The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Asiaprod

J C wrote:

That may be true – but isn’t it STILL amazing that in rejecting God, Scofflaw confirmed that his heart would rule his head ………
……….a fact that is also confirmed by Ps 14:1a which says “The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God.”:eek:

Ah JC, even your own belief system urges one to listen to one's heart.
I listen to my heart, and I am no fool.

JAMES 1:19-27: DISPOSITION - A difference in one's heart. Verse 21 reads, "... put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." True religion will make a difference in the way you receive God's word. Like the Parable of the Soils (Luke 8), different Christians allow the Word to become implanted to different degrees in their hearts. In some it is deeply rooted and nourished, fed and tended daily. In others it is shallow and only allowed the minimum exposure to its needs to keep it alive. If the latter is our picture, how do we make our hearts more receptive to God's will? The two-fold answer is in verse 21. "Put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness ..." Strive for purity.

Putting his aside,
Happy New Year to you and all who continue to make made this Creation thread a part of Boards i.e. history.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You have been offered a lot of evidence for evolution already on this thread - but perhaps it would be better if we clarified your understanding of how evolution is defined first?

Evidence for Evolution would be nice……….

………………….but even a definition would be good, at this stage!!!!!:eek:

...............still waiting .......................and waiting..........though!!:D

Do..............you........
.......have.....................
...............Alzheimer's?

You were given a definition a few pages back (page 215, top post). And, I think, several pages before that (corrected: on the same page, a few more posts down). And before that. And before that. In fact, you keep asking for the definition, and have been given the definition repeatedly, and still you don't seem to have the slightest clue what it is. Do you not read the definitions? Or do you not understand them?

Still, here you are again - from, you know, the page on "Evolution" at Wikipedia (you're familiar with Wikipedia? good, good.) - we can discuss it in relation to your preferred term of "macro-evolution" (since you prefer not to define it, but keep talking about it, I shall help you define it, alright?):

Wikipedia wrote:

In biology, evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations. This includes both pre-existing traits as well as new traits introduced by mutations. Over time, the processes of evolution can lead to speciation: the development of a new species from existing ones. All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor.

Natural selection is a key part of this process. Since some traits or collections of traits allow an organism to survive and produce more offspring than an organism lacking them, and genes are passed on by reproduction, those that increase survival and reproductive success are more likely to be passed on in comparison to those genes that do not. Therefore, the number of organisms with these traits will tend to increase with each passing generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

Other mechanisms of evolutionary change include genetic drift, or random changes in frequency of traits (most important when the traits are, at that time, reproductively neutral), and, at the population level, immigration from other populations can bring in new traits ("gene flow") and the founder effect, in which a small group of organisms isolated from the main population will have more of the traits of the founders for many generations after isolation, even when some of the traits are detrimental.

Now, to my certain knowledge you agree that Natural Selection works, and that speciation occurs - indeed, rapid speciation.

You have shifted the goalposts somewhat since the start of the year (is it time for a retrospective, with highlights?), of course, from your original claims that speciation either didn't occur, or only occurred restrictedly within genus. This is apparently based on the need to restrict speciation within "Created Kinds". Since there is no agreement on what Created Kinds are, or how they can be determined, this limit is obviously movable - up to roughly the Class level in some cases.

In turn, this means that you have to actually accept that "speciation" includes changes up to the Class level, since these have, by your "devolutionary" hypothesis, occurred since the Flood - indeed, have occurred more rapidly than evolutionary biology would accept.

In any case, the originally claimed limit seems entirely ridiculous - biological taxonomy is based on evolutionary theory, so it seems rather surprising that Created Kinds would somehow be constrained by it (well, unless you consider that in this, as in all things, Creation Science merely apes science without understanding it).

To my certain knowledge, you disagree that mutation can introduce "new and useful" traits, although apparently you are happy that it can introduce new and lethal traits. This is, apparently, based on a combination of "the unlikeliness of randomly producing something useful" and the "tightly specified complexity" of living systems. The former argument appears to consist entirely of pretending that proteins need to be generated entirely randomly from scratch every single time - the latter argument is terribly vague, because there is no definition of "tightly specified complexity".

However, you agree that Natural Selection works - but only, as far as you are concerned, on "pre-existing diversity" and "lethal mutations" - because mutation cannot produce useful traits de novo. The frame-shift mutation that produced a nylon-digesting enzyme completely refutes this argument (both by producing something new and useful through random mutation, and by being a non-lethal mutation in a "tightly specified" system), so you have chosen variously to ignore it, claim it's not real, claim it to have been pre-existing (despite the evidence), or claim that nylon digestion is neither new nor useful.

So, based on the above, can we see a fuzzy outline of the term "macro-evolution"?

1. it cannot mean mere speciation, nor even the production of entire families or classes of organisms from pre-existing organisms - because Creationism assumes this to have happened post-Flood.

2. it cannot mean the progressive change of organisms by natural selection, since Creationism accepts this, and indeed it has been repeatedly verified experimentally.

3. it cannot mean the change of organisms by mutation, since Creationism accepts that this happens, although they prefer to believe (again, despite experimental evidence) that mutations can never be beneficial.

4. it cannot be defined or limited in terms of evolutionary theory's taxonomic classification, since this classification is meaningless if Creationism is correct.

We must take "macro-evolution", then, to mean the major radiation of organisms from fewer, simpler organisms to more, and more complex, organisms. In addition, it appears to indicate the "whole story" of evolution - the story of life on earth that evolution supports. It is, if you like, the "big picture" of evolution.

Now, in a "critical" and psychological sense, this should hardly surprise us, since the Bible is a "big picture" thing itself. Indeed, Genesis, which purports to tell the "whole story" of life on Earth, is shorter than many academic papers. However, the "big picture" of evolution is a tapestry, only built up out of millions of interwoven threads - whereas the Bible, even if it were correct, is still a roughly sketched outline. Perhaps even more cogently, the Biblical account can never be authoritatively expanded upon, without fresh revelation - true, speculation can try to fill in the details, but these speculations have no authority, because they can never be Biblically justified.

Further proof of the idea that the term "macro-evolution" is really short-hand for "the story of life on earth that arises out of evolutionary theory" can be found in two further points - that "macro-evolution" encompasses both the teleological story of the "ascent of man" (the "upward progression" from "muck to man"), and also the origin of life itself (biogenesis). Neither of these are part of the Theory of Evolution, since the first is a straightforward error, and the latter a separate field of enquiry unrelated to the Theory of Evolution.

Fortunately for the Creationist, the absurdities they have chosen to build into "macro-evolution" makes the term automatically indefensible (I'm sure you're as surprised as I am). Teleology forms no part of evolutionary theory, gratifying as it is to the human psyche - we are not the "high point" of evolution, and evolution goes neither "up" no "down" - it does what it needs to do to survive, and it survives one generation at a time. Biogenesis, while indisputably a fact, is simply not part of evolutionary theory - it is simply the "black box" from which life emerges.

So, let us be content, then, with the discovery that "macro-evolution" simply means "the story of life on earth that arises out of evolutionary theory and other fields of scientific enquiry". Hardly a surprise, but hardly any more provable than any other narrative - Creationists pick at the details, but what they are fighting is the big picture, which they assume we feel is provable and defensible in and of itself. It is not - the detail is both what is 'provable and defensible', and also what 'creates' the big picture.

There is, therefore, little point in asking anyone to defend or justify the big picture that evolution provides without reference to the details that produce it - nor is there any value in claiming it cannot be proven, since, of itself, it cannot be. If that is what you are waiting for evidence of, you have a long wait ahead of you.

If, on the other hand, you would like us to prove or defend the theory of evolution, we will be happy to oblige.

Also, of course, a very happy and prosperous New Year to all!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

We seek it here, we seek it there – that elusive Evolution EVI_DENCE!!:eek:

It has been provided to you hundreds of times JC. Every time evidence for something you demand is provided you simply ignore it, move on to discussing something else, and then about a week later state that there is no evidence for it has ever been given.

Strange that we are still waiting on the evidence of these original "kinds" that you claim were on the ark actually existed. When asked for anything to do with Creationists theories you simply give a rather pathetic "Creationists are working on it..." answer. What does that even mean? Working on what exactly? Inventing evidence...?

J C wrote:

That may be true – but isn’t it STILL amazing that in rejecting God, Scofflaw confirmed that his heart would rule his head ………
……….a fact that is also confirmed by Ps 14:1a which says “The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God.”:eek:

Except Psalms is wrong ... which is confirmed by Psalms ... see we can both play that game :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

The Word of God is valid truth whether or not one accepts that God exists or not!!!:D

There is too many idiotic things wrong with that sentence I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and put that down to you being drunk at new years :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

She was obviously a well-know adulteress – and therefore easily ‘caught in the act’ so to speak.:cool:

"Obviously" to whom? She can be anything you like if you want to just start making things up. Hell, why not make her the whore of Babylon?

J C wrote:

However, she was guilty (as indeed proven by Jesus Christ’s parting words to her "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Except Jesus says that to everyone, and everyone is a sinner.

J C wrote:

The fact that they brought this woman into the Temple was because their desire to destroy Jesus Christ’s credibility overcame their 'religious sensibilities' about whether this woman was ‘unclean’.

Yet they were such good men that they wouldn't pick an innocent woman. Yup, that holds up :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

I ask you, what dilemma would there be for Jesus in finding an innocent person, innocent ?
– NONE.

But he was supposed to believe these men. That is the whole point. They said she was guilty so he was supposed to judge her. They would then say Jesus has judged wrong, how can be be the son of God. Yet he knew she was innocent. He knew she was innocent and called their bluff. Their sin was falsly accusing her. The story makes no sense at all otherwise.


What dilemma would Jesus have been in if she was guilty? There was no deliemma is she was guilty at all. If she was guilty under Jewish law she would have to have a trial. Witnesses would have to be called etc. If she was guilty she would not have been punished then and there either way, and Jesus would not have even been expected to make a judgement then and there. If you know anything about Jewish law the story makes no sense in its traditional understanding, that these men wanted Jesus to stone her then at there. Under Jewish law, never mind Roman law, that would have been wrong. If she had been guilty Jesus could have simply said, right we will have a trail and witnessess will be called etc.

The story makes no sense at all unless the woman is innocent.

J C wrote:

The woman DIDN'T say she was innocent either

She didn't have to, Jesus knew she was innocent. That is the whole point of the story :rolleyes: The woman doesn't speak until the very end, and she certainly doesn't repent or admit guilt.

J C wrote:

and the accusers wouldn’t have taken the risk of falsely accusing her

Why not? What would have happened to them? Would it be worse than bringing a known sinner into the temple? That would have resulted in death? But who would punish them for making a false claim to Jesus? No one, since the elders had told them to do it.

J C wrote:

Oh, NO they didn’t.

Oh what, you think they would suddenly realised that 2000 years of Jewish law about stoning adulterous woman was wrong just because Jesus, who they hated, did not follow and certainly did not believe was the Son of God, told them to not judge lest ye be judge. Cop on. You think they would care anything about that because Jesus said it? That ridiculous interpretation of the story makes absolutely no sense. They did all this just to walk away because Jesus said walk away. Maybe he should have tried that with the Romans. You make Jesus sound like a Jedi mind trick .. "You don't want to stone this woman, she is not the woman you are looking for, move along" :rolleyes:

No they left because their bluff had been called and they had nothing left. She was innocent, they were the sinners for bringing her up on false charges.

J C wrote:

……….and that was the uncomfortable position that the woman’s accusers found themselves in.

Like I said, it is ridiculous to think that these men would simply abandon 2000 years of Jewish law because Jesus said so. They weren't judging sin, the law was judging the sin. The reason this woman was not guilty was because she had not done anything. If she had done this there would be no problem, and the men would certainly not just walk away because Jesus told them to.

In fact if she was guilty that would have been all the proof these men needed that Jesus was not following Jewish law and was not the Messiah. If she was guilty and Jesus had found her guilty nothing would have happened. How was that a dilemma? Scholars have been pointing this out for hundreds of years. Jesus would not have stoned her then at there. He would have not even been expected to judge her then at there. Without witnesses to the event and the other part present it would not have been following the law anyway. If she had been guilty Jesus doing what he did would have been a god sent (pun intended) for the men, since he was instructing them to ignore Jewish law. Jewish law has never said don't condemn unless you are free of sin, since no one is free of sin, that is the point of sin. If that was the basis for the law no one would ever be held accountable in life for anything. Jesus certainly wouldn't have been teaching that. He said he had not come to destroy the law. Jesus telling them to just forget about this womans guilty would have been ridiculous. The men probably would have denounced him then and there and strung him up, which is what they were looking for a way to do.

The only way the story makes any sense if you know anything about the time is if the woman is innocent.

J C wrote:

Had Jesus merely asked ‘all accusers without sin’ to cast the first stone (without listing THEIR sins for them) – there would have been a veritable stampede of self-rightousness !!!:D

Show me the passage in the Bible where it says that he listed their sins on the ground. You aren't inserting stuff again are we JC?

J C wrote:

It is body language that indicates repentance – and not what one says – and Jesus Christ was able to read her heart – just like He reads your heart and mine!!! :cool:

Please quote the passage in the Bible that details the woman's body language (grasping a bit here JC are we :rolleyes:)

J C wrote:

Well, Jesus Christ certainly believed that she had repented

Quote where in the Bible it says Jesus says she repented.

J C wrote:

I also don't believe that she repented because she was about to be stoned – because there was nobody left who wanted to stone her!!!

What? You are claiming Jesus forgave her because she repented. So he must have forgiven her when everyone was around. Yet now you claim he forgave her because she repented and she only repented after everyone left. Nonsense.

The fact is she didn't repent at all (it is never mentioned in the Bible, she never says she repents, she never suggests it with body language, and Jesus never says he believes she has repented), because she had not done anything. Jesus call the men's bluff and they left because the had sinned by bringing an innocent woman in front of him to be judged.

J C wrote:

I have added nothing – nor have I taken anything away, from a plain reading and a logical interpretation of the text.:cool:

You have added nothing except for an entire description of her body language, what she is supposed to have said, what Jesus is supposed to have wrote on the ground, and what Jesus is supposed to have been thinking at the time. :rolleyes:

So appart from enough to fill another page on the event, no JC you haven't added anything to the story :rolleyes:

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

.

"the Scofflaw hath said IN HIS HEAD, There is no God" (there, I have even followed your eccentric punctuation, to make it easier for you).

The add-on is "the Scofflaw hath said IN HIS HEART, I reject God".

cordially,
Scofflaw

I accept that this is your belief position - and I wasn't calling YOU a fool -
your postings clearly show you to be a highly intelligent and thoughtful person.

My primary use of the verse “The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God”, was to make the point that our acceptance or indeed rejection of God comes primarily from the HEART.

Please, note that in both the original and the above quote I emphasised the words 'in his heart'.

I also personally believe that it is foolish to reject God's salvation - but that is me, and you are you - and fully entitled to your opinions!!!:)

BTW, why did you refer to yourself in the third person as 'the Scofflaw'??

Zombrex

J C wrote:

My primary use of the verse “The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God”, was to make the point that our acceptance or indeed rejection of God comes primarily from the HEART.

If that was your aim then you are using the wrong verse then :rolleyes:

The verse you quote clearly states "The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God"

Scofflaw has explained (a number of times) that his stance that there is no god (at least your Abrahamic god) is based on logic and reason, not emotion.

On the other hand his stance that even if your god existed he would reject it as a god worth worshipping comes from a moral position, ie the heart.

J C wrote:

I also personally believe that it is foolish to reject God's salvation

Based on even a brief reading of the Old Testament your god is clearly willing and capable of carrying out hidieously immoral and cruel acts. Some people believe that personal reward is not enough to forsake a sense of morality or a sense of right and wrong, and as such would reject worshipping an immoral god even if it means they are forsake the rewards of doing so. If you think that is foolish that is fair enough.

Scofflaw

For all sides:

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

"Because beliefs are designed to enhance our ability to survive, they are biologically designed to be strongly resistant to change. To change beliefs, skeptics must address the brain's "survival" issues of meanings and implications in addition to discussing their data."

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Son Goku
The fact that he "Was a Nobel Laureate........", doesn't matter a damn. What makes Schwinger great is the fact that he built QFT. Using his own intuition, he managed to combine Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity. Compared to that his Nobel prize, e.t.c. don't mean a thing.

Of course, the fact that Prof Schwinger was a Nobel Laureate ‘matters’!!!

……..come on Son Goku, there are many ‘top physicists’ but very few have earned a Nobel Prize!!

……..and when a Nobel Laureate speaks about matters concerning their field of expertise their pronouncements SHOULD be given due weight.:eek:


Son Goku
are you claiming that one is better than the other?
If so, which one?

What makes Schwinger great is the fact that he built QFT. Using his own intuition, he managed to combine Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity.

I think that you have just answered your own question!!!!:D

In any event if I have to choose, I always ‘go’ with mathematical rigour.


Son Goku
Due to massive experimental evidence against it, cold fusion was thought to be impossible. However, because he was rigorous, Schwinger wanted to prove it wasn't possible. Schwinger thought that it was either impossible or possible under extreme circumstances.

Was there REALLY ‘massive experimental evidence against’ Cold Fusion’??

…..and WAS Schwinger REALLY trying to prove that Cold Fusion wasn't possible??


Certainly, Prof Schwinger, had the following VERY POSITIVE things to say about Cold Fusion – and he seemed to believe that it HAD been demonstrated to exist (although maybe not yet repeatably):-

(In all cases emphasis is mine)

“As an old Nuclear Physicist I was, of course, very excited by the remark………
…………..that “the bulk of the ENERGY RELEASE (in Cold Fusion experiments) is due to a hitherto UNKNOWN NUCLEAR PROCESS or processes (presumably due to clusters of deuterons)”.

“it is clear that cold fusion and hot fusion are QUITE DIFFERENT physical domains”.

“It is not possible to totally isolate the effect of the electric forces from that of the nuclear forces. The correct treatment of Cold Fusion will be free of the collision-dominated mentality of the hot fusioneers”.

“it is NO LONGER POSSIBLE to lightly dismiss the REALITY of Cold Fusion”

“(although) the authors concluded that fusion in the lattice is highly improbable. To the contrary, I propose to accept their hypothesis as a basis for ATTEMPTING TO VALIDATE the Cold Fusion concept.”

Prof Schwinger then went on to outline the possible mechanisms behind Cold Fusion:-

“(The case against Cold Fusion) is based on preconceptions inherited from experience with hot fusion………….(but Cold Fusion) is characterised by intermittency in the PRODUCTION OF EXCESS HEAT, tritium and neutrons. A scenario is sketched, based on the hypothesis that SMALL SEGMENTS OF THE LATTICE can absorb RELEASED NUCLEAR ENERGY.

“One must look for something that is characteristic of Cold Fusion, something that does not exist in the plasma regime of hot fusion. The OBVIOUS ANSWER IS THE LATTICE in which the deuterium is confined.”

“INTERMITTENCY is the hallmark of Cold Fusion …………..it may happen that a microscopically large – if macroscopically small region attains a state of such lattice uniformity that it can function collectively in absorbing the excess nuclear energy that is released in an act of fusion. And that energy can initiate a CHAIN REACTION as the vibrations of the excited ions bring them into closer proximity. So begins a burst."

“in contrast with the vacuum, the lattice is a dynamic system, capable of storing and exchanging energy. The initial stage of the new mechanism can be described as an energy fluctuation…………
…….for the final stage ………a resonant situation exists leading to AMPLIFICATION, rather than Coulomb barrier suppression.

Prof Schwinger then went on to anticipate and answer a possible objection based on the great disparity between atomic and nuclear energy scales – and he showed how a very different but analogous process (sonoluminescence) also depends on substantial non-linear effects.:D


Son Goku
The journal referees thought that the case was pretty much closed,

Cold Fusion was a BRAND NEW area of scientific endeavour, in it’s infancy, so to speak – and the phenomenon hasn’t even been properly studied yet – so how could ‘the case be closed’??


Son Goku
so there was no point in publishing papers that talked about the subject, when there were other papers that needed place in the journal.

**Breakthrough ideas by the one of the top Nuclear Physicists on Earth, on a potentially inexhaustible environmentally friendly energy source are not worthy of publication ????……….


**Another breakthrough and its associated patent application on the low-energy electrolysis of water to yield a potentially inexhaustible supply of pure oxygen and pure hydrogen fuel hasn't been published ....


**And numerous scientific papers on the identification and measurement of Intelligent Design in living organisms haven't been published ....


Asiaprod
Ah JC, even your own belief system urges one to listen to one's heart.

I know, I have never denied that we are saved by faith – which is a phenomenon of the Heart!!!

However, we can ALSO seek and observe EVIDENCE for the existence of God with our HEADS.:D

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Son Goku
The fact that he "Was a Nobel Laureate........", doesn't matter a damn. What makes Schwinger great is the fact that he built QFT. Using his own intuition, he managed to combine Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity. Compared to that his Nobel prize, e.t.c. don't mean a thing.

Of course, the fact that Prof Schwinger was a Nobel Laureate ‘matters’!!!

……..come on Son Goku, there are many ‘top physicists’ but very few have earned a Nobel Prize!!

……..and when a Nobel Laureate speaks about matters concerning their field of expertise their pronouncements SHOULD be given due weight.:eek:

When the man who made QFT speaks about it, he should be listened to, because he will have interesting things to say. You've got it all backwards, as I knew you would. Schwinger has a Nobel prize and makes statements that can be twisted to be anti-establishment and slightly supportive of your position. That is all you recognize, not the actual content of his work.

If he hadn't have won the Nobel Prize you wouldn't quote him, because you don't recognize achievement in science outside "prestige". He would still be just as great though.

Look at how you introduce him:

Prof Schwinger was a Nobel Laureate, who had supervised more than seventy doctoral dissertations (making him one of the most prolific graduate advisors in physics) and he also had FOUR students who have won Nobel prizes.

(I don't understand why you needed to say this anyway, it's not like I need a mini-biography of Schwinger to understand your point.)

Imagine if I wrote something similar like this:
Albert Einstein was a Jewish-American Nobel Laureate, who collaborated would over twenty other individuals, including several other Nobel Laureates. His work has one of the highest citation ratings of the twenty century
instead of
Albert Einstein revolutionized our view of space, time and gravity.....

The sad thing is I've actually heard people argue against relativity by saying "Yeah, but Einstein didn't win the Nobel Prize for that".

J C wrote:

I think that you have just answered your own question!!!!:D

In any event if I have to choose, I always ‘go’ with mathematical rigour.

So you are saying you think Schwinger's approach was better. You didn't understand what equivalent meant then, but regardless.
That's certainly different since it is used rarely these days. What do you prefer, aside from the rigour?

J C

Scofflaw
we can discuss it in relation to your preferred term of "macro-evolution"…..
…………
We must take "macro-evolution", then, to mean the major radiation of organisms from fewer, simpler organisms to more, and more complex, organisms. In addition, it appears to indicate the "whole story" of evolution - the story of life on earth that evolution supports. It is, if you like, the "big picture" of evolution.

I agree.


Scofflaw
Further proof of the idea that the term "macro-evolution" is really short-hand for "the story of life on earth that arises out of evolutionary theory" can be found in two further points - that "macro-evolution" encompasses both the teleological story of the "ascent of man" (the "upward progression" from "muck to man"), and also the origin of life itself (biogenesis).

I agree.


Scofflaw
Neither of these (the "upward progression" from "muck to man" or the origin of life itself / biogenesis) are part of the Theory of Evolution, since the first is a straightforward error, and the latter a separate field of enquiry unrelated to the Theory of Evolution

OK – so ARE you saying that Man DIDN’T evolve from primordial pond slime – IF as you say the ‘upward progression’ from ‘muck to man’ is “a straightforward error”?:)

If you are saying what you seem to have said – that ‘Evolution’ DOESN’T purport to explain the gradual progression of Pond Slime to eventually produce Mankind – and it is merely ‘genetic drift’ via Natural Selection within closely related organisms then I have no fundamental scientific problem you’re your variety of ‘Evolution’.

However, you would seem to have a very big problem explaining the origins of the genetic information possessed by ALL organisms now that you have (correctly) classified all “upwards progression” of genetic and anatomical complexity as “a straightforward error”.:eek:


You have stated that “the origin of life itself (biogenesis) is “a separate field of enquiry unrelated to the Theory of Evolution”. A separate field of enquiry therefore - to which gradual evolutionary mechanisms don’t apply to presumably. Again I have no problem scientifically separating the Creation of life from it’s unfolding via speciation / NS, etc.

However, you would seem to have another very big problem explaining the origins of life, (whilst presumably excluding the possibility of Direct Creation) now that you have (correctly) classified the idea that life originated via Evolution as incorrect.:eek:


Scofflaw
Teleology forms no part of evolutionary theory, gratifying as it is to the human psyche - we are not the "high point" of evolution, and evolution goes neither "up" no "down"

The idea that a creature like Mankind (or indeed any other Mammal) isn't vastly more ‘information dense’ that Pond Scum is logically unsustainable.
........and you are saying that ‘Evolution’ CANNOT explain or justify it’s claim that Pond Slime gradually progressed to eventually produce Mankind.


Scofflaw
Biogenesis, while indisputably a fact, is simply not part of evolutionary theory - it is simply the "black box" from which life emerges.

A “black box” Eh,- so you admit that you haven’t a clue HOW life arose – and therefore Direct Creation is the superior (and indeed the only) current scientific explanation for how life originated.:D


Scofflaw
There is, therefore, little point in asking anyone to defend or justify the big picture that evolution provides without reference to the details that produce it - nor is there any value in claiming it cannot be proven, since, of itself, it cannot be. If that is what you are waiting for evidence of, you have a long wait ahead of you.

So macro-Evolution has no evidence in support of it’s validity ??

Is this a ‘towel being thrown in’ I see before me???:eek:


Scofflaw
If, on the other hand, you would like us to prove or defend the theory of evolution, we will be happy to oblige.

If the Theory of Evolution has now ‘shrunk down’ to Natural Selection on pre-existing genomes with a little mutation thrown in, I have no scientific argument with such a concept.

……..but such a Theory can only explain how a Moth population changes from 20% Grey / 80% Brown to 20% Brown / 80% Grey - and back again.

……….it DOESN‘T explain how a Moth could eventually produce a Man – or indeed where the Moth came from in the first place!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
But he was supposed to believe these men. That is the whole point. They said she was guilty so he was supposed to judge her. They would then say Jesus has judged wrong, how can be be the son of God. Yet he knew she was innocent. He knew she was innocent and called their bluff. Their sin was falsly accusing her.

If she was innocent, why did Jesus ask her “has nobody CONDEMNED you”.
…….and why would He then say to her “neither do I CONDEMN you” - for what, being an innocent person?


Originally posted by J C
However, she was guilty (as indeed proven by Jesus Christ’s parting words to her "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Wicknight
Except Jesus says that to everyone, and everyone is a sinner.

Everyone is a sinner alright.

…….but did Jesus tell EVERYONE that He didn’t condemn them??

What did He say to the unrepentant Pharisees ?
……..or what did He do to the unrepentant Money Changers in the Temple?


Wicknight
it is ridiculous to think that these men would simply abandon 2000 years of Jewish law because Jesus said so. They weren't judging sin, the law was judging the sin. The reason this woman was not guilty was because she had not done anything. If she had done this there would be no problem, and the men would certainly not just walk away because Jesus told them to.

Yes, they had spent 2000 years judging LAW – with no problems.
However, what Jesus pointed out, was that they were actually judging SIN – and faced with this reality and their own sins, they then became UNABLE to judge or CONDEMN this woman.

You are correct, that they would certainly not have just walked away because Jesus told them to – in fact He said NOTHING to them – He wrote on the ground.
You are right to point out that we DON’T know what He wrote on the ground – but whatever it was, it stopped 2000 years of Law ‘in its tracks’.


Wicknight
who would punish them for making a false claim to Jesus? No one, since the elders had told them to do it.

They would have been OPENLY breaking the Ninth Commandment, if they were bringing false witness against this woman – and if they HAD decided to take such a risk, then surely they would have ‘seen it through’ by continuing on with their witness – the alternative would have meant death (or at least severe condemnation) for whoever made the accusation??

.....and the Elders couldn't and indeed wouldn't protect them from the consequences of such overt law-breaking. The Elders certainly didn't believe themselves to be God - and therfore they would have been unable to forgive breaches of the Ninth Commandmnent - charges which Jesus Christ, for one, might press home against the mob, if they turned around and confirmed the woman's innocence, after He had convicted her on their word!!!!

Also, what do you think that an innocent woman would have done in the circumstances – she would have come in screaming her innocence from the roof-tops – unless you are saying that she was ‘in’ on the supposed charade as well?

So now we have a mob of people and a woman (who allows herself to be falsely accused of a capital crime) just to trick Jesus!!!
....and in order for the trick to work - the accusers would then have to confess to breaking the Ninth Commandment (another capital crime)themselves!!!

Sounds like a 'great plan' - that was practically guaranteed to destroy everybody associated with it EXCEPT Jesus!!!:D


Wicknight
If she had been guilty Jesus doing what he did would have been a god sent (pun intended) for the men, since he was instructing them to ignore Jewish law

It would have horrified them to the point where they wouldn’t even consider it a possibility.
NOBODY could forgive sin – except God (and His longed-for Messiah) – so the idea of anybody forgiving this woman her sins and not condemning her for them would be unthinkable - IF or WHEN a conviction was secured by two witnesses testifying against her!!!

Of course, the way the authorities 'squared this circle' up to then was to ignore her adultery - but now in their desire to 'get' Jesus they decided to bring this case to Him to test His bona fides in upholding the Law and His often stated compassion for repentant sinners.

Equally Jesus didn’t ignore Jewish Law – the case legally collapsed when all of the witnesses left one by one.

But the real question is what brought about such a dramatic ‘change of heart’ among the witnesses????


Wicknight
Jesus telling them to just forget about this womans guilty would have been ridiculous. The men probably would have denounced him then and there and strung him up,

That was probably one of the outcomes that they expected – because of His perceived ‘softness’ on sinners – and you are correct that they would have moved against Him for it.

As it was, when faced with their own sins, all of the witnesses ‘lost their stomach’ for proceeding with a trial – and the case legally collapsed

None of them were without sin – and so none of them felt able to ‘throw the first stone’ – even though she was guilty of the sin of Adultery!!!

Why would Jesus ask those without sin to cast the first stone (or indeed any stones) if she was innocent – and why didn’t He say that he found her to be innocent of the charges brought against her - thereby fully clearing her good name?


Wicknight
Show me the passage in the Bible where it says that he listed their sins on the ground.

You tell me then, what you believe He wrote on the ground, that had such a profound effect on the mob.

…….and show me the passage that confirms her innocence – and the passage that states that the mob bore false witness to trick Jesus into condemning an innocent woman.:cool:


Son Goku
What do you prefer, aside from the rigour?

........more rigour!!!!:D

Son Goku

J C wrote:

........more rigour!!!!:D

That makes no sense. What makes it superior to Feynman's method?

J C

Son Goku wrote:

That makes no sense. What makes it superior to Feynman's method?

If he hadn't have won the Nobel Prize you wouldn't quote him, because you don't recognize achievement in science outside "prestige". He would still be just as great though.

OK so Schwinger is your hero - as indeed he is mine - but you prefer Feynman's method.


Son Goku
When the man who made QFT speaks about it, he should be listened to, because he will have interesting things to say.

But my point is that, whether YOU praise him as the 'man who made QFT' or I praise him for his Nobel Prize - the bottom line is that he WASN'T listened to on Cold Fusion - and now that he is dead - we cannot hear from him again!!!


Son Goku
You've got it all backwards, as I knew you would. Schwinger has a Nobel prize and makes statements that can be twisted to be anti-establishment and slightly supportive of your position. That is all you recognize, not the actual content of his work.

Of course I recognise the quality of his work - and that is why I think that it is a pity that he didn't get more support to 'crack' Cold Fusion!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote:

OK – so ARE you saying that Man DIDN’T evolve from primordial pond slime

No one has ever claimed man evolved from primordial "pond slime". Pond slime, I mean JC are you serious. Who owned the pond?

Man, and all life on Earth, evolved from complex self replicating molecules, that fromed through natural chemical reactions in the oceans of early Earth under the heat and radiation of the sun. There was no "slime", there was no "muck" and there certainly was no "pond"

J C wrote:

However, you would seem to have another very big problem explaining the origins of life

It would be a bit of a problem if the formation of complex self replicating molecules, which biology thinks were probably the starting point for all life on Earth, had not been observed to form naturally. Given that it has been observed to happen it doesn't become a problem at all. We don't know (without a time machine) that it did happen this way, but we know it can happen this way. And most importantly it removes the Creationist argument that it cannot happen this way.

I would ask when as the last time you observed God creating life, or anything for that matter? Never you say? Bit of a problem, no?

So, give it is a big problem, you admit there is no observation for divine creation, and as such it is a stupid theory and should be rejected completely. Well finally you admit it JC. About time

J C wrote:

If she was innocent, why did Jesus ask her “has nobody CONDEMNED you”.

He asked that because she was innocent. Obviously. I mean have you actually read the Bible passage we are talking about? Everyone walked away, no one condemned her, because she was innocent. Jesus had called there bluff.

J C wrote:

…….and why would He then say to her “neither do I CONDEMN you”

Because she was innocent. He didn't condemn her because she had not done anything. :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

……..or what did He do to the unrepentant Money Changers in the Temple?

Thank you for proving my point. Jesus punishes them BECAUSE THEY WERE GUILTY :rolleyes:

Jesus did nothing to this woman because she was innocent. She didn't repent, so why let her go? Because she had done nothing in the first place.

J C wrote:

Yes, they had spent 2000 years judging LAW – with no problems.
However, what Jesus pointed out, was that they were actually judging SIN – and faced with this reality and their own sins, they then became UNABLE to judge or CONDEMN this woman.

What you think these men had been blissfully unaware that they had ever done something sinful in the past? Pull the other one, that is nonsense.

J C wrote:

You are right to point out that we DON’T know what He wrote on the ground – but whatever it was, it stopped 2000 years of Law ‘in its tracks’.

It didn't make them stop their tracks. They left after Jesus called their bluff, after he told them he knew they were sinning by bringing an innocent person before him. Then they left because they knew they could not hold up the charges they brought.

J C wrote:

Sounds like the ultimate ‘conspiracy theory’ to me!!!:D

Have you actually READ the Bible!!!!

Here is a hint, you may want to skip to near the end, where he is nailed up on the cross!! There was a CONSPIRACY AGAINST JESUS!!! And a lot of people would call it the ultimate conspiracy :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

But the real question is what brought about such a dramatic ‘change of heart’ among the witnesses????

HER INNOCENCE :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

You tell me then, what you believe He wrote on the ground, that had such a profound effect on the mob.

What he wrote on the ground had no effect on the men. The Bible clearly states that those who heard him speak then left. When he called their bluff and said I know you are sinning by bringing this woman here, that had an effect on the men. And they left because they could not stand behind the charges they brough on this woman. I would imagine the men could not even see what Jesus wrote on the ground (unless they in the excitment were very good at reading UPSIDE DOWN dirt writing) :rolleyes:

Maybe you would like to explain how Jesus wrote out all of the mobs sins on the ground without moving, and in a few moments. I doubt he could write out half a sentence, let alone a list of sins for everyone :rolleyes:.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

OK so Schwinger is your hero - as indeed he is mine - but you prefer Feynman's method.

Yes, is that supposed to be some kind of contradiction?

Similar to Dirac, I think he was brilliant, but wrote in a very dense and terse manner that is difficult to understand. His methods also require you to remember alot of desperate identities for functionals all at once, making them difficult to wield unless you learn of the identities.
As such I prefer Feynman's method.

You still haven't answered why it is better, in your opinion.
(Sure, it's just an opinion, it's not like you have to prove his methods are definitely better)

Implying that I'm being inconsistent for admiring Schwinger while preferring Feynman's method is really scraping the bottom of the lame-ass, question dodging barrel.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
we can discuss it in relation to your preferred term of "macro-evolution"…..
…………
We must take "macro-evolution", then, to mean the major radiation of organisms from fewer, simpler organisms to more, and more complex, organisms. In addition, it appears to indicate the "whole story" of evolution - the story of life on earth that evolution supports. It is, if you like, the "big picture" of evolution.

I agree.

OK.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Further proof of the idea that the term "macro-evolution" is really short-hand for "the story of life on earth that arises out of evolutionary theory" can be found in two further points - that "macro-evolution" encompasses both the teleological story of the "ascent of man" (the "upward progression" from "muck to man"), and also the origin of life itself (biogenesis).

I agree.

OK.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Neither of these (the "upward progression" from "muck to man" or the origin of life itself / biogenesis) are part of the Theory of Evolution, since the first is a straightforward error, and the latter a separate field of enquiry unrelated to the Theory of Evolution

OK – so ARE you saying that Man DIDN’T evolve from primordial pond slime – IF as you say the ‘upward progression’ from ‘muck to man’ is “a straightforward error”?:)

Ah. Speed bump. The problem here is the "upward" (also the word "progression", which has the same implications).

"Upward" suggests that organism X (let's say a stromatolite) is "less developed" than organism Y (say a fish). That is a basic error, because both are responses to an environment. One may be "better suited" to the environment than the other, but this does not make it "more developed". Under many circumstances, it is better for an organism to be less complex rather than more.

So the basic error there is "upward progression". Man evolved from the same ancient organisms as everything else, but that is not an "upward progression". I think this is often the basic problem that people have with evolution - the idea that humans are simply a response to a certain set of circumstances, and something else will work better under different circumstances.

There is, therefore, no "upward" in evolution - we are the accidental outcome of millions of generations of adaptation and survival, but we are neither a peak, nor even somehow upslope from ancient pond slime. If you consider this rather demeaning, you might want to think about the idea of devolution - which basically says that I am worse than my father, he than his father, and of course my children worse than me - so that even if we are the "pinnacle of creation", we are nevertheless a seriously degenerate version. Not exactly optimistic.

J C wrote:

If you are saying what you seem to have said – that ‘Evolution’ DOESN’T purport to explain the gradual progression of Pond Slime to eventually produce Mankind – and it is merely ‘genetic drift’ via Natural Selection within closely related organisms then I have no fundamental scientific problem you’re your variety of ‘Evolution’.

No, definitely not. Evolution explains exactly that (with the caveat noted for 'progression', and another added that evolution is not necessarily gradual). What I am trying to point out is that it does so as the result of accumulated detail - that evolution is not actually the "big picture" that emerges from the details, but the details.

A final point, of course, is that we pretty definitely didn't evolve from "pond slime", by which I take it you mean filamentous algae.

J C wrote:

However, you would seem to have a very big problem explaining the origins of the genetic information possessed by ALL organisms now that you have (correctly) classified all “upwards progression” of genetic and anatomical complexity as “a straightforward error”.:eek:

Well, no, because I have not used "upward progression" - that term is yours. I have specifically pointed out that evolution is not an "upwards progression".

J C wrote:

You have stated that “the origin of life itself (biogenesis) is “a separate field of enquiry unrelated to the Theory of Evolution”. A separate field of enquiry therefore - to which gradual evolutionary mechanisms don’t apply to presumably. Again I have no problem scientifically separating the Creation of life from it’s unfolding via speciation / NS, etc.

Well, it would be better then to restrict your use of the term "evolution" to the latter - the unfolding of life via speciation/NS etc.

If you like, we can use:

1. evolution = the unfolding of life via speciation/NS etc
2. biogenesis* = the origin of life to the point where evolution takes hold

and

3. the "evolutionary story of life" = 1 & 2 together, with the implication that (2) was non-miraculous. This is the temr that matches your "macro-evolution".

*more correctly these days "abiogenesis" for the origin of life - I will use this term from here on, as long as you promise not to confuse it with "spontaneous generation".

J C wrote:

However, you would seem to have another very big problem explaining the origins of life, (whilst presumably excluding the possibility of Direct Creation) now that you have (correctly) classified the idea that life originated via Evolution as “a straightforward error”.:eek:

Abiogenesis is, of course, a big scientific problem in its own right - but biological evolution has never been suggested as the way life originated. I would exclude the possibility of Direct Creation as a line of enquiry, although it remains the fall-back position once every other possibility has been eliminated - because as a scientific conjecture, it can only be proved by such a process of elimination.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Teleology forms no part of evolutionary theory, gratifying as it is to the human psyche - we are not the "high point" of evolution, and evolution goes neither "up" no "down"

The idea that a creature like Mankind (or indeed any other Mammal) isn't vastly more ‘information dense’ that Pond Scum is logically unsustainable.
........and you are saying that ‘Evolution’ CANNOT explain or justify it’s claim that Pond Slime gradually progressed to eventually produce Mankind.

Actually, that sort of thing is incredibly easy to prove. Humans have a mid-size genome - the human genome is six times the size of the poplar, but the pine tree is fifty times as large as the poplar. The claim that our information is "denser" than that of the pine because our genome is smaller would mean that the poplar, in turn, must be denser still. The claim that our informaiton is "richer" because our genome is bigger than the poplar genome would, in turn, mean that the pine tree is richer still.

There is no correlation between genome size and primitiveness. Lycopodium lucidulum is a club moss - club mosses being a very "primitive" group of plants (not far up from 'pond slime') - and its genome is 5.5 billion base pairs, compared to humanity's 3.2 billion.

I am assuming here, of course, that 'information dense' in some way relates to the information required to 'specify' an organism, for which I can see no other measure than the size of the genome. If there is some other way in which 'information density' can be measured, let me know - otherwise, for future reference, I will assume it to be genome size.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Abiogenesis, while indisputably a fact, is simply not part of evolutionary theory - it is simply the "black box" from which life emerges.

A “black box” Eh,- so you admit that you haven’t a clue HOW life arose – and therefore Direct Creation is the superior (and indeed the only) current scientific explanation for how life originated.:D

You are over-keen. From the standpoint of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis is a black box - it has no impact on the theory of evolution.

From the standpoint of the study of abiogenesis, of course, abiogenesis is in no way a 'black box' - indeed from that point of view, evolution is the 'black box' into which life 'disappears' after all the interesting stuff has happened.

Abiogenesis study is a newish field (c. 50-60 years), working on a really quite difficult problem. Recent progress in, for example, reversing the Krebs cycle, has been quite promising, but overall, we are still left with the impression that the answer is still quite definitely unknown.

Even if we succeed, say, in creating life from non-living material, we still will not have proven that this is how life arose on earth. It remains always possible that the ability to create life from non-life is simply a property of the universe, and that life on earth arose through one of the other competing possibilities - Direct Creation, Panspermia, alien intervention, etc.

Only if the methods by which we either succeeded in creating life, or conjectured that life arose on earth contain testable predictions, will we be able to have any confidence in our hypotheses.

As to Direct Creation, it is unfortunately untestable, since God is free to have created life in any way he wished - there are literally no limits on the possible ways in which God could have created life, and therefore no test can be negative.

I am aware, of course, that you think there are a number of positive tests for Direct Creation - the most obvious being the argument from design. Unfortunately, unsophisticated versions of this argument are always fundamentally either arguments from ignorance ("I can't see how else it could have come about") or incredulity ("I can't believe it could have come about other than through design"). These means nothing whatsoever, since they can be applied to anything ("I can't believe gravity is not applied by invisible gnomes pulling on strings - and I certainly don't see else it could work").

The sophisticated version of the argument from design - irreducible complexity - appears at face value to make more sense, but contains the hidden fallacy of "upwards progression" - that evolutionary changes are simple uni-directional improvements on the previous position, which is false. If you take a machine as orignally designed, and patch and fix it for 20 years, you will have at the end a machine from which you cannot remove, say, a piece of string, even though that piece of string had nothing to do with the original design, and the original machine worked perfectly well without it.

There is also the issue that, again, while we might be able to recognise human design, we have no idea how we would recognise a design created by God, since God is not human, does not think like a human, and therefore presumably does not design like a human. In addition, God does not have to be constrained by the terms of a problem, since he can simply change the terms. Indeed, the existence of multiple solutions to the same problems across all of life argues strongly against a designer as such, unless one accepts that He either got bored easily, started every project from scratch, or had a very serious passion for baroque solutions as an end in itself (none of which the Bible can really be said to verify).

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There is, therefore, little point in asking anyone to defend or justify the big picture that evolution provides without reference to the details that produce it - nor is there any value in claiming it cannot be proven, since, of itself, it cannot be. If that is what you are waiting for evidence of, you have a long wait ahead of you.

So macro-Evolution has no evidence in support of it’s validity ??

Is this a ‘towel being thrown in’ I see before me???:eek:

No. Macro-evolution is simply the story that emerges from the details of evolution. It neither needs evidence itself nor is it possible to provide it - because it is a narrative.

In exactly the same way, you cannot prove that the Biblical "story of life on earth" is correct - all you can do is provide evidence for Direct Creation, for the Flood, for Eden, etc etc - that is, for the details from which that narrative emerges. You can say that the "biblical story" is validated by the Bible, because it matches it in detail, but that, again, relies on the idea that the details are correct.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
If, on the other hand, you would like us to prove or defend the theory of evolution, we will be happy to oblige.

If the Theory of Evolution has now ‘shrunk down’ to Natural Selection on pre-existing genomes with a little mutation thrown in, I have no scientific argument with such a concept.

……..but such a Theory can only explain how a Moth population changes from 20% Grey / 80% Brown to 20% Brown / 80% Grey - and back again.

……….it DOESN‘T explain how a Moth could eventually produce a Man – or indeed where the Moth came from in the first place!!!!:eek:

By the accumulation of changes. There is no "magic barrier" at the genus level, or the family level, or the class level, either in Creationism or in evolutionary theory, as we have previously discussed.

For the Creationist to claim that organisms of Phylum X cannot evolve into organisms of Phylum Y is to claim that the classifications of evolutionary taxonomy have a meaning in Creationism, which they cannot, because the whole form of modern biological taxonomy is based on the evolutionary paradigm. You keep saying that either we're right, or you're right - the Creationist claim that evolution stops at a particular level in a hierarchical classification based on evolution is therefore a particularly silly one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, it would be better then to restrict your use of the term "evolution" to the latter - the unfolding of life via speciation/NS etc.

If you like, we can use:

1. evolution = the unfolding of life via speciation/NS etc
2. biogenesis* = the origin of life to the point where evolution takes hold

I would just add to that that evolution probably worked on the first self-replicating molecules as they replicated, but whether someone would classify them as "life" yet is up for debate. "Life", as we understand it, probably emerged as these molecules replicated and evolved, creating more complex structures and systems. In the end it comes down to how you define "life"

Of course JC won't accept this, he will hold to the idea that "life" can only create "life" (based on that silly "law" he keeps quoting, which isn't a law at all) and that no non-alive molecule can evolve into a living structure like a cell.

But then that is not a biological or scientific position, it is only a religious one. He is wrong, but then he is wrong about a lot of things

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote:

The verse you quote clearly states "The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God"

Scofflaw has explained (a number of times) that his stance that there is no god (at least your Abrahamic god) is based on logic and reason, not emotion.

On the other hand his stance that even if your god existed he would reject it as a god worth worshipping comes from a moral position, ie the heart.



Based on even a brief reading of the Old Testament your god is clearly willing and capable of carrying out hidieously immoral and cruel acts. Some people believe that personal reward is not enough to forsake a sense of morality or a sense of right and wrong, and as such would reject worshipping an immoral god even if it means they are forsake the rewards of doing so. If you think that is foolish that is fair enough.

I take your point about the immediate origins of Scofflaw's conclusions. But JC is ultimately right, for our reasoning faculties are not free and impartial. They are influenced by our natures, our heart, the person who carries out the reasoning. That person is born morally twisted, antagonistic to God. How far that corruption is allowed to manifest itself is up to God. He restrains our wickedness, and it is He who must intervene to give us a new nature if we are to turn back to Him.

Many sinners recognise the reality that there is a Creator to whom they must answer. They may have very distorted ideas about Him, but they are aware enough of the existence of God.

Some however are so darkened and rebellious that they suppress this knowledge, convincing themselves that 'there is no God'. These sinners God describes as 'fools'.

But even to such fools He sends the good news: Romans 10: 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

So a very happy 2007 to you all.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

That person is born morally twisted, antagonistic to God. How far that corruption is allowed to manifest itself is up to God.

Only if God exists and is a moral being. If God doesn't exist, or is not a moral being, then that person is actually born with a good sense of morality.

And of course the opposite to that is the argument that those who follow God are in fact the wicked corrupt ones, who follow immorality for the reward of an ever lasting after life and who have convinced themselves that God is moral, and should be followed. It is quite easy to see how humans can convince themselves that almost anything is moral, from Hitler to Pol Pot (not comparing Christianity to these of course, but some of the stuff described in the Bible, often justified by Christians, is certain on that level of horror)

And because they are in it they cannot see this for themselves, it is only clear to those on the outside looking in, those who have not been corrupted by the promise of reward.

You see the problem, each side will believe the other to be at best mistaken, at worse wicked and immoral. And vice versa.

Ultimately the most interesting question I think Christians should ask themselves is how do they know God is a perfect moral being? Is it just because they have first defined God as being such, and then worked on that assumption.

The weakest argument I've seen so far for explaining the acts in the Old Testament is that they would be immoral if carried out by anyone other than God. But because God did them they are in fact moral acts. That smacks of defining God as being perfectly moral, and then working on that assumption, when a more reasonable explanation is that they were immoral acts, even if God did them. So the question becomes why would someone convince themselves that these acts are immoral except when done by God? The obvious answer being that the person wants to worship God, and justifiy that as correct thing to do to themselves, because of the rewards that such worship brings, such as rewards in heaven.

It is interesting to note that their are very few religions in the world that do not reward worship or following. Because of this one must be very careful in assuming anything about the religion because people follow it at face value.

wolfsbane wrote:

Some however are so darkened and rebellious that they suppress this knowledge, convincing themselves that 'there is no God'. These sinners God describes as 'fools'.

Again, they are only fools if God actually does exist, and work the way you describe. If God doesn't exist, or is not a perfect moral being, it is in fact those who believe in something that doesn't exist, or follow immorality and proclaim it as being moral, that could be classified as "fools" (though I'm not sure most atheists would use that term).

It is rather illogical to believe that the Bible's comments on the subject are still valid even from a position where God does not exist. The Bible's comments are only valid if God exist. If God doesn't exist they are arguments from the position of the fool. So there is not much point using the Bible to back up your position since the Bible is only valid if your position is correct in the first place. If Scofflaw is correct he is not the "fool", you are.

Either way the fool does not know he is a fool.

Scofflaw

First off - welcome back! I see you're getting stuck straight in...

wolfsbane wrote:

I take your point about the immediate origins of Scofflaw's conclusions. But JC is ultimately right, for our reasoning faculties are not free and impartial. They are influenced by our natures, our heart, the person who carries out the reasoning. That person is born morally twisted, antagonistic to God. How far that corruption is allowed to manifest itself is up to God. He restrains our wickedness, and it is He who must intervene to give us a new nature if we are to turn back to Him.

I see. Born evil, wait for God to choose to make me good. Got it. I appreciate being absolved of all responsibility, of course.

wolfsbane wrote:

Many sinners recognise the reality that there is a Creator to whom they must answer. They may have very distorted ideas about Him, but they are aware enough of the existence of God.

Some however are so darkened and rebellious that they suppress this knowledge, convincing themselves that 'there is no God'. These sinners God describes as 'fools'.

That'll be me then. Not my fault, though, apparently.

wolfsbane wrote:

But even to such fools He sends the good news: Romans 10: 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

Well, I'm still waiting for God to choose to have me do that, obviously. I suppose that in the meantime I might as well eat drink and be merry - thank God for materialism, if you see what I mean.

wolfsbane wrote:

So a very happy 2007 to you all.

And to you.

irresponsibly,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Only if God exists and is a moral being. If God doesn't exist, or is not a moral being, then that person is actually born with a good sense of morality.

Quite so.

And because they are in it they cannot see this for themselves, it is only clear to those on the outside looking in, those who have not been corrupted by the promise of reward.

Yes, corruption blinds man to the spiritual reality:
Ephesians 4:17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

You see the problem, each side will believe the other to be at best mistaken, at worse wicked and immoral. And vice versa.

Indeed, but one is right, the other wrong.

Ultimately the most interesting question I think Christians should ask themselves is how do they know God is a perfect moral being? Is it just because they have first defined God as being such, and then worked on that assumption.

No, they know that because God has revealed it to them.

The weakest argument I've seen so far for explaining the acts in the Old Testament is that they would be immoral if carried out by anyone other than God. But because God did them they are in fact moral acts.

The error in denying that lies with reducing God to our level, i.e., that He has no right to do with His creation things which we as fellow-creatures are not permitted to do. The Potter can do with the clay as He wishes; the Holy God can deal with His creatures - especially rebel creatures - as He sees fit. And being Holy, He will only do what is right.

That smacks of defining God as being perfectly moral, and then working on that assumption, when a more reasonable explanation is that they were immoral acts, even if God did them. So the question becomes why would someone convince themselves that these acts are immoral except when done by God? The obvious answer being that the person wants to worship God, and justifiy that as correct thing to do to themselves, because of the rewards that such worship brings, such as rewards in heaven.

Or because one knows God and knows that He is entitled to do as He wills.

It is interesting to note that their are very few religions in the world that do not reward worship or following. Because of this one must be very careful in assuming anything about the religion because people follow it at face value.

The Christian concept of reward for righteous living is perfectly proper. It does not permit a hypocritical outward show of conformity to God's standards, but demands sincere repentance and faith in God as the starting point of a life of obedience.

It is rather illogical to believe that the Bible's comments on the subject are still valid even from a position where God does not exist. The Bible's comments are only valid if God exist. If God doesn't exist they are arguments from the position of the fool.

Certainly so.

So there is not much point using the Bible to back up your position since the Bible is only valid if your position is correct in the first place.

I use the Bible not to back up my position, but to establish it. My opinions are worthless, if not derived from God. I quote the Bible because it has the power to speak to your conscience and convince you of its truth.

If Scofflaw is correct he is not the "fool", you are.

Indeed. And if he is mistaken, you are both desperately lost, heading for the Judgement and in need of a Saviour.

Either way the fool does not know he is a fool.

His conscience reminds him of the fact from time to time, and he has to kick against the goads to stifle it. We've all been there. The answer is to pay heed to your conscience and earnestly seek after God:
Isaiah 55:6 Seek the LORD while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the LORD,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I see. Born evil, wait for God to choose to make me good. Got it. I appreciate being absolved of all responsibility, of course.

You got the first bit right, but not the latter. Your responsibility is to obey God's command to repent and believe. That you cannot do that without God's enabling is beside the point. Spending the rent-money on drink and then being unable to pay does not remove the responsibility to do so. Having rebel hearts does not excuse us of the duty to love and serve God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. It just makes us completely guilty, without hope and in need of One to rescue us.

Well, I'm still waiting for God to choose to have me do that, obviously. I suppose that in the meantime I might as well eat drink and be merry - thank God for materialism, if you see what I mean.

Your refusal to obey is itself an active disobedience, not a passive waiting. We need to give attention to our business, and leave God to do His. As to materialism, here's what the Preacher said:
Ecclesiastes 11:9 Rejoice, O young man, in your youth,
And let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth;
Walk in the ways of your heart,
And in the sight of your eyes;
But know that for all these
God will bring you into judgment.

And the Lord told the Parable of the Rich Fool:
Luke 12:16 Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. 17 And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’ 18 So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’
21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Indeed, but one is right, the other wrong.

True, which is which is ultimately the question.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, they know that because God has revealed it to them.

I don't know what that actually means. How has God revealed it to them?

Also, if God is not in fact a moral being then His revelation is surely either a lie or trick (just as Christians would say Satan's promises are a trick)? Therefore assuming the truthfullness of the revelation from the thing you are trying to test in the first place is quite ill-adviced. There must be some external logic one uses to test if what God reveals is actually what one thinks it is. To me God fails that external test by the acts described in the Old Testament.

wolfsbane wrote:

The error in denying that lies with reducing God to our level, i.e., that He has no right to do with His creation things which we as fellow-creatures are not permitted to do.

That is correct, but I would not call that an error. I would call it a principle. God has no more right to inflict immoral, evil, pain and suffering on his creations than we as his creations have right to inflict it on each other. If something is immoral it is immoral. If God was truly a being of perfect morality he would not do something that would be considered immoral if a human did it. The fact that he does (or has been described doing so) suggests that God is not in fact a being of perfect morality. So the question then becomes why do some people think he is. As you say they think he is because he himself has claimed to be. But if he is not a being of perfect morality then can he be trusted as his own witness?

wolfsbane wrote:

Or because one knows God and knows that He is entitled to do as He wills.

He isn't entitled to do as he will, at least not from a position of morality. You can claim he is but that claim is an immoral position. God cannot morally create a 5 year old girl and then have her gang raped and brutally tortured just because he wants to. Any claim that he could do that and still be on the moral side of the line is ridiculous. You can claim he never would do that, but that is not the same thing. He is described as doing horrificly immoral acts in the Old Testement, that you claim are moral ONLY because God is doing them. That is not a plausable argument.

wolfsbane wrote:

The Christian concept of reward for righteous living is perfectly proper. It does not permit a hypocritical outward show of conformity to God's standards, but demands sincere repentance and faith in God as the starting point of a life of obedience.

I am sure people are very sincere in their desire to live forever in heaven. That is the problem.

wolfsbane wrote:

I use the Bible not to back up my position, but to establish it. My opinions are worthless, if not derived from God. I quote the Bible because it has the power to speak to your conscience and convince you of its truth.

Does it? Logic and reason speak to my conscience. The Bible is lacking in both.

wolfsbane wrote:

Indeed. And if he is mistaken, you are both desperately lost, heading for the Judgement

True, but as I said to some people it is more important to hold to a higher principle of morality than to follow something or someone which acts in an immoral fashion.

wolfsbane wrote:

The answer is to pay heed to your conscience and earnestly seek after God

That isn't an "answer" .... if the person is mistaken that is only make them more mistaken. If the path to God is the wrong path then running down the path will only get you to the wrong place faster.

The answer is to challange what they think they know, what they think they believe. To walk the path carefully, no matter what direction, and be always questioning the direction you are heading.

I constantly wonder "does God exist?" I try and work out how he would exist, how that would happen, what it would mean if he does, how that would fit with my ideas of morality, who it fits with science, and reason. I continue to return to the result that he doesn't exist, but I won't stop considering the questions.

Do you seriously consider he doesn't exist, or seriously consider taht if he does exist he is not perfect morality and is not something that should be followed? From your posts, and from what I know of Christianity, you probably don't, since doing so goes against your religion.

While the fool may not ever realise he is the fool, he should still always ask "am I the fool?"

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I see. Born evil, wait for God to choose to make me good. Got it. I appreciate being absolved of all responsibility, of course.

You got the first bit right, but not the latter. Your responsibility is to obey God's command to repent and believe. That you cannot do that without God's enabling is beside the point. Spending the rent-money on drink and then being unable to pay does not remove the responsibility to do so.

You appear confused. Spending the rent money on drink would be a voluntary act - which I certainly agree would not excuse me from paying it.

On the other hand, if I were born without legs, I would certainly expect to be excused the 100m hurdles. (I shall use this analogy for the rest of the post.)

wolfsbane wrote:

Having rebel hearts does not excuse us of the duty to love and serve God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. It just makes us completely guilty, without hope and in need of One to rescue us.

Being born without legs makes us guilty of what exactly? That's a new and interesting theory of responsibility - perhaps we should punish blind people for failing to read signs.

wolfsbane wrote:

Your refusal to obey is itself an active disobedience, not a passive waiting. We need to give attention to our business, and leave God to do His.

I do - and thus far he has minded his business, and I have minded mine. You are the one meddling.

wolfsbane wrote:

As to materialism, here's what the Preacher said:
Ecclesiastes 11:9 Rejoice, O young man, in your youth,
And let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth;
Walk in the ways of your heart,
And in the sight of your eyes;
But know that for all these
God will bring you into judgment.

Well, of course - Heaven forfend that anyone should celebrate the gifts that they believe God has given them. That certainly would be dreadful - better to be born deaf, dumb, blind and legless - although that would make it hard to go to Church, to hear the "good word", or to read the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote:

And the Lord told the Parable of the Rich Fool:
Luke 12:16 Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. 17 And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’ 18 So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’
21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

"What! Out of senseless Nothing to provoke
A conscious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke!

What! From his helpless Creature be repaid
Pure Gold for what he lent us dross-allay'd -
Sue for a Debt we never did contract,
And cannot answer - Oh the sorry trade

Nay, but, for terror of his wrathful Face,
I swear I will not call Injustice Grace;
Not one Good Fellow of the Tavern but
Would kick so poor a Coward from the place

Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and with gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with Predestin'd Evil round
Enmesh, and then imput my Fall to Sin?

Oh Thou, who Man of baser Earth didst make,
And ev'n with Paradise devise the Snake:
For all the Sin the Face of wretched Man
Is black with - Man's Forgiveness give - and take!"

Put away your filthy old book. You are doing yourself no good with it,and your diseased ideas can do no good to others either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Put away your filthy old book. You are doing yourself no good with it,and your diseased ideas can do no good to others either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Are you speaking of the Bible here?

J C

Wicknight
No one has ever claimed man evolved from primordial "pond slime". Pond slime, I mean JC are you serious. Who owned the pond?

Man, and all life on Earth, evolved from complex self replicating molecules, that fromed through natural chemical reactions in the oceans of early Earth under the heat and radiation of the sun.

Ah, I see you want to go right back to a BILLION years before the supposed emergence of ‘Pond Scum’ – back to ‘natural chemicals in the oceans of Early Earth’.
Would that be salt or something then Wicknight?

……..and HOW did it EVER develop into anything even remotely resembling a supposed ‘proto-cell’ i.e. ‘Pond Scum’ (or ‘Ocean Scum’ – if you prefer)?!!!!


Wicknight
It would be a bit of a problem if the formation of complex self replicating molecules, which biology says were the starting point for all life on Earth, had not been observed to form naturally.

The ‘gap’ between any putative ‘self-replicating molecule’ and the inordinate levels of densely specified information and irreducible complexity observed in the simplest ‘simple cell’ is so enormous as to be ‘unbridgeable’ by non-intelligent forces!!!:cool:


Originally Posted by J C
If she was innocent, why did Jesus ask her “has nobody CONDEMNED you”.
Wicknight
He asked that because she was innocent. Obviously. I mean have you actually read the Bible passage we are talking about? Everyone walked away, no one condemned her, because she was innocent. Jesus had called there bluff.

Let’s look at Jn 8:3-4 AGAIN:-
“When THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES BROUGHT A WOMAN WHO HAD BEEN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY. They made her stand in the middle of the court and put the case before Him. Teacher, they said, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery.”

There you have it in plain English – which part of the “PHARISEES BROUGHT A WOMAN WHO HAD BEEN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY do you not understand?

How much more unambiguous can you get???!!!

The plain Word of God makes a statement of FACT i.e. that she “had been caught in adultery”
– i.e. NOT that she was ACCUSED of adultery – but that she had been CAUGHT in adultery!!!

……..and the fact that she was ‘unclean’ DIDN’T prevent her being brought to the COURTS of the Temple i.e. not into the Temple itself – but to the COURTS, where all of the ‘unclean’ law breakers were ALWAYS brought!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
……..or what did He do to the unrepentant Money Changers in the Temple?

Wicknight
Thank you for proving my point. Jesus punishes them BECAUSE THEY WERE GUILTY

Jesus punished them because they were guilty and UNREPENTANT!!:eek:


Scofflaw
"Upward" suggests that organism X (let's say a stromatolite) is "less developed" than organism Y (say a fish). That is a basic error, because both are responses to an environment. One may be "better suited" to the environment than the other, but this does not make it "more developed".

BOTH are “equally suited to their environments” like a Jumbo Jet and a Wheelbarrow are “equally suited to their environments”.
However, ‘suitability to environment’ ISN’T the phenomenon that sets them apart – it is the substantial difference in the levels of observed specified information and irreducible complexity between a Jumbo Jet and a Wheelbarrow – that sets them apart. Ditto for a protozoan and a Man!!!!

The only known agent that produces specified information and irreducible complexity is INTELLIGENCE – and therefore we can logically say that the genomes of BOTH the Protozoan and the Man are a product of intelligence – just like BOTH the Jumbo Jet and the Wheelbarrow are products of the intelligent use of energy and the intelligent manipulation of physical substances!!!


Scofflaw
but we are neither a peak, nor even somehow upslope from ancient pond slime.

That is a completely illogical assertion!!
Of course, at EVERY LEVEL IMAGINABLE Humans are vastly more complex, vastly more information dense and vastly more anatomically structured than Pond Slime – but that is were an unfounded belief in Evolution leads – to equating Human Beings with Pond Slime!!!!

We are advanced, complex, CONCIOUS, MORAL Beings – and NOT simple, unconscious Pond Slime.

The attitude that Humans are not ‘upslope from ancient pond slime’ – and therefore EQUIVALENT to it, means that we could be considered to be just as ‘disposable’ as Pond Slime. :eek:

Indeed one could easily think of a scenario in which Humans could be ‘culled’ if it was thought that there were too many of them and not enough Pond Slime – and especially if a group of Humans were perceived to be a threat to the survival of a particular rare type of Pond Slime!!!

Such nightmare moral scenarios certainly AREN’T UNTHINKABLE if one believes that Humans ARE equivalent to Pond Slime.:eek:


Scofflaw
If you consider this rather demeaning, you might want to think about the idea of devolution - which basically says that I am worse than my father, he than his father, and of course my children worse than me - so that even if we are the "pinnacle of creation", we are nevertheless a seriously degenerate version.

HOW is Creation/devolution ‘demeaning’?

We are still at the pinnacle of a (fallen) Creation – and there is no moral ambiguity about the relative value of Human life versus all other life forms.

Equally, Devolution can be a 'horizonatal' roll-out of genetic diversity, speciation, etc - and there are known genetic repair mechanisms that can result in 'upwards autorestoration' of 'increased' complexity.

Scofflaw
There is no correlation between genome size and primitiveness. Lycopodium lucidulum is a club moss - club mosses being a very "primitive" group of plants (not far up from 'pond slime') - and its genome is 5.5 billion base pairs, compared to humanity's 3.2 billion.

Such is the current state of ‘Evolution’ that it is unable to differentiate between a Club Moss and a Human Being!!:eek:

Evolutionists are continually confusing quantity and quality – and Intelligent Design research is making considerable progress in measuring specified information levels and irreducible complexity levels - which are the REAL MEASURES of ‘information densities’ within and between genomes.:cool:


Scofflaw
Humans have a mid-size genome - the human genome is six times the size of the poplar, but the pine tree is fifty times as large as the poplar. The claim that our information is "denser" than that of the pine because our genome is smaller would mean that the poplar, in turn, must be denser still. The claim that our information is "richer" because our genome is bigger than the poplar genome would, in turn, mean that the pine tree is richer still.

All that proves is that Evolutionists don’t know what they are talking about!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
From the standpoint of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis is a black box

As far as I can see, from the standpoint of evolutionary theory, EVERYTHING is a ‘black box’!!!!:D


Scofflaw
from that (abiogenesis) point of view, evolution is the 'black box' into which life 'disappears'

‘Up into itself’ no doubt!!!:)


Scofflaw
Abiogenesis study is a newish field (c. 50-60 years), working on a really quite difficult problem. Recent progress in, for example, reversing the Krebs cycle, has been quite promising, but overall, we are still left with the impression that the answer is still quite definitely unknown.

So we know NOTHING about abiogenesis after 50 YEARS of study!!

Could I suggest that this is because Abiogenesis doesn’t EXIST and never existed – except in the (very) fertile imaginations of Evolutionists!!!!;)


Scofflaw
Even if we succeed, say, in creating life from non-living material, we still will not have proven that this is how life arose on earth.

Such an achievement would indeed indicate an INTELLIGENT origin to life!!:D


Scofflaw
It remains always possible that the ability to create life from non-life is simply a property of the universe, and that life on earth arose through one of the other competing possibilities - Direct Creation, Panspermia, alien intervention, etc.

Quite!!

....and could I point out that 'Panspermia' and 'alien intervention' merely re-locate the ultimate origin of life to somewhere else in the Universe – without explaining how or where life arose in the first place – something that Direct Creation satisfactorily explains!!!:D


Scofflaw
unsophisticated versions of this argument (from design) are always fundamentally either arguments from ignorance ("I can't see how else it could have come about") or incredulity ("I can't believe it could have come about other than through design").

Rather than your ‘straw men’ arguments, how about 'Intelligence is the only mechanism that has ever been scientifically observed that could account for the observed specified information and irreducible complexity levels in living genomes'!!!:D


Scofflaw
There is also the issue that, again, while we might be able to recognise human design, we have no idea how we would recognise a design created by God, since God is not human, does not think like a human, and therefore presumably does not design like a human.

As this is a Theological question, I will answer it theologically – by confirming that we are made in the IMAGE AND LIKENESS of God – and therefore we DO design like God!!!!:cool:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Ah, I see you want to go right back to a BILLION years before the supposed emergence of ‘Pond Scum’ – back to ‘simple chemicals in the oceans of Early Earth’.

3 Billion years actually.

Why you are surprised by this I've no idea, since it has already been explained to you (a number of times) that these molecules started to develop approx 4 to 3.5 billion years ago, and took about a billion years to evolve to the stage of very simple biological structures such as cells.

J C wrote:

Would that be salt or something then Wicknight?

No JC, that wouldn't be salt :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

……..and HOW did it EVER develop into anything even remotely resembling a supposed ‘proto-cell’

Through the natural selection of replication errors, over a billion or so years with trillions of these molecules replicating every second.

J C wrote:

The ‘gap’ between any putative ‘self-replicating molecule’ and the inordinate levels of densely specified information and irreducible complexity observed in the simplest ‘simple cell’ is so enormous as to be ‘unbridgeable’ by non-intelligent forces!!!

No actually it isn't.

I do appreciate that you can't understand how it could happen, but luckily for the rest of us science and biology is not restricted by what you can or cannot understand.

J C wrote:

There you have it in plain English – which part of the “PHARISEES BROUGHT A WOMAN WHO HAD BEEN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY do you not understand?

John 8:6 "They were using this question as a trap"

What part of they were lying do you not understand?

J C wrote:

Jesus punished them because they were guilty and UNREPENTANT!!:eek:

Feel free to quote the passage where the woman repents JC. Any time JC, any time.... :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

BOTH are “equally suited to their environments” like a Jumbo Jet and a Wheelbarrow are “equally suited to their environments”.

That was his point :rolleyes: A Jumbo Jet is useless for digging your garden

J C wrote:

The only known agent that produces specified information and irreducible complexity is INTELLIGENCE

Life isn't irreducible complex. That was established about 150 pages ago ... have you not been paying attention :rolleyes:

Just because you cannot understand this is not really a reflection either way.

J C wrote:

Of course, at EVERY LEVEL IMAGINABLE Humans are vastly more complex, vastly more information dense and vastly more anatomically structured than Pond Slime

There are a lot of animals who are more information dense and vastly more anatomically structured that humans JC. Your measurements are meaningless

J C wrote:

The attitude that Humans are not ‘upslope from ancient pond slime’ – and therefore EQUIVALENT to it, means that we could be considered to be just as ‘disposable’ as Pond Slime.

According to whom?

No one else uses your rather ridiculous way of measuring "value" based on the size of a genome (if they did humans would not be the most valuable species on Earth, not by a long shot), so I seriously doubt anyone would make such a judgment based on this highly flawed way of measuring human value.

J C wrote:

Such is the intellectual bankruptcy of ‘Evolution’ that it is unable to differentiate between a Club Moss and a Human Being!!:eek:

No actually that is you.

You are saying genome size and complexity is what is important. Scofflaw is pointing out that if that is true then humans are some where in the middle of species of value. Which is ridiculous, as you yourself seem to agree.

It is your measurement of value that is flawed JC. All Scofflaw is doing is pointing this out. Its not really his fault you have not considered your own theory fully, nor that end point end up being ridiculous. Don't shoot the messenger, as it were.

J C wrote:

All that proves is that Evolutionists don’t know what they are talking about!!!!!:D

No, actually it proves that you didn't really think this theory of yours through :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

As far as I can see, from the standpoint of evolutionary theory, EVERYTHING is a ‘black box’!!!!:D

Like I said, science and biology specifically, is (luckily) not constrained by your ignorance .....

J C wrote:

Such an achievement would indeed indicate an INTELLIGENT origin to life!!:D

It has already been shown that it wouldn't need divine power, that it can happen using a natural process. The only question remaining is did it happen the way we have shown it could have happened.

BTW anytime you want to cite a scientific paper that has studied or observed God creating anything by magic, feel free JC :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

As this is a Theological question, I will answer it theologically – by confirming that we are made in the IMAGE AND LIKENESS of God – and therefore we DO design like God!!!!:cool:

Firstly, I would point out that that is quite a blasphemous comment JC :rolleyes:

Secondly, why does god need arms, or legs, or chest hair, or nipples JC? The fact is he doesn't, the "image and likeness" of God referrers to spiritual likeness, not physical. Any Christian can explain this concept to you JC .....

Scofflaw

Hmm. Judging by the tenor of this post, the difficulty you have with evolution is precisely the one I suggested - you cannot accept the "dethronement" of humanity from its "God-given" peak. A shame that your antipathy to the idea is so strong as to have thrown you back into semi-hysteria. Still, we shall press on.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

"Upward" suggests that organism X (let's say a stromatolite) is "less developed" than organism Y (say a fish). That is a basic error, because both are responses to an environment. One may be "better suited" to the environment than the other, but this does not make it "more developed".

BOTH are “equally suited to their environments” like a Jumbo Jet and a Wheelbarrow are “equally suited to their environments”.
However, ‘suitability to environment’ ISN’T the phenomenon that sets them apart – it is the substantial difference in the levels of observed specified information and irreducible complexity between a Jumbo Jet and a Wheelbarrow – that sets them apart. Ditto for a protozoan and a Man!!!!

The only known agent that produces specified information and irreducible complexity is INTELLIGENCE – and therefore we can logically say that the genomes of BOTH the Protozoan and the Man are a product of intelligence – just like BOTH the Jumbo Jet and the Wheelbarrow are products of the intelligent use of energy and the manipulation of physical substances!!!

I will accept that, as long as you can provide definitions for "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity" that actually mean something. If you cannot do so, you are simply engaged in something akin to racism - you believe that humans are superior to other organisms, but cannot find any measure by which they are consistently so, so you you invent one.

The straightforward measure of complexity for the Jumbo and the wheelbarrow would be the blueprints necessary to build them from scratch. For living beings, this is the DNA of their genome. All DNA consists of the same 4 base pairs, so it is not really possible for one strand of DNA to "magically" be more information-dense than the next.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

but we are neither a peak, nor even somehow upslope from ancient pond slime.

That is a completely illogical assertion!!

Not at all. You just don't like it, because it rains on your parade.

JC wrote:

Of course, at EVERY LEVEL IMAGINABLE Humans are vastly more complex, vastly more information dense and vastly more anatomically structured than Pond Slime – but that is were an unfounded belief in Evolution leads – to equating Human Beings with Pond Slime!!!!

We have smaller genomes than club mosses - so it apparently takes less genetic information to specify a human being than it does to specify a club moss. Wriggle all you like.

JC wrote:

We are advanced, complex, CONCIOUS, MORAL Beings – and NOT simple, unconscious Pond Slime.

Yes, but we are unable to photosynthesise, which is, I suspect, how the pond slime would measure it.

JC wrote:

The attitude that Humans are not ‘upslope from ancient pond slime’ – and therefore EQUIVALENT to it, means that we could be considered to be just as ‘disposable’ as Pond Slime. :eek:

Only if you're a loonie. I imagine pond slime would consider us pretty disposable, though.

JC wrote:

Indeed one could easily think of a scenario in which Humans could be ‘culled’ if it was thought that there were too many of them and not enough Pond Slime – and especially if a group of Humans were perceived to be a threat to the survival of a particular rare type of Pond Slime!!!

Such nightmare moral scenarios certainly AREN’T UNTHINKABLE if one believes that Humans ARE equivalent to Pond Slime.:eek:

Equivalent? On what basis? I have said that we are not somehow "evolutionarily superior" to pond slime - that means nothing as a value judgement, and is not intended to be one.

You might just as well choose to determine "worth" on the basis of mass, since that fits with the theory of gravity to the same extent as your suggestion fits the theory of evolution.

If you think that the question of "evolutionary superiority" is the deciding factor in whether living beings are judged worthwhile or worthless, then you give evolution much much more credit than I do.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
If you consider this rather demeaning, you might want to think about the idea of devolution - which basically says that I am worse than my father, he than his father, and of course my children worse than me - so that even if we are the "pinnacle of creation", we are nevertheless a seriously degenerate version.

HOW is Creation/devolution ‘demeaning’?

We are still at the pinnacle of a (fallen) Creation – and there is no moral ambiguity about the relative value of Human life versus all other life forms.

Hmm. We're human, so we value human life more highly than other forms. Indeed, we tend to value friends over strangers, neighbours over distant foreigners, people of our own ethnic background over people of other ethnic backgrounds.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
There is no correlation between genome size and primitiveness. Lycopodium lucidulum is a club moss - club mosses being a very "primitive" group of plants (not far up from 'pond slime') - and its genome is 5.5 billion base pairs, compared to humanity's 3.2 billion.

Such is the intellectual bankruptcy of ‘Evolution’ that it is unable to differentiate between a Club Moss and a Human Being!!:eek:

Evolutionists are continually confusing quantity and quality – and Intelligent Design research is making considerable progress in measuring specified information levels and irreducible complexity levels - which are the REAL MEASURES of ‘information densities’ within and between genomes.:cool:

Are they? That's nice - presumably, then, there's definitions of "specified information levels and irreducible complexity levels" to which they adhere. Please provide them immediately.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
Humans have a mid-size genome - the human genome is six times the size of the poplar, but the pine tree is fifty times as large as the poplar. The claim that our information is "denser" than that of the pine because our genome is smaller would mean that the poplar, in turn, must be denser still. The claim that our information is "richer" because our genome is bigger than the poplar genome would, in turn, mean that the pine tree is richer still.

All that proves is that Evolutionists don’t know what they are talking about!!!!!:D

I understand why you need to think so.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
From the standpoint of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis is a black box

As far as I can see, from the standpoint of evolutionary theory, EVERYTHING is a ‘black box’!!!!:D

That's just wibble.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
from that (abiogenesis) point of view, evolution is the 'black box' into which life 'disappears'

‘Up into itself’ no doubt!!!:)

And that's probably meant to be rude.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
Abiogenesis study is a newish field (c. 50-60 years), working on a really quite difficult problem. Recent progress in, for example, reversing the Krebs cycle, has been quite promising, but overall, we are still left with the impression that the answer is still quite definitely unknown.

So we know NOTHING about abiogenesis after 50 YEARS of study!!

Could I suggest that this is because Abiogenesis doesn’t EXIST and never existed – except in the (very) fertile imaginations of Evolutionists!!!!;)

Well, you could, but it would indicate that you hadn't actually read the sentences. We know a lot about abiogenesis, but we don't know what actually happened.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
Even if we succeed, say, in creating life from non-living material, we still will not have proven that this is how life arose on earth.

Such an achievement would indeed indicate an INTELLIGENT origin to life!!:D

To the life we created, sure. Proves nothing about the original origin of life on earth.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
It remains always possible that the ability to create life from non-life is simply a property of the universe, and that life on earth arose through one of the other competing possibilities - Direct Creation, Panspermia, alien intervention, etc.

Quite!!

....and could I point out that 'Panspermia' and 'alien intervention' merely re-locate the ultimate origin of life to somewhere else in the Universe – without explaining how or where life arose in the first place – something that Direct Creation satisfactorily explains!!!:D

Not quite. Direct Creation "explains" nothing. It is an assertion, without mechanism. It covers the origin of life, but no more.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
unsophisticated versions of this argument (from design) are always fundamentally either arguments from ignorance ("I can't see how else it could have come about") or incredulity ("I can't believe it could have come about other than through design").

Rather than your ‘straw men’ arguments, how about 'Intelligence is the only mechanism that has ever been scientifically observed that could account for the observed specified information and irreducible complexity levels in living genomes'!!!:D

That would rely on these missing definitions ("specified information and irreducible complexity levels"). It would certainly be true if they turned out to mean "clockwork" and "labelling", but I presume they don't.

Do they have a meaning?

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
There is also the issue that, again, while we might be able to recognise human design, we have no idea how we would recognise a design created by God, since God is not human, does not think like a human, and therefore presumably does not design like a human.

As this is a Theological question, I will answer it theologically – by confirming that we are made in the IMAGE AND LIKENESS of God – and therefore we DO design like God!!!!:cool:

Are you saying we are like unto God in every way - do we urinate like God, do we fart like God? I suspect you're not saying this (you're just blowing hard, as they say) - and so your argument falls flat on its face.

To reiterate - I will accept a couple of those points if you can actually give me a workable definition of "specified information levels" and "irreducible complexity levels". I am sure you can do so, since you claim that Creation Science has made great strides in measuring them - if there were no definition, and no published method for measuring them, then you would have to be lying, wouldn't you?

Dodge the question, of course, and I will add it to my list of regular jeers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

One Creationist on another? You decide!

The Big Behe Theory

Of course, you may prefer:

Experimental Proof of Intelligent Design for the Amateur Scientist

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Are you speaking of the Bible here?

No, Brian, I am sure I cannot be. Certainly the book wolfsbane uses appears not to have any relation to the Bible as read and understood by virtually all Christians (including, as far as I can see, yourself) - presumably, therefore, it cannot be the same book. Whether wolfsbane claims it is would be at his own discretion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

John 8:6 "They were using this question as a trap"

What part of they were lying do you not understand?

..

John 8:1-11
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."


The question was a trap. Not the fact the woman was caught in adultery. I think the following: the Pharisees had heard Jesus speak on forgiveness. They wanted to get Jesus to forgive her so they could jump all over Him for doing only what could do.

Jesus turned the tables and said go ahead, if you haven't sinned, stone her. Jesus knew that she was guilty, by His reaction at the end, when He says "Go now and leave your life of sin."


It reminds me of the story where the young man in the church was told to stand up in front of the congregation and ask forgiveness for getting his fiancee pregnant. His response was to tell th eelder, right after you confess your sins. One of those little requests by an elder that really bugs me about some churches.:o