Saturday, October 24, 2009

Unnaturally Selected, 150 Years Of Deception

Before We Get Started:

We have had some recent and good discussion regarding science, evolution and evolutionary theory on this blog. This will likely be my last post in the series. The other posts can be located as follows:


Until recently even the radicals have been fairly behaved and welcomed. Those whom we've come to know as regulars are yet welcomed, and new individuals willing to respectfully engage are certainly encouraged to provide their insights, but the charlatans that think that ad hominems are basis for debate, or that can't read what is directly addressed, can crawl back into the pit of primordial slime from which they believe they have arrived. Those individuals are certainly not welcomed. But for the rest, atheist and theist alike, who simply love true dialogue and debate, and want to get to the truth of the issues, let us press on.

150 Years Of Deceit


As we run headlong into the 150th anniversary of the Magnum Opus of Charles R. Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life (Yes, Favored Races, namely and more specifically them that are WHITE- and they continue to say he wasn't racist-go figure!)
There is a WHY to life and that why is  not in natural processes but in Jesus Christ!  As Christians we are becoming equipped to both understand evolutionary arguments and also put down evolutionary rhetoric and dogmas which have made their rounds, deceiving many into believing that both man and ape share what is called a common ancestor. In fact the Darwinian evolutionary theory of common descent is that all biological beings share this common ancestor, and over time, through process of natural selection, mutation and what is otherwise considered blind process, there have been branches upon branches of species and phyla created to produce this wonderful world of diversity and what we call life.

According to the atheistic evolutionary faithful, in the end man has no need for God as God is a development of the creative ability and capacity of man. In fact in the Darwinian world, God is bad, a concept devised by the clever seeking to hold man's mind captive and keep him away from the truth that we are simply chemical biological, reproductions of natural selection.

Thankfully, we do not all believe that garbage. I am one especially that doesn't find consuming the "trash" of Darwinism amusing in the least bit. In fact, for a number of reasons, most of which have been discussed on this blog, it takes an unbelievable leap into a blind chasm to believe Darwin's view of the world. With Darwinism, one must first believe that all of what we see came from nothing but chemicals in a pool of primordial soup in an electro charged environment over millions of years, and that somehow, out of that all life sprung up to what we see today.

Fact: Without DNA there is no self-replication within the cell. Without self replication there can be no natural Selection. This creates a circular box for evolutionists as they cannot use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA as would be required under their theory.

In other words the Neo-Darwinists would like us to believe that impersonal and unreasonable brute force of blind, random and naturally selected processes (which could not have started itself as a process) somehow hones species over time to create beings ultimately which have the ability to reason, think, communicate and assign value, such as man.

God Has Made The Whole Play!

I encourage all Christians to get envolved in sharing the truth and God's word regarding this dogma. Anyone can learn the concepts to speak to evolutionists and raise the level of dialogue. This Sistah, makes me so very proud. All I say, keep up the good work and make it even better next time.



Natural Selection The Concept:

"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were. ~ Darwin, C. R. 1860. 'On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.' London: John Murray. 2nd edition, second issue. pg.84
“If I were convinced that I required such additions [new powers and attributes and forces] to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish.” ~ Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 2:6.


“the Devil’s gospel”~ Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 8, 1860, ed. Frederick Burkhardt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 316.


“My deity.” ~ Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 2:165.
Natural Selection The god Who Is A Force

The force behind Darwinian evolutionary common descent is a process known as natural selection. It is quite interesting that according to Carroll Lane Fenton, in 'Darwin and the theory of evolution' [1924] [Girard, Kansas: Haldeman-Julius], that Darwin himself published the theory of natural selection while he himself was yet a believer in "special creation". Further, so far as theism or God belief was concerned, Darwin records that it  “was strong in my mind…when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker.” 'Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin': 1809–1882, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W. W. Norton, 1958), 93. This displays the utter apostasy and confusion of heart that was the birthplace of many of the scientific ideals that Darwin set forth.

According to the proponents and followers of this theory, natural selection only preserves favorable variations within species, while conveniently destroying unfavorable variations within species, and sometimes eliminating species all together. For evolutionists natural selection becomes god crossing boundaries and problems of the slow development of complicated organs like the eye and heart. In Darwinian theory natural selection allows organs to change their use over time potentially leaving vestigial organs (a theory which has been proven to be false) and preserving and modifying the "good" organs to aid the survival of the fittest species. In other words, this is a very violent process and one that is not to be reasoned with. As atheist James Randi states natural selection is a process filled with "biological experimentation" resulting in the beauty that we see and continue to see today.
According to Biology Online.org natural selection si defined as follows:
"A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations."
Atheistic evangelist Richard Dawkins preaches that the gospel of Natural Selection is a sort of middle ground between design and chance processes. He says this:


"If it (natural selection)really were "chance" it couldn't possibly give rise to ahh the ahmm wonderful panoply of complexity that we see. So it isn't chance and it isn't design, it's natural selection. Natural selection is an anti-chance process, it's a non random process."
Hold the phone Dr. I was born at night, but NOT last night. According to your redefinition of natural selection it's neither chance nor design and it isn't random...OK what is it? Maybe he will enlighten us:

"So this is another of the difficult things to grasp, the hand of time is one of them, the absence of a controller, the absence of a top down governor, designer, creator, is very hard to grasp, because we're so used to the idea that complicated things that look as though they've been designed, ahmm must have been designed, well they mustn't have been designed, they don't have to be designed, natural selection will do the job as well, that is a very hard concept for some people to grasp"
OK, that helps.(NOT! About like sugar "helps" cavities)
According to Dr. Dawkins Natural selection is simply "hard to believe" because there is no-one at the helm. OK I am beginning to think that in Dr. Dawkins world the elevator goes to the top, but it's empty, no-one's waiting to get on it, and what's worse no body's pressed the button... He concludes by saying:


"There is a very, very powerful illusion of planning, powerful illusion of design, and it's a really staggering and exciting fact that, a blind physical process, natural selection, is capable of producing this extraordinary simulatrum of design."
Is that living in DENIAL or what? Wait a minute, he just said this,
"Natural selection is an anti-chance process, it's a non random process"
Then he says,
"it's a really staggering and exciting fact that, a blind physical process, natural selection, is capable of producing this extraordinary simulatrum of design.
OK I get it...According to Dr. Dawkins, natural selection isn't random it's just blind-Wow that makes the world a LOT more understandable now.

And they say atheism ISN'T a proposition of faith? Here we have a scientist that describes the evolutionary process of natural selection as a mid range between design and chance and blind processes. It's not dumb, it's simply blind so what you see, or in this case natural selection CAN'T see, is what you get. According to the good Dr. we all could have developed the morality of rape as being acceptable because our moral evolutionary past is arbitrary also.

"If You Don't Find A Bone Leave My Theory Alone"..."Atheists, You Have Been Bamboozled"!

The beautiful thing is that we don't all have to have a professional and polished presentation to know the truth. This sistah may not be as polished as some would like  but I say keep pushin' on.




Conclusion:

Natural selection is ineffective because from the beginning the believer was chosen by God. The problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory is that it takes away, soul, spirit, and all the immaterial parts of our being that exists. in other words the theory tells us that we are NOT what God made us but we are what the earth and processes have made us. Nothing could be further from the truth and a greater lie hasn't been perpetrated upon humanity in modern times.

The critic vehemently repeats that the "establishment"  and especially religious ideas are what tries to hold science evolutionary down. atheism through evolution has been taught to our children in the classrooms for over 50 years. I propose that the community rise against evolutionary science in part because it's  makes atheistic claims,  is full of anti-God,  racist and sexist concepts and is questionable science at best. Not to mention that evolutionary theory has no answers for the moral concerns of our community.

If there is anything we need is a relationship with God through Jesus. HE is the intelligence behind the veil of life and whether one tramples on his mercy or not, he has extended his mercy and simply says...don't believe a lie, come back to the TRUTH and that TRUTH will make you FREE.

Blessed!

142 comments:

  1. Harvey,

    My presence here is a response to your claim that the decline in fundamentalist Christian beliefs occurring in the US and abroad is some kind of evil conspiracy on the behalf of science. It's clearly a reoccurring theme in your series.

    I've illustrated this by pointing out the specific areas in which your current strategy to spread fundamentalist Christian dogma has failed to create new followers. Rather than accept this failure, your attempt to attack science represents a desperate attempt to hold on to your beliefs, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    It's unclear to the degree that this is a conscious and intentional attempt to be disingenuous or an instinctual response to what you perceive as a threat to your foundation of values and morality. However, your replies to my comments so far indicates at least some degree of comprehension.

    With this in mind, let's perform a detailed analysis of your post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The tittle: Unnaturally Selected, 150 Years Of Deception.

    This claim, which you make right up front, suggests you will show at clear trail of intentional deceit and deception which has lasted over 150 years. As someone who is open to new information about evolution, and science in general, I approached your post to looking for such information. However, your post reveals no such plot. Instead, you continually remind us how evolution conflicts with a literal interpretation of your religion's creation story and claim that darwin was a racist.

    This sort of bait and switch tactic indicates an attempt to cast the content of your post as "evidence" of deception before we even read it. This is a red flag that you lack support to make your case. If it's so clear that deception has occurred, this sort of tactic is unnecessary. The evidence should speak for itself.

    However, since you lack actual evidence that anyone has actually been deceitful you must resort to this sort of tactic.

    This is just one of indications that your post is fundamentalist propaganda.

    Next, we can look at obvious mischaracterizations of Darwin's writings.

    For example, you suggest that the use of the word favored in title of Darwin's book On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life represents racist favoritism by intelligent agents.

    However, this same term could also be used to describe natural processes. Given that natural processes are the subject matter of Darwin's book, this is the most obvious conclusion. But you make the claim anyway, hoping that people will not see though your rhetoric.

    Furthermore, if Darwin clearly was a racist, you wouldn't need to quote vague references. Nor would Darwin being a racist mean that evolution is false.

    However, this misrepresentation, along with the article's title, is designed to work hand in hand with quote mining of Darwin in ways that are obviously out of context.

    For example, when he used the term "the devil's gospel" in closing a letter to T. H. Huxley discussing attacks on his book. Specially, he wrote:

    ..Have you seen Agassiz's weak metaphysical and theological attack on the 'Origin' in the last 'Silliman'? [The 'American Journal of Science and Arts' was commonly called 'Silliman's Journal.'] I would send it you, but apprehend it would be less trouble for you to look at it in London than return it to me. R. Wagner has sent me a German pamphlet, giving an abstract of Agassiz's 'Essay on Classification,' 'mit Rucksicht auf Darwins Ansichten,' &c. &c. He won't go very 'dangerous lengths,' but thinks the truth lies half-way between Agassiz and the 'Origin.' As he goes thus far he will, nolens volens [=willing or not willing], have to go further. He says he is going to review me in [his] yearly Report. My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel -i.e., the devil's gospel.

    Given this reception of "Origins", Wagner could be interpreted by his theological critics as propagating the devil's gospel if he reviewed Darwin in his yearly report.

    Also, when using the word's "my deity", Darwin is referring to how his theory of natural selection explains that which was some thought to have been performed by a deity. Furthermore, Darwin closes the very same letter with the following….

    Great God how I [should] like to see that greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished.

    Of course, since this seems like an odd statement for a racist to make, you conveniently left his part of his letter out.

    Again, if you really had a strong argument, these disingenuous tactics would not be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Next, we can look at obvious mischaracterizations of the theory of evolution.

    You wrote: According to the proponents and followers of this theory, natural selection only preserves favorable variations within species, while conveniently destroying unfavorable variations within species, and sometimes eliminating species all together. For evolutionists natural selection becomes god crossing boundaries and problems of the slow development of complicated organs like the eye and heart.

    First, just because you believe God created all life in final form doesn't mean that non-thesits view evolution as something to be worshiped. This is your baggage, not mine. Nor do all supernatural belief system include a creator God. This is a myopic view based on your fundamental Christian beliefs.

    Second, you are attempting to connect your previous mischaracterizations of Darwin's use of the term "favorable" with natural section as whole. It's a transparent ploy to depict evolution as racist or eugenic in nature.

    In other words, this is a very violent process and one that is not to be reasoned with.

    Evolution isn't any more violent than any other process. Nor is violence is not necessary for evolution to occur. If one species can climb trees, which allows it to eat more berries, that species will be more likely to survive. If one set of genetic traits results in a person who is more sociable, then they are more likely to marry and have children. Furthermore, the creation and death of stars is a much more violent process, but this doesn't mean stars are not created or do not die. This is clearly a non-sequitur.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Later, you suggest that since natural selection isn't a easy to understand as " God did it", then it's false. You also suggest that evolution doesn't explain anything.

    OK I get it...According to Dr. Dawkins, natural selection isn't random it's just blind-Wow that makes the world a LOT more understandable now.

    It does "[make] the world a LOT more understandable now", it's just not an explanation that agrees with your particular religious views.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Last you suggest that natural selection is ineffective because you think God chose to create the those who created the theory. Again, this does not follow. The effectiveness of evolution does not depend on your religious beliefs.

    The food you eat is based on artificially changing the environment to create variations that we want. This shows that natural changes in the environment would also be effective, but result would be variations that we did not specifically choose.

    in other words the theory tells us that we are NOT what God made us but we are what the earth and processes have made us. Nothing could be further from the truth and a greater lie hasn't been perpetrated upon humanity in modern times.

    Here you attempt to reinforce the claim you initially made in the title of the article. But, again, you actually did not present any clear trail of deceit. Instead, you suggested that it must be a lie because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scott,

    Obviously you have no idea what I'm taling about as in almost every post made on the issue your angle is to try to get me to say what I'm clearly not saying...

    First, Christianity isn't declining, at least not like you suggest. It's actually growing at a much faster rate than atheism which is older than Christianity by 400 years at least.

    What is happening is a moral decline that is related to a reeducation and drawing of individuals away from absolute moral truths and objective moral values. This is the nature of my posts.

    I've made no disengenuious remarks and everything that I highlight are statements made by your atheistic scientists themselves...so your arguments are ineffective but knock yourself out at the prospect of sayign something taht you haven't said in over 100 comments so far.

    Only this time, try to WIN the argument if you can. I KNOW you can't because the Spirit of the Lord is against you and your godless worldview, but it'll be fun to watch you try.

    I won't however let you or your comments intimidate or dominate the board, so thanks for your input.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Pastor! I think I recognize the woman in the first video - her voice at least - as the warrior for Christ I saw last year in a video called "Let me introduce the Christ" - an awesome video also.

    I do wish that more christians would realize we hold the winning hand instead of meekly making excuses for God. They don't have to learn the theory of evolution as a scientist, only the very points that Darwin himself said, if these things cannot be demonstrated, his whole theory would break down. (Such as the fossil record and irreducible complexity).

    The myth of evolution is surely science's biggest blunder, and it's only the ignorant that state it's a "fact". So there's our opportunity - to boldly ridicule and expose as false the core beliefs of the religion of evolution, until it's exposed as the myth it is to our children so THEY don't feel intimidated.

    I know these discussions here have emboldened me, and I thank you for going in-depth, because I see now how to not be lead off topic by those who try to intimidate, and how it only takes a couple points debunked to show what a sham evolution is. "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another".

    I want to be found standing for the Truth, and there can only be One Truth. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
    John 1:1-3

    ReplyDelete
  7. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and 99% of biologists agree with that.

    I'm sorry, but the scientific method is not on your side. I suppose that's okay if you distrust or disapprove of science. Of course, this begets the question of why you have a computer.

    Oh, look at me rambling on...

    Sorry. Best of luck to you in the future!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Harvey wrote: Obviously you have no idea what I'm taling about as in almost every post made on the issue your angle is to try to get me to say what I'm clearly not saying...

    Harvey, are you not blaming science for a multitude of "problems?" Do you not think these problems are caused by a lack of fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

    You wrote: I believe this materialistic approach to science has caused the damage that we currently see played out in our children, families and social environments. Is evolution the ONLY cause? ABSOLUTELY NOT! but it is a cause.

    ...

    I want my community back. My neighborhood back. My schools back, and my colleges back, and the future of my children back as well. The only way to do that is to insure that YOU either place your philosophical metaphysical naturalism, (which falls short of science under most definitions that you postulate) in the guise of what you call science, onto the trash heap of history or exit the campuses and schools in which you pollute the minds of the young and vulnerable.


    Demanding people hold religious views that requires flat-out rejecting reality only works when your preaching to the choir. It fails in "the campuses and schools" and pushes them toward philosophical metaphysical naturalism, which you think is wrong.

    Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to be helpful here.

    You wrote: First, Christianity isn't declining, at least not like you suggest. It's actually growing at a much faster rate than atheism which is older than Christianity by 400 years at least.

    Harvey, did you actually read my comment? i'm not just talking about Christianity in general. I'm referring to fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I've make this clear, but you continue to ignore it.

    Furthermore, while attacking science, you said.

    More specifically how is it that Christian youth are by far falling away from the faith upon entering college and and being confronted with philosophies such as these?

    This is the segment I'm referring to. People who exhibit critical thinking skills and who are science literate see the overwhelming evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth and a common ancestor with great apes.

    This is the elephant in the room, which you claim does not exist. Even if the elephant is a cardboard cutout that merely looks like an elephant, denying it exists is NOT the answer. It makes you appear dogmatic and you loose credibility.

    Do you deny that you've claimed no evidence exists for evolution? Do you deny that you continue to claim not one single transitional form has been found in the fossil record? Did you not suggest that ID's acceptance of difference species being created in final form over a span of millions of years is a "misrepresentation of the Bible"?

    If a man was framed for murder, would you deny there was no evidence that made him appear to be guilty? Of course not. Instead, you'd work to reveal who planted the evidence. You'd find other evidence that counteracted the planted evidence that suggested he was guilty. Otherwise, the jury would see the planted evidence and convict him.

    But your entire series here on your blog, your keep claiming there is no evidence. You pretend an overwhelming amount of evidence simply does not exist. This is the strategy I'm referring to. It's transparent and it's failing, which you've admitted on your blog.

    And your response to this failure has been to attack science.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Harvey,

    I'm new to your blog, so, before I make any comment on your post I'd just like to clarify a few things, OK?

    I'm an atheist (a 'weak' atheist, if you want to get technical) and I am active on a number of various blogs and forums. One such forum is the one that the evil entity known as 'Froggie' comes from and I consider him to be a friend of mine.

    I was made aware of this blog after he posted a comment at said forum and thought I'd pop by and see what all the fuss was about.

    I am not Froggie in disguise, nor am I Whateverman (nor any of the aliases listed in the 'Leave your comment' rules).

    With that being said.....


    You do know that the first mention of 'races' in Origins was in reference to cabbages, right? It was essentially another word for 'variety' in Darwin's lexicon - he dealt far more thoroughly with human evolution in his later work.

    No doubt by today's standards he would be considered racist. He was a moderately wealthy Victorian man after all! But to infer that his thoughts about natural selection were based on, or driven by his feelings regarding other races of man is absurd and I don't think you could back up that position if, indeed, that was what you were trying to suggest.

    I'll leave it there because these conversations can generate some pretty lengthy comments.

    Kind Regards,

    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  10. ExPatMatt,

    Thank you for stopping by, I appreciate your courtesy and you're welcome to post.

    You said:You do know that the first mention of 'races' in Origins was in reference to cabbages, right?

    I am aware that Darwin classified virtually everyting including plants animals and humans as being higher/lower etc. So I have no problem with his classification of placnts etc. However that does not exclude or eliminate the fact that he also applied these classification to mankind and those classification were based on race or racial preferences.
    It's fairly clear that he promoted that blacks were beneat anglos, and even women were also beneath men. Now he did point out certain advantages and variances
    Between the races, and I have never stated that he was more racist than his peers were at the time. I mean teh culture was indicitive to that sort
    Of thing, but that in no way minimized the facts that he set forth racist dogma. Whether it was accepted or acceptable or not is another question. The fact that it was racist should be without question. That's not the lynchpin of Darwinist dogma however. Other aspects are either equally as worse or worse than that. However his racism, whether deliberate or cultural cannot be denied.


    You said:"No doubt by today's standards he would be considered racist. He was a moderately wealthy Victorian man after all! But to infer that his thoughts about natural selection were based on, or driven by his feelings regarding other races of man is absurd and I don't think you could back up that position if,
    indeed, that was what you were trying to suggest.


    Thanks for expounding on that because that WAS NOT what I was trying to infer or suggest. I don't believe "natural selection" was developed to support racism ir racist dogmas. Those two things are totally different and unique to themselves. So thanks for
    addressing that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Scott

    So far as my title You said:This claim, which you make right up front, suggests you will show at clear trail of intentional deceit and deception which has lasted over 150 years.

    Scott you make no brownie points for coming to someone elses blog, saying you want dialogue and starting off saying taht someone is
    "intentionally" deceiving someone. First of all you have no clue about my INTENTS obviously you're reading and inference challenged
    also. So get off the high horse of silly and slopy reasoning and just deal with the issues. In addition, you have no clue to what I
    mean by deception which every Christian reading does...it's called "spiritual deceit", whereby people belive a lie of the enemy or satan.

    You said:As someone who is open to new information about evolution, and science in general, I approached your post
    to looking for such information. However, your post reveals no such plot. Instead, you continually remind us how evolution conflicts with a literal interpretation of your religion's creation story and claim that darwin was a racist.


    Scott, we had clear discussion and you found MUCH new information both about science and and evolution. What you found was that evolution is bankrupt and filled with philosophical athesitic conclusion disguised as science. Just as you ADMIT that science cannot disprove God evolution (which is science) can at best ony TRY to reconstruct history. The attempts of evolution, as we have already discussed, to disprove supernatural intervention of what I consiider to be God is a failed effort.

    You said:"However, since you lack actual evidence that anyone has actually been deceitful you must resort to this sort of tactic.

    The EVIDENCE speaks for itself. Refer to my comments to Matt.

    COncerning the title of Darwin's book you said:However, this same term could also be used to describe natural processes. Given that natural processes are the subject matter of Darwin's book, this is the most obvious conclusion. But you make the claim anyway, hoping that people will not see though your rhetoric.

    So your apologetic is that the term "Favored races" in Darwins title "Could also be used to describe natural process"? Are you serious? How ad-hoc can you be? That's one thing that I see over and over with you...you make up things on the fly to fit what you want it to say. Good job while you call me a liar...how about this, I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off me and STICKS to you!

    You said:Given this reception of "Origins", Wagner could be interpreted by his theological critics as propagating the devil's gospel if he reviewed Darwin in his yearly report.

    Thanks for texture, but Darwin was well aware of what he was doing and what he was promoiting against the word of God. He knew that it would not only be perceived as contrary to God but would BE contrary to God. This is how he thought of not only what he critics would say but ultimately what his work was. I don't deal with his spritual condition only to say that he was conflicted at best and seemingly very unhappy at his conclusions. He sure didn't seem happy about the more weighty of his suggestions.

    see 2

    ReplyDelete
  12. 2

    Scott,

    You said:Also, when using the word's "my deity", Darwin is referring to how his theory of natural selection explains that which was some thought to
    have been performed by a deity."


    Isn't that what I said?...YES it is. You just liek to hear yourself don't you?

    You said:"Furthermore, Darwin closes the very same letter with the following:Great God how I [should] like to see that greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished...Of course, since this seems like an odd statement for a racist to make, you conveniently left his part of his letter
    out.


    No Scott, no smoking gun. In the comments of the initial post I brought up how Darwin wante slavery abolished because he was fearful of the judgement of God for it. when he wrote 'Species' as indicatred he was conflicted in religious belief. He held that there would be punishment if their was no effort to either Send Africans back home or let them go free. So this statemetn indicates nothing more than self-preservation.

    Many people will do that sort of thing but that doesn't make them less racist. they simply believe in a higher set of principles when it comes to their security and peace. So no points for that one. His WRITINGS speak for themselves and reveal the heart or thoughts toward those inferior races.

    ReplyDelete
  13. pt. 3

    Scott,

    You said:Demanding people hold religious views that requires flat-out rejecting reality only works when your preaching to the choir.
    It fails in "the campuses and schools" and pushes them toward philosophical metaphysical naturalism, which you think is wrong.Believe it or not,
    I'm actually trying to be helpful here.


    Scott I understand and agree that we shouldn't FORCE acceptance of views on anyone. I only point out specifically that FORCING the atheistic and philosophical metaphysical naturalistic teachings on people and dressing that up as science is unwarranted and is not science. Making
    the conclusion that modern science does about philosophical beliefs is over the top and damaging to the the educational process and communities. I'm not saying "convert or die" I'm simply saying remove all dogma where the issue of God is addressed either favorably or negatively. Educate me but leave the preaching (both theistic and non theistic) to me and my family, church, whatever.

    You said:This is the segment I'm referring to. People who exhibit critical thinking skills and who are science literate see the overwhelming evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth and a common ancestor with great apes...This is the elephant in the room, which you claim does not
    exist.


    I don't have a problem with the age of the earth, there are MANY plausible biblical positions on that. So that's NEVER been a point of contention with me. Although those who hold a more literalistic view, I certainly don't mind as science, as you say tends to correct itself and dating
    could be one are in which it will...I don't argue that dating is false however. I do have a problem with common ancestor garbage. We have every
    indication to believe that there is a common creator, but its the whole premise makes many unfounded leaps and steps into the philosophical nature of science and not the evidentiary side of science that it should maintain. It make a big leap and that leap has proven to not have support,
    or at least the support that most evolutionists would like us to believe it has. That's all I point out.

    You asked:Do you deny that you've claimed no evidence exists for evolution?

    Absolutely NOT as none exists as is stated by proponents such as Dawkins. This always got me too about him. He is a microbiologist but renders, very little to no facts in support of his assertions from microbiology. Whereas Behe delivers information from his field of study. Biased readers often say 'stick to your own field of study" but dawkins get's none of that as long as he espouses atheism. name ONE atheist who has
    criticized him for that inconsistency. I would like to know about it.

    You aksed:Do you deny that you continue to claim not one single transitional form has been found in the fossil record?

    Yes. The fossil record is BANKRUPT and what transnationals are claimed are found wanting and most are made up. In fact the the British
    museum of natural history has over 60 million fossils and not ONE transitional. IF this sort of theory was correct we would find many more in strata. The radical interprets all fossils as transnationals, but this does not hold up under scrutiny. Darwinian evolutionists
    know the problem exists as soft tissue DOES NOT fossilize and the keys are there. Bone structures tell us little, unless you have a bias or presupposition to begin with as you do.

    You asked:Did you not suggest that ID's acceptance of difference species being created in final form over a span of millions of years is a "misrepresentation of the Bible"?

    NO, never have.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 4

    Scott,

    You said:You present a laundry list of personal views as if they somehow evidence that something is false or part of a conspiracy. Examples?...-Do not find Darwinism amusing, therefore it is false.

    Where did I say that?

    You said:"You think Darwinism is garbage and trash, therefore it is false."

    It is garbage, but it's false on its own merit, not because I say so.

    You said:"You can't understand natural selection, therefore it is false."

    No, I think I understand natural selection quite well. The variance that you see is from the atheistic camp who is yet confused over what natural selection is and does. I'm glad you see that because it's your heroes that I reference.

    You said:You suggested that, since Darwin's belief in fundamentalist Christian teachings became "weaker", evolution is false. Your argument is so unclear, it could be interpreted in two flawed ways."

    Yes, I agree that YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of this would be flawed.

    You said:"Instead, you seem to suggest that, out of utility, we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend that any scientific claims that cause people to loose their faith in God are false. Should this be the case, this would fall under the category of "Lying for Jesus."

    I haven't seen ONE scientific claim that could or would cause me or anyone I know to loose faith in God. if science is done CORRECTLY
    there would be no inference either way. So I'm not sure what your saying but it's pretty ineffective as any sort of point.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 5

    Scott,

    You said:First, just because you believe God created all life in final form doesn't mean that non-thesits view evolution as something to be worshiped. This is your baggage, not mine. Nor do all supernatural belief system include a creator God. This is a myopic view based on your fundamental Christian beliefs.

    Ahhh so what does that have to do with anything. We're talking evolution not creation and I haven't superimposed anything other than no common ancestor or common descent...so who's imposing what?

    You said:Second, you are attempting to connect your previous mischaracterizations of Darwin's use of the term "favorable" with natural
    section as whole. It's a transparent ploy to depict evolution as racist or eugenic in nature.


    Man, you make me seem so smart, I'm flattered I don't know where to begin. Let me sit this one out. I may have a job as a publicist coming open I may want you to interview.

    You said:Evolution isn't any more violent than any other process...This is clearly a non-sequitur

    But you sequitered...An atheist thinks the same his name is James Randi...heard of him? he claims that evolution is a series of "experiements"...what suggestion or conclusion does a reasonable person draw from "experinments" that go on for ages, kill off many and then we have a product. (I know that's oversimplified) but that's the only thing it can be...violent. Millions of experiments.

    You said:Later, you suggest that since natural selection isn't a easy to understand as "God did it", then it's false. You also suggest that evolution doesn't explain anything....It does "[make] the world a LOT more understandable now", it's just not an explanation that agrees with your particular religious views"

    I don't SUGGEST, I simply say that Dawkins claims a definition that isn't what many other evolutionists understand it to be. This is a matter of convenience for him and a way to sanitize natural selection for the masses. What the heck is a blind-non random process? Get REAL...that's trying to make this stuff digestible to the public. It's a social and even political grandstand.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Scott you make no brownie points for coming to someone elses blog, saying you want dialogue and starting off saying taht someone is
    "intentionally" deceiving someone.


    Harvey, I'm not here to make browny points. I'm merely pointing out obvious techniques which are well known in spreading propaganda. If you can't deal with criticism, that's not my fault.

    it's called "spiritual deceit", whereby people believe a lie of the enemy or satan.

    I'm sloppy? If this was your point, then why not make it clearly? Why is there no mention of Satan's deception at all in your posts? Again, should you really have a strong argument, these techniques would not be necessary.

    Scott, we had clear discussion and you found MUCH new information both about science and and evolution.

    I found new information? I revealed exactly how little you knew about evolution, including the details of a landmark trial regarding Intelligent Design. If fact, you didn't know that Behe - the poster boy for ID - thinks we shared a common ancestor with Great Apes.

    However, it's clear that it's not about evidence. Your mind is already made up. You yourself even admitted that no amount of evidence could ever change your mind. NONE. Which is what I've been saying all along. This entire claim about unfair scientific bias is just a smoke screen.

    Instead, you think evolution is wrong because it conflicts with your particular fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. It's really that simple.

    So your apologetic is that the term "Favored races" in Darwins title "Could also be used to describe natural process"?

    Again, I'm referring to your technique of presenting arguments. NOT if your argument is actually true or false.

    If Darwin was clearly a racist, then you should have no problem presenting clear examples. This sort of vague word play suggests you lack a strong argument. If you have one, then make it.

    Second, even if Darwin was a racist, it doesn't mean evolution is false. Let me repeat that in case it's not clear.

    EVEN IF DARWIN WAS A RACIST, IT DOESN'T MEAN EVOLUTION IS FALSE.

    There have been many scientific discoveries created by people with evil intentions. However, this doesn't mean their discoveries are false. The Nazis created a number of advanced aircraft designs during WWII. Just because they were racists does not mean the planes they designed could not fly.

    First Jet Fighter

    He knew that it would not only be perceived as contrary to God but would BE contrary to God.

    So did Galileo when he suggested that the earth orbited the sun. Yet we now know this is true. Your point is?

    I don't deal with his spritual condition only to say that he was conflicted at best and seemingly very unhappy at his conclusions.

    Harvey, Are you suggesting that only things that make us happy are true? I'm unhappy about a lot of things, but this doesn't mean they are not true.

    We've discovered that Iran is creating nuclear fuel and North Korea is build nuclear weapons. Obviously, these discoveries have made us unhappy. Does this mean we should pretend these facts do not exist because they make us unhappy?

    We're conflicted about denying Iran the ability to use nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, such as generating power for the Iranian people. Does this mean we should ignore the situation?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 6

    Scott,

    You said:The food you eat is based on artificially changing the environment to create variations that we want. This shows that natural changes in the environment would also be effective, but result would be variations that we did not specifically choose."

    You know that means nothing. artifical selection isn't the same thing as natural selection. in fact Artificial selection si ID.
    Further, you can't cross an intelligently designed environment to prove or support evolution by exchanging the findings and claiming the results
    a process of natural selection. In fact that's the problem with artificial selection. In order to do it it's not natural it's ID.

    Then you say:However, I'm guessing you'll censor this comment as well, as I provided clear instances of disingenuous behavior. Again, if you really had a strong argument, these disingenuous tactics would not be necessary. Should you censor this comment. I'm done.

    Look, I'm not a SINNER like you. I get to the comments as I am able. I knew that's what you and gandy would think though, why? Like I said Sin is a predictible proposition.

    I have allowed you to address and my rebuttals are wholesale. As I stated I won't allow YOU to take over the board or intimidate others. So your comments won't be posted without adequate rebuttal as I've done.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You present a laundry list of personal views as if they somehow evidence that something is false or part of a conspiracy. Examples?

    - Do not find Darwinism amusing, therefore it is false.
    - You think Darwinism is garbage and trash, therefore it is false.
    - You can't understand natural selection, therefore it is false.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    You suggested that, since Darwin's belief in fundamentalist Christian teachings became "weaker", evolution is false. Your argument is so unclear, it could be interpreted in two flawed ways.

    First, you might be implying that any scientific claims made by individuals who has lost their belief in God must be wrong. However, there are many other scientific discoveries made by non-theists which you accept as true. Obviously, this does not make them automatically false.

    Second, you might be implying that any scientific claim that causes someone to loose their belief in God must be false. But, again, there are plenty of facts that even you acknowledge as true which cause people to loose their faith in God. I don't think that even you actually believe this argument is valid.

    Instead, you seem to suggest that, out of utility, we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend that specific scientific claims that cause people to loose faith in your definition of God are false. Should this be the case, this would fall under the category of "Lying for Jesus."

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Next, we can look at obvious mischaracterizations of the theory of evolution.

    You wrote: According to the proponents and followers of this theory, natural selection only preserves favorable variations within species, while conveniently destroying unfavorable variations within species, and sometimes eliminating species all together. For evolutionists natural selection becomes god crossing boundaries and problems of the slow development of complicated organs like the eye and heart.

    First, just because you believe God created all life in final form doesn't mean that non-thesits view evolution as something to be worshiped. This is your baggage, not mine. Nor do all supernatural belief system include a creator God. This is a myopic view based on your fundamental Christian beliefs.

    Second, you are attempting to connect your previous mischaracterizations of Darwin's use of the term "favorable" with natural section as whole. It's a transparent ploy to depict evolution as racist or eugenic in nature.

    In other words, this is a very violent process and one that is not to be reasoned with.

    Evolution isn't any more violent than any other process. Nor is violence necessary for evolution to occur. If a new trait allows members of a species to climb trees, which allows it to eat more berries, that trait will be more likely to survive. If one set of genetic traits results in a person who is more sociable, then they are more likely to marry and have children. Furthermore, the creation and death of stars is a much more violent process, but this doesn't mean stars are not created or do not die. This is clearly a non-sequitur.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Later, you suggest that since natural selection isn't a easy to understand as "God did it", then it's false. You also suggest that evolution doesn't explain anything.

    OK I get it...According to Dr. Dawkins, natural selection isn't random it's just blind-Wow that makes the world a LOT more understandable now.

    It does "[make] the world a LOT more understandable now", it's just not an explanation that agrees with your particular religious views.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Debunkey Monkey,

    You said:"The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and 99% of biologists agree with that."

    Yea right in the atheistic scientist hall of fame, or is it just the one in most Darwinian followers believe in as they feel that assertion supports their error.

    Plenty of scientist agree that Darwinian evolutionary theory was dead wrong. The late TRIPLE Doctorate having A E Wilder Smith did and was setting forth arguments that many of these neophytes have never addressed and still don't. I guess it is better to pretend that everyone is in the same boat and be wrong with company rather than by one's self.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My apologies for submitting the same content twice. The last time I visited this thread, you had yet to approve the comments I reposed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I asked: Did you not suggest that ID's acceptance of difference species being created in final form over a span of millions of years is a "misrepresentation of the Bible"?

    You replied: NO, never have.

    Are you sure?

    I wrote: This means that, over a period of millions of years, species were abruptly appearing where none had existed before. To be crystal clear, ID does not think all forms of life were created at once as creationists claim.

    You wrote: What this is called is a misinterpretation of the bible as it pertain to science. How long was the time before Adam sinned? FYI: Creation occured during that period. Can you give me the time line for it?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Scott,

    I still don't know what you are trying to get to with the ID and creation assertions.

    I really don't think that has anything to do with what we're talking about and that's a held over sentiment of yours from the previous thread anyway.

    so back to the issues at hand...

    ReplyDelete
  23. You know that means nothing. artifical selection isn't the same thing as natural selection. in fact Artificial selection si ID.
    Further, you can't cross an intelligently designed environment to prove or support evolution by exchanging the findings and claiming the results
    a process of natural selection. In fact that's the problem with artificial selection. In order to do it it's not natural it's ID.


    It only "means nothing" if the changes we make to an organism's environment could not be made by nature. But this is not the case. Changes in natural predators, migrations, climate (think ice ages, etc), natural disasters and content drift, just to name a few, can make similar changes to an organism's environment. Just because human beings didn't make the change, doesn't mean that nature can't.

    Look, I'm not a SINNER like you. I get to the comments as I am able. I knew that's what you and gandy would think though, why? Like I said Sin is a predictible proposition.

    First, your reply suggested that you had read my comments and were not going to post them. This is your prerogative.

    Second, It's predictable that I do not agree with your fundamentalist beliefs? I'm a sinner because I though you weren't going to post my comments?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Harvey wrote: I still don't know what you are trying to get to with the ID and creation assertions.

    It's really simple. Your argument is that science is unfairly biased against God.

    The problem here is that when you say "God", you just don't mean any God, you mean the God that is defined by your particular fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

    You keep saying that science doesn't accept the supernatural. However, you've made it clear that only the supernatural claims of the Christian God are "valid".

    This is clearly hypocrisy, which underlies many of your arguments. And your response is to attack science.

    Making the conclusion that modern science does about philosophical beliefs is over the top and damaging to the the educational process and communities. I'm not saying "convert or die" I'm simply saying remove all dogma where the issue of God is addressed either favorably or negatively.

    Harvey, what you apparently cannot see is that your philosophical conclusions about the facts are but one of many. You're suggesting that either God created human beings according to your interpretation of the Bible or he had no role at all. This is YOUR philosophical conclusion. That the facts discovered by science conflict with your particular philosophical conclusion does not not make it biased. They are facts. Should they paint your belief in a poor light this doesn't mean we should pretend they do not exist. This is dogma.

    Furthermore, you keep claiming that, unless God did X, Y and Z, then human beings are somehow not what God planned. Being a non-theist, I do not think God was involved at all. But it's clear that other Christians do not see this evolution as a problem and still think they are special to God.

    I don't have a problem with the age of the earth, there are MANY plausible biblical positions on that. So that's NEVER been a point of contention with me.

    Harvey, If you're going to claim that the fossil record does not show transitional forms since the appearance of a fossil represents a new and unique species, then you have species appearing at different times over millions of years. ID suggests that they pop into existence because an intelligent wanted them to appear at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Harvey,
    "The late TRIPLE Doctorate having A E Wilder Smith did and was setting forth arguments that many of these neophytes have never addressed and still don't."

    Pulling names out of a hat doesn't negate the overwhelming conscientious between biologists regarding the theory of evolution.

    On a side note, all I know about Smith was that he wrote about how dinosaur and human footprints were found side by side. He doctored up some specimens as proof.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Scott,

    You said:"Your argument is that science is unfairly biased against God."

    Not quite Scott and we've been over this almost a million times from the last post. Once again, my argument is that modern science is conducted with a philosophical metaphysical naturalistic bias. Thus bias is philosophically rooted in atheistic premise.

    Methodological naturalism cannot and is not geared to make any statements outside of our current continuum, therefore it cannot adequately measure or assess anything beyond the natural realm, however science and scientists consistently make assertions beyond the bounds, limits and duties of empirical science. I simply state that not all science is empirical or observable but is yet science. I note the "big bang" as science which cannot be confirmed or empirically observed but yet it is science. So science has neither necessity nor reason to exclude from the realm of possibilities what cannot be empirically observed but does this with the concept of God regularly.

    I restate, as you agree, science cannot prove the existence of God, by virtue of that it cannot disprove the existence of God either. Therefore any attempt of science to make statements about God (pro or con) is philosophy not pure science. Now that's in the other thread and if anyone wants to go into greater detail go to Does Science Presuppose Atheism

    You said:"The problem here is that when you say "God", you just don't mean any God, you mean the God that is defined by your particular fundamentalist Christian beliefs."

    For the sake of argument it wouldn't matter to whom I was referring at all. My statements aren't limited to my understanding of God.

    You said:"You keep saying that science doesn't accept the supernatural."

    And you keep asking over, and over, and over..so obviously you're stumped at what I'm saying.

    You said:"However, you've made it clear that only the supernatural claims of the Christian God are "valid"."

    As I said that wouldn't matter at any time. My believe that they are valid is based on philosophical beliefs so that just takes us right back to point A...that's a moot point.

    You said:"This is clearly hypocrisy, which underlies many of your arguments. And your response is to attack science."

    You simply have no clue as to what I'm saying. Many atheistic scientists don't. PZ Meyers does and he was just as in the dark when he first heard it also. So top scientists are aware of this conundrum.

    see NEXT

    ReplyDelete
  27. NEXT

    Scott,

    You said:Harvey, what you apparently cannot see is that your philosophical conclusions about the facts are but one of many.

    SO WHAT? I'm not here to argue EVERY BODY'S philosophical conclusions...My comments are limited to what I set forth if you don't mind.

    You said:"That the facts discovered by science conflict with your particular philosophical conclusion does not not make it biased. They are facts."

    What you hail as facts DO NOT EXIST. They are figments of your imagination. Science CANNOT produce FACTS toward the non existence of God. You really want to fit that square into that circle don't you? So bad you can taste it. As I've stated before repetition of a bad argument DOESN'T make it any better...I'll say it like this so you'll get a better grip, YOUR repetition of YOUR bad arguments don't make them any better.

    You said:"But it's clear that other Christians do not see this evolution as a problem and still think they are special to God."

    Well now goodie for them. It really doesn't matter to me now does it?

    You said:"ID suggests that they pop into existence because an intelligent wanted them to appear at that time."

    I've never seen anybody that either has no clue or is simply living so far in denial they can't stand it...AN ATHEIST, Stephen Jay Gould affirms that the FOSSIL record displays sudden life during the Precambrian era...THE ATHEIST created the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to account for that FACTS of the fossil record...ID says NOTHING but what even ATHEISTIC scientists know that is contained within the record...this IS NOT and invention of ID...

    What are you on Scott? Meth and crack or crack and meth?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Harvey: you stated in a recent post that:

    AN ATHEIST, Stephen Jay Gould affirms that the FOSSIL record displays sudden life during the Precambrian era...THE ATHEIST created the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to account for that FACTS of the fossil record...ID says NOTHING but what even ATHEISTIC scientists know that is contained within the record...this IS NOT and invention of ID...

    Please note that Punctuated Equilibrium is a logical and well supported mechanism of evolution. The simple version is this: a small population, separated from the main population, can develop and evolved much faster than the main population. When it eventually breaks out from it's seperation, it can then take over the territory previously occupied by the main population. Unless we know precisely where to look for where the small population lived, we are unlikely to find many transitional fossils.

    Also a part of puntuated equilibrium is the effect of mass extinction on evolution: the Cambrian explosion is hypothesised to be the result of this (interesting point: the Cambrian Explosion took 5-40 million years to occur).

    Basically, a mass extinction means that creatures can evolve unchecked by natural selection, developing in weird and wonderful ways because there's plenty of space and plenty of food and no competition continually making sure it's only the beneficial mutations that survive. When the world fills up again, these new creatures will have to stay competitive, but until then they're free to experiment.

    The mechanism of Punctuated Equilibrium isn't that hard to understand, and once you get an understanding of it you realise just how lucky we are to have any Transitional Fossils at all. And we've got heaps. Loads of feathered dinosaurs, plenty of ape-men, a good number of whale creatures and even a few amphibious fish (and they're really really old, so it's amazing we've got any at all).

    And the best thing of all? The theory of evolution would be practially undeniable even if we didn't! Transitional fossils are nowhere near as convincing as the genetic evidence, or the geographical arrangment of species, or the common morphology.

    ReplyDelete
  29. James,

    You said:Please note that Punctuated Equilibrium is a logical and well supported mechanism of evolution.

    Punctuated equilibrium is a theorty that attempts to explain what we see in the precambrian strata. There's much debate over whether it's actually true or not even within the evolutionary camp.

    You said:The simple version is this: a small population, separated from the main population, can develop and evolved much faster than the main population."

    Yes that's the theory in general

    You said:Unless we know precisely where to look for where the small population lived, we are unlikely to find many transitional fossils.

    They have looked plenty of places and had ample time to produce true transitionals and not none yet. There are plenty upon which the term transitional has been placed but most every one you can name is unsupported. Then the handful I give you for argument's sake in no way support the theory and more specifically common descent of man. So these areas are not developed within the fossil record and continuing to suggest it is more wishful thinking than fact.

    You said:Basically, a mass extinction means that creatures can evolve unchecked by natural selection,

    Yes that's one of those scientifically theorized and imposed OTHER ways that don't require natural selection...what did they say in Jurassic Park? "Life Will Find A Way"...blind and undirected but it will find one right?

    You said:"The mechanism of Punctuated Equilibrium isn't that hard to understand,"

    The way of salvation isn't either but atheists debate all the time...we well understand PE as a theory and explaination for a weak fossil record.

    You said:"and once you get an understanding of it you realise just how lucky we are to have any Transitional Fossils at all.

    OK, but that's not what the evidence says.

    You said:"And we've got heaps. Loads of feathered dinosaurs, plenty of ape-men, a good number of whale creatures and even a few amphibious fish (and they're really really old, so it's amazing we've got any at all).

    What you've got is a lot of animals or (representative bones) that are created in full form. You don't have any of them changing or developing into other species in the record either.

    You said:And the best thing of all? The theory of evolution would be practially undeniable even if we didn't!

    Yes, as the fossil record is the weakest link in a theory already on bed rest in ICU.

    So your enthusiasm may bleed through as it does but what you suggest doesn't stand under scruitiny for a number of reasons in addition to what I argue here.

    You said"Transitional fossils are nowhere near as convincing as the genetic evidence, or the geographical arrangment of species, or the common morphology.

    Now we're getting somewhere...this morphology has NEVER led to new phyla dn all change has been cyclical within species or has simply created variation within species (once we deceide which definition of species to follow) As I said the theory is on bed rest and unconvincing, not because "the bible told me so" but because it's simply bad and mere wishful thinking.

    Teach the theory as it is...a theory taht accounts for certain data but falls short for certain other data.

    It's amazing that science says it's open to being "wrong" but most atheists in particular argue so "as a matter of factedly" on evolution.

    Sorry my friend it just isn't so and it'll take a lot more than an enthusiastic blurb to affirm it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Scott,

    You said:I'm sloppy? If this was your point, then why not make it clearly? Why is there no mention of Satan's deception at all in your posts? Again, should you really have a strong argument, these techniques would not be necessary.

    I see you fail to understand...it doesn't come without natural deceit also as flesh and the spirit are interconnected...I don't expect you to understand that concept, so you really have no basis for my comment.

    You said: I found new information?

    Yes, you found that science is a proposition unfit to prove or disprove the existence of God.

    You found that science as is currently presented is based on atheistic philosophical premises.

    You found that falsifiability is a philosophical premsise and one that is not applicable to all scientific concepts such as the "big bang" but is presented as a case of special pleading when it comes to supernatural interventions in the world.

    You learned that miracles are not counterventions of natural law but are superceedings of natural law and are temporary in nature thuse given the name miracles.

    You learned that the fossil record of evolution is bankrupt, you learned that evolution doesn't account for consciousness as there is no metaphysical necessity for it,

    you learned that mass information contained within DNA just didn't jump up over night to appear on it's own and couldn't develop within the promordial soup by natural selection because natural selection would need that information FIRST before it could work...and the list goes on.

    There's a lot that you learned that you refuse to accept.

    Yopu said:"This entire claim about unfair scientific bias is just a smoke screen."

    This is just a TRUTH that you cannot and could not distinguish becaue of that hook so far up your nose.

    You said;"Instead, you think evolution is wrong because it conflicts with your particular fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. It's really that simple."

    Let's say that's true for a minute...at least I have a basis for my understandings, you have none...as the only evidence you have is wishful evidence based on pjilosophical methaphysical naturalism.

    You said:EVEN IF DARWIN WAS A RACIST, IT DOESN'T MEAN EVOLUTION IS FALSE.

    So why not ADMIT HE WAS A RACIST THEN?

    you said concering Darwin:Harvey, Are you suggesting that only things that make us happy are true?

    I propose that you are like I was miserable in SIN but too spiritually blind and bound to know it. Believeing that you are at peace and rest when you aren't, but that's another post now isn't it?

    So far as other analogies, I'm not talkingabout Iran etc and the point is weak...stay focused on whatever, you're trying to prove.

    ReplyDelete
  31. At the end of the day inorganic matter has no possibility or chance of arranging itslef to create organic matter.

    None of you can even point to the necessity that what we know as biological life had to spring forth even IF you could prove somehow that it did.

    This is the death of any sort of evolutionary theory. It can't even get off the ground and out of the cellar (or primordial soup) without vast amounts of infromation and direction even if it were blind as the evangelists of this mess say.

    For someone to believe that a few chemicals (how many ever of them)under "pressure" and given time could formulate and create any kind of complexity is just silly...that's sloppy thinking and that's exposure of a failed philosophical worldview pretending to be science.

    ReplyDelete
  32. debunkymonkey said "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and 99% of biologists agree with that."

    And we would believe this why? Because you said so? Win many arguments that way?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Scott said:
    - Do not find Darwinism amusing, therefore it is false.
    - You think Darwinism is garbage and trash, therefore it is false.
    - You can't understand natural selection, therefore it is false."



    Take the entire post I quoted from and give it a once over. What did you bring to the discussion? Nothing. Not only that, but you took it upon yourself to twist someone's words because your previous arguments were refuted and you had no where to go, so you created a fake world for yourself where you could feel superior and comfortable again.

    No one like to debate someone who twists their words, so please knock it off.

    You said "This is the segment I'm referring to. People who exhibit critical thinking skills and who are science literate see the overwhelming evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth and a common ancestor with great apes."

    And we would believe this why? Because you said so? I think you are confusing critical thinking with logic, because I would not consider you a critical thinker.

    Critical thinking is the process of evaluating propositions or hypotheses and making judgments about them on the basis of well-supported evidence. Consider the five steps of critical thinking:

    1) What am I being asked to believe or accept? What is the hypothesis?

    2) What evidence is available to support the assertion? Is it reliable and valid?

    3) Are there alternative ways of interpreting the evidence?

    4) What additional evidence would help to evaluate the alternatives?

    5) What conclusions are most reasonable based on the evidence and the number of alternative explanations?

    Your ad hominem as posted above only points to logical thinking, one of which is "I'm right so you must be wrong".

    But logic and reality are not the same, are they? If there is not enough information or I should say wrong information is in the chain of logical reasoning, the conclusion will be wrong.

    Jesus said, in terms of salvation, “whoever comes to me I will never drive away,” yet no one can come “unless the Father draws him”
    "To find life you must lose it."
    "When you are weak, then you are strong."
    "The first shall be last."

    Critical thinking is necessary to understanding God's Word. Logical thinkers are going to say those quotes just makes no sense.

    You said to Pastor Harvey: "Again, I'm referring to your technique of presenting arguments. NOT if your argument is actually true or false.

    Formal logic is the study of the principles and methods of argumentation. It's no wonder your posts go on ad hominem - you aren't interested in what is truth.

    Do you believe in truth? Do you believe there can only be one truth, or can 2 plus 2 sometimes equal something besides 4?

    ReplyDelete
  34. ExPatMatt said: "You do know that the first mention of 'races' in Origins was in reference to cabbages, right?"

    I picked this site because it had the most quotes in one place. I could have also refered you to Pastor Harvey's previous blogs on the subject.

    Darwin And The Origin Of The Racist
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1521675/posts

    ReplyDelete
  35. Harvey,

    Thanks for the welcome, I trust you had a pleasant weekend?

    I do disagree with you about the whole 'racist dogma' thing, I must say (predictable?). According to Darwin's theory, all homo sapiens are as evolved as each other - as we're all the same genetic distance from the common ancestor - there are just variations/specialisms according to the different selective pressures on each 'race'.

    He didn't view evolution as a ladder, as far as I know. He almost certainly thought that white (specifically English) people were the most developed/civilized/advanced, as did every other white person of the time, but that's more a function of culture and technology, rather than morphology.

    I'm not sure that it's important though. The 'favoured races' quote is accurate after all. Those members of a species with 'favourable' traits will be more likely to propagate.

    However, it is certainly disputable as to whether natural selection even applies to humans in the 'west' any more - we are so comfortable these days (due to our technological advances) that there is no real 'struggle for survival' to apply selective pressures.


    I'm sure you can argue that Darwin's theory was/is racist, but I'm sure you also appreciate that that has no impact on its veracity, so I'll leave it there.

    Question: could you provide a working definition for 'transitional form/fossil/species' please?

    Many Thanks,

    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  36. Expatmatt,

    Thanks for your response.

    You asked:could you provide a working definition for 'transitional form/fossil/species' please?"

    That's the whole problem. There can be no transitional fossil and ultimately no definition for transitional fossil for a number of reasons. I'll name just two reasons:

    1- No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form.

    2- No series of fossils can provide evidence for Darwinian descent with modification. Even in the case of living species, buried remains cannot generally be used to establish ancestor-descendant relationships

    Darwin understood this dilemma stating the following:

    But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.C R Darwin THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION,OR THEPRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. Ch X~ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD pg. 264-265

    Now according to him the transitional form should be from parent to sibling not from sibling to sibling as is commonly suggested. Nothing along those lines can be established. What can be established is modifications, breeds(if you will) such as German Sheppherd being a diffent type of dog than a Doverman. Those are variations within a species, but you know what, if they were buried one could easily speculate one was a descendent of the other...but that's the problem isn't it...that parentage or common descendency cannot be established merely by observation etc...

    Of one thing I'm confident, fossils cannot be used to claim any sort of evolutionary fact.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Laura,

    Thanks for the link, but I stopped reading when I got to this bit;

    "In the current ecosystem and the fossil record, there is absolutely no evidence of transitional species. Example, how a cat evolved into a rhinoceros, a fish into a camel, horse into a mouse, and finally ape into man. NO one has every found fossils of a cat-oceros, fimel, or horse-mouse".

    Such monumental ignorance (and/or deception) does not make me think there is anything else worth reading by this particular author.

    But I'll go on anyway, because I'm a glutton for punishment like that...

    Ok, a series of quote-mines; most of which aren't even racist.

    The first one, for example, suggests that possibly the 'savage' is more highly evolved than the white man because only the strong survive, whereas us whiteys allow the weak to breed.

    He's making an observation - he's not prescribing a course of action, nor is he condoning anything. He's making an observation about the world.

    The second one says that he'd rather be descended from a noble beast than from a barbaric man. So?

    The third one is talking about how much easier it is to perceive the family connections of all apes when you actually have a lot of ape species to look at - and particularly if there are many variations within each species.

    This quote does betray his cultural bias that white-English is best, but that wasn't a particularly rare opinion in his day (and location), was it?

    So this guy is ignorant of the basics of evolution and quote-mines a Victorian-era guy to make it look like evolution is a racist theory that somehow causes racism in those that hold to it.

    No mention of Hitler's disbelief in evolution (he said that species could change, but only 'within their kind' - does that sound familiar) and his belief in a Creator. No mention of Lamarkism, which was the favoured theory of both Lenin and Stalin.

    Just Ad Homs against a dead guy and ignorance about his idea.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  38. Laura wrote: Take the entire post I quoted from and give it a once over. What did you bring to the discussion? Nothing. Not only that, but you took it upon yourself to twist someone's words because your previous arguments were refuted and you had no where to go, so you created a fake world for yourself where you could feel superior and comfortable again.

    Laura,

    As I've mentioned before, you need to learn how to vet your sources of information. These sorts of techniques are strong indications that someone has a weak position or is attempting to spread propaganda. Just because someone agrees with your position doesn't mean they actually have a strong argument.

    If Harvey wants to be taken seriously, he needs to avoid using these techniques. Should he have a real argument, then he should present it.

    Furthermore, it's clear that Harvey is not interested in evidence, nor does he actually have a strong understanding of what evolution is or even the positions of those who he promotes. That .2% of the fringe scientific community agrees with some of Harvey's fundamentalist beliefs doesn't mean my arguments have been "refuted."

    No one like to debate someone who twists their words, so please knock it off.

    Laura, I just pointed out where Harvey twisted Darwin's words by quote mining from his letters? Do you not see this? Apparently faith has made you blind to this sort of thing, which is exactly WHY I critiqued Harvey's post. Do you think it's OK to twist people's word as long as it's in support of Jesus?

    Do the ends justify the means? This is the question I'm trying to ask.

    And we would believe this why? Because you said so? I think you are confusing critical thinking with logic, because I would not consider you a critical thinker.

    Why? Because Harvey himself is complaining about the decline of fundamentalist beliefs in academia and college students. Do I need to paste his comment again? Or perhaps you have a better explanation as to why we're seeing this trend?

    Oh, I forgot, you do have an explanation: It's an elaborate conspiracy against God by the scientific community. Do you have a tinfoil hat to prevent the government from reading your mind? Do you think the US government was behind the 9/11 bombings? Do you think aliens abduct people so they can perform experiments on them? Of course not.

    Again, it appears that your'e only willing to accept conspiracy theories when they support your religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Harvey,

    Thanks for the response. You said;

    "1- No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form".

    Why is that so? Could you give examples of what you mean because I'm not really following you there.

    "2- No series of fossils can provide evidence for Darwinian descent with modification. Even in the case of living species, buried remains cannot generally be used to establish ancestor-descendant relationships".

    I fully agree with you there.

    There can be no certainty that this specific individual (or even species) was the direct ancestor of this specific individual (or species).

    But you'd have no problem in saying that dogs in general are descended from wolves in general, would you? You don't know which breed of wolf it was, specifically, that gave rise to dogs, and you might not know what the first breed of 'dog' was, but you can accept that the one group came from the other, right?

    And, obviously, there must have been a point when the wolf-->dog transition was at such a stage that if you surveyed 100 people today about what it was, probably you'd get some 'wolf-like dog' and 'dog-like wolf' responses, right?

    So it's the definition of that stage that we need to nail down if we're going to get anywhere, correct?


    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  40. Scott,

    Each argument that you have presented has been adequately refuted withot doubt. You are the biggest "straw reacher" I've ever seen...

    Secondly, what happening in academia AS I STATED BEFORE, is there a number of reason young people are drawing back from the church and NONE of them include sinking into athesistic beliefs...to be an atheist is STILL and ANOMOLY and not culturally commensurate.

    The trend is that these same one reengage the church during family years creating a similar moral foundation that they had when they grew up...ie: they still believe the Bible.

    In addition the church is not threatened by either evolution nor atheism as both are a LOOSING proposition filled with illusionary reality, relativistic purpose an a die, and rot in the grave hope like Dr. Will Provine.

    They are terrible worldvies and proposition to begin with and I find it difficult to see why anyone would claim either to be "reasonable" or appealing as a worldview...But that's another story.

    As stated get a new song, yours is tired, broke and lacking substance.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Expatmatt,

    You asked:Why is that so? Could you give examples of what you mean because I'm not really following you there."

    The type of example that evolutionist would need doesn't exist and what they think they have are creatures made in full form that didn't transition to or from anything. the record of precambria fossils is FULL and lacking the very thign necessay to make a successful argument from the fossil record...

    Now this is one way that most evolutionists weigh down conversations. Instead of presenting what they think is the best evidence for their theory they ask us to refute a shadow...I simply ask, why do you think transitionals exist and what would be the charecteristics that a transitional must have in order to prove its viability?

    Now on the other hand is it correct to think that a wolf came from a dog or vice versa or is one a varition within the species (however that's defined) of another. I don't believe that the wolf is the common ancestor of a dog or vice-versa.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Laura wrote: I picked this site because it had the most quotes in one place.

    Laura, again, you need to learn to see the signs of propaganda. Where should I start?

    The title: Darwin And The Origin Of ….The Racist?

    Again, here the author is trying to cast the content of his post as proof that Darwin was the origin of racism, before we've even read it. Again, we have a red flag.

    And who posted the article? The author's nickname is "knowseverything." But we don't need to look far to see it's clear he doesn't know everything.

    In the current ecosystem and the fossil record, there is absolutely no evidence of transitional species. Example, how a cat evolved into a rhinoceros, a fish into a camel, horse into a mouse, and finally ape into man. NO one has every found fossils of a cat-oceros, fimel, or horse-mouse.

    Evolution doesn't suggest that cats evolve into rhinoceros, etc. Nor does evolution predict we'd find cat-oceros, fimel, or horse-mouse. Again, this is a red flag that he either doesn't understand evolution, or he's intentionally an disingenuously misrepresenting it to smear Darwin.

    I could go on, but ExPatMatt has addressed the issues of quote mining, etc.

    Again, you really need to learn how to vet sources of information.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Scott,

    You said:"And who posted the article? The author's nickname is "knowseverything." But we don't need to look far to see it's clear he doesn't know everything."

    I don't have to know everything to conclude that evolution, as is currently espoused and promoted by you and many within the atheistic scientific community, is a false premise filled with unsupportable presuppositions.

    Now so far as knowledge, in order to be an atheist you would have to know much more than I could ever know. If God does not exist then you're saying that you've filled all gaps of knowledge including the scientific ones.

    Since you have that much knowledge it should be easy to simply stand up and say that you know it all and that all scientist need to come to you for a flow through of information.

    Then since you can confirm that God doesn't exist, by your extant knowledge, then we can call all religious leaders of every persuasion and lay them down at your feet too.

    Simply keep in mind, every rational individual DOES NOT follow your propositions for a myriad of reasons, I only expose and bring to light the lest of those reasons that evolutionary science as currently espoused is bankrupt.

    In fact I propose evolution as currently proposed is more of a political agenda than anything else at current and never will be reconciled with actual fact. That's the problem I have with Dawkins book...What he states as facts are political statements and agendas disguised as science and basically simply don't add up.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The man that evolutionists love to hate Jonathan Wells recently said this:

    Yet Darwin’s excuse for the absence of innumerable Precambrian intermediates for the Cambrian phyla was that they were too small or too delicate to survive heat and pressure. The discovery of microscopic and soft-bodied Precambrian fossils makes Darwin’s excuse sound hollow; and the more such discoveries are made, the hollower it sounds.

    Richard Callow and Martin Brasier reported in the January 2009 issue of the Journal of the Geological Society, London “a variety of exceptionally preserved microbes” from late Precambrian rocks in England that address “the paradox known as ‘“Darwin’s dilemma’.” At the time, ScienceDaily announced that “a solution to the puzzle which has come to be known as ‘Darwin’s dilemma’ has been uncovered by scientists at the University of Oxford,” and that “Darwin’s Dilemma” was “the lack of fossils in sediment from the Precambrian."

    But this was not Darwin’s dilemma. Darwin’s dilemma was the absence of intermediate fossils showing that the Cambrian phyla diverged from a common ancestor. Callow and Brasier didn’t solve Darwin’s dilemma. Instead, they put one more nail in the coffin of Darwin’s attempt to salvage his theory from it. The truth is that “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved. ~ J. Wells, 9/16/09

    ReplyDelete
  45. Brilliant! I dont know enough to debate but pure common sense and simple logic is enough to make a sensible person know that evolution is a stretch. You see its not about whether evolution is true or false its about the sinfulness of mans heart.

    John 3:20
    20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

    This is not knew they tried to refute the truth of Christ since he came on the scene.

    1 Corinthians 1:19-21
    19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
    21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

    You see you can talk all the wordly wisdom but Our God is not moved. When you run across someone who was bound in sin and after salvation had a struggle with fornication (me) and ONE touch from God and the stronghold is broken what are gonna say? how does the wisdom and knowledge Darwinism explain that?

    Many people say prove that God is real, I ask why does a God that created the universe need little me to prove Him and actually Christ said a wicked and perverse generation look for some kind of sign. You see it all boils down to sin!! here is what the Apostle said about folks who doubt.

    Romans 1:20
    20For 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:

    That said, those who doubt can talk all day but the Truth of God stands.

    "I'LL BE BACK"

    ReplyDelete
  46. Paul,

    Very good and that's why we're here to engage and equip.

    I was thinking about what you were saying and it seems that Darwinian evolution was developed not out of scientific necessity but out of doubt of God. That doubt that we call post-modernism is the fuel behind the agenda of evolution.

    Some such as Ken Miller claim it's about the learning education etc, but it's not. It's about doubt and a need to fulfill what is not known with a sorty of intellectual stability. That's the trick, that intellectual stability is built on false and unstable premises to begin with.

    There's no sure foundation than the word of God. There should be honest, accurate and detailed study without the superimposed premises of atheism which will even doubts itself as it does often and regularly.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ok, now I'm really confused(maybe it's a Monday thing...), Harvey;

    I asked you to define transitional species and one of your responses was;

    "1- No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form".

    To which, I asked;
    Why is that so? Could you give examples of what you mean because I'm not really following you there.

    Your answer;

    "The type of example that evolutionist would need doesn't exist and what they think they have are creatures made in full form that didn't transition to or from anything.".

    Which doesn't really answer my question at all! I was asking you to clarify what you meant by 'lose characteristics etc,..'.

    Either way, you must have an idea in your head of what would be required of a fossil in order for it to be considered transitional?

    Even if you think there are no such things, surely you can grant the hypothetical premise and explain what you meant in your #1 response.

    You continued;

    "...the record of precambria fossils is FULL and lacking the very thing necessary to make a successful argument from the fossil record...".

    I very much doubt that our record of Precambrian fossils is 'full'...and even if we had none, there are plenty of fossils after the Cambrian Explosion.


    "Now this is one way that most evolutionists weigh down conversations".

    That is not my intent, I am merely trying to establish some common terms so I know what you are talking about - is there something wrong with that?

    "Instead of presenting what they think is the best evidence for their theory they ask us to refute a shadow...I simply ask, why do you think transitionals exist and what would be the charecteristics that a transitional must have in order to prove its viability?".

    That's fair enough. Although you have yet to do the same, I will attempt a description.

    We start with two species. The hypothesis is that the older species is the common ancestor of the younger one (and, usually, a host of similar species too). In order for this to be true, at least one speciation event must have occurred in the intervening time period.
    If common ancestry is true, we should find - in the fossil layer intermediate between the older and younger species - a distinct species that shares characteristics of both.

    How's that for a start?

    "Now on the other hand is it correct to think that a wolf came from a dog or vice versa or is one a varition within the species (however that's defined) of another".

    I don't think anyone thinks that the wolf is a variation of a dog...

    "I don't believe that the wolf is the common ancestor of a dog or vice-versa".

    What do you think is the relationship between the wolf and the dog, if you think they're related at all?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  48. ExPatMatt said "Thanks for the link, but I stopped reading when I got to this bit;
    "In the current ecosystem and the fossil record, there is absolutely no evidence of transitional species. Example, how a cat evolved into a rhinoceros, a fish into a camel, horse into a mouse, and finally ape into man. NO one has every found fossils of a cat-oceros, fimel, or horse-mouse".


    I'm glad that you were able to go on to the Darwin quotes on that page, as I wouldn't want to think you were so closed-minded that you can't take some good natured ridiculing of the ridiculous myth of the origin of the species. I thought it was funny and very visual. Sorry you missed the joke.

    Surly you would agree that page was not a serious debate on evolution nor did it mean to be, but it did, as stated, have 3 Darwin racist quotes on one page.

    IMO, evolution needs more ridicule, so I'll do my best to provide it until it is exposed as the religion it is. When that day comes, and it's taken out of our schools, I'll say "to each his own" and "live and let live".

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes Pastor and thanks for the knowledge, I am going to go over all of your articles regarding this matter.

    "That doubt that we call post-modernism is the fuel behind the agenda of evolution."

    Totally agree.

    Another thing I would like to tell our athiest friends is that they seem to think that you are a Christian because thats how you were raised and thats what you saw. I tell many of them that I never went to Church and was not forced into Christianity and myself questioned Christ (why is He the only way?)but they find something else to say.

    This is really my point, to say I follow Christ because of someone esle is totally contradictory to the scripture. "I" have to put my faith in Christ and "I" can only do that by faith, thats why no one is born a Christian like in every other religion. The amount of PK's I know who are acting the fool! On the other hand you have many who were muslims who give their hearts to Christ even though they know it could mean death! they will definately be put out of th family.

    ITS A GOD THING!

    Romans 8:7
    1 Corinthians 2:14
    14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    In this you see that the natural man cannot understand God regardless of his influence and its foolishness to Him.

    "John 6:44
    44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."

    Its not just mans choice of religion but a calling by The MOST HIGH!

    My athiest friends at the end of the say, darwinism offers absolutle no hope, it is born out of doubt and pride (I KNOW). How on earth does man know anything?

    Jehovah asked job Job 38:4
    4 “ Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
    Tell Me, if you have understanding.

    This is a question you have to answer before you can tell people how this earth came about.

    Where were you at the beginning, whether you believe or not.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Laura,

    It is often very hard to tell the difference between someone who is mocking from a position of knowledge and someone who is mocking from a position of ignorance.

    If you have to mock at all it often looks like you can't defeat the proposition logically and sensibly. If the guy's going to treat it like a joke (and I don't necessarily believe that was his intent) then why should I take what he has to say seriously?

    "Surly you would agree that page was not a serious debate on evolution nor did it mean to be, ".

    If the intent was not to debate the veracity of evolution; why bring it up at all? Why claim there are no transitional fossils if your support for that is to claim that this is true because there are no cat-oceros, fimel, or horse-mouse fossils?

    Seems dishonest to me.

    "...but it did, as stated, have 3 Darwin racist quotes on one page".

    In case you missed it, I did address each of those quotes. Are you not going to respond to what I said regarding them?

    "IMO, evolution needs more ridicule, so I'll do my best to provide it until it is exposed as the religion it is".

    To me, that looks like you are unable to debunk evolution on scientific grounds so you have to resort to schoolyard tactics instead.

    It clearly is not a religion, unless your definition of 'religion' is so broad and all-encompassing that it loses all meaning.

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  51. Scott said "As I've mentioned before, you need to learn how to vet your sources of information. These sorts of techniques are strong indications that someone has a weak position or is attempting to spread propaganda. Just because someone agrees with your position doesn't mean they actually have a strong argument."

    This is your reply to my accusation that you twist people's words? It must be, because you quoted me and then answered this, as unbalanced and off topic as it is.

    Would you have preferred I said:

    Show me where Harvey said he does not find Darwinism amusing, therefore it is false.

    Show me where Harvey said he thinks Darwinism is garbage and trash, therefore it is false.

    Show me where Harvey said he can't understand natural selection, therefore it is false.

    Scott said "If Harvey wants to be taken seriously, he needs to avoid using these techniques. Should he have a real argument, then he should present it."

    Lol, what do you think he's been doing? Playing word games with you?! I suggest you are projecting.

    These threads are and will continue to be a great source for those of us against the teaching of the myth of evolution. He has done his homework, you have not.

    You still think the Kansas case was a "landmark case against ID" when it wasn't even about ID, but was about a statement being read to kids that evolution is not a fact and there are other theories. It's laughable when the official court complaint was shown to you over and over, but you refused to believe it.

    You said "Furthermore, it's clear that Harvey is not interested in evidence, nor does he actually have a strong understanding of what evolution is or even the positions of those who he promotes."

    Pure projection. It IS clear that you aren't interested in evidence, but that hasn't stopped Pastor Harvey from laying out important investigative material here of the LACK of evidence in the theory which, I might add, has gone un-refuted by you.

    Ad hominem is your game, and it does get old.

    You said "Oh, I forgot, you do have an explanation: It's an elaborate conspiracy against God by the scientific community.

    You might be able to get away with this with Harvey, but if you insist on putting words in MY mouth, I'll use it every time to expose you as a spineless liar.

    Show me where I said ANYTHING was an elaborate conspiracy against God by the scientific community, or apologize for lying.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Paul said "Another thing I would like to tell our athiest friends is that they seem to think that you are a Christian because thats how you were raised and thats what you saw."

    Hi Paul. It's nice to have some fresh eyes looking at this dicussion. I totally missed that, and you make a good point.

    ReplyDelete
  53. ExPatMatt,

    1. Please get a sense of humor. Your evolution god doesn't mind being laughed at.

    2. The man stated the FACT that there are no transitional fossils in the record. If you don't like facts, you might be more well suited to stay in a private forum of similar close-minded individuals.

    3. We have been debunking evolution for 3 threads now. Do your homework and read-up before lecturing me on "tactics" when I made it plain that website was used for Darwin quotes alone.

    There are more red herrings coming from y'all than you can shake a stick at. Seriously...your evolution buddies must be embarrassed!

    ReplyDelete
  54. ExPatMatt said "In case you missed it, I did address each of those quotes. Are you not going to respond to what I said regarding them?"

    What is there to respond to?
    You say those quotes did betray his cultural bias that white-English is best, and I say they exposed his racial bias.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Laura,

    "1. Please get a sense of humor. Your evolution god doesn't mind being laughed at".

    That would almost make sense if people were actually laughing at evolution instead of the straw man, 'cat-oceros' version that creationists seem to be so fond of presenting. You may say it's a joke, but I've had chimeras like that thrown at me a number of times on blogs in all seriousness.

    My sense of humour is doing just fine, thanks. But I didn't find anything that guy said about evolution funny, just wrong, and you didn't clarify why I should take the guy seriously at all if he's just going to joke around and quote-mine....

    "2. The man stated the FACT that there are no transitional fossils in the record. If you don't like facts, you might be more well suited to stay in a private forum of similar close-minded individuals".

    If it is a fact that there are no transitionals, why did he need the cat-oceros etc, why not list some species that would qualify as transitionals but haven't been found?

    At present, it only seems to be a 'fact' that there are no transitionals because you guys a) refuse to define what you'd expect a transitional to look like, and b) refuse to entertain the possibility that they do exist, even for hypothetical purposes.

    And you call me close-minded?

    "3. We have been debunking evolution for 3 threads now. Do your homework and read-up before lecturing me on "tactics" when I made it plain that website was used for Darwin quotes alone".

    Yes, you made that plain. Yet you still haven't responded to my comments regarding those quotes...

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  56. SO WHAT? I'm not here to argue EVERY BODY'S philosophical conclusions...My comments are limited to what I set forth if you don't mind.

    Harvey, unless everyone holds or reaches the same philosophical conclusions, then how can you say science is pushing one specific conclusion? That you interpret a serious of discoveries as hostile to YOUR philosophical conclusions is NOT the problem of science.

    For example, imagine I said that my religious creation story depicted God originally creating all life, including human beings, on mars, billions of years ago. Then later depicted God transporting said life to earth 1 million years ago from now. Since science has discovered fossils of life forms which are at least 4 million years old, then science would be conflicting with my religious views. Right?

    Now imagine I claimed that, because it does not agree with MY particular creation story, science is conducted with a philosophical metaphysical bias against God.

    Do you see the problem now?

    Furthermore, imagine if I said that I blamed racism, and a host of other social problems, on a lack of belief that God crated all life on Mars. Because, unless science supports MY creation story, then everyone will conclude God wasn't involved at all, think they are free to do whatever they want and assume there is no right and wrong. How dare science say that God doesn't exist by refusing to accept that all life began on Mars!

    Last, imagine I claimed a failure of science to recognize how God created all life on Mars represents centuries of "spiritual deceit" by the scientific community, which is a conspiracy against God and the work of Satan. Any evidence that suggests life appeared on earth more than 1 million years ago must be false, as it would mean God lied, and my God does not lie!

    Again, should discoveries of science paint YOUR specific beliefs in a poor light doesn't mean these discoveries are biased. Given the number of beliefs people hold, It's impossible for science not to conflict with the supernatural, or even natural, views that exist. Nor is science about giving easy answers or making people happy. This is NOT science.

    That you expect this shows your own bias and lack of knowledge about other people's beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Laura,

    My apologies, I was writing my last response and didn't see that you had addressed, in detail, the content and meaning behind each of my responses to the three quotes on Darwin's 'racism' that you linked me to. I include your full rebuttal here for completeness;

    "What is there to respond to?
    You say those quotes did betray his cultural bias that white-English is best, and I say they exposed his racial bias"
    .

    Of course, I didn't say that. I said that one of those quotes betrayed his cultural bias.

    You're really just going to ignore the rest of that comment?

    What was the point in pointing me to the link if you weren't willing to talk about the topic it brought up?

    What exactly is your point (regarding Darwin and race)?

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  58. ExPatMatt, the point in pointing you to the link of quotes was to show that no cabbages were involved in Darwin's racism. :-)

    Go back up there ^ and have a look at the quote from you I was responding to.

    ReplyDelete
  59. District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
    "At the end of the day inorganic matter has no possibility or chance of arranging itslef to create organic matter."

    Okay. Now, I'm going to go ahead and use the standard definitions of organic and inorganic chemicals that were in place when I did my Chemistry degree; they may have changed since then as this was back in the early nineties, so if you're using something different then please feel free to correct me.

    Carbon dioxide - inorganic.
    Water - inorganic.
    Glucose - organic.

    Photosynthesis - inorganic to organic chemistry.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Laura,

    If you can use quotes like that to support your position, then so can I;

    "Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock".

    In Darwin's day, 'race' was synonymous with 'variety', or 'breed' in dogs, if you like.

    So, what I said was true, the first mention of 'races' is in regards to cabbages. I said that in response to the emphasis on the favoured races bit of the book's title that Harvey used in the OP.

    "(Yes, Favored Races, namely and more specifically them that are WHITE- and they continue to say he wasn't racist-go figure!)".

    Would you concede, at least, that the title of Darwin's book is not, in and of itself, racist. But rather an unfortunate use of a word that we today have a different understanding of?

    I think that would be a start ;-)

    Then maybe you can explain to me how Darwin thinking that he'd rather be descended from a noble beast that a barbaric man is in any way racist?


    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  61. ExPatMatt said "Of course, I didn't say that. I said that one of those quotes betrayed his cultural bias."

    I apologize for saying quotes.
    So, for reason of argument, how many Darwin quotes does it take to show bias when, by your own admission, he was betrayed by the one?
    One.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Would you concede, at least, that the title of Darwin's book is not, in and of itself, racist.

    Never said it was.
    Anyone care for some fish?

    Take a look at PaulBrowns new post. Now THERE is possibly something of substance.

    Please try to emulate him.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Paul Brown,

    Get off of it man, you KNOW there is no such thing as biogenesis of inorganic mattyer to living matter...take your chemistry set back to cracker jack and offer something that's IN LINE with the convo...we're not talking about chimical conversion, we're talking about chemicals over time with as much pressure as you want to apply becoming biological life.

    If it were that easy as you TRY to make it sound that would be another EUREKA moment for the world but EVERYBODY but YOU know that garbage can't happen...what school are you at again?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Laura,

    "I apologize for saying quotes".

    And I forgive you. Come give me a hug!

    "So, for reason of argument, how many Darwin quotes does it take to show bias when, by your own admission, he was betrayed by the one?
    One."
    .

    I guess it depends. If you're interested in confirming your bias regarding someone then yeah, one is probably enough. And with enough selective digging, you could probably find a whole lot more.

    If I wanted, for example, to confirm my biased opinion that Jesus was a violent man - based on one instance of him saying he was violent - I have only to provide the "I came to bring the sword" quote, right?

    Of course, this assumes that people (and even Jesus) are 1-dimensional stereotypes, totally lacking in a depth of human emotion and personality who can be pigeon-holed based on a selective reading of their work and writings.... but whatever floats your boat I guess.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  65. Laura said...

    "The man stated the FACT that there are no transitional fossils in the record. If you don't like facts, you might be more well suited to stay in a private forum of similar close-minded individuals."


    As former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

    I like facts. The definition of "fact" is:

    - something that actually exists; reality; truth

    Now, there are fossils that actually exist, that indicate a transition.

    Some include-
    Nautiloids to Ammonoids
    Invertebrates to Fish
    Fish to Tetrapods
    Amphibians to Amniotes )
    Synapsid to mammals
    Dinosaurs to birds
    Evolution of whales
    Evolution of the horse
    Human evolution

    Now, the question is, Do you argue the fact that these fossils exist?

    Or do you merely argue that they are not transitional? If that is the case, please explain specifically why you don't consider them to be transitional, contrary to the almost universal findings of paleontologists.

    Which brings me to my next question for you, Laura. What, specifically, do you know and understand about the theory of evolution, and how have you acquired this knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Pastor Harvey said "EVERYBODY but YOU know that garbage can't happen...what school are you at again?"

    I stand corrected, for the time being. Substance, people! Substance.

    ExPatMatt said "I guess it depends. If you're interested in confirming your bias regarding someone then yeah, one is probably enough."

    Sigh.
    Ex, YOU told me one quote was enough by your answer that Darwin bias was betrayed by that ONE quote. Are you froggies twin?

    Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Benjamin Franklin said "Now, the question is, Do you argue the fact that these fossils exist?

    Froggie can't post anymore, so we are suppose to waste our time catching his friends up because they can't be bothered to read-up on the privious threads?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Laura,

    "Sigh.
    Ex, YOU told me one quote was enough by your answer that Darwin bias was betrayed by that ONE quote"
    .

    That one quote does betray his cultural bias. But you'd need a decent understanding of what Victorian cultural biases were to make sense of it, correct?

    That quote lets you know that he was a product of his time (as is almost everyone) and wasn't some
    pioneering civil rights crusader like Wilberforce, for example.

    It places him in a context. What it does not do is give you a full picture of the guy's outlook regarding the 'races of man'. In order to understand what his thoughts were on this issue, if you were so inclined, you'd have to do substantially more than selectively quote one (or even three) quotes that are taken out of context just to make the guy look bad. Don't you agree?


    "Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion?".

    Well Laura, to be honest, I've been trying to get into a discussion with you (and Harvey), but you seem intent on ignoring the bulk of what I say and then making snide remarks about it. If that's the way you do things 'round here that's fine - this is my first involvement at this blog and I'll just have to learn to get used to it, I guess.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ex said "But you'd need a decent understanding of what Victorian cultural biases were to make sense of it, correct?

    I rest my case about circular thinking. How long are you going to go on with what you have already agreed was "bias"? Do you have anything GENUINE to add to this discussion? Or are you merely interested in verbal disputes?

    Are y'all all out of arguments against evolution being deceptive?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ex, it's easy. You start with Pastor Harvey's blog, and if you see something that you believe is false, you post it here with references showing why it's false. BTW, talkorgins and wikipedia don't cut the mustard for references.

    ReplyDelete
  71. So far as the racism is concerned, here is what a skeptic has to say regarding it:

    First he clarifies what "Favored races" means:

    "In biology, the term "race" refers to a subspecies. "Race" in the colloquial sense is wholly without biological foundation and is useful for convenience only. When Darwin talked about race, he was referring to differential sizes and shapes of bills among otherwise similar finches, subtle differences within species of coral, etc."

    Then after some wrangling and positioning he can't deny what is obvious:

    In reality, Darwin was actually quite enlightened for his day. He did suffer from a very mild form of racism, but compared to the writings of many of his famous and much-beloved contemporaries, he was well ahead of his time.

    And of course he tries to do what most you you do and blame the bible and God...

    The short of the long, he NEVER provides any reference for this for what he states, just makes things up to fit his thoughts. He PRETENDS as do many, that Darwin was somehow a cut above his society and was more understanding that his peers...RUBBISH!

    You can read this guy's apologetic atSecular Skeptic. He made a valiant effort but a Mercedes IS NOT a BMW and Darwin even on the lot.

    Now lets deal with supportable facts:

    Darwin's belief that some races (such as blacks) were inferior to others became so widely accepted that, as Haller concluded: 'the subject of race inferiority was beyond critical reach in the late nineteenth century.[Ref: Haller, John S. Jr., 1971. Outcasts From Evolution: Scientific Attitudes to Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, p .132]
    Although Darwin opposed all forms of slavery, he did conclude that one of the strongest evidences for evolution was the existence of living 'primitive races' which he believed were evolutionarily between the 'civilized races of man' and the gorilla:

    Researched and referenced!

    'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ... It has often been said ... that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.~Darwin, Charles, 1896. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; The Works of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Company, New York (First edition by AMS Press, 1972). pp. 241-242.

    Researched and referenced!

    see racist 2

    ReplyDelete
  72. Racist 2

    In Darwin's mind it is CLEAR and without doubt that he considered his race to be superior than any other. It was also the prevailing thought of the culture in his day. That is not in question so why are his statements?

    That little exterminate and replace remark...guess what that can ONLY be in context to? another little WAY that Life Finds A Way...NATURAL SELECTION and survival of the FITTEST...what's the claim professors?

    CLEAR...the claim is that LOWER races, BLACKS(Me) and others considered further down the evolutionary chain were on the way out...

    Dress it up and cover it up all you like, Like John McCain said it's STILL and UGLY PIG.

    So here we have even a skeptical reviewer admitting to his racism. then we have other sources INCLUDING Darwin's own writings that affirm his beliefs and what he was saying to HIS culture.

    What's wrong with you guys? I fail to understand it. don't bring a race apologetic around here and expect to not be challenged. Darwin was CLEARLY a racist even if only commensurate with his day and age.

    Squash it please!

    ReplyDelete
  73. B Franklin,

    You said:Now, there are fossils that actually exist, that indicate a transition.
    Some include-
    Nautiloids to Ammonoids
    Invertebrates to Fish
    Fish to Tetrapods
    Amphibians to Amniotes )
    Synapsid to mammals
    Dinosaurs to birds
    Evolution of whales
    Evolution of the horse
    Human evolution
    Now, the question is, Do you argue the fact that these fossils exist?


    Get outta here with those text book sanitized and UNRESEARCHED answers...then rid yourself of sentiments like this:What, specifically, do you know and understand about the theory of evolution, and how have you acquired this knowledge? and I might respect your position:

    evolution needs no SPECIAL knowledge or specially classified examination. just because it SEEMS intellectual...it's not as intellectual as most think.

    All of the examples you offer are weak and scholars, even those sympathetic with evolution hold that your evidence is not viable and proves absolutely nothing.

    The whale is about the best thing you got and it has MANY problems. I discussed that at length toward the end of the comments of the original post The Rottweiler Who Lost His teeth & His Mind. We were born at night BUT not last night.

    Now we got our degree on the shelf next to the Cinnamon Toast Crunch, y'u-know right next to the Cracker Jack box that you got yours from...So thanks but intellectual bullying won't be tolerated.

    ReplyDelete
  74. ExPatMatt,

    You're not being overlooked and I've rather enjoyed having you around to banter some of these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Larua wrote: Show me where Harvey said he does not find Darwinism amusing, therefore it is false.

    Show me where Harvey said he thinks Darwinism is garbage and trash, therefore it is false.

    Show me where Harvey said he can't understand natural selection, therefore it is false.


    Did you read the same article?

    Harvey is implying these things by putting Evolution into the category of "garbage" or "trash" and claiming he is "not amused" that people don't agree with him. These are derogatory words which he uses in an attempt to project the idea that evolution is false. And he does this all the time. The same can be said with the claim that Darwin was racist. Even if this was the case, this doesn't mean evolution is false. Instead, he's trying to make evolution appear false through association.

    Later, Harvey suggests that, since he is confused (or pretends to be confused) as to how the terms "blind-process" and "anti-chance process" could both be used to describe natural selection, it must be incoherent and thus false.

    Again, this is a clear sign of propaganda.

    I wrote: Oh, I forgot, you do have an explanation: It's an elaborate conspiracy against God by the scientific community.

    You wrote: Show me where I said ANYTHING was an elaborate conspiracy against God by the scientific community, or apologize for lying.

    Ask and ye shall receive….

    You posted a comment in support of a theory that suggested science had discovered a theory of everything thirty years ago, but covered it up.

    That is, they dislike it because the theory is consistent only if God exists, and most contemporary scientists are atheists. They don’t want God to exist, and if keeping God out of science requires rejecting physical laws, well, so be it."

    When responding to Harvey regarding a supposed connection between DNA and creationism. You wrote:

    Yep! There it is in a nutshell, thank you. Evolution [is] man's attempt to disprove God, the Creator of all things in heaven and on earth.

    You suggested that scientist know evolution is not science, but present as such because they hate God.

    The most obvious case in point is zero evidence for ANY species evolving into another species - it takes a ton of faith (or a deep hatred of God) to hold onto the evolutionary belief and to teach the theory to our kids as FACT..

    When showing support for Harvey's post, which suggested that the current atheistic and naturalist days of scientific control will be ending soon, you wrote...

    If you haven't seen it already, I highly recommend Ben Steins movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allow" to get the full picture of how deep the intimidation in the scientific community.

    If this does not represent an "elaborate conspiracy against God by the scientific community", then what is it?

    Do you really think science is that clueless? Do you really think 100 years from now, we'll look back and be surprised to see that 99% of science had it completely wrong?

    Or do you thing the entire scientific community is intentionally being dishonest in an organized way?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Harvey wrote: I discussed that at length toward the end of the comments of the original post The Rottweiler Who Lost His teeth & His Mind.

    Need I constantly remind you of your failure to respond to this?

    Padian transitional fossil testimony at 2005 Dover PA trial

    ReplyDelete
  77. You have yet to respond to this either...

    You wrote: don't have a problem with the age of the earth, there are MANY plausible biblical positions on that. So that's NEVER been a point of contention with me.

    I wrote: Harvey, If you're going to claim that the fossil record does not show transitional forms - since the appearance of a fossil represents a new and unique species - then you have species appearing at different times over millions of years. In fact, Intelligent Design suggests that they pop into existence because an intelligent wanted them to appear at that time.

    But if this were to have occurred, then God couldn't have create all life at once.

    Apparently, you've failed to realize your attempt to refute the fossil record refutes your own fundamental Christian beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Scott,

    You said:That you interpret a serious of discoveries as hostile to YOUR philosophical conclusions is NOT the problem of science.

    I see you're still stuck in the previous thread. First science has not produced or delivered any DISCOVERIES that are hostile to anything I believe. It has made philosophical assertions based on metaphysical and methodological naturalism. That's what i point out and that's what I have proven. The atheism pushed by some vocal scientists is uncalled for and totally unnecessary and is unscientific. it's philosophical in nature.

    You said:Now imagine I claimed that, because it does not agree with MY particular creation story, science is conducted with a philosophical metaphysical bias against God.

    We don't have to imagine. We obviously see that IT DOES set forth philosophical conclusion that are out of he range of empirical science. That's ok for the "big bang", nut not ok when the system that is established has no method or reference for deity, whether mine or not.

    You said:Do you see the problem now?

    Yes, the problem is that nobody but a Christian (little ole me) ever told you that science is filled with philosophical assertions that must be separated from empirical and testable scientific methods. because of this you're even arguing AGAINST atheistic scientists who are already aware of this difference and truth.

    The rest of your diatribe is what it is and certainly isn't factual but I've got many other things to do and we've already been there and done that so no need to go back over old ground.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Scott,

    1- You ned not remind me of anything...ALL assertions you have made have been answered more than adequately over the length of time.

    2- From your repeated posts and comments such as this:Or do you thing the entire scientific community is intentionally being dishonest in an organized way? and This claim, which you make right up front, suggests you will show at clear trail of intentional deceit and deception which has lasted over 150 years. As someone who is open to new information about evolution, and science in general, I approached your post to looking for such information. However, your post reveals no such plot.

    As I read your comments it becomes obviously celar that you have no point of reference or basis for understanding what we call spiritual warfare. It's difficult for you to understand really what we are saying, because you live in the darkened understanding and thought that man has no spirit. So obviously you've either never hung around a church, read the bible only sparingly or just have no clue, so, I'll eduucate you topically as best as possible.

    We live in a world with an open continuum. This continuum includes non materaial things. One of those nonmaterial things that you, I and everyone readily admits that exists is thought and consciousness etc. Those things or aspects of our realities are not merely materially derrived.

    Like I've said before materialism is blind to this but there is no metaphysical necessity for the consciousness and other immaterial parts of our being.

    Another of those immaterial parts which you don't recognize is called spirit or soul. Spirit is the realm of existence that God lives in and part of how man is made in God's image.

    Genesis 2:7~And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a LIVING SOUL.

    The material part of man is inoperable without spirit. The world that we are in is not limited to the material and many of you (I'm sure)have had experiences which you either deny or don't speak about, that defy what you know in the natural realm of things, as a glimpse into this unseen present reality. In fact in part, your dreams delve into that world at times (not all the time) and leave you with a sense that there is more to reality than the material world in which we live. ass stated we don't constantly reside in that world we only take glimpses some more some less.

    The doctrine of transducianism deals with the ongoing ability of man to produce other men with spirit or souls. I lean toward that understanding. Aside from that God breathed the breath and from that point on, allthough God gives life, souls are generated through and with the propulgation of mankind. (There's much more but since you need help and understanding I'll simply brush over the surface)

    We are much more complex and complicated than anyone who is strictly a materialist will ever understand by restricting themselves to that worldview. However the proof is right before our eyes and lives in what we think is our heads.

    see 2

    ReplyDelete
  80. 2

    Scott,

    Because we live in this world, where the reality is greater than our 3 dimensions, we are constantly bombarded with 'spirit' and 'spiritual forces' that control or seek to manipulate this dimension for their own purposes and desires. The scripture is clear:

    Ephesians 6:12~For we WRESTLE NOT AGAINST FLESH and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

    The 'struggle' of man is not so much with man as it is the spiritual 'powers' that enter this dimension through human agency. This is what we struggle against and with as human beings. When combined with flesh (materialism) and other elements that shade any resemblance of our true dimensional selves, man becomes a fertile ground to be inadvertently and (sometimes on purposefully) used as a tool of that spiritual realm. The problem as stated, is that these forces use human agency as tools for their purpose.

    When I/we talk of Darwin and Darwin's deceit, it's from that aspect that we speak. Neither Darwin nor other scientists are smart enough to scheme a 'grand conspiracy' but they are ripe tools in the hands of the 'powers' that are smart enough to use man to do so. the object is the same as it has always been to get man to doubt God and consequently not obey HIM.

    The problem is you speak in ONE dimension because you believe that's the only one that exists...as I said thoughts and ideas are immaterial, have no extension in time or space, cannot be measured but are very real and do exist. to really be technical, thoughts are never 'new' only new to you. (but that's yet another story) Nevertheless, this is a hint to materialists that there is more to life than materialism.

    Most Christians that understand these concepts speak in a multidimensional reality unrestricted by the current reality. That's why the acceptance of miracles, etc is easy for us to grasp and accept because we are already aware that the continuum is open and not closed.

    So with all that said, rather than accuse us of trying to impose something on Darwin, that he too understood, and was obviously deeply conflicted over and about, try to gain a point of reference that will help you at least understand what we are saying and why we are saying it.

    Darwin's concepts were said by a person who was becoming apostate in his reasoning and one who was under the weight of the spiritual warfare that we reference. This was the problem he faced and obvious conflict within his writings.

    So thoughts along those lines don't have as simplistic of a nature as you (as a materialist) may think. They are expansive and cover all of man, body and soul.

    So I hope that clears things up and also helps to suggest to you the importance of this issue. If we were material beings only, this issue really wouldn't have as significant importance that it does, however we do not only live in a material world, we live in a world with spiritual realities that we face and navigate through everyday. the attempts of the metaphysical naturalist to claim that our world is strictly a material one does not account for the data of the current immaterial reality that we acknowledge, and is an aversion from the true battlefield where spiritual warfare is truly fought.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Harvey, you wrote:

    Punctuated equilibrium is a theorty that attempts to explain what we see in the precambrian strata. There's much debate over whether it's actually true or not even within the evolutionary camp.

    You are misinformed. Punctuated Equilibrium is not a theory, it is a mechanism of a theory. And the debates currently happening in scientific circles regarding it have to do with it's effectiveness, not it's existence. It is unanimously agreed in mainstream science that the rate of evolution is not a constant.

    It was not formed in response to Pre-cambrian strata, and I don't know where you get this idea. It was formed as a result of thinking hard about the effects of population size and competition in regards to evolutionary speed.

    You said:Basically, a mass extinction means that creatures can evolve unchecked by natural selection,

    Yes that's one of those scientifically theorized and imposed OTHER ways that don't require natural selection...what did they say in Jurassic Park? "Life Will Find A Way"...blind and undirected but it will find one right?


    I apologise. I had originally intended to explain this in more detail, but I mistakenly assumed you had a good enough understanding of the theory of evolution be able to understand why it proceeds at an accelerated rate after a mass extinction. Your misrepresentation of my words makes it apparent that you do not, so I will explain further.

    In the general course of natural selection, only beneficial and neutral mutations are retained for any length of time. Harmful mutations are quickly weeded out. After a mass extinction, however, this effect is much reduced. A population of creatures which would normally be killed off by natural selection have the chance to find a niche to occupy.

    Here's a hypothetical example: Elephant species X develops better night vision, at the cost of their day vision. Under normal natural selection, this is a harmful mutation: elephants aren't set up to be nocturnal, and the new elephants wouldn't be able to compete with already-nocturnal animals like hippos. After a mass extinction, however, there isn't much competition, and the new nocturnal elephants will have time to spread and adapt. The same applies to any creature attempting to find a new niche: after a mass extinction, there's a lot of niches and not many creatures, allowing the survivors to diversify.

    What you've got is a lot of animals or (representative bones) that are created in full form. You don't have any of them changing or developing into other species in the record either.

    I am unsure what you are trying to say here, or if you are just making the blanket assersion that nothing thus far discovered constitutes a transitional fossil in your opinion. I would suspect, if this were the case, that your opinion of what constitutes a transitional fossil is at odds with everyone educated on the subject, and indeed is likely something not predicted by the modern theory of evolution (this suspicion comes from the commonality of such opinions amongst creationists such as yourself).

    I would appreciate it, therefore, if you could appraise us of what features you would expect to find on a transitional fossil predicted by evolution: for example, an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.

    ReplyDelete
  82. You said"Transitional fossils are nowhere near as convincing as the genetic evidence, or the geographical arrangment of species, or the common morphology.

    Now we're getting somewhere...this morphology has NEVER led to new phyla dn all change has been cyclical within species or has simply created variation within species (once we deceide which definition of species to follow)


    Not true. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "morphology has never lead to new phyla," given that morphology is the study of the biological structures (an exceedingly simplified example of morphological evidence is the physical similarity between humans and chimpanzee's when compared to less closely related species, like horses). However, observed change has been seen to generate creatures incapable of reproducing with their biological ancestors (speciation by any definition of the term "species"). The mosqito's in the london subway, or various fruit flies in laboratory conditions.

    I rather like the molecular evidence, myself: are you familiar with Endogenous Retrovirus's (ERV's)?

    Teach the theory as it is...a theory taht accounts for certain data but falls short for certain other data.

    I agree with this sentiment, but I don't believe you and I agree on what evidence it accounts for and what it falls short on. To be more precise, I accept the evidence that indicates that it is the cause of all, or at least the majority of, biological diversity on earth, and you believe that God created all biological diversity on earth as it is instantaniously and that 99% of all biologists, paleantologists and geneticists are unable to realise this despite spending their entire working lives studying the evidence.

    I am unwilling to accept your assersions about the theory of evolution, because those in a position to know almost unanimously refute them. Several entire fields of science agree that the evidence for evolution is stonger than it has ever been.

    If you had evidence to support your claims, I would be willing to pay them more attention, but thus far your arguments seem to be entirely unsupported. You make a claim, and expect us to take you at your word. When we don't, you repeat the claim. You've yet to give us a logical reason your opinion should be considered superior to that of every mainstream scientist for the last 100 years.

    Sorry my friend it just isn't so and it'll take a lot more than an enthusiastic blurb to affirm it.

    I could compile a few peer-reviewed technical papers that discuss these subjects, if you wish. There are also a number of excellent web resources geared towards refuting the various lies and misrepresentations of science that are so often publicised in non-scientific forums. I am certain they will have a few rather sizable sections on the subject of Punctuated Equilibrium and non-fossil evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I wrote: That you interpret a serious of discoveries as hostile to YOUR philosophical conclusions is NOT the problem of science.

    Harvey wrote: First science has not produced or delivered any DISCOVERIES that are hostile to anything I believe.

    Please re-read my comment. Again, you INTERPRET specific discoveries or potential discoveries being hostile to YOUR philosophical conclusions. At the very least, you interpret potential discoveries as being hostile and suggest it would be fruitless or event tabu for science to even try. If this were not the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    For example, if science were able to show life spontaneously forming under a particular set of naturally occurring conditions, would you not interpret this discovery as hostile to creationism? Do you not interpret Intelligent Design's suggestion that species incrementally popped into existence, over millions of years (in contrast to all at once), as hostile to your particular creationist beliefs?

    It has made philosophical assertions based on metaphysical and methodological naturalism.

    If science suggested that the sun exhibited supernatural abilities, which it it alone used to create all life on earth (without an intelligent being), would you not interpret this as being hostile to your philosophical conclusions as well? If so, it obvious that that your real complaint here is that science does not interpret discoveries in a way that matches YOUR fundamentalist Christian conclusions.

    I wrote: Now imagine I claimed that, because it does not agree with MY particular creation story, science is conducted with a philosophical metaphysical bias against God.

    We don't have to imagine. We obviously see that IT DOES set forth philosophical conclusion that are out of he range of empirical science.

    Are you going to actually respond to my point? That your in particular philosophical conclusions suggest that phenomenon X cannot be explained by natural process Y is NOT the problem of science.

    What if my religion claimed that computers were actually supernatural devices created by MY God?

    As such, I would interpret the even the mere suggestion that computers were actually the result of a natural series of complex interactions between digital circuits and software as a philosophical metaphysical bias against God. And, since they refuses to accept computers as divine, It's obvious that computer scientists are biased against the supernatural! How dare they!

    Now do you understand the problem?

    That science does not agree with YOUR claim that YOUR God created life in final form and at one sitting is not bias on the behalf of science.

    That's ok for the "big bang", nut not ok when the system that is established has no method or reference for deity, whether mine or not.

    Here's another claim you keep making, which has been refuted. I'm posting this AGAIN for your convenience.

    A universe from nothing: Lawence Krauss, AAI 2009. While I recommend you watch the entire video, you can jump to 35:00 in to his talk to see just one way we know the Big Bang occurred.

    ReplyDelete
  84. James,

    You said:You are misinformed. Punctuated Equilibrium is not a theory, it is a mechanism of a theory.

    The mechanics of the theory of evolution, so what exactly does that prove or say? really adds nothing to the context of what we're saying.

    see 2
    You saidAnd the debates currently happening in scientific circles regarding it have to do with it's effectiveness, not it's existence. It is unanimously agreed in mainstream science that the rate of evolution is not a constant.

    Not quite:
    Antoni Hoffman. His essay is a general attack on the theory of punctuated equilibrium; he claims that the weak form (that rates of evolutionary change vary) is trivial and says nothing that wasn't known to Darwin, the strong from (macromutations and saltationism) is false, and the moderate form (widespread stasis in evolutionary lineages) is untestable. He does admit that punctuated equilibrium has had heuristic value in sparking debate and suggesting research. Again it is evident that there is confusion about whether (and how strongly) Gould actually pushed saltationism, but it is clear that he no longer does so; hence criticism of the "strong" version of punctuated equilibrium is now peripheral to the main debate. Given the palaeontological evidence presented by Stanley and Gould in this volume (and by others elsewhere), Hoffman's claim that the moderate version is untestable seems hard to sustain, although it is clear that testing it is more complicated than initially suspected. review of The Dynamics of Evolution:
    The Punctuated Equilibrium Debate in the Natural and Social Sciences
    Albert Somit + Steven A. Peterson
    Cornell University Press 1992 by Danny Yee


    Punctuated equilibrium--the view that organisms evolve abruptly without several, gradual transitional forms, and that this sudden change is followed by a long period of stasis or
    lack of change. But punctuated equilibrium appears to be empirically equivalent to creationism as far as
    the fossil record goes. Both seem to imply the same data, and it can be argued that punctuated
    equilibrium is either an ad hoc addition to save macroevolution or a replacement of evolutionary theory preceding it and not a refinement of evolutionary theory.
    Millions of fossils have been found and there are only a handful of possible transition forms
    (e.g., the Archaeopteryx and the famous horse series). But these examples are all questionable
    (evolutionists can be found who argue against each example), and in light of the incredible absence of transitional forms, it seems best to see them as fitting the general pattern
    J. P. Moreland, Th.M., M.A., Ph.D. Scaling The Secular City with refernce to See Gish, Evolution, and Lester and Bohlin, Natural Limits to Biological Change, pp. 65-148.

    It's funny how science just leaves all kinds of doors open for a way out. I guess that's a good thing as long as the dogmatism is lost in the process.

    You said:"It was not formed in response to Pre-cambrian strata, and I don't know where you get this idea."

    Yes it was. it was a reconciliation and promotion of Darwin's ideas based on the facts that the fossil record did not and does not display a gradualism.

    Look we can get off the fossil record as that;s not a strong point of evolutionary theory and I think I've adequately handled the dissent in this thread. the record is bankrupt for all the reasons I've stated in this thread and then some.

    You said:"It was formed as a result of thinking hard about the effects of population size and competition in regards to evolutionary speed."

    That may have ALSO been a consideration but the assertion I make and countless other make from the scholarly community cannot be simply written off or minimized as you attempt to do.

    ReplyDelete
  85. James,

    2

    James,

    You saidI apologise. I had originally intended to explain this in more detail, but I mistakenly assumed you had a good enough understanding of the theory of evolution be able to understand why it proceeds at an accelerated rate after a mass extinction.

    One thing I will readily admit James YOU are NOT very understandable, at least as long as you keep tellin these little fibs about what theory (or mechanic) was developed to cover somebody's naked tale.

    You said:"Your misrepresentation of my words makes it apparent that you do not, so I will explain further."

    Yes PLEASE explain it plainly without trying to dress it up to make it presentable...

    You said:In the general course of natural selection, only beneficial and neutral mutations are retained for any length of time. Harmful mutations are quickly weeded out.

    That sounds so cute, nice and cuddly, but although you say it's not true you still believe that fish morph into gazelles or something like that don't you? you still believe that given enough time and right environmental pressures new phyla are created from existing phyla?

    You said:"Here's a hypothetical example: Elephant species X develops better night vision, at the cost of their day vision. Under normal natural selection, this is a harmful mutation: elephants aren't set up to be nocturnal, and the new elephants wouldn't be able to compete with already-nocturnal animals like hippos.

    Now what you are describing is microevolutionary change within species or adaptations based on environments...you know FULL WELL, that;s not the type of evolution that is being discussed her. this adaptation, which is a one way process, YOU BELIEVE leads to a brand new animal whereas the elephant will one day be totally different than it's common ancestor, the blind by night, elephant...in fact YOU HOLD that those two different animals may not even resemble one another given the millions of years for this to occur...Isn't that right? i know it is so please don't be disingenuous like many of your com padres are on this board.

    As stated in my initial post on this subject this was the same 'slight of hand" that Dr. Phillip Johnson discovered about evolution. since the word evolution means change, the evolutionist claims that ANY CHANGE is evolution and therefore confirms the theory, that's NOT however what the Christian debates but that ploy is used as a segway to gain credibility to teach what you really desire to teach and that it that man really wasn't a man to begin with, he was something else and became what we know as man over time...that's a FARCE and a LIE.

    ReplyDelete
  86. 3

    James,

    You said;Not true...(an exceedingly simplified example of morphological evidence is the physical similarity between humans and chimpanzee's when compared to less closely related species, like horses).

    Absolutely not james. This is evidence of a common creator and there are a lot of specias with similar bones that do not exist today.

    THAT BRINGS UP ONOTHER ISSUE...evolution says that from the CA spring all forms of life. PE says that all forms of life appear then evolve...BOTH theories live in denial of what we actually see and experience...There are LESS species and phyla today when there should actually be more...The problem is not only is the table and tend REVERSE it would seem that even following it's own theory all life will eventually and ultimately be of one form in a very distant future...That's very interesting and you guys find all kinds of ways to explain it like, mans growth on earth, environmental change that kills off whole species, but even in Precambrian strata we find this same thing...I've noticed NONE of you have tried or attempted to address that little dilemma...

    Mosquitoes and bugs are uninteresting for my purposes here but all can be argued as only VARIATIONS not new bugs...maybe bugs that do new or different things but same "things"

    see 3

    ReplyDelete
  87. 4

    James,

    You said:you believe that God created all biological diversity on earth as it is instantaniously and that 99% of all biologists, paleantologists and geneticists are unable to realise this despite spending their entire working lives studying the evidence

    James if you believe in PE you believe very similarly to what I believe EXCEPT you don't give God the credit for it. If Precambrian strata shows a sudden appearance of life and a diverse array of animals etc, that YOU acknowledge, you ALSO believe in instantaneous creation to some degree...don't throw out God created UNLESS you're willing to backtrack on what the implications of PE actually are...

    You said:You've yet to give us a logical reason your opinion should be considered superior to that of every mainstream scientist for the last 100 years.

    I've written probably over 50 to 60 thousand words on the subject just in this blog. i have read articles issues and such like on all sides of the issue and find evolutionary arguments in mostly all forms unconvincing...then there is a growing body of scientists who may hold to evolution but reject Darwinism fro reasons I've stated and others, and an even more growing group who simply contend that you just can't get out of the gate. Have you heard of Dr. Dean Kenyon and Biochemical Predestination? he recanted that book based on science and he knew and knows a lot more than most scientists do today.

    One thing I'm sorry for. I don't mean to insult any one's (including your) intelligence. UNLIKE what you may think of Christians like myself, I'm not willing to say that you're deluded for what you believe, you're just looking for answers like everyone else. I simply claim that those answers are found in Jesus as he is the Son of God and that modern science has taken a turn which it does not have to make in order to research and find the truth.

    Thanks for your input.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Scott,

    Good job, how we KNOW the big bang occurred is from evidence and certain data AFTER the fact, not because we have observed it...OK

    Also let me tell you another little deceptive thing about evolution and it's proponents.

    I know all of you will tell us that man didn't come from ape, that he and ape came from their "common ancestor" right?

    But in the picture of that video, up on the wall above dawkins and Krauss, there is a picture of a chimp crawling on all 4'rs then slowly there's a development to an fully upright man...

    IF that's not evolution then what does evolution present itself that way...what doe EVOLUTIONISTS present pictures of men transitioning from apes themselves?

    James Randi is quick to say, "That's just creationist propaganda" but at this conference there were no Christians in control of anything, only atheists and evolutionists...

    What? Is there some conspiracy now among creators of evolutionary material? Further, are you willing to say that the Common ancestor just "looked" like more of an ape than a man?

    Ardi sort of proved that apes haven't evolved much didn't she?

    Also, your video PROVES the end of a Christian conspiracy to shade evolution from what most evolutionists believe it is now doesn't it?

    Given enough time one species will become a completely difernt species.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Scott,

    FYI,

    The Krauss calls what we observe in teh stars the "afterglow" of the big bang...Thus confirming my thoughts....

    Big Bang cosmology indicates begining and expansion of it indicates finiteness. what is the scientific principle, "Anything that has a beginning also has an end"

    The atheist is surrounded by the inforamtion of truth but yet denies it because God said it before they found it out...that's
    sad.

    This guy is a pantheistic atheist also..."the stars gave life to mankind by their explosions?" Indicating that the material and chemicals they give off during their explosion is the basis fo human life...what is that man? R U serious?

    Thuis fella speaks of "dark matter" being the most prevalent elementary particle in the universe...what about this:

    Genesis 1:2~And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the FACE OF THE DEEP. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

    Why have the scientists not found dark matter yet?

    Genesis 1:4-5:~4-And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5-And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    What if within that scripture there is a sugestion of more than a simple explaination of the difference between daytime and nighttime?

    One more thing...I gave you Dr. Hugh Ross who spelled out THE EXACT SAME things relating that to the bible...ie: Krauss PRESENTS NOTHING NEW but you accept him because he's a sinner and Hugh isn't....

    THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY BIAS...Because Ross is a believer and accredits all of what he says (which is the same as what Krauss says) to God, you discount him because he accredits it all to God...Ross also brings in the additional dimension of the univeerse that this guy doesn't touch...they are both astrophysicists...why does Krauss leave out such information?

    Because his theory and what he affrms will be destroyed, that's why! here is Ross again...look at all 4 of his vids to get ACCURATE and more complete information.

    Scroll down to the middle of the screen views parts 1-4 of Scientific Evidence That Proves That God Created.

    By the way contrary to what Krauss says, God had EVERYTHING to do with creation and it wasn't blind chance as he claims and there is no metaphysical necessity for our existence that he claims also...He is almost as far out as Hubble is itself.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Krauss also downplays the worry over infinity in the video...I know EXACTLY why....

    He say that because of quantum fluctuations and IF the universe is infinite and infinitely old there is a problem...he states that then we (mankind)is "very special" saying that. Combining rhetoric and multiverse talk he states "we should be in this room, but most of the time we should never have evolved...but we evolved. That's caused some physicists to worry...I think it's a ridiculous worry frankly..."

    YEA RIGHT!

    Do you REALLY understand what Krauss is saying? He is saying that even atheistic cosmological calculations don't support evolutionary theory.

    THIS IS A GAG!

    Thanks Scott for introducing YET ANOTHER reason evolution is untenable...not according to a Christian but according to an ATHEIST!

    ReplyDelete
  91. "Ida", after all that hype, fell from grace last week. It only took a few months for Ida to go from celebrity-status “missing link” to just another extinct lower primate, as Nature is now reporting:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091021/full/4611040a.html

    It was quite a ride for 'ol Ida:

    Famed BBC broadcaster Sir David Attenborough made a documentary titled Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link, to explain why Ida is “the link that connects us directly with the rest of the animal kingdom.” Co-sponsored by both the BBC and the History Channel, the program attracted a massive audience.

    Good Morning America and Nightline covered the fossil.

    National Geographic called her the “critical ‘missing link’ species.”

    ScienceDaily and a Discover magazine commentator praised Ida as our “47-million-year-old human ancestor.”

    Skynews told the public that “proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

    With Google’s eager assistance, Ida went viral. Google commemorated the unveiling with a themed logo on May 20, 2009

    During a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History, is was said that "This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists" and "It is the scientific equivalent of the Holy Grail. This fossil will probably be the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next 100 years.

    Even the Drudge Report was reeled in by the media frenzy, briefly featuring Ida as the headline story.
    Casey Luskin, “The Big Ida: The Rise & Fall of Another Missing Link & Other Media Hype

    Whatdaya bet that the History Channel will continue to run the debunked story, and there's no update on talkorgins or wiki? And then, of course, we have that 100 years of Ida in our kids science books, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Scott said:

    Harvey is implying these things...

    These are derogatory words which he uses in an attempt to..

    Later, Harvey suggests that...

    You posted a comment in support of a theory that suggested...

    You suggested that...

    When showing support for Harvey's post, which suggested...

    If this does not represent an "elaborate conspiracy against God by the scientific community", then what is it?


    Poor reading skills -straight up! You aren't reading, you're mindreading. You don't deal with the written word as is, you decide what is in our minds that we didn't say. You then rehash your conjecture back to us as if it was real.

    Case in point. I told you I didn't say this, and asked for an apology for putting words in my mouth:

    "Oh, I forgot, you do have an explanation: It's an elaborate conspiracy against God by the scientific community.

    So you hunt some quotes that "suggest" in your mind I was saying something or another, even though you knew I never said anything about an elaborate conspiracy against God by the scientific community.

    I have noticed you have great difficulty is saying you were/are wrong about anything - a character flaw based on the sin of pride. This flaw can make your life less joyful and even hamper your chances of success.

    The good news is, Jesus changes people. You don't have to go through life weighted down with the burden of your sins.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Are youlbloke quite sure that what school I attended (we call them universities over here and I did point out that this was some time ago) is really relevant?
    My point was that the distinction between "organic" and "inorganic" chemistry is a purely arbitrary one; inorganic salts (eg NaCl) and inorganic gases (eg O2, N2 and CO2) are as much a part of biochemistry as amino acids or RNA, both of which have been artificially synthesised by the way.
    The issue with abiogenesis (which isn't a part of evolutionary theory any more than geology or meteorology are, although they all inform and affect one another) isn't that we don't know how it can be done; we know several ways in which it can be done, but we don't know which of those ways, if any, were responsible for life on Earth. The evidence is long gone and we will almost certainly never know for sure how it was done, but we can be pretty damn certain that it was.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Harvey wrote: Good job, how we KNOW the big bang occurred is from evidence and certain data AFTER the fact, not because we have observed it...OK

    Harvey, in case you missed it, the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was predicted BEFORE we actually discovered it. Should the big bang have really occurred as we thought, we needed to find CMBR signature, which is what we indeed found. Furthermore, this prediction was based on a number of detailed calculations and the observed behavior of matter, such as the opacity of matter at 3,000 degrees, etc.

    In fact, as Krauss explained, the specific details of the CMBR actually allow us to determine what shape the universe is in with incredible precision.

    If you think the untested claim that "God did it" is somehow remotely on par with the claim that the Big Bang occurred, then you're more misinformed about science than I thought.


    But in the picture of that video, up on the wall above dawkins and Krauss, there is a picture of a chimp crawling on all 4'rs then slowly there's a development to an fully upright man…

    IF that's not evolution then what does evolution present itself that way...what doe EVOLUTIONISTS present pictures of men transitioning from apes themselves?


    Harvey, do you realize you actually copied and pasted the answer to this question as it part of one of your previous blog posts. Did you miss it?

    Ardi is the earliest and best-documented descendant of that common ancestor. But despite being "so close to the split," says White, "the surprising thing is that she bears little resemblance to chimpanzees, our closest living primate relatives.

    In case it's not clear, before Ardi was discovered, we though that our common ancestor had more in common with chimpanzees. But this does not mean we thought our common ancestor actually WAS a chimpanzee.

    Again, if you actually knew much about evolutionary theory, you would have realized you had already answered your own question.

    Ardi sort of proved that apes haven't evolved much didn't she?

    Again, from your very own blog post…

    Based on Ardi's anatomy, it appears that chimpanzees may actually have evolved more than humans - in the scientific sense of having changed more over the past 7 million years or so.

    And here I was thinking about moving on, but you keep revealing exactly how little you know with every comment you make. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Big Bang cosmology indicates begining and expansion of it indicates finiteness. what is the scientific principle, "Anything that has a beginning also has an end"

    And what did Krauss say it would look like if we watched a galaxy form from the outside? A black hole. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar?

    Again, are black holes supernatural as well? No, they are formed when a star runs out of fuel and collapses into a super dense are of space, which is a natural process.

    Indicating that the material and chemicals they give off during their explosion is the basis fo human life...what is that man? R U serious?

    And you call yourself a scientist?

    Stars "manufacture" heavy elements, during their lifetime, then release them when they explode. This part of basic stellar evolutionary theory is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis. This includes the production of carbon, which is the second largest element in the human body. This means some of the carbon atoms in your body were actually created in a star.

    What if within that scripture there is a sugestion of more than a simple explaination of the difference between daytime and nighttime?

    What if? What if your just grabbing at straws?

    Why does this scripture suggest the International Space Station should be floating in "the waters" above the sky instead of the vacuum of space?

    And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

    Yet, we've been above the sky and there is no "water" there.

    Scroll down to the middle of the screen views parts 1-4 of Scientific Evidence That Proves That God Created.

    We've been over this several times. Before the video even starts, he quote mines Stephen Hawking, by taking part of his book out of context. If you actually read Hawking, you'd know this right away. Given this obviously disingenuous behavior, right from the start, why should I take this guy seriously?

    Do you see the pattern here? Again, you need to learn how to vet your sources more carefully.

    Do you REALLY understand what Krauss is saying? He is saying that even atheistic cosmological calculations don't support evolutionary theory.

    No Harvey. He's saying if the universe is infinite, even the most unlikely things will happen "often." Even the exact same configuration of matter will eventual occur again during an infinite time period. As he suggests, it's not the easiest concept to grasp, but that doesn't mean it's false.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Laura,

    IDA was oversold by the media.

    Science Blogs: Poor Ida

    What [the media] are most interested in is its status as a "missing link" between anthropoid primates (monkeys and apes) and their ancient ancestors. As John Wilkins has pointed out the phrase "missing link" is woefully inaccurate, conjuring up images of life ranked in an unbreakable Great Chain of Being put in place by God, but that has not stopped media outlets from running with the idea. Even though the authors of the paper deny making any such statement, the promotional materials they are associated with (most notably the "Revealing The Link" website) play up this angle to a ridiculous degree.

    As outlined in the paper "Evolving Perspectives on Anthropoidea" (among others) included in the recent Anthropoid Origins volume, it presently appears that tarsiers and omomyids are the closest groups to anthropoids. This is based upon a combination of fossil, genetic, and morphological evidence. This makes the adapid primates, including Darwinius, a more distant side branch more closely related to living lemurs and lorises.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Harvey wrote: As I read your comments it becomes obviously celar that you have no point of reference or basis for understanding what we call spiritual warfare.

    Harvey, I know what you believe. I was a Christian for a time as well.

    Again, if you were to simply say that, "Despite all the overwhelming evidence that suggests man shared a common ancestor with all living things, I have faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis and therefore hold it authoritative above any and all claims of science."

    While I disagree with this, this would be your prerogative. However, this is NOT what you've claimed.

    Instead, you've trying to blame science for not supporting YOUR belief system. You're suggesting some kind of a conspiracy by the scientific community.

    I've shown this to be bias on YOUR part time and time again. Yet you keep repeating it out of desperation. It's a smoke screen and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Thanks Harvey,

    Any clarification of the wolf/dog issue I mentioned?

    If I may, I'd like to address this quotation that you presented;

    'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ... It has often been said ... that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country'.~Darwin

    (I think I've included it as you presented it)

    Now, with the 'exterminate' bit, do you think that Darwin is describing or prescribing here?

    I mean, the more 'civilized' man has been subjugating and exterminating the 'less civilized' ('civilized' here can probably be taken to mean 'militarily superior', I guess?) for as long as there have been men. This is an obvious fact of human existence - no moral judgment implied, just a fact.

    Look at what Europeans did to Africa, S. America, N. America and Australia when they first landed there. There are now certainly more white people than black in Australia - the 'savage' race has been exterminated or replaced, right?

    Darwin wasn't advocating this, if anything he was bemoaning it because it diminished the variety of the species, he was describing what he thought was likely to happen based on his understanding of human nature.

    So to clarify. I'm not trying to say that Darwin was some sort of equal rights advocate or anything. He clearly had the typical white male superiority complex that most gents of his day had.

    However, in his writings he is clearly trying to make practical observations and predictions based on his understanding of the world.

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  99. Laura

    I asked you 2 questions.

    1- Do you argue the fact that these fossils exist, or do you merely argue that they are not transitional? If that is the case, please explain specifically why you don’t consider them to be transitional.

    2- What, specifically do you know and understand about the theory of evolution, and how have you acquired this knowledge?



    Laura, the reason I ask the questions is because I did read the prior post, and specifically noticed your response to Ed concerning the evolution of whales. When he asked if you have some data to contradict Gingerich’s analysis, your response was;

    “More than you can shake a stick at. Took me all of 2 minutes to find that paleontologists debunked his whale of a story 7 years later.

    (...)

    Lol, I believe it said the debunking paper was published in Nature”


    The link you provide at Creation Ministries International is an article by Alexander Williams and Jonathan Sarfati.
    Neither is a paleontologist. Williams, a part time writer for Answers in Genesis, a botanist, and now a missionary. Sarfati, another writer for Answers in Genesis, is a chemist.

    The Nature article referenced was written by J.G.M. Thewissen. I couldn’t access the article, but the book he edited, “The emergence of whales; evolutionary patterns in the origin of Cetacea” is available on-line, so I read it.

    Pakicetus is dealt with at length, and, contrary to your stated opinion, in no way does it “debunk” Gngerich or the systematic evolution of whales. Rather, it fills in, and further explains the study and the fossil evidence.

    So, again, this calls into question your actual knowledge of evolution theory, and your sources of knowledge, as your responses appear to be derived from young earth creationism websites such as Creation Ministries and Answers in Genesis.

    Instead of responding with effrontery and hand waving, I suggest you read both Gingerich’s and Thewissen’s work and then attempt to deny the evidence of whale evolution.


    On another note, the most amusing comment from you was where you said;

    “Now you’re talking religion, and I don’t do religion. I hope you aren’t using this as an excuse to keep from seeking the salvation of Jesus.”

    I see, you don’t “do religion“, except in the very next breath. And except in most of your posts, i.e.

    “Pastor, it’s good to be back. I have a praise report - God is in control.”

    “No, faith is not science, but we have allowed science to become faith - a religion taught in our schools with evolution being it’s bible.”

    “I haven’t seen where you answered Harvey’s question about how God breathed life into Adam. Wondering to myself if you believe in the virgin birth.”

    “Another proof that evolution is a faith-based religion”



    So much for “I don’t do religion.”


    On a final note, Harvey, with similar effrontery and hand-waving, wrote;

    “…rid yourself of sentiments like this; What , specifically, do you know and understand about the theory of evolution, and how have you acquired this knowledge? And I might respect your position:”

    Perhaps, if you were to cease labeling things you don’t happen to agree with, or are contrary to your philosophy, regardless of the evidence, as “garbage”, and answer my questions, I might respect your positions.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Scott,

    You said:"Instead, you've trying to blame science for not supporting YOUR belief system. You're suggesting some kind of a conspiracy by the scientific community.

    NO, that's not what I've ever said. What I am saying is that science has a bias and enters into the production of philosophical biases that are unwarranted. It isn't necessary to talk about science while sayign that God doesn't exist and that religion is false. That's NOT science, that's philosophy. Your man Krauss engages in that HIS WHOLE supposedly scientific seminar...NOW, to be fair, I would also say that Hugh Ross and Ankerberg's title is inappropriate. as science has no way of proving God on that level either. Any "proof" statements are philosophical when those proof statements mease what is outside of it's ability to measure. What throws you off is that I also say that the "big bang" is science although it can't be measured and wasn't observed. That's the wrench I throw in to simply add additional context that science also agrees that things and events EXIST which they cannot measure. I think that may be the source fo the confusion as I tie those two things together, but it cannot be denied that science does this. To be clear I don't think science should do that neither for NOR against God. I believe that science should be neutral on the God issue. The problem is that it isn't and the most vocal are atheists within tegh scientific community who have a mission and premise to disprove God, not to make simply make sound scientific propositions.

    The evidence is in their very own propositions. Dawkins whole book is a slap in the face to the religious community, not an ode to science.

    ReplyDelete
  101. ExpatMatt,

    You said"So to clarify. I'm not trying to say that Darwin was some sort of equal rights advocate or anything. He clearly had the typical white male superiority complex that most gents of his day had."

    I would agree with you and also hold that he wasn't an extremist such as a KKK or White Supremacist either. So I won't wratchet it up.

    Now back to the dog/ wolf thing. I need you to honestly educate me on this one...

    1-What would be the evidence that a wolf is the common ancestor of a dog (or vice-versa if that's the case)?

    2- Why would their relationship not be merely considered a variation instead of a parentage decendency?

    3- What definition of species would each fall under (out of the 26) and why?

    Now that may be a lot and I don't intend you to have to do a great deal of research or write a long paper, but I need some direction and general thoughts in that area.

    I will question you but I am not seeking to try to blast you. I think that it would be important to provide a rationalle because everyone is familiar with domesticated animals and 9on a person tip) I love dogs-LOL

    Anyway get back at us when you can.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Scott,

    One more thing. You said concerning why you won't listen to Ross and why you accept hook, line and sinker everything Krauss said:We've been over this several times. Before the video even starts, he quote mines Stephen Hawking, by taking part of his book out of context. If you actually read Hawking, you'd know this right away. Given this obviously disingenuous behavior, right from the start, why should I take this guy seriously?

    As IF krauss hasn't taken science added his philosophical BIAS, that he LEADS OFF WITH and INTENTIONALLY downplayed the conflicting arguments against evolution while at the same time breathing out hatred and thunder against God and Biblical premises...

    You asked me the question taht points back to you...DO YOU see a pattern developing here?

    Ross deals with all of what Krauss is talking about and then some, in addition he places a much better context on the information and explains the cause of spacial dimensions tha Krauss fails to mention.

    Who's doing science? NOT Krauss he's an atheistic evangelist...TOTALLY without credibility in my book.

    Do you see the pattern here? Again, you need to learn how to vet your sources more carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Pastor Harvey and Laura, Thank you both so much!!!

    ReplyDelete
  104. Scott,

    I almost forgot to mention but it's so important. You also stated this regarding Krauss:No Harvey. He's saying if the universe is infinite, even the most unlikely things will happen "often."

    You can't have it both ways...ANYTHING that has a beginning IS NOT infinite. What Krauss knows and what Ross and other scientific associates confirm is that there is a causal agent BEYOND the universe. He does try (rather unsucessfully) to say that the universrse is infinite but he will only do that off camera because he knows he's in a deep scientific conundrum.

    But to say that the universe is infinite when we can all point to a beginning is preposterous. Further the implications of that on evolution are astounding as he indicates...I wrote his words and I'll repeat them again:

    Combining rhetoric and multiverse talk he states "we should be in this room, but most of the time we should never have evolved...but we evolved. That's caused some physicists to worry...I think it's a ridiculous worry frankly..."

    He makes an assertion even against his own research and research common in his discipline.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Harvey,

    I think we're pretty much in agreement on the race thing (score 1 for civilized discourse!)

    On to dogs....

    "1-What would be the evidence that a wolf is the common ancestor of a dog (or vice-versa if that's the case)?".

    You know what? That's an extremely good question. I had always just taken it for granted that dogs were a sub-species, descended from wolf stock. It's just one of those things that 'everyone' knows. So lets find out how we know that (if we do at all)...

    "2- Why would their relationship not be merely considered a variation instead of a parentage decendency?".

    I'm confused by this. If modern wolves and dogs are 'merely considered a variation', they're still variations of an ancestor that is common to them both, right?

    "3- What definition of species would each fall under (out of the 26) and why?".

    A rough and ready definition of species is generally; organisms that can produce viable offspring (barring any extra complications). Is this definition acceptable to you? If not, would you care to propose another?

    "Now that may be a lot and I don't intend you to have to do a great deal of research or write a long paper, but I need some direction and general thoughts in that area".

    I'm going to do some research and get back to you on the whole dog/wolf thing before I commit myself to anything I can't support - you've given me an interesting project to work on; thanks!

    " I love dogs-LOL".

    Me too. We have a 1yr old Rottie named Tosca - they're a great breed!

    "Anyway get back at us when you can".

    Will do....

    ReplyDelete
  106. Harvey wrote: But to say that the universe is infinite when we can all point to a beginning is preposterous.

    Harvey, First you say we can't prove the Big Bang happened. Next you're using the Big Bang to claim the universe is not infinite? Will you make up your mind?

    Next, that you ask this particular question indicates you didn't actually watch the video or you did not understand it.

    To summarize: we've discovered that nothing really isn't nothing. Instead it is teeming with quantum fluctuations. Since the CMBR we observe indicates our universe is flat, it has a total energy of zero. As such, our observable universe can be created from this new definition of nothing.

    Furthermore, even if the creation of a universe from the quantum fluctuations found in nothing is extremely rare, an infinite amount of nothing would eventually create a universe.

    Further the implications of that on evolution are astounding as he indicates...I wrote his words and I'll repeat them again:

    Combining rhetoric and multiverse talk he states "we should be in this room, but most of the time we should never have evolved...but we evolved. That's caused some physicists to worry...I think it's a ridiculous worry frankly…"


    Harvey, you're exhibiting the same behavior of misrepresenting people, yet AGAIN.

    First, Krauss is talking about the difficulty of understanding infinity, and this difficulty is causing "some physicists to worry." But then he goes on to explain WHY it's ridiculous.

    Just because we perceive specific events as being special doesn't mean they actually are special. And he goes on to give examples of this.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Harvey wrote: NO, that's not what I've ever said. What I am saying is that science has a bias and enters into the production of philosophical biases that are unwarranted. It isn't necessary to talk about science while sayign that God doesn't exist and that religion is false.

    Harvey, do you not claim that specific phenomenon is the result of the Christian God? Would this not be an accurate statement? Therefore, when we find natural explanations for the same phenomenon, would it not be factual to note that previously held explanations are NOT the cause?

    Science is in the business of explaining phenomenon, while religion is in the business of accounting for phenomenon.

    For example, it is historically accurate to say that people used to account for the phenomenon of lighting using God's supernatural powers. IE. when a bolt of lighting struck, this was an act of God. But, due to a number of discoveries by science, we now know that it is explained by a natural process. Right?

    Is it somehow "wrong" of science say that lighting isn't really caused by God? Would stating that lighting is the result of a specific natural process somehow be a philosophically biased statement against God? Does the fact that lighting has a natural cause mean God doesn't exist? Of course not.

    It is only when the phenomenon being explained is also accounted for by YOUR religious beliefs do you complain that science is philosophically biased against God.

    Or to use an analogy, imagine you and I drive the same make, model and color of car, which happens to be parked in the same parking lot. Each of us walks up to the same parking space, at exactly the same time, believing the car they see parked there is their own. As we each reach for the door handle, both of us claim, "This is my car."

    Here we have a dilemma. Since we both own the same make, model and color, both of us interpret the car as being their own. We both claim we are the real owner, while this other is mistaken.

    Now, when I say that I'm the owner, and that it's you who is mistaken, does this mean I'm biased against you? Is it somehow my fault that we both happened to walk up to the same car and claim it as our own? Of course not. That you reach the conclusion this particular car is yours is NOT my problem.

    ReplyDelete
  108. [Continued]

    Furthermore, each of us approached this dilemma in a very different way.

    You assert the car is yours. Since it appears to look like the car you drive, you believe it's your car. Furthermore, you claim that, from our current position, it's impossible prove that you do not own the car. Therefore, it must be yours.

    On the other hand, I state that if the car in this parking spot is actually mine, I should be able to predict specific details about it, which we can actually observe.

    For example, I might produce my Florida drivers license and predict that, if this is my car, we should walk to the back and find a Florida license plate. Sure enough, that's what we find.

    However, you say this really doesn't prove it's my car, therefore it's actually yours.

    I might pull a receipt out off my pocket from a particular store with today's date. If this car is mine, we should find a shopping bag from this store in the truck that contains the same items on the receipt. And when we open the trunk, what do we find? Exactly what I predicted.

    However, you note that I could have stolen the car and put my items in the trunk. Since I can't prove it's my car, it must be yours instead.

    Furthermore, I predict that, if this is actually my car, we should open the glove box and find a registration with my name on it, which matches the name on my drivers license. Sure enough, when we look inside, the name matches.

    But even his isn't good enough for you. Instead, you claim that, unless I can produce someone who actually saw me buy the car at the dealership, I can't prove it's my car. Therefore, it must be yours. However, having bought the car used, I was never actually at a dealership of the car's actual manufacturer.

    But when I suggest we find the previous owner and ask him which dealership he bought it from you say there can never be evidence that I own the car. When I ask why, you show me a letter, supposedly dictated by your father, which promised to give you a car. And, last year, you happened to run across this car parked on the street with the keys under the seat. So you just knew he must have left it for you.

    And, since your father never lies, this must your car, not mine!

    ReplyDelete
  109. If, as you suggest, science stopped looking for natural explanations to phenomenon just because it happens to conflict with someone's religious beliefs, out ability to learn new things would be stagnated.

    We know this because we can look at history and see the results.

    Ted Talk David Deutsch : The Nature of Scientific Explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Scott,

    You said:Harvey, First you say we can't prove the Big Bang happened.

    Scott one thing you've consistently done is misrepresent what either I have said or what otehrs have said that disagree with you. It's kind of difficult to think that you do this on purpose, so I am beginning to think that you really may be missing some of what's being communicated. I NEVER have said what you said here.

    I have consistently said that the big bang cannot be observed or or reproduced as scientific method sometimes calls for. I have said that not everything taht we hold as science is reproduceable or observable but it is yet held to be science. What we see with the big bang is a set of data that "suggest" what we call a "big bang" however the event itself is UNOBSERVABLE and CANNOT be reproduced (even with a collider that will continue to fail I'm sure) so please get that straight. It's a far cry from saying taht we can't "prove" the big bang...What can accurately be said is that there is dadt that "suggests" a big bang occurred. If that data is correct it certainly corresponds with a biblical account.

    You said:"Next you're using the Big Bang to claim the universe is not infinite? Will you make up your mind?"

    EVERYTHING with a beginning CANNOT be infinite...it's plain and simple and what I've always said. You try to twist Krauss to make him say what he isn't saying, but that's you...you're welcome to interpret him as you will.

    You said:"To summarize: we've discovered that nothing really isn't nothing."

    How dumb does that sound Scott?...Be for real please!

    You said:"Instead it is teeming with quantum fluctuations.

    And I suppose with nothing quantum fluctuations can simply eb made to occur without a causal agant? In other words there is some sort of stress applied outside of nothing that causes fluctuations and those fluctuations were just filled with material mass etc to create the material and organic life that we see...This is a fairy tale Scott...the bible also tells us about story tellers like you and other radicals who only think in materialistic terms and can't see the door:

    2 Tim. 4:3-4~"3-For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4-And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."


    You said:"As such, our observable universe can be created from this new definition of nothing."

    Is that new news? The bible said this over 2000 years ago:

    Hebrews 11:3~Through faith we understand that THE WORLDS were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear

    Then over 1500 years prior to that the scipture recorded:

    Genesis 1:1~"In the beginning GOD CREATED the heaven and the earth.

    The early church picked up on the concept and I believe in the septuigent transaltion that "created" carried the concept of nothing being made into something by God. The term was Creatio Ex-Nihilo meaning from NOTHING God made something.

    Now for an antiquated bible (as the critic claims) it sure has a lot of suggestions and concepts that modern science is just now coming into...maybe if they had read the bible and put surgical patients to sleep when they realized they could operate on them, they would have saved a lot of people much surgical pain and maybe saved much local anesthesia...but I forgot that was only found in a 3500 year old text right?

    ReplyDelete
  111. scott,

    You said:Harvey, do you not claim that specific phenomenon is the result of the Christian God?"

    It depends upon what that phenomea is. God has laid claim to certain phenomena and if he has done it we would expect to be able to find a method or trail by which he has done it, even if it can't be rationalized.

    You asked: "Therefore, when we find natural explanations for the same phenomenon, would it not be factual to note that previously held explanations are NOT the cause?"

    NO...that's the height of inaccuracy. Without the previous steps certains steps do not function. You're the only one who thinks that a fully functional mechanism simply appears without and parts or weaving together and building bloks for it. Some explainations are contingent upon certain events happening previously. This is called causality. I know you're trying to strip this away from the argument, because your're a straight line thinker and this sort of thing messus up your proposition but it's true. New discoveries do not necessarily trump prior explainations.

    You said:"For example, it is historically accurate to say that people used to account for the phenomenon of lighting using God's supernatural powers. IE. when a bolt of lighting struck, this was an act of God. But, due to a number of discoveries by science, we now know that it is explained by a natural process. Right?

    And the lightening can't occur within the natural realm unless God set the natural realm in order for it to do so.

    You asked:"Is it somehow "wrong" of science say that lighting isn't really caused by God?"

    Yes. That assertion is unwarranted as God is not the object of science, the lightening is. Why and how does science skip to making an assertion about what God didn't do when the discussion is about lightening? What science can say is how the lightening formed. what it shouldn't say is that God had nothing to do with it, for that neither was measured nor part of the scientific equation.

    The philosophical part of science taht you can't distinguish seeks to set the record straight and make a greater assertion than it measueres or discovers. That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. That's using science to create and shape worldviews and scientism. That's a totally false way to do science, it's even more revealing when the most vocal are atheists looking to support their atheism. You are blatently offended when Christians do the same thing to support Christian world views. You won't even consider scientist that are Christian as being authentic, neither do I authenticate your atheistic scientists...so what have we here?

    You asked: Would stating that lighting is the result of a specific natural process somehow be a philosophically biased statement against God? Does the fact that lighting has a natural cause mean God doesn't exist? Of course not.

    Totally agreed but that was NOT your first question. The first question you asked:"Is it somehow "wrong" of science say that lighting isn't really caused by God?"

    That's a totally different question.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Scott,

    You said:It is only when the phenomenon being explained is also accounted for by YOUR religious beliefs do you complain that science is philosophically biased against God.

    TOTALLY inaccurate. I've said over and over science should not make any suppositions toward God, either in favor or against. that's another of those arguments that you create and argue...you like to shadow box.

    You conclude with this:If, as you suggest, science stopped looking for natural explanations to phenomenon just because it happens to conflict with someone's religious beliefs, out ability to learn new things would be stagnated.

    AS REPEATEDLY STATED, I DON'T suggest that at all. I know of no Christian who does, but as a person of faith I need no thorough investigation in all phenomena. That's what faith is and if God did it it will work according to natural process once entered into the world. A healed leg doesn't act like an arm when it's healed, neither does an eye act like a foot when God gives it sight. It acts like what it is.

    Later Scott, it's been real.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Harvey,

    Here you claim the Big Bang cannot be measured.

    Harvey wrote: Any "proof" statements are philosophical when those proof statements mease what is outside of it's ability to measure. What throws you off is that I also say that the "big bang" is science although it can't be measured and wasn't observed.

    Therefore, you're claiming The Big Bang is a statement that is philosophical in nature. However, we can measure the Big Bang. You're trying to paint science as being equivalent with religious faith.

    But you want you have your cake and eat it too, so you try to use the Big Bang as proof of a "beginning" that God must have caused.

    Furthermore, you keep using the same faulty logic I illustrated above. Since you think we can't observe the universe forming from nothing, then your explanation that "God did it" must be correct by default. But clearly this does not follow. Instead you simply assert you are right or quote bible verses which were supposedly dictated by your God, who supposedly does not lie. Clearly, these are two very different methods of approaching the dilemma.

    EVERYTHING with a beginning CANNOT be infinite…

    Again, did you actually watch the entire video?

    Krauss is saying there must always be something, because nothing isn't really nothing. So, even before our observable universe expanded in the big bang, there was an infinite amount of nothing, which we now know actually contains something.

    In other words, not everything began to exist at the big bang.

    And I suppose with nothing quantum fluctuations can simply eb made to occur without a causal agnate?

    I'd ask, which causal agent are you referring to? Because we haven't discovered any causal agents that exist in nothing. That you think a causal agent exists, let alone that it is required to create quantum fluctuations, is a positive claim which you need to support.

    You say that God has always existed. Do you have research that shows this? No. You simply can't imagine anything else, therefore you claim it must be true by default. But this is an assertion on your part. And it's a bad explanation, as shown in the video I just posted.

    However, when Krauss says nothing isn't really nothing like we had originally thought, he shows research and data that supports his claim.

    I wrote: As such, our observable universe can be created from this new definition of nothing.

    You wrote: Is that new news? The bible said this over 2000 years ago:

    Harvey, I don't recall Krauss suggesting this new definition of nothing was intelligent. Nor do I recall they discovered this new definition of nothing wants a personal relationship with us.

    Yet this is how the Bible described the creator of the universe. And since we have yet to discover anything that meets this description, it seems you're making another assertion that "God did it."

    ReplyDelete
  114. I wrote: Harvey, do you not claim that specific phenomenon is the result of the Christian God?

    It depends upon what that phenomea is.

    If you claim that any phenomenon was the result of the Christian God, but others are not, then this would be a "yes". For example, I'm guessing you would say God is NOT the cause of every unsolved homicide.

    God has laid claim to certain phenomena and if he has done it we would expect to be able to find a method or trail by which he has done it, even if it can't be rationalized.

    YOUR religious beliefs suggest THE CHRISTIAN GOD has laid claim to certain phenomena. It's not the fault of science that you lay claim to this particular phenomenon. See my car analogy above.

    Furthermore, not all regions are theistic in nature. Nor do they claim 'gods' were involved in creation. If fact, religions that are monotheistic in nature represent but a fraction of the total religious beliefs ever held by human beings. And some of these non-theistic religions still exist today.

    I wrote: Therefore, when we find natural explanations for the same phenomenon, would it not be factual to note that previously held explanations are NOT the cause?

    You wrote: NO...that's the height of inaccuracy. Without the previous steps certains steps do not function.

    Harvey, is it wrong to suggest that God doesn't cause children which exhibit specific symptoms to get sick and die? Instead, their death can be explained by a natural process we call leukemia? Is this "the hight of inaccuracy"?

    New discoveries do not necessarily trump prior explainations.

    The more we understand the natural processes that cause lighting, the more we can take steps to avoid the damage lighting can cause. Without this discovery, we would still be attempting to appease God, so he doesn't strike us down out of anger.

    And the lightening can't occur within the natural realm unless God set the natural realm in order for it to do so.

    Is God is throwing individual bolts at the earth, or he is not? Are you suggesting we cannot answer this question one way or the other without being biased?

    Why and how does science skip to making an assertion about what God didn't do when the discussion is about lightening?

    Harvey, property is damaged by lighting. People are injured and killed by lighting. Do you think that God is intentionally killing people and destroying property by hurling lightning bolts at them? Is God randomly shooting lighting bolts at the earth? Or do you think this is something that "God didn't do."

    …but that was NOT your first question. The first question you asked:"Is it somehow "wrong" of science say that lighting isn't really caused by God?"

    Please see above. I've made several claims about actions that God did not take, which I think even you would agree with. That you interpret them as suggesting YOUR God does not exist is not my fault or the fault of science.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I wrote: It is only when the phenomenon being explained is also accounted for by YOUR religious beliefs do you complain that science is philosophically biased against God.

    Harvey wrote: TOTALLY inaccurate. I've said over and over science should not make any suppositions toward God, either in favor or against. that's another of those arguments that you create and argue...you like to shadow box.

    Harvey, the problem here is that whether a supposition happens to be "in favor or against God" is dependent on YOUR claims about what God supposedly did or did not do.That God did anything at all in particular is YOUR religious belief.

    I've clearly illustrated this with the following analogy...

    For example, imagine I said that my religious creation story depicted God originally creating all life, including human beings, on mars, billions of years ago. Then later depicted God transporting said life to earth 1 million years ago from now. Since science has discovered fossils of life forms which are at least 4 million years old, then science would be conflicting with my religious views. Right?

    Now imagine I claimed that, because it does not agree with MY particular creation story, science is conducted with a philosophical metaphysical bias against God.


    So, if science did not find evidence that human life began on Mars, would this be a supposition against God? No. It's only against MY particular definition of God. That supposedly God created human beings on Mars is a specific religious claim based on MY religious beliefs. Just as it is your claim that God created human beings, in final form, in the Garden of Eden.

    I wrote: If, as you suggest, science stopped looking for natural explanations to phenomenon just because it happens to conflict with someone's religious beliefs, out ability to learn new things would be stagnated.

    AS REPEATEDLY STATED, I DON'T suggest that at all.

    Again, If science didn't say God doesn't cause lighting, we would still be attempting to appease God, so he doesn't strike us down out of anger. Of course, you're fine with this specific natural explanation because it does not conflict with YOUR specific religious views.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Scott,

    I don't understand what your problem is, besides sin of course, but everything you're stating has been addressed handled and put down...you're done Scott, simply walk away with some dignity why don't ya...

    The fact is clear YOU and NOBODY can OBSERVE the big bang. you can only analyze what we think is the aftereffects or residual of it...that's what I mean by saying it can't be measured. What we see is what we "think" are what the even created IT CANNOT BE SEEN itself!

    That's a DONE DEAL, don't come back with any more garbage relating to it claiming some sort of scientific fraud on my behalf...What i state is factual, get over it! OK.

    You said:"YOUR religious beliefs suggest THE CHRISTIAN GOD has laid claim to certain phenomena."

    NO, That's what the TEXT states and it can be demonstrated that that text came from God and not man. So my believing that is only in response to the claims that were made. You have to argue all of science for every scientific claim. To do so is radical and ridiculous. I don't have to offer or argue the evidence for God for every claim he makes either.

    Now this is a belief statement without you making the claim: You hate God and Christianity so bad you can taste it. Now I believe that based on the radical way you cling to your atheistic worldview and your demand for scientism above all things, but you haven't laid claim to that statement have you? So at best my belief may be right, but if I'm wrong, I shouldn't be upset because there is no claim on your behalf.

    You NEVER distinguish the difference and the difference is vitally important. The God of any other religion DOES NOT make the CLAIMS that the God of the bible does. Therefore BELIEF in him is a RATIONAL response to the claims and the investigation of the claim is not done with doubt, but it's done in faith.

    You know it would be miserable to be what you've displayed in this post and others relating to science. Clearly, science is your deity and you feel that the world must comply to your view before it's benefited. You're an atheistic evangelist preaching the gospel of scientism...That gospel is DEAD my friend and you don't have to die with it.

    In fact I predict within the next 5 years, many of your scientific views will be thoroughly overturned and found to be ridiculous in light of new evidences both for intelligence and a cosmological causal agent. I can see this happening already but you'll sink with the ship I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Scott,

    reading your comments against the backdrop that you "once" were a Christian I find it hard to believe. Your concept is primal and anything but Christian in almost every sense.

    You speak in terms of "appeasing" God or God throwing lightning bolts and God claims none of those things. God could only be "appeased" by the blood atonement of a holy sacrifice Jesus being the LAST one necessary for that. We no longer "appease" God in any sense like that so however that contrasts to scientific theory, your set up is a false premise.

    Secondly there's more to service than "appeasement" in the first place. There purpose, communion, communicability and service to mankind that happens when individuals serve the God of the bible...so you're effort to construct all religious systems the same is ridiculous and further proof that you never knew God in any manner. If you did, your description and understanding of it would be much better and your analogy would be more effective.

    Third, God is over ALL THINGS. Good and bad. Therefore, anything that happens does not happen unless he allows or does it himself.

    Since our existence is based on grace, God does not owe us any favor. Therefore is he allows anything that is his prerogative.

    So far as religious views and world view...SO WHAT! what does that mean? It means NOTHING. What this says is that I have an OBJECTIVE basis for my belief and you have a SUBJECTIVE basis of science and materialism for yours...Which is superior?

    MINE...why? Because I believe in a solid truth that exists and is lasting. You believe in modification of truth and your god (science) is only revealed after experimentations and postulations and depends upon your effort to both understand and create.

    The Christian worldview is MUCH better and more superior than yours. YOU ALSO have a BELIEF and bias toward materialism...as I said it's called Metaphysical Naturalism...

    Your bent is UNSCIENTIFIC as I state in my article dealing with the subject.

    You seem to feel that religious belief is inferior to your worship of science. Your god changes, my God does not. your god does not perform anything in time and space, it only rationalizes what already exists. My God is the creator of ALL things. You god will forever discover a new principle that will challenge it or in some cases enhance it. My God has already laid out all info pertaining to life and godliness and asks us to simply discover what he's done.

    That's the struggle with you in this blog and the science blogs here on this site. It's about your god being destroyed at the works of the true and living God.

    In these posts we have found a host of issues and NONE, and I mean NONE have been able to prove the concept of evolution as taught by radical such as yourself.

    We have found that evolution is a broad term. so broad that a person can drive a bus underneath it and that is on purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Scott,

    We have found that scientists and those who study paleontology for a living have declared that the fossils don't show or display what evolutionists claim that it does.

    We have found that atheists such as yourself fee that they must control science and scientific theory and are on a mission to not truly discover science but to spread anti-God philosophy dressed up as science.

    We have discovered that science cannot prove nor disprove God in any way shape or manner. Neither can science limit the actions of God even though it understands natural process, but still doesn't account for the why of those processes or the intelligence that causes those processes to be.

    We have discovered that the atheist answer to the Christian getting involved in these sort of arguments are very weak and are limited to things like, "that's what you believe" or that "you shouldn't be involved in that" etc.

    We have discovered that continuing scientific discoveries are only affirming what has been stated in the bible for generations of time, and those studies are proving that intelligence is the base of all life and that what we see wasn't placed here without a causal agent.

    If you weren't so radical and intent in your insistence and atheistic bias, you'd readily agree. But to agree with a Christian who says that there is a driving intelligence behind all things it too much for you...so you make up stuff like, "there is no cause for anything"..."life just happens"..."the unseen hand is natural selection"...don't worry about how natural selection could take place without the direction of DNA...

    Anyway we learned a lot. We also leaned that radicals will say ANYTHING so that their god can live.

    Sorry, but your god is DOA. Dawkins will write yet another book, and be proven to be an even greater lie than he is but it won't matter as long as you can exalt your god.

    Tell me that atheism is not a religious premise...It clearly is and your comments have clearly displayed all the religious vigor of any cult that I am aware of.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Harvey wrote: I don't understand what your problem is, besides sin of course, but everything you're stating has been addressed handled and put down...

    Harvey, your response sounds like that of a public defender that must claim his defendant is innocent regardless of the evidence. You only think you've "handled" my arguments because you've done what you think God asked you to do: defending your faith at all costs, even if it means ignoring obvious arguments which you do not understand or cannot address.

    Regarding the Big Bang...

    First, what I find so astonishing is your continued attempts to equate science with religious belief. Do you not realize how transparent this is?

    You earlier wrote: You found that falsifiability is a philosophical premsise and one that is not applicable to all scientific concepts such as the "big bang" but is presented as a case of special pleading when it comes to supernatural interventions in the world.

    Again, science isn't saying that just any kind of "bang" occurred at just any time in the past. Instead, science is saying that the Big Bang occurred in an extremely specific way 13.27 billion years ago. These concepts can be falsified.

    For example, if you actually watched the video, you'd know we can actually observe the CMBR from the Big Bang and measure the resulting lumps of matter which formed a mere 10,000 years after it occurred. This allows us to determine that the universe is flat. And we can do so with a tolerance of 1%. As such, we know the Big Bang occurred in a very specific way. Should some other kind "bang" occurred, the resulting lumps of matter would have been different that what we observe. You can see the details of this in the AAI 2009 video at 25:00.

    This is in contrast your belief that God created the universe by thinking it into existence. That you could use God to explain any kind of creation scenerio makes it a bad explanation, as shown by the TED video I posted earlier.

    These are two very different arguments which have are clearly not the same thing.

    Now this is a belief statement without you making the claim: You hate God and Christianity so bad you can taste it.

    Harvey, go back and read my first comment on this post. This is why I'm here.

    Clearly, you're trying to blame our attempt to better understand our universe for the trend that "Christian youth are by far falling away from the faith upon entering college." You're trying to blame science for a multitude of problems because it fails to agree with your belief that God is responsible for specific phenomenon.

    Instead, it's your continued attempt to ignore the elephant in the room is causing this decline. Just because specific discoveries of science casts your belief in a poor light this doesn't mean we should pretend they do not exist.

    Sticking your head in the sand is NOT the answer. In fact it's part of the problem.

    You NEVER distinguish the difference and the difference is vitally important. The God of any other religion DOES NOT make the CLAIMS that the God of the bible does.

    Harvey, I understand that you think the Bible is the word of God because it says it was inspired by God. But there are many books who also say they were written by God, which make different claims. And there are other holy books which contain creation stories but do not mention God at all. As such, the claims that God or did not do anything in particular is specific to your belief.

    Just because you happened to walk up the universe and claim your God created it, doesn't mean I'm somehow unfairly biased against you if I don't agree.

    In fact I predict within the next 5 years, many of your scientific views will be thoroughly overturned and found to be ridiculous in light of new evidences both for intelligence and a cosmological causal agent.

    Since 150 years of discoveries in biology and paleontology has yet to overturn evolution, It seems unlikely that another five will somehow falsify the theory. However, only time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Reading your comments against the backdrop that you "once" were a Christian I find it hard to believe. Your concept is primal and anything but Christian in almost every sense.

    Harvey, I no longer believe that a theistic God was involved with the creation of our universe. Therefore, it should come to no surprise that my "concept" does not present fundamentalist Christian dogma as factual. What else did you expect?

    We no longer "appease" God in any sense like that so however that contrasts to scientific theory, your set up is a false premise.

    Are you going to answer the question or try to avoid it? Again...

    Is God is throwing individual bolts at the earth, or he is not? Are you suggesting we cannot answer this question one way or the other without being biased against God?

    You're effort to construct all religious systems the same is ridiculous and further proof that you never knew God in any manner.

    I'm NOT suggesting they are the same. Apparently do not understand my argument.

    Third, God is over ALL THINGS. Good and bad. Therefore, anything that happens does not happen unless he allows or does it himself.

    Again you're avoiding the question. Does God intentionally cause children to contract leukemia or is it a natural phenomenon? That God does or does not allow it to occur is not the same as God actually using his supernatural powers to give children leukemia.

    Your bent is UNSCIENTIFIC as I state in my article dealing with the subject.

    To Quote an old legal adage…

    "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

    Your so called "responses" are the equivalent of pounding the table.

    That's the struggle with you in this blog and the science blogs here on this site. It's about your god being destroyed at the works of the true and living God.

    Need I remind you again?

    You wrote: More specifically how is it that Christian youth are by far falling away from the faith upon entering college and and being confronted with philosophies such as these?

    Do you not blame this decline on science? Who's destroying who?

    ReplyDelete
  121. You've shown scientists that disagree in exactly which way specific fossils are related, not that they are related at all.

    I've shown how you only disagree with science when it conflicts with your fundamental Christian religious beliefs.

    I've shown that the existence of omnipotent, non-material being who intentionally hides from us could never be disproving by definition. However, claims of specific actions which effect the physical world can and have been falsified.

    I've shown obvious flaws in your arguments through multiple illustrations and analogies. I've shown time and time again how your own questions show you do not understand the subject matter at hand.

    Harvey wrote: We have discovered that continuing scientific discoveries are only affirming what has been stated in the bible for generations of time, and those studies are proving that intelligence is the base of all life and that what we see wasn't placed here without a causal agent.

    I've posted a TED video that show this sort of interpretation is flawed, which you have yet to respond to.

    But to agree with a Christian who says that there is a driving intelligence behind all things it too much for you...so you make up stuff like, "there is no cause for anything"..."life just happens"..."the unseen hand is natural selection"...don't worry about how natural selection could take place without the direction of DNA…

    Science provides falsifiable theories, while you just assert that "God did it". You claim there can never be any evidence for a natural cause, therefore "God did it" by default.

    Anyway we learned a lot. We also leaned that radicals will say ANYTHING so that their god can live.

    We've learned that some Christians will ignore ANYTHING, including overwhelming evidence, which it conflicts with their beliefs.

    Tell me that atheism is not a religious premise...It clearly is and your comments have clearly displayed all the religious vigor of any cult that I am aware of.

    Harvey, in case you haven't noticed, my job here has been to show you and your readers exactly how little you know about the subject at hand. You've made my job easy by posting questions and championing theories that confirm this time and time again.

    I'm attempting to show you that your usual technique of "pounding the table" is transparent to those who exhibit critical thinning skills and who are science literate.

    The question is, will it fall on death ears?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Scott,

    YOU'RE GRANDSTANDING and I don't like grandstanders...I'd shut you down if it weren't for the fact of entertainment value:

    Concerning the big bang you said:"These concepts can be falsified."

    You can pull that trick with some of the people you rookie but not me...the Big bang cannot be falsified because it cannot be observed and that event cannot be measured... you state the CONCEPTS can be falsified and that's may well be BUT the EVENT cannot! You're a ROOKIE and I'm beginning to wear thin on patience...I won't allow you to take up further space on this thread you have NOTHING to add and you're simply trying to find ANYTHING to gain back some credibility...

    You said:"For example, if you actually watched the video,"

    I watched the whole thing front to back and you watched NONE of Ross or at least until you got to Hawking and you don't know what hawking said and or why, now do you?

    You said and sadly assume:"This is in contrast your belief that God created the universe by thinking it into existence."

    Once again you're GRANDSTANDING. You don't know how and or why God created or what method he used to create or IF he used a singularity or not. All you know is what you see NOW materially and none of that confines and or restricts the actions of God. In fact none of that tells us ANYTHING about what God did or the first cause...Don't buy your atheistic line about no causal agent but the more you say it the more RELIGIOUS you become...That's whty they say it takes more FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST than anything in the world...you guys like to make stuff up and call it science....WHAT A FARCE.

    You said:This is why I'm here.

    I know well why you're here. But read what I said...i said TRY to WIN the argument this time...WELL YA LOST...AGAIN! So what???

    You said:"Instead, it's your continued attempt to ignore the elephant in the room is causing this decline."

    I OBVIOUSLY don't do as good of a job IGNORING TRUTH as you...I've said over and over...youth go to college and draw away FOR A WHILE only to come back and rear their famies in the church...DO YOU HEAR THAT? DO YOU READ THAT! Those are the facts...in addition THEY DO NOT turn atheist as most see it SENSELESS.

    You said:Just because specific discoveries of science casts your belief in a poor light this doesn't mean we should pretend they do not exist.

    That's what you can't seem to understand, TRUE science does not do this...In fact no true scientific discovery does this...never has and I gurarantee, never will. The only type of science that will is philosophical assertions of methaphysical naturalists directed by atheists such as you. real scientists can distinguish the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  123. scott,

    You saidHarvey, I understand that you think the Bible is the word of God because it says it was inspired by God.

    Scott, the bible is demonstrably the word of God and that's not because I "think" it to be. The bible has manuscripts that are better attested to than any writing in antiquity along with historical verifiability and archaeology that exceeds all parrallels, further the prophecies verifiably confirmed defy chance and even common sense of human agency and have been proven to accurate, and this leads to teh fact that statistically, it would be impossible for the bible to have gotten so much right and TO DATE, NOTHING WRONG in the transmission of it's facts...Yet alone there is 1600 years of time and over 40 authors in 3 languages speaking on a range of subjects in a consistent noncontradictory theme...the statistical probability of these facts alone are superior than anythign ever wwritten or analyzed historically.

    So what am I saying? I'm saying that you don't have a clue what you're talking about comparing the bible to "other books".

    ReplyDelete
  124. Scott,

    Let me deal with this for a minute, and i was gonna shut you down but you say somethign taht interests me.

    You said:Harvey, I no longer believe that a theistic God was involved with the creation of our universe.

    Scott do you believe in God at all? That's the question. I'm under the impression you're an atheist and I believe that's correct but address that for me if you don't mind.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Scott,

    your arguments are so predictable and so self serving. You ask:Again you're avoiding the question. Does God intentionally cause children to contract leukemia or is it a natural phenomenon?

    Leukemia is a condition of SIN. SIN and evil is the corruption of righteousness and good. Not the absence of it.

    I expect that you won't get your head around that either.

    You said:I've shown obvious flaws in your arguments through multiple illustrations and analogies.

    You've shown yourself to be a grandstander and someone who is disgruntled when confronted by a Christian who puts you to shame. That's what you've shown.

    You said: I've shown time and time again how your own questions show you do not understand the subject matter at hand.

    You've shown that you didn't know that science can be done with a philosophical belief and that not all science is evidential or observable...Therefore you've shown your complete ignorance about various parts of what you believe...in total you shown nothing to overturn my arguments...

    Another thing. you said this:"I've posted a TED video that show this sort of interpretation is flawed, which you have yet to respond to"

    You seem to think I have to respond to all your atheist friend arguments when you respond to NONE of what I present. You haven't responded to ROSS at all. I've looked at your vids and critiqued them openly and plainly and NOTHING presents better light on your arguments and their theories are highly flawed and only show their "hear not God, speak not God and see no God" mentality...

    Get the point for future posts, I don't have to respond to any arguments and especially those presented by other atheists to affirm your views...speak the concepts you know, not those about which you guess...

    You said:"Science provides falsifiable theories, while you just assert that "God did it".

    the event of the big bang cannot be falsified. the concepts can but falsifiability AS STATESD is not even a good basis for science and is quite necessary for science as a whole. In fact it is only ONE METHOD of science and not a good one for modern science by the way.

    You said:Harvey, in case you haven't noticed, my job here has been to show you and your readers exactly how little you know about the subject at hand

    WELL, how does it feel to be a failure because YA FAILED!

    Now the only question you can answer from this point out is this that I've asked before:

    You said:Harvey, I no longer believe that a theistic God was involved with the creation of our universe.

    Scott do you believe in God at all? That's the question. I'm under the impression you're an atheist and I believe that's correct but address that for me if you don't mind.

    All OTHER comments from you will be deleted in this thread...SO STOP your grandstanding and answer the question....

    Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  126. This is how much of a slippery and fading slope that some of these cats are riding on:

    Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, “Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as ‘the ways of reason and science,’ is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance

    They said:The Rev. Paul M. Zulehner, dean of Vienna University's divinity school and one of the world's most distinguished sociologists of religion, told UPI Tuesday: "True atheists in Europe have become an infinitesimally small group. There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research."

    Read this atGod's not so dead: atheism in decline.

    To all atheists, get off a sinking ship before you go under and drown along with it.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Harvey wrote: Scott do you believe in God at all? That's the question. I'm under the impression you're an atheist and I believe that's correct but address that for me if you don't mind.

    Harvey,

    As I've said over and over again, if an omnipotent, non-material being who intentionally hides from us does exist, he would undetectable by definition.

    If he's all powerful and doesn't want to be detected, then we would be unable to detect him. If we could, he either wouldn't be all powerful, or he would have allowed himself to be detected. Such a being could have sat on the sidelines and watched the universe unfold naturally.

    Or, being all powerful, he could have created the universe five minutes ago and made it only appear to be 13.27 billion years old. This could include giving us false memories and even "posting" false blog comments that we supposedly wrote over the last few days. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

    So, to answer your question, I could not say such a being does not exist due to the way he is defined. It's impossible to do so.

    Do I think such a being is unlikely? That depends on a number of other supposed properties beyond being non-material, all powerful and a desire to be hidden. The more specific we get, the more I think such a being is unlikely.

    Does this being want a relationship with us? Is he perfectly good? Did he interact in the physical universe at a specific time and in a specific way? Is he all powerful due to the fact that he has an infinite nature? Does he enjoy the smell of burnt offerings? Etc.

    While many of these are desirable traits, the fact that they are desirable does not mean I'm willing to accept them as likely. Instead, these specific traits represent opportunities for us to evaluate our intuitions or initial hypothesis based on what we observe. That anyone can conceive of any kind of being doesn't mean such a being actually exits.

    If you look carefully, you'll see a similarity with the claim that the Big Bang "happened." If we start out with the idea that "everything" began to exist at some unspecified point in the past, in some unspecified way, then this is indeed unfalsifiable.

    Without specifying what came into existence at particular time, using a particular method, then we have no means to evaluate our hypothesis.

    However, as soon as we start making specific claims, we can test them based on a wide range of observations.

    So, to summarize, I do not think God as specifically defined by fundamental Christianity exists. This is due to the number of specific properties and actions attributed to him, which we see no explicit evidence in favor of. Nor do I hold any holy book as being authoritative beyond what we observe to overcome this lack of evidence.

    Again, just because such properties may be desirable or exhibit limited utility in specific matters of social concern does not mean I'm willing to accept them as true. Nor would I think they are correct by default, should no other option be available.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I wrote: So, to summarize, I do not think God as specifically defined by fundamental Christianity exists.

    To be clear, I'd note that each and every human definition of God could be wrong, but some other God-like being may still exist none the less. Clearly, I cannot rule this out absolutely. But it seems very unlikely given the alternatives. Nor would I expect many to champion such an alternative definition as it would fail to address the questions that most people attempt to answer using the traditional definitions of God.

    However, it seems clear to me that specific definitions of God, based on specific actions and properties claimed by all major theistic religions, do not describe real world states in our world or even our current universe.

    Furthermore, even if we ignore everything else, history has shown us our assumptions about what God did or did not do have been wrong. That God would somehow prevent errors from creeping into our belief systems is but one causality to this observation.

    The question is no longer, "Are we wrong about God?", but, "To what degree are we wrong?"

    ReplyDelete
  129. Scott,

    Thanks and correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're describing is deism? So you are a deist. Is that right?

    ReplyDelete
  130. I have been following your series on evolution and I am a bit perplexed at your beliefs. You are not a YEC, but you claim that evolution is false and that Genesis is an accurate depiction of creation. What do you have to say about dinosaurs and why your god let them roam around the earth for millions of years? Nothing you have to say makes any sort of sense when looking at it as one collective argument.

    Your only form of argumentation is to discredit science, while offering no evidence to the contrary. That simply isn't good enough to convince anyone with half a brain. You must say, not only why science's explanation fails, but why yours is correct. I know you think the bible is the word of god and therefore correct by default, but the majority of people who have lived throughout the history of mankind don't believe it. If you want to convince them, you have to show them WHY your version is correct. It is not enough to simply tell them that it is, you must show your work. If you can't, then why would you expect anyone to believe you?

    How can you not see the book and god you believe in, were created from the minds of men living in one of the most superstitious eras? It is painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to examine their beliefs, and not just the beliefs themselves, but how and why they arrived at those beliefs.

    Finally, when you assert things like leukemia is a condition of sin, I don't think you fully understand the weight of your words. I have a friend that died from leukemia at the age of 14. The fact that you worship a being that you think is the creator of everything and capable of thinking things in and out of existence, yet sits on his hands while people suffer, starve, and die tragically every day is offensive and disgraceful. In the unlikely event that your god does exist, he is either inept or evil; in either case, not worthy of worship.

    I am not an atheist because I want to be. I am because I have to be; the truth demands it of me.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Cory,

    Thanks for commenting on the subject and asking questions. i believe many of the issues you raised have been addressed and answered in either this post or the other 3 I've done on the topic and the inforamtion I've presented has been pretty thorough but I'll address a few of the issues you raise.

    You said: "You are not a YEC, but you claim that evolution is false and that Genesis is an accurate depiction of creation."

    One does not have to hold to the tenets of YEC or fundamentalism to believe Genesis is a correct and accurate depiction of historical events especially regarding creation. There si also another aspect of Genesis that includes developing the narrative for oral tradition and dispelling or outlining the differences between the true and living God and other gods taht were talked about of foriegn nations. We see shades of all of those things outlined in biblical literature, but the narrative is not confined or restricted to being a narrative for only one purpose. In other words the Genesis narrative serves a diversity of purposes for a diversity of reasons and deos this all accurately. That concept isn't an invention of YEC only belief. This confuses many evolutionary theorists such as yourself becauuse you've been told (and obviously believe) that YEC is the bain of evolutionary theory. When the facts are that IF God created man, whether one believes in YEC or not, that excludes the evolving of man no matter how you shake it.

    You asked:What do you have to say about dinosaurs and why your god let them roam around the earth for millions of years?

    Same thing to be said about the millions of species that don't exist today supposedly because of natural selection. Evidently they lived and evidently they died.

    You said:Your only form of argumentation is to discredit science, while offering no evidence to the contrary.

    Much evidence has been set forth, such as the evidence that information necessary for evolution to take place simply does not fly from outer space to make it happen...Your crowd argues that to believe that is intellectual suicide while at the same time admitting that scientific knowledge is limited. It seems to me that admitting that information came from an intelligent source instead of trying to make something up that accounts for it is MUCH better than simply denying the process to begin with....Then there are other arguments that have been set forth such as reason, consciousness, etc for which there is no metaphysical necessity etc...

    You said:"That simply isn't good enough to convince anyone with half a brain."

    I simply think that anyone with "half a brain" would consider the complicated and complex problems associated with darwinian brand of evolution and capitulate to a more sound scientific position abandoning the philosophical bias of atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Harvey,

    I'm not a deist.

    Just because I cannot say a non-material being who is all powerful and hides from us does not exist, this does not mean I think such a being is likely or should be the default explanation.

    The question comes down to the appearance of design in the universe.

    Arguments from design suggest that the odds of all the parameters being "tuned" to create this universe in particular are astronomical. Therefore, it must have been created by an intelligent being.

    For example, if you watch Ross' video, you'll hear him claim that God created the universe with the earth and human beings in mind. That is, the kind of universe we observe is exactly the kind of universe God would create to support human beings. Therefore, our universe was created by an intelligent being.

    However, Krauss shows the universe is a place where rare events happen all the time. And if there is an infinite amount of nothing, which really isn't nothing as we originally thought, then it's only a matter of time before a universe like ours would appear.

    Second, Ross ignores all of the things that God supposedly "designed" which makes our universe inhospitable for life.

    For example, there are areas even on earth which are NOT suitable for human life. The heat and light source God designed (our sun) will eventually make the earth inhabitable for life when it expands into a Red Giant. Massive meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions have resulted in near-extinction events, which could still occur in the future. Given these facts alone, it's very unlikely an all knowing and all powerful being created the universe.

    Last, even if, for the sake of argument, we assume our universe was the result of design, this says very little about the designer's properties. For example, there could be an entire committee of designers, rather than one. Or there could be two equal designers - one good and one evil - which are locked in an infinite battle of wills. This would provided a far simpler explanation of the universe we observe with fewer contradictions. However, since good would never triumph over evil, it's no surprise this theology is not popular.

    We simply do not see enough explicit evidence to suggest any intelligent being was behind the specific universe we observe. As such, I'm not a deist.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Regarding the Christian Bible, the number of examples Ross uses to claim the Bible got Big Bang cosmology "right" are few in number and very vague. Furthermore, he ignores the significant number of cases where scripture got cosmology very very wrong.

    The Bible's Sky Dome Universe

    ReplyDelete
  134. Cory,

    You said: You must say, not only why science's explanation fails, but why yours is correct.

    I think I've done that maybe you should read the articles.

    You said:I know you think the bible is the word of god and therefore correct by default, but the majority of people who have lived throughout the history of mankind don't believe it.

    I don't think that's too sound of a reason to accept or reject any ideology. You'll always find cults, scientific and materialistic ones not excluded, that will be accepted in surprising numbers.

    You said:"How can you not see the book and god you believe in, were created from the minds of men living in one of the most superstitious eras?"

    The question is how DO YOU see it that way? That's an anomaly to me when all data is considered. As I've stated before, there are a number of lines of evidence that confirm the bible to be divine rather than human in origin:

    The bible has manuscripts that are better attested to than any writing in antiquity along with historical verifiability and archaeology that exceeds all parallels, further the prophecies, verifiably confirmed, defy chance and even common sense of human agency and have been proven to accurate, and this leads to the fact that statistically, it would be impossible for the bible to have gotten so much right and TO DATE, NOTHING WRONG in the transmission of it's facts...Yet alone there is 1600 years of time and over 40 authors in 3 languages speaking on a range of subjects in a consistent noncontradictory theme...the statistical probability of these facts alone are superior than anything ever written or analyzed historically.

    In other words MEN couldn't do this. In out day and time works of men such as legal documents etc, provide astounding contradictions within the same works. You talk to any lawyer that works with the IRS and they'll tell you that the code though thorough is astoundingly contradictory and down right silly. Many don't know how the code even got there as it's not authorized in the US Constitution, now that's a work of man covering ONE subject.

    The work of the bible is totally unique for all the reasons I mention and them some. Not only that it also passes the "scientific tests" of historical literary criticism, but those are other topics that it takes more than me just saying them to go into detail on.

    You said:"Finally, when you assert things like leukemia is a condition of sin, I don't think you fully understand the weight of your words."

    Ooh, yes I do, you just have no idea about the WEIGHT of sin and what it did and continues to do to the world. By the way, science says there is no metaphysical REASON that we age and die, or that anything ages or dies. What science says is unanswered is clearly answered by God, when SIN entered into the world the death process began. (Gen. 2:17, Rom. 5:12, Jas. 1:15) that process includes all manner of illness and disease for everyone not just the unrighteous or righteous. we all leave here with something and for some reason.

    In addition mankind lives on grace and mercy. Grace is unmerited...GOd owes no one anything and we don't earn that grace by our presence in the world. What makes God greater than a "force' is that he, of his own free will establishes a relationship with mankind and acts in mercy considering who and what we are. even in that he yet owes us nothing and we can't pay enough for what we receive.

    Yes that's a humbling proposition isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Cory,

    You said that God:"yet sits on his hands while people suffer, starve, and die tragically every day is offensive and disgraceful.

    What does he owe us? Nothing.

    Exclude God for a minute as you don't believe in him anyway. What does the universe owe you?...NOTHING. What can the universe give you?...NOTHING.

    If God exists and If I by my belief serve God and acknowledge him and realize that he owes me nothing, then what about you that don't acknowledge him, and shake your fist at him in rage although he exists? It's a WONDER that you're not a spot on the slope of humanity...You LIVE on grace also. The difference is that I realize it and acknowledge it whereas you live in denial of it.

    You said:"In the unlikely event that your god does exist, he is either inept or evil; in either case, not worthy of worship."

    Ooh thou Epicurean faithful. The problem of evil variations are wide and many. The antidote is this:

    1- All Epicurean problems of evil set forth the notion that IF God exists that he is good and would be all powerful and overcome evil.
    2- God is all good and all powerful
    3- Evil exists
    4- Therefore God has, can and will one day defeat all evil.
    5- The bible is replete with the promise that God has done and will defeat all evil.
    6- As proof of the promise of this defeat, God raised Jesus bodily from the dead providing assurance that all evil (including the ultimate evil of death) is and will be defeated.

    Therefore the problem of evil is not a problem at all for a God that even you acknowledge would be good and have all power if he exists.

    You conclude:"I am not an atheist because I want to be. I am because I have to be; the truth demands it of me."

    You are an atheist IN SPITE of the proof of God's existence not because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  136. scott,

    You said:I'm not a deist.

    Yes, to admit such would shoot yourself in the foot now wouldn't it...However your reasoning is inescapable:

    The question is no longer, "Are we wrong about God?", but, "To what degree are we wrong?"

    That acknowledges that "a God" exists. If you're questioning degrees to which we are wrong about HIM or his nature...This assumes that you simply believe that he would be uninvolved in creation or nature IF he did exist. either way it sounds like a presupposition to me.

    You said:Just because I cannot say a non-material being who is all powerful and hides from us does not exist, this does not mean I think such a being is likely or should be the default explanation.

    The fact is that he's not hidden, you simply refuse to acknowledge his presence and write it off as something other than what it is.

    You said:The question comes down to the appearance of design in the universe.

    Teleological or design of the cosmos...

    You said:"Arguments from design suggest that the odds of all the parameters being "tuned" to create this universe in particular are astronomical."

    Ti's true and antidotes to that argument make all kinds of fanciful leaps claiming metaphysical necessity when the difference between man and rocks are vast and there is no necessity that man, even if he does exist by purely natural processes, has any consciousness or communicative abilities greater than all other forms of living organisms that we observe. In other words there is no reason for what we call a mind body interface and the resultant abilities that man has as "we think' are a result of that interface.

    You said:"For example, if you watch Ross' video, you'll hear him claim that God created the universe with the earth and human beings in mind."

    And in the atheistic worldview you believe that it was a matter of necessity that all the occurrences happened so that life could begin and be maintained...which one is a greater stretch? that over 800 scientific principles that we are aware of come together to allow man to live and exist as we do today under the direction of God or that all 800 of those principles and lines of scientific evidences "just happened"?

    I think it's a MUCH GREATER stretch to believe that things "just happened"

    You said:"However, Krauss shows the universe is a place where rare events happen all the time.

    Yea right believe that mess if you want...while cosmologist have never found any events are rare as our existence and out of all the stars have only recently mapped out ones similar to ours by which 'we believe' that solar systems exist that "could" sustain life as we know it. Even at that to say that these are ordinary or abundant occurrences is propaganda to sooth the masses and he know that

    ReplyDelete
  137. Scott,

    You said of Krauss:And if there is an infinite amount of nothing, which really isn't nothing as we originally thought, then it's only a matter of time before a universe like ours would appear.

    First there isn't an infinite amount of nothing. The universe is expanding and that's measureable and it is winding down therefore the universe if finite and certainly has an ending. Secondly, the time that we have on finding these like solar systems is running down. Although that doesn't mean they don't exist, our ability to examine such may never exist.

    You said:"For example, there are areas even on earth which are NOT suitable for human life."

    Tis true, but that's like arguing that because hornets exist, we shoudn't exist.

    You said:"Massive meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions have resulted in near-extinction events, which could still occur in the future."

    One reason they don't exist is because of the relationship of jupiter and other planets in relationship to the earth....did you see that little bit of proof also. That's one of the reasons why we CAN live on earth.

    You said:Last, even if, for the sake of argument, we assume our universe was the result of design, this says very little about the designer's properties."

    BINGO. Those issues aren't a scientific matter. They would be a philosophical matter.

    All I can say is in what we ACKNOWLEDGE as good scientific reasoning and method, we say that what goes in is what comes out...we don't say that nothing in equals everything and complex out...there is no computer that programs itself WITHOUT the information and instruction necessary to do so. I want to know why is it that we violate generally accepted methods of inforamtion transfer when it comes to things like evolution and the design of the universe?

    That's really beyond me to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  138. By the way Capella's guide doesn't even know how to interpret the bible yet along judge when it's wrong or contradictory...they're READING challenged to say the least.

    A better site would be: Tekton ~Flat earth?

    ReplyDelete
  139. I wrote: The question is no longer, "Are we wrong about God?", but, "To what degree are we wrong?"

    That acknowledges that "a God" exists.

    No. It acknowledges that people conceive of God as playing particular roles regarding specific phenomenon, having particular properties and having specific likes and dislikes.

    For example, some people think God is an sentient, intelligent being, who created the universe, dictated the 10 commandants and enjoyed the smell of burn offerings when they floated up to heaven - just to name a few.

    However, it might be that God doesn't like the smell of burnt offerings, despite scripture that suggests he does. In fact, the entire idea of sacrifice could be an idea we created in an attempt to influence phenomenon that had a significant impact on our daily lives. Given our lack of knowledge at the time, and human natures, this really wouldn't be much of a surprise.

    Furthermore, it might be that our moral compass and the universe were created by two separate beings. Or it could be that neither the cause of the universe or our moral compass is sentient, but are separate natural processes.

    Should this be the case, we still have causes for specific phenomenon, but they no longer seem to fit the description of the theistic God. In other words, if we're completely wrong about God, then we have to ask if the statement "God exists" says anything meaningful (beyond the obvious implications regarding human behavior.)

    Hopefully this explanation provides insight in to my position and the position of others.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I wrote: And if there is an infinite amount of nothing, which really isn't nothing as we originally thought, then it's only a matter of time before a universe like ours would appear.

    Harvey wrote: First there isn't an infinite amount of nothing. The universe is expanding and that's measureable and it is winding down therefore the universe if finite and certainly has an ending.

    Harvey, perhaps I can clarify this issue further.

    You claim that everything had a beginning at the big bang. However, I know you do not literally mean everything since you think God has always existed. So, before the big bang, we had an infinite amount of nothing that really wasn't nothing because God existed. Right?

    So, while we might be saying it completely different ways, both of us are saying nothing really isn't nothing - It just appears to be nothing.

    Again, where we differ is that theists think this nothing that really isn't nothing is sentient, all powerful, intelligent, enjoyed the smell of burnt offerings, dictates holy books, etc. Furthermore, theists think that, unless we can explain absolutely everything down to the last detail, we should accept their definition of nothing by default.

    FYI: The expansion of the universe is not winding down, it's accelerating. You should update your sources.

    ReplyDelete
  141. [quote]So your apologetic is that the term "Favored races" in Darwins title "Could also be used to describe natural process"? Are you serious? How ad-hoc can you be? That's one thing that I see over and over with you...you make up things on the fly to fit what you want it to say. Good job while you call me a liar...how about this, I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off me and STICKS to you![end quote]

    An very adult discussion.

    One could read a biography on Darwin to see what the intent was, or one might even read Darwin's work himself.

    One tell-tale clue: Darwin does not discuss human evolution in any form in that book. When he refers to "favored races" he means, for example, the race of gray jays versus blue jays in that territory where the gray jays win out, and where the two species once may have overlapped and interbred.

    Darwin claimed there is one human race with great diversity.

    But don't let the facts get in the way, you know?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Yea Ed, don't let the FACT that darwin was a racist of his day get in the way of the truth of your love for his bankrupt dogmas...

    We've aldready been over this thoroughly and you're STILL wrong and further an apologist for a racist.

    New year hasn't done much for ya I see.

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.