Mother Theresa's legacy, indeed.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html

Spent hours in the past unraveling her infamy, there's tomes addressing the flip-side of her humanitarian reputation.

Ignorance is blind.

This economy has been held together by unsustainable government spending and Federal Reserve manipulation. If a true bottom had been reached in this economy, the Federal Reserve would not need to be intervening again and again. While some hopeful signs have emerged in housing and in other areas due to the stimulus and QE3 programs, that is likely to unravel in 2013. The real Obama economy (not the one that has been artificially propped up to win an election) and austerity is coming to America, whether it is induced by politicians or by the markets.

The marked drop 316 points the day after election for a reason. Obama is bad for America.
>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Maybe America will be alright after all...

Of course it's a risk factor. I too would be a fool not to agree. I just think that there are confounding factors that make the health consequences of a particular BMI difficult to unravel. Thus, we should avoid playing doctor for people that likely already have doctors.

>> ^scannex:

Thank you for clarifying. Yes of course that was the part of the argument I meant. The latter half statement you made is something I agree is not productive or appropriate.
Re the trivial jump: BMI is a imperfect scale to be sure. It does not account for exceptionally muscular people among other things. I think at a certain point we got disjointed on just what we were arguing with one another.
Perhaps my fault. In short my stance is this. BMI is not a clear indicator of much of anything. It, under many circumstances can provide excellent early warning or, in cases where people are already known to be overweight (clearly not muscular) provide a scale on which to measure the severity of their problem.
Details matter and circumstance matter, I would be a fool not to agree.
My specific question though was based on my deduction that your stance was: In people who are in the overwhelming majority (being that there are way more properly assessed clinically obese than body builders)that obesity was not a major risk factor for a myriad of other diseases.
If that was the wrong assessment of your position I will be overjoyed to hear it.
>> ^bmacs27:
While I agree we might not change each others' minds I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on which point in my last post you explicitly disagree with.
You believe it is trivial to jump from BMI to the healthiness of an individual? Would you stand by that claim in the case of, for example, extremely muscular athletes? Arnold has a BMI around 33 (Obese), is he doomed to future health complications as a result? I'm honestly shocked that someone that seems to keep appraised of the literature would put so much emphasis on such a flawed measure of overall health. Clearly there are interacting risk factors, no?
>> ^scannex:
Cheers to you as well Bmacs, while we disagree on that point I appreciate the conversation.
I think we are at an impasse however, and will need to agree to disagree.
The best to you though.

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone.

You haven't falsified it. If you have, show me where. If you're referring to Matthews lineage using Chiastic structure, that isn't an imperfection. Chaistic structure is a literary device, so Matthews genealogy is not giving us the entire line, but rather like an artistic summation of it. To say it is wrong would be like telling a painter his painting is wrong.

If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

Since you have no argument against a potential God, and couldn't tell whether you were living in His Universe or not, then how would you know if this God cares about humans or if it has laid down any edicts about how you should live your life?

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

I have been listening to you and what I have found is that if you can find some kind of excuse to dismiss something that seems even potentially legitimate, then you run with it. You only seem interested in trying to falsify the question, because you apparently have already decided it isn't true. You don't have any real evidence to prove it, but in previous conversations you have said you see no reason to bother thinking about it. In short, you don't care.

You say I'm talking about blind faith, and I'm not. I believe what I believe because God convinced me of its truth. I had no reason to believe it otherwise, and I wouldn't. I am telling you that if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. He loves you and wants you to know Him. You just don't want to know Him and that is the problem.

Neither do you understand the law of parsimony. The law states that in explaining a given phenomenon, we should make as few assumptions as possible. Therefore, if we have two theories which are equal in explanatory power, but one has fewer assumptions, we should choose the one with fewer assumptions. However, a more complex theory with better explanatory power should be chosen over a more simplistic theory with weaker explanatory power. I think John Lennox kind of sums this all up at 3:00



Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

You were created in your parents womb; this says nothing about evolution. It only says that you have some way to come into existence, personally. It says nothing about the particulars of how that came to be.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe.

There is no reason to assert it isn't, either. In a finely tuned Universe, it is more plausible to believe it was designed rather than it just happened to be one Universe out of trillions that implausibly just looks like it was designed because if you have enough Universes eventually one will form that appears that way. Remember Occams Razor?

You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

That would be true if God were any of those things. I can agree with you though that your understanding of God is self-contradictory, alien to your experience, etc. You believe you have God figured out, when you don't know Him at all. You would actually do anything to know God, but you are rejecting Him out of ignorance.

In the scenario between multiple universes or God as a theory to describe a finely tuned Universe, God wins every time. It doesn't matter how complex God might be; the explanatory power afforded by the theory is by far superior.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped.

You're skeptical of everything that doesn't agree with your presuppositions about reality. Those I have rarely if ever seen you seriously question in all the time I have spoken to you. Regarding knowledge that agrees with those presuppositions, you feel free to speculate about that all day long and will say that virtually any of it is more plausible with no evidence. The thing is, I used to be on your side of the fence, and I know what a search for the truth looks like. This isn't it.

The smartest way to avoid being duped is to understand that you might be duped at this moment and not realize it. That's the trouble with being deceived; you think you're right when you are really wrong.

You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility.

What I've been telling you is that God is not hiding from you. You are hiding from Him. It's not that you don't know there is a God so much as you don't want to know that there is. You simply want to do whatever you think is right and you automatically reject any possibility that says this is wrong and you are in fact accountable to a higher authority. In short, your attitude towards God is not skeptical but rebellious.

Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

I concede its possible that God could have created other Universes, but I don't concede the idea that Universes just happen by themselves. This is really a very foolish idea. It's like coming across a coke can and believing wind and erosion created it. It only seems plausible to you because you must have a naturalistic explanation for your existence to make sense of your reality.

I don't expect you to believe in God unless He gives you some kind of revelation. I frequently pray that you will receive this revelation, both for you and the sake of your family.

Since I already pointed out this flawed understand of the law of parsimony, I won't reiterate that argument here.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

This is what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:17,19

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I wasn't there at the resurrection; I take it on faith. My faith has been borne out by the evidence, such as being born again, witnessing miracles, and experiencing the presence of God in my daily life. I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence. If you can concede that God can give you certain knowledge then you can understand why I don't doubt that knowledge.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

I *only* do? That's a false generalization. This quote is right on target, and I challenge you to show me where I have taken George out of context. This is what scientists believe, that time + chance makes just about anything possible. Has life ever been observed coming entirely from non living matter? That's a miracle, and that's what you must believe happened either here or somewhere in the Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

It's the God of the gaps argument which is flawed. It's not a God of the gaps argument when the theory is a better explanation for the evidence.

It's just a bare fact that there is a number of physical constants in an extremely narrow range which conspire to create a life permitting Universe. It's even admitted on the wikipedia page:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

The roost of the scientific establishment today is ruled by atheistic naturalists, and they very much hate the idea of God polluting their purely naturalistic theories. They consider science to be liberated from religion and they vigorously patrol the borders, expelling anyone who dares to question the established paradigm. A biologist today who questions the fundamentals of evolutionary theory commits professional suicide. It is now conventional wisdom and you either have to get with the program or be completely shut out of the community.

Here are some other interesting quotes for you:

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

I'm glad you understand that the whole enterprise of science was initially driven by the Christian idea that God created an orderly Universe based on laws, and thus we could reason out what was going on by investigating secondary causes. Yet God wasn't a metaphor for something we didn't understand; God was the reason we were interested in trying to understand in the first place, or even thought that we could.

You say there is this "because God" brick wall that we break down by determining the operations of the Universe. We can then see that it was never God at all, but X Y Z, yet what does that prove? Genesis 1 says "God created", and that He controls everything. What you're confusing is mechanism with agency. Can you rule out a clockmaker by explaining how the clock works? That's exactly what you're saying here, and it is an invalid argument.

You also act as if evolution has been indisputably proven. Let me ask you this question, since you claim to understand science so well. What is the proof and evidence that evolution is a fact? Be specific. What clinches it?

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence?

It only goes away when you come to a series of false conclusions as you have above. The evidence is there, even the scientists admit it. To avoid the conclusion multiple universes are postulated. However, this is even more implausible for this reason; the multiple universe generator would be even more fine tuned than this Universe. Therefore, you are pointing right back at a fine tuner once more.

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

I wouldn't know the truth on my own; only God can reveal what the truth is. There are two routes to the truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Another is that an omnipotent being tells you what the truth is. Can you think of any others?

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

You seem to believe that free will means God doesn't interfere in the Creation, and this isn't the case. Free will means, you have the choice to obey or disobey God. It doesn't mean you are free from Gods influences. That's the whole idea of prayer, that God is going to exert His influence on creation to change something. God is directly involved in the affairs of men, He sets up Kingdoms, He takes them away. He put you where He wanted you and He will take you out when He has sovereignly planned to do it.

Even if the prayers are sincere, God isn't going to heal everyone. Yes, either way the patient recovers or doesn't recover, and either way, God isn't going to reveal His existence outside of what He has ordained; faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone trying to prove Gods existence any other way will always come away disappointed.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

Actually it was written hundreds of years before hand.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

This is why I suggested you become more familiar with theology. Yes, you're right, I meant to say consecutive. You would know they were not consecutive if you read the scripture. The prophecy identifies they are not consecutive. Please see this:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The gospels were written beforehand. If they were written afterwards, there would have been a mention of the fall of the city, if only to confirm the prophecy, but there is no mention of it in any of the gospels.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The world belongs to Christ. The difference between the Lord and the other religions is this:

1 Chronicles 16:26

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

Muslims don't have a personal relationship with God. Allah keeps them at arms length, and they mostly serve him out of fear. They also have no idea whether they are going to heaven or not. They only hope that at the end of time their good works will add up more than their bad ones. The reason Muslims choose martyrdom is because under Islam it is the only guaranteed way to go to Heaven.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

Why do metalworkers purify gold? To remove the dross. That's exactly what God is doing when He tests us:

1 Peter 1:6

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone. If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? … leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism... you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him.

Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe. You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

[me:]… it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

[you:] It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped. You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility. Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence? What is your rationale for the weighting so strongly in favour of God? Couldn't it be that we simply don’t know yet how the universe came to be the way it is? To me, that’s actually the most likely scenario, since that’s what’s happened with so many other erroneous theological claims, including by some of science’s greatest minds ever.

A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him.

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

@rbar np, take your time, I'm quite busy as well.

Did East Germany have a great economy? Like you said, it faired well in some sectors, highly subsidized sectors I might add, at the huge expense of the rest of its economy which was miserable compared to West Germany (or to what it could be if it were capitalistic). Think of all the "luxuries" enjoyed right outside the Berlin Wall that were denied to east germans. Can you see purchasing or providing those products and services as economic activity being denied, and, therefore, less cooperation?

You have to question your assumption that capitalism universally strives for competition, or that it always should, or that it's the philosophy of free markets to make everyone compete. There are forces *for* and *against* competition everywhere in capitalism, from those who benefit and lose from it, respectively. I think that's what you mean by "near perfect competition", the perfection being the balance between competing and not competing as required.

Why are labor unions formed? So workers can compete less with each other and cooperate for better employment terms. Does that favor companies? No, but who cares, it's meant to favor the workers. Why are cartels formed? So companies can compete less with each other and cooperate for better profits. Is that good for the consumers? Usually not, but it's good for the companies in the cartel. Why are consumer groups formed... you get the point. These institutions operate against competition, but that doesn't make them any less capitalistic or contrary to the incentives of free markets, assuming they're formed without the use of force, criminal or lawful. A lawful association between individuals or companies to cooperate instead of compete with each other is capitalism at work too.

When you talk about situations where there is less or no competition, you're not considering the competition that arises on the other side of the demand-supply relation!

If there is large demand and little supply, you correctly point out that there is little competition *among suppliers*, right? However, aren't you overlooking the increased competition among the *demanders*? Like I said, competition is increasing as supply and demand differ. Who is competing with whom is beside the point.

You might argue, "well, how is competition among the demand going to help??", because it sucks to be in the demand for something in low supply, that unmet demand represents an incentive for more supply. Supplying something in high demand is a coveted position. Resources from elsewhere will tend to be allocated towards that coveted position, supplying that demand, and increasing competition in what started out as a less or non-competitive environment.

So, I don't follow your "markets universally tend towards monopolies" argument. As much as companies like monopolies, they like it because it profits from the clients/consumers' desperate demand for it, but these people are not ok with fighting each other for something in low supply. THAT is the incentive towards competition, towards destabilizing any monopoly that abuses its position.

The derivatives market is a complex example, but you're blaming the "free market", when the banking system is far from a free market if there's a central bank. Banks should be allowed to make risky investments and, if these investments don't pan out, they should pay the price with loss and bankruptcy, like it happens with any business that makes bad decisions. That is one of the best incentives to make good decisions! If the whole banking system is to blame for that, then it would collapse, which would be disastrous, but it would expose the disaster that is central banking.

Would the government want society to realize that central banking is terrible? Of course not, they're the ones who profit from it the most, which is why it stepped in with a massive taxpayer-funded bailout. None of what I just described is allowed in a free market.

Just like people realized the Church and State should be separate centuries ago, it will take a while for people to realize the State and Banks should be separate as well. The evidence is unravelling right before us.

i have only 20s to unravel all those talking points, but I can't because I only have 20s to unravel all those talking points, so I'm just letting you know that I can, but I can't... because I only have 20s



that being said, I'd still let her eat crackers in bed

Pit two of them against eachother and watch the universe unravel!

"This is a stop motion video I made to document my process of crocheting one of my larger than life portraits in yarn from start to finish. In my work I use a traditional basic crochet technique taught to me at an early age by my Gran. I work one knot at a time, from the inside out, row by row. I always begin my crochet portraits in the middle with the eyes and work out from there until the piece is completed. I work directly from photographs, using no sketches, graphs or computer imaging. Each piece is handmade, labour-intensive, instinctively composed. Nothing is planned ahead; I make it up as I go along. I spend a lot of time simply looking, unraveling, and reworking until I get it right. To make this video I photographed the work after each new yarn colour or two was added, and edited the photos into a sequence. This 30 second sequence contains over 300 photos of the work in progress. The portrait is of my dear friend Arthur Cheesman, who is sadly no longer with us. Website johamiltonart.com. Music by Aikamusic/Goldcard." vimeo

"Ok, you need to understand two different concepts........the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.

So in light of this reality.....supposedly bring down evolution."

Minor disagreements? I'm having a hard time believing that you've seriously investigated this subject if you are now claiming (scaled back from your prior claim of perfect agreement between "scores" of them) that molecular and morphological phylogonies typically have a high level of agreement. They don't. Agreement is the exception, not the rule. Even worse, molecular phylogonies don't agree with eachother either:

As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology. . . .

Partly because of morphology’s long history, congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within the last couple of decades, the situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence between molecular phylogenies are documented above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1% of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published (e.g. 132, 152, 170), structure or resolution tends to evaporate

Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001101

"If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference"

“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”

The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution""

Your charge of quote mining is false. Quote mining is the logical fallacy of quoting something out of context, distorting its intended meaning. The quote I provided was very much in context, and showed support for the assertion that molecular and morphological phylogenies do not have "perfect" agreement, and now I have further supported that assertion (and disproven your scaled back claim of very statistically significant agreement) that their agreement is actually very superficial. It is far more significant how little agreement there actually is.

The very reason there is a contention about which is the "best" method is precisely because there is so little agreement. In any case, molecular homology appears to be winning the battle, perhaps because the evolutionists are getting tired of never finding any evolution in the fossil record.

Which brings us to the many issues with molecular homologies, specifically, their lack of falsifiability:

"We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models:

All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively.

Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes.

Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes.

Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence.

This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory.

The absolute, explicit and implicit, adherence to all the monophyletic principle and consequently the decision to interpret all observations in the light of this principle is the major cause of incongruities as well as for the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above."

A Polyphyletic View of Evolution

Schwabe and Warr

This is why Schwabe, a biochemist, wrote:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message

It's a shell game where virtually any kind of data can be accomodated, and at no point is the theory questioned. Ad hoc explanations can be invented for any kind of discrepency.

""There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.""

A mountain of weak, circumstantial evidence (much of which contradicts itself) does not prove macro evolution. "We're working on it" does not somehow validate that evidence. We know the holocaust happened; there is no proof for macro evolution.

""As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:

“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”

Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!

The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.

And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.""

There are numerous sources showing that junk dna is not junk:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/28/1103894108.full.pdf+html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025112059.htm

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/transposons-or-jumping-genes-not-junk-dna-1211

Based on your earlier argument, "we're working on it", you should realize that what some scientists consider to be junk dna stems entirely from ignorance. The idea that it got in there by "viral dna insertions" and the like is simply another ad hoc explanation among many.

""And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:

http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on""

I have already demonstrated that the consensus is very weak. What you need to provide is data backing up your claims regarding cytochrome c. I am awaiting the "scores" of phylogonies that will match that data.

@shinyblurry - No, yours is and here's why:

Ok, you need to understand two different concepts. The first, is the notion that science is constantly refining itself. It is never 100% correct, and there is near constant debate about what is the best method of determining something to be factual. In this case, we're talking about whether molecular systematics or morphological characteristics are the most accurate means of determining phylogeny. The second is the notion of statistical significance. Now I'll admit that in saying that they "coincide perfectly," I failed to adhere to a more accurate and rigorous description of what is actually happening, so I'll rectify that now. The correlation between the different trees constructed by different fields within biology have an extremely statistically significant amount of correlation. This means that while we can expect disagreement and there will be debate about the best method to refine the results, the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.

So in light of this reality where science is never 100% correct and there is a constant debate over the relative effectiveness of varying methods of phylogenetic determination, there will be a huge excess of material for you to quote mine in an effort to distort the significance of the minor disagreements that are common in science to a scale that can supposedly bring down evolution.

If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference:

“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”

The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution.

There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.

As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:

“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”

Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!

The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.

And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.

And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:

http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

@shinyblurry - No, yours is and here's why:


Ok, you need to understand two different concepts. The first, is the notion that science is constantly refining itself. It is never 100% correct, and there is near constant debate about what is the best method of determining something to be factual. In this case, we're talking about whether molecular systematics or morphological characteristics are the most accurate means of determining phylogeny. The second is the notion of statistical significance. Now I'll admit that in saying that they "coincide perfectly," I failed to adhere to a more accurate and rigorous description of what is actually happening, so I'll rectify that now. The correlation between the different trees constructed by different fields within biology have an extremely statistically significant amount of correlation. This means that while we can expect disagreement and there will be debate about the best method to refine the results, the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.

So in light of this reality where science is never 100% correct and there is a constant debate over the relative effectiveness of varying methods of phylogenetic determination, there will be a huge excess of material for you to quote mine in an effort to distort the significance of the minor disagreements that are common in science to a scale that can supposedly bring down evolution.

If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference:

“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”

The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution.

There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.

As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:

“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”

Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!

The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.

And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.

And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:

http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.


Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.

Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".

Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:

"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"

"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .

Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .

So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"

They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.

Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.

Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.

Plus, for those of us that have read the books, we know why certain people have their powers and trust me THEY ARE THERE for reason, not imaginary. If you can't figure out why they're getting things their way or hold immense power it's because you simply are still in George Martin's world of the dark (that is throwing you into the story with no explanation of character place, wealth, power, or anything--it is revealed ONLY through the story). It exists on the TV as well, even more so, I think as A LOT of extra story detail is left out. Which forces you to puzzle it out and that TRULY is my best answer for you if you have problems--puzzle-them-out. Figure out why these things are true.

I could give you an OBVIOUS clue about Varys, but I'll keep it to a slightly harder to guess the answer. There are a few key scenes towards the end of the first season that give you a HUGE hint to part of Varys's key to keeping and having power, if you can think of the right moments and what it means you might unravel what it all means.

Perhaps researching likewise men/women in history may give you, clues...

Anyway, great series of scenes right there with Tyrion.