Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
herev said:Aron-Ra--you're good, but you missed on this one. Presidential nut here!
There has never been a president John Taylor (John Tyler and Zachery Taylor, yes)
Tyler wasn't president until 15 years after Adams died, and Taylor 23 years after. Though certainly he could have written the letter to them before they were president.
Adams was out of office in 1801, though certainly he could have written this after he was out of office.
Just thought I'd find out more on your quote and source. I'm interested
Tommy
Doh!herev said:Aron-Ra--you're good, but you missed on this one. Presidential nut here!
There has never been a president John Taylor (John Tyler and Zachery Taylor, yes)
Tyler wasn't president until 15 years after Adams died, and Taylor 23 years after. Though certainly he could have written the letter to them before they were president.
Adams was out of office in 1801, though certainly he could have written this after he was out of office.
Just thought I'd find out more on your quote and source. I'm interested
Tommy
That you could believe anything so divorced and reversed from of the truth is truly staggering. Until you wrote this, I wouldn't have believed it possible for anyone to be so wrong! I took a class on art history in college, which dealt a lot with the Renaissance, and they said the very opposite. In fact, every source I have ever heard (including Carl Sagan) described the Renaissance as the rise of more secular freedom of thought out of the "dark ages" of religious domination. The Renaissance was an awakening out of a period of artistic restriction and intellectual stagnation where the church controlled, censored and limited all learning, and even forbade literacy amongst the laity. This thousand-year reign of oppressive theocracy began in 415 CE with the horrific murder of a prominant scientist by a mob of Christians acting on the orders of a Bishop. In the years to follow, the transition was complete as religious vandals burned down the library of Alexandria, hailed as the greatest collection of knowledge humanity had ever seen. For his part in all this, the Bishop was made a saint by other Christians of his day, who praised him for murdering the scholar who lead the scientific world at that time.Now as far as the Renaissance it was allmost exclusivly a religious movement where the greatest minds in Europe moved into monestaries to pray and to study. If you really belive that points clearly lost should be honorably conceded then you should concede this point.
That may happen on another topic, or with another opponant perhaps. But not with you, and not on this point. How could I feel "refuted"? You didn't present any reason or evidence of any kind to support your argument. I on the other hand have vindicated my own position with the following citations:I doubt seriously you will accept that you have been refuted on this point but I can't wait to see you're reaction when you are obviously wrong.
This is a crucial point in my philosophy, so I want to make sure you understand it. "Sacred truth" refers to a concept which must be believed as absolute truth which must not be questioned. But we can never know "absolute truth" because we don't know anything well enough, and there's always something else to learn about everything we think we do know. And the most important thing to remember is that any and every belief could be wrong and should be suspected of being wrong at least to some degree. Otherwise, if you never question your beliefs, adhering to faith instead, you'll still be wrong, but you'll never be able to discover that, or be able to correct your errors and thus improve your understanding."We humans long to be connected with our origins. So we create rituals. Science is another way to express this longing. It also connects us with our origins. And it too has its rituals, and its commandments. Its only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised."
--Carl Sagan, COSMOS, the final episodeThen there is at least one sacred truth, that the sacred does not exist.
You are always so deeply mistaken. Supernatural assumptions are the confusing mass of correlations that do not exist. Material explanations on the other hand, can be tested. More than that, they can understood and implimented in practical application. So there's good reason behind material science and no benefit whatever in using magic as an excuse for anything.While I do accept that natural science must be critical it is nevertheless founded on the concept of natural law. A presumption of non-supernatural events as being the limit of science is a pedantic oversimplification of reality and results in a confusing mass of correlations that do not exist.
No they weren't. They are both sciences, and they were both conceived by creationists. But they both line up nicely with Darwinian evolution, are both now integral to evolutionary theory, and profoundly support the model of common ancestry, where neither lends any support whatever to the Genesis myth. Neither taxonomy nor genetics can in any way support the Biblical account, (in fact both of them oppose it rather adamantly) and therefore neiter could be considered any part of creation science.Religion is the antithesis of science, and is nothing like a science in any respect. How can it be falsified? What testible predictions has it ever made? What experiments can be performed to test how accurate religious beliefs are? What Theory has been proposed? Based on what observed or demonstrable facts? If all the world's Christians still can't prove that theirs is the most accurate denomination, and all the world's theists still can't prove that God even exists, and all the religions combined still can't even show the slightest evidence that anything supernatural was ever real, and none of this can even be believed without faith, then there ain't no kind of science anywhere involved with it.The Medelian laws of inheritance and the Linnaeus taxonomic classifications are both creation science.
Duh. The same can be said of Copernican Heliocentricity. What's your point?The conception of universal common ancestory did not become main stream science untill Darwins tree of life model was accepted.
I'm not ignoring anything. You are. You didn't "expond" (whatever that means). All you did was present some legalistic interpretation that four out of the 62 remaining books of the Bible were probably written by people who believed what they were saying. But that doesn't account for the dozens of other books, or for the still highly-questionable content in these four. I've heard of a whole town full of people who all say they saw the sun dancing back and forth when their Madonna appeared in the sky. And of course millions of people believe they've spoken with ghosts, or flown out of their bodies and into the astral plane. I even have a good friend who worships Bast, the Egyptian cat-headed goddess, because he insists that he's actually met her in person as a supernatural, but still tangible manifestation in the flesh. All these people really believe this stuff. But does that make their testimonies true? Of course not. So there must be something else, aside from the testimony alone, to back these up.What's more, I have exponded at length on the primary element of New Testament theology and you have all but ignored it.
Can't you provide a specific example for anything?There are events in history that cannot be tested or observed and yet it is embraced as scientific, there is you're double standard.
So I guess you believe in Lord Krsna too, right? Because since you believe the supernatural is possible, and you accept personal testimony even over physical evidence, then you've no reason or ability to doubt Krsna, right?There were demonstrated and observed facts throughout redemptive history and the only way it is rejected as historically verifiable is by presumptions that the supernatural is impossible.
The short answer? Because humans are definitely apes, and not animated mud golems.JAL said:Would somone explain to me why commen ancestry rules out biblical creation?
But we already know for certain that evolution happens. We have no idea whether gods and magic exist or not, and really there's no evidentiary reason to believe that they do. But we've actually seen new species evolve out of parent populations (in real time) so we know that at least this much is true. We can also tell for sure that we're related to everything else in varying degrees of ancestry; morphologically, physiologically, genetically, etc.Here's a possible scenario why not. Suppose God had in hand a cluster of genetic material from which He forms all the main species. Here we have a COMMON ANCESTOR (a single cluster of genetic material) but NOT evolution.
No. Mark believes in macroevolution. Its kind of a useless term because all it refers to is evolution at the species level and above, and yes, speciation has indeed been proved. However Mark also accepts evolution (in some cases) at the Genus and family levels, and sometimes even higher, depending on which groups you're talking about. He would probably accept common ancestors for just about everything else, but what he does not accept is what is most easily proved, that he is an ape and distantly-related to other non-human apes. He also opposes the common ancestor of birds and dinosaurs even though his own cited sources insist on one, and those two groups are also impossible to tell apart, again, according to Mark's own sources.Now admittedly considerable divergence of species occurred later on (although I'm not certain that macroevolution has been proven) but in any case, I don't see how common ancestry disproves biblical creation. Isn't this partly what Mark is getting at?
Yes, if you adhere to a global flood, you're doomed to lose any protracted debate where that may come up. But then the first few chapters of Genesis are no more supported or defensible than that either. So the question I would have to ask of you is, why do you believe any of it at all? And if you think I'm going to roast in everlasting Hell just for not believing it, then what reason could you give me to see your point of view?However, I cannot agree with Mark about YEC and global flood. I currently hold to an old earth and local flood viewed as a literal reading of Genesis.
JAL said:Here's a possible scenario why not. Suppose God had in hand a cluster of genetic material from which He forms all the main species.
Here we have a COMMON ANCESTOR (a single cluster of genetic material) but NOT evolution.
Well since I don't know anything about genetics, the phrase "cluster of genetic material" sounded good to me. If that phrase doesn't make sense, the main point was that God conceivably hand-fashioned all species from the same template.gluadys said:What do you mean by "God had in hand"? Does God have a physical hand with which to hold "a cluster of genetic material"? If not where is the "cluster of genetic material"?
For example, all the genetic material we know of exists in living cells. So, if that is where this cluster of genetic material is, then are not the cells in which it is found also the common ancestor of other species? This is evolution.
On the other hand, if the genetic material is not in a cell, where is it? If it is just lying around somewhere, isn't that a sort of primeval soup? How did it get into a living cell? Maybe God put it into living cells somehow, but then, are we not back to evolution, with the cells as the common ancestor of other species?
No offence intended. Just trying to understand the concept.
Aron-Ra said:Thank you! That's why it can't be semantics.
You started off with the personal attack, just as you usually do. I'm just responding to it. Don't you remember when you said this?
So, you think I'm rationalizing, do you? I think you made your message pretty clear.
When I say it can't be semantics, I explain why it can't be. But you just ignore that and go on asserting that it is, unable to explain why it is.
Now once again, contrary to the definition above, I'm using multiple words with the same meaning, not visa versa. That and it really doesn't matter which terms you use to recognize any of these groups. Because a rose, by any other name, would still be Magnoliophyta, (a flowering plant). And even that doesn't matter because I'm not asking you to adhere to my terms of recognition. Only that you be able to understand them, and be able to answer simple yes or no questions about whether or not this group, (group: A, or whatever) is related to that one, (group 2:65, for example). If you want to present some alternative recognition of these groups, or a modified variant of similar groups, go ahead and present your case. It doesn't matter however you choose to recognize them groups so long as you can define and explain their relationships. That's the central issue, and that definitely ain't semantics. All your whining that it is looks to me like a very obvious attempt to evade these oh-so-simple, straightforward questions.
There's another example of the pot calling the silverware black. I have never yet rationalized anything. But you've done that almost constantly since this conversation began. That's why we need moderators. Otherwise, you'll just accuse me of everything you're doing, hoping to reduce this conversation down to the playground level. I seriously think you just giggle at your ability to say things that you know have neither substance nor merit, but are only valuable in taunting your opponant with nonsense. From the beginning of our debate, that seemed to be the only talent you had in this area. And unfortunately for you, that talent is wasted on me.
Then stop making them. Show some honest, intellectual integrity. Stop using such instagative quips, and deal with the arguments themselves, like you promised you would.
What(?) is not what what(?) comes from?
But you don't even know what the central term is! You still think its 'species'. I've been trying to tell you, its not. In taxonomy, any specific group of organisms (at any level) are referred to as 'taxa'. That is the central term. It can be a sub-species, species, genus, or even family, order, or class; 'higher' taxa. So how you define "species" just doesn't matter until you get to that level. Taxonomy is a legitimate science no matter how much you don't/won't understand about it. That's what I'm trying to show you with these questions you seem determined not to answer.
And by the way, all science is in a state of flux at some level and to some degree, even by your own admission earlier. But the relationships I'm trying to show you now are not in flux, as you would see if you would just answer them.
No, it wouldn't. There are only two of them. Can you tell them apart or not? Yes or no? No semantics necessary. The only reason you keep bringing up that term is because you can't understand what any of these words mean, even after they've been explained to you, and won't bother to keep up by looking any of these up for yourself, even when links to do so are provided. And you've just danced around a simple, straight-forward question without answering it, as if you knew you didn't understand it....again.
Read the question again. And answer it this time, because you just dodged another one.
Well, they evidently have. But what is infinitely more interesting is that we're not just talking about unicellular organisms here. You are a multicellular organism, and all your cells are of one type or the other. So, are you a eukaryote? Or a prokaryote?
What all this tells us is that man is like any other animal in the biosphere in all the same fundamental ways. Pretty much what Ecclesiastes said.
That the members of the animal kingdom are determined by their unique cellular structure; meaning that this too is empiracle science, and not merely some flux, subjective opinion as you have been trying to assert.
Yes it is. All multicellular organisms; plants, animals, fungus, everything, -are all eukaryotes. Everything alive shares multiple levels of fundamental commonality in a specific pattern which suggests common ancestry. While at the same time, nothing whatsoever indicates anything close to a Biblical origin.
I haven't even mentioned my central term. But I did define this word...just now...in the quoted text in red.
Stop the presses! You're actually right about something! None of this is related to how we define species! And it won't be until we get all the way down to the species level. That's because 'species' is not the central term.
I'm sure it won't matter, since this is the 5th question I've asked, and the 5th question you've dodged just in this one post, and you haven't understood any of the definitions I've given you so far. But all members of the taxonomic branch, Bilateria are generally bilaterally symmetrical animals with bodies composed of three different germ layers, (endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm). Except for flatworms, all bilatteral animals have an internal body cavity (coelom or pseudocoelom) with a mouth at one end and an anus at the other.
So, if you thought it would comprimise your postion, you would still argue it anyway? That's pretty much what I thought. Anyway, with that admission, let me ask, could we also objectively and scientifically determine that you are a bilateral animal as I have just defined it?
Thanks for yet another insuation of my dishonesty. But I did (several times) show you a link to the peer-reviewed biology pages where you could confirm all of this for yourself. It is not pedantic rhetoric just because your religion requires you to deny it with all your silly name-calling. Now I understand that this is going to be very difficult for you to understand, since you've never seen any of this before, and I've been fluent in it all my life. But if you'll answer the questions I ask, as they are asked, and ask some yourself when you need to, without trying to instigate an emotional response with more childish quips like this, then we'll start to make some progress.
I don't know. That was your choice, not mine. You're the one asserting that this is all non-scientific, subjective philisophy that can be rearranged on a whim. Now that you're beginning to see that its not, I wonder if you will admit your error?
And I noticed that you "answered" three questions with another question; one that allowed you to dodge the other three. I still want answers to them!
No I'm not. You keep saying that taxonomy is presupposed or subjectively arranged based on the opinion of the observer, etc. But most of this is determined with objective analysis of solid, obvious facts such as whether or not the subject has a skull. Also, you misread the question. I said "what", not "that". Let me paraphrase; 'Can you objectively determine which animals have skulls? If you can, then you can tell Craniates apart from other animals even among other chordates. Can the presence of vertebrae be objectively determined? Is the presence of jaws in animal just a subjective opinion? Or is that too empiricle science?
You're in denial. The similarities and differences follow a very specific pattern It is the pattern that implies common ancestry, and it does so with every organism, at every level.[/size][/font]
[/size][/font]
[/size][/font][/size][/font]
What omission? You did deny mutations, and you did it multiple times. You've changed your story now, but in our debate you said all mutations were deleterious and harmful. You denied mutations again, twice, when you tried to write off all of my examples of beneficial mutations in humans as "anecdotal" and "anamolies", and you did it again when you conveniently forgot all of them except the "funny footed ones". That's very obviously dishonest and bad form, Mark. As others have already several times pointed out to you, the overwhelming majority of mutations are completely neutral, and I myself have given you the benefit of the doubt in that the majority of the remainder were probably deleterious. However geneticists and other biologists the world over insist that mutations are a significant factor of biological evolution no matter how much you wish they weren't. I have provided evidence to support that claim where you were unable to provide anything to preserve you assertions because they are false. There has never been anything you've ever come up with that I didn't already have an answer for, and I didn't "abandon" our debate. Since you had already conceded both the primary and secondary objectives, there simply wasn't any other purpose in continuing with it, especially since you were doing your very best to continue breaking all the rules hoping to make it to the end without holding up your end of the bargain, just so you could pretend you won. Which by the way was a deliberately dishonest ploy you already tried once when you tried to pretend that you somehow won the thing, and then said that I lost only because the truth was not on my side. This is why we need moderators. If you don't like personal comments being made about you, then you'd better start showing some honest integrity. Because I won't be so polite about that sort of behaviour next time.The mutations where never denied by me or by creationism at large. Mutations, even benificial ones, happen but they are not an explanation for our origins. Proportionally the mutations compared to accurate transcription of the DNA are negligable. The overwhelming majority of these are deletrious, neutral, or harmfull. You had no answer for this so you abandoned the formal debate. You are still argueing in circles about this and this is yet another point you have conceded by this glaring ommision and by repeating the same tired rethoric over and over.
That may be. But at the same time these geneticists still insist that they are there, and that they are the variations in the gene pool.Since all the geneticists and cutting-edge peer-reviewed biologists I know say the very opposite; that mutations are the variations in the gene pool, then I have to know what you know that none of my professors do. If variations in the gene pool are not mutation, then what are they?What these geneticists are saying is that the mutations are very difficult to find even in the most simple of organisms.
If there is no genetic change, then there is no variation. Ask H2Whoa or any other geneticist, and they'll tell you the same.A variation in the gene pool is just that, a random combination that does not change the gene load one iota.
The genetic code never needs to be re-written at any point. At most, there is only the accumulation of minor alterations to it, and the demonstrated mechanism for that has already been explained. However, to date, no sort of mechanism of any kind has ever been presented to show how anything could ever have just poofed out of nothing in an instant, so no evolutionist ever proposed that the vertebrates ever appeared as any "altogether" new creature. I have already countered this error in the previous post. Perhaps you should read that again instead of just ignoring it as you do everything else?A mutation in order to create an alltoghter new creature like vertabras must rewrite the genetic code and this must be accounted for with a demonstrated mechanism. No such mechanism exists but there is one for creationism, the gene pool was created in an instant and this explains the data conclusivly.
Just like it was wrong for you to exclude all the other options I already listed for you which you ignored. There are at least a dozen popular options to explain our origins, not just two. Polytheist, Taoist, Shaman, panspermia, cosmic conciousness, Hindu, theistic evolution, Zen, etc. -are all equal alternatives to Biblical creationism. But none of them can compete with evolution. Among the whole lot of them, there is only one with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. If you could ever present either for creationism, then you would have some justification for teaching it in school. You would also earn a Nobel prize for it since no one has ever been able to show any sort of evidence in favor in Biblical creationism or which consistently matches or explains the details of any other concept apart from evolution and the common ancestry model.There being only two explanations that exaust the explanations of our origins it is wrong to exclude the multiple common ancestory model.
No you didn't. But I insist you try to defend that allegation by finding where you supposedly did that and pasting it here.In fact I showed you how abandoning the universal common ancestory model has help to propel research forward.
I agree that science shouldn't be anti-religious, only that it be non-religious. Historically, religion has been the bane of science, an impediment to science, and the opposite of science. Even before Socrates, true science has always been atheist, so the rest of your diatribe is just nonsense.Creationism is not a modern form of thought, in fact it was creationists that founded biology and the various other related sciences. Creationism cannot be discarded without rupturing natural science and at this crucial period in history it is wrong to inspire anti-religious thinking, this would cut science off at it's root.
Yes it is! I haven't read the book myself, but I know a couple people who have, and Dr. Senapathy is saying exactly that: that random inanimate chemicals can just unintentionally amass themselves into all kinds of seemingly-related species accidently, without any of the evolutionary processes you already said you akready know are true, and without need or involvement of any god.This author is literally proposing that the first man accidentally assembled himself out of random organic molecules, and that he rose up and walked out of the primordial ooze fully-formed, along with every other living thing on Earth. He says that random inanimate chemicals can just unintentionally amass themselves into a frog, or a dog, a camel, or whatever, without any of the evolutionary processes you already said you accept, including ring species, (which we both already know is true) and without need or involvement of any god. Didn't you even think for a moment about what position that puts you in? Are you sure this is the "cutting edge science" you wanted to show to an atheist?That is not what the author is saying,
He didn't say it was wrong. He said evolutionary mechanisms weren't necessary because all the organic material for any number of complete species could just accidentally fall together, so that man walked out of the primordial ooze fully formed.he is saying that the universal common ancestory model is wrong.
Except of course that (at best) only the core of Senapathy's observation could be true, and even that is questionable. But if he is accurate, then he has accounted for abiogenesis. But he hasn't presented anything to counter all the overwhelming evidence in favor of common ancestry, and what he proposes as an alternative, let's face it, is nothing less than silly.Since we are debating the merits of the only two explanations for our origins this becomes a crucial refutation of the universal common ancestory model.
I think Senapathy is an atheist. But he may be a closet Hindu. Generally, when Indians convert from Hinduism to Christianity, they tend to Americanize their sur name, and he hasn't done that. This might explain why he's been so tight-lipped about religion, (since he is milking Christian creationists for book sales). Either way, it has been more lucrative for him to present himself as an atheist, and he may actually be one. He used to post to Talk.Origins while I was still posting there, and like you, he just hated evolution and wanted to come up with anything he could to counter it. He's acting on prejudice, and it has severely clouded his judgement the same as it has clouded yours.This defies the natrualistic assumptions of the atheist and disproves the most jealosly guarded aspect of modern evolution, the idol of universal common ancestory.
I think you're missing the point here, which is that much of what Dr. Senapathy would like to challenge are already known to be true, have already been directly observed, and are clinically understood as measurable fact.Dr. Periannan Senapathy is a legitimate scientist, I'll grant you that. But he published this concept in a book, not a journal. And like creationists, this author also ignores taxonomy and everything we've ever confirmed about evolution, (especially the fact that it has been many times observed). And he is only concerned with abiogenesis, which he proposes to be happening all the time! But then he makes some very strange extrapolations based on what he has found. Don't you bother to investigate any of your own sources? Haven't you at least read any of the reviews of his conclusions by other creationists?You seem to have missed the main point here, the taxonomic tree of life is actually built in order to make retrivial of information more readily available.
Now you're quoting Jonathan Wells, another crackpot with an indefensible position. And you said you got your information from evolutionists, and specifically not from creationists!Then when these catagories are established they are considered proof of common ancestory. The analogy becomes a definition that is neither definate nor determined, here are a couple of problems with this approach.
"Mayr defines biological classification as "an information storage and retrieval system," whose aim is the same as that of a "classification of books in a library or goods in a store," i.e., "to locate an item with a minimum of effort and loss of time" (1). This leads then to a "principle of balance," by which "the retrieval of information is greatly facilitated [when] the taxa at a given categorical rank are, as far as possible, of equal size and degree of diversity" (1). Is this what biological classification is about? Is it this arbitrary, this artificial? Is functional utility the primary consideration in its design? Of course not, and I am sure Dr. Mayr knows that. Darwin said: "Our classifications will come to be, as far as they can be so made, genealogies" (23), and that dictum forever changed the nature of biological classification. Since Darwin's time the basis for classification has been absolute, its primary aim being to encapsulate organismal descent. And this natural ordering necessarily has utility as an information storage and retrieval system."
( Default taxonomy: Ernst Mayr's view of the microbial world, Carl R. Woese)
The classifications become genealogies so the utility of the system has become an icon of descent. All that is necessary is that the simularities and differences be listed. This is Mayr's old trick:
"As evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr put it, after Darwin the "biologically most meaningful definition" of homology was: "A feature in two or more taxa is homologous when it is derived from the same (or a corresponding) feature of their common ancestor." (Mayr, 1982) In other words, what Darwin proposed as the explanation for homology became its definition."
(Homology: A Concept in Crisis, Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson)
Fine. But the only use for Senapathy's model is to try and deny evolution, which he is not doing effectively, as Kortoff, myself, or anyone else familiar with his claim can point out. You could refute him too if you had realized what he was saying before you cited him.Gert Kortoff's critique mentions nothing of the grave religious implications, and destroys Senapathy's extrapolated arguments on purely scientific grounds.Interesting but Dr Senapathy is actually using his model effectivly, the universal common ancestor model got in his way. I am not really interested in extrapolated arguments at this time, in fact, I am going in the other direction.
But Senapathy is even arguing against ring species, Mark. Don't you understand that? Wolves, maned wolves, foxes, and wild dogs are all unrelated in his perspective. He actually thinks they all crawled out of the ocean fully-formed as a natural consequence of abiogenesis, which he contends happens much easier than any evolutionist ever dreamed, and that it happened not once, but hundreds of millions of separate times, and that it kept happening until fairly recently. He says the primordial ooze was consumed only shortly after it spawned mankind. Don't you even read the sources you cite, Mark?For what its worth, I don't think he has proved abiogenesis. If he had, he would be guaranteed a Nobel prize, that's for sure. And if he was right, it would dessimate both Biblical creationism and even the vaguest notions of Intelligent Design Theory. But the extrapolated assumptions he has compiled onto his core discovery are absurd to say the very least, and can't begin to compete with all the things we already know are true of evolution.I strongly disagree with that particular sentiment. For one thing the universal common ancestor model is the key to the taxonomic tree of life. Take this one down a notch and the rest will unravel.
Well, I don't remember it ever being "reinvented", but then all the information that has ever come to light so far has only contributed to the common ancestry model. What information, (and be specific please) has ever come to light to challenge it?I said before that as more information comes to light the universal common ancestory model would begin to fall apart, but I wonder if it won't just reinvent itself the way it allways has.
I admit I have no idea how one could still falsify the concept of an old Earth at this point because we have already falsified the notion of a young Earth. So it really doesn't matter. When Lord Kelvin argued for a "young Earth", he said that the Earth could not be the hundreds of millions of years old that some geologists were claiming at that time, and he based this idea on his 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. However, he didn't know about radiation, and that the Earth replenishes its own heat through radioactivitity in the core. Upon discovery of this, Kelvin pushed his estimates back by an order of magnitude. But even before then, Kelvin insisted that our planet could be no less than 20 million years old. The idea that the Earth must be significantly younger even than that, being even less than 100,000 years is ridiculous at best and has been falsified by numerous means over the last 300 years or so.Darwin said that unless the gradual accumulation of traits could be firmly established then his theory would completly fall apart. The only way the universal common ancestory model is even conceivable is because it gets stretched over eons. This is not demonstrative science it's a conceptual philosophical premise that knows no falsification.
quoted for truth.Aron-Ra said:What omission? You did deny mutations, and you did it multiple times. You've changed your story now, but in our debate you said all mutations were deleterious and harmful. You denied mutations again, twice, when you tried to write off all of my examples of beneficial mutations in humans as "anecdotal" and "anamolies", and you did it again when you conveniently forgot all of them except the "funny footed ones". That's very obviously dishonest and bad form, Mark. As others have already several times pointed out to you, the overwhelming majority of mutations are completely neutral, and I myself have given you the benefit of the doubt in that the majority of the remainder were probably deleterious. However geneticists and other biologists the world over insist that mutations are a significant factor of biological evolution no matter how much you wish they weren't.
Are you sure? Doesn't the word, "connections" imply a biological relationship, Mark? The discovery of "unexpected connections" have been common in taxonomy in the last few years. It was "unexpected connections" that lead to the other apes being reclassified as humans. Another "unexpected connection" revealed that aardvarks (a basal ungulate) had been classified in the order Tubulidentata erroneously. A continuous wave of unexpected connections revealed through genetics demanded a new clade, called Afrotheria, in which aardvarks would be reclassified along with elephants, hyraxes, and manatees, which were already known to be closely-related. Since you like PubMed, maybe you can access the article they wrote about it. Hey, didn't you say that PubMed did the real work of true science? I guess when you said that new discoveries were challenging the common ancestry model, and when you said PubMed didn't support common ancestry either, you were wrong again both times. Because the unexpected connections indicate that different "kinds" of animals are more intricately interconnected than we previously thought.Incidentally, this same site also mentioned Elizabeth Pennisi, another legitimate scientist most frequently quoted by creationists for her peer-reviewed journal article, "Is it time to uproot the tree of life?". This is also absurd because Pennisi is a taxonomist herself, and supports evolution from common ancestry exclusively. Her work even contributed to the Tolweb site I already referred you to.
"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial." Pennisi believes there is no root. And as I told you before, she may be right, meaning there may be as many as a half-dozen common ancestors for all life, and not the "single universal common ancestor" you kept arguing for. "The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. [Eubacteria, Eukaryotes, Archaebacteria, and viruses] We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon. For the time being, please refer to the papers listed in the References section." ...and that's where you'll find Pennisi's article, which doesn't in any way imply anything like what the creationists all wanted it to. And you accuse me of grasping at straws?! You creationists are masters of irony.From the subtitle:
"New genome sequences are mystifying evolutionary biologists by revealing unexpected connections between microbes thought to have diverged hundreds of millions of years ago."
This is the opposite of what was expected if you had a gradual accumulation of genetic traits.
Let's test that claim, shall we? Show me any microbe from a few million years ago, and we'll compare it to the ones we have now, alright?They didn't diverge over millions of years, in fact, they have hardly changed at all.
Well somebody is wrong, aren't they? Because there are six kingdoms, in three domains. It is these domains that are thought might possibly not be related. Myself, I think they probably are, but it wouldn't make a big difference to me if they weren't. Either way, we're still apes, and Genesis is still wrong for a great many other reasons each, so none of this portion of the discussion really matters.Here are a couple of exerpts I thought were interesting:
"...But on one front--the study of evolution--the information pouring out in the genome sequences has so far proved more confusing than enlightening. Indeed, it threatens to overturn what researchers thought they already knew about how microbes evolved and gave rise to higher organisms..."
"...From the whole genomes, you very quickly come across [genes] that don't agree with the rRNA tree..."
Finally here is my personal favorite:
"This prehistoric commune might have worked well for early life, but it adds to the challenge for biologists trying to make sense of it all. With each descendent from this community "having taken up different things from the ancestor, you won't be able to draw clear trees," Woese points out. He still has faith, however, that organisms roughly followed the patterns of evolution seen in changes in rRNA and that the three kingdoms will remain intact."
Despite the fact that that we won't be able to draw clear trees he has faith that the three kingdoms will remain intact.
As I described previously, there are at least a dozen popular concepts of our origin, some of which include a god, although none of them have the slightest scientific or evidentiary support like the common ancestor model continues to consistently acquire even from Pennisi! Senapathy is one minor detractor, whom as I said is emotionally-motivated, leading to an unsound proposal. Even including him, nothing but nothing ever seriously challenged the common ancestor model, so your allegation that is wholly inaccurate. Now would you please list the other examples you thought are "systematically taking the tree of life apart"?The irony here is that the actual science is systematiclly taking the tree of life model apart. There are only two possible explanations for our origins and if the universal common ancestor model continues to erode then we will be left with only one plausable explanation, God.
If I were proved wrong as often as you are, I wouldn't think it was fun. But to each his own. Each of your arguments are like the guy trying to break out of prison with a gun carved out of soap. And your whole shoddy belief system is a house of cards protected only by a glass box.This was fun, I can't wait to get to the other posts.
Absolutely. That's why all those former clergymen arrive at the same conclusion I did once they see their former religion in the harsh light of reason. For example, I've already mentioned Dr. Glen Morton, a former YEC geologist who very nearly turned atheist when he realized that the Earth really was many millions of years and that there was never any global flood. But there was also Dan Barker. "Called to the ministry" at 15 years old, Barker worked for the next 19 years as a missionary, spiritual songwriter for a top Christian recording artist, associate pastor, traveling evangelist, and ordained minister for the Standard Community Church in California. He eventually achieved a BA in religion from the University of Wisconsin. Then in 1983, he experienced an epiphany similar to my own. Dispute all his years of intensive study far surpassing yours, this is his (and my) current opinion of Christian theism and faith:So I was right. You never questioned the Bible as I did. I had to. Even as a very young boy, everything I found in the Bible violated all logic. Why there ever needed to be a resurrection in the first place didn't make any sense. God couldn't forgive us for something he dis fntil we killed his son. What? If you incorporate the Genesis fable into this, then God cursed us for doing something good, for choosing wisdom; and won't forgive us for that until we prove we don't really have any wisdom. We earn forgiveness only by doing something really bad. God killed himself to save us from himself? What? What happened to unconditional love and forgiveness? The way the Bible portrays God, he never forgives anything without some terrible condition being met first, and its usually a stupid one.Are you really trying to say that you seriously thought about this before rejecting the Bible?
Even if that were true, even if Jesus really came back from the dead and all that, and even if the gospels are a reliable record of that, (which they still aren't) and assuming they weren't altered after the "fact", how would their authorship of their time with Jesus in any way vindicate the stories in Genesis which were written several centuries earlier, but still untold thousands of years after the events they're meant to depict? And why do so many Christian scholars maintain that the New Testament does not vindicate the Old?The ressurection does relate to Genesis in the sense that the power of God raised Christ from the dead.
I didn't say it was.What is more the knowledge of good and evil is never said to be the only source of wisdom, this is never implied in any way.
I'm not. I'm just agreeing with a vast number of other Christian and Jewish scholars throughout even pre-Darwinian history who say that the stories in Genesis are not literal history regardless of whether the new testament is "gospel" or not.I don't really know why you are jumping to conclusions about the cross and failing to recognize that the ressurection is central to redemptive history in Christian theism.
Yet there are a growing number of former clergy who have rejected the Bible even after decades of study. How is that, if what you say is true? And more to the point; how does that account for my genetics professor, Dobzhansky, Bakker, Bushido, Lucaspa, H2Whoa, Gluadys, and all the other millions of Christian theistic evolutionists in the world and in history, including those who first discovered evolution and deep time?The point was allways about how you discern the historicity of an event and the New Testament has met every burden of proof that has been applied to it.
That's the whole and sole strength of faith, isn't it? Keep your eyes, ears and mind closed and never ever admit any error. If you obsess on anything hard enough, you can make it manifest. And if you insist on not letting anything change your mind, (the very definition of religious faith) then nothing ever will. But still, that leaves you reduced to denial and assertion without the ability to actually deal with any of the evidence that continues to mount against you.I gave you the criteria that is used to this day to determine whether or not a document and a testimony is valid as evidence. I was interested in the actaull evidence for the Christian faith well before becoming a Christian and for the last 20 years. I have found none of the weapons in the skeptics arsonal to even put a dent in Christian apologetics.
OK. What are they? You see, you're supposed to present evidence to back your claims. I do, why don't you?That and the fact that no historian or astronomer anywhere on Earth could remember any hours of daytime darkness was another indication that the "witness" was unreliable to say the least. When zombies rise out of their graves and dance the Thriller in downtown Judea, you would expect someone else to mention that somewhere. Yet the gospels, (all suspiciously composed decades after the alleged fact) are the only source you'll ever find of this event. There is nothing to corroborate anything in the entirety of the Bible, Old Testament or New. And all the stories of Jesus are (as I said) almost exact copies of the earlier myths of neighboring cultures. It occurs to me that since all these other gods came first, that either Dionysus really could turn water into wine, or if he couldn't, if that was just a myth, then Jesus couldn't really do it either, and is probably just a myth too.There are corroberating accounts of Christian events
The zombie comment refers to Mathew 27:52-53, an event which no one remembers except Mathew even though there were plenty of scribes and historians of various levels which should have reported an occurrence like that, and certainly would have if it had really happened. The other comment refers to the three hours of inexplicable darkness mentioned in Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44. Some years ago, I took the liberty of looking up every solar eclipse visible in Judea in the entirety of the 1st century, and found none from any point such as could be related to the time estimated for Jesus' execution. Not only that, but Pliny the elder was in Egypt at that time, and also recorded no hours of daytime darkness for that time zone. No one else in the world did either, even though there were plenty of scribes and scholars amongst the Pharisees and Roman political officers. No one else day turn to night, or the dead rise out of their graves, because it didn't really happen. These were just embellishments added to entice believers later on.and I really don't know what it is you are getting at with the zombie and astronomer satire.
Actually, there are lots and lots of them that far exceed the Bible's reliability on anything. Pliny the younger, (a noted historian like his father) wrote a spectacular eyewitness account of the eruption of Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii. And I've read a number of other historic accounts from here or there, most of which seem better written than the Bible, and most of which can be corroborated by unrelated documents or physical evidence. The Bible is in fact useless as an historic document, as I have already pointed out with my reference to Rabbi Wolper and the Sanai temple. That was yet another reference you snipped and ignored when you realized you couldn't counter it.There is not another writting from antiquity that can merit the reliability of the New Testament as history.
Well then, enlighten me, please. Because I am unaware of anything that could count as proof except in the language of a lawyer, ignorant of science, and not actually trying a case.The bibliographical testing alone is far and away the most telling proof and it is no supprise that skeptics ignore this as evidence.
Then there are the many contradictions, like Judas dying two different ways, which couldn't both have been done at the same time; one where he spends his money, and one where he returned it to the Pharisees and they spend the money, and both of them supposedly bought the same land with the same cash.This is an uncomfortable contortion of the text, isn't it?What you are running into are problems with the translations. Judas threw the money on the floor of the Temple and went and hanged himself. He had to be cut down and that is when his bowls broke forth. The Priests and others there when the money was gathered from the floor descided that since it was blood money that it could not be returned to the treasury so they purchased a potters field. Judas only bought the feild in a matter of speaking and this supposed internal contradiction is easily reconciled to the overall account.
Look at Acts 1:18
"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed
out."
Here he actually purchased the field, not "in a manner of speaking", but actually paid for it with the money given to him. Then, (without hanging himself) he fell "headlong" dying not as he hung, but when he "burst asunder". Sure he fell, probably from a considerable height. But he couldn't have hanged himself. You can't fall headlong, when your head is tied to a tree. And it would be a very glaring omission it the Bible told us that he burst asunder, but didn't tell us he was hung.
Now look at Matthew 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and
went and hanged himself.
In this passage, he very definitely gave the money back, and didn't purchase any field with it, although you could say he still bought the farm. There is no way to reconcile these two passages. I should point out that even though we have two authors supposedly confirming how Judas died, and who bought the land, we still cannot be fully certain of either, because the stories are unclear, apparently contradictory and written by different authors, at different times, with different perspective concerns. This establishes fallibility. And that's a much more important point than whether or not we can prove a clear contradiction.
If any of the holy books really were infallibly divine in origin, then we wouldn't have a choice of a dozen different scriptural doctrines and deities, or conflicting versions of the same ones all claiming to be the "one true" word of [their] god.
Then there are the logical absurdities like the ability to see all the kingdoms of the Earth from a high mountain or a tree. And the fact that none of the miracles can be explained even by any hypothetical means. Why would this all-powerful being need to run and hide when someone wants to throw a rock at him?You mean you haven't even read the book you're trying to defend?What could you possibly be refering to here?
The central miracle is totally irrelevant to our conversation, and entirely beyond the realm of evidence, as everything is that can't be explained, and can neither be quantified nor qualified in any way.The miracles while inexplicable are not outside the realm of evidence and the central miracle is the ressurection.
The whole flat, disk-shaped Earth could be seen from a tree in Daniel 4:10-11, and from a mountain in Matthew 4:8, neither of which would be possible on a sphericalSeeing things from a high mountain or a tree,
planet.
Well, they weren't going to throw rocks at God. They were to throw rocks at Jesus instead. But he hid from them, and snuck out of the temple ducking amid the crowd. That's not satire, sir. That's just the way John 8:59 tells it. That's some universal overlord you've got there, Mark.people thowing rocks at God, God hiding from would be rock throwers...more satire.
Can't the creator of "the word" communicate his point any more effectively than that? And why this system of judgement where the only attribute worthy of salvation is gullability? Good works are like filthy rags to God, and no one, not even Ghandi, could ever save themselves from Jesus' personal torture chamber unless they believe something totally preposterous for literally no reason at all, and maintain that delusion against all reason. This is not the way of any superior being, much less a supreme one. These are the claims of someone trying to use fear to gain power for himself. These are the lies of the priests, and nothing more.Well no, I wasn't. I was talking about how badly the Bible was written. But since you bring it up, Hell isn't a reality. Its one of the most absurd contradictions in all of Christianity, and that's saying a lot! Not only that, but it too was borrowed from the myths of the Hebrew's pagan ancestry. Hell began as the domain of Erikshigal, and was later modified into the current concept, not in the Bible, but in the Zend Avesta of 600 BCE. This was the origin of the Hebrew's concept of Satan, Shai-tan, "the opposer", and cast him into the Kingdom of the Lie. You see, before Zoroaster, there was no mention of posthumous judgement of the deeds done in life. Not in Hebrew tradition anyway. They got that idea from a pre-Biblical Persian religion.I can only assume from the disjointed diatribe that you are refering to the reality of Hell as a possible outcome at final judgment.
Of course. Jesus runs the place! You see, the Jews believe that Satan is in Hell, doing the work of the Lord, as God's prison warden. But the Christian perspective has Satan as a completely pointless character, not even welcome in Hell. Jesus is the one issuing the punishment in the pit of dispair, folks, -eternally and mercilessly crushing sinners in a bloody winepress dispite all allusions of his loving goodness. God is in Heaven, where everyone around him has to think nice thoughts, as if they were trapped in a house with little Anthony Freemont from the Twilight Zone. Jesus is below the Heavens, cruelly crushing the non-believers just for not-believing. And Satan is in Vegas, apparently, where he is said to be quite happy.Jesus was the only one to actaully elaborate on the reality of Hell since he was most likely the only one who knew anything about it.
Only because that's the exact amount you have, Mark. I promise if you had any more than "no amount", I would listen.If you eye causes you to sin pluck it out and throw it away, better to lose one of you're members then to have you're whole body cast into Hell. Now if that is what you are refering to then we can discuss the actuall chapter, verse and context. On the other hand there is no amount of evidence that can satisfy the skeptic.
But even if Hell were real to you, it still can't be a reality for me. You see, Mark, I am an unbeliever. And God (literally) doesn't give a damn whether you're good or bad in this world. In yet another contradiction, he himself is proud, vain, vengeful, jealous and wroth. That's five-out-of-seven deadly sins, even though he is supposedly without sin. And in his insecure vanity, all he cares about is your gullability. If you don't praise his fragile ego by believing something preposterous for utterly no reason at all, and even against common sense, then he considers that to be the ultimate sin. Yours is a very shallow god indeed.
Fortunately, the wages of sin is death. -Not death in the body. Everybody dies in the body, even those supposedly saved from death; even all those apostles whom Jesus promised would never taste of death before his return... Well, he's really running late because they've all tasted death about 1930 years ago. No, death in this case means the death-after-the-death, Death II. Because while other's may have an immortal soul that will have to play slave for God for all eternity, (because they live again, after death) us non-believers just die, flat-out, permanently, for real, just like we would anyway, even if there was no god. So Hell isn't a reality for me, and it really isn't one for you either, no matter how you want to assert that it is.
When either you or I die, we will both be reduced to a couple hundred pounds of rotting ape-meat and that's it. When the void closes in forever, you'll simply cease to exist, "operating system not found", "Game over", power OFF. I can't go to Hell, because I won't be to go anywhere. I would have to have the promised posthumous immortality for that to happen, and I ain't gonna get it. Neither are you in fact. But fortunately for you, when everything goes black, and the sounds in your head shuf off forever, you won't even have the opportunity to be disappointed.
But none of that has anything whatsoever to do with creationism or rejecting physical evidence. That was the question I asked, and you still haven't answered it.Well, you might have answered the first part, since you don't base your beliefs on reason. But you've never even tried to answer the answer the second part. And I don't really understand why you don't realize that.That is not what you asked, you asked how I came to believe what I do and why should you believe anything I say. I have answered you're question endlessly but you allways manage to dismiss my response with satirical rethoric.
And Christianity refuses to adhere to any of the rules or requirements of any science."Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science.
Except that Christianity has no data, and is based on faith instead.All these have their data, and their axioms;
Bull. All this admission can get you is a belief, one that can never be verified, and is not even consistent amongst the various denominations within that group. No progress in knowledge requires any statement of faith to anything, much less one of many gods to worship.and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge.
I guess this statement more than any other illustrates my point that either God is unworthy of admiration, much less worship, or Bishop Wilson is projecting his shallow faults onto God, and asserting as fact what even Wilson himself knows he really doesn't know."Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.'
They don't need to. Most of them are already Christians.Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong,
In other words, we ain't got nuthin', so we're gonna pretend like we don't need nuthin'.to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape."
Which translates as "You're just supposed to believe us just 'cuz we says so. Any other reason would immediately reveal the ignorant facade."(Simon Greeleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists)
You're going to have to be patient, Mark. I've got more exams upcoming, as well as other projects to do, apart from my regular responsibilities to work and family. And I still have probably three more pages left to type just to complete my replies to your last posts. But you're already answering this one, insulting me all the way, and still ignoring everything I say. I don't care if you have decided in advance that you'll neither listen nor learn. You should still act better than you have been.
Aron-Ra said:Obviously not, unless it failed those tests. Because how else could you explain all those creationists turned evolutionist? Or all those Christians turned atheist, even among the clergy? Or those who've converted to some other religion?
"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? [his capitals] The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
--U.S. President John Adams, in a letter to President John Taylor, 1814
The skeptics need not be objective? Skeptics must rationalize? This quote from you already a rather desperate rationalization in itself!
That's right. I'm not interested in such irrelevant matters as that. But I am interested in how anyone could confirm anything about the "power of god". Because you see, everyone, including all the Christians priests, and all the high holies of all the world's other religions, all agree that belief in things like God and Jesus have never been confirmed and can never be confirmed because these beliefs aren't based on reason but on faith alone, which is a conviction based literally on nothing but your desire to believe it.
This is another failed attempt to project your faults onto me. But these allegations do not apply, nor will they ever.
Well, that can't be it, especially since it doesn't make any sense. But there is another explanation: that you never provided any evidence. I asked for anything to show that the account in the Bible was correct. But all you showed me was; 'because the Bible said so'. Well, what else have you got? Because that's just not enough. I promise you I am not dogmatic about anything. That sort of mindset is the very thing I'm here to oppose. But since most evolutionists are Christians, and most Christians are evolutionists, then even the simplest logic demands that the alleged validity of the New Testament obviously doesn't equate to anything that supposedly happened in Genesis, nor can one verify the other by association. So you're going to have to come up with something other than your belief in the Bible to convince me of anything the Bible talks about. Apart from the Bible itself, what else supports the Biblical account? Hmm?
Are you actually oblivious to the fact that it doesn't matter? The government of the United States was established by the believers of many religions. But it was founded as a secular government. Are you actually oblivious to the passages concerning the separation of church and state? And the one protecting freedom of religion?
Why would you imagine me to be "repulsed" by such a thing?
What a coincidence.
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England."
--- Benjamin Franklin; Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
Franklin obviously had a much different impression than you thought he did. This would be why he plugged so hard for the separation of church and state.
And no other country in the world can match our crime rate, especially for violent crimes. What's your point?
Regardless, the point here is that by "the foundation of this country", we're talking about the foundation of our government. And even this passage clearly states that religion has no place in American government. There may be all sorts of evangelist movements lobbying for politcal power now, but earlier in American history, before evangelist revival movement of the 1830s, the secular nature of American government was still clearly broadcast.
".the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--Treaty of Tripoly; John Adams' administration 1797
I am always sure to draw a distinction between mainstream Christianity and fundamentalists/creationists.
Hey, don't tell me. Tell that to these people:
"It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-biased media and the homosexuals who want to destroy all Christians"
--Pat Robertson, 1988 presidential hopeful, and leader of the Christian Coalition, on the 700 Club
"I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."
--Pat Robertson (talking about apartheid in South Africa)
"history is . . . Satan's supernatural conspiracy the face of which in the United States today is the movement for choice, women's rights, secular democracy and homosexuality."
--Pat Robertson; New World Order
While I would hate to contradict such a compliment as that, I don't know who Karl Barth is. Also, I thought I was very careful not to attack Christianity in this thread.JAL said:Aron-Ra
Its been fun and exciting watching you attack Christianity because I admire the knowledge at your disposal. Youre a genius, as far as I can see, sort of the Karl Barth of atheism.
No. I asked you why you believed the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.You asked me earlier why I believe Christianity.
And some hear him loud and clear, like Deanna Laney and Andrea Yates.Remember how Paul attacked Christianity, just like you, until he met Christ on the road to Damascus? Many people claim to have religious experiences. And many Christians, unfortunately, claim to hear God loud and clear even when they can barely hear Him at all.
And regardless what gods or spirits they worship, many of them know they're not lying about thier religious experiences either. I wasn't lying about any of mine.But even if six billion people were to lie about or exaggerate their religious experiences, I know that I am not lying about my own experience.
And the voice George Harrison started hearing back in the '60s, and until his dying day, convinced him that God was speaking, and that Krsna is God. I have also read an interesting testimonial from Thailand, where someone spoke of the overwhelming feeling of joy when she finally accepted Buddha into her heart. I have a close friend who had a similar experience with Bast, the Egyptian cat-headed goddess.I dont hear God loud and clear, but what little I seem to hear, starting seventeen years ago, convinces me that the true God is speaking, and that Christ is God.
Yeah. When I prayed earnestly to God, I came away with a wholly new idea, the realization that God wasn't who or what anyone thought he was. The reason there were so many different religions wasn't because they were all wrong except one, it was because they were all wrong, period. Of course, all the ones based on the Pentateuch had to be wrong because the Pentateuch was wrong. I still believed God existed, though he became a spirit form I could hardly call a god. Gods are anthropomorphic beings with magic powers and expendable human bodies. Over the next couple decades, my "god" became more like a Shamanic Druid's version of the Tao. Of course my very Christian family kept telling me that I didn't pray the right way. But yes, I certainly did.When I was an atheist, a Christian told me, Just pray SINCERELY that the true God show Himself, whoever He might be. Many people fool themselves, articulating this prayer supposedly with all earnestness when in fact, deep down, they really dont want the TRUE God to show Himself. People generally prefer to either choose their own god or do without Him altogether, and will be held accountable for such choices unfortunately.
This analogy just doesn't work. There was no reason to die, except to sate some ancient tradition for sacrifice. There was no reason for faith, or damnation, or redemption itself. I'll spare you the lengthy lecture as to all the reasons why since this isn't the right forum for it.There are reasonable answers to many of your questions about Christianity. For instance you complain about God inflicting wrath upon His own Son. Let me ask you, have you ever had a friend or relative whose irresponsible behavior put him in a jam? Did you ever offer assistance to bail him out? And didnt this cost you time, money, and suffering? Sure it did. Now lets suppose you had a son who offered to help bail the guy out. Perhaps you might allow this? Thats not unjust. How much money was the Son supposed to put up for our bail? Well, money doesnt really cost Him anything, so He had to suffer real pain. Christians who have come to a distaste for such justice probably weren't praying enough to hear God affirm this justice.
I appreciate the compliment, and I appreciate the polite tone even more. But I hope you'll understand that I find little sentimental value in your promise that you'll talk to yourself, wishing that would I'll become like you. And I wouldn't think it any more special even if you had a whole bunch of people talking to themselves, all trying to wish me into the flock. I don't see this as at all helpful to me. Nor do I even feel it to be a gesture made with my benefit in mind. I'm sure you won't understand this, but I find "I'll pray for you" to be a bit insulting. Its a patronizing way of letting me know that you feel sorry for me for not being gullible, and that you'll cast a spell to "help" me lose my rationality. Just want you to know my perspective.I wont try to answer all your questions. But Ill pray for you. (I eventually found out that my Christian friend had a whole team of people praying for me).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?