The Barbarian said:

I'd be interested in any literature about rat populations being able to learn more quickly after an isolated population learns something. What do you have?

Click to expand...

• Harvard Water Maze Experiment: A series of experiments started by William McDougall at Harvard in the 1920s involved training rats to escape from a water maze by avoiding a brightly lit pathway (which resulted in an electric shock).
  • Generational Improvement: Over many generations (up to 22 in some studies), rats learned the maze significantly faster. The initial rats required an average of around 150 shocks to learn, while later generations needed only about 20.
  • Control Groups' Improvement: Crucially, Sheldrake points out that even control rats whose parents had never been trained showed the same rate of improvement, suggesting the ability was not passed genetically but through a wider influence.
• • Global Spread of Learning: This is the core of the morphic resonance argument. When the same experiment was replicated with rats of the same breed in Edinburgh (Scotland) and Melbourne (Australia), those first-generation rats started their learning at the advanced rate where the Harvard rats had left off. The knowledge seemed to be instantly and non-locally accessible to rats of the same species and breed.

Sheldrake's Interpretation
According to Sheldrake, this phenomenon occurs because:

• Repeated behavior forms a "morphogenetic field" which acts as a kind of species-wide collective memory.
• Individual animals can "tune in" to this field through a process called morphic resonance, making it easier for them to learn behaviors that many other members of their species have already mastered, even without any physical communication or genetic link.

o_mlly said:

Belief in things unseen seems to be the problem.

Click to expand...

God doesn't seem to think so:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Fortunately, evolutionary theory is based on evidence of confirmed predictions of the theory. Would you like to learn about some of those?

How could an Israelite be saved by the Old Covenant Law? The Old Covenant was never about salvation. All the Law could do was point out sin. Only Jesus saves.

How are Jews who have not accepted Jesus any different than the rest of humanity? Gal3:
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? (to Israel) It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

In Matt 5, we read that Jesus came to fulfill (bring an end) the prophecies concerning His coming. In the same sentence, he also claimed the same for the Law. Doesn't that mean that during His time on Earth He ratified the New Covenant? The New Covenant then had to supersede the Sinai covenant. The Sinai covenant could not save one soul. It could only point out sin. Every living soul can hear the Word and claim the promises that Jesus made in the New and better Covenant. The Old Sinai Covenant is now history. No one is subject to a covenant that ended at Calvary.

To all who believe they are still under the guidance of the old covenant I would point you to Gal5:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

What good would it be for Jews to still under laws that Jesus brought to an end? Gentiles are not under those Law, and we find Jesus.

Say it aint so said:

Did how did I know what article and authors were referenced? Prophecy?

Click to expand...

I was referring to the article that I posted which you quoted. I am also referring to the article which said 500 Minnesota government workers are whistleblowers about the billions dollars fraud committed by Somalians in Minnesota.

I've never observed nuclear fusion in the lab, either. But like macroevolution, scientists have observed it.

o_mlly said:

Nothing new here.

Click to expand...

Right. This has been observed for a very long time.

o_mlly said:

Keep looking and, as I'm sure you will, keep your faith in evol theory.

Click to expand...

It's always funny that YECs pretend that science is about faith, as thought faith were a bad thing. But science can't be about faith, since it depends on evidence. If your faith isn't strong enough to save you, science can't help.
"Macroevolution" means the evolution of new species. If that seems meaningless to you, we've located the problem.

o_mlly said:

Nothing new here either and, yes, we've located the problem.

Click to expand...

It seems so. You've confused evolution including macroevolution, which is an observed phenomenon, with universal common descent. And that is from genetics, not evolutionary theory. Even Darwin just supposed that God created some number of original living things.

All this confusion is curable, if you're willing to investigate a little.

Oompa Loompa said:

Reference to the law being violated?

"It ain't a war crime the first time."

Click to expand...

The one noted within the Department of Defense. Post 2.

Hans Blaster said:

It's not that you include a lot of history as background, it is about how much of that history is wrong.

Click to expand...

Then show me how its wrong.

Vambram said:

I doubt you did. There's a lot more in that article than what you think.

Click to expand...

Did how did I know what article and authors were referenced? Prophecy?

samaus123456789 said:

I can explain pretty much every single prophecy in the bible but it takes a long time so I will post an important one here
Jude quotes Enoch 7th from Adam about the Romans destroying Jerusalem 70 AD, and killing the people that killed Jesus, and quotes 1 Enoch 1:1-9. Enoch says it is a prophecy for a remote generation because he is writing pre flood about an event thousands of years into the future. He says people will be in tribulation like Jesus said 70 AD would be great tribulation. Enoch says God will come over MT Sinai because Jerusalem is metaphorically called MT Sinai (Galatians 4 25) first century AD, and Jesus told the apostles he was coming back in their lifetime. Jesus came back 70 AD like all the prophecies said, all the Israelites rose from the dead, the faithful ones got raptured same with some of the living pre destined elect remnant of the lost sheep of the house of Israel which was the 144 000 in Rev 7 all saved via belief in Jesus by 70 AD. Rev 1-12 happened 70 AD but Rev 13-22 is future. Gospel of Nicodemus inspired apocrypha for the wise only (like 1 Enoch is) has more info on people that raised from the dead the day Jesus died. Also some of the other acts Pilate has more info on the event too.

Click to expand...

well if only it is that simple, what do we do now?

You can’t get married? It’s getting cold I guess.

Now I wait to see how long it takes for someone to blame Trump.

Isaac the Recluse said:

Around 20-25 years ago I had a SciFi that I absolutely loved. As in I'd plan my time around the broadcast schedule for the next episode - didn't matter if I could record it, I couldn't wait that long.

I had all the DVDs, to make sure I'd seen every episode, and was hanging on to them with the idea that when I retire from work I'd watch them again.

Again, I didn't wait that long. I had some time on my hands, and realised the series is on Youtube, so I've been rewatching it. And it is kind of 'meh'. I have very little patience for the "wacky" filler episodes, little credulity for the likelihood of the overall story arc, and I couldn't care less about the romantic interest part.

A few things have changed with me in the 20-25 years since it was televised. I now don't have a tv, and don’t watch any series. I don't indulge in any fiction at all really.

I like the response of just calling it "growing up". Also, a large draw of SciFi was the concept, the what if. I guess that when the ideas are nearing a quarter of a century old, and have been growing in familiarity all that time, they just lose their shine a bit.

Click to expand...

And Tribbles were 14 years old when they were plagiarized into a Star Trek episode, a Martian Flat Cat is the same by any name.

And it is a lot more than a quarter century. Actually, well over a half century.

But the half white vs. half black episode will sadly still be relevant when it is over a century old.

Landon Caeli said:

This is the solution I have been looking for, in regards to why convergent evolution exists - why an octagon shaped species on the north side of the planet looks almost exactly like a species on the south end, completely unrelated, and having evolved separately from one another. Couldn't it be true, that the one species existed first, and the successes were somehow *easier* to develop then for another.

The amount of times, and the amount of crabs that have evolved, completely unrelated - Couldn't it be, because it happened once, and twice, and then three - and then many more because of morphic resonance?

Click to expand...

In biology, it's called "natural selection." It might look like magic, but species evolving in the same environmental pressures often tend to look very much alike.

Landon Caeli said:

Species have evolved to look like crabs (a process called carcinization) at least five separate times in evolutionary history... Completely unrelated.

Click to expand...

Actually, they are all decopod crustaceans. And interestingly, some lines of "crabs" have undergone "decarcination", suggesting that conditions changes, with a subsequent loss of crabby features. The reason this can happen is that arthropods, unlike chordates, are composed of a linear arrangement of essentially identical segments. Muscles, gills, legs, and so on. So they can rather easily change morphology.

Echinoderms, the two radially symmetrical examples you show, begin life as bilaterally symmetrical larva, and later become radially symmetrical. Number of radial segments vary, though. Interestingly, echinoderms and chordates are both deuterostomes, more closely related to each other than either is related to (for example) crabs. Some chordates also begin life as bilaterally symmetrical larva and later lose that symmetry. Ascidians, (sea squrts) for example.

Bats, birds, and pterosaurs all use forelimbs for flight, but the anatomy is different. They are analogous forms, but the homology stops at basic vertebrate form (femur, ulna/radius/carpals/metacarpals/phalanges). They each evolved separately, under the pressure of natural selection.

I'd be interested in any literature about rat populations being able to learn more quickly after an isolated population learns something. What do you have?

Hans Blaster said:

I wouldn't know. I don't think I've ever had it.

I suspected as much.

You haven't really made those. Particularly stemming from your listicle.

You went far too plain to be properly understood.

So far you've shown no real effort to do so.

I see you don't understand how the Roman church actually works.

Nothing I've seen would suggest you would make one.

Click to expand...

And this is Exhibit A right here. It's like arguing with a Redditor. I don't have any upvotes for you, man. No one else does either.

To put it simply, it's because

el3venS1x said:

I've been thinking about the stark contrast between Christianity and Nazism, yet I've noticed that some people seem to conflate the two. One promotes love, forgiveness, and humility, while the other is rooted in hatred, domination, and prejudice.

Context: One prays, the other preys.

How is it possible for individuals to draw parallels between these two ideologies? Could it be due to historical misinterpretations, propaganda, or a misunderstanding of faith itself? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this confusing juxtaposition.

• What examples can you share that highlight these misconceptions?
• How can we better educate others on the true message of Christianity in light of such conflation?
• What role do you think social media plays in perpetuating these misunderstandings?

Looking forward to a thoughtful discussion!
el3venS1x (Dell)

Click to expand...

To put it simply, it's because satan wants to conflict the idea of us Christians being part of the new world by God's grace and thinking that people can earn their salvation to try to earn bringing a new heaven and earth by our own will. Also for some strange reason, it appears that satan's idea of "Nazism" is being pushed around a lot instead of just being honest about what national socialism was in Germany and how that effected the world at the time. Also, in the purist sense of the term "Christian Nationalism" is technically necessary for today since I think it a good thing for people in society to be proud of being a part Zion/Israel/Jerusalem/God's Holy City by God's Will.

Given the latest economic data, I suppose that for Trump, no news is good news.

How many times have eyes developed? The answer to that is 40 to 65 different times! How many times has flight developed, in different species, completely unrelated, having no common history of flight with one another? Species have evolved to look like crabs (a process called carcinization) at least five separate times in evolutionary history... Completely unrelated.

This is the solution I have been looking for, in regards to why convergent evolution exists - why an octagon shaped species on the north side of the planet looks almost exactly like a species on the south end, completely unrelated, and having evolved separately from one another. Couldn't it be true, that the one species existed first, and the successes were somehow *easier* to develop then for another.

The amount of times, and the amount of crabs that have evolved, completely unrelated - Couldn't it be, because it happened once, and twice, and then three - and then many more because of morphic resonance?



Convergent evolution - Wikipedia Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

Hans Blaster said:

Are you capable of better?

Click to expand...

In your topsy-turvy la-la land world where pineapple pizza isn't tasty and Jesus never died for our sins, no; I genuinely am not capable of better. I've interacted with you for several posts now and I can conclusively say that no matter how many logically sound points I make, no matter how plainly I communicate my ideas, there is simply no good faith discussion to be had. For example, I might argue that the Catholic Monarchs answer to the church, negating your reply. But no intellectual rebuttal will be offered.