LoveToGod
Member
 Offline
Posts: 37
|
 |
« Reply #120 on: July 21, 2009, 03:50:36 PM » |
|
It’s clear observational evidence that it evolved!
Would you care to explain (for those who cant be bothered to watch it) what exactly it is we’re talking about?
I would if I could. I clicked on the link and it said the service was not available in my area. I am in Texas. Is there is a link to this video somewhere else? This argument from I could read about the forum sounds like another one that has been raised where it has been said that an octopus has better eyes because the blood vessels are behind the retina, and so it can see better. That would indicate that our eyes are inferior, and that would indicate a "poor" design and proof of evolution. But what they don't realize is that we have blood vessels infront to protect us from the UV light, and we don't live in the water. Our eyes are designed just fine for living on land, and the octopus eyes are just fine for living in the water. The argument here about wiring sounds like this one here, but I can't see the video clip. Again, if you have another link I will try it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LoveToGod
Member
Offline
Posts: 37
|
|
« Reply #121 on: July 21, 2009, 03:52:10 PM » |
|
raw material for evolution?
you sure your on the right subject?
Yes. The Biology and Earth Science textbooks that are tax payer funded teach that natural selection is the raw material for evolution to take place. They say that beneficial mutations cause evolution, but then they can never give a beneficial one. They always refer to the harmful ones. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Novus Ordo
|
|
« Reply #122 on: July 21, 2009, 04:48:17 PM » |
|
I would if I could. I clicked on the link and it said the service was not available in my area. I am in Texas. Is there is a link to this video somewhere else?
This argument from I could read about the forum sounds like another one that has been raised where it has been said that an octopus has better eyes because the blood vessels are behind the retina, and so it can see better. That would indicate that our eyes are inferior, and that would indicate a "poor" design and proof of evolution.
But what they don't realize is that we have blood vessels infront to protect us from the UV light, and we don't live in the water.
Our eyes are designed just fine for living on land, and the octopus eyes are just fine for living in the water.
The argument here about wiring sounds like this one here, but I can't see the video clip.
Again, if you have another link I will try it.
Basically the wire/nerve that the brain uses to make the larynx work (which is about 2 inches away from the brain) goes all the way down and around the heart and all the way back up to the voice box/larynx, now I’m sure you understand that this is all about info’ nothing to do with blood electrons not cells. So at this point we could all have a joke about the origins of the old saying about putting your mouth into gear before your brain, which could be fun, or, we could try an explain the logic for it? If I empathise with your dogmatic sense of reality to try to explain it, I would say, the most scruffy, untidy disorganised art studios always belong to the greatest artists. That is about the best I can do, can you explain this? What I do find beautiful, is how it fits with Evolution theory. Do you want to know why? Or perhaps your understanding of Evolution is comprehensive enough to explain it for us? It’s very simple after all! Go on you do it, you explain why it fits with evolution, you show some empathy for Christ’s sake. So often, it’s not the answers but the questions that thrust me towards the rollercoaster of apathy. Or it’s that sudden ‘jerk’ you get at the beginning of the ride when you realise your already strapped in . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LoveToGod
Member
Offline
Posts: 37
|
|
« Reply #123 on: July 21, 2009, 05:08:45 PM » |
|
Basically the wire/nerve that the brain uses to make the larynx work (which is about 2 inches away from the brain) goes all the way down and around the heart and all the way back up to the voice box/larynx, now I’m sure you understand that this is all about info’ nothing to do with blood electrons not cells.
So at this point we could all have a joke about the origins of the old saying about putting your mouth into gear before your brain, which could be fun, or, we could try an explain the logic for it?
If I empathise with your dogmatic sense of reality to try to explain it, I would say, the most scruffy, untidy disorganised art studios always belong to the greatest artists. That is about the best I can do, can you explain this?
What I do find beautiful, is how it fits with Evolution theory.
Do you want to know why? Or perhaps your understanding of Evolution is comprehensive enough to explain it for us?
It’s very simple after all! Go on you do it, you explain why it fits with evolution, you show some empathy for Christ’s sake.
So often, it’s not the answers but the questions that thrust me towards the rollercoaster of apathy.
Or it’s that sudden ‘jerk’ you get at the beginning of the ride when you realise your already strapped in .
No, not really. That is just the way God made it. It is not proof for Creation OR Evolution. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Novus Ordo
|
|
« Reply #124 on: July 21, 2009, 05:11:15 PM » |
|
Sorry that came across a bit harsh reading it back but I just knew your rebuttal will make me think your just another servant of Guy de Lombard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OzIMHowtL8Devious degenerate’s defenders of the devil. Sane! Shut down all the trash compactors on the detention level I’m paying for my sin’s btw, I’ve got a screaming tooth ache and I’ve just run out of whisky. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LoveToGod
Member
Offline
Posts: 37
|
|
« Reply #125 on: July 21, 2009, 06:18:27 PM » |
|
Sorry that came across a bit harsh reading it back but I just knew your rebuttal will make me think your just another servant of Guy de Lombard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OzIMHowtL8Devious degenerate’s defenders of the devil. Sane! Shut down all the trash compactors on the detention level I’m paying for my sin’s btw, I’ve got a screaming tooth ache and I’ve just run out of whisky. No that is not how sins are paid for. Either we accept Jesus payment for our sins when he died and resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago or we pay for our sins in Hell. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LoveToGod
Member
Offline
Posts: 37
|
|
« Reply #126 on: July 21, 2009, 06:22:34 PM » |
|
The clip was rather entertaining, but what has that got to do with the price of rice in China? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Novus Ordo
|
|
« Reply #127 on: July 21, 2009, 08:07:53 PM » |
|
No that is not how sins are paid for. Either we accept Jesus payment for our sins when he died and resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago or we pay for our sins in Hell.
Is that where all the magic fire is and the Devil lives? He who moved God against Job (a nice chap allegedly), to destroy him without cause? Anyway, you have to go back to fish before you can see a logical geographical route (as the crow fly's) the nerve takes from the brain to, well in the fishes case gills, the point is every animal has this same trait the nerve from the brain to the larynx goes around the heart and back up again completely illogical design. Now, if it was an intelligent design at some point or rather at several points this nerve would have been re-wired something obviously you can’t do in evolution, but then you have to understand evolution properly in the 1st place to understand that. “engineers have the freedom to go back to the drawing board, Evolution doesn’t have that freedom” Your god is not perfect Evolution is not a lie! You can go back to ‘farting in my general direction’ now I’m off to bed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LoveToGod
Member
Offline
Posts: 37
|
|
« Reply #128 on: July 21, 2009, 09:53:24 PM » |
|
Is that where all the magic fire is and the Devil lives? He who moved God against Job (a nice chap allegedly), to destroy him without cause?
I don't know about "magic" fire, but the Devil can move around. He is not confined to Hell yet. He goes to Hell and other places. (Job 2:2) As far as the fire, some try to air condition it for different reasons, but the Bible is clear about everlasting fire (See Matthew 25:41, Luke 16:24, Revelation 14:10, Rev. 19:20, 20:-14-15, 21:8 ). Anyway, you have to go back to fish before you can see a logical geographical route (as the crow fly's) the nerve takes from the brain to, well in the fishes case gills, the point is every animal has this same trait the nerve from the brain to the larynx goes around the heart and back up again completely illogical design. Now, if it was an intelligent design at some point or rather at several points this nerve would have been re-wired something obviously you can’t do in evolution, but then you have to understand evolution properly in the 1st place to understand that.
Then what are saying is similar to the argument I have heard about the human eye. Could it be that a signal goes from the larynx to the heart and then something additional travels up back to the brain? You are say that because the design doesn't make logical sense to you, it must have evolved. That is just like the guy who said the octopus had a better eye. You had said this has nothing to do with that, but now that you have explained it, it does. It is the same argument. “engineers have the freedom to go back to the drawing board, Evolution doesn’t have that freedom”
Evolution doesn't work. At least Engineers make something that works. Your god is not perfect
I would say sorry Charlie, but your name is probably not Charlie. My God is absolutely perfect. I am NOT perfect, your are not perfect, and neither is anyone else, but God. Us Christians are just forgiven, and Born-Again. That is the difference. Evolution is not a lie!
The only part of Evolution that is valid is Micro-Evolution, like I said earlier. All other areas are a lie. There are things that have been proven wrong over 100 years ago that are still in textbooks today, like the drawings that Earnst Hagel made up. He was an embryology professor and he went around Germany saying here is the evidence for evolution. He made drawings of chicken embryos, human embryos, and other animal's embryos to show that they all had gill slits and tails and went through the stages of evolution. He admitted in 1873 that he lied with his so called evidence and faked the drawings, but those drawings are still in textbooks today as proof of evolution. You can go back to ‘farting in my general direction’ now I’m off to bed.
Wow, that's amazing. I didn't know you could pass gas over the copper wire. Amazing! I think some people have farted their brains out and that is why they can't think for themselves. They just blindly go by what they have been taught in school as if it were a fact. Get some sleep, buddy! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Novus Ordo
|
|
« Reply #129 on: July 22, 2009, 05:38:00 AM » |
|
There was a young man who said 'though
It seems that I know that I know,
What I would like to see
Is the I that sees me
When I know that I know that I know.'
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #130 on: July 22, 2009, 12:34:08 PM » |
|
Wow I don't think Im gonna post any more on this subject with the amount of uninformed willfull ignorance displayed on this subject. Its like trying to take down a brick wall with your head.
It is only a Fundamentalist approach to the reading of the bible that rejects the evidence of observation. Do you think God created the genetic code which is the same for every earthly creature in order to decieve us? Evidence of observation? For common ancestry to be observable, you'd need a time machine. Do you have one? You're probably being dishonest or ignorant. The latter perhaps, given your subsequent postings. The genetic code is not the same for every creature on earth, it is similar, yet similarities do not readily imply common ancestry because we would expect this from a common designer as well. FYI, if the genetic codes weren't similar we wouldn't be able to assimilate our environment. This isn't evidence for evolution and neither is genetic similarities. As far as I know, we are closer to a mouse then a pig then a small tree monkey. So therefore our common ancestor is a mouse. It's so obvious. Do you think he placed fossil sea life at the tops of mountains to jerk us around? No! This, again, doesn't support common ancestry. It might support geologic catastrophism, and maybe even uniformitarian models. THE BIBLE DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE NATURAL WORLD OR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!!!!!!!! So, what are the facts of the natural world? I'm not even sure I understand the nature of reality even after spending years of study on the topic. It's true that the bible isn't a science textbook, but it's also true that it contradicts no known empirical science. Furthermore, the scientific method is only one methodology and should only be used in it's specific context. So many people seem to think that the scientific method works for the whole of reality or that if it isn't "scientific" it's wrong. This is not intelligent thought. When the bible was written there was no science and it was not God's will to give us worldly knowledge. Satan is quite happy to if asked, but always with a price. That of your soul. Incorrect. Science has always existed in it's abstract form. Methodology has changed, as well as the philosophy. But do not make the assumption that the ancients were ignorant of truth as truth does not change. In some ways, perhaps many, they were far superior to our modern sciences. If you are a Christian and see this problem in your church may I suggest that the Catholic church so often rebuked for its stiffling of science in the early days of the method, is correct in its reading of scriptures on this point at least. There is no contradiction present. I believe it was the catholic priests who initially advocated darwinian evolution. Furthermore, the catholic church is corrupt and is unneccesary. Whatever opinion they hold regarding reality needs to be ignored. All of you Christians arguing against scientific method really do make yourselves and your churches look silly. Talk on the level of the bible. The human relationship with God, not God's relationship with the rest of the created universe.
I highly doubt any christians intention is to debate scientific methodology. Furthermore, common ancestry cannot be deduced using the scientific method, only through inductive reasoning. You should get your facts straight. There is no dichotomy between evolution and the bible. You're free to believe as you will but if you are at all interested in the scientific method you can see how the theory of evolution has evolved substantially since the time of Darwin so much so we can class it with as much certainty as the fact that the earth is non flat.
Darwin also who as we know was not the only one to postulate such an idea.
There certainly is a dichotomy between common ancestry and the bible. In fact, if common ancestry is true, as espoused by Darwin, the Bible is irrelevant as truth. Again, common ancestry is divorced from the scientific method, I know it can be confusing, lies usually are. And of course the TOE evolved from darwin, in fact hardly anyone believes in darwinian evolution anymore. It's mostly neo-darwinanism cooked up around the 1930's to overcome the discovery of dna and the implications of information inherent in every living cell. They did a great job of hiding this fact. Bravo science way to tell it like it is!  As I previously posted and LoveToGod seems ready to acknowledge is that the problem is not the science the problem is trying to create a philosophy from it and applying it to humans. That is wrong and I would suggest that if you are incapable orr unwilling to rationally explore the evidence then just back off and keep your critisim to the fallacious moral interpretations of evolution, responsible for the doctorines of Race Hygine of the Nazis and the coming New World Order. Soviet relience on their equally faulty interpretation and application was a major factor in some of the terrible famines there.
The science of evolution is a fact, life changes through procreation. No one should argue that point. However, it's an extreme extrapolation to BELIEVE that common ancestry is involved in scientific methodology in anything other than an a priori assumption penned by Maupertau in the 1780's, picked up by Immanuel Kant and Erasmus Darwin the 1800's and used as an underlying philosophy by darwin when he discovered a potential mechanism for change in species. What scientific methodology do you know where the conclusion comes before gathering data? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LoveToGod
Member
Offline
Posts: 37
|
|
« Reply #131 on: July 22, 2009, 11:03:14 PM » |
|
I am going to start doing creation presentations in churches in August. Those of you who do believe in Creation, please go to my youtube link and Subscribe to my channel. I explain why in this clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zZBYRiqno4 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #132 on: July 25, 2009, 04:32:12 PM » |
|
I am going to start doing creation presentations in churches in August. Those of you who do believe in Creation, please go to my youtube link and Subscribe to my channel. I explain why in this clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zZBYRiqno4Dude, seriously listen to me. Evolution is NOT the foundation for humanism. Evolution is NOT what you should be debating. You need to seriously disambiguate evolution from common ancestry. If you give presentations in church in your present considerations, you will only confuse people even more than they already are. You need to explain the historicity of common ancestry through Avicenna's geological model through Malthus. You should detail natural selection and inform your audience. If your audience believe that evolution is refutable and try to use this in debate, they will be utterly humiliated by the facts. You will do exactly the opposite of what you set out to do. The only thing you can do is inform your audience, not sell them a false idea. The origins debate is very complicated, and even more so because of the reluctance of the creationists to accept that where the evolutionists are right, they are right. You should print out and make it a keynote to present talkorigins.org 25+ evidences for macroevolution. This is the evolutionists stronghold against creationists arguments against common ancestry. There are alot of christians who are intelligent and when they use their intellect to come to a conclusion about the origins debate, they will inevitably choose the better arguments. It is imperative that you inform your audience in manner that is consistent with the facts. If you haven't read the entire talkorigins archive, it is my opinion, that you should not speak on the matter. If your sources are only one sided, how will that make your presentation look to anyone who is studied in logic? From your posts, I don't think you're ready, and I will give you constructive criticisms on your youtube video: 1) Humanism did not originate with Charles Darwin. Here's a quote from WAY before Darwin and evolution: "Man is the measure of all things," -Protagoras in the fifth century BCE. 2) Evolution, in itself, does not espouse population control. It has been an integral part of common ancestry, but no science or scientific basis for this exists. By saying this you're committing a fallacy known as straw man. Straw man is very easily detected and it throws up red flags all over your credibilty, whether intentional or not. 3) 2 minutes in, and it already sounds like a verbatim copy of Hovind or Safarti. You need to be unique, if you want to captivate an audience. Creationists almost always rehash what others have said before them, even when their arguments are faulty. 4) Evolution, as with science in general, makes no claim or prediction with regard to supernaturalism. So, by you espousing an ultimatum scenario as in your video, you misrepresent not only evolution, but science in general. Common ancestry could have happened and yet their still be a loving creator. Even though I reject this, there are many people smarter than me who believe such a thing, and it would be unwise to ostracize them from your presentation. 4) By the end of your video, you absolved all doubt as to where your information is coming from, and it is most definitely taken from Hovind. I've seen just about all of his videos, and he says the same thing. You should realize that he discredits evolution to sell biblical creationism and salvation through jesus. While this is necessary, it is not altogether intellectually honest. If you want to blow away your audience, just give them the facts, arm them with the tools to succeed in any debate without using a mass of sources or funny quips and attacks on evolution. This just won't fly with intelligent men and women. We don't need more Hovinds, rather more informed christians. And while you're at whatever church, make sure and tell everyone that jesus doesn't need their money and that the creator's name isn't jesus. If you want to really follow in christs footsteps and be a disciple you need to have the very people that should accept you try to throw you off a cliff you anger them so much in their darkness. Shalom brother Joseph, I hope you take this to heart. May Yahweh Bless You. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LoveToGod
Member
Offline
Posts: 37
|
|
« Reply #133 on: July 26, 2009, 03:51:45 PM » |
|
From your posts, I don't think you're ready, and I will give you constructive criticisms on your youtube video:
1) Humanism did not originate with Charles Darwin. Here's a quote from WAY before Darwin and evolution: "Man is the measure of all things," -Protagoras in the fifth century BCE.
Its NOT BCE! Its BC, Before Christ. I never said Humanism originated with Darwin. Evolution did not originate with Darwin, it started with Satan in the Garden of Eden, but Darwin provided the false mechanism that really pushed the theory through. 2) Evolution, in itself, does not espouse population control. It has been an integral part of common ancestry, but no science or scientific basis for this exists. By saying this you're committing a fallacy known as straw man. Straw man is very easily detected and it throws up red flags all over your credibilty, whether intentional or not.
Evolution does says the strongest survive, so it is okay for the weaker ones to die off. Its survival of the fittest. In Germany Evolution was the foundation for killing the Jews. The Jews were said to be "non persons in the legal sense". Hitler believed that the Jews had not evolved as far and were sub-human. This is evolutionary thinking. Evolution has indeed lead to other things like communism, socialism, humanism, etc. In China when it was turned into a communist country the first thing the people learned was not Communism, but Evolution, and the flavor of it that says there is no god. 3) 2 minutes in, and it already sounds like a verbatim copy of Hovind or Safarti. You need to be unique, if you want to captivate an audience. Creationists almost always rehash what others have said before them, even when their arguments are faulty.
Hovind has influenced me. You don't have to be "unique" all the way. The truth just needs to get out. A messenger needs to open their mouth and give the truth out. That is all that needs to happen. 4) Evolution, as with science in general, makes no claim or prediction with regard to supernaturalism. So, by you espousing an ultimatum scenario as in your video, you misrepresent not only evolution, but science in general. Common ancestry could have happened and yet their still be a loving creator. Even though I reject this, there are many people smarter than me who believe such a thing, and it would be unwise to ostracize them from your presentation.
the God I believe in does not use blind random chance. He knows what he wants, and He gets it right the FIRST TIME. 4) By the end of your video, you absolved all doubt as to where your information is coming from, and it is most definitely taken from Hovind. I've seen just about all of his videos, and he says the same thing.
I am using much what he has produced along with some updates that I have done, and I will be expanding it as I go along. But so what if I use his materials. He makes it so that you can do that. I just want the truth to get out. I don't care who came up with it first. You should realize that he discredits evolution to sell biblical creationism and salvation through jesus. While this is necessary, it is not altogether intellectually honest.
Yes, and I am doing the same thing. What is not intellectually honest is using lies that have been dis-proven over a 100 years ago to support a theory. get the lies out of the books. make sure and tell everyone that jesus doesn't need their money and that the creator's name isn't jesus.
Jesus may not need their money, but on this planet things cost money. We are not on Mars. We are on Earth, and you try running an operation and paying the bills to keep it open without money. The Bible says that if a man lives to preach the gospel that it is okay to pay him that way to make a living. If you want to really follow in christs footsteps and be a disciple you need to have the very people that should accept you try to throw you off a cliff you anger them so much in their darkness. Shalom brother Joseph, I hope you take this to heart. May Yahweh Bless You.
Throw me off a cliff. No, now any time soon. And Yahweh, God's name in Hebrew did not use Evolution to create! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #134 on: July 27, 2009, 09:59:27 AM » |
|
Its NOT BCE! Its BC, Before Christ.
I never said Humanism originated with Darwin. Evolution did not originate with Darwin, it started with Satan in the Garden of Eden, but Darwin provided the false mechanism that really pushed the theory through. The Gregorian Calendar is a Pagan calendar which has little to do with christ. You said, "...how evolution is the foundation for...communism and also humanism..." 0:12 - 0:20 of your you tube video. Foundation: a basis (as a tenet, principle, or axiom) upon which something stands or is supported <the foundations of geometry> <the rumor is without foundation in fact> You expressly implied that humanism originated upon evolution. While Satan is the author of humanistic ideals, this isn't well accepted by even christians. When you say humanism, your speaking in secular terms of the philosophy. It's an extremely important distinction. Evolution does says the strongest survive, so it is okay for the weaker ones to die off. Its survival of the fittest. In Germany Evolution was the foundation for killing the Jews. The Jews were said to be "non persons in the legal sense". Hitler believed that the Jews had not evolved as far and were sub-human. This is evolutionary thinking.
Evolution has indeed lead to other things like communism, socialism, humanism, etc. In China when it was turned into a communist country the first thing the people learned was not Communism, but Evolution, and the flavor of it that says there is no god. That's one interpretation of evolutionary thought. Some evolutionists believe that because of evolution, if shows are connection to this planet and people which should be held in high regard because of the miracle of life. Furthermore, evolution did not lead to communism, socialism, or humanism, rather it is used to justify these in materialistic philosophy and others. Evolution does not imply atheism, rather the opposite. Naturalism is the result of atheism, the demand of a godless universe. Hovind has influenced me. You don't have to be "unique" all the way. The truth just needs to get out. A messenger needs to open their mouth and give the truth out. That is all that needs to happen. I agree with Hovind on many of what he presents, but there are some other things which I disagree with. Namely his approach. He belittles humans who believe in evolution, rather than evolution and more importantly, common descent. You should be unique in the sense that you deliver the facts. Whereas Hovind is short on some times because he turns this into a black and white issue, thus ostracizing professional scientists and scholars. While these things need to be pointed out, he would have done better to adapt to the arguments. the God I believe in does not use blind random chance. He knows what he wants, and He gets it right the FIRST TIME. What about the gods the Babylonians worshiped? Or the Persians? Or the Greeks? You need to define your goal, or the endgame, what you're trying to achieve by giving these presentations. IMO, it sounds like you're going to be preaching to the choir. When christians hear you're message they'll probably agree with much of what you say. However, if you're preaching to the scientific community or seek to facilitate repentance of those who currently believe in evolution and common ancestry, you're going to fail. You're arguments are not structured in a way that would convince someone that believes that the bible isn't a science book and that modern sciences have dispelled the myths found in genesis. Because, quite simply, the ancients were not learned. I am using much what he has produced along with some updates that I have done, and I will be expanding it as I go along. But so what if I use his materials. He makes it so that you can do that. I just want the truth to get out. I don't care who came up with it first. I took Hovind's arguments and plugged them into the EvC forum in a brilliant, if I say so of myself, play of devils advocacy. It's an infamous account that is well known to those who frequent the EvC. What I discovered is that Hovind's arguments don't hold weight under intelligent debate. It's not to say that Hovind didn't have the right idea, it's just that using his arguments sets up an inevitable failure as I demonstrated at the EvC. Not because they aren't relevant arguments, rather the structure of the arguments in terms the secular world can understand and relate. You should be unique because Hovind laid the ground work, but the origins debate is a game of chess where his arguments have been countered, ad nausuem. If you want to understand why you shouldn't copy Hovind, read up extensively upon the arguments against him. This is imperative, because if you don't it only takes the one pawn to put you in check mate. Yes, and I am doing the same thing. What is not intellectually honest is using lies that have been dis-proven over a 100 years ago to support a theory. get the lies out of the books. It's dishonest to those who are not christians and how they view your argument strategy. Origins debate should open the door to the possibility of supernaturalism, to the naturalist. When that is established christianity can shine forth, because it's the most obvious religion that has any historical and logical value. Even though supernaturalism is probably a misnomer, when people entertain the possibility, there will open up all the doors which those who've woken up see. Jesus may not need their money, but on this planet things cost money. We are not on Mars. We are on Earth, and you try running an operation and paying the bills to keep it open without money.
The Bible says that if a man lives to preach the gospel that it is okay to pay him that way to make a living.
I'm not saying people shouldn't earn a living, I'm saying that where there is money there is corruption. I don't remember reading where jesus extolled the notion of creating large congregation halls through socialistic monetary pyramids. Part of the reason people dislike and are wary of churches is because of the blatent hypocrisy inherent in such a system and well wary they should be. If you told it like it is, the heirarchial structure that funded the building where you're planning on teaching would be out of a job. In conclusion, I would like to turn your attention towards the fact that you didn't really address the issues I laid out. You just attempted to debate me as if I was somehow an evolutionist. You're weak rebuttal was embarrassingly shy of any meaningful discourse. You should not be teaching anyone about evolution, when you don't seem to understand my points. With all due respect, you wouldn't make it far in a real debate and anyone studied in logic would see this very quickly. You will do more harm than good. That doesn't mean you shouldn't speak out about it, you should take a more humble stance like Walter Veith. Even though I'm not into Adventism, he is still probably the best origins speaker, give or take a few opinions. You should understand that you don't understand and work to correct this deficit. And when you understand that the mountain is much larger than Hovind makes it out to be, you'll be much better equipped to take on any serious queries about the origins of man. May Yahweh Yahuwshua Bless You Joseph. If I come off sounding a bit mean, it's for your own learning. I'm much easier to debate than the wolves that would like to tear you apart. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #135 on: July 29, 2009, 12:41:35 PM » |
|
I personally see this whole evolution vs. creation debate as a good example of a false dychotomy, a false paradigm -- and also another tool for divide and conquer... I mean, isn't evolution a pretty well established fact? With all the pet dog breeding, fossil records, genetics (for instance, chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA with humans, apparently) etc.? And now: what does any of this have to do with God? Although, in the end I do know it's but a theory, and that in natural sciences you don't really prove things. faith isnt science. science is fact. I would be careful with statements like that. I personally beware of people who proclaim themselves as "rational" people who have the "facts" -- doesn't that kind of attitude remind of someone...? The only place for absolute certainty is mathematics, not science. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
Dok
|
|
« Reply #136 on: July 29, 2009, 01:21:42 PM » |
|
assumption is faith.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #137 on: July 29, 2009, 02:52:36 PM » |
|
I personally see this whole evolution vs. creation debate as a good example of a false dychotomy, a false paradigm -- and also another tool for divide and conquer...
I mean, isn't evolution a pretty well established fact? With all the pet dog breeding, fossil records, genetics (for instance, chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA with humans, apparently) etc.? And now: what does any of this have to do with God?
Although, in the end I do know it's but a theory, and that in natural sciences you don't really prove things.
I would be careful with statements like that. I personally beware of people who proclaim themselves as "rational" people who have the "facts" -- doesn't that kind of attitude remind of someone...? The only place for absolute certainty is mathematics, not science.
You should read my last post. Atheism has one rational stronghold which is the theory of evolution. It's essential to bring people in contact with their Creator. There is no divide and conquer because encouraging people to accept a free gift of salvation, for all incorrectness past and future is not a religion. This isn't about what doctrines or philosophy or dividing the truth movement. It's about a real Creator, wanting a real relationship. Christians call the Creator pagan names, and he still accepts them. Science doesn't deal in "facts" as understood in a popular terms. But evolution IS and established fact because the biological definition is: A change in a population over time through descent with modification. No one argues that. Rational, intelligent, skeptical people should challenge the extreme extrapolation of the observable process of change in a population. I don't know of any solid evidence that remotely suggests that common ancestry is a viable explanation. Common ancestry is an a priori conclusion founded on an atheistic ideal of explaining origins with a naturalistic mechanism REGARDLESS if it's absolutely false. This isn't my opinion, science chooses testability over isolated incidents, when they can get away with it. Dog breeding shows that the genome loses information rather than gains information. Selectively bread dogs can't be bread back into a wolf, but a wolf can be bread into just about any other type of dog breed. Furthermore, with all the selective dog breeding we've never seen any trait that isn't potentially inherent in the original. Selective breeding usually produces dogs for the worst as well, because when you breed a dog specifically alot of times you breed it with the closest relatives or types, thus leading to genetic diseases. Futhermore still, almost all selective dog breeds would die out in the wild, no evolutionary advantage evolved. The fossil record is terrible evidence of common ancestry and superb evidence for variations within a general type that's usually consistent with the Linneaus' species. Since Guy Berthauldt and Pierre Jullien empirically destroyed uniformitarian geology in the 1970's and 1990's the fossil placement has become irrelevant in common ancestry, therefore an observable timetable is nonexistent on this planet. Furthermore, there is enormous evidence in ooparts, and also vedic geology that discredits geologic time. Fossils themselves are just dead creatures, who may or may not have had progeny (children). So, it's impossible to say where these would fit into the common ancestry model. Furthermore, almost all fossils of adult creatures are much larger than they are today, which also destroys uniformitarian models of earth time. It also suggests a uniform climate over the earth with more abundant life as described in many myths about the antediluvian world, especially with tropical vegetation found all over the antartic and cooler regions. Furthermore still, almost everything in the fossiil record still exists in the exact form, or a very similar form. Dinosaurs are gigantic lizards, if you do a comparitive study of living reptiles today with dinosaurs in the fossil record you'll find striking similarites except for size. genetics (for instance, chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA with humans, apparently). A mouse shares more in common, genetically, with humans than any ape or monkey. But this is a red herring, because everything else that lives including plants are just about as close, pond slime, elephant snot, tree bark, etc. A terrible argument indeed. But notice the nested hierarchy in evolution, homology contradicts itself in the phenotype and genome. This is why they use what is known as "convergence" because of the contradictions. Based off of morphology the phylogeny tree looks different from a tree made of genetic similarites. Because these are confused, they must combine these and use other methods to plot the phylogenic tree. Instead of questioning the method of convergence, at a contradiction, they just make up an ad hoc explanation. Such as a elephant going back into aquatic life as a sea cow, or dinosaurs magically turning into birds, or even unexplainable phenomena such as plural traits in inconsistent branches of phylogeny, such as sonar used by bats and whales. Impossible to have evolved once, let alone twice. what does any of this have to do with God? The Creator whom created it and upholds it, wherein no randomness exists (as of yet, we haven't found any) the glory for such beauty and life is given to death to be praised as our determiner. For someone who knows the Creator, this is unacceptable, for someone who rejects the creator this is unreasonable and illegitimate. Either way, it should affect you adversely because what is being asserted rests upon paper thin evidence. If people knew more about common ancestry, it's doubtful they would view it as dogmatically as is the case presently. The only place for absolute certainty is mathematics, not science. That goes back to epistemology. I believe that empirical science is one of the best, if not the best, tool for understanding reality. And thus being able to make accurate conclusions based of the evidence. Science is great, but it has it's placed as was intentioned when science became an institution involving it's own philosophy. I think both are excellent ways of determining phenomena, as long as the assumptions can be prominently displayed so as to be questioned if a theory becomes too dogmatic in spite of the evidence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #138 on: July 29, 2009, 03:58:09 PM » |
|
What does evolution have to do with atheism? I personally believe in both evolution and in God.
And again, can't you see the divide & conquer technique at work here?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #139 on: July 29, 2009, 04:12:55 PM » |
|
What does evolution have to do with atheism? I personally believe in both evolution and in God.
And again, can't you see the divide & conquer technique at work here?
If you look at how common ancestry was used, Atheism has everything to do with it. From a scientific stand point, it has nothing to do with atheism. But atheism requires a godless explanation, so it's been used to justify it, whereas before atheism was more based on emotional bias rather than logical thought. TBH, I don't want to give the impression that I'm against atheists, I have many friends who are atheists. Nothing in common ancestry or evolution suggests that there is a god or there isn't a god. I also believe in evolution and in God. I also reject common ancestry and try not to call the Creator pagan names such as god. It's amazing how much of the origins debate is centered around semantics. I'm not sure what you mean by divide and conquer? Could you explain or elaborate? I may have missed what you meant. I apologize if I did. Thanks!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Novus Ordo
|
|
« Reply #140 on: July 29, 2009, 05:47:09 PM » |
|
We are only conscious beings while our hearts keep beating when your ticker gives out,
it’s lights out folks!
We are a symbiotic organism of the planet that’s evolved self awareness, probably through the observation of death.
Is there any evidence other animals adopt unusual behaviour around the bones of their own?
Elephants spring to mind.
This might suggest we are not the only ones who have developed self consciousness, then Ego came along and over time developed the unconscious.
A trait necessary to perceive ’self’ as some kind of luminous eternal being.
[Late 16th century. From Latin conscius
‘knowing’, from scire (see science).]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TheCaliKid
|
|
« Reply #141 on: July 29, 2009, 06:05:47 PM » |
|
"Evolution is a Lie"
Duh!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #142 on: July 29, 2009, 10:38:17 PM » |
|
We are only conscious beings while our hearts keep beating when your ticker gives out,
it’s lights out folks!
We are a symbiotic organism of the planet that’s evolved self awareness, probably through the observation of death.
Is there any evidence other animals adopt unusual behaviour around the bones of their own?
Elephants spring to mind.
This might suggest we are not the only ones who have developed self consciousness, then Ego came along and over time developed the unconscious.
A trait necessary to perceive ’self’ as some kind of luminous eternal being.
[Late 16th century. From Latin conscius
‘knowing’, from scire (see science).]
That's a fantastic idea my good sir although I'm going to disagree. 1) This outlook is based off your conclusions about reality, a priori. Your assumptions and philosophy suggest the ascent of man from primitive succession. I don't see how information fits into this, other than to suggest that we perceive the random cosmic event of life as less than ourselves, wherein human beings define information. This would imply that the human mind constructs reality. Not unlike what David Icke believes. Information suggests form, pattern and meaning. Your philosophy does not adequately relate the reality of information in the universe. If we scale the universe into an abstact form, we can easily say that it fits within the qualifications of information, either having or exemplifying such qualities. This, your philosophy, is far away from empirical science wherein we believe that because of the consistent form of reality, it is therefore testable to a degree that yields a positive account of truth. If you say that we evolved because of the information, such as the anthropic principle suggests, this still does not adequately explain the existence of information. If you say that information evolved, this is suggesting a succinct view of information such as a creationist understands. Unlike information theory, useful information is not quantitative. It cannot be understood as an integer, rather what the integer represents. For example, 1 if by land, 2 if by sea, is a meaningless code to those who just understand the numbers, however to those who understand what the numbers represent, the opposite is true wherein the quantities are meaningless without the representation of useful information. Therefore, useful information only comes from knowledge, experience or better yet, intelligence. Information by it's nature refutes perfect randomness because of the inherent implications of useful information. If we evolved by chance, we would expect to find a universe wherein the vast majority of information is useless and where evolution occured an miraculous order out of the chaos. 2) By asserting that life is essentially meaningless and there is no justice for those who oppress and sin without remorse, you're implying that you have some knowledge of these things to make such a sweeping statement. I suggest that I do not know, therefore I'm free to contemplate whereas you assert that you have, proverbially, been to the other side and back and, no folks, there isn't anything to see. If I say that I was created, it's because it provides the adequate intellectual answers on who I am and where I am going. Perhaps you see things differently because you haven't opened your mind to the possibility. Have you spoken to the Creator or tried? If what is right is in the minority, does that not strike you as odd? If morality exists then it begs the question of why it exists. 3) "Is there any evidence other animals adopt unusual behaviour around the bones of their own? Elephants spring to mind." - Honestly, isn't that an ad hoc explanation? Animals have so many peculiar traits it's hard not to see the design. A butterfly springs to mind. Fowl that build huge nests, hummingbirds who put counter weights on their nests for stability, fish that can change their byouancy, bombadeer beetles who combine chemicals to use as explosive material, reptiles that change color to their environment, the adaptability of all life, complex systems that have mutually exclusive parts coexisting in harmony to produce an effect or an advantage, etc. The theory of evolution adapts much like it does in the biological philosophy, with lots of time and random (postulates). 4) "This might suggest we are not the only ones who have developed self consciousness, then Ego came along and over time developed the unconscious. A trait necessary to perceive ’self’ as some kind of luminous eternal being. " I see this alot in common ancestry, somehow this complex thing (ego) "comes along," of course all things are possible if there is enough time and chances, and boom! you just danced the mental Thriller. Although this hasn't been demonstrated one time, it's just gotta be true! But this is inconsequential if your a priori assumption is false. This is a great example of how common ancestry thought works, if you can convince me of the a priori assumption by asserting it, usually with authority (i.e. PhD, public service, etc.), everything logically falls into place. Well I'm not buying it, you might be able to sell a red popsicle to a lady with white gloves, but she might have the mental faculties of those religious folks evolutionists despise. No thanks, but you should try speaking to the Creator. He's got only one name, but you can use whichever you're comfortable with at first but if you really want to skip all the study call him Yahweh Yahuwshua. May He Bless You! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #143 on: July 30, 2009, 01:48:21 AM » |
|
As for the argument pointing out the lack of intermediate forms in fossil records: well, since DNA is digital software, a very small change in the sequence can produce big changes in the output (phenotype), and there IS no "in between" because it's descrete.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
Novus Ordo
|
|
« Reply #144 on: July 30, 2009, 04:48:24 AM » |
|
If you take one hundred butterfly’s or fowl, hummingbirds, fish, bombardier beetles or reptiles, and put them in a ‘controlled environment’ comfortable enough to facilitate propagation you will observe diversity, you could call it failure.
Example, take 100 spiders all the same species give them each their own identical environment in which to thrive.
Over time, you will observe web architecture from the sublime to the ridiculous, now quick observation will only see the sublime because generally successful species manage to replicate the most efficient design, most of the time. But all species do indeed produce a percentage of failure although failure isn’t really the right word. Some birds don’t know how to build nests, some spiders don’t know how to build webs, to suggest they should know is a personification.
This has to be taken into account when theorising grand design.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #145 on: July 30, 2009, 10:00:03 AM » |
|
As for the argument pointing out the lack of intermediate forms in fossil records: well, since DNA is digital software, a very small change in the sequence can produce big changes in the output (phenotype), and there IS no "in between" because it's descrete.
Are you talking about punctuated equilibria? PE is rejected by most because it's obviously an ad hoc excuse with no known mechanism or observable process. Gould wanted to address the lack to transitory fossils, which most evolutionists don't like to bring up. To my knowledge, I've never seen any empirical data on small changes in the genome affecting the phenotype in such a dramatic way. Usually mutations are very dangerous and lead to disease or abnorality in the phenotype. With this type of logic, we could say space aliens came down 1 billion years ago and hid all the transitory fossils, or the devil did it, or that because we know common ancestry happened we come up with some other "plausible" (read believable) mechanism. I was once told that I was a transitory creature, when it hasn't been established that such a transition had ever occurred. This is an example of how an a priori conclusion clouds what could potentially be a deductive conclusion. If we look at the world without preconceived notions, it's obvious something else happened in lieu of common ancestry. ***I have no emotional ties to denying common ancestry. If I looked and saw it was true, I would accept it. I've practically begged the evolutionists to show me some evidence in regards to my arguments. Nothing is sufficient. Thus I reject it on logical and philosophical basis. Even, in some cases, on scientific basis. If you take one hundred butterfly’s or fowl, hummingbirds, fish, bombardier beetles or reptiles, and put them in a ‘controlled environment’ comfortable enough to facilitate propagation you will observe diversity, you could call it failure.
Example, take 100 spiders all the same species give them each their own identical environment in which to thrive.
Over time, you will observe web architecture from the sublime to the ridiculous, now quick observation will only see the sublime because generally successful species manage to replicate the most efficient design, most of the time. But all species do indeed produce a percentage of failure although failure isn’t really the right word. Some birds don’t know how to build nests, some spiders don’t know how to build webs, to suggest they should know is a personification.
This has to be taken into account when theorising grand design. Another ad hoc, slippery slope type argument. Could these failed spiders and birds be the exception, rather than the rule? Is it possible that chaos is what happens to order, rather than order from chaos? The fact that if a bird doesn't know how to build a nest, it cannot protect it's young, therefore it does not survive. A bird needs the whole of itself to survive, it's abilities and it's inherent homologous features. This however, is a bit of a red herring, because I do not doubt the adaptability of any species or living creature. I think they are made very well. To use the slow progression of neo-darwinism, by suggesting that a completely random mutation gives a survival advantage to the strongest, or rather makes a type of strongest, then to take over the population, is so far fetched an unobservable, it defies comprehension why anyone would suggest this is deduced. It is induced and is not empirically valid. A true skeptic asks the hard questions and is made ready for the answers by accepting what is true. This whole evolution thing is a mindset, that I wish you would break out of, perhaps to even find a materialistic mechanism yourself, if nothing else. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #146 on: July 31, 2009, 06:43:38 AM » |
|
I was just pointing out that DNA is discrete, and hence there must exist some "atomic" (minimal) changes in the phenotype, such that there is nothing between the new form and the previous one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #147 on: August 03, 2009, 09:58:23 AM » |
|
I was just pointing out that DNA is discrete, and hence there must exist some "atomic" (minimal) changes in the phenotype, such that there is nothing between the new form and the previous one.
Could you provide an example? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #148 on: August 05, 2009, 01:42:44 PM » |
|
Could you provide an example?
No, but do I really need to? It's clear that DNA is discrete, is it not? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #149 on: August 06, 2009, 09:09:06 AM » |
|
I was more interested in an example of "...hence there must exist some "atomic" (minimal) changes in the phenotype, such that there is nothing between the new form and the previous one." An example of some minimal change in the phenotype by the discretion of dna. I'm not even sure what you mean when you say discrete, could you elaborate? * Main Entry: dis·crete * Pronunciation: \dis-ˈkrēt, ˈdis-ˌ\ * Function: adjective * Etymology: Middle English, from Latin discretus * Date: 14th century 1 : constituting a separate entity : individually distinct <several discrete sections> 2 a : consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : noncontinuous b : taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values <discrete probabilities> <a discrete random variable> synonyms see distinct — dis·crete·ly adverb — dis·crete·ness noun |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #150 on: August 06, 2009, 11:38:23 AM » |
|
b : taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values This. Discrete as opposed to continuous. As in, DNA (as far as I know) can be construed as a finite sequence of pairs of letters (A, T, G, C): 3 billion base pairs. So, for example, changing one, and only one, pair for another would be like a minimal change, there would be nothing in between. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #151 on: August 06, 2009, 05:03:53 PM » |
|
This. Discrete as opposed to continuous. As in, DNA (as far as I know) can be construed as a finite sequence of pairs of letters (A, T, G, C): 3 billion base pairs. So, for example, changing one, and only one, pair for another would be like a minimal change, there would be nothing in between.
I wouldn't disagree, but I would add that ATGC could be letters in a sentence, in a paragraph, in a page of a book in a library. Dan Winters points this out with stunning clarity, even though I think he over extrapolates his position and I would suggest he borders, if not crosses, the line of quackery. Scientists refer to the vast majority of these 'letter' structuring as junk dna, I forget the quantification, somewhere around 70-90% +/-. Winters demonstrates that this "junk dna" has value as structuring and relates to various functions in the body, where if the structuring were not there, we would not be here. Other's, I'm sure, have said this, it's been a while since I studied dna. So, hypothetically, the base pairings are not the only factors that would/could affect the phenotype. There just is so much not understood presently. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
egypt
|
|
« Reply #152 on: August 06, 2009, 05:33:50 PM » |
|
FYI – The nefarious Elitist Handbook - a Stanford University textbook for PhD's & above, on the Eugenics plan, says this:
The following is from:
Population Resources Environment
Issues in Human Ecology (Second Edition 1972)
By
Paul R. Ehrlich
Anne H. Ehrlich
p. 11,
{quote} Box 2-2 Natural Selection
Natural selection is the prime mover of evolution. It is essentially the differential reproduction of genetic types. In all known human populations, individuals differ from one another because each individual has a different hereditary endowment. For instance, people differ from one another in such traits as eye color, height, and blood type, which are at least partially hereditary. If people of one genetic trait (that is one kind of genetic information) tend to have more children than those with another, then natural selection is occurring with respect to that trait. Natural selection can cause one kind of genetic information – for example, that producing people with blue eyes – to become more and more common in the gene pool of a population. These changes in the gene pool are what is called evolution. Thus the statement that an evolutionary premium was placed on brain size is a convenient shorthand for a statement that might go like this: in early human populations there was variation in brain size. This variation was in part caused by differences among individuals in their genetic endowment. Larger brains were better able to utilize the cultural information of the society. This permitted them more ready access to mates, a better chance of surviving, or perhaps a better chance of successfully rearing their offspring; and the reproduced more than did individuals with smaller brains. The result was a gradual increase in the genetic information producing larger brain size in the gene pools of human populations. In turn this increased the capacity for storing cultural information and produced a selective advantage for further increase in brain size. This reciprocal evolutionary trend continued until other factors, such as the difficulty getting the enlarged brain case of a baby through the female’s pelvis (which was not enlarged commensurately) at birth removed the selective premium on further increase in brain size.
Understanding natural selection will help to illuminate a number of other points in this book. Further on we will discuss the development of pesticide resistance in insect populations, a process that occurs through natural selection. The insect individuals vary in their natural resistance to a pesticide, and this variation has a genetic basis. Those that are naturally more resistant have a better chance of surviving, and thus of reproducing, than their less fortunate fellows. In this way, the entire population becomes more and more resistant, as in each generation the most resistant individuals do most of the breeding.
The key thing to remember is that natural selection is differential reproduction of genetic types. It may involve survival, but differentials in reproduction may occur while the expectancies of all genetic types remain identical – all may live the same length of time, but some may be relatively sterile while others are highly fertile. {end quote}
{Please note, the above book is the precursor to John Holdren’s co-authorship in 1977 with Ehrlich in Ecoscience: Population Resources Ecology. From what I can tell, Holdren must have added some 500 pages.}
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JimmyJoeBob
|
|
« Reply #153 on: August 06, 2009, 07:28:11 PM » |
|
God is transdimentional, currently we have 10 dimensions, God transends all of them, for proof that God exists, just look in a mirror, the proof is everywhere. Everything has design, therefore, there is a designer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ex_nihilo
|
|
« Reply #154 on: August 07, 2009, 02:39:20 PM » |
|
I wouldn't disagree, but I would add that ATGC could be letters in a sentence, in a paragraph, in a page of a book in a library. Dan Winters points this out with stunning clarity, even though I think he over extrapolates his position and I would suggest he borders, if not crosses, the line of quackery. Scientists refer to the vast majority of these 'letter' structuring as junk dna, I forget the quantification, somewhere around 70-90% +/-. Winters demonstrates that this "junk dna" has value as structuring and relates to various functions in the body, where if the structuring were not there, we would not be here. Other's, I'm sure, have said this, it's been a while since I studied dna. So, hypothetically, the base pairings are not the only factors that would/could affect the phenotype. There just is so much not understood presently.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
An open mind, like an open wound, is prone to infection. -ex_nihilo
|
|
|
|
NinjaPatriot
|
|
« Reply #155 on: August 07, 2009, 03:14:10 PM » |
|
@ Eygpt,
It's just so obvious to me when I read this crap that it's all make believe without any deduction. They are reasoning from an a priori assumption that has never been demonstrated the way it gets extrapolated. Since humans are the highest evolved on the food chain without a competitor, we need the "chosen" among us to figure out how to control population. It's a materialistic divine right of kings mentality. Just watching the logical conclusion of darwinianism is enough for me to reject it.
@ JimmyJoeBob
String theory is HIGHLY questionable and multiple dimensions isn't well established nor accepted as of yet. Furthermore, as a christian, I've never seen God directly and I have no idea what he transcends. To say that hypothetical dimensions exist and an invisible god transcends them somehow is conjecture at best and at worst baseless speculation. Evolutionists spend many an hour debating what is designed and what isn't, so far they have managed to confuse the issue so much it's hard to say what is design and what it would look like if it was pointed out.
@ ex nihilo
That is a fantastic video, I remember watching that a while back and was blown away by his careful logic. Most AIG videos are filled with men and women who preach to the choir and almost avoid at all costs getting technical which throws their credibility for a loop. I'd like to see more of these types of arguments from the creation side. Werner Gitt knocks it out of the park in a brilliant lecture everyone should watch.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
luckee1
Guest
|
|
« Reply #156 on: August 08, 2009, 08:53:16 AM » |
|
I really wish that DavidRothscum were here to enter this debate! He argued for evolution and his posts were as good as NinjaPatriot's. That would have been an education for all on both sides! It would be epic; David Rothscum / NinjaPatriot. NinjaPatriot stellar posts. I do not subscribe to evolution. I do understand selective adaptation. But I do definitely pursue the truth and enjoy seeing excellent debates and well thought out responses.  Heck I just got an education here too! DavidRothscum, where are you?! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #157 on: August 08, 2009, 01:57:09 PM » |
|
currently we have 10 dimensions What do you mean? Can you elaborate? Personally, I believe there are other dimensions in this realm; just because we cannot see them, doesn't mean they're not there. After all, in math you study arbitrarily multi-dimensional spaces, and there's really nothing special about it. I also heard that some of the mathematicians working in geometry are literally able to picture a 7-dimensional Euclidean space (R^7)... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #158 on: September 28, 2009, 04:53:22 AM » |
|
LoveToGod wrote: If evolution is true, why aren't we still evolving. What makes you think we aren't? Humans are changing all the time, every time a new person is born, his DNA is something new. How is this not evolution? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
Dok
|
|
« Reply #159 on: September 28, 2009, 04:58:35 AM » |
|
LoveToGod wrote:What makes you think we aren't? Humans are changing all the time, every time a new person is born, his DNA is something new. How is this not evolution?
because there is absolutely no difference between him, his parents or some one from 6000 years ago. big human, little human, its still human |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
