Originally posted by KellyJay…Sin brought about death, until that time we were eternal beings...…
Sin brought about death, until that time we were eternal beings,
our make up was not one for decay and our design was not built
to degrade, the wages of sin is death and with it, all that entails.
Kelly
What is your evidence (if any) that we where once “eternal beings”?
…the wages of sin is death and with it, all that entails. .….
So are you saying that the first “sin” resulted in ALL people’s retinas being put back-to-front so that we ALL have a blind spot?
That doesn’t answer my question: which particular “sin” was that? -did it involve a certain woman biting into an apple and, if so, are you saying that “god” punished them by putting their retinas being put back-to-front?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFollow the discussion will you, it went into creation.
[b]…Sin brought about death, until that time we were eternal beings...…
What is your evidence (if any) that we where once “eternal beings”?
…the wages of sin is death and with it, all that entails. .….
So are you saying that the first “sin” resulted in ALL people’s retinas being put back-to-front so that we ALL have a blind spot ...[text shortened]... if so, are you saying that “god” punished them by putting their retinas being put back-to-front?[/b]
Kelly
4 edits
If you take the gene encoding the visual pigment of the human eye, rhodopsin from here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?WebEnv=1Ne7GU6v4lq
f0sSYymL5kxJw3Uunhv-ygztVYoqYw9ntPn75dju0TFw66I9M6b8L53Wbd
Y88ZPql0dm0TaMO4J3ggb%402645305A74544140_0002SID&db=nucl
eotide&qty=1&c_start=1&list_uids=AB065668&uids=&dopt=fasta&dispma
x=5&sendto=&fmt_mask=0&from=begin&to=end&extrafeatpresent=1&e
f_CDD=8&ef_MGC=16&ef_HPRD=32&ef_STS=64&ef_tRNA=128&ef_micro
RNA=256&ef_Exon=512
and search all known genomes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi?PAGE=Nucleotides&PROGRAM=blastn&MEGABLAST=on&BLAST_PROGRAMS=megaBlast&PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&SHOW_DEFAULTS=on
You get a list of genes with homologies from organisms like the rhesus monkey (most homology), dog, fish, salamander etc.
The most parsimonious explanation for this conservation of DNA sequence, is that in the past an ancestor to all these life forms existed, that contained a sequence from which they all subsequently diverged.
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusYou assume much.
If you take the gene encoding the visual pigment of the human eye, rhodopsin from here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?WebEnv=1Ne7GU6v4lq
f0sSYymL5kxJw3Uunhv-ygztVYoqYw9ntPn75dju0TFw66I9M6b8L53Wbd
Y88ZPql0dm0TaMO4J3ggb%402645305A74544140_0002SID&db=nucl
eotide&qty=1&c_start=1&list_uids=AB065668&uids=&dopt=fasta&dispma
x=5&sendto ...[text shortened]... l these life forms existed, that contained a sequence from which they all subsequently diverged.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWith respect, I am using the principle of parsimony to explain observed facts in extant species, so in point of fact assume quite a bit less than your favoured creator hypothesis, which dare I say makes numerous unsubstantiated and, simply put, unfalsifiable (i.e. unscientific) assumptions.
You assume much.
Kelly
Essentially you have put yourself in a position where you can make any claim for the origin of the human eye because you do not have to back it up with data and prediction. I am sorry to say, you are trying to have a scientific discussion and appear not to know the basic rules. If you make a claim you have to have evidence and it has to be falsifiable. Your hypothesis fails both these tests and while I grant culturally of profound importance, I am afraid it has nothing whatsoever to contribute to intelligent or meaningful scientific discourse on rhodopsin gene origin or the evolution of the vertebrate eye.
Employing maximum parsimony, the rhodopsin phylogenetic tree points to an ancestral gene encoding the visual pigment rhodopsin, from which all the species in my previous post descended and inherited, suggesting a shared evolutionary origin (supported by other independent data). This is the conclusion that requires least assumptions.
"Parsimony is one of the two pillars of science, the first pillar being falsification through experiment, the other taking the results and explaining it with the simplest theory with the best predictive power. See also scientific method". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony
“Sire, je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse”
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusI dare say there is quite a bit you cannot through falsification of
With respect, I am using the principle of parsimony to explain observed facts in extant species, so in point of fact assume quite a bit less than your favoured creator hypothesis, which dare I say makes numerous unsubstantiated and, simply put, unfalsifiable (i.e. unscientific) assumptions.
Essentially you have put yourself in a position where y ...[text shortened]... d". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony
“Sire, je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse”
experiments prove many of the foundational truths you rely on.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayScience does not "prove" (a common error); it generates testable falsifiable hypotheses that make predictions that are also tested in experiment so the process is iterative. My point is your hypothesis does not do this at all and is therefore, in a scientific sense, meaningless.
I dare say there is quite a bit you cannot through falsification of
experiments prove many of the foundational truths you rely on.
Kelly
You are also making further assumptions, if you don't mind me saying, about "my foundational truths" as again science has nothing to say on the question of absolutes like truth which is rightly a moral question.
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusTo be fair, in everyday discourse we do say that science "proves" things all the time. While maybe a philosopher of science might point out that what's actually happening is that a hypothesis has never been falsified and has been repeatedly verified to the point that is regarded as "true" (or something like that), the word "prove" gets used a lot.
Science does not "prove" (a common error); it generates testable falsifiable hypotheses that make predictions that are also tested in experiment so the process is iterative. My point is your hypothesis does not do this at all and is therefore, in a scientific sense, meaningless.
You are also making further assumptions, if you don't mind me sayin ...[text shortened]... s nothing to say on the question of absolutes like truth which is rightly a moral question.
Of course, creationist hypotheses are not scientific.
(Except for the one I gave them earlier in this thread or in some other thread, which I am not surprised to note no creationist has seen worthwhile to comment on. Gods forbid they actually do anything but argue and quote the Bible in order to "prove" their point.)
Originally posted by KellyJay
You claim the blind spot is a flaw.
I said, two things concerning that.
1st I don't know what the results long term would be if it was not that
way, so I'm not incline to call it a flaw, just because.
2nd If it is a flaw, I pointed out that living systems are degrading from
the time of creation, and the flaw could be simply a part of that
process.
You are very frustrating, Kelly. You keep answering different questions than the one I ask.
Regarding the first: what reason do we have to believe that an eye like an octopus would yield
less beneficial results?
Regarding the second: what reason do we have to believe that the flaw 'evolved?'
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of KNOWLEDGE They were banished from the garden of eden where they would have lived FOREVER
What? I've read the Bible cover to cover more than once, and you
are saying something that needs defended. Knowledge was never,
and I mean never the issue, it was the knowledge of good and evil
and mainly because of evil, we were simply not ready yet, nothing else
was refused knowledge wise.
Kelly
They were banished before they could aslo eat of the tree of life so that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil in the world and also an eternity to learn all things.
Edit: Reading the bible, or anything for that matter, does not entail comprehension.
Originally posted by tomtom232NRSV, Gen 1:22: Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--[23] therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of [b]KNOWLEDGE They were banished from the garden of eden where they would have lived FOREVER
They were banished before they could aslo eat of the tree of life so that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil in the world and also an eternity to learn all things.
Edit: Reading the bible, or anything for that matter, does not entail comprehension.[/b]
...
Hmm. Yeah, tomtom232, sounds to me like the God of the Garden of Eden was concerned that we were going to become too much like the gods, and maybe eat from the other tree that would grant us immortality, and so he had to kick us out to a world of suffering and hardship. Great guy.
Originally posted by convectThat's why I practice atheism. If someone like me can pick apart the bible then how the hell could it have been written by someone divine? Even if it was translated by humans.
NRSV, Gen 1:22: Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--[23] therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.
...
Hmm. Yeah, tomtom232, sounds t ...[text shortened]... us immortality, and so he had to kick us out to a world of suffering and hardship. Great guy.