Why I don't believe in evolution...

Sam Saved by Grace · Sep 21, 2021

Just because there are groups who affirm what I say doesn't mean that I am appealing to their authority. Not once did I appeal to them or even mention them. You, however, did. Big difference. I wouldn't care if I were the last person in the world who held to my beliefs. I know I am right because I believe the Bible, and I read it for myself. This is not circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is beginning with a premise and then interpreting all evidence in a manner to support that premise. My point should have been obvious to any reasonable minded person: atheistic scientists have come out in recent years explicitly claiming that there isn't any scientific evidence for God, despite the fact that methodological naturalism precludes any consideration of God or Biblical accounts in the examination of all evidence. The same is true of biblical scholarship. Often times, opponents of the Christian faith will attack the New Testament on the grounds of it's dating and authorship, despite the fact that such is the result of a methodology that refuses to acknowledge very real evidence on the grounds that the acceptance of such would constitute magical thinking and a consideration of the supernatural.

This type of methodology is found everywhere throughout science, including in regards to human evolution, where any and all pertinent evidence is accepted or rejected on the basis of how it accords with Darwin's theory. Make no mistake: history has clearly demonstrated that scientists are not immune to groupthink and bias. In our current day, any challenge to the darwinian model brings with it swift and merciless invalidation, career suicide, and pariah status. Yet, we are constantly reminded that the theory is backed by a clear consensus. Speak intelligently and carry a big stick. It would almost be funny if it were not so tragic.

As for your arguments about race, you are practicing obfuscation and cherry picking evidence. Race in a taxonomic sense is one thing, race as it is commonly understood by society is another, and race as the Bible would explain it is still another. I am tired of your strawman tactics. And terms such as "good genetic match" are completely meaningless. You can invent any parameters you want. It doesn't make what you say true. I am far more likely to possess the same genetic traits and medical susceptibilities as someone who is Scottish/English, which is what I am, than someone who is from east Asia. You can even look at the skull shape of people and group them accordingly. When people say there isn't any such thing as race, they are using parameters convenient to their argument and ignoring an entire host of others. That is a fact.

Go ahead and spin, spin, spin. I am through with the likes of you.

The Barbarian · Sep 21, 2021

Sam Saved by Grace said:
Not once did I appeal to them or even mention them. You, however, did. Big difference. I wouldn't care if I were the last person in the world who held to my beliefs. I know I am right because I believe the Bible, and I read it for myself. This is not circular reasoning.

No, it's just a form of argumentum ab auctoritate. Only you've set yourself up as the authority for interpreting the Bible. A circular argument would be "this statement is true, because it's telling the truth."

Sam Saved by Grace said:
Circular reasoning is beginning with a premise and then interpreting all evidence in a manner to support that premise.

No, that's confirmation bias.

A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms your previously existing beliefs or biases.
confirmation bias at DuckDuckGo

Sam Saved by Grace said:
My point should have been obvious to any reasonable minded person: atheistic scientists have come out in recent years explicitly claiming that there isn't any scientific evidence for God, despite the fact that methodological naturalism precludes any consideration of God or Biblical accounts in the examination of all evidence.

That would almost be circular. It's actually a redefinition of "evidence." Science, being unable to consider the supernatural, can only use evidence derived from the senses that can be demonstrated.

But as the Bible says, God and His laws are written in men's hearts:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: 15Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

Sam Saved by Grace said:
This type of methodology is found everywhere throughout science, including in regards to human evolution, where any and all pertinent evidence is accepted or rejected on the basis of how it accords with Darwin's theory.

No, that's wrong. Here's a reference to learn about some of that:
A Most Interesting Problem: What Darwin’s Descent of Man Got Right and Wrong about Human Evolution
A Most Interesting Problem

Sam Saved by Grace said:
In our current day, any challenge to the darwinian model brings with it swift and merciless invalidation, career suicide, and pariah status.

And yet, Eldredge and Gould got acclamation and respect for showing Darwin was wrong to argue that ‘Natura non facit saltum,’ a claim that even his friend Thomas Huxley challenged. Today, we know that while the tempo of evolution is often very slow, speciation and even the sudden evolution of new structures has been observed in relatively short time periods.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
Yet, we are constantly reminded that the theory is backed by a clear consensus.

His four points of evolutionary theory remain solid as ever. Can you think of one that has been refuted? I can't.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
As for your arguments about race, you are practicing obfuscation and cherry picking evidence. Race in a taxonomic sense is one thing, race as it is commonly understood by society is another, and race as the Bible would explain it is still another.

Now, that is obfuscation. Race refers to biological differences being greater between populations than within populations, which as you see, do not exist in human populations today. There is a social interpretation of "race" which is just what people think. (which is why the number of supposed races depends on which culture you happen to be in).

But God says we are all one blood:
Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Sam Saved by Grace said:
And terms such as "good genetic match" are completely meaningless.

Not to anyone who understands what race is. That's how it's determined.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
You can invent any parameters you want. It doesn't make what you say true. I am far more likely to possess the same genetic traits and medical susceptibilities as someone who is Scottish/English, which is what I am, than someone who is from east Asia.

No, that's wrong. Blood types and tissue types are scattered among all human populations. That's why organ and tissue donors are often of different socially-determined "races."

Not that there aren't identifiable genetic differences between human populations. For example, my family tends to have large noses, high cheekbones, and robust builds. That doesn't mean that we're a different race than my gracile and short-nosed neighbors.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
You can even look at the skull shape of people and group them accordingly.

That was once believed. But...
Boas, however, looked at changes in cranial size in relation to how long the mother had been in the United States. They argue that Boas' method is more useful, because the prenatal environment is a crucial developmental factor. Jantz and Sparks responded to Gravlee et al., reiterating that Boas' findings lacked biological meaning, and that the interpretation of Boas' results common in the literature was biologically inaccurate. In a later study, the same authors concluded that the effects Boas observed were likely the result of population-specific environmental effects such as changes in cultural practices for cradling infants, rather than the effects of a general "American environment" which caused populations in America to converge to a common cranial type, as Boas had suggested.

American Journal of Human Biology
19 August 2010 Am. J. Hum. Biol. 22:702-707, 2010.
Why Does head form change in children of immigrants? A reappraisal
The results support the two hypotheses tested. Change in Hebrew cranial indices resulted from abandoning the practice of cradling infants in America. U.S.-born Sicilian children experienced an environment worse than the one in Europe, and consequently experienced impaired growth. We conclude that the changes Boas observed resulted from specific behavioral and economic conditions unique to each group, rather than a homogeneous American environment.

When people say there isn't any such thing as race, they are using parameters convenient to their argument and ignoring an entire host of others. That is a fact.

See above. There is such a thing as race; but there's no biological reality for it; it's just a cultural construct, which is why the number of "races" differs in different societies.

Sam Saved by Grace · Sep 22, 2021

No, it's not confirmation bias. It's circular reasoning, because of what is being done with the "evidence" in light of how that evidence came about. This isn't about gathering the evidence - this is about appealing to it. And appealing to evidence that came about by purposely dismissing and failing to consider the supernatural, as an argument against any evidence for the supernatural, is CIRCULAR REASONING. I am not going to argue this with you. Anyone with a fourth grade education should understand this. Your problem is that you are more interested in coming across as correct than you are in trying to understand what someone is actually saying.

And then you go talking about blood types and tissue types. As if that's the be all, end all when it comes to this discussion. The fact is, there exist what are called "genetic agglomerations". Because God separated the descendants of Noah, who went on to separate themselves further, there are clusters of genetic commonality found throughout population groups. Now of course you can always come up with exceptions - and citing exceptions or some kind of parameter that would seem to refute the reality of race does nothing to actually do so. There is a far higher concentration of specific genes within a specific population group that results in a phenotype. People in Europe, for instance, grouped themselves in relatively close proximity compared to their neighbors in, say, Africa. And this is also true within Europe, with certain characteristics and conditions being more common among the English than the Spanish. These differences are clearly observable. And to cite some recent study of Hebrew children does absolutely nothing to change centuries of observable fact. You can go to mass graves and group every single skull by race with a near 100% success rate. That, to me, speaks far louder than some modern, politically motivated study about Hebrew children that you no doubt searched for frantically to try and make yourself appear smart and correct.

If you want to deny the reality of race in the taxonomic sense, then be my guest. The same can be done for dog breeds. But anyone who can look at a Chihuahua and say it's the same as a Rottweiler is fooling themselves, the same way anyone who looks at a 6'3" blonde Swede and a 4'10" African pygmy and says they are racially identical are fooling themselves as well. People instinctively know this is true. The statement, "race refers to biological differences being greater between populations than within populations", is an invented metric.

I despise racism. I affirm that from one blood, God made all nations. I believe in the equal worth of all Earth's peoples. I do not oppose interracial marriages. I do not oppose legal immigration of Christians of all races. But there is no denying the existence of race.

You have your own motivations and sentiments, and the truth is not part of it. Now you can go search for some more outliers and misinformation to present in a one-sided manner like you always do.

The Barbarian · Sep 22, 2021

Sam Saved by Grace said:
No, it's not confirmation bias.

That's what it's called. Circular reasoning is assuming what you proposed to prove.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
I am not going to argue this with you.

That's what you're doing.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
And then you go talking about blood types and tissue types. As if that's the be all, end all when it comes to this discussion.

No, that's only a small part of the issue. The Human Genome Project shows that the intrinsic variation within "races" is much larger than that, and much greater than variations between them.

The fact is, there exist what are called "genetic agglomerations".

What do you think they are?

Sam Saved by Grace said:
And then you go talking about blood types and tissue types. As if that's the be all, end all when it comes to this discussion. The fact is, there exist what are called "genetic agglomerations". Because God separated the descendants of Noah, who went on to separate themselves further, there are clusters of genetic commonality found throughout population groups.

Of course there are. Like my family's tendency to large noses. Or the HPAS1 gene found in most Tibetans that enhances survival and reproduction at high altitudes. Doesn't mean my family or Tibetans are a special race. For reasons you learned.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
People in Europe, for instance, grouped themselves in relatively close proximity compared to their neighbors in, say, Africa. And this is also true within Europe, with certain characteristics and conditions being more common among the English than the Spanish.

That doesn't mean Englishmen are a different race than Spanish people. Like big noses and HPAS1 alleles; they are just variations. But the key is that there is more variation within the populations of England and Spain, than there is between them.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
And to cite some recent study of Hebrew children does absolutely nothing to change centuries of observable fact.

It merely means that head shape turns out to be more a matter of environment than genetics. And that's been repeatedly demonstrated. Would you like to see more documentation?

Sam Saved by Grace said:
You can go to mass graves and group every single skull by race with a near 100% success rate.

You can do that by looking at people, or by looking for specific alleles common to particular populations. But like my long nose and robust skeleton, it doesn't signify a biological race.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
That, to me, speaks far louder than some modern, politically motivated study about Hebrew children that you no doubt searched for frantically to try and make yourself appear smart and correct.

I'm a biologist. So I knew about the findings of anthropologists regarding skull shapes. It's not exactly news for anyone with an interest in the field.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
If you want to deny the reality of race in the taxonomic sense, then be my guest.

Comes down to evidence. And as you see, once the human genome was sequenced, that put an end to any doubts. There's more genetic variation within any "race" you might pick, than there is between "races."

Sam Saved by Grace said:
The same can be done for dog breeds. But anyone who can look at a Chihuahua and say it's the same as a Rottweiler is fooling themselves,

They are the same race. Canis lupis familiaris. No question about that.

the same way anyone who looks at a 6'3" blonde Swede and a 4'10" African pygmy and says they are racially identical are fooling themselves as well.

Anyone who doubts it, is simply ignoring the evidence.

Race is a fluid concept used to group people according to various factors including, ancestral background and social identity. Race is also used to group people that share a set of visible characteristics, such as skin color and facial features. Though these visible traits are influenced by genes, the vast majority of genetic variation exists within racial groups and not between them. Race is an ideology and for this reason, many scientists believe that race should be more accurately described as a social construct and not a biological one.
Race

Sam Saved by Grace said:
I despise racism. I affirm that from one blood, God made all nations. I believe in the equal worth of all Earth's peoples. I do not oppose interracial marriages.

This is all good.

I do not oppose legal immigration of Christians of all races.

Does that mean you oppose the legal immigration of people of other faiths, or of no faith at all? If so, you are in opposition to the very foundational ideas of America.

But there is no denying the existence of race.

Of course it exists. It just doesn't have any biological basis. It's a social construct. This is why the number of "races" depends on the culture. Some cultures have more of them than others. And each classification is equally valid.

But none of them exist as a biological reality.

Sam Saved by Grace · Sep 23, 2021

Just useless, obnoxious prattle, as per usual. Might as well be saying "nuh-uh" over and over again. I explained my position well. I am not going over the same ground again and again.

As for the foundational ideas of America, I think you wouldn't know the first thing about them. The founders of this country would be appalled at the current state of things. They created this country for their "posterity" and held to strong Christian values even if a small few of them were deists. It took until the mid-20th century before non-Europeans could immigrate here and be granted citizenship, let alone when the foundations of this country were laid.

No, those who laid the foundations of this country held views far more extreme than mine. They would no doubt restrict immigration to protestant whites. As for me, I wish to see it restricted to only those who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and who behave themselves properly.

Non-Christian immigration, illegal immigration, abortion, and homosexual marriage is certainly not what America was supposed to be about. I don't see how any actual Christian could support any of these. And I certainly do not support bringing in some of the people who are over there beheading Christians. People who for centuries and centuries have hated the west and hated Christians, and people just like you would extend to them an invitation. Not to mention amnesty for those who pour into our borders illegally.

Sure, you can afford to be self-righteous and pretentiously smug in your pseudo-egalitarianism. It's not costing you. It's not a threat to you. They won't be moving in next door to you, or competing for your job, or anything of the sort. That's always the case. People love to virtue signal from the safety of the lily white enclaves, but those of us poor working class who live down in it know full well the cost of your generosity, as we are the ones who have to cash the checks you and your kind write.

The Barbarian · Sep 23, 2021

Sam Saved by Grace said:
Just useless, obnoxious prattle, as per usual. Might as well be saying "nuh-uh" over and over again.

If you never read any of the evidence, I suppose so. And words have meanings. If you don't use them the way other people do, you'll always have trouble.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
As for the foundational ideas of America, I think you wouldn't know the first thing about them.

For a while I was stationed at a base where there wasn't much to do but drink or take history courses. I'm close to enough hours of American history to have a minor in it.

The reason I said so was Jefferson's comment that the founders' intent of religious freedom was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”
Founders Online: Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 6 Jan.-29 July 1821, 6 Januar …

You might also look up Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments."
Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.
Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

Sam Saved by Grace said:
The founders of this country would be appalled at the current state of things. They created this country for their "posterity" and held to strong Christian values even if a small few of them were deists.

See above. Jefferson was a deist (who nonetheless claimed the "purest" form of morality was that taught by Jesus Christ). But Madison was a committed Christian, as were many of the other founders who also agreed with him that establishment of religion was evil.

How could that be, when most of them were Christians? Madison puts it best:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

He had it right. The Founders believed this, mainly because they had seen the way establishment corrupted the church in Europe, and wanted no part of it.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
Non-Christian immigration, illegal immigration, abortion, and homosexual marriage is certainly not what America was supposed to be about.

Freedom is what America is supposed to be about. BTW, there was no such thing as illegal immigration in the Founders' time. We had open borders up until about 1900. And of course, homophobia is a relatively modern disorder, so the Founders didn't give it much thought at all.

Washington certainly didn't; he was more concerned with the mission than sexual orientation:
Baron Friedrich von Steuben, a Prussian military man hired by George Washington to whip the Continental Army into shape during the darkest days of the Revolutionary War, is known for his bravery and the discipline and grit he brought to the American troops. Historians also think he was homosexual—and served as an openly gay man in the military at a time when sex between men was punished as a crime.

“Though his name is little known among Americans today,” writes Erick Trickey for Smithsonian, “every U.S. soldier is indebted to von Steuben—he created America’s professional army.”
The Revolutionary War Hero Who Was Openly Gay

Ironic, um? BTW, some historians think he might not have been homosexual, but he was under indictment in Europe for it, so I suspect he really was. Didn't matter to Washington, who only cared that he could whip the Continental Army into shape.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
And I certainly do not support bringing in some of the people who are over there beheading Christians.

The guys helping us were fighting the guys beheading people. Thought you knew.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
People who for centuries and centuries have hated the west and hated Christians, and people just like you would extend to them an invitation.

The Iraqis that helped us and fought the Taliban deserve our support.

Not to mention amnesty for those who pour into our borders illegally.

They aren't what you suppose...

Do almost 40 percent of illegal aliens arrive by airplane?
PolitiFact - Ramos: 40% of undocumented immigrants come by air

Factcheck rated it "Half True", finding that 40 percent is probably much too low an estimate. And increasingly, they are Asians. And most are now coming here legally and just overstaying.

The focus on the border is leading to a Maginot Line (look it up in a history book) that won't help stem the majority of illegal immigrants. We do need to control the borders, but we're doing it all wrong. And a wall would be completely self-defeating.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
Sure, you can afford to be self-righteous and pretentiously smug...

Funny how people like that, always think it applies to others, but not them.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
in your pseudo-egalitarianism

I'm a libertarian, so I think every human, even despicably evil ones, are still entitled to basic human rights. And being a Christian, I believe every human life is precious to God.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
People love to virtue signal from the safety of the lily white enclaves,

On my block, there are white, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim and Italian immigrant families. But most of us are educated or in technical fields that require some education to be successful. The one unifying thing seems to be valuing family and education to improve one's self, and most of us came from working-class families. Most have or had lots of kids.

It's that kind of an "enclave." Not much lily-white, though.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
It's not costing you. It's not a threat to you. They won't be moving in next door to you,

The Hispanic guy two houses down, started out as a hotel maintenance man. He now has a crew of people doing that work. The guy next door started a pool service company. Until he got established, he also was a UPS driver to get benefits and enough money for his family.

The guy five houses down immigrated here from Africa, and is a minister of some religion. Not sure about which religion. He might be Muslim, too.

One guy is an immigrant from Argentina who started by working for a builder, and now manages a retail store. He's actually Italian in heritage; he played professional soccer for a minor team in Argentina. His daughter and my daughter played high school and club soccer together.

The rest of us are native-born Americans, mostly white, but also Hispanic and black.

I'm still here, because I had lots of kids to get through college, and by the time the last one graduated, I really didn't see the need for a McMansion.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
but those of us poor working class who live down in it know full well the cost of your generosity, as we are the ones who have to cash the checks you and your kind write.

Don't be so self-righteous. I got through college only by working track gangs every summer, and when we were just starting out, we struggled.

I only ended up comfortable because of some fortunate decisions my wife and I (mostly my wife) made, that turned out to be good ones. And we live pretty frugally. I don't buy new cars. Trick is to buy one about 2 years old, and pay as much by cash as possible; build up a car fund for that purpose.

We don't fly to Europe; we do road trips.

I do my own yard work and as much of the maintenance as I know how to do. I'm not allowed to go on roofs any more, but other than that, I'm still good.

So, I'm not rich, but entirely comfortable. Better than most Americans, thanks mostly to my wife's acumen with money.

And I've probably revealed more about me than I wanted to. But there it is.

Job 33:6 · Sep 23, 2021

Sam Saved by Grace said:
Just useless, obnoxious prattle, as per usual. Might as well be saying "nuh-uh" over and over again. I explained my position well. I am not going over the same ground again and again.

As for the foundational ideas of America, I think you wouldn't know the first thing about them. The founders of this country would be appalled at the current state of things. They created this country for their "posterity" and held to strong Christian values even if a small few of them were deists. It took until the mid-20th century before non-Europeans could immigrate here and be granted citizenship, let alone when the foundations of this country were laid.

No, those who laid the foundations of this country held views far more extreme than mine. They would no doubt restrict immigration to protestant whites. As for me, I wish to see it restricted to only those who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and who behave themselves properly.

Non-Christian immigration, illegal immigration, abortion, and homosexual marriage is certainly not what America was supposed to be about. I don't see how any actual Christian could support any of these. And I certainly do not support bringing in some of the people who are over there beheading Christians. People who for centuries and centuries have hated the west and hated Christians, and people just like you would extend to them an invitation. Not to mention amnesty for those who pour into our borders illegally.

Sure, you can afford to be self-righteous and pretentiously smug in your pseudo-egalitarianism. It's not costing you. It's not a threat to you. They won't be moving in next door to you, or competing for your job, or anything of the sort. That's always the case. People love to virtue signal from the safety of the lily white enclaves, but those of us poor working class who live down in it know full well the cost of your generosity, as we are the ones who have to cash the checks you and your kind write.

Regarding the race topic, I think the bottom line is that as per genetics, there is no reason to believe that 3 individuals, sons of Noah, were ancestral to Africans, Asians and Caucasians.

Which falls more in line with my prior response as well, as viewed here: Why I don't believe in evolution...

Anyone can make up stories about anything, but if physical reality contradicts these ideas, then it's best to just leave them alone.

Sam Saved by Grace · Sep 24, 2021

The Barbarian said:
If you never read any of the evidence, I suppose so. And words have meanings. If you don't use them the way other people do, you'll always have trouble.

For a while I was stationed at a base where there wasn't much to do but drink or take history courses. I'm close to enough hours of American history to have a minor in it.

The reason I said so was Jefferson's comment that the founders' intent of religious freedom was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”
Founders Online: Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 6 Jan.-29 July 1821, 6 Januar …

You might also look up Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments."
Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.
Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

See above. Jefferson was a deist (who nonetheless claimed the "purest" form of morality was that taught by Jesus Christ). But Madison was a committed Christian, as were many of the other founders who also agreed with him that establishment of religion was evil.

How could that be, when most of them were Christians? Madison puts it best:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

He had it right. The Founders believed this, mainly because they had seen the way establishment corrupted the church in Europe, and wanted no part of it.

Freedom is what America is supposed to be about. BTW, there was no such thing as illegal immigration in the Founders' time. We had open borders up until about 1900. And of course, homophobia is a relatively modern disorder, so the Founders didn't give it much thought at all.

Washington certainly didn't; he was more concerned with the mission than sexual orientation:
Baron Friedrich von Steuben, a Prussian military man hired by George Washington to whip the Continental Army into shape during the darkest days of the Revolutionary War, is known for his bravery and the discipline and grit he brought to the American troops. Historians also think he was homosexual—and served as an openly gay man in the military at a time when sex between men was punished as a crime.

“Though his name is little known among Americans today,” writes Erick Trickey for Smithsonian, “every U.S. soldier is indebted to von Steuben—he created America’s professional army.”
The Revolutionary War Hero Who Was Openly Gay

Ironic, um? BTW, some historians think he might not have been homosexual, but he was under indictment in Europe for it, so I suspect he really was. Didn't matter to Washington, who only cared that he could whip the Continental Army into shape.

The guys helping us were fighting the guys beheading people. Thought you knew.

The Iraqis that helped us and fought the Taliban deserve our support.

They aren't what you suppose...

Do almost 40 percent of illegal aliens arrive by airplane?
PolitiFact - Ramos: 40% of undocumented immigrants come by air

Factcheck rated it "Half True", finding that 40 percent is probably much too low an estimate. And increasingly, they are Asians. And most are now coming here legally and just overstaying.

The focus on the border is leading to a Maginot Line (look it up in a history book) that won't help stem the majority of illegal immigrants. We do need to control the borders, but we're doing it all wrong. And a wall would be completely self-defeating.

Funny how people like that, always think it applies to others, but not them.

I'm a libertarian, so I think every human, even despicably evil ones, are still entitled to basic human rights. And being a Christian, I believe every human life is precious to God.

On my block, there are white, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim and Italian immigrant families. But most of us are educated or in technical fields that require some education to be successful. The one unifying thing seems to be valuing family and education to improve one's self, and most of us came from working-class families. Most have or had lots of kids.

It's that kind of an "enclave." Not much lily-white, though.

The Hispanic guy two houses down, started out as a hotel maintenance man. He now has a crew of people doing that work. The guy next door started a pool service company. Until he got established, he also was a UPS driver to get benefits and enough money for his family.

The guy five houses down immigrated here from Africa, and is a minister of some religion. Not sure about which religion. He might be Muslim, too.

One guy is an immigrant from Argentina who started by working for a builder, and now manages a retail store. He's actually Italian in heritage; he played professional soccer for a minor team in Argentina. His daughter and my daughter played high school and club soccer together.

The rest of us are native-born Americans, mostly white, but also Hispanic and black.

I'm still here, because I had lots of kids to get through college, and by the time the last one graduated, I really didn't see the need for a McMansion.

Don't be so self-righteous. I got through college only by working track gangs every summer, and when we were just starting out, we struggled.

I only ended up comfortable because of some fortunate decisions my wife and I (mostly my wife) made, that turned out to be good ones. And we live pretty frugally. I don't buy new cars. Trick is to buy one about 2 years old, and pay as much by cash as possible; build up a car fund for that purpose.

We don't fly to Europe; we do road trips.

I do my own yard work and as much of the maintenance as I know how to do. I'm not allowed to go on roofs any more, but other than that, I'm still good.

So, I'm not rich, but entirely comfortable. Better than most Americans, thanks mostly to my wife's acumen with money.

And I've probably revealed more about me than I wanted to. But there it is.

It's good that you are in a good place financially.

But the fact of the matter is that you are not threatened by mass immigration. And you have no way of empathizing with those who are. It's a different world now than the one in which you grew up. Particularly in the major cities.

That said, these types of disagreements are the result of a massive difference in the way people think. Some of us believe a country must put it's own nation and people first. Others don't. That is an irreconcilable difference. One is traditional, the other traitorous.

The Barbarian · Sep 24, 2021

Sam Saved by Grace said:
It's good that you are in a good place financially.

Taught me something. It's partially one's efforts and partially luck.

But the fact of the matter is that you are not threatened by mass immigration.

Of course not. I'm an American. And a Texan. And I'm well aware of the financial and cultural contributions of immigrants. A republican comptroller found that Texas makes billions a year on the economic contributions of illegal aliens. So even as more of them are in my community, it does me no harm, and does me considerable good.

And the reason republicans in Texas are having a crisis of identity is because of that. We don't hate Hispanics or their culture. As you might know, Governor Perry lost his chance to be a serious contender for president, because he implemented in-state college tuition for the children of illegal immigrants. And it made perfect sense to him. "Good for bidness." It's why, when the republican party lurched to the right and promoted hatred for immigrants, they lost the support of Texas business organizations. They still hold to Reagan's idea of a "shining city on a hill" that takes in refugees and makes Americans of them.

And you have no way of empathizing with those who are.

I wasn't raised to fear and hate people who are different. You have to be carefully taught to be like that. My last few years as a teacher, we had a lot of immigrant kids, mostly from India or Latin America. They were pretty much like other kids, except that many of them were more motivated to do well. You see, their families bought into the American dream and believed in it. Not all of them, but that was the norm.

It's a different world now than the one in which you grew up.

Yes. As one writer put it, there was so much tolerance for cruelty, and so little tolerance for compassion. If you were different in those days, you had a bulls-eye on your back. I know what kids are like today, and they are kinder and more accepting of difference.

Particularly in the major cities.

Look up the cities with the most violent crime. You'll be surprised to find which cities those are. Ironically, violent crime rates are a fraction of what they were when I was a teen.

And yes, that is partially due to illegal immigration. Turns out, illegal immigrants are better-behaved than native-born Americans.
Crime rates among undocumented immigrants are just a fraction of those of their U.S.-born neighbors, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis of Texas arrest and conviction records.

Compared to undocumented immigrants, U.S. citizens were twice as likely to be arrested for violent felonies in Texas from 2012 to 2018, two-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for felony drug crimes, and over four times more likely to be arrested for felony property crimes, according to a study published by University of Wisconsin–Madison researchers today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Undocumented immigrants far less likely to commit crimes in U.S. than citizens

That said, these types of disagreements are the result of a massive difference in the way people think. Some of us believe a country must put it's own nation and people first. Others don't.

God is not a neutral observer in that. It is traditional for Christians to welcome such people:
Leviticus 19:34 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

That is an irreconcilable difference. One is traditional, the other traitorous.

Well, I wouldn't call it "traitorous", but it's certainly not faithful to God or His expectations of us.

Sam Saved by Grace · Sep 25, 2021

I am in agreement that as individuals we should be kind and hospitable to those in our midst. So are you saying that the same standard that applies to us as individuals should spill over into how the government is run? I would hope not. I don't want a government that turns the other cheek, and walks two miles instead of one. I want a government that holds up the rule of law, enforcing it with extreme prejudice. I want a government that puts it's own citizens first. I wouldn't put someone else's kids before my own children. I don't want politicians who use any other criteria, no matter how humane it may be, than what is best for their constituency - the Unites States citizens who elected them. Generally speaking, it's wrong to be charitable with someone else's money, or on someone else's time.

And the media are a bunch of liars. We do not have a free press. We have a biased, owned press. Among the mainstream media, there is near universal support for homosexuality and abortion. I would hope that the mainstream media would be more reflective of the general population, but apparently, degenerates are drawn to careers in journalism.

As for the church - no one who supports societal acceptance of homosexuality and legalized abortion is Christian (according to biblical standards). No one. One is a gross twisting of God's design. And the other is cold blooded murder. Our laws should uphold righteousness and defend human life. Anyone who seeks to promote acceptance of those evils within Christianity is completely satanic. Critical race theory, feminism, and darwinism are other examples of the extreme wickedness making war against the church in these last days. The apostasy of our time is fully known. And we can know those who are of the devil by the values they hold.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.

The Barbarian · Sep 25, 2021

Sam Saved by Grace said:
I am in agreement that as individuals we should be kind and hospitable to those in our midst. So are you saying that the same standard that applies to us as individuals should spill over into how the government is run?

That's how the government of Israel worked. I'm just pointing out that a Christian should not support a government that is hostile to immigrants.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
I want a government that holds up the rule of law, enforcing it with extreme prejudice.

That's not how the founders set this one up, as far as "extreme prejudice" goes. The law, according to the founders was for the people, not the people for the law.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
I don't want politicians who use any other criteria, no matter how humane it may be, than what is best for their constituency - the Unites States citizens who elected them.

Then you've got some difficulties with the law of the land. That's not how the Constitution works. All the freedoms in the Constitution apply to anyone in the United States.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
And the media are a bunch of liars.

That's the advantage of a free press. If one outlet lies, then there will be others that counter the lie. It's the "marketplace of ideas" the Founders wanted.

We do not have a free press.

So far, we do. Anyone can set up a newspaper, an internet news service, or other media. The public airwaves come with a few rules regarding decency and public service, but anything else pretty is pretty much open to whatever.

This is what really chaps those who would limit our exposure to news and different opinions.

Sam Saved by Grace said:
As for the church - no one who supports societal acceptance of homosexuality and legalized abortion is Christian (according to biblical standards).

Here, the difference is between a person being free to sin, if that's what he or she wants, and imposing one's will on another person. Homosexual behavior is the former and abortion is the latter.

If Jesus didn't call for forcing people to be good, then who am I to overrule Him?

Sam Saved by Grace said:
Critical race theory, feminism, and darwinism are other examples of the extreme wickedness making war against the church in these last days.

None of those oppose scripture or the teachings of Jesus. So these are not issues for a Christian.

Sam Saved by Grace · Sep 26, 2021

The Barbarian said:
That's how the government of Israel worked. I'm just pointing out that a Christian should not support a government that is hostile to immigrants.

Are you KIDDING me? You are a very confused person. The government of Israel was far more hardcore than I would ever want to be. As for the quote that you lifted out of context - that is concerning sojourners. Not permanent immigrants who came in illegally, demanding rights. If YOU can't see the difference, then that reflects very poorly on YOU! There were seriously rigid requirements to becoming a Jew. If you wanted to integrate in ancient Israelite society, you had to repent of your paganism 100% and subordinate yourself to the Law of Moses. No exceptions! These days it seems to be the opposite - the foreigners come in and the natives are the ones who are forced to capitulate! Who do you think you are fooling with your cherry picked scripture? I am sick of the leftist spin. It's not the real world.

The Barbarian said:
That's not how the founders set this one up, as far as "extreme prejudice" goes. The law, according to the founders was for the people, not the people for the law.

What? I never said the law wasn't for the people. When I speak of extreme prejudice, I am referring to the enforcement of the law. It's precisely because the law is for the people that it should be enforced.

The Barbarian said:
Then you've got some difficulties with the law of the land. That's not how the Constitution works. All the freedoms in the Constitution apply to anyone in the United States.

Wrong. They apply to United States citizens. There are some freedoms that are extended to those who reside here legally. But the full rights of a United States citizen is not to be extended to those who enter the country unlawfully. This is not a debate. This is pretty elementary stuff. Now there are a lot of irrational people who would like to change that. But those of us who hold to sanity will continue opposing such nonsense.

The Barbarian said:
That's the advantage of a free press. If one outlet lies, then there will be others that counter the lie. It's the "marketplace of ideas" the Founders wanted.

Except for the fact that virtually all outlets are controlled by massive corporate media empires whose vested interest runs contrary to that of the average working class American citizen. The mainstream media and Hollywood do nothing but corrupt, poison and divide this country.

The Barbarian said:
So far, we do. Anyone can set up a newspaper, an internet news service, or other media. The public airwaves come with a few rules regarding decency and public service, but anything else pretty is pretty much open to whatever.

Yea, right. I don't have the energy to explain how monopolies and strangleholds work. But suffice to say that any outlet that won't sell out will be blacklisted and censored. Social media is also not immune, and platforms have been browbeaten into censoring those who don't maintain MSM narrative, and all under the guise of fighting fake news. No, they have pretty much completely entrenched themselves. But I guess that's okay with you, seeing as how they share your values and all.

The Barbarian said:
Here, the difference is between a person being free to sin, if that's what he or she wants, and imposing one's will on another person. Homosexual behavior is the former and abortion is the latter.

If Jesus didn't call for forcing people to be good, then who am I to overrule Him?

Oh, please. I am not arguing that homosexuals or any other sinners should be jailed. Clearly, I am saying that sin should not be accepted socially, and we shouldn't change our laws to accommodate it. And when they indoctrinate children in public schools that tax dollars fund, they are imposing their will on those of us who do not wish our children poisoned. Nonetheless, I think Jesus going in and throwing out the money changers was a forceful gesture. And threats of eternal damnation don't exactly count for nothing, either. But hey, at least you recognize that homosexuality is bad.

The Barbarian said:
None of those oppose scripture or the teachings of Jesus. So these are not issues for a Christian.

On the contrary, they clearly oppose what the Bible teaches. And the fact that you don't think so speaks volumes about you, spiritually. CRT, for instance, is divisive and interprets race through the methodology of critical theory, which came out of dialectical Marxism. I don't want it anywhere near my church. Nor feminism, which rejects the Bible and promotes misandry and abortion. It flat out rejects the design of God and the institution of the male as head of the local church and family. Darwinism has already been covered. All these are wicked and so manifestly contrary to the Holy Spirit of God that anyone promoting them has never known Him.

chad kincham · Sep 26, 2021

The Barbarian said:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood, The Truth About Evolution
The truth about evolution

In reality there are things that absolutely falsify the ToE, such as the Cambrian explosion of life, with already complex eyes, and vertebrate life appearing suddenly, with no precursors.

The squids eye is very similar to the human eye, yet appears suddenly in the fossil record, and trilobite eyes are complex as well.

As National Geographic wrote:

The Cambrian period, part of the Paleozoic era, produced the most intense burst of evolution ever known. The Cambrian Explosion saw an incredible diversity of life emerge, including many major animal groups alive today. Among them were the chordates, to which vertebrates(animals with backbones) such as humans belong.

Information about the Cambrian Period

Then there is the fact that as Stephen Gould said, transitional fossils are missing in all the important places, so he co-authored the Punctuated Equilibria theory to explain away the lack of transitional fossils in the record.

The theory being that evolution is in stasis for long periods of time, interrupted, or punctuated by, short bursts of intense evolution among isolated populations, that leave no fossil evidence behind.

The PE theory is falsified by the fact that wildlife biologists who work with endangered species, have shown that genetic diversity decreases in isolated populations - the opposite of what’s needed for the PE theory to work.

Evolutionist Professor Yockey used the science of information theory to show the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring in any primordial soup scenario, and stated that the hypothesis should be discarded.

There is in fact a lot of areas in the ToE that are very problematic, giving me a lot of reasons to reject Darwinian gradualism, PE, and virtually every aspect of the theory.

Evolutionist Karl Popper famously got into serious hot water for being honest and admitting that the ToE is in fact not science, but is metaphysical - and incurred the full wrath of the evolutionists to the point of being forced to retract the statement - but he’s actually right, as far as I am concerned.

The Barbarian · Sep 26, 2021

chad kincham said:
In reality there are things that absolutely falsify the ToE, such as the Cambrian explosion of life, with already complex eyes, and vertebrate life appearing suddenly, with no precursors.

You've been completely misled about that. The Edicaran fauna predates the Cambrian,and many forms in the Cambrian were first found in the Ediacaran. And no, the complex image forming eye such as found in vertebrates and mollusks did not exist in the Cambrian. That came later.

The squids eye is very similar to the human eye, yet appears suddenly in the fossil record,

No, that's false. There were all sorts of simpler precursors to the complex eye of cephalopods. In fact, in different groups of that phylum, the simpler forms still exist...

and trilobite eyes are complex as well.

They have compound eyes, such as found on insects. Which don't really form an image as such. And the first known trilobites didn't have the complex form found in later trilobites. And in the Edicacaran, before the Cambrian...

No eyes.

Then there is the fact that as Stephen Gould said, transitional fossils are missing in all the important places, so he co-authored the Punctuated Equilibria theory to explain away the lack of transitional fossils in the record.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History

The theory being that evolution is in stasis for long periods of time, interrupted, or punctuated by, short bursts of intense evolution among isolated populations, that leave no fossil evidence behind.

Stasis is an observed fact. Darwin wrote about it, pointing out that a well-adapted organism in a constant environment, would be prevented by natural selection from evolving much. Notice also that Gould mentions that there are examples of species level transitionals; they are just not as common as those of higher taxa. For reasons Darwin pointed out.

The PE theory is falsified by the fact that wildlife biologists who work with endangered species, have shown that genetic diversity decreases in isolated populations

You have that backwards. Isolated populations tend to have lower diversity, for the same reason there would be lower diversity in a population of 100 humans than in a population of five billion humans. However, mutation will, over time, increase diversity in that isolated population. This is called the "founder effect." Someone who knew no more than you do about it, just got their story reversed.

chad kincham said:
Evolutionist Professor Yockey used the science of information theory to show the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring in any primordial soup scenario, and stated that the hypothesis should be discarded.

First, God says it happened, so Doc Yockey obviously got his data wrong. Second, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things.

BTW, the founder of information theory first applied his theory to evolutionary biology...
http://www.ece.iit.edu/~biitcomm/research/references/Thomas D. Schneider/Claude Shannon -biologist- information theory used in biology - 2006.pdf

His equations are still used by population biologists studying evolution. Someone really got it wrong, that time.

the opposite of what’s needed for the PE theory to work.

They lied to you about that, too. In fact, every new mutation in a population increases information. Would you like to see some numbers for a simple case?

Evolutionist Karl Popper famously got into serious hot water for being honest and admitting that the ToE is in fact not science, but is metaphysical

Popper was a philosopher, not a biologist,so he was unaware of Darwinian theory, and what it meant.

There are actually many, many potentially falsible predictions of Darwinian theory, many of which have since been confirmed:

There were at one time, fish with functional legs.
Humans first evolved in Africa.
New species tend to appear in isolated populations.
There must have been transitional forms between reptiles and mammals.
There must have been transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.

There are many more, if you'd like more. Popper was introduced to some of them,and so retracted his statement that there were no such predictions. It's ironic that you're claiming Popper was right in his initial statement that evolution is not falsible, in a post where you start out claiming evolution has been falsified.

Cut and paste of material you don't understand, is always a dangerous game.

You've obviously put your trust in the wrong people. Stick around and learn.

Sam Saved by Grace · Sep 26, 2021

Some even have the gall to claim that the fossil record has been seriously compromised by geological forces - and there are a number of "natural" explanations for the lack of transitory fossils. That's just embarrassing.

The Barbarian · Sep 26, 2021

Sam Saved by Grace said:
Some even have the gall to claim that the fossil record has been seriously compromised by geological forces

Geologists know this. The processes are metamorphism, erosion,and subduction. Would you like to know how they erase fossils from the Earth and how we know it happens?

I bet if you thought about it, you could figure that out for yourself. But if not, we can talk about it.

and there are a number of "natural" explanations for the lack of transitory fossils.

Let's see what a knowledgeable YE creationist has to say about that:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Sam Saved by Grace said:
That's just embarrassing.

Not to an honest creationist. They openly admit the evidence. As Dr. Wise says, he just prefers his understanding of Scripture to the evidence.

He's not alone:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

The Barbarian · Sep 26, 2021

Gerald Aardsma has attempted to reconcile the obvious problems with YE creationism, by a more sophisticated form of the "Omphalos" argument:

Aardsma's Virtual History Theory
Gerald Aardsma is a physicist with special qualifications in radiometrics. His "virtual history" is the most recently developed theory of the biblical creation alternatives.34 Aardsma appears to be the first scientist since Gosse to expand upon the omphalos argument in a serious attempt to reconcile the evidence from fossils and long age measurements with the six days of Genesis. As Gosse, he classifies all historical evidence into two categories – that which is not real but appears to have happened before the creation events and that which is actual, happening after the creation.

Aardsma uses the terms "proleptic time" and "virtual history" to explain his theory. Proleptic time – credited to Joseph Scaliger by Aardsma for its first use is very similar to Gosse's "prochronic time" and simply means imaginary time.35 Aardsma states "Proleptic time is the mathematical projection of real historic time back behind Creation. Real historic time only begins at Creation, as the "In the beginning God created" of Genesis 1:1 teaches."36 Virtual history is a term coined by Aardsma to extend history in a way that "time appears to emanate" from it, "when in fact time does not emanate from it at all."37 In optics, for example, a virtual focus is a point from which light rays appear to emanate when actually no light emanates from that point at all. When one looks in a mirror that person is looking at a virtual image. The image of "you" appears real and coming from in the mirror, when actually the light rays emanated from the real you and bounced off the mirror into your eyes. Aardsma notes that virtual history is not unique to proleptic time, but rather "seems to be a general artifact resident within the physical substance produced by creation-type miracles."38 He uses the miracles of Jesus in feeding the 5000, turning water into wine, and healing the man born blind to illustrate virtual history. The Gospel of Mark, for example, records the feeding of the 5000, where Jesus beginning with five loaves and two fish, broke up the loaves and divided the fish among five thousand people until "all ate and were satisfied." After that "they picked up twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish."39

Aardsma explains that were we there we would have seen bread that had been cooked and fish with bones, muscle, and veins. But this newly created bread was not actually cooked and the fish did not go through a development process that it takes a fish to become a fish. Could we probe the newly created fish scientifically, we would find “biological cells, and even DNA with a whole genetic blueprint of the fish encoded within it.”40 All these things reflect a virtual history this newly created fish never had. Similarly the turning of water into "good" wine reflects a protracted aging process, yet the wine was created only moments before. And the man born blind after Jesus gives him sight has his eyes, optic nerves, brain cells, and learned visual perception operating as one who has never been blind. The blind man has a virtual history within his visual apparatus of seeing since birth, but actually can see only after the miracle. From examples such as these Aardsma make the important philosophical argument that miracles, of necessity, all have a virtual history.

Aardsma applies the concept of virtual history to the proleptic time we see today, which includes "evidences of pre-Adamic man, dinosaurs, exploding stars, concentrations of radioisotopes in rocks, and all the rest."41 Virtual history is close conceptually to Gosse’s apparent history, but Aardsma differs significantly from Gosse on two aspects. First Aardsma, as a chronologist establishes a date of creation; that being 5176+26 B.C.42 Everything that appears to come before that date occurs in proleptic time and exhibits virtual history only. Physical indications of history after that date are real.

Second, Aardsma importantly argues that the proleptic time we see today is not a direct consequence of the Creation, but of the Fall and the Curse. What we see in proleptic time is the virtual history of dying stars, death and destruction in the fossils. "The Fall was the Serpent's victory and the Curse his spoil, not God's."43
Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Comparisons of Biblical Creation Alternatives

chad kincham · Sep 26, 2021

The Barbarian said:
No, that's false. There were all sorts of simpler precursors to the complex eye of cephalopods. In fact, in different groups of that phylum, the simpler forms still exist...

You say it’s cut and dried, yet the science literature says it is in fact problematic - and facts like the following make the Cambrian explosion even more so:

Nectocaris was found in Middle Cambrian strata, it is now the "earliest" cephalopod, found "30 million years earlier than thought to exist - and it appears with no trace of transition.

It is fully formed with side fins, large gills, a flexible siphon for propulsion, a streamlined body for moving quickly through water, and refracting-lens eyes--like vertebrate eyes--on long eyestalks.

The presence of fully formed eyes in such a low geologic stratum is a huge problem for evolution, since Nectocaris appears in full form with all the necessary features near the very bottom of the fossiliferous sedimentary layers.

As to the Gould quote you cited, it does not undo the fact that Gould first said that the trade secret of paleontology is that transitional fossils are missing IN ALL THE IMPORTANT PLACES.

Your quote of Gould is of him spinning the facts as hard as he could to save face.

So his statement on the existence of some transitions does not cancel out his earlier statements, nor the fact that PE exists to explain away the lack of fossil evidence in all the important places.

As to Yockey, information theory, and the falsification of the primordial soup hypothesis, it’s an absolute fact that he and many other evolutionists have calculated the odds of abiogenesis occurring, and all found it to be impossible.

And before information theory, the Wistar Institute symposium showed the same fact of the impossibility of it.

Astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated that the odds for abiogenesis are equal to the odds of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a working Boeing 737 jet airliner.

The Barbarian · Sep 27, 2021

chad kincham said:
You say it’s cut and dried,

No, I didn't. In fact, we are still learning lots of details about the way eyes evolved:
Remnants of ancestral larval eyes in an eyeless mollusk? Molecular characterization of photoreceptors in the scaphopod Antalis entalis | EvoDevo | Full Text

yet the science literature says it is in fact problematic -

See above. There are lots of questions about a lot of things we know happened.

and facts like the following make the Cambrian explosion even more so:

Well, let's take a look...

chad kincham said:
Nectocaris was found in Middle Cambrian strata, it is now the "earliest" cephalopod, found "30 million years earlier than thought to exist - and it appears with no trace of transition.

So you're saying the first cephalopods were rare and only occasionally fossilized. We have very few fossils of the earliest known chordates (our phylum) for the same reason. They were rare and soft-bodied, so they rarely fossilized. That's surprising to you?

chad kincham said:
It is fully formed

All organisms are fully-formed. If they weren't, they'd be dead.

with side fins,

Most cephalopods don't have "side fins."

large gills

All mollusks, even primitive ones, have gills. You didn't know this? If not, why did you take someone else's word for it, without knowing?

chad kincham said:
a flexible siphon for propulsion

All marine mollusks, even primitive ones, have siphons. Even primitive mollusks lacking a shell, use them to move, not just cephalopods.

chad kincham said:
refracting-lens eyes--like vertebrate eyes--on long eyestalks

Actually, those evolved in simpler mollusks, much earlier. Marine snails, for example, have refracting eyes. In the diagram above, (d) is from a snail.

chad kincham said:
The presence of fully formed eyes in such a low geologic stratum is a huge problem for evolution,

Nope. You were lied to about that. As you see, eyes came about much earlier, including refracting ones.

chad kincham said:
As to the Gould quote you cited, it does not undo the fact that Gould first said that the trade secret of paleontology is that transitional fossils are missing IN ALL THE IMPORTANT PLACES.

No, you just added that, to change his meaning. In fact, he didn't say that they were "missing"; he said they were "generally lacking at the species level" which means they exist, but they aren't usually there. If your faith were correct, there wouldn't be any.

chad kincham said:
Your quote of Gould is of him spinning the facts as hard as he could to save face.

No, that excuse won't work for you, either. His original statement said that evolutionary transitions within a species were not commonly in the fossil record.

This is why your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admitted:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

He's an honest creationist, who is aware of the evidence.

chad kincham said:
As to Yockey, information theory, and the falsification of the primordial soup hypothesis, it’s an absolute fact that he and many other evolutionists have calculated the odds of abiogenesis occurring, and all found it to be impossible.

As you learned, evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life. Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things. Some think that life could not have been brought forth by non-living matter. However, God says it happened, so Yockey is kind of out there on his own. And as you also learned, if you were paying attention, information theory was first applied to evolution in biology. It's still used in population genetics to study the evolution of living organizations and the information content of a population.

So you can continue to argue that God had it wrong, but neither math nor science will support your claim.

chad kincham said:
Astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated that the odds for abiogenesis are equal to the odds of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a working Boeing 737 jet airliner.

Too bad for Fred, then. I'll go with God's opinion. You should, too. Fred had an excuse; he was an atheist. What's your excuse?

AdamjEdgar · Sep 27, 2021

Barbarian...
I have read some of the early pages of this topic, however, its too much to go back through 18 other pages to get the gist of your view of Old Earth philosophy.

A couple of questions...
1. how do you view the complete missing link between the spinal entry point into the skull of apes and monkeys being at the rear of the head, whereas, its entry point is at the base of the skull in neanderthals and humans?

It is quite clear the Neanderthals are not related to monkeys or even a link between them and humans...they are human. Creation scientists have shown that Monkey/ape spinal entry point into the back of the skull is specifically because they were designed to walk predominantly on all four legs and not upright on two like neanderthals & humans. Wouldnt it be fair to say that considering we have ancient archeological and recent vertical spinal cord specimens (Neanderthals/humans) and ancient archeological and recent evidence of "rear spinal cord entry point" ( apes/monkeys), there should be evidence of one in between... with a spinal entry point halfway between the two? Also, how would that animal-human hybrid mechanically support itself given such a position? (It would seem that evolution took a huge jump between the two here)
As an illustration...i suffer from a common human skeletal problem called Scheuermann's disease...its a "degenerative" condition that causes hunchbacks. Are you suggesting that hunchbacks are the missing link? If so, why is my cranial entry point of the spine still at the base of my skull and why arent mine (and all other really bad hunchbacks) arms twice as long so we can walk with our spines 45 degrees to the ground and support the extreme mechanical load this places on us physically?

2. Based on your research of various scholarly writings on the subject, do you view the Bible as a narrative or poetry?

3. you wrote a few months back that Seventh Day Adventists developed young-earth views and my take on this is that you appear to be stating that SDAdventism has facilitated/started all other young-earth Christians into a false SDA view of the age of the earth. Are you able to provide scientific studies or any historical evidence on the topic of "Old earth beliefs" that date back to 1st-3rd centuries on this? If not, how would you account for the early Christian church believing the age of the earth as being anything different from that shown in Bible genealogies and therefore the almost certain likelihood then.... (given they only had the Bible genealogies to go on)... the earth was merely thousands of years old? Would you not agree from the written evidence that the early Christian church in the first few centuries, and indeed Judaism, believed the earth was young?

If you could provide the evidence for all three of the above questions, that would be appreciated.

Why I don't believe in evolution...

All of salvation is God's doing

Crabby Old White Guy

All of salvation is God's doing

Crabby Old White Guy

All of salvation is God's doing

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

All of salvation is God's doing

Crabby Old White Guy

All of salvation is God's doing

Crabby Old White Guy

All of salvation is God's doing

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

All of salvation is God's doing

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Similar threads