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. 22 2005,10:29   

Unfortunately, I have to correct your erroneous impression of Genesis because there is no statement concerning the actual possibility that the tower would have given the Sinarians an ability to discover God's thoughts or actions... though they might have had such vain imaginings.

If you were to spend say fifteen minutes at the following website you would discover two perspectives on the passage in context:

http://www.ldolphin.org/babel.html


One by Lambert Dolphin a retired physicist and senior scientist at SRI in Menlo Park and another by a respected theologian and teacher Ray Stedman.

Of course despite their academic credentials in science and the bible you will judge them idiots and morons... but maybe just maybe for once your camp would at least have a modicum of understandng that there is considerable scholarship behind certain positions taken by such and once the cartoon vision of such people is dispensed with one can see a logical point of view.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1402
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,10:55   

God, this is a sad little blogsite. What purpose is served by responding to the drivel served up by Evopeach?

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,12:56   

One of the guy writes Balel is a related word in Hebrew meaning "confusion."  This sounds like those Nostradamus interpreters talking about Mabus being George W Bush, see if you flip the M and make this letter silent, yadda yadda yadda.  Any site that speaks of, "this happened so many years after the Flood" probably isn't reliable when it comes to the tower of Babel either.  Seeing as there is ZERO evidence for a global flood.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,03:59   

Alan and Saddle,

AS I said when you or Sagan or Chaisson can elucidate anything less than a thinly veiled form of mysticism without even a shread of evidence of any kind explaining how helium became the human brain by chance and/or chemical predestination then we have a basis for a rational discussion.

Your ignorance concerning evidence for a global flood is appalling but then I forgot you wouldn't read broadly of other peoples academically based views .. it might prove unsettling to learn you don't have all the answers.

Try "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. Henry Morris for one source. Of course he only has a Phd in Civil Engineering and Geology/Hydrology, wrote the textbook on same for Virginia Poly and taught at Rice Univ for many years etc. But then what would he know compared to two banana heads like you.

As for people who think the bible is a fairy tale it actually helps to have scholars who master the original language to elucidate the most factual understanding.

Again anyone who believes helium is tranformed to the human brain by some form of magic has gall to attack alternate explanations.

Remember your entire theory rests on the efficacy of just that proposition.

Evopeach

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,06:27   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 22 2005,15:55)
What purpose is served by responding to the drivel served up by Evopeach?

I had come to a similar conclusion  :)

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,08:54   

roflmao...."The Genesis Flood"......sighs....

   
Weevil



Posts: 6
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,23:40   

>>Again anyone who believes helium is tranformed to the human brain by some form of magic has gall to attack alternate explanations.

That's funny, I thought that was YOUR claim - God went *poof* and made the human brain all at once - sounds a LOT more like magic to me than the simple rules of evolution. Once again you're guilty of putting up a straw man - The Theory of Evolution deals with living things ONLY, not the creation of life or certainly not the creation of the universe.  You've been told that often enough, you are deliberately continuing to try and confuse the issue.

>>Remember your entire theory rests on the efficacy of just that proposition.

Funny again, I thought the theory rested on literally millions of bits of data, gleaned from many different sources and disciplines, from the fossil record to studies and experiments in astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, gene sequencing, taxonomy.. I could go on all night!  I defy you to post a link by any current evolutionist that claims that 'magically transforming helium into the human brain' is a part of Evolutionary Theory.

I've always considered myself pretty open-minded. A strong christian, I've even spent a couple of years as a minister. I've been spending the past couple of weeks reading hundreds of pages on both sides of the debate, perfectly willing to read the evidence that each side presents, and more importantly, to follow up the references and quotes cited.

Having read articles by Behe, Dembski, yours, and several of the other pro-creation or ID pages, then compared them to what the pro-evolutionists say about your 'arguments', I can only assume that pro-ID  'Christians' are ALL liars and charlatans.

YOU have continually misrepresented the amazingly patient posters.  YOU have been caught in outright lies and admitted fabrications of data (like that 2% figure earlier), YOU have refused to supply any of the evidence asked of you at any time, while the evolution proponents have provided just about anything you asked for - if you were able to ask for it coherently, which hasn't happened often. YOU have refused to answer simple questions when you were repeatedly pressed for a straight answer.

Are you an example of a 'Christian' who believes that the bible is correct in all things?  You've brought up straw men, moved the goalposts, taken quotes out of context, called the other posters some amazingly rude and uncalled-for names, refused to answer simple and direct questions, refused to provide sources that you said you had, changed the subject, confused the issue, and been caught flat out -lying- and -making up- statistics!

Not once have you presented any sort of competing theory that explains even 1% of what so many peer-reviewed studies from many disciplines have synthesized together into 'The Theory of Evolution'.  Not once have you presented anything that actually throws even a shadow of a doubt over evolution as a well-researched and 'proven' theory.

With you as an example of a christian and a creationist, I can certainly see why no one wants you teaching your 'theory' to any children they have any say over!  

After your sterling example on this thread, I wouldn't trust you with my money, my children, my wife, or certainly my immortal soul.  You're not just a liar, you're an OBVIOUS liar, a bad one, and apparently a pathological one.

The only thing you've 'proven' that I can see in this thread is that you're guilty of every single fault you accuse the pro-evolution folks of - and more!

I'd be ashamed to be called a Christian, with you as an example of the values they actually *live*, as opposed to just claiming.  For shame!  Such hypocrisy!  I'd almost assume that you were an athiest working on the side of satan, you give such a bad example of true christian values.  I want to go wash my hands after just posting on the same bulletin board, much less actually *touching* you.

That's all I have to say - Feel free to go back to your unsubstantiated ranting and transference of your own faults onto others.

It's patently obvious just which side has successfully defended itself and shown Intellectual Honesty in this thread.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,06:07   

Weevil,

Which Church of Satanic Worship did you pastor?

As for your obvious multiple psychoses I can only recommend years of intense therapy as you obviously don't have any mental stability jumping from some form of ministry into atheism.

The world of evolution when confronted with abysimal failure in explaining anything experimentally or by evidence has retreated from origins, abiogenesis and pre-biotic evolution for survival.

The most prominent scientist I am aware of is Chaisson at Tufts, an unquestioned scientific giant in the field with a library of publications and books on the subject.
If you think he fails to believes that a cogent and uncompromised holding to big bang to right now as the specturm of evolution then you sir are a moron.

If you can't follow the logic from the big bang to the human brain by reading just that source among hundreds then you are too mentally deficient to be permitted out in public.

You sir are a whore and a shill for the evolutionist sewer people  so I leave it to God to judge between those who hate the Scripture, His revelation and pervert the truth to fit their humanistic self centered egocentrism and people who defend it.

In fact it would be interesting to know who wrote your anathema to truth as what bothers this tribe the most is that they can't logically and persuasively counter my arguments .. so they just attack me and my belief system while committing every logical fallacy known to man.

You need not be ashamed of my faith et al just go back to Pastor Anton and kill a few goats and drink their blood, have sex with some dogs and you'll feel you usual fine self.

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,06:56   

Wow!
Evo you are the king of hateful rhetoric, truly stunning.
God must be so proud of that which he has wrought in creating you, eh?
You didn't insult his mother yet, maybe in a future post?
Whore and a shill though, good ones!
Sex with dogs! Awesome!

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,07:44   

Do not cast pearls before swine lest they turn and rend your flesh.

After 25 years of insults from the evolutionary community against me and anyone else who dares to disagree with sacred evolutionry theory I simply expect pagqans to act like pagans and I have no respect of any kind for them. They have spent their lives attempting to destroy peoples faith in everything religious and Christian by undermining the efficacy of the Scriptures.

Their position is so ludicrous and without foundation that it takes 10,000 people a day monitoring their apostates and redefining terms and reinterptreting the record and monitoring the opposition  just to keep this tub afloat.

See: http://www.discovery.org/scripts....%20News

  
Weevil



Posts: 6
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,15:58   

[Warning, this one's a bit long!]

My my Evopeach, such vituperation!  Whatever happened to 'Turn the other cheek' and 'Blessed are the peacemakers'?  Or does all that go by the wayside if you aren't getting what you want? 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' seems to have been dropped long, long ago.

Multiple psychoses - any actual evidence to back that up besides 'he called me out on my lies'?  Nah, why should you start now?

The world of evolution when confronted with abysimal failure in explaining anything experimentally or by evidence has retreated from origins, abiogenesis and pre-biotic  evolution.

One more time - Abiogenesis or anything that happened before life began is NOT a part of the Theory of Evolution.  it was never a part of the theory. Evolution deals with life and how populations and species change over time.  If you can find statements to show otherwise, PLEASE post links to them.  Natural Selection is part of the Theory of Evolution.  Common Descent is part of the Theory of Evolution.  Mendaelian genetics is part of the Theory of Evolution.  Abiogenesis and the Big Bang aren't!  If you can show evidence to the contrary, please do so.  If you think just saying it over and over again is going to make it true, you're only showing your own ignorance.  To continue to make incorrect claims about what the theory is is what is known as a Straw Man Argument.


If you think he (Chaisson at Tufts) fails to believes that a cogent and uncompromised holding to big bang to right now as the specturm of evolution then you sir are a moron

If you're trying to say that one man's beliefs set the standard for the ToE, you show that once again you don't understand what a scientific theory is.  Might I suggest that you slow down and recheck your work, to be sure that your sentances at least make some sort of grammatical sense?  That last sentance was full of enough errors as to make it very difficult to read by anyone who doesn't read fluent gibberish.  (Go ahead, attack me for correcting your grammar - right after you clearly explain why that sentance ISN'T a grammatical nightmare.)

Also, Eric Chaisson is an astrophysicist, NOT a biologist.  It's no wonder his work deals with speculation about the beginnings of the universe!  After looking at a list of all of his published papers, it becomes obvious that his work has almost nothing to do with biological evolution, and everything to do with the beginnings and growth of the universe.  You are being entirely disingenious to try and say his work has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.  Once again you are being dishonest in your arguments.  Should I be suprised?  'The most prominent scientist you know' doesn't appear to be a biologist, nor does he appear to work in the field of evolution. 'An unquestioned giant in the field', forsooth!  In the field of astrophysics!  Did you not think I'd catch that?

By the way, here's a quote from him on the first page of his 'Cosmic Evolution' page: Biologists no longer have any reasonable doubt that biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.  What exactly are you trying to show me here?  Apparently, he agrees with the pro-evolution side of the argument.

Here are some links to the real definition of 'evolution' as it related to life and biology - do please show me where it includes the Big Bang and Abiogenesis.

>>Dictionary.com: n : (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.

>>Mirriam-Webster Online: n a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

>>Britannica Online: theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.

>>Cambridge Online: evolution : noun :
the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:


>>American Heritage Dictionary: NOUN: 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development. 2a. The process of developing. b. Gradual development. 3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Do I need to offer more?  Notice that all of these definitions from the major dictionaries are about change in populations of living organisms.  None of them deal with how life began, nor do any of them deal with the beginnings of the universe.  Those topics aren't part of the theory any more than electrical current or the behavior of sound in water is part of Gravitational Theory.

The only thing the Theory of Evolution has to say about the beginning of life is that all creatures on earth today and in the fossil record appear to be descended from a common ancestor, far enough back in history that we have no concrete evidence of the lifeform itself, and must make our extrapolations from the genetic and fossil records.

Certainly science speculates about the origin of life and the universe, but (especially in the case of abiogenesis) those are hypotheses at best, and seperate from the established ToE.  'Cosmic Evolution' is NOT the Theory of Evolution.  DO try to keep up, won't you?  The Theory of Evolution is a very specific theory here, constantly claiming that it involves things that it doesn't makes you look ... Uninformed at best.

You sir are a whore and a shill for the evolutionist sewer people  so I leave it to God to judge between those who hate the Scripture, His revelation and pervert the truth to fit their humanistic self centered egocentrism and people who defend it.

And your evidence that I'm a whore or a shill?  Let me guess, you made it up AGAIN?  My evidence that you lie is obvious, you were caught making up statistics in this very thread, and here you are again making accusations that you cannot know the truth of or provide any real evidence for.

You have an astonishing (and astonishingly crude) amount to say for someone who's leaving it up to God to do the judging.  It looks very much to me like you've done a good deal of judging on your own - but your dearth of honesty has already been well-demonstrated.  

As seems always to be the case in this argument, one side is willing to explain exactly where and how they got their information, and how it relates to the subject at hand.  The other side is much too busy making up accusations out of whole cloth, making claims without evidence, and trying to change the subject.   I note you are doing your best to attack me rather than my argument - that your own actions have shown you to be dishonest.  So many of your accusations in your last post are so obviously unsubstantiated, I don't have to present any more arguments. Your own words speak quite plainly for themselves.

I have 'logically and persuasively' shown that you are a liar, that many of your arguments about evolution aren't even a part of evolutionary theory, and that your most recent source (once again) is neither what you claim he is, nor is he in agreement with you.  And I did it without calling you any names or accusing you of any activities that you haven't clearly displayed right here first.  But you're the 'true christian', right?  riiiight.

Can you deal with the subject of the thread, or will you once again attack me over things you know nothing about instead?  I know where I'd put MY money, if I were a gambling man.

Weevil
-The lesser of TWO weevils!

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,04:13   

You accuse me of lying without a scintilla of factual presentation just assertions.. laughable.

Your ignornace of Chaisson and Sagan and even Darwin ( remember the warm little pond was his statement on abiogenesis in his book) is pathetic. See to dismiss that makes you a big,big liar and your heros words are undeniable, period.

Chaisson is Director of the Wright Institute a scientific consortium with international reach involving colleagues in every scientific disclipline imaginable and perhaps the foremost guiding agency directing public science education in the country.

Chaissons encyclopedic grasp of the life sciences,physics, math, biology in addition to astophysics is well known and his many national and international awards are testamony to that.

You're just the typical cannibal eating your own when they fail to tow the mark of revisionism.. typical.

Of course your claim of one man's views are laughable since Crick, Grassee, Shapiro, Hubble and many others have spent years trying to make a continuous spectrum of logic from origin of life to right now.. all without success.

Thank God there are people in varied fields of science which have wide ranging knowlwdge and intellects capable of making significant contributions to same rather than the myopic biologists who bluster without foundation.

Biology is one of the narrowest of all fields of study except for the psuedo science of paleontology which of course is so important to the evolution myths.

Shame on you for being such an inverterate liar.. probably congenially.

Heluim to Cerebral Cortex by a random walk ... I'd hate to have that intellectual disconnect as the basis of my world view... pitiful.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,08:06   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 28 2005,09:13)
Biology is one of the narrowest of all fields of study

Now that is an interesting concept!!

And one that displays a truly staggering lack of understanding of understanding of education, the world, and the English language.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Henry J



Posts: 4983
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,08:42   

Biology narrow? Let's see, biologists have millions of species to deal with. Chemists have 116 elements (last I heard) and their compounds. Particle physicists have quarks and leptons and their combinations. Which one is "narrow"? :)

Henry

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,11:55   

Please, I just reviewed the standard curriculum at a major 4-yr university in Micro Biology:

Highest Math required  Calulus I for Business and Social Humanities

Physics 4 hours of Intro to physics

Chemistry General and Organic  7 hrs

Micro biology and BbIology and Zoology  35 hrs

History Poly Science, English History of Science etc 60 hrs


Arts and Science and Engineering Degrees require in my case math past Diff Eq through Complex Var and Vector Analysis, 30 hrs of physics, Gen Chem and PhyChem, Thermo, Heat Trfr, Fluid Mech, Electrical Science, Electronics, Material Science on and on in additio to the soft stuff.

85 percent of Biology is one narrow focus on plants and animals from a hueristic non mathmatical view.

For a group who have egos that fill the solar system their technical training outside of dissecting frogs is quite elementary.

  
Weevil



Posts: 6
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,13:59   

You accuse me of lying without a scintilla of factual presentation just assertions.. laughable.

No, I accuse you for several reasons, easily documented from this very thread.

1>  your '2%' argument, of which the best evidence for that number was this reply:

Surely whether 5 or 7% among scientists and life scientists even believe in God as a metaphysical being,....not even the Judeo Christian God of the bible one could reason that no more than a fraction of that percentage would associate God's creative and guiding activity with their evolutionary views thus 2% is more than generous.

You MADE UP that 2% number. 'Surely 2% is more than generous' is your opinion, *NOT* supported by any evidence you've ever been able to produce.  Your response as quoted is clear admittance that you made up the number yourself!

2> You called me a whore, a shill, and asserted that I had multiple psychoses, all without any evidence whatsoever.  Unless you can present any real evidence, you are revealed as a liar, sir.  Just as with the last reply, I have presented clear evidence that you are lying.  Do you even understand the difference between truth and a lie?  Do you realise that 'Intellectual Honesty' includes not making up statistics on the fly?

Your ignornace of Chaisson and Sagan and even Darwin ( remember the warm little pond was his statement on abiogenesis in his book) is pathetic.

Darwin's musings are NOT part of the scientific Theory of Evolution.  Continually attempting to conflate anything the man ever said with a specific published and documented theory is dishonest.  How many times have I reminded you that I am discussing specifically the Theory of Evolution itself?  Trying to say that Darwin's musing are part of the specific Theory is a lie.  

You go on to say lots of things about Chaisson - NONE of which have anything to do with biologic evolution. - Where he does mention it, he appears to feel that it is an unarguable, well-researched fact.  I see you've ignored that once again.  You can blow hot air all you like, but every time you're asked to respond to a specific statement, you fail.  When you're told that your quote isn't part of the theory you're trying to denigrate, you change the subject to Chaisson.  

When I show that, not only does Chaisson agree with the evolutionists and not you, but he's an astrophysicist and not a biologist, and that his 'cosmic evolution' doesn't have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution, you just repeat yourself and gab on about how wonderful he is - without answering the specific points I raised in contention.

85 percent of Biology is one narrow focus on plants and animals from a hueristic non mathmatical view.
Well DUH! My god!  You're kidding?!  Biology is focused on plants and animals?!  Here I thought all along that the main focus of biology was Penne, Spaghetti, and Linguini.  My mistake.  You've positively skewered me with your brilliant logic, sir!

As I guessed, you have failed to respond to any of the specifics of my last post. 'I'm rubber, you're glue!' is about as childish as it gets, but I see you're not afraid to go there.

Once again, I've presented very specific evidence of your dishonesty, and you have failed to address any of it.  Until you can manage that, I see no need to waste my time any further.  Your words stand as a testament to your dishonesty for all to see.  Thank you for a lovely discussion, and for being true to the standard of 'christian' creationists everywhere.

Weevil
-The lesser of TWO weevils

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,04:39   

Actually the 2% is quite a good figure since it was about 500% closer as shown by the survey I presented from Science magazine than the some 37% your team presented. And if you had any mathmatical training beyond grammer school you would know that the survey had a statistical uncertainty of +- 3% which coincidentally includes my number and theirs.

Your stupidity is illustrative of biologists who think they know it all when they are neophytes outside their limited area of expertise.

If Darwins own words are not part of his theory, written as an absolute precursor to his theory, then why have billions been spend in the last 100 years on the agiogenesis/origin of life investigation by some of the most prominent biologists, all of whom were/are evolutionists.

AS for Chaisson your denigration of his work and saying he is a dedicated evolutionist but not a real one because he is not a biologist is laughable... you are a clown you know. Of course he is an evolutionist from A to Z and thats the point moron. He knows it is a logical disconnect and an intellectually untenable position to attempt to disassociate the origin of life from non-life from the argument.

You people are temporarily trying to revise history until you think you have resolved the origin of life problem and then you will jump in with both feet yelling the final problem has been solved.. God is Dead.

If evolution works only on life then why was Kenyon's book on Chemical Predestination the classic text used in Biology curriculum for a decade? Of course Kenyon himself has long given up on the posssibiity of abiogenesis as a possibility.

Your position:

I have no idea how life was started and it doesn't matter because it had to be naturalistic ... I just assume it happened without a scintilla of evidence to support it and a great deal against it. (And you call that science)

I have no basis for my theory of evolution as to the enabling mechanism of replication, the genetic code, the complex molecules necessary for the simplest imaginable life form on which my theory and its mechanism of random mutation and natural selection could act. I just don't think about that .. I just assume somehow it happened.

My kind of science mostly rests on unproved assumptions without experiemental evidence, in the face of phantasmagorically negative mathmatical probability because once that is assumed I can then extrapolate the assumption to explain the entire natual world and its operations.

I have no problem with a scientific world view whose entire foundation is unproved, undemonstrated, mathmatically impossible and rails against established scientific laws. In fact I embrace it against all odds and vehemently oppose any explanation other than mine which is no explanation at all but just an assumption.

I would rather have any answer than one which was not completely naturalistic.

Now go away wirehead and get at least an elementary understanding of math, science and logic  before you come back for another round of me kicking your butt and publically exposing you as an incompetent moron.

I feel badly at times that I have had to shove your arguments up your nose and so totally disgrace you that you have to whimper and sob and beg for support from your backbenchers.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,05:42   

Hmmmm

Annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion. Repeatedly being annoying will be considered excessively annoying.
:Excessively annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion to such a degree that immediate termination of access is warranted or demanded.

:D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,06:04   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,09:39)
Your position:

I have no idea how life was started and it doesn't matter because it had to be naturalistic ... I just assume it happened without a scintilla of evidence to support it and a great deal against it. (And you call that science)

I have no basis for my theory of evolution as to the enabling mechanism of replication, the genetic code, the complex molecules necessary for the simplest imaginable life form on which my theory and its mechanism of random mutation and natural selection could act. I just don't think about that .. I just assume somehow it happened.

My kind of science mostly rests on unproved assumptions without experiemental evidence, in the face of phantasmagorically negative mathmatical probability because once that is assumed I can then extrapolate the assumption to explain the entire natual world and its operations.

I have no problem with a scientific world view whose entire foundation is unproved, undemonstrated, mathmatically impossible and rails against established scientific laws. In fact I embrace it against all odds and vehemently oppose any explanation other than mine which is no explanation at all but just an assumption.

I would rather have any answer than one which was not completely naturalistic.

I've been reading this thread for a few days, and just had a couple of points to make to evopeach.

1. You seem to have described ID rather than biological evolution, in being an unproven assumption with no evidence to support it.

2. If you are in fact describing biological evolution, and in light of your previous comments, then I can only assume that you are a shamefully ignorant lying fool of the first degree.

--------------
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: Sep. 29 2005,06:14   

I too am bored but only because it is boring to present a silver bullet agrument that is countered by:

We don't have to deal with that. We just DEFINE it as unimportant and unnecessary and not pertinent.

We don't have to have a sound logical basis for our bedrock assumptions, demonstrate efficacy, scientifi experimental results that support our assumptions or question the compatibility of our assumtions with mathmatical reality and known physical laws.

When an entire body of true believers is in a state of dysfunction and denial its simply impossible to carry on an intellectual discussion.

In your case there must be a lot helium in your head than grey matter... is that what you mean by differential rates of evolution.

Time to move on and continue my search for someone in some evo forum who's up to the task of a challenge ... because they're sure not in this preschool forum.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,08:20   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,11:14)
When an entire body of true believers is in a state of dysfunction and denial its simply impossible to carry on an intellectual discussion.

Perfect description of the proponents of ID and creationism!

But eventually they will be cured, as America slowly matures and joins the rest of the world.  This particular minor cult will then go the way of the flat earthers.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,09:51   

I suggest history records that spontaneous generation, phlogiston and other theories equally as absurd as evolution have come and gone, not without their Priestleys, but gone just the same, while biblical faith has been sustained and covered the globe for 2,000 years without the slightest sign of being diminished.

In due course the the American people will insist on a broader view of the possible explanations of life and the approach to development of new scientific advances that is most efficient and is forward looking rather than one which expends half its effort examing the past and attemping to destroy the "cult" of Christianity and religious faith in general.

I know the evolutionary tribe of wireheads and squirrels think they have a handle on all knowledge, being so superior to everyone else but history records a noted lack of success from such .. a little while and they are silenced.

You keep right on believing that helium gas became a human brain by "a random walk through animal space" - R. Dawkins............very sound thinking.

As for teh rest of the world if you read widely you would know that Darwinian evolution is even less believed by scientists outside the USA than inside... but that would be over your head.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,10:39   

Evopeach:  I really don't see how anything you do/say is in any way inspired by the teachings of Jesus.  I am a lifelong Evangelical Lutheran, and you sir give rational Christians a bad name.  I don't see what your incoherent parroting of various IDC arguments against YOUR OWN IMAGINARY strawman of the ToE does to further anyones cause.  Many more Christians have no problem with evolution than those that do.  The only person I know of that went to he ll (vulgarity filters), was Jesus.  Who else went to he ll that you know of?

   
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,11:34   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,14:51)
As for teh rest of the world if you read widely you would know that Darwinian evolution is even less believed by scientists outside the USA than inside... but that would be over your head.

You really have no clue at all, do you?

I live in the UK, and I can categorically assure you that just about every last person in the country has a good long laugh at your fundies when we hear about them trying to push America back to the 5th century AD.

Now, would you like me to pass you another straw to cling on to?

--------------
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: Sep. 30 2005,05:17   

Saddle let me help you. its true I lose my temper with posters who are committed to evolution and not to the faith.

Until age 25 I was just complacent and ignorant of the depth, scholarship, untimate truths and absolute importance of the scriptures for revelation, guidance and practical living in addition to the salvation and evangelical aspects.

Then I began attending a series of studies on Proverbs by Dr. Bruce Waltke Phd in Hebrew and Senitic Studies Harvard Divinity School. After that I spend many hours under similar distinguished teachers and a lot of my personal time.

I made a conscious informed choice to take scripture literally except of course where it clearly and explicitly allegorical, metaphorical etc. and it is my expereince that this is made clear by the scripture itself.

I do not know except the "rich man" anyone who is in #### for sure thats not my decision or I don't have a need to know.

I am curious how one deals with the words of Jesus and continues to be able to have faith and confidence  in His proclamations and His message of atonement and salvation or why one would be an evangelical if He was sometimes truthful and sometimes not.

"As is was in the days of Noah they were marrying and giving in marriage and the flood came and took them all away".

"So as sin entered into the world by one man and by death by sin...."

He talks in many passeages about the reality of eternal punishment as the penalty for rejection of Him and Hiis salvation.

If I had a friend who sometimes told the truth , sometimes lied and misrepresented, was often untruthful I would consider it an irrational position for me to try to guess what to believe and what not to believe and still put my full confidence on matters of life and death in their pronouncements.

I believe against the words of men who are almost always changing, wavering, unsubstantial and motivted by various human fraility and failure no matter how so called smart they are that unless they are consistent with the scriptural revealed truth they will be proven incorrect.

Now will come the spewing of invective but I expect it; its alway from people who have never made a serious and scholarly examination with the input from qualified teachers of the scriptures.

I would appreciate knowing how you reconcile clear and unambiguous teaching with your committment to evolution which is always in opposition to the Word and among its majority true believers belittles and held in derision.

What persentage of the evolutionary community believes in the God of the Bible, the Apostle's Creed, the essential tenets of Biblical faith?

I know why I believe as I do and its not some leap of irrational faith.. its the result of 25 years of scholarly study and instruction by Phd level teachers from prominent universities and my own reading. In the context of these posts I will put my academic training in the broad spectrum of things scientific, mathmatical and technical up against any of these know it all biologists, zoololgists and paleontologists ... I've examined their curricula and its both narrow and lacking in many many of the core classes I have taken.

"The survival of the fittest" isn't exactly a precise mathmatical, quantitative, measurable theoretical statement in the category of E=MC**2 now is it.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,05:54   

Evopeach,
Is the 6 day creation story literal or allegorical?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,07:40   

First the post was dierected to Saddle and I await her answer.

There is of course some internal debate as to the six day creation and its a friendly one without rancor and its sometime considered a non-essential among the faithful.

For me to be consistant I except it as literal within my understanding of the meaning of the original language definitions as best understood by respected scholars.

I have no problem with a God who has the capibility to perform such creative acts through processes which have no counterpart in our experience or understanding.. that's one characteristic of God which He actually claims for Himself as part of His character. He has no obligation to share the how or why ... it may well be beyond our ability to even comprehend such abilities with our present limitations.

The issue is that since no one was around to observe His work of creation we are left with His words of description
so you either believe Him or not... that's freedom of choice.

All the evidences against my position assumes a uniformitarian approach to every law of nature and a certain knowledge of initial conditions and/or boundary values mathmatically speaking and we know such is not the case.

People look at the same data and get entirely different views and interpretations because they come to them with a established world view and bias... scientists are not exempt. Thats why there are perfectly respectable scientific types on both sides of the debate whether you people admit it or not.

In fact the real indicator of your weakness is the dogmatic, unrelenting, egocentric, uncompromising attachment to your theory in the face of the most incredulous inconsistencies and conflicting evidences.

Couple that with your vicious personal attacks not just on you opponents but on your own camp members who fail in the slightest to toe the mark; the documented lies and misrepresentations of findings and experimental results, the secretetive and selective presentations of known severe inconsistencies and conflictive findings and the blatant hostility to all things religious, especially Christianity by your primary writers and spokes people and you have all the evidences of "A Theory in Crises".


A little faith is necessary in all world views and that is very much the case with evolution. That is why abiogenesis is not a problem because you trust it will be shown and demonstrated true, resolved, in the future and all the other myriad problems in the theory will as well. That I suggest is a form of religious faith in a naturalistic process that cannot even be adequately illustrated or defined ... essentially unknown.

You may laugh about the helium to human brain argument but it is a logical imperative of your belief system there is no other path of reasoning available to you in the natural view and you are completely aware of that. It is the view of the majority of evolutionists and they choose to hide it because it exposes the tenuousn nature of their position. That alone should make the rationally thinking person question the entireity of the theory, it has no logical underpinnings, it rests on nothing but "thin air".

The very organism you depend on as the first life form had to come from non-life no other choices are acceptable to you... and its chemical precursors were formed from yet simpler arrangements and so back to the majority element after the particle epoch and that was altogether helium gas. So whether you admit it with a degree of "Intellectual Honesty" or stay in denial, that's your inherent position.

What a basis for a belief system... pitiful.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,08:22   

I ask a simple question and I get a rant.  Oh well.

So, if the universe was created in 6 literal days (24 hour periods) then you would say that the Earth is how old?  Astronomy, cosmology, physics, and other sciences say that the Earth is 4.8 billion years old or so.  Do you reject those sciences?  If not, why only evolution?  It is logically inconsistent to reject evolution based on its conflict with scripture (as perceived by you) but to not reject those other sciences for the same offense.  So, which is it?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,09:10   

You ask the question and I don't do simplistic soundbites like evos do. I understand logic, critical thinking and rhetoric... you deal with sophistry.

I don't know how old the earth is because as far as I can tell the scriptures are silent on that.. there are several equally efficacious views.

But I would have no problem with the less than 100,000 years argument because the creation was clearly performed so as to be fully functional in an operating state that permitted a high degree of stability, maturity  and thus would easily have been diagnosed as having age consistent with the normal growth to maturity. Adam and Eve weren't babies but rather young adults.

The sun would have the characteristics of temperature, size, field strengths etc. which just balance the needs of the creation on earth. Thus our methods of uniformitarian calculations would estimate greatly exaggerated ages for all sorts of processes.

This has always made perfect sense to me as I understand how sensitive such math is to uniformity and initial conditions as  to answers resulting from their solution.

Do know I'm right? Nope! But I do know the logic is consistent with the Biblical presentation as some interpret it and it is consistent with mathmatics depending on the assumptions.

I choose to take this approach because I choose to agree with the biblical presentation as a matter of faith... not blind faith... reasoned faith.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,09:22   

peach:  Of your many verbose responses it is nice to see one that is in any way civil.

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

   
  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]