RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Dauric -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 12:42:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus I just found this: http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/15evo_lg.jpg And I'm proooooud to be an American! sings commits seppuku Lemie borrow that knife... I know how to increase the percentage of people who believe in evolution... make it a survival trait. ( I'm being snarky since I have to be part of a conference call I don't really want to.) $0.02, Dauric.

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 12:46:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dauric quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus I just found this: http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/15evo_lg.jpg And I'm proooooud to be an American! sings commits seppuku Lemie borrow that knife... I know how to increase the percentage of people who believe in evolution... make it a survival trait. ( I'm being snarky since I have to be part of a conference call I don't really want to.) $0.02, Dauric. I actually suggested that several pages ago. [:D]

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 1:05:51 PM)
http://premium1.uploadit.org/oonaangyl//allietheory2.JPG Take that, Seeks!! :p

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 3:29:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Anthrosub asks me What would explain why some life forms living and evolving during the Ordovician Period made the transition to land? Anthrosub I have NO idea. Please tell me, but before you do, I trust you will not use the following reasoning..... Natural Selection is true. Fossil record shows Sea creatures. Fossil record shows Land creatures appearing in a relatively short time interval after. Therefore Natural Selection explains why sea creatures moved to the land. Something else has just occured to me. Till they left the water environmental pressure would not have promoted those features that allowed survival on the land . Eh? and just as important Anthrosub even if such features developed in the sea,not likely unless Natural Selection is wrong,the creatures were in equilibrium in the sea and had no inner incentive to "move on" Eh? Thanks for staying on topic! Now I will give you the answer. But first, you must stop thinking of evolution as having some sort of "urge" behind it as a motivation. Others here are doing this too; it is not how it works. I said "go to the beach." What do you see there? A tide! Ever heard of a tidal basin? Go walk the beach someplace where it's not just sand. You should eventually find some area where the tide comes in and out but the water remains behind in pools of various sizes and shapes. Even today, if you go to these areas you will find life that exists only in the tidal basins. Life in these areas must deal with being out of the water or completely submerged for equal periods of time. But there are also areas where the water doesn't completely drain away and evaporates. Now consider this...the land is not fixed. There's errosion to contend with as well as uplift (from plate tectonics). The theory is that in some areas, what was once a shallow sea very slowly lifted up as the land was changing. Couple this with erosion and the tides and you have an environment that would "select" for mutations that were more suited to living in water that had less and less oxygen (and perhaps greater salinity or other minerals). As the environment changed and mutations occurred, life forms would develop that would eventually not rely on the oxygen in the water at all, becoming independent of the sea. Eventually, they would make the complete transition to becoming land-based life. None of this happened overnight naturally and the food supply would have still been found in the sea for some period but around the same time that life was becoming land-based, so too were primitive forms of plant life making their appearance (plant life began to speciate during the next period). There was no "pressure" or "urge" to leave the oceans...life just mutated in areas that supported the transition and as the land was essentially a new open "niche," life proliferated at a pace that was likely governed by how quickly plant life evolved during the same period. You may ask where plant life came from...the answer is the ocean. There is still simple plant life (algae) living in the ocean to this day. anthrosub

Dtesmoac -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 6:31:34 PM)
It's probably already been pointed out in the thread but surely all of the arguments used to dispute the theory of evolution also apply to the question of who created the creator. An which sounds more plausible: Over billions of years a few amino acids became a life form and the rest is evolution or Out of the vacuum of nothingness a chap popped up who said what we need is a god and so created God who in 7 days created........

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 11:29:30 PM)
Anthrosub...I have just read your explanation of evolution of life sea2land and my man you have done EXACTLY what I asked you not to do. You demonstrate that you believe that Natural Selection is true. How ?. By believing that Natural Selection is true. This is a circular method of arguing and if you were to use it in maths. you would end up the such results as 1 = 1. Which come to think of it is a perfect analogy for what you have done.. See N_ssers it is possible to attack belief in Natural Selection on purely logical grounds as well. The early N_ssers made a mistake which has reverberated down the last 150 odd years. I believe the energy sustaining that mistake is attempts to discredit Religous belief. The killer blow to Natural Selection was the discovery of the complexity of the molecular structure of life in the 1950's. Though of course it should have been possible to deduce that something complex underlays the structure of life long before unravelling the details. Believers such as Rule are not phased by complexity however ! See Rules claim that..... Eye development simple. Only a cavity and a lens. Brain development simple. Only a collection of switches. 1 switch or 10^15 switches many of which are interconnected in a totally unfathomable way. Dont worry about it. Natural Selection knows, yer know. Explain memory then ! Sexual reproduction simple. Despite the fact that a totally new way of molecular replication has to occur. Only half the genes present in the result and also conferring no advantage whatsoever when relating numbers to the likelyhood of survival. Incidently Daddy I hope you are recovering from the shock of having to admit that Natural Selection fails to give a sensible explanation for the appearance of sexual reproduction. All as a consequence of a truly simple proposition For all positive integers X > X/2.. By the way Natural Selectors that fact actually rests on a DEFINITION or axiom. ************AS DO YOUR WILD SPECULATIONS*************

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 1:58:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Anthrosub...I have just read your explanation of evolution of life sea2land and my man you have done EXACTLY what I asked you not to do. Besides which, his explanation is not quite correct. Amphibians evolved in sweet water, not salt water. There is flooding and resulting drying out 'tide pools' there as well. More in particular there in sweet water may occur yearly and lengthy algae blooms that completely deoxygenate the water. Those fishes that can use their swim bladder as a provisonal lung (a new application of an already existing organ) - even in the slightest way - will have a decided advantage over those that do not. Natural selection will cause lungs to evolve relatively quickly (may have taken some millions of years) in such a biotope. Simultaneously, having sacificed their gills when growing up, as they are not needed when you have more efficient lungs, skin breathing would evolve. Presto: an amphibian. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave You demonstrate that you believe that Natural Selection is true. How ?. By believing that Natural Selection is true. This is a circular method of arguing and if you were to use it in maths. you would end up the such results as 1 = 1. Which come to think of it is a perfect analogy for what you have done. No one questions the fact of evolution, seeks, nor the theory of evolution through natural selection. It is not a belief without foundation. Any scientist will gladly put the theory next to the garbage if it is proven invalid. Scientists assume - it is an assumption, not a belief - that this theory is true because there is overwhelming reason for them to do so and because there is no evidence at all that the theory is invalid, nor is there any evidence for another, competing hypothesis. Thus evolution theory has the same status as all other scientific theories: they are assumed to be true. You have been told more than once by different people that scientific theories are the axioma's of science. You have as yet not convinced me that this particular axioma is invalid. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave See N_ssers it is possible to attack belief in Natural Selection on purely logical grounds as well. Quite. And I would if I saw any opportunity. I want glory. Thus you would find me on your side, seeks. However, I do not see any opportunity. Only people who do not understand the principles and mechanisms of evolution - including biologists like Eldredge and Gould. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The early N_ssers made a mistake which has reverberated down the last 150 odd years. I believe the energy sustaining that mistake is attempts to discredit Religious belief. Indeed, it was. But evolution and evolution theory can only discredit religious belief when religions are dogmatic and inflexible and refuse evolution and evolution theory as the marvelous gifts from the Creator. Thus they are punished for their blasphemy. I have already told you that you also are a sinner for this reason. As this is who you are, the Creator will be lenient when once again you are dead and belong to him. As long as you live, though, he does not appreciate your blasphemy. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The killer blow to Natural Selection was the discovery of the complexity of the molecular structure of life in the 1950's. Though of course it should have been possible to deduce that something complex underlays the structure of life long before unravelling the details. It probably was suspected. However, seeks, this is a derived complexity. There are only four DNA-nucleotides and a fifth that occurs only in RNA instead of one of the four DNA-nucleotides. There are - if I recall correctly - only about sixty codons of three nucleotides, alltogether encoding only twenty amino acids. This complexity of molecular structure is thus derived from simplicity. Also extremely simple is the algorithm that we call 'natural selection'. The complexity that distresses you therefore is not an issue. Science is very familiar with algorithms and natural selection is one of the simplest algorithms there is. If this algorithm would not occur in nature, that lack would be more incredible than the absence of for example nuclear fusion. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Believers such as Rule are not phased by complexity however ! See Rules claim that..... Eye development simple. Only a cavity and a lens. Brain development simple. Only a collection of switches. 1 switch or 10^15 switches many of which are interconnected in a totally unfathomable way. You are still obsessed with quantity instead of paying attention to quality. Neurophysiology is quite advanced these days, seeks. There exists an immense amount of knowledge about the molecular biology and the biophysics of nerve cells. And I do not believe. I either know or I do not know, or I assume. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Dont worry about it. Natural Selection knows, yer know. Explain memory then! You are deviating from the subject again, seeks. That is an improper way to argue. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Sexual reproduction simple. Despite the fact that a totally new way of molecular replication has to occur. Not totally new, seeks. Natural selection always works with what is already there. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Only half the genes present in the result and also conferring no advantage whatsoever when relating numbers to the likelyhood of survival. Would you elaborate on both statements, please? I do not quite understand your argument for lack of specificity. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently Daddy I hope you are recovering from the shock of having to admit that Natural Selection fails to give a sensible explanation for the appearance of sexual reproduction. All as a consequence of a truly simple proposition. I and others have already provided you with such an explanation. Clearly you did not understand it. Try again, please. Read this entire thread again, please. And I do assume that D4US has long since decided to give up on you as a lost cause without worth. That is also natural selection. Indeed, I have considered blocking you. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave For all positive integers X > X/2.. By the way Natural Selectors that fact actually rests on a DEFINITION or axiom. ************AS DO YOUR WILD SPECULATIONS************* I have no issue with that. I already stated that asexual reproduction for some reasons is superior to sexual reproduction. Nevertheless sexual reproduction does occur because it provides a huge advantage to species that reproduce in this way: it allows them to evolve very much faster than the static asexually reproducing species and therefore to first occupy any available ecological niche.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 3:45:31 AM)
Rule says regarding my claim that a major impetus underlying evolutionist argument is attempts to discredit Religious Belief *************************************** Indeed, it was. But evolution and evolution theory can only discredit religious belief when religions are dogmatic and inflexible and refuse evolution and evolution theory as the marvelous gifts from the Creator. Thus they are punished for their blasphemy. I have already told you that you also are a sinner for this reason. As this is who you are, the Creator will be lenient when once again you are dead and belong to him. As long as you live, though, he does not appreciate your blasphemy *************************************** You have made this point several times before Rule. Why doesn't it put you FIRMLY in the Intelligent Design camp. I mean by ID a creator setup the ground rules which allowed evolution to proceed. Periodic tweaking was required, hence the discontinuity of the fossil record. I dont believe it myself but it seems more likely, I should have thought, than Natural Selection. Incidently to those who are convinced that rejection of Natural Selection means you must explain the origin of a Creator. Not so. Indeed my considered opinion is that their are limits to the capacity of the human mind. Consider the infinitude of space. Consider the infinitude of time. If you project forward then a point at infinity is never reached. If you consider NOW having been arrived at from an infinite past then it ie now, would never have arrived. Paradox or what ? Why isn't the Big Bang theory in cosmology a Creationist argument. Easy to upset a cosmologist by asking him what brought about the Big Bang. And he/she is a scientist. Basically they havn't got the faintest idea , same with N_ssers. Both camps prepared to believe wild Phantasmogirical speculation. Frequently at the taxpayers expense.!!!!

meatcleaver -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 3:54:34 AM)
You cannot know that a creator might not appreciate blasphemy. I don't actually believe in a creator but I would enjoy a creator who had enough humour to appreciate blasphemy since blasphemy is just a malicious ruse to keep people in line by other more ignorant people.

LadyEllen -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 4:00:37 AM)
I dont see how salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (ie Christianity) depends to any degree on believing in Biblical creation? Jesus came not to build up, but to tear down according to my Bible - indicating a total break with Judaism, which must necessarily also include a break with that entire tradition including the creation myth. It is notable that Jesus didnt comment on the creation in the Gospels in the Bible - he had no need to because what he brought to mankind did not depend in any way on traditionally held beliefs or cultural reference. All that was required was faith in what he preached as son of the Jewish God, directly from that God rather than through the interpretations of man which was what had gone before. Basically, all of that former stuff could be thrown away because God was here and telling it how it is. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 4:22:56 AM)
Rule said....... And I do assume that D4US has long since decided to give up on you as a lost cause without worth. That is also natural selection. Indeed, I have considered blocking you. Sorry Rule I did try hard to resist making the following "smart arse" point. So conscious volition IS involved in Natural Selection after all then ? he he he he he he he

philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 4:31:07 AM)
"Consider the infinitude of time. If you project forward then a point at infinity is never reached. If you consider NOW having been arrived at from an infinite past then it ie now, would never have arrived. Paradox or what ?" ...oh come on now, that's just a restatement of the old paradox about the tortoise and an arrow......... ....i still think seeks was scared by a plastic beagle as a kid.

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 4:37:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave You have made this point several times before Rule. Why doesn't it put you FIRMLY in the Intelligent Design camp. I mean by ID a creator setup the ground rules which allowed evolution to proceed. Periodic tweaking was required, hence the discontinuity of the fossil record. I dont believe it myself but it seems more likely, I should have thought, than Natural Selection. Is an electron a wave or a particle? I have extensive knowledge of all the sciences, more especially of the exact sciences. My exhaustive study of mythology shows that there have been at least three Creation rituals that were performed by the gods; it is only the second ritual that is described in Genesis. I have ample reason to assume that these Creation events are true. Everything that occurred before them therefore is merely documentation after the fact, like the predating of a letter. That does not mean that Earth is not 4,5 billion years old and it does not mean that evolution did not occur. It means that it happened retroactively. So in my eyes there is no conflict between Creation and evolution: both are valid. The electron is both a wave and a particle; it just depends on the way you perceive it. What I object to is people denying the fact of evolution and rejecting evolution theory. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently to those who are convinced that rejection of Natural Selection means you must explain the origin of a Creator. Not so. Quite. Or rather: it is indeed possible to explain the origin of the Creator and of the other gods. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Indeed my considered opinion is that their are limits to the capacity of the human mind. Consider the infinitude of space. Consider the infinitude of time. If you project forward then a point at infinity is never reached. If you consider NOW having been arrived at from an infinite past then it ie now, would never have arrived. Paradox or what? If I am not mistaken, you are describing the paradox of Zeno, or something very much like it. If I recall correctly, that paradox was solved by the discovery of calculus. The past is not infinite. The universe has existed forever and will exist forever, but that does not imply that time is infinite. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Why isn't the Big Bang theory in cosmology a Creationist argument. Easy to upset a cosmologist by asking him what brought about the Big Bang. And he/she is a scientist. Basically they havn't got the faintest idea , same with N_ssers. Both camps prepared to believe wild Phantasmogirical speculation. Frequently at the taxpayers expense.!!!! The Big Bang never occurred. It is based on three or four wrongly interpreted phenomena. Stop paying taxes. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Sorry Rule I did try hard to resist making the following "smart arse" point. So conscious volition IS involved in Natural Selection after all then? Touché, seeks. [;)] In this case it indeed is conscious selection. On a more serious note: I have observed that wishes are granted. Therefore if an individual organism has a desire to do better - or worse - whether concious or unconscious or even non-sentient, then I expect those wishes also to be granted. Thus spirituality may provide the opportunity for mutation and natural selection to occur and thus drive evolution. So, yes, from a spiritual point of view there is volition in evolution. From a physical point of view there is not. It all depends on whether you perceive an electron as a wave or as a particle. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You cannot know that a creator might not appreciate blasphemy. I don't actually believe in a creator but I would enjoy a creator who had enough humour to appreciate blasphemy since blasphemy is just a malicious ruse to keep people in line by other more ignorant people. Indeed, you are correct. The Creator does appreciate and value blasphemy. Also he has a great sense of humour. Indeed, I was trying to keep seeks in line. However, I deny that it was a malicious ruse and I also deny that I am more ignorant. I was merely trying to point out the error of his ways. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I dont see how salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (ie Christianity) depends to any degree on believing in Biblical creation? Quite, it does not. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Jesus came not to build up, but to tear down according to my Bible - indicating a total break with Judaism, which must necessarily also include a break with that entire tradition including the creation myth. It is notable that Jesus didnt comment on the creation in the Gospels in the Bible - he had no need to because what he brought to mankind did not depend in any way on traditionally held beliefs or cultural reference. All that was required was faith in what he preached as son of the Jewish God, directly from that God rather than through the interpretations of man which was what had gone before. Basically, all of that former stuff could be thrown away because God was here and telling it how it is. As always, I note, your arguments are eminently sensible, LE.

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 5:22:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Besides which, his explanation is not quite correct. Amphibians evolved in sweet water, not salt water. There is flooding and resulting drying out 'tide pools' there as well. More in particular there in sweet water may occur yearly and lengthy algae blooms that completely deoxygenate the water. Those fishes that can use their swim bladder as a provisonal lung (a new application of an already existing organ) - even in the slightest way - will have a decided advantage over those that do not. Natural selection will cause lungs to evolve relatively quickly (may have taken some millions of years) in such a biotope. Simultaneously, having sacificed their gills when growing up, as they are not needed when you have more efficient lungs, skin breathing would evolve. Presto: an amphibian. My reply to seeks was not intended to be an exact description. My main point was to describe what mechanism could account for life evolving into air breathing, land based creatures and that evolution has nothing to do with some sort of "decision" process. Tidal basins (and even shallow, fresh water lakes with annual cycles of high and low water levels) would act as a natural process to mix things up for very simple life forms and provide a transitional environment for a long enough period of time so mutations could establish themselves in adequate numbers to evolve even further towards "land only" life forms. I have no idea what they might have looked like. According to the time table I referenced to write my previous post, amphibians didn't appear until much later, so my thinking is the transitional life during the Ordovician Period would have been relatively primitive forms of life that originated mainly from oceans. I admit, I don't know at this moment what the composition of the waters were back then but given it was so long ago, I think it can be safely assumed it was quite different from the composition of present day oceans and fresh water may or may not have existed yet. I will be looking into this now that it's been pointed out. In any case, seeks' reply to my post makes absolutely no sense to me at all. 1 = 1? What the hell is that supposed to prove or represent (academic question, so no need to answer)? I'm participating in this discussion because this subject is one of my passions. Seeks provides me with many and various objections from which to talk about the evolution theory. That's all. Another thing, I think it would be useful to consider that the dynamics of evolution on the atomic and molecular level do not necessarily apply to the phenotypic level in the same way that the physical laws of subatomic particles do not apply to much larger objects (like a large rock for example). anthrosub

ProphetPX -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 5:29:30 AM)
Suddenly a big loud obnoxious buzzer goes off ... ERRRRRRTTTT!!! hi, I know I am new to this discussion but up till this point I have not had much of any active role in any of the forums, and I thought this would mark a perfect opportunity to just "jump right in" ... so please excuse me if I might sound just a bit rude because IT IS NOT MY INTENTION to be nor to sound so. Forgive me if you would .... This reply is hereto addressed to Lady Ellen (being that her post / reply was the first I happened to set my eyes upon :-) 1. To believe in Jesus the Christ, is also to believe in what is said BY him and ABOUT him, in the Gospels. 2. Which in turn, is to believe that what is said, IS the truth ("all scripture is divinely inspired and God-breathed" etc etc ... as is said somewhere else in the NT). It was said about Jesus in John 1:1 that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." that is specifically speaking about the beginning of Creation, if not even before the Creation ... at the least. Granted, those are John's words, but being that John was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write them, the Holy Spirit being the instrument on earth in this present day to carry along the Word of God which Jesus IS, one can also say that Jesus himself is saying it, via the Holy Spirit, with the very words and pen of John himself. Jesus actually DID build up, the whole time he was on the Earth in his earth-bound ministry, but HE ALSO did come to "bring a sword" in order to separate the wheat from the chaff (the believers from the unbelievers), and not to establish his Earthly Kingdom right away (so in a sense you are 1/2 correct :-) the "creation myth" as you put it, was started with Judaism, yes. But remember, Jesus and ALL of his apostles (his closest circle of disciples) WERE Jews, and Christianity was never to negate anything that was already established in the Old Testament. Jesus' coming was not to negate, or to stop anything that had started in the old ancient times of the OT, but to FULFILL and COMPLETE, which is not the same as negation or stopping of any of it. so when you say that "he had no need to because what he brought to mankind did not depend in any way on traditionally held beliefs or cultural reference" ... I disagree, strongly. Because everything he said, had a STRONG JUDAIC basis, I can't think of even 1 thing that was said in his earth ministry where there were not already roots laid by earlier Jew prophets and priests, or basic followers of God in times past. Everything he did HINGED on how he was going about in FULFILLING ancient prophecies. EVERY STEP he made, every deed he did, every word he said, was FULFILLING prophecy, second by second, day by day, year by year .... etc etc ... So what you said there, unless I misunderstood your context, then I would say it is wrong. And then when you said, "All that was required was faith in what he preached as son of the Jewish God, directly from that God rather than through the interpretations of man which was what had gone before." Faith was not the only thing required, OBEDIENCE to God was a GIVEN REQUISITE from the very Ancient of Days (cf: Old Testament times) and it was a genuine intricate and integrated part, and sign, of having faith in the first place. Nobody who does not believe is going to do a work because what good would they think of it? Therefore, if someone did a work, they must have faith, otherwise why would they think good of it in the first place? Just the same, "Faith without works is dead." Yet works alone cannot save us. Actually you can say it in any number of ways because they both go hand in hand: "works from faith" (because of?) or "faith through works" (obeying God can strengthen your faith from confirmations, etc ..), "works of faith" (faith which produces miracles, the works we do, when we cannot even see the outcome so soon as we do them, yet God takes where we started and may finish a task miraculously) ... I could go on and on ... The interpretations of man? I don't know what you are speaking of there, but any instruction God had ever given either came from his own Voice, or through the voice and writings of the Prophets. To call the direct voice of God in the Old Testament times (which you seem to refer to) to be only a mere "interpretation of man" is to be just a bit ignorant of what and how exactly the role and duties of the prophet and scribes were to undertake. Word for word, jot and tittle, the smallest jot of an i, the smallest dash through the t (to paraphrase, since in Hebrew there were no such phoenician concepts of lettering, but a consonant-only system of 22 letters with a vowel accentuation which was altogether different than what we use today for English or any other modern character based language of Latin descent) And my most strongest disagreement would be where you say "Basically, all of that former stuff could be thrown away because God was here and telling it how it is. " I am sorry, but that sounds like big time ignorance on your part. I know I do not know you, personally. I cannot and will not judge you. But I am sorry, that is simply not true and is quite horrifying for a christian (as myself) to read. :-( "all of that former stuff" CANNOT be just "thrown away" because JESUS CAME TO FULFILL all of that former stuff, since without all of that "former stuff" there would never be anything to FULFILL, much less to point ahead in the future to even further typifications of further fulfillment of THE SAME and MORE prophecies which even to this day are either BEING CURRENTLY FULFILLED in our own real-time, or are yet to be fulfilled and mark out their own circumstance. How can anyone throw the "former stuff" away?? I really cannot understand your line of reasoning there because the Bible just IS NOT the Bible without the Old Testament. You cannot only have 1 and not the other. To get rid of 1 is like throwing out the Baby with the Bathwater .... Seriously. The Old Testament and the New Testament are inseparable, and NOT mutually exclusive of the other. --- quote ---- I dont see how salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (ie Christianity) depends to any degree on believing in Biblical creation? Jesus came not to build up, but to tear down according to my Bible - indicating a total break with Judaism, which must necessarily also include a break with that entire tradition including the creation myth. It is notable that Jesus didnt comment on the creation in the Gospels in the Bible - he had no need to because what he brought to mankind did not depend in any way on traditionally held beliefs or cultural reference. All that was required was faith in what he preached as son of the Jewish God, directly from that God rather than through the interpretations of man which was what had gone before. Basically, all of that former stuff could be thrown away because God was here and telling it how it is. E ---- PPX edit: only my own post, spelling and emphasis corrections

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 6:06:51 AM)
anthrosub the 1=1 point was meant to demonstrate that if you use circular arguments then you arrive at trivial ,obvious ie 1=1 or in the case of Natural Selection mistaken solutions. A proposition simply CANNOT be justified by an argument that uses that proposition as part of the justification. I bet the Greeks had a word for that point. Just noticed you didn't want an answer, but I dont care. lol

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 6:07:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub My reply to seeks was not intended to be an exact description. I did not perceive it as such. You were illustrating a principle and you did well. quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub My main point was to describe what mechanism could account for life evolving into air breathing, land based creatures and that evolution has nothing to do with some sort of "decision" process. Quite. quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub Tidal basins (and even shallow, fresh water lakes with annual cycles of high and low water levels) would act as a natural process to mix things up for very simple life forms and provide a transitional environment for a long enough period of time so mutations could establish themselves in adequate numbers to evolve even further towards "land only" life forms. And by their reiterative character provide a very high selective pressure. Quite. Indeed, many if not all landbased arthropods in this way may have evolved from a salt water biotope. quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub According to the time table I referenced to write my previous post, amphibians didn't appear until much later, so my thinking is the transitional life during the Ordovician Period would have been relatively primitive forms of life that originated mainly from oceans. Quite. quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub In any case, seeks' reply to my post makes absolutely no sense to me at all. 1 = 1? What the hell is that supposed to prove or represent (academic question, so no need to answer)? I'm participating in this discussion because this subject is one of my passions. Seeks provides me with many and various objections from which to talk about the evolution theory. That's all. 'Fools' like seeks are very useful. Your contributions to the discussion are worthy. quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub Another thing, I think it would be useful to consider that the dynamics of evolution on the atomic and molecular level do not necessarily apply to the phenotypic level in the same way that the physical laws of subatomic particles do not apply to much larger objects (like a large rock for example). Quite, but they are interconnected. quote: ORIGINAL: ProphetPX Suddenly a big loud obnoxious buzzer goes off ... ERRRRRRTTTT!!! Hi Prophet. Lots of dogma, Prophet. I could write a book about every wrong argument. I prefer LE's eminent sensibility. That is not to say that you are not a smart and reasonable man - I am convinced that you are. But you are not a prophet. A prophet brings humanity new revelations from one of the gods, either from his very lips or the lips of his servants, or by divine inspiration. There is no evidence of such new revelations or divine origin in your words. You are a fanatic. [;)] That is worthy in itself, though, but in these days, without contemporary divine direction, often misguided. Unfortunately I lack the time to address your arguments. Addressing seeks arguments already is a very uphill battle.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 6:20:12 AM)
Rule says Fools like me are very useful. Rule in the past I believe court jesters were available to try to knock some sense into tyrannical possibly phsychotic monarchs. Ultimatley the monarchs perished.....just as will the theory of Natural Selection ! Prophet may not BE a prophet, but he certainly looks like one lol. By the way Rule forgive me for long ago not paying a sincere tribute to your sense of modesty. lol Irony folks, the original meaning, attack something by approving of it !

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 6:33:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Rule says Fools like me are very useful. [;)] I have now edited the remark and put the word between quote marks. I did not intend it as harshly as it may have sounded. In fact, I admire your persistence. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Rule in the past I believe court jesters were available to try to knock some sense into tyrannical possibly phsychotic monarchs. Certainly. The court jester usually was the smartest person of the court. I respect 'fools'. It is why I still participate in the discussion and why I have not yet blocked you. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Ultimately the monarchs perished.....just as will the theory of Natural Selection! Again you defy the Creator. Admirable courage, but misguided. Now, please, another subject entirely: interpunction - with the possible exception of an opening quote mark or three points - is never preceded by a space. Please in future refrain from adding that space in front of exclamation and question marks, seeks.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/17/2006 6:52:30 AM)
Haven't examined the complexity of your grammatical criticism Rule but view my "error" as a form of semantic evolution within the framework of ID. Or even creationism if you will. By the way Rule surely blocking would only stop any personal mail which I have never sent ...YET. Are you on another tangential mistaken fanciful wild goose chase Rule? It turns out that of the 20 amino acids required to construct proteins in dear old homo sapiens not all can be synthesised in the body. Therefore, and also bearing in mind that I totally demolished the idea that chance processes could explain the origin of the amino acids, we have the situation where the missing amino acids turn up just at the right time. Oh dear !!! Or, sit there waiting until the time is ripe! How convenient, just like Punctuated Equilibrium or Rule's Radiant Diversity theorem. Everything just builds up and slots into the right place, the environment changes in just the right way and bingo...out pops a new species. usually not a new species any way since it fails my DUCK conjecture lol.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625