thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 9 hours ago, waveslider said: So are facts not facts until science proves that they are? Or are they only undiscovered facts until they are proven to the masses? What I know is factual and I know these things to be because of what I have experienced first hand. Just because I can't prove those experiences to those who haven't had such experiences doesn't negate the reality of those experiences. I can't even find words in language that describes what I have actually experienced, in order to properly convey what truly happened. That all said. I can agree to disagree with you. You can believe whatever you want to believe and I can believe what it is I know, and there is no need to prove it to others. These people in your video can believe what they want as well. The truth always comes out in the end, even if it is highly unpopular with most people to know the truth. It is your presenting of your beliefs as facts that is at issue.
waveslider Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: It is your presenting of your beliefs as facts that is at issue. So you have an issue with my opinion? Does that make it so you can't agree to disagree then?
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 5 hours ago, waveslider said: So you have an issue with my opinion? Does that make it so you can't agree to disagree then? Reductionist thinking to the point of non sequitur.
JLHPROF Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 17 hours ago, bluebell said: Charlemagne is my 44th great grandfather! To the OP-I didn't know it was even possible to trace a genealogy back to Adam. Seems fishy. Most people don't really get past the dark ages because no one really kept records before that. Except the royals. If you have traced your genealogy back to kings and queens (like Charlemagne) the royal families did keep records all the way back. We have biblical geneaologies from Adam to Noah, then from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to the Children of Israel, from the Children of Israel to the time of Christ, and from the time of Christ to the bloodlines of Europe. It may not be possible on most lines, but if you can tie into royal lines you can absolutely go back to Adam. https://bycommonconsent.com/2008/08/27/147-generations/
mapman Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Except the royals. If you have traced your genealogy back to kings and queens (like Charlemagne) the royal families did keep records all the way back. We have biblical geneaologies from Adam to Noah, then from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to the Children of Israel, from the Children of Israel to the time of Christ, and from the time of Christ to the bloodlines of Europe. It may not be possible on most lines, but if you can tie into royal lines you can absolutely go back to Adam. https://bycommonconsent.com/2008/08/27/147-generations/ If you read the post you linked to you'll see that it points out that the genealogies, which obviously do exist, are not historically accurate. "One of the things that fascinated me most about this chart was the inclusion of names drawn from Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology. Little had I known that Joseph Smith’s ancestors included Priam, King of Troy, Cronus the Titan, and Odin, chief of the gods of Valhalla!" Edited July 24, 2016 by mapman
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Not really. All Rulers amend their genealogies to conform to some type of Divine relationship.
JLHPROF Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 29 minutes ago, mapman said: If you read the post you linked to you'll see that it points out that the genealogies, which obviously do exist, are not historically accurate. "One of the things that fascinated me most about this chart was the inclusion of names drawn from Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology. Little had I known that Joseph Smith’s ancestors included Priam, King of Troy, Cronus the Titan, and Odin, chief of the gods of Valhalla!" I did and I realize that. I don't think ALL these genealogies that go back to Adam include mythological characters. (Although some would say Adam and Noah are mythological). Biblical geneaologies go as far as the time of Christ. And royal records go back through the middle ages to the time of Christ. Just a matter of connecting the two.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: or it can also mean you don't have a position yet, or that you haven't made a decision. I myself haven't made a decision. Not making a decision is itself a decision, even if an interim one. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, Skeptic. Doesn't work. Please don't tell me that it is my decision that I haven't made a decision. But that is exactly what you have done, even though you are unable to admit it. Moreover, you should understand the infinitely regressive nature of our conversation at this point. I agree with that, but let's go back, you said "Yes, what is the ultimate nature of reality?...Everyone must follow his own conscience and belief as best he can. No testimony is transferable." We are talking about religion and the ultimate nature of reality, agnostics don't have an opinion, POV, belief, conscience about any of that. Agnostics don't know, agnostics simply don't think anything. Nonsense. Pure nonsense. To declare that an agnostic doesn't think anything is itself anti-science. Your brain functions and reaches conclusions such as this, whether you want to admit it or not. Please don't tell me the Oxford Dictionary is not a reliable source. There are many types of Agnostics. What I said. Of course, the OED is not an encyclopedia of philosophy, which was what was called for here. I shouldn't have to explain that to you, Skeptic. How do you know your testimony is not the result of patternicity? confirmation bias? the Improbability principle? false memory? hallucination? All interesting possibilities and worthy of our consideration. You say you are a fan of Carl Sagan, what would you tell him? I respect his beliefs, and I will tell him so on the other side.
UtahTexan Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) On 7/21/2016 at 4:22 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Hold on while I go bang my head on a brick wall...several times... Here's your CFR now go do your home work https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne-ebook/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469140045&sr=8-1&keywords=why+evolution+is+true and http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122 and https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Nicholas-H-Barton/dp/0879696842/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469141511&sr=8-1&keywords=evolution+barton Sorry....I do not go running to investigate stuff you should provide with "facts". This board is not homework. Law school had homework. Command General Staff College had homework. Here, if you can't provide cites with alleged facts, don;t post facts. and...as I figured....you had zero evidence for your alleged facts. Failed again. Edited July 24, 2016 by CountryBoy
Johnnie Cake Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Sorry....I do not go running to investigate stuff you should provide with "facts". This board is not homework. Law school had homework. Command General Staff College had homework. Here, if you can't provide cites with alleged facts, don;t post facts. and...as I figured....you had zero evidence for your alleged facts. Failed again. On the one hand you ask for a CFR and when I provide it you say I had zero evidenced... Ok country boy...all I can do is point to the evidence...but I can't force you to look through the lens. If you choose to be ignorant that's your choice but don't say I had zero evidence or that I failed again when it is you who refuse to even consider the facts presented still willing to do lunch however Edited July 24, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
waveslider Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Reductionist thinking to the point of non sequitur. You can call me whatever name you want... Reductionist, or whatever. You can call me multiple names, but it still won't change what I know.
UtahTexan Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 26 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: On the one hand you ask for a CFR and when I provide it you say I had zero evidenced... Ok country boy...all I can do is point to the evidence...but I can't force you to look through the lens. If you choose to be ignorant that's your choice but don't say I had zero evidence or that I failed again when it is you who refuse to even consider the facts presented still willing to do lunch however CFR is the actual words...not links to books I need to read. Be reasonable. Either you have the evidence to support your claims, or you don't. Evidently, you don't. Me too! When do you plan on being in the area?
Johnnie Cake Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 Country boy, you do understand that were you to contract this same retro virus mutation that your descendants would carry this same mutation while mine would not right. And were our descendants to survive a 1,00,000 years and not intermarry, only your descendants would carry the mutation. This is why we could then say that your decendants had a common ancestor different than mine...at least back through the 21st century. Can you not understand this? 1
Calm Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 JC, are there ways to ensure that a virus mutation was passed down from a common ancestor and not simply a case of multiple occurrences of contraction?
UtahTexan Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Country boy, you do understand that were you to contract this same retro virus mutation that your descendants would carry this same mutation while mine would not right. And were our descendants to survive a 1,00,000 years and not intermarry, only your descendants would carry the mutation. This is why we could then say that your decendants had a common ancestor different than mine...at least back through the 21st century. Can you not understand this? Does not prove what you want it to prove...as Calm has pointed out...hence the continued requests for CFR....otherwise, it must be assumed it is simply your opinion......and we know what THAT is worth
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 21 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Not making a decision is itself a decision, even if an interim one. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, Skeptic. Doesn't work. So an undecided voters made the decision of supporting someone? 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 21 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: cience. Your brain functions and reaches conclusions such as this, whether you want to admit it or not.. My goodness, for the 1000th time, we are talking about religion and the ultimate nature of reality. Agnostics don't have a position on religion and the ultimate nature of reality. Agnostics don't have beliefs, conscience, POV about God, religion, and the ultimate nature of reality, they simply don't know. 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 21 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: All interesting possibilities and worthy of our consideration.. So you are saying that Atheism is a reasonable possibility?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: So an undecided voters made the decision of supporting someone? All eligible voters choose to vote or not to vote. A decision in each case. I suggest an elementary college course in logic or critical thinking. My goodness, for the 1000th time, we are talking about religion and the ultimate nature of reality. Agnostics don't have a position on religion and the ultimate nature of reality. Agnostics don't have beliefs, conscience, POV about God, religion, and the ultimate nature of reality, they simply don't know. Agnosticism is a belief system in which one suspends acceptance of argument pro or con (perhaps pending further study) -- itself a reasoned belief which requires actual brain function, as with any decision. So you are saying that Atheism is a reasonable possibility? If you could read English, you would know immediately what I said and what it meant. Read it again, or get someone to assist you.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Calm said: JC, are there ways to ensure that a virus mutation was passed down from a common ancestor and not simply a case of multiple occurrences of contraction? It really come down to one of 2 conclusions. Either we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees as demonstrated by the common retro virus so that we can conclude that evolution is true or God created a scenario to fool us into thinking evolution is true. Either way evolution is true Edited July 25, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 4 hours ago, CountryBoy said: Does not prove what you want it to prove...as Calm has pointed out...hence the continued requests for CFR....otherwise, it must be assumed it is simply your opinion......and we know what THAT is worth Country boy, I like you so, I'm going be kind but offer a suggestion...until you understand the argument being presented it would probably be in your best interest not to enter the argument area. You're embarrassing yourself my friend.
UtahTexan Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Country boy, I like you so, I'm going be kind but offer a suggestion...until you understand the argument being presented it would probably be in your best interest not to enter the argument area. You're embarrassing yourself my friend. Again....your opinion is....well...you know. and I actually DO understand the argument. Your inability to provide the requested CFR does not mean I do not understand the argument. But, because I like you as well, I will leave it with you making claims you cannot substantiate and deflecting your inability with passive-aggressive comments.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, CountryBoy said: Again....your opinion is....well...you know. and I actually DO understand the argument. Your inability to provide the requested CFR does not mean I do not understand the argument. But, because I like you as well, I will leave it with you making claims you cannot substantiate and deflecting your inability with passive-aggressive comments. Fair enough you understand the argument...then explain to me why my point is invalid... How exactly, in your educated opinion, is evolution invalidated despite the testable, dublicatible, observible evidence that overwhelmingly supports it's reality.. Explain to me why chimps and humans share the same exact retro virus mutation in the same exact short arm of chromosome 10, keeping in mind that in so doing you'll need to explain away how this mutation, which is inherited, occured by chance knowing that the odds of such a random occurrence is 1 in 2,057,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 I look forward to you enlightening me... oh and it's not my opinion...it's the accepted opinion of the science of biology which without would make absolutely no sense Edited July 25, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: All eligible voters choose to vote or not to vote. A decision in each case. I suggest an elementary college course in logic or critical thinking. LOL I am talking about undecided voters! What is your problem? Undecided voters haven't made a decision yet, that is why undecided voters get invited to presidential debates. 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Agnosticism is a belief system in which one suspends acceptance of argument pro or con (perhaps pending further study) -- itself a reasoned belief which requires actual brain function, as with any decision. Neutral Agnostics are undecided about God and the ultimate nature of reality. Of course Agnostics make a wise decision not to quickly jump to conclusions. Again, agnostics haven't made a decision about God or the ultimate nature of reality, why is it so hard to understand that? You take a logic course! 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: If you could read English, you would know immediately what I said and what it meant. Read it again, or get someone to assist you. Why not answer my question instead? "How do you know your testimony is not the result of patternicity? confirmation bias? the Improbability principle? false memory? hallucination?" You going to tell me that you are not convinced? Edited July 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 6 hours ago, CountryBoy said: ..as Calm has pointed out... Wasn't pointing out anything. Just asking a question I did not know the answer to.
Calm Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: It really come down to one of 2 conclusions. Either we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees as demonstrated by the common retro virus so that we can conclude that evolution is true or God created a scenario to fool us into thinking evolution is true. Either way evolution is true So are you saying the only way identical retro viruses can show up is through shared ancestry? I am confused. Obviously viruses can be shared between unrelated people since my grandkids bring home colds from school all the time. Does the DNA of these viruses change each time it is transferred to a new host so that the only way to share identical DNA is to inherit it?
Calm Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Okay, done a bit more reading. If I understand what is being claimed it is that a specific virus attached itself to a specific DNA site. "Most of the time, retroviruses behave like other viruses, jumping from host to host. But sometimes a retrovirus will end up in the genome of an egg or sperm. If it then ends up in a new embryo, the embryo will carry a copy of the virus in every single cell–including its own egg or sperm. And on and on, from parents to children to grandchildren." Thus it is out of all the billions? of viruses out there and all the millions? of sites on our DNA it could choose, chimps and humans share some (7?) of the exact, identical virus in the exact, identical spot. Is this an accurate summary of the claim? (sorry if you discussed this earlier and I missed it) It seems to me a very valid conclusion of shared ancestry if it can be shown there is no inherent affinity of that virus for that particular spot in the DNA.
Recommended Posts