ever wonder why the medical symbol is a staff with two snakes

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Jan 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,613
    im pretty sure on this subject wiki is reliable
    test
  2. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Lol^ me too. U slippin up coup.
    test
  3. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    So I'm sure you are in fact serious, please summarize what I meant in my post above. I want to be sure you know what I meant.
    test
  4. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    damn, you right nu.

    who would've thought.

    :numaan:
    test
  5. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    How am I slipping ? Just saying wiki is not end all say all. And that you are probably right in OP.

    But go on...
    test
  6. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    in a nutshell: wiki is an unreliable net source full of secular deviants, and the greeks were pagan deviants who are celebrated today by the wiki heathens

    you also hinted repeatedly that the symbol has some sinister biblical meaning without expanding on exactly what that was or how it came to become a part of greek culture.
    test
  7. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    lololol

    Sort of, I mean that wiki is not definitive on all matters. The medical symbol might not mean what wiki says. That it most likely ties into Biblical events.

    Anyhow, the Greeks were pagan, yes. So is America today. And I should take a break for a few days. Did I tell you I have a nasty cold ?
    test
  8. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,613
    colds are gods punishment for people who have sinned

    lol

    ;)
    test
  9. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i realize wiki can be edited by anyone, that's why its good to check the sources

    i generally would take wiki with a grain of salt if i were reading on a particularly controversial issue, but pages that deal with things like greek mythology are generally 'nobody cares' territory, so the content is usually rather mild natured and somewhat reliable. still not a definitive source by any means, though, you're right.

    the biblical link sounds intriguing though. i always enjoy a good sinister plot, especially those involving snakes.

    sorry to hear about your cold. i'm sure you'll be fine. millions of years struggle for existence has left you equipped with the necessary weaponry to stave off most attacks. if in the end you are unable to meet this demand then there is always modern medicine to save the day. praise science.
    test
  10. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    LOL @ millions of years of struggles. I used think like that, now it's so bizarre.

    What's ironic here, though you are joking (I hope) evolution does take blind faith to believe in, on a religious level.

    It's not all entertainment and plots...that's the thing. But I understand the modern condition and entertainment is a household necessity. It's called indoctrination.

    The biblical account is far from being what you would call a movie type plot.

    up is down, down is up in your head. Unfortunate.


    Reggie, did you know there is not one documented record or any one single evidence or a observance in nature of new genetic material being created, but rather it's only lost. In mutations, it's lost and they are 100% always negative for the population and individual.

    knowing this, how does evolution work ? This is just one of thousands of problems. lololol

    go on...
    test
  11. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,613
    speaking of that, i looked up my family name on wiki and then edited myself into the history of the name claiming that i was the greatest(of that fam name) who ever existed and wrote this whole story of how i started a trade route from Ireland to asia and was the sole reason for the spice trades because the irish got sick of eating potatoes...

    it was great, and stayed up for almost two months


    its true anyone can edit wiki, but not every page can be edited though
    test
  12. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I edited the fluoride page once. I wrote how it was actually a neurotoxin and that the true reasons it's in our water supply is not really to protect your teeth. Hint. But to make you docile. Bingo.

    Don't drink city water. Don't brush your teeth with toothpaste containing any fluoride, you can buy it now without any.

    Watch for bottled water too. Major brands like aquafina all use city water. Some even claim to be spring...stick to the real spring water from smaller, local brands if you can.

    If you are in doubt, call the number on the bottle and they should be able to tell you if fluoride is in it or not.
    test
  13. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    that's simply another bit of misinformation creationists spew to cast a shadow on the theory of evolution.

    CB102: Mutations adding information

    your claim that 'genetic material is never created, but rather it's only lost' is also false. mutations can duplicate single genes, rows of genes or even entire chromosomes or genomes.

    mj alves observations cited above involved hybridization and subsequent polypoidy in certain freshwater fish - i.e. breeds were crossed and the subsequent offspring asexually produced while utilizing polyploidy (doubling entire sets of chromosomes). this effectively increases the size of the genome.

    your claim that mutations are always 100% negative is also blatantly false. the vast majority of mutations are in fact neutral, but there have been many observations of mutations which are beneficial and of course others which are deleterious (harmful).

    Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

    here's a decent video on the subject

    [youtube]TU-7d06HJSs[/youtube]

    i should note that i think that the broad near the end of the vid might be wrong about 'junk DNA.' i've seen it argued by many darwinians that this 'junk DNA' might have an as of yet undiscovered function. introns, for instance, which are usually labelled as 'junk,' have a specified function providing a buffer between exons prior to gene activation. what she means by 'junk' is that this DNA (which comprises the majority of human DNA) hasn't been linked to any specific coding function.
    test
  14. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    also, you never did fill me in on the sinister nature of the caduceus symbol. you gonna leave me hanging?
    test
  15. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Give example in real life. Give an example where this happened and where it benefited a population or individual. And that this has successfully ended up in speciation. The examples you will claim will fall short and not uphold your theory nor will it meet the requirements of it. Evolution requires new material to be made from scratch. This has never been recorded, observed or demonstrated. New information can be made, depending on what you mean by new information. Can it account for the theory of evolution. No.

    You may lack understanding of the complexity of the genome. Mutations are a change in the sequence of DNA. Nothing new is added. An insertion or deletion of a few letters (ACGT). They can be complex or simple depending how much is changed in a specific sequence.

    Variation happens. Speciation cannot.
    test
  16. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    the examples cited above are real life examples. you are now adding the demand that these examples must also be examples of speciation when that wasn't part of your initial claim.

    variation is what happens on a generational basis, speciation is variation + natural selection mapped over longer stretches of time. since each species is essentially a group of closely related mating populations, the variation within that species is subject to processes of selection: both in the direct competition for survival which will statistically favor certain phenotypes (or body types), and in the direct competition in reproduction (sexual selection) which will also favor certain phenotypes. the phenotype is largely influenced by the genotype, and thus a genetic mutation that leads to a feature in the phenotype which provides some advantage either in survival or reproduction can over time have a disproportionate effect on that species gene pool, since the nonrandom processes of selection favor this adaption.

    a mutation can duplicate existing genes, it can rearrange the order of these genes, or it can alter the base pairs themselves. since all existing life is theorized to have come from common ancestry, the universality of the genetic code comes as no surprise (ACGT). indeed you would expect such a correlation based on the idea of common descent - it would be much harder to explain how evolution could completely rewrite the genetic code in a lineage. but if a mutation can create new genes, and subsequent adaptions can assign the new genes a different function from its parent gene, or rearrange the genes after the fact, or change the base pair, then over time this process could lead to a decent amount of genetic variation - though all with largely the same structure/code. and that's exactly what geneticists observe in lifeforms on earth today.
    test
  17. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i should clarify: most variation among species is due to recombination in sexual species and lateral transfer in bacteria, rather than mutation, which is generally less common. so there is a decent amount of variation within species even without factoring in any mutation, but the genetic variation among lifeforms necessarily had to involve mutations.
    test
  18. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    variation is what happens on a generational basis, speciation is variation + natural selection mapped over longer stretches of time

    This only happens in theory, your head and in text books or simulations. Time is the magic word. It does not happen at all.

    since each species is essentially a group of closely related mating populations, the variation within that species is subject to processes of selection: both in the direct competition for survival which will statistically favor certain phenotypes (or body types), and in the direct competition in reproduction (sexual selection) which will also favor certain phenotypes. the phenotype is largely influenced by the genotype, and thus a genetic mutation that leads to a feature in the phenotype which provides some advantage either in survival or reproduction can over time have a disproportionate effect on that species gene pool, since the nonrandom processes of selection favor this adaption.

    ^A concise summery of how the theory works. But again, a nice way of explaining the religion is worthless. True observation and experiment is worth a pound a theory any day. I understand how it works. I studied under it for 4 1/2 years.


    a mutation can duplicate existing genes, it can rearrange the order of these genes, or it can alter the base pairs themselves


    But no raw genetic material is created from scratch. Never will be. It's a mutation, and this is not a hurdle or an issue to get over. It's never been seen in speciation, no matter how long or how much length of time will pass. It most cases it's a loss and it's actually harmful. Most mutations are. The benefits ones, yeah, just keep showing me them.

    since all existing life is theorized to have come from common ancestry, the universality of the genetic code comes as no surprise (ACGT).

    Let's go back. You believe life came from rocks in the primordial soup. Let's be honest here. The universality of the genetic code comes form a common designer. Don't be stupid.

    indeed you would expect such a correlation based on the idea of common descent - it would be much harder to explain how evolution could completely rewrite the genetic code in a lineage.

    It's so hard that it does not even happen.

    but if a mutation can create new genes, and subsequent adoptions can assign the new genes a different function from its parent gene, or rearrange the genes after the fact, or change the base pair, then over time this process could lead to a decent amount of genetic variation - though all with largely the same structure/code. and that's exactly what geneticists observe in lifeforms on earth today.

    Mutations do not create new genes. They arrange them, and the phenotype expressed is of course different. Nothing from scratch was created. The sequence was altered from the algorithms already there. Over time is the magic word. That's why time is important and the big bang most be protected: to establish enough time to make the silly theory look good. Don't you get it ?

    Nobody observes this. That is wishful thinking. Geneticists do not observe evolution on the genetic level at all. They interpret similarity degrees and draw life trees on paper and arrange things in order that fit.
    test
  19. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    which part exactly do you object to then? the 'theory' is merely the projected effect of the functions taken to their logical conclusion.

    natural selection has plenty of experimental evidence for it, but any basic understanding of biology should make it immediately clear to you that it's true.

    i want to ask you a series of specific yes or no questions:

    do you still doubt that mutations can result in positive adaptions to a phenotype?

    do you doubt that the competition for survival will statistically favor certain phenotypes?

    do you doubt that species exhibit sexual preferences towards certain phenotypes, leading to nonrandom mating patterns?

    if the answer to these questions is no, and you acknowledge all 3 facts of basic biology, then the conclusion that mapped over time this would translate to natural selection is abundantly clear. so what is the barrier that prevents this process from leading to speciation? there's nothing magical about time - and likewise there's nothing magical about species. but it's simple mathematics. if small changes continue to accumulate over time, the sum of their total will present a much larger gap than you will see within a single or few generations.



    when you look at the various species and their genetic variety, what you find is a restructuring of the same basic material over and over and over again. so no, no 'raw genetic material' is created from scratch - nor should there be. all life forms share the same basic genetic material. and once more, the majority of observed genetic mutations are neutral to the phenotype. that's scientific fact, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.



    if there's a common genetic code you say its a common designer. if there was a variety of codes you would (rightfully) point out that they could not have evolved from one another and that they indicate a designer.

    the simple fact is there's no real practical reason for god to use a common genetic code for all life forms. there are many alternatives at his disposal as far as alternative materials and alternative codes is concerned. there are distinct biological advantages had he chosen to utilize more diverse set of materials and codes. so i don't see how a common code indicates a common designer. yet a common descent explains the matter perfectly.


    correct. evolution never resulted in a complete rewriting of the basic genetic code. this would likely have been an impossible task.


    if a base pair is changed, the gene itself can take on a new expression. you're playing with semantics.
    test
  20. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    which part exactly do you object to then? the 'theory' is merely the projected effect of the functions taken to their logical conclusion.

    I object to the whole theory. Steps 1-5 (cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, macro evolution). Only variation is observed and that is used as evidence to support steps 1-5 in every case.

    natural selection has plenty of experimental evidence for it, but any basic understanding of biology should make it immediately clear to you that it's true.

    Yes, variation with in KINDS of animals happens. No issue there. A dog will never turn into a humming bird, no matter the length of time. (just an elementary example. don't trip).


    do you still doubt that mutations can result in positive adaptions to a phenotype?

    This is not black and white as to yes or no. It depends on a set of conditions and terms and assumptions that we have to both understand and speak from. Within the kind, yes, but this mutation will never, it cannot, lead to speciation. Never has been done. Or seen. Or observed. I'd come back to this answer, depends on how far we take this talk.

    do you doubt that the competition for survival will statistically favor certain phenotypes?

    Again, variation happens. Selection happens. Macro evolution does not. Phenotypes are selected for, there are limits on how this frequency in the gene pool will shift. A pig won't select for wings and it flys 10000000000 years later.

    do you doubt that species exhibit sexual preferences towards certain phenotypes, leading to nonrandom mating patterns?

    No. Look, I'm not an idiot. I understand reality and TRUTH.

    what is the barrier that prevents this process from leading to speciation?

    IN order for life to have evolve, the Big bang must of happened, chemicals must of fused past helium and hydrogen into for example uranium and the other higher elements on the table. Evolution is biologically impossible. There are 1,000s of proofs that make it an impossibility. Thus the total lack of evidence. There is no missing link, the whole chain is missing.

    there's nothing magical about time

    Your right. But it's the magic word for evolution. With time any can happen. And it does. Kiss a frog and it automatically turns into a Prince - we call that a fairy tale. Let a frog evolve into a prince (human) over Billions of years, we call it science. You guys need the time to make it look good. Thus the big bang. Don't belier it. Research why you have been indoctrinated.

    and likewise there's nothing magical about species. but it's simple mathematics. if small changes continue to accumulate over time, the sum of their total will present a much larger gap than you will see within a single or few generations.

    You wish, you hope and you pray. Over time. again your magic word: over time.

    when you look at the various species and their genetic variety, what you find is a restructuring of the same basic material over and over and over again.

    Does not prove evolution. It's just as easy to interpret it for God's creation. Genetic variety proves nothing.

    the majority of observed genetic mutations are neutral to the phenotype. that's scientific fact

    Nope. This is not a fact. This is an opinion. Evolution besides, is not even a fact. It does not even have one evidence for it.

    the simple fact is there's no real practical reason for god to use a common genetic code for all life forms. there are many alternatives at his disposal as far as alternative materials and alternative codes is concerned. there are distinct biological advantages had he chosen to utilize more diverse set of materials and codes. so i don't see how a common code indicates a common designer. yet a common descent explains the matter perfectly.

    And you claim to understand biology and reproduction and inheritance. lulzy.

    correct. evolution never resulted in a complete rewriting of the basic genetic code. this would likely have been an impossible task.

    Calm down, you did not come from soup. Great great great grandpa was not rock. Slow down there turbo.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)