thilipsis
-
Posts
253 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by thilipsis
-
-
I was thinking about the Thanksgiving Meal Offering in Leviticus today, it's kind of a neat analogy for a Thanksgiving prayer:
The grain offering (minhah)consisted of fine flower, baked goods, or grain from the ear (Leviticus 2:4, 5, 7, 14).
This was by and large a free will offering someone would make anytime they wanted to show gratitude to God. They must have had a wonderful aroma with flour (grain) and incense and there would have been a lot of them. The scent must have filled the streets of Jerusalem often, especially when the people were required to all be there for special feasts like Pentecost. It's also used symbolically in the Revelation of prayer:
Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God's people, on the golden altar in front of the throne. (Rev. 8:3)
As I get ready to enjoy a Thanksgiving meal with my daughters and grand children I'm mindful that Thanksgiving is one of the more truly Christian holidays since it is uniquely Christian and set aside just for a time of thanksgiving for the many blessings God bestows. May the prayers of the saints rise up, a sweet savor to the God who in all mercy has bestowed on us so many good things in the person and work of Christ delivered to us in the power of the Holy Spirit according to the good and perfect will of the Father.
Grace and peace,
Mark -
Summary:
- HAR1F: Vital regulatory gene involved in brain development, 300 million years it has only 2 subsitutions, then 2 million years ago it allows 18, no explanation how.
- SRGAP2: One single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates. accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. 6 known alleles, all resulting in sever neural disorder.
- 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.
The Taung Child, that replaced the Piltdown hoax, is a chimpanzee, so is Lucy.
Discussion:
What follows are from over ten years of study of the comparative studies related to human brain evolution. Comparative Genomics should have ended, or at least challenged, Darwinian evolution by now but it is exalted above all skepticism. The a priori assumption of universal common descent is immutable in modern philosophies of natural history. The reason they are not questioned isn't the weight of the evidence, indicating chimpanzee-human common ancestry, but the animosity toward anything remotely theistic being suggested as a cause:
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Novum Organum)This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication. Perhaps the longest running demonstration was easily the Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangutan jawbone. Even Louis Leakey, the famous paleontologist, had said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.
Leakey mentions the Piltdown skull in his book 'Adam's Ancestors':
'If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape.'
He referred to the whole affair as an enigma: In By the Evidence he says 'I admit . . . that I was foolish enough never to dream, even for a moment, that the true explanation lay in a deliberate forgery.' (Leakey and Piltdown)The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.
The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity."Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of humankinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell)
Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. What is far more important then finding something indicating a transitional fossil, which they have failed to do, is to understand what the basis of the three-fold of the human brain from that of apes:
The evolutionary time separating human and macaque (20–25 million years) is grossly comparable to that separating rat and mouse (16–23 million years)…214 such genes in all of the four taxa chosen…
Increases in brain size and complexity are evident in the evolution of many primate lineages…However, this increase is far more dramatic in the lineage leading to humans than in other primate lineages…
accelerated protein evolution in a large cohort of nervous system genes, which is particularly pronounced for genes involved in nervous system development, represents a salient genetic correlate to the profound changes in brain size and complexity during primate evolution, (Molecular Evolution of the Human Nervous System. Bruce T. Lahn et al. Cell 2004)That was probably the broadest comparison of brain related genes between apes and humans shortly after the unveiling of the findings of the Human Genome Project in 2001. Since then they have discovered at least two dramatic giant leaps that would have had to occur in order of the human brain to have emerged from ape like ancestors SRGAP2, HAR1F. In addition genes involved with the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16) , and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1).
The ancestral SRGAP2 protein sequence is highly constrained based on our analysis of 10 mammalian lineages. We find only a single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates within the first nine exons of the SRGAP2 orthologs. This is in stark contrast to the duplicate copies, which diverged from ancestral SRGAP2A less than 4 mya, but have accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)What is the problem with 7 amino acid replacements in a highly conserved brain related gene? The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder:
- 15,767 individuals reported by Cooper et al. (2011)] for potential copy-number variation. We identified six large (>1 Mbp) copy-number variants (CNVs), including three deletions of the ancestral 1q32.1 region…
- A ten year old child with a history of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. An MRI of this patient also indicates several brain malformations, including hypoplasia of the posterior body of the corpus callosum…
- Translocation breaking within intron 6 of SRGAP2A was reported in a five-year-old girl diagnosed with West syndrome and exhibiting epileptic seizures, intellectual disability, cortical atrophy, and a thin corpus callosum. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)
The search for variation with regard to this vital gene yielded no beneficial effect upon which selection could have acted. The only conceivable way the changes happen is relaxed functional constraint which, unless it emerged from the initial mutation perfectly functional it surly would have killed the host. Mutations are found in children with 'developmental delay and brain malformations, including West Syndrome, agenesis of the corpus callosum, and epileptic encephalopathies'.(cited above)
Of course Creationists have their opinions about this gene:SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on chromosome number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…Unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all… (Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D)In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:
The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins. This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:
The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.
Darwinian isn't a term Creationists made up, the Modern Synthesis is often called neodarwinism, because it's inextricably linked to the philosophy of Charles Darwin originating in his book On the Origin of Species. He said and I quote:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview. These two worldviews would appear to be mutually exclusive. To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent and at the heart of this philosophy I see the core problem being naturalistic assumptions.
On the other hand, if you feel Darwinians have made their case and find their arguments convincing I say go in peace I have no problem with you. If on the other hand you are interested in valid skepticism regarding the evolution of the human brain from that of apes there is ample evidence to indicate that Darwinism isn't a conclusion but an, a priori (without prior), assumption that allows for exclusively naturalistic causes.
Grace and peace,
Mark-
1
-
On 5/12/2013 at 9:05 PM, paulajeanne said:
Why....
Why do People treat me like I'm crazy when it comes to thinking and trying to living Biblicaly? They act like I'm in a cult....Really???
I see how People LOOK at religion and Christ ! Jesus is included in all the "religions".
The Truth I speak (they explain) Is my truth and it's relative..
You can't Explain it to them....there hard....
My Bible is not just my truth....
It IS TRUTH....
May The Lord help with the understanding of the ONLY way... Show all sceptics...
Let them see WE are not part of just SOME movement..
It's the ONLY movement !
Commanded by THE ONLY GOD !
OUR KING !
LORD JESUS !
OUR FATHER !
OUR CREATOR !
*THERE CREATOR.......
I remember as a new Christian I found the Bible to be problematic at best. For me the two biggest issues were the resurrection and the conversion of Paul, I finally got through that and then I encountered the deity of Christ, the Incarnation and the Trinity. Over a considerable amount of time I got those things under my belt and it's been one thing after the other, yet I've always put my confidence eventually in Christian conviction and the Scriptures. For some thirteen years I argued Creationism on Christian Forums both using an evidential approach (scientific literature) and as a Biblical doctrine. Time and again I encountered arguments and evidences that challenged my convictions, at one time I was a border line Theistic Evolutionist but now I'm a strong young earth creationist with some reservations regarding the creation of the universe being 6000 years ago.
My fascination with apologetics has left me puzzled as to the reason for such stern skepticism and such emotive animosity for the things of faith. I don't think there is anything new about this:
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:14)
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. (James 3:13-16)
Chuck Swindoll one time was talking about Paul before a Roman Governor Agrippa. He describes this man's life and let's just say he wasn't exactly a bastion of moral virtue to put it mildly. What brother Swindoll said about that was, 'what do you expect from worldly people'. Apart from a miracle in your life you will never make the insight into who Jesus Christ is and certainly would never be able to enter into a relationship with him through faith.
When the first century church was being persecuted they did not retaliate, they did not take matters into their own hands and there is a reason for that. They believed the people who were persecuting them were under a delusion. The believed that the Devil and his forces were somehow deluding these people and instead of hating them and lashing out, they saw them of victims of Satanic forces.
No, not everyone who your share your faith with will appreciate you convictions. I've argued Creationism for years and I have been called a fool, a liar and worse, not because of anything I did to them personally but simply because of what I believe. I don't know why they get so vicious in their attacks but at the end of the day we entrust God with our very souls, ultimately we have to trust him to lead us into situations where we can share our faith with those whom God has chosen to be receptive.
Grace and peace,
Mark -
On Saturday, October 01, 2016 at 7:35 PM, angels4u said:
I was talking to somebody who I love very much and she asked me to explain "Why do you believe"?
Can anybody who reads this question please explain "Why YOU believe"?
The person who was asking the question is reading all the answers ...
Thanks ~~
I don't know if the thread is still active but I like the question. I think initially it was because the gospel just made sense. When I accepted Christ I got a response, I wasn't expecting it and it really surprised me. I was always interested in apologetics because like all guys I'm an ameture historian.
Asisde from the personal confirmation I can neither prove nor express, the Bible is far and away the best historical record I've ever seen. Notice I didn't say has the best, the Bible is a stand alone primary source. The primary reason I believe is simply the integrity of the source material.
-
9 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:
It was enough before you started.
As clearly revealed in this thread, EACH of your "so-called" arguments (more like appeals) are: inane, devoid of any Scientific Acumen whatsoever, and reveal a great unfamiliarity with mere basic concepts of reasoning.
regards
I don't even think you are a Creationist, I've seen this before and it's always the same. Its all just a game to you, one long ad hominem attack driving the discussion from anything remotely Scriptural or scientific. Some call that trolling, none call it science.
-
10 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:
Saying (and more importantly specifically SHOWING--as I've done 3 times now) that your definition is "Bunk", ahhh...isn't an ad hominem (Fallacy):
Ad Hominem (Fallacy) -- argumentum ad hominem ...(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_AbusiveIronically, your appeal is a painful Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).
Thanks for repeating what I've already said and illustrated --- multiple times now.
Which is a statement directed toward me personally and not based on anything substantive. A classic ad hominem fallacy. You have to actually relate an actual statement to the illogical framework that makes the argument a fallacy.
QuoteYou already did, that's what led us to your trainwreck.
There is no "Scientific Theory" of evolution ...it doesn't and NEVER Existed.
What I said was that what is referred to as 'the theory of evolution' is Darwinism. Once in a while you might try relating what I say to the scathing indictments you write.
QuoteBegging The Question Fallacy (Again): Where'd you get Genes...?
And 'Modern Synthesis' of what?
The Modern Synthesis, aka Neodarwinism. You say I'm begging the question of proof.
Quote1. Begging The Question Fallacy (Again): Where'd you get Genes...?
2. Statistics isn't "Science"...
Richard Lewontin PhD; Geneticist, Professor of Zoology and Biology at Harvard University..."Indeed the entire science of statistics is designed to cope with the ambiguity of most scientific evidence, and my professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the most eminent experimental evolutionist of his day, used to say that “statistics is a way of making bad data look good.”
Response to critics March 6 1997; Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.3. AGAIN...
Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...
"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is NOT only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING." {emphasis mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.Dobzhansky and Mayr were the architects of the Modern Synthesis. What was being synthesized was the emerging science of genetics and Darwinism. Frequencies come down to traits that emerge from dominant and recessive traits in normal Mendelian genetics. I would elaborate but you would just ignore it.
QuoteI haven't attacked YOU once; However, I sure have Bludgeoned YOUR inane arguments.
You have done nothing but attack me personally, this has been on long cut and paste of quote mining and biting personal remarks that never address what I actually have to say.
Quote
Why would I need to...it's saying the same thing I posted:
Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.My goodness gracious: Errr...Equivocation Fallacy.
What on Earth prompted this? Did I solicit directly or even remotely imply the need for your trainwreck history lesson?
1. Science is it's Method, The Scientific Method:
The Scientific Method:Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results2. Newton's Trainwreck was Titled: The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural PHILOSOPHY.
Is Philosophy Science??
Please demonstrate by The Scientific Method...? Can't wait to see that Step 1 You mean to tell me that you don't consider Principia to be scientific? Wow...
Quote3. Math isn't "Science"/Physics...much like A Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're different words.
Math is Immaterial "Abstract", often rigidly domain specific, and @ BEST...merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada/Niente.Conversely, ACTUAL Scientists are in the business EXPLAINING by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING."That's the whole point about Physics, it's not Mathematics; so it's not a set of axioms from which you derive results. The rules of the game you prepare to change and subsume in an even broader framework."Venkataraman Balakrishnan; Professor of Physics, ITT MadrasIntroduction to Quantum Physics; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (Time 54:55)According to Mathematics, there's an Infinite Set of numbers between 0 and 1, i.e., if I started @ 0, I can never reach 1; however, whenever I type an "I" followed by a "B" with the same finger on my keyboard... I invariably Pummel this Nonsensical Buffoonery every single time!! Ergo, there's somewhat of a difference between "Abstract" and "Physical Reality".Can you show ONE CASE in all of history where Mathematics CAUSED any Phenomena?You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!!Physics....."PHYSICAL" Concrete. Mathematics..."IMMATERIAL" Abstract. Is there something wrong with this picture?Attempting to "EXPLAIN" the Physical, Immaterially/Abstractly... makes as much sense as suffering from Poison Ivy on the Brain and Scratching it by..... Thinking of Sand Paper !!!And btw...
"Alright So, today we're gonna shoot down Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell's Theory. We're like the Press, we build somebody up only to destroy them".Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (2:00 minute mark.)"First I want to tell you what goes wrong with Newtonian Mechanics...the double-slit experiment is a problem; that's what put's the Nail in the Coffin for Newtonian Physics."Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.Quantum Mechanics II: (3:18 minute mark)If you need me to explain HOW/WHY, don't hesitate.
Thanks, Priceless!!! ...
"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory. Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED.Scientific Laws: "describe" ---The What/IS (The "Cause" is N/A). Often expressed mathematically. e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.Here, "The Cause" (mechanism) How/Why is Nonsensical and Invalid Inquiry ...it's just an " IS ". e.g., How/Why does heat flow from Hot To Cold (Always!!) ?? And we'll never know. All we know, every single time... it just DOES and IS; Ergo...Scientific Law.
Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory:"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science."Scientific Theories never become Scientific Laws or Vice Versa; Each are DOMAIN SPECIFIC. Neither outweighs the other!First of all I was talking about the principles of motion and the Scientific Revolution. I don't know what this is and I'm really starting not to care.
QuoteHow can there be 'Scientific Laws' governing something that isn't defined ??
And Scientific Laws don't 'govern' anything...they merely "DESCRIBE" a What/IS. (SEE: above)
Laughingly you haven't the First Clue of what a Scientific Theory, Scientific Law, The Scientific Method, or what "Science" is in general as clearly evidenced in this post and the others in this thread.
Really??
1. Comparisons, Similarities, Correlations et al...aren't "SCIENCE".
2. Please show us --- in a 'DeltaG' context, how you get Nucleosides Then Nucleotides 'Spontaneously', 'Naturally' from their respective building blocks...?
Really??
So put this in the Scientific Method...?
1. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
2. This is tantamount to Elmer Fudd telling Tiger Woods to stop challenging him; and if he complies, he would be more than happy to give his unsolicited advice to the art of 'Back Swings'.
'heaven and the earth' is an IDIOM
Idiom -- an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom
So you're saying that the Universe cannot be understood from the "heavens' AND has a separate meaning from the 'heavens'...?
Is 'Heaven' ---where God resides, a part of our Universe...?
And I'm still trying to find the relevance from my point in which you replied with this.
There is no need for contrived speculation here, God plainly said it...
(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
So it's 'Bunk'.
And, 'Geology' isn't Science and neither are 'Fossils' or 'Radiometric Dating'.
Radiometric Dating and archaeology aren't Science. And btw...
Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are outside of the Scientific Method; Errr..." Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.
You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !
1. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "manipulated by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.
2. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!! So can you please elaborate:How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event (lol) without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?
You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to extrapolate "age".
It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.
Ergo...
A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to with a Kung Fu Death Grip then Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell...???
Sounds like "Propaganda" to me, you? It's mind numbing.
More Importantly, according to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... :
Independent of EXISTENCE of the 'which-path information' ... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."---Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist)Furthermore...
“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.
So... unless you can provide The Name of the person who Observed these Rocks/Photons (Whatever), Date/Time Stamped and Recorded...
Can you please post the "Decay Rate or Speed" for a Wave of Potentialities....?If not, then all this buffoonery is Metaphysical Fairytale "Just-So" Story Telling...with a Misappropriated (READ: Equivocation Fallacy) "Science" facade.
Please, that's what I've been waiting for. And since this is "SCIENCE", could you be so kind as to finally reveal the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
"We"?? You mean YOU. So try and stick with the subject and SUPPORT your claims and leave the rest of your diversions (Red Herrings), Begging The Questions, Appeals to Emotion, and Non Sequiturs in the closet.
Ok that's enough, the formatting alone is enough to bore me to tears but your obviously making this one big fallacious mess. Nothing you have said has been directed at anything substantive I've been saying. You come up with some random quotes, play with the formatting and make a lot of biting personal remarks. I've seen it too many times to count, when you have nothing but ad hominem arguments it's because you have nothing left.Thanks for the exchange but I'm thinking it's the last time we have one. I was fishing the boards for a discussion of Creationism, I honestly don't think you would be interested.
Grace and peace,
Mark -
10 hours ago, Churchmouse said:
Please show me where they wanted to make him a king. I've read on both sides of that scripture for several verses and saw nothing of that. Also you said that he demanded them and I've not come across any of that. I take scripture very seriously and I have not read any of that.
This is the quote:
Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. (John 6:26)
This is the context, Jesus had just fed the 5000:
After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself. (John 6:14)
That evening the disciples get into a boat and cross the Sea of Galilee, Jesus went to a mountain and joined them later, his famous walk on the water. The people who wanted to make him king by force followed and found him, but Jesus explained, using the example of the manna from heaven, that he was the bread of life that came from heaven. It's all in John 6 which is why I suggested you read the verse in context.
QuoteThis thread was not about the division between the cesspool of political ideology. It was about the intolerance of intolerant people screaming for others to be tolerant when all they really want is outright capitulation.
My point was that politics are secondary to Christians since we have our Sovereign King, Jesus was confronted with various segments of society including political factions. Jesus never submitted to them nor should we. Yes, the topic is the intolerant way people in our political system treat one another. Even though I'm pretty much a Democrat I'm aware of the animosity coming from the far left and even from those who might be more moderate, case in point. I have always considered myself something of a moderate so that influence on politics is of great interest to me. Rick Bayan wrote this in his blog:
Righty: The Republican Party is far from perfect, but who else will defend our nation against Islamic terrorists, atheists, Communists, abortionists, antiwar traitors, militant minorities, gays and Barack Hussein Obama?
Lefty: The Democratic Party is far from perfect, but who else will defend our nation against greedy capitalists, warmongers, gun nuts, pro-lifers, despoilers of the environment, fundamentalist Christian fanatics and Sarah Palin? (Political Parties|The New Moderate)
Notice the inclusion on the 'Lefty' side of, 'fundamentalist Christian fanatics', I'm a fundamentalist Christian and I really don't appreciate being considered a fanatic because of my religious persuasion especially since I've been a life long Democrat. What bothers me the most is the fact that religion and politics should have very little to do with one another since the First Amendment prohibits any governmental control of religion and any religious control of government. Yet it's a big political issue. Even though religion should be a matter of conviction with no political bearing Rick Bayan describes the attitude of the left like this:
Lefty: The pathetic fools who believe their holy scriptures to the letter are not simply ignorant and deluded; they’re belligerent fanatics who would kill us to save our souls. Save us from what? From the eternal torments promised in their scriptures to all unbelievers. If the scriptures are full of human errors and embellishments, as they obviously are, then nothing in them is believable and the entire faith must collapse like a house of cards. If the scriptures are false, then God is a myth. Surely we’ve progressed far enough over the past few thousand years to abandon those patriarchal Middle Eastern faiths that have existed primarily to perpetuate fairy tales, subjugate their believers and keep them in a state of abject guilt simply for being human. Let’s get real: God is a human fabrication and his devout followers (like Righty) are a menace. Belief in God and the supernatural has no place in an enlightened society, and it must be eradicated before it destroys us. (God|The New Moderate)
This is what so many people in my own party think of my religion and frankly it's depressing. What on earth could my religious views have to do with my political choices that would invoke such animosity from the party I have remained so loyal to all this time.
I want to get into this in more depth but I don't want to bog the thread down before I express what I think the Christian view of politics should be, or at least how it happens for me. Just understand, I'm further left politically then I ever could be religiously. I'm appalled at Liberal Theology and think it's based on simple unbelief. My biggest problem here is I'm wondering why this animosity toward religion is even doing in our political system. At the same time I have serious problems with the GOP and it's fiscal policies I see as dangerous. My President, Democrat or Republican is subordinate to God whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, whether they want to admit it or not. Bottom line, I don't think either party would support Jesus as a candidate and I think there is ample historical reason to conclude we will not find a safe haven in either political party. Our faith is in Christ, not worldly political systems.
Grace and peace,
Mark -
13 minutes ago, Churchmouse said:
I was referring to what you said about Christ demanding and they accepting him as their king because of them being fed by him. That's different from being satiated enough to search for him, when he disappeared on then. I did read the rest of your posts and I believe you think I am the wrong person. I'm not into politics, but I'm not into perpetually angry people either. Not on the left and especially on the right.
What I did was respond to a thread that asked why Liberals are mean. I don't get political I just know from being around liberals how they are. They stay angry, for the most part and don't need much to set them off.
No they wanted to make him king because they ate and were full. I was inferring some things from Scripture that are not readily applicable to the divisions between liberal and conservative ideology.
-
1 hour ago, Churchmouse said:
I stopped reading this half way through your first paragraph because you are so far off base it isn't even funny. I will go through this with you when I finish my driving time, because I am on a hot load, but I would ask you to submit scripture that would support what you state, since I've never read anything about Christ demanding anyone submit anything to him. nor have I read that people believed in him because their bellies were full.
You might want to look this one up and read it in context:
Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. (John 6:26)
Have a good safe trip.
-
3 hours ago, Churchmouse said:
Politics and religion are not strange bedfellows, they are separate entities that when mixed delete and disfigure each other until they are unrecognizable. These are two seperate and distinct masters and as the Bible states.
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
If you look at all these, they are political and serve the desires of man to dominate man. Politics is a game for control freaks to facilitate their own comfort zone. It doesn't mater wither it is of the left or of the right. It serves to make the world around us more comfortable without the good works that if done would be far more palatable to those onlookers who view both the left and the right as equally insane.
Reading your post I was thinking about Jesus in Galilee, he just feed the 5,000 and they decide to make him king, the implication is they aren't asking nicely. He demands that they believe in him, that they only want him to be king because their bellies were full, he demanded faith and many of them would not follow him anymore, that had to hurt. If you remember the Exodus they called the bread of heaven, manna, worthless so he gave them all they could eat and they were getting ever closer to the promised land but in their hearts they turned back to Egypt and rose up and worshiped a golden calf. Moses was constantly complaining they were a bunch of stiff necked and rebellious people. When it came time they not only failed to believe Joshua and Caleb that God would drive their enemies out they were going to kill Joshua and Caleb.
Since then we have seen the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation fighting the Thirty Years war and a terrible civil war in England. In the wake of this tremendous political upheaval William and Mary signed the eight charters the would grow to become the thirteen colonies. Before and after the Revolution there were two profoundly Christian movements, the Great Awakening 1 and 2, a revival that sandwiched the American War of Independence. This movement was started when Johnathan Edwards preached a sermon, Sinners in the hands of an Angry God where he described the Church as crossing a rickety bridge and below was lava, fire and smoke. The very definition of a fire and brimstone sermon. John Wesley would go on to preach as London was being over run with the poor and desperately poor telling Christians we have a greater duty then church attendance, we were called to have a burden for the poor and the Methodist/Wesleyan movement was born. Wesley also preached compassion for the rich and powerful and was one of the key people involved in the Bloodless Revolution.
I actually have a point, not meaning to sermonize. Christians have been involved in all kinds of political issues but our power comes from the grace that saves us. Aligning ourselves with either party isn't how Christian influence is really supposed to be brought to bear and worldly governance. If we do not respond to the promises of God with repentance and faith any political influence we might have is worse then useless. I saw the Culture War unfold and apparently the issues of abortion, same sex activism and Creationism that were key issues have resulted in the Church being alienated from the portals of political power. The fault is in ourselves, not the political parties be they conservative or liberal.
We know how this ends, the world is at enmity with God because of sin and if we are lured into worldly thinking we are simply part of the problem. Pilate was desperate to free Jesus but he was told in no uncertain terms that he wasn't in charge of the situation. We will continue to struggle against the powers and principalities as we take a stand on the Gospel of peace and if we fail to do this, if we leave our first love, if we manage to convince ourselves we are rich and in need of nothing then we will fall.
I'm going to get off my soapbox now and leave you with one final thought. The Most High is Sovereign and rules in the affairs of men.
Grace and peace,
Mark -
3 hours ago, Churchmouse said:
Liberals are the types of people who scrutinize any form of authority outside of their own and cast all others in such a light that will illuminate their values in such a way that will vindicate them and justify their actions.
Been reading through the fundamentals of the faith, a four collection of essays defending the Christian Scriptures and core convictions. Its over a hundred years old but looking at what the modern seminaries are teaching apparently warnings of an encroaching liberal theology went unheaded. Its not just politics it's in activists social agenda, legal issues from eugenetics to assisted suicide, even evolution reflects a liberal view of traditional theistic reasoning.
That said I'm not sold on a tea party pro status quo hard right either. Like Aristotle said virtue is the balance between two extreme. excess and deficiency.
-
21 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:
Speaking of disparaging remarks..
...group of reprobates...
... anarchists, socialists, communists, marxists, fascists, anti-Semites, racists...
... They are simply pawns of the Devil ...
I didn't like that either, but of course I wouldn't I just happen to be a Democrat.
21 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:I frequent multiple boards and I see the right giving every bit as good as the left in the area of threats and disparaging remarks.
Awfull lot of that going around. It was a bitter campaign with an awfull lot at stake.I liked Pacino's words in Any Given Sunday, we are either going to have to come together as a team or we will die as individuals. I think of all people we as Christians should be peacemakers.
21 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:Almost all of the Liberals I know are so because they believe the government can address problems better than individuals. I wholeheartedly disagree with them, but them having that view does not make the of the devil.
For me the rule of thumb is 'liberal' and 'conservative' are a reference to change. The conservative is more of a strict constructionalist where liberals see the Constitution as more elastic and subject to interpretation. I've really always been a moderate and I have never liked having to choose between two extremes.
21 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:This thread is on an open part of the forum that anyone can read, if a liberal that was seeking Jesus choose to read this thread, do you suppose it would be a good witness to the lo
Read an interesting article a while back that described the growing number of moderates and their effect on the outcome of elections. There are way more of them then any third party candidate can rally.
Instead of polarizing factions a smart approach would be to speak to the ones who crowd the middle because more and more they will be the deciding votes in our elections. They don't like one party having all the power so watch out in 2018.
-
4 hours ago, kwikphilly said:
Blessings thilipsis
Ah,okay so you are a creationist then & I am getting the feeling that what you are talking about has little or nothing to do with the OP......let's see
These are the 3 things that DARRELX asked any evolutionist to PROVE with REAL evidence to support their claims,right?
Okay then ,#1)Abiogenises can life EVOLVE from an inorganic or inanimate substance? No,therefore it is wishful thinking
Theories abound, I have an old Biology textbook that says it had something to do with iron pyrite. The most popular one is the RNA world, the real challenge though is trying to determine how the amino acids originated. There are sixteen and they have to be in a specific sequence in order to fold into a usable protein. That's why the definition of 'evolution' as distinct from 'the theory of evolution' aka 'Darwinism', is important. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature, readily defined observed and demonstrated. The so called 'theory of evolution' is little more then a naturalistic assumption applied to all life throughout all time. DARRELX doesn't like to get down to specifics, that's why the conversation got derailed.
Quote#2)Explain HOW a single cell can EVOLVE into a multicellular living thing.........huh?
Just like stem cells they would have to differentiate. The primordial single cell life would have had a pretty short genome and no nucleus. What would be required is molecular mechanisms capable of building and editing stands of DNA so that to can differentiate in protein coding and regulatory genes. After that organelles like mitochondria, ribosomes, Golgi apparatus and at some point there as to be a nucleus with pores that control traffic like a security guard, there are also ports on the outer wall of the cells that are highly specified. These are things all needed to become a population of Eukaryote cells before they organize into multicellular creatures. Then there is the problem of plants which use photosynthesis to power it's cellular functions instead of mitochondria.
You see, finding the problem with evolution as natural history is easy enough. You just need to know a little something about biology.
Quote#3)New biological TRAITS EVOLVED from a multuicellular SPECIES......producing what? New Species?How? I suppose without being able to prove HOW single cell EVOLVES to multicell then one cannot explain new biological traits,can one?
What does your replies have to do with these questions as you are talking about adaptations of species,they do not EVOLVE into other "species" a horse was always a horse,it will not become anything but a horse no matter where you put that horse & no matter how drastic the conditions change in it's environment & no matter how many generations it remains there,it may get a thicker coat of hair,wider hooves etc.... & the species will ADAPT to survive & be better suited but it will still be A HORSE......it was never a donkey,it will never be a donkey,a camel or an elephant .....as an ape never became anything but an ape nor has a single cell ameoba ever turn into a tree,a unicorn or a human embryo So what is it that you are trying to say as a Creationist?Are you saying that God did not do what He said He did,the Bible is a summary or a brief description of what really took much longer the 6 day creation?I cannot see rhyme or reason in what you are saying and first you agreed with DARRELX but then went on to say that THEY(I'm assuming that means EVOLUTIONISTS?)have some formidable arguments? What might they be?
What I have done over the years is study comparative genomics, particularly brain related genes. Just like with Eukaryote cell information when you know the difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, you can establish the burden of proof for Darwinians. You can't get into the specifics without a basic understanding of genetics. There is a reason evolution was defined in terms of population genetics, the Mendelian laws of inheritance track changes in traits (alleles) that way. It's the only way science has ever seen it done. When I went to find Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box I had to ask the clerk. Turns out it was in the biology section, I chuckled about that all the way home, of course that's were it would be. Intelligent design proponents simply review biology and apply certain principles to determine intelligent design. Creationists are a little different since we have biblical, doctrinal and theological reasons as well.
What invariably happens with the Darwinians is they eventually have nothing but biting personal remarks. That's when you know you have them, it starts with an equivocation of the phenomenon of evolution with Darwins theory of natural history, wrongly called selection. Then it ends with ad hominem fallacious rhetoric that drives the conversation further and further away from scientific fact, theory and laws of science like Mendelian genetics. Learn the rules of science and Darwinism can be dismissed as deductive logic from a priori assumptions that are contrary to science. Science is inductive, until we establish a few rules of reason they get to run us in circles endlessly.
Grace and peace,
Mark -
10 hours ago, kwikphilly said:
Blessings
I was just about to reply to thilipsis after reading his intitial post ,especially because of this
My definition would have been simply....evolution ISN"T,so how does one define nothing??? Errr"Science Fiction" Philosophy of natural history thatb presupposes naturalistic causes????Huh?.......I was merely going to end my comment there & then I saw Enoch,he took point by point,answered every one and the reply was "What did anything have to do with what I wrote?Seriously?
Well,DARRELX asked four questions,I couldn't wait to hear the replies......as usual,none Though I do enjoy Sci-Fi I was in the mood for something on a serious note
I assure you I am being very serious and aside from some dramatic rhetoric no serious questions have been posed. The truth is you can't dismiss evolution as a phenomenon in nature, arctic wild life for example. The arctic cod for example, has a brand new (de novo) gene, co-evolved at least four times. It produces an antifreeze gene they need to live in the frigid waters of the arctic. Now this creates no special problems for me as a Creationist since I simply regard this as define providence, God provided for adaptive evolution. Let us not rush ahead of ourselves and dismiss evolution before we actually define what it is we are talking about.That's how evolutionists do it, they get you to argue against evolution when what is really at issue is the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians. It wouldn't be that bad if not for the fact that creationists tend to go for that equivocation fallacy hook, line and sinker. The adaptive evolution of a protein coding gene with simple repeats and the de novo emergence of 60 brain related genes in the human genome since the supposed split isn't the same thing at all.
-
8 hours ago, creativemechanic said:
People who misuse or misquote scripture to justify what they do.
Eg.Judge not lest ye be judged is frequently used by people as a defense against correction even though judging and correction are two completely different things. Even some professed Christians do this.
Render your hearts not your garments to justify wearinganything they want. The word used isn't even render, its rend
I keep running into turn the other cheek, so if someone smacks you, your supposed to let them smack the other side. Well that is what it says but there was a rule in court, if you stole something and you were at trail and lied someone who was a witness could smack you and then tell the court the truth. Jesus demonstrated how this works, at his trial he basically told them that he was the long awaited Messiah, the Son of God. Well this slave steps up and smacks him. Jesus says, if I spoke falsely then bear witness, otherwise, why did you strike me. I think it means keep telling the truth no matter how many times they call you a liar. Sometimes it takes a little digging to get at what a passage is telling us.
-
7 hours ago, markdohle said:
Yes riches can give a false sense of being in control and isolates us from the suffering of others. I do love the epistle of James, he has some rough edges LOL, but his point across.
Peace
markJames is, arguably, not the best writer in the New Testament. I think he is struggling with the conduct of Jewish Christians so very early in the formation of the church. A couple of points worth mentioning. James was the surviving brother of Jesus so he was a son of David as well, in the mind of these Hebrews he would have been seen as royalty. When writing to these guys, who we dare not judge too harshly, he describes the Royal Law:
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. (James 2:8)
If I were the king and I died the next logical person to take the throne would be either my oldest son or my next oldest brother. Well, I think they kind of looked at James that way, of course they knew Jesus was still the rightful heir to the throne but still saw James as being from the Messianic line. He presided over the Jerusalem Council, it was James that proposed that Paul write the letter we now know as Galatians. James was one of the first leaders of the Church Paul met with three years after conversion:
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. (Gal. 1:18)
Ok, he was not a great writer but like Jude he wrote a timely admonition at a time when the Church was struggling with some things. I still think if we were going to have to determine the best writer in the New Testament it would be a toss up between Paul and John. Paul went on and on and John had a tendency to talk in generalities, emphasizing personal dialogue. For some pretty straight forward, bare bones, get right to the point admonition James is hard to beat.
Grace and peace,
Mark -
Quote
Well because "Your" definition is bunk.
Well your argument is an obviously ad hominem and it's what you resort to when you have nothing else. Scathing personal arguments are not substantive, they are illogical melodrama. Differentiating between the phenomenon in nature known as 'evolution' and Darwinian naturalistic evolution also known as the 'theory' of evolution are two different things passed off as if they were the same thing which is an equivocation fallacy.
QuoteAgain your Appeal to a 'Working' definition is inane. For the 2nd Time... What is a 'Working Definition'? Compare/Contrast a 'Working' definition with just a plain ole run-o-the-mill definition...?
If you want to define, 'evolution' then be my quest but I'm not chasing this around the mulberry bush.
QuoteYou fail to see that "Your" definition (Change in Allele Frequency) and Ernst Mayr's (Professor of Zoology Harvard and identified as "The Worlds Greatest living evolutionary biologist" ----Gould) pummeling of said definition...has any bearing??
You fail to see that during the Modern Synthesis Darwinism and Mendelian Genetics were blended. That's why evolution in this day and age reflects population genetics, which is statistical variance, which is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Your too busy attacking the person to focus on the substantive aspects of these issues.
QuoteWell Logical Fallacies are Logical Fallacies whether you think you're in an argument or not.
Well that's called a TEXTBOOK...
Equivocation Fallacy --- when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
From your link that you didn't bother to quote or discuss:
For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter. (Equivocation Fallacy)
Evolution is not one thing but two, it's the change of allele frequencies in populations over time and it's the Darwinian philosophy of natural history that presupposes universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes.
QuoteThe BIGGIST problem is you clearly don't know what a REAL "Scientific Theory" is...
"theory" (Colloquial): Abject Speculation !!
No the biggest problem is that you like correcting things that are not errors without pertaining those random corrections to anything substantive. Science, as we have come to understand it today, was a product of the Scientific Revolution. It was an inductive approach that was the inverse of the Medieval Aristotelian deductive logic. With the advent of tools, mental and physical, like the Y squared and the telescope a new approach was forged. Newton sent his Experimentum Crucis, which was a serious of demonstrations, published and submitted to the Royal Society in London.
If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment-the experiment crucis-where found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory. (Isaac Newton, The Last Sorcerer, by Michael White)
It was attempted to argue from a priori deductive logic but Newton argued that since he had demonstrated the principle it could only be disproven through demonstration. This silenced his critics, science has held to that standard ever since. Newton, once in a coffee shop challenged his colleagues with a wager over the Y2 in motion. He said a comet will appear in the eastern sky in May, if they could calculate when it will appear in the western sky on it's return trip he would give them an uncut (brand new) book on astronomy worth over 700 pounds. They couldn't do it so very politely one of them asked if he had calculated it. He said, 'yes, of course', so he asks to see the calculations and Newton agreed to try to find them. When he was unable to do so he reproduced the calculations and as a result he ended up writing Principia, this was the first application of an emerging math we now know as calculus. In Principia Newton describes the rules of science:
- Admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
- To the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
- Qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
- Propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena. (Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton)
We learned that science is a process where you test hypothesis, frame a theory explaining the data and when the principle is sufficiently universal it's determined to be a law of science. To date, the only scientific laws governing evolution are the Mendelian laws of heredity which propelled Genetics ahead by leaps and bounds over the hundred years from Chromosome theory to the unveiling of the Initial Sequence of the Human Genome:
The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century1, 2, 3 sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.
The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial Sequence of the Human Genome, Nature Feb. 2001)
You see, l do know what a theory is and this is getting tedious. I'm well read on the subject of comparative genomics, especially the DNA of chimpanzees and humans. I have a special interest in human brain evolution and if you would like to learn more about that I suggest you start working with me and stop trying to turn this into a contest.
QuoteAnd isn't "Creation" of Heaven and Earth part of... "CREATION" week??That is an interesting question, after looking carefully at the text of Genesis it would appear to be an open question. I would have to answer, perhaps, but there is an alternate reading. God created the, 'heavens and the earth', a Hebrew idiom for the universe. At some time subsequent, perhaps minutes, perhaps billions of years, God started his work of creation on earth that was complete in six literal days. What I think is going on is that the radiometric dating in geology is getting samples from fossil beds that are showing indications of old age, the fossils are becoming mineralized from elements that may well be very old but it is useless to determine the age of the fossils.
Don't get me wrong, radiometric dating is quite useful, it can be highly useful when examining archaeology evidence. I found a study of the ashes at Ai where the city was destroyed by fire around the time of the Joshua conquest. The date was hard to determine because ash isn't your best source for radiometric dating but the date is very close to the Biblical timeline.
Now I intend to keep my word, if you want me to make an argument for Darwinian evolution I can do that. But we are not going to get anywhere simply exchanging biting personal remarks. They had me on the ropes and I was even willing to rearrange some of my theology to accommodate Darwinian evolution right up until the publication of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. To date I have not been able to find an evolutionist that has an answer for the indels (insertions/deletions) thought responsible for extremely long divergent strands in the human and chimpanzee genomes respectively.
Grace and peace
-
2 minutes ago, HisFirst said:
I hear you ?
Deep breaths, deep breaths..!
Yes, grace and peace, God have mercy on me a sinner, judge not lest ye be judged...stop it, STOP IT I SAY!...deep breaths, deeeep breaths...it's going to be ok....
-
It puzzled me early on that God preferred the poor over the rich, the weak over the strong, the sinner over the religious perfectionist. I still catch myself wondering why Paul when the villains of the Gospels were the Pharisees and then one of them becomes the Apostle to the Gentiles. I sometimes think of the rich man and Lazarus or the rich young ruler who thought he was keeping the Law but was still covetous. It's all over the Old Testament:
The Lord stands up to plead
and stands to judge the people.
The Lord will enter into judgment
with the elders and the princes of His people:
For you have eaten up the vineyard;
the spoil of the poor is in your houses.
What do you mean that you beat My people to pieces
and grind the faces of the poor?
says the Lord God of Hosts. (Isaiah 3:13-15)God judges us for how we treat others and while we cannot fulfill the Law by our own merits, the tenth commandment, 'Thou shalt not covet' still has an important lesson for us:
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. (Col. 3:5)
People don't erect idols of gold and silver and worship them as gods anymore but this description of idolatry has sexual immorality and other things but then at the end it includes greed. I makes me wonder what staring at these idols did for and to those who worshiped them. There is nothing wrong with gold, God paves the streets of the new Jerusalem with the stuff. I just think we have to be careful what we set our hearts on. Looking at a women with lust is really worse then adultery? Well, at least the same thing.
The church at Laodicea was an important church in Asian Minor, actually founded and supported the church at Colossi. They had amazing wealth but somehow that made them forget they were poor, pitiful, blind and naked. I sometimes wonder which is worse, losing it all or having it all.
-
13 minutes ago, warrior12 said:
Good to know. Then again we are talking about the english language, you know some say it is awkward and backward compared to others, so i have been told. Then to add, you have taking the english translations and using the greek and hebrew to reference the word and it can be mind boggling to me at least. All because i don't know hebrew and greek and how to transalate to enlish.
Try Blue Letter Bible and well, some things are not going to translate well. When Jesus asked Peter if Peter loved him and Peter said yes Lord I love you, it's not well known but they are using two different words. Jesus is saying 'agape' and Peter is saying 'phileo'. Jesus is telling Peter that he will pay a price, that means sacrifice. Peter is saying Lord we are friends. Finally Jesus asks if Peter loves him, 'phileo', basically asking him if he is even his friend. Peter then says, I love (agape) you. That doesn't come out in a translation.
-
3 minutes ago, warrior12 said:
I had a question for your first reply but i did not post it and it was this. Was that a rant ?
Now i have read your other replys and you said thanks for letting you vent, then i know your position. Anyway, like your remarks, and or i should say your writing style, i find it really amusing.
Well yea, of course I'm just kidding around but at the same time it just drives me up the wall. Parables are comparisons, visions are highly figurative and when Jesus says I'm the bread of life he's not thinking he is a loaf of bread. I mean come on, it's not that hard guys.
-
1 minute ago, Yowm said:
or some kind of 7 year pact with Israel...anyways, I don't plan on being on the scene when he makes his debut.
Well yea, you'll either be raptured, running or killed. I mean, if people come to your house in the middle of the night with a guillotine and tell you either worship this statue or that's it for you. I don't really think at that point you need to break out on the number name calculator. Personally I think my only concern is asking them when's the last time you sharpened this thing, cause then it's too easy. Don't even get me started on date setting, what part of no one knows the hour or the day is so hard?
-
4 minutes ago, Yowm said:
Gee, I don't bother guessing, I already know...ROFLt
(it was a joke kids, a joke)
Yea, stop calculating the number of the Beast please. Newsflash, your not going to have any trouble knowing who this guy is. When some lunatic starts an unprecedented rampage decimating and plunging the world into apocalyptic carnage that will be a dead give away. I don't know, maybe the unprecedented blasphemy or the destruction of anything called God might give us a clue.
-
12 minutes ago, HisFirst said:
LOL!!
Sound like the Robin Williams of Worthy Boards!!
I'm just saying, if people worked on their cars like they 'interpret' Scripture there would be a spike in people needing public transportation. Don't get me wrong if you want to allegorize a text of Scripture, that's perfectly fine, it's a nice devotional way of reading and applying Scripture. Paint it any color you like, use whatever kind of seat covers appeal to you, play whatever you like on the radio but please don't tinker with the engine if you don't know what your doing. Thanks for letting me vent, l feel much better now.
Why would I need to...it's saying the same thing I posted:
Please demonstrate by The Scientific Method...? Can't wait to see that Step 1 
Thanks, Priceless!!! ...
And we'll never know. All we know, every single time... it just DOES and IS; Ergo...Scientific Law.
Why are Liberals so mean to me?????
in General Discussion
Posted
I'm not so sure because Communists are not exactly warmed up to the idea of empowering women as far as I can tell. Feminism came from the Women's rights movement and I think it has been a positive thing in a lot of ways. I'm not crazy about a lot of their legal and social activists but very much enjoy some of their more intellectual ideals.