For Jimmy
I’ve gotten entangled in a discussion in the comments on another thread. It has drifted far off-topic, so I’m giving it its own thread.
jimmy wrote:
Well, to honestly think about it, If I was given legaly tested, historicaly alive today witnessed the American revolution, so how do you know it happened?accurate, evidence, and if thousands of eyewitnesses attested to it, and if I had experienced it myself, I would be a fool not to believe in the reality of it.
Okay, fair enough. But as discussed above, Greenleaf was assuming his conclusion, and seemed to think that nth-hand hearsay constituted acceptable witness testimony.
As for historical accuracy, while no doubt there are many real place names and historical figures and events (or some distorted version thereof), there are equally many events recounted there that never happened. Herod’s slaughter of the children of Bethlehem, for instance, the worldwide flood, the sun and moon standing still for Joshua, and the Hebrews’ enslavement in Egypt.
Thirdly, why do you say there were thousands of eyewitnesses to the events of the Bible? Because the Bible says so? That’s circular reasoning.
Personal experience is probably most convincing, but only to you. Do you have any evidence that whatever happened to you wasn’t just in your head? If you met someone who claimed to have met Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger, and that they regaled him with stories of life at Hogwarts, would you believe him, even if he seemed sincere?
You know, come to think of it, the bible had something to say about you. Yes, it was written specifically for you! it says, “the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God…”
First threats, now insults? Remember, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matt. 5:22).
I respectfully ask you to take a look at nature around you and describe to me how all of the universe could have just “happened”. If you can accurately explain this one fact to me, I will be satisfied.
And if I can’t? What then?
Let’s cut to the chase: I don’t know how life started, or how the universe started. No one does. But if you take a question like “how did X occur?” and answer, “I don’t know, so God must’ve done it”, you’re not explaining anything; you’re just giving your ignorance a name.
And if (or when, hopefully) scientists figure out the answers to these questions, then what will you do? Find another gap in our knowledge to squeeze your god into? A few centuries ago, you might’ve asked how it is that the planets move in their courses, or why lightning strikes, or where comets come from, or how an acorn can grow into an oak. You don’t ask these questions today because we have perfectly good naturalistic explanations. What will you do in twenty or thirty or fifty years, when many of the current gaps in our understanding have been plugged? Ask why, if there’s no god, gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass? Sorry, but god of the gaps is a losing strategy.
Maybe right now you have snowed yourself into believing that you enjoy atheism
Please stop telling me what I believe or how I feel. You don’t know, and you’re just being condescending.
but remember the words of karl marx, “How purposeless and empty life is, but how desired!”
Argumentum ad hominem. You’re saying, in effect, “Karl Marx said this, and Marx was a Bad Person, therefore he’s wrong in what he said.”
I would ask you to step back for a moment and show me one contradiction or atrocity in the bible.
Where to begin? I’ve always liked the multiple deaths of Judas: Matt. 27:5 (hanging) vs. falling down and bursting (Acts 1:18). The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are different (and have significantly different numbers of generations). And, of course, there’s Dan Barker’s Leave No Stone Unturned: An Easter Challenge for Christians, which simply asks for a consistent account of the events of the resurrection that includes all of the details in the Bible. There are many others.
Yes, I’ve seen attempts at reconciling these contradictions, but they generally involve pretzel logic, very careful parsing, and/or adding things to the text that just aren’t there (“If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book”, Rev. 22:18).
As for atrocities, how about when Lot offers to let the mob rape his daughters (Gen. 19:8)? In 2 Kings 19:35, an angel kills 145000 people. In Judges 11, Jephthah sacrifices his daughter (and Yahweh accepts the sacrifice). And let’s not forget the time when God himself is said to have committed the single worst act of mass murder in history, killing everyone on earth (Gen. 7:21-23). Before you object that that’s the Old Testament, remember that the New Testament introduced the idea of Hell and of infinite punishment for finite crimes, which is monstrous.
I have studied evolution from the perspective of the oppostion
As far as I can tell, your studies have been limited to young-earth creationists like Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis. In the spirit of “know your enemy”, it would be a good idea to find out what the proponents of evolution have to say. The Berkeley site I mentioned earlier is a good introduction aimed at the lay reader.
Take, for instance, this exerpt from “the lie”
It looks as if that paragraph comes from The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. In the future, could you please cite sources? I don’t mind looking stuff up, but can you please not make it harder than it needs to be?
[From AiG:] It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex.
[snip more in the same vein]
This is just the “Were you there?” argument, and it doesn’t hold water. Do you deny that the Tunguska event happened because no one was around to see it? Pluto is said by astronomers to orbit the sun every 248 years. Do you deny this because it was only discovered about 70 years ago, so no one has ever seen it complete a revolution?
Scientists learn about the past by trying to come up with an explanation for something, asking what we should see if the explanation is correct, and what we should see if it isn’t, and then checking to see which way things are. If you’ve ever seen a cop show where a detective says something like “The murderer must’ve returned to the quarry to bury the murder weapon. Let’s go look for footprints!”, it’s the same principle.
Well, first, you don’t believe in God, so I don’t know how you think Jesus is God, but anyway, they are both members of the trinity.
Right. As I understand it, the idea is that God sacrificed his only son Jesus so that all humans everywhere could be forgiven their sins and be spared from having to go to Hell.
But according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three aspects of the same person. So the story of the crucifixion is that God (temporarily) sacrificed himself to himself in order to create a loophole by which he could get around his own rule and avoid sending people to the place of punishment that he created (or subcontracted).
This makes no sense. If he wants to forgive people, why not just forgive them? If this requires changing the rules, why not just change the rules? He’s done it before: it used to be against divine law to work on Saturday, eat pork, or wear gold jewelry, but now it’s okay. So why the contortions?
Stealing a quote from myself, this argument is akin to denying the Apollo moon landing because Kepler didn’t have a spare universe against which to compare his observations on planetary motion.
aresnb,
“Greenleaf was assuming his conclusion, and seemed to think that nth-hand hearsay constituted acceptable witness testimony.
As for historical accuracy, while no doubt there are many real place names and historical figures and events (or some distorted version thereof), there are equally many events recounted there that never happened. Herod’s slaughter of the children of Bethlehem, for instance, the worldwide flood, the sun and moon standing still for Joshua, and the Hebrews’ enslavement in Egypt.”
As mentioned before, Greenleaf studied many historical documents, along with the bible, to reach his conclusion concerning the historical accuracy and credibility of the book in question.
Where are you getting your assumption that the allegedly false events that you stated above never happened? History records their happening in such documents as the bible! You can’t say that they didn’t happen, because they are written down in history! You don’t believe that they actualy took place, probably because you don’t believe that there is evidence, right? Well, look again.
When I spoke of the thousands of eyewittnesses, I refered to those that have experienced salvation as firsthand witnesses.
“First threats, now insults? Remember, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matt. 5:22).”
Ah, so true, but I didn’t say it. The bible did. So, if you don’t like it, and you don’t believe that God exists, then don’t let something that you don’t believe exists insult you.
“I don’t know how life started, or how the universe started.”
That’s right. No evolutionist does, because it’s not possible with their theory. You know that the Big Bang theory was quite popular for some time, but your scientists can’t explain how nothing becomes something. However, you exist and I exist. You want to continue in ignorance, believing that someday you will understand how this phenomenon took place. Your whole premise and theory is invalid, because you admittadly can’t explain the begining. I don’t know if you noticed or not, but you used a very interesting word in the phrase above that I quoted you saying. This is the word UNIVERSE. As you know, this is a universally reconginized noun describing the vast expanse of everything that exists. Accordingly, the composition of this word holds great fascination for me. Simply, it comes from two root words. UNI and VERSE. You seem to be educated fairly well, so I’ll not insult your inteligence by going into great detail concerning what these two root words mean. UNI is one, VERSE is statement. One statement. That summarizes my belief concerning the begining.
“You’re saying, in effect, “Karl Marx said this, and Marx was a Bad Person, therefore he’s wrong in what he said.” ”
You make huge assumptions concerning my meaning and intent in what I said. The point that I wanted to make has nothing to do with what Marx did in his lifetime. What I want to say is that Marx was a “great” atheist, and he himself gave testimony to the fact that the life of an atheist is empty and purposeless.
“Where to begin? I’ve always liked the multiple deaths of Judas: Matt. 27:5 (hanging) vs. falling down and bursting (Acts 1:18). The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are different (and have significantly different numbers of generations).”
You don’t take into consideration that it is possible for a human body to fall after it is dead! The force that it would take to cause a human body to “burst” would be extravagent, unless, of course, it had been dead for some period of time. The bible in Acts refers to what happened to the corpse AFTER he hung himself.
Concerning the genealogies, they both do not have to go to exactly the same lengths and descriptions to be accurate.
I think that logic has failed you at this point. You condemn creationism because there is no proof for it. Yet, there is no proof for your theory of how the world began, mostly because you don’t have one!
I’m afraid that your idea of the trinity is null. As far as the Bible goes. The three members of the trinity are not three aspects of the same person, but rather three identities wrapped up in one. As you state, Jesus is the Son Of God, and GOd sent him to this earth in human form.
So, God sacrificed his Son to pay for our sins. As far as your railings on God, what he has done is what his plan is. This plan may seem illogical to finite human minds, but God’s ways are not man’s ways. As I’ve told you before, I’m not going to fight God’s battles. If you want to rail on him and his plan, do it as you stand before the great white throne on judgement day.
I really apreciate your willingness to discuss this subject openly, and I look forward to resuming it.
fez,
I’m not denying any such thing, in fact, I’m not denying anything. The idea of creationism existed long before the theory of evolution reared its head. But I know as well as you do, that science involves, as Ken Ham says, at least one of the five senses.
For this reason, evolution is not science, but rather a belief.
Denying? Not explicitly perhaps but in your statement condemn the findings of any non-experimental science, which is an easily shown logical fallacy with the simple example provided.
fez,
You are telling me that science is not what science is by saying something about the appolo moon landing and Keplar. Could you please give me a slightly more realistic and logical example to continue this?
aresnb,
on a slightly personal note, I’m still interested in knowing whether or not your parents were atheists.
hey guys, every thing I try to post is getting eaten by the spam filter. Is this intentional?
jimmy:
No, it isn’t. Sorry about that. I’m not sure what happened. There’s a spammer trying to comment under the name “jimmy”, so maybe that’s confusing the spam filter. There’s also something it calls the Snowball Effect, which seems to punish people for posting more than once a day. I’ve tweaked the settings, so hopefully that’ll help. If anything else gets caught in the spam trap, feel free to drop me a line.
Again, sorry about that. It certainly wasn’t intentional.
jimmy:
You got this from Kent Hovind, I’m sure. I’m surprised you didn’t use the phrase he always uses: “a single spoken sentence”.
I’m singling this out because not only is it wrong (as such folk etymologies usually are), it’s also easy to check.
So I’m issuing you this challenge: either find a dictionary or other reputable source that confirms the etymology you give above (that “universe” comes from “one” and “statement”), or retract your claim.
Hovind put this bit in his show for the same reason as a lot of other claims: it sounds good if you don’t look at it too closely, and he makes assertions so rapidly that the audience doesn’t have time to think about any particular item too hard. (This is known as the Gish Gallop.) I suspect he knows that his arguments are weak, and that’s why he refuses to engage in a written debate, despite numerous invitations. In a written debate, he’d have to debate using facts rather than rhetoric, and his opponent would cut him to shreds.
hey aresnb, sorry about the comment concerning the spam deal. I’ve just been snobbed off by many blog site owners before.
About the Universe deal however, most english words come from root latin or greek words, as is the case with this one.
If you want to challenge the definition of a word, you’ve got to have a counter definition. I’ve never done any huge word search on that particular word, but I can define it according to the Webster’s 1828. “The collective name of heaven and earth, and all that belongs to them; the whole system of created things.”
“Thirdly, why do you say there were thousands of eyewitnesses to the events of the Bible? Because the Bible says so? That’s circular reasoning.”
Funny you should mention circular reasoning. If we get rid of circular reasoning, most of the evolution theory disappears.
“First threats, now insults? Remember, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matt. 5:22).”
Taking a verse out of context, are we? Read that passage again:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
It is obviously talking about when you are addressing your brother.
“And if I can’t? What then?”
Then it’s obvious that Creation has the answer.
“Please stop telling me what I believe or how I feel. You don’t know, and you’re just being condescending.”
He does know, because you said that you like Atheism.
(from previous page)”Actually, I like atheism. I like not being afraid. I wish I could show you the world through my eyes.”
He was only going on what you said. Unless you’re saying that your word isn’t any good…..
“Pluto is said by astronomers to orbit the sun every 248 years. Do you deny this because it was only discovered about 70 years ago, so no one has ever seen it complete a revolution?”
Nope, but if there was reason to believe that that is not true, I would dig around and try to find an answer.
“But according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three aspects of the same person.”
That is only partly true. No one truly understands the Trinity. Jesus did say that “I and my Father are one”, and there is only one God. But there are three persons of the Trinity.
aresnb,
For the record, I have done an extensive word study concerning the word Universe. You will notice that it comes from the French words Unus (which means “one”) and Versus, past participle of vertere, which means “to turn”. I have provided the definition given by the Oxford English Dictionary. I hope that you consider the named source to be reputable.
universe
(“ju;nIv3;s) Also 5 vniuerse, 6 -uers, 7 univers. [a. F. univers (12th c.; = Sp., Pg., It. universo), ad. L. Gniversum n., the whole world, orig. neut. sing. of Gniversus all taken collectively, universal, f. Gnus uni- and versus, pa. pple. of vertSre to turn.]
†1. in universe, universally, of universal application. Obs.—1
c1374 Chaucer Troylus iii. 36 Ye folk a lawe han sette in vniuerse; And þis know I by hem þat loueres be, Þat whoso stryueth with Šow hath þe worse.
a. The whole of created or existing things regarded collectively; all things (including the earth, the heavens, and all the phenomena of space) considered as constituting a systematic whole, esp. as created or existing by Divine power; the whole world or creation; the cosmos.
1589 Puttenham Eng. Poesie ii. xi. (Arb.) 111 The Roundell or spheare+for his ample capacitie doth resemble the world or vniuers. 1596 Spenser Hymn Heav. Beauty 31 Looke on the frame Of this wyde vniuerse, and therein reed The endlesse kinds of creatures. 1611 B. Jonson Catiline i. i, O for a clap of thunder now, as loud As to be heard throughout the universe, To tell the world the fact. 1656 Cowley Davideis i. 800 Dull Earth with its own Weight did downwards pierce To the fixt Navel of the Universe. 1738 Swift Pol. Conversat. 63, I wou’dn’t touch a Man’s Flesh for the Universe. 1796 H. Hunter tr. St.-Pierre’s Stud. Nat. I. 149 That active power of Nature which fills the Universe. 1817 Byron Manfred ii. ii. 111 She had+The quest of hidden knowledge, and a mind To comprehend the universe. 1843 Penny Cycl. XXVI. 18/1 Theory of the Universe,+what is known of the general arrangement of planets, stars, etc. and of their connexion with one another. 1871 Morley Carlyle in Crit. Misc. Ser. i. 216 The same sense of the puniness of man in the centre of a cruel and frowning universe.
b. With a and pl. Also const. of (something).
1667 Milton P.L. ii. 622 A Universe of death, which God by curse Created evil. 1805 Wordsw. Prelude xiv. 160 To+substitute a universe of death For that which moves with light and life informed. 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. i. i. ii, To Newton and to Newton’s Dog Diamond, what a different pair of Universes! 1872 Mozley Mirac. (ed. 3) Pref. p. xxvi, These two schools of minds live indeed in different universes.
c. transf. and fig.
less universe (quot. 1674) = microcosm 1.
1674 Milton P.R. iv. 459 As+harmless, if not wholsom, as a sneeze To mans less universe. 1728 Chambers Cycl. s.v. University, They are call’d Universities, or Universal Schools, by reason the four Faculties are supposed to make the World or Universe of Study. 1821 Shelley Epipsych. 589 Into the height of Love’s rare Universe. 1847 J. Kirk Cloud Dispelled iv. 67 His conduct is false, and will be denounced as such by the universe of mind. a1854 H. Reed Lect. Brit. Poets ii. (1857) 62 To trace the associations between the universe of sense and the spiritual life within us. 1871 E. F. Burr Ad. Fidem xv. 299 A universe of light and color—a universe of sound.
d. universe of discourse: the totality of entities under consideration; all those that the terms of a proposition may refer to. Also absol., and (as universe) in Statistics, = population2 2d.
1849 A. De Morgan in Trans. Cambridge Philos. Soc. VIII. 380 By not dwelling upon this power of making what we may properly (inventing a new technical name) call the universe of a proposition, or of a name, matter of express definition, all rules remaining the same, writers on logic deprive themselves of much useful illustrations. Ibid., Let the universe in question be ‘man’: then Briton and alien are simple contraries. 1881 J. Venn Symbolic Logic vi. 128 We must be supposed to know the nature and limits of the universe of discourse with which we are concerned.+ If we are talking of ordinary phenomena we must know whether we refer to them without limit of time and space. 1896 ‘L. Carroll’ Symbolic Logic I. ii. iii. 14 The Genus, of which [the] Terms [of a Proposition] are Species, is called its ‘Universe of Discourse’. 1898 A. N. Whitehead Treat. Universal Algebra I. ii. v. 110 If we extend the Universe of self-evident propositions either by some natural or conventional definition, we may extend the conception of conversion. 1911 G. U. Yule Introd. Theory Statistics ii. 17 For actual work on any given subject, no term is required to denote the material to which the work is so confined.+ But for theoretical purposes some term is almost essential to avoid circumlocution. The expression the universe of discourse, or simply the universe, used in this sense by writers on logic, may be adopted. 1939 A. E. Treloar Elements Statistical Reasoning i. 8 Such a type of selective sampling from this universe is wholly impossible. 1967 G. Wills in Wills & Yearsley Handbk. Management Technol. 191 Numbers of calls made by sales representatives is a meaningless item of statistics unless it can be related to+the total universe of outlets which can handle such a product. 1972 Science 23 June 1306/2 The universe of discourse is severely restricted in this jargon. 1975 Brit. Jrnl. Sociol. XXVI. 37 The universe from which the sample was drawn was all Royal Navy officers stationed in England.
a. The world or earth, esp. as the place of abode of mankind or as the scene of human activities.
1630 R. Johnson’s Kingd. & Commw. 134 Such a bridge, that without exception, it may worthily be accounted the admirablest Monument, and firmest erected Collosseum (in that kinde) of all the Vniverse. 1687 T. Brown Saints in Uproar Wks. 1720 I. 89 No People in the Universe know better. 1704 (title), The Present State of the Universe. 1765 Blackstone Comm. I. 6 A land, perhaps the only one in the universe, in which political or civil liberty is the very end and scope of the constitution. 1791 Hampson Mem. J. Wesley III. 96 [Wesley] took the universe for his parish. 1820 Shelley Prometh. Unb. iv. 339 Who all our green and azure universe Threatenedst to muffle round with black destruction.
b. transf. The inhabitants of the earth; mankind in general.
1742 Johnson’s Debates (1787) II. 222 The decline of that power which has so long intimidated the universe. Ibid. 230 That wisdom+which+the greatest part of the universe will remember with gratitude. 1774 Goldsm. Retal. 31 Here lies our good Edmund,+Who, born for the universe,+to party gave up what was meant for mankind. 1843 Carlyle Past & Pr. iii. viii, ‘Go to,+thou shalt pay due debt!’ shouts the Universe to them.
Hence “universeful, as many or as much as the universe will hold.
1891 J. Orr Chr. View of God & World (1893) 374 A whole universefull of other spiritual beings.
I hope that this satisfies your challenge concerning the word in question, and look forward to resuming the “debate?”
I’m still interested in knowing whether your parents were atheists or not.
jimmy:
Should I take this as an admission that you were wrong when you said,
?
(PS: My username is arensb, not aresnb.)
I’m simply saying that I made a mistake in exact wording, but the concept remains the same. Sorry about the spell mistake.
By the way, if you’re not wanting to tell me if your parents were atheists or not, then I’m willing to quit asking. I just kind of want to know, and I don’t know if you’re missing the question or not.
jimmy:
You have got to be kidding! “Statement” means the same thing as “to turn”? That’s FSTDT-worthy.
I haven’t been ignoring the question, just pondering whether and how to answer it.
Anyway, no, they’re both Christians. Always have been.
jimmy,
No, I’m telling you that you have a limited understanding of what science is and isn’t. Previously you stated as a supporting argument (edited for brevity):
In a specific context, of course one can only directly observe what exists in the present but this does not preclude one from analyzing observations and from that proposing a hypothesis regarding the origin of the subject matter. For the sake of this statement the context is that of a physical subject and direct observation conducted at some reasonable distance so as to not get distracted by a tangental discussion of what ‘the present’ means in a relativistic universe.
This context is not applicable to all sciences. Atomic nuclei were not directly observable in any fashion until roughly the mid 1970s I believe, yet their existence was hypothesized at least as far back as the 5th century BCE, and later hypothesis based on the foundation of a specific atomic model were experimentaly proven well prior to scientists ability to directly observe atomic structure.
Your provided quote goes on to state that because there was no scientist present at a given event to directly witness it, the conclusions surrounding said event are to be dismissed. Most telling of a fundemental lack of understanding on the part of the original author, and by extension yourself since you chose this passage as supporting documentation, is the statement,
To be flippant for a moment – well duh!
The theory of evolution is not a scientific realm that currently lends itself to experimentation. Nor was Kepler’s work that led to his three laws of planetary motion. He and his contemporaries did not have equipment capable of extra-solar observations, he certainly didn’t have a spare universe with which to set up a ‘control’ while he fiddled with creating alternative orbital bodies to check his math, and in fact didn’t even make the observations himself – that was the work of Tycho Brahe. No repeatability, no direct experimental evidence, not even direct observation, yet no rational person is going to dismiss as “a scam based upon proven lies” his published laws.
Clearer now?
Fez:
AIUI this boils down to “we can tell what happened in the past by looking at the results of the event in the present.” I.e., if we see a tree lying in a wood, next to a cone-shaped stump with wood chippings on the ground, prints in the ground that match beaver paws, and a stream nearby, it’s reasonable to conclude that the tree was felled by beavers, even though no one was around to see it happen.
Democritus, right? IIRC he came up with the idea of atoms, but for entirely the wrong reason: the reasoning was that you can cut a block of cheese into smaller pieces, and then you can cut the smaller pieces into yet smaller pieces, and so on. He figured that you couldn’t go on cutting them forever, because… well, you just can’t, okay?! The ancient Greeks seemed to have a bit of a problem with infinity (see also Xeno’s paradoxes).
It’s true that we can’t just grab a spare primordial Earth, wait a billion years, and see whether life arises (but that would be abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution). Nor can we go back and time, stop the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, and see whether mammals take over the Earth.
We can, however, see evolution in action in the present: the Luria-Delbrück experiment is a standard undergraduate-level experiment. Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We can test whether evolution is driven by selection or not by doing things like painting bright eyes on peacocks’ tails. We can set up a chamber with what we think were conditions upon the primeval Earth, and see what happens. In fact, all of this has been done. It’s part and parcel of the second great question in science, “How do I know this isn’t garbage?“.
arensb,
Yes, and I think the converse is true to a significant extent, ie. “we can project with a varying degree of confidence, based upon what happened in the past, what will occur in the future.” Obviously predicting future effect based on past cause has not been anywhere near as accurate in practice but the effort has proven itself as a valuable pursuit for scientists (eg. meteorology, while considered laughable in it’s inaccuracies, has improved vastly over the last 40 years with the result of having saved millions of lives).
The hypothesis was sound but I’m not convinced the subdivision theory is an accurate summation of the motivating idea behind the theory. The cheese example could just have easily been an analogy he used as a mental assist to a peer group not comfortable with the concept. In any case, records from ca. 500 BCE are as potentially fraught with translation/interpretation errors and omissions as what is referred to as The Bible in our day.
Fair enough, but I’d like to distinguish modern day lab experiments (lower case ‘evolution’) from what I gather to be the context of this discussion, which I take to be the modern human arising from a ‘primordial soup’ (an event that I’ll here call ‘Evolution’ because I’m prideful enough to see humans as special and deserving of the capitalization 🙂 ). I’ll accept we can set up experiments to demonstrate fast speciation, but there is a large enough difference of degree between evolution and Evolution that I’m not willing to make the jump requited to use the experimental findings of the former as definitive proof of the latter.
I detect a subtext in your reply that I was overly vague, and I’ll accept that since I’m too often guily of vagueness. With the contextual caveat expressed above, I will stand by my statement that evolution is a valid scientific pursuit even though it is not currently subject to experimental verification.
Fez:
Mainly, I thought that sentence was just begging to be quote-mined.
JJ:
You mean, people like paleontologists, archeologists, forensic detectives, and others who deal with historical sciences?
JJ:
Out of curiosity, how do you explain the multiple nested hierarchies observed in nature? Do you just say “goddidit”?
Huh? If said tree was blocking my driveway, I’m certainly not going to evaluate the evidence and conclude I need to set a mousetrap to prevent future obstruction. Sorry, you lose.
“You mean, people like paleontologists, archeologists, forensic detectives, and others who deal with historical sciences?”
While they can speculate what happened long ago, they were not there, so they cannot say for sure. This is how it is for anything. History is found in records. Science is found in observation of the current time.
“Out of curiosity, how do you explain the multiple nested hierarchies observed in nature? Do you just say “goddidit”?”
I just skimmed that article, and I believe I caught on to what it was talking about. If not, let me know.
From what I got from it, it was talking about how groups of animals have certain common characteristics. That is a no-duh pointing towards Creation. It is crazy to think that God would have done otherwise. That is the best thing for that kind (and while I use the word kind, I don’t mean the scientific definition, but more so a general grouping of certain animals, like fish, for example). It is obvious that fish need gills. So, God would use what worked best. And what works best for trout in many parts of their body also works best for walleye, etc. Also, God would have done this so that we could do what he commanded when he said ‘fill the earth and subdue it’. If we had to figure out completely new methods of doing things for each type of animal, it would be a nearly impossible task.
“Huh? If said tree was blocking my driveway, I’m certainly not going to evaluate the evidence and conclude I need to set a mousetrap to prevent future obstruction. Sorry, you lose.”
Yep, and I sure hope you aren’t going to get a scientist to come in to tell you what is wrong.
And, in having faith in evolution, you are doing exactly what you said: Saying that you need a mousetrap to keep a tree from falling. It just doesn’t fit the evidence. Sorry, you lose.
Hey guys, to cut all the jargon and get right down to the quick, all of your arguments for the scientific aspects of evolution are void for the one reason that evolution is NOT science. We’ve already discussed this earlier, but you can’t (or shouldn’t ) deny fact. Science is defined by the Websters 1828 as being “knowledge, or CERTAIN knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of TRUTH or FACTS by the mind.” You have admitted that evolution is simply an unproven theory, the origins of which were based on lies,(piltdown hoax etc.). A true scientific theory is a hypothesis to explain certain facts and truths found in nature. Evolution was the other way around. Darwin, basing his book, the origin of species, on his grandfather’s work, put forth a theory, (the first “facts” to support it being found later) and many followed him. This is NOT science! You can deny it all day, but you LOSE. You’ve got to concede your premise that evolution is science, and accept facts. (something that evolution is not based on, by the way.)
As I suspected there is no true desire for education on the part of JJ or jimmy, only a forum in which to simply be contrarian. Cherry picking of information and purposeful attempts at supression of facts, willful misinterpretations, increasingly faulty applications of logic are textbook examples of having no supportable basis for conclusions. Neither of you have shown an ability to operate within the reality we all exist in but instead have manufactured your own where your opinion is unassailable fact. There’s a medical term for this behavior known as “Borderline Personality”. If you desire to continue reasoned debate, define your context and offer up reasonable evidence from multiple independent sources. A myrriad of statements that all have their foundation in a single source (ie. whichever interpretation of the Christian Bible you subscribe to) is insufficient.
[quote]As I suspected there is no true desire for education on the part of JJ or jimmy, only a forum in which to simply be contrarian.[/quote] I feel, and I am sure Jimmy feels the same, that this is the same thing that you are doing. And BTW, that is the lamest excuse for an answer to all of our points.
[quote]Cherry picking of information and purposeful attempts at supression of facts, willful misinterpretations, increasingly faulty applications of logic are textbook examples of having no supportable basis for conclusions.[/quote] Please, show me where that has been the case. Once. Seriously. You’re the one making accusations here, and they aren’t truthful.
[quote]If you desire to continue reasoned debate, define your context and offer up reasonable evidence from multiple independent sources. A myrriad of statements that all have their foundation in a single source (ie. whichever interpretation of the Christian Bible you subscribe to) is insufficient.[/quote] Ok, I will work on giving evidence to you, if that’s what you like. But, are you saying that once a source has been used once, it can no longer be used? That isn’t right.
In the evolution theory, the number of ribs changes several times in the progression from Eohippus to Equus. Eohippus has eighteen pairs of ribs but Orohippus has only fifteen, then it jumps to nineteen in Pliohuppus but drops back down to eighteen in Equus. Such jumping back and forth, with ribs disappearing and reappearing like magic, cannot be explained by standard evolutionary theory.
Here’s some good reads for you:
http://www.comereason.org/cmprlgn/cmp005.asp
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resourcestractsscientificcaseagainstevolution/
http://creationwiki.org/ScientificForeknowledge Although I know a wiki is not always completely reliable, there are many sources listed.
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine29&item=1104248743
Any response I leave is being taken by the spam filter….
Instead of railing on personalities when you get backed into a corner, would you please make a response to the question posed about the scientific aspects of evolution? I have presented info. from various sources, and I have read the info. presented by both you and arensb, but I challenge the alleged fact that evolution is scientific theory, which in turn would dismiss all need for this discusion. I have been challenged, and in turn have given credible evidence to back me up, but when I present a challenge, I am met by a post railing on my personality. Please consider.
I have tried to leave posts, but they keep on getting taken by the spam filter…..
All my comments are getting spam filtered…
ok, as you can see, my posts won’t show up till hours after I post them (reason for multiple posts). Is this inherent with the server that is hosting this, or there something else?
And in fact, I saw one of my posts up earlier, and then it disappeared. Now it’s back again.
you guys going to accept my challenge?
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
jimmy:
Sorry about the delay in responding, but you know how hectic things get around Christmas. At any rate, you wrote:
Obviously, this depends on what you mean by “evolution” and “scientific theory”. Sorry about the length of this reply, but a certain amount of groundwork must be laid before giving an answer.
In this context, evolution means change in allele frequency in a population over generations. That evolution occurs was established well before Darwin came along, and is not controversial.
Then there are the various theories of evolution, which purport to explain how and why evolution occurs the way we see it. Lamarck had one, which turned out to be wrong. Darwin had his, which has had to be amended (e.g., by Eldredge and Gould’s punctuated equilibrium), but has held up remarkably well over the years. The biggest change, of course, has been the incorporation of genetics, of which Darwin knew nothing, to produce the modern synthesis.
The next question is, what is a scientific theory? I’m not up on current thinking in philosophy of science, but generally speaking, a scientific theory is a well-supported and extensively tested explanation that explains a wide range of phenomena or observations in a given field. There’s room for argument here, of course, and one can impose other criteria, such as the Popperian falsifiability requirement, but broadly speaking, doing science consists in making observations to see what the world is like, coming up with hypotheses that explain the observations, and testing those hypotheses by conducting experiments that can, at least in principle, have an outcome that contradicts the hypothesis. Ideally, an experiment should be designed in such a way that if it gives the outcome predicted by the hypothesis, then that’s only because the hypothesis is true.
So your challenge, as I understand it, consists in asking whether the currently-accepted mainstream theory of evolution — that there is variation in heritable traits (genes) in any population, that different genes or combinations of genes lead to different reproductive success (if there is a gene with two alleles A and B, then in a given environment, a being with allele A will tend to have more offspring than one with allele B), and that evolution is a result of differential reproductive success over generations — is scientific.
I think the answer is clearly “yes”. It’s based on observation of living populations, both in the lab and in the wild. It is subject to testing and potential falsification. Experiments have been conducted to test it (the Delbrück-Luria experiment, for instance, tests natural selection by seeing whether mutations occur in response to the environment, or whether the environment merely selects beings from existing variation in a population). It also explains many features of living beings, such as the nested hierarchies among living beings (e.g. if a being is made of wood, then you already know that its cells have nuclei; if a being has feathers, then it also has a spine; if a being lays eggs, then it does not perform photosynthesis; and so forth), why living beings with similar morphologies also have similar patterns of retroviral infections in their genome, and much else.
So how is it not scientific?
Evolution requires more faith than Creationism. Why? Evolution goes against sound scientific principles, theories, and laws. For example, the Cell Principle, the Law of Biogenesis; the second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy). From this alone, the Evolutionary theory is proven wrong (where did life come from????). But I will go on…
The number of ribs changes several times in the progression from Eohippus to Equus. Eohuppus has eighteen pairs of ribs but Orohippus has only fifteen, then it jumps to nineteen in Pliohuppus but drops back down to eighteen in Equus. Such jumping back and forth, with ribs disappearing and reappearing like magic, cannot be explained by standard evolutionary theory.
Many biology texts that support evolution still claim that the human embryo has gill slits. This was proven wrong by 1875, but it still being taught in many texts.
So, with evolution, when does a species become another species? I mean, seriously, when can it be defined that the ape was no longer an ape, and was something else?
And in regards to the ‘missing links’. Darwin himself said that if they could not be found, that evolution could not be proven to be true. They still haven’t been found….. So if you follow Darwin’s form of evolution, it has so far been proven false. But rarely anyone (if any at all) truly follow Darwin’s exact ideology of evolution. In fact, basically every scientist that believes in evolution has their own little take on it, so it is hard to really define how evolution says the world began.
The following is a list of Scientific truths found in the Bible before they were discovered by man, and the time (in years) in between.
The earth is a sphere >1500
The water cycle keeps the land watered >2000
Earth is suspended in space >3500
The universe is running down >2000
Ocean currents flow through the sea > 2500
Blood sustains life >3000
The universe is made of invisible things >1500
The earth’s crust rests upon a foundation > 3500
Stars produce sound > 3500
The stars cannot be numbered > 2500
Stars are incredibly distant from the earth > 3500
Stars differ in magnitude >1500
The winds form a circulating system >2500
Earth rotates on its axis > 3500
Man’s body is composed of the same materials as the earth > 3000
To sum up what I’ve been saying – Evolution requires more faith than Creation. How?
Evolution requires faith that sound Scientific Laws are wrong (Law of Biogenesis, second Law of Thermodynamics)
While Creation only requires faith that Scientific Theories are wrong (theory of evolution)
Now, any person that understands science and what a scientific law is, would see that Creation is, by far, a better solution than is evolution.
I understand that you asked for sources for my claims. I decided not to include sources for all of these for the sake of time, but if you would like a source for one of them, just let me know.
I think that somebody here needs to issue the thermodynamics challenge.
Troublesome Frog:
As I read that, it basically boils down to “Evolution violates the 2LoT? Really? Show me where, exactly.”
That seems like an eminently sensible question, so JJ, can you explain exactly where and how evolution requires a process that moves heat from a cold spot to a warmer one?
JJ:
You say “many biology texts”; have you actually checked, or are you just parroting a creationist tract you came across?
Secondly, the structures you refer to are called pharyngeal pouches. They’re commonly called gill slits because in fish, they develop into gills. In other animals, such as mammals (including humans), they don’t.
As for them not existing, it’s easy to find photos of them. See for instance this illustration (caption here; look for figure 15-6). Are you saying that all of those microscope photos are faked?
The moral is, or should be: don’t trust creationist sources: check for yourself.
This list has all the hallmarks of being cherry-picked to demonstrate a chosen conclusion. The bit about the earth being a sphere comes, I bet, from Isaiah 40:22 (“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”). Note that this says “circle”, not “sphere” or “ball”, for which the ancient Hebrews had perfectly good words, so obviously this refers to a world that’s round like a pizza, not like a soccer ball. The second half of the same verse says, “He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in”; this imagery makes perfect sense for a flat earth with a solid dome a few miles above it, but not for a spherical world spinning in the middle of countless megaparsecs of hard vacuum.
This will come as a surprise to those astronomers who have compiled star catalogs.
Of course, this is trivially true in the sense that we can’t see all of the stars within our galaxy, and most galaxies are much too far for us to be able to make out individual stars. But in this trivial sense, this was already true 4000 years ago: 99.999…% of the matter in the universe cannot be seen with the naked eye. So c’mon: “innumerable as the stars” is a poetic image (one that makes perfect sense if you’ve ever gone stargazing on a moonless night far from city lights). It’s obviously not a scientific statement of fact.
Besides, in Deuteronomy 1:10, Moses says, “The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many
as the stars in the sky”. There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone; that’s 16 times more than there are humans alive today. According to Wikipedia, there are 1011 galaxies in the observable universe. If there were 1022 Hebrews alive 4000 years ago, you’d think somebody would have noticed.
Your list is also interesting for its omissions: where, for instance, does it say that diseases are caused by invisibly-small organisms and that washing hands can help prevent infections?
Lev. 14:34-53 has a whole long list of things to do about mildew in a house, including dipping a piece of cedar and some yarn in the blood of a bird, and sprinkling the house with it. Instead of all that rigamarole, why doesn’t it say to wash the walls with a fungicidal agent, like bleach or ammonia? For that matter, why doesn’t it say that you can make ammonia by peeing in a bowl and letting the urine evaporate for a day or so?
And where does the Bible say that the earth revolves around the sun? That could’ve avoided all that unpleasant business with Galileo and the Inquisition.
And as Troublesome Frog implicitly asked, when you say that that evolution violates the “Law of Biogenesis” and 2LoT, do you actually know what you’re talking about, or are you just repeating something you read somewhere, that sounded good because it had big words in it? Given the level of education and understanding you’ve displayed so far, I’m guessing it’s the latter.
No, Jimmy, no such admission will be or needs to be conceeded. You are cherry picking one specific, incomplete definition of the term ‘science’ from a dictionary rapidly approaching 200 years of age in an attempt at bolstering your erronous position. This is not France and there is no English Language Academy attempting to maintain an alleged purity of the english language.
From Webster’s Online, being the most convenient to hand:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
Until you realize that your definition of science is faulty you have no basis for argument about the scientific nature of any topic.
I also find it suspicious that the top rated Google linked sites for “Webster 1828 Dictionary” are all Christian support sites. Wouldn’t have anything to do with this quote attributed to Noah Webster, “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a freegovernment, ought to be instructed… No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people…” would it?
Fez-
While the termonology of ‘science’ may have expanded in the last few decades or so, that doesn’t mean science can suddenly be used to prove history. It can still only prove whether or not what is suspected about history is possible. That, and no more.
I love what you said here so much, I just have to quote it.
“I also find it suspicious that the top rated Google linked sites for “Webster 1828 Dictionary” are all Christian support sites. Wouldn’t have anything to do with this quote attributed to Noah Webster, “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a freegovernment, ought to be instructed… No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people…” would it?”
First of all, are you claiming that there are a bunch of false definitions in Webster’s dictionary? If no, then it must just be that Christians like to find the meaning of words more than atheists.
Here is a definition for ‘science’ from dictionary.com. And yes, I am picking just a few of the many definitions, for the same reason I would pick only a few if I was defining the term ‘state’. It has many meanings, and I am presenting the ones that have the most application to this situation.
Science:
“1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”
This shows that science, in the sense of proving things through scientific reasoning, cannot be used to prove history.
Here is an example of a definition that does not apply to this situation:
“6. A particular branch of knowledge.”
We are not just talking about any branch of knowledge. We are talking about proving things with the scientific method. Otherwise, we could be talking about the science of music, or of literature, which, like other things you are talking about, is straying from the topic, and has no benefit whatsoever to this discussion.
JJ:
So you’re saying that archeology, paleontology, and forensics aren’t science? DNA testing to see whether an accused person is guilty isn’t science, or isn’t a valid way of learning about the past?
It’s often said that a scientific theory has to make predictions, which can then be tested by experiment. It may seem paradoxical to talk about historical sciences making predictions, but it’s actually sensible: when a physicist or chemist designs an experiment to test a hypothesis, he or she is really saying, “I think the world works in such-and-such a way. If I’m right, then if we do X, we should see result Y. And if I’m wrong, we should see a different result.”
For historical sciences, it’s only slightly different: “I think that such-and-such happened in the past. If I’m right, it should have left such-and-such traces, so if we look at X, we should see Y. If I’m wrong, we’ll see something different.” In other words, the prediction is about the result of observations that might be made in the future.
As for the discussion of what science is, I’ve written about that elsewhere (see the section with the two questions in bold).
Oh, and Fez, you were right: JJ has completely ignored everything I wrote. I get the feeling that he’s not really interested in open and frank discussion.
JJ, I point you to definition 3b from Webster’s, “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena”. That is the relevant definition for purposes of this discussion, yet it is also the very same definition you and jimmy have danced around for quite some time now. I’ll even grab one from Webster’s 1828:
Lets grab number 5 just for giggles:
5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music
I note with some amusement that religion is not listed as one of the branches of knowledge.
I provided the quote from Noah Webster only as further proof of your continual use of the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. This particular edition of the english language dictionary is apparently well known for having relied on the Christian Bible as source material from which definitions were drawn. Ironic, since no books of the Bible were ever composed in English.
What other conclusions you draw from the inclusion of the quote are your own delusions, please stop projecting.
Thus far we now have examples here from you of, “Cherry picking of information and purposeful attempts at supression of facts, ” [supplying only partial definitions in the knowledge that the full definition does not support your interpretations], “willful misinterpretations “[repeatedly supplying interpretations that you attribute to others], and “increasingly faulty applications of logic” [circular reasoning]. Thus it is proven my prior comment was not “railing on personalities”, and the accusations were indeed truthful.
Answer the challenges posed by arensb
fez,
“No, Jimmy, no such admission will be or needs to be conceeded. You are cherry picking one specific, incomplete definition of the term ’science’ from a dictionary rapidly approaching 200 years of age in an attempt at bolstering your erronous position. This is not France and there is no English Language Academy attempting to maintain an alleged purity of the english language.”
This is hillarious! The above statement demonstrates a whopping third grade mentality. You claim that I am “cherry picking” an “incomplete definition”, and then you crack the punchline. Buddy, if you don’t like the English language, and if you don’t like the definitions contained therein, you’re welcome to leave! You’ve got that option. But as long as we’re going to have logical, adult level discussion, we’re going to have to buckle down to fact. Deny anything you want with evidence, but please, don’t try to defend your views by claiming that the english language is insuficient. I don’t want to die of a laughing fit yet. I gave you a good, solid definition from a reputable source, and you hold it to be invalid. Did you ever see the Andy Griffith show, Opie and the Spoiled Kid? If not, you might consider watching it.
And, by the way, I got that definition from a hard copy of the Webster’s 1828 that I have on my desk. So, try as you might, you didn’t win that last assumption.
Look forward to later reasonable debate!
By the way fez, I see that you like to pick on the fact that everything in this country was founded on biblical principles, so I must beg you to consider the fact that America was founded as a Christian nation, (the works of Blackstone and Patrick Henry in particular display this fact to great extent). Our whole governmental system is founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Remember, “if you don’t like it, leave it”. This country wasn’t founded for atheists, it was founded in spite of them. I’m not going to procure much info. to back this at the present, because it would take up the whole blog, but if you would like to discuss this further, I will upload it all to my blog, or, if no one minds, I will do it on this one. Thanks for your time guys! (or whoever you are)
snicker. Too typical. Attack the messenger because you can’t accept the message. Jimmy, I’m claiming you’re cherry picking because you are cherry picking. I have to admit, the entire room here is laughing uproariously at your responses. This includes the bible scholar and the historian. Favorite quote of the evening, “Oh my, how precious.”
jimmy:
I call bullshit. If the first amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) isn’t enough for you, consider the treaty of Tripoli, where Article 11 says, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” (Article 6 of the US constitution explicitly says that treaties are the law of the land).
Besides, the first amendment runs directly counter to the first, second, and third commandments (using Wikipedia’s “Protestant” division of the commandments). Various blue laws can be seen as inspired by the fourth, but there aren’t any in the constitution. There is no law about respecting one’s parents, as per the fifth commandment. Every society has laws against murder (sixth commandment) and theft (eighth commandment); there’s nothing uniquely Judeo-Christian about these rules, so it’s not surprising that these things are illegal in the US as well. Adultery is legal (seventh amendment), and freedom of speech (first amendment) includes the freedom to lie (ninth commandment) except under certain circumstances, like while testifying in court or writing financial statements. The tenth commandment describes a thoughtcrime, and is unenforceable. Besides, the capitalist way of life is largely based on breaking this commandment: can you imagine what our society would be like if no one ever something someone else owned and thought, “Gee, I’d sure like to get me one of those”?
So anyway, jimmy, is there any chance you’ll get around to presenting some evidence for the existence of any gods any time soon?
Jimmy, if you’re through with your overly emotional irrational outburst that is obviously clouding your comprehension skills; once you and JJ are through responding to arensb’s multiple prior challenges that you have both left unanswered, could you then get around to answering, based on your statement:
Where exactly did the Christ say, ‘If you don’t like it, leave it.”? Then please explain how Jesus’ conversion away from egalatarianism is germane to your assumption that evolutionary studies are not science. Then explain how your personal decision to apply a single definition from an explanatory dictionary that is known to have been written within the constraints imposed by the Christian Bible is a) not engaging in circular logic and b) not an expression of extreme arrogance on your part by dismissing the more applicable and equally relevant definitions existent in your very own source.
Look forward to reasonable explanations!
Howdy, I don’t have time at the present to answer all of the questions and challenges presented, but I’ll try to reply in chronological order.
fez,
“Attack the messenger because you can’t accept the message.” I’m laughing mostly because when I presented this problem earlier, I recieve a response from you charging me with the same thing, kind of like a name calling contest. Anyway, if you want to do that, it’s fine with me. (free speech right?)
arensb,
Buddy, I’m not going to argue present conditions of American law. I’m taking you right back to the roots, the basis upon which our entire legal system is built. I can quote Blackstone for hours, and Henry for the same amount of time, to prove my statement about religion being a major part of our legal heritage, and, seeming to be well educated, you can not deny this.
I’m not going to attempt to prove to you that God exists, because you have convinced yourself that he does not. I know that he’s real because I am a living testimony of His power.
fez,
I would request that you answer some of my challenges in accordance with your desire for me to answer yours.
The Christ did not say “if you don’t like it, leave it”. Nor did I claim that he did. You came up with that conclusion on your own. (at least I assume so, maybe you had help).
My challenge that the theory of evolution is not scientific was and is simply an offshoot of our conversation. It is not something that I intended to be wrapped up with everything else that I’ve been saying, but rather a response to your continued assumptions that evolution is scientific.
“explain how your personal decision to apply a single definition from an explanatory dictionary that is known to have been written within the constraints imposed by the Christian Bible is a) not engaging in circular logic and b) not an expression of extreme arrogance on your part by dismissing the more applicable and equally relevant definitions existent in your very own source.”
I gave you plain and simple English. You want to change it by using a modern online dictionary to back up your beliefs, while I use a source that, in actuality, formed the English language, making it what it is.
First of all, I don’t appreciate the personal attacks. That’s not what debate is about. If that’s what you want to make this into, I’m done. What I’m referring to: “Oh, and Fez, you were right: JJ has completely ignored everything I wrote. I get the feeling that he’s not really interested in open and frank discussion.” Funny how, just earlier, you expected us to understand your delay in replying “Sorry about the delay in responding, but you know how hectic things get around Christmas.”, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you feel fine attacking the other party for not replying quickly enough for you.
I responded to Fez’s post first, because his I could reply to quickly, while yours would take some more time and thought, and at that time, I did not have much time to spare.
Back up a ways, quoting arensb
“In this context, evolution means change in allele frequency in a population over generations. That evolution occurs was established well before Darwin came along, and is not controversial.”
First of all, change of allele frequency is not the complete evolutionist theory. It does not explain everything that is attributed to evolution. Secondly, this obviously completely voids the argument that many evolutionists make against scientists from the past. Most great scientists of the past believed in Creation (Newton, Pastuer, Kepler, Fleming, Herschel, Ramsay, Linnaeus, Kelvin, etc). Evolutionists claim this is because evolution was not an alternative till the time of Darwin. This, you just proved wrong. I am personally not fully up on the exact definition of allele frequency, and it is therefore hard for me to discuss this matter with you (likewise with the rest of your post that talks about this).
“That seems like an eminently sensible question, so JJ, can you explain exactly where and how evolution requires a process that moves heat from a cold spot to a warmer one?” For your ‘Thermodynamics Challenge’:
“1. Specifically, which process or processes are identified as being thermodynamically invalid?”
Any of the evolutionary processes that bring about a change that is beneficial. For example, how in heck was our eye formed? It is, unquestionably, one of the most intricate designs ever studied.
“2. Specifically, which evolutionary mechanism theory postulates the process or processes identified in (1) as being necessary to evolutionary change?”
I couldn’t tell you. But I can tell you that our eye exists (you are proving this point by reading my post). And according to you evolutionists, God didn’t make it. So, how did it come to be?
“3. Defend the claim that the process identified in (1) and referenced in (2) has not been observed in extant populations.”
Again, I don’t know which part of the evolution theory deals with the eye. That’s your job to prove. If evolution doesn’t have a place for the eye’s evolution, it is not a complete theory.
“You say “many biology texts”; have you actually checked, or are you just parroting a creationist tract you came across?”
Sorry, but money just doesn’t grow on trees. So, no, I have not checked all of the biology texts. Have you? In fact, that is a good point. Have you ever observed evolution? If not, than are you just ‘parroting evolutionist hogwash’?
“Secondly, the structures you refer to are called pharyngeal pouches. They’re commonly called gill slits because in fish, they develop into gills. In other animals, such as mammals (including humans), they don’t.”
Are you saying that it is the same exact form on fish and humans, and they just develop into different things?
“The moral is, or should be: don’t trust creationist sources: check for yourself.”
Why not? Because you don’t like to hear the truth?
“This list has all the hallmarks of being cherry-picked to demonstrate a chosen conclusion. The bit about the earth being a sphere comes, I bet, from Isaiah 40:22 (”He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”). Note that this says “circle”, not “sphere” or “ball”, for which the ancient Hebrews had perfectly good words, so obviously this refers to a world that’s round like a pizza, not like a soccer ball.”
This is a possible interpretation. So is mine. And unless you’ve studied the Hebrew language, I doubt this one can be determined for sure.
“This will come as a surprise to those astronomers who have compiled star catalogs.”
You are trying to tell me that astronomers can tell us exactly how many stars are in the sky? I know this is not true, as I am an amateur astronomer, and have read many scientific astronomic texts. The number of stars cannot be numbered exactly.
“Besides, in Deuteronomy 1:10, Moses says, “The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many
as the stars in the sky”. There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone; that’s 16 times more than there are humans alive today. According to Wikipedia, there are 1011 galaxies in the observable universe. If there were 1022 Hebrews alive 4000 years ago, you’d think somebody would have noticed.”
To them, comparing population to the number of stars in the sky would obviously be to stars that can be seen. First of all, they didn’t have telescopes back then. Secondly, as was just mentioned, the true number of stars cannot be numbered, so God would not compare to something like that. He would compare to something they could relate to.
“According to Wikipedia, there are 10^11 galaxies in the…. ”
Now it says 10^40000. Wait, now it says 10^1. How interesting. That number keeps changing. Oh, wait, I’m editing the page. Hmm. Leaves one to wonder if that’s a reputable source, if it can be changed by just anyone. I’m not saying that the numbers given are wrong… in fact, I find Wikipedia to be a great resource. But I caution using it as fact.
“Your list is also interesting for its omissions: where, for instance, does it say that diseases are caused by invisibly-small organisms and that washing hands can help prevent infections?”
I don’t follow your question. Are you asking why those things aren’t part of my list?
“Lev. 14:34-53 has a whole long list of things to do about mildew in a house, including dipping a piece of cedar and some yarn in the blood of a bird, and sprinkling the house with it. Instead of all that rigamarole, why doesn’t it say to wash the walls with a fungicidal agent, like bleach or ammonia? For that matter, why doesn’t it say that you can make ammonia by peeing in a bowl and letting the urine evaporate for a day or so?”
Maybe because the handling of urine is the handling of one of the body’s main ways to get rid of disease….
“And where does the Bible say that the earth revolves around the sun? That could’ve avoided all that unpleasant business with Galileo and the Inquisition.”
I don’t believe I said that the Bible says that the earth revolves around the sun.
“And as Troublesome Frog implicitly asked, when you say that that evolution violates the “Law of Biogenesis” and 2LoT, do you actually know what you’re talking about, or are you just repeating something you read somewhere, that sounded good because it had big words in it? Given the level of education and understanding you’ve displayed so far, I’m guessing it’s the latter.”
And given what I’ve seen, you LOVE to throw personal attacks at people whenever given the chance. I know what I’m talking about. I explained earlier in this post.