RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 >   
  Topic: Intellectual Honesty, Robert Shapiro "Origins"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,10:59   

When the bible says, "do not eat the sacred raisin cookies"  what am I to do?

I am unaware of that statement but the cardinal rule of interpretation is to do it within the context and by comparison with other passages which relate to the same or similar teachings. There is a historical context and a chronology to scripture in which God declares that He deals with people differently in the old and new testament..,. law vs grace for instance. An entire host of health, diet and behavioral issues were in play in the OT that are disposed with under grace. Some so called commands were declared bythe Jewish leaders apart from revelation and God permitted them to err  "rules of divorcement which Jesus declared God hates but permits only for reason of unfaithfulness".

The bible is unique in the sense that it reports both the greatness and the foolishness of humanity... not all is degreed or ordered.. just permitted.

When the bible gives me two different orders in which God created life, which am I to believe?

It does not but only different views from different perspectives... I do not have my library at work but that argument has been disposed of many times over. Besides do you really think that people and God were so stupid as to make an egregious error in logic within the same small section? Really!

When Jesus said, "If you pray with a love of God in your heart, you can make mountains leap into the sea" does that make him a liar?  Or just make everyone one of the unfaithful?

Neither it makes you a game player. I suggest that is obviously metaphorical for two reasons. No miracle ever recorded in Jesus works was superficial or without purpose and certainly not destructive or for entertainment.


When Genesis 6 says "there were giants in the earth those days"  are they dinosaurs or are they Nephilum like Og?  If they were like Og, where are their bones?

Real giants like Goliath I suggest or like the Watusi whose average height averages almost 7 feet. If we start looking for bones in one local that were limited in number and remembering that they were driven out of the land to an unspecified location and that we have no record of their burial habits etc. that a pretty tall order.

Unlike the fossil record where there should be billions of transitional forms across the millions of extinct and extant species throughout the globe and where there might be 100 highly speculative such fossils available in toto.

When I am told, "do not say to your neighbor let me help you with the speck in your eye when you have a plank in your own" what if I see that plank and speck as sin, does that mean we aren't meant to evangelize?

Evangelize is to tell the Good News of Gods saving grace through Christs life, death, burial and resurrection and NOT to point out peoples faults because we all have them and we all sin. It actually relates to fellow believers and not to an unbeliever. Believers are not to be primarily critics and judges of each others behavior except in extreme and clearly harmful practices.

When I pray, I pray to the Christian God, I was raised Christian.  I can only percieve the nature of God as being that which I had learned in the scriptures.  But when I look at the glaring errors and contradictions in the Bible, I ask myself, does God write books?

I commend you to any number of authors who clearly expose the faulty reasoning of those who find glaring errors Henry Morris, Bruce Waltke and many other scholars. Equip.org probably has books that answer your concerns. I have seen most of these so called glaring errors and the answer is...... NOT!


There is a growing amount of agreement among Biblical scholars that Genesis and Job are the two oldest books in the Bible, yet nobody would percieve that from its organization.

So what? The four Gospels are not in any particular chronological order, encyclopedias are ordered alphabetically and collectons of poems and short stories by subject matter. In my Bible Genesis is the first book actualyy; however, Job is the oldest book I believe. It is part of the knowlwdge books I suggest Psalms, Proverbs, Eclesiastes and Job perhaps.

EL or Elohim, means "gods" in Hebrew.  WTF?

Yes there is a triune God who is one ... a mystery but stated as such many times in scripture. I fail to see why that bothers anyone.. its actually a comfort.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,11:40   

To those so inclined the attached is a rather completew treatment of the so called two Genesis creation accounts.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,19:43   

Pharyngula: Tales of the X-mice

I bet the Discovery Institute was just weeks away from this discovery.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2005,03:27   

Saddle,

Is there a point?  Other than it seems to confirm my view that we understand very little about the inferent designed in capabilities of the genome for adaptation based on sensory information. Mutations play an insignificant and mostly harmful role when closely examined.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,01:55   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 03 2005,08:27)
Saddle,

Is there a point?  Other than it seems to confirm my view that we understand very little about the inferent designed in capabilities of the genome for adaptation based on sensory information. Mutations play an insignificant and mostly harmful role when closely examined.

What about mutations in bacteria that allow them to become resistant to chemicals/drugs that we produce?  Are those mostly harmful?

Anyway, Evopeach, why do you not reject physics, geology, cosmology, etc.?  Those sciences MUST be wrong if the Earth is about 10,000 years old, so you should also be on websites dealing with those subjects and talking about how stupid they are.  Do you do that?  I'm assuming you don't from some of the things you've posted, and now I'm wondering why not?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,03:11   

Easy GCT,

Bacteria and virus micro-evolution is a fact everyone excepts... period. That is light years away from macromutation, common decent, abiogenesis and such.. not even mathmatically comparable.

I do criticize so called stellar evolution, cosmology, etc. to teh degree it proclaims evolution.

The life sciences and biology in particular are the most agressive, insulting, insistent and have commandered the education system in every niche possible to proclaim evolution and resist any alternate ideas no matter.

Take Hawkings, certainly an evolutionist but rarely does he go out of his way to insult, belittle and proclaim absolute certainty about his arguments. He was quite curteous when he vivited the Pope for instance.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4058
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,05:55   

Re "What about mutations in bacteria that allow them to become resistant to chemicals/drugs that we produce?  Are those mostly harmful?"

Well, the result is harmful to us - does that count?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,06:19   

Most textbooks I have read estimate bacterial mutation rates as about 1 in every 1000 replications and of those 99% are either neutran or harmful and only 1 in 10,000 is beneficial to the survival of the population. Who knows for sure how many mutations are required to achieve some added invulnerablity to a med.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,08:02   

So, evopeach
Quote
I do criticize so called stellar evolution, cosmology, etc. to teh degree it proclaims evolution.

So, you only criticize that which deals with evolution?  Again, not logically consistent.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,04:43   

GCT,

This is a forum for debate about evolution and alternative theories of life etc.

Did you want to go to a forum on optics, relativity theory, materials science, music or what is it your ignorant gibberish is attempting to communicate.?

Please tell me you're not a member of the "A" team.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,05:12   

Evopeach,
You've just admitted that you only have a bug up your backside when it comes to evolution.  So, why not those other sciences?  It's completely illogical to proclaim that the universe was formed in 6 literal days, but not protest the science that flatly contradicts that account.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4058
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,06:26   

Re "This is a forum for debate about evolution and alternative theories of life etc."

Then why are you the one dragging astrophysics into it?

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,06:47   

Quote (GCT @ Oct. 07 2005,10:12)
Evopeach,
You've just admitted that you only have a bug up your backside when it comes to evolution.  So, why not those other sciences?  

Because he's only been told to go after those wicked atheist evilutionists, and not the scientists in other fields who support evolution.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,07:23   

GCT,

Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills. Thus I would never make the schoolboyish fallacious error of attacking an entire science branch just because I disagreed on the interpretation of results and opinions in one narrow field. (Illicit major , minor and categorization fallacies).

You see I might say that the poisson distribution is quite good as a fundamental predictor of radio-active decay rates in general; but disagree with the premise that the decay "constant" lambda has remained the same for a billion years, as that is unprovable and there is some bonifide evidence to the contrary.

I might agree with the form and general solution to the differential equations for some phenomenon but not the assumptions on initial conditions or boundary values that determine the final answer in large part.

Finally, I would be amazed if  you conclude that God is bound to creating a universe that had to actually go through a billion year transformation in order to function. Why? Just because the design and operation from creation forward is time bound, uniform,such is no issue at all. It is declared and is common sense that all of creation was working and operational. Based on analysis from a continium perspective everything would appear older than it was. How could it be any other way?

Questions like "Since God is limited to the same physical laws, methods etc. as we are I want to know exactly how He did what He claims to have done in terms that fit the current state of mans knowledge and can be replicated by me in my lab tomorrow morning" are evos stock and trade but are merely examples of their egomaniacal thinking, "If I can't do it God can't either".

God is the ultimate scientist, designer and as such He used precesses and abilities we can neither perform,understand, duplicate or comprehend presently. That's why He's God and you're not.

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,08:36   

Quote
poisson distribution


Not sure what fish distribution has to do with radioactive decay.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,09:15   

The Poisson distribution is a decent predictor of radio active decay activity as in geiger counter clicks etc. for a given lamda or prob per sec of a decay occuring.

N=Nsub0 e**-lamda t/Tsub1/2life  lambe is assumed to be 0.693 over the entire decay period, not necessarily true.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,09:28   

Evopeach,
Quote
Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills.

So, you find it completely logical to throw out evolution and biology because it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible, but not physics, cosmology, etc. that also conflict with your interpretations of the Bible.  Got it.

Quote
Finally, I would be amazed if  you conclude that God is bound to creating a universe that had to actually go through a billion year transformation in order to function.

This is jibberish.  The universe was functioning from its beginning, regardless of whether it was god who started it or not.  You are making the very unscientific assumption that humans were inevitable products of this universe and a goal, and thus you think it would be ridiculous to have the universe exist for billions of years before the goal of the arrival of humans.  Then, you have the gall to turn around and accuse us of not being scientific.

Quote
Questions like "Since God is limited to the same physical laws...


Didn't you not too long ago make the argument that god was constrained into making a common design?  I submit that it is YOU who puts limits on god, not I.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,09:56   

Quote  
Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills.

So, you find it completely logical to throw out evolution and biology because it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible, but not physics, cosmology, etc. that also conflict with your interpretations of the Bible.  Got it.

Never through out biology because 99% of biology has to do with understanding how things work today and how to make use of that knowledge to better life for humanity and for the biological kingdom. It has almost nothing to do with evolution other than the small modest contribution from micro-evolution. Every day more builtin adaptive capacity is being discovered which has nothing to do with evolution but rather original design. Only people whose mission is to deny God, destroy religion, particularly Christianity and the Bible spend their time in macro-evolutionary activites and origin of life activities.

Quote  
Finally, I would be amazed if  you conclude that God is bound to creating a universe that had to actually go through a billion year transformation in order to function.

This is jibberish.  The universe was functioning from its beginning, regardless of whether it was god who started it or not.  You are making the very unscientific assumption that humans were inevitable products of this universe and a goal, and thus you think it would be ridiculous to have the universe exist for billions of years before the goal of the arrival of humans.  Then, you have the gall to turn around and accuse us of not being scientific.

God created the universe and everything in it and did not declare it finished and good until he created "man".

What fool other than an evolutionist would suppose God would use the least efficient physical method imaginable namely random processes to accomplish anything since there would be no purpose, no meaning and no accomplishment. No scientist or engineer ot thinking person would attempt to accomplish a project by random processes but rather and always by design and planning and direction.

Quote  
Questions like "Since God is limited to the same physical laws...


Didn't you not too long ago make the argument that god was constrained into making a common design?  I submit that it is YOU who puts limits on god, not I.

Gods character is such that  he cannot disagree with His own attributes so once he made a common design decision He carried it out to remain consistent and true to Himself. He further would not plan to have a billion years of blood and guts , death and destruction just to realize the capstone of His creation .. Man. That is not in any regard the character of the Biblical God. After the fall man has acted in that manner in free will to the horror of all.

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,11:15   

Quote
as that is unprovable and there is some bonifide evidence to the contrary

Seems like something that is not provable could not have
evidence that disproves it either...am I wrong?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4058
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,14:10   

Re "Seems like something that is not provable could not have evidence that disproves it either...am I wrong?"

A generalization that talks about the whole universe can't be totally proven for all time. But I'd think that any such generalization could be proven wrong by a verified counterexample.

Henry

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,15:29   

Just so I'm clear...

Using c14 dating....

It's assumed that the halflife is a constant decay rate. If
it could be proved that the rate varies, it would disprove the
assumption and thus the whole ball of wax regarding radioactive
decay. Is this more or less what you're saying?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4058
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,17:07   

Re "If it could be proved that the rate varies, it would disprove the assumption [...]"

I suppose if somebody actually proved that the rate varies by a significant amount in the environment present on or near Earth's surface, perhaps. But of course, if the rate went way up, Earth's core would put out more heat than it does now, and if it went down the core would put out less heat. I'd think that would affect environment if the change was enough to matter. Also, being unsure what exactly would have to change to vary decay rates, I don't know if something could affect that without also varying chemical reactions.

Side note- astronomers have spectra from stars from a few light years away to billions of light years away. If nuclear reactions varied with time, one would think some effects of it would have shown up in those spectra.

Henry

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,03:37   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 07 2005,12:23)
Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills.

Yes, agreed, that's what I thought as soon as I read this.
Supurb. A jeenius even. While we're throughing words around.
And moddest too. Modast?
Humbel?  
Obviously the prime creation of a Supreme Being.
How proughd he must be.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,04:47   

The RATE project including the work on poloium halos is a four year academic and field project performed by quite qualified Phd Scientists who yes happen to be YECs.

I have not read the technical book or papers in great detail but I understand it to indicate that many of the aging techniques are found wanting.

I believe they have presented the work results to accepted journals and to professional societies.

I suspect they will be belittled, never published, attacked,laughed at and the work will receive zero actual reading and study by evos.

Changes in neutrino flux could affect decay constants and improper assumptions about leaching or a host of other reasons could affect aging results.

This was a four year project with qualified people involved and paid for by private funds not the taxpayers like all evos federal grants.

I am not a genius as my IQ is only 144 and genius I believe is about 160. I am smart enough to know a "Theory in Crisis" for all the right reasons.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,08:52   

Quote
I am not a genius as my IQ is only 144 and genius I believe is about 160.
I've never heard an intelligent person mention their own IQ before.  I still haven't.

I'd love to hear the evidence that shows that any decay rates have changed in the universe's history.  For this would require that the fundamental constants are shifting around.  And THAT would be exciting.

-Dan

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,09:32   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 08 2005,09:47)
I am not a genius as my IQ is only 144 and genius I believe is about 160. I am smart enough to know a "Theory in Crisis" for all the right reasons.

"I'm so smart! S-M-R-T!"

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,05:10   

For the record I sort of deal with straightforward honesty rather than the satanically inspired evo approach.

A lot is made of my typing skills and such but that's just a form of circumlocution logically speaking. The fallacy of "Form over Substance" argumentation has been recognized and ridiculed for about 2ooo years .

I know the wirehead mentality demands that form is more important than truth, logic, rationality and critical thinking, but I don't think I'll play that game.



Pitiful!!

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,07:54   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 10 2005,10:10)
A lot is made of my typing skills and such but that's just a form of circumlocution logically speaking. The fallacy of "Form over Substance" argumentation has been recognized and ridiculed for about 2ooo years .

I know the wirehead mentality demands that form is more important than truth, logic, rationality and critical thinking, but I don't think I'll play that game.

Oh, the irony! The irony!

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,13:13   

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Evopeach,

I have a question for you...

Why are you so mean-spirited towards seemingly everyone?
I don't get it, you could have a more meaningful exchange
of ideas/views if you didn't lash out at everyone. I understand
in the cyber-world there will be the inevitable disagreable sort,
but on the whole I've been surprised at how receptive people
can be to genuine curiosity/interest.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,02:26   

Chimp

I wish you luck with that approach. :)

  
  228 replies since July 25 2005,16:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]