular Machine
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219105324.htm
Blinky Bill
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in message
news:aeu1s4h96j7nfifl0...@4ax.com...
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>>> ... while fish and birds have been around for 2 according to the
>>> Bible:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22b5ed94f1fd2510?
>>>
>>> Bottom line:
>>>
>>> In the Bible, there is knowledge that fish and birds have been on
>>> earth longer than humans as is consistent with the fossil record.
>>
>>However they weren't created at the same time as claimed ...
>
> Actually, it is not written in the Bible that fish and birds were
> spoken into existence at the same time but rather than GOD spoke fish
> into existence **before** speaking birds into existence during GOD's
> day#5:
>
> "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the
> earth across the expanse of the sky." -- LORD Almighty GOD (Genesis
> 1:20)
>
> Amen.
>
> Simply note the comma, which indicates a pause ! ! !
Or is simply punctuation!!!!
>
>> - fish appear in the fossil record long before birds.
>
> One of GOD's days is epochs for us.
>
> Moreover, GOD speaking plants into existence on His day#3 long before
> either fish or birds is also consistent with the fossil record.
>
>> And apparently there was no knowledge that land existed before water ...
>
> Incorrect. It is written in the Bible that the land (earth) was
> created during GOD's day#1:
>
> "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis
> 1:1)
No - I said "land" which doesn't appear until Genesis 1:9.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto
one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
>
> Amen.
>
>> , or that life existed in the water long before it did on land ...
>
> Incorrect.
>
> It is written in the Bible that life on land was not spoken into
> existence until GOD's day#6 which would be a long time **after** the
> fish were spoken into existence during GOD's day#5:
It is written in the Bible that life on land was spoken into existence on
day#3
"1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so."
And I hope day#3 was a short one and not one of those long epochs because
the sun needed to provide photosynthesis wasn't spoken into existence until
the next "day".
Of course the fruit trees and other plants requiring pollination had to wait
another two "days" for the insects to carry that out.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
However this means that genesis claims whales and birds existed before
reptiles and insects which weren't created until the next day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and
it was so.
The fossil record shows reptiles and insects existed before whales and
birds, contrary to genesis.
>
>> or that bodies in
>>the solar system are the same age as Earth while many of those outside the
>>solar system are considerably older.
>
> It is written in the Bible that during GOD's day#1, that He created
> the heavens **before** creating earth:
>
> "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis
> 1:1)
My KJV bible just says "heaven". KJV goes on to later describe heaven as a
firmament to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. Science does
not speak of higher and lower waters separated by a firmament.
The lights in the heaven didn't happen until day#4. And light itself doesn't
appear until day#2. Modern cosmology does not believe that there was no
light until after the earth was formed.
>
> Amen.
>
>>> Genesis was written by humans when there was no human understanding of
>>> the fossil record.
>>>
>>> How is this possible?
>>
>>It is quite easy to be wrong about the fossil record, cosmology and many
>>other modern sciences if you don't know of their existence.
>
> Otoh, quite impossible to get it right as has happened for Genesis 1
> without divine knowledge.
But they didn't get it right
Blinky Bill
"Andrew E. Chung, MD/PhD" <mon...@fer.com> wrote in message
news:wy7wl.457132$Mh5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in message
> news:aeu1s4h96j7nfifl0...@4ax.com...
>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... while fish and birds have been around for 2 according to the
>>>> Bible:
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22b5ed94f1fd2510?
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line:
>>>>
>>>> In the Bible, there is knowledge that fish and birds have been on
>>>> earth longer than humans as is consistent with the fossil record.
>>>
>>>However they weren't created at the same time as claimed ...
>>
>> Actually, it is not written in the Bible that fish and birds were
>> spoken into existence at the same time but rather than GOD spoke fish
>> into existence **before** speaking birds into existence during GOD's
>> day#5:
>
> <snip delusions>
Keep up the good work. Just snip a few more of your delusions and m y work
is done
>
> It also says in the Bible that God stopped the sun in the sky. Doesn't
> work that way since the earth rotates on its axis.
So another contradiction between science and the bible.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >>> ... while fish and birds have been around for 2 according to the
> >>> Bible:
> >>>
> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22b5ed94f1fd2510?
> >>>
> >>> Bottom line:
> >>>
> >>> In the Bible, there is knowledge that fish and birds have been on
> >>> earth longer than humans as is consistent with the fossil record.
> >>
> >>However they weren't created at the same time as claimed ...
> >
> > Actually, it is not written in the Bible that fish and birds were
> > spoken into existence at the same time but rather than GOD spoke fish
> > into existence **before** speaking birds into existence during GOD's
> > day#5:
> >
> > "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the
> > earth across the expanse of the sky." -- LORD Almighty GOD (Genesis
> > 1:20)
> >
> > Amen.
> >
> > Simply note the comma, which indicates a pause ! ! !
>
> Or is simply punctuation!!!!
You remain wrong about it being written in the Bible that fish and
birds were created at the same time.
This simply shows that you are guided by the spirit of error (self).
Can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardologist
http://T3WiJ.com
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> ... while fish and birds have been around for 2 according to the
>> >>> Bible:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22b5ed94f1fd2510?
>> >>>
>> >>> Bottom line:
>> >>>
>> >>> In the Bible, there is knowledge that fish and birds have been on
>> >>> earth longer than humans as is consistent with the fossil record.
>> >>
>> >>However they weren't created at the same time as claimed ...
>> >
>> > Actually, it is not written in the Bible that fish and birds were
>> > spoken into existence at the same time but rather than GOD spoke fish
>> > into existence **before** speaking birds into existence during GOD's
>> > day#5:
>> >
>> > "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the
>> > earth across the expanse of the sky." -- LORD Almighty GOD (Genesis
>> > 1:20)
>> >
>> > Amen.
>> >
>> > Simply note the comma, which indicates a pause ! ! !
>>
>> Or is simply punctuation!!!!
>
> You remain wrong about it being written in the Bible that fish and
> birds were created at the same time.
It says they were created on the same day. And science says that whales and
birds came after land animals, not before.
>
> This simply shows that you are guided by the spirit of error (self).
Errors like those that inspired you to snip the numerous other instances I
cited where genesis is contradicted by science.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
That is not the same as being written that they we created at the same
time.
Again, one day for GOD is possibly epochs (hundreds of millions of
years) for us.
> And science says that whales and
> birds came after land animals, not before.
Actually, the oldest known fossils of fish (380 million yrs old) and
birds (150 millions yrs old) are older than the oldest known fossils
of true land animals like the mammoth (55 millions yrs old).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061018-fossil-fish.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080506-dinosaur-bird.html
The fossil record leaves open to the possibility that birds were
indeed created before dinosaurs, which may have all been more related
to birds than true land animals because of having feathers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1296102.stm
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Blinky Bill
And the text only says that they were created on the same day - it gaves no
indication if they were created at the same time or at the opposite ends of
the day. The fossil record shows that fish appeared a long time before
birds.
In fact the fossil record shows that birds didn't appear until long after
land animals appeared.
>
>> And science says that whales and
>> birds came after land animals, not before.
>
> Actually, the oldest known fossils of fish (380 million yrs old) and
> birds (150 millions yrs old) are older than the oldest known fossils
> of true land animals like the mammoth (55 millions yrs old).
Let's not redefine "land animal" - the age of dinosaurs started 230 million
years ago. And whales first appear in the fossil record about 50 million
years ago, long after the first land animals. So the order in the fossil
record is fish->land animal->bird->whale. Genesis says fish+bird+whale->land
animal. Obviously not agreement, unless you want to persist in redefining
what constitutes a land animal.
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061018-fossil-fish.html
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080506-dinosaur-bird.html
>
> The fossil record leaves open to the possibility that birds were
> indeed created before dinosaurs,
Untrue - the age dinosaurs started 230 million years ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/dinosaurs/chronology/220mya1.shtml
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
<snip>
> Untrue - the age dinosaurs started 230 million years ago.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/dinosaurs/chronology/220mya1.shtml
Again, there is evidence that suggests that the age of the dinosaurs
is actually the age of birds:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1296102.stm
Feather-covered animals would be how folks would define birds
regardless of whether they can fly or not.
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
http://WDJW.net
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/7395d0e64b245398?
>
> <snip>
>
>> Untrue - the age dinosaurs started 230 million years ago.
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/dinosaurs/chronology/220mya1.shtml
>
> Again, there is evidence that suggests that the age of the dinosaurs
> is actually the age of birds:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1296102.stm
Dino-bird, 130 million years old; other dinos with no evidence of feathers,
230 million years old. No change in the fossil order which was previously
noted.
>
> Feather-covered animals would be how folks would define birds
> regardless of whether they can fly or not.
And?? What you have written changed nothing.
>
> Truth is simple :-)
Indeed - the fossil record still doesn't agree with genesis.
>
> May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
> truth, Who is Jesus:
He would have to re-write the fossil record to do that.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/7395d0e64b245398?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Untrue - the age dinosaurs started 230 million years ago.
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/dinosaurs/chronology/220mya1.shtml
> >
> > Again, there is evidence that suggests that the age of the dinosaurs
> > is actually the age of birds:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1296102.stm
>
> Dino-bird, 130 million years old; other dinos with no evidence of feathers,
> 230 million years old. No change in the fossil order which was previously
> noted.
From the above citation:
Dr Mark Norell, from the American Museum of Natural History, New York,
said: "This fossil radically modifies our vision of these extinct
animals. It shows us that advanced theropod (two-legged) dinosaurs may
have looked more like weird birds than giant lizards."
Several new species of dinosaur with feather-like structures have been
found in the Liaoning fossil beds since the first, Sinosauropteryx,
was discovered in 1995.
** end citation **
Bottom line:
It remains possible that all the early "dinosaurs" were actually
birds.
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Blinky Bill
Let's stick with what is actually known from the fossil record and not
imaginatively add to it . It is pointless to claim that genesis agrees with
the fossil record and then attempt to change the facts of the record to suit
your claim.
>
> Truth is simple :-)
Yep - stick to the facts, not what might be.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Instead, this information is leading us to reclassify early dinosaurs
as birds:
"In recent years, paleontologists have found fossil feathers in about
50 rock formations pegged to dates ranging from the Jurassic period
(from about 200 million to 150 million years ago) ..."
Source:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080708-fossil-color.html
"A SMALL Chinese dinosaur with large feathers on its leg has stunned
the world of palaeontology. The fossilised leg bones of Pedopenna
daohugouensis reveal it to be as bird-like as archaeopteryx, till now
the oldest known bird. But its discoverers think that Pedopenna may be
even older.
Until two years ago, when flight feathers were discovered on the hind
legs of the small dinosaur Microraptor gui, no one suspected that back
legs also played a role in flight (New Scientist, 25 January 2003, p
14). Long leg feathers also turned up on some archaeopteryx specimens
on closer examination, but whether they were important for the first
flyers or developed later is still a mystery.
Xu Xing of the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and
Palaeoanthropology in Beijing, who discovered both fossils, says the
new find shows Microraptor's leg feathers were not an evolutionary
fluke. And although the Pedopenna specimen is only 12 centimetres
long, that is enough to show its closest kin were birds and
dromeosaurs, the dinosaur family which includes Microraptor
(Naturwissenschaften, DOI: 10.007/s00114-004-0604-y).
Pedopenna or "feather foot" would have been less than a metre long and
was found in the Daohugou fossil beds of Inner Mongolia. This makes it
older than the slightly smaller Microraptor, but how much is not yet
clear. From examining other fossilised creatures of known age that
appear with Pedopenna, Xu concludes it lived in the late Jurassic
period, which ended 145 million years ago. That could make it older
than archaeopteryx, which dates from around 150 million years ago in
what is now Germany."
Source:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524874.700
" A small, flying reptile older than most dinosaurs may have sported a
set of feathers, suggests a study in the 23 June issue of Science. The
evidence comes from a fossil approximately 220 million years old,
about 75 million years older than the oldest known bird, Archeopteryx.
"
Source:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20000523035024data_trunc_sys.shtml
"The oldest known feathers from the Late Jurassic are already modern
in form and microscopic detail. Because these oldest examples are
assignable to an extinct branch (Sauriurae) of the basal avian
dichotomy, their features must have been established at a
significantly earlier date. The skin of a wide variety of dinosaurs is
now known and is unlikely to represent a predecessor to a feather
bearing integument. Examples of feathered dinosaurs result from
erroneous identification of internal structures as part of the skin
covering, and from the confusion of flightless birds from the Early
Cretaceous of China with dinosaurs."
Source:
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/4/687
Bottom line:
"Birds were created before featherless land animals." -- Holy Spirit
Amen.
Source:
Genesis 1 (Solus Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti)
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
http://EmoryCardiology.com
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Excerpts from "Almost Everyone's Guide To Science :
The Universe, Life, and Everything" (John Gribbin,
ISBN 0-300-08101-4) ...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300084609
... The range of gravity, like the range of electromagnetism,
is, in principle, infinite, because the relevant field quanta
(gravitons) have zero mass, like photons.
... The Holy Grail of theoretical physics is a kind of Super
Grand Unified Theory, which would bring in gravity as
well. ... Because gravity is so weak (one hundred billion
billion billion billion times weaker than the strong force)
... progress as there is comes from ... a theory which
replaces the familiar idea of particles as points at which
the field quanta are located with the idea of little loops
of 'string'.
... there are two reasons why many physicists today think
that strings represent the ultimate truth, and are the basic
building blocks of matter.
The first is that they get rid of unwelcome infinities that
plague any theories that envisage particles as fundamental
points. That would mean that the particles have zero vol-
ume, and as a result, somewhere along the line in the calcu-
lations you inevitably end up dividing by zero. ... There
are ways to get around this, using a trick called renormal-
isation.
... Using this kind of trickery in the standard theory, re-
normalisation can be made to work, giving finite answers
that match experimental measurements of things ... But it
is a procedure forced upon physicists by circumstances,
and one which many physicists hate.
The problem of dealing with infinities in this way disap-
pears in string theory, though, because you no longer
have to deal with mathematical points that have zero size.
There are none of these uncomfortable point sources (also
known as singularities), and no need for renormalisation.
The second great thing about string theory is that it pre-
dicts gravity. ... That doesn't mean that physicists yet
have their Holy Grail, their theory of everything. The
mathematical complexities inherent in string theory make
it difficult to develop the ideas fully, and there is still the
frustration of not being able to test the ideas against
experiments.
... the theory has come along out of the pure mathemat-
ics, without any underpinning of experiment on which to
build. String theory has been memorably described as
a piece of twenty-first-century physics that fell into the
laps of twentieth-century physicists. But it is widely
regarded as a viable alternative to the older field theory
approach using the idea of point particles, and it defin-
itely removes (or rather, never experiences) the diffi-
culties which seem to make a complete quantum field
theory of gravity an impossible dream in those theories.
However things develop over the next hundred years,
though, one thing is certain. Writing at the end of the
twentieth century, this is as far as we can take you in
terms of probing into the innermost structure of mat-
ter.
---
-insert-
Some answers to mysteries of universe(s) origin(s)
may be found 'neath earth's surface.
Secrets lie deep underground
Physicists seek insight into origin of everything
July 8, 2002 Posted: 1739 GMT
http://europe.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/08/soudan.mine.ap/index.html
Excerpt: SOUDAN, Minnesota (AP) -- A steel cage
rattles and shakes as it drops a half-mile into the earth,
a cable wire the only thing keeping those inside from
taking the express route.
... scientists are using gigantic equipment and the most
advanced computers to crack the riddle of the neutrino,
an elusive and little-understood subatomic particle that
could answer fundamental questions about the origin of
everything. ..."
-end insert-
---
... In order to continue our description of the scienti-
fic understanding of the world we live in, it is time to
turn our attention outwards, starting once again with
atoms, but looking at how they are assembled into
larger and larger objects.
Working in this direction, the ultimate aim of science
is to explain the existence of the Universe itself, and
how it came to be the way it is. Somewhere in the
middle range of sizes between the world of funda-
mental particles and the Universe at large, we will
find an explanation of our own existence. ...
From the intro to John Gribbin's book:
"Concern for man himself and his fate
must always be the chief interest of all
technical endeavors . . . in order that
the creations of our mind shall be a
blessing and not a curse to mankind.
Never forget this in the midst of your
diagrams and equations."
-Albert Einstein, Caltech, 1931
(end excerpts)
- - -
Posts in this series:
Universe(s) Origin(s) Preface
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_preface.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 1 of 7
}}} String Theory / Infinities / Singularities {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_1_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 2 of 7
}}} No Origin of the Universe? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_2_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 3 of 7
}}} Multiverse? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_3_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 4 of 7
}}} Universes from Black Holes? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_4_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 5 of 7
}}} Cyclic Universe? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_5_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 6 of 7
}}} Einstein / Big Bang / Superstrings {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_6_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 7 of 7
}}} Nothing / Everything {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_7_of_7.htm
Blinky Bill
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in message
But life in land goes back further than the age of the dinosaurs. Back to
the Cambrian era, about 500 million years ago. Definitely no sign of birds
then.
<snip>
And pay particular attention to this from you cite
> Examples of feathered dinosaurs result from
> erroneous identification of internal structures as part of the skin
> covering, and from the confusion of flightless birds from the Early
> Cretaceous of China with dinosaurs."
>
> Source:
>
> http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/4/687
>
> Bottom line:
>
> "Birds were created before featherless land animals." -- Holy Spirit
Is your god proud of you for lying for him/her/it
Fossil record - land animals were created before birds.
As your cite says
Blinky Bill
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in message
news:6pi4s4h3jchf5uulo...@4ax.com...
>
> Instead, this information is leading us to reclassify early dinosaurs
> as birds:
>
> "In recent years, paleontologists have found fossil feathers in about
> 50 rock formations pegged to dates ranging from the Jurassic period
> (from about 200 million to 150 million years ago) ..."
>
> Source:
>
> http://www.livescience.com/animals/080708-fossil-color.html
>
> "A SMALL Chinese dinosaur with large feathers on its leg has stunned
> the world of palaeontology.
And feathers on the leg don't meet the criterion set in genesis - the fowl
must be capable of flight.
"Geneis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
firmament of heaven"
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> >
> > Instead, this information is leading us to reclassify early dinosaurs
> > as birds:
> >
> > "In recent years, paleontologists have found fossil feathers in about
> > 50 rock formations pegged to dates ranging from the Jurassic period
> > (from about 200 million to 150 million years ago) ..."
> >
> > Source:
> >
> > http://www.livescience.com/animals/080708-fossil-color.html
> >
> > "A SMALL Chinese dinosaur with large feathers on its leg has stunned
> > the world of palaeontology.
>
> And feathers on the leg don't meet the criterion set in genesis - the fowl
> must be capable of flight.
> "Geneis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
> creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
> firmament of heaven"
Where there are feathers there is the possibility of flight.
There is the rational expectation that creatures that spend more of
their time in the air are less likely to end up in the dirt to be
fossilized.
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> >>No change in the fossil order which was previously noted.
>> >
>> > Instead, this information is leading us to reclassify early dinosaurs
>> > as birds:
>> >
>> > "In recent years, paleontologists have found fossil feathers in about
>> > 50 rock formations pegged to dates ranging from the Jurassic period
>> > (from about 200 million to 150 million years ago) ..."
>> >
>> > Source:
>> >
>> > http://www.livescience.com/animals/080708-fossil-color.html
>> >
>> > "A SMALL Chinese dinosaur with large feathers on its leg has stunned
>> > the world of palaeontology.
>>
>> And feathers on the leg don't meet the criterion set in genesis - the
>> fowl
>> must be capable of flight.
>> "Geneis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
>> moving
>> creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
>> open
>> firmament of heaven"
>
> Where there are feathers there is the possibility of flight.
Feel free to point out any fowls that fly which have feathers only on their
legs.
> There is the rational expectation that creatures that spend more of
> their time in the air are less likely to end up in the dirt to be
> fossilized.
Why? They end up in the same place as terrestrial animals when they die and
gravity comes into play. Apart from that, we are discussing the actual
fossil record, not what you speculate may be missing from that record. It is
not rational to keep attempting to introduce artefacts that don't actually
exist.
Let us compare the chronology of creation with the sequence of events
according to science.
My reading of Genesis is that it says the order of creation is
Earth
Water
Light
Land Plants
Sun
Moon
Rest of Universe
Whales
Marine animals (not whales)
Flying birds
Land animals
However science says (as near as I can recall)
Rest of Universe
Light
Sun
Earth
Moon
Water
Marine animals (not whales)
Land plants
Land animals
Flying Birds
Whales
I am extremely puzzled why you think there is anything in common that can be
ascribed to anything but chance.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
One simply expects the ones that have lost their feathers from their
wings from either illness or injury to end up in the ground to be
fossilized. The others that fall from the sky would likely land in
water which covers most of planet earth to this present day. The
latter would not be fossilized.
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> > "A SMALL Chinese dinosaur with large feathers on its leg has stunned
>> >> > the world of palaeontology.
>> >>
>> >> And feathers on the leg don't meet the criterion set in genesis - the
>> >> fowl
>> >> must be capable of flight.
>> >> "Geneis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
>> >> moving
>> >> creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
>> >> open
>> >> firmament of heaven"
>> >
>> > Where there are feathers there is the possibility of flight.
Like emus and ostriches?
>>
>> Feel free to point out any fowls that fly which have feathers only on
>> their
>> legs.
>
> One simply expects the ones that have lost their feathers from their
> wings from either illness or injury to end up in the ground to be
> fossilized.
Why would they land in water/land in a different ratio to those that die
from other causes and have a normal complement of feathers?
> The others that fall from the sky would likely land in
> water which covers most of planet earth to this present day. The
> latter would not be fossilized.
Do you have any evidence that the ones with full complements of feathers
that die from natural causes aren't just as likely to fall in water?
>
> Truth is simple :-)
Indeed.
The truth is that Genesis says the order of creation is
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>
> >> >> > "A SMALL Chinese dinosaur with large feathers on its leg has stunned
> >> >> > the world of palaeontology.
> >> >>
> >> >> And feathers on the leg don't meet the criterion set in genesis - the
> >> >> fowl
> >> >> must be capable of flight.
> >> >> "Geneis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
> >> >> moving
> >> >> creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
> >> >> open
> >> >> firmament of heaven"
> >> >
> >> > Where there are feathers there is the possibility of flight.
>
> Like emus and ostriches?
GOD did not create emus and ostriches until after He allowed the land
to emerge up out of the waters, which were gathered into "seas."
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >> > "A SMALL Chinese dinosaur with large feathers on its leg has
>> >> >> > stunned
>> >> >> > the world of palaeontology.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And feathers on the leg don't meet the criterion set in genesis -
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> fowl
>> >> >> must be capable of flight.
>> >> >> "Geneis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> moving
>> >> >> creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> open
>> >> >> firmament of heaven"
>> >> >
>> >> > Where there are feathers there is the possibility of flight.
>>
>> Like emus and ostriches?
>
> GOD did not create emus and ostriches until after He allowed the land
> to emerge up out of the waters, which were gathered into "seas."
And? They have no possibility of flight, despite your claim to contrary.
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >> > "A SMALL Chinese dinosaur with large feathers on its leg has
>> >> >> > stunned
>> >> >> > the world of palaeontology.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And feathers on the leg don't meet the criterion set in genesis -
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> fowl
>> >> >> must be capable of flight.
>> >> >> "Geneis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> moving
>> >> >> creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> open
>> >> >> firmament of heaven"
>> >> >
>> >> > Where there are feathers there is the possibility of flight.
>>
>> Like emus and ostriches?
>
> GOD did not create emus and ostriches until after He allowed the land
> to emerge up out of the waters, which were gathered into "seas."
Where is that stated in the bible?
And the laws of nature don't permit birds with feathers only on their legs
to fly.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
"... with GOD all things are possible." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew
19:26)
Amen.
>
> The truth is that Genesis says the order of creation is
Heavens (this would include all celestial bodies) and ...
> Earth
> Water
> Light
... from GOD.
> Land Plants
> Sun
> Moon
> Rest of Universe
See above. Their light was not allowed to be visible on planet earth
until after GOD no longer provided light directly from Himself.
> Whales
Living creatures without a specific referencc to whales.
> Marine animals (not whales)
Simply "let the water teem with living creatures." (Genesis 1:20).
> Flying birds
Yes, the purpose of the feathers on their wings has been for flight.
"So GOD created the great creatures of the sea and every living and
moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
every winged bird according to its kind." (Genesis 1:21)
Amen.
> Land animals
>
> However science says (as near as I can recall)
Science says nothing.
> Rest of Universe
> Light
> Sun
> Earth
> Moon
> Water
> Marine animals (not whales)
> Land plants
> Land animals
> Flying Birds
> Whales
>
> I am extremely puzzled why you think there is anything in common that can be
> ascribed to anything but chance.
Those who are discerning have the knowledge and understanding that
Jonah was swallowed by a large fish that was not a whale so that your
being distracted by whales is simply a sign that you continue to be
guided by the spirit of error (self) instead of the Spirit of truth.
Truth is simple :-)
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)
Amen.
A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2?
Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD
allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109?
May you and other dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a
blessedly wonderful 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus
Christ as our Messiah, the Son of Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
Hunger is wonderful ! ! !
It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus
want?" (WDJW):
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
Hunger is the physical "hearts burning" feeling that unlocks the 4
mysteries of the "Road to Emmaus" adventure described in Luke 24:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154?
Moreover, being hungrier is the key to being Jesus' disciples:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897?
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
Jesus is LORD, forever !!!
Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
Blinky Bill
Then god never tried to strike a match on a bar of soap
>
> Amen.
>
>>
>> The truth is that Genesis says the order of creation is
>
> Heavens (this would include all celestial bodies) and ...
No - they are specifically created much later in Genesis 1:14 onwards. And
KJV says "heaven", not "heavens", and heaven is described as a firmament
between upper and lower waters, not the remainder of the universe..
>
>> Earth
>> Water
>> Light
>
> ... from GOD.
>
>> Land Plants
>> Sun
>> Moon
>> Rest of Universe
>
> See above. Their light was not allowed to be visible on planet earth
> until after GOD no longer provided light directly from Himself.
That is your creation, not what genesis says about creation. You are telling
lies for god - there is no evidence for what you say - shame on you for
bearing false witness.
>
>> Whales
>
> Living creatures without a specific referencc to whales.
Not true - you should read your KJV bible
Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales.."
>
>> Marine animals (not whales)
>
> Simply "let the water teem with living creatures." (Genesis 1:20).
Indeed, but after or at the same time as whales, and the fossil record is
not inaccord with that.
>
>> Flying birds
>
> Yes, the purpose of the feathers on their wings has been for flight.
No - the birds had to be capable of flight.
>
> "So GOD created the great creatures of the sea and every living and
> moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
> every winged bird according to its kind." (Genesis 1:21)
However that was in response to Genesis 1:20 "... Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above
the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
So the winged bird had to be capable of flight, or god's will was not being
carried out.
> Amen.
>
>> Land animals
>>
>> However science says (as near as I can recall)
>
> Science says nothing.
At this stage denial is probably your only refuge. Although it puzzles me
why you earlier claimed that the fossil record (as determined by science)
agrees with genesis. The logical conclusion is that you also believe that
genesis says nothing about the appearance of life on earth, and I am
inclined to agree with you.
>
>> Rest of Universe
>> Light
>> Sun
>> Earth
>> Moon
>> Water
>> Marine animals (not whales)
>> Land plants
>> Land animals
>> Flying Birds
>> Whales
>>
>> I am extremely puzzled why you think there is anything in common that can
>> be
>> ascribed to anything but chance.
>
> Those who are discerning have the knowledge and understanding that
> Jonah was swallowed by a large fish that was not a whale so that your
> being distracted by whales is simply a sign that you continue to be
> guided by the spirit of error (self) instead of the Spirit of truth.
So the inerrant inspired word of god contains errors - I already knew that.
Augray
<lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in
<81534061-133b-4652...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
Actually, no. The anatomy of the earliest dinosaurs was rather
different from that of living birds.
>Truth is simple :-)
But it helps to look at the evidence.
Augray
<disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in
<6pi4s4h3jchf5uulo...@4ax.com> :
No, that's false, and the article doesn't say that.
>"In recent years, paleontologists have found fossil feathers in about
>50 rock formations pegged to dates ranging from the Jurassic period
>(from about 200 million to 150 million years ago) ..."
But since the earliest dinosaurs are older than that.
>Source:
>
>http://www.livescience.com/animals/080708-fossil-color.html
>
>"A SMALL Chinese dinosaur with large feathers on its leg has stunned
>the world of palaeontology. The fossilised leg bones of Pedopenna
>daohugouensis reveal it to be as bird-like as archaeopteryx, till now
>the oldest known bird. But its discoverers think that Pedopenna may be
>even older.
No earlier than the Mid-Jurassic.
>Until two years ago, when flight feathers were discovered on the hind
>legs of the small dinosaur Microraptor gui, no one suspected that back
>legs also played a role in flight
That's not true. William Beebe suggested the idea in 1915.
Virtually no one accepts that this fossil actually had feathers,
because the morphology of these appendages bears only a superficial
resemblance to that of feathers. See:
Reisz, R.R., and Sues, H-D. (2000) The 'feathers' of Longisquama.
Nature 408: 428.
Voigt, S., M. Buchwitz, J. Fischer, D. Krause, & R. Georgi. 2009.
Feather-like development of Triassic diapsid skin appendages.
Naturwissenschaften 96(1):81-86.
Prum, R. O., & A. H. Brush. 2002. The evolutionary origin and
diversification of feathers. The Quarterly Review of Biology
77:261-295.
>Source:
>
>http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20000523035024data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
>
>"The oldest known feathers from the Late Jurassic are already modern
>in form and microscopic detail. Because these oldest examples are
>assignable to an extinct branch (Sauriurae) of the basal avian
>dichotomy, their features must have been established at a
>significantly earlier date. The skin of a wide variety of dinosaurs is
>now known and is unlikely to represent a predecessor to a feather
>bearing integument. Examples of feathered dinosaurs result from
>erroneous identification of internal structures as part of the skin
>covering, and from the confusion of flightless birds from the Early
>Cretaceous of China with dinosaurs."
>
>Source:
>
>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/4/687
A paper that so out of date that it's hard to know where to begin. But
since then, a variety of intermediate feather forms have been found.
>Bottom line:
>
>"Birds were created before featherless land animals." -- Holy Spirit
Even if one accepts that Longisquama actually had feathers, there are
fossils of land animals that are older.
>Amen.
>
>Source:
>
>Genesis 1 (Solus Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti)
>
>Truth is simple :-)
When you open yourself to the evidence.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>So the inerrant inspired word of god contains errors - I already knew that.
Clearly you remains ignorant of the fact that it is the Living Word of
GOD that is inerrant and not the printed pages of the Bible, which has
been written and translated by errant humans.
The Living Word of GOD is Scripture read and understood with the
counsel of the Holy Spirit:
"Solus Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti"
It is HE, the Holy Spirit, Who keeps you and other non-christians from
publicly saying "Jesus is LORD" as it is written:
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
Amen.
Bottom line:
Non-christians can not truly understand what is written in the Bible
because they do not have the counsel of the Holy Spirit.
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Incorrect.
Flying creatures with feathered wings are by definition birds no
matter how strange they may look. Feathers remain a feature that
distinguishes birds from other creatures here on planet earth to this
present day.
Bottom line:
It is feathers and not anatomy that distinguishes birds from other
creatures here on planet earth.
Truth is simple :-)
Augray, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
Blinky Bill
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in message
news:pla7s4plsuej1ipc6...@4ax.com...
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/eabcf2a6472547db?
>
>> <snip>
>
>>So the inerrant inspired word of god contains errors - I already knew
>>that.
>
> Clearly you remains ignorant of the fact that it is the Living Word of
> GOD that is inerrant
I was told that the bible is inerrant because it is the inspired word of
god, as were many other christians. That is why many believe in a literal
interpretation of the bible.
>and not the printed pages of the Bible, which has
> been written and translated by errant humans.
That is your claim, and you are welcome to provide whatever proof you have,
although it seems you want to move the discussion to dogma and faith rather
than observed fact. I can understand why you want to do that.
>
The bible contains numerous readily observable errors. For example you claim
that the creation order in genesis agrees with the fossil record.
The truth is that Genesis says the order of creation is
Earth
Water
Light
Land Plants
Sun
Moon
Rest of Universe
Whales
Marine animals (not whales)
Flying birds
Land animals
However science (with the fossil record) says (as near as I can recall)
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>>
> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/eabcf2a6472547db?
> >
> >> <snip>
> >
> >>So the inerrant inspired word of god contains errors - I already knew
> >>that.
> >
> > Clearly you remains ignorant of the fact that it is the Living Word of
>
> I was told that the bible is inerrant because it is the inspired word of
> god, as were many other christians.
Such are the false teachings of those not guided by the Holy Spirit.
Again, it is the Living Word of GOD, Who is inerrant.
"Solus Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti."
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
http://WDJW.net
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/eabcf2a6472547db?
>> >
>> >> <snip>
>> >
>> >>So the inerrant inspired word of god contains errors - I already knew
>> >>that.
>> >
>> > Clearly you remains ignorant of the fact that it is the Living Word of
>> > GOD, Who is inerrant
>>
>> I was told that the bible is inerrant because it is the inspired word of
>> god, as were many other christians.
>
> Such are the false teachings of those not guided by the Holy Spirit.
They and many other chistaians say that the bible is inerrant.
But how does this Holy Spirit apply corrections to the many errors in the
supposedly inerrant bible and tell you of them?
>
> May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
> truth, Who is Jesus:
Unlikely when you lie in his name and accuse other followers of making false
teachings.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/eabcf2a6472547db?
> >> >
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >>So the inerrant inspired word of god contains errors - I already knew
> >> >>that.
> >> >
> >> > Clearly you remains ignorant of the fact that it is the Living Word of
> >> > GOD, Who is inerrant
> >>
> >> I was told that the bible is inerrant because it is the inspired word of
> >> god, as were many other christians.
> >
> > Such are the false teachings of those not guided by the Holy Spirit.
>
> They and many other chistaians say that the bible is inerrant.
>
> But how does this Holy Spirit apply corrections to the many errors in the
> supposedly inerrant bible and tell you of them?
The Holy Spirit is GOD.
In the Holy Spirit, we, who are Jesus' disciples (either Jew or
gentile), are simply given knowledge and understanding about what is
written in the Bible in the context of our own lives.
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3558812d72ab4e17?
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/eabcf2a6472547db?
>> >> >
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >>So the inerrant inspired word of god contains errors - I already
>> >> >>knew
>> >> >>that.
>> >> >
>> >> > Clearly you remains ignorant of the fact that it is the Living Word
>> >> > of
>> >> > GOD, Who is inerrant
>> >>
>> >> I was told that the bible is inerrant because it is the inspired word
>> >> of
>> >> god, as were many other christians.
>> >
>> > Such are the false teachings of those not guided by the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> They and many other chistaians say that the bible is inerrant.
>>
>> But how does this Holy Spirit apply corrections to the many errors in the
>> supposedly inerrant bible and tell you of them?
>
> The Holy Spirit is GOD.
Sure - but how does he/she/it tell you about the errors in the bible? Do you
get a list of errata and addenda? Or is it just voices in your head?
>
> In the Holy Spirit, we, who are Jesus' disciples (either Jew or
> gentile), are simply given knowledge and understanding about what is
> written in the Bible in the context of our own lives.
So you believe you can change anything in the bible if you believe that it
is wrong? Apparently even jesus himself said you can't do that because the
bible is inerrant and not open to interpretation.
Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled."
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a
matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human
will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the
influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
Obviously jesus thought that the Old Testament was inerrant and shouldn't be
changed.
>
> Truth is simple :-)
Apparently not for you - jesus says don't change what is written in the old
testament, you say that it can be changed. Both statements cannot be true.
Should I take your word ahead of that of jesus?
>
> May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
> truth, Who is Jesus:
Then you should trust him when he says the old testament cannot be changed.
The truth is that Genesis says the order of creation is
Earth
Water
Light
Land Plants
Sun
Moon
Rest of Universe
Whales
Marine animals (not whales)
Flying birds
Land animals
However science (with the fossil record) says (as near as I can recall) that
the order of appearance is:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
HE allows us to know and understand the reason why something is
seemingly an error.
For example:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154?
> Do you get a list of errata and addenda?
In the Holy Spirit, we, who are Jesus' disciples (either Jew or
gentile), are simply given knowledge and understanding about what is
written in the Bible in the context of our own lives.
> Or is it just voices in your head?
No. See above.
If GOD never gives you understanding, you will never understand the
above.
Truth is simple.
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you will come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Teg
you, better get off the ropes or go down for the count.
Kind Regards
Teg
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<><
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)
Amen.
A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2?
Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD
allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109?
Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic (Pan-Flu) at any
time:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0?
What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a
catastrophic Pan-Flu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU
How to not be fearful:
Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!!
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897?
Amen.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What does Jesus want (WDJW) ?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/11194899724b810d?
Blinky Bill
That is a splendid example of your usual gobbledogook. It doesn't tell me
how god tells you about errors which are not supposed to exist in the bible
because jesus says it is written by humans who were inspired by god.
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a
matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human
will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the
influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
>
>> Do you get a list of errata and addenda?
>
> In the Holy Spirit, we, who are Jesus' disciples (either Jew or
> gentile), are simply given knowledge and understanding about what is
> written in the Bible in the context of our own lives.
"... there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal
interpretation ..."
I think satan is misleading you because jesus was quite specific about
personal interpretation.
>> Or is it just voices in your head?
>
> No. See above.
The work of satan!!!!
"... there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal
interpretation ..."
If I believed in Jesus and he said that "... there is no prophecy of
scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation ...", then I would
believe him. It is obvious that you don't believe him so I wonder why you
regard yourself as a christian.
>May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you will come to trust the
>truth, Who is Jesus:
But you don't trust him! You ignore him when he says ""... there is no
prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation ..."
You aren't a good advertisement for what you claim to believe.
attributed to anything other than chance.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The understanding you need must come from the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit will not help you publicly say "Jesus is LORD," He
surely will not help you understand the above example or anything else
in the Bible.
Bottom line:
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
Amen.
May reading the following help you understand your predicament:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b899ce5cc1a77d9d?
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)
Amen.
A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2?
Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD
allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109?
Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic (Pan-Flu) at any
time:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0?
What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a
catastrophic Pan-Flu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU
How to not be fearful:
Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!!
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897?
Amen.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Blinky Bill
I think what I will need to understand your gobbledegook is a generous
serving of distilled spirit rather than holy spirit.
>
> If the Holy Spirit will not help you publicly say "Jesus is LORD," He
> surely will not help you understand the above example or anything else
> in the Bible.
What do mean "anything else in the bible" - what you cited was your
ramblings and didn't come from the bible.
> May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
> truth, Who is Jesus:
Why don't you trust him when he says "... there is no prophecy of scripture
that is a matter of personal
interpretation ...".
I think satan is misleading you because jesus was quite specific about
personal interpretation.
The truth is that Genesis says the order of creation is
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The former has pickled your brain while the latter would heal it.
Truth is simple.
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
Blinky Bill
There is no evidence that I have ever imbibed the former, but apparently
your holy spirit has adversely affected your brain.
Shame on you for lying for god.
Augray
<disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in
<96k7s450148khhjl6...@4ax.com> :
No, it's correct. The anatomy of the earliest dinosaurs *was* rather
different from that of living birds. I can give you a point by point
outline if you like.
>Flying creatures with feathered wings are by definition birds no
>matter how strange they may look.
But the earliest dinosaurs lack *all* the flight-related anatomical
features of living birds. Therefore, they could not fly.
>Feathers remain a feature that
>distinguishes birds from other creatures here on planet earth to this
>present day.
That is an unsupported assertion. But perhaps you could explain what
you mean by "feather", since the "feathers" of Sinosauropteryx would
have been useless for flying.
>Bottom line:
>
>It is feathers and not anatomy that distinguishes birds from other
>creatures here on planet earth.
That is false as well, since the skeletons of modern birds can be
recognized as belonging to birds, even if no feathers are found with
them.
>Truth is simple :-)
I would point out that your unsupported claims do not automatically
qualify as truth.
>Augray, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
Why would I do that?
>Love in the truth,
I do.
>Andrew <><
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Writing that there is no evidence of your ever drinking alcohol is not
the same as writing that you have never drank alcohol.
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly reveal that you have drank alcohol, which has
adversely affected your capacity for understanding.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The earliest "dinosaurs" that were flying with feathered wings did not
have anatomy "rather different from that of living birds" because if
this were true, they would not have been able to fly.
> >Flying creatures with feathered wings are by definition birds no
> >matter how strange they may look.
>
> But the earliest dinosaurs lack *all* the flight-related anatomical
> features of living birds. Therefore, they could not fly.
Having feathered wings automatically means that they did not "lack
*all* the flight-related anatomical features of living birds."
> > Feathers remain a feature that
> > distinguishes birds from other creatures here on planet earth to this
> > present day.
>
> That is an unsupported assertion.
It remains a fact and not an assertion.
If it were not a fact, you would be able to name a creature that is
living here on planet earth today that has feathers and is not a bird.
> But perhaps you could explain what
> you mean by "feather", since the "feathers" of Sinosauropteryx would
> have been useless for flying.
Feathers are filamentous insulating body coverings that are distinctly
light with a branched construction unlike either hair, fur, or
scales.
> >Bottom line:
> >
> >It is feathers and not anatomy that distinguishes birds from other
> >creatures here on planet earth.
>
> That is false as well, since the skeletons of modern birds can be
> recognized as belonging to birds, even if no feathers are found with
> them.
It is the feathers among skeletal remains that allow us to be certain
that we are dealing with the remains of a bird. Otherwise there is
always room for doubt.
> >Truth is simple :-)
>
> I would point out that your unsupported claims do not automatically
> qualify as truth.
The fact is that the only feathered creatures living here on earth
today are birds.
If there were ever non-birds with feathers, there is no reason for
such creatures to longer exist today since they improve survival
fitness as an insulating covering.
Thus, we would retrospectively theorize that all the feathered
"dinosaurs" were actually birds.
> > Augray, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
>
> Why would I do that?
Those who can publicly say "Jesus is LORD" simply answer in the
written affirmative.
May GOD soften your heart, Augray, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
Blinky Bill
Is that how you want to squirm away from providing evidence for what you
wrote - YOU said my it had pickled my brain - where is your evidence.
>
> Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
> you to unwittingly reveal that you have drank alcohol,
Where have I "revealed" that? I think it is like the revelations you claim
to have about the errors in the bible - it all happens in your imagination.
> which has
> adversely affected your capacity for understanding.
More lies for god - shame on you for bearing false witness - satan is
leading you. You are now showing your true colours - you not only lie about
the bible and disobey its injunctions, but you also lie about people you
converse with. Bearing false witness - very unchristian.
Blinky Bill
Your claim was "It remains possible that all the early "dinosaurs" were
actually birds.". According to the fossil record dinosaurs without feathered
wings existed for many millions of years before those with feathered wings
appeared. So your claim seems unlikely to be true.
>
>> >Flying creatures with feathered wings are by definition birds no
>> >matter how strange they may look.
>>
>> But the earliest dinosaurs lack *all* the flight-related anatomical
>> features of living birds. Therefore, they could not fly.
>
> Having feathered wings automatically means that they did not "lack
> *all* the flight-related anatomical features of living birds."
But the earliest dinosaurs did not have feathered wings.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The evidence that your drinking alcohol has pickled your brain resides
in your being unable to understand what you have read and your
deteriorating ability to write coherently.
> >
> > Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
> > you to unwittingly reveal that you have drank alcohol,
>
> Where have I "revealed" that?
In what you have written above.
> I think it is like the revelations you claim
> to have about the errors in the bible - it all happens in your imagination.
Each putative "error" remains a mystery that requires the counsel of
the Holy Spirit for understanding.
It is not your imagination but your drinking alcohol...
> > which has
> > adversely affected your capacity for understanding.
>
> More lies for god - shame on you for bearing false witness - satan is
> leading you. You are now showing your true colours - you not only lie about
> the bible and disobey its injunctions, but you also lie about people you
> converse with. Bearing false witness - very unchristian.
"I think what I will need to understand your gobbledegook is a
generous serving of distilled spirit rather than holy spirit." --
Blinky Bill
Bottom line:
Distilled spirit is alcohol.
Blinky Bill
It is quite difficult to understand much of the incoherent gibberish you
write.
> and your
> deteriorating ability to write coherently.
No, that is evidence of your inability to understand what has been written
by me and others.
>
>> >
>> > Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
>> > you to unwittingly reveal that you have drank alcohol,
>>
>> Where have I "revealed" that?
>
> In what you have written above.
Then by applying that rationale you have revealed that you are addicted to
and affected quite a few illegal drugs - nothing else can explain the
rambling and incoherent descriptions of the hallucinations you experience.
>
>> I think it is like the revelations you claim
>> to have about the errors in the bible - it all happens in your
>> imagination.
>
> Each putative "error" remains a mystery that requires the counsel of
> the Holy Spirit for understanding.
Inventing convoluted explanations is just a symptom of your drug abuse.
>
> It is not your imagination but your drinking alcohol...
It is not the holy spirit but your drug-induced hallucinations.
>
>> > which has
>> > adversely affected your capacity for understanding.
>>
>> More lies for god - shame on you for bearing false witness - satan is
>> leading you. You are now showing your true colours - you not only lie
>> about
>> the bible and disobey its injunctions, but you also lie about people you
>> converse with. Bearing false witness - very unchristian.
>
> "I think what I will need to understand your gobbledegook is a
> generous serving of distilled spirit rather than holy spirit." --
> Blinky Bill
>
> Bottom line:
>
> Distilled spirit is alcohol.
So? That is not evidence I have ever drunk alcohol, just a statement of the
possibility that I might. The problem you have understanding what I write is
in you, not in what I have written. It is probably the drug that you refer
to as the holy spirit.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> >
> > The evidence that your drinking alcohol has pickled your brain resides
> > in your being unable to understand what you have read
>
> It is quite difficult to understand much of the incoherent gibberish you
> write.
QED
"I think what I will need to understand your gobbledegook is a
generous serving of distilled spirit rather than holy spirit." --
Blinky Bill
Bottom line:
You are dependent on drinking alcohol (distilled spirit).
Augray
<lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in
<ea7e2181-3127-469f...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> :
Why are you changing your position? Your initial claim was that *all*
the early dinosaurs may have been birds, not just the ones with
feathered wings. Since the earliest dinosaurs had no wings, they
weren't birds.
>did not
>have anatomy "rather different from that of living birds" because if
>this were true, they would not have been able to fly.
You're assuming that there's only one way to fly, but this is false.
For instance, Archaeopteryx lacked the following adaptations for
flight:
- An alula (used to reduce wing turbulence during low speed
flight).
- A carpometacarpus (fusion of the metacarpal to increase wings
strength).
- A V-shaped ulnare (the ulnare is a carpal bone in the wrist, which
in living birds helps keep the wing rigid during the downstroke,
preventing it from buckling).
- A triosseal canal in the shoulder (this is for passage of the
tendon of the supracoracoideus muscle, which assists in the wing's
upstroke).
- An ossified sternum (this is for the attachment of the
flight muscles, which perform most of the work of flying).
- A laterally facing shoulder joint (this allows the wing to be raised
above the horizontal position).
- An acrocoracohumeral ligament oriented to prevent dislocation of the
shoulder during the upstroke.
It should be obvious by now that your implied claim that all birds
have the same anatomy is false.
>> >Flying creatures with feathered wings are by definition birds no
>> >matter how strange they may look.
>>
>> But the earliest dinosaurs lack *all* the flight-related anatomical
>> features of living birds. Therefore, they could not fly.
>
>Having feathered wings automatically means that they did not "lack
>*all* the flight-related anatomical features of living birds."
The problem is that the early dinosaurs *didn't* have feathered wings,
or wings of any kind. So they couldn't fly. Therefore, they weren't
birds. And in the instance of Sinosauropteryx (which was *not* one of
the earliest dinosaurs), it couldn't fly because it lacked wings and
*pennaceous* feathers.
>> > Feathers remain a feature that
>> > distinguishes birds from other creatures here on planet earth to this
>> > present day.
>>
>> That is an unsupported assertion.
>
>It remains a fact and not an assertion.
>
>If it were not a fact, you would be able to name a creature that is
>living here on planet earth today that has feathers and is not a bird.
But you didn't say "today", but "to this present day", implying that
creatures from past eras were acceptable as counter-examples. And
after all, we were talking about dinosaurs, and not creatures of the
present day. For instance, Sinosauropteryx was a dinosaur, and had
primitive feathers that were useless for flying. It wasn't a bird.
>> But perhaps you could explain what
>> you mean by "feather", since the "feathers" of Sinosauropteryx would
>> have been useless for flying.
>
>Feathers are filamentous insulating body coverings that are distinctly
>light with a branched construction unlike either hair, fur, or
>scales.
And the earliest dinosaurs did not have them, so they weren't birds,
by your own definition.
>> >Bottom line:
>> >
>> >It is feathers and not anatomy that distinguishes birds from other
>> >creatures here on planet earth.
>>
>> That is false as well, since the skeletons of modern birds can be
>> recognized as belonging to birds, even if no feathers are found with
>> them.
>
>It is the feathers among skeletal remains that allow us to be certain
>that we are dealing with the remains of a bird. Otherwise there is
>always room for doubt.
But that doesn't stop you from labeling dinosaur skeletons with no
feathers as being the remains of birds. Why the double standard?
Besides, are you seriously claiming that it's impossible to identify
what kind of animal this skeleton came from?:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3022/2461829236_2d336f195d.jpg
>> >Truth is simple :-)
>>
>> I would point out that your unsupported claims do not automatically
>> qualify as truth.
>
>The fact is that the only feathered creatures living here on earth
>today are birds.
Irrelevant, since your claim was regarding the early dinosaurs.
>If there were ever non-birds with feathers, there is no reason for
>such creatures to longer exist today since they improve survival
>fitness as an insulating covering.
So no species of bird would ever become extinct? Is that what you're
claiming?
>Thus, we would retrospectively theorize that all the feathered
>"dinosaurs" were actually birds.
But since the presence of feathers is no guarantee of survival, your
theory makes no sense.
>> > Augray, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
>>
>> Why would I do that?
>
>Those who can publicly say "Jesus is LORD" simply answer in the
>written affirmative.
Why should they do what you tell them to do?
>May GOD soften your heart, Augray, so that you would come to trust the
>truth, Who is Jesus:
>
>http://T3WiJ.com
>
>Amen.
>
>Love in the truth,
I do, and that's why I oppose people like you who make things up.
>Andrew <><
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ac6da3d17a6b5fbe?
>> >
>> > The evidence that your drinking alcohol has pickled your brain resides
>> > in your being unable to understand what you have read
>>
>> It is quite difficult to understand much of the incoherent gibberish you
>> write.
>
> QED
QED indeed.
"Those who receive and hold on to the understanding of how to
physically recognize Jesus when He physically returns to gather in the
air those who belong to Him are those who have become Jesus'
disciples !!! "
Total gobbledegook and compelling evidence that drug use has addled your
brain causing the hallucinations that you call a holy spirit, and resulting
in the rambling and incoherent discourses you post.
>
> "I think what I will need to understand your gobbledegook is a
> generous serving of distilled spirit rather than holy spirit." --
> Blinky Bill
>
> Bottom line:
>
> You are dependent on drinking alcohol (distilled spirit).
My statement gives no indication of any previous alcohol consumption - your
thought processes have been adversely affected by drugs.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Am not arguing a position.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either argue or
convince.
> Your initial claim was that *all*
> the early dinosaurs may have been birds, not just the ones with
> feathered wings. Since the earliest dinosaurs had no wings, they
> weren't birds.
Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are still
birds.
That would be your implied claim.
Feathers remains the key to calling an animal a bird.
> >> >Flying creatures with feathered wings are by definition birds no
> >> >matter how strange they may look.
> >>
> >> But the earliest dinosaurs lack *all* the flight-related anatomical
> >> features of living birds. Therefore, they could not fly.
> >
> >Having feathered wings automatically means that they did not "lack
> >*all* the flight-related anatomical features of living birds."
>
> The problem is that the early dinosaurs *didn't* have feathered wings,
> or wings of any kind. So they couldn't fly. Therefore, they weren't
> birds. And in the instance of Sinosauropteryx (which was *not* one of
> the earliest dinosaurs), it couldn't fly because it lacked wings and
> *pennaceous* feathers.
Where there were feathers, there remains the suspicion that they were
actually birds.
> >> > Feathers remain a feature that
> >> > distinguishes birds from other creatures here on planet earth to this
> >> > present day.
> >>
> >> That is an unsupported assertion.
> >
> >It remains a fact and not an assertion.
> >
> >If it were not a fact, you would be able to name a creature that is
> >living here on planet earth today that has feathers and is not a bird.
>
> But you didn't say "today", but "to this present day", implying that
> creatures from past eras were acceptable as counter-examples. And
> after all, we were talking about dinosaurs, and not creatures of the
> present day. For instance, Sinosauropteryx was a dinosaur, and had
> primitive feathers that were useless for flying. It wasn't a bird.
Again, where there were feathers, there should be a suspicion that
they were birds.
> >> But perhaps you could explain what
> >> you mean by "feather", since the "feathers" of Sinosauropteryx would
> >> have been useless for flying.
> >
> >Feathers are filamentous insulating body coverings that are distinctly
> >light with a branched construction unlike either hair, fur, or
> >scales.
>
> And the earliest dinosaurs did not have them, so they weren't birds,
> by your own definition.
It is not certain that the earliest "dinosaurs" did not have feathers.
> >> >Bottom line:
> >> >
> >> >It is feathers and not anatomy that distinguishes birds from other
> >> >creatures here on planet earth.
> >>
> >> That is false as well, since the skeletons of modern birds can be
> >> recognized as belonging to birds, even if no feathers are found with
> >> them.
> >
> >It is the feathers among skeletal remains that allow us to be certain
> >that we are dealing with the remains of a bird. Otherwise there is
> >always room for doubt.
>
> But that doesn't stop you from labeling dinosaur skeletons with no
> feathers as being the remains of birds. Why the double standard?
Feathers do not fossilize as easily as bones and scales.
Moreover, modern-day birds have **both** scales and feathers.
> Besides, are you seriously claiming that it's impossible to identify
> what kind of animal this skeleton came from?:
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3022/2461829236_2d336f195d.jpg
No. There are modern-day birds that have skeletons that are much
harder to identify as birds without the knowledge of their being
feathered.
> >> >Truth is simple :-)
> >>
> >> I would point out that your unsupported claims do not automatically
> >> qualify as truth.
> >
> >The fact is that the only feathered creatures living here on earth
> >today are birds.
>
> Irrelevant, since your claim was regarding the early dinosaurs.
Not for the discerning.
> >If there were ever non-birds with feathers, there is no reason for
> >such creatures to longer exist today since they improve survival
> >fitness as an insulating covering.
>
> So no species of bird would ever become extinct? Is that what you're
> claiming?
If there were a process to make feathered creatures extinct, there is
no reason to believe that birds would be exempted.
> >Thus, we would retrospectively theorize that all the feathered
> >"dinosaurs" were actually birds.
>
> But since the presence of feathers is no guarantee of survival, your
> theory makes no sense.
There would be no reason for the presence of feathers on non-birds to
guarantee their exclusive mass extinction.
>
> >> > Augray, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
> >>
> >> Why would I do that?
> >
> > Those who can publicly say "Jesus is LORD" simply answer in the
> > written affirmative.
>
> Why should they do what you tell them to do?
Those who are truthful want to remain truthful.
Truth is simple.
May GOD soften your heart, Augray so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
Blinky Bill
>> Your initial claim was that *all*
>> the early dinosaurs may have been birds, not just the ones with
>> feathered wings. Since the earliest dinosaurs had no wings, they
>> weren't birds.
>
> Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are still
> birds.
No Andrew, that is just the drugs or your holy spirit misleading you.
Penguins have wings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin
In fact all birds have wings - it is part of the definition.
"A member of the class of animals Aves in the phylum Chordata, characterized
by being warm-blooded, having feathers and wings usually capable of flight,
and laying eggs."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bird
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> birds.
>
>No Andrew, that is just the drugs or your holy spirit misleading you.
>Penguins have wings.
Fins/flippers are not wings.
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
Blinky Bill
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote in message
news:35hcs4p591hojj1pi...@4ax.com...
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>
>>> Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are still
>>> birds.
>>
>>No Andrew, that is just the drugs or your holy spirit misleading you.
>>Penguins have wings.
>
> Fins/flippers are not wings.
Actually they are Andrew - "Their vestigial wings have become flippers". "On
land, penguins use their tails and wings to maintain balance for their
upright stance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin#Anatomy
By definition, if penguins are birds they must have wings. And of course all
other flightless birds have wings, so you should distrust whatever it is
that is telling you these lies.
"They have small vestigial wings"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu#Description
"The wings are not used for flight, but are still large"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich#Description
Cassowaries have small wings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary#Description
Their wings are large for a flightless bird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhea_(bird)#Description
barely any wings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi#Morphology
The wings of all rails are short and rounded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_(bird)
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are still
> >>> birds.
> >>
> >>No Andrew, that is just the drugs or your holy spirit misleading you.
> >>Penguins have wings.
> >
> > Fins/flippers are not wings.
>
> Actually they are Andrew - "Their vestigial wings have become flippers".
It remains wiser to simply call them flippers on the penguin just as
they are flippers on a dolphin because that is how GOD created them.
Bottom line:
The feathers remain the key to knowing whether an animal is a bird.
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
A Poem
(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in christianity - 082600)
I once was a christian,
Brainwashed from birth,
But as I got older,
I questioned its worth.
To questions long asked,
The answers weren't there,
And as life's tolls mounted,
There was no christ to care.
To the truths of our lives,
I then turned my attention,
And the thrill of that quest,
I must humbly make mention.
Seeking relevant wisdom,
Of what humans can be,
Knowing no god, no fear,
FREELOVER - that's me.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
Don Kirkman
article
<e419e273-7ece-49fb...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:
>Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are still
>birds.
Penguins, emus, ostriches, rheas, and other flightless birds DO have
wings and are still (always were) birds, as is clear from their
anatomy. You abandoned science too early, doc (actually common sense
would be enough in this instance) .
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> A Poem
> (Top Posts - Distance From Belief
> in christianity - 082600)
>
> I once was a christian,
> Brainwashed from birth
No amount of brainwashing results in a love for Jesus.
Truth is simple :-)
Dear Pro-Humanist,
While being mindful of our past written discussions that resulted in
your panic-stricken flight:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5f6ca8a70d9e98d0?
May reading the following help you understand the reality of GOD:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b899ce5cc1a77d9d?
Amen.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897?
Amen.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
May GOD soften your heart, Pro-Humanist, so that you would come to
trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist and Molecular Biologist
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3558812d72ab4e17?
Augray
<lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in
<e419e273-7ece-49fb...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
In fact, you are, although it's a shifting one.
>GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform
You're not informing, you're misleading. God wouldn't approve of that.
>and not to either argue or
>convince.
We both know that's not true.
>> Your initial claim was that *all*
>> the early dinosaurs may have been birds, not just the ones with
>> feathered wings. Since the earliest dinosaurs had no wings, they
>> weren't birds.
>
>Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are still
>birds.
In fact, they *do* have wings, as can be seen from the anatomy of
their forelimbs and shoulders.
Where did I make the claim that all birds have the same anatomy? If I
believed that, why would I provide the list above?
>Feathers remains the key to calling an animal a bird.
No, you've got it backwards. Feathers are characteristics of birds,
but not the *defining* characteristic.
>> >> >Flying creatures with feathered wings are by definition birds no
>> >> >matter how strange they may look.
>> >>
>> >> But the earliest dinosaurs lack *all* the flight-related anatomical
>> >> features of living birds. Therefore, they could not fly.
>> >
>> >Having feathered wings automatically means that they did not "lack
>> >*all* the flight-related anatomical features of living birds."
>>
>> The problem is that the early dinosaurs *didn't* have feathered wings,
>> or wings of any kind. So they couldn't fly. Therefore, they weren't
>> birds. And in the instance of Sinosauropteryx (which was *not* one of
>> the earliest dinosaurs), it couldn't fly because it lacked wings and
>> *pennaceous* feathers.
>
>Where there were feathers, there remains the suspicion that they were
>actually birds.
Was Tyrannosaurus rex a bird? Was Psittacosaurus a bird? Were
pterosaurs birds?
>> >> > Feathers remain a feature that
>> >> > distinguishes birds from other creatures here on planet earth to this
>> >> > present day.
>> >>
>> >> That is an unsupported assertion.
>> >
>> >It remains a fact and not an assertion.
>> >
>> >If it were not a fact, you would be able to name a creature that is
>> >living here on planet earth today that has feathers and is not a bird.
>>
>> But you didn't say "today", but "to this present day", implying that
>> creatures from past eras were acceptable as counter-examples. And
>> after all, we were talking about dinosaurs, and not creatures of the
>> present day. For instance, Sinosauropteryx was a dinosaur, and had
>> primitive feathers that were useless for flying. It wasn't a bird.
>
>Again, where there were feathers, there should be a suspicion that
>they were birds.
So now there should be *suspicion* that they were birds. But up above
you said that "Feathers remains the key to calling an animal a bird".
Why can't you pick a position and stick to it?
>> >> But perhaps you could explain what
>> >> you mean by "feather", since the "feathers" of Sinosauropteryx would
>> >> have been useless for flying.
>> >
>> >Feathers are filamentous insulating body coverings that are distinctly
>> >light with a branched construction unlike either hair, fur, or
>> >scales.
>>
>> And the earliest dinosaurs did not have them, so they weren't birds,
>> by your own definition.
>
>It is not certain that the earliest "dinosaurs" did not have feathers.
Was Eoraptor a bird? Was Pisanosaurus a bird?
>> >> >Bottom line:
>> >> >
>> >> >It is feathers and not anatomy that distinguishes birds from other
>> >> >creatures here on planet earth.
>> >>
>> >> That is false as well, since the skeletons of modern birds can be
>> >> recognized as belonging to birds, even if no feathers are found with
>> >> them.
>> >
>> >It is the feathers among skeletal remains that allow us to be certain
>> >that we are dealing with the remains of a bird. Otherwise there is
>> >always room for doubt.
>>
>> But that doesn't stop you from labeling dinosaur skeletons with no
>> feathers as being the remains of birds. Why the double standard?
>
>Feathers do not fossilize as easily as bones and scales.
True, but so what? It's you who claimed that it's "the feathers among
skeletal remains that allow us to be certain that we are dealing with
the remains of a bird". Yet despite the absence of feathers, you go
ahead and label skeletons as being the remains of birds. Why the
double standard?
>Moreover, modern-day birds have **both** scales and feathers.
So what? Who said that modern-day birds lacked scales?
>> Besides, are you seriously claiming that it's impossible to identify
>> what kind of animal this skeleton came from?:
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3022/2461829236_2d336f195d.jpg
>
>No. There are modern-day birds that have skeletons that are much
>harder to identify as birds without the knowledge of their being
>feathered.
You're unable to point to a single bird skeleton that doesn't betray
its avian nature. The carpometacarpus and/or tarsometatarsus and/or
pneumaticity give it away.
>> >> >Truth is simple :-)
>> >>
>> >> I would point out that your unsupported claims do not automatically
>> >> qualify as truth.
>> >
>> >The fact is that the only feathered creatures living here on earth
>> >today are birds.
>>
>> Irrelevant, since your claim was regarding the early dinosaurs.
>
>Not for the discerning.
From your message at
news:81534061-133b-4652...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
:
---------------------
Bottom line:
It remains possible that all the early "dinosaurs" were actually
birds.
---------------------
The "discerning" can tell from this that your claim was regarding the
early dinosaurs, since that was the "bottom line".
>> >If there were ever non-birds with feathers, there is no reason for
>> >such creatures to longer exist today since they improve survival
>> >fitness as an insulating covering.
>>
>> So no species of bird would ever become extinct? Is that what you're
>> claiming?
>
>If there were a process to make feathered creatures extinct, there is
>no reason to believe that birds would be exempted.
Are there any Passenger Pigeons around today? Any Archaeopteryx? Any
early dinosaurs with feathers? It should be obvious to you that
feathers provide no guarantee of survival.
>> >Thus, we would retrospectively theorize that all the feathered
>> >"dinosaurs" were actually birds.
>>
>> But since the presence of feathers is no guarantee of survival, your
>> theory makes no sense.
>
>There would be no reason for the presence of feathers on non-birds to
>guarantee their exclusive mass extinction.
Who made a claim about exclusive mass extinctions?
>> >> > Augray, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
>> >>
>> >> Why would I do that?
>> >
>> > Those who can publicly say "Jesus is LORD" simply answer in the
>> > written affirmative.
>>
>> Why should they do what you tell them to do?
>
>Those who are truthful want to remain truthful.
So why have you drifted from the truth?
>Truth is simple.
>
>May GOD soften your heart, Augray so that you would come to trust the
>truth, Who is Jesus:
>
>http://T3WiJ.com
>
>Amen.
>
>Love in the truth,
>
>Andrew <><
I hate to break it to you, but you're a poor emissary for Christ.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Incorrect.
It remains my personal choice to continue to side with the truth, Who
is Jesus :-)
> >GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform
>
> You're not informing, you're misleading.
Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> God wouldn't approve of that.
If you wish to have GOD's approval, you will need to be forgiven
first:
http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven
Then, you would be able to publicly say "Jesus is LORD."
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
Amen.
May GOD soften your heart, Augray, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are
>> >>> still
>> >>> birds.
>> >>
>> >>No Andrew, that is just the drugs or your holy spirit misleading you.
>> >>Penguins have wings.
>> >
>> > Fins/flippers are not wings.
>>
>> Actually they are Andrew - "Their vestigial wings have become flippers".
>
> It remains wiser to simply call them flippers on the penguin
It remains wisest to admit that penguins and other flightless birds have
wings, after all that is the truth, and the truth is simple.
> just as
> they are flippers on a dolphin because that is how GOD created them.
Let's just stick with penguins and other flightless birds and their wings -
you seem to be having enough trouble with that..
>
> Bottom line:
>
> The feathers remain the key to knowing whether an animal is a bird.
No, they are not the key, they are one of several characteristics including
the presence of wings.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are
> >> >>> still
> >> >>> birds.
> >> >>
> >> >>No Andrew, that is just the drugs or your holy spirit misleading you.
> >> >>Penguins have wings.
> >> >
> >> > Fins/flippers are not wings.
> >>
> >> Actually they are Andrew - "Their vestigial wings have become flippers".
> >
> > It remains wiser to simply call them flippers on the penguin
>
> It remains wisest to admit that penguins and other flightless birds have
It seems you would write that dolphins have wings instead of flippers
and that pigs have wings even though they can't fly.
Folks with brains pickled by alcohol can have visual hallucinations of
pigs flying.
Blinky Bill
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1ebe0f23-e4ef-48ea...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are
>> >> >>> still
>> >> >>> birds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>No Andrew, that is just the drugs or your holy spirit misleading
>> >> >>you.
>> >> >>Penguins have wings.
>> >> >
>> >> > Fins/flippers are not wings.
>> >>
>> >> Actually they are Andrew - "Their vestigial wings have become
>> >> flippers".
>> >
>> > It remains wiser to simply call them flippers on the penguin
>>
>> It remains wisest to admit that penguins and other flightless birds have
>> wings...
>
> It seems you would write that dolphins have wings instead of flippers
It seems that you are a pathetic victim of drug induced hallucinations - why
don't you comment on what I write, not what you think I might write. Surely
your god doesn't condone suggest such dishonesty and deceit.
> and that pigs have wings even though they can't fly.
I would be fascinated to see your explanation of how you reached that
conclusion. You have been soundly trounced on the point under discussion but
now attempt to divert the discussion by writing total nonsense. Are you
totally incapable of admitting that you were wrong when you claimed that
"Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings "?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are
> >> >> >>> still
> >> >> >>> birds.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>No Andrew, that is just the drugs or your holy spirit misleading
> >> >> >>you.
> >> >> >>Penguins have wings.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Fins/flippers are not wings.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually they are Andrew - "Their vestigial wings have become
> >> >> flippers".
> >> >
> >> > It remains wiser to simply call them flippers on the penguin
> >>
> >> It remains wisest to admit that penguins and other flightless birds have
> >> wings...
> >
> > It seems you would write that dolphins have wings instead of flippers
>
> It seems that you are a pathetic victim of drug induced hallucinations - why
> don't you comment on what I write, not what you think I might write. Surely
> your god doesn't condone suggest such dishonesty and deceit.
It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully while it remains
GOD's choice to keep me completely well. Sadly the same can not be
written about you.
> > and that pigs have wings even though they can't fly.
>
> I would be fascinated to see your explanation of how you reached that
> conclusion. You have been soundly trounced on the point under discussion but
> now attempt to divert the discussion by writing total nonsense. Are you
> totally incapable of admitting that you were wrong when you claimed that
> "Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings "?
If penguins had wings instead of flippers, they would be able to fly.
Meanwhile:
"I think what I will need to understand your gobbledegook is a
generous serving of distilled spirit rather than holy spirit." --
Blinky Bill
> The truth is that Genesis says the order of creation is
Actually, Genesis is one of the written books of the Bible.
> Earth
Actually, it is written in Genesis that GOD created the heavens
**before** earth.
"In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis
1:1)
Amen.
Truth is simple :-)
Blinky Bill
Then why do claim that "Penguins and other flightless birds don't have
wings"? The claim is obviously untrue.
>
>> > and that pigs have wings even though they can't fly.
>>
>> I would be fascinated to see your explanation of how you reached that
>> conclusion. You have been soundly trounced on the point under discussion
>> but
>> now attempt to divert the discussion by writing total nonsense. Are you
>> totally incapable of admitting that you were wrong when you claimed that
>> "Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings "?
>
> If penguins had wings instead of flippers, they would be able to fly.
They actually have wings which they use as flippers. If they didn't have
wings they wouldn't be birds. It is a defining characteristic of birds.
>
> Meanwhile:
>
> "I think what I will need to understand your gobbledegook is a
> generous serving of distilled spirit rather than holy spirit." --
> Blinky Bill
That's right - sobriety and temperance gives no clue to the meaning of the
gibberish you write, and I'm not prepared to use the drugs that you so
grievously abuse and refer to by the code name "holy spirit". There is a
possibility that imbibing alcohol might reveal the meaning of your
incoherent ramblings.
The truth is that Genesis says the order of creation is
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
>
> Then why do claim that "Penguins and other flightless birds don't have
> wings"?
If they had feathered wings, they would be able to fly.
Penguins are not able to fly because instead of wings, they have
flippers.
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/06dc7e4f5d0001c2?
>>
>> Then why do claim that "Penguins and other flightless birds don't have
>> wings"?
>
> If they had feathered wings, they would be able to fly.
They have feathered wings. Other flightless birds also have feathered wings,
but are still flightless.
> Penguins are not able to fly because instead of wings, they have
> flippers.
They have wings they use as flippers.
"Like all other birds, for example, they have feathered wings."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/penguins-designed-by-god
Apparently the holy spirit gives this biologist a different version of truth
to what he gives you - perhaps yours is a different god.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/06dc7e4f5d0001c2?
> >>
> >> Then why do claim that "Penguins and other flightless birds don't have
> >> wings"?
> >
> > If they had feathered wings, they would be able to fly.
>
> They have feathered wings. Other flightless birds also have feathered wings,
> but are still flightless.
>
> > Penguins are not able to fly because instead of wings, they have
> > flippers.
>
> They have wings they use as flippers.
Incorrect.
GOD created penguins with flippers instead of wings just as He created
dolphins with flippers instead of legs.
"So GOD created the great creatures of the sea and every living and
moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
every winged bird according to its kind." (Genesis 1:21)
The reason for the specific reference to "winged bird" is because GOD
created "flippered birds" like penguins when He created "every living
and moving thing with which the water teems."
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/06dc7e4f5d0001c2?
>> >>
>> >> Then why do claim that "Penguins and other flightless birds don't have
>> >> wings"?
>> >
>> > If they had feathered wings, they would be able to fly.
>>
>> They have feathered wings. Other flightless birds also have feathered
>> wings,
>> but are still flightless.
>>
>> > Penguins are not able to fly because instead of wings, they have
>> > flippers.
>>
>> They have wings they use as flippers.
>
> Incorrect.
No - it is correct.
"Like all other birds, for example, they have feathered wings."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/penguins-designed-by-god
The truth is that Genesis says the order of creation is
>
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>
> Incorrect.
>
> GOD created penguins with flippers instead of wings just as He created
> dolphins with flippers instead of legs.
>
> "So GOD created the great creatures of the sea and every living and
> moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
> every winged bird according to its kind." (Genesis 1:21)
>
> The reason for the specific reference to "winged bird" is because GOD
> created "flippered birds" like penguins when He created "every living
> and moving thing with which the water teems."
Your claim was that the fossil record supports genesis. That is untrue.
The fossil record shows life in the ocean began over 3500 million years ago.
The first birds appeared about 150 million years ago. The oldest penguin
fossils date back about 62 million years.
So (according to you) genesis says ocean life(including penguins) -> all
other birds.
The fossil record says ocean life(not including penguins)->some other
birds->penguins
The truth is indeed simple - genesis does not agree with the fossil record.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > dolphins with flippers instead of legs.
> >
> > "So GOD created the great creatures of the sea and every living and
> > moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
> > every winged bird according to its kind." (Genesis 1:21)
> >
> > The reason for the specific reference to "winged bird" is because GOD
> > created "flippered birds" like penguins when He created "every living
> > and moving thing with which the water teems."
>
> Your claim was that the fossil record supports genesis.
The complete fossil record will actually support what is written in
Genesis.
> That is untrue.
The trend has been that new fossils push back the known time of origin
birds so that one can reasonably expect that "the complete fossil
record will actually support what is written in Genesis."
Truth is simple :-)
May GOD soften your heart, Bill, so that you will come to trust the
Blinky Bill
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Your claim was that the fossil record supports genesis.
>
> The complete fossil record will actually support what is written in
> Genesis.
So you are citing evidence that doesn't exist yet. No further comment is
necessary.
And which Chapter of genesis? Chapter 1 which says plants->birds->land
animals ->man. Or Chapter 2 which says man->fruit trees->cattle->birds
The truth is that Genesis 1 says the order of creation is
Don Kirkman
article
>Blinky Bill wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> >> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>> >> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> >> >>> Penguins and other flightless birds don't have wings and yet are
>> >> >> >>> still
>> >> >> >>> birds.
>> >> >> >>No Andrew, that is just the drugs or your holy spirit misleading
>> >> >> >>you.
>> >> >> >>Penguins have wings.
>> >> >> > Fins/flippers are not wings.
>> >> >> Actually they are Andrew - "Their vestigial wings have become
>> >> >> flippers".
>> >> > It remains wiser to simply call them flippers on the penguin
It remains more true to call them wings, since they have feathers.
>> > It seems you would write that dolphins have wings instead of flippers
No feathers on dolphin flippers.
>Actually, it is written in Genesis that GOD created the heavens
>**before** earth.
>"In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis
>1:1)
And since it's written/printed in black and white, that means it was
black before there was any white.
>Truth is simple :-)
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Excerpt from "A Brief History of Time" (Stephen Hawking,
ISBN 0-553-34614-8) ...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553380168
... Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black
holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin
and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended
a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the
Vatican.
The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo
when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science,
declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries
later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise
it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the partici-
pants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us
that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe
after the big bang itself because that was the moment of
Creation and therefore the work of God.
I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the
talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that
space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means
that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no
desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I felt a strong
sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of hav-
ing been born exactly 300 years after his death! ...
(end excerpt)
- - -
Excerpts from "The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis
for a Rational World" (Paul Davies, ISBN 0-671-79718-2)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671797182
... quantum events are not determined absolutely by pre-
ceding causes. Although the probability of a given event
(e.g., the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus) is fixed
by the theory, the actual outcome of a particular quantum
process is unknown and, even in principle, unknowable.
By weakening the link between cause and effect, quantum
mechanics provides a subtle way for us to circumvent the
origin-of-the-universe problem.
If a way can be found to permit the universe to come into
existence from nothing as a result of a quantum fluctuation,
then no laws of physics would be violated. In other words,
viewed through the eyes of a quantum physicist, the spon-
taneous appearance of a universe is not such a surprise,
because physical objects are appearing all the time -- with-
out well-defined causes -- in the quantum microworld.
... many distinguished physicists have argued that the
theory can be made to work satisfactorily in this situation,
and thus was the subject of "quantum cosmology" born.
The justification for quantum cosmology is that, if the big
bang is taken seriously, there would have been a time when
the universe was compressed to minute dimensions. Under
these circumstances quantum processes must have been
important. In particular, the fluctuations described by Heis-
enberg's uncertainty principle must have had a profound
effect on the structure and evolution of the nascent cos-
mos.
Quantum effects were important when the density of mat-
ter was a staggering [skip - very large density].
This state of affairs existed before 1 divided by 10 to the
43rd power seconds, when the universe was a mere 1 divided
by 10 to the 33rd power centimeters across.
These numbers are referred to as the Planck density, time,
and distance, respectively, after Max Planck, the originator
of the quantum theory.
[insert - interesting aside - Origins of Quantum Mechanics:
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/inthebeginning.jsp
"... on 19 October 1900, physicist Max Planck made a
groundbreaking presentation to the German Physical
Society. Planck was a sober man and, at 42, a little long
in the tooth for a revolutionary. But his discovery was to
turn the classical physics of the billiard ball on its head."
Well, one of the reasons I posted this excerpt was that
I was born 55 years to the day after Max Planck's ground-
breaking presentation ... Just a coincidence, but in this odd
world of "Quantum whatever", I certainly got a kick out of
that fact. ... -end insert-]
The ability of quantum fluctuations to "fuzz out" the phys-
ical world on an ultramicroscopic scale leads to a fascin-
ating prediction concerning the nature of space-time.
... At the Planck scale the separate identities of space and
time can be smeared out.
... It may happen, as a result of these quantum effects,
that the most probable structure for space-time under
some circumstances is actually four-dimensional space.
It has been argued by James Hartle and Stephen Hawking
that precisely those circumstances prevailed in the very
early universe. That is, if we imagine going backward in
time toward the big bang, then, when we reach about one
Planck time after what we thought was the initial singular-
ity, something peculiar starts to happen.
Time begins to "turn into" space.
Rather than having to deal with the origin of space-time,
therefore, we now have to contend with four-dimensional
space, and the question arises as to the shape of that
space -- i.e., its geometry. In fact, the theory permits
an infinite variety of shapes.
... The hypothesis that the universe originated in a singu-
larity of infinite compression is depicted here by allowing
the cone to taper to a single point at the base [reference
drawing of a cone ending in a point]. The singular apex
of the cone represents the abrupt appearance of both
space and time in a big bang.
The essential claim of quantum cosmology is that the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle smears out the sharp-
ness of the apex, replacing it by something smoother.
Just what that something is depends on the theoretical
model, but in the model of Hartle and Hawking a rough
guide is to round off the apex [reference drawing of a
bell, turned upside down] ... where the point of the cone
is replaced by a hemisphere. The radius of the hemis-
phere is the Planck length (1 divided by 10 to the 33rd
power centimeters), very small by human standards,
but infinitely large compared with a point singularity.
Above this hemisphere the cone opens out in the usual
way, representing the standard nonquantum develop-
ment of the expanding universe. ... Note also that in
this scheme ... there is no actual "first moment" of time,
no abrupt beginning at a singular origin.
The big bang singularity has, in fact, been abolished.
One might still be tempted to think of the base of the
hemisphere ... as the "origin" of the universe, but, as
Hawking emphasizes, this is mistaken. ... The upshot
of all this is that, according to Hartle and Hawking,
there is no origin of the universe. Time is limited in
the past, but has no boundary as such.
Thus centuries of philosophical anguish over the para-
doxes of infinite versus finite time are neatly resolved.
Hartle and Hawking ingeniously manage to pass be-
tween the horns of that particular dilemma.
As Hawking expresses it: "The boundary condition of
the universe is that is has no boundary."
- - -
-insert-
No-Boundary Universe
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ_bound.html
Excerpt: ... A proposal first advanced by Stephen
Hawking and Jim Hartle, the no-boundary universe
is one in which the universe does not start with a
singularity. It uses American physicist Richard
Feynman's proposal to treat quantum mechanics
as a "sum over histories," meaning that a particle
does not have one history in space-time but in-
stead follows every possible path to reach its cur-
rent state. ...
-end insert-
- - -
The implications of the Hartle-Hawking universe for
theology are profound, as Hawking himself remarks:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could
suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is com-
pletely self-contained, having no boundary or edge,
it would have neither beginning nor end: it would
simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
(end excerpts)
- - -
Posts in this series:
Universe(s) Origin(s) Preface
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_preface.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 1 of 7
}}} String Theory / Infinities / Singularities {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_1_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 2 of 7
}}} No Origin of the Universe? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_2_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 3 of 7
}}} Multiverse? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_3_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 4 of 7
}}} Universes from Black Holes? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_4_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 5 of 7
}}} Cyclic Universe? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_5_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 6 of 7
}}} Einstein / Big Bang / Superstrings {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_6_of_7.htm
Universe(s) Origin(s) - 7 of 7
}}} Nothing / Everything {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_7_of_7.htm
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Someone wrote ...
> [...] No amount of brainwashing results in a love for Jesus. [...]
Do you deny that trying to brainwash children
to believe in supernatural things/entities/places/
deity or deities is a fundamental part of the
christian (and other religions) propaganda
technique?
Dr. House
wrote:
> Someone wrote ...
>
> > [...] No amount of brainwashing results in a love for Jesus. [...]
>
> Do you deny that trying to brainwash children
> to believe in supernatural things/entities/places/
> deity or deities is a fundamental part of the
> christian (and other religions) propaganda
> technique?
What is this brainwashing you keep talking about? Did you grow up on
a compound in the middle of nowhere? Define "brainwashing children"
first. Are you talking about something out of the ordinary -
involving torture, issolation, water bording and the like? Or perhaps
you are just talking about the same socialization that happens to
everyone because it's part of being human.
Regards,
House
rpautrey2
Dr. House
> Brainwashed!
Grow up.
> > House- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rpautrey2
Grownups have enough sense to
reject cults and see pop culture
for what it is. It's not just religion.
Brainwashed?!
Mind Control!
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote ,,,
> What is this brainwashing you keep talking about? [...]
The -10- Richard Dawkins videos (referenced
in another post) give some examples of it:
~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~
Cautionary note -- the religious myth of hell
is shown in vivid detail (in 2 videos), so care-
fully consider the psychological impact of
the parts of the videos which might adversely
impact children, or which might strengthen
children to be able to resist or recover from
the scare tactics of religions they either have
already been exposed to or will likely be
exposed to in the future.
~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~
- - -
Root of All Evil -- Playlist
(10 videos)
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F03E7F058E411B51
- - -
Further examples:
Video : Brain Washing
( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac
Dr. House
> Doc,
I prefer just "House".
> Grownups have enough sense to
> reject cults and see pop culture
> for what it is. It's not just religion.
By 'what it is' you mean your propaganda. You and Humanist are just
trolling. Anyone looking for meaningful conversation is welcome.
Dr. House
wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote ,,,
>
> > What is this brainwashing you keep talking about? [...]
>
> The -10- Richard Dawkins videos (referenced
> in another post) give some examples of it:
>
> ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~
> Cautionary note -- the religious myth of hell
> is shown in vivid detail (in 2 videos), so care-
> fully consider the psychological impact of
> the parts of the videos which might adversely
> impact children, or which might strengthen
> children to be able to resist or recover from
> the scare tactics of religions they either have
> already been exposed to or will likely be
> exposed to in the future.
> ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~
>
> - - -
> Root of All Evil -- Playlist
> (10 videos)
> http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F03E7F058E411B51
> - - -
>
> Further examples:
>
> Video : Brain Washing
> ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac
>
So all you can do is use hot button words to try and scare people.
Well if you ever want to have a real conversation you know where to
find me.
rpautrey2
Other than propaganda, what is religion?
Cult Mind Control!
Dr. House
> > By 'what it is' you mean your propaganda.
>
> Other than propaganda, what is religion?
>
> Cult Mind Control!
You are the one using loaded words and hot button catch phrases.
Think of the children!
Anyone who doesn't agree with you is part of the Mind Control Cult
Conspiracy!!!!!!!!1!!!
Grow up.