Why does science always upstage God?

[The Grand Nudger]

Even the Bible agrees on that, unless God is supposed to be a biological organism with a metabolism, tropisms, etc.

That clause wouldn't change the preceding bit.  If god were a biological organism than it would also be subject to the limits of those organisms, one of which being the fact that..even if it created the earth and all of this life..it too came from a universe in which a biological organism such as itself could not have existed before some point x. Life still came from non-life. "God" merely being a stepping stone in the (now) larger category of life.

[KevinM1]

Huggy, we have a shit ton of scientific data about what inbreeding does. Wolves are not immune to it. To say, "but, what about these wolves, huh?" completely misses the point, and only highlights how little you know, and how desperate you are.

And, yes, part of MVP is to help insulate a population from sudden environmental and/or biological shifts. Why do you think I brought it up? Or why it's used as a guideline? What do you think inbreeding does regarding those things? How do you propose the observed and documented dental and skeletal defects help these animals survive, hmm? Or the smaller litter sizes? Why do you think the recommendation is to curb the inbreeding?

Are you done embarrassing yourself now? Because you're simply being silly at this point.

EDIT: actually take the time to read the articles here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-52712-p...pid1679558 Hint: "The incidence of anomalies rose from 13% to 40% throughout the 32-year study period." This isn't a good thing. These aren't helpful mutations. And if inbreeding continues, the numbers will continue to rise. Do you get it now?

[John V]

I work in medicine, and regularly read abstracts when looking for information for correspondence I'm typing.  Sometimes I speed-read the whole paper.  There are also a few conditions where for my own interest I'm constantly on the lookout for new developments -- in particular, treatment of lymphedema and fibromyalgia.

It's comparatively easy for me to access journals without a personal subscription -- if I can't just pull them up on my browser at work, I can pop over to the local medical library and read them there.  (In fact, many years ago, I had a temporary position where I regularly pulled journal articles that my boss needed for her own research.  I know how to find these things.)

I only use "pop" science as a starting point.  If I have no need to dig deeper I just use those articles as mental bookmarks so that I can track down the good stuff later.  I have enough competence in the basic sciences to determine whether an article is a plausible new development, a rehash of something I was already aware of, or flat-out nonsense.

Yeah, you know how to find these things, yet no links follow.

Admit it, the vast majority of what you think you know about abiogenesis or evolution didn't come from reading peer-reviewed studies.

[Astreja]

Ask me a specific question, Alpha Male, and I'll find you a specific answer. I'm much too busy to spend time rummaging around in the font of human knowledge for a coin that might or might not be in there.

[Amarok]

It cannot be the case that physical life has always existed. The universe in much of its early condition was impossible for life to survive in, let alone form. There was nonlife, then at some point there was life. Whether the result of natural processes or divine intervention, life from non-life happened. Even the Bible agrees on that, unless God is supposed to be a biological organism with a metabolism, tropisms, etc.

And considering were made of sustained by non organic non living matter . It's reasonable to conclude we likely are the result of it .

---

Huggy, we have a shit ton of scientific data about what inbreeding does.  Wolves are not immune to it.  To say, "but, what about these wolves, huh?" completely misses the point, and only highlights how little you know, and how desperate you are.

And, yes, part of MVP is to help insulate a population from sudden environmental and/or biological shifts.  Why do you think I brought it up?  Or why it's used as a guideline?  What do you think inbreeding does regarding those things?  How do you propose the observed and documented dental and skeletal defects help these animals survive, hmm?  Or the smaller litter sizes?  Why do you think the recommendation is to curb the inbreeding?

Are you done embarrassing yourself now?  Because you're simply being silly at this point.

EDIT: actually take the time to read the articles here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-52712-p...pid1679558  Hint: "The incidence of anomalies rose from 13% to 40% throughout the 32-year study period."  This isn't a good thing.  These aren't helpful mutations.  And if inbreeding continues, the numbers will continue to rise.  Do you get it now?

He's still on about how inbreeding is not long term harmful to wolves ? He's still denying the experts he cites are saying this is a negative trend that needs to be reversed ? He's still downplaying the documented harmful traits popping up in the wolf population ?He still denying the sweeping examples across species i presented ? Good gravy how egotistical can you get .

[Huggy Bear]

It cannot be the case that physical life has always existed. The universe in much of its early condition was impossible for life to survive in, let alone form. There was nonlife, then at some point there was life. Whether the result of natural processes or divine intervention, life from non-life happened. Even the Bible agrees on that, unless God is supposed to be a biological organism with a metabolism, tropisms, etc.

And considering were made of sustained by non organic non living matter . It's reasonable to conclude we likely are the result of it .

What the heck are you eating?

[Amarok]

Just keep sticking you fingers in your ears and going LALALALAL I'M NOT LISTENING !!!

[KevinM1]

At this point, I’m just going to write him off as a lost cause. He simply lives in a different world than the rest of us, and nothing I say will introduce him to reality. It’s not worth my effort.

[Whateverist]

I work in medicine, and regularly read abstracts when looking for information for correspondence I'm typing.  Sometimes I speed-read the whole paper.  There are also a few conditions where for my own interest I'm constantly on the lookout for new developments -- in particular, treatment of lymphedema and fibromyalgia.

It's comparatively easy for me to access journals without a personal subscription -- if I can't just pull them up on my browser at work, I can pop over to the local medical library and read them there.  (In fact, many years ago, I had a temporary position where I regularly pulled journal articles that my boss needed for her own research.  I know how to find these things.)

I only use "pop" science as a starting point.  If I have no need to dig deeper I just use those articles as mental bookmarks so that I can track down the good stuff later.  I have enough competence in the basic sciences to determine whether an article is a plausible new development, a rehash of something I was already aware of, or flat-out nonsense.

Yeah, you know how to find these things, yet no links follow.  

Admit it, the vast majority of what you think you know about abiogenesis or evolution didn't come from reading peer-reviewed studies.

For me it isn't about the strength of peer reviewed research regarding abiogenesis.  Maybe we someday demonstrate how it could happen, maybe we don't.  But, whatever the mechanism/secret sauce, non-supernatural means is the operative assumption until we find even one non-controversial instance of supernatural causation.

[Amarok]

Yeah, you know how to find these things, yet no links follow.   

We know were to find the links  . The lack of doing so does not factor in. 

Admit it, the vast majority of what you think you know about abiogenesis or evolution didn't come from reading peer-reviewed studies.

I have to admit no such thing .Because it's not true . And yes what i do KNOW about both came from peer review . This pitiful attempt at trying to equate science with your blind faith in your magic book and Real Skepticism to your ideologically motivated apologetics is just sad .

---

Yeah, you know how to find these things, yet no links follow.  

Admit it, the vast majority of what you think you know about abiogenesis or evolution didn't come from reading peer-reviewed studies.

For me it isn't about the strength of peer reviewed research regarding abiogenesis.  Maybe we someday demonstrate how it could happen, maybe we don't.  But, whatever the mechanism/secret sauce, non-supernatural means is the operative assumption until we find even one non-controversial instance of supernatural causation.

But the research is none the less progress at a clip . And people like Alpha can only pretend it's not so . And chide people for not linking to stuff their opposition has no interest in looking at and will deny ,obfuscate, and goal post move till their dying breath .