Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05)



 Religions > Atheism > Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05)

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 4 of 5

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
Date: 26 Nov 2005 11:37:39 PM
Object: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05)
Pramesh Rutajit wrote:


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Pramesh Rutajit wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Pramesh Rutajit wrote:


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Pramesh Rutajit wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Chief wrote:

I'm leaving until January for a trip to visit the kids tomorrow.

Thanks from the bottom of my pancreas, to everyone who has
shook me by
the shoulders and given the occasional slap. All the information
and concern was the single best medicine I got this last month.
Thanks.

No I didn't forget, I'm packing the basil and ballocks.

Happy Turkey and Merry Christmas - (substitute the appropriate
greeting as necessary)


May the LORD bless you during these holidays especially during
the celebration of His birthday as well :-)


Christmas celebrates the pagan god Mithria and the rebirth of the
sun god otherwise known as the winter solstice.


Days don't celebrate. People celebrate. And, on Christmas day,
those who call the day Christmas are celebrating Christ's day of
birth into this world as Immanuel (GOD with us).


For me it's a time to renew and share relationships with family and
friends.


My brethren in LORD Jesus Christ are my family and my friends, dear
Pramesh.


Does he prefer turkey or ham?


Bread and fish


What, no huneycomb this year?

No.

The christ myth places his birth
in the spring.


LORD Jesus Christ is not a myth.


So you believe


It is what I know and discern.


SO did he prefer turkey or ham last thanksgiving?


Bread and fish


Again no honeycomb?

No.

- A god that has to kill themselves in a pagan sacrificial
motive are rather unimaginative and weak.


The LORD took our sins upon Himself and there were so many and so
terrible that they did kill His mortal form but thankfully, GOD the
Father brought His Son back so that victory could be declared over
death
and sin. Thus, the Son has been glorified for He is kind, just, and
right.


To whom did God pay the price of sin, Satan?


To Himself for He is the source of all justice and righteousness:


So he paid for his own sins.

No. The LORD paid for ours:
http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/Christ.asp

Weird.

"A fool's talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the wise
protect them." (Proverbs 14:3)

http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/Christ.asp

To whom did god have to pay
the price to get permission to save anyone?


The LORD remains absolutely sovereign.


How mythological!

The LORD is not a myth.

His omnipotents is limited by
his masochism.


The LORD remains almighty.


How mythological!

The LORD is not a myth.

Paganistic-trinitarian-polythistic tripe.


The LORD is the truth.


How mythological!

The LORD is not a myth.

The christ myth is more an semblance of the potential in man (Ps.
82:6,John 10:34, 2 Cor. 3:18)


In your opinion.


Well, the typical position that christians take that men are reprobate
and born in sin from the second of birth and if they die then they go to
hell is certainly less than uplifting.


The LORD's salvation is available for all who choose to receive it.
Only those with evil in their hearts find this message less than
uplifting.


Sorry evil one, you can follow your god of torture.

"The LORD works out everything for His own ends -- even the wicked for a
day of disaster." (Proverbs 16:4)

A very few christians look at men as
"children" of God with all the potential that that entails, an uplifting
proposition.


Those who are ignorant of salvation by faith have not been saved.


You god has extreem limits - a truly petty beast.

"The faithless will be fully repaid for their ways, and the good man
reward for his." (Proverbs 14:14)

I repeat my position which is much more uplifting than yours - The christ
myth is more an semblance of the potential in man (Ps.82:6,John 10:34, 2
Cor. 3:18)


It remains my choice to side with the truth that is LORD Jesus Christ.


Matt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew. you: depart. from
me, ye that work iniquity.

And so it remains my choice to continue writing truthfully so that the
LORD will continue to guide me in all that I say, do, and write.

- the gnostics are more on the mark while christians
completely miss the mark, especially the fundamentalist type.


More opinion.

Hail to the Sun God,
O what a fun God,
Ra Ra Ra.


"They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of
the heavens, which they have loved and served and which they have
followed
and consulted and worshiped. They will not be gathered up or buried
but will be like refuse lying on the ground. Wherever I banish
them, all the survivors of this evil nation will prefer death to
life," declares the LORD almighty.

Amen.


Ahhhh rightttt, the bloodthirsty joy of the christian fundamentalist.
(Matt 7:2)


They are the Words of the LORD, Whom I love with all my heart, soul,
mind and strength :-)


Well, you can worship the author of Evil if you want


The LORD is not the author of evil.


Have you forgotten Isaiah so easily?

No.
You may certainly choose to judge the LORD to be evil for creating
disaster (Isaiah 45:7). However, it remains my choice to take the
LORD's advice from Matthew 7 and refrain from judging others especially
Him.

and thank him for
damning babies that die shortly after birth for their lack of faith in
christ.


Referring to children...

"The kingdom of GOD belongs to such as these. Do not keep the children
from Me." -- LORD Jesus Christ


Yet you say that they have to exercise "faith" in your mythological god, are
born in sin before they know good from evil, and are damned before they
learn to understand language and the concept of faith. What a petty baby
hating god you adore.

The LORD loves sinners. The LORD's kingdom has been built for sinners
who choose to be His children.

Yes, child sacrafice is still a functional component of
traditional christanity.


Actually, it is not nor ever was.

Worship your God of Evil if you must.


The LORD is kind, just and right. The evil resides in the hearts of
those who have rejected Him.


You forgot Isaiah again were god admits to being the author of Evil.

No.
You may certainly choose to judge the LORD to be evil for creating
disaster (Isaiah 45:7). But, it remains my choice to take the LORD's
advice from Matthew 7 and refrain from judging others especially Him.

I am right
on target noting the bloodthirsty joy of the christian fundamentalist.


Righteousness is not bloodthirsty.


While explains why you christians have killed so often in the name of your
mythological god and still proclaim your righteousness.

"Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is
kept safe." (Proverbs 29:25)

Yes, that's the evil, mean, bloodthirsty ***** biblical god I recall
reading about - a heinous god that blames his own creations for the
errors and failures in of His own creative capabilities - truly a
flaccid and
impotent god. At least Isaiah makes it clear that God creates evil.
(Isa. 45: 7)

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create
disaster, I, the LORD, do all these things."
You may certainly choose to judge the LORD to be evil for creating
disaster. However, it remains my choice to take the LORD's advice from
Matthew 7 and refrain from judging others especially Him.

The LORD remains kind, just and right:


And the author of Evil


It is evil that begets evil and not the LORD.


You are calling you god, the author of Isaiah, a liar.

False witness.
From Proverbs 19:9
"A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will
perish."
From Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create
disaster, I, the LORD, do all these things."
You may certainly choose to judge the LORD to be evil for creating
disaster. However, it remains my choice to take the LORD's advice from
Matthew 7 and refrain from judging others especially Him.

and it's first cause and the one who could prevent
Evil if he wanted too but chooses that Evil exist because it Pleases Him.


Those who judge the LORD will be judged by the same measure.


Matt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew. you: depart. from
me, ye that work iniquity.

It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully thereby glorifying
the LORD, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength :-))
Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:
http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
In Christ's love always,
Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
.

User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 01 Dec 2005 07:13:41 AM
"Bob (this one)" wrote:


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Actually, my hope is that through me, the LORD will convince folks to
someday repent. Extending an olive leaf to those who are angry about
the light of Christ Jesus emanating from my heart has had a powerful
effect on folks like Bob Pastorio, GaryG, Thorsten Schier, Ernie Primer,
Don Kirkman, et al (Sorry about leaving anybody out).


In the world of psychiatry, there's a technical term "magical thinking."
It's defined as "A schizotypal personality disorder attributing to one's
own actions something that had nothing to do with him or her and thus
assuming that one has a greater influence over events than is actually
the case." But let's all note that, typically, Chung doesn't actually
say what he thinks that effect is. Just a vague statement in which he
tries to congratulate himself, like he always does.

"Powerful effect..." :-) More like typing practice and really basic
logic to demolish his castle of errors.

Chung to a "T" - poor guy believes he has exerted influence beyond his
actual sphere of influence. The fact is that he's the widest,
slowest-moving target in Usenet that I've ever seen.

Chung offers so many outright blunders, so many outright lies, so many
outright muddy-headed thoughts that it's grand fun to poke him around.
All those people he's named use him for a verbal pincushion, and he's so
utterly obtuse as to miss the intellectual desert he lives in. So
totally panicked about being wrong that he'll lie, evade, and twist
words to make himself right. Like that whole omer business. Like how
many calories are in 2 pounds of bread. Like how many calories a person
will use in running five miles. Like evading naming the restaurant that
sells lobster and shrimp for $5. Like evading naming the event where he
says people paid $1850 (or whatever it was) to hear him speak. Like
posting about the 625,500 people who did the 2PD with no failures, no
deaths, no dropouts... and it's old testament people with no records to
support his contentions. No science. No logic. No proof. No substantiation.

For example, witness how Bob Pastorio has been unable to disengage...
...nor has GaryG
...nor has Don Kirkman
...nor has Thorsten Schier


Just another day at the bizarro ranch of Chung the Unreflective. Chung
who has to answer virtually *every* post that anyone makes to *any*
thread he's in. The absolute master of inability to disengage. Chung who
has posted more than all the others he names combined. That same Chung
who exemplifies all that he condemns, but to a greater degree than any
of the ones he decries.

And notice how Chung has threatened his critics with lawsuits and other
punishments and none has happened. Notice how he tries to inflate the
value of everything about him - meeting in "Paradise" - could he be more
egotistically clownish? Writing those baloney articles and attributing
them to some other author. Just like that FAKE FAQ of his that he says
was written by lots of other people. Maybe so, if he has multiple
personality disorder in addition to all the rest of his lunacies. Chung
the empty suit.

Foolish Chung.

Pastorio

"The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to
the discerning." (Proverbs 14:6)
Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:
http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
In Christ's love always,
Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
.
User: "Jim-Poncin"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 01 Dec 2005 01:24:50 PM
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:438EF705.BD0B550A@heartmdphd.com...

"Bob (this one)" wrote:


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Actually, my hope is that through me, the LORD will convince folks to
someday repent. Extending an olive leaf to those who are angry about
the light of Christ Jesus emanating from my heart has had a powerful
effect on folks like Bob Pastorio, GaryG, Thorsten Schier, Ernie
Primer,
Don Kirkman, et al (Sorry about leaving anybody out).


In the world of psychiatry, there's a technical term "magical thinking."
It's defined as "A schizotypal personality disorder attributing to one's
own actions something that had nothing to do with him or her and thus
assuming that one has a greater influence over events than is actually
the case." But let's all note that, typically, Chung doesn't actually
say what he thinks that effect is. Just a vague statement in which he
tries to congratulate himself, like he always does.

"Powerful effect..." :-) More like typing practice and really basic
logic to demolish his castle of errors.

Chung to a "T" - poor guy believes he has exerted influence beyond his
actual sphere of influence. The fact is that he's the widest,
slowest-moving target in Usenet that I've ever seen.

Chung offers so many outright blunders, so many outright lies, so many
outright muddy-headed thoughts that it's grand fun to poke him around.
All those people he's named use him for a verbal pincushion, and he's so
utterly obtuse as to miss the intellectual desert he lives in. So
totally panicked about being wrong that he'll lie, evade, and twist
words to make himself right. Like that whole omer business. Like how
many calories are in 2 pounds of bread. Like how many calories a person
will use in running five miles. Like evading naming the restaurant that
sells lobster and shrimp for $5. Like evading naming the event where he
says people paid $1850 (or whatever it was) to hear him speak. Like
posting about the 625,500 people who did the 2PD with no failures, no
deaths, no dropouts... and it's old testament people with no records to
support his contentions. No science. No logic. No proof. No
substantiation.

For example, witness how Bob Pastorio has been unable to disengage...
...nor has GaryG
...nor has Don Kirkman
...nor has Thorsten Schier


Just another day at the bizarro ranch of Chung the Unreflective. Chung
who has to answer virtually *every* post that anyone makes to *any*
thread he's in. The absolute master of inability to disengage. Chung who
has posted more than all the others he names combined. That same Chung
who exemplifies all that he condemns, but to a greater degree than any
of the ones he decries.

And notice how Chung has threatened his critics with lawsuits and other
punishments and none has happened. Notice how he tries to inflate the
value of everything about him - meeting in "Paradise" - could he be more
egotistically clownish? Writing those baloney articles and attributing
them to some other author. Just like that FAKE FAQ of his that he says
was written by lots of other people. Maybe so, if he has multiple
personality disorder in addition to all the rest of his lunacies. Chung
the empty suit.

Foolish Chung.

Pastorio


"The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to
the discerning." (Proverbs 14:6)

Get some help from a mental health professional.
.


User: "Don Kirkman"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 28 Nov 2005 07:13:44 PM
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
article <438B70BF.C3659C4B@heartmdphd.com>:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:25:41 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> spake thusly:

The LORD has shaped me differently and so He uses me differently.
Actually, my hope is that through me, the LORD will convince folks to
someday repent. Extending an olive leaf to those who are angry about
the light of Christ Jesus emanating from my heart has had a powerful
effect on folks like Bob Pastorio, GaryG, Thorsten Schier, Ernie Primer,
Don Kirkman, et al (Sorry about leaving anybody out).

I mean
isn't that the first step that comes before repentance?

They can't feel bad about anything if they choose to disengage and
suppress their feelings.

I get what you're saying. I do. I just still question
it, but it isn't my call to make. :)

For example, witness how Bob Pastorio has been unable to disengage...
...nor has GaryG
...nor has Don Kirkman

No one has ever asked, but I do it to lay the truth before new readers
who may not be aware of how Andrew has taken leave of his scientific
training and his Christian charity. I know he will never change, even
when asked by his fellow Christians.
--
Don Kirkman
.
User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 29 Nov 2005 10:12:49 AM
Don Kirkman wrote:


It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
article <438B70BF.C3659C4B@heartmdphd.com>:

Pastor Dave wrote:


On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:25:41 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> spake thusly:


The LORD has shaped me differently and so He uses me differently.


Actually, my hope is that through me, the LORD will convince folks to
someday repent. Extending an olive leaf to those who are angry about
the light of Christ Jesus emanating from my heart has had a powerful
effect on folks like Bob Pastorio, GaryG, Thorsten Schier, Ernie Primer,
Don Kirkman, et al (Sorry about leaving anybody out).


I mean
isn't that the first step that comes before repentance?


They can't feel bad about anything if they choose to disengage and
suppress their feelings.


I get what you're saying. I do. I just still question
it, but it isn't my call to make. :)


For example, witness how Bob Pastorio has been unable to disengage...


...nor has GaryG


...nor has Don Kirkman


No one has ever asked,

Why would I ask you to disengage?

but I do it to lay the truth before new readers

As if you were able to discern the truth.

who may not be aware of how Andrew has taken leave of his scientific
training and his Christian charity.

As if a leopard can change his spots.

I know he will never change, even
when asked by his fellow Christians.

Again, as if a leopard can change his spots.
Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:
http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
In Christ's love always,
Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
.
User: "Don Kirkman"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 29 Nov 2005 06:22:21 PM
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
article <438C7E01.C439776@heartmdphd.com>:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
article <438B70BF.C3659C4B@heartmdphd.com>:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:25:41 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> spake thusly:

The LORD has shaped me differently and so He uses me differently.
Actually, my hope is that through me, the LORD will convince folks to
someday repent. Extending an olive leaf to those who are angry about
the light of Christ Jesus emanating from my heart has had a powerful
effect on folks like Bob Pastorio, GaryG, Thorsten Schier, Ernie Primer,
Don Kirkman, et al (Sorry about leaving anybody out).

[. . .]

For example, witness how Bob Pastorio has been unable to disengage...
...nor has GaryG


...nor has Don Kirkman

No one has ever asked,

Why would I ask you to disengage?

Why would you think I was talking about disengagement? The context
makes clear that the implicit question is: Why do I continue to post
responses to your messages.

who may not be aware of how Andrew has taken leave of his scientific
training and his Christian charity.

As if a leopard can change his spots.

You, dear Andrew, are not a leopard but a human being with free will,
and it is not your spots which need changing.
Nevertheless, your post-grad research paper, IIUC, dealt with evolution
of microbiota, and you have since written against the concept of
evolution, again IIUC. At least that is how I understand this exchange
from the archives:
[Start]
Message-ID: <43008485.CA5FF697@heartmdphd.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:03:17 -0400
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com>

Questioner:
Evolution is easy enough to observe, for example with different breeds
of dogs.
Dr. Chung:
Actually, with different breeds of dogs one is observing the
process of creation (non-random purposeful changes in the
environment to create creatures with new traits).
Q.:
Evolution of species in the wild does take some time so that it
is more difficult to observe more than a small part of the process for
any given species. However, we can observe the process of evolving new
species at all stages in many different cases so that we can put
together all observations to get a picture.
Chung:
Now see that it only took one example (your example of breeding dogs) to
invalidate a theory (the theory of evolution).
Q.:
You can claim all the time you like that you disproved the earth
being a sphere because it looks all flat to you.
Chung:
A true scientist does not go around disproving observations.
Q.:
Then your denying evolution shows that you are not a true scientist.
Chung:
A true scientist does not ignore the observations that disprove his/her
pet theories.
Q.:
This is why you don't appear to be a true scientist.
Chung:
It remains my choice to be a true scientist and discard the theory of
evolution.
Q.:
This does not change the fact that the earth is a sphere.
Chung:
The **observation** that the earth is a sphere is best made from the
vantage point of being out in space.
Q.:
So the earth being a sphere might not be obvious for a person standing
somewere on the earth if they are ignorant of what the earth looks like
from space.
Chung:
The statement "the earth is a sphere" was not ever a hypothesis from the
outset.
Q.:
It was, because the people first believing this didn't have the data at
hand that we have, regarding this question.
Chung:
Actually, they had a mathematical proof.
Q.:
Just as the fact of evolution may not be obvious to people
who are ignorant of the fossil record and many other facts.
Chung:
"A true scientist does not ignore the observations that disprove his/her
pet theories."
Q.:
Then you should finally except what the fossil record and other
observations try to tell you.
Chung:
It remains my choice to be the true scientist that my Lord would have me
be and reject the theory of evolution.
[End]
--
Don Kirkman
.
User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 30 Nov 2005 03:08:41 AM
Don Kirkman wrote:


It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
article <438C7E01.C439776@heartmdphd.com>:

Don Kirkman wrote:


It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
article <438B70BF.C3659C4B@heartmdphd.com>:


Pastor Dave wrote:


On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:25:41 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> spake thusly:


The LORD has shaped me differently and so He uses me differently.


Actually, my hope is that through me, the LORD will convince folks to
someday repent. Extending an olive leaf to those who are angry about
the light of Christ Jesus emanating from my heart has had a powerful
effect on folks like Bob Pastorio, GaryG, Thorsten Schier, Ernie Primer,
Don Kirkman, et al (Sorry about leaving anybody out).


[. . .]

For example, witness how Bob Pastorio has been unable to **disengage**...

**emphasis** added

...nor has GaryG


...nor has Don Kirkman


No one has ever asked,


Why would I ask you to disengage?


Why would you think I was talking about disengagement?

The context.

The context
makes clear that the implicit question is: Why do I continue to post
responses to your messages.

Please see **emphasis** above

who may not be aware of how Andrew has taken leave of his scientific
training and his Christian charity.


As if a leopard can change his spots.


You, dear Andrew, are not a leopard but a human being with free will,
and it is not your spots which need changing.

whooooosh :-))

Nevertheless, your post-grad research paper, IIUC, dealt with evolution
of microbiota,

Hardly.

and you have since written against the concept of
evolution, again IIUC. At least that is how I understand this exchange
from the archives:

You lack understanding.

[Start]
Message-ID: <43008485.CA5FF697@heartmdphd.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:03:17 -0400
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com>

Questioner:
Evolution is easy enough to observe, for example with different breeds
of dogs.

Dr. Chung:
Actually, with different breeds of dogs one is observing the
process of creation (non-random purposeful changes in the
environment to create creatures with new traits).

Q.:
Evolution of species in the wild does take some time so that it
is more difficult to observe more than a small part of the process for
any given species. However, we can observe the process of evolving new
species at all stages in many different cases so that we can put
together all observations to get a picture.

Chung:
Now see that it only took one example (your example of breeding dogs) to
invalidate a theory (the theory of evolution).

Q.:
You can claim all the time you like that you disproved the earth
being a sphere because it looks all flat to you.

Chung:
A true scientist does not go around disproving observations.

Q.:
Then your denying evolution shows that you are not a true scientist.

Chung:
A true scientist does not ignore the observations that disprove his/her
pet theories.

Q.:
This is why you don't appear to be a true scientist.

Chung:
It remains my choice to be a true scientist and discard the theory of
evolution.

Q.:
This does not change the fact that the earth is a sphere.

Chung:
The **observation** that the earth is a sphere is best made from the
vantage point of being out in space.

Q.:
So the earth being a sphere might not be obvious for a person standing
somewere on the earth if they are ignorant of what the earth looks like
from space.

Chung:
The statement "the earth is a sphere" was not ever a hypothesis from the
outset.

Q.:
It was, because the people first believing this didn't have the data at
hand that we have, regarding this question.

Chung:
Actually, they had a mathematical proof.

Q.:
Just as the fact of evolution may not be obvious to people
who are ignorant of the fossil record and many other facts.

Chung:
"A true scientist does not ignore the observations that disprove his/her
pet theories."

Q.:
Then you should finally except what the fossil record and other
observations try to tell you.

Chung:

It remains my choice to be the true scientist that my Lord would have me
be and reject the theory of evolution.
[End]

Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.
In truth, there is no such thing as chance:
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD."
(Proverbs 16:33)
In other words, when GOD rolls dice, He tells the dice which sides will
come upside and they obey.
May the LORD open your eyes so that you may finally see, dear Don whom I
love, in Jesus' most precious and holy name. Amen.
Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:
http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
In Christ's love always,
Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
.
User: "Bob this one"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 01 Dec 2005 06:05:14 AM
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.

This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts. "Chance" as
Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order. The fact is
that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
Darwin's ideas have been expanded and enlarged by responsible scientists
since his first publications. Fossils discovered, connections uncovered.
But since Chung believes that nothing - not the movement of any given
atom - happens without the specific orders of God, it's simply
inconceivable for him to believe that any other mechanism is at work. A
stunted and crippled viewpoint, but all his.
Pastorio
.
User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 01 Dec 2005 06:57:30 AM
"Bob (this one)" wrote:


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.


This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.

This is not a game for me.

"Chance" as
Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.

Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.
From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)
Main Entry: chance
Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
relax>
3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
already gone>
5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
- chance adjective
- by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>

The fact is
that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

"Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
**nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
called 'individuation'. Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
from their parents."
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
with **emphasis** added.
Definition of nondeterministic...
nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
step in a computation.
Source:
http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html

Darwin's ideas have been expanded and enlarged by responsible scientists
since his first publications. Fossils discovered, connections uncovered.

No matter the expansion or enlargement, the fundamental premise of the
theory that traits can vary in a nondeterministic way from parent to
offspring is wrong and so the entire house of cards falls.

But since Chung believes that nothing - not the movement of any given
atom - happens without the specific orders of God, it's simply
inconceivable for him to believe that any other mechanism is at work. A
stunted and crippled viewpoint, but all his.

It remains to GOD's infinite glory that in the truth and for the truth I
still stand. Truth remains invincible.
LORD Jesus Christ is the way, **the truth**, and the life.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:
http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
In Christ's love always,
Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
.
User: "Bob this one"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 01 Dec 2005 07:20:21 AM
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:


Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.


This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.


This is not a game for me.

The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.

"Chance" as
Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.


Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.

Sure. In precis, it's what I said.

From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: chance
Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
relax>
3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
already gone>
5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
- chance adjective
- by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>


The fact is
that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."



"Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
**nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
called 'individuation'. Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
from their parents."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
with **emphasis** added.

Definition of nondeterministic...
nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
step in a computation.
Source:
http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html

Yes, and...? The simple fact of the matter is that it all still says
that since we can't explain each event, they are *apparently*
nondeterministic. The fact that variation occurs is the point, not
whether our language can precisely express a very complex idea with a
single word.

Darwin's ideas have been expanded and enlarged by responsible scientists
since his first publications. Fossils discovered, connections uncovered.


No matter the expansion or enlargement, the fundamental premise of the
theory that traits can vary in a nondeterministic way from parent to
offspring is wrong and so the entire house of cards falls.

Still playing word games. The continuing fact is that changes do occur
between parents and offspring in *unpredictable* ways. We can't see what
the alterations are or will be, so they aren't *determinable* in
advance. I note you reject the examples given that could trigger changes.
Using a mathematical definition for "nondeterministic" evades
acknowledging the reality of ongoing change. It's all a matter of
dealing with a word at at time rather than the content of the definition
or explanation. The fact is that changes do occur. The fact is that we
can't generally specifically anticipate them, and so they are not always
foreseeable or predictable. They are occasionally predictable when we
can see the environmental pressures moving changes.

But since Chung believes that nothing - not the movement of any given
atom - happens without the specific orders of God, it's simply
inconceivable for him to believe that any other mechanism is at work. A
stunted and crippled viewpoint, but all his.

And this is the unprovable position that all of Chung's ravings hinge on.

It remains to GOD's infinite glory that in the truth and for the truth I
still stand. Truth remains invincible.

It remains your diseased mind trying to foist off these wacko OCD
urgencies. Truth remains distant from you.
Pastorio
.
User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) 01 Dec 2005 11:48:13 AM
"Bob (this one)" wrote:


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:


Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.


This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.


This is not a game for me.


The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.

It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully just as it has been
your choice to do otherwise.

"Chance" as
Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.


Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.


Sure. In precis, it's what I said.

In truth, it was not what you had written.

From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: chance
Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
relax>
3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
already gone>
5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
- chance adjective
- by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>


The fact is
that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."



"Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
**nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
called 'individuation'. Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
from their parents."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
with **emphasis** added.

Definition of nondeterministic...
nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
step in a computation.
Source:
http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html


Yes, and...?

See below.

The simple fact of the matter is that it all still says
that since we can't explain each event, they are *apparently*
nondeterministic.

Actually, the theory of evolution "starts from the premise that an
organism's traits can vary in a **nondeterministic** way from parent to
offspring." This premise is absolutely wrong according to the LORD as
written in Proverbs 16:33 which states:
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its **every** decision comes from the
LORD."
**emphasis** added.
Therefore, the theory of evolution is absolutely invalid. This is the
absolute truth.

The fact that variation occurs is the point, not
whether our language can precisely express a very complex idea with a
single word.

See above.

Darwin's ideas have been expanded and enlarged by responsible scientists
since his first publications. Fossils discovered, connections uncovered.


No matter the expansion or enlargement, the fundamental premise of the
theory that traits can vary in a nondeterministic way from parent to
offspring is wrong and so the entire house of cards falls.


Still playing word games.

No.

The continuing fact is that changes do occur
between parents and offspring in *unpredictable* ways. We can't see what
the alterations are or will be, so they aren't *determinable* in
advance. I note you reject the examples given that could trigger changes.

See above.

Using a mathematical definition for "nondeterministic" evades
acknowledging the reality of ongoing change.

Precision is not evasion.

It's all a matter of
dealing with a word at at time rather than the content of the definition
or explanation. The fact is that changes do occur. The fact is that we
can't generally specifically anticipate them, and so they are not always
foreseeable or predictable. They are occasionally predictable when we
can see the environmental pressures moving changes.

See above.

But since Chung believes that nothing - not the movement of any given
atom - happens without the specific orders of God, it's simply
inconceivable for him to believe that any other mechanism is at work. A
stunted and crippled viewpoint, but all his.


And this is the unprovable position that all of Chung's ravings hinge on.

Theories wait to be disproved by the truth. In the case of the theory
of evolution, this has now been done with the truth as revealed above.

It remains to GOD's infinite glory that in the truth and for the truth I
still stand. Truth remains invincible.


It remains your diseased mind trying to foist off these wacko OCD
urgencies. Truth remains distant from you.

Pastorio

"The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to
the discerning." (Proverbs 14:6)
Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:
http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
In Christ's love always,
Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
.
User: "Bob this one"

Title: Chung's sad, sad idea of scientific refutation 01 Dec 2005 02:09:22 PM
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.


This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.


This is not a game for me.


The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.


It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully just as it has been
your choice to do otherwise.

<LOL> Chung calls the pot black...

"Chance" as
Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.


Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.


Sure. In precis, it's what I said.


In truth, it was not what you had written.

Unfortunate that English isn't your first language. Obvious from your
inability to use it and understand it correctly.

From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: chance
Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
relax>
3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
already gone>
5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
- chance adjective
- by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>


The fact is
that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."



"Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
**nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
called 'individuation'.

I note your highlighted word. It's the word chosen by some anonymous
writer for Wikipedia. But do note that the next sentence clarifies the
meaning of the process and some of the mechanisms that could be at work.
Obviously, it's not nondeterministic, it only appears to be. But that's
a matter of appearance, not reality. You seem unable to distinguish or
"discern" the two properly.

Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
from their parents."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
with **emphasis** added.

Definition of nondeterministic...
nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
step in a computation.
Source:
http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html

"From Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, page 24-19,
Copyright © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. Appearing in the Dictionary of
Computer Science, Engineering and Technology, Copyright © 2000 CRC Press
LLC."
It's a different usage than would be the case in biology.

Yes, and...?


See below.

Below where you use a quotation from the bible as "evidence" in a
discussion about science? And I also note that there are many
definitions of "nondeterministic" for different applications. It's a
very specific word in philosophical, mathematical, robotic and other
tight-subject worlds.
Try this: "Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every
event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by
an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No mysterious miracles or wholly
random events occur. If there has been even one indeterministic event
since the beginning of time, then determinism is false."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterminism>
So clearly, the attempt to explain the mechanism behind the facts of
evolving life was flawed. But the fact of the evolution remains despite
an incomplete understanding that Darwin had of the processes. Much like
so many areas of current "knowledge" that attempt to explain how things
work will be shown to be flawed. But there's a difference between the
factual data and the effort to codify why or how it has happened.

The simple fact of the matter is that it all still says
that since we can't explain each event, they are *apparently*
nondeterministic.

Or, better word, apparently random. And that's how it *seems.*

Actually, the theory of evolution "starts from the premise that an
organism's traits can vary in a **nondeterministic** way from parent to
offspring." This premise is absolutely wrong according to the LORD as
written in Proverbs 16:33 which states:

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its **every** decision comes from the
LORD."

**emphasis** added.

Therefore, the theory of evolution is absolutely invalid. This is the
absolute truth.

This is perhaps the most deadly example yet from Chung how desperately
diseased his mind is. A quotation from the bible is offered as
"refutation" of an empirical body of information. Stunningly,
astonishingly, frighteningly telling about his mental state. Andrew, you
can no longer claim to be a scientist. You're willing to accept words on
paper as "proof" of your idea of what "truth" is. Not admissible in the
scientific method.
"Natural selection can be expressed as the following general law (taken
from the conclusion of The Origin of Species):
1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
3. IF there is variability of traits, and
4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing
population,
5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits
(determined by the environment) will die out, and
6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the
environment) will thrive
"The result is the evolution of species.
"This is a continuing process—it accounts for how species change, and
can account for both the extinction of one species and the creation of a
new one. The formulation does not rule out selection occurring at all
biological levels (e.g., gene, organism, group), and the particular
process of introducing new traits does not matter.
"Darwin did not maintain that natural selection was the only mechanism
of evolution, however, as he pronounced in the introduction to The
Origin of Species: "I am convinced that [it] has been the most
important, but not the exclusive means of modification.""
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection>

The fact that variation occurs is the point, not
whether our language can precisely express a very complex idea with a
single word.


See above.

I've seen it. Deal with the issue instead of offering a quotation from
the bronze age as "evidence" for anything. Faith is a fine thing, but to
use it as a substitute for recognizing the truth of empirical findings
is a handicap among intelligent participants. Using fanciful words that
are from millennia ago to counter solid data is simply invalid.

Darwin's ideas have been expanded and enlarged by responsible scientists
since his first publications. Fossils discovered, connections uncovered.


No matter the expansion or enlargement, the fundamental premise of the
theory that traits can vary in a nondeterministic way from parent to
offspring is wrong and so the entire house of cards falls.

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393020118/102-9433748-9228169?v=glance&n=283155>

Still playing word games.


No.

Yes.
This creates cognitive dissonance. You are plainly doing your usual word
games where you play with one word out of a lengthy definition.
"Nondeterministic" in the context means that the causes are not visible,
not clearly understandable. Are too remote from the effect to directly
credit them. And Darwin wrote about this in an era with a great deal
less information about cellular operation, DNA, external moderators of
cellular function and a vast panoply of data now available.

The continuing fact is that changes do occur
between parents and offspring in *unpredictable* ways. We can't see what
the alterations are or will be, so they aren't *determinable* in
advance. I note you reject the examples given that could trigger changes.


See above.

See, Andrew. I saw above. And I reject your silly, simpleton
"refutation" as unscientific and irrelevant to discourse about empirical
data.

Using a mathematical definition for "nondeterministic" evades
acknowledging the reality of ongoing change.


Precision is not evasion.

It can be. As illustrated. Still playing word games. Your entire
position hangs on your dispute of *ONE* word that you insist is the
whole substance of evolution. It more demonstrates your inability to do
science anymore. It demonstrates that, for you, it's all word games, not
real consideration.

It's all a matter of
dealing with a word at at time rather than the content of the definition
or explanation. The fact is that changes do occur. The fact is that we
can't generally specifically anticipate them, and so they are not always
foreseeable or predictable. They are occasionally predictable when we
can see the environmental pressures moving changes.


See above.

It's still just as invalid as it was the first time you made that same
reference.

But since Chung believes that nothing - not the movement of any given
atom - happens without the specific orders of God, it's simply
inconceivable for him to believe that any other mechanism is at work. A
stunted and crippled viewpoint, but all his.


And this is the unprovable position that all of Chung's ravings hinge on.


Theories wait to be disproved by the truth. In the case of the theory
of evolution, this has now been done with the truth as revealed above.

Sorry. Not even the remotest glimpse of a refutation in your biblical
quotation. The mere fact that you take some parts of the bible as
literal and others you just dismiss demonstrates your wild, uncritical
inconsistency.
And your insistence that God controls *EVERY* move or condition in the
universe is too medieval and ignorant to credit with intelligence. It
was flawed the first time you posted it and remains so.

It remains to GOD's infinite glory that in the truth and for the truth I
still stand. Truth remains invincible.

Perhaps some real truth might be, that remains to be seen. Your invented
"truth" falls like the stack of cards it is with only the smallest scrutiny.

It remains your diseased mind trying to foist off these wacko OCD
urgencies. Truth remains distant from you.

Unfortunately, that lamentable truth stands.
Pastorio
.
User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Title: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) - Proof of GOD 01 Dec 2005 03:18:21 PM
"Bob (this one)" wrote:


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.


This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.


This is not a game for me.


The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.


It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully just as it has been
your choice to do otherwise.


<LOL>

Those without the LORD can only despair.

Chung calls the pot black...

In truth, name calling is not my style.

"Chance" as
Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.


Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.


Sure. In precis, it's what I said.


In truth, it was not what you had written.


Unfortunate that English isn't your first language.

In truth, there is no such thing as either unfortunate or fortunate.

Obvious from your
inability to use it and understand it correctly.

If that were true, there would be no explanation for your struggles
except the work of LORD Almighty GOD.

From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: chance
Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
relax>
3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
already gone>
5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
- chance adjective
- by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>


The fact is
that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."



"Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
**nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
called 'individuation'.


I note your highlighted word.

It took you long enough.

It's the word chosen by some anonymous
writer for Wikipedia.

Actually, the highlighting is by me.

But do note that the next sentence clarifies the
meaning of the process and some of the mechanisms that could be at work.

Nondeterministic is not a process.

Obviously, it's not nondeterministic, it only appears to be.

Nondeterministic is precisely defined below.

But that's
a matter of appearance, not reality.

Not for those who are able to discern the truth.

You seem unable to distinguish or
"discern" the two properly.

You often remind me of the blind man who would comment on the vision of
the seeing. Just as it is too easy for the seeing to discredit such a
blind man, it has been easy for me to discredit you to GOD's glory.
Such is the fate of the faithless who will be forever without GOD. In
truth, the faithless will never stand.

Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
from their parents."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
with **emphasis** added.

Definition of nondeterministic...
nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
step in a computation.
Source:
http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html


"From Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, page 24-19,
Copyright © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. Appearing in the Dictionary of
Computer Science, Engineering and Technology, Copyright © 2000 CRC Press
LLC."

It's a different usage than would be the case in biology.

In your opinion as a cook. You may be a credit to the culinary arts but
here you are out of your element. Would suggest you turn back and
before the LORD utterly annihilates you through His faithful servant.

Yes, and...?


See below.


Below where you use a quotation from the bible as "evidence" in a
discussion about science? And I also note that there are many
definitions of "nondeterministic" for different applications. It's a
very specific word in philosophical, mathematical, robotic and other
tight-subject worlds.

Try this: "Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every
event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by
an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No mysterious miracles or wholly
random events occur. If there has been even one indeterministic event
since the beginning of time, then determinism is false."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterminism>

The theory of evolution was not a philosophical proposition so the
mathematically precise definition of **nondeterministic** will remain
the appropriate one to use.

So clearly, the attempt to explain the mechanism behind the facts of
evolving life was flawed.

More seriously, the theory itself is founded on the untrue premise that
traits are passed on from parent to offspring in a **nondeterministic**
fashion.

But the fact of the evolution remains despite
an incomplete understanding that Darwin had of the processes.

Without the truth, there can be no facts. Indeed, science at its
very core is the search for the truth. For this reason, no theory is
ever called a fact by a scientist.
You remind me of a cook pretending to be a scientist... this should
not be surprising for folks who are in the know because you ARE a cook
pretending to be a scientist. What do you hope to gain from painting
yourself as the absolute eternal fool for all to see?
There is no one who can make you look like a bigger fool than what
you have done to yourself except the LORD. And, indeed this is the
LORD's doing to drive you to what you have done. Your being made the
biggest fool in the entire universe for all to see for the rest of
eternity thanks to the Google archives is actually irrefutable proof of
the LORD Almighty GOD's existence, His omniscience, and omnipotence.
May GOD have mercy on your poor miserable soul, dear Bob whom I love,
in His Son Jesus' most precious and holy name for you truly do not have
a clue about what you are doing. Amen.
Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:
http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
In Christ's love always,
Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
.
User: "Orbe"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) - Proof of GOD 01 Dec 2005 04:38:34 PM
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
<snip>

In your opinion as a cook. You may be a credit to the culinary arts but
here you are out of your element. Would suggest you turn back and
before the LORD utterly annihilates you through His faithful servant.

Now how does that song go...Onward Christian lawyers much off to court....
<Snip>
.
User: "jmcquown"

Title: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05) - Proof of GOD 01 Dec 2005 05:28:26 PM
Orbe wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

<snip>

In your opinion as a cook. You may be a credit to the culinary arts
but here you are out of your element. Would suggest you turn back
and before the LORD utterly annihilates you through His faithful
servant.


Now how does that song go...Onward Christian lawyers much off to
court.... <Snip>

[Snipped the ng I particpate in]
PLEASE stop cross posting this crap to a newsgroup that has nothing to do
with religion and medical stuff. We couldn't care less about your religious
beliefs or your alleged "medical" information.
.


User: "Bob this one"

Title: evolution alive and well... 02 Dec 2005 03:49:23 AM
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.


This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.


This is not a game for me.


The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.


It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully just as it has been
your choice to do otherwise.


<LOL>


Those without the LORD can only despair.

<LOL> The Chung mantra when he's laughed at. Somehow finding his
bloviation funny is to have despair. According to him.

Chung calls the pot black...


In truth, name calling is not my style.

No one said anything about namecalling but you. The idiom above is
obvious enough. For an honest person.

"Chance" as
Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.


Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.


Sure. In precis, it's what I said.


In truth, it was not what you had written.


Unfortunate that English isn't your first language.


In truth, there is no such thing as either unfortunate or fortunate.

Yadda, yadda... You're going to prove that with your ridiculous quote
from below, right? About *everything* being controlled by God all the
time, everywhere...? And that fanciful hyperbole is "proof" to you?
Sure. Scientific method according to Chung.

Obvious from your
inability to use it and understand it correctly.


If that were true, there would be no explanation for your struggles
except the work of LORD Almighty GOD.

Oh, poor Chung, more of your "magical thinking" where you think you have
more influence than you do. Think of yourself as a fat target, easy to
hit from any distance, slow-moving, slow-thinking and juicy enough to
splatter your verbal drool all over the landscape. This is figurative
language. So you don't get all worked up trying to deal with it one word
at a time.

From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)


Main Entry: chance
Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
relax>
3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
already gone>
5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
- chance adjective
- by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>

The fact is
that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."


"Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
**nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
called 'individuation'.


I note your highlighted word.


It took you long enough.

Nah. Got it immediately. And dismissed your empty - linguistic, not
scientific - objection in about the same amount of time.

It's the word chosen by some anonymous
writer for Wikipedia.


Actually, the highlighting is by me.

Moron, I made reference to the word, not the highlighting. The choice of
using that word. See if you can keep up here. The obvious and clear are
escaping you again.

But do note that the next sentence clarifies the
meaning of the process and some of the mechanisms that could be at work.


Nondeterministic is not a process.

Non sequitur. Actually a fine example of Chung's avoidance-reply tactic.
Of course no aspect of determinism is a process. That wasn't the
reference, as you certainly know. "Process" refers to evolution itself -
so you shouldn't strain trying to comprehend English.

Obviously, it's not nondeterministic, it only appears to be.


Nondeterministic is precisely defined below.

Well, in one inappropriate context it is. But that's not the crux of
either the theory (except in your straw-man mind) or the actuality of
evolution. Finally, an irrelevance. A red herring like your citation of
*one* source of what an omer is, in the face of more technical explanations.

But that's
a matter of appearance, not reality.


Not for those who are able to discern the truth.

No supporting data to prove that capacity. Merely the same old bogus
claim from a charlatan.

You seem unable to distinguish or
"discern" the two properly.


You often remind me of the blind man who would comment on the vision of
the seeing. Just as it is too easy for the seeing to discredit such a
blind man, it has been easy for me to discredit you to GOD's glory.
Such is the fate of the faithless who will be forever without GOD. In
truth, the faithless will never stand.

Yeah, yeah. In the meantime, here you go with the ad hominem instead of
dealing with the material presented. Cast aspersions, evade the issue
you can't answer and change the subject. Who the hell cares what
anything reminds you of? Deal with the information instead of running
away with your tail between your legs, spouting denigrating insult over
your fleeing shoulder. More figurative speech, to help you out.
I hope for your sake that you don't really believe that a biblical quote
and a disputed definition of one word from an online, non-technical web
site constitutes any sort of "discredit" in a discussion about science.

Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
from their parents."


Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
with **emphasis** added.

Definition of nondeterministic...
nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
step in a computation.
Source:
http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html


"From Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, page 24-19,
Copyright © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. Appearing in the Dictionary of
Computer Science, Engineering and Technology, Copyright © 2000 CRC Press
LLC."

It's a different usage than would be the case in biology.


In your opinion as a cook.

***** you and your smarmy ad hominem nastiness. The fact is that I have
more than enough scientific background to push you off the debate field,
as I have in so many other encounters. The fact that you've abandoned
any claim to being a scientist by using a quotation from the bible to
try to debunk empirical data makes it much easier to just watch your
feeble rationalizations crash and burn for the spurious claptrap they are.

You may be a credit to the culinary arts but

I am. Won awards and pleased hundreds of thousands of people.

here you are out of your element.

It appears that I'm so out of my element (sarcasm, should it have loped
past you) that you're utterly stymied for an answer to my points that
you have to try to diminish me and... (keep up here)...

Would suggest you turn back and
before the LORD utterly annihilates you through His faithful servant.

....then threaten me. Andrew, make no mistake about this. You have no
such power. And if that threat contains any implication of physical
harm, be very careful. Be very, very careful. You truly don't know who I
am. Be very careful...
I daresay that if the lord wanted me annihilated, your puny, insane
efforts wouldn't be necessary. The shortest distance between two points
isn't a curving tunnel as your words and actions seem to indicate.

Yes, and...?


See below.


Below where you use a quotation from the bible as "evidence" in a
discussion about science? And I also note that there are many
definitions of "nondeterministic" for different applications. It's a
very specific word in philosophical, mathematical, robotic and other
tight-subject worlds.

Try this: "Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every
event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by
an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No mysterious miracles or wholly
random events occur. If there has been even one indeterministic event
since the beginning of time, then determinism is false."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterminism>


The theory of evolution was not a philosophical proposition so the
mathematically precise definition of **nondeterministic** will remain
the appropriate one to use.

<LOL> Determinism is a *philosophical* concept being applied outside its
original field. Using it in a biological context has very specific
implications which you're either trying to skate around or you simply
don't get. Likely both.

So clearly, the attempt to explain the mechanism behind the facts of
evolving life was flawed.


More seriously, the theory itself is founded on the untrue premise that
traits are passed on from parent to offspring in a **nondeterministic**
fashion.

Words, words, words... How sadly incompetent you are with debate when
you have to try to debunk a very complex series of processes by seizing
on one word that isn't actually a defining characteristic of the notion
now that it's been more deeply investigated and explicated by real
scientists (by comparison to you).
Clutching at one one word to try to make an argument is an extremely
shabby and weak tactic and seems to be all you have in this discussion.
Well, that and a quotation from the bible. Lousy "science" from a lousy
"scientist."

But the fact of the evolution remains despite
an incomplete understanding that Darwin had of the processes.


Without the truth, there can be no facts. Indeed, science at its
very core is the search for the truth. For this reason, no theory is
ever called a fact by a scientist.

This deliberate obtuseness is no credit to you. "No theory is ever
called a fact..." you say. Well, duh. It's clearly not what I referred
to. I talked about the fact of evolution, not the words used to describe
it. The map isn't the territory - you seem not to grasp that simple concept.

You remind me of a cook pretending to be a scientist... this should
not be surprising for folks who are in the know because you ARE a cook
pretending to be a scientist. What do you hope to gain from painting
yourself as the absolute eternal fool for all to see?

Chung, your desperate shabbiness asserts itself here, again. I'm a
well-read, extremely well-travelled university graduate with a dual
major and a dual minor and an extensively published writer. It's a
signal of your desperation that you try to denigrate me by referring to
*one* of the functions I performed in the past in my own businesses. As
tough it's something I should be ashamed of or that it precludes being
educated. You're neglecting to mention the additional facts beyond that
I was a cook (actually executive chef, restaurant owner, consultant,
food writer, with two country clubs and a major resort operation0, and
radio and television broadcaster [three programs this week]. And that
was after being a magazine editor, copywriter, program administrator and
corporate marketing manager with international responsibilities.
And all that professional experience is why I say you lie about a
restaurant in Atlanta that serves lobster and shrimp for around $5.
Because I have one more professional knowledge base that you lack.
But the only germane fact is that you've offered nothing except a
biblical quote and a desperate focus on one word in a definition written
on a non-technical web site as your entire rebuttal to a clearly
established body of empirical information. You offer whimsy and verbal
critique instead of any science. Look who's pretending, Chung.

There is no one who can make you look like a bigger fool than what
you have done to yourself except the LORD. And, indeed this is the
LORD's doing to drive you to what you have done. Your being made the
biggest fool in the entire universe for all to see for the rest of
eternity thanks to the Google archives is actually irrefutable proof of
the LORD Almighty GOD's existence, His omniscience, and omnipotence.

Utter non sequitur. Fraught with all the urgent madness that the
panicked Chung can muster, given the absolute failure to counter the
reality of demonstrable evolution.

May GOD have mercy on your poor miserable soul, dear Bob whom I love,
in His Son Jesus' most precious and holy name for you truly do not have
a clue about what you are doing. Amen.

And yet, you seem unable to provide anything except a bronze-age
religious quote and a criticism of a single word from an online,
anybody-can-write-anything dictionary - Wikipedia. Very weak show, Chung.
And even more weak with threats and ad hominem diversions. You have
relinquished any right to call yourself a scientist if this is the best
you can do. Your descent to calling down the wrath of your twisted view
of God is still more sign of your mental deterioration.
Evolution - as concept and as fact - persists and continues despite your
flabby attempts to assail it.
Pastorio
.

User: "Uncle Vic"