The evolutionist is locked into an intellectual box from which there is no rescue. Evolutionary theory is naturalistic by necessity - everything must be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Only nature can explain nature, and there is no other source of meaning or truth. Thus, in the end the theory of evolution - and the theory of evolution alone - must explain everything about humanity.
This predicament was made clear in a lecture recently given by geneticist Steve Jones at University College London. Speaking on his chosen topic, "Evolution is Over," Jones argued that human evolution has reached an end because of changes in human health and human behavior.
This argument stands in stark contrast to those offered by other evolutionists, who now call on humanity to use modern reproductive technologies and techniques designed to enhance the species. Some go so far as to argue that humans must employ these technologies and direct evolution in order to save the species from itself.
Jones, known for his 2002 book, Y: The Descent of Men. In that book, Jones argued that males were something of a temporary necessity for the evolutionary process. He minimized the role of the male to that of providing male gametes. The male exists to "fecundate" his partner. That's it. Everything else can be done by females, who are going to live longer anyway.
Now, Jones argues that human evolution is at a standstill because one of the crucial engines of evolutionary change, genetic mutation, is stalled. Jones explained that evolution moves forward by natural selection, mutation, and random change. Mutation is stalled, at least in part, because fewer older men are having babies.
As The Times [London] explains:
This is because cell divisions in males increase with age. “Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error,” he said. “For a 29-year old father [the mean age of reproduction in the West] there are around 300 divisions between the sperm that made him and the one he passes on – each one with an opportunity to make mistakes.
“For a 50-year-old father, the figure is well over a thousand. A drop in the number of older fathers will thus have a major effect on the rate of mutation.”
Professor Jones added: “In the old days, you would find one powerful man having hundreds of children.” He cites the fecund Moulay Ismail of Morocco, who died in the 18th century, and is reputed to have fathered 888 children.
Jones went on to argue that better health and rates of infant survival have also removed some engines of mutation. Add to that the fact that human populations are now so diverse, with marriage patterns commonly crossing ethnic and racial lines. As Jones explained, "“Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a global mass, and the future is brown.”
Steve Jones offered a public lecture at University College London, but he also offers a larger lesson on the inherent limitations of the evolutionary worldview. Darwinism has to explain everything - even why some people accept evolutionary theory and others do not.
Evolutionary theory cannot possibly explain the totality of human experience, much less the reality of human origins. Evolutionists - if consistent - believe that every human experience, every emotion, every physical attribute, every hope, and every fear is simply a feature developed by means of natural selection.
That's a cold theory, and it just doesn't make sense to the vast majority of Americans - and it shouldn't. The Christian worldview offers a far more satisfying, true, and understandable account of human origins and human existence.
In any event, human evolution is now over. You heard it from Steve Jones.
___________________________________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.
Another addition to that is that there could not have been as many variations of species. An example is the dog. We know there are at least a hundred different types of dogs and they have been cross bred and cross bred to get there. Well, in that time, there may have been less than 10 and possibly even 1 or 2 variations of a certain animal. Therefore, again it is plausible that each species that God created were represented on this boat. As the the feces of these animals, there could have very well been a section that was used and discarded overboard. As for food, they could have taken the minimal needed to survive. It is very plausible that the story of the ark is indeed true.
agentorangex,
First of all, the ark Noah built was no small boat. If you take the measurements from the Bible, then this was quite a large boat, bigger than most cruise liners and such today and we know that thousands of people can have fun on one of those and not be too crowded.
With the animal kingdom, you have to remember that only 2 of each unclean species came aboard with 7 of every clean. And nowhere does it say that these animals were full grown, so it is possible that many, if not all were smaller than normal. Even the dinosaurs, at a very young age, were small.
agentorange
Did you visit the website
www.worldwideflood.com
and spend anythime there?
agentorange
I do not have the answers to your questions about the number of animals on Noah's Ark, how the food was stored, how the animal and human waste was disposed of, and etc..
However, I know the God who wrote the Word of God. Jesus said in John 17:17 that the Word of God is truth. I accept that by faith. God's Word says that God had Noah build an Ark of certain dimensions and that God caused the animals to go on the boat when the time came for them to do so. I accept all this by faith.
God gave us clues in how He created the heavens and the earth in the Word of God. I accept this by faith.
The Word of God does not allow for macro-evolution. God says in His Word that He created each kind of plant life, fish, birds, land animals, and human life after its own kind. Each creation was unique. I accept this by faith.
You accept evolution by faith as well. Abiogensisists have no clue on how life came to be. They cannot describe how the inanimate became animate. Abiogeneists nor evolutionists have any evidence/proof that life started out as a single cell organism. Evolutionists cannot explain the process of how this single cell orgainsm, for which you have no proof or evidence that life started out that way, changed over time to become plant life, fish, birds, reptiles, animals, and then people. Those of your persuation only accept by faith that it was so.
You have no laborartory proof of any of the claims of the abiogensists or evolutionists. Scientists have yet to create life from chemicals that have no life let alone taking that life and showing how it changed to create all the other forms of life. Until you can do that you have nothing more than fanciful ideas about it all and it takes more faith to believe in your ideas than it takes to believe that a supreme being who has infinite knowledge, wisdom, and understanding can create the heavens and the earth and all the forms of life that He created.
Don't require of me what you yourself cannot not do.
star,
"When you can describe how the inanimate became animate then I'll tell you how God created life."
Star, we weren't talking about how God created life, remember? We are on a topic related to species and how on earth they all fit on the Ark, please have the backbone to explain. One topic at a time, explain the issues with 6+ million species fitting on such a small boat and quit the subterfuge and goal post moving.
I do not appreciate this star, this is most disingenuous and disrepectful on your part, although give our past conversations I can't say I am entirely suprised.
I ask of you a very simple and straight forward set of questions dealing with the number and volume of species and their waste and rather than retorting in kind you don't even make a single attempt to answer it straight forth. After numerous attempts no less.
Where is your sense of tact? Why should I even bother replying to your question if you will not due me the respect of honestly replying to mine? Tit for tat star.
agentorange
When you can describe how the inanimate became animate then I'll tell you how God created life.
star2,
Thanks for the reply Star.
"God's ways in how He created the heaven and the earth are past finding out. You can never know how He did it."
Talk about your all time nonstarter answers. Star, if we can't logically ever know how, how exactly does one claim with any certitude who did it in the first place? 'Logical fallacy' sound familiar?
"Even if He told you how He did it your mind is too finite to comprehend it."
Well I guess than He should have built the human mind capable of understanding it now shouldn't He? That would after all help to shed some light on the issue of if he did it in the first place and how it was done. Appealing ot ignorance isn't an answer.
"Noah was 500 yrs old when God..."
That's nice and all star, but it doesn't matter if he was 100, 500 or 900, the issues related to housing 6 million species (by conservative estimates) and 2 of each) on such a relatively small boat is absurd. You knew you couldn't even begin to explain how on earth Noah managed to do it, so you avoided it all together.
"Genesis - 300 x 50 x 30 cubits."
So? Star, I was attempting some satire there with the comment part. Again, with such a relatively small boat it's impossible to cram the 6 million species (and 2 of each) on it and to house ALL their food, water, and to dispose of all the waste daily by a group of 8 people is absurdly impossible.
agentorange
The Word of God says
Romans 11:33 - "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"
God's ways in how He created the heaven and the earth are past finding out. You can never know how He did it. Even if He told you how He did it your mind is too finite to comprehend it.
Noah was 500 yrs old when God told him to build the ark and God told him how to build it. It took Noah 100 yrs to build it. So he was 600 yrs old when God brought judgment on the earth through a world-wide flood because of the sin of man not 900 yrs old.
Noah's Ark was not a rickety boat. It was a very stable and sturdy boat.
This following quote was taken from www.worldwideflood.com. I highly recommend you reveiw the contents of this website.
"In 1993, research was carried out by naval architects and structural engineers at the world class KRISO ship research facility in Korea, testing the proportions described in Genesis - 300 x 50 x 30 cubits. They concluded that the proportions were near optimal and that the scale was feasible in waves up to 30m."
Star,
"kind = species"
Yes, thank you, but we already established this based on your interpretation and exhaustive of the KJV bible. Now for the hard part of that conclusion, please explain the species related questions in regard to how on earth 900 year old noah crammed them all (some 6 million by conservative estimates and 2 of each) on such a small boat, and their food and water for nearly a year, and deposing of their waste by 8 people, etc. Maintaining a Zoo is hard work, but you're saying 8 people on a small rickety boat managed to house, feed and clean the some 6 million species for a year? Absurd.
"No macro-evolution was at play in the creative process.'
If that is true, why do we find in taxonomy that members of the same genus, order and family are more similar than with respect to other organisms in other phylum? This shouldn't be if they don't share common descent. Why is there a natural nested hierarchy in division of organisms at all?
"God created the genetics of each species such that mutations within that species can/will mutate over time. This is what man calls micro-evolution."
Mutations do occur, but their location in the genomes of the species is entirely random. So, one must ask, if species aren't at all related (say 2 species of birds), then why do we find they share many of the same random pseudo genes, (one being the relic trait for teeth development)? Why would God encode them with the genes needed to develop teeth, but that the gene is now atavistic?
Another pseudo gene is the one related to vitamin C synthesis and how we, and all extant apes have the same defunct one, Why should this be?
Then why do we find the same genes across many different species? Why can some genes be substituted for interchangeably with entirely different species (rats, mice, humans and yeast) with no different affect to the organism?
If they're not related, why again the same genes (PAX-6) which spans across many organisms from very diverse phylum? Why the evidence of retro-insertion by archaic viruses (ERV's) which are inactive and yet the insertion sites are identical across many different species? Why the obvious signs of relatedness via SINES, LINES, Pseudo -genes and transposons? Why evidence like Cytocrome C?
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0030166
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytochrome_c
agentorangex
kind = species
When God created life (humans, animals, reptiles, insects, fish, birds, plants) they were created individually. No macro-evolution was at play in the creative process.
God created the genetics of each species such that mutations within that species can/will mutate over time. This is what man calls micro-evolution.
Star2,
"You can never know how God created anything because His ways are past finding out."
I am sorry Star, but this statement is essentially an appeal to ignorance., it explains nothing. How can you affirm such certitude in knowledge that God did it (and hypothetically sure it's possible, but details/evidence matter for deducing), if there are no details for it?
It basically amounts to an empty assertion, as with no details it's impossible to objectively determine if this was the actual method(s) used and how if at all one could demonstrate to support or refute them.
Think critically on that one...
No details = impossible to support or refute based on empirical evidence. So why accept it?
An analogy for this would be finding presents in your house as a child, and they upon asking your parents on the details for how they got there they would appeal to ignorance in the same way you did. 'We can never know how santa did it!' Now, most parents will explain the fantasy details on the character and how the presents magically appear overnight, but even a child can sense that this story isn't logically grounded and not supported by any evidence.
Star, with all due respect, you will say over and over and over endlessly that God can only do things with respect life in a certain manner (it can't evolve) and with such certitude on your part, but then, when it comes to explaining the details for something for which you adhere to and claim 'God spoke and made this...' you can't offer up any details to support your position. The bible says the God made the Earth to bring forth life, doesn't this at least suggest that God created the foundation of earth and let life develop diversity on its own?
Still, I think you should try to explain the questions I posed with regards to species and how on earth noah cared for them all. Take care.
agentorangex
<<<<< "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
How, by what processes and mechanisms? Details please details on how it was done. saying god did it, explains WHO did it, but not HOW.>>>>>
You can never know how God created anything because His ways are past finding out.
Romans 11:33 - "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"
star2, Your posts concerning creation are good material for church Sunday school, but not for much else.
Is that a threat or a promise?
Your a silly man agentorangex, you talk about things you know nothing about. But for us believers we understand God. He is revealed in his Son Jesus.
I wipe the dust off my feet. I will go somewhere else.
star,
"Yes, kind = species"
Fair enough Star thanks for the details on your view, fair enough. However, you're stating then that one species of bird can't diverge into another species of bird? OR that one species of fly can't evolve into another species of fly?
But then how do you explain in other experiments such as these were one species of an organism (flies for instance) evolved to become another species of the same genus? We even have evidence for new Genus' being formed too and by the same processes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
2nd note. If one is to conclude as you do that 'kind = species', and considering there are with a conservative estimate some 6 million species globally, how on Earth did Noah and his family 1) cram all the millions of species on to such a sized boat? 2) Have food/water to feed them all? 3) Be able to clean up all their waste? 4) for nearly a whole year? 5) why do we find exclusive animals located on islands (marsupials on Australia) and how did Noah accomplish this sorting post flood? This is most absurd.
agentorangex - I was not addressing the species = kind question in quoting Pslams 147:5, and Isaiah 40:28.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Bible:
4327 meen (Hebrew word); from an unused root meaning, to portion out; a sort, i.e., species: - kind.
Yes, kind = species.
"Psalm 147:5"
And this explains the HOW processes in which you posted earlier how again? This explains the 'species = 'kind' question how?
"Sometimes evidence follows faith"
Such as when?
"and sometimes God gives evidence without faith."
Ditto...
agentorangex
Psalm 147:5 - "Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite."
Isaiah 40:28 - "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding."
agentorangex
Sometimes evidence follows faith and sometimes God gives evidence without faith.
"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
How, by what processes and mechanisms? Details please details on how it was done. saying god did it, explains WHO did it, but not HOW. If you can't define HOW then it can't be refuted, so it's a waste as it's unfalsifiable. Saying 'god hath done it', doesn't explain how or by what processes were used to accomplish this, unless you're basically saying it was done by supernatural magic.
"And GOD SAID, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."
Hmmmm, this is interesting how it's phrased, don't you agree? It says 'let the earth bring forth', as in perhaps let the earth and its natural processes bring forth the diversity and so on... and not that God poofed them independently. What exactly is a 'beast kind' by the way?
"animal and plant life was created after its own kind"
Oh please star, you can't do any better than biblical scholars in attempting to define such a loose and ambiguous term as 'kind'. Is 'kind' = species? Genus? Order? Family? Super Family? Phylum? and how do we objectively know which based on evidence and testing?
"one kind of fish did not produce a different kind of fish, one bird did not produce an entirely different kind of bird,"
By this interpretation it would seem you're saying that 'kind' is equivalent to species than, right? As you would be by defacto stating that all birds (all 10,000 species of them) are not evolutionary related at all, but were instead magically created independently. Right so far?
This sounds nice star, but we have direct evidence for speciations within the birds taxonomic Class already.
So, if you're equating that 'kind' = species, how on Earth did 900 year old Noah and his family feed, clean up after and shelter all the Earths some 5-6 million (conservative estimate) species on such a small boat for nearly a year?
"We accept God's account of creation by Faith."
Yes, apparently. 'Objective independently tested and consistent evidence' need not apply it seems. 'Faith' is the only way one can rationalize such horrid logic.
Igh,
You can't even show evidence that it can stop huricanes or grow back amputated limbs...why should I believe it can moves mountains? Again, evidence is required to support a proposition, not faith.
Agentorangex, read my last post. All you have to do is simply ask. And it will be given unto you. Simple Faith can indeed move mountains.
Matthew 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Try it today Agentorangex, see if God will see your honest, humble heart and move and grant your request. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
steveh20 , let me check, I think i have a copy somewhere... It happens to be a very good read on mans comprehension of God, and God sitting in Heaven on his Throne shaking his head at our foolishness. If only we would ask why he does what he does, he would surely give the answer.
The Word of God says that God spoke everything into existence.
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
3 And GOD SAID, Let there be light: and there was light.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And GOD SAID, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And GOD SAID, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
11 And GOD SAID, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And GOD SAID, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
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.
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. (continued)
continued
24 And GOD SAID, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
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.
28 And God blessed them, and GOD SAID unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And GOD SAID, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
We accept God's account of creation by Faith.
Hebrews 11:3 - "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
The Word of God is very clear that God spoke everything into existence. It is also very clear that macro-evolution is not a part of the created process for every animal and plant life was created after its own kind; one animal did not become a different animal, one plant did not produce an entirely different plant, one kind of fish did not produce a different kind of fish, one bird did not produce an entirely different kind of bird, and animals didn't eventually become a human being.
If a believer cannot accept by faith God's Word about creation than I rather doubt he accepts much of anything that the Word of God says.
Viking, I always admire your clear cool headed analysis of such pieces.
Steve
viking, I believe God alone can explain nature since He is the one ultimately responsible for creating it whether through creationism or evolution.
I wondered if any one noticed that the article and its author's position start right from the beginning with a false premise and therefore should be disregarded in their entirety as useful discussion. The author states
Only nature can explain nature, and there is no other source of meaning or truth. Thus, in the end the theory of evolution - and the theory of evolution alone - must explain everything about humanity.
In fact neither evolution in particular nor science in general make this claim. This is a basic misconception of many individuals who have no familiarity with the fundamental nature of science and its claims. However for an educated person such as the author ignorance can not be presumed. Instead a less innocent explanation must be considered. Since it has been repeatedly and clearly stated in multiple forums and debates that Science in general and evolution in particular make no claims whatsoever to be able to judge the existence or non existence of God and that further evolution does not claim as the author misstates (intentionally we must presume) that it explains "everything about humanity".
Since the foundational premise of the article is a gross mischarechterization science in general and the theory of evolution in specific the critiques of the theory of evolution based on the premise are by definition also invalid and not deserving of serious discussion.
believer, lets call a spade a spade here, the descriptions in Job could refer to any relatively large animal, I've heard that some biblical scholars considered it to be an elephant (I think). But in all honesty, if Igh wants to pretend the bible is valid in knowledge in terms of biology, then he has to explain the other things I mentioned in which the bible in obviously wrong. (efining bats as birds, insects as having 4 legs, and presenting stripped patterns would let to a stripped offspring, refers to shellfish as unclean, a totally ambiguous term like 'kind' and swine as demonic possessed?). You can't pick and choose where it's biologically correct.
agent, there are some passages in Job that point to the probablity that some dinosaurs lived at the same time as man on the earth.
igh, what does job have to do with evolutionary evidence again?
igh, would you by per chance have a copy of the book of Job about your good self?
Thanks
Steve
"Agentorangex, what makes you so angry with God?"
???? nothing, I am merely trying to have someone here explain their evidence based objections to the evolutionary theory.
Job 38:22 Have you ever visited the storerooms, where I keep the snow and the hail?
Job 38:23 I keep them ready for times of trouble, for days of battle and war.
Job 38:24 Have you been to the place where the sun comes up, or the place from which the east wind blows?
Job 38:25 Who dug a channel for the pouring rain and cleared the way for the thunderstorm?
Job 38:26 Who makes rain fall where no one lives?
Job 38:27 Who waters the dry and thirsty land, so that grass springs up?
Job 38:28 Does either the rain or the dew have a father?
Job 38:29 Who is the mother of the ice and the frost,
Job 38:30 which turn the waters to stone and freeze the face of the sea?
Job 38:31 Can you tie the Pleiades together or loosen the bonds that hold Orion?
Job 38:32 Can you guide the stars season by season and direct the Big and the Little Dipper?
Job 38:33 Do you know the laws that govern the skies, and can you make them apply to the earth?
Job 38:34 Can you shout orders to the clouds and make them drench you with rain?
Job 38:35 And if you command the lightning to flash, will it come to you and say, "At your service"?
Job 38:36 Who tells the ibis when the Nile will flood, or who tells the rooster that rain will fall?
Job 38:37 Who is wise enough to count the clouds and tilt them over to pour out the rain,
Job 38:38 rain that hardens the dust into lumps?
Job 38:39 Do you find food for lions to eat, and satisfy hungry young lions
Job 38:40 when they hide in their caves, or lie in wait in their dens?
Job 38:41 Who is it that feeds the ravens when they wander about hungry, when their young cry to me for food?
Job 38:1 Then out of the storm the LORD spoke to Job.
Job 38:2 Who are you to question my wisdom with your ignorant, empty words?
Job 38:3 Now stand up straight and answer the questions I ask you.
Job 38:4 Were you there when I made the world? If you know so much, tell me about it.
Job 38:5 Who decided how large it would be? Who stretched the measuring line over it? Do you know all the answers?
Job 38:6 What holds up the pillars that support the earth? Who laid the cornerstone of the world?
Job 38:7 In the dawn of that day the stars sang together, and the heavenly beings shouted for joy.
Job 38:8 Who closed the gates to hold back the sea when it burst from the womb of the earth?
Job 38:9 It was I who covered the sea with clouds and wrapped it in darkness.
Job 38:10 I marked a boundary for the sea and kept it behind bolted gates.
Job 38:11 I told it, "So far and no farther! Here your powerful waves must stop."
Job 38:12 Job, have you ever in all your life commanded a day to dawn?
Job 38:13 Have you ordered the dawn to seize the earth and shake the wicked from their hiding places?
Job 38:14 Daylight makes the hills and valleys stand out like the folds of a garment, clear as the imprint of a seal on clay.
Job 38:15 The light of day is too bright for the wicked and restrains them from doing violence.
Job 38:16 Have you been to the springs in the depths of the sea? Have you walked on the floor of the ocean?
Job 38:17 Has anyone ever shown you the gates that guard the dark world of the dead?
Job 38:18 Have you any idea how big the world is? Answer me if you know.
Job 38:19 Do you know where the light comes from or what the source of darkness is?
Job 38:20 Can you show them how far to go, or send them back again?
Job 38:21 I am sure you can, because you're so old and were there when the world was made!
Agentorangex, what makes you so angry with God?
"God words have never failed; but yet you do not believe. "
...!..., you mean the same one that is defining bats as birds, insects as having 4 legs, and presenting stripped patterns would let to a stripped offspring, refers to shellfish as unclean, a totally ambiguous term like 'kind' and swine as demonic possessed? Yeah, that's a pretty epic fail there, and that's just biology.
holito,
"Now theories do fail. "
(Palsm face) Uggggh, no Holito, they only fail in terms of explaining ALL things all at once, I tried to emphasize this in how evolutionary theory can not be used with its empirical facts in explaining gravitational theory. Particular and applied facts are only explained by particular science theories.
Holito8, do me a favor, go down a page or so and find the links I refereed to in which I cite ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion. Review them, their sources and citations and become familiar with basic biology. When that's done come back with your objections to this evidence, thanks.
"You better go ask someone about gravity again. Ask them when the theory about gravity fails."
It fails (falls apart) when referring or attempting to explain the dynamics of a Black hole, and when trying to explain the the first initial moments of the Universe. As gravity and all other forces were one then, thus it will require a different theory to explain at this point. Enter, M-theory.
"You argued the 1st Prinicple of Thermodynamics. When does the 1st Principle of Thermodynamics fail?"
It's actually the first law of thermodynamics, but I get you. When does it fail? Never so far (but I stress again knowledge it particular), every test ever conducted to destroy or create energy/matter have failed, we can only transfer it from one state to another, we can't create either eh nihlo.
Now theories do fail.
However, what God has said has never failed.
1Cor 13: 8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
2 Thessalonians 2:3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
God words have never failed; but yet you do not believe.
You choose to believe in theories more than God. Therefore, you condemn yourself.
Holito8,
"Prevailing theory..."
Yes, as in subtle details within the theory might change, but these don't affect the validity of the theory, as in the changes in gravitational theory in relation to relativity. It's prevailing, b/c well, it's the current one which explains the most facts consistently, and generally only a paradigm shift causes such a change.
"Even at best a theory does not explain all events"
Exactly, a science theory is specific to a related group of facts (say gravitational theory) and explains all the facts in that domain, it can't explain all facts in all domains of knowledge (everything). It is particular to a subset of knowledge. Therefore, contrary to what Ben Stein thinks, evolutionary theory and its facts (obviously to most layman's even) cannot explain the facts of gravity, atomic matter, electromagnetism, etc.
"You better go ask someone about gravity again. Ask them when the theory about gravity fails."
It fails (falls apart) when referring or attempting to explain the dynamics of a Black hole, and when trying to explain the the first initial moments of the Universe. As gravity and all other forces were one then, thus it will require a different theory to explain at this point.
You argued the 1st Prinicple of Thermodynamics. When does the 1st Principle of Thermodynamics fail? "
"You better go ask someone about gravity again. Ask them when the theory about gravity fails."
It fails (falls apart) when referring or attempting to explain the dynamics of a Black hole, and when trying to explain the the first initial moments of the Universe. As gravity and all other forces were one then, thus it will require a different theory to explain at this point. Enter, M-theory.
"You argued the 1st Prinicple of Thermodynamics. When does the 1st Principle of Thermodynamics fail?"
It's actually the first law of thermodynamics, but I get you. When does it fail? Never so far (but I stress again knowledge it particular), every test ever conducted to destroy or create energy/matter have failed, we can only transfer it from one state to another, we can't create either eh nihlo.
CMG,
"You believe that there was (is) an evolutionary process that accounts for life."
Evolution doesn't explain life origins, only life's diversity.Is there evolutionary processes? Yes, but you can't even explain in details How or why you object to them from an objective evidence based position.
"In your mind, your ERV's and human chrosome 2 are evidence of changes related to the evolution process."
I realize you don't have the foggiest idea, but why don't you challenge yourself, why don't you attempt to review the evidence for them and explain them. The only way they can be there is if common ancestry is true, they fit the predictions of evolutionary theory quite well.
"In my mind, these kinds of issues are proof that God took His basic building blocks and tweaked them"
Ok, but why would God tweak them in a way to make it just *appear* as if we shared common ancestry with extant apes? Why would he intentionally leave MORE evidence that evolution is true when God can, hypothetically, poof whole beings any possible way?
Your position is analogous to inferring as star does, and it basically equates to 'god dun put the fossils in the ground to test our faith' bit.
CMG,
"I meant living cells from non-living cells. I am familiar with your assertation that the origins of life are not the same as evolution."
It's not my own assertion, this is how evolutionary theory is defined, it has nothing to do with life origins.
"both yours and mine, to rehash all your pet evolutionary theme"
My pet theme? Hey, if you can't address the evidence simply for you're ignorant on it, which frankly seems to be the case, then lets see if we can remedy that. You might actually learn something. Again, WHICH processes or evidence do you object to?
"when the smallpox vaccine came out, but I know that their knowledge at that time was not nearly so sophisticated."
And your point? Again, you can't/won't discuss the evidence as then you'd have some explaining to do. Small pox was basically eradicated via vaccines, and not all pathogens can be so easily tackled (like say HIV), largely b/c they evolve.
"God IS the creator of all processes. I've already covered this one, remember?"
So you're saying God could use evolution as a natural process then, right? If so, then why the objection to it?
"is that the idea of randomness as a process, with or without anything additional"
Random? I already described how evolution isn't entirely random though. Can you at least attempt to address the evidence for evolution I gave?
Ok the Facts are this:
God made everything that is. :)
I got the Facts.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Prevailing theory...hmmmm Interesting choice of words when you say there is no "faith" in science.
What's the definition of theory?
the·o·ry /ˈθiÉâ„¢ri, ˈθɪÉâ„¢ri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Even at best a theory does not explain all events, it only can explain things in "certian ideal situations."
Thus, they are not fool proof.
In science any and everything is open to future critique and it's all contingent based on supportive evidence. 'gray areas' are only in areas in which there exists inconclusiveness data supporting one hypothesis over another. There is no gray area that gravity is the affect of mass affecting mass, this is a fact, and the theory on it explains the facts of gravity.
You better go ask someone about gravity again. Ask them when the theory about gravity fails.
You argued the 1st Prinicple of Thermodynamics. When does the 1st Principle of Thermodynamics fail?
If it didn't, all these 'whoops' wouldn't result in derived and applied knowledge or technology, but they do and they do b/c science works.
God gives us wisdom because wisdom and knowledge are His. God created everything to give us a small protion of that understand is nothing for Him.
Uh oh, sorry for the little boxes.
You believe that there was (is) an evolutionary process that accounts for life. I believe that there is a Creater God that accounts for ALL things, including all origins.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for the chat.
>>>Still, the process of immunization can't be done if one ignores or can't comprehend that the principle of how organisms evolve.<<<
I can’t remember exactly when the smallpox vaccine came out, but I know that their knowledge at that time was not nearly so sophisticated. As a matter of fact, I believe they came up with that vaccine on the basis of discovering that those involved with cattle seemed to have a natural immunity of sorts. Don’t believe they had a real comprehensive understanding of how organisms “evolve†when they made that particular connection.
>>>So you're willing to accept God can make natural processes to allow for the formation of rainbows, but you reject him from using natural processes like evolution to bring about the diversity of life?<<<
God IS the creator of all processes. I’ve already covered this one, remember? Genesis says “God SPOKEâ€Â, etc, and it was formed. Also, it says he made the cattle to produce “after it’s own kindâ€Â. Now, if you go back and read the accounts, you will see that none of it even hints at a process, but rather to a completed creation event.
>>>"The idea of randomness accounting for diversity of life from non-life"
I meant living cells from non-living cells. I am familiar with your assertation that the origins of life are not the same as evolution.
AO, it’s a waste of time, both yours and mine, to rehash all your pet evolutionary themes. I’ve seen the content of your blog dialogs with others. In your mind, your ERV’s and human chrosome 2’s are evidence of changes related to the evolution process. In my mind, these kinds of issues are proof that God took His basic building blocks and “tweaked†them, if you will, to form amazingly different things. We share a surprising 25% of our makeup with bananas, but I think you would agree that we in no way resemble fruit.
What it truly comes down to, bottom line, is that the idea of randomness as a process, with or without anything additional, to account for a process that changes a non-living structure into a complex living, diverse entity, let alone the sheer number of the variety of separate functioning living entities, is beyond fantastic. It’s impossible, no matter what time frame you use. It truly takes less faith to believe in a Creater God.
>>>Can't even get the terms right....it's Natural selection, not random selection<<<
And you didn’t well know what I meant, in spite of my “typoâ€Â? Rather a lame rebuttal, don’t ya think!
"Such ordered function in such uncountable forms is untenable with the idea of random selection"
Can't even get the terms right....it's Natural selection, not random selection...
CMG,
"Ahh, but I did not invoke magic for rainbows. Yes rainbows are formed under very well understood processes; processes set up by God in His natural created order."
So you're willing to accept God can make natural processes to allow for the formation of rainbows, but you reject him from using natural processes like evolution to bring about the diversity of life?
"I could apply this same reasoning to the idea of randomness."
Sure, or God, anything really. Your point?
"The truth of the matter is that your so-called evolutionary evidence is constantly being revised,"
Um, yeah, I noticed you haven't even touched on a single piece of evidence for it yet.
Right, just like how gravitational theory is continually being revised and refined as new evidence comes in (relativity) so we have over time a more realistic view of how gravity works, same difference for evolution.
This is how science works as it's a progressive process which removes refuted ideas and those would aren't consistent and overtime we're left with a more pure and absolute resolution.
"and yet each newly discovered "fact" is touted as hard core evidence for this theory"
After the facts are understood via testing then they are used to support the prevailing theory. Each empirical fact are spokes all supporting the overall model in a consistent manner. How hard is this to comprehend?
It's analogous to finding more consistent supportive evidence for the murderer of a crime, except in science the body of evidence is far larger, allows for further refutation.
"The idea of randomness accounting for diversity of life from non-life"
Mmmmm, nope. Evolution deals with the diversity of life, not the origins of life. it's funny you mention 'randomness' though, b/c peptides and base chain amino acids form quite naturally and are robust enough that we're already testing replicating polymers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Evolutionary theory doesn't encompass the theory of life origins,as for evolution to work requires DNA, inheritance and varied replication, which non-life doesn't do. I notice how you jump around a lot, and never get down to the evidence, nor do you explain (can you?) why evolutionary processes can't work.
CMG,
"Because you consider me ignorant in a certain subject, does that make my so-called ignorance a fact?"
At least in that subject, yes, but not generally.
"Disagreement and ignorance are not the same thing."
But I haven't heard anything substantial from you on evolutionary evidence and why you find it wrong or how it's refuted as per it's processes and such. Still now you don't refer to WHY it can't work or where it's flawed. I must then infer from lack of commenting that your position is that you have little knowledge on it.
"Some time ago when you posited that evolutionary theory was the reason that we could use flu vaccines successfully, and I pointed out that the yearly vaccine with it's flu variants was largely a matter of educated guess"
It's part of it, and yes to an extent its an educated guess as viruses mutate quite fast that many times predictability and immunity isn't straight forward. Still, the process of immunization can't be done if one ignores or can't comprehend that the principle of how organisms evolve.
>>>I'm sorry, but no, rainbows aren't magically created ex nihlo, they're formed under very well understood natural processes.<<<
Ahh, but I did not invoke magic for rainbows. Yes rainbows are formed under very well understood processes; processes set up by God in His natural created order. I simply explained why they were new at that time, and that God used that process to give us a promise that would always be before us to act as a reminder.
>>>Or vice versa, just believing in something (Santa) instead of consistent independent evidence doesn't make it any more true or real either. I suppose that's what evidence is for.<<<
I could apply this same reasoning to the idea of randomness. The truth of the matter is that your so-called evolutionary evidence is constantly being revised, a constant stream of "whoops" that need to be addressed. You call this the scientific process, and yet each newly discovered "fact" is touted as hard core evidence for this theory. Until, of course, it needs to be revised and another "whoops" needs to be addressed.
Your faith is in evolution...and it is indeed faith, as the tenets of your belief are constantly being revised, as what you believed to be "truth" ends up not cutting the mustard. And yet you still cling to it.
The idea of randomness accounting for diversity of life from non-life, no matter what the time frame, is preposterous. It's magical. Your Santa is evolution.
It is indeed true that the biological diversity we are continually discovering is beyond amazing. Such ordered function in such uncountable forms is untenable with the idea of random selection. But you go ahead and stick with your god Evolution, and I'll just stick with my Creater God.
>>>Sorry, but your ignorance isn't evidence, go ahead placate ignorance. We both might be ignorant of Quantum Mechanics, but it doesn't negate the validity of it.<<<
Because you consider me ignorant in a certain subject, does that make my so-called ignorance a fact? Disagreement and ignorance are not the same thing. Some time ago when you posited that evolutionary theory was the reason that we could use flu vaccines successfully, and I pointed out that the yearly vaccine with it's flu variants was largely a matter of educated guess, you called me ignorant at that time. However, I provided you with a quote from the CDC website that backed my statement, and instead of admitting your ignorance you glossed right over it. And sometime later posted the same erroneous information to someone else. So, who is placating...no, nurturing is a better word...their ignorance?
CMG,
"From nothing to something,"
'Nothing'? The singularity IS your something, it's the Universe before expanded the matter/energy were already there.
"from living to amazing complexity and diversity, all through basically random chance."
This would be the whole biodiversity via evolution over 4 billion years. Again, I must stress evolution as a process isn't entirely all random, there are processes (like natural selection) which are deterministic.
"And you ask me to explain why I say this is a tall order?"
Specially I was talking about evolution and bio-diversity and this was what we were talking about, but you know moved the goal posts to know encompass other things. Most ingenious.
"You have total confidence in evolution, and yet you yourself have said "No science theories are ever proven,"
I am confident in it beyond any reasonable doubt, considering all the lines of independent evidence and how they consistently support the model/theory, and how well its been tested it's quite well supported. It's as strongly supported as any science theory.
Are you ever going to object to any evolutionary evidence specifically? Would you like me to list some? ERV's and human chromosome 2 work for ya?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
"Sorry, this goes beyond boggling the imagination. "
Sorry, but your ignorance isn't evidence, go ahead placate ignorance. We both might be ignorant of Quantum Mechanics, but it doesn't negate the validity of it.
>>>Why not 'did God create using evolution?' Evolution isn't magic though, it uses natural processes, there is not point where 'and then a miracle occurs here' in the process.<<<
I already covered this one. And no, the amount of randomness required to fulfill the purposes of evolution would have to be "magic".
The miracle for life is in the fact that there is a God who is capable of creation, from something to nothing. Much more believable than that blind random processes could result in what we are able to see today.
From nothing to something, from non-living to living, from living to amazing complexity and diversity, all through basically random chance. And you ask me to explain why I say this is a tall order?
You have total confidence in evolution, and yet you yourself have said "No science theories are ever proven, you should know this, science theories/models are tentative and allow for further testing." So how do you stand by the notion that such an astonishing amount of "randomness" could indeed get us to what we see today. And, of course, we still have oodles of discoveries to make about all those things that are still "unseen".
Sorry, this goes beyond boggling the imagination. This entails fantasy. In no other subject other than evolution would a theory of such randomness be given any credence at all. And yet, evolution is touted as a proven fact.
There are many mysteries out there, and man has this instiable desire to solve them. All well and good. But proposing such outlandish theories to explain diversity leaves an awful lot to be desired.
CMG,
"did God create, or did evolution just magically happen."
Why not 'did God create using evolution?' Evolution isn't magic though, it uses natural processes, there is not point where 'and then a miracle occurs here' in the process.
"Because there are a whole lot of people who use it to replace a Creator"
Some do, some don't. It comes down to acknowledging that the supernatural isn't needed to explain how/why certain natural processes work. Call it 'growing up' and not believing magic if you will.
"Do you think man is inherently good?"
For the most part, but there is always a variance.
"And as to the rainbow, God did indeed create it,"
I'm sorry, but no, rainbows aren't magically created ex nihlo, they're formed under very well understood natural processes.
"If it had never rained on earth before the flood, and then it rained, and when it stopped raining the sun came out, wouldn't this cause the first rainbow?"
C'mon, the no-way flood is so out of touch with evidence and reality it's a shame anyone still pretends as if it really occurred and try to support it. You want to believe in the flood like how kiddies want to believe in santa.
"Not believing something doesn't make it any less true"
Or vice versa, just believing in something (Santa) instead of consistent independent evidence doesn't make it any more true or real either. I suppose that's what evidence is for.
"....which of course is your belief about evolution. "
Not.
CMG,
"You say it's the best tool we have at our disposal....for what?"
For coming to know the world as it really is and how it really works.
"To circumvent the need for a Creator? "
Nope, plenty of theists involved in science see no objection with the natural processes and how god could have used them/set them up to work in the world we have.
"ergo you trust, or have faith in, science, wherever it may be at the time."
Considering all the fruits from it, it's on to something and we should use it to learn, improve our quality of life and not placate ignorance and replace it with supernatural magic. I have confidence in the process as it gets results and overtime refines errors and narrows in on absolute truth.
"so in the end you cannot prove love, loyalty, dedication, intelligence, morality, purpose, evolution or anything else with l00% scientifically proven data."
Can we make a logical conclusion based on consistent evidence on something without knowing it as philosophically 'absolutely proven'? Yes, we do it all the time in courts as evidences is used to support a proposition beyond any reasonable doubt. The 100% proven data are the empirical facts which support the theories.
This is how although we can't philosophically 'prove' gravitational theory, we have enough evidence to support it beyond any reasonable doubt and to logically conclude it as very well supported and credible theory. Just as with other (evolutionary theory) science theories which also use this methodology.
CMG,
'In fact, too tall'
Why? explain, details of objections please.
Okay, that's an awfully tall order to arrive at the bio-diversity we know. In fact, too tall.
"Which comes first, the chicken or the egg"
If you know your biology, paleontology, and evolution, it's the egg.
"You need a random process and chance before any "natural selection" can grab it up and make a change that sticks,"
This is true and that random process is - genetic variation per generation, aka mutations. DNA recombination (sex) plus these mutations ensures variation via inheritance, then NS can act on preferred traits within a population and preserve them. Natural Selection isn't random though, it's highly deterministic based on the relative fitness a given gene provides over others.
"That's an awfully tall order to arrive at the world we know."
Evolution explains not the world, but the bio-diversity.
JC,
"I offer Biblical proof that dinosaurs are talked about, and you scoff at that."
A single passage from a single book authored over 2000 years ago, and this is your proof? That's funny. Ever heard of the 'independent evidence'? Dude, the bible says bats are birds and insects have 4 legs, along with other biological errors, it has not a clue in biology, thus the ambiguous term 'kind'.
"I give you the evidence you so desire, but yet you scoff at that, and call it no evidence at all."
I was asking for evidence supporting evolution and what you find objection with it, not biblical stories of men riding dinosaurs like the Flintstones. There is a difference there. Specifically, perhaps evidence like fossils, or transitional forms, or DNA evidence, you know, the 'sciency' stuff.
"You say here's your chance to talk about these things, but you only want to stick to one subject"
Exaclty, now you've got it. I was quite direct when I mentioned the topic. I asked straight up and the topic was - evolution. And how did lead off? Evidence, anything objectionable? No, 'relationship'..
"Have you ever read the Bible? And if so, your thoughts?"
Sure have, I find it more or less like other similar religions, I guess if you read up on other religious via comparative religious you'll see why. Were you home schooled?
agentorange
>>>But evolution collectively isn't all pure randomness, it doesn't operate according to entirely chance. Remember natural selection?<<<
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg.......You need a random process and chance before any "natural selection" can grab it up and make a change that sticks, isn't this so? So yes, evolution is basically based on randomness, chance, "the right set of circumstances at the right time". That's an awfully tall order to arrive at the world we know.
>>>'some realm that is not considered 100% "scientifically proven"? '<<< and >>>No science theories are ever proven, you should know this, science theories/models are tentative and allow for further testing.<<<
This is a non-answer to my question. But I certainly agree, no science theories are ever proven, so in the end you cannot prove love, loyalty, dedication, intelligence, morality, purpose, evolution or anything else with l00% scientifically proven data. That is my whole point. So, we're back to, did God create, or did evolution just magically happen.
agentorange
My point was, you trust just as fully whether it be in the "pre-whoops" or "post-whoops" stage, ergo you trust, or have faith in, science, wherever it may be at the time.
>>>If you're in a science field, you shouldn't have such a hard time understanding the scientific method.<<<
Who said I have such a hard time understanding the scientific method? Because I don't trust it or it's deductions implicitly, whether in it's pre- or -post-whoop stages, does this mean that I don't understand it? In your view, if someone understands it they would automatically embrace it I assume?
>>>Obviously, though it never claimed in principle to be able to know all things, still it's the best tool we have at our disposal and its fruits are evident none the less.<<<
I believe I have already said I think science is fascinating, and it's not without merit for sure. You say it's the best tool we have at our disposal....for what? To circumvent the need for a Creator? Because there are a whole lot of people who use it to replace a Creator, an either-or type of situation, with evolution winning. And no, evolution and God are not compatible. If you believe in God, and believe that the Bible is His Word to us, and believe the creation account where it says "God spoke" etc., then they are not compatible. Though science as a tool to study God's design is fascinating, and using this knowledge to advance our capabilities and options certainly can be a plus (i.e. medicine, communicatons), it also has a number of downsides, such as atomic bombs and cloning. What God means for good man misuses. And why is this? Do you think man is inherently good? Has experience taught you this?
And as to the rainbow, God did indeed create it, as he created all processes. And in this He gave us a promise, one that is a reminder to us of His promise. Think of it this way. If it had never rained on earth before the flood, and then it rained, and when it stopped raining the sun came out, wouldn't this cause the first rainbow? And wouldn't that be a God created process? But I know you don't believe in the flood, so you don't believe this. That's okay. Not believing something doesn't make it any less true....which of course is your belief about evolution. And that's okay too.
You know, it is almost impossible to talk with you Agent. You are the one who is closed minded, but yet you claim it is us. I offer Biblical proof that dinosaurs are talked about, and you scoff at that. I give you the evidence you so desire, but yet you scoff at that, and call it no evidence at all. You question everything we say with such a ferocity of hate, one wonders why you are even here at this site at all, except to maybe deceive?
You say here's your chance to talk about these things, but you only want to stick to one subject, and as Evolutionists, use only this to prove your case, while ignore the rest of the evidence.
By claiming the above, you are attempting to tell me that my relationship with God is nothing more than my imaginative powers at work in my head, would this not be correct? Would this not constitute being called a liar? And you want me to believe you when you say that my relationship with God is a lie? I don't think so.
This is not going anywhere, but do not confuse who is stifling this, for this would prove to be unwise.
"Young Earth Creationist". Never heard that one before. But if you mean that the earth is probably no more than 6500 years old, yes I would agree with that. The reason is that I do know that He exists, for I have talked with Him, and He with me. I will believe Him far over what his creation tells me.
Beloved, I will again pray that God opens your eyes as He opened Saul's, for His glory.
One more question beloved, if I may. Have you ever read the Bible? And if so, your thoughts?
JC, "Just one question for you: What is a "YEC"?"
Young Earth Creationist.
"Before the flood of Noah, there was probably only one crocodile species,"
Probably huh, evidence for this? It says this in the bible, the crocodile evolution and all? We have numerous species of early crocodiles and even their basal ancestors.
"but because of the high salt content of the land, and the water run off, this microevolution allowed for both species, born of one."
And I guess this part is in the bible too then? You so know that salty water tends to kill off plants right? That would pretty much put a snag in the life returning especially if only '2 of each kind' existed. What would they eat!?
'both'? which both? Details There are more than 2 (or both) species of crocodiles living right now.
"This is not evolution, this is adaptation."
Biological adaption IS evolution, this is what the very principle premise of evolution means by 'biological changes over time'. If they're biologically 'adapting', they are evolving.
Oh, I forgot to thank you for the Latin,too,steveh20.I had four years of it in High School, but that was so long ago it is a wonder I can still remember any of it.I found myself translating it on your post just for fun.I guess once it's in your blood ,or your head in this case, it stays there.
JC,
'where we were just smart little microbes floating around,'
No, these would have just been microbes and not technically human, thus not us or 'we'.
'these died, and lived, and then died, and then lived, and so on and so forth, until now.'
It's a process, organisms are born they live and they die, deal with it.
'Christianity teaches just the opposite, that death came after life, not before it.'
Obviously death comes after life, as a living organism can't die unless its alive in the first place.
'microbes are about as far away from 'smart' as it gets.'
yeah, and your point is?
'Something that I noticed about your posts Agent, is that you are citing a lot of other people in your comments.'
It's good practice to cite your sources and refer to articles to back ones claims, it's called 'referring to evidence'.
JC,
'Let's talk geography. Isn't it interesting that there still is a city named Damascus?'
Not really, not unless you consider it also interesting that a city like Rome still exists. Again, try to stick to evidence related to evolution. 2nd time. It shouldn't be that hard, address specific evidence related to evolution.
'According to evolutionistic history, it rained on the cooling rocks for millions of years, all the while these rocks soaked up all the oxygen from the atmosphere'
um, what? No, O2 was quite rare in the earlier earth atmosphere, not until early bacteria form did concentration levels pick up. evolutionary theory describes the diversity of life, not the origins of life. secondly, the O2 was created as a by-product of energy conversion from the early cyano-bacteria, it has nothing to do with rocks.
'So, following that conclusion, life either came from what, the water or the rocks?'
What, no, neither. Life came from replicating molecules, specifically those which used peptides and simple chain amino acids.
'Let's talk dinosaurs. What does Job chapter 40, versus 15-24 say?'
Yes, let's consult the bible which also biologicaly defines bats as birds and insects as having 4 legs....good grief, get a clue.
'It seems there was an "ancient" animal found'
Can you be a little more specific, some details perhaps, some sources? Carbon dating does have some known issues as it attempts to date formally living matter and not minerals and as such there can be issues like the 'reservoir affect' which skews the age, though this can be accounted for. Carbon dating is ONE method of radiometric dating, there are over 4 dozen of them and carbon dating is only useful up to some 60,000 years.
You said: "one topic, evolution, stick with it discuss the evidence already."
Beloved, didn't you just in an earlier post tell me that "here's your chance".
So, why do you now stifle this. What do you fear my friend?
To Agentorangex:
To further clarify the life from death, and the death from life difference, allow me to elaborate:
Evolution believes that a primordial ooze came, where we were just smart little microbes floating around, these died, and lived, and then died, and then lived, and so on and so forth, until now.
Christianity teaches just the opposite, that death came after life, not before it.
Something that I noticed about your posts Agent, is that you are citing a lot of other people in your comments. I don't really care about what they know or teach, at this point I only want to hear from you. Leave these other's opinions out of it for now. I want your conclusions, not theirs.
JC,
'First, let's start with this one small word: Relationship.'
one topic, evolution, stick with it discuss the evidence already.
Wow, thanks for the quote from Tertullian, steveh20.Maybe that is part of the appeal for me.It is so ridiculous that you couldn't make it up(although some people would argue otherwise).I love that quote, man.Good job!!
GMC,
'Yep, that's a "whoops"
yeah, that 'whoops' is responsible for the communication we're doing right now, so apparently it's worthy of something and accomplishes enough to be taken seriously.
'My degree is in a science field, and I find science fascinating. However, it is not "all knowing", nor will it'
Which field? If you're in a science field, you shouldn't have such a hard time understanding the scientific method.
'However, it is not "all knowing", nor will it ever be'
Obviously, though it never claimed in principle to be able to know all things, still it's the best tool we have at our disposal and its fruits are evident none the less.
'and as long as we want to use science to supplant God, we will fail. '
I don't think so, science isn't directly removing God, but it does remove the old wrong supernatural explanations for things that are much more easily and better defined according to science. Holitio tried to say rainbows, RAINBOWS are from god, poofed from nowhere....um...NO, they a natural result of light refraction on water condensation. There is no supernatural element there.
'The all, the it, the randomness, chance, time, etc. refer to all the many things that have been discussed over and over in these blogs.'
But evolution collectively isn't all pure randomness, it doesn't operate according to entirely chance. Remember natural selection?
'some realm that is not considered 100% "scientifically proven"? '
No science theories are ever proven, you should know this, science theories/models are tentative and allow for further testing.
To Agentorangex:
Part II
Let's talk geography. Isn't it interesting that there still is a city named Damascus? Isn't it interesting that the tombs of these great prophets spoken of in the Bible can be found today? Isn't it interesting that through all the wars, corruption, anarchy, and evil that God's words is still intact? Isn't it interesting that Israel hadn't existed for 2,500 years, and then in 1948 prophecy was fulfilled?
Just one question for you: What is a "YEC"? I do agree that microevolution does indeed happen. Human beings eventually adapt to their surrounds, as do animals, but this would also reverse if moved back into their original environment. There are sea crocodiles and fresh water crocodiles. Before the flood of Noah, there was probably only one crocodile species, but because of the high salt content of the land, and the water run off, this microevolution allowed for both species, born of one. This is not evolution, this is adaptation.
To Agentorangex;
As you wish.
Part I
First, let's start with this one small word: Relationship.
Do you know Him, do you know of Him, or are you just sure that He doesn't exist? This you say is not relevant for the purposes of scientific discussion. I disagree. See, for me, I know He exists, Him and I have had many discussions together. He listens, I talk. He talks, I listen. He has told me truth and will not mislead. So, for as I am concerned, when you say that this is not the case, it is immediately dismissed as deceit, whether intentional or not, God will be the judge of this.
Second. Let's talk creation. If you follow Evolution through it's logical cycle of life from death, you see that it is all based upon nothing. According to evolutionistic history, it rained on the cooling rocks for millions of years, all the while these rocks soaked up all the oxygen from the atmosphere. So, following that conclusion, life either came from what, the water or the rocks? This is complete opposite of what God says. God says that death came from life, not the other way around as evolution opposes. Christians say that death came from Adam and Eve's sin, before this there was no death. For those who argue whether plants or trees died, these should first define what life is.
Let's talk dinosaurs. What does Job chapter 40, versus 15-24 say? If one says that man and dinosaurs never coexisted is calling God a liar. I would not want to be in this position when one faces Him.
Let's talk carbon dating. This you'll have to check on yourself, as I don't remember then when's or where's, only the details. It seems there was an "ancient" animal found. When carbon dating was done on this, the animal at one end was 10,000 years old, and at the other end was significantly older. So, based upon one standard used in evolution dating standards, this animal only lived with half a body until the other half showed up. Yes, carbon dating has become unpopular with evolutionists, so there are plenty of prepared answers for this as well.
steve
>>>Its only religion/faith that gives certainties, science will not tell you everything and the uncertainty makes life sooooo exciting.<<<
For the Christian, the certainity is that God has all the answers. I can't answer for religion. And in truth, when I leave this earth I can't wait to ask God about a million questions. That is, after I spend a millenium or two just resting in His love and comfort!!
As for Beethoven.....don't know, there might be some competition. But it is l00% sure that music like his can sure soothe the savage beast :)
Hope you don't mind if I ask this GMG, but do you think that God "exists" so to speak when we don't understand things. I think that there are plenty of things that the scientfic method can't explain(such as just how did plate tectonics start) and you know what, I love it, it makes my life a little less boring. Its only religion/faith that gives certainties, science will not tell you everything and the uncertainty makes life sooooo exciting.
By the way Beetheven is the finest musician ever, its not 100% proven, but its true(well if it works for you)
BW
Steve
steveh20, I like that and isn't it even better that Christ Himself said, with man some things are impossible, but with God all things are possible. I wonder if that would apply to creationism, hmm cheers, believer:)
agentorange
>>>No, it's called certain hypothesises become refuted over time based on evidence and testing, that is the errors are removed...<<<
Yep, that's a "whoops".
>>>...only religion claims to have 'all the answers now and forever'.<<<
No, Chrisitians claim that God has all the answers. We are just little frogs in His huge pond, there is a very lot we don't know. But we trust that He does.
>>>But you wont apply that sort of logic towards your theology, now would you?<<<
Our "theology" as Christians is that God is all knowing, all powerful, a loving Father, and we are His very imperfect children, striving and failing and getting back up again and ever seeking His wisdom. Nothing about us is particularly trustworthy, as we are imperfect. It is He that is fully trustworthy.
(re science)>>>Obviously, it's fruits are vindication that my 'trust' is reasonable as its so apparent how big a difference science has made in humanities overall quality and knowledge of life.<<<
You will get no argument from me regarding science having it's definite good points. My degree is in a science field, and I find science fascinating. However, it is not "all knowing", nor will it ever be, no matter how much it strives to find all the answers. Too much is unknowable, and as long as we want to use science to supplant God, we will fail.
The all, the it, the randomness, chance, time, etc. refer to all the many things that have been discussed over and over in these blogs. It serves no purpose to this discussion to start repeating all this, as you very well know the kinds of things that are being referred to. Besides, that would take weeks, or perhaps months? and it would all be just a rehash.
I am by nature a bit of a skeptic. I take very little at face value. I want to know all the why's and what's and how's. I want logical progression, and increased knowledge and understanding. I also am a realist, and wisdom through experience has taught me that man is flawed. The more I study the "facts" as man relates them, the more I discover how much we truly don't know. But as I observe and relate to the world around me and all that that encompasses, the more I am convinced that there was indeed an "Originator", as chance and randomness and mutation and time could not possibly account for all the variety and detail around us. This is said through my logical self. My intuitive knowing, feeling, and experiencing self also believes this, but of course that is the part that you relegate to believing in magic and santa claus.
So, I'll ask you again.....Tell me, do you assert that there is absolutely nothing in your life that makes you function in some realm that is not considered 100% "scientifically proven"?
JC,
'What I do object to is the interpretation of this evidence.'
Examples, details we need. In science when we have many lines of independent evidence and they are all consistent and they all just happen to point to the same model/theory, it tends to give it some, shall we say credibility.
'Creationism and Evolution warrants debate.'
Then here is your chance, state which evidence (or their interpretations) and why you object to them. I would prefer citations and let's try to be specific and tackle one issue at a time and not address like 50 things at once poorly.
Lets try to actually discuss the mechanism involved, the evidence we should predict to find, and the conclusions. It's like detective work.
'scientific community is constantly telling Christians to "have an open mind", '
Naaa, they are arguing to first really review a lot the evidence first (evolutionary theory is very diverse) and then form logical conclusions which are consistent with the facts.
I realize you're a YEC, so I would assume you would also hold that 'all mutations are harmful' or that 'mutations can't add new genetic information' and other misnomers, but I can demonstrate why this is wrong.
Good evening believer, your comment about the more rational a person the more diificult belief comes reminds me of the quote from the church father Tertullian, having been an alter boy just post Vatican 2 my latain is a little rusty but it goes something like this...
Natus est Dei Filius; non pudet, quia pudendum est: et mortuus est Dei Filius; prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est: et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
Or
"The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful. And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is ridiculous. And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."
Best wishes
Steve
To agentorangex:
You said: "JC, so is the Dino fossil bio-film bit the only objection then? I mean, do you object to specific genetic evidence, or anatomical evidence, fossil evidence, embryonic evidence?"
Of course I do not object to any of this evidence. What I do object to is the interpretation of this evidence. Even if one doesn't believe in God, one can see that an argument between Creationism and Evolution warrants debate.
Beloved, one has to look at the complete picture. There are things in this existence that we cannot explain. There is far greater evidence that He does in fact sit on the throne, on the Sea of Glass, than there is against. Do you actually think that all Christians become so, based upon "feelings" alone, without doing an investigation, whether scientifically or spiritually?
The scientific community is constantly telling Christians to "have an open mind", yet these same have the most closed of all. They're the ones refusing to listen, all the while leaning on their own understanding of an incomplete picture. Tragic, wouldn't you agree?
God created everything, just as he wrote. It really is that simple. But, as one learns in school, if you have a problem with the beginning of the book, you'll have problems with everything else in it too.
I will pray for you Agent, that He who sits on the throne will open your eyes, as He opened Saul's, to show His love in a way that you cannot possibly comprehend, but need so very much. Just open your heart, give Him a chance. He will not lie to you, or mislead you, for what profit is there in that for Him, or you?
Nice post, believer.We do have to "Let Go" to a certain extent when we come to Christ.That is the title of one of my favorite books-"Let Go" by Fenelon.Well said!!
'You like to call it "self-correcting", which is simply a term for "whoops".'
No, it's called certain hypothesises become refuted over time based on evidence and testing, that is the errors are removed and as a result we are left with a more purer resolution of reality on which we can build new technology. If it didn't, all these 'whoops' wouldn't result in derived and applied knowledge or technology, but they do and they do b/c science works.
"Your science is not all knowing,"
Nope, not even close, only religion claims to have 'all the answers now and forever'. If science were 'all knowing' in any respect we wouldn't be doing further research, now would we. The process is cumulative and progressive.
'Whether it be in a person, a feeling, a test, an idea, we find that they all let us down in some area, sooner or later'
But you wont apply that sort of logic towards your theology, now would you?
'Your faith, belief, trust (and hope, I might add), are in science'
I guess so, look at how we're communicating over something directly b/c of science. Obviously, it's fruits are vindication that my 'trust' is reasonable as its so apparent how big a difference science has made in humanities overall quality and knowledge of life. Without it we'd be more or less like the islamic world.
'The idea that it "all" produced itself (given enough time, of course) takes a faith that is incomprehensible,'
What is 'it' in this context? Again, be specific.
'randomness, chance and an untold measure of time,'
What randomness? what chance? be specific here. time is a function/dimension of the universe, within enough time all probabilities of an outcome equally become = 1.
'Are you absolutely sure you want to put all your trust in science?'
All for what? I don't put all of it already, but science works, it gets results, this is why it's trusted and accepted.
agent, you were right on target with what you said about the stars on a cloudy night, because true faith is so much different then that. Some preachers use the chair example to show the difference between believing and trusting or putting your faith to practice, but like you that's not really a good example unless you're a person who's never seen a chair before. The best example I can come up with for what genuine faith/trust looks like is a blind child going to a pool with their father for the very first time and their dad goes into the pool and asks the child to jump into the pool and he'll catch them believing will take them to the edge of the pool and in their mind they do believe their father will catch them, but not until they take that leap of faith does true faith/trust become truly shown in their relationship with their father. And the same is true for a person to enter into a personal relationship with God through Christ. There comes a point where believing can only take them so far, but for them to truly enter into that relationship they have got to be willing to let go of everything and everyone and take that leap of faith/trust into the open arms of God. And the more rational a person I believe the more difficult to take that leap.
Oakey doakey jc, my precious....
>>>Uggh. Science is a self correcting process, and yes mistakes (depends on what you mean here) are made, but b/c it relies on objective repeated testing we are able to refute mistakes and find truth and continue on progressing in knowledge.<<<
All pursuit of knowledge is a self-correcting process. Wisdom now, though it certainly involves knowledge, is a step (at least) beyond. Wisdom should teach you that science is not all knowing. You like to call it "self-correcting", which is simply a term for "whoops". Your science is not all knowing, though you hang your hat on it, and when it says whoops, you call it self-correcting and say that that is the reason that you can trust it, even as you continue to trust each stage as absolute truth. And to that I say, mmmmmm mkay.
Faith, belief, trust.....None of these have any value except in the object they apply to. Whether it be in a person, a feeling, a test, an idea, we find that they all let us down in some area, sooner or later. We all seek knowledge of some sort. And the fact that we continue to seek, because we continue to not have all the answers, tells us that all knowledge, in the end, is self-correcting as we pursue it. Or at least, should be, if we are seeking wisdom.
Your faith, belief, trust (and hope, I might add), are in science. So be it. We as Christians believe that your trust and hope are misplaced. We believe that there is an Originator for faith, belief, trust, hope, science, and all things seen and not seen. The idea that it "all" produced itself (given enough time, of course) takes a faith that is incomprehensible, a faith far beyond that in believing in God, the Originator. Man, taking what God has produced and trying to reduce it to a process of randomness, chance and an untold measure of time, trying desperatly to prove that God is not necessary to explain all that "is", will continue to need "self-correction" for ever. Or, at least, until the day comes when we have destroyed all that "is", and finally come face-to-face with the final truth. Are you absolutely sure you want to put all your trust in science?
JC, so is the Dino fossil bio-film bit the only objection then? I mean, do you object to specific genetic evidence, or anatomical evidence, fossil evidence, embryonic evidence?
To Steveh20:
Beloved, it changes the analogy to lean on man, not God.
Hi jc
Faith is like a cloudy night, you can't see the stars but you'd bet your life that they are still there.
I'm not to sure how this affects the analogy but you can also be certain the stars are there on a cloudy night even if you can't see them directly with your eyes. All you have to do is observe them at diffrent wavelengths within the electromagnectic spectrum, this comes through the clouds and tells you they are there.
Steve
GMG,
I put 'belief' instead of faith, I should have put faith. I would try to sum of faith as follows: belief in the absence of evidence is faith, continued belief in the face of contrary evidence is delusion. It would be like believing in santa initially on faith, and then later as one logical examines the absurdity of the claims and the vacuousness of the evidence only a delusional person would believe in santa.
JC,
'Your defintions of faith have all been textbook and academic in nature'
Ummm, not. The bible ITSELF states how faith is believing without seeing, in void of evidence, in contradiction to evidence. And upon all this it claims such a position is virtuous and blessed, what more do you need?
'Faith is like a cloudy night, you can't see the stars but you'd bet your life that they are still there.'
That's b/c you have observed them before, and many times, and with others objectively, and we know they're still there as they are predictably there as via testing. Even if we couldn't see them, we could still use instruments which can capture other light spectrums and still validate them as being there.
Again, I digress as the article relates to evolution I would hope someone, anyone really could supply some evidence based objections for why evolution isn't science.
We use these terms interchangably to a great degree. It is true that "faith" has a tendency to be used often when it comes to issues involving God, but so do other terms such as "belief". The point is, most of them do not include the idea of irrefutable truth, just belief. And that is the point I was trying to make...that your full belief is in science.
agentorange
>>>Faith is, even as define by Martin Luther, the absence of evidence or contradictory evidence against a proposition still one has belief in it. IE, the faith it requires to accept a proposition like Santa Claus. No evidence for it at all.<<<
No, you have added to the definition as stated by your source.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms belief , faith , credence , credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.synonyms see in addition opinion
AgentOrangeX:
Beloved, you really have no idea what faith is do you? Your defintions of faith have all been textbook and academic in nature. Beloved, this is unfortunate, as this belief, even for a Christian will not get one very far.
Faith has been compared to many things over the years, some are right, some are wrong. I've heard a lot of analogies and comparisons, but by far the best one I've heard was this:
Faith is like a cloudy night, you can't see the stars but you'd bet your life that they are still there.
That is truth. We can't see God, but if we want to see Him, and be with Him, then we must bet our lives on this faith. This is the only way to Him, there is no other way. How was the woman healed who touched Jesus in the crowd of people? Faith. How was the blind man healed? Faith. How will His people come to Him when they are called? Faith.
You have shown us what the Webster's definition of faith is, but what is yours?
Oh,ok.Thanks for responding.I'm not a Scientist, but the study of origins fascinates me.That's why I love reading these posts.I learn something new almost every day.
'To buy that, one would have to have a definitive way to seperate these feelings in the first place;'
Are stimuli responses measurable? Yes. Brain activity measurable in reflection to certain emotions? Yes. Can they be tested for repeatedly in response to questions related to love (have you cheated on your spouse, out of wed lock child, etc.? Yes. Can we use physical stimuli responses for audio, visual, and smell inputs which the subject would have an affinity for to equate if one 'loves' another person or thing? Yes.
'Doesn't the second Law of Thermodynamics rule out the possibility that matter and energy are eternal? '
not that I know of, the 2nd law relates to entropy within local systems and how energy/work is transferred from one system to another. There is no loss of matter of energy in the end, it just seeks to become at an equilibrium state.
'Other words for faith would be trust, or belief. You do indeed "trust" (or have belief in, or faith in) science;'
Faith is, even as define by Martin Luther, the absence of evidence or contradictory evidence against a proposition still one has belief in it. IE, the faith it requires to accept a proposition like Santa Claus. No evidence for it at all.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
In science, we only believe things so far as there is evidence to support them in a consistant manner and that they undergo repeated testing ensures objectiveness.
'even though this process has produced erroneous results,'
Uggh. Science is a self correcting process, and yes mistakes (depends on what you mean here) are made, but b/c it relies on objective repeated testing we are able to refute mistakes and find truth and continue on progressing in knowledge. For all of its 'mistakes', it's odd one of them you're using right now. Notice that only when evolution is discussed does the work science and mistake crop up.
'But in the meantime, you believe (or trust, or have faith in) whatever the process has produced.'
and considering all the fruits of such science knowledge, yes, it's logical and reasonable to have some respect and confidence that science will yield further knowledge and results. Science works, is it any wonder why the Islamic world and Western world are so polarized in this respect? One abandoned science and the other picked it up and ran with it and here we are.
Doesn't the second Law of Thermodynamics rule out the possibility that matter and energy are eternal? And even if matter and energy did exist at the time of the Big Bang wouldn't they have required an outside force to act upon them to cause the Big Bang, according to the Law of Inertia? It just seems that taking the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics together, there would need to be a Supernatural element involved, in light of the Law of inertia.Then, in order for Life itself to originate, wouldn't there need to be a Supernatural element, since life does not originate from non-life?
'The creation of the universe; Our planet being the correct distance from the sun for life;'
The distance varies as the orbit isn't a perfect one, nor is the earth in equa distance from the sun at all times. Also, the habitual zone for our star is a quite a fair range, it would be from nearly from Venus all the way out to mars. again, this isn't evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone
'So all these things just happen when science says the possibility of one being astronomical. '
'astronomical' don't make me laugh. Have you ever looked up at night to see other stars? Yeah, well there are trillions of them in the universe and many have planets orbiting them so the odds aren't that 'astronomical'.
agentorange
You have not addressed this item, would you please?
>>>See this is why I laugh at you, there is no faith in science...<<<
Other words for faith would be trust, or belief. You do indeed "trust" (or have belief in, or faith in) science; even though this process has produced erroneous results, you have faith that the scientific process itself will soon correct any error. But in the meantime, you believe (or trust, or have faith in) whatever the process has produced.
You disdain Christians because you consider their "beliefs" to be unfounded, as God cannot be proven by the scientific process. Tell me, do you assert that there is absolutely nothing in your life that makes you function in some realm that is not considered 100% "scientifically proven"?
JC,
'But as I feared, you would reject truth.'
So rejecting the truth is citing an article which refutes your claims....mmmm, mkay. You were perfectly find with this 'dino fossil bit' till I showed that the results for it are anything but conclusive.
No really, they didn't remove the fossils from the ground with ooozing blood/tissue as some creationists think. Only after many chemical processes like desalination, and acid solutions were they able to find this literally microscopic piece of spongy material.
agentorange,
To buy that, one would have to have a definitive way to seperate these feelings in the first place; and to do that, wouldn't we have to take people's word regarding their perceptions of their feelings?Not exactly objective proof.
'But how can science prove it is love, versus duty, guilt, a sense of loyalty, etc'
Certain emotions evoke certain chemical signals and chemistry reactions in the brain and sensory organs via stimuli and by defining them and acknowledging them is all is needed. Certain physical body changes occur if we discuss a thing/person in which we love, for example pupil dilation, heart beat. Love, it's almost like a neurochemical drug, and its affects can be measured like that of a person taking caffeine, it's just a matter of testing with instruments and using questions to probe the person.
No, actually I have been keeping up with this AgentOrangeX. But as I feared, you would reject truth. If this was the norm, then this would have not even been talked about. But since that this article was even written of, this suggests that these scientists were totally taken aback by what they observed in these bones. They were not expecting to find what they found and they were quite surprised. But to Evolutionists, they were not disappointing, they just spun a new argument about what they observed, ignoring what was really in front of them.
Beloved, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. If we do not acknowledge Him, we are only working with half a picture, and in all reality in the dark.
"So where did matter come from?"
First Law of Thermodynamics sound familiar holito8? The part in which it states matter/energy as a state can neither be created nor destroyed, ie their existence requires no creative agent in the first place. But this ISN'T evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"So everything happen by chance yet,"
What? No...where, who's said that and in reference to what? The comos isn't entirely order or chaos, it's somewhere in between.
"Science" says the probability of that happening is unfathomable"
'that happening' And what is 'that' in this context? Are we talking evolution here, or something else?
agentorange,
But how can science prove it is love, versus duty, guilt, a sense of loyalty, etc. How can science differentiate through this "empirical evidence"?
JC,
""I believed that preserved soft tissues had been found, but I had to change my opinion," said Thomas Kaye, an associate researcher at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington. "You have to go where the science leads, and the science leads me to believe that this is bacterial biofilm."
You haven't been keeping up lately, have you?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729234140.htm
"Since uncertainty exist in all of science, how can something be proven absolutely true?"
In science any and everything is open to future critique and it's all contingent based on supportive evidence. 'gray areas' are only in areas in which there exists inconclusiveness data supporting one hypothesis over another. There is no gray area that gravity is the affect of mass affecting mass, this is a fact, and the theory on it explains the facts of gravity.
"Just how would you scientifically determine this."
I would say one could if they wanted to subject their spouse to a series of lie detector tests, that would be one method to test their genuine feelings. Another would be neural scans of emotions for when they visually hear, listen, and smell their spouse and their brain response can be understood on how favorably they view the person (love).
"You insist on multiple lines of "evidence" before you will believe anything?"
No, not necessarily, it is contingent upon the type of claim. If it's an ordinary claim, then ordinary and relatively few lines of evidence would be 'enough'. But what star claims isn't ordinary, it's extraordinary and thus it requires an extraordinary amount of independent evidence. Certainly more than simply her own word.
Though if I alone told you a personal testimony of the existence of santa claus, this too you want more evidence than simply my own word, you would expect many lines of supportive and independent objective evidence. Same difference for her claim. Unless that is you're telling us that you'd take my word alone as good enough evidence for the existence of santa?
'How about love....you cannot scientifically prove it, see it, and measure it, can you?'
Scientifically, in certain aspects yes, it can be measured, qualified and quantified and logically deduced as a supported emotion and this is largely again related to supportive evidence and testing if need be. IE, the evidence that ones partner is being faithful for instance.
Again, once you realize that I am skeptical of biblical miracles for the same reason you're skeptical of koranic miracles, we'll be on the same page.
Science is not perfect. There is what is called uncertainty in every equation.
un·cer·tain·ty /ÊÅ’nˈsÉÅ“rtnti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-sur-tn-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties for 2. 1. the state of being uncertain; doubt; hesitancy: His uncertainty gave impetus to his inquiry.
2. an instance of uncertainty, doubt, etc.
3. unpredictability; indeterminacy; indefiniteness.
Or
The condition of being uncertain; doubt.
Something uncertain: the uncertainties of modern life.
Statistics The estimated amount or percentage by which an observed or calculated value may differ from the true value.
Since uncertainty exist in all of science, how can something be proven absolutely true? So science would appear to have gray areas. Right. Now can you understand these words?
To AgentOrangeX:
You said: "Can I get a few serious evidence based objections to why evolutionary theory isn't scientific, anyone?"
Sure, but as last time, you denied truths, so I see no reason why you will not deny it this time again. But, here we go:
Montana - Dinosaur bone found, with soft tissue still inside. Indeed, the scientific article also stated University's Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman found brownish oblong cells, elastic threads of veins and pliable dabas of red bone marrow in the core of a stout hind leg. The translucent vessels were so elastic that when one was stretched out and then released it snapped back like a rubber band.
The journal also stated "Until now, scientists have believed that bones fossilized when minerals gradually replaced organic material. Under current theories, organic molecules should not last more than 100,000 years.
The researcher also stated "Our theories don't allow for this".
--------------------
Millions of years old? I think not. These bones hadn't been in the ground long enough for even the life buried in the dirt to consume what was left of this animal.
Sorry, but there is nothing about some supernatural deity (God) creating anything in Science, we understand the creation of the sun to be a natural process under 'gravity'.
Um, perhaps you didn't comprehend my words....I asked for stupendous miracles happening NOW as in NOW the present.
You got me. I did understand your words.
So where did matter come from? So everything happen by chance yet, "Science" says the probability of that happening is unfathomable. But just says one even does but how supernatuarl that all other events happened as well. The creation of the universe; Our planet being the correct distance from the sun for life; all of the various forms of life coming forth... So all these things just happen when science says the possibility of one being astronomical.
agentorange, you said
>>>Simply having 'more people saw it' still isn't very good or compelling. We should expect multiple lines of objective independent evidence which are all consistent logically and coherent along with some eyewitnesses, some verified testing results from multiple samples (not just her one) to demonstrate that nothing natural was the cure and specifics for the back pain beyond her vague 'back problem'. The scientific method demands this level of testing and critique.<<<
You insist on multiple lines of "evidence" before you will believe anything? Is there anything that you believe that is not subject to this criteria? How about love....you cannot scientifically prove it, see it, and measure it, can you? Is observing the results of love proof of love? Or could the action itself be due to loyalty, sense of duty, guilt, or the like. Just how would you scientifically determine this.
>>>See this is why I laugh at you, there is no faith in science...<<<
Other words for faith would be trust, or belief. You do indeed "trust" (or have belief in, or faith in) science; even though this process has produced erroneous results, you have faith that the scientific process itself will soon correct any error. But in the meantime, you believe (or trust, or have faith in) whatever the process has produced.
You disdain Christians because you consider their "beliefs" to be unfounded, as God cannot be proven by the scientific process. Tell me, do you assert that there is absolutely nothing in your life that makes you function in some realm that is not considered 100% "scientifically proven"?
I digress, every time an article on evolution comes up the entire discussion gets migrated. Can I get a few serious evidence based objections to why evolutionary theory isn't scientific, anyone?
Holito8,
"Genesis God created the day and night which we use to regulate time....Science uses this method also."
Sorry, but there is nothing about some supernatural deity (God) creating anything in Science, we understand the creation of the sun to be a natural process under 'gravity'.
Um, perhaps you didn't comprehend my words....I asked for stupendous miracles happening NOW as in NOW the present.
"Our week is just as the bible... 7 days long."
Ummm, yeah, so what? How is this a miracle? Define. The numbering or labeling of days per week is completely arbitrary.
"God divide the waters both above and below. We have clouds above and lakes, seas and oceans below."
Right, so what, this is a statement, it's not a fact it was done by some supernatural being. It also states there is 'water above' the firmament/atmosphere, which as the heavens open falls down, oh well, that's not correct.
"Science can confirm this if you cannot see. "
Really? Explain.
"God place His bow in the heaven after it rains to let you know"
Uhhhh, again, no. Rainbows form from the refraction of light against the condensation of water...there is nothing supernatural or mystical there, they are entirely natural processes and not a drop of magic needed. You see, science can show quite certainly that rainbows are the result of physical, material processes, not super natural ones. Were you home schooled?
And funny isn't it that we don't see any of the stupendous miracles like from the bible though. No parting of the seas, nothing on this magnitude, not even close.
You are mistakened. We still what God has done today.
Genesis God created the day and night which we use to regulate time....Science uses this method also. Our week is just as the bible... 7 days long.
God divide the waters both above and below. We have clouds above and lakes, seas and oceans below. Science can confirm this if you cannot see.
God created plants. Still these can be proven to exist by science or anyone looking around. Scientists did not create them.
God set the Sun, moon and stars in the firmament. Science can only marvle at this and yet cannot fully understand them.
God created animal life and man.
God gave man dominion over the earth. Now man has dominated every environment there is. We have subdued all creatures. Man can judge between right and wrong. All living things produce after its kind.
God place His bow in the heaven after it rains to let you know. He will not destroy the world by water.
These are a few of God's promises which we still see today. So the miracles are still happening now.
God doesn't need to do anything special for you to believe. But He did and does anyway. If you are reading this, He has granted you another day which was never promised to you.
'The Bible is replete with stories of miracles,'
And funny isn't it that we don't see any of the stupendous miracles like from the bible though. No parting of the seas, nothing on this magnitude, not even close.
'and yet you do not believe any of it because you did not see it with your own eyes, even though there are multiple accounts in other writings.'
Not quite, I doubt the miracles of the bible in the very same respect and reason that you doubt the miracles in the Koran or other holly texts, and as soon as you realize this, you'll understand my position. The only reason you're partial to the miracles in the bible is (drum roll) you're a Christian.
'other writings' huh? There is a supposed instance in John in which the dead come out walking, but it's not recorded ANYWHERE else in other extra biblical sources let alone the bible itself. Again, and you wonder why I'm skeptical.
'These facts have been presented to you before (i.e. that there are other accounts outside of the Bible that testify to things Jesus did).'
Where? Seriously.
'You put your faith in science. So be it.'
See this is why I laugh at you, there is no faith in science, it's not allowed as according to the scientific method it can only use natural explanations for things and not the supernatural (no miracles, pixes, etc.) This is in principle WHY science works and gets results as at the lowest level it searches for the actual true answer, not magic. And think about it, without it you and I couldn't hold this conversation now.
MC,
'truth is not dependent on how many other people verify an account.'
No, no necessarily, but having more supportive evidence than a SINGLE eyewitness does help in the credibility department, especially if there are multiple lines of independent evidence along with eyewitnesses and well tested and critiqued reviews of the evidence. For her, all we have is her word and that's it.
'but rather whether or not it was a miracle of God.'
Could be both really. HOW can we know if his back got better at all, what evidence do we have to verify her statements? Any documentation and tests on this?
'Be truthful...you are unlikely to believe this even if a number of other people gave evidence for it, as you do not believe in God, let alone in miracles.'
Simply having 'more people saw it' still isn't very good or compelling. We should expect multiple lines of objective independent evidence which are all consistent logically and coherent along with some eyewitnesses, some verified testing results from multiple samples (not just her one) to demonstrate that nothing natural was the cure and specifics for the back pain beyond her vague 'back problem'. The scientific method demands this level of testing and critique.
As mentioned earlier, if we saw predictable results by X religion in which they prayed and they could grow back limbs, or stop hurricanes, it would be awfully compelling. But this never happens.
agentorange,
truth is not dependent on how many other people verify an account. The question seems to be not so much as to whether or not this man's back got better, but rather whether or not it was a miracle of God.
Be truthful...you are unlikely to believe this even if a number of other people gave evidence for it, as you do not believe in God, let alone in miracles. The Bible is replete with stories of miracles, and yet you do not believe any of it because you did not see it with your own eyes, even though there are multiple accounts in other writings. These facts have been presented to you before (i.e. that there are other accounts outside of the Bible that testify to things Jesus did). You put your faith in science. So be it.
GMG,
If all I had was a personal account for an eyewitness testimony for Santa Clause....would that suffice for you? I highly doubt it and it's only b/c you're skeptical of it and b/c a single personal testimony in such extraordinary matters are worthless.
CMG,
"hearsay (uncountable)"
Yup, that would pretty much sum up her account of what transpired. We can neither confirm nor refute it as all we have is....her word. Again, not much, worthless.
You may think her word is worthless, but it is not hearsay.
"This blog is the "hearing", star is the declarant, her testimony is a personal one, therefor is not hearsay in this "court"."
It is if there is no other sources of independent evidence for it, all we have is her word - worthless.
agentorange,
Using your link, we find that......
>>>There is no all-encompassing definition of hearsay in the United States. However, most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence [1], which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." <<<
and
>>>Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined.<<<
Also, from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hearsay, we find .....
hearsay (uncountable)
1) information that was heard by one person about another
2) (law) evidence based on the reports of others rather than on personal knowledge; normally inadmissible because not made under oath
3) (law) evidence: an out-of-court statement offered in court for the truth of the matter asserted; normally inadmissible because not subject to cross-examination, unless the hearsay statement falls under one of the many exceptions
This blog is the "hearing", star is the declarant, her testimony is a personal one, therefor is not hearsay in this "court". Providing evidence from another source, however, would be hearsay, unless that source were available to be questioned at this "court".
agentorange
It is not my job to convince you of anything. My job is to share Christ with you. I do that in different ways by lifting up Jesus Christ. It is God's job to convict your heart of truth. If He doesn't want to at this time then that is His right for He is a soverign God.
"My accounts are not hearsay agentorange."
Then you should be able to provide *other* lines of independent supportive evidence for these particular events outside of your own word. Until you can provide other lines of supportive evidence all we have is your word, aka 'hearsay'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law
The burden of proof is on you since you're the one making the claim of X miracle, this is elementary logic star, it's the very principle our courts use in trials. Support it with *other* evidence already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
My accounts are not hearsay agentorange.
I don't care whether you believe me or not. Your lack of belief does not negate the fact that what I gave testimony to actually happened. I am not lying. God is my witness.
Yes you foolish man, in the areas where the biological functions are identical, not in the areas where they are not.
"You still would not believe! "
SHOW me some objective and well tested independent evidence supporting your claims star, it shouldn't be that hard to do, especially with all the miracles you've witnessed. If you can't do it, then don't bother citing your hearsay accounts.
Star,
here star, I'll quote you EXACTLY as you wrote it and with reference to the time. See how utterly wrong it is. (my emphasis added)
"star2
Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:41 am
"Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical. THEY have EXACTLY the SAME GENETIC MAKEUP. God designed it that way."
You get all that? You claimed them to be 'exactly the same genetic makeup'.
agentorange
RE:Sorry, but I require a little higher standard of proof and evidence than simply some hearsay account by some person on the Internet. If I were provided with some more compelling evidence, say from multiple instances and each using multiple lines of objective independent evidence that has withstood countless repeated testing than it might worthy to review.
You still would not believe!
agentorange
Is this statement I made
"Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical"
the same as your statement
"Says the lady who says ALL ORGANISMS are genetically identical."?
I don't think so.
The more you open your mouth to critize me, put me down, and try to make light of what God does in people's lives thru me the more you show to everyone who reads your stuff how foolish, irrational, rebellious, and short-sighted you really are.
agent, a well earned "touche" on your part my friend!:)
"It would be much more effective and efficient for a person to read these books in there entirity. "
I guess so, still if you can cite some supportive evidence from it (you have read it/them, right?) then I would be more obliged to take your offer up.
agent, to do that would not do justice to the book or the book's intent. It would be much more effective and efficient for a person to read these books in there entirity.
believer,
I am not looking for books per see, I would prefer if you have read them to cite their supportive evidence on the matter. I can cite evidences from the books I read at will. If it seems supportive, then I'll just have to read into further.
agent, I tend to wonder if that's true since several of us have shared titles of books with you that could very well give you the evidence you are looking for. Any of Lee Strobel's books, "The Case For Christ" or "The Case For Faith" are two good examples.
igh,
"what Christians call a "contentious spirit" its when you want to engage in quarrels and arguments rather than witness"
Naaa, it's called I don't supplant my logic and evidence based reason and replace it with 'faith'. Sorry, but I require a little higher standard of proof and evidence than simply some hearsay account by some person on the Internet. If I were provided with some more compelling evidence, say from multiple instances and each using multiple lines of objective independent evidence that has withstood countless repeated testing than it might worthy to review.
"This happened nearly 20 yrs ago. I did not hear all that he was saying when he described it to me."
Ahhhhh, well isn't that too bad. 20 years ago, and you profess about it like it was yesterday, as if it was still so vivid. Hilarious. No, unless you can define some details and use some supportive independent evidence no one should even listen to your hearsay.
Star,
"I never said that...."
Sure you did, if you're going to quote me, be sure to reference the correct quote in which you referred to them being 'geneticaly/biologically the same'.
Here it is...
star2
Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:41 am
"Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical. THEY have EXACTLY the SAME GENETIC MAKEUP. God designed it that way."
Got it, good.
Saying 'god designed it that way still doesn't explain the DETAILS on HOW, nor does it explain WHY he'd intentionally make more evidence supporting evolution if he doesn't have to.
agentorange
You said, "Says the lady who says all organisms are genetically identical."
I never said that agentorange. I said the following:
"Hence, the laws of genetics will be the same among the species.
According to Genesis 1 animal life and human life are similar but different. They are similar in the sense that animals and humans can see, hear, feel, smell, taste, reproduce, elimate body waste, etc.. Each require sleep, water. The difference, again, is that Man is created in the image and likeness of God whereas the animals are not.
However, the laws of genetics that control the biological functions of each are the same."
Saying that all organisms are gentically identical is altogether different than saying that the laws of genetics are the same.
agentorange
re: man's back problems
This happened nearly 20 yrs ago. I did not hear all that he was saying when he described it to me. Just because I can't remember all the details doesn't negate the fact that he had a problem and asked me to pray that God would heal him.
agentorangex you have what Christians call a "contentious spirit" its when you want to engage in quarrels and arguments rather than witness. Satan is clever to lead us into those, usually by someone who is in the world.
Wake up to Righteousness! God is quick to forgive and then lead you into his ways and wisdom.
Brethren be aware of those who want to make you upset and lose composure. To argue and fight just to win the argument.
Proverbs 16:32 He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.
Ecc 7:9 Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.
Proverbs 29:11 A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.
agent, as far as Christ being God in the flesh that is true, but even though there is one God, He is three persons in one, the Father, the Son(Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, that is how Jesus in the flesh could pray to His Father in heaven.
agent, the issue in the Garden was not the who, but what He prayed to the Father as an example of how a child of God should pray. I'm sure there were people who prayed that the hurricane would not come but apparently God had a purpose for allowing it to come. Do I know what that specific purpose was, no, but as I said before that is where I need to trust God and allow God to be God and I need to trust that even though I might not understand the why I know the Who and that He has a purpose for all things and that it very well could be His way of getting the attention of His church in America and our nation as a whole. God answers prayers in several ways, yes, no, not yet, and I've discovered a 4th way in my own walk with Him and that is okay but don't say I didn't tell you so. In other words He gives me exactly what I want in order to show me not only is it not what I need, but I was asking for the wrong thing in the first place.
"Evolution is science fiction."
Says the lady who says all organisms are genetically identical...Yeah star, I don't think most would take the advice of a person like you who habitually misrepresents science in every way possible.
"I am sorry that you are so blind to truth that you can't see that."
Oh well, such a shame you can't even give any details on how god dun made the ERV's, human chromosome 2 fusion, etc.
"have to fast and pray for an answer from God because that is His requirement. I have not obeyed, thus He will not respond. No answers until I do. Sorry, but that is how it is."
Then go fast and pray and do what you have to do and come back when you have the answer already. We've heard enough of your ad hoc excuses already.
beliver,
"He prayed to His Father and asked"
Huh....how could he pray to God, if he was God in flesh?
"We have no right to demand anything of God or to expect Him to perform magic tricks as you call them to prove to us He is God."
I guess in some sense, no we don't, though we should expect such miracles to be more compelling that stars typical vague 'back problem' miracle. Believers are convinced their prayers are answered, so apparently they do work according to them. But when they are critiqued, they don't seem to hold up to scientific scrutiny.
If one sets the bar so low as to be explained by anything natural in the first place and then equates them as being divine or miracles, then it's a game of moving the goal posts in sake of admitting no real compelling miracles happen. No miracles of parting seas, no amputees with limbs magically growing back, no groups of people praying and stopping a hurricane 10 miles out off shore. If prayers can move mountains, why not hurricanes? If it makes you more happy or consoling that in prayer you're looked after, well, then that is up to you, but I seriously doubt most people or anyone would put so much confidence/faith in it and use prayer in sake of taking their ill relative to the hospital or using prayer to stop an on ccomming hurricane in sake of leaving town.
agentorange - I have to fast and pray for an answer from God because that is His requirement. I have not obeyed, thus He will not respond. No answers until I do. Sorry, but that is how it is.
Evolution is science fiction. I am sorry that you are so blind to truth that you can't see that. Your heart and mind is so darkened that you have no light to recognize truth when it is given to you. You are a hopeless case.
"You will get no answers from me."
I guess not, though that all depends on if God answers your prayers or not, so far it's a no. Or if you take it upon yourself to actually review the evidence and form a logical conclusion. The issue is that when details are required to substantiate claims, we get the old vague worthless response. Again, details on how God made the ERV's and human chromosome 2 would be nice.
Your rants agentorange are a product of your sin-sick heart. I don't know why any of us even bother to give you the time of day.
agentorange
"Yeah, well go fast and pray, whatever it takes to get the details and come back with the answer already."
You will get no answers from me.
agent, I had not heard back from you and I wondered what you thought of my responses back to you with regards to the specific questions you addressed to me, believer
holitio8,
"God does not have to explain things to us."
and why not? Shouldn't an omnipotent god want his creation to know all the details on their creation? One would think so, but you're arguing that it's better for him to no define the details and leave us in ignorance. And how does leaving us in ignorance on the details in the matter help again?
"He is God and able to do as he pleases."
Another non-answer, boy you guys sure are good that that. This is no better than saying 'Santa can do as he pleases, so he doesn't have to describe how he delivers presents globally in a single night!'
Seriously here, think hard about this one. WHY would God make/leave MORE evidence FOR evolution when he doesn't have to? If what you say is true, he could have done it in any manner, so leaving more evidence for evolution is illogical on your premise of *poof* 'instant creation'. It's basically imply he's negligent in leaving such contradictory evidence or you're inferring he's a deceptive or trickster god (testing faith with evidence like ERV's, fossils, human chromosome 2).
"Did your parents explain every decision they made when you were growing up to keep you informed?"
Yes. I asked straight forward questions and expected straight forward and detailed answers with logical reasoning and conclusions. Not answers like 'b/c I say so' nonsense. 'B/c I say so' is about as illogical an explanation as it gets and generally only kids fall for such horrid logic.
"You can argue all you want that you don't like something.
Yet, God moves on and leaves you to stand in your thoughts of men. His ways are higher than your ways; His thought are higher than your thoughts; Just as the Heavens are Higher than the earth so are His thoughts and His ways."
Great....but this doesn't explain the details of such evidence in any manner. Quit appealing to ignorance.
"God established what all the biological components (DNA, chromosones, genes, etc) were going to be, how they would function, what traits/behaviors they would define, and etc.."
How, explain the details HOW he did it... You basically said 'he hath done it'....ok, well, HOW, by what processes, mechanisms, explain.
"When God created each animal He decided what their purpose was going to be in the world and what kind of DNA would achieve that purpose."
Explain this part too...Details.
God does not have to explain things to us. He is God and able to do as he pleases. Did your parents explain every decision they made when you were growing up to keep you informed?
You can argue all you want that you don't like something. Yet, God moves on and leaves you to stand in your thoughts of men. His ways are higher than your ways; His thought are higher than your thoughts; Just as the Heavens are Higher than the earth so are His thoughts and His ways.
Shuckcreation,
"On another note, we do see mutations and most of them have to have medical operations and can barely survive."
I get that your implying most mutations are harmful, but well, this is not quite so.
Nachman and Crowell - 2000. 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Deleterious (harmful) mutations per generation 3, (1.72 percent). I've seen a figure of 98 percent of human mutations being neutral, so maybe 0.28 percent are beneficial.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/1/297
And they (mutations) would have to be neutral/silent if you think about it. There's a difference between mitotic (regular cell division) and meiotic (sexual division) mutations. For example, we would never know the actual malevolent mutation rates in meiotic lines, as the zygotes (prior to embryos) would never develop!
"Why is this? Usually poor living conditions, alcohol, drugs...the list goes on."
There are many reasons for why DNA replication errors occur and most times it's not anything the parents could have done. Some times it's related to the genes the parents have which are related to a given disease.
DNA replication is highly robust in its error checking, but still it does have errors and sometimes during embryonic development.
"God established what all the biological components (DNA, chromosones, genes, etc) were going to be, how they would function, what traits/behaviors they would define, and etc.."
How, explain the details HOW he did it... You basically said 'he hath done it'....ok, well, HOW, by what processes, mechanisms, explain.
"When God created each animal He decided what their purpose was going to be in the world and what kind of DNA would achieve that purpose."
Explain this part too...Details.
"Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical."
Some? More like 98.3% genetically....but hey, don't let that kind of evidence persuade you that you're related to them indirectly.
"They have exactly the same genetic makeup. God designed it that way."
Again, HOW (details on how) did god design them? Details! Also, why would he design them to be so genetically similar relative to all other earth species thus indicating our relatedness? Why make them so genetically similar if he didn't have to?
""They have exactly the same genetic makeup."
No, they don't Star, this is why people like you who don't really understand the basics of biology shouldn't be teaching anyone things in science, you're way over your head here. No 2 organisms are ever 'genetically identical', except for a clone perhaps. Normally per generational mutations recombine a very small % of the hosts DNA post inception, and still the offspring is always a compliment of the parents. Even RNA organisms like bacteria which divide aren't 'identical' either, as their mutations change genomic composition.
"Since the laws of genetics of all living flesh is the same then it would be reasonable to assume that if the human and the chimp was exposed to the sames viruses then the resulting ERV's would be the same in the DNA that is identical between the two species."
But, unfortunately for you again you're waaay in over your head on this one, this ISN't how ERV's function as they are inserted into an organisms genome. They don't insert predictably based on the hosts DNA, so there is no correlation with a given virus and where is has to be inserted based on a species. Remember, their INSERTION is RANDOM. So there no reason such evidence should be shared in the exact same locations, except for common ancestry.
"Now I did ask God why He created the human 2 fusion chromosone and why there were 7 identical ERV's shared between the chimp and the human but He has not answered me because He said I had to fast and pray for the answer. That is something that I rebelled against at the time. God will not do His part if I do not do my part. When I succeed and God answers then I will let you know."
Yeah, well go fast and pray, whatever it takes to get the details and come back with the answer already. You're giving this notion of 'answered prayer's a bad reputation otherwise with all your non answers and stalling.
Star2,
"I disagree with your conclusion. There is another explanation for it. When I get it I'll let you know.
ANSWER: The explanation comes from Genesis 1
From Genesis 1 we find the following:
o God is the creator of all things"
Wow, the SAME NONE answer of 'god dun made it look with ERV's!'
Again, you're basically saying 'god dun put them ERV's in der DNA to make it just *look* like we have shared ancestry and evolution occurred!'
It's the same as those who assert 'god put dem fossils in da ground to test our faith bit'.
That is your statement in a nutshell. Again, vacuous and utterly useless as it doesn't explain any details on how the evidence can be explained.
Star, explain why God would want to bother make evolution and common ancestry appear true be leaving such evidence which indicate it as so. This sort of leaving evidence which is contradictory to his message seems awfully deceptive. God didn't have to leave such evidence, so, why did he bother? Why leave MORE evidence FOR evolution when he certainly didn't have to star.
Hmm...believer, Jethro Tull eh...I was always a "YES", Tales From The Topographic Oceans, man myself.
Star,
"star2 Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:12 pm : 1 : 0 Flag Delete
agentorange
Chromosone 2 Fusion
When God created the universe and everything in it He decided how things were going to work and how they would be combined together."
That's nice star, but this is merely a statement, it's not an explanation of HOW god created the HC 2 to appear like a fusion. You're doing nothing more than 'god dun hath made it' and leaving the HOW (processes and mechanisms, details) up to the imagination of the reader.
In other words, according to you star, God just made the chromosomes *appear* like they were the result of a fusion thus indicating shared ancestry and evolution, but not that it supports the concept. Right so far?
Basically you're implying you believe the same as those who asset 'god put dem fossils in da ground to test our faith!' Except now, it's 'god put dat fusion in our DNA to test our faith!'. Same principle, entirely unscientific and not at all falsifiable and in essence you're tacitly admitting you believe in a DECEPTIVE god, one who purposely puts and leaves additional evolutionary evidence around when he doesn't have to. Awfully theologically dissatisfying to believe in such a deceptive designer/god if you ask me.
Star: 'god just made em *look* fused!'
But if he's God and can do it ANY possible way, why make it appear as if he used evolution? You answer makes more problems than it answers.
"Now, Jones argues that human evolution is at a standstill because one of the crucial engines of evolutionary change, genetic mutation, is stalled."
HAHAHA!! Wow, go figure. Too bad he can't realize that there was no evolution and that's why we have been 'stalled.' We're this way because we've always been this way like God made us.
On another note, we do see mutations and most of them have to have medical operations and can barely survive. Why is this? Usually poor living conditions, alcohol, drugs...the list goes on.
agent, once again I go back to Jethro Tull and their album "Aqualung" when they share with regards to God, that He's not the type of God you wind up on Sunday. We have no right to demand anything of God or to expect Him to perform magic tricks as you call them to prove to us He is God. His Word says if a person truly desires to find Him that He will indeed reveal Himself to him, but He also says that we like sheep have all gone astray each seeking his own way. So if you or anyone else is seriously seeking to find God He will find you. As for how God works He can and does work and speak through the things of nature and even through unsaved people, but please realize there is a huge difference between God allowing as opposed to God making when it comes to events and/or circumstances in our lives. But the bottomline is God's Will will be realized and you and I can either choose to join Him in doing His Will or refuse to join Him in doing His Will realizing there are consequences to either decision we make.
agent, when Christ was in the garden the night before He died He prayed to His Father and asked if were possible for Him to not have to do the task that was before Him that His Father would take it away but He concluded His prayer by saying however if this is what it takes for God's will to be done then He will obey His Father and carry out the task that God has given Hime and He did and now you and I have the opportunity to become a child of God. And that is how God desires all of His children to pray.
agentorange
believer said to agentorange,
"agent, God did warn us about the hurricanes, no one should have been surprised since the National Weather Bureau had been tracking it for days prior to it making landfall and who gave these people the ability to develop the equipment necessary and the ability to also invent and use these devices. Well that credit goes to God alone."
God is the author of our ability to create things:
Exodus 35:30-35
30 And Moses said unto the children of Israel, See, the LORD hath called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah;
31 And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;
32 And to devise curious works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
33 And in the cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of wood, to make any manner of cunning work.
34 And he hath put in his heart that he may teach, both he, and Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan.
35 Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart, to work all manner of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman, and of the embroiderer, in blue, and in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of them that do any work, and of those that devise cunning work.
agentorange
Re:"Star, you should up the antee here, do a real compelling thing like asking burn victims or amputees if you can pray for them and see how that goes."
It has not been nor is it now to my knowldege God's will for me to pray that He restore the limbs of amputees or heal those who have been badly burned.
God decides what what He wants a believer to do that will bring glory to Himself. The believer does not decide that. God will do what He wants to do and through whom He wants to do it through.
Ephesians 2:10 - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
agentorange - The explanations that I gave for the 7 identical ERV's shared between the chimp and the human and the human 2 chromosne fusion are my attempts to explain biblically why it is that way. My explanations have nothing to do with any revelation from God.
Now I did ask God why He created the human 2 fusion chromosone and why there were 7 identical ERV's shared between the chimp and the human but He has not answered me because He said I had to fast and pray for the answer. That is something that I rebelled against at the time. God will not do His part if I do not do my part. When I succeed and God answers then I will let you know.
agentorange
Part A: Human 2 chromsone fusion:
Taken from "Why Darwinism is so Dangerous"
star2 Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:12 pm : 1 : 0 Flag Delete
agentorange
Chromosone 2 Fusion
When God created the universe and everything in it He decided how things were going to work and how they would be combined together.
God created a certain amount of chromosones and divided them according to His will. He decided how many chromosones each type of animal life and, as far as that goes, all life would have.
From what I understand a telomere protects the end of a chromosone from destruction during cell division. The telomeres limit the number of cell divisions that can take place over an animal's/human's (hereafter refered to as 'host's') life span and protects the host cell's chromosones from fusing together or rearranging.
It is genetically impossible for two separate chromosones in an animal to combine to form an entirely different animal.
Since the scientists of our day have determined that the human 2 chromosone is a combination of two separate but nearly identical chromosones in the chimp, then the only explanation as to why that is so is that God designed it that way.
Part B - Explanation for 7 identical ERV's shared between the human and the chimp:
star2 Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:09 pm : 1 : 1 Flag Delete
agentorange
Part B1
Re:Ok, let me simpify it here. ERV insertion into an animal’s genome is ENTIRELY RANDOM. For 2 animals (which already share 98.5% similar nuclear DNA, that would be us and Chimps) to have the EXACT same 7 viral fragments (1 ERV per unique type of virus) and that all 7 be all in same genetic locations of their respected genomes is outside the odds and probability and virtually impossible for both them and us to share the same ones and in the exact same genetic locations. The only way this evidence can be explained is by common ancestry and evolution.
By all means try to explain this evidence without evolution and common descent.
I disagree with your conclusion. There is another explanation for it. When I get it I'll let you know.
ANSWER: The explanation comes from Genesis 1
From Genesis 1 we find the following:
o God is the creator of all things
- space [firmament (atmosphere), heavens (outer space)]
- light in the form of sun, moon, stars
- earth with dry land and seas
- plant life:grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees yielding fruit after its own kind
- fish:each type of fish created after its own kind
- fowl:each type of fowl created after its own kind
- animal life and insects:each type of animal and insect created after its own kind
- humans:Adam and Eve were created in the image of God and after His likeness
o Each creation serves a purpose.
Examples: 1) the lights in firmament divides the day from the night, and is for signs, season,
days and years. 2) Plant life is food for the animals and humans.
o Human life is unique from all of God's creation in that humans were created in the image and likeness of God.
agentorange
star2 Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:07 pm : 1 : 1 Flag Delete
agentorange
Part B2
o God created laws to control the behavior/function of all his creation.
The plant life receive their food from the ground. The genetics that control that are similar or the same.
The laws of genetics that control the biological functions of all animal life is the same or similar. We can deduce this from the fact that animals and humans each consume the same kind of food, and their respective systems process these foods in a similar way. Thus, the genetics that control the consumption of these food are the same or similar.
Hence, the laws of genetics will be the same among the species.
According to Genesis 1 animal life and human life are similar but different. They are similar in the sense that animals and humans can see, hear, feel, smell, taste, reproduce, elimate body waste, etc.. Each require sleep, water. The difference, again, is that Man is created in the image and likeness of God whereas the animals are not.
However, the laws of genetics that control the biological functions of each are the same.
Now, focusing on the great apes, chimps, and humans. It is obvious that the apearance of each of these are simialr. Each have two feet with toes, two hands with fingers, a head, two ears, two eyes, a nose,a mouth with teeth, and a brain. They all have similar abilities. The can hunt for food, make use of tools, they have their own form of communications, and etc. The human,though, is vastly superior to the apes and chimps in his abilities.
God established what all the biological components (DNA, chromosones, genes, etc) were going to be, how they would function, what traits/behaviors they would define, and etc..
When God created each animal He decided what their purpose was going to be in the world and what kind of DNA would achieve that purpose.
Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical. They have exactly the same genetic makeup. God designed it that way. Since the laws of genetics of all living flesh is the same then it would be reasonable to assume that if the human and the chimp was exposed to the sames viruses then the resulting ERV's would be the same in the DNA that is identical between the two species.. So, this is my explanation as to why the human and the chimp have 7 identical ERVs.
hearsay (uncountable)
1) information that was heard by one person about another
2) (law) evidence based on the reports of others rather than on personal knowledge; normally inadmissible because not made under oath
3) (law) evidence: an out-of-court statement offered in court for the truth of the matter asserted; normally inadmissible because not subject to cross-examination, unless the hearsay statement falls under one of the many exceptions
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hearsay
"My accounts are not hearsay; I did not receive the accounts from another individual.'
They don't have to be hearsay to be 3rd party, the simple fact that you have nothing but your word backing the statement makes them by definition 'hearsay acounts'.
HOW can we as an audience ensure your story is correct without *other* lines of independent evidence to confirm or refute it? Should we simply take your word simply b/c YOU say so? No, this is the most illogical reasoning to accept a proposition ever. This would be like me saying to believe in Santa Claus simply be 'I saw it' and 'I say so'. Horrid logic.
How can we vindicate your statements without other evidence star? Think about it.
"It is my personal eyewitness account that I had 100% involvment in. If you don't want to hear it then don't."
I did hear it, it's still worthless without *other* lines of independent evidence. Can you provide evidence for it, say an article or an authoritative documentation of the event? Didn't think so.
See star this is the difference when it comes to things I speak of as they relate to science, for when I mention them I support them based on other lines of independent evidence and not simply by 'b/c I say so' accounts. And what you clam isn't just ordinary, it's extra ordinary. Evidence for a proposition should be relative to how ordinary or extraordinary it is. Thus, ordinary claims require ordinary evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
"But your refusal to hear it doesn't negate the fact that it happened."
Oh I heard it, but it doesn't mean I am buying it, and nor should any rational thinking person. Only a fool accepts such an extra ordinary claim with no hard evidence.
'This is a personal testimony agentorange.'
And this is pretty much why it's worthless. Not b/c it's you per see, but in general eyewitness testimony is unreliable. This is why science testing requires more than simply a single sample or a single subjective eyewitness testimony. Objectivity is needed, as is multiple lines of independent evidence and multiple tests to confirm. You simply saying 'I saw it' aint gonna cut it, only a fool would accept such a low level of critique for accepting a proposition.
Note, how you mentioned in the back example it was 'some back problem' and frankly that is about as vague as it gets, and b/c it's vague it could be anything from chronic back fatigue, to a slipped disc. Details, lets get specific here so it's at least refutable.
I am not saying you're lying, but there are *other* possible explanations here, not to mention the whole problem of eyewitness testimony and how it’s unreliable. Are we certain dog pads can’t reform on their own? Depending on the injury, they might, it’s not a limb after all. If a whole new limb grew back, now that would be impressive. Again, even for this independent evidence is required.
"There were no pads to grow back because they were
entirely missing. All flesh was totally gone down to the bones."
Ok, but as you mentioned (see below) after some weeks the injured parts which were down to the bone had healed back, but just the pads weren't grown back.
“About four to six weeks later I saw Paul again and asked him how Dude was doing. He said that he healed up. I asked if his pads were there and he said "no."
agentorange
My accounts are not hearsay; I did not receive the accounts from another individual. It is my personal eyewitness account that I had 100% involvment in. If you don't want to hear it then don't. But your refusal to hear it doesn't negate the fact that it happened.
"Then why should I bother. "
Exactly. Provide independent supportive evidence for your claims, as opposed to a hearsay account, or it's worthless. Surely something so miraculous you would think would have been documented, recorded, etc. elsewhere right?
agentorange said to star2, " All I am left with is you word for them, which no offense isn't good enough."
Then why should I bother.
"One day I went downtown to Houston to do some street witnessing."
And you can support this story with what independent evidence again?
"He said that he had some kind of problem with his back, that it was getting worse, and that he was going to go see the doctor"
'some kind' huh? I've never heard of such a vague back pain description like that. If it's something minor simple heat packs, chiropractic or reflexology can help.
Star, you should up the antee here, do a real compelling thing like asking burn victims or amputees if you can pray for them and see how that goes. Relieving of some vague 'back problem' wont suffice, especially if you can't support it independently at all. All I am left with is you word for them, which no offense isn't good enough.
agentorange - "Although the pads had healed after many weeks"
There were no pads to grow back because they were entirely missing. All flesh was totally gone down to the bones.
RE:"Personal Testimony - God creating something out of nothing:"
This is a personal testimony agentorange. I am not lying. God is my witness. If you don't want to receive it then so be it.
"I went home, got on my knees and cried out to God to heal Dude.
About four to six weeks later I saw Paul again and asked him how Dude was doing. He said that he healed up. I asked if his pads were there and he said "no." I was disappointed for I thought God would restore Dude's pads back to him."
Ok, so the pads weren't immediately restored, so did you count that one against 'prayer'? No, of course not.
Although the pads had healed after many weeks, they didn't become fully grow back over a quick span of say a few minutes immediately. And why not, that would be more convincing than letting the pads grow back natuarally. Instead the normal recovery process kicked in over numerous weeks. Some miracle.
star,
"Personal Testimony - God creating something out of nothing:"
And you can cooberate and support this story based on what independent evidence again?
By evidence, I didn't mean mere hearsay eyewitness accounts this account of your is irrefutable otherwise and thus pointless. I mean verifiable, and repeated testing and many occasions for a example, a sample size of 1 won't suffice.
"God is soverign agentorange and He does what He choose to do. He does not answer to you or to anyone else."
Ok, so if he's going to do what he chooses to do regardless, why bother praying at all? Seems kinda senseless.
But I guess in your case with praying to god for the answers on ERV's and human chromosome 2 it works out just fine as that way you don't have to explain why you got no answer. Again, if there is no answer, why put such confidence in prayer at all? Asking for an explanation for such evidence isn't asking for much.
"It was not God's will for Hurricane Ike to cease to exist."
Or, maybe he can't undo hurricanes. Or, maybe prayers don't work.
"It was God's will for me to pray as I prayed."
Star, this is essentially a tautological statement as no matter how it would have ended up you can still assert it was gods will. So in any circumstance you can't lose, it's entirely irrefutable and thus nonsense.
Why bothering praying, might as well not pray and see what happens? After all it's 'all gods will in the end right?
"I prayed for a hedge of protection over the roof. That means that God would protect the roof from any harm. No harm was done to the roof. That was a miracle."
Ohhh, why not jus pray for the whole hurricane to stop? Again, if he spare your little ol roof, why not stop the whole thing, ya know, some parting of the seas kinda stuff. Now that would be impressive and
And the electricity and communications, I guess some how your prayers didn't work there then? Why not?
agentorange
" I would love to hear about miracles about peoples limbs seemingly magically regrowing and in mass globally, but again, no this never happens."
Personal Testimony - God creating something out of nothing:
Back in the early 90's, I knew a guy by the name of Paul who had a bassett hound by the name of Dude. Dude came home from a night out one morning and was limping. Examination of his right front paw revealed that Dude had somehow severed the padding of his paw down to the bones. Three of his four pads were gone.
When I saw Dude limping on just three legs I asked Paul what happened. He told me what had happened and showed me his paw. My heart went out to Dude. I went home, got on my knees and cried out to God to heal Dude.
About four to six weeks later I saw Paul again and asked him how Dude was doing. He said that he healed up. I asked if his pads were there and he said "no." I was disappointed for I thought God would restore Dude's pads back to him.
Several weeks later Paul was talking with someone we both knew and he was telling her about what had happened to Dude. Dude was with him. The dog was laying down. I turned Dude over a little so I could show her what Paul was talking about and lo and behold Dude's pads with the grey matter were there. God had restored Dude's pads and grey matter. I am telling you and God is my witness that the pads were entirely gone and now they were there. God created the pads and grey matter out of nothing for it was impossible for that to have grown back on its own. God indeed can create something out of nothing!
Personal Testimony - God has authority over the storms:
One day I went downtown to Houston to do some street witnessing. I stopped to witness to a man who was a security guard for one of the businesses. He said he was Christian but was away from God. After I encouraged him to come back to God I asked him how I could pray for him. He said that he had some kind of problem with his back, that it was getting worse, and that he was going to go see the doctor. He asked that I pray for his healing. I was kind of scared at first at his request. I didn't know if it was God's will or not but I prayed for his relationship with God and asked God to heal him if that was His will. Afterwards, I left.
On my way home God brought to my memory that incident. God had me pray that He would heal the man's back. Then God had me glance to my right, which was west since I was headed south, and I saw a tornado forming. God had me pray that the tornato would not come down. I prayed. The tornato went back up into the air and dissapated.
God is the creator of all things and He has authority over all of His creation. Nothing is impossible for God. God can and does at times intervene supernaturally over nature, weather, and over demonic spirits.
God is soverign agentorange and He does what He choose to do. He does not answer to you or to anyone else.
It was not God's will for Hurricane Ike to cease to exist. It was God's will for me to pray as I prayed. I prayed for a hedge of protection over the roof. That means that God would protect the roof from any harm. No harm was done to the roof. That was a miracle. I was afraid that if any limb hit the natural gas driven lamp post in the yard that it would explode taking out the house and other houses close by or cause natural gas to leak into the air and possibly cause a fire. Not one tree limb fell near the lamp post even though many trees surround it. That was a miracle.
BTW Mr Agentorange, you don't tell God what what to do, He tells you. He is not some servant of His creation that gives to selfish, evil men their every desire. By the kind of statements you make you seem to think that He is some genie in a bottle that will give you what you wish for if you rub Him the right way.
"no it wouldn't because Jesus even said if people saw someone who had come back from the dead there are some who still would not believe."
I am sorry, but if even 1/2 of stuff from the bible was happening on a regular basis and it was always from X god of X religion, even most skeptics would find it very hard to explain in any other way but to infer god exists and pray works. I think asking for a hurricane to stop in response to X religions believers and their prayers isn't asking for too much, and if it occurred enough to the point of being shown that when X religious people pray hurricanes stop 5 miles off shore, I think most skeptics would find this fairly compelling evidence. But alas, we never ever find anything like this. If there are reports of limbs growing back, this too would be pretty compelling. Again, this hasn't occurred yet either.
"He did allow them to happen so His will could be done in these matters"
Yes, but hurricane formation is understood well enough by us to know it's not some magical being poofing them into being, they are the result of natural atmospheric processes and conditions, so natural that they are entirely predictable.
"but I simply have to trust Him and know He does indeed have a purpose in all that happens in our world."
mkay....well, if it's 'God's Will' why must people think they have a right or have the audacity to subjugate this will by asking for it to be abated? Seem a little arrogant, doesn't it?
'no god, I don't like the hurricane comming my way, I realize it's your will and all, but....your plan is bogus, so I am praying to avoid it.'
That is basically what it amounts to.
It's basically a presumed authority on part of the person holding the prayer in which believers are praying and asking god to up and change his mind, as if he doesn't know what he's doing and should now take advice from some humans? Again, awfully arrogant.
agent, heading to the sack, talk more tomorrow and have a good night, believer
agent, no it wouldn't because Jesus even said if people saw someone who had come back from the dead there are some who still would not believe.
agent, God gives us the knowledge but we choose how we will use that knowledge.
Believer,
"not the fruits of man but the fruits of the seeds which God planted in the brains of men, in other words it was our God-given intelligence that allowed us to invent and develop those pieces of equipment used to track the hurricanes."
I see, so in your mind ALL devices always stem from the knowledge ability God granted? Okay, well, that sounds nice and all, but the second you contemplate the knowledge derived and ability to produce things like the Atom Bomb, then by your logic 'this would be from God too!', but then obviously this you can't have, so you'll rationalize this away.
beliver,
"agent, I thought you didn't care for magic shows and then you request some believers to put one on for you? "
If we actually saw some stupendous stuff like that, it would kinda indicate some very unusual, if not supernatural, no? It would, at the very least require explanation for why when people prayed to X god did the hurricane all of sudden just stop a few miles from shore.
Call it a test study on the efficacy of prayer.
But again, no this never ever happens, surely people pray for the hurricane to stop but it never happens. I would love to hear about miracles about peoples limbs seemingly magically regrowing and in mass globally, but again, no this never happens.
agent, when we pray it is totally appropriate to let God know what our desires are in the matter, but more importantly our desire should be that His will be done in all matters. Does that mean that God willed those hurricanes to happen, not necessarily although as a minimum He did allow them to happen so His will could be done in these matters. And no I can't tell you with all certainty what God's specific will was for allowing these hurricanes to happen, but I simply have to trust Him and know He does indeed have a purpose in all that happens in our world. And as I said in an earlier post a large majority of the bad and evil things in the world are ultimately the consequences of our sins.
"I already gave you an explanation but you refuse to listen. All you told me was that you wish I would stop answering your questions."
Star, you've tried in bane to answer just 2 pieces of evolutionary evidence, ERV's and Human chromosome 2 fusion.
First you attempted to sound all scientific, but that didn't last and then in the end you usurped that you'd 'pray and ask God why and for the answers'. After a while, I asked and you said he couldn't tell you, or you never got an answer, or 'it was too hard' or some petty excuse.
So far, nothing, nada, zip, zilch as far the explanation from God on such evidence. Am I right or wrong so far?
agent, I thought you didn't care for magic shows and then you request some believers to put one on for you?
Star, "It was not God's will for me to pray that He would cause Hurricane Ike to cease to exist in the Gulf of Mexico."
Why not? Are you saying it's not possible, or merely that b/c you didn't ask for it directly, it wasn't done?
Again, if he/she/it can cause it to miss or reduce damage to you or you property in particular, why stop there, why not just stop the hurricane all together?
That would after all be something TRULY impressive if a massive level 4 or 5 hurricane came within miles of shore and then poof, it disappeared. But no, nothing like that ever happens. Odd isn't considering how surely at least SOME people must be praying for them to disappear, or so you'd think.
"But it was God's will for me to pray that God would give a hedge of protection over the roof of the house and to protect the natural gas driven lamp post in the yard."
I see, so you prayed God would protect just your natural gas line then huh? and what happened to the rest, like the electricity you mentioned earlier? I think you didn't directly ask God to protect just your natural gas line, but instead said the pray in general and since the gas is in tact you take that as a sign of answered prayer. So illogical. Electricity and communications no, gas lines, yes!
Ummmm, yeah. So God's will only extends to your property then, is that it? Why not pray that the hurricane stopped all together and that way prevent disaster for others? Is it b/c you're only selfish for you and immediate close others well being?
Seriously, why is it pedestrian type prayers are sufficient, if he can prevent damage to just to you, then why not avoid it all together.
agent, not the fruits of man but the fruits of the seeds which God planted in the brains of men, in other words it was our God-given intelligence that allowed us to invent and develop those pieces of equipment used to track the hurricanes.
agentorange
you said to tgender: Tgender,
"At the Final Judgment when you bow your knee before Christ you can ask Him all about ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusions and He will say, "Yes, I was responsible for them..."
Or not....
No, seriously here. I realize Star wont retort on such evidences, but lets hear your explanation for them."
I already gave you an explanation but you refuse to listen. All you told me was that you wish I would stop answering your questions.
agentorange
Re:"One must wonder why your prayers and others prayers didn't help to avoid the hurricane all together?"
Matthew 5:45 - "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
1 John 14-15
14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
It was not God's will for me to pray that He would cause Hurricane Ike to cease to exist in the Gulf of Mexico. But it was God's will for me to pray that God would give a hedge of protection over the roof of the house and to protect the natural gas driven lamp post in the yard.
The property is full of tall trees. There were down tree limbs everywhere but not one fell on the house, the detached garage, nor the storage building, and nothing fell by the lamp post. Now there were a few limbs resting on the roof but those limbs were still attached to their respective trees. The neighbor across the street brough a friend to look at the tree devestation in the yard and they walked away saying that it was luck that one tree that is over 150 yrs old did not have a single limb break off and hit the house. I said to myself, "No, it was God not luck." If a limb would have broken off and it had hit the house it would have crushed in the roof. On the other side of the house, a younger tree, maybe 75+ yrs old, had a large limb break but it fell near the house, not on it. If it had fell on it, it too would have crushed in the roof. It was a miracle. Praise God!
"As for why He did not stop the hurricane well I can only give you my opinion because God has not specifically spoken to the why of these recent natural disasters"
Well that's ok, we never seem to get any real explanations anyway, we always get the typical ad hoc, after the fact explanations. if God can make the hurriancane do less damage to specific areas or people, why not pray to have it stopped all together?
Seriously. I'd love to see a group of believers stand in the oncoming path of a hurricane and with nothing more than prayer to expedite God to move the storm from their path.
"the ability to develop the equipment necessary and the ability to also invent and use these devices. Well that credit goes to God alone"
How so? WE built them, the technology and processes to monitor the activity, these things weren't magically or miraculously created ex nihlo by some deity, these are the fruits of man.
Tgender,
"At the Final Judgment when you bow your knee before Christ you can ask Him all about ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusions and He will say, "Yes, I was responsible for them..."
Or not....
No, seriously here. I realize Star wont retort on such evidences, but lets hear your explanation for them.
believer,
"God did warn us about the hurricanes,"
Ok, to WHO? When? Where? Provide the details that God did and how and lets see how it pans out.
"no one should have been surprised since the National Weather Bureau"
Yes but this is OUR warning system and surely it wouldn't be needed at all if God was beaming and communicating with people prior to the events.
agent,
At the Final Judgment when you bow your knee before Christ you can ask Him all about ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusions and He will say, "Yes, I was responsible for them, but what did you do with my claim that I am the way, the truth, and the life?" Consider carefully this season in your life when you have been presented with the clear claims of Jesus Christ on the entire universe, including your own soul. I implore you to set aside your biases and investigate the identity, mission, and life of Christ. I promise you will find all that you need or could ever want.
agent, God did warn us about the hurricanes, no one should have been surprised since the National Weather Bureau had been tracking it for days prior to it making landfall and who gave these people the ability to develop the equipment necessary and the ability to also invent and use these devices. Well that credit goes to God alone. As for why He did not stop the hurricane well I can only give you my opinion because God has not specifically spoken to the why of these recent natural disasters, but right now sin is reigning rampant in our nation and I do firmly believe God is trying His best to wake us up to our need to repent and turn back to Him. I also see the financial disaster we're in the midst of is also another wake-up call but it was generated by ourselves through our own personal greed and selfishness. Plus, ultimately our sin is at the root of all the negative things we are experiencing such as disease, famine, crime, and so on. It may not be the result of your or my personal sin, but they are the consequences of the sins of mankind since the time of Adam and Eve.
Star,
"The Word of God states that humans were created in the image of God. Thus we are a unique creation of God."
Unique in what way(s) Star?
"We are not animals."
By any objectionable measurement of our anatomy and biology we ARE animals Star, specifically mammalian primates of the ape variety. This is without question obvious to anyone who' taken a basic biology course and understands comparative anatomy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Biology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc
"We were created to live eternally."
And yet our physical bodies break down and we die eventually.
"Evolution is a false science and explains nothing in why life is the way it is."
Evolution can't explain the diversity of life huh Star....mkay, if you say so.
Star, if you're going to make such a bold (and wrong) statement and knowing that previously you know how you've never been able to explain such evidences like ERV's, Human Chromosome 2 fusions and such (did God ever explain these facts to you yet?)......well, that makes you look awfully wrong if not foolish in light of that.
star2,
Regarding God, prayers, and hurricane Gustav. One must wonder why your prayers and others prayers didn't help to avoid the hurricane all together? Why not an advanced warning from the big guy? You say you speak with him, so why weren't you out warning others of the specific time, date, location, etc. of this impending disaster?
agentorange - The Word of God states that humans were created in the image of God. Thus we are a unique creation of God. We are not animals. We were created to live eternally. Humans alone have to give an account of their lives to God. When you die your spirit-soul will return to God for judgment. If you die in your sins then you will spend your eternity in hell separated from God and His love. If you die with having had all your sins forgiven by God because you beleive and accepted God offer of forgiveness thru His Son the Lord Jesus Christ then you will live eternally with God.
Evolution is a false science and explains nothing in why life is the way it is.
You will never find what you are looking for until you come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Star2,
I noticed your quote (Ecclesiastes 3:21), but this seems to be a reiteration of the proverbial question at hand (if animals have souls like humans?) and not the direct answer to it. So it really doesn't explain if they (animals) do or not don't souls/spirits. Keep in mind that according to evolution, we humans are mammals and thus are part of the animal kingdom, so perhaps that can explain something as to deducing that indeed they do too. Well, again, it seems interpretation is needed.
"Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goeth downward to the earth?"
http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/3-21.htm
Tgender,
"Are you now saying the Bible is a source of truth for you? "
No, I am asking you, as this is where are deriving the concept of 'soul' to begin with.
The Word of God indicates that humans and animals both have a spirit. The human spirit is eternal but the spirit of an animal is not.
Ecclesiastes 3:21 - "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"
Ecclesiastes 12:7 - "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
agent,
Don't quote me out of context. In at least two different posts, I said that the souls of animals are much simpler than human beings in several very significant ways.
"Does the bible say other animals have souls?"
Are you now saying the Bible is a source of truth for you?
Tgender,
"I never said animals were identical to us. "
and then earlier you stated...
"But I do hold that animals have souls (as I've said earlier) because they obviously have mind, will, and emotions."
Well, perhaps they're not identical, but their likeness in physicality kinda makes the whole idea of us humans being above it all, or not at all related a little incredulous.
Does the bible say other animals have souls, if so, where?
I thought it mentions us being 'created in the image of God', IE the soul? If this is something unique to humans, then it would seem to refute the idea that other animals have souls.
agent,
"If other animals, in respect to such things like emotions, mind, will, etc, are identical to us or at least some are relatively the same, then where is the specialness of the soul you speak of?"
You don't read very carefully, do you? I never said animals were identical to us. I'm not going to repeat it all here, so go reread my posts. Man is the pinnacle of God's creation because we are made in His image. That includes you, but you suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You claim to be wise, but are not because you reject that creation plainly declares the glory of God. It's not too late agent; seek after God and He will reveal Himself to you in personal way.
Tgender,
"I don't think that animals have spiritual capacities either. This means they can't relate to God nor do they have any sense of morality."
They not being able to communicate spiritually with God, as per they lack religion. But still, animals are for the most part moral and ethical, especially with their closest kin.
If they can't be moral for sake of no spirituality, then why in studies do rats, mice, apes, and others (particularly those with relatively large brains) demonstrate that when they hear a close member of their kin being shocked in response to another individual eating do they instinctively stop eating? They realize their eating is responsible and correlating to others of their kin being shocked every time they eat and in response they soon catch on and stop eating all together.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Greene-InnatenessChapter.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Tgender,
"But I do hold that animals have souls (as I've said earlier) because they obviously have mind, will, and emotions."
Does the bible say other animals have souls?
I thought it mentions being 'created in the image of God', IE the soul?
Can't have it both ways here...
If other animals, in respect to such things like emotions, mind, will, etc, are identical to us or at least some are relatively the same, then where is the specialness of the soul you speak of?
Igh,
"Now on what I posted on brain injury, you know what I meant, stop twisting what I say so you can "win" a point"
My point is that PHYSICAL drugs/chemicals and physical brain trauma affect the chemistry and physical wiring and make up of the brain, so obviously such changes alter ones perception and view of their conscious being, if they didn't then the consciousness of a person would remain the same regardless of physical changes. But we know physical to physical changes do alter the consciousness, inferring that consciousness stems from the physical/material substance of Grey matter and not some immaterial parallel space.
tgender, and I would agree with your view of the soul in animals as well.
Igh,
"Now Gravity is something we know exists but cannot be seen"
We know gravity exists based on EVIDENCE, predictable testing. Gravity can be seen, or at least its affects can be measured, calculated and quantified. It can be measured both directly and indirectly. The soul? Not so much. We can, based on empirical testing, predict how physical mass should act in accordance with other bodies of mass based on principles like velocity. How is the soul supposed to behave, and what evidence supports these statements?
"I am not to worried about the soul being "discovered" I know its real."
Know, based on what evidence? We have fairly good evidence for the existence of gravity, regardless if we don't understand how it originated. The evidence for the existence of the soul....not so much. Evidence for it? I wouldn't cite the scope article, especially if it doesn't support your conclusion.
believer,
"tgender, would you agree that the difference between man and others in the animal kingdom is that we are made up of body, soul, and spirit and as you stated they are only made up of body and soul?"
Yes, that would be an acceptable way of looking at it in my opinion. Since they can't know God or morality, they don't have spirits as you say. I would still hold that animal souls are simpler in structure than ours because we have far greater powers for language, reasoning, creativity, learning, etc.
tgender, would you agree that the difference between man and others in the animal kingdom is that we are made up of body, soul, and spirit and as you stated they are only made up of body and soul?
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:18-22)
There is hope, meaning, and purpose in this world. Turn to Christ to find it.
Agent,
Me: "Arguing that animals have consciousness, language, or even morality does not refute my point in the least."
You: "It does if you hold that premise that non-humans don't have souls."
But I do hold that animals have souls (as I've said earlier) because they obviously have mind, will, and emotions. However, their souls are much simpler than human souls as we have greater capacities for language and reasoning. I don't think that animals have spiritual capacities either. This means they can't relate to God nor do they have any sense of morality. Their immaterial capacities also come from the Creator.
agentorangex , material based assumption isnt something we can throw around when it comes to the soul. Your wording is wrong. If you want to say the soul 'is' and yet not seen thats ok.
Now Gravity is something we know exists but cannot be seen. Some speculate on the "graviton" but as yet have to find it.
Is it energy or something completely totally different from what we know? Like the soul it has yet to be defined by science. Yet they both exist! I am not to worried about the soul being "discovered" I know its real.
And God is science, the Scriptures tell us God holds all things together! Another clue to all he wonderfully made.
I admit his sampling was small and there was interference in his first testing. I found it unhumane. The testing on dogs I find detestable. I am a dog lover :D.
I posted that link because it was all i could find, I said i believed there was more current research on this, but I could not find it. His was all I could find on weight loss after death.
Maybe you will have a better search.
Now on what I posted on brain injury, you know what I meant, stop twisting what I say so you can "win" a point. And try being nice. :)
mathetes
That is good that your house was not affected by Hurricane Gustav.
I went thru Hurricane Ike. The eye of the storm went right over the house. I live in Seabrook, Tx approxiamtely six blocks from Galveston Bay. We evacuated. Had no building damage and no flooding though many were not so blessed. We were without power for 15 days and without cable/internet/phone for 17 days. God was good to me and my friend. God answered my prayers.
Tgender,
"Mental events have the unique properties that the individual having them has private access to them and knows them for certain."
They can't know them for certain if the person has severe brain damage or is under heavy drugs in which not even they are sometimes conciseness of the ongoing of their actions or thoughts. Aka 'Psychotic' or mentally ill/handicapped.
Muhammed Ali is still the same physical being (safe for his damaged brain) but he can't even reflect to the point of acknowledging himself as a conscious being and this is common in brain trauma as the physical makeup of the brain affects ones perception and imagination. Physical affects to the brain affect consciousness, if they didn't, drugs wouldn't work as they do.
"Or try picturing a pink rabbit in your mind. If a scientist was to open up your brain, he could not find a pink rabbit"
Exactly, but that is b/c it's an imagined manifestation not a physically bound one, so just b/c one imagines it (like the soul existance for instance) doesn't make it any more real. Until it can be objectively physically tested then it only exists in your thoughts and not in any tangible sense. Imagining isn't knowing.
But ones morality isn't imagined, it's physically bound to the brain, if it weren't psychotics wouldn't be the way they are from brain chemistry issues.
Igh,
"Seems this is when the soul leaves a body, it has substance and weight!"
If it has substance and weight, then it would be material based, and if it's material based then that would refute Tgenders point of it being immaterial.
Igh, do you read the WHOLE article or not?
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
The article supports the claim that a person tried to weigh people post death and deduce the weight of a soul, but it doesn't support the claims of the soul being deduced by this. It only supports that some person tried to weight a body to deduce the soul.
"MacDougall repeated his experiment with fifteen dogs and observed that "the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.""
Uh oh, now you have to explain WHY Dogs are moral and yet supposedly according to this lack a soul. If the soul provides a moral basis as Tgender and most allege, then why are other animals (dogs) moral in absence of it? =)
"MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should NOT be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiousity, but nothing more."
"It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases:"
This means the results were FLAWED.
tgender,
"Finally, who says meaning is relative? "
We all do. For you, you find meaning in some 'after life' concept, while for others (non-belivers) for instance, b/c they don't have this concept to fall on as meaningful must therefore find other meaning for living and doing good. They might find meaning in their actions in the hear and now regardless of some heavenly dangling carrot. For some, 'family' is their meaning for life, others it's education, others still money, others still popularity, others still power. Ones 'meaning' is relative to their pursuits of happiness and ideals. But in a empirical sense, we all have a meaning or purpose to reproduce as that is what organisms at the most simplistic level do.
tgender,
"Actually, I don't see how an atheist can have any meaning at all."
Perhaps my meaning as of this moment is to define my position in relation to science. =) Take your pick, ones meaning for being can vary.
"Since we all arose from goo and we're headed nowhere, what possible meaning can there be?"
You find meaning if your life now don't you? There is where you're headed. If you think destiny must be a wishful fantasy, one in which no one can provide evidence for, then this is inserting a fantasy as making it ones meaning in place of finding meaning in the here and now.
Igh,
"When the mind is injured to the point it is not possible for anykind of recovery, the person is considered past away."
Muhammad Ali and other brain damaged victims are certainly still alive, but they are not longer consciously the same person.
I think this is pretty much accepted by the Medical community and most all.
mmmm, no. 'clinical death' is defined as when all brain function ceases for a given period of time.
"God can heal in this situation when no one else can"
Too bad Muhammad Ali and those others haven't gotten the memo on this one...
"morality is immaterial-based, and not material-based, because it describes how we ought to behave. There is no way that the materialistic processes of Evolution produce oughtness. If so, then how?"
How we 'aught to behave' is a process based around acknowledging empathy towards others (especially closest kin) which is essential in group cohesion and social functionality in species. As I mentioned, we are basically hard wired via genetics to be moral as the inverse (such as eating ones offspring) is detrimental to the individual species and the health of the social group and thus is self defeating. This leaves the morality as really the only alternative as the inverse is self destructive.
tgener, "First of all, arguing that animals have consciousness, language, or even morality does not refute my point in the least. "
It does if you hold that premise that non-humans don't have souls. (what ever that is?) If they don't have 'souls', they shouldn't have such capacity for things, but they do. So either explain why animals have such things and don't have souls, or it's a moot point.
Hmm all i could find was on Dr. Duncan Macdougall. I thought there was more on current experiments.
Here is the link:
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
Another note:
Studies have been done on when a person dies their soul leaves them. I read this years back.
This was done really quite simply; by weighing them before death and at the exact moment of death, there is an unexplained loss of weight! Seems this is when the soul leaves a body, it has substance and weight!
I will run a search to see if i can find this info.
Just a note:
When the mind is injured to the point it is not possible for anykind of recovery, the person is considered past away. I think this is pretty much accepted by the Medical community and most all.
God can heal in this situation when no one else can. He does this because of his Love.
Even to the Raising of the Dead.
Star2,
Thanks for your kind concern. The levees held through Gustav + Ike. The house is 99.5 percent finished, so as soon as we can, we will have a NOBTSeminary student + his wife move in to watch it for us while we're in MS.
tgender
Thanks for the reply, I quite understand how the I and the soul can seem to become seperate entities in some people minds, its seems on first account a very natural position to take for some, one that is especially encouraged by religious texts from all over the world and down through time. The idea that there is a soul that somehow escapes the closing down of the mind at death is a very powful one.
BW
Steve
Steve,
"However, if I was to cut the top off your skull (sorry to be so gruesome) and scoop your brain out bit by bit, would you still be 'you' after a while?"
Yes, I think I would still be me. That's because I believe that humanity is dualistic in nature: both body and soul. Our bodies are simply the structures that house and animate our souls. Our souls can live on without our bodies, which is what happens when we die. The Christian view is that the souls of believers will eventually be reunited with restored and perfected bodies in Heaven.
agentorangex,
You seemed to have missed my whole point. First of all, arguing that animals have consciousness, language, or even morality does not refute my point in the least. I'm saying these are immaterial features that cannot arise materially. If you think otherwise, then what is the evolutionary mechanism that produces them?
Secondly, to answer your specific question, morality is immaterial-based, and not material-based, because it describes how we ought to behave. There is no way that the materialistic processes of Evolution produce oughtness. If so, then how?
Thirdly, our brains are not the same thing as our minds. Mental events have the unique properties that the individual having them has private access to them and knows them for certain. I know what my thoughts or feelings are just by paying attention to them. I can inspect them, but a scientist cannot do that; all he or she can do is monitor brain states. Take for example the mental event of a sensation of pain. I have private access to my feeling of painâ€â€nobody else is feeling the sensation I have when I am pricked with a pin. Likewise, I know such a sensation undeniably, which means I cannot be wrong about it, whether or not there really is a pin sticking me. Science can neither confirm nor refute this feeling. Or try picturing a pink rabbit in your mind. If a scientist was to open up your brain, he could not find a pink rabbit. You would be having a sensory experience of a pink rabbit, but no picture of a pink rabbit could be found by examining your brain. Thus, the sensory event of imagining a pink rabbit cannot be a physical event of the brain. Therefore, your mind is not your brain.
Finally, who says meaning is relative? Actually, I don't see how an atheist can have any meaning at all. Since we all arose from goo and we're headed nowhere, what possible meaning can there be? Sure, you can invent something, but that too is meaningless. God says that true meaning comes from knowing Him in a personal relationship.
Language - Specifically human communication is different than all other species, but that doesn't mean other animals can't communicate via body clues (body language) and or crude calls, taunts, or barrages of chest pounding while yelling or gesturing. These are just a few of the things animals do in response to circumstances (food, sex, resources, etc.) In recent studies some apes have been taught (Konzi a Bonobo and others) to understand and communicate via abstract symbols instructed to them. Some even understand verbal commands like a dog would, but a little more advanced as it requires some more critical thought and problem solving.
This indicates they do have a slight capacity for written language, but verbally projecting this they likely lack as they don't have the physical brain capacity or wiring to from birth be trained in language verbally.
It might be crude by out standards, but this is none the less a form of communication/language as both mutual parties involved comprehend it and ultimately that's all that matters.
"What is Evolution's explanation for them? "
Morality - again this is a young science, but going back to my previous examples of other animals which behave morally simply for social cohesion and b/c they are empathetic towards their kin. Again, 'hard wired to care'. The inverse, or not acting morality, is not socially conducive, it's destructive and so one shouldn't expect a species which solely eats its own offspring, just as an example. A certain level of morality is therefore intrinsic and required as the alternative would ensure the death of the species from the get go.
Sexuality - this is largely based on specific genes one inherits from conception and depending on the sex the hormones which chemically propel the urges and drive of reproduction. Much of the this is driven by sensory stimulation, in some species it is visual while in others its largely odor based.
Meaning - This depends on what one finds meaningful in life. 'Meaning' is therefore relative, as what is meaningful for you might not work for others. For most, they find meaning in raising a family. It depends largely on what one values, wants, or needs to feel satisfaction.
Tgender,
"I already gave you objective evidence of immaterial realities. Among them include consciousness, rationality, morality, sexuality, emotions, language, and meaning.
Just for an example, how is it objective that morality is immaterial based, and not material based?
I provided the details for how other animals are moral and we don't equate them as having 'souls' or existing partially as immaterial, so why the difference with humans?
Also, all you did is list things which are immaterial, but you didn't define HOW they are immaterial. Simply making a decry with no supportive evidence isn't logical.
Sexuality is immaterial, how so? Details. Ditto for the rest.
"I doubt that you deny the reality of these features of human beings"
I don't doubt their existence, but their existence is physically based, as I tried to demonstrate it how they stem from the physical nature of the brain. Mess with it and you disturb the essence of ones consciousness. If it weren't physical based, then drugs and other physical actions should have no impact on it, but they do.
tgender,
"I said that because that is how you and every other naturalist DEFINES science."
Yes, this is true, this isn't how 'naturalists define science', this is how science works according to the scientific method. Super naturalism need not apply.
Science can only directly study the natural/physical/material world. Though, in regards to studying morality, consciousness, emotions and other brain related functions, these things directly stem from the physical wiring and chemistry of the brain. No brain/nervous system no ability to think let alone become self aware aka 'conscious'. If one suffers direct trauma to the brain it will affect their conscious perception, memories, comprehension and everything associated with brain function. Sometimes the brain isn't too damaged and it can re-wire its neuron connections, but obviously if the physical damage is too sever it can't 're-route'.
I tried to elude to this earlier in my examples of how physical brain trauma (Muhammad Ali) and physical chemical (drugs) affect ones perception as it's a physical to physical reaction. These are physical and chemical actions acting on the physical brain and changing the perception. Thus, in this sense we are scientifically testing the physical chemicals (drugs) and physical brain trauma against the physical nature of the brain. So it is science as it pertains to studying both material against material. This physical to physical cause and affect correlation is where science is excellent at explaining.
Hi mathetes
Haven't seen you in quite awhile. Hope all is well with you. I was thinking about you when Hurrican Gustav went through your area. How did your house in New Orleans make it in the hurricane?
agentorangex,
"Why should we assume the existence of the supernatural or the immaterial (soul) when nothing is there as evidence to substantiate it? What objective evidence is there for the soul, and if nothing substantial why bother believing in such a proposition at all?"
I already gave you objective evidence of immaterial realities. Among them include consciousness, rationality, morality, sexuality, emotions, language, and meaning. I doubt that you deny the reality of these features of human beings. My explanation is that God created man in His image and endowed him with a soul where these features find their origin and expression. What is Evolution's explanation for them? My previous point was that these immaterial aspects of humanity cannot arise from a materialistic-only conception of man, who is made up of chemicals only.
agentorangex,
Me: "Science will never have the tools to discover the immaterial BECAUSE it is limited to discovering the material."
You: "I can't understand why you have so little confidence in science. Many times people, even scientists, were close minded in what would be scientifically possible or discoverable only later to be shown dead wrong."
I said that because that is how you and every other naturalist DEFINES science. According to naturalists, science is the investigation of the natural world and only natural, material causes will be sought and found. I disagree that the universe can only be explained by natural causes, however.
"team in league one,Brighton, beat, yes,BEAT!!!! "
Brighton beat...no Doctor Who...ENGLAND IS FALLING APART!!!
What next...no more chips?
Yeah, Southern England is particularly Orange at the moment.
Can't beleieve it my team in league one,Brighton, beat, yes,BEAT!!!! The Premiership side Manchester City (richestn club in it)the other week in the Carling cup, and I was there...We were 1-0 down at 88 minutes, just how good does it get. Well, the answer to that is, not much better.
Steve
P.s overall score 2-2 and 5-4 on penalties
mathetes, it's going to be in Louisville in conjunction with Southern's Anniversary at Freedom Hall, maybe we can get together there, believer
Steve, thanks, good comments on the other thread (800 scientists). I heard some good accents last night as some lads from our soccer team took part in a table tennis tourney I refereed. I hope you are well and enjoying the change of seasons. I know I am. Cheers.
believer,
There are some who would like to call me as pastor, but teaching at the college level seems to be the best use of my gift, at least for now. No, I won't be at the KBC meeting; I don't think we recruit from that far away. Perhaps we can both go to the SBC next year; any idea where it is?
"This argument stands in stark contrast to those offered by other evolutionists, who now call on humanity to use modern reproductive technologies and techniques designed to enhance the species. Some go so far as to argue that humans must employ these technologies and direct evolution in order to save the species from itself"
Sounds like hitlers eugenics program again...
who will live and who will die? Who will be the "undesireables" they dont want to reproduce?
mathetes, is there any chance they would extend you the call or is that not the direction you and your family are sensing from God? Plus, by chance will you be going to the KBC Annual Meeting in November in Lexington?
Hi mathetes
Don't want to add anything, just saying hello....
Believer, left a mesage for you on the expelled page but "thats" now gone to the back pages after only a day or two....
Steve
Hi, believer! I haven't had time to post, but I try to read the forums a couple of time a week. The dissertation goes in Monday, the church is doing great. I know they are looking at resumes, but several have said they are not in a hurry, that they are excited about what God is doing in our church and community. It's near Paul B. Johnson State Park in south central MS, called Pineview BC.
ifeelfine,
I know Dr. Mohler's academic background; I was trying to help pro-science understand it. As for who you would believe and the foundation of what you take as truth, I believe you.
mathetes: I believe his education is in theology; not any of the biological sciences. I'll take a biologist with a BS over a theologian with a Ph.D regarding evolution any day of the week!
mathetes, spoke like a true Southern Man, seriously how are things going at your church and if you can where is the church?, believer
pro-science,
"Where did you get the idea that the entire scientific community is represented by Steve Jones? Did you think hundreds of thousands of scientists agree with everything Steve Jones says? Did you bother to find out what other scientists said about this? I didn't think so."
Did you bother to read his third paragraph? I didn't think so.
"Mr. Mohler, if you prefer magic instead of science, you need to grow up and educate yourself."
Actually, DR. Mohler probably has more education than you do, and in more fields of study than you do. So who really needs to grow up?
PS: You sure sound like Jerry/ERV/cccc. Any relation?
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. wrote "You heard it from Steve Jones."
Where did you get the idea that the entire scientific community is represented by Steve Jones? Did you think hundreds of thousands of scientists agree with everything Steve Jones says? Did you bother to find out what other scientists said about this? I didn't think so.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. wrote "The Christian worldview offers a far more satisfying, true, and understandable account of human origins and human existence."
The Christian worldview offers magic. Extremely childish magic. Mr. Mohler, if you prefer magic instead of science, you need to grow up and educate yourself.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. wrote " Evolutionary theory is naturalistic by necessity"
Yeah, so what? The same can be said about gravity and every other natural process in the universe. What's your point?
I must stop reading that Stephen King..
tg
First of all many thanks for your answer, I appreciated it.
I have no idea how a pile of chemicals (I'm not completly sure what you are refering to by that phrase, as you might as well write, a collection of quarks) can gain self awareness but it seems to me that the strength of your thinking lies in myself and others not knowing something at this time rather than you putting good solid evidence forward.
As to your question concerning lost limbs. You are right if I was to cut your limbs off one by one then apart fom the obvious psychological effects, you would remain "you", spot on. If however I was to cut the top off your skull (sorry to be so gruesome) and scoop your brain out bit by bit, would you still be "you" after a while? If the "you" is inmaterial there should be no effect, but I doubt that would be the case.
Best wishes
Steve
"science will never have the tools to discover the immaterial BECAUSE it is limited to discovering the material."
I can't understand why you have so little confidence in science. Many times people, even scientists, were close minded in what would be scientifically possible or discoverable only later to be shown dead wrong. Some thought landing on the Moon was just impossible, but science said otherwise.
This is like saying science can never explain the supernatural for it can't directly study it. Though, one must at least realize on face value many things which we thought were supernatural are actually just acts of natural processes, and so presuming super naturalism in sake of the actual natural answer is essentially an appeal to magic, it's placating ignorance. ' I don't know....oh, I know....Magic!'
Why should we assume the existence of the supernatural or the immaterial (soul) when nothing is there as evidence to substantiate it? What objective evidence is there for the soul, and if nothing substantial why bother believing in such a proposition at all?
"If you lose a hand, do you cease to be you? You continue to be you in the face of these losses because YOU are more than your body. YOU are your soul."
Technically in the limb scenario the person (or the consciousness) is the same (minus the limb of course). As the reduction of such a limb has no impact on the brain or the nervous system and therefore doesn't impact how the person morally behaves, it's a moot point as per if it affects ones consciousness or not, the only thing which would affect that would be an injury to the brain.
But lets flip your question on its head. Say, you're injured in an accident and suffer brain trauma and as a result have lost virtually all of your memories from prior and no longer are able to reflect on yourself or communicate with others effectively. This occurs in athelets (Ali) and those who suffer from drug abuse (alcoholics) as these PHYSICAL changes reflect in changes in human perception. This is why so often abusers of Steroids are depression prone and quasi-suicidal. Drugs (can) have a profound affect on ones brain and its chemical imbalances (Zoloft) and therefore these PHYSICAL and CHEMICALS (drugs) are provided in an effort to balance out.
Back to the accident...such a change to the brain would indeed be a physical change and as such the brain will attempt to make new connections (but sometimes can't b/c parts are PHYSICALLY missing!). However this change in physical chemistry, neuron wiring and so on would then impact how one is able to interpret and view the world much less their notions of morality and ethics. In essence, we are OUR brains, physical chemistry wiring and all. Mess with that in a physical manner and you change the outcome of control the person has.
Steve and Agentorange,
Here's a question for you. If you lose a hand, do you cease to be you? How about a leg? How about both arms and both legs? You continue to be you in the face of these losses because YOU are more than your body. YOU are your soul.
I'm still waiting for some explanation of how a pile of chemicals can become aware of itself...
Agentorange,
I think animals have simple souls because they obviously have mind, will, and emotions. However, they are amoral creatures--they have no concept of morality. They have instincts to survive and provide for their young, but no concept of right and wrong.
"I don't see how Evolution can provide the immaterial parts."
Tgener, you contend that we as humans are unique as we have 'souls' and thus know morality, emotions, and so on...but ask yourself this Tgender, if that is true, then why do other animals have an understanding of basic morality (golden rule) and ethics? Then have no 'soul' right? They have nothing to lose in going crazy and killing everything and engaging in total self destructive behavior, so why would they behave morally at all in absence of a soul?
Why do studies show that certain animals, particularly those with advanced nervous systems and relatively large brains, understand things like morality and are genetically hard wired to care while others that lack such advanced organs lack the capacity? Sensing a correlation here.
Mr.Steve Jones is absolutely correct when he states, "The End of Evolution? " as the time is now at hand that people must make a choice to receive the anti-Christ and his chip implant (and go to hell) or to accept Jesus Christ. Irregardless, of how one chooses to believe the time to kill evolution is now upon us and the need for the governments of the world to declare it invalid is at hand so they can accept their dark horse leader whom they will revere eventually as "god".
Agentorange,
"Neuroscience is a relatively young science, you can't expect all the results right now for such a new science, that would be unrealistic."
But what I'm saying is that science will never have the tools to discover the immaterial BECAUSE it is limited to discovering the material. I suspect Evolutionists will try to argue that the immaterial really doesn't exist and they'll try to find materialistic explanations for the kinds of things I've pointed out in my other posts. I don't think it will work.
I'll be gone for the next two days, so I won't be able to respond to anything until then.
"Where did the two atoms come from,?
Huh? What 2 atoms? There are certainly more than 2 atoms in the entire universe, you're not making sense.
"I believe that every human being has an immaterial aspect in addition to our material bodies."
Fine, you believe, but what evidence is your belief based on?
"The immaterial part is where our consciousness, emotions, wills, morality, pain, etc come from"
Naaaa, I already described earlier how other animals have been shown to act in ethical dilemmas and in accordance with morality, so it's nothing unique to just us humans. In the studies rats and mice would starve themselves when they realized their eating was causing others of their species group to he shocked electrically. If that is not ethics or moral, then what is?
And pain is certainly not immaterial, it's material driven, specifically by pain nerve receptors we have, and wouldn't you know it but there are people who have genetic disorders in which they can't feel physical pain, so it's bound to material and that material is DNA.
In the end of questioning human behaviour etc..,there is only one question that evolutionists must answer. Whereas Christians believe that God is and alway was and that He alone made time for man,when sin was introduced through man,the only question is,Where did the two atoms come from,taking in regard the subject of "nothing",and what were their atomical structures or elements? Outside of these questions the non-Christian must live by hope. The hope is that Christianity is wrong and all the non-christianity must do is be a minkey and lay down one day in the dust and not stand in judgement at the White Throne of God,even though he must fully attack and deny his own thoughts as he/she knows God is and He will judge at the end of the day.All else is speculation and desire as in science (true science) Nothing violates the term called Something and if you have the Something then must you state where it came from. Christianity not so much,as it states there is a place,if you will,where time is not and in that place is God.
"None of these immaterial aspects are explained adequately by neuroscience"
First neuroscience is a relatively young science, you can't expect all the results right now for such a new science, that would be unrealistic. Second, from the studies done thus far we can determine why and how we as humans operate in ethical decisions towards others, just as animals do. We, like some of them and in particular apes, have brains and relatively large ones and based on this is where such emotions, reason, consciousness come from. No brain = no ability or capacity for such things.
"How can a lump of chemicals ever naturally produce consciousness?"
Good question, though your question is a bit like asking 'how could a lump of chemicals ever naturally produce energy?' like how stars under the forces of gravity fuse hydrogen atoms. Not too long ago it was beyond our knowledge and capacity to understand how some chemical reactions resulted in this process, but after some scientific inquiry the results were laid bear.
I would suspect that consciousness is, like many facets (emotions, reason, etc.) the end product of having an advanced and relatively large brain with a nervous system. Smaller organisms which lack such complicated nervous systems and lack a relatively large brain don't have the capacity for such things, but the minute details on it I think we're some years from discovering on how small chemical reactions relate to thoughts. We have a fairly good understanding that our brains are driven by certain hormones and respond to given external stimuli in certain manners, but this is a relatively young science.
steve,
I believe that every human being has an immaterial aspect in addition to our material bodies. The immaterial part is where our consciousness, emotions, wills, morality, pain, etc come from. Both parts--material and immaterial--come from God. We typically call our immaterial part our soul. I don't see how Evolution can provide the immaterial parts.
tgender
As you wrote your last message you where self aware etc..where do you think that was coming from? If you don't think that a lump of chemicals (?) cannot naturally produce conciousness then where is yours situated at this present moment. If its not within the matter that is your brain then where?
I am interested to know where you think "you" reside at this time if not in material substances.
Many thanks
Steve
Agentorangex,
"But don't you know, many of these things have been and are being explained by study and research in evolution of the brain and neuroscience. All of these immaterial instances directly stem from a nervous system and the grey matter that makes up the brain."
None of these immaterial aspects are explained adequately by neuroscience. The brain is not the same thing as the mind. How can a lump of chemicals ever naturally produce consciousness? How can life ever get to the point where it is introspective and aware of itself? You simply have not explained how immaterial substances can come from material substances.
"consciousness, emotions, sexuality, language, ability to reason"
But don't you know, many of these things have been and are being explained by study and research in evolution of the brain and neuroscience. All of these immaterial instances directly stem from a nervous system and the grey matter that makes up the brain, no grey matter no instances you mentioned.
Studies have shown that primates, mice, rats and others are ethically bound, they are essentially 'hard wired to care', especially for members of their own species.
Agentorangex,
"I think this is a bit of a tall order for any theory let alone evolution to explain everything about humanity."
Perhaps he means that evolution has to explain the immaterial aspects of humanity such as consciousness, emotions, sexuality, language, ability to reason, etc. It's difficult to see how these arise naturally from a lump of chemicals.
"Evolutionary theory cannot possibly explain the totality of human experience, much less the reality of human origins."
I am skeptical evolutionary theory in and of itself alone will be sufficient in explaining all of humanity or the totality of experience, but certainly it will offer a window onto what we are and how we are based around our biological background that otherwise would be unknown.
As far as human origins, go to a museum for some nice tours on the subject, they have plenty of fossils. Go review a genetics book on the subject too, they all emphatically support human origins via descent.
"That's a cold theory,..."
Cold, really? Is it cold in recognizing in how related we are to the rest of life on this planet? Is it cold to realize that of all the species to have ever existed, we are the only ones to figure out this biological reality? Is it cold to know that this understanding will allow us to improve the quality of our lives? Nothing cold there, it's uplifting and humbling to know this, it's like gazing at pictures from the Hubble telescope, it's what you might call 'spiritual' awaking.