Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/cache.php on line 384

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 560

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 684

Strict Standards: Non-static method sem_admin_menu::init() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-content/plugins/sem-admin-menu/sem-admin-menu.php on line 358

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method sem_admin_menu::ob_add_menu() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 164

Warning: ob_start(): non-static method sem_admin_menu::ob_add_menu_callback() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-content/plugins/sem-admin-menu/sem-admin-menu.php on line 86

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method sem_admin_menu::kill_gzip() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » A Word of Thanks
Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::add_css() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 164

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::add_js() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 164
You are viewing the Archives for 2007.......If you want the current page, CLICK HERE.......

…to LC & IB Sig94 for the gift of Jonathan Sarfati’s Refuting Evolution 2, a most welcome addition to the Imperial Library.

254 Responses to “A Word of Thanks”
  1. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Uh oh… Here we go again… :doh_tb: :wallbash_tb:

  2. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’m pre-emptively recusing myself from this thread. :surrender_tb:

  3. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Love that book. Highly reccommemded to everyone. (and if you are too cheap to buy it you can read it online at AIG’s website)

  4. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    (and the first one too)

  5. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’m pre-emptively recusing myself from this thread. :surrender_tb:

    :lol_wp:

    Another three-hundred comment thread coming up :wink_ee:

    Just remember folks: Keep it dirty, only give as well as you take and, at the end, everybody has to drink together.

  6. LC Mrs. M-ITT™ Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT™

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BWaahaha! You should read some of the reviews on that book. Most are from those who’s heads are in the correct verticle position, but there are a few that are shoved rather deeply into anal orifices.

    Earth to Sarfati: Evolution is still a scientific fact. Get over it.

    Yeah sure…like Gorebal Worming?? :doh_tb:

  7. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I haven’t been in on this subject here before. Can I expect a wild ride?

  8. LC Mrs. M-ITT™ Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT™

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Can I expect a wild ride?

    Please be sure your tray table is folded and secured, your seats are in the upright and locked position, fasten your seatbelts, and hang on to your ass! :smoke_tb:

  9. Unregistered Comment by seagoon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The only thing I’m willing to weigh in on with this one is that the debate certainly does hinge on a matter of faith- which side you fall on depends upon where you place that faith.

    Until we can set the wayback machine for the beginning of all things, we’ll never truly know what happened in the beginning.

    It’s the why you place your faith there that will make things contentious.

    Now, I’ll just sit back and watch the fun!

  10. Unregistered Comment by DukeFenton

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT

    Earth to Sarfati: Evolution is still a scientific fact. Get over it.

    Yeah sure…like Gorebal Worming??

    I’m only going to say this once and then backing out. I will note, that those who gleefully cite (and rightly so) the ‘real science’ that refutes AGW; then claim (usually without any qualifications) that the *EXACT SAME SCIENCE* cannot possibly support the theory of evolution - well, there’s a word for that I won’t use here because I kinda like you guys.

    But don’t think I’ll forget it, either. :ponder_tb:

  11. Unregistered Comment by DukeFenton

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Incidentally - the blockquote on the above looked correct before it was posted. I checked, really!

    Farkin’ confuters… :furious_tb:

    [Fixed-and you’re welcome-JB]

  12. George guy Comment by George guy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    One of the major problems with the issue, as I have said at least a couple times, is the ACLU bungling up the whole debate.

    Getting an issue kicked out of public schools on the premise that it violates the prohibition of government sponsored religion has just about nothing to do with the issue as it concerns matters of fact, and the purging of creationists from academia in the years since has more to do with the ACLU’s interference than by any particular kind of scientific defeat.

  13. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Aww come on now if you guys won’t get involved our newbie here won’t get either an argument or an education… come on now, surely you guys have one more round of arguing it out in ya’ll?

    Oh and btw, Duke, of course the science debunking AGW can’t support evolution. We’re talking about climatology vs. i-don’t-know-what-to-call-it-but-it-sure-ain’t-climatology here. Those are totally separate fields after all! Now I don’t personally think the second field proves evolution any more than the first… but you said you don’t want to play so I’ll leave it at that.

    RH

  14. George guy Comment by George guy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    It will summon up the old ‘argument from design’, perhaps disguising it with pseudo-scientific fol-de-rol such as “irreducible complexity”, or perhaps “information increase”. It might bring in the idea that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, while carefully ignoring that the earth is not a closed system.

    It takes more than the input of energy to cause information systems to organize themselves.

    It might also try and link evolution to the Hollocaust while carefully ignoring that Hitler’s anti-semitism was deeply Christian in nature or the complicity of various high-ranking Christians in it (it wasn’t just the Muslims).

    Hitler himself wasn’t a devout Christian. He was keenly interested in northern European paganism. But that’s neither here nor there, as he mainly used whatever arguments he thought would persuade his audience the most.

    It will also not pose _as single alternative hypothesis that can be tested independently_. Nor will it come up with any real proof against evolution: say, for example, a modern species found in the Cambrian, or something whose genetic makeup does not fit into the Universal Phylogenetic Tree of life.

    At this point I begin to suspect that you do not do much actual reading. There are plenty of testable points of evidence that either directly or circumstantially raise problems with evolution or the overall associated worldview.

    (Geologic) Helium, from alpha-decay of radioactive elements, is retained in zircon crystals that indicate the earth is only several thousand years old, knowing diffusion rates.
    (Biologic) DNA. The entire biological information system: the code, and the molecular machinery required to translate the code into actual processes has, despite numerous tests attempting to reproduce the imagined conditions of the primordial soup, failed to be reproduced. Intelligent human work in nanotechnology is closer to creating life than attempts to rationally explain abiogenesis in terms other than “could be”, “possibly”, and “might have been”.

    If the Universal Phylogenetic Tree is really universal, then people will find a place to fit a new species no matter what it is. I’m pretty sure this has happened several times already.

    And it may just turn out that, surprise surprise, the author is not acting on disinterested scientific motives, carefully weighing the data and seeing what was the best explanation, but because of pre-existing faith based positions.

    And the evolutionist scientists are somehow, after having been taught from a young and impressionable age to repeat a certain set of answers as correct, less influenced by pre-existing positions.

    From a certain perspective science is about competing for the best explanation of things. And where competition is good monopolies are bad. The ACLU was motivated by politics, not science when it prematurely handed evolutionists an academic monopoly in the public system, and as a result certain people imagine that the issue has been ’settled’ when in fact it has not.

    Yep, no bias there. Yes, this is mentioned on Amazon, but I checked it out myself.

    Of course, Richard bloody “Teaching kids creationism is child abuse and we should have child protection services come and take them away” Dawkins is unbiased.

    And, in a much more pressing sense, it would be much more helpfull in our current predicament vis a viz Islam if alot of those who are speaking out against its threat didn’t also have a record of thinking that gay marriage was a threat to society and humanity (or RPGs or whatever; there’s an interesting CIA report, The Lanning Report on the hysteria about a ’satanic conspiracy’).

    Fanaticism gets people of every religion. That doesn’t mean every religion is morally equivalent. The difference is that the bad kind of fanaticism isn’t always the one supported by the core material (i.e. scripture and prophets).

    To concretize this for a few minutes, one of the perrenial arguments that keeps coming up whenever you tell people what the Koran _actually_ says is ‘but you can find that sort of stuff easily in the Bible too’. Yes, exactly. We can’t really get round the fact that Leviticus and Deuteronomy are among the few books actually worse than the Koran.

    The legal system in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was supported by a high priest who actually talked to God, who of course you don’t think exists, but entertaining the notion for a moment, consider that a justice system that requires the approval of God for a sentence would be pretty much immune to abuse as opposed to Islam in which everything is supposed to be written down without any further communication from Allah, since Mohammed was the final prophet.

    This error hits even sterling, first-rate minds such as Robert Spencer. Now, I have deep respect for the man. He’s a brave defender of freedom and an excellent scholar. But, to take an example, his case _is_ undercut by his Christianity. For example, in the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam he talks about our civilisation as ‘Judeo-Christian’. Sorry, that won’t wash. Our civilisation - with its emphasis on reason, science and enjoying life, finding meaning in _this world_ - is predominantly Graeco-Roman. It was only when Christianity was so humiliated and undercut by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment that it stopped being the life-hating horror that was, in many ways, as terrible as Islam.

    There were these things called the Protestant Reformation, as well as the Celtic Church. The Roman Catholic Church isn’t exactly representative of the whole Christian religion. But that’s a mistake lots of non-Christians make. And many of the Renaissance people weren’t all that unreligious.

    Obviously you think religion is a hindrance in the West’s opposition to Islamic imperialism. Consider for a moment that the real force in opposing Islamic supremacism would be, then. What is it that you are putting in its place?
    Perhaps, in fact, the solution would lie in a total philosophical system that addresses religion, justice, and politics to the same extent but opposes Islam wherever it goes wrong.

  15. TDCG23 Comment by TDCG23

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’d just like the answer to one question.

    If you don’t believe all the stuff in the universe was made, read created,then from where do you think it came?

    That’s not intended as a satirical question, I’d just like to get an idea from those who believe Evolution without Creation/ Intelligent Design.

  16. TDCG23 Comment by TDCG23

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    DOH!!!
    Forgot to add also about from where the stuff to make the big bang came.

  17. Unregistered Comment by CDR Will

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I think it is funny when someone makes a comment that irreducible complexity is somehow an invalid argument, but then if I hand that person a simple mousetrap and ask them to show me which part we can eliminate and have it still work, I get a blank stare.

    If we look at a model or illustration of a mammalian eyeball, I have yet to have someone show me how it would be useful if any one of the parts did not work correctly. Add to this the fact that sight is a meaningless concept until the signal gets from the eye to the visual center of the brain where it is then interpreted. Read “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe, Ph.D. (Microbiology)

    As for closed or open systems in regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics; whether a system is open or closed is meaningless. It is a non answer. To illustrate, let’s imagine I create an elaborate closed environment, into which I put all the basic but sterile chemicals one might find in many various living organisms. I know Louis Pasteur did something similar and simpler long ago, but bear with me.

    The environment has to be sealed so as not to allow the introduction of existing living organisms which would invalidate the experiment. However, I allow for the introduction of energy. The “open” part of the equation. Let’s say I introduce arcs of electricity for months. Then I expose the contraption to sunlight for months.

    Then I introduce controlled infrared radiation. Let’s say I try dozens of different types of energy. Nothing happens. Why?

    Because raw energy doesn’t overcome the other part of the 2nd Law of Therm. Namely that things tend to become less organized and more chaotic if left to themselves and even faster if agitated with no purpose.

    You can plug a computer into an outlet and it will just sit and use energy to run the cooling fan, but it will not increase its order or complexity by itself. You can increase the voltage, but the likelyhood is that once you exceed the capacity of the voltage regulators, you simply fry the circuits.

    Urey and Miller in the 1950s tried an experiment similar to the one outlined above. Very controlled and with lots of cogitation. They managed to create some simple amino acid like compounds. But here’s the rub. The environment had to be void of any free oxygen. Secondly, the compounds were a racemic mixture of both right and left handed molecules. Only “left-handed” molecules work in living organisms. Molecules exist in precise 3D orientations. They only play well in biology when they fit properly. Like a key in a lock.
    Read “The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution” Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith Ph.D. (3) (Biology, Microbiology, Pharmacology) Geneva, Chicago. Multiple awards.

    It is interesting that Mr. Khiyal brings up the Cambrian. It has been effectively silenced by the evolutionists, due to its glaring implications, but the Cambrian era used to be referred to as the Cambrian “explosion.” Why? Because in all the layers below the Cambrian no evidence of life exists. None, nothing, nada. Then all of a sudden, there are trilobytes, mollusks complex shelled creatures. No transitional forms. Where did they come from?

    I’ve done over twenty years of research on the evidence collected from both sides, and I used to be an ardent evolutionist. Evolutionists are sounding more and more like religious zealots whose only answer is to say: “But all scientists believe it!”
    Which isn’t true.

    Dr. Richard Damadian, the guy who invented the MRI, is a young-earth creationist, which is why you don’t hear much about him and why he wasn’t even considered for the Nobel Prize for medicine.

    Men like Dawkins, and Harris, and Gould, etc. are not beloved because their science is irrefutable. They are loved because they tell people what they want to believe. First and foremost that you are your own god and that you have no one else to answer to. That’s a very appealing drug.

    I’ve had enough conversations with evolution type instructors in academe. I once pointed out to a math instructor that the formula used to calculate radiometric dating demonstrates that it is useless due to the fact that if you don’t know the precise amounts that the sample started with, none of the constants or variables can make sense of the equation.

    Upon admitting this was true, I then made the statement that all the assumptions based on such dating were not to be trusted.

    To which she replied, “But, that can’t be true.”

    “But, there it is in the hard science of math.”

    “Well, if evolution isn’t true, what else is there?”

    And there you have it. Evolution isn’t about seeking the truth, no matter what. It’s about providing a rationalization to avoid that part of you that you’ve locked away in the deepest recesses of your psyche.

    The evolutionary model can’t explain granite. And more importantly, it sure can’t explain why, all over the world, you can find polonium radiohaloes in granite, all by themselves. This should be impossible in a universe where evolution is true. The longest half-life for one of the polonium isotopes is something like 5 minutes. How did those haloes get there? See Robert Gentry’s work. He was fired from Oak Ridge Labs for his heresy against evolution after his discovery.

  18. Unregistered Comment by jkaiseresquire

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I was rather shocked by the evolutionists reviews of the book on Amazon. These guys really seem incapable of examining the book on its merit and immediately want to attack it for its creationist stance. Some of the comments were way out there and totally off base.

    Reminds me how much trouble AIG had to go to jiust to get permission to build their PRIVATELY FUNDED creation museum.

  19. Unregistered Comment by jkaiseresquire

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Which by the way is located in Ohio :-) if you want to go check it out

    J. Kaiser
    http://totaltransformation.wordpress.com

  20. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    That’s where the design aspect comes in TDC. If someone digs up a Harley Davidson motorcycle in your backyard you’re not going to say, “Wow, look at that natural compilation of copper, steel, aluminum, plastic and rubber.”

    Of course not. There are obvious indications of manufacturing and design in the Harley that declare for all to see that it was fashioned together by an intelligent being(s).

    Yet a simple blade of grass is vastly more complicated then that Harley. But according to many, we are expected to think that everything that lives arose from … nothing. That life is an accident, theat the systems that support life are mishaps, incidentals that arose from …. what? They can’t even explain that.

    Evolution still does not, and can not, explain their own proposition that simple life forms generated (created?) new genetic information that developed more complicated life forms. And like global warming, more scientists are finally coming to the front and saying - “This just don’t work!”

    So evolutionists retreat to the one area they do know, politics and government, to protect their positions. Does this sound familar?

  21. Unregistered Comment by Special Ed

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    If the universe has existed for an infinite time, then entropy has already reduced all matter to its lowest energy state and everything is in stasis.

    But it isn’t.

    If the universe has existed for a finite time, then there has to have been a beginning. What caused it to come about?

    If there was a “primordial mass” that existed since an infinite time ago that suddenly underwent a “big bang” then there had to have been a sudden infusion of either mass or energy (but I repeat myself). Where did it come from?

    If you don’t believe in creationism, then you must accept that the universe has existed for infinity. Therefore you must also accept that we have not been reduced to stasis in defiance of physical law. You must then accept that everything you know about physics is flat wrong.

    Are you sure this is a good tack to take?

    I don’t think most people truly understand the concept of infinity. It’s not just a long time, it’s longer than any timeline required for anything. If it were possible to set up one cat who occasionally stepped on a keyboard every thousand years, an infinite amount of time would have allowed for the cat to type by accident every single thing ever written, in order, a trillion times. And said cat finished an infinite time ago.

  22. Mope, Imperial Knucklehead Comment by Mope, Imperial Knucklehead

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Beasty sez:

    I’m pre-emptively recusing myself from this thread.

    Offsets! Getcher offsets here!

    How could “intelligent design” make something as stoopid as a democrat? On the other hand, I have seen- with my own eyes- the power of prayer.

    I guess that makes me a moderate.

    Offsets! Getcher offsets, here!

  23. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I repeat: :wallbash_tb: :wallbash_tb: :wallbash_tb:

  24. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    What amuses me about the evolutionists is how unwilling they are to accept even a small challenge to their, “theory.” As pointed out in the comments, they always attack the challengers as, “religious zealots,” who set out from the perspective of there being a creator.

    What they fail to see is that they do exactly the opposite. They set out to explain life on earth WITHOUT acknowledging a creator, even though most of them admit they can’t explain how such complexity (of life) arose spontaneously. “Well, it has to have happened, because we’re here.”

  25. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    This is EXACTLY why I recuse myself from these threads…

    I’d caution all of the Creationists to choose their words carefully when attacking those who don’t see eye-to-eye with your BELIEFS.

    You never know who you’re painting with your broad brushes.

    That is all. :nono_tb:

  26. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Fanusi Khiyal says:

    BASICS ARTICLE 3: “The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.”

    GENERAL ARTICLE 6: “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

    Yep, no bias there. Yes, this is mentioned on Amazon, but I checked it out myself.

    I guess you are trying to argue that this shows no bias -

    ‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’ - Aldous Huxley

    or this -

    ‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

    ‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ -Michael Ruse

    or this -

    ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ - Richard Lewontin

    All deductions made about facts are going to arise from the biases of the one doing the deducing. Creationists are open about where their biases lay. Are evolutionists?

    Evolution as a theory is built upon such weak conjecture to try and explain facts that the only logical conclusion is it was designed for an alterior motive. It was built to provide man with a way to believe that he is his own, that there is no One he will have to answer to. Read the quote by Richard Lowentin again. That is not argueing fact, it is not argueing science. It is arguing solely against the existence of a Divine Authority. This philosophy has led our country to the bad places we find ourselves in now.

    When this country was founded, the rights guaranteed by our Constitution were known to be G_d-given, now we see many argue that we have the rights and only the rights given to us by our nine black robed masters in DC and no one stands up. Why? Because you can’t have G_d given rights without G_d and we have taught our children for generations that he doesn’t exist.

    Why is there debate about gay marriage, abortion, euthenasia,etc? Because we have disallowed G_d and his revealed Word, we are left with figuring out how to decide these issues. The way that we seemed to have settled on in the West is majority vote, but I want to remind you of the failings of majority rule.
    The Nazis were swept into power by majority vote and through the use of propaganda, convinced a majority of the German people to support both their expansionist war and their genocide against several supposedly inferior groups of people especially the Jews. Today in Iran, a majority agrees with the stoning of homosexuals, adulterous women, raped women, and so on. I belive the reason the left cannot stand against such barbarity is because they have nothing to stand upon. They have spent the last forty years getting rid of anything that could possibly restrict them from doing what they want. but in the process, they have gotten rid of any basis for standing against anyone else to restrict them in what they want.

    Well enough of my ranting for a while.

  27. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Must… not… type… :wallbash_tb:

  28. BrainFromArous Comment by BrainFromArous

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Evolutionists have no trouble with “challenges,” Janet, a good example being Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis, which directly challenged the older Darwinist scheme of gradual development. PE was not dismissed out of hand by biologists any more than ‘continental drift’ was by the geologists of Taylor’s day.

    As for ideologies and politics… oh COME ON. Are we supposed to believe that Darwin’s opponents (past and present) are motivated by nothing more than a good faith defense of open-mindedness and scientific integrity?

    The idea of natural evolution kicks scriptural literalism in the balls the way something like astronomy never could because it dethrones the very emergence of mankind from a theistic act to something no more cosmically remarkable than a new species of beetle.

    For true believers, that was the last frickin’ straw. They’d spent the previous few centuries running up to Chuck D. getting it from all sides from physicists, philosophers, historians, astronomers, chemists, you name it. (The conclusion of the Enlightnment can be summed up thusly: Men wrote all the ‘holy books’ and created all the religions.)

    ID is just re-branded creationism. Period. The end. Anyone doubting this need only read Judge Jones’ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision. Jones, a Bush appointee, Conservative and believing Christian, smacked the ID proponents so hard that their heads are still ringing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

    Read Jones’ entire 139-page decision and tell me this is “judicial activism.” His jurisprudence is meticulous and principled; the ID case is a house of cards at best, a stalking horse for the subversion of science at worst.

    Fellow, beloved Rotties… I’m an agnostic who finds belligerent atheism to be stupid and socially corrosive. I don’t think religious folks are dumb. “In God We Trust” doesn’t bug me in the least. The ACLU and Michael Newdow can kiss my evolved ass.

    But this ID thing is a wrong turn for “us.” This dog won’t hunt. Let it go. We have other, more pressing work - for example, while you read this, Jane Fonda still walks the Earth!

  29. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    We have other, more pressing work

    Like what?
    Based on what?
    If we are all just cosmic accidents, then there is no basis for truth. If our minds are just random collections of cells firing random electrical impulses, how can we say I am right and you are wrong?
    If that is the case maybe Jane Fonda is right. (damn, it hurt to even type that)

  30. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The idea of natural evolution kicks scriptural literalism in the balls the way something like astronomy never could because it dethrones the very emergence of mankind from a theistic act to something no more cosmically remarkable than a new species of beetle.

    How do you decide which beetle is right?

  31. jaybear Comment by jaybear

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    y’all have to forgive me for my naive opinions on this matter.

    I believe in a God that is all powerful and all capable. The Book of Genesis describes the Creation of the Universe and Man. In my opinion….and it is JUST my opinion, since I wasn’t there…who’s to say that God didn’t create dinosaurs and neanderthals and man version 1 and version 1.2 etc etc….isn’t the ‘Lord of all that is’ entitled to a little experimentation now and then?

    Now my belief in God is a simple one, I DO believe that we are all children of God, I DO believe that he created everything, and I’d like to think that he is capable of building the masters of this planet from scratch….and building us incrementally…giving us what knowledge and capabilities fit the current environment that we develop in. The books of the Bible were written in simple times, evolution was not known nor was manned flight or nuclear weapons. The transcribers of Genesis would have NO knowledge of the evolution of man….hence…they could not write about it….God surely knew about it, but maybe he believed that mankind wasn’t ready for that kind of knowledge…not yet. After all, too much knowledge is a dangerous thing, right?.

    But hey, those are just my countrified spiritual beliefs, keeping it simple on a daily basis

  32. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Damn, why is everybody being so civil? :wink_ee:

    No, seriously, that’s a Good Thing.

    Anyway, the problem I have with some (notice the “some”, it’s quite important. If the shoe don’t fit, don’t wear it) evolutionists is that they’re so bafflingly close-minded, dogmatic and downright fanatic in their dismissal of any explanation that might involve a deity/intelligence/G-d/Allah/Buddha…etc… (I’ll just say “deity” in the following to avoid having to type all that crap out every time).

    I don’t get it. To me, any idea is interesting until it has been conclusively been proven wrong/impossible, including evolution. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “I don’t want that to be true, so I’ll dismiss it out of hand” isn’t exactly what science or intellectual curiosity is, at least not to me.

    I have no problem, for instance, allowing for the possibility that there is no deity. Of course, since both hypotheses cannot, logically, be simultaneously true given their contradictory nature, I have to pick one as the most likely. The most likely according to how I interpret the available, observable evidence, of course.

    But that’s not the same as throwing the evolutionary hypothesis completely out the window, dismissing anything including it as impossible, not because I’ve conclusively proven it to be bunk, but because I’ve decided that it is most likely bunk.

    If evidence appeared, the observable, testable and repeatable kind, that made evolution the more likely of explanations, I’d have to revise my opinion and, at any rate, I most certainly have to allow for the possibility as long as it hasn’t been disproven.

    Not so with a lot of evolutionists. They’ve decided, in their infinite wisdom, that a deity cannot, must not exist, and anything that suggests that one might can therefore be dismissed as irrelevant, regardless of merit.

    Now that is the very definition of religious fanaticism and, what’s worse, it’s not very intellectual, nor is it likely to produce worthwhile results. That’s the kind of nonsense that round-earthers were up against back when flat-earthism was still in fashion. The flat-earthers had already decided that the Earth was flat, dammit, and anybody suggesting otherwise could and should be ignored, ostracized and, if possible, burned at the stake. Their arguments mattered not at all, since it had been decided, without conclusive proof, that they were out of their minds.

    I cannot prove that G-d exists and, therefore, I must allow for the possibility that He doesn’t, even though I’m convinced that He does.

    I only wish that all evolutionists, who can’t prove that inorganic matter turned into humans by chance, would show me the same courtesy and intellectual honesty.

  33. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Read Jones’ entire 139-page decision and tell me this is “judicial activism.” His jurisprudence is meticulous and principled; the ID case is a house of cards at best, a stalking horse for the subversion of science at worst.

    How, exactly, does creationism “subvert science?”

    Seriously. Unless you can show me where creationism deliberately ignores and suppresses observable fact, that’s just hyperventilating on your part.

    And, I must add, if creationists were ever to try keeping scientists from exploring all possibilities and denying/suppressing observable facts (no, disagreeing with popular conjectures and hypotheses is not suppression of observable fact), I’d be right up there on the barricades with you.

  34. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Fellow, beloved Rotties… I’m an agnostic who finds belligerent atheism to be stupid and socially corrosive. I don’t think religious folks are dumb. “In God We Trust” doesn’t bug me in the least. The ACLU and Michael Newdow can kiss my evolved ass.

    But this ID thing is a wrong turn for “us.” This dog won’t hunt. Let it go. We have other, more pressing work - for example, while you read this, Jane Fonda still walks the Earth!

    Hear, hear.

    Like what?
    Based on what?
    If we are all just cosmic accidents, then there is no basis for truth.

    Fuck it. So I’ll “un-recuse” myself. It’s a slow day and I’ve got some time to kill. Here goes…

    So, you’re saying that anyone who doesn’t believe that a big, all-powerful black crow laid an egg that hatched into the Earth, can’t understand “The Truth™” and be a compassionate, caring individual who wants nothing more than to be free and and see others live in freedom?

    This is the sort of scatological, zealous religiosity (Yes, I used the “Z-word”.) that is EXACTLY why the LefTards can point to anyone to the right of Marx & Lenin and brand us ALL as “Mind-numbed Christofascists™.

    Pre-supposing that anyone, who isn’t a member in good standing of one of the Judeo-Christian faiths, can’t know “The Truthiness™” is downright offensive to many of us Eeeeeevil Neo-Cons™.

    Do you people have any idea how this kind of shit makes this, and many other places on The Right Side of the Aisle™, look like mirrors of the Demented Ungulates™?

    Jumpin’ Jeebus on a Nukular-powered Pogo Stick!

    Fuggit. It’s like trying to herd caffeine-infused, grease-covered cats with a jump rope.

    :wallbash_tb:

  35. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Thanks to the emperor, in 33, for expressing my point much better than I did.

    Question:

    If, “irreducible complexity,” is not science, than what is it?

  36. LC Mrs. M-ITT™ Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT™

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Well I’ll give my simple minded take on this and just leave it at that.

    Evolutionists (or at the rabid ones) are cut from the same mold as the Global Warming Zealots, and others of the ACLU Drones. It’s about control of others.

    If there is no Higher Being, then there is no right or wrong except what we humans decide it is. Therefore if we as humans decide what is moral and amoral, then those that consider themselves to be more “enlightened” are responsible for “teaching” those who are insisting that there is a Higher Being who tells us that there is right and wrong, that we have no right to impose such boundaries on those that choose to believe that they themselves decide what is moral or amoral. By believing that this world just “came into being” with no Intelligent Creator to orchestrate it, they are setting themselves to be the authors of their own world.

    Once they have silenced the “Creationists”, then the way is open for they themselves to set themselves up in G-d’s place and declare that THEY will decide what is good and right. THEY determine that other humans have no “G-d Given Rights” except what they themselves deign to give them.

    By taking a Higher Being out of the picture, that allows them to take power over other people that otherwise they would not be able to do as long as those others believed that they should defer to a Higher Being for their moral standards, instead of the Governments or other human beings.

    Sort of like..umm…the USSR no?

  37. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    So, you’re saying that anyone who doesn’t believe that a big, all-powerful black crow laid an egg that hatched into the Earth, can’t understand “The Truth™” and be a compassionate, caring individual who wants nothing more than to be free and and see others live in freedom?

    I don’t think that’s what Chuck was wanting to say, B.C., but it does give me a chance to unload a bit on some (again, the “some” is important) of the people on “my side of the aisle” who tend to get a little bit full of themselves at times. Not you, Chuck, again: I don’t think that’s what you were meaning to say, but there are some self-professed Christians who could do with a little bit of humility. Now, disclaimers put up, I’ll proceed to unload on that particular group of fellow Christians (if the shoe don’t fit… etc.):

    It really, really gets my goat when some Christians suggest that because you have to be a moral person to be a Christian, “logically” you cannot be moral unless you’re a Christian. That’s utter bunk. It doesn’t even make sense logically speaking. I’ll happily draw a fucking Venn diagram for anybody who doesn’t believe me. Just because all fish live under water doesn’t mean that all things that live under water are fish either.

    Again, you cannot be a Christian unless you’re moral, it’s against the rules. You can claim that you’re a Christian and be amoral as all git-go, but, then again, I can claim to be black even though I don’t have enough melanin to qualify.

    But it does most emphatically NOT follow, logically or otherwise, that you are incapable of being a moral person if you aren’t a Christian.

    It is quite possible to reach the same destination using different paths. I know a lot of atheists, pagans and G-d knows what else who are every bit as moral as I am, if not more. A lot of them read this site and contribute regularly, and if I were ever to suggest that they couldn’t be as moral as I because they didn’t happen to believe as I do, I’d fully expect them to tell me, in no uncertain terms, just how full of shit I’d truthfully be. Right before or after they punched me in the face.

    I know what I believe and I know that it is right and true according to me, which is why I believe as I do in the first place, but that doesn’t mean that anybody not believing as I do can’t be as moral or devoted to liberty and justice for all as I am, or even more so.

    That is determined by their actions, not by their faith or absence of same, JUST AS IT IS FOR ME.

    That being said, Mrs M is right when she notes that:

    If there is no Higher Being, then there is no right or wrong except what we humans decide it is.

    Absolutely true. What some Christians need to understand, however, is that this doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for humans to decide the right thing. It’s just a whole lot easier to arrive at the correct answer if you use the manual.

    Thatisall.

  38. Gang of One Comment by Gang of One

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I cannot prove that G-d exists and, therefore, I must allow for the possibility that He doesn’t, even though I’m convinced that He does.

    I agree, Sire. And the other team cannot disprove His existence.

    I would propose that human life, its genesis and development, is both designed intelligently and evolutionary:

    2. THE EVOLUTIONARY PANORAMA

    The story of man’s ascent from seaweed to the lordship of earthly creation is indeed a romance of biologic struggle and mind survival. Man’s primordial ancestors were literally the slime and ooze of the ocean bed in the sluggish and warm-water bays and lagoons of the vast shore lines of the ancient inland seas, those very waters in which the Life Carriers established the three independent life implantations on Urantia.

    Very few species of the early types of marine vegetation that participated in those epochal changes which resulted in the animallike borderland organisms are in existence today. The sponges are the survivors of one of these early midway types, those organisms through which the gradual transition from the vegetable to the animal took place. These early transition forms, while not identical with modern sponges, were much like them; they were true borderline organisms–neither vegetable nor animal–but they eventually led to the development of the true animal forms of life.

    The bacteria, simple vegetable organisms of a very primitive nature, are very little changed from the early dawn of life; they even exhibit a degree of retrogression in their parasitic behavior. Many of the fungi also represent a retrograde movement in evolution, being plants which have lost their chlorophyll-making ability and have become more or less parasitic. The majority of disease-causing bacteria and their auxiliary virus bodies really belong to this group of renegade parasitic fungi. During the intervening ages all of the vast kingdom of plant life has evolved from ancestors from which the bacteria have also descended.

    The higher protozoan type of animal life soon appeared, and appeared suddenly. And from these far-distant times the ameba, the typical single-celled animal organism, has come on down but little modified. He disports himself today much as he did when he was the last and greatest achievement in life evolution. This minute creature and his protozoan cousins are to the animal creation what bacteria are to the plant kingdom; they represent the survival of the first early evolutionary steps in life differentiation together with failure of subsequent development.

    Before long the early single-celled animal types associated themselves in communities, first on the plan of the Volvox and presently along the lines of the Hydra and jellyfish. Still later there evolved the starfish, stone lilies, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, centipedes, insects, spiders, crustaceans, and the closely related groups of earthworms and leeches, soon followed by the mollusks–the oyster, octopus, and snail. Hundreds upon hundreds of species intervened and perished; mention is made only of those which survived the long, long struggle. Such nonprogressive specimens, together with the later appearing fish family, today represent the stationary types of early and lower animals, branches of the tree of life which failed to progress.

    The stage was thus set for the appearance of the first backboned animals, the fishes. From this fish family there sprang two unique modifications, the frog and the salamander. And it was the frog which began that series of progressive differentiations in animal life that finally culminated in man himself.

    The frog is one of the earliest of surviving human-race ancestors, but it also failed to progress, persisting today much as in those remote times. The frog is the only species ancestor of the early dawn races now living on the face of the earth. The human race has no surviving ancestry between the frog and the Eskimo.

    The frogs gave rise to the Reptilia, a great animal family which is virtually extinct, but which, before passing out of existence, gave origin to the whole bird family and the numerous orders of mammals.

    Probably the greatest single leap of all prehuman evolution was executed when the reptile became a bird. The bird types of today–eagles, ducks, pigeons, and ostriches–all descended from the enormous reptiles of long, long ago.

    The kingdom of reptiles, descended from the frog family, is today represented by four surviving divisions: two nonprogressive, snakes and lizards, together with their cousins, alligators and turtles; one partially progressive, the bird family, and the fourth, the ancestors of mammals and the direct line of descent of the human species. But though long departed, the massiveness of the passing Reptilia found echo in the elephant and mastodon, while their peculiar forms were perpetuated in the leaping kangaroos.

    Only fourteen phyla have appeared on Urantia, the fishes being the last, and no new classes have developed since birds and mammals.

    It was from an agile little reptilian dinosaur of carnivorous habits but having a comparatively large brain that the placental mammals suddenly sprang. These mammals developed rapidly and in many different ways, not only giving rise to the common modern varieties but also evolving into marine types, such as whales and seals, and into air navigators like the bat family.

    Man thus evolved from the higher mammals derived principally from the western implantation of life in the ancient east-west sheltered seas. The eastern and central groups of living organisms were early progressing favorably toward the attainment of prehuman levels of animal existence. But as the ages passed, the eastern focus of life emplacement failed to attain a satisfactory level of intelligent prehuman status, having suffered such repeated and irretrievable losses of its highest types of germ plasm that it was forever shorn of the power to rehabilitate human potentialities.

    There’s more. A lot more, right here. Happy exploring.

  39. Gang of One Comment by Gang of One

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Uh oh, I tries to post something and it did not appear, so I kept shortening the post. Then, I got a window telling me I was submitting duplicate posts. Are these posts falling into that spam-blocker code thing, Sire. If so, my apologies for throwing a wrench into the works. :dunce_tb:

  40. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Are these posts falling into that spam-blocker code thing, Sire. If so, my apologies for throwing a wrench into the works. :dunce_tb:

    No need to apologize, Gang of One. If anybody should be apologizing, it would be me for trying to foist that piece of crap software on you.

    I have a feeling that Akismet is about to hit /dev/null.

    (And I cleaned up the duplicates too. The mess is my fault, so I get to clean it up).

  41. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    So, you’re saying that anyone who doesn’t believe that a big, all-powerful black crow laid an egg that hatched into the Earth, can’t understand “The Truth™” and be a compassionate, caring individual who wants nothing more than to be free and and see others live in freedom?

    No what I am saying is there is no logical basis for being caring and compassionate. If our conscience is an accident of nature, there is no way to know truth at all. We cannot know that a wrong turn wasn’t taken somewhere and all that we think is false. That is the basis for philosophies from Descartes, Rousseau, Nietzche, and Marx. Their philosophies built a house of cards that led directly to Nazism and Communism, two ideaologies that led to the deaths of nearly 200 million people last century.

    If there is no Higher Being, then there is no right or wrong except what we humans decide it is. Therefore if we as humans decide what is moral and amoral, then those that consider themselves to be more “enlightened” are responsible for “teaching” those who are insisting that there is a Higher Being who tells us that there is right and wrong, that we have no right to impose such boundaries on those that choose to believe that they themselves decide what is moral or amoral. By believing that this world just “came into being” with no Intelligent Creator to orchestrate it, they are setting themselves to be the authors of their own world.

    That is my point exactly. While individuals who believe in evolution can choose to live by a Judeo-Christian moral code, there is no logical basis for it. Those that choose to live by a different moral code are just as correct. All truth becomes relative to your point of view. This either will lead to majority rule where the ideas the most people agree with become the norms by which all must live or to “might makes right” where the followers of the ideas that can gather the biggest armies rules over all.

    I don’t think that’s what Chuck was wanting to say

    Thank you Emperor. I was not in any way suggesting that you have to be a Christian to be moral. I was trying to say that if you are moral, that HAS to be based on some belief that you hold as absolute truth. That is the difference between the moral atheists and agnostics on the right and those on the left who believe all truth is relative, thus a lesbian like Rosie can support the terrorists who would kill her first if they got the chance and a judge in Germany can ignore German law to show understanding to a foreign culture. They don’t see themselves as haveing the right to say THIS is right and THAT is wrong. Because to do that, they have to have something to base that statement on.

  42. Gang of One Comment by Gang of One

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Ayiyiyi! Now they’re all here. Your Grandness, please forgive me! Toss those that you deem tossable. :flush_tb:

  43. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    And BC,
    If I made it sound as though you have to be Christian to be moral, I apologize profusely.

  44. Gang of One Comment by Gang of One

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Thank you, my Liege. I truly am not worthy.

  45. LC Mrs. M-ITT™ Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT™

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    and if I were ever to suggest that they couldn’t be as moral as I because they didn’t happen to believe as I do, I’d fully expect them to tell me, in no uncertain terms

    Well I best state that my post was being directed at the Political realm of those that deny a Higher Being in order to take control. The Al Bores, The ACLUs, the Un’ers…so forth and such with.
    I’m well aware that those in our every day walk of life and just as capable as Christians to know right from wrong.
    As the Emperor stated:

    “If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.”

  46. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    And to all,
    If I come across as strident in my views, I apologize. It is just that the whole moral relativism meme - “your truth is true to you, my truth is true to me” has led to so much suffering and to me the rejection of a Higher Authority is the root cause. When Eve was tempted in the garden she was told she could be as a god and I look at our world today and see that man is still striving to make a god of himself. And it breaks my heart, so I feel I must stand and be heard. So I am standing. Unfortunately, I am not very good at it yet so I say things in ways that sound different than what I mean and for that I am sorry.

    PS Thanks for letting me practice on you :)

  47. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    That is my point exactly. While individuals who believe in evolution can choose to live by a Judeo-Christian moral code, there is no logical basis for it. Those that choose to live by a different moral code are just as correct. All truth becomes relative to your point of view. This either will lead to majority rule where the ideas the most people agree with become the norms by which all must live or to “might makes right” where the followers of the ideas that can gather the biggest armies rules over all.

    Beautifully put, Chuck. That’s it in a nutshell.

    If you don’t believe in an Ultimate Authority you can choose to do the right thing, and every non-believer I call a friend has done so, but you can choose not to do so as well, with no authority to tell you that you’re wrong.

    You simply don’t have that choice if you’re a Christian, making it so much “easier” (in quotes because it’s by no means “easy” to follow Scripture in everything you do. I fall short all the time) to do the right thing. If you’re in doubt as to what is right and what is wrong, you can always look it up. Of course, that does not mean that you won’t be spending a lot of time trying to eff the ineffable, trying to figure out why it’s the Right Thing™. That’s the fun part.

  48. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    No what I am saying is there is no logical basis for being caring and compassionate. If our conscience is an accident of nature, there is no way to know truth at all. We cannot know that a wrong turn wasn’t taken somewhere and all that we think is false.

    Looks like His Imperial Vindictiveness™ was, er, “wrong” about what Chuck was saying….

    Preservation of the species inherently guides a species from destroying others of its kind to the point of wiping out said species. “Compassion & caring” aren’t, no matter how we humans might try to make it seem so, strictly human characteristics.

    That is the basis for philosophies from Descartes, Rousseau, Nietzche, and Marx. Their philosophies built a house of cards that led directly to Nazism and Communism, two ideaologies that led to the deaths of nearly 200 million people last century.

    So now anyone, who doesn’t believe that the universe was created by an eight-armed, elephant-headed goddess (or whatever deity they claim formed it), is a follower of the philosophies of Marx & Hitler?
    :shock_tb:

    No matter how one tries to sugar-coat that statement, once it’s pared down to its basics, that’s what it says. As I said way up at the top of this thread, people need to think VERY HARD about what they want to say before putting it down in electrons on this subject.

    And BC,
    If I made it sound as though you have to be Christian to be moral, I apologize profusely.

    Apology accepted.

    Now, go back and think about what you wrote and I quoted and try to look at it from the other side. You won’t like what you see.

    :ponder_tb:

    Now, I’m off to get beer for the fireworks that are sure to be exploding around here tonight.

    :drunk_tb:

  49. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    So now anyone, who doesn’t believe that the universe was created by an eight-armed, elephant-headed goddess (or whatever deity they claim formed it), is a follower of the philosophies of Marx & Hitler? :shock_tb:

    Not really, although I would have said “allowed for…” rather than “led directly to…”

    The latter suggests that if you’re an atheist, you will invariably turn into Marx or Hitler, which is obviously untrue.

    Atheism allows for such animals to “justify” their dogma, but it doesn’t cause them.

  50. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Also, like I said in the Bark, this is why I HATE this fuckin’ subject.
    :wallbash_tb:

    I’d rather talk about beer, boobs & bombs. They’re something that we all (Well, at least most of us.) can agree upon.
    :drunk_tb: :smoke_tb:

  51. BrainFromArous Comment by BrainFromArous

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    How, exactly, does creationism “subvert science?”

    Seriously. Unless you can show me where creationism deliberately ignores and suppresses observable fact, that’s just hyperventilating on your part.

    Agreed, Misha, which is why I cannot recommend a thorough read of Judge Jones’ ruling strongly enough.

    But for a quick answer…

    Science, properly done, is a system of investigation. There is no manifesto but there is a method, which involves subjecting testable, falsifiable claims to controlled, reproducible examination.

    The ID “hypothesis” is totally untestable and unfalsifiable. I have yet to meet ONE SINGLE proponent of it who presents any way to vet ID claims through the scientific method. Not only has the burden of proof not been met, but they can’t even get on the same page as to how they WOULD meet it.

    So… did God make us? Is evolution teleological (meaning: directed towards a specific end)?

    I don’t know. I can’t prove it either way. (Neither can Richard Dawkins, although he’s too tight in the grip of his ANTI-religion to admit it.)

    But if we’re gonna talk about Science and Science Education, we have to honor its method. It’s not enough to say that there are some odd and puzzling things about the development of terrestrial life and so hey, maybe God / space aliens / Cthulhu are behind it and put that in a science class.

    And to materialist reductionism I say they same thing: Dogmatic atheism is not science. It’s an ideological proposition. It has not been “proven” the way some think it has.

  52. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Atheism allows for such animals to “justify” their dogma, but it doesn’t cause them.

    As opposed to “theism” invariably leading to unicorns, pink bunnies & flying kites, as witnessed throughout the last umpteen thousand years.

    :smoke_tb: :lol_tb:

  53. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BC,
    I did not say that everyone who is not a Christian follows Marx and Hitler. I just pointed out that the basis of their philosophy is moral relativism that has at its root the believe that “G_d is dead”. That in no way was meant to suggest that is the only path a nonbeliever can choose, just that it was the path chosen by enough to have disasterous consequences in our immediate path. And to point out that if anyone does not have a belief in SOME ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then they have no basis to condemn. I do not claim that what I believe to be absolute truth is the only way to avoid it.

  54. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Science, properly done, is a system of investigation. There is no manifesto but there is a method, which involves subjecting testable, falsifiable claims to controlled, reproducible examination.

    The ID “hypothesis” is totally untestable and unfalsifiable. I have yet to meet ONE SINGLE proponent of it who presents any way to vet ID claims through the scientific method. Not only has the burden of proof not been met, but they can’t even get on the same page as to how they WOULD meet it.

    As is evolutionism. It can’t be tested, it can’t be falsified or proven, it can’t be reproduced and it can’t be examined in a controllable environment.

    But that doesn’t mean that I’m not willing to entertain the notion and keep my mind open, as long as we don’t call it anything other than what it is, which is a conjecture or a hypothesis. As is creationism.

    If creationists were trying to outlaw evolutionism as a conjecture or hypothesis, I’d be against that as well.

  55. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I do not claim that what I believe to be absolute truth is the only way to avoid it.

    Fair enough. Now, about those beers… :drunk_tb:

  56. LC Mrs. M-ITT™ Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT™

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’d rather talk about beer, boobs & bombs. They’re something that we all (Well, at least most of us.) can agree upon.

    Well let me know when the discussion gets around to the bombs. I don’t drink beer and talking about boobs doesn’t crank my tractor either. :tongue_wink_ee:

  57. BrainFromArous Comment by BrainFromArous

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    No what I am saying is there is no logical basis for being caring and compassionate. If our conscience is an accident of nature, there is no way to know truth at all. We cannot know that a wrong turn wasn’t taken somewhere and all that we think is false.

    Fair enough, but how exactly does the “revealed truth” of religious belief and tradition protect us from that?

    At least the scientific method contains a mechanism for self-criticism and correction. How does the faith-and-revelation system of religion do that?

    It doesn’t, of course, and this is why the Islamonuts (among many others throughout history) are FORCED to violently suppress criticism, mockery and close investigation of their scriptures. Because once you admit that the Word of God might not be… you know… might NOT be God’s words, the jig is up.

  58. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    As opposed to “theism” invariably leading to unicorns, pink bunnies & flying kites, as witnessed throughout the last umpteen thousand years.

    See? The trouble is, you cannot deny the teachings of the Bible and still be a Christian. You can call yourself a Christian, just as I can call myself a Buddhist while ignoring every single word in the Bhagavad Ghita, but that doesn’t make me a Buddhist.

    That’s not the fault of Christianity, just as Hitler isn’t the fault of atheism and/or paganism. The only difference here is that you cannot be a Christian and a Nazi at the same time, but you can be an atheist and a Nazi.

  59. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Shit, I forgot about this one…

    And to point out that if anyone does not have a belief in SOME ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then they have no basis to condemn.

    How about The Basic Universal Tenant™ of “Leave me & my stuff the fuck alone and I’ll leave you & your stuff the fuck alone.”?

    It doesn’t take the belief in a specific Supreme Being™ to live by that, does it?

  60. LC Mrs. M-ITT™ Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT™

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    “Leave me & my stuff the fuck alone and I’ll leave you & your stuff the fuck alone.”?

    It doesn’t take the belief in a specific Supreme Being™ to live by that, does it?

    Depends on what that other person believes is their right to decide what is “their” stuff and what is “your” stuff. In that you are betting that they are going to act on the same level of thinking as you are. In what way do you react if they believe they have the right to infringe on your “stuff”?
    If we each can decide in our own minds what we “believe” as pertaining to our individual views as right or wrong, then their belief that what you have can also belong to them if they so choose to believe, then you will be infringing on their rights and beliefs, just as you believe they are infringing on yours.

    If there is no set standard to live by…then anything goes no?

  61. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Mrs. M,
    Bomb on the next thread :)

  62. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    How about The Basic Universal Tenant™ of “Leave me & my stuff the fuck alone and I’ll leave you & your stuff the fuck alone.”?

    Yes I believe that qualifies as an absolute truth. (And one I can wholeheartedly agree with)

    Thanks for the laugh

  63. LC Mrs. M-ITT™ Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT™

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Mrs. M,
    Bomb on the next thread :)

    COOL! :jittery_tb:

  64. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The only difference here is that you cannot be a Christian and a Nazi at the same time, but you can be an atheist and a Nazi.

    Uhhhhhhhhhh…. I guess all of those church-going, goose-stepping Germans had their Heavenly Tickets™ automatically stamped “Do Not Pass Go”?

    There are quite a few people throughout Eurasia who’d have a quibble with the claim that only non-Christians did all of the head-lopping through the ages. That’s if they had heads to talk through.

    I don’t give a flying fuck who’s doing the killing. If they’re claiming to be Christians and killing people for not believing in Christ, then I’d say it’s a Christian problem.

    Just as when it’s the Mooselimps doing the killing.

    Can you say “That’s not the TRUE Islam!”

    Thankfully, Christianity went through The Reformation, even if it DID take a few hundred years for most of ‘em to quit killing in the name of their religion.

    Now, about those beers… :drunk_tb:

  65. Unregistered Comment by LC Staci GBOR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I took a course in human evolution in college. It did deal with the basic theories. I remember thinking wow! Then, in the next semester, I took a philosophy course and the first thing I read punched so many holes through the theory, I was left with my hands up in the air thinking WTF.

    I spoke with my philosophy professor on this. I have to say it bothered me immensely. I mean some of the theory seemed to have made sense. Maybe it wasn’t exactly 100%, but some had merit. He pulled from his desk a Bible.

    He opened it to the first chapter. Then he said to me, show me where it says HOW God made earth.

    He explained it was odd for a man in his field to have faith. But he said it was through philosophizing he found it.

    I don’t think the stringent view of evolution is perfect. But some of the stuff holds up. I also don’t believe according to the church that the world is six thousand years old. The Bible does not discuss dinosaurs but there is no denying they existed.

    I remember going back to my human anthropology course and recalled the evolution of man. No one knows this, not even the most knowing theologician, but what’s not to say that God experimented? What’s not to say that those seven days were not the seven, 24 hours days as we know it? And why can’t evolutionists acknowledge that there may have been a higher being in this?

  66. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    If there is no set standard to live by…then anything goes no?

    Here’s a link to some “divinely-inspired laws” that were heavily borrowed from when Moses finally got around to talking to his bonfire…

    Seems someone already had the Holy Hotline™ open to The Big Cheese™ long before they cut out all of the boring, administrative stuff and whittled it down to The Big Ten™.

    :lol_wp:

  67. Unregistered Comment by LC Staci GBOR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    But if we’re gonna talk about Science and Science Education, we have to honor its method.

    That is basically what my philosophy prof said. And it would be nice if it was a perfect theory…could you imagine the finding the source of creation in curing diseases. It’s just not 100%.

  68. LC Mrs. M-ITT™ Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT™

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Good point Stacy.

    I have no problem with the ideas that G-d created many different life forms and that they very well could have come into being from the lowest denominator. I also don’t think that it happened in 7 24 hour days as we think of time. To Him, time is but a blink. To us it would be hundreds of millenia. Yes to Him it would have been 7 days, to the earth…billions of years.

    And why can’t evolutionists acknowledge that there may have been a higher being in this?

    To many such as the Al Bores (don’t forget he did flunk out of Divinity School) of this world, by refusing to acknowledge a Higher Being, they can set themselves up as the ultimate being. Just as they believe that humans have the power to change the earth itself. By doing so, they are stating that they, as being more “enlightened”, have the right and the power to force us to acknowledge their intellect as being more evolved than others and that we should allow them to take control over the rest of us.
    I am not referring to those every day people who do not choose to acknowledge a Higher Being, I am referring to those of the Political Levels that seek ultimate power over us.

  69. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I don’t give a flying fuck who’s doing the killing. If they’re claiming to be Christians and killing people for not believing in Christ, then I’d say it’s a Christian problem.

    Just as when it’s the Mooselimps doing the killing.

    Can you say “That’s not the TRUE Islam!”

    And you’re right. It would be a Christian problem because it would be our duty to strike them down as the heretics and perverters of Scripture that they were.

    Which is where Christianity and Islam differ substantially. If anybody were to start lopping off heads of innocents in the name of Christ, you know that I’d be out there having loads of fun with Lyudmila, creating multiple clouds of beautiful pink mist around the noggins of those “Christians.”

    Neither I nor Christianity allow for that sort of behavior, and it doesn’t matter what the perpetrators call themselves.

    To return to the Nazis, it doesn’t matter what the goose-stepping freaks were calling themselves either, the Bible is quite specific about murdering innocents in general and it is even more specific about killing G-d’s Chosen People, in sharp contrast to the “holy” Koran.

    And it were, among others, a whole bunch of Christians that took it upon themselves to rid the planet of the Nazi bastards, regardless of what the Nazis called themselves.

    I didn’t say “you cannot call yourself a Christian and be a Nazi”, I said “you cannot be a Christian and be a Nazi.”

    But, again, that is NOT the same as saying that you cannot be against Nazis and want to kill the sick fucks without being a Christian as well.

    I’m really going to have to break out that Venn diagram, ain’t I? :wink_ee:

    Nah, let’s bring on the beer instead. :drunk_tb:

  70. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I am not referring to those every day people who do not choose to acknowledge a Higher Being, I am referring to those of the Political Levels that seek ultimate power over us.

    It should also refer to those who usea Higher Being” to “seek ultimate power over us“, Mrs. M.

    :smoke_tb: :smiley2_tb:

  71. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’m really going to have to break out that Venn diagram, ain’t I?

    As long as it’s not the Venn diaphragm! :lol_wp:

  72. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Actually, thinking about it and putting another hat on for a second (I wasn’t always a Christian, after all), you might argue that being a Righteous Atheist requires a lot more of you than being a Righteous Christian and that, as a result, the former are actually more worthy. After all, Christians don’t really have to arrive at their conclusions about Right and Wrong themselves, it’s already been written down for them.

    It’s a valid argument, logically. In my case (and, I suspect, in most of my fellow Christians’ case as well) it would be wrong, since I didn’t pick my secular values because I was a Christian. It was the other way around. I’d decided upon Right and Wrong long before I found my faith, at it was actually because of that that I became a Christian. It fit with everything that I already believed.

    But I might not have reached that point. I might have stayed a non-believer, which would have had absolutely no impact on my secular values. I’d still be who I am today, I just wouldn’t call it being a Christian.

  73. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Fanusi, it’ll get pulled back from the spam blocker. Hang on to yer knickers. ;)

  74. BrainFromArous Comment by BrainFromArous

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    As is evolutionism. It can’t be tested, it can’t be falsified or proven, it can’t be reproduced and it can’t be examined in a controllable environment.

    Well, hang on.

    If by “tested” you mean demonstrating the ex nihilo emergence of life (so-called abiogenesis), then you’re correct Misha.

    But that’s not what Darwin said.

    Darwin left the “cosmic” questions alone and concerned himself with two things:

    (1) Species change through mutation.

    (2) Species survival (or not) through natural selection.

    The available scientific data certainly support the claim that these phenomena happened (and continue to happen) to terrestrial life, including human beings.

    Beyond that, things get stickier.

  75. BrainFromArous Comment by BrainFromArous

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BTW, I hope this discussion is making some of you more sensitive to The Earth and what Al Gore has been trying to tell us about real science.

    JOKE. ;)

  76. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BTW, I hope this discussion is making some of you more sensitive to The Earth and what Al Gore has been trying to tell us about real science.

    :lol_wp:

  77. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Darwin left the “cosmic” questions alone and concerned himself with two things:

    (1) Species change through mutation.

    (2) Species survival (or not) through natural selection.

    The available scientific data certainly support the claim that these phenomena happened (and continue to happen) to terrestrial life, including human beings.

    And I’m denying neither, because I’ve observed them, nor is any creationist worth his salt. But there’s one heck of a leap of faith from observing natural selection and minor mutations to accepting the evolution of primordial goo to incredibly complex species through pure chance.

    It’s an interesting conjecture and extrapolation, but that’s all it is (and so are my conjectures, in case you think that I think that my guess is any more proven that yours, which it isn’t). Until somebody, somewhere, can reproduce it in a lab, it remains a hypothesis.

  78. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Until somebody, somewhere, can reproduce it in a lab, it remains a hypothesis.

    I’m workin’ on it, Sire. These damned Kleenex’s® just ain’t much of a medium for growin’ primordial goo experiments.

    :lol_wp:

  79. BrainFromArous Comment by BrainFromArous

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Abiogenesis is a big hurdle for me. Life from unlife. I’d like to see a confirming experiment for that one.

  80. BrainFromArous Comment by BrainFromArous

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BTW, it’s nice to be back. I used to be LC Brummbar, Count-Palatine of Long Island.

  81. Unregistered Comment by LC Staci GBOR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BC hon, I’m not saying that evolution doesn’t exist, but it isn’t from how I was taught science, perfect in how it is laid out.

    I certainly am not condemning you your beliefs.

  82. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    #19 Cdr Will:

    Namely that things tend to become less organized and more chaotic if left to themselves and even faster if agitated with no purpose.

    Yup, a fine explanation of Entropy.

  83. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Staci, I never questioned anything you said, sweetie. No way in Hell (or Hades, Purgatory, Styx, etc…) did I take exception to what you said.

    :wub_tb:

  84. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BTW, it’s nice to be back. I used to be LC Brummbar, Count-Palatine of Long Island.

    Welcome back, my friend!!! :clap_tb:

  85. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    #23 Special Ed-

    then entropy has already reduced all matter to its lowest energy state and everything is in stasis.

    Correct, and considering entropy is a constant behavior of all matter, by definition is can’t reach stasis. It’s an asymptotic curve.

    BrainFromArous …..indeed WELCOME BACK to the pack.

  86. Alan K. Henderson Comment by Alan K. Henderson

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    If I were ever to open my own private school, science class wouldn’t teach evolution or creationism - those belong in philosophy class.

    “Yeah, but how do you teach about the dinosaurs and the other ancient life forms we know from the fossil record?” Easy, I teach when they arrived, not how they got here.

    Hey Mish, when did you add the French smiley? :surrender_tb:

    I bet it gets a lot of use when reporting on Congress. :mrgreen_wp:

  87. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Staci, I never questioned anything you said, sweetie. No way in Hell (or Hades, Purgatory, Styx, etc…) did I take exception to what you said.

    :wub_tb:

    …note to self:  Staci has BC wrapped around her little finger - find some way to use this to my advantage…

  88. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    …note to self: Staci has BC wrapped around her little finger - find some way to use this to my advantage…

    And this is news to you just now? :doh_tb:

    Her well-thought-out responses aside, Staci has had me wrapped around her little finger for over two years, since she drove for over 6 hours to celebrate my 40th birthday with me.

    Just the two of us.

    Yeah. Bite me, bitches.

    :devil_tb:

  89. Unregistered Comment by VexVox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59


    All the factual, scientific evidence you would ever need to refute creationism.

  90. Mope, Imperial Knucklehead Comment by Mope, Imperial Knucklehead

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Dayum. Staci only drives to push me over the edge. Luckily, I always seem to land on the picnic table, but that’s another story… A gentleman never discusses these matters…

  91. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Dang Misha, if I’da knowed the mess that little book was gonna stir up, I’da bought you “MegaMope Meets Pattie Pierogie: Perilous Procreation On A Picnic Table.”

  92. George guy Comment by George guy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The legal system in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was supported by a high priest who actually talked to God, who of course you don’t think exists, but entertaining the notion for a moment, consider that a justice system that requires the approval of God for a sentence would be pretty much immune to abuse as opposed to Islam in which everything is supposed to be written down without any further communication from Allah, since Mohammed was the final prophet.

    I have read this sentence over and over and I cannot see how you can say that that is different from Islam. Muhammed claimed divine sanction for his wars of aggression - being told so by God. How is this any different from Moses’s genocide of the Midianites?

    In brief, the differences are that
    1) Muhammad and his followers never stopped expanding. Moses claimed God had ordained a specific and finite territory.
    2) Muhammad consistently rebuked his followers for demanding signs or miracles, and thus his claim for divine support was based pretty much entirely on people taking his word for it. Even assuming that the publicly visible signs recorded in the Bible were ‘fake’, the result of telling the story like that is that the Hebrews didn’t always take the prophet at his own word.

    My point is that the evidence is there. And you can find it. For all your accusations of dogma, you still have brought nada evidence for a creator.

    Dude. Read. Don’t skim. Maybe you’re not doing it consciously, we all tend to skip over the bits that are too difficult to deal with, especially in a fast moving thread like this where the only way to stand out is to post something long. But still, it’s kind of dishonest to say “nada evidence”.

    It is a perversion of science because it implicitly teaches children, whose minds are very vulnerable, that evidence and reason do not matter, since it places a well supported theory (really, one that is even more supported than Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) on equal footing with one with no evidence at all. And, yes, I do regard such a thing as child abuse. As humans our lives are dependent on the work of our brains. To feed faith into children, and cripple their minds by that, is absolutely hideous.

    Science is about finding explanations for what happens in the universe. That’s an acceptable definition. It is not necessarily scientific, however, to assume that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything, or to cling in faith to the idea that everything that does not yet have an adequate naturalistic explanation (i.e. abiogenesis) will eventually have one. I would say it is quite an act of blind faith to say that mechanistic naturalism can explain everything. To insist that everything descended from a cosmic accident, the mechanics of which are admittedly mysterious, is in its own way a type of proselytism.

    Criminal forensics is a science that is all about finding and recognizing the effects of intelligence, separating accidents from deliberations, and recognizing intelligent interference in natural situations. In a way the Intelligent Design movement is an attempt to be more open to things like this in natural science. The hardcore creationists distrust the ID people almost as much as evolutionists do, because the ID movement is trying to restrict itself to what can be determined scientifically.

    Faith is not antithetical to reason. It is a vital mechanism for sanity in most people. Faith is how people reach (occasionally wrong, occasionally right) conclusions from incomplete evidence so that they may stop worrying about the issue and get on with other things. Skepticism is a form of faith. It is faith in the possibility that just because a new piece of evidence seems to indicate that you are wrong doesn’t mean you should immediately change your mind without something beyond a cursory investigation. And what about you, FK, are two items of evidence against evolutionism going to significantly faze you? Obviously they haven’t, and arguably they shouldn’t. People break down if they are expected to change positions or declare agnosticism at every new single bit of evidence that comes out.

    My principle worry is that this splits our ranks and removes our most powerful weapon: reason. I don’t believe we can beat Islam in terms of faith; faith is all the Muslim totalitarians have. But they are thrashed in seconds against reason.

    Reasoning from what. You need a few postulates to start with.
    Muslims understand faithlessness and rationalism to a point. They hate those things, but they do not exactly fear them. What they fear are people who reach opposite conclusions from some of the same core assumptions.

  93. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Er, where do you want me to start? The fact that it ignores the huge amount of evidence found in molecular biology?

    Alright. Tell me. What evidence of evolution have we found in molecular biology, because they left it out of all of my textbooks?

    That it’s a completely vacuous theory, with no testable predictions whatsoever?

    Exactly like evolution, actually. No, I take that back. The theory of evolution DOES predict that cows might one day grow wings, it’s just that we’ve yet to see any evidence of bovine aviation.

    And don’t give me any nonsense about bacterial resistance to antibiotics or the like, because I’m not disputing any of that. I’ve actually engineered that with my own two hands in a lab (which, by the way, would be intelligent design, but it is known to occur in the wild too), but it’s not EVOLUTION. They’re still E.Coli no matter how many antibiotics we immunize them to. Likewise, finches are still finches no matter how large or small their beaks are.

    It is a perversion of science because it implicitly teaches children, whose minds are very vulnerable, that evidence and reason do not matter, since it places a well supported theory (really, one that is even more supported than Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) on equal footing with one with no evidence at all. And, yes, I do regard such a thing as child abuse. As humans our lives are dependent on the work of our brains. To feed faith into children, and cripple their minds by that, is absolutely hideous.

    “Crippling their minds” by teaching them that nobody, creationists OR evolutionists know exactly how life came to be?

    Damn, and here I thought that teaching kids to keep an open mind about issues that have not been conclusively proven one way or the other encouraged them to use their minds.

    Well, I guess you taught me. I’ll immediately quit abusing my kids by teaching them to consider all the evidence. No more of that dangerous, abusive independent thought for MY kids. Their little minds are being closed from this moment on.

  94. Alan K. Henderson Comment by Alan K. Henderson

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Vexvox,

    The TalkOrigins page’s section on abiogenesis is confusing. The response to Claim CB090 says “Abiogenesis is a fact.” But none of the other responses in that section explain how we know this.

    It would be useful if there were little icons noting young- and old-earth creationist claims.

    Ironically, both young-Earthers and some evolutionists oppose the Big Bang theory. The former assume a “young” universe (although I can imagine a “young Earth/old universe” camp - an “old Earth/young universe” contingent doesn’t exist, but would be highly entertaining). Some evolutionists believe the idea of the universe having a beginning plays into the hands of creationists. This group backs steady state theory.

  95. Unregistered Pingback by Grouchy’s Liberaltopia™ » Signs Of Intelligent Life?

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    […] them to everyone but themselves) and then they seem to miss the significance of small things like this. Who was Hammurabi, again? And where did he come from? Oh, yes, Mesopotamia (or modern day Iraq). […]

  96. Unregistered Comment by VexVox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The TalkOrigins page’s section on abiogenesis is confusing. The response to Claim CB090 says “Abiogenesis is a fact.” But none of the other responses in that section explain how we know this.

    The evidence that Earth is 4.5 My old, and that life started 3.5 My is irrefutable. Therefore creationism is false, and abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation for how life began. More information here

  97. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Irrefutable?

    Excuse me, if I laugh my ass off.

    Please, then, explain how something so unbelievably remote could have possibly happened SPONTANEOUSLY, when we can’t even re-create it (abiogenesis) in a laboratory, with all of our advanced technology.

    If, “Abiogenesis,” is a fact, it has the least support of any, “fact,” ever.

    You are unbelievably full of shit. And I don’t say such things lightly, and without an amazing amount of provocation.

    Let me put it another way: What complete and utter, unsubstantiated BULLSHIT!

  98. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    VexVox, thank you, so much, for the laughs! I just began reading the, “introduction,” to your link, and I haven’t had this good a laugh in weeks:

    Compared to science of evolution, the science of abiogenesis (origin of life) is still seriously underdeveloped in its explanatory power, despite the recent progress. As science writer Richard Robinson notes in his article: “Give biologists a cell, and they’ll give you the world. But beyond assuming the first cell must have somehow come into existence, how do biologists explain its emergence from the prebiotic world four billion years ago?”

    Golly gee whiz, Myrtle, what a freaking puzzler!

    Indeed, it is one thing that we know all the chemical building materials of life, and that the functioning of life can be fully explained by their collaboration in an extremely complex system. Yet it is another thing entirely how, at the origin of life, they could have formed an initial organization by themselves step by step (via whatever intermediary processes and building blocks). At first glance, evolution from bacteria-like organisms (the last universal common ancestor) to humans may seem child’s play in comparison: it started from an already tremendously complex, entirely self-sufficient, biochemical machinery and bit by bit simply made it even more complex.

    One cannot lose out of sight that the most elementary cells we currently know, which are not permanently dependent on host-metabolism, the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, have 482 protein-coding genes (most bacteria, such as E. coli, encode for more than 2000 different proteins), from which, according to the probably best experimental study to date (Glass et al. 2006), the essential ones are 387. The likely most accurate hypothetical study (Gil et al. 2004), puts the minimal number of genes at 216. All the proteins produced from these genes are involved in a maze of pathways of metabolism, replication, as well as building and maintenance of structure, which is of bewildering complexity.

    Bewildering complexity, and yet, by some unbelievably fucking high probability, they still insist that it happened, because, repeat after me, “There is no creator.”
    “There is no creator.”
    “There is no creator.”

    Sorry. Ain’t buyin’ what you’re sellin’!

  99. LC Beeblebrox Comment by LC Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Dang, I end up spending all my spare time today (what little I had of it) over in a couple of AGW threads and finally realize that there is a decent debate (except for the posts by BC IT of course :annoyed_tb:) going on over here.

    Well, late to the thread when most everyone has moved on is the story of my life of late.

    Anyway, last comment first:

    The evidence that Earth is 4.5 My old, and that life started 3.5 My is irrefutable. Therefore creationism is false, and abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation for how life began

    Then VexVox links to a talkorigins article that starts with an outright falsehood:

    “Science shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of matter towards more and more complex structures.”

    No need to even read further than that to know that the person writing the article is a “true believer”. When someone talks about how science has shown us how the universe evolved we know this person is either on Crack or is delusional. Science shows us nothing of the kind. It doesn’t because it can’t. Science is a process of explaining what is testable using naturalistic methods. Seeing what how the universe was “organized” 11.5 billion years ago as if were a proven fact is supercilious nonsense. Two things are well beyond the reach of science:

    1. Things that happened in the distant past that can neither be measured, repeated, nor observed (either directly or indirectly).
    2. The supernatural. By definition, science cannot apprehend a universe created by God. Because of this, I don’t fault those who rely on science as the only acceptable way to understand the universe. If they want to be so small-minded as to disallow investigation of the other way the universe may have come into existence, I may feel sorry for them but I understand them.

    As for the idea that life irrefutably started 3.5 million years ago, I snicker in your general direction VexVox. The scientific community is constantly changing both the age of the universe and how long ago life arose. Next year it will be “irrefutable” that life began 4 Million years ago. Why does this seem likely? Because in the past, other numbers than 3.5M were “irrefutable”.

    We have discussed abiogenesis ad nauseum in the past but just a clue for the uninitiated, chemical evolutionary researchers have moved on. In the late 60s it was becoming apparent that the math simply was not adding up on the abiogenesis front. At that time, the theory of Necessity was germinated.

    Take a look around talkorigins or any other place where evolutionists hang out and you will find a group that talks about Necessity. These are the chemists, not the biologists. They talk about crystal formations and such as a basis upon which to hang their latest life from goo philosophies. I say fine, let them mull over the frankly idiotic notion that RNA and DNA, code so complex that it surpasses any human engineered programming by orders of magnitude, evolved because it “had to”.

    Ultimately, I don’t really care what evolutionists do with their lives. They can fantasize about a process that excludes God if they want. Personally, I think they’re wasting their time and my taxpayer money but they’ve got their racket and there is little most people can do about it.

    Bottom line, I am simply fundamentally opposed to the totalitarian tactic of forcing a cultish thinking like evolutionism on children in the public classroom. I would not force creationism on children in the public classroom either. However, of the two philosophies, only one is being coercively taught at the point of a gun to our kids.

    Evolutionism is to science, as liberalism is to politics. It is a failed scientific theory in crisis that very few Americans believe in and so it has to be propped up through indoctrination, regulation, and demagoguery. It relies on a poorly informed public to even be funded much less accepted as viable for teaching in schools. It had its day but that day is over now that we understand more about the complexity of DNA and the life it programs.

    There was a time when scientists thought that simple cells were really simple, like drops of gelatin. We now know that even a single “simple” cell is more complex than even the most sophisticated, robotic-ally equipped Toyota car manufacturing facility. This is the “simple” fact that many people do not understand. Abiogenesis might have been a plausible theory 40 years ago, but no longer.

    For a good explanation of the math behind the impossiblity of abiogenesis read this.

  100. Unregistered Comment by VexVox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    JanetMae, if you bothered to read my post properly, you would have realized that I said that the age of the Earth and when life began was irrefutable. The shear amount of evidence, proof, and cold hard FACT is overwhelming. The Earth IS NOT 6000 years old! One of creationism’s key pillars is that God created the Earth and all life in 7 days etc etc etc. This is wrong. False. INCORRECT. The simple fact that life is older then 6k years blows the sh*t out of creationism’s whole underlying belief. As such, the exact method of the development of life 3.5 My ago is irrelevant. If you still believe in Creationism, you are beyond help. If you accept that the Earth was not created as described in Genesis, but as scientists know it was, and still want to believe that God created life, then you are a proponent of the equally flawed belief of Intelligent Design.

    As for your “unbelievably remote” argument, I some how doubt that you are a mathatician or a biologist, so try reading what the real scentists say And do try to read all of the page, you might just learn something.

    As for my previous link, if you had bothered to read past the introduction, you would have found this useful tidbit:

    Whatever the precise sequence of events at the origin of life may have been, the cumulative strength of all of the above data indicates that the “mystery” of the origin of life’s chirality will have a perfectly natural explanation after all.

    The issue of chirality, among others, has been touted by creationists as a “huge problem” for the concept of an origin of life by natural causes. Allegedly, only a miraculous intervention by God could have solved the problem. Yet the above findings are a typical example for why the “God-of-the-gaps” concept does not work: science rapidly closes the gaps that previously might have been thought to be reserved for miraculous intervention.

    This is exactly what should be expected if either the material world is all there is, or if the world was created by a God who, as primary cause, chose to create through secondary causes – precisely those natural causes that science studies. In fact, creationists should seriously ask themselves if their concept of God is not a belittling one: the Intelligent Designer as “tinkerer” who is forced to break his own created laws of nature once in a while because they are insufficient to achieve certain stages in the development of the material world. From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world. This idea is easily compatible with the concept of God of many mainstream religions, including most Christian ones.

    Obviously the “gaps” are closing everywhere: for example, another proudly recurring theme on creationist websites is the “enormous difficulty” of prebiotic synthesis of ribose, since ribose would have been very unstable under the alkaline conditions thus far believed to be necessary for its synthesis. Yet newer research, which the creationists apparently are unaware of, has made this objection irrelevant: as mentioned above, already quite a while ago this problem had been reported to be resolved – borate minerals stabilize ribose (Ricardo, A et al. 2004; see also press release). In addition, when it comes to stereospecific sysnthesis of D-ribose, catalysis of the reaction by amino acids or small peptides – probably under less extreme conditions of pH – appears a distinct possibility, as we have seen.

    I am sorry to hear that you believe that the scentific method, and by extension science in general, is “complete and utter, unsubstantiated BULLSHIT!” Look at all those references, arent they impressive?. Each one is a peer reviewed scientific paper. There are your facts.

  101. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    As for your “unbelievably remote” argument, I some how doubt that you are a mathatician or a biologist, so try reading what the real scentists say And do try to read all of the page, you might just learn something.

    Show us the species that changed itself into a completely different species, you dumb-assed son-of-a-bitch.

    Until then, take your elitist snot-nosed peer-reviewed  “facts”, turn ‘em sideways and shove ‘em up your candy-ass.

    Your precious theory is just that - a theory.  And it’s one you ain’t ever gonna prove, because you can’t.

    Sucks to be you, doesn’t it, egghead?

  102. LC Beeblebrox Comment by LC Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Jaybear:

    The books of the Bible were written in simple times, evolution was not known nor was manned flight or nuclear weapons. The transcribers of Genesis would have NO knowledge of the evolution of man….hence…they could not write about it….God surely knew about it, but maybe he believed that mankind wasn’t ready for that kind of knowledge…not yet. After all, too much knowledge is a dangerous thing, right?.

    Now this is more like the kind of discussion to which I gravitate. An honest seeker of knowledge. Commendable.

    Let’s look at this statement…

    The books of the Bible were written in simple times,

    I submit that they were not “simple times”. If you read books like Jeremiah and Daniel, you will quickly realize that the politics were more complex than ours, the crises more real, the stakes higher, and the debates more probing. I think I could argue that our times are simpler now. We have less to worry about, at least as far as the hand to mouth issues go, and in general, most of us are less educated than the 40 or so writers of the Bible. Most all of modern science is built on the Scripture. The fathers of modern science were all Creationists who took their cues from the Bible. The fields of astronomy, quantum physics, oceanography, and many others started by men combing the Bible for clues (which they found in abundance).

    evolution was not known

    Evolutionary thought predates the New Testament by hundreds of years. I don’t have the reference at hand but I seem to recall that the notion of life springing forth by naturalistic causes is fairly ancient.

    The transcribers of Genesis would have NO knowledge of the evolution of man

    Moses wrote Genesis which was authored by an extra dimensional being (who I choose to call God although He calls Himself YHWH) who proves throughout His word that He is the author. He is fully aware of the mechanisms He used to create man. Since His Word plainly states that Evolution ain’t it then that explains why evolution is not directly addressed (although Jesus Christ indirectly referenced it several times in His affirmation of the 6 literal day creation week), as does Paul in 1 Cor. 15.

    After all, too much knowledge is a dangerous thing, right?.

    I don’t think that is our problem here Jaybear. I would say that our current issue is that there is too little knowledge, and even less understanding.

    Bottom line, the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation week in the NEW TESTAMENT, it teaches of a literal global flood in the NEW TESTAMENT, in fact, the central doctrine of Christianity is based on the understanding that evolution is a false teaching.

    In case this doctrine is unknown to some, here it is:

    1 Corinthians 15:21 reads,
    “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.”

    I won’t go into the hermeneutic here but suffice to say that the doctrine of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross on that hill in Jerusalem some 1979 years ago was a physical death because Adam’s sin brought the curse of physical death to human kind. If death existed before Adam sinned, then death was not a curse and Jesus died for nothing. I think many anti-God evolutionists, at least those who have given any thought to it at all, know that Christianity is based on this doctrine. Therefore, if evolution can be proved (or at least foisted on enough people for them to doubt the claims of Christ) then they have won.

    Bottom line, the Bible teaches that evolution and uniformitarianism are false doctrines of a spiritual nature. They were predicted to be the typical mindset in the “last days”. Non-Christians can make claims all they want about how God could have used evolution as His creation mechanism but the Bible plainly calls this a false teaching and while non-Christians may choose to promote the notion, Christians should know their Bible well enough to know that God did not use evolution as his creation methodology.

  103. George guy Comment by George guy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Real scientists my arse.

    First they’re attacking a strawman God, this “God of the gaps”, then they’re playing theologian by pretending to dictate what people can and can’t believe,

    and then they make grandiose claims about these gaps closing by equating ’synthesis of ribose’ with ‘chemically stable environment’ + “catalysis of the [synthesis] reaction by amino acids or small peptides[ or nanoscale lasagna], probably…[et blah]..appears a distinct possibility”.

    Stop it.

  104. LC Beeblebrox Comment by LC Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    VexVox:

    the age of the Earth and when life began was irrefutable.

    Not to state the obvious (OK, I will). The age of the Earth has been a moving target since I was in Jr. High in the late 60’s. LIke I said Vex, it was “irrefutable” then, a different age is “irrefutable”now, and in a few years a different amount will be the new “irrefutable” age. Same with when life arose. That number is growing (currently in the 1.1 Billion year range) larger every minute). If you want to support your position Vex, try a different bit of shifting sand than the one you are currently standing on.

    As for the literal 6 day week. There is no better evidence that Man arose 3 million years ago or 6000. If Evolution is true then sure, 6000 doesn’t work. If Creation is true then it does. The science proves neither position.

    As for the age of the earth, I personally believe that it could be very old. There are passages in various places in the Old Testament that hint that Lucifer had a real, physical kingdom on this planet prior to Genesis 1:2. however, this kingdom was completely and totally destroyed. The opening words of the Bible say “confused” (Hebrew: tohu) and “desolate” (bohu). In other words, there was nothing left but an empty slate when God began the creation week. So Vex, don’t confuse the age of the earth with the life creation process.

    There is nothing in the Bible, and I mean NOTHING, that says the earth itself sprang into existence 6000 years ago. That is an interpretation (and one that is understandable) but I repeat, this does not imply in any way that life existed during this “gap” between verse 1 and 2 of the opening chapter of Genesis. It only implies that the matter that God used to create the earth and the life on it that we now see could have been created prior to the “let there be light” moment. I am a Biblical literalist (that is, I take it at face value - the parables are parables, the symbols are symbols, the history is history, and so on) and so I have to accept the fact that the Bible is silent on the age of the earth but not silent on the age of the life on the earth. I accept this as fact because the prophetic nature of the Bible proves that it was written by God Himself (for no man can see the future) and since God wrote the Bible, I accept His version of events!

    Read the first few verses of Genesis and notice that the first creation day starts in verse 3. How many years went by in the first 2 verses is not spelled out.

    Again, I repeat that this does not mean that there is room in those two verses to drive the evolutionary truck through. It only means that the earth (and a very different earth that was inhabited by spiritual beings) existed before God started the creation week.

  105. Unregistered Comment by VexVox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Okay Beeblebrox, lets take this from the begining.

    No need to even read further than that to know that the person writing the article is a “true believer”. When someone talks about how science has shown us how the universe evolved we know this person is either on Crack or is delusional. Science shows us nothing of the kind. It doesn’t because it can’t. Science is a process of explaining what is testable using naturalistic methods. Seeing what how the universe was “organized” 11.5 billion years ago as if were a proven fact is supercilious nonsense. Two things are well beyond the reach of science:

    The most widely accepted scientific thory for the begining ot the universe is the Big Bang. By using quantum physics and other very complex models physicists have determine what the universe was like milliseconds after the Big Bang, and there certainly werent full-formed planets wizzing around the universe. A quick read about the Big Bang will show that the universe has evolved from a mass of subatomic particles and other exotic things, to what we see today, with planets and stars and galaxies etc.

    As for the idea that life irrefutably started 3.5 million years ago, I snicker in your general direction VexVox. The scientific community is constantly changing both the age of the universe and how long ago life arose. Next year it will be “irrefutable” that life began 4 Million years ago. Why does this seem likely? Because in the past, other numbers than 3.5M were “irrefutable”.

    Yes, the age of life does change occasionally. From 3.65 My to 3.66 My etc. The exact age is irrelevant, since is far longer then what creationists claim.
    The numbers I have been saying arent exact, simply because I dont want to waste my time finding 1000 different ages that are all roughly 4 My. I say again, the exact age is irrelevant.

    We have discussed abiogenesis ad nauseum in the past but just a clue for the uninitiated, chemical evolutionary researchers have moved on. In the late 60s it was becoming apparent that the math simply was not adding up on the abiogenesis front.

    Abiogenesis is not a dead hypothesis. It’s development and refinement is very much alive.

    Take a look around talkorigins or any other place where evolutionists hang out and you will find a group that talks about Necessity. These are the chemists, not the biologists. They talk about crystal formations and such as a basis upon which to hang their latest life from goo philosophies. I say fine, let them mull over the frankly idiotic notion that RNA and DNA, code so complex that it surpasses any human engineered programming by orders of magnitude, evolved because it “had to”.

    Ah, some more “impossible probability” and “incredible complexity” agruments.
    Read all of this page You will see that Abiogenesis is not a statistical impossibility.

    Bottom line, I am simply fundamentally opposed to the totalitarian tactic of forcing a cultish thinking like evolutionism on children in the public classroom. I would not force creationism on children in the public classroom either. However, of the two philosophies, only one is being coercively taught at the point of a gun to our kids.

    Evolution as we know it today is not the same thing as when it was first postulated. It has changed. It has evolved to include new ideas and evidence. That is the scientific method. Creationism is not a theory, it is a doctrine. By nature, it cannot change. It is the cult you speak of. And it is not forced upon the kids. If they dont want to believe it, fine. They dont get excommunicated from the “Church of Science”

    Evolutionism is to science, as liberalism is to politics. It is a failed scientific theory in crisis that very few Americans believe in and so it has to be propped up through indoctrination, regulation, and demagoguery. It relies on a poorly informed public to even be funded much less accepted as viable for teaching in schools. It had its day but that day is over now that we understand more about the complexity of DNA and the life it programs.

    Wow. Just wow. When I reached this gem of a paragraph, I realized how deluded you really are. Evolution is a failed theory. Unbelievable. Do you realise that the theory of gravity has also never been proven. Is it also a failed theory?

    I give up on all of you. You are so set in your beliefs that you cant see the cracks behind the facade. But rest assured, I will be telling all my university students in the geology and paleontology departments about this thread, and the deluded, narrow-mined fools who refuse to even try to understand some of the most basic scientific principles, when said theories disprove their dogma.

    Oh, and george guy, stop using your computer, and driving your car, and watching your TV. Dont forget to quit using your cellphone and electricty. They were all made possible by real scientists who made gradiose claims that were correct. You aren’t a evolution-hater, you hate science.

  106. Unregistered Comment by VexVox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Okay Beeblebrox, lets take this from the begining.

    No need to even read further than that to know that the person writing the article is a “true believer”. When someone talks about how science has shown us how the universe evolved we know this person is either on Crack or is delusional. Science shows us nothing of the kind. It doesn’t because it can’t. Science is a process of explaining what is testable using naturalistic methods. Seeing what how the universe was “organized” 11.5 billion years ago as if were a proven fact is supercilious nonsense. Two things are well beyond the reach of science:

    The most widely accepted scientific thory for the begining ot the universe is the Big Bang. By using quantum physics and other very complex models physicists have determine what the universe was like milliseconds after the Big Bang, and there certainly werent full-formed planets wizzing around the universe. A quick read about the Big Bang will show that the universe has evolved from a mass of subatomic particles and other exotic things, to what we see today, with planets and stars and galaxies etc.

    As for the idea that life irrefutably started 3.5 million years ago, I snicker in your general direction VexVox. The scientific community is constantly changing both the age of the universe and how long ago life arose. Next year it will be “irrefutable” that life began 4 Million years ago. Why does this seem likely? Because in the past, other numbers than 3.5M were “irrefutable”.

    Yes, the age of life does change occasionally. From 3.65 My to 3.66 My etc. The exact age is irrelevant, since is far longer then what creationists claim.
    The numbers I have been saying arent exact, simply because I dont want to waste my time finding 1000 different ages that are all roughly 4.5 My or whatever. I say again, the exact age is irrelevant. Simply put, the world is too old for your beliefs to be true.

    We have discussed abiogenesis ad nauseum in the past but just a clue for the uninitiated, chemical evolutionary researchers have moved on. In the late 60s it was becoming apparent that the math simply was not adding up on the abiogenesis front.

    Abiogenesis is not a dead hypothesis. It’s development and refinement is very much alive.

    Take a look around talkorigins or any other place where evolutionists hang out and you will find a group that talks about Necessity. These are the chemists, not the biologists. They talk about crystal formations and such as a basis upon which to hang their latest life from goo philosophies. I say fine, let them mull over the frankly idiotic notion that RNA and DNA, code so complex that it surpasses any human engineered programming by orders of magnitude, evolved because it “had to”.

    Ah, some more “impossible probability” and “incredible complexity” agruments.
    Read all of this page You will see that Abiogenesis is not a statistical impossibility.

    Bottom line, I am simply fundamentally opposed to the totalitarian tactic of forcing a cultish thinking like evolutionism on children in the public classroom. I would not force creationism on children in the public classroom either. However, of the two philosophies, only one is being coercively taught at the point of a gun to our kids.

    Evolution as we know it today is not the same thing as when it was first postulated. It has changed. It has evolved to include new ideas and evidence. That is the scientific method. Creationism is not a theory, it is a doctrine. By nature, it cannot change. It is the cult you speak of. And it is not forced upon the kids. If they dont want to believe it, fine. They dont get excommunicated from the “Church of Science”

    Evolutionism is to science, as liberalism is to politics. It is a failed scientific theory in crisis that very few Americans believe in and so it has to be propped up through indoctrination, regulation, and demagoguery. It relies on a poorly informed public to even be funded much less accepted as viable for teaching in schools. It had its day but that day is over now that we understand more about the complexity of DNA and the life it programs.

    Wow. Just wow. When I reached this gem of a paragraph, I realized how deluded you really are. Evolution is a failed theory. Unbelievable. Do you realise that the theory of gravity has also never been proven. Is it also a failed theory?

    As for the literal 6 day week. There is no better evidence that Man arose 3 million years ago or 6000. If Evolution is true then sure, 6000 doesn’t work. If Creation is true then it does. The science proves neither position.

    No, aslong as you simply ignore all the 2 My old fossils of obviously human ancestry. But of course, that doesnt fit with your belief, so you just ignore it.

    Show us the species that changed itself into a completely different species, you dumb-assed son-of-a-bitch.

    You have clearly never heard of Archaeopteryx, the dinosaur with feathers!!! But of course, its fake!! :rolleyes_wp:

    Your precious theory is just that - a theory. And it’s one you ain’t ever gonna prove, because you can’t.

    As for your theory argument, gravity is also a theory. Do you believe in gravity?

    King kitchen implement and george guy, both of you had better stop using your computers, TV’s, cellphones, cars, electricity, and every modern technology, since they are all possible because of “real scientists.” Fools.

    I give up on all of you. You are so set in your beliefs that you cant see the cracks behind the facade. But rest assured, I will tell all my intelligent friends about this thread, and the deluded, narrow-mined fools who refuse to even try to understand some of the most basic scientific principles, when said theories disprove their dogma.
    Oh, and Beeblebrox, I do not disrespect you. It takes courage to believe in something when all evidence points to the contrary. I can respect that. Plus you have been civil and polite.

  107. Unregistered Comment by VexVox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Okay Beeblebrox, lets take this from the begining.

    No need to even read further than that to know that the person writing the article is a “true believer”. When someone talks about how science has shown us how the universe evolved we know this person is either on Crack or is delusional. Science shows us nothing of the kind. It doesn’t because it can’t. Science is a process of explaining what is testable using naturalistic methods. Seeing what how the universe was “organized” 11.5 billion years ago as if were a proven fact is supercilious nonsense. Two things are well beyond the reach of science:

    The most widely accepted scientific thory for the begining ot the universe is the Big Bang. By using quantum physics and other very complex models physicists have determine what the universe was like milliseconds after the Big Bang, and there certainly werent full-formed planets wizzing around the universe. A quick read about the Big Bang will show that the universe has evolved from a mass of subatomic particles and other exotic things, to what we see today, with planets and stars and galaxies etc.

    As for the idea that life irrefutably started 3.5 million years ago, I snicker in your general direction VexVox. The scientific community is constantly changing both the age of the universe and how long ago life arose. Next year it will be “irrefutable” that life began 4 Million years ago. Why does this seem likely? Because in the past, other numbers than 3.5M were “irrefutable”.

    Yes, the age of life does change occasionally. From 3.65 My to 3.66 My etc. The exact age is irrelevant, since is far longer then what creationists claim.
    The numbers I have been saying arent exact, simply because I dont want to waste my time finding 1000 different ages that are all roughly 4.5 My or whatever. I say again, the exact age is irrelevant. Simply put, the world is too old for your beliefs to be true.

  108. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Show us the species that changed itself into a completely different species, you dumb-assed son-of-a-bitch.

    Had a grapefruit lately?

  109. Unregistered Comment by VexVox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Whoops. Ignore comment 111, computer screwed it up.

  110. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    VerVox, we don’t have a well accepted theory of gravity yet. Galileo just described its local effects and Newton showed it follows an inverse square law, while Einstein linked it to the flow of time. None of them had anything concrete enough to be called a “theory of gravity”, describing the nitty-gritty of what and why it is. Evolution at least explains why and how, not to mention who and where.

  111. Lc Scott Comment by Lc Scott

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Evolution at least explains why and how, not to mention who and where.

    Damed Strait.

    From my point of view evolution and creationism are not exclusive.

  112. Xystus Comment by Xystus

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Amazingly VV got the estimated ages wrong; it’s Gy (giga=thousand million=”billion”) not My (mega=million)–years: Possibly 13.7 for the cosmos & 4.56 for our solar system. Of course, it could all be a Matrix/Holodeck & not as real as we think! :wink_wp:

  113. LC Guido Cabrone Comment by LC Guido Cabrone

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    These damned Kleenex’s® just ain’t much of a medium for growin’ primordial goo experiments.

    Try putting them in a sun-warmed terrarium.

  114. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    As for the literal 6 day week. There is no better evidence that Man arose 3 million years ago or 6000. …

    Seen a fossil lately? How about a Neolithic settlement site?

    … If Evolution is true then sure, 6000 doesn’t work. If Creation is true then it does. …

    Yeah. We all remember how the Bible accounts for all of the different races and their various, widely-disparate regional physiological differences, and how they could have come about in the span of a couple of weeks. (Since these differences were already apparent when humans started actually writing down history on clay tablets.) 6,000 years works out just fine.

    …The science proves neither position.

    I’ll take the observable universe (fossil records, plate tectonics, astronomy, divergent morphology, etc…) as pretty good indicators of the Earth, and its accompanying surroundings, being slightly older than 6,000. Thankyouverymuch.

    Look, you want to bury your head in the sand do a Right Wing impression of the Drooling Ululaters, go right ahead. Just don’t try to teach MY daughter that your book has any standing in the field of science. Yeah, it might teach one how to get to heaven, but I’m not taking the word of a camel-skin-wearing cave dweller as to how the universe came about. Sorry. Just isn’t going to happen.

    BTW, how’re those elephants holding up on the back of the giant turtle these days? They’ve gotta be gettin’ leg cramps by now.
    :cool1_tb:

    Show us the species that changed itself into a completely different species, you dumb-assed son-of-a-bitch.

    VexVox, you’ve been elevated to “dumb-assed son-of-a-bitch”, along with Sir George, Fanusi & myself! Welcome to the club!
    :clap_tb:

    Update: (Oops. I missed this one, too. So sue me.)

    You are unbelievably full of shit. And I don’t say such things lightly, and without an amazing amount of provocation.

    Let me put it another way: What complete and utter, unsubstantiated BULLSHIT!

    Glad to know that VexVox, Sir George, Fanusi Khiyal & myself are “full of shit” for standing up for “observable science methodology”. Which, BTW, is what the vast majority of you seem to have no problems touting when it comes to debunking The Goreacle’s Anthropogenic Global Worming™. Just thought I’d point that out.

    :smoke_tb:

  115. LC Guido Cabrone Comment by LC Guido Cabrone

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    These damned Kleenex’s® just ain’t much of a medium for growin’ primordial goo experiments.

    Try putting them in a sun-warmed terrarium.

    Oh, yeah, add some sugar water. (Knew I was gonna forget something there, Bud…)

  116. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    VexVox, you’ve been elevated to “dumb-assed son-of-a-bitch”, along with Sir George, Fanusi & myself! Welcome to the club!

    So put up or shut up, BC.  Let’s see the pig that transformed itself into a horse.

    Gee, all I ask for is one species.  You’d think science  could at least come up with that.

    Had a grapefruit lately?

    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!  I expected better from you, George, but thanks for playing anyway.

  117. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    So put up or shut up, BC.

    Spats, I’d highly advise you to choose your words carefully when talking to me. I’m not one of those mewling morons from some Code Pink parade. I don’t hide behind my mommy’s skirt.

    I’ll now “re-recuse” myself from this discussion.

    That is all.

  118. Unregistered Comment by Special Ed

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Time is short. Having read through all the comments, I see that the arguments come down to this:

    Creationists generally believe that the Earth, Universe, and life were brought into being against all odds by God.

    Evolutionists generally believe that the Earth, Universe, and life were brought into being against all odds by random processes that, if available today, would be observable, measurable, and reproducible by scientific methodology

    Except that “evolution theory” requires a couple of “leaps of faith” for processes not yet understood, like how the Universe was brought into being, how life began, and how the laws of physics are mutable under extreme circumstances, like a Big Bang event.

    That last is a sticking point, too. If the laws of physics are not immutable, then all observations, speculations, and theories based on the laws of physics become useless.

  119. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Once again we journey down this path. I graduated from high school in 1967 believing in evolution. That’s what I was taught and I thought it was cool. Faith in a supernatural Being didn’t enter into the picture until a bit later, but I still believed in evolution because it was “science.”

    Nothing is as simple as it was. We accept things at face value from scientists we don’t know concerning things they cannot prove. Origins cannot be proven because they cannot be duplicated. End of argument. Everything else is faith.

    From Charles Dickens’ Hard Times:
    Now what I want is facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.

    And again

    from Dickens’ Sketches by Boz”… acquired a smattering of everything and a knowledge of nothing.”

    I fear our arguing falls somewhere in between.

    These discussionsabout the origin of life must ultimately involve the existence of a Supreme Being, some Primary Force, The Creator or whatever term you wish to use.

    Any Infinite God that can be defined and proven by human beings is no God at all. Therefore these discussions falter because:
    1) There is no belief in God, or
    2) There is no true understanding of God.

    As to item #1, there is no answer. God states that His Creation declares His works. If we refuse to see that, so be it. We do so at our own peril.

    For item #2, there is no answer. As finite beings we are incapable of intellectually or experientially grasping an Infinite Holy Being: how fearful, terrible and loving He is. We can only accept what He has revealed about Himself to us through scripture.

    I understand how ya feel BC. I extend my sympathies.

    And prayers (I had ta throw that in - God made me do it). :)

  120. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I understand how ya feel BC. I extend my sympathies.

    No sympathy needed, Sigster. Everyone has his own cross to bear. (HA!)

    :devil_tb: :lol_wp:

  121. LC Beeblebrox Comment by LC Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’ll take the observable universe (fossil records, plate tectonics, astronomy, divergent morphology, etc…)

    Funny, this is EXACTLY what I do BC IT. Each of these is proof of creation and the global flood. If you think that the fossil record is proof of uniformitarianism then you have really been brainwashed by the public school system my friend.

    Fossils are not laid down over millions of years, they are buried dramatically and rapidly. Fossils are much better explained by massive flood conditions than any “evolutionary” principle.

  122. SoCalOilMan, LC Comment by SoCalOilMan, LC

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I was recently listening to a lecture by Roger Penrose where he argued that the Hawking Radiation hypothesis may be wrong, and that black holes really do destroy entropy. Hence, this opens the door to a truly endless series of Universes.

    How convenient.

  123. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Had a grapefruit lately?

    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!! I expected better from you, George, but thanks for playing anyway.

    So God did it - sometime between 1693 and 1750?

  124. juandos Comment by juandos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I was recently listening to a lecture by Roger Penrose where he argued that the Hawking Radiation hypothesis may be wrong, and that black holes really do destroy entropy. Hence, this opens the door to a truly endless series of Universes

    Just for sake of argument Fanusi Khiyal let’s say that Penrose is correct in his educated guesstimate, what does that do for us or any other possible intelligent species out there in the universe?

  125. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Spats, I’d highly advise you to choose your words carefully when talking to me. I’m not one of those mewling morons from some Code Pink parade. I don’t hide behind my mommy’s skirt.

    So I ask for concrete proof, and you can give none.  Then you rip on us for supposedly wanting to shove “religion” down the Princess’ throat.

    So who’s the TrueBeliever™ here?

    And excuse me, sir, but I’ll use whatever words I damned well please.  With you or anyone else.  I back down from no one, and you should well know that by now.

    Oh for crying out loud! Once an evolutionary path has been accepted, it can’t be backtracked.

    In other words, evolution is true merely because you and your “peer-reviewed” scientist butt-buddies say  it’s true, and we’re just a bunch of Bible-thumping Backwoods Bumpkin Bozos™ if we so much as dare  to ask you for proof - is that it, dumb fuck?

    Sorry, it’s gonna take a helluva lot more than just your word on the subject.

    This is why no bacteria becomes an archaea or vice versa. It builds on what has come before. There are semi-backsteps, as I have already aluded to, but what you’re asking is impossible. And here’s the point: no evolutionary biologist says otherwise.

    Well, as long as you finally admit that your pissy little theory is bullshit, that’s good enough for me.

    So God did it - sometime between 1693 and 1750?

    You tell me, George.  Obviously you were there, and you can certify - with no fewer than ten (10) notaries public as witnesses - that grapefruit absolutely existed nowhere on Earth prior to 1693.

    And  that an orange (or an apple - hell, why not?) magically, through its own efforts and not one shred of assistance from any other agent anywhere, gave birth to the very first grapefruit in the universe.

    Go ahead, produce your documentation.  I’ll wait. (pulls out dog-eared copy of War and Peace)

  126. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    You tell me, George. Obviously you were there, and you can certify, with no fewer than ten (10) notaries public as witnesses, that grapefruit absolutely existed nowhere on Earth prior to 1693.

    Go ahead, produce your documentation. I’ll wait. (pulls out dog-eared copy of War and Peace)

    Yep. It’s a wild cross between an Asian pomelo and an orange that occured in the carribean. Oranges were brought to the carribean by the Spanish and the pomelo by the English.

    The Texas state fruit is the Ruby Red, which first appeared in 1929.

  127. LC Beeblebrox Comment by LC Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Vex:

    The most widely accepted scientific thory for the begining ot the universe is the Big Bang.

    Okay, no problem with this statement (except there are dozens of “Big Bang Theories so it is mostly a meaningless assertion). However YOUR POINT VEX was that the age of the earth, the universe, and the beginning of life itself have been proven, IRREFUTABLY!

    So now, realizing that this posit was ill-advised, you back track to “widely accepted theory”. Nicely done.

    By using quantum physics and other very complex models physicists have determine what the universe was like milliseconds after the Big Bang,

    Again, they have done NO SUCH THING. You asserting that such a determination has been made is more preposterous than BC IT’s pink unicorn theory. There is a THEORY about what happened after the theoretical big bang but that’s as far as it goes. Why don’t you just say that there is “irrefutable” evidence that scientists know exactly what happened “milliseconds” after the alleged big bang?

    there certainly werent full-formed planets wizzing around the universe.

    Didn’t say there were Vex. Read my post again on the gap theory.

    A quick read about the Big Bang will show that the universe has evolved from a mass of subatomic particles and other exotic things, to what we see today, with planets and stars and galaxies etc.

    I am not disputing that the universe was formed from a mass of subatomic particles so this is a straw man. Moving on.

    Yes, the age of life does change occasionally. From 3.65 My to 3.66 My etc. The exact age is irrelevant, since is far longer then what creationists claim.

    Except that Vex, you stated that your numbers were “irrefutable”. Those numbers have been changing and will continue to do so (primarily as chemists continue to find that they need more time for the magical abiogenesis theory to work.)

    I’m pleased to see you have changed your position in such a short amount of time. Couragous of you :blink_tb:

    The numbers I have been saying arent exact, simply because I dont want to waste my time finding 1000 different ages that are all roughly 4 My. I say again, the exact age is irrelevant.

    You should have thought of that before you stuck your metaphorical foot in your mouth.

    Abiogenesis is not a dead hypothesis. It’s development and refinement is very much alive.

    So is punctuated equilibrium, multi-verse theory, panspermia, and a lot of other hypotheses. That does not make them right. Chemical researchers have moved on because the math does not add up. The only reason that abiogenesis has found a resurgence among some is that Necessity is just silly.

    There are only three possible ways that life can have arisen:

    By Chance (abiogenesis)
    Because it had to (Necessity)
    By Design

    Those who have chosen, as a matter of faith, that life CANNOT have arisen through design, will probably continue to waffle between the other two possibilities, no matter how ludicrous they are.

    Ah, some more “impossible probability” and “incredible complexity” agruments.

    If you want to term it that way, the fine. But using the word “Ah” before starting a meaningless sentence does not give it more weight. Just sayin’. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, there is no possible way, in the amount of time alloted, for life to have arisen by chance. Period. End of argument.

    Evolution as we know it today is not the same thing as when it was first postulated.

    Agreed. And it will be totally different in 20 years. But we still teach it now as FACT. What I was taught as FACT, in high school in the 70s has been abandoned for yet more ludicrous FACTS that will be cast aside later when all the “irrefutable facts” being tossed around today by people like you Vex have been shown to be just so much cotton candy.

    It has evolved to include new ideas and evidence.

    It has evolved because evidence has proven that the old notions were wrong. The problem is, the new “ideas” are even more ridiculous than the old ones.

    That is the scientific method. Creationism is not a theory, it is a doctrine.

    Creationism most certainly is a theory. What I think you meant to say is “it is not a scientific theory as I, Vex, choose to define science”. If “science” is defined as something that can only explain naturalistic realities then, of course creationism is not science. But how about if I define science as something that can only be used to define the SUPERnatural. now all of the sudden, evolution is the thing that is no longer science. See how semantics works?

    So define science to only include things you believe by faith if you want. I think that is narrow minded and bigoted but you are free to do so if you choose.

    If they dont want to believe [science], fine. They dont get excommunicated from the “Church of Science”

    Sure they do. If you are not a true believer you will not go far in the halls of the Academy. If you knew anything about university biology labs Vex, you would not have made such a ridiculous statement.

    Evolution is a failed theory. Unbelievable. Do you realise that the theory of gravity has also never been proven. Is it also a failed theory?

    Non Sequitur. The two have nothing to do with each other. By this logic I could postulate any number of unproven theories and claim them as fact:

    “Did you know that Midichloridians are in certain people’s blood and makes them super powerful? It may seem unlikely but hey, the theory of gravity hasn’t been proven so what’s to say the Force isn’t tacit proof of the existence of Midichloridians?”

    I give up on all of you.

    I sense that Vex has met his match. Realizing that the indoctrination he has received from his “Church of Science” didn’t prepare him for an actual debate, he slinks away with his tail between his legs.

    But rest assured, I will be telling all my university students in the geology and paleontology departments about this thread, and the deluded, narrow-mined fools who refuse to even try to understand some of the most basic scientific principles, when said theories disprove their dogma.

    Ah the old “Even though I have barely a high school science education and live in my parent’s basement I will pretend to be a academic” routine.

    Vex, I saw nothing in your post that indicates you have any understanding of the issues at anymore than a talking point, rote book level. I get the impression that you don’t even realize that modern science is built on the shoulders of Creationists.

    Dont forget to quit using your cellphone and electricty. They were all made possible by real scientists who made gradiose claims that were correct.

    “Electricity” is made possible by scientists? That’s rich Vex. Like I said, you sound like a high school sophomore.

    By the way, the science behind the invention of a cellphone is a far cry from understanding, much less explaining the existence of DNA. DNA makes the OS running in even your most advanced cell phone (say OS X in the new iPhone) look like something scratched out in 10 seconds on an Etch-a-Sketch.

    You aren’t a evolution-hater, you hate science.

    Good one Vex.

    All I can say to that is: Oh Yeah? Well you, you… too! :bye_tb:

  128. LC Beeblebrox Comment by LC Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Vex said:

    Oh, and Beeblebrox, I do not disrespect you… you have been civil and polite.

    Very magnanimous of you Vex to recognize this. I try to be even when guys like you call guys like me:

    deluded, narrow-mined fools

    Which is why I tweaked you about your own narrow-mindedness and apparent poor grasp of the issues. I only say “apparent” because it may simply be that you have a hard time articulating a deeper understanding that you might have.

    The difference between us I think, is that I grew up learning about the theory that I now realize is nonsense. I have studied it, torn it apart, put it back together, believed in it, and eventually threw it out for a better explanation.

    I personally KNOW that evolution did not happen but I came to that conclusion from a different route. Put succinctly it works this way:

    The Bible is IRREFUTABLY the word of God. We know this because every prophesy that it contains that was to have occurred by now HAS occurred (and there are hundreds - 300 just on the first coming of Jesus Christ). This proves that God is the author of the Bible and not man. There is no getting around this. Like I said, it is irrefutable.

    If the Bible is the word of God and God says in the Bible that death did not occur before Adam then I accept that statement. As I said previously, the Bible is silent on the age of the earth prior to the “let there be light” moment so I can’t rely on Scripture for that information. If the scientific community wants to claim billions of years for the formation for the non-organic aspects of the universe, let them knock themselves out.

    This is quite different from the “God said it, so I believe it” viewpoint that tends to not worry about the underlying science. I do believe what God says in the Bible but I do so out of knowledge. I can look back at the hundreds of discoveries that rose from Scientists studying the Bible to realize that God knows what He is talking about.

    The apostle Paul himself refers to quantum theory and I think you have to agree that Paul, living in an age when the elements were understood by contemporary science to be earth, wind, air, and fire, probably did not know what he was writing about when he was inspired to write of the elements that make up the universe that are smaller than can be seen.

    I’ll digress for a minute to use this as a perfect example of why poo-pooing Biblical references to science is never a good idea. At one time the argument was made that Paul was referring somehow, to atomic particles. Guys like me would point out that this is proof of Divine inspiration. Biblical scholars pointed out that Paul was inspired to write of something he could not have possibly known anything about.

    However, when the electron microscope was invented and we could see atoms secularists pointed out that Paul was wrong when he talked about things so small they were invisible. Since we can see them with a microscope then Paul was wrong, ergo, the Bible is wrong.

    You might guess where I am going here. We now know that there are subatomic particles that exist beyond our ability to see them and in fact, attempts to measure them directly cause them to be elsewhere, rendering them completely invisible by any standard.

    So the apostle Paul was right after all.

    Well, that’s enough of that. I’m going to go back to my Science-Hating™ now.

  129. LC Beeblebrox Comment by LC Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Out of pure interest, do you know how many versions of a creator myth there are?

    Probably hundreds. Are you saying that the Big Bang theory, because there are hundreds of variations, is a myth?

    Let me try this. Do you know how many evolutionary researchers working today believe in the outright scam of anthropogenic global warming?

  130. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Oh, brother. I nominate VexVox for King of the Strawman and non-sequitur for this thread.

    Beeblebrox has done his usual marvelous job of pointing out the flaws, but this one comment struck me:

    But rest assured, I will be telling all my university students in the geology and paleontology departments about this thread, and the deluded, narrow-mined fools who refuse to even try to understand some of the most basic scientific principles, when said theories disprove their dogma.

    The assumptions in this statement are downright amazing. The notion that he could reach the conclusion that we haven’t even tried to understand the science is astonishing.

    The notion that a theory can, “disprove a dogma,” is about as unscientific as I’ve seen espoused on this thread.

    The notion that anyone who questions the validity of this theory makes them, “Deluded, narrow-minded fools,” serves only as evidence of how narrow-minded he is, in his BELIEF in the ever-evolving theory of evolution.

  131. LC Beeblebrox Comment by LC Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Go ahead, produce your documentation. I’ll wait. (pulls out dog-eared copy of War and Peace)

    Hey Spat, I thought you might have finished that tome by now given that you’ve been reading it since we asked DJ, last month to come up with his proof of crimes committed by Bush during his administration. :cool1_tb:

  132. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Well, I had to put it down to get some sleep, y’know.

  133. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Yep. It’s a wild cross between an Asian pomelo and an orange that occured in the carribean. Oranges were brought to the carribean by the Spanish and the pomelo by the English.

    Right.  In other words, a 3rd-party agent. (Or in this case, a pair of ‘em.)

    Kinda like breeding a chow and a terrier (the high-energy fluffball sitting behind my chair being proof thereof). But it’s still a dog, just as the grapefruit is still a citrus fruit.

    IOW, it’s not proof of evolution.  Try again.

  134. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Kinda like breeding a chow and a terrier (the high-energy fluffball sitting behind my chair being proof thereof). But it’s still a dog, just as the grapefruit is still a citrus fruit.

    Now if you could corss breed the chow and terrier into a species that had no head but a full functional foremounted asshole that could eat, breathe, bark, shit, piss and smell all through the same orifice - call it the “Uber Asshole” - then I’d say evolution has a shot at it.

  135. Cheapshot911 Comment by Cheapshot911

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’ll take the observable universe (fossil records, plate tectonics, astronomy, divergent morphology, etc…)

    ‘Ended many discussions and salvaged friendships by responding to “Well, history is written by the victors!” with my “Precisly why we must look closely and methodicaly at the ARTIFACTS!”

  136. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    One more comment before I get on with my day.

    I don’t believe I ever stated that I believe in, “creationism,” although I do.

    I merely pointed out the flaws in a ridiculous statement about, “irrefutable,” science which, “proves creationism false,” and, “leaves only abiogenesis as an explanation.”

    For that, I received this condescending admonishment:

    If you still believe in Creationism, you are beyond help. If you accept that the Earth was not created as described in Genesis, but as scientists know it was, and still want to believe that God created life, then you are a proponent of the equally flawed belief of Intelligent Design.

    As for your “unbelievably remote” argument, I some how doubt that you are a mathatician or a biologist, so try reading what the real scentists say And do try to read all of the page, you might just learn something.

    So, they can’t explain how abiogenesis occured, or even PROVE it happened, but creationism must be wrong, and intelligent design is a, “flawed belief.”

    It takes a great deal of faith in your belief to leap to those conclusions.

    FYI, I’m not in agreement with the, “7-24 hour days of creation,” crowd. That has never made sense to me, particularly in light of the fact that our 24 hour day is based on the earth’s relationship to the sun, which wasn’t created until day FOUR.

    But what amazes me is the refusal of the evolution zealots to even consider the possibility of a, “guiding hand,” in the origins of life, despite the incredible complexity of it, which has been proven EVEN MORE COMPLEX that Darwin ever imagined.

  137. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    *yawns and stretches* Sorry for the delay in replying, but I’m on the other side of the Atlantic.

    Nothing to apologize for, Fanusi. Time diff is a beeotch. Thanks for hanging in there and keeping the debate going. I love debate and, as we all know, for a debate to exist, you have to disagree on some points. :smile1_tb:

    *blinks* Okay, the relatedness amongst organisms as seem when you compare their DNA sequences to each other. This is exactly what Darwin’s theory predicted we would find. And, remember, Darwin wrote a long time before DNA was discovered.

    The Universal Phylogenetic tree of life is based on rRNA sequences, and the interesting thing is that everything fits into it. Exactly as we would expect.

    I’m perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the recurrence of identical DNA sequences in different species could indicate common ancestry. However, it could also just as easily indicate intelligent design. After all, if the Creator had come up with components that work, why on Earth wouldn’t He use those same components in different organisms? It would seem kind of silly for Him to waste time and energy meticulously coming up with new ways of doing the same thing for every single species, wouldn’t it?

    Well, unless He really just wanted to impress the Hell out of us all, that is. :wink_ee:

    For example, there is the much touted bacterial flagellum. Ironically, this one was thrust into the limelight by a creationist attack based on it. Behe said it was irreducibly complex. However, it is actually derived from a ubiquitous structure called a type III secretion system.

    Are you referring to the research of Minnich? Because, if you are, he found that only 10 of the 40 components in the flagellum could have independently come from somewhere else. That still leaves us with 30 components that would have had to spontaneously pop up at the same time, in the same place, incorporating the other 10.

    Now, knowing that the term is rarely abused colloquially, I’ll refrain from saying “impossible” here, but still…

    The thing is that our evolutionary past leaves records in our DNA - in much the same way that a deleted file leaves behind records on the hard disk. This is seen very dramatically when, though this is rare, one becomes active and you end up with a human child born with a tail or covered in hair.

    And this “proves” what, exactly? The genes for tails or hirsuteness are there but suppressed most of the time. That hardly proves evolution, since no new information popped up. The human is still a human, tail or no tail. For evolution to work, you have to add information, not just reshuffle existing information.

    I have yet to hear any biologist say that they know ‘exactly’ how life came about, i.e. started in the first place, though there is very good evidence for the beginnings of the RNA world. But after that we have mountains of evidence for how it developed.

    No you don’t. What you do have is a bunch of quite interesting, yet highly improbable conjectures. Which is justification enough, in my opinion, for keeping them in consideration, but it doesn’t make it truth.

    Droll. But I am certain that, if they honestly study the evidence, they will end up supporting evolution.

    Funny, because that’s exactly how I ended up discarding evolution and atheism. You see, I used to believe like that, but the more I studied the evidence, the more I came to realize how much at odds it was with reality and how many leaps of faith and insertions of “then, something WONDERFUL happened” I had to use to even make sense of it.

    And yes, I know that believing in G-d requires a humongous leap of faith too, but that’s what we’re left with. We cannot KNOW how it all happened, so we’re going to have to take SOMETHING on faith. The thing is, G-d helpfully kept it simple, He didn’t fumble around with things (and why would He? He knew exactly what He was doing) and He helpfully told us all how He did it too. He told us things that could not POSSIBLY have been known by the people of the time yet now, some 4,000 years later, it still fits.

    I’m not saying I can PROVE it, because I can’t, but at least I have the humility to admit that I can’t. All I’m saying is that it makes a whole heck of a lot more sense than the alternative.

    As I said, I have as much trouble with people blindly supporting scientific fact as with blindly supporting anything else. A wise woman once said “One error made on your own is more valuable than ten truths taken on faith”.

    And I agree. Which is why I don’t see what the problem is. I’d never try to keep evolutionism out of the classroom just because it can’t be proven. It’s an interesting idea, and I’m all in favor of letting the kids know about all the alternatives, then make up their own minds. If creationists were to suggest that evolutionism should be banned and that creationism should be taught as The Truth, No Doubt and Discussion Allowed™, I’d be every bit as pissed off as I am now that the opposite is the case.

    (And the rest of y’all, calm the fuck down or I’ll shut down the thread.)

  138. Gang of One Comment by Gang of One

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Some excellent debate is raging on this thread. I will not presume to have the sharpness of intellect that both sides of the debate are exhibiting. Even though some of the posts are descending to some name-calling and finger-flipping, there is still a level of civility I find reassuring.
    With that said, I would again re-iterate my earlier contention that evolution and creationism – science and religion – are but two sides of a single coin of the realm which is our long, long struggle for life on this planet.
    I will again quote from a highly controversial text, and provide links to a page that, should any of my friends here wish to explore and mull over, I would attest has changed my perspective on faith and conviction.

    Science is sustained by reason, religion by faith. Faith, though not predicated on reason, is reasonable; though independent of logic, it is nonetheless encouraged by sound logic. Faith cannot be nourished even by an ideal philosophy; indeed, it is, with science, the very source of such a philosophy. Faith, human religious insight, can be surely instructed only by revelation, can be surely elevated only by personal mortal experience with the spiritual Adjuster presence of the God who is spirit.

    What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic.

    In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. On the morontia level, the postulates of both science and religion are capable of partial proof by mota logic. On the spiritual level of maximum status, the need for finite proof gradually vanishes before the actual experience of and with reality; but even then there is much beyond the finite that remains unproved. All divisions of human thought are predicated on certain assumptions which are accepted, though unproved, by the constitutive reality sensitivity of the mind endowment of man. Science starts out on its vaunted career of reasoning by assuming the reality of three things: matter, motion, and life. Religion starts out with the assumption of the validity of three things: mind, spirit, and the universe–the Supreme Being.

  139. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Now if you could corss breed the chow and terrier into a species that had no head but a full functional foremounted asshole that could eat, breathe, bark, shit, piss and smell all through the same orifice - call it the “Uber Asshole” - then I’d say evolution has a shot at it.

    We did.  He’s now running mishawatch.com.

  140. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Thanks Gang, but linkee no workee…

  141. LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy Comment by LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    And the rest of y’all, calm the [deleted] down or I’ll shut down the thread.

    Sire, are you referring to the one who recused himself a couple of times in this thread? :dry_tb:

    Of course, if the Emperor wants calm, who am I to disagree?

  142. Gang of One Comment by Gang of One

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    My bad, Sig.

    Here is but one page of links from an extremely interesting yet almost unknown source of incredible information.
    Remind me to tell you a most entertaining anecdote regarding this source.

  143. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Thank you, Gang Of One.

    Science is sustained by reason, religion by faith. Faith, though not predicated on reason, is reasonable; though independent of logic, it is nonetheless encouraged by sound logic. Faith cannot be nourished even by an ideal philosophy; indeed, it is, with science, the very source of such a philosophy. Faith, human religious insight, can be surely instructed only by revelation, can be surely elevated only by personal mortal experience with the spiritual Adjuster presence of the God who is spirit.

    Game, set and match. You got it right. I could relate several experiences inherent to my life expeerience. For like some others here, I have an extensive library of some two thousand books, along with my web sources and a library down the street. But something was missing, I felt it more and more strongly as I aged. As a young man I waxed scientific and pragmatic, only to discover later in life all was not as it seemed. I belive it is called wisdom, something you cannot buy or learn in a classroom. A friend asked me,name one species that has jumped to another, or one that mutated so much it could no longer reproduce with it’s own kind. Many years ago, I have yet to find an answer. All told, over time I discovered science does not and probably will never have an answer for the divine spark, the human wisdom seeking meaning in all things. I do not speak of search and research. I know there is a God…….I don’t debate the point now…for based on my life experiences it is unnecessary. As for how things came about and continue, I do not have an answer. I read, listen, occasionally tender my input. But one thing I do know……one day we shall all surely find out………

  144. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sire, are you referring to the one who recused himself a couple of times in this thread?

    Yeah, Beeblebrox, that’d be me. I’m the one calling everyone “dumbassed son-of-a-bitches” and saying they’re “full of shit” and telling the ones with actual physical evidence (It’s called “Everything observable in nature”.) to back up their arguments to “shut up”.

    :wallbash_tb:

    Or it could be directed to those who are actually saying shit like that. Who knows?

    Oh, and if anyone would care to pay for my plane ticket, I’d happily come say it to their face.

    *Looking around for that “Fuck you, pussy!” smiley*

    :furious_tb:

  145. LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy Comment by LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BC IT, Chill dood. I brought you up because you were the one using the “furious” smiley from the get go!

    It was meant as a light-heated jab at a guy who seems very sure of the right-ness of his positions for a person who is always arguing against absolutes :wink_ee:

  146. Gang of One Comment by Gang of One

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BC IT,

    I think either of these would do nicely: :grin2_ee: :guns_tb:

  147. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Beeblebrox, that wasn’t the “furious” smiley. It was the “Banging head against the wall” smiley. It was used because this subject invariably leads to certain individuals calling everyone who doesn’t take the word of a bunch of Neolithic/Bronze Age, camel-skin-wearing Middle Easterners as “gospel” on “how the universe began“, a bunch of “dumbassed sons-of-bitches”.

    With your participation in more than one of these discussions, I figured you would have figured out the use of that particular smiley from “the get-go”.
    :wink_ee:

  148. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Let’s just say that it was hardly unprovoked.

    Just trying to keep the level of not-so-friendly fire down here before everybody blows up.

  149. LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy Comment by LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Did I say “furious”? I meant “Wallbash” (’cause we’re all just a bunch of ignorant rubes around here I guess?).

    And what about calling the opinions of those with whom you disagree “scatological, zealous religiosity” akin to herding “caffeine-infused, grease-covered cats”

    And didn’t you say:

    Do you people have any idea how this kind of shit makes this, and many other places on The Right Side of the Aisle™, look like mirrors of the Demented Ungulates™?

    And then claiming that NAZIs were Christians and that theism leads to beliefs in unicorns and pink bunnies.

    How about the troll baiting:

    Seems someone already had the Holy Hotline™ open to The Big Cheese™ long before they cut out all of the boring, administrative stuff and whittled it down to The Big Ten™.

    Not that I really care what you think of Christians but to claim to be pure as the wind driven snow because it was the other meanies that used the bad words™, doesn’t cut it with me my friend.

    Just a word to the wise. Go have a beer. :cheese1_ee:

  150. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Just trying to keep the level of not-so-friendly fire down here before everybody blows up.

    Speaking of which, where’s the old “Nuke ‘em!” smiley that we used to have around here?

  151. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Speaking of which, where’s the old “Nuke ‘em!” smiley that we used to have around here?

    Now that you mention it. I miss that little bugger too.

    Paging DJ… Paging DJ

  152. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Another three-hundred comment thread coming up

    One ragged piece of flesh at a time.

  153. Unregistered Comment by VexVox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Funny, this is EXACTLY what I do BC IT. Each of these is proof of creation and the global flood. If you think that the fossil record is proof of uniformitarianism then you have really been brainwashed by the public school system my friend.

    Fossils are not laid down over millions of years, they are buried dramatically and rapidly. Fossils are much better explained by massive flood conditions than any “evolutionary” principle.

    This is the fundamental problem with the whole idea of creationism. Beeblebrox, do you know what radiometric dating site and look at the sections on 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Fossil Hominids, Transitional Vertebrate Fossils, The Archaeopteryx FAQs, and some of the others ones. Here is the proof that fossils do not support creationism. Why dont you try to find some evidence for your theory? I would gladly look at it.

    In other words, evolution is true merely because you and your “peer-reviewed” scientist butt-buddies say it’s true, and we’re just a bunch of Bible-thumping Backwoods Bumpkin Bozos™ if we so much as dare to ask you for proof - is that it, dumb fuck?

    We have given you tons of proof. You merely refuse to even look at it. You have consistantly derided the scientific method, scientists, and science in general. If I sent you a well-known, proven book on evolution, would you even read it?

    But, as I mentioned in a previous post, there is no possible way, in the amount of time alloted, for life to have arisen by chance. Period. End of argument.

    Your evidence is flawed. It calculates the chance of RNA randmonly assembling. RNA does not form by itself, there are steps before it. Look at these arguments. While you are at your local university, also go talk to a molecular biologist, they can explain it better. And Dr. Mullan is an astrophysicist.

    creationism most certainly is a theory. What I think you meant to say is “it is not a scientific theory as I, Vex, choose to define science”. If “science” is defined as something that can only explain naturalistic realities then, of course creationism is not science. But how about if I define science as something that can only be used to define the SUPERnatural. now all of the sudden, evolution is the thing that is no longer science. See how semantics works?

    That is ridiculous. You can’t change the definition just to support you argument. Here is a good definition of what a scientific theory is: “The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work.” Why dont you post how you define a scientific theory. for that matter, what is your definition of science?
    Yes, creationism was once a hypothesis. It was then tested and compared to observations. And it failed. Look at all of our evidence. Talk to a university professser in a relevant field.
    creationism is a docrine. “a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school” Yet you have no evidence to support it. It is not science.

    So define science to only include things you believe by faith if you want. I think that is narrow minded and bigoted but you are free to do so if you choose.

    The definition of science leds people to believe things by evidence, not faith. It is your beliefs that involve faith and no science.

    Non Sequitur. The two have nothing to do with each other. By this logic I could postulate any number of unproven theories and claim them as fact:

    “Did you know that Midichloridians are in certain people’s blood and makes them super powerful? It may seem unlikely but hey, the theory of gravity hasn’t been proven so what’s to say the Force isn’t tacit proof of the existence of Midichloridians?”

    The problem with your logic is that there is evidence for gravity. There is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for creationism. You cannot have a theory without proof.

    “Electricity” is made possible by scientists? That’s rich Vex.

    Yes, it is. Does the bible explain how electricity works? Electricity was not “made” by scientists. They merely discovered the fundamental laws of physics that cause electricity and learned how to utilize it.

    Good one Vex.

    All I can say to that is: Oh Yeah? Well you, you… too! :bye_tb:

    Good come-back. I notice that you didnt deny it, by saying “you… too!” shows how you think we both hate science. I do not hate science, that is a stupid claim. I’m the one defending science and evolution here! So that leave just you.

    Beeblebrox, I am speechless. You make claims with no evidence. You change definitions to suit your argument. You say that “modern science is built on the shoulders of Creationists.” That is the most patently false statement I have ever heard.

    So I offer this challange to all the creationists here. Prove it. And when you can’t, don’t complain that evolution is indoctrination.

  154. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Chuckie sez:

    I haven’t been in on this subject here before. Can I expect a wild ride?

    :jittery_tb:

    On the Rott we eat our dead; sometimes they’re still alive…
    :shock_tb:

  155. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    (Note: If any of the blockquotes don’t work, oh well.)

    And didn’t you say:

    “Do you people have any idea how this kind of shit makes this, and many other places on The Right Side of the Aisle™, look like mirrors of the Demented Ungulates™?”

    And what about calling the opinions of those with whom you disagree “scatological, zealous religiosity” akin to herding “caffeine-infused, grease-covered cats”

    Because to blindly throw religious dogma, straw men & un-testable, un-verifialble “arguments” into a scientific debate is just that. How is anyone supposed to take our side of the Global Worming™ debate seriously if our most scientific “argument” for physics & thermo-dynamic laws of nature are “Well, G-d said it’s so, so THERE!”?

    As I alluded to in my “elephants’ legs getting tired” jab, why not teach Native American (North AND South), Hindu, Inuit, African, Australian Aborigine, Buddhist, et al. “creation theories” in science class? They’re all just as valid as anything Biblical, when it comes down to “scientific explanations of the universe’s beginnings.

    And then claiming that NAZIs were Christians and that theism leads to beliefs in unicorns and pink bunnies.

    I’m not the one who “claimed” that NAZIs were Christians. It just so happens that the vast majority of them WERE “Christians”. (There goes the old “Well, they can CLAIM that they were Christians, but they really WEREN’T Christians.” circular argument again.) I didn’t say that Christianity LED to the NAZIs. Someone else postulated “atheism opened the door to the the Communists & Nazis becoming a reality“. (I’m too tired of this shit to go back and look to see who brought it up. So sue me.) I simply brought up the fact that most of the Nazis happened to be “Christians”. (Again, historical facts are historical facts. I don’t blame “Christianity” for the rise of the NAZI’s, or the KKK for that matter, anymore than I blame atheism for the rise of Communism. Socialism/Communism just happened to embrace atheism as a convenient way to pull power away from the churches in their quest for control of the masses’ minds. The KKK used/uses their virulent brand of “Christianity” to justify their hatred towards blacks, Jews, Muslims, pink zebras, etc…)

    Seems someone already had the Holy Hotline™ open to The Big Cheese™ long before they cut out all of the boring, administrative stuff and whittled it down to The Big Ten™.

    Pointing out that someone had already come up with a set of “divinely-inspired rules to live by”, which were heavily-borrow-upon by someone later on, and delivering it humorously is now considered “troll baiting”? Hmmmm. I’ll have to remember that.

    Not that I really care what you think of Christians…

    Good. Because I happen to know and like a few of them. But, that shouldn’t matter to you one bit, either way.

    …but to claim to be pure as the wind driven snow because it was the other meanies that used the bad words™, doesn’t cut it with me my friend.

    I never claimed to be “pure as the wind driven snow”. Believe me, if I’d called YOU a “dumbassed son-of-a-bitch” or said your point of view was “bullshit”, even though you had mountains of real world evidence to prove me wrong and I only had “faith” on my side, I’d EXPECT you to come out firing both barrels of your Invective Gun o’ Doom™.

    Again, this is precisely why I try to stay out of threads like this. It rarely, if ever, leads to anyone changing their point of view and just leads to hurt feelings and raised BP on all sides.

    Now. This time, I mean it. I’m done. Finished. Out.

    Anyone wants to discuss it further with me, they can e-mail or IM me.

    F.E.T.E.

  156. Lady Heather Comment by Lady Heather

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Speaking of which, where’s the old “Nuke ‘em!” smiley that we used to have around here?

    Forget that.

    We need a Rodney King “Can’t we all just get along?” one.

    :tongue1_tb:

  157. LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy Comment by LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    OK BC fine enough. You are certainly welcome to end your part of this thread with a boat load of BS and then leave. (And you are worried about how we are perceived in the AGW debate? Hmmm.)

    BTW for lurkers, I don’t really care what the proGoreistic AGW people think of me. My science is right on the climate debate and my science is right on the origins debate. I long ago realized I didn’t have the faith to believe in the Goo to Gore theory so I settled on the Biblical account (for reasons I have already stated).

    Cheerio

  158. BC, Imperial Torturer Comment by BC, Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Forget that.

    We need a Rodney King “Can’t we all just get along?” one.

    There’s a smiley of cops beating the shit out of a deserving scumbag?

    :lol_wp:

    Okay. I’m out for good now. Really. I mean it this time. :smoke_tb:

  159. LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy Comment by LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    One other comment for those who have not signed off this thread

    Again, this is precisely why I try to stay out of threads like this. It rarely, if ever, leads to anyone changing their point of view and just leads to hurt feelings and raised BP on all sides.

    If the reasons we engaged in debates was to change the opposing position’s mind, we might as well give up. I see these debates as an opportunity for those of like minds to hone their positions. BC can think I am a zealot and I can think that he is a good example of public education science curricula indoctrination but the hope is that others reading the arguments will be able to decide who has the better position.

    One thing I do agree with BC IT on is that bomb-throwing as a debate tactic is best left to the professionals (i.e. the owner of this blog). :lol_ee:

  160. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Oh man, I wish I’d discovered this thread earlier…

    It has probably been pointed out already, but I’m genuinely perplexed as to why, if the resident Creationists are so sure of the accuracy of their position, they have been so reticent when it comes to providing positive, empirical evidence to substantiate it. As it stands, Creationists like Beeblebrox have merely tried to poke holes in evolutionary theory without putting forward a positive theory of their own. Needless to say, one could devote one’s entire life to poking holes in evolutionary theory day in, day out, until it acquires the consistency of Swiss cheese, but this does not constitute evidence that Creationism must be correct.

    I’d very much like to see some hard, empirical evidence which substantiates the major claims of the Creationists and which doesn’t rely on some tertiary ambiguity in the theory of evolution. If, and I strongly doubt this, there is more to Creationism than “MAGIC MAN DUN IT!”, surely such evidence will be forthcoming.

    If anyone wants me, I’ll be in the corner reading War and Peace.

  161. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Also much respect to fellow limey Fanusi Khiyal for fighting the good fight so tenaciously and convincingly. Nice job fella.

  162. Gang of One Comment by Gang of One

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I just can’t help myself:

    8. THE LEGEND OF CREATION

    The story of the creation of Urantia in six days was based on the tradition that Adam and Eve had spent just six days in their initial survey of the Garden. This circumstance lent almost sacred sanction to the time period of the week, which had been originally introduced by the Dalamatians. Adam’s spending six days inspecting the Garden and formulating preliminary plans for organization was not prearranged; it was worked out from day to day. The choosing of the seventh day for worship was wholly incidental to the facts herewith narrated.

    The legend of the making of the world in six days was an afterthought, in fact, more than thirty thousand years afterwards. One feature of the narrative, the sudden appearance of the sun and moon, may have taken origin in the traditions of the onetime sudden emergence of the world from a dense space cloud of minute matter which had long obscured both sun and moon.

    The story of creating Eve out of Adam’s rib is a confused condensation of the Adamic arrival and the celestial surgery connected with the interchange of living substances associated with the coming of the corporeal staff of the Planetary Prince more than four hundred and fifty thousand years previously.

    The majority of the world’s peoples have been influenced by the tradition that Adam and Eve had physical forms created for them upon their arrival on Urantia. The belief in man’s having been created from clay was well-nigh universal in the Eastern Hemisphere; this tradition can be traced from the Philippine Islands around the world to Africa. And many groups accepted this story of man’s clay origin by some form of special creation in the place of the earlier beliefs in progressive creation–evolution.

    There’s a whole lot more, here.

  163. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Funny, this is EXACTLY what I do BC IT. Each of these is proof of creation and the global flood. If you think that the fossil record is proof of uniformitarianism then you have really been brainwashed by the public school system my friend.

    Fossils are not laid down over millions of years, they are buried dramatically and rapidly. Fossils are much better explained by massive flood conditions than any “evolutionary” principle.

    You can’t get 200 vertical feet of clam fossils across an entire seaboard from a single flood. There’s not even enough water here for a single flood. The reason geology gave up on Noah’s flood was that they couldn’t find any evidence for it.

  164. Gang of One Comment by Gang of One

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Muzzy,

    My posts are meant for anyone and everyone who have honest questions and are genuinely interested in revealed truth from a distinctly ecumenical source.
    They are also especially for folks like you who seem to take a certain amount of arrogant pride in your secularism.

    I mean no offense toward you, but bear in mind that your over-confidence in your atheistic world-view is just as disturbing as the blind faith of those who miss the forest for the trees when it comes to the extraordinary relationship between science and faith.

    If I have come away from this debate with anything it is that both creationism and evolution are part of the same phenomenon and part of the same order of things.
    and as it is, both should be taught as theories and approaches, as philosophy rather than immutable fact.

  165. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Needless to say, one could devote one’s entire life to poking holes in evolutionary theory day in, day out, until it acquires the consistency of Swiss cheese, but this does not constitute evidence that Creationism must be correct.

    And, on the other side of the coin we have the opposite, the evolutionists claiming that there is no scientific basis for intelligent design, despite the obvious truth of irreducible complexity.

    Despite the fact that they can neither prove nor explain how such complex lifeforms arose, “spontaneously,” they discount any explanation involving a guiding hand as, “unscientific.”

    Then they cling to their impossible notion of spontaneous generation…because they can’t explain it any other way.

    Finally, they declare any critics of evolutionary theory, “narrow-minded,” and, “anti-science.”

    What I continue to come away with from these discussions is that neither side can “prove” their belief…and it ultimately boils down to what you believe.

  166. LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy Comment by LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    “B” for effort Muzz but your rhetoric doesn’t wash with me.

    if the resident Creationists are so sure of the accuracy of their position, they have been so reticent when it comes to providing positive, empirical evidence to substantiate it.

    Muzzy, I challenge you on this point right off the bat. Scientific theories are debunked all the time without the debunker showing a better substitute (although I think Creation is a much better explanation for origins and IS a positive alternative theory).

    Nevertheless, I find it more than ironic to hear your criticism given that pretty much any counter argument to ID, for example, is not on the merits but a shallow dismissal of the whole field because it is “religion”. It’s a good thing you weren’t around when the fathers of modern science were taking their cues from the Bible as they researched their various areas of interest. You’d still be heating your hut with a mound of dung right about now.

    The problem with your entire complaint Muzzy, is that you are demanding of us that we prove our position without referencing evidence of design, or the problems with evolution. You want us to prove our position as valid using only a naturalistic framework that you want to control.

    Thanks for laying out those rules for us. It is appreciated.

  167. LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy Comment by LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    You can’t get 200 vertical feet of clam fossils across an entire seaboard from a single flood. There’s not even enough water here for a single flood. The reason geology gave up on Noah’s flood was that they couldn’t find any evidence for it.

    Really, and you know this exactly how? You are assuming a uniformitarian model. I don’t. I also know that fossils are not created through any mechanism but rapid burial. The Noahic flood would explain this. Evolutionists have NO EXPLANATION for the mass burial of animal and plant life that has produced the fossil record we see today.

  168. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Evolutionists aren’t the ones trying to brush away the existance and importance of fossils. Indeed, fossils form one of their most important fields of study. On the other hand, you say that hundreds of vertical feet of fossils come from the flood, and since these hundreds of feet of fossils are far above any past or present non-Noachian sea level, there must’ve been hundreds of vertical feet of dead clams floating upward in the water. How did Noah ever even see the water if it was completely covered in all those bloated corpses that were waiting for the clams to hit bottom so they wouldn’t mess up the evolutionary record? Of course along with all the dead clams are all those dead fish and dead sharks that apparently drowned - in a flood. Why is that?

    And how did kangaroos and koala bears make it to the ark? Did they swim, or did the koalas find a magic eucalyptus trail from Australia to the Middle East? Did polar bears get driven to the ark in refrigerated trucks? They must have, because they can’t take warm temperatures. How did all the cave life, which can’t live outside of a cave, make it to the ark? Did they tunnel? After the flood, how did all the animals know how to go back to the right continents so they’d live on top of the right fossil ancestors?

  169. LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy Comment by LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Of course along with all the dead clams are all those dead fish and dead sharks that apparently drowned - in a flood. Why is that?

    These are all valid questions Sir George. Geologists and hydrologists who accept the flood theory (primarily because it is the best explanation for the huge amount of fossils) do have explanations. Regarding questions like why did fish get buried, my reading on the theory is that there was such great upheaval that was so catastrophic that all manner of sea life was caught in underwater avalanches and such. Of course, the same question applies to how a shark could get buried in the evolutionary model.

    The existence of so many fossils in the “Cambrian” is actually one of the biggest problems for the evolutionary theory and the best evidence for a global flood. Fast, catastrophic burial explains fossils, slow sedimentary accumulation of silts, etc. does not.

    And how did kangaroos and koala bears make it to the ark? Did they swim, or did the koalas find a magic eucalyptus trail from Australia to the Middle East?

    This and questions like it are worth pursuing of course. If the continents were always like they are now, then you have a point. If they have not been then you don’t.

    Again, because I am a catastrophist, I have no problem with the idea that there was massive upheaval during the flood period which would explain much of why the earth looks the way it does now.

    Did polar bears get driven to the ark in refrigerated trucks? They must have, because they can’t take warm temperatures.

    Actually, polar bears are in zoos all over the world. They like to stay in the water in warm climes but sorry, this is not much of an argument.

    How did all the cave life, which can’t live outside of a cave, make it to the ark? Did they tunnel? After the flood, how did all the animals know how to go back to the right continents so they’d live on top of the right fossil ancestors?

    All good questions. It’s been awhile since I read the what the answers to these specific questions are. Henry Morris wrote the definitive book on the subject. I’ll have to pull it out some time and brush up.

    Bottom line, while these are all worthwhile questions, they are not refutations. The fact that fossils don’t form in uniformitarian situations is pretty much unanswerable by evolutionists. If you have an explanation how billions of fossils could be laid down at one time all over the world please feel free to elaborate.

  170. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Regarding questions like why did fish get buried, my reading on the theory is that there was such great upheaval that was so catastrophic that all manner of sea life was caught in underwater avalanches and such. Of course, the same question applies to how a shark could get buried in the evolutionary model.

    In the evolutionary model the shark just swims around, eats fish, has kids, and then dies, sinks to the bottom, and gets covered in the slow rain of particles from the surface, along with mud and fish poop. It’s real simple like that.

    The existence of so many fossils in the “Cambrian” is actually one of the biggest problems for the evolutionary theory and the best evidence for a global flood. Fast, catastrophic burial explains fossils, slow sedimentary accumulation of silts, etc. does not.

    How does the global flood explain all the fossils in the Ordovichian, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (my favorite two caving stratas), and the Permian, before we even get to the Mesozoic (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous) and Cenozoic? All of these layers can be over a thousand feet thick and packed with fossils.

    Again, how do you have hundreds of feet worth of fossils across almost entire continents if all the plants and animals were alive at the same time? Do you really think animals were standing on each other’s shoulders in some giant one-hundred foot pre-historic panda pyramid, waiting for the flood to hit before the ones on the bottom all suffocated?

    I asked: And how did kangaroos and koala bears make it to the ark? Did they swim, or did the koalas find a magic eucalyptus trail from Australia to the Middle East?

    This and questions like it are worth pursuing of course. If the continents were always like they are now, then you have a point. If they have not been then you don’t.

    The Bible talks about the Tigris, Euphrates, and other areas that existed prior to the flood. If the Biblical lands were unchanged by the flood then I’m pretty sure Australia and America weren’t flung halfway around the world in a month or the Bible would’ve mentioned it to highlight God’s amazing powers.

    Regarding Morris, you can’t claim you’re basing your argument on the Bible when you blithely rewrite Genesis to make up a new and improved creation story that doesn’t sound quite so silly.

  171. Unregistered Comment by Special Ed

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Yes, creationism was once a hypothesis. It was then tested and compared to observations. And it failed.

    Creation theory did not fail. It is untestable. For all we can prove, Life, the Universe, and Everything were created five minutes ago. Even you, complete with memories that make you say “But I remember further back than five minutes!” It is impossible to either prove or disprove.

    Creationists are continually asked to prove the unprovable, Creation; or asked to prove a negative, that evolution doesn’t work. That’s a hard row to hoe.

    Naturalists are asked to prove a positive, that Life, the Universe, and Everything came about through natural processes. Yes, random processes. Natural selection happened quite a while after creation, in either theory. Unless the naturalists are willing to admit Intelligent Design in the creation process. Natural selection did not assemble the first bit of life. Perhaps the second, but by then the hard work was done.

    The odds against elements assembling into a living, reproducing, transmutable being are long. Longer than astronomical. Extremely improbable. But not impossible. Naturalists are right in saying that it could have happened. But until it is proven to have happened (which is currently impossible and probably always will be) or is reproduced, creationists will remain skeptical. Why that should be considered unreasonable by naturalists is beyond me.

    Naturalists have a hard time pinning creationists down for the same reason creationists can’t prove creation. We really don’t any of us know how the Universe was brought into being, and everything the naturalists come up with can immediately be claimed by creationists, since with an Omniscient and Omnipotent God, all things are possible.

    I hold with the idea that general theories of creation be taught in school, both the Theistic and Naturalistic. After all, evolution does appear to work on paper, given enought time. It could be because God designed it to work, or because we won the Inter-Universal Lottery several times in a row(The right universe, right kind of galaxy, right position in said galaxy, right kind of star, lots of planets and moons, life appearing almost instantly from sterile mud, etc). Neither theory is provable right now, neither catagorically disprovable.

    A grapefruit is a hybrid. Wolf-dogs are hybrids. Mules are hybrids, albeit usually sterile. They are none of them evidence of evolution producing a new species from a single species ancestry.

    As for the Cambrian “explosion”, several phyla appeared in a geologic eyeblink. Not several species, several phyla of species. No precursors of any sort, soft-bodies, chitinous, shelled, nothing. A tri-part articulated underwater bug does not evolve in one fell swoop from a worm.

  172. LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy Comment by LC Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    In the evolutionary model the shark just swims around, eats fish, has kids, and then dies, sinks to the bottom, and gets covered in the slow rain of particles from the surface, along with mud and fish poop. It’s real simple like that.

    No, Sir George, it is not that simple. If a shark falls to the bottom of the ocean (which would be unusual since dead fish float) it might lay there for a few days before it is either eaten or, if longer than a few days it eventually disintegrates. Tell me, since a shark can easily be a foot or more across, how long does it take a “slow rain of particles” from the surface to cover it? 50 years, 100 years, more? If you believe that a shark can be buried at the bottom of an ocean millimeter by millimeter over the years before it is eaten or dissolves then I’m not sure any more nuanced argument is going to penetrate.

    No offense Sir George but your answer regarding how evolution deals with the CREATION of fossils is the standard answer and it is seriously found wanting. Fossils do not form today except when buried by mud or similar material. This probably has been the way it has always been. The uniformitarian model has NO reasonable explanation for this phenomena. Your explanation is the best one is going to get.

    How does the global flood explain all the fossils in the Ordovichian, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (my favorite two caving stratas), and the Permian, before we even get to the Mesozoic (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous) and Cenozoic? All of these layers can be over a thousand feet thick and packed with fossils.

    The “geologic column” is an evolutionary construct. There is no evidence that the different “eras” existed at different times. It was invented to rationalize evolution. The “column” is dated using circular logic. Carbon and other dating methods are based on the type of fossils found in the column. The age of the fossils in the column is determined by whatever radiometric dating method was used. In other words, the dating is pretty much meaningless information because it is a fabrication.

    Again, how do you have hundreds of feet worth of fossils across almost entire continents if all the plants and animals were alive at the same time?

    A catastrophic upheaval in the the ancient world populated with more animals than we see now would explain this.

  173. Unregistered Comment by Special Ed

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    So, Zaphod, when people ask me who I am, I can no longer say “I’m just this guy, you know?”, is that it?

  174. George guy Comment by George guy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    King kitchen implement and george guy, both of you had better stop using your computers, TV’s, cellphones, cars, electricity, and every modern technology, since they are all possible because of “real scientists.” Fools.

    Science can be thought of as a competition for the best explanation of things. Technology is a real demonstration of scientific progress. The closest thing to evolution in technology are these so-called “evolutionary algorithms” they’re using to design robots and stuff, which isn’t really evolution but more of an automated goal-oriented trial-and-error process. Natural evolution has no goal, is that not correct?

    Oh man, I wish I’d discovered this thread earlier…

    It has probably been pointed out already, but I’m genuinely perplexed as to why, if the resident Creationists are so sure of the accuracy of their position, they have been so reticent when it comes to providing positive, empirical evidence to substantiate it. As it stands, Creationists like Beeblebrox have merely tried to poke holes in evolutionary theory without putting forward a positive theory of their own. Needless to say, one could devote one’s entire life to poking holes in evolutionary theory day in, day out, until it acquires the consistency of Swiss cheese, but this does not constitute evidence that Creationism must be correct.

    I’d very much like to see some hard, empirical evidence which substantiates the major claims of the Creationists and which doesn’t rely on some tertiary ambiguity in the theory of evolution. If, and I strongly doubt this, there is more to Creationism than “MAGIC MAN DUN IT!”, surely such evidence will be forthcoming.

    If anyone wants me, I’ll be in the corner reading War and Peace.

    Look up the RATE Project or something before you say anything further.
    It is understandable to deride Creationism. It’s normal to disrespect things you consider wrong. But the statement “There is no positive evidence in favor of creationism” and “All real legitimate scientists support evolutionism” is completely physically verifiable as utter BS. It is this that makes the Darwinist Inquisition look the same as the Gorontologists. Are the creationists actually right about anything? That’s debatable. In fact, an actual debate would be a grand idea, much better than one day deciding it’s all been settled and demanding the excommunication of all heretics. Get a few dozen PhD’s from each side of the aisle and stick them together to re-examine all the data and repeat the experiments. After that, then we can talk about whether “it’s been settled already.”

    In fact, use the same model for examining the global warming deal.

    I have been asked before if I realized this was basically doing everything over again and expecting different results. That is not the case. The idea would be to keep the ACLU completely away from the event this time, and see if that affects anything. You might even consider that the scientific hypothesis I would like to test.

    Of course it would be exceedingly expensive, and I just don’t have a hundred million dollars lying around.

  175. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    A grapefruit is a hybrid. Wolf-dogs are hybrids. Mules are hybrids, albeit usually sterile. They are none of them evidence of evolution producing a new species from a single species ancestry.

    How about domesticated potatoes, all of which trace back to agricultural selection for polyploidy in southern Peru? (We tend to select for polyploidy because the plants are usually bigger.) How about rutabaga, which is a cross between a broccoli and a turnip? How about leaf mustard, which is a cross between black mustard and a turnip?

    As for the Cambrian “explosion”, several phyla appeared in a geologic eyeblink. Not several species, several phyla of species. No precursors of any sort, soft-bodies, chitinous, shelled, nothing. A tri-part articulated underwater bug does not evolve in one fell swoop from a worm.

    Nothing? Pre-cambrian life is fascinating! Look up the Ediacaran fauna. :)

  176. Unregistered Comment by Special Ed

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Potatos? Developed through intelligence aided selection to become … more potatos. Hardly evolution.

    Rutabaga? Hybrid. Leaf mustard? Hybrid. Ligon? Hybrid. Any two species crossed together to get a HYBRID is not evolution.

    Crossing two turnips together and getting a new plant dissimilar genetically from the parent plants and still capable of reproducing the same new plant would be evolution.

    By no pre-cursors to the Cambrian fauna and flora, I meant no incremental precursors. I apologize for the confusion.

    Where’re the immediate precursors to the several species of trilobites, for instance?

  177. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    :doh_tb: I had to take BC’s advice this time….Recused!

  178. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The “geologic column” is an evolutionary construct. There is no evidence that the different “eras” existed at different times. It was invented to rationalize evolution.

    Now you’re just talking crazy talk. The geologic column was invented before the theory of evolution came along. Geologists were describing the history of eras they saw in the rock way back in the 1600’s. By the very early 1800’s they had a pretty good feel for it and knew the pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Carboniferous, Cretaceous, Jurassic, etc. This is before Darwin published The Origin of Species, so obviously they weren’t evolutionists.

    The “column” is dated using circular logic. Carbon and other dating methods are based on the type of fossils found in the column. The age of the fossils in the column is determined by whatever radiometric dating method was used. In other words, the dating is pretty much meaningless information because it is a fabrication.

    Carbon dating isn’t even used on fossils, and no, the dating methods are completeley independent of the types of fossils found in the column. Nobody figured up an isotopes half-life based on geology, they based it on measuring it in the lab. Evolutionists weren’t the people who figured out radioactivity. That was done by physicists. It was the physicists who told the geologists that their dates were off. Now wonder you don’t believe in this stuff, you’ve got it all ass-backwards. As they say, if you don’t know nuthin’, I can’t tell you nuthin’.

    I said: Again, how do you have hundreds of feet worth of fossils across almost entire continents if all the plants and animals were alive at the same time?

    A catastrophic upheaval in the the ancient world populated with more animals than we see now would explain this.

    Yeah, I bet the Earth’s surface being literally buried under hundreds of feet of plants and animals would explain it, but who the fuck was on the bottom?!

  179. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Potatos? Developed through intelligence aided selection to become … more potatos.

    So having vastly more chromosomes and being a separate species of potato than the potato you started with doesn’t count as evolution? Domestic cotton, tobacco, and many other crops were also created via polyploidy.

    Rutabaga? Hybrid. Leaf mustard? Hybrid. Ligon? Hybrid. Any two species crossed together to get a HYBRID is not evolution.

    Note that rutabaga (Brassica napobrassica) and leaf mustards (Brassica juncea) are now their own species, each coming in a dizzying array of varieties and sub-varieties.

    For example, rutabaga showed up four centuries ago and has 38 chromosomes. It’s parents had 20 and 18 chromosomes, and it can’t interbreed with either of them, so rutabaga walks its own path, having sex only with other, like-minded rutabagas. Due to random DNA errors some of their offspring are a bit odd, and we select some of these to propogate as new varieties.

    Note that from a chance hybrid, which has a very limited genetic variability (being a crop of one), we keep producing new ever-more-useful varieties by taking advantage of freaky mutations. That’s evolution through artificial selection.

    And if you want to see the Cambrian at its weirdest, look at the Burgess Shale.

  180. Xystus Comment by Xystus

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    1.

    Uh oh… Here we go again… :doh_tb: :wallbash_tb:

    BC knew what was coming, alright. :rolleyes_wp:

    And–last! :smile_wp: (So far…)

  181. Alan K. Henderson Comment by Alan K. Henderson

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I missed a lot of this thread, and I’m a bit late but this idiotic claim of VexVox’s can’t be ignored:

    One of creationism’s key pillars is that God created the Earth and all life in 7 days etc etc etc. This is wrong. False. INCORRECT.

    That is ONE FACTION of creationism. Old-Earth creationists (like myself) do not dispute that the Earth is godzillions of years older than a handful of millennia. A young Earth is sufficient to disprove past macroevolution, but it is not sufficient to disprove future macroevolution. Much earlier dates for the genesis of the Earth and its life do not disprove creationism in general - only that one camp has the timing decidedly wrong.

  182. Unregistered Comment by Special Ed

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sir George, are you, in touting potatos, rutabagas, and various other fruits and vegetables as evidence of evolution, trying to prove or disprove ID? Because it looks like you’re saying all of them were “evolved” through the aid of intelligent, directed, goal oriented design.

    Again, evolution, in order to placate creationists and to comply with the claims of naturalists, must occur spontaneously within one species, mutating to form a new species with a new characteristic not found in the parent.

    Please keep in mind that I believe such evolution is possible. I believe the “system” is set up to allow life to change in order to adapt to environmental change. I just don’t believe life arose spontaneously from sterile goop.

    BTW, does anyone here know of anything anywhere that indicates that we know just what “life” is? I mean, the difference between a live organism and a dead one is profound, yet elusive. Same chemicals, same elements, same structure. Take a dead bacterium, fix whatever broke, give it a nudge and it should go, right? So why doesn’t it work that way?

  183. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sir George, are you, in touting potatos, rutabagas, and various other fruits and vegetables as evidence of evolution, trying to prove or disprove ID? Because it looks like you’re saying all of them were “evolved” through the aid of intelligent, directed, goal oriented design.

    We didn’t make the grapefruit, we found them growing and thought, “Gee, how odd. That wasn’t there before.” It was another century before someone thought, “Gee, these are kinda tasty.”

    In forming these new crops, the hybridizations were freak random accidents, just as some of Darwins finches fall in love with finches from other species and produce fertile hybrids. In the case of Darwin’s finches, the hybrids sometimes thrive for a while until they’re outcompeted by their more specialized parents in seed gathering, and they die back out. If a new type of plant washed up on the islands, one that was more suited to the hybrids than their parents, then the hybrids would continue to thrive and establish themselves as a new species. In the case of our crops, we chose to propogate the hybrids, applying artificial selection instead of natural selection.

    By the way, some bird species in the wild are actually stable hybrids, as birds can generally interbreed between species. For example, almost all waterfowl are known to interbreed in the wild and produce fertile offspring. If you want, you can search the hybrid bird database and find the details of just about any pairing.

    Again, evolution, in order to placate creationists and to comply with the claims of naturalists, must occur spontaneously within one species, mutating to form a new species with a new characteristic not found in the parent.

    That’s what Darwin showed with his finches. The mainland only has finches that look and act like finches, some of which ended up in the Galapagos. Since they had no natural bird competition on the island, their occassional odd offspring weren’t outcompeted by more specialized birds, allowing these offspring to continue to thrive and specialize to fill the empty environmental niches.

    But if you must have a single species speciation, the North American hedge-apple fly, which only lives hedge-apple trees (orange osage), speciated into one that lives only on apple trees that we brought over from Europe.

  184. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sir George, are you, in touting potatos, rutabagas, and various other fruits and vegetables as evidence of evolution, trying to prove or disprove ID? Because it looks like you’re saying all of them were “evolved” through the aid of intelligent, directed, goal oriented design.

    We didn’t make the grapefruit, we found them growing and thought, “Gee, how odd. That wasn’t there before.” It was another century before someone thought, “Gee, these are kinda tasty.”

    In forming these new crops, the hybridizations were freak random accidents, just as some of Darwins finches fall in love with finches from other species and produce fertile hybrids. In the case of Darwin’s finches, the hybrids sometimes thrive for a while until they’re outcompeted by their more specialized parents in seed gathering, and they die back out. If a new type of plant washed up on the islands, one that was more suited to the hybrids than their parents, then the hybrids would continue to thrive and establish themselves as a new species. In the case of our crops, we chose to propogate the hybrids, applying artificial selection instead of natural selection.

    By the way, some bird species in the wild are actually stable hybrids, as birds can generally interbreed between species. For example, almost all waterfowl are known to interbreed in the wild and produce fertile offspring. If you want, you can search the hybrid bird database and find the details of just about any pairing.

    Again, evolution, in order to placate creationists and to comply with the claims of naturalists, must occur spontaneously within one species, mutating to form a new species with a new characteristic not found in the parent.

    That’s what Darwin showed with his finches. The mainland only has finches that look and act like finches, some of which ended up in the Galapagos. Since they had no natural bird competition on the island, their occassional odd offspring weren’t outcompeted by more specialized birds, allowing these offspring to continue to thrive and specialize to fill the empty environmental niches.

    But if you must have a single species speciation, the North American hedge-apple fly, which only lives hedge-apple trees (orange osage), speciated into one that lives only on apple trees that we brought over from Europe.

  185. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Special Ed, excellent points. To expouond upon them:

    Again, evolution, in order to placate creationists and to comply with the claims of naturalists, must occur spontaneously within one species, mutating to form a new species with a new characteristic not found in the parent.

    And, it has to have happened thousands upon thousands of times.

    Please keep in mind that I believe such evolution is possible. I believe the “system” is set up to allow life to change in order to adapt to environmental change. I just don’t believe life arose spontaneously from sterile goop.

    Exactly. Logically, the ability of life forms to adapt to their environment had to be there from the get-go, or life would never have survived in the first place. There is observable evidence for such micro-evolution. There is NO observable evidence of macro-evolution, yet is presumed to have happened.

    Not only is it presumed to have happened, but in a one-way direction, where ’simpler’ lifeforms transformed into more complex ones. Yet, we have clear evidence that many, “siimpler,” lifeforms exist unchanged.

    None of this has ever, “added up,” for me. If evolution is a constant process, why have some forms not evolved?

    There are so many holes that can be shot in this theory, but it’s all they have….

  186. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’ve never heard of the hedge-apple fly, George, but I’ve done much reading on, “Darwin’s finches,” and they prove nothing.

  187. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/53/65/

    Here’s an article about those finches.

  188. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    There is observable evidence for such micro-evolution. There is NO observable evidence of macro-evolution, yet is presumed to have happened.

    No observable evidence, despite me listing several new species just in these comments? How about brussel sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and cabbage, all of which we made from the mustard plant?

    Not only is it presumed to have happened, but in a one-way direction, where ’simpler’ lifeforms transformed into more complex ones.

    Let’s take a trip back to logic 101. Early life is simple, single-celled organisms. The only way to go is up. There’s no direction inherent in evolution but when you start out with things that are “minimally simple” then organisms can only get more complicated.

    Yet, we have clear evidence that many, “siimpler,” lifeforms exist unchanged.

    Since when does having a baby automatically kill the parents? When you breed up a new golden retriever do wolves spontaneously explode? Almost all life on earth is bacterial. It will forever be that way because they’re ideally suited to so many niches and because they breed, well, they breed like bacteria, tiny little buggers that fill every nook and cranny. The bacteria in your gut outnumber the cells in your body. You’re not going to cleanse the planet of them just because you have a fancier body type, at least unless you can find a way to revoke their breeding license.

    None of this has ever, “added up,” for me. If evolution is a constant process, why have some forms not evolved?

    All forms do evolve, all the time. But most common changes aren’t highly significant and in the case of bacteria, if there’s an available food source around they’re almost impossible to outcompete. That’s why we worry over raw chicken in the kitchen. Bacteria take the approach of breed fast and mutate quickly, which is one of the reasons we have so much trouble with drug resistance. But even though bacteria make up much of the mass of a turd, there’s little reason to worry about them forming a collective consciousness and taking over your mind because, again, they are simple little buggers.

    There are so many holes that can be shot in this theory, but it’s all they have….

    Yet your understanding of it seems to be just one vast, gaping hole. Nothing in evolution says parent species must get replaced by species that branch off from them. Nothing says species don’t also get simpler.

  189. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/53/65/
    Here’s an article about those finches.

    Instead of a blurb about the finches, how about a whole book on how incredibly detailed observation of them are yielding dramatic insights into evolution in action? It was fascinating. :happy_tb:

  190. SoCalOilMan, LC Comment by SoCalOilMan, LC

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I have watched these arguments here for a few years now, so I’m going to recuse myself from any serious debate on these threads because I have not deeply researched, nor had divine inspiration on this subject.

    I have my beliefs, but I will read this and all future threads with an open mind. I just don’t have the background to argue one side or the other…OK I’ll comment if either side makes a statememnt that is just to dumb to pass up. :jittery_tb:

  191. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Special Ed asked:

    So, Zaphod, when people ask me who I am, I can no longer say “I’m just this guy, you know?”, is that it?

    Well, if you must commandeer one of my official titles I suppose that is your choice.

  192. Unregistered Comment by seagoon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Oh, and I can’t find the quote at the moment, but allow me to stress that faith and reason are opposites. Irreconcilable. Reason is belief with evidence. Faith is believe without evidence. This is the basic definition. If you disagree, take it up with Christ.

    I’m keeping my nose out of this one, but I must say - for some people, faith begets reason.

    It all boils down to how do you perceive the evidence: just look at this thread. One side sees a man as conclusive evidence of divine creation, based on how they perceive him. The other side looks upon the exact same man and sees it as evidence of evolution.

    Same evidence, different perceptual constructs, different reasons for different faiths. Both begin with something very tangible, and end with concrete reason being extrapolated into a faith about origins.

    (and for all I believe in reproducible results, what happened in the dawn of time is, and as far as I can tell always will be, a matter of conjecture- none of us were there, so what do we truly know?)

  193. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    It has probably been pointed out already, but I’m genuinely perplexed as to why, if the resident Creationists are so sure of the accuracy of their position, they have been so reticent when it comes to providing positive, empirical evidence to substantiate it.

    This is the crux of the whole discussion. The simplest, most verifiable fact of the whole matter is there is no positive, empirical evidence that can be cited for either side. Whether we are talking about 6000 years ago or 4.5 billion, none of us witnessed,observed or measured the origin of the universe or of life. What is more, said origins are not reproducible or testable in the present.

    What we have for evidence is simple, we have billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth. Both sides take this evidence and interpret it according to preconcieved axioms. The difference between the two camps is that the creationists are honest about our axioms. Evolutionists continue to insist that they have no preconcieved axioms (at least publically as several have admitted their axioms in environments where they are unlikely to be reported generally).

    If you decide beforehand that there cannot be ANY supernatural cause for anything, that is a preconcieved axiom and effects how the data is interpreted just as much as if you decide beforehand that the Bible is the eye witness acount given by the Creator will efect the interpetation of the evidence. The fact is, either way you look at it there is a faith claim that is foundational, either Theistic or naturalistic. What you decide will determine which side you will fall on.

    I have studied this for several years and have found that creation scientists have theories that logically explain all known facts in a framework that fits with Biblical history. If looked at with open minds, these theories are as reasonable or in many cases more reasonable than the theories espoused by evolutionists. I challenge everyone to study both sides. Only when you look at the interpretations from both sides are you able to judge for yourselves which is a more reasonable faith for in the end, that is exactly what both sides are.

  194. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Chuck,

    Hear, Hear!

  195. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I don’t have time to address all of this, but this shows utter ignorance:

    Let’s take a trip back to logic 101. Early life is simple, single-celled organisms. The only way to go is up. There’s no direction inherent in evolution but when you start out with things that are “minimally simple” then organisms can only get more complicated.

    No, actually, those single-celled organisms are cells that are much more COMPLEX than the cells in higher organisms, where the cells have differentiated to perfom specific functions. The single-celled organisms have the necessity to perform all the functions of the organism in that single cell.

  196. Nixcell Comment by Nixcell

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Crikey! Is this useless debate STILL going on?

    Get a life, people!

  197. JanetMae Comment by JanetMae

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    A couple more points on this nearly dead thread:

    Following Sir George’s assertions about, “logical progession,” I must point out a couple of things.

    1. Assuming it’s true that those, “simple,” single- celled organisms were the first life on earth, why would there be a need for them to, “evolve,” into higher organisms? They already had everything they needed to survive and reproduce.

    2. Taking further the logical assumption that there was, “nowhere to go but up,” were the new, “speciations,” that George mentions examples of evolution into, “higher organisms?” Or were they new variations of existing organisms, and thus not examples of MACRO-evolution at all?

    There is no doubt that life on earth possesses a great capacity for adaptation and change, but there is no evidence in existence that proves that simple lifeforms have evolved into more complex forms of life. It is PRESUMED that it happened, but far from provable.

    I would have much less problem with evolution proponents if they would acknowledge these realities, rather than put forth their presumptions as, “fact,” because they lack a better explanation…

    Okay, now I’m done on this thread!

  198. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    JanetMae said:

    It is PRESUMED that it happened, but far from provable. I would have much less problem with evolution proponents if they would acknowledge these realities, rather than put forth their presumptions as, “fact,” because they lack a better explanation…

    I too, long ago stopped trying to deal with the pseudo-intellectual arguments of the evolution proponents posted here. This is not to say that some proffered worthwhile positions but, on the whole, the general gist of the arguments come down to this:

    1. Creation and ID are religious arguments, not scientific theories, therefore from an evolutionist’s perspective, they cannot be considered.
    2. At one time there was nothing and now here we are, so given #1, evolution must be true.
    3. Because of #1 and #2, the scientific community has reached consensus that evolution is true.

    Put more fundamentally than this, the two opposing arguments are this:

    Evolution is true because we’re here aren’t we?

    VS.

    Creation is true because we’re here aren’t we?

    Both of these are philosophical constructs and of the two, the proponents of the latter are the more honest because we don’t pretend that scientific naturalism is all that there is.

  199. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    No, actually, those single-celled organisms are cells that are much more COMPLEX than the cells in higher organisms, where the cells have differentiated to perfom specific functions. The single-celled organisms have the necessity to perform all the functions of the organism in that single cell.

    Archaea and bacteria have genomes ranging from 0.5 to 10 million base pairs.
    A yeast has 12 million base pairs.
    A fruit fly has 140 million base pairs.
    A human as 3,000 million base pairs.

    Almost every cell in your body knows how to do the functions of every other cell in your body. Think about it.

    1. Assuming it’s true that those, “simple,” single- celled organisms were the first life on earth, why would there be a need for them to, “evolve,” into higher organisms? They already had everything they needed to survive and reproduce.

    You still haven’t grasped the most basic concepts. Evolution isn’t about “needs,” nor is it about “feelings.” Just because a parent species is “happy” doesn’t mean it can produce children that are 100% perfect copies every time.

    2. Taking further the logical assumption that there was, “nowhere to go but up,” were the new, “speciations,” that George mentions examples of evolution into, “higher organisms?” Or were they new variations of existing organisms, and thus not examples of MACRO-evolution at all?

    Once again, MACRO-evolution IS variation of existing organisms. If the parent organism didn’t EXIST then they wouldn’t be making babies. Note that non-existent organisms are notoriously bad at fuckin’. Nothing about evolution requires the extinction of progenitor species.

    I just have to ask, are you sure you don’t write Netflix commercials? I feel like I’m answering “What’s the square root of orange?”

  200. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Almost every cell in your body knows how to do the functions of every other cell in your body. Think about it.

    Or how about this. Almost every cell in your body DOESN’T know how to do the function of every other cell in your body. Think about it.

    Notice by saying “think about it” at the end of my sentence, it makes it sound like what I said before those words are self-evident?

    You still haven’t grasped the most basic concepts. Evolution isn’t about “needs,” nor is it about “feelings.” Just because a parent species is “happy” doesn’t mean it can produce children that are 100% perfect copies every time.

    She “grasps” them just fine Sir. The problem is, you are restating what she didn’t say in a way she clearly did not intend, and then deriding her for not knowing how you were going to twist her words.

    Once again, MACRO-evolution IS variation of existing organisms.

    I see this argument from evolution proponents all the time. Please spare us the redefinition of terms Sir. Just because you say up is down and inside is outside does not mean that it is true. Speciation is what is being referred to here. I think you know that but are choosing to confuse the issue by defining NS or micro-evolution as MACRO evolution. It suits your purpose to conflate the terms because sowing confusion is what it’s all about in the evolution proponent camp. It doesn’t fly with me and actually, looks pretty juvenile to most of us. That’s just an observation and not meant as an attack.

    I just have to ask, are you sure you don’t write Netflix commercials? I feel like I’m answering “What’s the square root of orange?”

    That may be your perception but I had to snicker to myself when you wrote this since the Netflix commericals are what I often think of when a pro-evolutionist trys to explain the pretzel like logic of the TOE.

    Just know, that from my viewpoint I see a guy TELLING us that the square root of orange is green. We point out that the question is ludicrous on its face and the guy tells us that since green exists as a color then obviously the square root of orange is the correct question.

    This is why I don’t rely on the arguments of evolutionists. They provide a host of conflicting positions, all of which are agreed to be correct by consensus. Creation and ID proponents are muzzled, threatened, and generally every tactic from the fascist rule book is trotted out to keep the focus on the rightness of evolution.

    As a skeptic on the subject from my college days, I have seen the MO. It is not pretty but it is the way the evolution camp works and the rest of us can only marvel at the anti-intellectualism of it all.

  201. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Archaea and bacteria have genomes ranging from 0.5 to 10 million base pairs.
    A yeast has 12 million base pairs.
    A fruit fly has 140 million base pairs.
    A human as 3,000 million base pairs.

    And that is EXACTLY why evolution is highly improbable (others are more categorical, saying “impossible”, but I try to avoid it since “incredibly improbable” is more accurate, mathematically speaking) as an explanation.

    For it to work, simple organisms would have to add information to their existing system, purely by chance, to the amount of at least two orders of magnitude.

    It might happen, just as I might win the Texas state lottery 1,000 times in a row, but somehow I’m not betting my life’s savings on it. That’s not the same as me saying that it can’t happen, I’m just trying not to slit my throat with Occam’s Razor here.

    Think about it for a moment. Every single one of those miraculous and random mutations take a generation to happen. Granted, some species live shorter than others, but for some reason even E.Coli, that multiply just about as fast as anything, have stubbornly remained E.Coli since the days of the Pharaohs. I’d expect them to at LEAST have sprouted legs by now, the stubbornly conservative little critters.

    Heck, Novo Nordic has rows of vats of the little critters producing insulin for them (intelligent design, by the way), yet not a single one of them has turned into a giraffe and climbed out of the tank.

    And no, polyploidy doesn’t explain it either. It’s merely freak duplication of already existing information, it doesn’t add anything new.

  202. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Gang of One wrote:

    I mean no offense toward you, but bear in mind that your over-confidence in your atheistic world-view is just as disturbing as the blind faith of those who miss the forest for the trees when it comes to the extraordinary relationship between science and faith.

    No offence taken. Although, I would suggest that my “over-confidence” in my atheistic worldview isn’t anywhere near as controversial or disturbing as you seem to think it is. After all, is it not true that the decision to accept Christ as one’s personal saviour is simultaneously a tacit rejection of the truth claims of competing religions? That’s a lot of rejected claims, and I’m willing to bet you didn’t undertake meticulous study of each religion’s theology and history before rejecting them. Like me, you probably don’t have a grudge against Hindu’s or Hinduism, but you don’t really have much time for their claims about the divinity of the Lord Vishnu. Like me, you probably think Scientologists are a little bit nutty.

    In short, you and I are both atheists. I just happen to believe in one fewer God than you do.

    If I have come away from this debate with anything it is that both creationism and evolution are part of the same phenomenon and part of the same order of things.
    and as it is, both should be taught as theories and approaches, as philosophy rather than immutable fact.

    I cannot disagree more. The physical evidence corroborating Evolutionary theory can be wheeled out and measured by the metric ton. You can pick it up, examine it and, if you’re not sure about it, you can easily find a helpful scientist or twenty who’ll happily explain it to you.

    Young Earth Creationism, by contrast, is not just completely uncontaminated by evidence, but runs directly counter to all the evidence we do have. Furthermore, one can easily debunk its central assertions with recourse to the simplest science and archaeology. I’ll demonstrate, using the Young Earth Creationist claim that the universe is 6000 years old.

    The cosmological disproof

    Consider the following facts of cosmology.

    1) The speed of light is a constant 186,000 miles per second.

    2) There are stars in the sky that are trillions and trillions of miles away from us. Since we know the speed of light, we can deduce that the light from these stars has taken millions of years to reach us.

    These are immutable scientific facts of which every 5th grader in the country is aware. These facts make an absolute nonsense of the Young Earth Creationist claim that the universe was created 6000 years ago. The only way the YEC claim could be true was if God created the universe 6000 years ago with the light from these distant constellations already in transit towards the Earth. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite a ludicrous claim.

    The Archaeological Explanation

    Perhaps the simplest disproof of the YEC claim that the universe is 6000 years old is that there are well preserved artifacts from primitive human societies which date back further than that. Recent findings show that the Young Earth Creationists, far from having their finger on the pulse of the latest scientific research, actually place the creation of the universe two thousand years after the Babylonians and the Sumerians learnt to brew beer.

    Please note that both refutations do not even touch on evolution. Young Earth Creationism stands naked, unadorned by empirical evidence, in stark opposition to the world’s most brilliant biological, astrophysical, geological, astronomical, cosmological, and archaeological minds. To be honest, the very fact that the most technologically advanced society on Earth is so deeply embroiled in such a debate as this constitutes an intellectual emergency.

    Janet-Mae wrote:

    And, on the other side of the coin we have the opposite, the evolutionists claiming that there is no scientific basis for intelligent design, despite the obvious truth of irreducible complexity.

    I hate to start this response by pulling you up on a technicality but, when evolutionists claim there is no scientific basis for intelligent design, they are in the most literal way possible, absolutely correct. The one concept which separates ID from evolution is the assertion that some organisms, being irreducibly complex, must have been created by God. This is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. It is unfalsifiable, not subject to empirical testing, and falls far outside the purview of science. Hence, the evolutionists are, in the literal sense, entirely correct to say there is no scientific basis for Intelligent Design.

    Of course, they are correct in more important senses as well. The evolution of such ID mainstays as the Venus Flytrap, haemoglobin, the Bacterial and Archaeal Flagella, and the Eukaryote Cilium, have all been thoroughly documented and the necessity of an intelligent designer neatly expunged.

    Then they cling to their impossible notion of spontaneous generation…because they can’t explain it any other way.

    In other words, there is no alternative explanation supported by empirical evidence. Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

    It always strikes me as amusing when ID’ers and YEC’ers claim that science isn’t looking for an alternative explanation to evolution. Don’t you have any idea how amazingly rich and famous the scientist who conclusively disproved evolution would become? He’d be an international celebrity for the rest of his life, his name spoken in the same breath as Einstein, Planck, or, yes, Darwin. There is certainly no shortage of incentive to disprove evolution. The reason that a hundred and fifty years of focused, collective ingenuity has done nothing but strengthen evolutionary theory is because it really is pretty damn solid.

    Beeblebrox wrote:

    Muzzy, I challenge you on this point right off the bat. Scientific theories are debunked all the time without the debunker showing a better substitute

    Ah but you are trying to show a better substitute. You’re just trying to do it without displaying any corroborative evidence. You admit you consider Creationism a positive theory of origins but, rather than provide substantive proof of its conclusions, you’ve merely pointed to tertiary ambiguities in evolutionary theory and asserted that Creationism is the only plausible alternative.

    Before I can even begin to consider Creationism as a plausible alternative to Evolution I need to see solid evidence supporting its conclusions. It is the Creationists job to provide this proof and, until it is made forthcoming, Creationism will never be taken seriously.

    Nevertheless, I find it more than ironic to hear your criticism given that pretty much any counter argument to ID, for example, is not on the merits but a shallow dismissal of the whole field because it is “religion”.

    As I’ve explained above, it is certainly closer to religion than science.

    It’s a good thing you weren’t around when the fathers of modern science were taking their cues from the Bible as they researched their various areas of interest. You’d still be heating your hut with a mound of dung right about now.

    Or maybe, given Christianity’s track record of intellectual persecution and censorship, we’d have had modern democracy and the internet by the year 1600. Who’s to know?

    The problem with your entire complaint Muzzy, is that you are demanding of us that we prove our position without referencing evidence of design, or the problems with evolution. You want us to prove our position as valid using only a naturalistic framework that you want to control.

    Sorry, you’ve lost me. All I want is to see empirical evidence of some of the foundational claims of Creationism. I want to know that you hold these claims true for a better reason than “I read so in the Bible”. You can start by providing some hard evidence for the following claims:

    1) That there was a Great Flood.

    2) That the Universe is 6000 years old.
    3) That life only comes from life.

  203. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    George said:Almost every cell in your body knows how to do the functions of every other cell in your body. Think about it.

    Or how about this. Almost every cell in your body DOESN’T know how to do the function of every other cell in your body. Think about it.

    Notice by saying “think about it” at the end of my sentence, it makes it sound like what I said before those words are self-evident?

    All your cells except sperm or egg cells and red cells carry your full genetic code. Just because an individual cell may be performing a specialized functions does not mean it is necessarily simpler than bacterial cells, and indeed, each of our cells carries a couple order of magnitude more genetic information than any bacterial cell. I said “think about it” to encourage her to think about her arguments, something she’s not apparently doing.

    George said: You still haven’t grasped the most basic concepts. Evolution isn’t about “needs,” nor is it about “feelings.” Just because a parent species is “happy” doesn’t mean it can produce children that are 100% perfect copies every time.

    She “grasps” them just fine Sir. The problem is, you are restating what she didn’t say in a way she clearly did not intend, and then deriding her for not knowing how you were going to twist her words.

    Nope. She had said, “Assuming it’s true that those, “simple,” single- celled organisms were the first life on earth, why would there be a need for them to, “evolve,” into higher organisms? They already had everything they needed to survive and reproduce.”

    She clearly asked why organisms need to evolve into “higher” organisms. They didn’t need to, and the question itself is almost nonsensical. Bacteria don’t have long term goals. They eat, they poop, they multiply. Some happened to cling to their relatives and did quite well, eventually specializing.

    George said: Once again, MACRO-evolution IS variation of existing organisms.

    I see this argument from evolution proponents all the time. Please spare us the redefinition of terms Sir. Just because you say up is down and inside is outside does not mean that it is true. Speciation is what is being referred to here. I think you know that but are choosing to confuse the issue by defining NS or micro-evolution as MACRO evolution. It suits your purpose to conflate the terms because sowing confusion is what it’s all about in the evolution proponent camp. It doesn’t fly with me and actually, looks pretty juvenile to most of us. That’s just an observation and not meant as an attack.

    If MACRO evolution doesn’t involve

    A) the variation of existing organisms,

    just what is it?

    B) Variation in non-existent organisms.
    C) Non-variation if existent organisms.
    D) Non-variation of non-existent organisms.

    Sorry, but a logical proposition with two terms only has four options. I can’t make things any simpler than that, despite all your hand waving. Shall I list all the massive, yawning plot holes in Genesis?

  204. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The evolution of such ID mainstays as the Venus Flytrap, haemoglobin…

    Please. PLEASE. Not that one again. I’ll leave the rest of them out, but hemoglobin happens to fall within my area of expertise, and that is, with all due respect to your opinion, the worst possible “proof” of evolution you can think of.

    I won’t go all technical here because I don’t want to have to dig out my textbooks again and, besides, there’s no need to since me throwing around $500 words won’t in any way add to the debate, it’ll only serve to make me look like an arrogant “I know more than you do” jerk.

    Myoglobin, from which hemoglobin is supposed to have “evolved”, is completely unsuitable for oxygen transportation in the bloodstream. It IS, however, PERFECTLY suited for oxygen storage in muscle cells (insert boring treatise about oxygen affinity curves and molecular structure here, if you must. It’s proven already). So for the one building block of myoglobin to have “evolved” into four-block hemoglobin, it would have had to magically mutate into two alpha-chains and two beta-chains, simultaneously, since those are the requirements for forming hemoglobin in the first place. If you don’t have the correct number of chains, it won’t work. What’s worse, you would most certainly be selected against. Just ask any patient with abnormalities in one or more of those chains. If they haven’t died before birth, that is.

    On TOP of that, it would have to magically decide to migrate into the bloodstream (after it had magically appeared through random mutation and magically formed), something that an organism without an oxygen transport system wouldn’t have in the first place.

    And that’s leaving out of the discussion the further complexity of gamma chains that we produce in the womb (because their characteristics are perfect for that situation) and stop producing when we’re born and have to rely on our own oxygen exchange system for survival, rather than our mother’s blood.

    And you’re telling me that all of that happened by chance at the same time?

    Well, it’s possible… And so is a flipped coin coming up “tails” 1×1038 times in a row.

  205. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Heck, Novo Nordic has rows of vats of the little critters producing insulin for them (intelligent design, by the way), yet not a single one of them has turned into a giraffe and climbed out of the tank.

    And no, polyploidy doesn’t explain it either. It’s merely freak duplication of already existing information, it doesn’t add anything new.

    Okay, lets take something relatively simple, like fish, which underwent multiple genome duplications (polyploidy), as did we. After these events the duplicate genes often differentiate. Anyway, the Zebrafish has 1,700 mbp, compared to our 3,000 mbp, and we had something like 400 million years of terrestrial evolution to boot. Aside from Novo Nordic needing to start with guppies instead of E. Coli, they still need to wait a couple hundred million years for their giraffe.

    Good article on fish genes here

    But back to the informational argument. Suppose you have two closely related sneech species. Over time one had specialized in tree climbing and one had specialized in ground foraging, each species either carrying two climbing genes or two foraging genes. Then one day Romeo Sneech falls in love with Juliet Sneech and they have a baby sneech that got a foraging gene and a climbing gene. So Baby Sneech knows how to do twice as much as any sneech on the planet with no new genes and no new genetic information in the gene pool. Sneech capabilities have doubled in one generation with no increase in information and no increase in the size of any genome, all through the magic of sexual reproduction. :smile1_tb:

  206. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Hmm… How about reading this on the ancient evolution of myoglobin and hemoglobin.

    While we’re discussing hemoglobin, how about the fact that Andean chickens, along with the more native Andean bird species, have a mutated form of hemoglobin with a higher oxygen affinity that helps them at the higher altitude? PDF

    Fascinating stuff. :ponder_tb:

  207. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Aside from Novo Nordic needing to start with guppies instead of E. Coli, they still need to wait a couple hundred million years for their giraffe.

    OK maybe for a giraffe, but given the number of generational replications, if evolution was true, is it not reasonable to expect some change? But nope, still E. Coli

  208. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Did you stop to ask yourself why a company would have vats of E. coli before you said they don’t change? Actually, evolution of E. coli vats is not only useful, it is essential. Drug companies can now use computer models of E. coli evolution (link) to more efficiently evolve them toward targeted goals, which saves both time and money.

  209. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    1) That there was a Great Flood.

    2) That the Universe is 6000 years old.
    3) That life only comes from life.

    I can’t prove there was a great flood. I can only point to the fossil record and the geology of the planet to support my supposition on this front. Others more conversant and educated in the fields of hydrology and geology like Dr. Henry Morris, have spent a life-time researching this issue and I have seen their answers. If you are truly interested in the question of the flood I’ll go back to my notes for you.

    As for the age of the universe. The Bible is silent on the subject so I have no dog in the hunt. I have no idea how old it is and I don’t really care. There is no way to know and it is only really important to evolutionists anyway since any proof of a younger universe would essentially render the whole idea of abiogenesis moot. I do, however, find the theory that the speed of c is not constant to be very provocative. If it turns out that the speed of c was faster in the past then again, the whole theory of abiogenesis pretty much fails.

    As for your last question, I’m not sure what you are positing. I personally believe the Biblical account which is that life was created from non-life by Divine fiat. Because this is a faith issue on my part, the only thing I have as a counter to the evolutionary belief system on this point is that it is pretty much impossible for it to have happened.

    Put another way, there are only two possible ways for life to have arisen (three if you include the ludicrous “Necessity” theory).

    Chance.
    Design.

    Life clearly has the appearance of design but that, in and of itself is not proof that it is designed. For me to move beyond just blind faith, I need to pursue the arguments for Chance. Once I have satisfied myself that the Chance theory is untenable then all I am left with is Design. This is the way science works. In fact, this is the way a lot of mysteries are solved.

    As Conan Doyle once said through Sherlock Holmes: “When you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

    I apply this view to our current debate. Abiogenesis IS mathematically impossible. Since life cannot have arisen by chance from chemicals, the the whole debate on the TOE is moot as well.

    Creation may be improbable, at least from a naturalistic perspective (and modern science is all about NATURALISTIC explanations of phenomena which rules out the supernatural), but given that the impossible has been eliminated, the improbable remains. Just one more (of many) reason that I believe in Creation.

    I appreciate your efforts in this debate Sir George. You have been cordial and interesting to read. Thanks for participating and I wish you well.

    -B

  210. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Hmm… How about reading this on the ancient evolution of myoglobin and hemoglobin.

    Trust me, G, I’ve read about it and I remain unconvinced. It’s a classic “chicken and the egg” situation and it just doesn’t make sense, logically, unless it happened at the same time.

    Now, one might believe that it did so based on chance alone or one might believe that it happened due to intelligent design. I can’t prove my belief, and the other side can’t prove theirs. Fair enough. That’s why I don’t ever suggest that my beliefs are proven, because they can’t be.

    Ultimately, we’ll all find out when we die. Either nothingness ensues or it doesn’t, and we’ll all learn the truth. It doesn’t really matter to me, because I know what I believe in.

    The only thing that riles me up is when people claim to KNOW without having any basis for it. It would rile me as much if they were on my side.

    I have no problem whatsoever with people BELIEVING in something, but to KNOW requires meeting certain immutable criteria, none of which evolutionists OR creationists meet.

    That, and that alone is my problem with evolutionists claiming that their BELIEFS are KNOWLEDGE. And I have the same problem with the occasional creationist claiming that he or she KNOWS that they’re right.

    They can’t.

  211. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    That, and that alone is my problem with evolutionists claiming that their BELIEFS are KNOWLEDGE. And I have the same problem with the occasional creationist claiming that he or she KNOWS that they’re right.

    They can’t.

    Fair enough Sire, but let me just push on this for a moment.

    As I have mentioned several times in this thread and elsewhere, God has proven that the Bible is His divinely inspired word. He did this by making sure that a majority of the Bible was prophetic in nature. No other book on the planet that has ever been written contains anything like it. The most notorious of non-religious prophets, Nostradamus has been ridiculously wrong on multiple occasions. Even those prophesies that he laid out that people claim were fulfilled, were vague and undated. Meanwhile, the Bible has thousands of prophesies, a great deal of which have already been fulfilled and those involving dating, TO THE VERY DAY.

    If it were not for the fact that these fulfilled prophesies confirm the truth of Christianity (and therefore must me disregarded) most people would revere the Bible as an oracle and would consider Nostradamus to be a pauper.

    Since the Bible’s fulfilled prophesies confirm that it was authored by an extradimensional, extraterrestrial being, I value what it has to say on other subjects. Does this make it right on those other subjects? I have decided that the answer to that question MUST be “yes”. I can’t imagine a situation where God would prove that he is all-knowing and then mess up on something like the science. I can just hear him now:

    “Did I say 6 days? Doh! I meant 6 billion days. I wish I had noticed that when Moses was writing it down”.

    Furthermore, since the Bible is irrefutably the inspired Word of God, and there is no room for interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15, I have to go with the 6 day creation week.

    This is simple logic:

    1. The Bible is irrefutably the Word of God
    2. God Himself said that the earth as we know it was created in 6 days (and not just in Genesis, it is also right there in the center of the 10 commandments).
    3. Jesus himself said they were literal days.
    4. The Gospel is found on an understanding that there was no physical death before Adam.

    Ergo, evolution must be wrong. This is not faith, it is simply a cold, hard equation based on the sure word of prophesy.

    Now, if we did not have the fulfilled prophesy to point to, then I would concede that the evolutionists might have a reason to be cocky. But since the Bible is scientifically accurate, both in space and time, I have to go with it over the secularists. I am not saying I am right. I am simply saying that I’m going with what Jesus taught over what Sir George is teaching. (Sorry SG).

  212. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    LC Beeblebrox, you’ve summarized perfectly why I believe that the Bible is right. When I say “KNOW” I am talking about knowing in the strictest possible sense, as in knowing with full, indisputable proof, that I’m right.

    I don’t doubt that I’m right, I’ve reached that decision and I stand by it, but I have to admit that I cannot know until I ask G-d Himself.

    Until then, my beliefs are good enough for me, and they’re a damn sight better and more logical than anything else I’ve seen or heard.

  213. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Well that’s all well and good, but suppose I want to know something really simple, such as whether man is older than birds? The Bible contradicts itself on this point. Who wrote it, anyways?

  214. Unregistered Comment by DukeFenton

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    From Comment by Sir George

    Hmm… How about reading this on the ancient evolution of myoglobin and hemoglobin.

    comes this:

    The most primitive animals to possess hemoglobin are the lampreys. Lamprey hemoglobin can form dimers but not tetramers and is only weakly cooperative.

    Now, George, you’re just being silly. There you go, claiming that an intermediate form exits which might be functional. Didn’t you pay attention? HIS ALMIGHTY ROTTINESS, whose Almighty Truthiness of SCIENCE is so Mighty that all he needs do is invoke the

    (insert boring treatise about oxygen affinity curves and molecular structure here, if you must. It’s proven already).

    which we are all too stupid and ignorant to even begin to understand; HATH QUOTH:

    for the one building block of myoglobin to have “evolved” into four-block hemoglobin, it would have had to magically mutate into two alpha-chains and two beta-chains, simultaneously, since those are the requirements for forming hemoglobin in the first place. If you don’t have the correct number of chains, it won’t work. What’s worse, you would most certainly be selected against.

    And here you, GODLESS AMORAL EVILUTIONIST HEATHEN, would dare to suggest that a mere dimer might be viable? Next you’re going to start with the subversive handwaving of the EVILutionist Darwinist Inquisitional KKKonspiracy, that variant or intermediate forms might have adaptive value for a low-metabolism fish in low oxygen aquatic enviroments; but not for, say, an active terrestrial mammal from a semi-arid sea level land environment? Here we go again with the ‘differential selective pressure’ bullshit, which is JUST A THEORY!!

    His Majesty, whose wisdom exceeds all so-called ’scientists’ put together, HATH QUOTH:

    I remain unconvinced

    There you go. Misha said it, I believe it, that settles it.

    [Writes ticket to self for violating Poe’s Law.] :tongue1_tb:

  215. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    LOL DukeFenton! :laugh_tb:

  216. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    … such as whether man is older than birds? The Bible contradicts itself on this point.

    No it doesn’t.

  217. LC 0311 crunchie Comment by LC 0311 crunchie

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I have nothing to add here, way out of my league, just doin my part to hit 300.

  218. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Okay, let’s figure out which came first, man or bird.

    Genesis 1:21-23
    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

    23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

    Then on day six God creates man and woman, as said here:

    Genesis 1:26-27
    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    And then on the seventh day he rested.

    Seems simple enough, but wait, we have another version!

    Genesis 2:19-22

    19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    Now we’ve got a different account, one where God creates Adam from dust, puts him in the Garden of Eden, and then starts making animals and birds so Adam can name them, and finally, realizing that Adam is alone, he makes woman. In Genesis 1 he’d made man and woman together, after he’d made everything else. Now how, scientifically, can we resolve this contradiction? We can’t.

  219. Unregistered Comment by seagoon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Beeblebrox,

    Meanwhile, the Bible has thousands of prophesies, a great deal of which have already been fulfilled and those involving dating, TO THE VERY DAY.

    Example of prophesy being fulfilled to the day, supported by non-biblical references please?

  220. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Now how, scientifically, can we resolve this contradiction? We can’t.

    Your first error (well maybe not your first :ohh_ee:) is calling the the seeming contradiction an issue that can be resolved “scientifically”.

    This is not about science, it is about Biblical hermeneutics. Your error Sir, is in thinking that Genesis two is a separate chronological retelling of Genesis one. In reality, Genesis 1 is the only chronological explanation of the creation week while Genesis 2-4 is the details of day 6 of creation. The story of Man.

    Just for fun, I’ll throw this back at you. In effect you are trying to tell us that Moses was unable to edit the opening of the Torah in a way that was non-contradictory. That he wrote down the creation story and somehow forgot to put the bird creation in the proper place in the second chapter (although the Hebrew does not have chapter breaks). This defies belief. Furthermore, does it not strike you odd that, unless the Holy Spirit had wanted the story told this way, that scribes and editors down through the ages would not have been tempted to “correct” Moses’ oversight?

    Of course, this is preposterous. What you have to understand is that Genesis 2-4 is a detailed look at the creation of Man, something that is just barely touched upon in Genesis One.

    As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament:

    Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complimentary nature of the subject—distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, p. 117).

    Eric Lyons says this:

    “The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man.”

    For a more detailed summary read his article “Did God Create Animals or man first”.

  221. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Okay, and we’re off to the races, already dismissing parts of the Bible we don’t like.

    Now, on to more questions.

    How were there days before God created the sun on day four? Wouldn’t the creation of the Earth and Sun occur on day one, by definition of day?

    What about the birds? Genesis 1 says they were brought forth from the water, but Genesis 2 says they came from the dirt.

    Genesis 1:20
    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    Genesis 2:19
    19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    Then there are errors about animals.

    Genesis 3:14
    14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

    Snakes don’t eat dust, they eat little birds and mammals, and many snakes live in the water or up in trees, not on the ground. But then the Bible is wildly wrong about rabbits, too.

    Leviticus 11:6
    6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

    Bzzzzt. It gave the wrong answer. Not only are hares and rabbits not cud chewers, it is physiologically impossible for them to even vomit, thus no cud travels from their stomach to their mouth.

    Do you really want this stuff to pass for science?

  222. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Example of prophesy being fulfilled to the day, supported by non-biblical references please?

    There are many prophesies about the various Jewish captivities, the fall of Jerusalem, etc. that have been foretold by prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others and then later fulfilled. These are easy to find and to verify through any archeological commentary. Nevertheless, I’ll give you three off the top of my head starting with the most important of any OT prophecy, the first coming of the Messiah.

    In Daniel 9:25 we are told that from the time of the command to restore the walls of Jerusalem, to the arrival of Messiah, there would be 69 weeks of years (the Hebrews used the term “week” to refer to a 7 year period much like we use the term “decade” to refer to a 10 year period) and these Biblical years were 360 days in length.

    The command was given March 14, 445 BC. Counting forward the required 173,880 days we arrive at April 6, 32 AD. The exact day that Jesus Christ entered Jerusalem on the day we call “Palm Sunday”.

    It is important to realize that this is a very clear and very specific prophecy (not one of the more obscure or complex ones we can find here and there but one that is very straight forward). It is so clear that Jesus actually said that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed because its people did not specifically acknowledge the prophecy. Because they disregarded it, His prediction was fulfilled in 69 AD. The Romans had their way with the symbol of the Jewish religion, Solomon’s temple, and at that moment, Israel was no more.

    Now, if you are asking whether there is an independent record of the April 6, 32 arrival date, there is no need. All four gospels record the event and all four gospels were in circulation shortly after the crucifixion. Many of the early readers of the gospel accounts certainly would have been present during the events of the first Palm Sunday. It defies logic or reason to accept that FOUR false accounts of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with such supposed fanfare would have withstood the scrutiny of the many Jewish skeptics who were alive at the time.

    The reality is, that everyone knew that Jesus came into town on the prophesied day. This is why there is no record of the Gospel accounts being challenged.

    Furthermore, in all the ancient writings available to us, only Jesus Christ is recorded to have fulfilled the prophesy of Daniel 25:9. While there may have been others who might have thought to be pretenders to the fulfillment of that prophecy, only Jesus actually fulfilled it.

    A couple of other amazing prophecies:

    In chapter 4 of his book, Ezekiel predicted that the tribes of Israel would shortly be sent into servitude/captivity but also prophesied that Israel would rise again 907,200 days (2,520 Biblical years) after this “servitude of the nation” (which occurred on July 17th, 606 BC.) Counting forward 907,200 days we land on May 14, 1948, the day David Ben-Gurion announced on international radio, the name of his rebirthed country, “Israel”.

    This prophesy references the servitude of the nation and then it’s rebirth. They are connected events both in time and in type. The period begins with the nation going into captivity and ends with it being reborn. Ezekiel predicted it exactly and I think there are plenty of independent sources to verify the date that modern day Israel came into being.

    What is even more provocative is that the same prophesy by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 4:3-6) talks about the “desolation” of Jerusalem (which happened 19 years later in 587 B.C.) where they lost control of the city (going into Gentile hands) and then the subsequent recapture of Jerusalem 2,520 years later.

    Would it be any surprise to learn then, that Jerusalem was recaptured by the Israelies from its Arab enemies exactly 19 years after Israel was birthed and exactly 907,200 days after the desolation of Jerusalem in 587 BC?

    Probably just a coincidence. :wink_ee:

    -B

    P.S. There are several commentaries on these dates but one of the better summaries of the Ezekiel prophesies is by Guy Cramer.

  223. Unregistered Comment by seagoon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sorry Beeblebrox, the criterion was non-biblically supported. The concurrence of the gospels isn’t sufficient to pass the test for me.

    The Ezekiel is interesting, though the dating process strikes me as a little subjective…. according to these folks , the Ezekiel requires an additional interpretation of Leviticus to match up, and that doesn’t get into the vagaries of dating and calendrial inconsistency.

    Is there independent (non-biblical) verification for these extremely exact dates? You’re making a claim of magnitude, which requires proof of magnitude.

    I’d like to be clear that at no point do I doubt nor denigrate your faith. I am looking for proof that satisfies me. If I were to try to prove evolution to you, you would also require major proof.

    I cannot accept biblical evidence because it is influenced by the belief system that fosters it. You cannot accept evolutionary evidence for the same reasons.

    Also, on both sides, interpretation causes difficulties- one interpretation does not necessariy accord with another. (to use an example from each of the sides, global warming for scientific interpretation and Phred Phelps for scriptural)

    Anyway, thanks for the info, it was appreciated- and if you have any other info to share (with my bias disclosed), please do- I greatly respect your knowledge on the subject, though out viewpoints can differ.

  224. Unregistered Comment by seagoon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    link didn’t take

    http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ezekiel_4_3.htm

  225. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Okay, and we’re off to the races, already dismissing parts of the Bible we don’t like.

    Have no idea what this sentence even means.

    How were there days before God created the sun on day four? Wouldn’t the creation of the Earth and Sun occur on day one, by definition of day?

    Thanks for starting with the easiest one. Appreciated.

    I think we need to go to the science on this one since it appears to be a favorite subject of yours Sir G. Tell me, is a 24 hour period defined by the sun? Does the existence of the sun have anything WHATSOEVER to do with the passage of time? If you think it does then please return to grade say, three. Second, the days are simply listed as literal 24 hour periods. That’s it. No reference to the sun being a critical factor in the equation. It doesn’t explain where the light was coming from during the first three days but it does say that the earth was there from verse one. If the earth is rotating from the get go and there is some source of light (maybe the light from the creator Himself?) then we get days.

    Moving on into asked and answered a thousand times over territory…

    What about the birds? Genesis 1 says they were brought forth from the water, but Genesis 2 says they came from the dirt.

    Genesis 1:20 (NIV): “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”

    Checking. Nope, no mention here at all of birds coming from the water.

    Snakes don’t eat dust, they eat little birds and mammals, and many snakes live in the water or up in trees, not on the ground. But then the Bible is wildly wrong about rabbits, too.

    Okay Sir George, my respect for your intellect just dropped a couple of notches for your apparent desire to be purposefully obtuse. The account states that the serpent was cursed to crawl on the ground without benefit of legs. It’s mouth is forever in the dust. It’s a figure of speech, get it? Have you never used the term “eat my dust”?

    Leviticus 11:6
    6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

    Bzzzzt. It gave the wrong answer. Not only are hares and rabbits not cud chewers, it is physiologically impossible for them to even vomit, thus no cud travels from their stomach to their mouth.

    Hmmm, I think you may need to do a little more research SG on our little friend the Rock Hyrax (the animal to which Moses was referring in Leviticus).

    According to the Biological Abstracts which are summaries of biological research done throughout the world, Abstract 72891 for the year 1967 says the following:

    “72891 HENDRICHS, H. Vergleichende Untersuchung des wiederkauverhaltens [ Comparative investigation of cud retainers] BIOL ZENTRALBL 84 (6): 671-751 Illus. 1965 [ recd.1966]. — All artiodactyl families and about 80% of the spp. were investigated. Chewing regurgitated fodder is an idle pastime as well as an instinct associated with appetite. Characteristic movements were analyzed for undisturbed samples of animals maintained on preserves. Group specific differences are reported in form, rhythm, frequency and side of chewing motion. The ungulate type is characterized as a specialization. The operation is described for the first time for the order Hyracoidea. On the basis of 12 spp. of the marsupial subfamily Macropodinae rumination is inferred for the whole category. Advantages of the process are debated.”

    One commentator mentions, in regard to this:

    “In 1964 Zoologist Hubert Hendrichs observed hyraxes at the Munich zoo in Germany and noticed swallowing movements…..he observed a Hyrax making swallowing movements although not eating….He subsequently investigated more closely. Further observation showed that the Hyraxes chew the cud mainly at night for about an hour…”

    There is nothing in the literature to disprove the observation that the Rock Hyrax DOES NOT chew its cud during the night.

    Do you really want this stuff to pass for science?

    It passes any scientific, historical, or grammatical test you want to throw at it.

    Ultimately, SG, you are at an extreme disadvantage in this line of criticism. The Bible is full of examples of references to scientific realities that we know today but were not known to the writers at the time. Isaiah’s reference to a spherical earth, his discussion of ocean currents, the Apostle Paul’s mention of quantum particles, and on and on are all clear evidence of divine inspiration.

    Ultimately, here is the test. Given that prophecy proves that God wrote the Bible, you have to either believe that He can get the Big Things right but is unable to deal with the problem of middle eastern rabbit chewing behavior (”Doh!” exclaims God upon reading Sir George’s post, “hares don’t chew their cud, how could I have missed that?”) or maybe you are the one who is failing to understand what is being referenced. The Hyrax is a classic example. You think, when you read the word “hare”, that Moses is referring to some north american jack rabbit. Do you think that Moses was really talking about your local bunny or was he really talking about a small hare-like animal indigenous to his local area that he was using as an example for his readers?

    This is a common error in thinking made by critics and I don’t fault you for it. I just remind you that bringing up such easily answered questions and then claiming that Biblical science is somehow wrong based on your own scientific and hermeneutical ignorance, does not bolster your position one iota.

  226. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The concurrence of the gospels isn’t sufficient to pass the test for me.

    Something as well documented as the Gospels should be more than enough for our purposes here given that they are independent of the original prophesy written by another writer (unless you think that all 4 writers fabricated the story and it somehow was accepted by everyone who was living at the time as true even though everyone knew it wasn’t). Please tell me under what circumstances that the Gospel accounts would have survived the local Jewish critics if they had not occurred just as described?

    This would be like me and 3 other guys writing 4 books about how Misha was given the congressional medal of honor by Harry Reid on March 27th 2007 for his faithful Cluebatting service here at the Rott. The books circulate for years but NO ONE even attempts to debunk the story.

    Keep in mind that it was even more unlikely than this. Imagine that Misha CMofH ceremony accounts resulted in a new Misha religion being formed based on his new found notoriety. His followers began circulating the accounts to all the liberals in America and many of them were so impressed by reading this account (even though it was never reported on Fox News or CNN) that they gave up their liberal ways and began following Misha as well.

    This is a crude analogy to something that was even more unlikely given that the 4 gospel writers were considered heretics in an a country that stoned heretics as a matter of sport.

    Dismiss the gospels if you want but there is NO WAY that they would have survived if what was in them was not accurate.

  227. Unregistered Comment by seagoon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    They are all surviving products of a belief system, and therefore are not independent. All four writers wrote with common goals, from the same basic perspective.

    Furthermore, there were large persecutions and purges of ‘heretical’ gospels and texts that took place in the early centuries of the Church, some of which do contradict the currently canon gospels.

    I’m not going to hypothesize about survivability of the texts etc, except to say that you are right, the local Jewish authorities were hostile, the Romans were hostile, and this would have encouraged the wide dissemination and keeping of the texts to preserve them- and it was in the best interests of the keepers that they maintain the correct line of belief.

    I’m having trouble with my connection and have to go on site, so this will have to wait- but isn’t the consensus among bible scholars that the written gospels were produced decades plus after the event, and were summations of the oral retellings of those who witnessed?

    I’ll find link when my google access is better. sorry to run but work calls.

    Below is what I was writing when your response popped up- still rough, but as I said, gotta run.

    I enjoy these discussions with one as knowledgeable as yourself. Keeps the mind flexible :)

    Ahh, Beeblebrox, the ancient Greeks also has spherical earth theories, with Pythagoras being a strong proponent.

    link

    Theories of the world rooting from antiquity can also ring true today, granted. Those theories being divinely inspired, unlikely in Pythagoras’s case, unless he was a Hebrew prophet with poor direction sense?

  228. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The Ezekiel is interesting, though the dating process strikes me as a little subjective…. according to these folks , the Ezekiel requires an additional interpretation of Leviticus to match up, and that doesn’t get into the vagaries of dating and calendrial inconsistency.

    The prophesy is further supported by Leviticus but it need no rely on it. As for dating, it is very straight forward and the writer of the summary provides calendar conversion calculators to deal with potential inconsistencies.

    But let me grant you, for just a moment, that somehow the dates are off by a few days or even months. Are you saying that Ezekiel prophesied the rebirth of Israel some 2,500 years later (and keep in mind that at the time of his prophesy, Israel was not yet destroyed) and because the number ended up being say, July 14, 1948 instead of May 14, 1948 that the Bible is now, therefore proven to be wrong?

    I just ask you Seagoon, to consider what you are saying for a moment. A man can predict something thousands of years ago that is very specific and completely unlikely to occur - nations don’t just get destroyed for two millennia and then suddenly rise again (and one prophesy said it would rise “in a single day’ which also hardly ever happens) and if he is off by a few days or months (which I don’t think he was based on the calculations I have seen) you dismiss it because of calendaring inconsistencies?

    And consider that the time between the servitude of Israel and the desolation of Jerusalem was exactly the same amount of time as between the rebirth of Israel in 1948 and the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967. I guess that Ezekiel was just a lucky guesser. :wink_ee:

    I only ask you to really look into Biblical prophesy if you are a skeptic. I think you will be challenged and will find what i have found. It proves that the author is not bound by the dimension of time. Remember, there are over 300 specific prophesies relating to the first coming of Jesus Christ. ALL of them were fulfilled to the letter.

    -B

  229. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Congratulations, you’ve cited the only person whose ever claimed he saw a hyrax chew cud. It remains unconfirmed, and every other expert says the hyrax just grinds its teeth.

    And where in the Bible does it say that Moses wrote Leviticus? Where does it even say it was inspired by God? Wouldn’t the author have mentioned that little tidbit, especially if Moses actually wrote the part about Moses. I wonder if he regarded the part about the death of Moses as a spoiler?

  230. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sorry Seagoon, very good try and maybe you were just trying to keep me on my toes, but pointing to a guy who lived around 500 BC, roughly 200 years AFTER Isaiah, doesn’t quite work does it? Isaiah mentions the sphericity of the earth two centuries before Pythagoras. That’d be like me claiming to be the guy who discovered electricity will travel down a kite string, conveniently forgetting about our old friend Ben F. And also keep in mind, Isaiah was writing to a people who did not necessarily believe the earth was round. I can imagine some of his readers scratching their heads over his assertion.

    Furthermore, there were large persecutions and purges of ‘heretical’ gospels and texts that took place in the early centuries of the Church, some of which do contradict the currently canon gospels.

    Even if this were true WRT the Triumphal Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (and I don’t recall that any of the apocryphal books of the Bible contradict the actual gospel record) the Gospel accounts survived precisely because they were affirmed to be true. The dismissed gospels were much more fanciful, could not be authenticated and all of them were written centuries after the originals. Which goes to your next statement:

    but isn’t the consensus among bible scholars that the written gospels were produced decades plus after the event, and were summations of the oral retellings of those who witnessed?

    They were written by the eyewitnesses themselves. Luke (who also wrote the book of Acts) was a master at shorthand, being a doctor, and so his account is very detailed with precise quotes.

    By the way, I do not agree at all that these books could have been used to “maintain the correct line of belief.” any more than my fictitious story about Misha’s congressional medal of honor would withstand scrutiny. If I published such a story, even Misha’s friends would complain for fear that those who knew better would debunk my story and end up besmirching Misha’s good name.

    In short, there is no rational explanation for the continued existence of the Gospels except that they are contemporaneous historical accounts that could not be debunked (by either critics and followers alike).

    Consider this; if you have followed any of the commentary on the movie “300″ you will recognize that there are many historians pointing out the license taken with the story. These historians are taking, pretty much at “gospel” what was written about the Battle of Thermopylae which took place 500 years BEFORE Christ died. We pretty much accept the account in that case but we dismiss the account (which would have been much more thoroughly vetted) of the Triumphal Entry?

    Sorry, not buying it.

    Good chatting w/ you!

  231. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Hey SG, you really are into picking nits tonight aren’t you? I give you an example of someone who has written on the Hyrax, thereby throwing your entire hypothosis into question and you provide not one single refutation.

    But may I point out that even if there was some vagary to the Hyrax mystery, you would actually hang your skeptical hat on that while ignoring the mountain of evidence that the Bible is authored by God Himself? That would be like denying that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves because you read somewhere that he was actually a slave holder and would never have done anything to free them. Ignore the overwhelming evidence and cling to a hope. I guess I just can’t relate to that kind of anti-intellectualism.

    As for the authorship of the Pentateuch, I do not claim that Moses wrote every word. However, consider the following documentation regarding its authorship:

    Passages in the Pentateuch itself:

    Exodus 17:14 “Then the Lord instructed Moses, ‘Write this down as a permanent record…’”
    Exodus 24:4 “Then Moses carefully wrote down all the Lord’s instructions.”
    Exodus 34:27 “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write down all these instructions, for they represents the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel.’”
    Leviticus 1:1 “The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle and said to him, ‘Give the following instructions to the Israelites…’”
    Leviticus 6:8 “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Give Aaron and his sons the following instructions…’”
    Deuteronomy 31:9 “So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests.”
    Deuteronomy 31:24-26 “When Moses had finished writing down this entire body of law in a book…”

    Passages elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures:

    Joshua 1:7-8 “…Obey all the laws Moses gave you.”
    Joshua 8:31-34 “He followed the instructions that Moses the Lord’s servant had written in the Book of the Law…”
    Joshua 22:5 “…obey all the commands and the laws that Moses gave to you.”
    2 Chronicles 34:14 “…Hilkiah the high priest…found the book of the Law of the Lord as it had been given through Moses.”

    Passages in the Gospels which show that Jesus and John the Baptizer believed Moses to be the author:

    Matthew 19:7-8 “…why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?”, they asked. Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted divorce…’”
    Matthew 22:24 “Moses said, ‘If a man dies without children…’”
    Mark 7:10 “For instance, Moses gave you this law from God…”
    Mark 12:24 “…haven’t you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush…”
    Luke 24:44 “…I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true.”
    John 1:17 “For the law was given through Moses…”
    John 5:46 “But if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me because he wrote about me. And since you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”
    John 7:23 “…do it, so as not to break the law of Moses…”
    Passages elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures:
    Acts 26:22 “…I teach nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen…”
    Romans 10:5 “For Moses wrote…”

    Jewish tradition as well as conservative theologians generally agree that the Pentateuch was written largely by Moses.

  232. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    So if Moses wrote the Pentateuch why did he refer to himself in the third person, and did he cough up some bile when he wrote this?

    Deuteronomy 34:5
    5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said.

    Boy, talk about getting writer’s block! But heck, it’s got Eskimos, Aborigines, Maoris, Hawaiians, Celts, and Cherokee working on a tower in Iraq.

  233. Unregistered Comment by seagoon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’m unable (in the office) to get fully in the trenches with you over this one Beeb, but I have to ask, are you telling me that the Pythagoras’ round earth theory was derived from the Hebrew?

    That’s some serious legs for antiquity.

    Anyway, gotta earn my living for a while, but I’m sure this thread will live on…. talk later :)

  234. Unregistered Comment by seagoon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Here you go Beeb,

    Yajnavalkya c. 9th–8th century BC) recognized that the Earth is spherical and believed that the Sun was “the centre of the spheres” as described in the Vedas at the time. In his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10) he states: “The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere - to himself on a thread.” He recognized that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, which would have influenced this early heliocentric concept. He also accurately measured the relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the modern measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon. He also described a solar calendar in the Shatapatha Brahmana.

    Spherical world, heliocentric solar system, and pretty good astronomical measurements, in 8-9C BC link

    I looked into Isaiah, and this is a bit confusing as a non biblical scholar, as there seem to be inconsistencies in dating- still, Yajnavalkya is at very least contemporary (latest dating of Yajnavalkya with earliest of Isaiah, or possibly earlier.

    Isaiah link

    This is far more enjoyable than working :)- back to you!

  235. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Seagoon, that is interesting regarding Yajnavalkya, never heard of him but it is intriguing. As for Pythagoras, I believe he probably came up with the sphericity of the earth independently from the others. However, this in no way, alters my thesis.

    Isaiah was a prophet, not an astronomer. I seriously doubt he studied the mathematics involved nor knew the details. The others you mention did. My point is, Isaiah, while brilliant, still had to have gotten his info from a Higher authority (unless he was buds with Yajnavalkya :smile1_ee:.)

    Furthermore, as I mentioned before, his audience CERTAINLY was not attuned to what he was saying. Isaiah states the nature of the earth’s shape as a matter of fact reality even though it had to have been scoffed at by his readers. I’ve always had to think, when these Biblical writers were talking of the round earth or ocean currents or quantum physics, that they were saying to themselves “you want me to actually write this down God? People will snicker you know.”

    Cheers!

  236. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    If God wanted it written down for posterity why didn’t he just wish an HP Laserjet into existence and print out a bunch of copies?

  237. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    This is the thread that never ends,
    Yes it goes on and on my friends.
    Some LC’s started commenting, not knowing what it was,
    And they’ll continue commenting forever just because…

    Sorry for that, but as a youngster I had the hots for Sheri Lewis.

  238. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Ironic, too, that one of the longest thread in the history of the Rott came from one of the shortest OP’s.

  239. Unregistered Comment by seagoon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Soooo, not hitting 300, hmm?

    It was a good run :)

  240. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Fanusi,

    No one has said those things because those are YOUR incorrect assertions and are totally divorced from the truth. It doesn’t speak well of a person who uses a lie to try to discredit something.

    For example, you incorrectly assert:

    …the mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma as virgin, whereas it actually means young woman.

    You probably got this off of Wiki or some such nonauthoritative source but please grow up a little and consider that this has been asked and answered thousands of times over the millennia.

    1. The root of the word Almah (not “alma”) translates “secret” (Ps. 90:8); “hidden” (Lev. 4:13), This speaks of the qualities of a virgin, one hidden from experience with men.

    Genesis 3 predicts that the Messiah would be born of the “Seed of the Woman” (Gen.3: 15). Since woman have eggs and not seed this is the first indication that no man would be involved in the conception process.

    -In the Hebrew Scriptures the word Almah is used 7 times (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Prov. 30:18; Ps. 68:25; Song. 1:3; 6:8). In each of these occurrences it also speaks of a virgin.

    -In 180 BC 70 rabbis first translated the OT into Greek (the Septuagint). This was prior to Christ’s birth and therefore there would be no bias for or against his involvement since they knew nothing of the birth of Christianity. They had no difficulty translating Almah into the common Greek word for virgin, parthenos. It is this translation that the New Covenant utilizes in describing Messiah’s birth (Matthew 1:23).

    Virgin is undoubtedly the accurate translation of the Hebrew text.

    All your other falsehoods are easily debunked but since you got the main one entirely wrong, I think we all know where you are coming from.

    Good day.

  241. LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe Comment by LC Beeblebrox, Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    For a look of the issue of Pi spoken above above see:

    Russel Grigg’s article which looks at 3 possible explanations including the nature of measurment of cubits as well as the issue of the rim of the molten sea being wider (obviously) than the bowl itself.

    Also see Does the Bible Give a Wrong Value for Pi? by James Patrick Holding.

    We don’t really know which of these is the best explanation but they are all better than the “God doesn’t know the value of Pi” chestnut pushed by skeptics like Fanusi.

    My personal belief is that the passage in Kings uses rounded numbers. We all do this with regard to Pi. I can easily prove this to be true: Fanusi, could you please post the value of Pi here on the Rott but please do not round it. Give the precise value of Pi (out to as many decimal places as necessary to do so) and I will accept your assertion that the Bible was wrong to use a rounded value for Pi.