Was Darwin right or wrong?
Posted by truthtalklive on May 19, 2008
Today’s show is a best of so please do not call in.
Today’s guest is Bob Griffin & his son Garrett discussing evolution and how to doubt Darwin using his own theory. You can contact them through his email at inference@triad.rr.com.
You can listen to the show online after the show at www.wtru.com
unBiblical titles said
Well, since the show will be postponed, let me start off with the negative remarks:
Where in the Bible does it say to give an elders wife a secular title such as “1st Lady”?
What if the local church is governed by a plurality of elders? Would that be 1st, 2nd, 3rd lady?
Don’t the deacon’s wives feel left out of this title giving?
I wonder why paul never was referred to as “Doctor Paul the apostle”? Being a Jew of Jews, a Rabbi, and obviously learned in at least 3 languages….yet never did he take on a title of Pastor Paul, Dr. Paul, Bishop Paul, etc.
Seems like the modern church has become nothing more than a business with a President(pastor), vice President(co-pastor), members of congress(deacons) and the wife of the President(1st lady).
Lets not forget the problem that comes when the President(pastor) is a woman
Would that be “First gentleman) for the husband of the woman-pastor? 
some guy said
unbib title–what does your post have to do with Darwin? It’s nice that you make comment about titles in the church; what about first foot washer?
Would you sign up for that? Jesus did
anyways, church govt. should never look like the world because it [the world] functions much like darwins theory–survival of the fittest or fattest!
Yes, unfortunately some churches function more like business because they cant function like a hospital, because they don’t know how to love or serve sensibly. Only in a way that sees their bottom line @ the top. This is somehow called–vision.
unBiblical titles said
my mistake. when I started typing the above post, the title was dealing with 1st ladies.
So, I’ll save my comments concerning “1st ladies” till that show is on.
“Was Darwin right or wrong?” – He was dead wrong!
some guy said
that show may never happen; care to elaborate on how Darwin was wrong for the skeptics out there. No need to get ultra scientific on us–cuz I ain’t
Like other prominent skeptics of evolution, I too honestly believe that it is in fact a faith that our public schools preach on a daily basis. Why can’t this be called church? I guess because music is not allowed.
any pro-darwinists out there–bring it!
zerxil said
FLA, what about them lions? Look at Jan. Darwinism vs ID, but Darwin was an IDer. How is Fred stifling debate in the classroom? Some guy has been stifled…*smile*
“by David Catchpoole
Earlier this century, A female African lion, born and raised in America, lived her entire lifetime of nine years without ever eating meat.1 In fact, her owners, Georges and Margaret Westbeau,2 alarmed by scientists’ reports that carnivorous animals cannot live without meat, went to great lengths to try to coax their unusual pet (‘Little Tyke’) to develop a taste for it. They even advertised a cash reward for anyone who could devise a meat-containing formula that the lioness would like. The curator of a New York zoo advised the Westbeaus that putting a few drops of blood in Little Tyke’s milk bottle would help in weaning her, but the lioness cub refused to touch it — even when only a single drop of blood had been added.
The more knowledgeable animal experts among the many visitors to the Westbeaus’ 100 acre (40 hectare) ranch also proffered advice, but nothing worked. Meanwhile, Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk. By four years of age she was fully grown and weighed 352 pounds (160 kg).
As Georges Westbeau writes, it was ‘a young visitor’ to Hidden Valley ranch who finally put his mind at ease in response to the question of how Little Tyke could be persuaded to eat meat (thought to be essential for carnivores to survive):
Lion (not ‘Little Tyke’)‘He turned to look at me with serious eyes, then asked, “Don’t you read your Bible?” I admitted I didn’t read it as much as I probably should. He continued, “Read Genesis 1:30, and you will get your answer.” At my first opportunity I got my Bible and turned to the passage he had indicated. To my astonishment, I read these words: “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”’
The owners of Little Tyke, though apparently not Christians, were so reassured by this that they no longer worried about her refusal to eat meat, and turned their attention instead to refining her ‘vegetarian’3 diet further, learning of new grains to add to the lioness’s food. These numerous grains were ground and stirred together while in the dry state, then cooked and mixed with the milk and eggs. The lioness was fed this mixture each morning and evening, and sometimes at midday as well. (To condition her teeth and gums — as she steadfastly refused all offers of bones to gnaw — Little Tyke was given heavy rubber boots to chew on, which generally lasted about three weeks.) The lioness not only survived on this diet, she thrived. One of America’s ‘most able zoo curators’ apparently said that the lioness ‘was the best of her species he had ever viewed.’
As well as Little Tyke, the Westbeaus cared for a menagerie of other animals at their ranch. A large number of the many visitors to Hidden Valley were motivated by the prospect of seeing ‘the lion that lives with the lamb’ — a situation similar to the prophecies of Isaiah 11:6. The sight of the lioness living placidly alongside sheep, cattle, and peafowl made a profound impression on many visitors. Television footage4 and newspaper photos of Little Tyke also moved many people, such as one who wrote, ‘Nothing has made me happier than your picture of the lion and the lamb. It has helped me believe in the Bible.’
In the light of Little Tyke’s situation, along with anecdotes of other carnivorous animals surviving on vegetarian diets,5 it is certainly easier to relate to the Genesis account of animals living solely on plants before Adam’s Fall.6
Mr Westbeau’s observation of the lioness that ‘To condition her stomach she would spend an hour at a time eating the succulent tall grass in the fields’, is also a vivid reminder of the prophecies of Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25, ‘… the lion will eat straw like the ox.’
References and notes
1.
Westbeau, G., Little Tyke: the story of a gentle vegetarian lioness, Theosophical Publishing House, IL, USA, 1986. (Information is drawn from pp. 3–6, 17, 32–35, 59–60, 113–114.)
2.
The lioness had been given to the Westbeaus as a badly mauled one-day-old cub, by the zoo where her mother was kept. The mother had killed all cubs from her four earlier pregnancies immediately after birth. This time though, anxious zoo attendants were standing by, ready to scramble to rescue the offspring at the moment of delivery. With ‘Little Tyke’ they succeeded — but not before the mother’s quick and powerful jaws had injured the cub’s right front leg.
3.
Many people would include eggs in ‘vegetarian’ diets today, if unfertilised, as no killing of animals is involved. Though it seems unlikely that eggs (or milk for adult animals) were part of the pre-Fall diet, the point to note here is that lions do not need meat to survive. Many plants are now extinct; it is highly likely that there were very rich protein sources in the pre-Fall / pre-Flood plant kingdom.
4.
Sadly, while in Hollywood for filming of a nation-wide television broadcast, Little Tyke contracted pneumonia, and she died a few weeks later.
5.
While living in Indonesia in the 1980s, several families told me that they never fed meat to their pet dogs — though it is possible that bones might have been present in the scraps fed to them. Other reports suggest that this is a widespread phenomenon in that country.
6.
The Bible does not give us details of how the change from plant-eating to meat-eating has occurred after the Fall; one possibility is by divine ‘redesign’. Hence, even if lions today did need meat to survive, it would not invalidate Genesis. See Answers in Genesis’ The Answers Book for a fuller discussion. ”
by the way this story has been checked for accuracy.
kimbatigger said
I am disappointed in the way Tracy’s call was handled. Instead of a discussion of creationism vs evolution, Tracy’s comments were talked over and his opinion ridiculed. For those of us who are seekers of the truth, a presentation of both sides with an intelligent discussion would have been more thought provoking.
What if we are all a “work in progress” and you are seeing the transitional form right now?
zerxil said
um, We are a transitional form. From sinner to saint.
John said
Zerxil, where did you get such an……”odd” story of information in your post #5? Perhaps the lions mother had killed all of the rest of her offspring because she knew that there was something terribly wrong with them[grin].Wild animals do that sometimes for the betterment of their species.
Some Guy, welcome back. Are you SURE that you want me[knowledgeable pro-Darwinists]to bring it?
I can’t believe that we’re debating this same topic YET AGAIN[sigh....].Did everyone reading here already read the original site by this same name waaaay back in February 21st of this year? It had 525 posts, and just about EVERYTHING concerning this subject was covered.If you didn’t read it go and check it out and THEN come back[or...just stay there] with your questions and comments.
John said
The lion may lay with the lamb, but only the lion will get a good nights sleep.[snicker,snicker]
some guy said
As for Little Tyke, I have no issue about an isolated cub like this one; I have seen snakes with alligators inside their abdomen before. Freak things can happen in this world. Our discussion is of a wider scope. Your thought that evolution has some part to play in the diets of animals cannot be substantiated outside of singular instances; where is the pattern. You need more examples. Even if there is some shred of evidence to support this; there still remains today, no testimonial evidence of a transition b/w species. Your running out of time folks; apparently trillions of years has not been enough time to surface the evidence. How much longer should we wait?
In regards to your bible analysis, please pay careful attention to the earth setting in chapter 1; it is awesome and perfect and yes a vegans paradise. But as we read on, the drama unfolds. Within chapter 3, things really begin to change; animals begin to shed blood (vs.21). Soon thereafter, death becomes the sentence for all the world, except for Noah and his boat. If you read carefully in chapter 9:3, the first steak’n’shake is permitted by God. Evolution is not the reason; if so, God is the author, not time and chance. In regards to prophecy, make sure to note that in Revelation 19, many birds will be feeding on flesh before the return to normal living conditions mentioned earlier.
John–how knowledeable are you? Answer these questions as briefly as you can please: 1) Where did we come from. 2) What went wrong or (why do deleterious things happen). 3) what will correct it?
John said
You should get an reasonable idea of how knowledgeable I am on this topic by reading the original site of this topic.Or others concerning related topics.Remember my questions for you back on the “Does Oboma’s Paster Speak for the Black Church?” in my post#25? You never met me on the original site or answered my questions about the Anthropic Principle that you brought up.Perhaps you should go back and reread it?
It is difficult for me to answer your three questions because you have left too much for me to assume before trying to answer them.
For example, in question #1, when you use the word “we”, are you thinking of humanity, or something more? Just an example.I tend to nit-pick over little details like that[smile].I’m going to go for the night, but I’ll be back eventually.My associate and friend the F. L. A. my feel obligated to jump in and debate with you some in my absence, just pretend that it’s a creepier version of me.
Goodnight.
ADB said
Once again a parade of folks who know not the first thing about the ordinary rules of Biblical interpretation.
Zerxil said
1) we came from our parents. 2)thats the way the world works.
3) starting over (only a temp fix see “Noahs flood”)
Zerxil said
ansers in genises
Maz said
I am surprised that this topic of conversation is back seeing as we almost completely thrashed it back in February…I for one pulled out as it was obvious the evolutionists could not accept the creationists view seriously, saying that we were unscientific. I was willing to bring scientific evidence forward but evolutionistic bias was rampant.
As someone said before, evolution is as much about faith as any religion.
And #10 was right, we’ve had plenty of time to find the evidence sufficient to prove Darwinism…….and we are still waiting! And not your bone here and a tooth there…there should be fossils everywhere….millions of them to cover the millions of years they supposedly lived and died on earth!
Maz said
John: You deffinitely add flavour to these blogs. I like your humour. (-:
F. L. A. said
We covered that on the original site, Maz, but the theistic biasness of the Young Earth Creationists seemed to prohibit them from understanding and accepting.Anything and everything.You should not have pulled out so quickly.
Please feel free to bring your scientific evidences forward.
Maz said
F.L.A: I felt it was the right time to pull out last time,and I do like to take a break from the madness sometimes!:-)
We are probably going to cover a lot of things that we discussed in the original site. So I am not going into depth with some of it.
My main evidences for Creation and therefore Design by a Designer is:-
1. The testimony of DNA.
2. Entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
3. The fossil record.
Starting with the third option, this was one problem that even Darwin agreed didn’t go well for evolution because there wasn’t any fossil evidence to prove we evolved from lower to higher animals i.e: transitional forms.
Number 2 also doesn’t go well for evolution because we are talking about order into chaos and not chaos into order and design as evolutionary theory proposes.
Ofcourse this brought up the question of whether we were in an open or closed system which might change things.
Number 1. Of all of the above I really believe DNA proves that at the least we are dealing with an intelligence in the Universe, because as amazing as cells are on their own, DNA actually contains information which has to have it’s origin in an Intelligent Source. Namely God.
Well, that’s a start!
some guy said
great job maz! Again I pose the same 3 questions as earlier posted, but with clarification to hopefully eliminate cute answers:
1. Where did homo sapiens come from?
2. What caused our created world to go from ideal to horrific?
3. How do we correct the problem with ourselves?
The obvious answers cannot be addressed by natural selection only supernatural selection.
“To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. ‘Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.” –Isaac Newton
Fred said
Science doesn’t teach us what you fundamentalists say that it does.
Do you lack the humility to admit that?
Alex said
Darwin is at the very least partially right. We see evolution happen on a small scale with things such as viruses. We don’t see evolution on a large scale, like a origin of all species. the reason ID is scoffed at in our society is that there is zero scientific evidence supporting. At least with evolution we can see it happen in nature.
The Bible shouldn’t be your handbook on how to explain natural phenomenon. We know a lot more now than we did then.
P.S. Darwin never claimed to be completely right. He was just posing a theory that seems to work at some level. If he thought he was completely right he wouldn’t have written chapters in his book on DOUBT…
Mike S. said
So Fred
Who is your question posed to? Fundamentalist Evolutionists, Fundamentalist Scientists, Fundamentalist Atheists? You know they “Fundamentalists” exist in all categories. Fundamentalism is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what the fundamental is.
My question is rhetorical. I know who you are referring to. And I resemble that remark!
Maz said
Some Guy: Great and wise words by Isaac Newton.
Fred: It all depends what science you are talking about. The evolutionists interpretation or the Creationists? We all interpret science differently according to what glasses we are wearing. I believe my glasses reveal the truth. But in any case most evidence speaks for itself. In other words, if there isn’t any, then that proves a theory false. Evolution seems to fall into that category.
I agree with Mike, there are fundamentals in all areas of religion and philosophy. I would call myself a fundamentalist because I believe in the fundamental truths of Gods Word.
Fred: If I had anything to admit, I would, in all humility. Would you humbly admit that science doesn’t prove evolution?
Alex: Could you explain the evolution that is happening ”on a small scale with things such as viruses”.
By the way, has anyone noticed (if they read the book) that Darwin never really gave the origin of the species in his book ”The Origin of the Species”?
zerxil said
Fred, what do fundamentalists say it teaches & what are fundamentalists?
” We don’t see evolution on a large scale, like a origin of all species.”
because there isn’t any evidence?
“The Bible shouldn’t be your handbook on how to explain natural phenomenon. We know a lot more now than we did then.”
Thats what the ancient Greeks thought too. Um it doesn’t explain anything. It’s more history than science.
Science doesn’t explain stuff either, it is a ridged test of hypothesis, & history of hypothesis that have “made it” to the therie and law stages.
um, there is a book that has ID in it that is older than almost any other books, it hasn’t been dis-proved. Therefor any theories that come after it need to be proved more then this one. I have, I think, proven that rock ages don’t matter when comparing with the bible (even literally). evolution explains alot about the animals from the beginning to the flood. specifically carnivores & how Noah was able to put all the animals into the arc. How much room in the arc would it have taken to put alot of seeds in? The Bible states there where dinosaur like creatures during Job’s time. The Bible has been proven to be Historically accurate numerous times.
some guy said
Alex writes: “The Bible shouldn’t be your handbook on how to explain natural phenomenon. We know a lot more now than we did then.”
Well then, what shall we use to explain natural events–chronicles from the HMS Beagle, or better yet, how about the weather channel–yeah, they have it right, b/c they make the weather right? No, they are just observers…and so was Darwin. His grandiose mistake, just like anyone who believes like him, is that observation isn’t enough; we have to fill the void somehow..and voila–darwinism. A faith of sort that articulates time and chance as supreme ruler and judge of creation.
Could the anthropic principle be considered a scientific observation presupposing a more than chance origin of the universe? If not by chance, perhaps, a purposeful design from a designer, one whom we are all subservient to?
zerxil said
1. Where did homo sapiens come from? God, lightning struck mud, or both
2. What caused our created world to go from ideal to horrific?”
Is it horrific? Than thats “mans’” fault, anyway you slice it.
3. How do we correct the problem with ourselves?
you only have one? slowly & with help.
some guy said
thanks Dr. Phil
zerxil said
some guy just killed Shrouders Cat… you spell it right.
Fred said
Science doubts. Religion is certain. There is no humility in the fundamentalist (young earth creationist) refuting the sciences with a blithe recitation of some answersingenesis pseudo-science.
Jeff42 said
Fred,
Thanks for the chuckle with the pot/kettle comment on humility! I sure don’t see much humility coming from atheistic scientists these days either.
“Science doubts.”
Maybe so, but I don’t hear much doubt or humility as they belittle the idea of a Creator.
Thanks for the laugh!
zerxil said
So, I & all other literal bible believing Christians have no humility? And you know this from my almost anon. posts on a site that states they want me to post them. Almost everyone has some humility. You Fred, for instance, may have some yourself.
some guy
I resemble that remark… gotta go home be back in a few hours.
John said
…[Should I even waste my time, again?]…..
Did you read through the whole original site Some Guy? It does not seem so, for some of the answers that you seek are already recorded there for posterity.Ferox said it well in post#17.
I may be wrong, but I believe that I have debated with people of your mindset on numerous sites concerning this issue, and you’re all the same, basically.You request information that when supplied you will never accept, and ask questions that when answered you will never believe the answers to, not in a million years.People like you always seem to ask the same questions over and over and over……….And if you’re a Young Earth Creationist, then you have adopted a theological view in which the rules of real natural sciences and history as we know them do not and can never apply.Real natural sciences and history are not suitable to support or co-exist with the spiritual needs of the Young Earth Creationist, so they, with the help of people like Ken Ham, create their own custom made versions of pseudo sciences to fit their theological needs.It’s not ignorance.It’s “refined” ignorance.
So….that said, I do not really believe that you actually want factual answers or hard scientific and historical evidences that would go against your theological beliefs.Or do you? And if so then what for, then, if you have already made up your mind not to believe any of it? To test you’re powers of debate? To try and build up yourself of your faith in some way? Because you may have a fantasy of making a wise evolutionists look “beaten” in some fashion? Good luck with that.
Perhaps I will answer your questions if one is asked that was not already covered within the original site, unless it’s just my Pagan, heretical, opinion on something in particular that you want[but how valuable could THAT really be to you? I don't know.].
If not then perhaps I’ll take a little break from this and just watch the show.
Thankyou Maz.I enjoy reading your posts too.I always did[toothy grin].
Alex and Fred, should you decide to continue posting,good luck, and do TRY to not take things so seriously and still have a little fun.
Goodnight[for now].
ncguy said
Darwin was right about a lot of things and wrong about others. Science has tested and refined his theories well beyond what Darwin could have imagined 150 years ago. Modern evolutionary theory is one of the most well-tested theories with an incredible amount of evidence. It is on par with gravitational theory and germ theory, maybe even more solid, but you don’t hear about folks being up in arms about those theories
Evolution is real. It just is. There is no denying it unless you just decide not to look at the evidence. It is right there for everyone to see. Study it for yourselves. The basics are not complex, but few folks criticizing the science even understand it. Why? My guess is that they have decided not to understand it. I don’t know.
And you don’t have to give up your faith. It should strengthen it and allow you to embrace the fact that we are all part of a deeply connected creation.
Take care, y’all.
Anonymous said
“Maybe so, but I don’t hear much doubt or humility as they belittle the idea of a Creator.”
The reason scientists belittle the idea of a creator is that we’ve seen no proof of one in nature. Sure, the universe and all in it could be explained by a creator, we’ve just not seen anything to point to that; unless you take the word of people that lived thousands of years ago to be complete fact. I mean, they could be right. They could be telling the truth and the bible could be the inspired word of God. BUT thats making a lot of assumptions most scientists aren’t ready to make.
Alex said
^ That was me.
I’m a Christian and an Atheist. I try to rationalize everything I do. At this point, I find that I can’t prove or disprove God. I believe Jesus preached unconditional love so beautifully reached the whole world and (metaphorically) shook it to its core. I take his teaching on God with a big “if.”
I’m taking 10 cool points away from the first 20 people who say I’m not a Christian.
some guy said
John wrote: So….that said, I do not really believe that you actually want factual answers or hard scientific and historical evidences that would go against your theological beliefs.Or do you? And if so then what for, then, if you have already made up your mind not to believe any of it? To test you’re powers of debate? To try and build up yourself of your faith in some way? Because you may have a fantasy of making a wise evolutionists look “beaten” in some fashion? Good luck with that.
If you recall, I began my posting with the herald “bring it”, so please allow me to repeat myself–I’m still waiting! And by the way ncguy, your response of “Evolution is real. It just is.” is classic. Why is the sky blue? I dunno, it just is
Come on folks where is the science! Sounds more like religion to me.
John, I am not personally fantasizing about anything, except to tear down secular philosophies that exalt themselves against the supremacy of Christ. I have found the truth and it has undoubtedly set me free indeed. God is no respecter of persons, and He will entertain the most pagan,heretical,humanistic mind and show himself real if one is open minded.
Tripp said
Alex – My impression is that you’re another atheist just trying to stir up the pot and not a Christian at all. A Christian doesn’t have the word “if” in his or her vocabulary.
Maz said
John: A lot of what you said in your post #32 could aptly be applied to evolutionists who I have found will not accept any answers we give either and for similar reasons. Honestly John, I find evolutionists highly ignorant and decidedly rigid with their world view. They will not listen to any Creationists interpretation of science because they have decided if it’s Creationist it can’t be scientific. As Some Guy has said, evolutionists in the main have already made up their mind not to believe anything we bring onto this site as science. To them the Bible and science are not compatible. But they are wrong.
This is what I found on the original site. (And you can’t expect anyone to read all over 500 posts on there). It didn’t matter what science we brought forward it was not accepted as science from the Old Earthers because we are ‘religious’ and believe in something they have categorically rejected.
Evolutionists just will not admit that Evolution is still a theory which has not been proved by science, infact it is another faith, but built on sand not rock.
some guy said
yeah Al, you appear most confused with your supposed identity. You may want to consult Dr. Phil on post#26 for guidance.
Christianity is the greatest intellectual system the mind of man has ever touched.
–Francis Schaeffer
Maz said
Alex: Can you explain how you can be a Christian AND an athiest?
Maz said
Alex: (Under Anon) You said, ”The reason scientists belittle the idea of a creator is that we have seen no proof of one in nature”.
Have you read Romans lately? Ch 1 v 20 states ”For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” If you can’t see the beauty and majesty of a Creators work out there in the world and up in the Heavens then either you are wearing the wrong glasses or you need to go to Spec Savers. I don’t mean to be sarc.(not really) but I can’t understand why people cannot look out at what is right infront of them in this world and not see the handywork of a Supreme Architect and Creator.
A friend of mine and I were just talking this morning about the intricate and beautiful detail put into the tiniest flower. The vivid colours found in nature are far better than any man can make. I can only presume that people who don’t see all this must have their eyes closed.
Maz said
Alex: You still havn’t answered my question about evolution on a small scale…such as viruses, asked on #23.
Some Thing said
“Perhaps I will answer your questions if one is asked that was not already covered within the original site…”-John
“Bring it”, indeed.Try again, Some Guy[huge sharotoothed grin].
Maz, why can’t you read all of those posts on the original site?How long could it possibaly take?
Good day.
F. L. A.
Maz said
F.L.A: Because I’v read them all before and it would be more relevant to aleast touch on what we are discussing at the moment. I am not prepared to go into anything at length as we have covered all this before but going through all those posts again would be tedious.
One does wonder why we are going over old ground with the same subject anyway.
some guy said
I find it interesting that the ones who advocate for darwin are telling others to go back to some point of origin for context. Why can’t we just go with the flow on this thread and see what evolves, which would be more in line with Chuck and the good ship lollipop!
zerxil said
23 yes he did, Darwin said it was created…
Alex said
@ post 23.
We do see evolution on a small scale. It is proven that viruses change thier makeup and become more deadly and more resistant to drugs and such. Thats the microevolution that we do see. What we don’t see is macroevolution which is an origin of all life.
“My impression is that you’re another atheist just trying to stir up the pot and not a Christian at all. A Christian doesn’t have the word “if” in his or her vocabulary.”
A Christian doesn’t have “if” in his vocabulary? Why not. Would I have to blindly accept the Bible as complete fact while ignoring all outside information in order to be a Christian? I think not. Also, I’m not going to go all in on something I can’t sense. I’m not going to trust people (i.e. people who wrote the scriptures) because people aren’t perfect. The could be lying or crazy or trying to manipulate me. If what they say is true, its a good belief system and a good way to live your life.
Alex said
@Maz’s post 41.
If the universe and everything in it is the brainchild of a creator, I’d just like some proof that he did it. So would everyone else. Most people, including myself aren’t prepared to stop and say, “Yeah, case closed, God did it.” Just because something is complex beyond our understanding doesn’t mean a God created it.
Maz said
Alex: If evolution is happening atall on the microscopic level it would be happening in the macro too, but it isn’t doing either. You may be talking about mutation, which is different.
And being a Christian means you have to believe God is, and that He sent His Son to die for your sins, that He rose again from the dead, and that He is the ascended Lord. Being a Christian means having Christ living in you by the Spirit? Does He live in you?
Do you put an ‘if’ to any of these?
Do you not believe the scriptures are inspired by God then? That the writers wrote as they ”were moved by the Holy Spirit?” The Spirit of God cannot lie Alex. And you have to learn to trust some people sometime if not everyone all the time.
Maz said
Alex: ”I’d just like some proof that he did it. So would everyone else.” That is not true.
I don’t need the proof, I believe by faith that He did do it, His Word tells me He did it and I trust in His Word. There are thousands of Christians that would probably say the same. Which begs the question, why, as a Christian, are you still wanting proof?
If you are one then God made you a new creation when you accepted Him as Savior (????)…….you can’t evolve as a Christian.
Again you are making sweeping staements that you cannot possibly verify…”most people”…maybe it is just most people that you know. But how many people do you know?
A dozen? A hundred? A thousand?
If something like DNA contains information which comes from an intelligence, ask yourself, where does that intelligence come from?
Tripp said
alex is a true study in contradictions
Mike S. said
Alex
It’s a good thing that you hold such a high view of what Jesus taught. Have you ever considered His teachings on Scripture (of course He was referring to the Old Testament). Have you ever considered His teachings about who He is? Who He claimed to be? If He was truly the great teacher about love as you claim, then do you think it would make sense to consider His teachings on these things as well?
Gretaer love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
zerxil said
Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other. So is magnetism gravity?
zerxil said
“Holmes: That is a big question; but we can look at it by grouping emergent diseases. First, there are those that are “normal” new viruses. Because they are new we don’t know what they are. Over the last few years, we have had a few of these that seemed to come from nowhere—the two most famous would be HIV and SARS. Although HIV is in monkeys and the SARS relative is in various animals, this particular virus was completely new. So there are those that are completely novel; it is difficult to predict what those are going to be.”
I thought HIV was an STD
F. L. A. said
Sometimes it is, Zerxil.
Some Guy, people like me and John recommend going back to the original site because of 2 main reasons, which are 1.Laziness. 2.Almost everything that is needed to answer any question that you may have is already at your disposal.You don’t need to go through this with us here.Were you calling John humanistic[as in the context of him being a humanist Pagan]at the end of your post#36? Also you insist that you want evolutionists to “bring it”, but We need to know for sure, are you a Young Earth Creationist Christian? Because if in fact you ARE then there would be no point in even bothering. We would provide you with all of this valid excellent information, and, failing to recognize how beaten you are in this debate due to your unshakable faith that you are right, you would simply ignore or denounce the evidence as grounded in mere speculation and half baked theories promoted by secular atheistic/humanist systems trying to indoctrinate todays youth in the school system….blah,blah,blah,[enter conspiracy theories]etc.etc. And yet still keep asking for evidence.We’ve dealt with your kind before. Whether your name is Monkey Man, Educated Dawg, Kenneth J., Maz Herman, Brad, Some Guy or any other name, you are all so much alike…This is what John was getting at within his post #32, and why he grew bored with the prospect of playing this endless game yet again[unless you came up with any new questions, perhaps].Also, if you are in fact a Young Earth Creationist Christian, then consider this problem that you leave us with.You have adopted a theological view that promotes the idea of a universe and Earth that is sooooo young that it’s actually TOO YOUNG to have produced the very evidence that you request we evolutionists provide you with as proof that you are mistaken in your views.And with the help of your theistic-based,custom-made versions of “science”, you’ve done it so well, that you’ve created a…perfect protective bubble of ignorance for yourselves, that ONLY allows information from or related to your OWN view to enter.
So bearing this in mind, what it it exactly that you want/expect us to bring when you tell us to “bring it!”? This is why John mused over what your motivations might be in post#32.
I am off to hunt for some dinner now, but John will be in in a few hours, or I’ll be back by then.Either way we are most interested in you responses to our questions.Perhaps someone like YOU could actually “Bring it!” for a change, and we could work with that.We have much literature on Young Earth theory and Intelligent Design/Creationism, including works by Ken Ham, along with many versions of the Christian Bible,so it’s not as if we couldn’t use your own sources to debate you with.
T.T.F.N.
Maz said
F.L.A: You said ”…you would simply ignore or denounce the evidence as grounded in mere speculaion and half baked theories promoted by secular/atheistic/humanist systems trying to indoctrinate todays youth in the school system…blah,blah,blah..”
Because it is, and they do.
Funny, but you and other evolutionist/atheisic/humanists say exactly the same thing about our evidence.
So I wonder if it’s worth going over the same ground myself.
I think the expession ”bring it” is a challenge for you to bring some REAL scientific evidence for evolution, and I for one have not seen or heard anything to convince me the theory of evolution has in fact become a fact. All evolutionists evidence is based on assumption and probabilities not proven, also to use your own words, the evidence for evolution is grounded in
mere speculation and half baked theories.
We Christians know the One that Created all the wonder and intricacy of this world so we have faith that what He has said in His Word is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Can I also remind you that you invited me to feel free to bring my scientific evidences forward, #17, doesn’t this sound a polite way of saying ”bring it”?
Maz said
F.L.A: Bubbles usually pop after a while, and I don’t think it will be ours. (-:
zerxil said
Divers uncovered the Caesar bust and a collection of other artifacts near the town of Arles, which was founded by Caesar in 46 B.C. I guess the ides of march didn’t happen.
Alex said
You can be a Christian and an Atheist if you want. You can believe what you want to believe. Thats why anyone believes anything. They choose to believe. Most people aren’t going to accept my form of Christianity, and frankly I don’t care all that much. I trust my feelings and I explore the opinions of others, trying to find truth and love. I think there is a lot of love in Christianity. I can’t say that for things like Islam or Judaism.
John said
Hello Maz[toothy grin, but not in a hungry way].
Was that an attempt at “bringing it”? You say that as if you’re actually TRYING to completely confirm our beliefs, heh,heh[grin].
REAL scientific evidence for evolution? Oh geeze, you and that darned bubble…!
O.K., if you won’t accept any of what we evolutionists types consider to be real science to prove things to you, then, based on what YOU consider to be real science, how would you prove to us that you are in the right?Give us some of YOUR scientific knowledge to prove your claims about how we are wrong.You can start with any type of an argument that you like, from dating techniques, to proving that carnivores with sharp teeth and claws should REALLY be herbivores by nature,to why ALL of our overwhelming evidence for evolution and an ancient world and universe is inaccurate, or….whatever you like.So please do feel free.And you can take your time.Do you have any books by Ken Ham? We can go through them together, bit by bit, if you like.Also you mentioned something about us trying to convince you…well were not, at least not me or F. L. A. that is.Not anymore.We gave up on that.This is all just for amusement now.And you are far more amusing to us as you are.If either of us wanted agreements then we would be on a Pagan site somewhere.We do not come here for agreements, we never have from the very start[but it’s great when they come.
Also, I’m interested in character Some Guy’s answers to me and F. L. A.’s questions.
John said
Alex, we think that you are interesting.Don’t forget what I told you at the bottom of my post#32.
some guy said
guys: hate to sound childish here, but I asked first! I am still awaiting answers to the 3 questions posed @ the top. Nothing substantive has surfaced to these basic questions indeed. I realize that I may be asking alot, because it is as if I were asking a plumber to conduct neurosurgery. He most likely wouldn’t have a clue! And so far, that is my conclusion with Darwinists. So, all I can do is assume that we will agree to disagree about the claims of Darwin.
For a laugh, I would invite you to watch any of the Jack Links beef jerky commercials via youtube; it’s called “Messin’ with Sasquatch” and it is highlarious
*my fav-shaving cream joke.
God bless
John said
And two of us have answered you…..in a fashion.Perhaps someone else new to this game will give it a try.It sounds to me like you’re running away from the debate.My proposition to Maz could also apply to you too, you know.Surely you have much information that could be shared. I have found and watched those….they are most amusing[smile].
O.K. SomeGuy, I’ll try and answer[briefly, as you asked] your three seemingly simple questions that you asked in post#19. And I’ll even do it without answering WITH a question[smile].
#1.An older, slightly less advanced ancestor that you probably don’t believe in.
#2.This world has always been both ideal AND horrific.These are simply states of human perception based on the judgment of the individual at any given time.I don’t know what you consider to be “ideal” or “horrific”.My judgments are different than yours.An African Elephant’s or Blue Whales would be different than both of ours.Human sediments have no place within the realm of untamed nature.There isn’t very much of that left anymore[sigh...].Down here humans are still eaten by predators sometimes, but this isn’t so terrible, because the victims always seem to be asking for death in some fashion, so it’s actually JUSTICE.Which is both ideal[for the predators] and horrific[to stupid victims].["Captain, sensors indicate rambling mode ahead." "Shields up!"] I’d better stop myself to keep this brief, eh?
#3.This is much like answering question #2.I can really only answer this for myself[after deliberation over my possible faults, which are undoubtedly many.] and those closest to me personally.Maybe nothing needs fixing.Making mistakes in life helps us grow as individuals[if we survive them!], and offers cheap amusements for others.
Hope that was substantive enough for you Some Guy.
Goodnight.
Chris C. said
All of you christians are also atheists…with respect to 99% of the gods and religions of the world. Some of us just go one god further.
As Stephen Roberts said: “When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Hope you are all doing well. Im trying to resist getting involved in this again…
Maz said
F.L.A: Here’s a question on something I brought up right at the beginning. It is also one of the evidences where I listed three main reasons why I believe in Creation and therefore Design by a Designer, post #18.
DNA. I also asked Alex to think about this in post #50, and it is:….DNA contains information, which had to come from an intelligent source; can you tell me where that intelligence comes from? To me DNA is the best testimony for an Intelligent Creator.
Maz said
Chris: From another religions point of view I can see that we would be atheistic to them, not believing in THEIR god, but as far as Christianity is conerned we are not atheists. We believe in not just a god, but the true God Yahweh, and Yeshua as His Son, our Savior.
Alex has said some things which makes me doubt whether he in fact is a Bible believing, spirit filled, born-again Christian (there is no other form).
And I think you have already got yourself involved.
Alex: You spoke about ”your form of Christianity”, but it’s not yours it’s Gods form that matters. Also you said, ”I don’t care all that much”. You should.
You said, ”I trust my feelings”. I think that is the problem. Feelings alone can be deceptive. Do they match up with scripture?
F. L. A. said
We were wondering if you were secretly reading from the sidelines, Chris C. It’s good to hear from you again.How are the studies comming along?
Maz, that was covered within the original site too.We have never denied a belief that the begining of life involved some form of “divine tampering”, by whatever deities that may have had an interest in such things at the time.Can you bring forth anything more?
Maz said
F.L.A: I think you are dodging this with the fact we have covered it before. There are people on this site who weren’t on the original, and for the sake of the flow of questions and answers here and the fact that we do have a new site (albeit asking the same question) we should go thro these things again, and maybe clarify and add to what was said before etc. etc. etc.
So, I shall continue with the subject and maybe someone else would like to pitch in.
The DNA molecule has often been described as the most efficient information storage system in the entire Universe. The immensity of complex, coded and precisely sequenced information written on the DNA is absolutely staggering. The evidence speaks of intelligent, information-bearing design. Even for the hypothetical first ’so-called’ simple cells you would have needed the complex DNA coding. So Who put it there?
Even Crick himself, one of the discoverers of DNA, had to admit, ”An Honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a MIRACLE, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going”.
He also reasoned that life could not have evolved from non-living chemicals under any conceivable earth conditions. But ofcourse, Crick could not in any way accept a Creator God, being a very staunch atheist.
The important question then is not, was there a Creator God……but Who was He? I think this is a serious question to ask if anyone is SINCERE in wanting to know the truth.
ncguy said
Maz in 38:
“Evolutionists just will not admit that Evolution is still a theory which has not been proved by science, infact it is another faith, but built on sand not rock.”
All of science is theoretical. All of it. An idea goes from hypothetical (which the layman confuses with the word “theoretical”) and from there either fails or becomes full fledged theory. A scientific theory means it has evidence to back it up. Every ounce of science that one calls fact is also theoretical. One generally calls it a fact as well if it has reached a point of overwhelming evidence and years and years of testing which usually involve science attempting to disprove it. The bulk of evolutionary theory is now considered fact and well proven. The disputes now lie on the edges of what this broad field encompasses, just like major well established theories. The study and expansion of knowledge never ends.
The summary: don’t confuse the word “theory” with “hypothesis”. All of science is “just theories” once they get past the “hypothesis stage”. Evidence and tested. The non-scientific world tends to use the word “theory” when they really should be using the word “hypothesis”. The continued use of the “just a theory” attack simply drives the point home that the attacker is either uneducated or at the very least is engaging in childish word-play. It undermines any serious discussion. As my mom used to say, “if you don’t know what a word means, look it up before using it.”
Zerxil in 53:
“Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other. So is magnetism gravity?”
No, magnetism is not gravity. Magnetism is an electromagnetic force that has more to do with the motion of electrons of some material, whereas gravity is also a force of nature but has more to do with mass warping time and space. Read Einstein, he worked long and hard on the theory of gravity. Not an easy topic to discuss in a comment. Gravity, ultimately, is much harder to grasp than evolution.
Take care, y’all.
Maz said
NcGuy: Are you an evolutionist? Then your understanding of science is influenced by an evolutionistic world view. Not all science is purely theoretical. And yes, I did look up the word ‘theory’ in the dictionary. ”A system of rules, procedures and assumptions used to produce a result. Or, abstract knowledge or reasoning. Or, A speculative or conjectural view or idea, OR an ideal or hypothetical situation….etc. I don’t see the words PROVEN or FACT listed any where there.
On the contrary we do gain facts from scientific experimentation. It’s called empirical science, which means it is derived from and related to experiment and observation rather then THEORY. (That’s what the dictionary says).
To say we get no facts whatsoever and that all science is theoretical is to deny everything we DO know in all scientific areas of study.
Theory means there is no real proof, and Fact means there is…..so we could conclude from what you have said that evolution has not been proven and is still theoretical in nature and therefore you cannot possibly say that there is any factual evidence to prove it.
”The bulk of evolutionary theory is now considered fact and well proven”.
You have contradicted yourself.
Maz said
Here’s a nice little aside: A scientist once said, ”If I can create life in this test tube then I can prove you don’t need intelligence to create life.” Ha ha! That is the kind of thinking that comes from an evolutionist world view.
Mike S. said
Hey Chris
I guess you’re right. And that means we deny all gods and ideas of gods except the One and Only God.
Chris C. said
Until someone can come up with a justification of inductive logic, science will remain “unproven”. Try to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can’t do it. You can use math proofs to prove the angles of a trianlge or the result of an equation. But you can’t prove something that relies on inductive logic.
Play the dictionary game or mess with semantics all you want, 99% of the time, when a scientist refers to a theory they are speaking of a well-established collection of ideas that makes predictions about the observable world. They do not intend (usually) to cast doubt on whatever idea they are calling a “theory”.
Now, to say that evolution is a theory which has no evidence to back it up is grossly mistaken. You may disagree with the evidence. And indeed, in the past some evidence that has been brought forth has been errant or outright false. But it has been the work of scientists which has uncovered these hoaxes and repaired the theory for the future. Most of the objections to scientific evidence that I see is something like this:
“Evolution must be false because I can’t see any way in which organism X or molecule Y could have formed by chance. To think that “all this” just happened is preposterous. My religious beliefs give me a more satisying answer. Plus, my religion seems to be right about everything else, so why not this?”
So, to direct further questioning, from which of these categories which you like evidence for evolution?
–Population genetics
–Gender Frequencies
–Hominoid/Hominid transition
–Reptile/Mammal transition
–Evolution of flight
–Evolution of the eye
–Historical constraints
–Evolutionary Developmental Biology
Those are some of the areas in which I have a bit of knowledge. Do a quick google search on any of them and please feel free to ask questions. If you really want scientific evidence, I’ll do what I can to provide it.
FLA:
My studies are over for the summer, thankfully. But I’m always learning. That’s one of the great things about life, isn’t it? Perhaps thats why I come here…
zerxil said
–Historical constraints
–Evolutionary Developmental Biology
“Evolution must be false because I can’t see any way in which organism X or molecule Y could have formed by chance. To think that “all this” just happened is preposterous. My religious beliefs give me a more satisying answer. Plus, my religion seems to be right about everything else, so why not this?”
Thats about it in a nut shell. Is this close to what you think Maz?
Chris C. said
Historical Constraints
Historical constraints are limits on the way in which an organism can develop beause of its evolutionary history. Let’s look at the human eye. Most evolutionaists believe it evolved (like the rest of our bodies) from a flatworm population whose retina is faced “back to front”. In other words, light has to pass through a layer of tissue before reaching the front of the retina where the image is “seen”. This causes blurring and the creation of a small blind spot. As the flatworm eye is wired, however, if the retina were faced the other way it simply wouldn’t function. Evolution proceeds in small steps that have to be advantageous in the short term. Therefore, as natural selection put presure on the origincal flatworm eye, it selected for the qualities that allowed the animal to see best DESPITE its less-than-ideal retinal configuration. As generations (many many many generations) passed, the eye of the flatworm became more complex and as new species diverged off, they all started with this same backwards retina blueprint. So as animals further down the lineage, we humans share the same less-than-ideal eye because it is a historical constraint. Picture two mountains. One is taller than the other. The shorter mountain stands for the human eye. Our eye is effective and highly specialized, but still has blindspots due to the position of our retinas. Now the taller mountain stands for the squid eye, whose retina is faced the right way. To get from our shorter mountain to the tall squid-eye mountain, we would have to go from one “local optimum” to a valley, and then up to a higher local optimum. Since natural selection cannot select for less fitness in an environment, there is no way to “descend” our mountain and move through the valley to the higher (better) mountain of thr squid eye. I know that is a lot of figurative language and it’s not really an easy concept to explain. But that is the basis: we can’t become less fit for our environment, so any non-ideal charactersists of our development tend to stick around and natural selection makes of them what it can.
If an all-knowing designer had created people, it seems he would not have purposely made some eyes better than others. Especially since humans are supposed to be his prized creation, why would he make other animals whose eyes were better developed to see than ours; whose vision wasn’t compromised (however slightly) but constraints.
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo)
This is a field of biological research that basically studies the ontogeny of different plants and animals to see how they relate. Ontogeny is the study of an organism from its conception to its mature form. Scientists study the genes that control the formation of the zygote, blastocyst, and fetus. There are a number of genes which are refered to as “toolkit” genes that essentially control the turning on and off of other genes. Genes code for proteins, which are the building blocks of all organic matter. Hox genes are a spcieal type of toolkit gene which control the formation of the spine and central axis of an organism’s body. What is remarkable is that these toolkit genes are very similar in all organisms. And, to the extent that the toolkit genes vary, they usually vary in proportion to the relatedness of two given animals. In other words, a human and a chimp habe nearly identical toolkit genes. A human and a pig may also have similar toolkit genes, but with less in common than the human and chimp. The field of EvoDevo covers many more topics than this, but toolkit genes and the regulation of ontological processes is the most directly related to modern evolutionary theory.
Sorry for the typo’s but my lunch break is over. Back to work…
Fred said
When confronted with the question of the mystery of creation (reality, whatever) there are two answers:
Science says “I don’t know all the answers.”
Young Earth Creation(Fundamentalism) says “I know all the answers.”
There is humility in science’s answer. There is no humility in the YEC answer.
About what science teaches us about the origins of species, why not be honest and let the issue stand unresolved? Why is it unacceptable (to some) to simply admit that what we learn in science class is not always reconcilable with what we learn in Sunday school?
There is bigotry in the Young Earth Creationist position. Can that be the Christian example?
F. L. A. said
Chris C. and Ncguy, ditto on that.
As to your offer of scientific knowledge Chris C., you do know that they would never accept[can't accept it, because it's not Christian[their type] based knowledge] any of your scientific information, right? That darned bubble…..But you can always try, I guess.
This is why John asked for Maz and SomeGuy to present science from their perspective to prove their claims.That way it would be easier to debate against them.Fight fire with fire, so to speak.
Maz,[to be really lazy about it] why don’t we all just go back and continue this silliness on the original site, so that we evolutionist can simply tell you to scroll back up to any older posts that already answer the questions that people like you keep asking again and again and..[infinity]?
Maz said
Chris: If science is just theory and we can’t prove anything then why are you so dogmatic that evolution is proven fact?
Where’s the logic in that? If we can’t prove the future, how can you prove the past especially millions of years ago?
NASA wouldn’t be able to function if they were merely working on theory. Their work necessitates precision. The astranauts thatgo to the moon or out into space need to be able to trust that their scientists know what they are doing. They work with mathematical facts not theories. They have to work out to the fraction of a second to get precision timing with say a moon landing. That is just one example of the necessity for scientific facts not theories.
And nobody can predict what will happen in the future, but we do know that the sun is at the center of the solar system and we orbit around it. We also know that the moon orbits the earth and they have calculated that it is actually losing it’s orbit by about 5” a day.
We can’t live in this world living on assumptions and theories not proven. You say evolution IS a proven fact…it seems that’s the only thing you seem to believe is fact and everything else is just theory not proven.
”Playing the dictionary game”. All I was doing was using the tool to find out a meaning….that’s a game?
I don’t just ”trust my religion” I read what the Creation scientists say, just as you read your evolutionist literature or however you get your information. And infact I trust God not religion.
I have information about the human eye but I would have to read it again. I know this much, there are parts of the eye thatjust could not in any way slowly evolve, or the eye could not be an eye and you would have millions of years of blindness……which goes for any other organ of the body evolving. The lungs, the heart, the blood vessels, the kidneys, liver, digestive system, bowels, ears, nose, mouth……I could go on infinitum, and we havn’t touched the micro level.
It is far more rediculous to believe in chance evolution, than a Creator Who Created.
Back to DNA….maybe you can tell me where the informatin within DNA came from?
Maz said
Fred: I do not purport to know everything and I don’t think anyone here would either. That is a false assumption which seems to be a habit of evolutionists. And I also don’t believe YEC’s would say that they know all the answers either, another false assumption.
Back to the humility thing again. You are so humble Fred and all we are proud knowalls?
Oh and bigots too.
Fred, I have a faith in God that will stand the test of time and eternity, all your demeaning words will not change what I believe to be true about my God and Creator. He is as real as any being that exists, and He revealed His reality by coming down to man’s level and showing us what real love is.
Jeff42 said
Fred,
I’ll have to take your work for it. But, personally I don’t know any Christians who would claim to have “all the answers,” and I certainly don’t run into very many atheistic scientists who readily admit to the fact that they “don’t know all the answers.” Most of the time evolution is presented as being a settled fact.
In order to be absolutely certain about anything you would have to know everything there is to know about everything. That is the only way that you could be sure that you wouldn’t learn something new tomorrow that will completely overthrow what you thought you already knew for certain. The reason that Christians come off as being certain is not that they know everything, but that they are trusting in the revelation of the Creator of the universe who does have all knowledge and has revealed the fact that He created everything. And, on top of that, they see that everything that He has made testifies to His existence. It takes a lot more faith to believe that the universe simply sprang into existence through blind mechanistic forces than it does to believe that all the complexity and design we see around us is the product of an all-wise Creator. But undoubtedly there are basic presuppositions (or world views) behind the arguments on both sides.
Could some us (on both sides) be a little more humble in the way we present our arguments? I sure hope so. Do we have lots yet to learn? You bet! Both sides could use a good dose of humility and gentleness.
Maz said
Actually F.L.A: I have been serious about debating this subject and have enjoyed it up until now but there is an insulting and demeaning tone creeping in again from the ‘other side’ and I’m getting to that place again where I feel I am ‘hitting-my-head-against-a-brick-wall’. I am beginning to wonder why I started on this site again.
If you want to continue in the ’silliness’ as you call it then the site is all yours.
I’v been accused of playing the dictionary game, but I do think there are those on here who are quite happy to play games with people and what they believe.
Well, count me out.
Have a nice weekend y’all.
Maz said
Zerxil # 74: No.
EvolvePhish said
I’m a young earth creationist and believe the Bible, taking the first chapters literally.
That being said, I do believe we are beating a dead horse here. The dead horse being Darwinism.
Our foundational understanding will determine our world-view. The core of Dawinian evolution is that a Deity is not needed in order for life to exist and evolve. That goes against the very heart of Biblical Christianity.
Bozarth was a prophet of evolution. He summed it up well – “if evolution be true, then there is no original sin. Destroy that doctrine and in the ruin you will find the sorry remains of the son of god” – loose paraphrase.
Even though he was a self-proclaimed atheist, he understood full well the war that wages between evolution and Biblical creation.
We, Biblical creationists, will continue to fight, yet as long as the Scientific community is controlled by staunch evolutionists creatonism will continue to be mocked and denied. – Expelled; no intellegence allowed!!!
Fred said
Charles Darwin thought humans were descended from Cro-magnons which turned out to be incorrect along with some of his other ideas. Therefore the term “Darwinism” is meaningless. Evolutionary biologists have learned a lot about how nature structures itself since Darwin and others made their simultaneous discoveries about evolution. Darwin withheld his findings our of fear of retribution from angry Christians but wrote of his findings after learning that many other scientsits had recently made the same discoveries. So again, there is no such thing as “Darwinism.” This is a bogus term desperate creationists use to make evolution seem like it is just one fellow’s ideas. As usual when it comes to the creationists and their staemnets, nothing could be further from the truth.
Fred said
Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary
By JEANNETTE CATSOULIS
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.
Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of “big science” to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times.)
Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.” This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.
Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.
“Expelled” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic.
Fred said
Absurd Torah “Science”
The Torah is VERY errant and contradictive to that of scientific facts. The first book of Genesis alone should be enough to invalidate Judaism to any INTELLIGENT person. Sadly, not only is Judaism still one of the world’s leading religions, but it has spawned the most insane theism (Christianity). The goal of this page is to expose the inaccuracies of the Torah, hence shooting down its divine claim. All the verses shall appear in chronological order. Feel free to copy what ever you wish.
1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.
2) “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night….’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.
3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
5) “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created – great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
6) “And God said, ‘Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from water.
7) “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made…every thing that creepth upon the earth after his kind…” (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear until the close of the Reptilian Age.
9) “And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” (Genesis 1:30). Carnivorous beasts and fowl do not eat green herbs, nor were all animals originally herbivores. Simply consider tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, barracudas, tigers, etc.
10) In Genesis 1, the entire creation takes 6 days (Genesis 1:31), at the end of which the earth and its living things are pretty much as they are today. But we know from modern science that the universe (including the earth and life on earth) evolved slowly over billions of years.
11) In Genesis 2:7 humans are created instantaneously from dust and breath, whereas they actually evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. Science can in fact trace back human evolution CONCLUSIVELY 3 .2 million years.
12) God makes the animals (Genesis 2:18) and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while, why Adam would still have to be living for we haven’t even discovered nor named all the species. Also consider the idea of every living creature being brought to the Middle East, that would have killed many animals due to climatic changes.
13) God curses the serpent, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust (Genesis 3:14). One wonders how he got around before — by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don’t eat dust, do they?
14) “There were giants in the earth in those days.” Genesis 6:4 But there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants. Also there is a reference to the “Nephilim” being on the earth. Which is a term used for half angel, half human. Why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of the Nephilim either?
15) Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long (Genesis 6:14-15). The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge and no shipbuilding tradition to rely upon, was able to construct a wooden ship that was longer than any that has been built since?
16) Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of “every thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 7:8). Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species or the hundreds of thousands of plant species? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn’t last long if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don’t tell me, a miracle happened, millions of them.
17) All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second. How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently? I wish the airline companies could do as well!
18) The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?
19) When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after the flood subsided?
20) Noah kills the “clean beasts” and burns their dead bodies for God (Genesis 8:20). According to Genesis 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all “clean” animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. So why is it that we still have “clean” animals?
21) God is filled with remorse for having drowned his creatures in the flood. He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever the animals see it they will remember God’s promise not to do it again (Genesis 9:13). But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed.
22) “The whole earth was of one language” (Genesis 11:1). But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others.
23) (Genesis. 11:4) According to the Tower of Babel story, the many human languages were created instantaneously by God (Genesis 11:9) But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time.
24) (Genesis 14:14) Abram goes into pursuit looking for his captive relative in the city of Dan. The problem here is that the city of Dan did not exist until over 300 years after Moses died. How is it that Abram could enter the city of Dan, when the city did not even exist?
25) Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.
26) Camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). This statement is completely moronic for every TEENAGER knows what a “camel toe” and how it used to describe a specific split.
27) The bible says that hares and conies are unclean because they “chew the cud” but do not part the hoof (Leviticus 11:5-6). But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not “chew the cud.”
28) Bats are birds to the biblical God (Leviticus 11:13-19 & Deuteronomy 14:11-18).
29) Some birds have four feet (Leviticus 11:20-21).
30) If there is a God, there is one thing we know for sure about him: He really likes insects (particularly beetles). There are more species of insects, by far, than all other species of life on earth. As JBS Haldane said, “he has an inordinate fondness for beetles.” Yet insects are said to have four legs in Leviticus 11:22-23.
31) Unicorns have never existed, yet they are said to in Deuteronomy 33:17.
32) Fiery serpents have NEVER existed yet Numbers 21:6 claims they do and TO THIS DAY STILL inhabit certain cities.
Maz said
Well said Evolvephish. To evolutionists, Creationists, especially ‘Youth Earthers’, don’t have any intelligence. That’s why I find they just don’t and won’t take anything we say seriously and that’s why I find it difficult to carry on in any serious vain in this debate.
Fred said
84,85 and 86 is not from me. I mean, it’s from another Fred.
I’ll vacate the Fred nom d’plume for the newcomer Fred to avoid confusion. I know Maz isn’t happy to just read and contribute, she needs to make these ridiculous posts personal.
I’ll be back under a different name.
Mike S. said
But will the real Fred, the one who claims he is a Christian evolved from pond slime, please stand up on your own two fins please?
Barney said
Mike S. here I am. I think I’ll use Barney now.
EvolvePhish said
when you cut-n-paste jargon, it sort of loses the debate type personal feel. besides, those supposed contradictions are listed on talk origins…..and are also refuted on numerous websites.
Jeff42 said
#86 was at least good entertainment! I enjoyed numerous laughs reading that one! Was that a joke or a serious attempt to discredit the Torah? It is filled with assumptions and very poor exegesis of Scripture. I especially liked the one about the unicorn! You might want to dig a little deeper than the KJV. (Boy, that might get me into trouble.)
Original Fred,
Good thing you changed to “Barney.” You would have really lost some credibility with that one!
Fred said
Scientists say bacteria and the Bible says man was made from dirt. I think bacteria sounds more reasonable than a man made from dirt and made alive by Yahweh’s magical breath. Then Yahweh supposedly gives man dominion over animals. God didn’t realize that bacteria would actually have dominion over man until scientists kicked the Bible thumpers out of the way and discovered evolution by natural selection. Evolutionary biologists have since doubled our lifespan through their knowledge of how nature structures itself. If anyone can save us it will be these scientists, not some misinterpreted mythical savior-king.
Barney said
Since I was addressed personally, I will respond.
Jeff42 says:
“I’ll have to take your wor(d) for it. But, personally I don’t know any Christians who would claim to have “all the answers,” and I certainly don’t run into very many atheistic scientists who readily admit to the fact that they “don’t know all the answers.” Most of the time evolution is presented as being a settled fact.”
So, you run into a lot of “atheist scientists”, do you? What do you do, roam the hallways at the Universities and introduce yourself to biologists with a “hello, Jeff42 here, are you an atheist?”?
Jeff42 said
How did you guess?
No, but I do have experience in campus ministry, so I have had my share of interesting discussions.
Maz said
Fred or Barney? So IIIII need to make these rediculous posts personal?
No, it is you that love to make them personal. I don’t think you are happy without the remarks you put into your blogs about Christians. It really isn’t neccesary.
And I was wondering about those ‘Fred’ posts, they just didn’t sound atall like you.
Fred said
I love how Christians claim they scoff and laugh at criticisms of the Bible and then claim these criticisms have all been reconciled. But if one asks these Christians to go ahead and reconcile these criticisms one will hear one of several excuses mostly having to do with not having the time for such trivial pursuits. Translated that means the Christian has no answers to these criticisms or we all know they would gladly spew them out.
In an oddly distorted, negative universe Christian apologists declare that there is “no evidence” for their godman’s non-existence, as if it should be quite natural to believe in the most fantastic, illogical and unsubstantiated claims unless there was evidence to the contrary. If this stance had any viability, why stop at Jesus? Why not believe in Zeus, leprechauns and the tooth fairy?
A favourite tack of the Saved is to affect a yawn, mutter “that old stuff again” and impatiently declare that Jesus’s non-existence is a 19th century rationalist’s heresy long since disposed of by “solid evidence”.
The ringing claim of “more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for any other person of his day” is followed by a potpourri of ancient sources, as if a list made long enough could disguise the fact that NOT A SINGLE SOURCE EVER QUOTED IS FROM THE TIME OF THE GODMAN.
Early non-Christian writers, including the favourite hostages – Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus – are discussed here.
But stepping around the smokescreen thrown up by evidence that early Christians certainly existed (and had a motley assortment of beliefs!), is the evidence for many of history’s greatest heroes and villains really so tenuous?
Ernest T. said
Hey Barney, Does that mean you only got one bullet in that thar gun of yourn?
Mike S. said
Couldn’t help it. I know it is really a reference to the Flintstones. Very appropriate to your evolved status.
EvolvePhish said
Jeff42,
You have offended every legalistic Independant Fundamental Baptist preacher in the south!!
Do you mean to tell me that there are other translations besides the good ole KJV1611?!?!?!
EvolvePhish said
Fred #2,
Please don’t cut-n-paste any more!! It’s true, evolution is true. We’re just a bunch of liars trying to cover up the biggest hoax ever! You found us out……….
If it were so easy to disprove Jesus Christ and His claims, I’m sure the Muslims would have been able to years ago…
Tripp said
Dear non-Christian Fred, May God have mercy on your soul. Your heinously blasphemous hyper-link in your name is repugnant.
zerxil said
86 “Light cannot exist without a sun”
um you ever see a light bug, flash light, or explosions?
86-3) you ever heard of land?? it separates the oceans from the non-salt water.
Fred said
Blasphemy is a victimless crime until proven otherwise. I’m not afraid of any God who theatens to follow me to my grave and punish me in some hokey afterlife for not buying into a particular set of absurd superstitions. If there is a God it isn’t the Christian God, No God that ignorant could have created anything let alone an entire universe.
Fred said
It’s easy to disprove the existence of Jesus, Moses or any of the figures in the Bible. An event such as the Passover event certainly could not have gone unmentioned in the mountain of historical documents we have from ancient Egypt had it actually occurred. Not only is there absolutely not one word mentioned about this supposed event, but there isn’t one word mentioned by the Egyptians about any Israelites ever being in Egypt at all. POOF! There goes Judaism and Christianity and with it Jaysus too.
EvolvePhish said
Fred #2,
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And that is all that you have is an opinion.
Your hatred for Jesus Christ will not allow you to see the evidence, no matter how overwhelming it is.
Hatred and anger can only take you so far. I know, it took me down a long and hard road. One that led me to face the evidence and the reality that Jesus Christ truly IS real. Notice that I didn’t say WAS but IS. See, He is still alive and well.
He fulfilled many prophecies of the Torah. Now, think about it. The Bible was written by over 40 different authors, 3 different languages, at least 3 continents, over a span of 1500 years. For Jesus to fulfill even one of the prophecies is almost mathematically impossible.
I find it absurd that you are making statements that there is no evidence when even the Discovery channel and History channel are doing documentaries that are confirming the Bibles geographic and historical references.
Last point, no other book in history makes the claims that the Bible makes about itself. No religious book compares to the Bible. Like I said previously, if it were so easy to disprove Jesus’ existence, surely Muhammad, surely the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day would have taken care of that years before you and I were born.
Especially since they were closer to that time period that we are and surely it would have been easier for them then to squash this “myth”.
You bring nothing new to the table. Just more anger and hostility toward the God you so badly want to wipe away from your thoughts. Yet, seemingly He continues to be there and the evidence as well.
Yep, I know it full well. You will either become a Richard Dawkins full of anger and bitterness or a C.S. Lewis full of love and passion for Jesus Christ.
Chris C. said
I for one a not angry at God. I don’t think he exists…
I do get angry with religion on occasion. I think Professor Dawkins would agree. I dont think any ahtiests are angry at God or Jesus, we can become angry with the perpetuation of igorance. I assume, those of you who share the exact opposite view (Biblical creationism), might feel some of this anger too at a perceived slight of creation science in the classroom.
I wish I could tell you in detail how DNA, or more basically, RNA first formed. I’d win the nobel prize if I could explain it. Someday…
The point is, that you or I can’t offer an explantion does not, in any way, mean your God is the answer to the “DNA” problem. I may have used the example before, but 300 years ago we didn’t know how people became ill. We blamed it on original sin or witches, or God. So, since we didn’t have a good explanation were we justified in ascribing illness to God? Were we correct?
Maz, the difference is that something can be well established in science (yes even ‘treated’ as fact) without being technically proven in the philosophical sense. You cannot prove that the next peice of bread you eat will nourish you as opposed to kill you. But I imagine you are highly confident (maybe certain) that the next peice of bread WILL nourish you. In what do you place your confidence? Past experiences, most likely. But the past cannot prove the future, only predict.
Often times we can’t prove events of the past. The civil war could well be treated as a scientific theory. We have photos, accounts, literature, etc. That’s pretty good evidence. But as far as science is concerned, while the civil war ay be a historical fact, it would well be treated as a scientific theory.
You mention NASA, they can use deductive logic in predicting where a spaceship will be. This is because of the use o natural mathematical laws that can be independantly, deductively justified. Plugging numbers into an x+y=z equation is not the same as looking at a,b, and c and somehow inferring n .
Chris C. said
The only element of chance in our evolution was the event that allowed the genesis of life. I don’t claim to now how it happened or how likely it was (though I have my ideas). But once life began, the rest was the exact opposite of chance. Is it chance that you select the best fruits at the grocery store, or that you want the cleanest looking clothes, or the cutest dogs? Natural selection will always chose the animal that is most fitted to its environment. This is not “Chancy” at all. It may seem that way since no human hand is involved. But natural selection acts in a predicatble, logical way.
Fred said
Hey Evolvephish – no history book has word for word dialogue between people recorded somehow when no one was around. That in itself is the mark of fiction which is what the Bible is. There is and was no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. The fact that you claim Jesus is still alive proves that he dies for no one even if he did exist. You can’t have really died unless you are dead. Jesus went into suspended animation for you sins. LMAO!
Fred said
In Evidence That Demands a Verdict, written three decades ago, Josh McDowell lists sixty-one Old Testament prophecies that he claims precisely foretold the coming of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. For example, consider Prophecy 1 (all these are exact quotations): PROPHECY: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel (Gen 3:15, Revised Standard Version)FULFILLMENT: But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4, Revised Standard Version). I am not sure what the prediction is here; that Jesus was to be born of a woman? McDowell often repeats himself. In prophecies 14 and 32 he regards the statements in Luke 2:11, Matthew 22:43-45, Hebrews 1:3, Mark 16:19, and Acts 2:34-35 in which Jesus sits down on the right hand of God as a fulfillment of: “The Lord says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool’” (Ps. 110:1, Revised Standard Version). McDowell certainly views biblical prophecy as something different than simple scientific prediction. I would not be too far off base to note that Jesus sitting on God’s right hand has not been verified scientifically. Each of the prophecies listed by McDowell is confirmed in no other place except in the Bible. We have no independent evidence that events actually took place as described – especially the ones happening in heaven. Before making the extraordinary claim that something supernatural occurred, simple common sense tells us that we must rule out the ordinary, far more plausible account that the events are fictional, written so as to conform to biblical prophecies. For example, Prophecy 55 takes the opening words of one of David’s Psalms, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Ps. 22:1a, King James Version) and sees this precisely fulfilled with Jesus’ last words on the cross (Matt 27:46). Which is the more plausible account: an extraordinary event in which a thousand years earlier David predicted the exact words of the Messiah (although he does not identify them as such) or a perfectly ordinary one in which Matthew puts these words in Jesus’ mouth when telling the story of the crucifixion? Or, perhaps Jesus really used these words, remembered from the Psalm. Many of McDowell’s examples have appeared frequently in Christian literature. Consider the prophecy of Jesus’ coming: “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel whose origin is from old, from ancient days” (Mic 5:2, Revised Standard Version). We have no reason outside the New Testament to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. History does not support Luke’s Christmas story about a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the Roman world was required to go to their place of origin to be “taxed” (King James Version) or “enrolled” (Revised Standard Version). Surely such a vast undertaking would have been recorded. History does record a census affecting only Judah and not Galilee, but this took pl;ace 6-7 CE, which conflicts with the fact that Jesus was supposedly born in the days of Herod, who died in 4 BCE. Similarly, we have no historical mention of a star lighting up the sky, although spectacular astronomical events such as comets and supernovae were frequently recorded in ancient times. And, surely there would be a record of Herod’s slaughter of innocent children – had that really happened. The Jewish scholars Philo (c. 50) and Josephus (c. 93) described Herod as murderous and killing some family members to keep them from challenging his throne. Yet neither mentions the slaughter of the innocents. Furthermore, Jesus was never the ruler of Israel. This aspect of the prophecy actually failed. And, he was never called “Immanuel” either, as the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 supposedly foretold. Perhaps one of the most important prophecies of the New Testament stands out like a sore thumb for its repeated appearance in the Gospels and a gross failure to be fulfilled. In Matthew 16:28, 23:36, 24:34; Mark 9:1,1330; and Luke 9:27, Jesus tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within a generation, before the listeners die. We are still waiting. Lack of evidence from outside of scripture surrounds the most important tale of the New Testament – Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. Christian literature is filled with claims that these events were foretold. But again we have nothing outside of the Gospels that rules out what is the more plausible account: the authors of the Gospels formulated the life and death of Jesus to conform to their conception of the Messiah of the Old testament. Many people say they believe because of the many eyewitnesses who said they saw Jesus walking after he was supposed to be dead. However, that testimony is only recorded in the Bible, second hand, and years after the supposed fact. Eyewitness testimony recorded on the spot would still be open to question two-thousand years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony recorded decades later is hardly extraordinary evidence. Furthermore, eyewitness testimony recorded on the spot today is notoriously unreliable. In a recent decade, sixty-nine convicts were released from prison, seven on death row, based on DNA evidence. In most case, these people were convicted primarily on the basis of eyewitness testimony. Now, as with the Christmas story, we might easily imagine that independent evidence could have been found. Matthew describes what happened at the death of Jesus: “And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and rocks were split; the tombs were opened and many of the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Matt 27:51-54, Revised Standard Version). Again, we have no record of these phenomenal events outside scripture. If they really happened as described, Philo, Josephus, or one of the many historians of the time would very likely have mentioned them. The few mentions of “Christus” in the pagan literature, decades after Jesus’ supposed death, do not provide the needed confirmation. They simply read as factual reports on a new cult that was appearing in the empire. Considerable controversy still exists on the validity of various statements taken from the writings of Josephus, which seem to support specifics of the Gospel stories. But, once again, these were written well after Jesus’ supposed death and were not firsthand observations. In short, despite the long list of Jewish and pagan scholars writing at the time, there is no record of Jesus being tried by Pontius Pilate and executed – much less rising from the dead. Christian apologist William Lane Craig cites the empty tomb as evidence for the risen Christ. However, the gospels are inconsistent in their description of this event, as the reader should check for herself. Simply compare the four accounts: Mark 16:1-8, Matthew 28:1-10, Luke 24:1-11, John 20:1-18. even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the story of the empty tomb is accurate, a much simple explanation exists. Suppose you are on a holiday in Paris and decide one morning to visit the tomb of Napoleon. You arise bright and early and find the tomb is empty. Would you conclude that the emperor had risen into heaven? Hardly. You would figure somebody took the body. Since ancient times, many authors have commented on how the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as described in the gospels are similar to those of savior-gods in various mystery cults and religions of the ancient world. True, this remains an issue much in dispute. In his exhaustive study of the background of the early Church, Everett Ferguson warns us that many of these generalizations are fraught with methodological problems and that the similarities between mystery religions and Christianity is exaggerated. He admits, however, that much of that exaggeration came from Christian writers themselves. The Jesus story sure looks just like you would expect it to look if it were patterned after other god-men. Early Christian Church fathers such as Justin Martyr (d. 165), Tertullian (d. 225), and Iranaeus (d. 202) felt compelled to answer the pagan critics of the time who claimed the Jesus story was based on earlier traditions. The fathers claimed that the similarities were the work of the devil, who copied the Jesus story ahead of time to mislead the gullible. Lacking any independent corroboration, we cannot take the New Testament as evidence for a single fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, much less sixty-one. The story of Jesus, as related in the Gospels, with all its unconfirmed miraculous happenings, is more plausibly explained as a fiction, written to not only conform to Judaic traditions but also to move Christianity beyond being a tribal religion. The story appealed to gentiles as well, with the incorporation of many of their god-man myths.
Barney said
Put down that rock, Ernest T!
John said
Alternate Fred, about your work in post#105, I wouldn’t be so sure of that.True, many specific details of ancient personalities may be lacking, however do bear in mind that the ancient Egyptians of that time were NOT in the habit of recording events that they felt made them look….incompetent….in some way.Perhaps due to pride[?].
And, there is no need to be willfully disrespectful, simply because you disagree.It will get you nowhere but banned from this site, and wouldn’t you like to hang around and have fun playing with and debating against the opposition for as long as you can?
And I believe in Fairies, and the possibility of Zeus[smile].
John said
“You know everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.”-Will Rodgers
Zerxil said
93 Then Yahweh supposedly gives man dominion over animals. yes & than the fall happened…. The bactria evolved from helpful to harmful.
107 if it had mold on it it could kill you….
“looking at a,b, and c and somehow inferring n” um wouldn’t that be deductive logic
110 “Or, perhaps Jesus really used these words, remembered from the Psalm.” uh oh you just said Jesus might have existed.
“The only element of chance in our evolution was the event that allowed the genesis of life.” (Are you saying eveloution has no elemant of chance in it?) “I don’t claim to now how it happened or how likely it was (though I have my ideas). But once life began, the rest was the exact opposite of chance. Is it chance that you select the best fruits at the grocery store, or that you want the cleanest looking clothes, or the cutest dogs?” (nope no chance at all) “Natural selection will always chose the animal that is most fitted to its environment.” (when food gets scarce the smallest animal usally lives) “This is not “Chancy” at all. It may seem that way since no human hand is involved. But natural selection acts in a predicatble, logical way.” (almost as if someone created it…)
Fred said
Oh, I know I’ll get banned from this site. No dissenting opinions are allowed in Christian chat rooms, in Christian media, on Christian blogs or in Christian churches. This is because dissenting opinions might get some members of the flock thinking and checking things out. “It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity.” – Abraham Lincoln. “A manis accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.” – Mark Twain.
Fred said
Zerxil Says:
May 22, 2008 at 10:51 pm
93 Then Yahweh supposedly gives man dominion over animals. yes & than the fall happened…. The bactria evolved from helpful to harmful.
A rib woman ate from a magical tree after being told to eat from it by a friendly talking snake and this made bacteria go from helpful to harmful? That is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a while. And this is what you Christians want taught as science in our public schools. Zerxil please give me some more “Christian science.” It’s the dumbest thing on the planet.
Maz said
Barney: It is not your dissenting opinions that may ban you from here. Willey was banned for his obnoxious attitude. The thing is, you just cannot seriously debate this subject. All you seem capable of doing is insulting the intelligence of Christians and particularly ‘Youth Earthers’ on this site.
I enjoy a good debate and I can agree and disagree agreeably. But you seem unable to say anything without resorting to negative jibes.
It is truly sad to hear such hateful unbelief coming from you.
But be assured of this Barney, you WILL meet your Creator one day, it is up to you which way you want to meet Him….as Savior or Judge. Don’t be deceived, God will not be mocked.
Maz said
Correction: It’s not ‘Youth Earthers’ but ‘Young Earthers’.
Maz said
Evolvephish: #106. Absolutely right. I for one find it unpleasant to debate with Fred’s (Barneys) kind of attitude present.
Maz said
Chris: Your reasoning seems illogical. As I said before, you cannot predict the future. With evolution, we are talking about the past. Science has to contain fact or we are all in trouble.
Engineers in many walks of life have to know the facts of physics, not just the theories or they would be forever experimenting and never reaching a conclusion.
Which means that your belief in evolution is still not proven…because IT too is still a theory as I said before. And as confident as evolutionists appear to be about the evidence, I can categorically say…there is none because it never happened. There is still the problem of transitional forms. They are nowhere to be found in the fossil record. The ‘links’ are atill missing.
And I’m still waiting for an evolutionist to tell me where the information came from that is within DNA.
Who is the Intelligence behind it?
F. L. A. said
Fred, post#115, that is not so, or both John[who is a Wiccan Witch[!]] and I[who is something worse]and a few others would have been gone loooooong ago. And there’s no point in rushing it, eh? Maz, this is not Barney, remember.
Chris C. said
“looking at a,b, and c and somehow inferring n” um wouldn’t that be deductive logic”
–Not unless N had to be true if a,b,and c were true. The ground is wet, its is couldy, and the forecast was for rain, therefore it rained. That is an inductive argument. Because the first three premises could be true while the conclusion is false, therefore it is not deductive.
“Are you saying eveloution has no elemant of chance in it?”
–No, but that chance does not play a large role. Chance events happen, but natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, etc… these things work in non-random ways to control populations and drive evolution.
Maz said
Thanks for that F.L.A. Sorry Fred, I thot you were the other Fred and he forgot to put his new name.
You have freedom to put your views even if they don’t agree with Christian beliefs. What I object to is the bad attitude on the part of a miniscule element on this site.
Chris: This is what Dr. Werner Gitt says in his book ”In the Beginning was Information”.
”There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence or event which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Talking about DNA which puts the proverbial spanner in the works for evolution.
Matter, by itself NEVER GENERATES information. So, where did DNA come from? And back to the still unanswered question, where did the information come from?
He goes on, ”There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
”A code system is always the result of a MENTAL process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should also be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code”.
”All experiences indicate that a THINKING BEING voluntarily exercising HIS OWN FREE WILL, COGNITION and CREATIVITY is required.”
There is no chance involved when you have a code system within DNA. All life is created by this code. Each life form has it’s own code, infact everything that lives, has it’s DNA code written in it…..BY WHOM? That is the question.
Barney said
Maz, darling, you mistake me for someone else perhaps?
Moderator (not Stu) said
Fred – the only way you’ll get banned from this site is if you take too many personal shots at someone else or their beliefs. We like to stick to the debate and topic at hand. Also, any profanity or links to obscenity and vulgarity will get you banned. We reserve the right to make such decisions, as we own the site and servers. If you dig through this forum you will see MANY intelligent, civil debates and discussion taking place between faiths, including Christian, Catholic, Wiccan, Muslim, Mormon, Atheist, etc. Also, it’s OK to agree to disagree and still love and respect your fellow human, which has happened many times on here. No personal attacks towards other folks and their beliefs/gods and nothing obscene or vulgar and debate intelligently & diplomatically. Those are the ground rules.
Moderator (not Stu)
Maz said
Thankyou for that moderator. Fred (the original), you were always accusing me of taking things personally…..but you have now done exactly that. But I am not offended, just wonder why you have such negative feelings towards people who have faith in God. What has He done to make you so anti?
Mike S. said
Hey Chris
I would like to point out once again how you refer to natural selection and evolution as having some sort of a brain behind it making selective choices for population control and the advancement of the evolution process. Do you recognize the oddity of that? How could a “a blind purposeless process” (as many textbooks label evolution and natural selection) make choices?
Bob Griffin said
fla 55
Neither position can be proven with 100% certainty. That is why the debates will always rage.
zerxil said
122 looking at a,b, and c and somehow inferring n” um wouldn’t that be inductive logic. Is that better?
Bob Griffin said
65 Maz
DNA starts with 3 billion base pairs. Still no explanation how that came about by chance. Antony Flew, the longtime atheist who just changed positions, said that DNA convinced him we must have had a designer.
Bob Griffin said
86 Fred
No evidence we had a worldwide flood? The earth is 70% covered by water now. That may answer your question as to where the water went.
Fred said
The creationist appeal to the complexity of DNA is an empty strawman. The first cells had no DNA they reproduced by simply falling apart. Creationists look at the result of 4 billion years of evolution and then marvel at the complexity of modern life and insist such complexity couldn’t have just popped into existence. Of course such complexity couldn’t have, it took 4 billion years to get that complex. This creationist argument is a great illustration of logical fallacy also. The creationists, as usual, incorporate their conclusion into their argument by assuming modern life popped into existence all of a sudden. Therefore this creationista argument, like all their others, proves absolutely nothing. See arguments cannot prove anything. Demonstartions and experiments and fiels work are what prove science not silly biblically based arguments which all the creationists will ever have. Until they are extinct in ten years.
Fred said
Bob Griffin FYI there is no debate among scientists about evolution nor has there been for over 100 years. There also is no such thing as academic freedom in elementary and secondary schools so wake up. Teachers cannot teach their own ideas about ANYTHING they must stick to the cirriculum. So science’s and education refusal to acknowledge creationism as science has nothing to do with academic freedom. Teachers are not free to teach scientific inaccurracies which crewationism is entirely based on.
Maz said
Bob: And I find it difficult to understand how anyone isn’t convinced of a designer, when knowing about the properties of DNA. That is why I continue to put the question to our athiest/evolutionist friends. Where did this information come from?
The two basic parts of every living system are DNA and protein. All human characteristics are ‘’spelled out” in about 2 meters of DNA all coiled up when life starts off as a tiny little ball the size of a fullstop. It’s like a string of pearls, whose links act like letters of the alphabet to spell out hereditary instrucions.
Proteins are chains of amino acids. Each chain coils into a special shape that has a special function like muscle contraction, digestion etc. Several hundred DNA bases tell the cell how to make a protein called hoemoglobin, and that protein functions as the oxygen carrier in red blood cells. The start of the relationship between DNA and protein causes a major problem to evolutionists. Left to themselves the NATURAL trend of acid-based reactions is to SCRAMBLE up DNA and protein units in all sorts of deadly combinations. This is why, even under sophisticated and controlled lab conditions the famous experiments carried out by Miller, Fox and others to produce life in a lab never worked. Left to TIME AND CHANCE and their inherent chemical properies, the bases and amino acids of DNA and proteins would react in ways that would DESTROY any hope of producing life. To make a living cell alive scientists NEED CREATION.
Maz said
Fred: Where do you get your information from? It is totally ludicrous to say ”The first cells had no DNA they reproduced by simply falling apart”. That is what they would NATURALLY do, fall apart…..which is what I said would happen if you had no creator…..life could not happen.
Even if you had forever Fred, you still wouldn’t get life from inorganic matter. It is simply impossible without Someone Outside creating it.
Even a evolution scientist was honest enough to say, ”Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science INSPITE OF THE PATENT ABSURDITY of some of it’s constructs, inspite of it’s FAILURE to fulfil many of it’s extravagant promises of health and life, inspite of the tolerance of the scientific community forum substantiated just-so stories, because we have prior commitment to MATERIALISMS START with believing in ”matter”…..assumption is materialism”
”It is not that the method and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenominal world, but on the contrary, that we are FORCED by our prior adherence to MATERIAL CAUSES to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.”
They don’t care how the evidence contradicts their theories, or the absurdities in evolution (which has no relation to science but all to do with FAITH) they will NOT believe in or accept a CREATOR.
Which reminds me of what is written in 2 Peter 3 v 5: ”For this they are WILLINGLY IGNORANT of that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, (v6) By which the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.”
Please note, this is NOT a ”BIBLICALLY BASED argument”.
zerxil said
‘To make a living cell alive scientists NEED CREATION’ AND OR INTELEGINCE
Tripp said
Wow….so basically, Fred doesn’t believe in anything. That sounds like a fun way to go through life. Let us know how that turns out, Fred.
F. L. A. said
Welcome back Mr. Griffin. About post#128, I know, and in a way, this is great.Liberating.We can both be right independently, wrong independently,half right, or both completely wrong or right in some strange way yet unknown to us.Of course this also goes for claims of divinity you realize.Perhaps we SHOULDN’T KNOW the absolute answers to such topics.How much peace has this struggle brought to your species as a whole? Both arguments will always be able to fuel bigotry and other things far worse by evil secular or theistic leaders. Perhaps you should all try to find some way to compromise,[Oh NO, am I trying to promote peace??? ME!?!? Now that's just WEIRD. John has infected me with..."morals"?!] somehow.It’s so crazy it just might work[huge sharp-toothed grin]!
As for post#131, now, you can do better than that, Mr. Griffin[tisk,tisk]
Maz, how was Chris C.’s logic in error within post#75 in regards to the development of the human eye?
Mike S. said
But Fred
How can you explain how it all started without a creator?
Something can not come from nothing.
So… Something had to eternally exist… and something had to start the process. We say it’s God. What do you say it is?
Maz said
F.L.A: The human eye is more complex than you can imagine. In fact even our finest cameras can’t come any where near to the amazing features that the eye possesses. To say that it somehow made itself the way it is, is,to say the least,absurd.
The eye is an intricately assembled piece of machinery, to say it evolved through some naturalistic step by step selection of parts is as silly as saying that a camera can just assemble itself together to take pictures. The eye is no more intelligent than a camera…..it has no inner way of working out what it needs or doesn’t need to work, unlike a creator or inventor of a piece of technology like a camera, or a computer…which is far less superior than the human brain.
Complexity isn’t just a progression through millions or billions of years of chemical reactions…….evolutionists still ignore the fact of the information within DNA thatmakes everything what it is and makes everything work the way it is supposed to work.
And besides, an eagle for instance is given eyes to do what it does best, see it’s prey from a greater distance than we can. You see, we can’t fly. So why not? Why couldn’t we, as intelligent humans have been able to evolve wings? We say unintelligent animals can somehow change their colour to suit their surroundings, or change their body in some other fundemental way, like the evolutionists say dinosaurs changed their scales into feathers,itjust doesn’t work that way. And we shall never be able to grow wings because we havn’t the DNA coding for wings.
I have more info on the eye but I havn’t read it yet.
Maz said
To reiterate my question (yet again), which for some strange reason doesn’t seem to have been answered by any of our evolutionist friends……..Where did the information in DNA come from?
I will have to construe that the evolutionists here have no answer if one is not forth coming.
F. L. A. said
Some dinosaurs Did have feathers Maz.
I’ll get back to you about the human eyeballs thing a little later.
I am hungry and off to hunt.
Good day.
Maz said
F.L.A: If some dinosaurs had feathers, they didn’t come from scales.
And todays birds feathers couldn’t have come from scales either because they are constructed entirely different.
Good hunting.
Maz said
I would like to answer Freds post #85 about the film ”Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”
I have been able to get two links that will enlighten those who want to know what really happened concerning Dr. Sternberg.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3593/
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5626/
EvolvePhish said
To learn more concerning the difference between birds feathers and reptiles scales you can watch the videos ‘Creatures that defy evolution’ by Dr. Jobe Martin
Of course he is a creationist, so he will be discredited for bringing “religion” into the Scientific realm
Barney said
Or, what really, really happened to Dr. Sternberg:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part2
F. L. A. said
A persons theological views or lack of should not even be relevant if the information provided by the individual is true, don’t you think? Imagine being in a collage class to learn about medical fields or astronomy, and someone points out that the Teacher is Buddhist. So???
Also bear in mind that dinosaurs as we know them are not reptiles.They were…unique among all other animals for their time.They were like a mix between reptiles, avians, AND mammals, to some degree.How much do you know about their ancestors? They were REALLY weird. Some of them actually had hair!According to theories of evolution, todays birds came from dinosaurs. Now bearing in mind how strange they were as a whole, whose to say that the feathers didn’t come ALONG WITH the scales on the dinosaurs instead of from the scales later on towards the end of the dinosaurs rein?Remember their ancestors with hair?Hair-like coverings= feathers? Could be…..Because despite what Ken Ham says in his book, some dinosaurs[and I don't just mean the little bird-like dinosaurs] DID actually have feathers and downy hair-like coverings.
Gotta go make the rounds. Be back tonight.
Chris C. said
Maz, as I said, I don’t know how DNA or RNA or any other conplex information systems formed. No one does. My point was that unanswered questions have always existed, and the typical response has been to create a religious answer to all of those questions. Just because modern science is unable to explain how something ocurred does not mean that there isn’t a natural explanation. Also, the beginning of life has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate scientific course of study from evolutionary theory. All evolutionary theory is concerned with is what happened once life arose.
Also, there is still some chance involved despite the incredibly accuracy and complexity of the genetic code. During both mitosis and meisis, information can be duplicated or deleted from the copied portion of the genome. Also, you can have point mutations, in which the RNA miscopies the DNA and thus transcribes some different portion of new DNA. This happens very infrequently of course, but since DNA replication is happening trillions of times a second in the collective bodies of the human population all over the world, the mistakes do add up. This is part of what creates genetic variation, although most of the mutations are neutral or harmful.
Mike, I refer to natural selection and other forces of evolution in that way because it is easier to express them as active, anthropomorphic beings. We might as easily say “gravity always pulls objects toward the center of mass at the same rate” or “this seive always separates the chooses the biggest granules of flour and only lets small ones through.” Many modern biology text books also reference the forces of evolution in this same manner and thats probably how I picked up the habit.
Re: Bob 128. Hey Bob, welcome back. You’re right that no position can be proven wit 100% certainty. That is because science doesn’t “prove” anything. But given many data and many experiments and findings, incremental confirmation of certain hypotheses and theories can be measured. The hypothesis that the world is 6,000 years old has no evidence to confirm it. The hypothesis that the earth is old (on the order of 4.5 Billion years) has lots of confirming evidence, and thus scientists are justified in using the “Old Earth” paradigm.
Re: Bob 131. I’m convinced it was Mithras who used his own saliva to fill the oceans with water. There’s about equal evidence for that as for the Yahweh worldwide flood story.
EvolvePhish, religion doesn’t belong in the scientific realm. If “creationsts” have any valid evidence it will be scientific, and not religious.
For those who keep insisting on equal time. I’ve been thinking we need to give equal time to the Stork Theory of where babies come from. After all, we can just teach them both and let the children decide!
Finally, I know I can be wordy, so as simply as I can say it: Just because evolution or science or mankind cannot answer a question or explain some phenomenon (i.e. abiogenesis, DNA) DOES NOT mean that question/phenomenon has no answer, or that the answer is divine. Example: 3000 years ago, we couldn’t explain the rising sun scientifically. People invented religious answers. They were wrong. We now have a corrent, natural explanation.
Bob Griffin said
Fred 132
You believe that natural selection – a MINDLESS process – put 3 billion base pairs together. I think the only thing that makes sense is an intelligent designer.
Bob Griffin said
fla 138
Good to be back. This is fun. After all our disagreements, we will one day know the truth, at death. Even though I believe in God for other reasons, that makes the 50/50 argument about the existence of God a sobering thought.
Bob Griffin said
147 Chris C
Having fun back in the discussion. Heard a great line about water. Scientists will see what looks like a dry riverbed on Mars and swear it had water, but will look at our earth thats 70% covered with water and tell you there is no evidence for a flood.
EvolvePhish said
F.L.A.,
Seems like there is a lot of guessing in your post. Since everyone here loves Ken Ham, let me quote him as saying “Where you there?”
Of course you weren’t and neither were the Scientists. But the Author of the Bible was there in the beginning and He created everything according to His own counsel.
Maz said
Chris: Most of my answers are not religious but based on science, but as someone else has pointed out, because it comes from a Bible believing Young Earther Creationist Christian it isn’t science.
Well said F.L.A. at the beginning of your post #146. I was going to say the very same thing myself. If the scientific information is true does it matter who it comes from? It sounds like prejudice to refuse evidence from someone just because of their faith in God, and in fact that is what Dr.Sterberg met. See #144.
Many scientists who are also creationists have met with this kind of prejudice, simply because of their beliefs, not because they don’t know their science.
Here’s another little thot. Scientists are so interested in trying to find life in outer space, they receive some bleeps and think it could be intelligent life. Yet on earth, you find a code within the makeup of the human body and it can’t possibly be from an intelligent source. That’s unthinkable.
Maz said
My question about where DNA information comes from has a simple answer if you are a Christian who believes in God who created all things, but being an evolutionist, he can’t answer, not because he doesn’t know, but because he cannot admit that there is an intelligent Being out there who must be God. And as someone else touched on I think, it is not possible for all that exists just to come into being from nothing. Some uncoursed cosmic Big Bang. (And by the way scientists are even changing their mind about that now).
There had to be a Cause outside of Creation, there had to be a Intelligent Being outside of time and space to actually create time and space.
John said
Time and space as WE only know it, that is….[grin].
So this is what F. L. A. does all darn day while I’m busting my hump to live in the shadow of my greedy Uncle Sam….[green with envy]…
EvolvePhish, of course there was speculation, for it is a great thing to ponder over, don’t you think? But besides this, does that make F. L. A.’s ideas invalid? It holds more water than the belief that the first woman, which looked perfectly modern, came from a mans rib bone.Perhaps Chris C. has a theory to add?.We love Ken Hams work too, you know, but for different reasons[snicker].Do you have his latest Answers book? Perhaps you would like to accept the offer of debate from F. L. A. from the end of post#55 or myself from post#60? It could be big fun.What do you say?????
Chris C. said
Maz, I agree that you haven’t been using Bible verses as your scientific evidence and I appreciate that. But much of what you have stated, specifically involving the complexity of DNA, as been an argument from ignorance, and not any positive evidence for a designer. I might look at a mountain and say, “This mountain is so huge and impressive looking, I just don’t see how it could have come about by natural processes. It must have been created by God.” That’s not really an argument based on any evidence, it’s a conclusion based on your lack of knowledge or evidence.
The same applies to DNA. No scientist has the knowledge of how DNA came together. There are ideas, though no one can say for sure. To say for anything to be “impossible” as you do about DNA happening by natural processes — well that is a dangerous statement. Many things we once thought were inpossible we now know are possible. Flight, curing disease, the internet. The idea that something would be impossible without God is known as the God of the Gaps argument — and it’s widely considered an invalid argument. The thing is, as the gaps in our knowledge get smaller – God must as well.
John said
Do you think that humanity will exist so long as to have the alleged knowledge of “GOD”? Why I’d be surprised if humanity makes it past another one thousand years.
As long as there are ignorant, stupid, artistic, crazy, dreamer/romantic types,……as long as there is good food, drink, and sex,……as long as there is untamed nature, limitless horizons, cosmic mysteries,…..as long as there is horrible pain and suffering, vengeful feelings, mercy, charity, and things to wish and hope for, there will always be “GOD”.
Zerxil said
Do scientists know how RNA got started?
“As long as there are ignorant, stupid, artistic, crazy, dreamer/romantic types”
Are you talking about me or new fred or dawg??
That was very poetic. I’m surprised we lasted this long.
Chris C. said
Zerxil, in short, no they do not. There are theories that the original replications molecule was in fact RNA, not DNA. Nevertheless this is only educated speculation, not fact. There’s lots of information out there on the so-called “RNA-World”. A quick google search would be productive I feel sure, but I am not too knowledgable on the subject.
Fred said
Creationist appeals to the complexity of life are empty strawmen. The first life was simple celles that had no DNA or complexity but reprodeced by simply falling apart.The Eye Creationists often cite the human eye as evidence of God’s design. We are told (quite accurately) that the human eye is more complex and advanced than the most modern digital camera. Rhetorically we are asked, “If the camera requires a designer, then how could the human eye, which is far more sophisticated, arise by random accident?” The answer is that the human eye did not “arise by random accident.” Nor did any evolutionary biologist ever make such a claim. Creationism thrives by setting up and knocking down evolutionary straw-men – i.e., self-evidently ridiculous assertions about evolution that no scientist proposed in the first place. It’s easy to topple an argument erected specifically for demolition. producing an eye by “random accident” is even less likely than winning the lottery jackpot. But is this an accurate analogy? Does evolution more closely resemble a simultaneous matching of lottery numbers, or an accumulation of them over an extended period? Evolution, by definition, is a gradual accumulation of functional adaptations. Evolution has only three essentials for success: (1) time, (2) genetic variety among offspring and (3) a mechanism for preserving only beneficial variation. Such a mechanism is called natural, or cumulative selection, and was first proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859. The Evolution of the Eye. Let us look at the frequent example used by creationists since Paley: the human eye. In The Blind Watchmaker, which was primarily a contemporary evolution scientist’s response to William Paley, zoologist Richard Dawkins pointed out that the eye in all vertebrates is wired backward, with the wires from each light-gathering unit sticking out on the side nearest the light and traveling over the surface of the retina where it passes through a hole, the “blind spot,” to join the optic nerve. other animals, such as the octopodes and squids, have their eyes wired more rationally. This is often presented as an example of apparent “poor design.” However, biologist (and devout Catholic) Kenneth Miller does not think this is a fair designation, since the arrangement still works pretty well. He has shown how the wiring of the vertebrate is nicely described by evolution. The retina of the eye evolved as a modification of the outer layer of the brain that gradually developed light sensitivity. The eye is neither poorly nor well designed. It is simply not designed. Eyes provide such obvious survival value that they developed at least forty times independently in the course of evolution. Neuroscience has identified eight different optical solutions for collecting and focusing light, although all share similarities at the molecular and genetic levels. The physics and chemistry are the same; few ways exist for detecting photons. But, because of the important role of chance and local environment in the evolution of complex systems, different solutions to the problem were uncovered by random sampling of the varied paths allowed by evolution. In short, the structures of eyes look as they might be expected to look if they developed from purely material and mindless processes – chance plus natural selection – as these processes explore the space of possible survival solutions.
Maz said
Chris: I’v never heard of the ‘God of the gaps’, but I have heard of Evolutions ‘missing links’.
Sound familiar?
You say ”Much of what you have stated, specifically involving the complexity of DNA, has been an argument from ignorance and not positive evidence of a designer”. Again I see a familiar thread in Darwinism too. Much of the arguments for evolution are built on ignorance and speculation. I cannot understand how finding a CODE, a form of LANGUAGE, or INFORMATION within something does not prove some form of intelligence. SETI would cetainly come to the conclusion that a coded bleep from outer space would prove there is some form of intelligent life out on some planet orbiting another star. Why can’t evolutionistic scientists come to the same conclusion about the code in DNA? They accept and believe selectively, what they want to believe. This is not honest science.
Fred: You seem to know more about how life started than the scientists or even Darwin himself!
Maybe you should write a book ”The Origin of life”. But then Darwin wrote ”The Origin of the Species” which supposedly was about that…..but he never actually said what the ORIGIN of life was. Because no one does.
Where DO you get your info from?
You said, ”The human eye did not ‘arise by random accident’…” That’s exactly right!…..it came by design. If something isn’t an accident, then there must have been some Intent behind it’s creation, some Cause. What or Who do you think caused it to happen?
How can you say that eyes ”developed atleast 40 times independently in the course of evolution”.? Where did you get this speculative info from?
And we aren’t considering just the ability of the eye to possess perfect vision here, we are speaking of a complexity which also involves the brains ability to process what the eye sees.
There is a relationship between the eye and the brain. To say this all just came by natural selection without any outside cause is highly ignorant of the fantastic properties of the whole human system of sight and understanding.
This just creates in me more awe in the wonder of Gods Creation.
Maz said
Sorry….I shouldn’t have said no one knows the origin of life…….Christians do. (Ofcourse I know that the evolutionist believers will not accept that statement).
F. L. A. said
Zerxil post#158, We are too.John included himself within that list of personallity types too, you realize[but not the first half].
Chris C. said
Re: Fred 160. A good excerpt despite the cut and paste job. Maz, the reason scientists say the eye has evolved differently over 40 times in nature is based on the differences between the eyes of different species. The squid eye could not have evolved from the human eye because of the historical constraints I mentioned in post 75. These differences between the eyes of other species (spiders, flys, annelids, etc.) provide the conclusion that eyes must have evolved differently. This is called convergent evolution — two animals who are not closely related develop the same/similar adaptations to an environment. Whale fins and fish fins are also a good example of convergent evolution: similar in function but evolved differently.
The eye is often referred to as irreducibly complex. The term was coined by the ID proponent Michael Behe. The problem for him and others who use the argument is that there have not yet been found any irreducibly complex structures. First it was the eye, then the wing, then the type 3 secretory system in bacteria…what will they come up with next? Of course, there are reasonable explanations as to how all of these structures evolved but for those who don’t want to accept natural causes, God will always be a more comforting answer.
Maz said
Chris: You are presuming that all species are related because of your evolutionary ideas. All animals were created independently by a Creator Who made them in a variety of ways. Squid eyes have nothing to do with human eyes, any more than a human mouth has anything to do with a fish mouth.
It is all based on assumption again.
”…there have not yet been found any irreducibly complex structures.” I question that, as the very living cells within your body are IR. And ofcourse so is DNA among many others.
And for those who don’t want to accept a Creator God will always cling to their theories and assumptions and call them fact.
Barney said
Why is there no “Creation Science” taught in the Universities?
Is it because Creationism is not good science?
Is it because there is a vast conspiracy to keep the “real scientists” out of the ivy halls?
When reading these (often absurd) posts, we must remember that these ideas come from somewhere, and that the real purpose of the creationist organizations (besides making money) is political in nature: they want their religion taught in public schools.
F. L. A. said
They are trying to get around some of the secular unacceptance by reintroducing the concept as “intelligent design”.The successful results of this action is hopefully minimal.Many just home school.
Maz said
Barney: Why is there no ”Creation Science” taught in the Universities? Simply because they won’t accept that God created the Universe. It is called prejudice. The science is good, the evolutionists attitude is bad.
Your last line is absolute nonsense. I personally have no interest in politics except to try and vote the right person into governement. The Creationists, the ones I know like Ken Ham and John McKay and those who work with them are in no way doing it for any political reasons but because they believe in God and the Genesis account of Creation in the Bible and they want people to know the truth.
You really do need to get your ideas and your absurd assumptions straight.
And yes, to be fair, creation science should be taught in school along side other views of our origins. Why are evolutionists so afraid to have creation science taught atall? Because people may see and realise that evolution is not the fact they make it out to be.
Chris C. said
All species are interrelated. No doubt about it. Just like 5 is closer to 2 than 8 is, some species are more closely related than others. The phylogentic tree is an attempt to put the relationships between species and genera into perspective.
It is not assumption to form a hypothesis about WHY species appear related and then test that hypothesis against observations. Evolution, despite what some say, is testable — it is testable in light of new information and discoveries. If you find a layer of rock dating to 65 million years ago, I should be able to tell you exactly what types of fossils should be in that rock stratum, and what things should not be there. The modern theory of evolution perfectly predicts what we find in the geologic column with zero obsolute contradictions. That doesn’t mean that we cant be off by a few years (after all, when you deal in millions you have to have some margin for error). But there has never been a dinosaur and a man found together, or a vertebrate found in 1 billion year old rock. Those are the facts and yet, your Bible claims all life was created at the same time…
Its not just assumptions. We do have two different, opposed hypotheses. One stands up to scrutiny and the other, if it is even “scientific”, is demonstrably wrong.
Chris C. said
Maz 168. I never got an answer to this: should the stork theory of human birth be taught as well? After all, equal time is equal time. Let the children decide.
Maz said
F.L.A: Ken Ham, John McKay and other creation scientists like them would not agree with you.
They are not reintroducing Creation as ID. They believe God created the Universe and that’s what they bring forth with their science.
There are actually evolutionist scientists that are beginning to believe in ID but still refuse to admit that the Intelligence is from an Almighty Creator God.
F. L. A. said
I know Maz.
I was referring to people who were smarter and sneakier than Ken Ham and John McKay.
Maz said
F.L.A: Who’s that?
some guy said
with names like Barney and Fred, I really do think that I am watching a cartoon. Why do we like cartoons? Because they somehow allow a break from reality into a realm of make believe and fantasy. That is precisely what Darwinism is! And yes, Barney, religion is in fact funded and taught in schools all under the guise of science–a true conspiracy–Oliver Stone.
F.L.A.t–How do you think homo sapiens discovered the earth’s actual shape? was it deductive reasoning? hubble photographs? no, ancient inspired writings from people who had a direct connection with a divine Creator, who has given much to reveal himself.
Maz said
In the Bible you will read:-
The earth is spherical in nature: ”It is He who sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are like grasshoppers;” Isa: 40 v 22(a)
Before Hubble discovered that the Universe was expanding: ”..who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” v22(b)
”Thus says God, the Lord, He who created the heavens, and stretched them out;” Isa: 42 v 5(a).
The earth hangs in space: ”He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.” Job 26 7. This was written way before even Galileo let alone Hubble and his famous telescope.
John said
Welcome back, Some Guy.We thought you had run away.
F. L. A. is out hunting rats, so I’ll just jump right in and do it. Pagan Greeks first realized that the Earth was rounded in shape way back in 330B.C. by simply looking at the shape of the earth’s shadow on the moon during any lunar eclipse, and by simply looking at the sea as sailors ships left and arrived, for the fact that the tippy top of the ships mast was always the last or first thing to be seen PROVED that the ship was traveling over a curve.In 240 B.C. the Pagan Greeks estimated the circumference of the planet, and they came very very close to the actual measurement.
That’s according to real history, that is.Now, aren’t you happy that you brought it up[smile]? Would you like to ask another question?
“The church says the earth is flat, but I know it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”- Ferdinand Magellan 1480?-1521 A.D. Portuguese explorer.
“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.”-Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta[The Buddha] 563-483 B.C.
John said
Maz, do you remember waaay back when I used your own Bible verses against you to prove that the Bible did not describe a spherical world? Would you like me to give you the site and posts numbers to refresh your memory? I recall that you had nothing to say about it during that time.
Chris C. said
John, great post (176). I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. Thanks.
I find it so odd how some of you refer to “evolutionist scientists”. Its like calling someone a “gravitationist scientist”.
Maz, how come the phrase “circle of the earth” is supposed to be great evidence that the Bible-writers were inspired by God to know the earth was round? The bible also uses the phrase “four corners of the earth” so shouldn’t it be considered square by these standards?
Isn’t it interesting the the level of acceptance of evolutionary science correlates positively with higher education? I wan’t to be clear that I know many of you who do not accept evolution are intelligent, kind, and mostly reasonable folks. But really, if creation is so obvious or if evolution is so wrong, why haven’t any of our best and brightest figured out the mistake? Also, I find it interesting that evolution has as much scientific support as the theory of relativity, gravity, germ theory, and more scientific credibility than many other commonly accepted paradigms such as string theory, man-caused global warming, and quantumn gravity. But evolution alone (with global warming a close second) is feircely resisted because it alone really threatens one of evangelical religion’s last great strongholds: the question of how we got here and where we came from. This question was basically solved 150 years ago, but religious lies, deciet, obfuscation and ignorance threaten to keep some in the dark ages for decades to come.
F. L. A. said
Some of us are just happier in the Dark Ages.
As for John’s post#177, I’ll do it, and take heed SomeGuy.
The site is named “Can you be Gay and Christian?”, February11th 2008 listed under Apologetics,Faith,Marriage,Christianity, and Christian Living. Posts #95-#112, with a special emphasis on post#107.
If it’s creation science that you’d like to discuss, then why not take me or John up on our offers to go through Ken Hams work together? It seems odd that the two of you and EvolvePhish would like to keep advocating his brand of sciences, and yet refuse to join us in a two way examination of it.Are you not confident?
Fred said
Creationists like to use Henry Morris’ example. He imagined a junkyard with automobile parts of all kinds strewn around. What is the probability that they could, by natural means (perhaps by being hit by a tornado), reassemble themselves into a complete automobile, which sheds its rust and emerges “showroom clean” ready to drive away? Creationists liken the improbability of such a thing to that of a human being arising from natural evolution. It’s an inappropriate comparison, and nothing more than a caricature of the processes of evolution. Creationist’s probability calculations are fraudulent, for they consider only the probability of diverse parts getting together. In physics and chemistry, things are different. There are forces that act between particles and structures, and laws of interaction that must be taken into account, as well as energy considerations. These greatly increase the likelihood of parts getting togther and forming stable structures of greater complexity.
Creationists ays that design requires a designer. This is not a new assertion, but has been around in many religions from their earliest history, and has been thoroughly refuted in a variety of ways. Permeating religious apologetics are similar examples of extrapolating from the universe to something “beyond” the universe. Setting science aside temporarily, look at it from pure logic. It is saying something like “When we look at all of the things designed by intelligent human beings, machines, chemical synthesis, great works of literature, art, music, etc., we cannot imagine any of them coming into being by natural processes. Therefore those other things in the universe that show similar design and complexity must also have had an intelligent designer.”
But on an even more basic level, the argument is a deceptive use of words. It equates two meanings of “design”, (1) a pattern or structure that is stable, functional or perceived to be beautiful, and (2) the act of deliberately producing such a pattern or structure. Accidental combinations of parts can, without intent, purpose or intelligence, result in patterns qualifying as a “design”.
John said
Thank you Chris C.
Goodnight.
Fred said
The Christian attitude toward science can be summed up by the father of Protestantism Martin Luther:
“Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads….”
[Martin Luther]
Nothing has changed since then. Christians don’t trust scientists even though every last one of them trusts a doctor, who without any doubts whatsoever, believes in evolution by natural selection. This is one of the many great hypocritical things creationists do: go to a doctor who uses his knowledge of evolution to cure them. Doctors should be able to deny creationists medical attention on the grounds that it goes against their religious beliefs because ALL medicine goes against creationist beliefs. Creationists should just go see Benny Hinn when they get sick but this proves where the creationist faith REALLY lies: with conventional evolutionary biology and not creationist fantasies. What could doctors learn from creationism anyway? How to make a woman from a rib? LMAO!
Maz said
John: I’v forgotten, (#177) so you can remind me.
Chris: We refer to ”evolutionistic scientists” just as you would refer to creation scientists, it simply means scientists that believe in evolution.
So the ‘circle of the earth’ doesn’t prove it was a globe? But we know it is now, and we know it deffinitely isn’t a square! There are literal truths in the Bible aswell as symbolism, you have to know which is which. Maybe John will sort me out with that one.
Some of the ‘best and brightest’ in the scientific world HAS figured out that evolution isn’t true. Some of the Creation scientists were once believers in evolution.
There maybe ”religious lies and deceit”, just as their is lies and deceit in the Evolution camp, do you want me to point out a few? But I know that people like Ken Ham, John McKay and their associate scientists are honest God fearing people who simply want to tell people the truth from a scientific viewpoint.
And I would ask the question: Why are evolutionists, particularly people like Richard Dawkins SO vehemently against Creation? Why do they go to such lengths to try and disprove something that to them is rubbish? Are they afraid the truth will come out?
Maz said
Fred: Can you give me an example of an accident that resulted in design and patern?
#182. Your quote could as easily be directed to evolutionists, but unlike you I would never have volunteered such abusive remarks.
”Christians don’t trust scientists”.?
This is another example of your completely irrational and totally false idea of people.
There are scientists who are Christians and many Christians trust them.
What you really mean is that Chistians who believe in Creation don’t trust secular and evolutionistic scientists. I guess not seeing as they oppose Creation.
Does all medicine go against creationist beliefs? Another irrational and totally false statement. In this world today we need doctors. And there are many doctors that are also believers AND creationists. Infact many of our medical discoveries came from believers like Louis Pasteur, who was not only famous for pasteurisation, but also brought vaccinations and immunisation onto the medical scene.
Barney said
The idea that Ken Ham and his Creation Museum is an example of good science is so absurd that hardly merits commenting upon.
In Ken Ham’s fantasy land of a museum we see exhibits showing dinosaurs coexisting with humans.
This is from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s website:
“Professional paleontologists from around the world are concerned about the misrepresentation of science at the newly opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The Creation Museum has been marketed to the public as a “reasoned, logical defence” for young-earth creationism by Ken Ham, the President and CEO of Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, a world-wide scientific and educational organization concerned with vertebrate paleontology, contends that the museum presents visitors with a view of earth history that has been scientifically disproven for over a century. Unlike typical museums and science centers, the Creation Museum leaves out data that are critical to a modern perspective on the history of the earth and its inhabitants.” SVP July, 2007
Barney said
Here’s the link to that Society of Vertebrate Paleontology website that I referred to in #185:
http://www.vertpaleo.org/news/permalinks/2007/07/31/Misrepresentation-of-Earth-History-at-the-New-Creation-Museum/
Maz said
Barney: Either you are ignoring the fact or perhaps just unaware of the misrepresentation of science in museums that teach millions of years of evolution. One example, namely, the statue of Lucy in one U.S. museum that is grossly inaccurate to say the least to the fossil findings. They have her looking almost like some model on a cat walk with human looking hands and feet and a cute expression on her face. When questined about it all they could say was ”Wer’e just trying to make a point”. Yes! Their biased point.
So if Ken Ham’s museum is so unscientific, why are’nt the real scientists revealing all these misrepresentations. And creationists do indeed believe that dinosaurs lived alongside men.
It is the evolutionists belief that they lived hundreds of millions of years ago that is in question. I actual fact dinosaur fossil remains have been found with, I beleive, tissue or cells still intact, tissue which would have disintegrated millions of years ago if that age was true. Sorry I can’t remember any details, just remember hearing about it. Maybe someone else can remember this.
And anyone with an evolutionist world view will not agree with the Creation evidence whoever they are, anymore than Creationists would agree with theres. It’s a lot to do with interpretation. If you start off with a certain world view and try and fit the evidence to agree with it you’ll end up with a biased interpretation. Your quote calls it ”a modern perspective”. Ofcourse evolutionists will say that that is what we do. And so the debate goes on….
Maz said
Barney: Another gross misrepresentation……or actually downright deceit, was Haeckel’s evolution of the embryo, to try and show that man evolved from a lower form of life. His photos of embryonic developement was a fraudulent attempt to uphold his evolutionist beliefs and it still exists in some school textbooks to this day. No correction or admission on his or anyones part has been offered or seen.
Barney said
The idea that Ken Ham’s phony science hasn’t been revealed by “real scientists” is bizarre since I just gave you an example of JUST THAT VERY THING!!!
Oh, and let’s hear from Dr Mary Schweitzer, of North Carolina State University, the scientist who actually discovered the T-Rex fossil that was referenced; this is from an question/answer interview published on the Nova/PBS website from July, 2007:
“Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field?
Carl Baker, Billings, Montana
A: Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.”
Barney said
Link to the Nova/PBS website interview that I quoted earlier:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01-ask.html
Maz said
Barney: I must have missed something.
To add to what I said about the ‘Lucy’ statue, I found the site with the information. It is the St. Louis zoo in Missouri that has the misrepresented statue of Lucy in a $17.9 million exhibition majoring on evoluton. The Director of the museum was not willing to change the statue and so it continues to misrepresent the truth.
As to quotes from so called scientists upholding evolution and opposed to Creation I guess there is enough quotes to bander back and forth until the sun dies. Did you read any of my quotes I posted earlier by scientists? #123 & #135.
And have you heard of the book by the molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton ”Evolution – a theory in crisis”, who said, ”The Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century”. Nevertheless, HE REMAINS AN EVOLUTIONIST!
Also in ”Darwinism – the refutation of a myth,” by the Swedish professor of Zoophysiology at Umea University, Soren Lovtrup has written ”…the Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false…..Hence to all intents and purposes, the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned? I think that the answer to this question is that current evolutionists follow Darwin’s example, and REFUSE TO ACCEPT FALSIFYING EVIDENCE.”
Barney said
Maz, you haven’t made any points in any of your posts that haven’t been refuted,and yet you can’t muster even a simple “you have a point, but…”.
I’m putting you back on “ignore”. Sorry.
Barney said
Just one more thing. Maz stated: “As to quotes from so called scientists upholding evolution and opposed to Creation I guess there is enough quotes to bander back and forth until the sun dies.”
This one sentence sums up Maz’ style of ignoring the replies here. The quote she refers to here happens to be the VERY SAME SCIENTIST WHOSE WORK SHE CITES IN AN EARLIER POST!!!!
Done.
Have fun.
Maz said
Barney: I have refuted much of what you have said too yet here again we have a double standard.
I have the right to disagree with you as have we all. Accept it.
”I’m putting you back in ‘ignore’..
Excuse me but I am certainly not ignoring the replies here. I answer the best I can, if that is not good enough for you Barney I am sorry. And…you can ignore me all you want.
And what is the point of your statement, ”The quote she refers to here happens to be the VERY SAME SCIENTIST WHOSE WORK SHE CITES IN AN EARLIER POST!!!!” So?
I could quote someone else if you want me to.
But Barney, it seems you cannot take the heat. I suggest you go back into the shade.
Have a good day!
Maz said
For Barneys sake I will quote someone else. In the ”Great Evolution Mystery”, G. Taylor wrote: ‘The theory of evolution by natural selection seems either inadequate, implausible or deffinitely wrong.’ These were strong words from a writer WHO WAS AN EVOLUTIONIST. But HE WAS NOT ALONE, for in ”The Evolution of Living Organisms”, ANOTHER EVOLUTIONIST WRITER, P P Grasse wrote, ‘The expanatory doctrines of biological evolution DO NOT STAND UP TO AN OBJECTIVE IN-DEPTH CRITICISM. They prove to be either IN CONFLICT WITH REALITY, or else INCAPABLE OF SOLVING THE MAJOR PROBLEM INVOLVED.’
And let us not forget, even Darwin himself had trouble with his own theory.
Fred said
Maz is a typical creationist quote miner who takes scientists quotes out of context to try to discredit evolution.
The arguments of the religious fundamentalists are not only anti-biology but also anti-physics, anti-astronomy, and anti-geology. In short, they reject all scientific knowledge that does not fit their view of the world. They do not question the methods or philosophy that yield, say, the science of flight, for who could doubt that airplanes fly? But when the same methods and philosophies are put to the study of life and human origins — a subject the Bible does address — they question the integrity of science. The religious fundamentalists fight a desperate, rear-guard action, seeking to increase their numbers while refusing to accept the obvious.
The scientific method is the most successful approach for discovering how the natural world operates. Scientific hypotheses are continually tested and re-tested before theories are presented to explain the workings of nature. Science does not try to explain God or the supernatural. Such matters are outside the realm of science. Science’s domain is the natural world and the scientific method has been spectacularly successful at discovering knowledge about this world.
Fred said
The most absurd question creationists ask is “How can life come from non-life?” But their entire religion is based on just that: that life can come from DEATH! These people claim that some sort of never-ending life comes from dead people! Now I think most of us know there isn’t one shred of evidence that something like this, anything like this, is even possible and in fact as far as we know it is completely impossible! Yet the whole reason creationsts don’t want ANYONE to accept the facts of evolution is that once they do it is very hard to believe that a biological organism can live forever. Because we can’t. So atheists, next time one of these creationists asks how can life come from non-life just ask them to prove that life comes from death. The creationist will disappear and never bother you again because that is what they do when they are face with the truth about their very evile and poved false 2000 years ago religion.
Fred said
One of the most popular creationist lies is that Louis Pasteur was a creationist. Pasteur, like many people, was a creationists as a young man but rejected biblical creationism once he became a scientist. The quote below disproves the creationist lies about Pasteur:
The universe is asymmetric and I am persuaded that life, as it is known to us, is a direct result of the asymmetry of the universe or of its indirect consequences. The universe is asymmetric.
Louis Pasteur
Fred said
Here is a list of creationist misquotes, the same type of misquotes that this Maz person tries to use to defend his quicksand-like position:
This file contains some of the more blatant instances in which creationists have misquoted their sources when writing about human evolution. In all cases where text had been made bold, the emphasis has been added by me. Jerry Bergman, in an article about Nebraska Man (The History of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii Hominoidea, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 30:27-34, 1993) makes the following statement: Nebraska man also had a great patriotic significance because it was the first evidence, according to Osborn, after seventy-five years of continuous search in all parts of our great Western territory of a [higher] primate. Evidence of this anthropoid ape-man was also proof that some primitive humans lived in America, and some speculated that it may even prove that mankind in North America predated European and African humans. We have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery (quoted in Blinderman, 1985, p.48) However, the quoted paper (Blinderman 1985: The curious case of Nebraska man. Science 85, June:47-9) makes no such statement! Blinderman said: So Nebraska Man had great patriotic significance. “This is the very first evidence,” Osborn wrote, “after seventy-five years of continuous search in all parts of our great western territory, of a [higher] Primate. … we have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery ….” (ellipses by Blinderman)
The references to “ape-man” and “proof” were added, either by Bergman or by a source which he copied from. In fact, although Osborn did misidentify the Nebraska Man tooth as a primate, he deliberately did not make any claims to its status as an ape-man.
Update: Bergman has published a response to this (Bergman 2004: A misrepresentation by Jim Foley: a correction. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 41:172-4.), and also placed a longer version of it on the web. I in turn have written a response to him.
Robert Kofahl’s Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter and Wallace Johnson’s book Evolution? both use the following quote (Johnson only has the second clause): “Not many (if any) [fossil hominids] have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast.” (John Reader, Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?, New Scientist, March 26 1981, p.805) It sounds as if Reader is saying that most, if not all, fossil hominids have been discredited. But the previous sentence was: “Australopithecus afarensis is the latest fossil hominid to be thrust before the public as the oldest evidence of mankind’s existence. Not many (if any) have held the stage for long; …” With the full context, it is clear that Reader was not saying that all fossil hominids have been debunked; he is referring only to their claimed status as the oldest evidence of human evolution. In fact, Reader’s article explicitly says that H. erectus is still considered to be a human ancestor.
Paul Taylor, in The Illustrated Origins Answer Book (Ed.4, 1992) says: “Current evidence seems to indicate Australopithecus was an extinct ape and nothing more [205].
205: William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s limbs: skeletal allometry and locomotion in Australopithecus afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 24 pp 676-678 (analysis of “Lucy’s” anatomical structure shows she may not normally have walked upright).” Jungers does not say or even imply that Lucy did not walk upright. Quite the opposite, in fact. His paper says: “Diagnostic details of the knee joint and bony pelvis of A. afarensis are compelling indicators of a bipedal adaptation.”
Walter Brown, in his book In the Beginning (6th ed), says: “Eugene Dubois conceded forty years after he discovered Java “man” that it was just a large gibbon.”
In support of this statement, Brown gives the following quote: “Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons …” Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,” Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4. However Dubois’ complete sentence was as follows: “Pithecanthropus was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, however superior to the gibbons on account of its exceedingly large brain volume and distinguished at the same time by its faculty of assuming an erect attitude and gait.”
These do not sound like the words of a man who is dismissing Java Man as a mere ape that had nothing to do with human evolution. Indeed, Dubois, an exceptionally stubborn man, never ceased to believe that Java Man was a primitive human ancestor.
Brown also cites Stephen J. Gould’s essay Men of the Thirty-third Division in support of his claim, even though the the whole point of Gould’s essay was to refute the myth (common among evolutionists as well as creationists) that Dubois had ever called Java Man a gibbon. (This essay can be found in Gould’s book Eight Little Piggies, or in the April 1990 issue of the magazine Natural History).
Doug LaPointe, in Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution, #6 says of Homo erectus: “In fact, its brain is said to extend “… into the middle range of Homo sapiens.” (F. Clark Howell, “Early Man”, p.42)” What Howell really said was: “The first man of our own genus, Homo erectus is modern of limb but more primitive of hand and brain, with a cranial capacity extending only into the lower range of Homo sapiens.”
David Menton, in The Scientific Evidence For the Origin of Man, writes about the fossil WT 15000 (the Turkana Boy) and says: “He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today.” Don Patton uses a similar quote, saying that according to Richard Leakey: “….he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today.”
What Leakey really said, in the November 1985 issue of National Geographic, was: “Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today.” Patton also says: ‘THE OLDEST MAN’, “[African Footprints] ….they belonged to the genus Homo (or true man), rather than to manapes (like Australopithecus, who was once a thought to be the forerunner of man but is now regarded as a possible evolutionary dead end). ….they were 3.35 million to 3.75 million years old. ….they would, in Mary Leakeys words, be people ‘not unlike ourselves,’….” Time, Nov. 10, 1975, p.93
The article in Time refers to a number of fossils found at Laetoli and at first thought to belong to the genus Homo. The Laetoli footprints are not mentioned, since they were not found until the following year. The complete sentence from Time says: “If all these creatures are in fact close kin, they would, in Mary Leakey’s words, be people “not much unlike ourselves,” though not much more than 5 ft. tall and with much shorter life spans and somewhat smaller brains”. Clearly, “not much unlike ourselves” is a relative term, and no one was claiming these fossils were of modern humans. They were not, and are now considered to belong to Australopithecus. Another Patton quote: “[Adrienne] Zihlman compares the pygmy chimpanzee to “Lucy,” one of the oldest hominid fossils known and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature; and in brain size…. ” (Science News, Vol.123, Feb.5. 1983, p.89) Once again, Patton has omitted contextual information that would weaken his case. The full sentence reads: “They are almost identical in body size, in stature, and in brain size, she notes, and the major differences (the hip and the foot) represent the younger Lucy’s adaptation to bipedal walking.”
P.S.:This page of quotes by Donald Patton asks to be notified of any misquotes, and adds: “However, we have never been shown to engage in deceptive quoting practices.” In fact, that is exactly what they had done: the three misquotes above by Patton used to be on that page exactly as I quoted them above, but have now been modified to include the full context.
P.P.S.: The above statement has been removed, to be replaced by a much longer statement which asserts that the original quotes were appropriate as used in Patton’s lectures.
Harun Yahya (thought to be a pseudonym for a Turkish Islamic creationist organization) writes, in Chapter 10 of the book The Evolution Deceit: Finally, in 1994, a team from Liverpool University in England launched an extensive research to reach a definite conclusion. Finally, they concluded that “the Australopithecines are quadripedal”.(4) Reference 4 is to a paper by Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld, Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature, 369:645-8 (1994). Yahya’s statement is an outright lie. Spoor et al. do not make the statement attributed to them, and actually concluded that: These observations support studies of the postcranial fossil record which have concluded that H. erectus was an obligatory biped, whereas A. africanus showed a locomotor repertoire comprising facultative bipedalism as well as arboreal climbing.
Jan 22, 2002: An email from the webmaster of the Harun Yahya site states that this misquote “was truly a mistake, but not a deliberate misquote”, and that such errors are mainly due to translation errors, as Yahya writes in Turkish then translates to English. The misquote has been removed from the site. I am extremely skeptical that translation errors were responsible for this mistake. I think it far more likely that the quote was accurately translated from a creationist source in English, some of which make similar claims.
——————————————————————————–
Maz said
Sorry Fred but it’s the evoluionist that rejects all scientific knowledge that doesn’t go along with THEIR world view.
”Sciences domain is the natural world”, I agree!! And the natural world is a testimony to a Creator God! But you cannot see it with a mindset that is so rigorous it only wants to see what it wants to believe.
How can life come from non-life? Yes, How Fred? But remember I and other Christians believe in a God that gives life. And He was the one that gave us life in the beginning when He created us.
I don’t think you understand Christianity atall, the way you write shows a fundamental ignorance of Biblical belief. Atleast that is how it comes across. ”These people claim that some sort of never-ending life comes from dead people!” If by that you mean that we receive eternal life if we believe that Jesus died and rose again (He didn’t stay dead!) that is a Biblical truth that all Christians believe.
Jesus isn’t just any man who died just any death, and I don’t think I could explain it to you so that you could say….O yes, I get it! Because I don’t think you will somehow.
And with our God ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
And I am not about to disappear either Fred! I’d like to explain what we believe about life and death but, you see, I don’t think for a moment you would accept and want to believe it, so what is the point?
Your attitude is becoming more agressive as the debate goes on. Would I hazard a guess that it’s because I won’t lie down and accept what you say?
If Creationists have deliberately lied, which I cannot accept, then it only goes to prove that there are liars on BOTH sides of the argument. But I would be interested in any reply to this if I send it to the relevent people.
The last sentence goes to show though, that even if someone admits to making an honest mistake, it would not be accepted as such anyway.
Fred said
How to Debate a Creationist
General Tips
Contrary to popular belief, debating is much trickier than simply knowing the subject matter, and there is no substitute for experience and preparation. Debating with creationists is a specific subset of debating, and it has its own rules. First and foremost, keep a few things in mind:
If you were on your high school or university debate team, you might have become accustomed to your opponent following certain rules. Do not expect that against a creationist; many of them do not respect the idea of debating at all; they are trying to convert you, not debate with you.
There are generally three types of creationist: the garden-variety scientifically ignorant religious fanatic, the religious moderate who has been swayed by religious propaganda, and (most rarely) the religious fanatic who has actually put serious effort into studying the issue. Of those, there is no point debating the first type; fanatics do not recognize the validity of science or logic at all, and an argument will probably devolve into him reciting the Bible and trying to convert you. The second is the easiest to debate; if you can show how the arguments he’s heard are logically flawed, there is a fair chance of actually changing his mind. The third type is the trickiest to debate because they are usually quite experienced, and they tend to have a large “bag of tricks” which they can use against you (expect philosophical attacks against the scientific method, heavy reliance upon the “complexity = design” fallacy, arguments copied from ICR and other creationist websites, and liberal use of specific names, dates, and places in order to lend more rhetorical credibility to their arguments).
Having said that, there are a few things you can do to prepare yourself for debating against a creationist:
Know your Enemy. Learn about the Bible (at the very least, read the Book of Genesis; it’s fairly short and it won’t take you very long to read). Follow this up with research of creationist websites and the arguments they use. This website has some resources intended to help in that endeavour. It is far easier to come up with a quick response to an argument when you’ve seen that argument before, and many creationist arguments are very cleverly constructed so that you need to think about it for a little while to see the logical flaw. Know the argument in advance, and you will have the rebuttal on the tip of your tongue.
Understand Evolution. You need to have a good grasp of how evolution works. Even if you think you have a reasonable grasp, be sure. Study the principles. Read some books if you have to. The majority of creationist arguments rely on distorting the way evolution actually works, and some of these distortions can be quite subtle to the uninitiated, so it is of paramount importance that you understand how it really works, so that you can point out immediately when someone is misrepresenting the process. You don’t need to get a doctorate in the field, but you need to have a good grasp of how an animal population evolves over time.
Learn the Surrounding Science: Evolution debates have a habit of swinging onto other unrelated subjects such as cosmology, geology, and the validity of radiometric dating techniques (and in turn, nuclear physics). While these subjects are not strictly related to evolution theory, it is exceedingly difficult to conduct an evolution debate without being drawn into a debate about these subjects eventually. As with evolution, you don’t need to become a qualified expert (although it would certainly be nice), but you should endeavour to know as much or more about these subjects than your opponent does (which is often a surprisingly easy task, since most creationists learn only the barest superficialities of any given scientific principle before feeling confident enough to pontificate on it).
Learn the Philosophy. Science is more than a collection of facts and figures and theories; it is also a philosophy. It is a way of looking at the world which has proven its worth over centuries of use, and has survived countless philosophical challenges. But as with evolution itself, one needs to be familiar with these challenges in order to refute them anew, because even though philosophers have identified their flaws a long time ago, religionists continue to use them (for example, even though Pascal’s Wager is considered a textbook example of the false dilemma fallacy, it is still in wide use by religionists today). Of course, the most common philosophical argument is the “it’s just a theory” argument.
Know your Logical Fallacies. Contrary to popular belief, logic is not the same as “common sense”, and contrary to what many Star Trek fans believe, it is not an emotionally detached comportment either. It is a branch of philosophy which deals with the validity of inferences. In other words, given a premise A and a conclusion B, logic tells you whether A really does lead to B. It does not tell you whether A is true. A could be false even though the connection between A and B is valid, or A could be true even though the connection between A and B is invalid. The argument fails in both cases, but logic deals only with the connection between A and B. There are a vast number of arguments in common use which are logical fallacies, such as the Slippery Slope and the Appeal to Motive, and it is important that you know how to identify them. But curb your enthusiasm; one of the most common mistakes people make when they first learn about logical fallacies is to see them everywhere, often incorrectly.
Remember to Stay on Topic. It is all too easy to let a creationist bait you into discussion of other subjects such as morality or cosmology, but even if you let this happen, remember to keep reminding him (and the audience, if one is present) that the subject of the debate is evolution theory. Even if he refuses to go back to the subject, these constant reminders will still be beneficial in the sense that they make it clear how difficult it is for your oppponent to attack evolution theory directly.
Do the Research. You can’t do this in a face-to-face debate (which is one of the reasons why written debates are preferable, in addition to permitting far less in the way of theatrics), but you would be amazed how many creationist arguments are simply based on false claims that fall apart once you look them up. For example, one of the infamous “Chick tracks” claims that “Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years”. You might be tempted to assume that this is true and argue that it doesn’t disprove your case, but it turns out that the Leakey claim doesn’t hold water. Even ICR admits that Leakey’s “normal human skull” had a cranial capacity only half that of a normal human, and that Richard Leakey is not even qualified to do this kind of work at all! In fact, they admit that he has no degree of any kind, has never even been to college, and his claims have “not yet been required to stand the scrutiny of critics”! It is often tempting to try and think of a clever off-the-cuff response when confronted with a creationist claim, but more often than not, you are best served by doing a bit of research.
Logical Fallacies
There are many logical fallacies in common use among creationists, but here are the most common:The “Strawman” Fallacy: this is where you build up a distorted “strawman” version of your opponent’s argument in order to knock it down more easily. Virtually all creationist representations of evolutionary mechanisms distort the principle somehow, thus falling into this category.The “Ad-Hominem” Fallacy: this is also known as “attacking the messenger, not the message”. One of the most common forms of the ad-hominem fallacy in online debates is to poke fun at someone’s spelling errors and then conclude that the person’s points are wrong. In religious debates, the most common form of ad-hominem fallacy by far is to attack the morality of an irreligious opponent.The “Appeal to Motive” Fallacy: this is where you attack the authors of an idea on a personal level by questioning the “hidden motives” behind their arguments, rather than addressing their arguments directly. For example, “you’re just saying that vegetables are good for you because you’re a vegetarian”. Naturally, the most common religious implementation of this fallacy is to say that scientists have some evil hidden motive for supporting evolution theory.The “Red-Herring” Fallacy: this is where you introduce an irrelevant tangent to the debate. Most people aren’t clumsy enough to completely change the subject, so they will pick something which is somewhat related to the general subject but not to the actual arguments being made. For example, “the capitalist theory of supply and demand is misleading because capitalism has been responsible for the systematic degradation of the working class, which produces all of the demand” (notice how it looks like it’s related in some way, but despite its appearance it does not actually address or refute the theory of supply and demand at all). The most popular religious implementation of this fallacy is to say that evolution is false if abiogenesis cannot be proven.The “False Dilemma” Fallacy: this is where you try to force your opponent to choose between two options when in fact three or more options are possible. For example, “you should invest that inheritance money in stocks, because the bond market is not healthy right now” (notice how it assumes that there are only two possible choices). The most well-known religious implementation of this fallacy is Pascal’s Wager.The “False Cause” Fallacy: this is where you assume that A caused B even though this is not necessarily the case. There are many specific forms of the false cause fallacy such as the “post hoc” fallacy where people assume that if A comes before B then A must have caused B, or the “complex cause” fallacy where people assume that something has just one cause when it may have several. For example, “it’s too bad Lucy caught Bob watching pornography, because that led to their divorce” (marital failures are often much too complex to pin on a single cause like that) or “”the Nazis reintroduced school prayer when they gained power in pre-war Germany, and the Holocaust followed shortly afterwards, so school prayer caused the Holocaust” (as absurd as that sounds, remember that the removal of school prayer is routinely blamed for everything wrong with society, which is no less absurd).The “Circular Logic” Fallacy: this is also known as “begging the question”, and while few debaters will be clumsy enough to blatantly say something as obvious as “Marxism works because Marxism works”, they will generally do so by rewording the same idea in two different ways. For example, “property rights are just as important as human rights because when you examine the human condition and the history of ethical philosophy, you will see that the right to property is one of the fundamentals, which means that it is a self-evident and inalienable right, just as much as the right to life” (notice how it’s somewhat pompous but is nevertheless basically circular because its premise is just a reworded version of its conclusion). Of course, in religious debates the most common form of circular logic is to use Bible quotes in order to prove that the Bible is the true word of God.If you want to know more about logic fallacies (the above list being very abbreviated), then check out the following sites:http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/ http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
A Word of Caution
Do not be overzealous when you first learn what fallacies are. It is common for people who have newly discovered fallacies to start accusing others of fallacies at the drop of a hat. Sometimes you hear people saying something like “I know this argument is bullshit, but I’m not sure what kind of fallacy it is”. Sometimes, an argument can be false even if it is not fallacious at all (specifically, when its premises are either false or incomplete), so don’t assume that an argument which seems wrong must necessarily be fallacious.Remember: any logical proposition has a premise and a conclusion. If it does not have both premise and conclusion, it is not a logical proposition, therefore it cannot be fallacious. For example, the statement “you are an idiot therefore you are wrong” is a classic ad-hominem fallacy, but the statement “you are an idiot” on its own is not fallacious, because it makes no conclusion based on this claim. It’s certainly considered rude, but it’s not a fallacy. Remember: fallacy definitions are irrelevant when dealing with statements that do not purport to draw conclusions from premises, so don’t be too hasty in your attempt to slap a fallacy name on something your opponent has just said.Similarly, despite what you may think, a bald-faced lie is not a fallacy either. If someone says “the United States military is much less powerful than the Australian military, therefore Australia would probably defeat America in a war”, this is wrong but it is not fallacious. The premise is false, but the logic between premise and conclusion is reasonable.
A Note on Analogies
Analogies are one of the most widely used (and abused) tools in debating. See my Analogies essay if you want to know more about how one should use and deal with analogies.
John said
About post #195 [good job on those quotes, by the way, even if it did make you look like a "quote-miner" yourself, ha, ha] I believe that for the majority of Christians and “Christian cults”[excluding Jehovah's Witnesses of course],I believe that what they’re referring to is an eternal SPIRITUAL life.Heaven and Hell, you know.
I may be wrong of course.
Fred said
Philosophical Differences Separating Religion From Science:1. Any religion worthy of the name, by definition, include some form of belief in the supernatural (e.g., gods, devils, holy ghosts, angels, heaven, hell). Science, however, addresses only naturally occurring phenomena ans thus, by definition, excludes consideration of the supernatural.2. Religion derives its belief system from “Divine Revelation” and from “inner conviction.” Science, by contrast, derives its laws from real-world experimentation and through mathematical and logical reasoning.3. The religious adherent believes that “all things are possible to them that love God.” If asked whether Jesus could throw a rock faster than the speed of light, the religious believer would unhesitating say yes. Science, however, establishes laws restricting Nature’s behavior. Science says, for example, that Jesus could not throw a rock faster than light.4. Because religious doctrines are supposedly ordained of God, the religious adherent cannot easily question the teachings of his church, even when those teachings are provably false. The scientist, on the other hand, is most rewarded when he proves the conventional wisdom wrong and revolutionizes our understanding of the universe.5. The religious individual strives to behave “morally” in order to please God and to gain heavenly reward. The science-minded individual derives his ethical system from the real-world consequences of his actions upon others and upon himself.6. The religious individual tends to hold his beliefs rigidly, fanatically and with a closed mind – never seriously questioning the accuracy of his Church’s teachings. The scientist, however, is eagerly and open-mindedly searching for new theories and for evidence to topple old theories.
John said
Very informative Fred.I believe that points in#5 could be blended together though. Have you ever considered the creative powers of faith, thought, and belief in regards to the creation of personal Deities, spiritual entities, “magickal powers”, healing, miracles,etc.etc.?
Fred said
John, there is a big difference between faith and religious faith. Religious faith is believing what you know ain’t true and doing this on the faith in OTHER PEOPLE who have planted what you believe in your head. This is different than me belieivng that the Orioles might win the pennant. I know the Orioles exist because I’ve been to their games. Christians do not know that their God exists and anything they believe about this God comes totally from the minds of OTHER PEOPLE.
John said
For people who do not know, they sure seem to feel pretty strongly about him though, eh? I would say to you that Deities can be “felt”, and that sometimes, the weird, wonderful or terrible happens in such a way that it seems…beyond the rules of mere chance and coincidence.But then, that may seem to be because I am spiritual and religious myself, and I want to believe.
What about the other things that I mentioned?
I’m off to eat now. Bee back later tonight.
Fred said
John, one of the dunbest things people believe is that people should believe whatever they want to. Whoever says that is an idiot. Science is our best defense against believing what we want to. The fact is atheists don’t have any kind of belief system. We go through life and make our descisions based on educated guesses not walking by faith. “The only way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Benajamin Franklin
Fred said
A Greek phiolosopher once said: “There are only two kinds of people in the world: Intelligent people without religion and religious people without intelligence.” This is because intelligent people are philosophical and the religious cannot possibly be philosophical because philosophy butts heads with and contradicts religion. See philosophy asks questions that may never be answered but religion gives answers that may never be questioned. This is why we must reid our planet of all religion by educated our youth to be science and philosophy minded. This way they will see through the fallacies and lies of religion all on their own.
F. L. A. said
You have many spelling errors for one of those “intelligent people without religion”, Fred.Are you getting yourself all worked up[huge sharp toothed grin]? I hope that you were not implying that John is stupid, not scientific, and philosophical.Because he is not. And nor are many, well,…over half perhaps…of the people on this site.
Perhaps you misunderstood the context of what John meant when he wrote of belief.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”-Hebrews 11:1
Fred said
FLA – “Faith is believing what you know ain’t true.” – Mark Twain.
F. L. A. said
Do you imply that you can prove such a thing? If so then prove it.
“Don’t part with your illusions.When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.”-Mark Twain
“The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that mine is also. I would not interfere with anyones religion, either to strengthen it or to weaken it.But it may easily be a great comfort to him in his life-hence it is a valuable possession to him.-Mark Twain
I like how John put it within post 157.
Also just so you know, Character Maz is a woman.
Zerxil said
“The scientist, on the other hand, is most rewarded when he proves the conventional wisdom wrong and revolutionizes our understanding of the universe.” Bull, people laugh at the scientist or inventor that comes up with crazy Ideas, most of the time they are dead before they can be used. I know some one who runs his riding lawn mower on water. He & a friend downloaded some plans off the internet. They fixed the plans up, made a few prototypes. One of the prototypes was in his trunk. Good thing too. His friend died. all of their notes, prototypes, and the whole frikkin lab disappeared.
John said
It’s easy to be spiritual when your life has so much death in it Fred.I saw an alligator crush the life out of someone this afternoon.Have you ever seen someone die? Up close? It makes one long for more than just this short, dirty, painful, tiring, expensive, etc., existence. I could tell you stories,that convinced me that there is something more after this existence, but you would not believe them, I think.
What do you believe in aside from science and yourself? Is there anything?
Zerxil said
“There are only two kinds of people in the world: Intelligent people without religion and religious people without intelligence.” there are stupid people everywhere.
Zerxil said
“The science-minded individual derives his ethical system from the real-world consequences of his actions upon others and upon himself.”
so basically what he can get away with and or not felt bad about?
Zerxil said
“there are generally three types of creationist: the garden-variety scientifically ignorant religious fanatic, the religious moderate who has been swayed by religious propaganda, and (most rarely) the religious fanatic who has actually put serious effort into studying the issue. Of those, there is no point debating the first type; fanatics do not recognize the validity of science or logic at all, and an argument will probably devolve into him reciting the Bible and trying to convert you. The second is the easiest to debate; if you can show how the arguments he’s heard are logically flawed, there is a fair chance of actually changing his mind. The third type is the trickiest to debate because they are usually quite experienced, and they tend to have a large “bag of tricks” which they can use against you (expect philosophical attacks against the scientific method, heavy reliance upon the “complexity = design” fallacy, arguments copied from ICR and other creationist websites, and liberal use of specific names, dates, and places in order to lend more rhetorical credibility to their arguments).”
you said not to debate a fanatic & than how to debate them.
“and liberal use of specific names, dates, and places in order to lend more rhetorical credibility to their arguments”
too bad the ‘other’ side doesn’t use this.
Zerxil said
Mark Twain is a fictional name…
Chris C. said
Hah, I love how the FLA refers to “Character Maz”. At times we do seem a bit more like characters than real people around these parts…
Fred said
John, atheists don’t have belief systems. I trust myself first and foremost and everything else either to somewhat lesser degrees or not at all. I don’t believe in an afterlife therefore, and so I’m determined to get the most out of life.
Zerxil, most science minded people aren’t looking to get away with things, get over on people or avoid guilt. This is what religious people do. An atheist’s life is nothing like the delusion filled life of the theist.
Zerxil said
For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.
Benjamin Franklin
I hope I & everyone else could too.
If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.
Benjamin Franklin
In the affairs of this world, men are saved not by faith, but by the want of it.
Benjamin Franklin
Zerxil said
really? than what is Scientology?
F. L. A. said
If it’s a delusion, then it’s a wonderful delusion.May it never end[eternal huge sharp-toothed grin].
Fred said
The entire case of the creationists consists of trying to disprove evolution. Their attacks against evolution are somehow supposed to prove creationism. Beginning philosophy students should immediately recogonize this exercise in anti-logic. Even if some of the public could be swayed to disbelieve evolution, that wouldn’t make even one of them creationists. Creationism is not an alternative to evolution for any educated person.
Were Adam and Eve created with all of man’s parasites, including syphilis, herpes and aids already in place? Surely these things are much more rationally explained by evolution. Creationism has no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, no way to advance knowledge and no way to lead to new discoveries.
The battle between scientists and creationists is a battle between two American cultures with radically different worldviews. For many creationists, the battle symbolizes the struggle in this country between religion and godlessness. For the rest of us it represents a choice between scientific progress and ignorance.
The Christian academic community long ago accepted evolution. Baylor, SMU, TCU, Brigham Young, Notre Dame, Stanford and EVERY other CHRISTIAN college and university that has a science department teaches evolution and common descent. This is the reason 50%-75% of Christian college students reject their faith in college. When they get there they find out that they’ve been hoodwinked by their parents and private school teachers about evolution. Once a person understand how evolution works, it is impossible not to accept it as the only explanation we will ever have for the diversity of life on Earth.
John said
Are you a Hedonist Fred?
Satanists are Hedonistic. Not that I’m saying your a Satanist, mind you, I’m just looking for something that I’m familiar with to relate your personal views on theology to.Satanists however believe in the possibility of spirits, magick, and Deities[because they want to be one after death].
So…I’m delusional? That would help to explain much, I guess[but why can't my delusions be MORE FUN?!? It's just not fair...[grin]. Maybe someone could write a self-help book “How to make the most of your Delusions!” or something.].But I’d still rather have it this way than any other. And you don’t even believe in me anyway.You’ve been debating with at least two people that, if you were told more personal information, you would probably think of as fictional characters.We get a kick out of that, you know[smile].
Happy Memorial Day everybody.We shall go now to Party, and honor those warriors that we know and hold dear.
Have fun if you can get away with it.
Blessed Be.
Bob Griffin said
Many posters are sure of the fact of evolution. Why?
The first step of the scientific method is to OBSERVE the phenomena. Darwin didnt observe evolution. Most evolutionists today tell you we CANT OBSERVE it because the process is so slow.
Why does it take faith for me to believe in religion but none for you to believe in evolution?
Barney said
Bob, you have been answered hundreds of times by now.
What use will it be for you to have one more answer?
Bob Griffin said
Barney,
How about showing me a living transitional form. Darwin himself wondered where they were.
You are correct, I have been answered 100s of times, but no answer proves with 100% certainty that evolution is correct.
You still have to have faith.
F. L. A. said
A living transitional form….We have tried giving you those examples before on the original site by the same name Mr.Griffin, from Kiwi birds to whales to Glass Lizard skinks.Remember when it was explained that everything living is in a form of transition? I wonder if perhaps you may have a different idea of what a transitional form is.You believe in Micro-evolution, so you’re already 1/4th of the way there to understanding what the evolutionist means.And despite what it may seem, it does require at least a small degree of faith to hold to such beliefs, for there is much information that is yet unknown and undiscovered.
Some Guy,[if you're still reading] after reading the posts of Character Fred, is this what you were hoping for when you requested that evolutionists “bring it”?
Strange that Brad, who worked so hard arguing with Amanda the Mormon about the truth of Christianity and doctrine, has not given a try to debate with Chris C. or Fred.
Joe said
I don’t understand why Fred is so mad at Christians. Believe what you want, but don’t be so egotistical as to insinuate that someone else is stupid or less than a person because they don’t believe what you do. Here in America we are free to believe whatever we want and still be productive, active members of society. Don’t belittle us because we choose to believe in God and you don’t. I believe John, F.L.A., Chris C, Amanda the Mormon, Maz and plenty of others on here are probably upstanding, respectful citizens. Fred, relax and enjoy the debate. Nobody thinks you’re stupid. Your comments are actually very interesting and intriquing. I don’t believe what you do, but I don’t think you’re an idiot.
John said
We don’t really understand his motivations.
Perhaps he once lost someone dear to him.
This could be like…emotional therapy, or something.
I’d be interested in hearing his answers to F. L. A.’s questions in post#60 on the “Christian and Superstitious?” site.
ADB said
Old Fred just doesn’t realize that resorting to belittling just makes him look shallow and small minded even if he isn’t.
Fred said
For Bob Griffin and any creationist who thinks there are no transitional fossils and all plants and animals magically popped into existence all at once, transitional fossils do exist and there are extensive lists and descriptions of them in any public library and on the Internet. They are on display in museums in every major city in the world. Furthermore the creationist claim that micro evolution happens but macro evolution does not, reflects their ignorance of what macro evolution is. Macro evolution is simply micro evolution over thousands and millions of years.
As far as transitional species, ALL species are transitional including and most recently especially humans. The Spartans bred their tallest soldiers with tall women in an attempt to have bigger and taller soldiers who could gain an edge in combat with their height. And they did; they were considerably taller than their opponants on average. The Spartans averaged a whopping 5′5 to 5′6, towering over their enemies. Their fastest runners could run a mile in five minutes. But wait, just less than a hundred years ago the fastest humans could run a mile in four minutes! That’s not really too exciting is it? Because we’ve now broken the three minute mile and we did it with humans that are considerably taller than the Spartans too haven’t we? Human beings are changing into completely different humans than our ancestors were. As this goes on we will change even more and if we survive as a species for a million years we will no longer resemble today’s humans anymore than we who live today do hominids from a million or two years ago. We will have become a different species through evolution by natural selection. The idea that we were created from mud by a deity and have always been and will always remain the same is absurd.
Fred said
Young earth creationists claim that the scientific evidence is definitely against evolution and in favor of a young Earth. I usually politely point out that the only reason they think so is that they believe the Bible [to be error free] in scientific as well as spiritual matters. I then occasionally ask why they don’t believe that the Earth stands still while the sun moves around it and that our planet is flat and has four corners, since both notions are also present in the Bible. In fact, one could argue that these two positions are much more clearly defined in the Christian scriptures than the age of Earth, which has to be calculated on the basis of assumptions concerning the life span of the lines of descent mentioned in the book. The astonishing creationist response is to deny that the Bible makes claims either about a flat Earth or in defense of geocentrism. But this goes clearly against not only the existence of creationists who see and defend both claims, but also against the historical evidence: For most of western history, Christians have espoused both views precisely on biblical grounds! It is not for nothing that both Copernicus and Galileo got in trouble with the Church of Rome and Bruno lost his life.
Young-Earth creationists, however, seem to be able to live with this internal contradiction; For them the story in Genesis is to be taken literally: The world was created 6,000 years ago, and humans and animals died in a worldwide flood that occurred about 4,000 years ago…Several interesting fallacies underlie this position, and young Earth creationists are the epitome of what happens when science education fails completely. It simply makes no sense – given the evidence that we have today from a variety of fields, such as geology, paleontology, ecology, physics, and astronomy – to deny that Earth is billions of years old and that while mass extinctions certainly occurred, they were not due to floods and no such event happened on a worldwide basis so recently in Earth’s history.
Fred said
Millions of American Christians are holding their breath and praying tha Pioneer doesn’t find life on Mars. They know that when this rover finds life on Mars creationism will be dead forever. Count down 10 9 8 ….. get ready creationists. Jesus can’t save your cult now!
Bob Griffin said
228 F.L.A.
Who doesnt get the concept? I have a different form I would like to see. A man turning into a whale. Where would I get the idea of such an insane form? From Darwins book. He wondered how we could go from a land animal to an aquatic one. I merely would like to see what Darwin talked about.
Bob Griffin said
232 Fred
You give a bunch of examples of MIcro evolution. See my previous post. Where are the examples of man to fish? Thats what the theory calls for.
truthtalklive said
Fred – Post #234 combined with this comment in the superstition thread leads us to give you one more warning:
“For anyone who is REALLY interested in the truth about Jesus: Jesusneverexisted.com. You’ll have to twist your brain into a two thousand year old pretzel to believe in Jesus after you check THAT cite out. I dare you Christians to check it out.”
“Jesus can’t save your cult now!”
Please just stick to the debate and give us a break with the accusatory comments and cult references.
Thanks,
Moderator
Maz said
Moderator: I think we have found it all quite…..uncomfortable….to say the least, with Fred’s continuing tone on here, freedom of speech and debate is one thing but I think Fred has gone beyond the mark more than a few times. I for one refuse to answer any of his posts directly, and aren’t we encouraging his blaspheme? How many times does one get warned? And how far does one have to go?
zerxil said
MAZ that wasn’t exactly a blasphemy. They are looking for a trace of proof that water ever existed on Mars. If and only if water was on mars for there to be carben life forms. They more than likely won’t find animal fossils since its 1, mill to one that they find them here. I would of course like to see a close up of “the face” on mars and know what its made out of.
224) Satanists or Mormons (they were the ones that believed Satin was Jesus’ brother, Right?), I believe Oprah’s Mitchael Tole (toll maybe) has a book about that.
ADB you might be right about Fred. But it’s new Fred old Fred is Barney…
some guy said
okay..enough primordial ooze slinging. Let’s get back to the topic; how does darwin church preach psalm 104? I came across this account today in scripture–very timely indeed. Read it first and then make comment. I promise you that it will take much less time than the majority of Fred’s essays
truthtalklive said
Yes, please…the topic. All we ask for is a kind debate with diplomacy and respect towards each other, regardless of what they believe.
Maz said
Zerxil: I was talking about Fred’s general anti-God, anti-Christian, and very disrespectful tone on this site, not only towards Christians but especially towards God. I wasn’t referring to the Mars landing.
And water is not the only thing they would have to find, because water alone cannot bring forth life. The right mixture of chemicals and the right environment must be present for life. It is not as simple as evolutionists make it.
F. L. A. said
Mr. Griffin, it would take some time…..[HAR! HAR!]. Unless it was due to genetic tinkering by scientists,of course.
Fred, as one who acknowledges the possibility of alien life, I wonder if you have considered also the possibility of intelligent alien life…..that was religious. How would you handle THEM, hypothetically speaking? It would not have to mean the absolute end of Christianity, they[the Christians] would simply have to revise their concept of who and what God is, along with their place in the cosmos. At some point I was wondering if I might ask you to try and use your scientific knowledge to try and define the concept of love. What is it to you, as a scientific Athiest.I also would like to know your age, If I may.
Maz, it’s not impossible either.It may not even be life as we know it[carbon based, for example.], or they could simply discover fossilized evidence of alien bacteria.It’s a very big, weird universe.The possibilities are absolutely endless.
Some Guy, I will give it a try.
zerxil said
Dolphins could be devolved from land animals, whales too. no gills. Are seals and porpoises land or sea animals?
zerxil said
Mr Griffin I listened to this show. Are you the person on the show? yes yes I know just a little slow.
zerxil said
“They[the Christians] would simply have to revise their concept of who and what God is, along with their place in the cosmos.”
Again? Jesus changed how some Jews & Gentiles viewed God. Some Jews already viewed God like this and others suppressed it. We changed with Galileo. At least our place in the cosmos. Comets were optical illusions. lol. We will change it with enough evidence. we have to, because truth demands belief.
Bob Griffin said
243 F.L.A.
It has taken some time for scientists. They could only produce micro results in Darwins day, and are doing the same now. They cannot produce a transitional form.
Bob Griffin said
245 Zerxil
Yes, I am the one who was on the show. Its fun getting to spar with everyone after the show.
John said
Some Guy, what exactly did you want to know from the evolutionist after a reading of Psalm 104? We read it, and it sounds fine, but neither of us know exactly what you want.Right now F. L. A. is living out Psalm 104:20, as for myself, Psalm 104:33 describes me rather well[smile].
All the things that I’d like to say, and darn it all if the F. L. A. hasn’t beaten me to it, almost every day.
Mr. Griffin, post#247, I’m not so sure about that.We’ve become so advanced manipulating genes that I wouldn’t be surprised at all if mutants like what you would call a transitional form could be produced within a few dozen generations. But would you accept it if you saw it[grin, head cocked to the side with one raised eyebrow]?
Fred said
The question “Was Darwin right or wrong?” is meaningless. The science of evolution has moved way past where it was in Darwin’s day. For instance Darwin thought modern humans descended from Cro-magnons, something we now know is not true. Creationists trying to pick apart Darwin’s work to prove it is flawed is an exercise in futility. Modern scientists don’t use Darwin’s ideas anymore because they have all either been modified or disregarded. Comparing Darwin’s work to modern day evolutionary biology is like comparing the Wright brother’s first plane to the Space Shuttle. The fact that creationists think they can disprove evolution by discrediting Charles Darwin proves how little they know about the whole subject.
Bob Griffin: The fossil record unequivocally attests macro-evolutionary transition including the ape-human transitional form Australopithecus. The lobe-finned fish, which lived in water but had lungs and legs like fins, was an intermediate between fish and amphibians. Eusthsnpteron shows marvelous intermediate characteristics between lobed-finned fishes and amphibians. Amphibians themselves provided a macro-evolutionary transition from aquatic to land-dwelling reptilian life. Cynodonts bridged the gap between reptiles and mammals, possessing combined traits of both.
Bob, 2500 years ago and even before that people knew man was an evolved transitional species himself: “Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely a fish, in the beginning.” – Anaximander (c. 610-546 BCE), Greek philosopher and media personality. Proto-Darwinian of the year 561 BCE.
One thing about science is that unlike religion, it is self-correcting. If it were possible to disprove evolution someone would have done it by now and they would have won a Nobel Prize for science and become extremely rich and quite famous too. But this hasn’t happened and it isn’t going to either. What creationism really does is drive thinking people from Protestant churches at the rate of about 50,000 a week. So keep up the good work.
Fred said
FLA I don’t think that intelligent alien life would be religious. I think once aliens got off their own planet and into space they would be kind of like the first human in space. Do you know what the first words ever uttered in space by a human were? “I don’t see any god up here.” – Yuri Gagarin (1934-1968), Soviet-Russian cosmonaut; first atheist (and first human) in space (1961).
On the concept of love question, interestingly the Greeks and the New Testament writers used two different words for love phil-o and agapa. I would direct you to a short study on the Greek definitions of those two words. I would say that it seems natural to an atheist to love their fellow man and unnatural to place a middle-man (God) in between humans. In other words atheists don’t need to be commanded by an invisible deity that can only be imagined to love their fellow humans.
As far as the label “scientific atheist” I know a lot more about religions than I do science. I majored in Ancient Near Eastern studies in school for which classical Greek was my language. I’m a Jew and I learned to read some Hebrew as a child and so I can read the Bible in its original languages. I have a large collection of ancient inscriptions from the Near East. This literature is all very similar. Most of the inscriptions either deal with prophets blessing and cursing kings and nations or a god who is obsessed with His temple and His people and stories of kings who either plundered the temple (bad kings) or kings who restored the temple to the proper worship of the gods of their ancestors. This land was littered with prophecies and myths already by the time my superstitious ancestors wrote their own versions of these things. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.
Maz said
John: Does F.L.A. really ”creep forth” like ”every wild beast of the forest” as you suggested from your inference in your post #249? She seems a likeable person to me, intelligent too. Why do you paint her such a dark creature?
some guy said
“Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely a fish, in the beginning.
So, help me with the grecian logic here; If man is another animal, how come we find it necessary to wear clothes? Animals have skin just like man, but I have never seen a chimp @ the GAP!
my superstitious ancestors–please explain Fred. In your studies of eastern religion, have you ever factored the prophetic accuracy of hebrew writings in relation to Christ and his ministry?
Maz said
I have recently found a couple of verses that seem very relevant. Acts 19 v 8-9: ‘And he (Paul the Apostle) went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened, and believed not, but spoke evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one, Tyrannus.’
And also in Luke 16 v 31, ”And he”(Abraham,in Jesus parable of the rich man and Lazarus)’’said to him ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
I guess some will never believe whatever you show them. We need to recognise when to desist and depart.
Maz said
P.S: Just to make it clear, I am not alluding to everyone on here that disagrees with our beliefs.
Fred said
Some guy, the New Testament writers obviously had the Old Testament prophecies in front of them when they wrote their stories. The authors of Matthew and Luke also had Mark’s gospel in front of them because we can tell they both copied much of it word for word. No person fulfilled any of these prophecies. The gospel writers simply used these prophecies to pound their Jesus into the role of a coming Messiah. Anyone who thinks the gospels are biographies is sadly mistaken. They are religious proclations about a “new Israel” allegorically represented by a fictioanl person, Jesus Christ. Jesus represented Israel the way Uncle Sam represents the US allegorically. You will say I am wrong but the top Bible scholars in the world agree with me and I can supply a very long list of them.
Fred said
Some guy, humans where clothes because they have evolved and become intelligent enough to see the value of clothing. Some tribes of primitives do not where clothing. This is the problem with your religion: it denies man’s place among the animals. Any religion degrades the animal kingdom like that is an insult to every living creature on earth.
Bob Griffin said
249 John
It is possible humans could make a transitional form. But if its so hard for us now with all our advanced technology, how does nature do it by itself? The intro to Darwins book talks about how ironic it is you can believe a mindless process can get better results than humans (insert a grin here).
Bob Griffin said
Fred 250
Im not talking about fossils that are engineered by those w a darwinist bias. I keep asking for a living transitional form. I will get darwins book tonite and quote from it. You think I dont understand the theory, so I will use your mans words.
Maz said
I’v just watched a programme about a very strange animal called the Mimic Octopus.
It not only has the ability to change colour, or change shape, but can make itself look like other creatures in the sea, like sea snakes. He digs himself into the sand and then lets his legs waver around above the sand just like the snakes do. These creatures can mimic shrimps, starfish, 3 different kinds of crab, jelly fish, lion fish and stingray. They can even swim across the bottom of the sea like a flounder. Amazing. This was found in the late 1980’s. In fact the octopus can change it’s appearence to look like up to 17 different species.
And I would need a bottle of dye to change the colour of my hair, tanning lotion to become brown, and makeup to change the appearence of my face!
some guy said
Fred–I will not say that your wrong; how can I–a fallible, fallen, human being like yourself. You supply your list of your “scholars”; I will stand on what God says, not on your diatribe of deduction, which has no historical veracity of genuineness; it is only pompous pontification that will continue to frustrate and alienate.
As to the clothes argument, yours is weak; it makes it sound as if we humans have the capacity to make ourselves happy. If that were the case, please travel to Beverly Hills, Palm Beach, etc. and just take note of all the smiling, happy people
As the wise Solomon stated in the book ecclesiastes, the chief end of man (including primitive tribes) is to fear god and obey him; otherwise we run the risk of assuming that we made ourselves and make our own hearts beat which is a most profound fallacy.
Darwin’s philosophy advocates for the acquisition of knowledge, and then takes it to its next logical step–knowledge is what we need. Nope, contrary to popular university opinion, knowledge cannot formulate wisdom, unless the volition of man is employed and that knowledge is compared to divine knowledge. When these intersect and agree–wisdom is the product.
zerxil said
SO EVERYONE AGREES, DARWIN WAS WRONG.
zerxil said
“Modern scientists don’t use Darwin’s ideas anymore because they have all either been modified or disregarded.”
zerxil said
182 “Christians don’t trust scientists even though every last one of them trusts a doctor.”
You should always get a second opinion, at least, from a different doctor(s).
some guy said
especially Dr. Luke!
Jeremiah 17:5
F. L. A. said
Well, I’m back, and my my, what a lot bickering.Just like normal.
Thank you for your response Fred, and although I can understand were you’re coming from thinking that advanced alien life would be Atheistic, I disagree.For starters, I didn’t only mean to include advanced[more so than us, that is] alien life within my hypothetical scenario. After all, they could be primitive superstitious people who preform sacrifice[Hee. Hee.].Or if they were indeed space-faring, then it could easily be that they were motivated by matters of theology.For example, they could be intergalactic missionaries! Wouldn’t that just be “horrible”? I know that having contempt for theology and religious people, and thinking that they are less advanced than you intellectually, that aliens that YOU think of as being EVEN MORE ADVANCED than yourself
would just HAVE to be Atheistic[super-Atheist, perhaps?], but this may not be so at all.The universe is a very big weird place full of possibilities beyond human imagination.And people[of any kind] have a way of surprising you.
As to your answer on LOVE, what I wanted was for you to try and give me your personal definition, if you could adequately express it in words.I already knew about the words origins.I was hoping for something less clinical and a little more…”from the heart”, so to speak.I noticed that you didn’t pass up a chance to criticize a deity in that response[chuckle].
Maz, I am and I do, usually in an attempt to catch every wild beast of the forest.Although not entirely “evil” by every definition of the word, in my domain I am hungry death incarnate, and definitely a sinister power to be feared.My physique is more…complicated than yours, so “creep forth” is not a bad way to describe my main method of locomotion.I won’t tell you any more personal details, so don’t even bother asking.
You actually think of me as a likable person? YOU? What in the world for, woman? Even after all of my cold criticisms on your theological views???? I liked your disclaimer in post #255.
Some Guy, not all of humanity wears clothing, and I’m not just talking about “primitives”.John and I have discussed it, and we came to the conclusion that[at least in Florida] humans wear cloths for 4 main reasons, which are….1:Fashion/Self expression, 2:Identification[like work uniforms of various professions], 3:Because “everyone else is doing it”, and 4:For protection/concealment. Humanity is weird, and does many odd things that do not seem to make any sense at all to me.
F. L. A. said
I just remembered something Some Guy. During heavy rains AND hot sunny afternoons, Chimpanzees and Gorillas have been noticed wearing and holding large leaves as sun hats, or umbrellas.Draw your own conclusions[huge sharp-toothed grin].
Maz said
F.L.A: You still come over a lot nicer than some people on here. ”What in the world for…..?” Does one have to have a reason? The world is a better place if we can all be atleast congenial with each other.
F. L. A. said
Really?
I do?
I thought I came off as John…but with a lot more time on my hands, so to speak.
..[?]……………….
I guess that’s not very flattering of the others here, huh?
Maz said
Actually I was only referring to a single individual rather than any ‘others’.
zerxil said
233 hey fred.
In astronomy, the geocentric model of the universe is the theory that the Earth is at the center of the universe and the Sun and other objects go around it. Belief in this system was common in ancient Greece. It was embraced by both Aristotle and Ptolemy, and most Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circle the Earth. Similar ideas were held in ancient China.[1]
zerxil said
So are you saying only Fred was worse than FLA, I’m insulted. well I’ll have to work harder at being annoying. Man, I’m not more annoying than FLA sigh. I’m pretty sure I can be more annoying. I know I can take FRED lessons. Lesson 1 whenever someone replys to your statements don’t acknowledge it and dismiss it out of hand if from an opposing view. Lesson 2 put even more inflammatory, incorrect, or great posts on instead. Lesson 3 get edited (oh wait thats a lesson you can learn from me).
some guy said
.1:Fashion/Self expression, 2:Identification[like work uniforms of various professions], 3:Because “everyone else is doing it”, and 4:For protection/concealment. Humanity is weird, and does many odd things that do not seem to make any sense at all to me.
1. speedos–no..no. 2). hairnets–boss says so. 3). speedo–would you? 4). yes, we all have something to hide right..that’s me point. There is something in us, our “natural” selves, that seems less forthright than our opinions and tongue ramblings that can easily be cast without much examination, but au natural–things get a little dicey. Animals do not have this conflict. Do primates have preference over the shape,size,color of leaf umbrellas? are they intelligent enough to understand the inefficiency of a taco bell wrapper to shield the rain/light?
zerxil said
Hey taco bell wrappers work on rain, just use the dry side or you will get mild sauce on you… clothes cant hide my worst things to hide.
Fred said
Bob Griffin – There aren’t any fossils engineered by people with Darwinist bias. Fossils have been misrepresented by people who supposedly discovered them for financial gain and these frauds were exposed by scientists themselves. Accusing scientists of having some sort of bias is ludicrous. No avenue of human endeavor is more open to scrutiny than science. Conversely no avenue is more closed to scrutiny than religion especially Christianity. Scientists have absolutely no reason to be dishonest about their findings regarding evolution. Who should we believe? Scientists who admit that their findings are never the final word or religious zealots who claim theirs is.
If you think using Darwin’s own words proves something, it proves that you do not understand evolutionary theory. Richard Dawkins and other modern scientists do a much better job of explaining evolution than one of the people who discovered it. You creationists think Darwin invented evolution or something. Evolution is the manner by which nature structures itself and he and other scientists simultaneously discovered the exact same things.
Obviously you ignore the answers to your questions. You asked for a living transitional form and I clearly showed how ALL species are transitional and this is especially obvious with human beings. Creationists have had all their questions thoroughly answered and all their claims thoroughly refuted many times. They just plod on as if nothing anyone says who disagrees with their holy book matters. The fact is that nothing anyone said IN their holy book matters. None of it.
Fred said
Some Guy – You say you’re going to stand on what God says. You’re standing on what other PEOPLE have said God says and their diatribe of deception. It is the Gospels that have no historical veracity nor were they ever meant to. If you think humans don’t have the capacity to make themselves happy then you don’t know any atheists and your worldview and your life itself is pathetic. I see smiling happy people everyday. I was born in California and I saw them there too.
You state that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. Where’d you get that idea? My end is not to fear and obey your God fella and I don’t run any risk of thinking I created myself. My parents did that. Where’d you get this “Darwin’s philosophy?” Darwin was a scientist, who gives a hoot about his philosophy. Not me. Knowledge doesn’t always lead to wisdom you say, contrary to university opinion. You fundy Christians are always disagreeing with intellectuals but have yet to prove any of them wrong. As far as divine knowledge, if it were really knowledge, why the need for faith?
Maz said
No Zertzil, I was just really trying to point out that F.L.A. isn’t as bad as she seems to portray herself. Do you want to be annoying?
Maz said
The scientific proof of Creation is out there for all to see but some just refuse to see it.
There are many, many scientists who are well educated in their field and believe in a six day Creation. And they can show proof of what they believe, but again, there are those who will just stick blindly to their ‘faith’ in evolution and won’t accept it.
Bob Griffin said
Fred 275
Ok, I wont use Darwins words. But the theory says we all came from 1 animal. Thus, we have to have transitional forms. You just tell me that we are ALL transitional forms. Once again, you cannot show me any living form in a state of transition. It looks more like all life forms came about at once, as the cambrian explosion shows. You can theorize all you want, but you dont find life in various states of transition. It should be very simple for you: produce a living transitional form. With the million of species and billions of years, how hard should that be?
Fred said
Bob Griffin, I gave you examples of transitional species and like a typical creationist you ignore the proof you ask for and go on like you wern’t just proved wrong. Before you prattle on with your insane ideas, you first need to show that I am wrong. It might look to you like all life just popped into existence but the fossil record gives us a different story than your religious delusions give you. All life has been proved to be in a state of transition and you ignore this proof too.
Bob, why don’t you turn that supposedly critical mind of yours toward a story about a man spending three days in the belly of a fish, a talking donkey, a witch calling up dead people, a jar that stays full of oil no matter how much one uses or any of the other absurd tales in the Bible. Nope, you’ll swallow those stories without question and then feed them to your uneducated brainwashed progeny without any doubts whatsoever. The fact that you don’t trust modern scientists but instead put your trust in words scribbled on parchments by superstitous animal scrificing primitives illustrates that your mind has been slammed shut out of fear of an angry vengeful God. You believe what you do because you are afraid not to. That is pathetic.
Bob Griffin said
Fred
Paragraph 1 – I’ll make it a little easier. Lets say a whale transitioning to a man. Show me living beings in the early, middle and latter stages of transition. Lets assume we have no religion. If you look at the Cambrian explosion, it looks like all was created at once.
Paragraph 2 – I assume you’re not religious. Most learned scientists agree on only 2 possibilities for our existence 1) Nothing arose from nothing 2) The universe was created.
You believe number 1. Our world shows us that nothing from nothing leaves nothing (Billy Preston), but you accept the opposite. I believe number 2,that we were created by God. I believe that a God who created the universe could turn water into wine, and any other miracles he wanted to. I find my position much more plausible than yours. Oh, and the scribbled parchments I believe in have hundreds of prophecies that came true in the person of Jesus. Name me any other source that can have hundreds of prophecies come true hundreds of years later. Id rather rely on that than a modern, probably atheist scientist.
truthtalklive said
Bob – Fred was banned because he ignored our warnings concerning the rules on this site and his use of the “f” word in a different thread.
F. L. A. said
Well, it was inevitable.Skeptical Fred DID believe in the fate of being banned from the site[post#115], so he did have a little faith in the concept of predestination after all.
Some Guy, post#273,….I wouldn’t wear a speedo and couldn’t even if I wanted to.I never wear ANY clothing, ever. As for your question about primates, yes, some do. Humans are primates, after all.
Personally I don’t think that there’s anything that comes wrapped up in a Taco Bell wrapper that’s worth trying to protect.That “food” is waaaay too greasy, like eating someone’s spoiled pet Pot Bellied Pig[hack!].
Mr. Griffin, isn’t the Cambrian Explosion[which is dated at about 530 million years ago] a little old for you to believe in as a Young Earth Creationist? Type in “Cambrian Explosion” in your search engine and read the interesting info about it on Wikipedia .
some guy said
Father God, we mention Fred up to you and thank you for allowing our interaction. It is apparent that he is one of your chosen people, who has willingly decided not to agree with the oracles of God; we thank you Lord that we have been able to discuss your truth and love to him, and pray that our words, your truth and your spirit have had some impact on his impenitent and hostile heart. We pray, as a unified group, with the understanding that it is your will that Fred come to the knowledge of his desperate need for forgiveness and peace with his Creator. We acknowledge that this can only be ascertained through the ministry, death and RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ—a jew, who came to minister to jew and gentile alike to save sinners like us all. We praise and thank you for your agape [unconditional] love.
Barney said
Can I go back to being Fred, now? Somehow Barney isn’t quite right for me.
zerxil said
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was an “explosion” of complex organisms in the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it implies about the origin and possible evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.
zerxil said
sure. I had a pithy comment on FRED & you coming back as Fred but it was edited..
Zerxil said
Than why did you change it? how about going Hollywood and calling yourself Fredric?
Chris C. said
Also, the “explosion” is a bit of a misnomer. There are still millions of years and generations between the top and bottom of the “cambrian explosion” in the geologic column.
Bob Griffin said
283 F.L.A.
Who said I accept the dating of the Cambrian explosion? It does make me want to be an evolutionist sometimes. You can say 530 million years and I can say 430 million years. Were 100 million years apart and both thought of as geniuses.
Maz said
Zerxil: It’s called the ‘Cambrian explosion’ (a misnomer) because the fossils appear suddenly in the rock strata fully formed without any evidence for their evolutionary path before that.
In other words, the fossils have no ancestry in the rocks below. And I do not believe that the Cambrian period was millions of years ago, but only thousands. Dating methods are not atall reliable. It could have even been the result of the world wide flood of Noahs day.
Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, layed down by water all over the world. Many fossils do indeed seem to have been laid down rapidly as in a flood.
Maz said
P.S: If there are many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record then why do we still have the idea of ‘missing links’? Are they not missing anymore? I believe there is a chart of evolutionary progress from the beginning until now that are used in text books that show this progression with gaps in it. Has someone filled in these gaps?
F. L. A. said
Not all of the gaps Maz, but they ARE becoming fewer in number as time progresses.Maz, considering that animal life of the Cambrian period were mainly all aquatic in nature, how could something like the Biblical Flood have hypothetically killed them off? By diluting the saline content of the oceans water too much?????
Maz said
F.L.A: What gaps are still missing and which have been filled? And who said it was only aquatic life? I was trying to find a copy of Darwins ‘tree’ of evolution, havn’t found it yet but I’m still looking. Will let you know what I find. And will also research more on the Cambrian business.
John said
How come none of the Young Earth Creationists-Ken Ham fans want to debate with us using his book/work? Do you find it as silly as we do now, or something?
John said
Maz, also check out the Phyogenetic Tree Of Life based on rRNA gene data and Haeckel’s Paleontological Tree Of Vertebrates[which is outdated, but still interesting and able to give you a better understanding about this sort of thing].You can find them presented on the Wikipedia information site.
Maz said
John: If Haeckel’s Tree is anything like his embryo evolution chart then I am afraid I can’t trust anything he says. And arguing from a book is not realistic. I would rather argue with what I know personally. Yes, I read everything I know from books, but I can’t go through a book, chapter by chapter and subject by subject like that because I don’t know as much as the author.
I did find a fossil tree on the web that seems to show far more gaps than there are fossil records for any evolution. But still looking and learning.
John said
Well I did tell you that Haeckel’s Tree is out dated.
“And arguing from a book is not realistic”-Maz WHAT?? Almost everything that everybody on this site uses to back up their debates is from out of books.How often have yourself and others quoted Biblical scriptures to try and prove a point?How would this be any different? Concerning a book like that of Ken Ham’s, do you not think that you are “in the right” and have a better understanding of Young Earth Creationism than a Pagan evolutionist like me? I don’t even have a collage education, I’m just a country Witch with a house full of books[kinda].Now, F. L. A. has more time to surf the web for information than I do, but has no formal education AT ALL[not that we're stupid, mind you.We are very wise and crafty.].So it seems that a well educated Young Earth Christian Creationist would have an easier time at debating with us on this matter, is all.
We are glad to know that you are still looking and learning.
“The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.”-Aristotle
Maz said
John: You didn’t get my point, which is that it’s not just what I read that I can debate, I have to understand what it’s saying and know more than what is stated. I have to have studied it fairly well to argue the point. Some things I know more about than others. I would rather discuss things I know most about…….Debating from ignoranc is not beneficial to anyone. And no, I don’t know everything, just like I would guess you don’t either.
Zerxil said
295 Sure I’ll debate you. Haven’t read it but hey a just glanced through books and wrote about it in school…
John said
Are you implying that you are not very knowledgeable about Ken Ham’s Young Earth Creation Science? And you seemed so much of an advocate of it,..[Hmmmmmmmm?].Well, there are others reading that can take us up on the challenge, perhaps. What do you know most about in regards to this topic?
And no, I surely don’t know everything[couldn't learn THAT in 100 lifetimes].
F. L. A. said
Thank you Zerxil[John has gone home for the night].You may want to arm yourself for this debate a little better however if all that you have done is glance through some of the books. Although it would be fun, we wouldn’t want you “flying blind” so to speak. Take your time, and let us know when you feel that you are ready.
Maz said
John: I am not a ”know-it’all”. I wouldn’t claim that I know all that Ken Ham knows, I havn’t read ALL his books or studied EVERYTHING about evolution/creation, but what I know proves to me without a doubt that God created the Heavens and the earth and all that is in them.
I can still be an advocate…do we really have to have degrees in science to blog on here?
And I have put many good arguments against evolution on here and they have been rejected due to evolutionary bias.
I listed the 3 main proofs against evolution in my post #18. I still havn’t had a very compelling or convincing answer for any of them.
Zerxil said
No I didn’t read the book you were referancing, but I have read alot of there stuff on there website.
F. L. A. said
Actually Maz, those points have been well covered, wether you found the answers compelling and convincing or not.Of course one needs not degrees.Considering that we have none ourselves, this doesn’t seem like it should even matter for you to bring it up.
Maz said
F.L.A: It would be silly of me to bring up arguments that I don’t have enough knowledge about wouldn’t it. I would be speaking from ignorance. Ofcourse some evolutionist or athiest might say that I already am!
So I speak on the subjects that I do know….common sense really.
And I know certain points have been covered, but nothing really of substance seems to be in the answers. Can you prove to me that DNA is a natural occurence in nature? How can it be, it contains intelligent information. I’v yet to get an answer to how this information can come into existence from none living matter or indeed from nothing. Information has to come from an intelligence. Intelligence is not matter. There is something beyond matter…can you tell me what that is without accounting for an intelligent Being….i.e: God.
Zerxil said
Sure lets do it now. If we get into a sticky wicket someone will bound to chime in. What was the name of the book we are going to dissect. Are you going to take on the things you disagree with, or the whole thing? I think we should do the whole thing because Chris and others might disagree with the whole work.
Zerxil said
The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh (in what is now Northern Ireland). The chronology is sometimes associated with Young Earth Creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago.
Ussher’s work, more properly known as the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti (Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world), was his contribution to the long-running theological debate on the age of the Earth. This was a major concern of many Christian scholars over the centuries.
The chronology is sometimes called the Ussher-Lightfoot chronology because John Lightfoot published a similar chronology in 1642–1644. This, however, is a misnomer, as the chronology is based on Ussher’s work alone and not that of Lightfoot. Ussher deduced that the first day of Creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. Lightfoot similarly deduced that Creation began at nightfall near the autumnal equinox, but in the year 3929 BC.
Ussher’s proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher’s near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC).[1] Ussher’s specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth’s potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). This view had been almost completely abandoned by 1997,[citation needed] six thousand years after 4004 BC. Some biblical scholars, as well as a number of evangelical Christians declare their literal interpretation of the Bible and a 6000-year-old Earth.[2]
Some modern theists[citation needed] now assert that the chronology is valid only back to the time of “a first day” when light was elaborated. They hold that an interminable amount of time may well have intervened between the instant at which the heavens and earth were originally created and the onset of this “first day”. This theory allows for the existence of previous “bio-epochs” during which now-obsolete life forms existed and were destroyed prior to the creation of those now extant and that the Genesis narrative omitted mention of this period because it was not relevant to the purpose for which the account was intended.[citation needed]
Zerxil said
Ussher’s methods
The chronologies of Ussher and other biblical scholars corresponded so closely because they used much the same methodology to calculate key events recorded in the Bible. Their task was complicated by the fact that the Bible was compiled from different sources over several centuries with differing versions and lengthy chronological gaps, making it impossible to do a simple totaling of Biblical ages and dates. In his article on Ussher’s calendar, James Barr[3] has identified three distinct periods that Ussher had to tackle:
* Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead.
* Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings’ reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline.
* Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (in 2 Kings 25:27).
their, sorry
Zerxil said
“Many in the scientific community believe that DNA is too labile to have possibly survived, even in tiny fragments, for 70 million years. It is more generally accepted that some proteins, like collagen, have a higher preservation potential than DNA. And my lab is more suited to do protein studies than to work with ancient DNA. Others are certainly welcome to try to obtain DNA from this or other dinosaurs. It probably won’t be me directly, though if we get to the point where funding and equipment allow, I will certainly do the supportive work.”
So if there is DNA the bones aren’t 70 million years.
Zerxil said
190 Maz have you read this link I think it is more a proof for young earth than old earth
John said
As you wish Zerxil, but lets do it tomorrow, as I left the book at my house.As far as I know, it’s Ken’s most recent book.I mentioned it towards the end of the original site by this name.
Maz, let me take a crack at answering one of your points in your post#18.
Some people will say that evolution violates the2nd law of Thermodynamics.Not true, for the second law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, and the Earth is not a closed system.If it did apply, then babies wouldn’t grow into adults and adults wouldn’t have babies.WE are agents of entropy ourselves Maz, for we organize our bodies at the expense of the organization of our environment, which we digest and burn. Creationists often abuse/use the second law apparently not realizing that it stresses ….”in a closed system”….By definition a closed system cannot contain anything external to itself. So a Creator Deity who is entirely bounded by “his” creation seems non-sensical, and I don’t imagine that you would ever accept such a limited God. Thus, Your God and Thermodynamics are mutually exclusive, for to invoke the Second Law is to claim that God left! Remember, Earth is not a closed system, and to go back to the matter of entropy, to find a LARGE source of negative entropy all you need do is notice our Sun. It delivers roughly 1 horsepower per square meter of free energy and radiation onto us every day. Meteors also shower us with about several tonnes of extra mass per day, some of it in pre-biotic form[complex carbon molecules like formaldehyde]. Comets too, I think. Orbital perturbations and decay,friction from the moons gravity, and radioactive decay all add up.Perhaps Chris C. has something to add??? He’s the one with the good education.I just read books.
I have noticed through my investigations within Christian book stores that some innovative Creationists have modified their argument slightly to combat this problem.The reference is now to a closed “universe”[siiiiiiigh].Oh well. I’m hungry and I have to go now for the night. Until tomorrow.
Zerxil said
Well try to get some extra sleep. That usaly helps me when I’m exhausted. lol, well their argument is evolving:)
Zerxil said
“The New ANSWERS Book…Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible”
Is There Really a God? God—an Eternal, Uncreated Being?
In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, such as the sun and other stars, are, in reality, running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second—since the sun cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.
So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created all the basic entities of life and the universe, some will ask what seems to be a logical question: “Who created God?”
The very first verse in the Bible declares: “In the beginning God … .” There is no attempt in these words to prove the existence of God or imply in any way that God had a beginning. In fact, the Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end. He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent.
Is it logical, though, to accept the existence of such an eternal being? Can modern science, which has produced our technology of computers, space shuttles, and medical advances, even allow for such a notion?1
well good night:)
Maz said
#311, Zerxil: I havn’t read it all, but very interesting. When I have time I will try and get through it. I do believe in a young earth. If we believe in millions of years then we deny what God has written (by Moses His prophet, who was inspired by God because he wasn’t there in the beginning but God was) in Genesis.
Maz said
John: The earth in itself may or may not be an open system, but I believe the Universe may be closed. I understand, that apart from God, there is nothing ‘outside’ this Universe. I believe time and space is limited as God made it. Time cannot be eternal for obvious reasons. one day time will be no more, as the Bible teaches. Does that mean that the Universe will be no more…in a sense…it won’t exist in the way we know it now. We will have a new heaven and a new earth, which is taught in Revelation.
Entropy is a reality, and it goes against the idea of everything evolving into something better and more complex. Entropy is the breaking down, the decaying of everything, we are all dying, the universe is dying, all because of sin. It isn’t just the earth and man that was affected by sin it was the whole Universe. The perfection that God made was cured because of sin.
Therefore, open or closed, evolution just doesn’t work along side entropy.
Also when we speak of mutations, usually, it is because of a loss of information in DNA, not an increase, which you would need for evolution to work atall.
If we had control of our bodies, how is it we have not inventd a way of living forever?
Maz said
John: As to God being limited by His creation, He works within His creation, but He is not limited by it, He is also eternal and in eternity which is not bounded in any way. We are placed in time and space, but God is not. If space and time went on forever……..how far is forever?? It is obvious that within space and time that there had to be a beginning, and there had to be a Beginner, or we are back to nothing exploding again!
Maz said
I’v just watched a Discovery documentary on TV entitled ”How did life begin?” I thot it would give me some answers from a secular/evolutionary view. But actually they gave no answer to the question, altho they inferred, the way they spoke, as if they had. Yet with all their ”could be” and ”perhaps” words and their explanation about the origin of DNA, that it came from some ”hypothetical state of RNA” (hypothetical being the operative word!), they could still only say at the end that major answers are ”just around the corner, it’s just chemistry”, in other words they still don’t know. Making sweeping statements like ‘’stardust made all life”, is a little premature to say the least.
Bob Griffin said
Maz 318
Once again for all the evolutionists – DNA starts with 3 billion base pairs, with A-T-C-G all having to be in the correct order. It also has the famous shape that was only recently known to us. Any explanations of how that occurred randomly with no intelligence would be greatly appreciated.
Zerxil said
What Would We Look For?
What evidence would we expect to find if there really is an infinite God who created all things as the Bible claims? How would we even recognize the hand of such an omnipotent (all-powerful) Creator?
The Bible claims that God knows all things—He is omniscient! Therefore, He is infinitely intelligent. To recognize His handiwork, one would have to know how to recognize the evidence of the works of His intelligence.
How Do We Recognize the Evidence of Intelligence?
Why do scientists become so excited when they discover stone tools together with bones in a cave? The stone tools show signs of intelligence. The scientists recognize that these tools could not have designed themselves but that they are a product of intelligent input. Thus, the researchers rightly conclude that an intelligent creature was responsible for making these tools.
Mt. Rushmore—formed by natural processes? Mt. Rushmore
In a similar way, one would never look at the Great Wall of China, the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., or the Sydney Opera House in Australia and conclude that such structures were formed after explosions in a brick factory.
Neither would anyone believe that the presidents’ heads on Mt. Rushmore were the products of millions of years of erosion. We can recognize design, the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence. We see man-made objects all around us—cars, airplanes, computers, stereos, houses, appliances, and so on. And yet, at no time would anyone ever suggest that such objects were just the products of time and chance. Design is everywhere. It would never enter our minds that metal, left to itself, would eventually form into engines, transmissions, wheels, and all the other intricate parts needed to produce an automobile.
This “design argument” is often associated with the name of William Paley, an Anglican clergyman who wrote on this topic in the late eighteenth century. He is particularly remembered for his example of the watch and the watchmaker. In discussing a comparison between a stone and a watch, he concluded that “the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”2
Paley thus believed that, just as the watch implied a watchmaker, so too does design in living things imply a Designer. Although he believed in a God who created all things, his God was a Master Designer who is now remote from His Creation, not the personal God of the Bible.3
Today, however, a large proportion of the population, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and creatures, including the intelligent engineers who make watches, cars, etc., were the product of an evolutionary process— not a Creator God.4 But this is not a defensible position, as we will see.
Zerxil said
I have a question, what did plants evolve from? Because photosynthesis is such a good thing why don’t animals do it?
Zerxil said
320) The Bible claims that God knows all things—He is omniscient! Therefore, He is infinitely intelligent. To recognize His handiwork, one would have to know how to recognize the evidence of the works of His intelligence.
How Do We Recognize the Evidence of Intelligence?
*sigh* If God is all knowing, why did he have to look at his creation to know if it was good or not? Is it possible this universe wasn’t the first one God made?
How does evolution explain the food chain, and the fact that it worked?
Zerxil said
Living Things Show Evidence of Design!
The late Isaac Asimov, an ardent anti-creationist, declared, “In man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.”5 It is much more complex than the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if man’s highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?
Scientists who reject the concept of a Creator God agree that all living things exhibit evidence of design. In essence, they accept the design argument of Paley, but not Paley’s Designer. For example, Dr. Michael Denton, a non-Christian medical doctor and scientist with a doctorate in molecular biology, concludes:
It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.6
Dr. Richard Dawkins, holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, has become one of the world’s leading evolutionist spokespersons. His fame has come as the result of the publication of books, including The Blind Watchmaker, which defend modern evolutionary theory and claim to refute once and for all the notion of a Creator God. He said, “We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.”7
There is no doubt that even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is evident in the animals and plants that inhabit our planet. If Dawkins rejects “chance” in design, what does he put in place of “chance” if he does not accept a Creator God?
Well there is alot to pull apart here so I’ll let John do it.
Maz said
Great questions Zerxil, I’d be interested in any answers that come forth.
The funny thing about the Miller experiment which they mentioned on the documentary I watched (see #318) was that they failed to explain that it didn’t prove how life as we know it came to be. It produced a brown sludge of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins but these proteins have to be left handed while the sugars have to be right handed or it just won’t work. This wasn’t mentioned atall.
Maz said
How did that smile get there?! Pressed the wrong key somewhere! It only takes one mistake to mess the whole thing up doesn’t it. How evolution ever got us this far is really amazing!
That was meant to be (#318).
truthtalklive said
Kudos to you all for this intelligent debate. You may not all agree and you obviously have different beliefs. However, you’re discussing and debating respectfully. Thank you.
Barney said
I would suggest that what you so charmingly coin “intelligent debate” is really the lack of debate at all.
The questions posed have been addressed over and again on this and the other thread. The refusal by some here to acknowledge the true difficulties encountered when trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with what the sciences teach us is what has driven away the few capable debaters that these threads have produced.
truthtalklive said
Barney (Fred) – You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
Tripp said
You’re still here, aren’t you Barney? That leaves at least one intelligent debater…..right?
Chris C. said
Barney, what gives, I thought you were going to revert to Fred?
Zerxil, in response to the broad focus of your questions: Chance is not the evolutionary alternative to design. Many things look designed for two reasons: One, humans tend to see “design” everywhere. Think about how you looked at clouds as a child or how you always see people and faces in shadows. The human brain always senses design where none is necessarily present. Second, sometimes a certain form or function is useful enough that nature employs it just as humans do. Think of bowls. Humans desgin bowls for cereal and water, etc. Well, plants in nature have also found bowls for collecting water or collecting prey to be effecitve and natural selection has favored the evolution of such effective “designs” Richard Dawkins in fact coined the term “Designoid” to refer to natural objects that mimic real design.
I feel like it is beating a dead horse, but natural selection is not a random or ‘chance’ process. It is not at all like a tornado coming through a junkyard and assembling a 747 jet, as some creationists have claimed.
I know there are lots of books out there on both sides of this issue. I don’t try to quote mine your anti-science books. You should try to do the same for Dawkins’ and other biologists books. I’ve read all his works including the Blind Watchmaker. That quote may be in there but I’m sure it is pulled out of context as it totally contradicts the entire premise of his book. You should read it sometime. The writing is very accessible. Obviously Asimov and Dawkins were not creationists. Besides, one sentence from a smart person’s writing doesn’t prove anthing one way or ther other. Quote snippits aren’t the be all and end all, facts are.
Maz said
Chris: I do apologise for bringing this up again but the fact that you are talking about design and how ”the human brain always senses design where none is necessarily present”, compels me to say that, we don’t see DNA, it is far too small, so how can we sense the design in it? What the scientists do find is intelligent information within it. If I keep mentioning it, it’s probably because no one seems to have an answer to where it came from and how it originated, or want to acknowledge that there may be an intelligent Being behind it, especially as scientists are so prone to jump at a simple patern of bleeps from outer space and think it may possibly be other intelligent beings trying to contact us or a tiny worm-looking fossil-type object on Mars and suddenly exclaim ”LIFE on Mars!”
If there is any proof atall that there is a Creator it is in DNA.
F. L. A. said
You are welcome Truthtalklive. Is that why you think Chris C. has not yet responded to John’s post#312, Barney? We suspected that possibility. John and I are beyond trying to convince you of anything that goes against your theological views Maz, Some Guy, Mr. Griffin, and other like minded Christians[because of that darned bubble]. Now[at least for me] it’s just for amusement and to see how you respond to the information that we give you.This does not mean however that we will not try to debate intelligently and civilly[as best as the situation allows, HA! HA! HA!]. Until John comes over I’ll play. Maz, in post#316 you gave me the impression that you still didn’t fully believe that your world was a open system[somehow[?!] I mean, what else could it be?] and that this universe may be a closed system.THE WHOLE UNIVERSE? How?!
Also, “time” as we know it on this world, is just that. Time as we know it.On this planet we judge and measure time by the movement of Earth on it’s axis and by it’s movement around other heavenly bodies within this one little galaxy. Do you think that it’s the same way for everyone everywhere within the whole universe[as Earthlings know it]? I realize that some Christians believe that the whole world revolves around them [theologically speaking, that is] but the whole universe too? Humanity has just b -a -r -e -l -y started to learn what the laws of the universe and Physics may be[as humans understand them, that is].I just surprised that some people can make such sweeping, absolute claims about time and space, while STILL somehow believing that the universe is only 6,000 years old and that men lived with dinosaurs[aside from birds].
Why would anyone EVER want to live forever? Yes, things break down and living things eventually die, but why is this so “bad”? Without death, there can be no life.You can’t and shouldn’t have it all one way.In the natural world, the dead nourish the living, and provide a birth place for new life. Ever heard of a “nursery tree”? It’s a big old tree[of any kind] that dies, falls, and rots on the forest floor.But in time. it’s so full of new life[worms, grubs, fungi, other bugs, saplings and seedlings of other plants, mosses and ferns, etc.] that pound for pound this dead tree is actually full of MORE LIFE THAN IT HAD WHILE IT LIVED! And that’s not including all the fresh plant-life that grows up in the sunlight that the tree’s vacancy lets in onto the forest floor. This little example of the “nursery tree” can also be applied to bigger things, like your world.And it doesn’t have to stop there you know.Why would it? Because all this goes against you holy book of your Theology on your little planet in your one galaxy? Do you have any idea how many galaxies there could possibily be in this universe??? It has no known boundaries, you know.Only hypothetical ones. Forever is a concept created by people for people.This makes it a somewhat….relative term, idea…. based on the judgment of an individual at a given time and situation. “Forever” is what you think it is. I’ll go now, and give you Maz,[or someone] some time to answer any of my questions.
Zerxil, to answer you question about the origins of plant life, we need to go back to the same kind of argumentation used to try and provide you with the origins of animal life.And we all know how unsuccessful THAT was.So I’ll just say “the SEA” and leave it at that for now.
You know Zerxil, unless some of us give up on this debate, between the five of us[me, John, Maz, you, Bob,...and maybe some others?] going on like this, discussing that WHOLE book like you want, this blog promises to go on for a long, long,[reallyreallyreally]long, longlong time.
Zerxil said
“I feel like it is beating a dead horse, but natural selection is not a random or ‘chance’ process. It is not at all like a tornado coming through a junkyard and assembling a 747 jet, as some creationists have claimed.”
330 What the Iders say is since natural selection is not random, We think that it couldn’t have been randomly put together. Therefore it had to be created.
So the real question is. How was natural selection randomly put together. 327 where is that question?
332 until the end of computers & beyond
323,320, & 314 was from “The New AIG” book. which strangely is the title
The universe is not a closed system because outside influences namely God will change it, unless you don’t believe in prayers & God or even gods. Scientifically why is the universe open?
You have to admit, this is fun. about 564789[25467] give or take a gagillion. :} I’ll never give up. Hey John brought it up twice.
Zerxil said
Hey, this should have been is Dawkins wright or rong? Because we all know Darwins theories have all been changed and or proved wrong, right?
332 funny you should mention time bending and religion. 6 day creation and all (not counting rocks and nonliving matter for my medium age earth)
I still think animals should have photosynthesis.
Who—or What—Is the Designer Then?
Design obviously implies a designer. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bible’s explanation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), and “For by him [Jesus Christ] all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16).
However, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, who admit the design in living things, reject the idea of any kind of a Designer/God. In reference to Paley, Dawkins states:
Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false.8
Why? It is because Dawkins attributes the design to what he calls “blind forces of physics” and the processes of natural selection. Dawkins writes:
All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker [emphasis added].9
Dawkins does, however, concede that “the more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an Intelligent Designer.”10
Nonetheless, he rejects the idea of an “Intelligent Designer” and instead offers this “answer”:
The answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.11
Basically, then, Dawkins is doing nothing more than insisting that natural selection12 and mutations13 together provide the mechanism for the evolutionary process. He believes these processes are nonrandom and directed. In reality, this is just a sophisticated way of saying that evolution is itself the designer.
Zerxil said
Um, isnt anywhere you are allowed to speak your mind a debate? Your right Chris there has been no intelligent debate done on this site. Because you, I, Fred (both), & everyone posted here. Nope no Intelligence at all here. I know, I’ll invite Mr Dawkins he will sure like to blog here…
Mr Dawkins said
Hi. All Christians are fools to believe in a creator no matter what the evidence.
John said
Yes Zerxil, this is fun[toothy grin.
Well, I have my book now so we can begin, although I must warn you that I type VERY SLOWLY so I'll probably only have time to debate about one of two topics from the book at a time before I have to go home and go to bed.I wake up so darned early.....
Once again F. L. A. has beaten me with some rather good points, so I can't address those.As F. L. A. said above, this promises to go on for a very long time.Are you up for it? It will be an adventure in psychology, if anything[grin]. So…where would you like to begin?
Welcome back Tripp, Barny, Chris C., and Mr. Griffin.
Zerxil said
I already have i thought…
“Does Natural Selection Produce Design?
Life is built on information. A great amount of this information is contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA, which makes up the genes of an organism. Therefore, to argue that natural selection and mutations are the basic mechanisms of the evolutionary process, one must show that these processes produce the information responsible for the design that is evident in living things.
Anyone who understands basic biology recognizes, of course, as Darwin did, that natural selection is a logical process that one can observe. However, natural selection only operates on the information that is already contained in the genes—it does not produce new information.14 Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins, in that God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.
All dogs came from one kind
It is true that one can observe great variation in a kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information found in the genes of the wolf/dog kind. But the point is that no new information was produced—these varieties of dogs have resulted from a rearrangement, sorting out, and separation of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with information that previously did not exist.15 Without intelligent input to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution.
Denton confirms this when he states:
It cannot be stressed enough that evolution by natural selection is analogous to problem solving without any intelligent guidance, without any intelligent input whatsoever. No activity which involves an intelligent input can possibly be analogous to evolution by natural selection.16
Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists would agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.
Can Mutations Produce New Information?
Actually, scientists now know that the answer is “no!” Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book, Not by Chance:
In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased. … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.17
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.18
The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time [emphasis added].19
Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have now come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism for the evolutionary process. Spetner sums it all up as follows:
The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume … . Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory [emphasis added].20
This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. In answering the question, “Can new information originate through mutations?” he said:
This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information [emphasis added].21
So if natural selection and mutations are eliminated as mechanisms to produce the information and design of living systems, then another source must be found.
But there are even more basic problems for those who reject the Creator God as the source of information.”
Tripp said
Oh great. Another friggin’ atheist is back (re: post #336). Can’t you people get over trying to convince us Christians that there’s no Creator? It ain’t gonna happen. Don’t insult us by calling us fools. The Moderator will getcha!!!! Haha!!!!
John said
Ah, now I know where you are..[smile].Canines were not always canines, you know, but you would have to believe in macro-evolution to see that. would you like some names of thier pre-canine ancestors anyway? I’m a little fuzzy on what is exactly meant by Ken Ham’s use of the term “kind”.
This point your making about mutations being harmful isn’t as hard to explain away as it may seem by reading Ken’s book. Not all mutations are harmful at all. The trouble is in realizing HOW a mutation is harmful, helpful, or if it’s just neutral[as many seem to be].I will give you examples. Unfortunately this would take far more time to do than I have tonight, right now.Please be patient and bear with me[and F. L. A. is out hunting].Perhaps I will have my friend do it for you tomorrow afternoon waking up.Or I’ll get right to it after work, unless someone beats me to it.But now it’s too late. Goodnight.
John said
Tripp, I’m pretty sure that that post came from Zerxil pretending to be an Atheist. Zerxil, if I am wrong then I apologize.
Zerxil said
sorry I couldn’t help myself.
Maz said
I guessed it wasn’t Richard Dawkins, he would not bother debating with us unintelligent Young Earth Creationist believers. But what was said is true. Whatever the evidence……they won’t change their mind and believe in God, because that would cause them to have to recognise their sin and the need for a Savior. Isn’t this the real reason why Richard Dawkins is so anti? It is a humbling experience to meet our God.
F.L.A: I believe (as I understand the term) in a closed system, because time and space is finite and limited. I believe God made it that way. God is infinite and eternal. Even from a child I wondered how far the universe went on? I tried to get my mind around space going on forever…it was awesome to think about. But now I know the Creator, I understand far more.
”Humanity has just b-a-r-e-l-y started to learn what the laws of the universe and Physics may be”. I agree with that….especially the ‘may be’ at the end. They talk (evolutionary worldview) as if they know exactly how the universe, the galaxy, the solar system and life came to be, but every new discovery seems to force them to think again.
Live forever? Yes, I am looking forward to the day I meet my Savior and I can live forever, not in this limited puny dying body but in a new one in a perfect heaven with no tears, no sickness, no death and disease, and no hatred or violence. I can’t understand anyone not wanting to live like that.
You don’t think death and disease are bad F.L.A?
You CAN have life without death. But not here. It will be in eternity with God….if you believe in Jesus Christ ofcourse. The alternative doesn’t bare thinking about. It is OUR choice where we go after death after all.
Nature reveals the Creators work of death and then resurrection. A picture of Christs death and resurrection. God is the only One who can bring life from the dead.
In Genesis we read that when God made the trees and the fruit etc., He put the seed within the fruit so that it would perpetuate itself.
Galaxies. Yes, amazing objects in space. I love Deep Field astronomy, and when I first saw the Hubble pictures of the DF I was awestruck at the emensity of Gods Creation. Millions upon millions of galaxies appear to go on forever…..’appear to’ but don’t. It just goes to show how amazing our Creator God is. He is ‘from everlasting to everlasting’, beyond our comprehension to understand.
And to think that He is concerned with us little human beings down here on this speck of earth?
That too is amazing…..but true!
Maz said
John: ”Canines were not always canines, you know, but you would have to believe in macro-evolution to see that.”
This is the problem, the evolutionist believes and then sees…not the other way round. How about seeing is believing? Your belief colours what see, not what is actually there in the evidence. You start from the wrong perspective.
I’d be interested in the ‘missing link’ that you have found between dogs and ??
F. L. A. said
Maz, you’d be such a dreadful juror.
What a tiny little cold sad universe you exist in. No, Death and, sometimes disease, is not a bad thing.I’ll explain later after I sleep and eat.
Maz said
F.L.A: I would weigh ALL the evidence if I were a juror, I would not be partial like evolutionists seem to be, picking out what little ‘evidence’ they imagine is there for their belief.
And sometimes our world can be cold and sad, for the neglected child, or the drug addict a the end of himself who wants to commit suicide because he can no longer face life anymore, or the prostitute, used and abused for money who feels life is hopeless, or the man dying painfully of cancer without hope of a cure, or the Christian locked up in a cell for just beleiving in God, being systematically tortured for his faith, or on a wider scale, the wars, the bombings, the violence and crime on our streets…..shall I go on? But thank God there is the other side, and I would even go as far as to say, that without Christianity, without the reality of Jesus Christ, our world would be far darker. Christianity (and not the religious-only group but those who truly follow Christ) has made a difference in this world for the better.
truthtalklive said
“What a tiny little cold sad universe you exist in.”
Come on, F.L.A. A monster with your intellect can certainly do better than that.
(smiley face)
-Moderator
Maz said
Moderator: Don’t you get tempted to butt in more often? I know I would if I were you.
F.L.A: You don’t see the ‘bigger picture’. You are missing so much. There is a truth out there that if you really knew about it you would be so overwhelmed with thankfulness to God for what He has done for you. But there is no desire in you to even want that, and that is sad indeed.
Moderator (not Stu) said
Maz – Sometimes I want to throw in my 2 cents, but then I wouldn’t be “moderating.” The F.L.A. is smart as a whip, and a shrewd competitor…and I’m sure understands that post #347 was halfway joking, halfway serious.
Bob Griffin said
332 F.L.A.
Looks like you wont believe anything that goes against your atheistic views. Neither of us can prove our point 100%. I have a bible that backs up what I believe. You believe in that beautiful process of evolution. In the intro to Darwins book, they find it ironic that many people believe a mindless process can form us. One of the definitions of mindless is “stupid”. So you believe a stupid process got us where we are.
Zerxil said
FLA ISN’T ATHEIST MORE A POLYTHEIST.
Maz said
I’m going to watch a programme on National Geographic tonight entitled…”Was Darwin wrong?”
Should be interesting to see what they say. Will relay any interesting answers.
Chris C. said
What time does that show air, Maz? Maybe I can set it up to record.
Maz said
Chris: It’s on Sky satelite at 9 pm, but that’s in Britain, don’t know if you will get it your side of the ocean.
abc's said
I think it’s great that this topic is still being discussed.
Zerxil said
Speaking of bad jurors, guess what? I’m permanently off the juror list of 3 states. Tiny? This one galaxy is quite large, let alone “Millions upon millions of galaxies”. Maz, I belive, was the one that popped my black hole ‘bubble’. I thought stars & most planet cores were hot, and God is loving, at least the Jesus side. When did Maz say the universe is sad?
Zerxil said
344 pond scum. Anything higher can be pointed to as a ‘link’ even if it is not.
Zerxil said
Hey, if a dead person has all the ingredients for life. Why is he still dead?
Barney said
Dear moderator, we noticed a slang term used by Tripp in post #339 (“Oh great. Another friggin’ atheist is back…”- Tripp). Is this acceptable language?
Thanks
abc's said
Zerxil:
Because those ingredients are no longer working properly.
Maz said
Barney: For once I agree with you, but it wasn’t just the word, it was the way it was said about someone else on the blog. It’s not necessary.
Our galaxy is so large it would take 100,000 years to cross it from one side to the other at the speed of light….186,000 mps (c). Astronomically amazing. Then to leave our galaxy and go to our neighbour spiral it would take about 2 million years at c. and we are still in a local group of galaxies. No galaxy crawling for the human race! And yet there is a universe so vast beyond our local group that the mind boggles to try and think about it. It is a testimony of how great our God really is, because however vast the physical universe is He is eternally beyond it all.
Maz said
#346: Didn’t anybody spot the mistake? Without Christianity and without the reality of Jesus Christ there wouldn’t be a world, a universe….nothing, because He created it all!
truthtalklive said
We felt the word “friggin’” was being used mainly sarcastically. But no, it wasn’t necessary. We’ll concur in agreement and issue warning #1 to our friend, Tripp.
Moderator
Zerxil said
SORRY tripp
Tripp said
That’s OK. I’ll stand correct and concede that it was not necessary. My goodness, Truth Talk Live is certainly becoming more and more PC these days. I know, I know….stick to the topic.
F. L. A. said
Be back in a little while, everybody. I’m going to John’s house to get a bunch of books to bring back HERE, and THEN we can debate.T.T.F.N.
F. L. A. said
Hello again. Yes Moderator I can do better, but it was dawn and I was tired from roaming around all night.Post#345 was like a drive by shooting. In the future I’ll try to criticize with a little more style and class. Thank you for the compliment.
Maz, I described your theological version of the universe as tiny,cold, and sad because of all of the limitations, theological or otherwise, that Christians like you give it. You give that little bit of information in post#361 and yet still hold onto your limitations. For good measure? In post #344 and#346, your description of the evolutionist fits you to a tee. This is you as a “juror” involving a case based on evolution and the Natural Sciences:
Defendant: “Will the witness Stuart A. Kauffman please take the stand?”
Maz:”But is he a Christian? A true believer?”
Defendant:”Would the jury please take note of this piece of evidence?”
Maz: “But is the evidence biblical? Because if it’s not………”
See what I mean. And of course I’m not interested in becoming a Christian.As they say in Human Resources…”The position’s been filled. Sorry.” You’re trying to sell rowboats to crocodiles again.
Bob Griffin: Atheistic am I? I thought that you knew me a little better than that by now. Go to the nearby “Christian & Superstitious?” site and see how I stood up for theology against Anti-Christian Atheist Fred.
I have to go real quick. Be back in a bit.
Maz said
F.L.A: I still can’t see how my ”limitations theological or otherwise” make my universe tiny, cold and sad. I would say that a life without God is atleast cold and sad if not tiny.
When I was an unbeliever, living my life my way without God, doing all those things that young people do….yet…..feeling sometimes empty and sad because something was missing. I thot it was love. Love makes the world go round they say. Well, it didn’t exactly make my world go round. It wasn’t until I met Jesus Christ personally, that the world became warm, joyful and full of light. It was if someone switched a light on somewhere in my spirit and soul…I felt clean, I felt new. I felt a different person. Something wonderful happened to me and no one can take away that life I now have with God through Jesus Christ. My life was never the same again after I asked Christ into my life when I was 26. My husband that then was thot it was a five minute wonder. He was wrong. My relationship with Jesus has lasted over 30 years…..even with many a storm to rock my boat at times.
But to convey such a truth to someone else is like trying to explain the colour red to a blind man. And why would a blind man want to remain blind? It baffles me.
F. L. A. said
And not to continue…I never described evolution as a mindless process, Mr. Griffin.Many creationist use something that we refer to as the “randomness argument”. What is “random” anyway? We are never told, and forced to draw our own conclusions.This argument says that self organization cannot occur because the process is “blind” and “random”,that is supposed to drive it.
Never mind that the system has finite number of states that it can occupy and it’s history can constrain it’s future states.This borrows from the thermodynamic argument mentioned in above posts, the confusion over entropy and open system states. The theory of evolution doesn’t say things happened by “chance”. This argument completely ignores natural selection. It is easy to get a very complicated system containing a tremendous amount of information starting from very simple low information systems. How? Two possibilities are:
Fractal structures- start with a very simple rule and repeat it over and over and..[infinity]. The resulting structure can be [and usually is] very complicated but the formation equations can be very very simple.And the universe[deity?] has had a VERY long time to work on this. For example, look at a snowflake.
And….
Chaos- One can get very, very complicated systems if one uses nonlinearities in the progression.This is why weather forecasting doesn’t work very accurately.
Complexity[like of D.N.A. or animal cells, for example] does not have to imply design Maz and Bob, for according to books that I’ve read, recursion and nonlinearity work quit well.
Zerxil, about your question in post #358, did you read what I said about Nursery Trees in post#332? In a way the same example can apply to a dead animal body.
And now John has arrived.
Zerxil said
330 What the Iders say is since natural selection is not random, We think that it couldn’t have been randomly put together. Therefore it had to be created.
So the real question is. How was natural selection randomly put together. 327 where is that question?
TTL killed my earbuds, almost fell off my chair can only hear in one plug now. I’ll have to buy another 99c earbud sigh.
F. L. A. said
Then you shall have to be contented to remain baffled, Maz.
I can appreciate that you’ve found something that has helped you to fulfill your spiritual needs and become a stronger, better, happier person.I commend ANY theology or personal pursuit that helps one in such ways. But if you think that your way is the only good way for EVERYONE, then you are mistaken.
Zerxil said
This doesn’t answer my question but is intriguing.
I want to emphasize that the purpose of this lab is to investigate whether evolution could create complex structures, but not to test whether evolution actually occurred or not.
The TA asks the class for a brief review of how natural selection works. In this review, the TA draws out from the class that mutation is an important component of evolution—without it evolution would come to a halt.
The TA then asks the class how it could test the idea of whether mutation and selection could create adaptation. The discussion is led to the possibility of answering this question with models, and models are described as an attractive method for studying complex processes. Several examples are given: computer models for studying climate, small-scale physical models for studying engineering problems, and simple organisms with short generation times (e.g., fruit flies) for studying development and genetics.
The TA then introduces the model organism that will be used to test whether mutation and selection can mimic design. The “straw glider” is a paper airplane made from a drinking straw and two strips of paper taped in a circle (Figure 1). The class is told that the lab will have two parts. First, the class will design paper airplanes themselves and then will test whether evolution can create similar designs.
Um, how could a nonliving thing like paper airplanes that the students intelligently designed evolve by themselves?
Once the TA is sure that the students understand the complexity of their task, she asks them how they are searching the multidimensional parameter space to find the best design. One way to do this is to optimize one structure on the airplane at a time. While not perfect, this strategy is likely to reach a good first approximation.
Next, students are told to develop a model of paper airplane evolution to see if it can mimic the designs that they came up with. The class is told to work on the problem in groups. The discussion that follows is a valuable learning experience, because it forces them to apply their understanding of natural selection to paper airplane evolution. There is no single correct way to model evolution with paper airplanes, but a model will have to have reproduction, mutation, inheritance, and selection. Mutation, for example, may be incorporated by rolling dice and flipping coins. The roll of a die can be used to select which one of the six characteristics of the airplane will mutate, and a coin can then be flipped to determine whether the mutation results in an increase or decrease in the value of that trait. Students will have to decide whether mutations all have the same magnitude of effect, whether paper airplanes are sexual or asexual, whether genotypes need to be explicitly modeled, and how large a population is to be studied. Finally, students will have to decide exactly how selection will operate. For example, will only the airplane that flies the farthest each generation survive and reproduce? Or will more than one plane survive each generation? And how will flight length be measured? As the length of a single flight, the longest of several, or some other way? At each juncture, the TA can instigate a discussion of whether the feature in question makes a difference for the test being performed.
Once each lab group has developed a model of evolution, the instructor begins a class discussion to compare models. Each group shares their model with the class, and the instructor assists the class in combining these approaches into a consensus model, which everyone in the class will use when their evolution experiments begin. We have used the following parameters with good results. The “ancestral” airplane that begins the simulation has two wings made from strips of paper 2 cm wide × 20 cm long, which were taped to the wing 3 cm from the end of the straw. All mutations change parameters by 1 cm, and this change was just as likely to decrease a parameter as to increase it. We assume that airplanes are asexual and that only the plane that flies the farthest of three throws survives to the next generation.
The first lab session ends when the class has finished developing a consensus model of evolution. In the second lab session, the class is given 2 hr to simulate several generations of paper airplane evolution.
When this work is done, the TA asks the groups to report to the class, “What kind of airplane did evolution come up with?” We ask each group to present a graph of how far the airplane flew in each generation of their simulation and to produce a scaled drawing of the cross section of the final plane. Groups present consistent results—a small front wing and a large back wing is the most effective design for maximizing flight distance, whether designed by students or created by evolution.
The TA then asks the class, “How did the evolutionary process compare to your design process?” Most students will see a similarity. Their design process depended heavily on systematic trial and error—similar to evolution, except that changes were not random. The TA may ask the class if this is how airplanes are really designed. Engineers use extensive knowledge of aeronautical principles to design airplanes, but testing (and even trial and error) has played an important role in airplane design. The TA might ask the class if they are likely to end up with a substantially different airplane if they had a better understanding of aerodynamics. We argue they would not.
The TA then asks the important questions, “What do these results show us? Have we shown that mutation and selection can create eyes and other complex traits that would have impressed Paley? And if not, what have we shown?” The answer is that random mutation, coupled with selection, can do a good job of finding a combination of sizes and shapes of body parts that maximize the performance of a relatively complex structure. This is an important component of evolution, and it suggests that mutation and selection could refine the structure of an eye from a primitive precursor. Therefore, evolution can mimic some aspects of design.
However, the lab does not show where the airplane’s wings came from in the first place. The model airplane is an entirely hypothetical organism, but there are several possibilities. For example, the two circular wings of the airplane may have evolved from a single flat wing (Figure 2). The TA notes that each step in this process is conceptually identical to the evolution conducted in the lab (except perhaps for the wing duplication). The TA tells the class that the origins of a few real organs (eyes, wings, legs) will be discussed in class.
Zerxil said
um, please insert evolution where I said natural selection on 370, doh. Natural selection just states that the least fittest die.
Zerxil said
time to eat, ill probably be on later
Impact of the idea
Darwin’s ideas, along with those of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, had a profound influence on 19th century thought. Perhaps the most radical claim of the theory of evolution through natural selection is that “elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner” evolved from the simplest forms of life by a few simple principles. This claim inspired some of Darwin’s most ardent supporters—and provoked the most profound opposition. The radicalism of natural selection, according to Stephen Jay Gould,[47] lay in its power to “dethrone some of the deepest and most traditional comforts of Western thought”. In particular, it challenged long-standing beliefs in such concepts as a special and exalted place for humans in the natural world and a benevolent creator whose intentions were reflected in nature’s order and design.
[edit] Social and psychological theory
The social implications of the theory of evolution by natural selection also became the source of continuing controversy. Friedrich Engels, a German political philosopher and co-originator of the ideology of communism, wrote in 1872 that “Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom”.[48] Interpretation of natural selection as necessarily ‘progressive’, leading to increasing ‘advances’ in intelligence and civilisation, was used as a justification for colonialism and policies of eugenics, as well as broader sociopolitical positions now described as Social Darwinism. Konrad Lorenz won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1973 for his analysis of animal behavior in terms of the role of natural selection (particularly group selection). However, in Germany in 1940, in writings that he subsequently disowned, he used the theory as a justification for policies of the Nazi state. He wrote “… selection for toughness, heroism, and social utility…must be accomplished by some human institution, if mankind, in default of selective factors, is not to be ruined by domestication-induced degeneracy. The racial idea as the basis of our state has already accomplished much in this respect.”[49] Others have developed ideas that human societies and culture evolve by mechanisms that are analogous to those that apply to evolution of species.[50]
More recently, work among anthropologists and psychologists has led to the development of sociobiology and later evolutionary psychology, a field that attempts to explain features of human psychology in terms of adaptation to the ancestral environment. The most prominent such example, notably advanced in the early work of Noam Chomsky and later by Steven Pinker, is the hypothesis that the human brain is adapted to acquire the grammatical rules of natural language.[51] Other aspects of human behavior and social structures, from specific cultural norms such as incest avoidance to broader patterns such as gender roles, have been hypothesized to have similar origins as adaptations to the early environment in which modern humans evolved. By analogy to the action of natural selection on genes, the concept of memes – “units of cultural transmission”, or culture’s equivalents of genes undergoing selection and recombination – has arisen, first described in this form by Richard Dawkins[52] and subsequently expanded upon by philosophers such as Daniel Dennett as explanations for complex cultural activities, including human consciousness.[53] Extensions of the theory of natural selection to such a wide range of cultural phenomena have been distinctly controversial and are not widely accepted.[54]
John said
Hello everybody.Now to try and finish answering about helpful mutations…
The most popular example for a helpful mutation in humanity that I know of is the gene for Sickle Cell disease, which has the ability to protect carriers from Malaria.This benefit existed despite the fact that children born with two copies of this gene were afflicted with Sickle Cell Anemia.
Lactose tolerance is another good example.Did you know that this was the result of mutated genes[smile]? There is a reason why mammals get weaned off of milk.But humans are weird and continued to consume dairy products, so…presto! Mutated genes, and the trait was passed on. Enjoy that ice cream!
there is also resistance to Atherosclerosis and immunity to H.I.V..
I found a most informative website for you to browse through Zerxil. First type in “Helpful Mutations” and then go to the site that’s titled “”Are Mutations Harmful?”. It should give you plenty to think about.
Maz, do you really want to know what canines evolved from?
John said
I have to go for the evening, Zerxil. I’ll get back to you tomorrow evening.Goodnight.
Zerxil said
“There are more recessive mutations than dominant ones just due to simple probabilities. Let’s
say you have a protein made up of 1000 amino acids. Those 1000 amino acids will fold up just
so, depending on the interactions between all 1000 of them.
In the discussion below, keep in mind that you have two copies of each gene: one from each
parent.
A change in the identity of almost any of those 1000 amino acids (due to a mutation at the DNA
level) might well lead to a non-functional protein, where the protein is misfolded. In most
cases, this will lead to a recessive mutation. Why recessive? Because you have one good gene
that makes the normal protein, and a mutated copy of the gene that makes a defective
(non-functional) protein. As long as you have one good copy of the gene, you are in business.
Now what are the chances of a mutation causing a change that leads to a protein with a new and
different function? A protein that folds up in a new way that give it a new, novel function?
Not good. But if it does happen, this woud be a dominant mutation. Why dominant? Because even
though you are making the normal protein from the “good” copy of the gene, the mutated version
of the gene is making a mutated protein that is somehow over-riding the function of the normal
protein.
Consider an analogy (albiet a poor one!): You have two radios playing the same station (the
radios represents the two copies of the gene that encode the protein. The music represents the
protein. You hit one of the radios with a hammer (this represents a mutation occuring in that
copy of the gene). In 99% of the time, you will destroy one of the radios, causing the music
to stop coming out of that radio. Do you notice it? Not really, because the other radio keeps
playing. This is a recessive mutation. You won’t notice it in the presence of a normal copy of
the gene.
Now once in a great while, banging on the radio will create a “mutation” that causes it to play
louder, or on a different station, etc. Do you notice it? Yes, it interferes with your hearing
the “normal” radio. It is a dominant mutation.
Which outcome is more likely? Hope this helps.”
Maz said
# 371: You’re wrong F.L.A, but I am afraid you may find that out when it’s too late.
Well, I watched National Geographics r