Define 'species'

[JAL]

okay, I understand what you say now. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.

Can you somehow prove that it was Moses that knew this? Do you have evidence for this?

Thanks for the understanding. I'm not sure it's crucial that it was Moses in particular. The issue at hand is whether the Bible is self-authenticating, so I don't see why authorship would be the main issue here.

Wow I disagree entirely here! This has nothing to do with circumsision, but with cleaner living in general.

I'm not sure we're understanding each other here. I didn't say that circumcision eliminated the infections of the last 100 years. I was only voicing a wild speculation merely incidental to my point. My speculation was that circumcision may have had some preventive-medicine value way back then that is now outweighed by its present-day side-effects. Again, this is just a wild speculation that has nothing to do with my main point.

 

[JAL]

Anyway, moving on to your above quote. I have to say that that is just weak. Quarantining sick people was not ignored until germ theory. People always try to dissociate from sick people because it is pretty obvious that you become ill by mixing with them. During the Black Death they were isolating patients left, right and centre and they had no knowledge of germ theory.

So that one is just weak. It's like saying they knew not to put their face in the fire despite people not knowing all about heat being about atoms vibrating and the amount of energy available.

It's just obvious.

h2

OK, good argument. I hadn't thought of that. I will have to rethink my argument here.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You gave examples of your own religous experience and that of others. Let me expound further what I mean by "lie or exaggerate about religious experiences." Many people who see visions claim to feel sure, at the very core of their being, that the experience has a self-authenticating merit; they claim to feel sure that what they tapped into was either the true God, or some fount of goodness, or simply pure energy. And my own experience leads me to believe that these people are NOT sure of such merits.

Yes, everyone believes that their own subjective interpretation is the only one that's right of course, and that everyone else is deceived.

"The Persian shows the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, the lawgiver of Persia, and calls it the divine law; the Bramin shows the Shaster, revealed, he says, by God to Brama, and given to him out of a cloud; the Jew shows what he calls the law of Moses, given, he says, by God, on the Mount Sinai; the Christian shows a collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who, and called the New Testament; and the Mahometan shows the Koran, given, he says, by God to Mahomet: each of these calls itself revealed religion, and the only true Word of God, and this the followers of each profess to believe from the habit of education, and each believes the others are imposed upon."
--Thomas Paine; The Age of Reason, 1795

At least your testimony seems very honest. You even used the word "demonic" which rules out any assurance of a fount of goodness. The Bible seems clear that pagan religious experiences are real. It also seems clear that these false prophets will be held accountable for deceiving others, and even themselves, as to the merits of their visions and revelations.

If that's so, then Pat Robertson, Jonathan Sarfati, Jerry Falwell, Ken Hamm, Oral Roberts, Bobby Tilton, Henry Morris, Duayne Gish, and Kent Hovind are in a heap o' trouble, huh?

And I'm glad you brought out Abraham's example of hearing a voice demanding that he slaughter his son. Actually this is my favorite example in the whole Bible. Because if Abraham had even the most remote doubt about whether the voice was from the true Fount of Goodness, his behavior was evil. But if he was sure in the absolute sense of sureness - that is, if he was UNABLE to question the action - how can we blame him? We would have to applaud him! And that's what the Bible does, because all that you can expect of anyone is that they do what they are SURE is right.

Last year, Deanna Laney staved in all her sons' skulls with a rock. She did it because she was so sure God told her to do it that she was unable to question the action. But we did blame her and we didn't praise her. Was that wrong of us? Because the only option we had for her was whether to keep her on death row or in a psycho ward.

Stated differently, if you experience a level of sureness so absolute that it is impossible for you to rethink the issue even momentarily, your conscience obligates you to execute the action.

Kind of like when the Son-of-Sam's dog claimed to be God, and told him to go out and kill people, right? Shades of Waco? Goodnight Guyana, Heaven's Gate is waitin', "All aboard."

You see, most dictionaries define "sanity" as the ability to reason rationally. But you're saying here that the Bible praises the inability to question schizophrenia. So what you're saying is the Bible is based on insanity and promotes insanity above all else.

This is just a tautology. Christianity assumes that when Moses took Israel into the promised land, God gave all Israel this abolute sureness. Like Abraham, they heard the voice (see Heb 3) and knew that God was asking them to take the land.

Judaism assumed the same thing, obviously. But now some rabbinical scholars are not so sure.

"I have heard from many Jews over the years (via email and in person) who find the Bible unbelievable."
--Gil Mann, Jewish columnist

"The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of Exodus agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all."
--Senior Rabbi David Wolpe, Sanai Temple

Frankly I don't believe that anyone has heard God speak this way in NT times.

On Talk.Origins, I've talked to several of them who believe that Jesus speaks to them in an audible voice. The amusing thing about that is that through comparative conversations with them, I've seen that Jesus shares different "truths" with everyone he speaks to, and apparently likes to tell each of them that the others are wrong.

Certainly Jesus never advocated violence of any kind.

Is there any other use for a sword? (Luke 22:36-38) Didn't Jesus predict that families would be torn apart in his honor? (Mathew 10, Mark 13) And isn't it Jesus himself crushing sinners in his bloody winepress? (Revelations 19: 11-19)

I'm very confident that the Crusaders were following their leaders rather than God's voice. What they did was evil, plain and simple.

I can say that about a lot of other Christian groups as well. Look at the murder of Hypatia for example; the heinous act that begat the dark ages, and earned Bishop Cyril a sainthood.

Part of the problem, Mr. Aron-Ra, is that you don't see how all men could stand guilty before God - and I don't blame you, because frankly the orthodox model has not been entirely convincing. In my metaphysics, everything is physical including the human soul.

Then we would be able to detect it somehow. But much to my dismay, Kirlian photography turned out to be a hoax. You're right about souls being physical though. They were thought to be "the breath of life" until air was discovered in the 6th Century BCE. However, my problem with Genesis 1-3 is simply that there is just no way it could be literally true in any sense.

Tertullian held to a physical soul and insisted it was the only way to define universal guilt in Adam. Let's assume that God only created ONE human soul - Adam's. When he fell, God removed most of his sin-tainted soul from his body and has held it in suspended animation ever since. Every time a human embryo is conceived, God awakens a portion of this suspended soul and merges it with the embryo. That's why we're all born with original sin even though we don't remember being Adam. On judgment day God will jog our memory. We are Adam.

Like most religious assertions, this one too is based on nothing and backed by nothing. There is no way to confirm it, and no reason to believe it, and it is contested hotly by millions with no way to verify who's idea is most likely, or why.

You see, whenever anyone asserts something like this to me, I have to ask what few Christians ever consider asking; "How do you know that?" What has surprised and disappointed me about Christianity is that there is never a good answer. The whole idea is to speculate blindly, and assert that speculation as if it were certain fact; claiming to know what you already know you can't really know, and only believe on faith in lieu of reason. But by pretending to be so sure of what you know you can't be sure of, you are in effect lying. At least we scientists are honest enough to hypothesize and theorize, and admit our own uncertainty. I would have much less problem with Christianity if they would just add the prefix "I believe" to whatever they claim to "know" instead.

Of course you're too much of a hard-core evolutionist to believe in Adam. I understand that. I'm rather dealing with your presumption that the human race cannot possibly stand universally guilty before God.

You haven't yet touched on my problems with that. Let's forget the fact that we are apes, and the fact that everything in Genesis has been disproved; let's also excuse for a moment all the parallels in previously polytheist pantheons written by the very ancestors of those who would eventually write the Bible. And let's just look at this one fact that none of Genesis 1-3 makes any damned sense, and neither do any of the other chapters, many of which have also been soundly and profoundly disproved. Therein lies my problem with the Bible.

You also have a problem with hell. Good, so do I. I truly believe that Scripture is highly encrypted, and that we often miss the truth for lack of hearing God clarify Scripture. Certainly I myself suffer from this hardness of hearing. The surface level is, so to speak, the best that God could do. The surface seems to speak of eternal hell, which helps people take it seriously because it is, in fact, very serious stuff. But although the Fire of hell is eternal (God is Fire according to Scripture),

That's right! In Job, God was the sun. And in Exodus, God was represented by a volcano. So few Christians realize that.

and the Smoke is likewise eternal, I don't believe the suffering is eternal. Here too I depart from orthodoxy. I can't prove this conclusion biblically. I can only offer evidence that NT Greek allows for this reading. Actually it's my own DAILY experience of God's love that leads me to disbelieve eternal torment. But it could easily last a thousand years, or a million, or whatever. I don't want any part of it.

I have many problems with the concept of Hell, not the least of which being that it doesn't make any sense either, and seems to me to be exactly the kind of thing a priest would use to intimidate others into following him. A truly supreme being wouldn't need nor want our faith nor our praise, and he certainly wouldn't punish us forever (in his mercy) simply for not believing something preposterous for literally no reason at all. And if he did, then I would rather be in Hell, than in succumb to an eternity of praising such a being.

You gave many examples of biblical heroes being quite immoral. You take this as evidence against the Bible. Actually it seems to me clear corroboration of the Bible. After all, people who fabricate a religion tend to hide the leaders' faults. The Bible puts those faults in bold faced type. For instance it tells us that David killed Bathsheeba's husband just to commit adultery.

But in each of my examples, you've ignored implications of God's immorality as well as his inconsistency and fallibility.

 

[Aron-Ra]

In one sense I'm glad you're an atheist because atheism requires faith. After all, you cannot really PROVE that God doesn't exist, so some measure of faith is required.

Let's get something straight here. I am not opposed to religion, gods, or the Bible per se', what I am opposed to is faith. I am an atheist because I lack any faith at all. I never had it, never will. Its something I was born without. Do you have faith that there's no Santa Clause? I do not "deny God unequivocally" any more than you deny bigfoot unequivocally. I just have no reason to believe in such things, and a handful of very good reasons not to, not the least of which being that so many of God's "witnesses" should be charged with perjury.

Now to explain Ondoher's "agnostic atheism", all atheists are agnostic. Neither of us believe in God for the same reasons you don't believe in Krsna, Gaia, Zarathustra, or Santa Clause. But if evidence of any of these were to come to light, we would be obliged to change our minds where faith wouldn't permit that. For us, belief isn't a matter of choice like it is for you. We must question everything, especially any voices we hear in our heads, but that doesn't mean we've closed our minds to other options as you have. Now if such a voice were to prove itself with some testable but previously unknowable truth, or an intricate prophesy precisely come to pass, fine. I may not believe that its God quite yet, but I would be ready to listen to what else it had to say. However, if it says something stupid and petty like "kill your children to prove your devotion to me", then I'll know that it is not God, at least not any god deserving of my attention, and that it could probably could be excorcized with a doctor's prescription.

Guess what? All it takes to believe in the Bible is that same kind of faith. Faith can take care of all the doubts that you have about the Bible. So in a way you are on the right track.

I don't think you realize what faith is. Look it up. It is a firm, stoic, unwavering (closed-minded) conviction that is not based on either logic or evidence! In other words, there is no reason to believe it, and adherents are unreasonable in their obstinance where that belief is concerned. So faith is literally a belief that is adopted without reason, and embraced against all reason. It is a closed mind guided only by subjective assertions in lieu of anything demonstrable in either its foundation or its defense. It is the inability to question the insane.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
--Carl Sagan

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."
--Jonathan Swift

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true."
--Frederich Nietzsche, The Antichrist

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
--Mark Twain in Eruption

All my beliefs must be accurate or I'll stop believing them. So they are all tentative, and always have been. I was a Christian once, not because I had religious faith, (belief not based on evidence) but because I was deceived. Faith is also defined as a secure confidence usually in some perceived authority. And I believed other people when they said they had "undeniable, irrefutable, conclusive scientific proof" of this or that event or what have you, -the very sort of thing tele-evangelists and professional creationists are still saying now. But since then, I have learned to become much less naive' about how men plead for your belief in order to feel better about their own. I am now iconoclast, and will challenge anyone's authority, even those on "my side of the fence".

One thing I know about faith is that without it, deception is impossible. Nothing in the universe requires your faith except a bad liar. Faith offers no way to improve your understanding. But its a great way to stay wrong and remain oblivious to that. There simply is no value in faith. Truth is much better discerned by the tests of doubt!

Science is nothing like faith. In fact, it doesn't even permit faith, and is the very opposite of faith. For example, foremost in the tenets of science is the idea that everyone is wrong, including yourself. But that not everyone is completely wrong. There are always degrees of accuracy, and each of these must be tested and scrutinized to hone in on the most accurate explanation, often disproving some beliefs in the process. However, since we can't know everything about anything, (there is always something more to learn) then everything we know is still a theory, and nothing can ever be proved to be true except the facts themselves. But you can dis-prove some things, if they are falsifiable. And if they are not falsifiable, (there's no way to potentially prove them wrong) then they are untestable, and therefore unscientific. That's what God is.

Science discards or revises (corrects) those things which have been disproved. What remains are some concepts which are supported by the evidence and thus considered to be at least mostly true, and those which are not supported, but can't be disproved either. So they must remain possibilities, however improbable, until they are disproved. But in lieu of evidence, they aren't given any serious credence either. Now does any of that sound like faith to you?

I am neither unable nor unwilling to believe in God. All I need is a reason, and so far, no one's got one. Whatever that reason is though, it can't be dependant on the Bible. Because that I already know is wrong, and it still would be even if God and Jesus were real.

And I forgot to add this. Although you see many reasons to reject the Bible, I hope you have considered all the reasons for accepting it. I seem to recall hearing two good examples a while back. I hope I have this right. As I recall, (1) God told Moses to circumcise newborns on the eighth day. Centuries later, it was medically verified that the eighth day is indeed a very ideal time for circumcision.

These sick mutilations of genetalia are a common trend in a religion with such deep issues with sexuality. So what you have here is a rather twisted tradition of mutilation, common in barbaric societies, and as is usual in such societies, it is performed by a priest. One man carving the wee willies of so many helpless infants (without euthenasia) would rather quickly put together that there's always more of a problem when you do it on the 2nd through 5th day. Now when you've got several tribes doing that for centuries, some common knowledge will be established here. So the fact that they knew this was expected. But what is not explained is why God put the foreskin there in the first place. If it serves no purpose outside the womb, it sure didn't have one in it! But the foreskin does leave the glans more sensative. So your justifying such practice here sounds no different than Sheik Gad Al Haq Ali Gad Al Haq justifying the removal of part or all of a girl's [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. He said it was "... a noble practice which does honour to women."

(2) According to Moses, people who touched diseased bodies were to wash their hands in running water. Unfortunately, even in the 1800's, American physicans were still washing their hands in a bowl of water where the germs simply collected. The physicans then passed these germs on to anyone else they touched. Here too Moses was millennia ahead of his time. Water was a precious commodity for Israel. He let this running water go to waste!

As has already been mentioned, in areas where parasites and plagues were rampant, it didn't take much sense to wash the bile and scabies off your fingers, and only moving water will do that well, and not get the parasites back on you. But let's not forget that these same people thought that such an infestation also required a ritual sacrifice, and an elemental black magic spell complete with a magic wand dipped in blood. (Leviticus 14)

 

[mark kennedy]

You've have attacked every part of the scientific method, and ridiculed the entire philosophy of science as "naturalistic assumptions" which you flatly alleged were a "failed philosophy". In the process, you have proved that you don't know what science is. I suggest you look up the scientific method, because that is what you're attacking.

"The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3.

I'm really pressed for time online these days since we are getting ready to work a railhead and getting the time is becoming a major problem. I will at least make an effort to offer something from the reading I have been doing on the subject and my problems with the single common ancestor model.

I have read as much of the many posts you have offered Aron-Ra and I apologize that I am unable to deal with most of them. However since you never like my answers anyway I dare say it will make little difference. I am especially interested in you're discusion about you're problems with the content of the Old Testament and I will work on them and probably address them in a seperate thread.

Having enjoyed a great deal of debate and discussion related to the Creation/Evolution controversy I have taken an interest in evolution’s demonstrated mechanisms. The one most often pointed to is mutations as the driving force of evolution and these mutations, despite the dogmatic affirmation by apologists for the single common ancestor model, cannot be a demonstrated mechanism.

“Identifying the forces responsible for the origin and maintenance of sexuality remains one of the greatest unsolved problems in biology. The mutational deterministic hypothesis postulates that sex is an adaptation that allows deleterious mutations to be purged from the genome; it requires synergistic interactions, which means that two mutations would be more harmful together than expected from their separate effects. We generated 225 genotypes of Escherichia coli carrying one, two or three successive mutations and measured their fitness relative to an unmutated competitor. The relationship between mutation number and average fitness is nearly log-linear. We also constructed 27 recombinant genotypes having pairs of mutations whose separate and
combined effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibit significant interactions for fitness, but they are antagonistic as often as they are synergistic. These results do not support the mutational deterministic hypothesis for the evolution of sex.”

What this is saying basically is that mutations in these recombinant genotypes do not produce a selective advantage. Creationists have emphasized the stasis of the various classes as evident proof of creation of creatures fully formed with only macroevolution demonstrated in natural science. I summarized the main points of the article quoted above and cited below:

1) Asexually reproducing organisms should have twice the fitness of sexual counterparts.
2) For sexual reproduction to provide a selective advantage deletrious mutations must be purged.
3) Multiple mutations are typically more harmful together then would be expected.
4) Genotypes with variable numbers of mutations were compared to measure their relative fitness.
5)The benefit of sex is very slight even for the highest value for a genotype with functional DNA.

Conclusion: Synergestic epistasis fails as a demonstrated mechanism for the origin and maintenance of the evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction. It should be noted that epistasis is simply that which is beyond stasis and thus evolutionary change (if you will forgive the oversimplification).

(Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria, by Santiago F. Elena & Richard E. Lenski. Nature|VOL 390|27NOVEMBER 1997)

The sensory and motor mechanism of the common bacterium, Escherichia coli, (a unicellular prokaryotic organism) has become one of the most important examples cited in the irreducible complexity argument. There must be both a selective advantage and a demonstrated mechanism for the descent from a unicellular common ancestor. The theory of descent from a unicellular ancestor is faced with a transition that still defies empirical testing. Of the many hypotheses postulated from the theoretical superstructure of evolutionary biology multiple mutations diminish selective advantage. This disparity is acknowledged by natural science (as it is in the above article) or it leads to mythology rather then demonstrative science.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs" (Grasse, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms)

This claim is not made against theology but against theoreticians who do not think about the weakness and extrapolations that create the myth of evolution. What is at stake is the scientific understanding of our origins and it is not limited to the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. The origin of 40-50 phyla during the Cambrian explosion (biology’s big bang) resulted in the stasis of most, if not all, the emergent species, phylum, and classes. Epistasis cannot be demonstrated but stasis can be conclusively demonstrated from the empirical testing. This is exactly what would be expected from the creationist model.

There is no lack of theoretical hypothesis but the tests keep coming back null. I addressed the various forms of mutatations listed in the formal debate only to have you quit on me. The ones you listed are most often harmfull or of no effect at all. Let me know if you have any trouble tracking down the article.

 

[Mistermystery]

Thanks for the understanding. I'm not sure it's crucial that it was Moses in particular. The issue at hand is whether the Bible is self-authenticating, so I don't see why authorship would be the main issue here.

I am not sure on that authenticating part, but let's leave it at that. I would like to ask you that if you aren't sure if someone, or something did or did not say, it would be good not to mention that person's name. For example: I was seriously confused where you got all that Moses stuff from. Could you next time be sure instead of saying that a random character did it?

I'm not sure we're understanding each other here. I didn't say that circumcision eliminated the infections of the last 100 years. I was only voicing a wild speculation merely incidental to my point. My speculation was that circumcision may have had some preventive-medicine value way back then that is now outweighed by its present-day side-effects. Again, this is just a wild speculation that has nothing to do with my main point.

Then I still disagree with you. Circumsisions had a greater chance to fail back 100 years ago, so even if there was a preventive medicine value attached to it (rubbish if you ask me)if would probably be canceled out by the deaths of infants who were infectred because of circumsision. I'm not saying that doctors were stupid back then and didn't know how to circumsisize, but accidents happend, and infections can always happen.

I'd really really be surprized if you do actually find a medical journal that proves that infectionwise circumsision was good. Do you have any on a non-biased site?

 

[yossarian]

“Identifying the forces responsible for the origin and maintenance of sexuality remains one of the greatest unsolved problems in biology. The mutational deterministic hypothesis postulates that sex is an adaptation that allows deleterious mutations to be purged from the genome; it requires synergistic interactions, which means that two mutations would be more harmful together than expected from their separate effects. We generated 225 genotypes of Escherichia coli carrying one, two or three successive mutations and measured their fitness relative to an unmutated competitor. The relationship between mutation number and average fitness is nearly log-linear. We also constructed 27 recombinant genotypes having pairs of mutations whose separate and
combined effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibit significant interactions for fitness, but they are antagonistic as often as they are synergistic. These results do not support the mutational deterministic hypothesis for the evolution of sex.”

What this is saying basically is that mutations in these recombinant genotypes do not produce a selective advantage. Creationists have emphasized the stasis of the various classes as evident proof of creation of creatures fully formed with only macroevolution demonstrated in natural science. I summarized the main points of the article quoted above and cited below:

you didn't understand the article

what it says is that a particular model for the evolution of sexual reproduction is not supported by the experiment they did

it is not about whether mutations are a plausible mechanism for evolution

1) Asexually reproducing organisms should have twice the fitness of sexual counterparts.
2) For sexual reproduction to provide a selective advantage deletrious mutations must be purged.
3) Multiple mutations are typically more harmful together then would be expected.
4) Genotypes with variable numbers of mutations were compared to measure their relative fitness.
5)The benefit of sex is very slight even for the highest value for a genotype with functional DNA.

point 3 is what they were actually trying to show, because it is the proposed mechanism for the evolution of sex (synergistic epistasis)

what they found in fact, is that multiple mutations can be synergistic (multiple mutations contribute to each others harmfulness in a multiplicative way), or they can be antagonistic (multiple mutations mask or alleviate each others harmfulness)

The sensory and motor mechanism of the common bacterium, Escherichia coli, (a unicellular prokaryotic organism) has become one of the most important examples cited in the irreducible complexity argument. There must be both a selective advantage and a demonstrated mechanism for the descent from a unicellular common ancestor. The theory of descent from a unicellular ancestor is faced with a transition that still defies empirical testing. Of the many hypotheses postulated from the theoretical superstructure of evolutionary biology multiple mutations diminish selective advantage. This disparity is acknowledged by natural science (as it is in the above article) or it leads to mythology rather then demonstrative science.

yeah, you definitely didn't understand the article

prokaryotic flagella are found in prokaryotes - who reproduce asexually most of the time - the article on the evolution of sex therefore has no relevance

This claim is not made against theology but against theoreticians who do not think about the weakness and extrapolations that create the myth of evolution. What is at stake is the scientific understanding of our origins and it is not limited to the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. The origin of 40-50 phyla during the Cambrian explosion (biology’s big bang) resulted in the stasis of most, if not all, the emergent species, phylum, and classes. Epistasis cannot be demonstrated but stasis can be conclusively demonstrated from the empirical testing. This is exactly what would be expected from the creationist model.

you're so very confused about this mark - epistasis is about gene interactions - it has nothing at all to do with the kind of stasis you think exists in the fossil record post cambrian explosion (numerous phyla, and most extant species have arisen after the cambrian)

There is no lack of theoretical hypothesis but the tests keep coming back null. I addressed the various forms of mutatations listed in the formal debate only to have you quit on me. The ones you listed are most often harmfull or of no effect at all. Let me know if you have any trouble tracking down the article.

the first sentence is nearly accurate if and only if, we're talking about the origin of sex

 

[mark kennedy]

you didn't understand the article

what it says is that a particular model for the evolution of sexual reproduction is not supported by the experiment they did...

What the articles actually said was that:

1) Identifying the forces responsible for the origin and maintenance of sexuality remains one of the greatest unsolved problems in biology.

Thus the mutation as a demonstrated mechanism is null.

2) One is that the effects of mutations on fitness are almost always independent. Alternatively, deleterious mutations may often interact, but synergistic and antagonistic interactions may be more or less equally common, so that on average there is no clear deviation from log-linearity.

With synergistic and antagonistic interactions being even equal you have stasis describe as log-linearity. The imlplications are pretty obvious, +1 + -1 = 0 and that is stasis no matter how you dice it up.

3) Therefore,the mutational deterministic hypothesis seems to fail not because interactions between deleterious mutations are very rare, but rather because synergistic and antagonistic interactions are both common.

The third statement was the result of another series of experiments that yeilded virtually the same results.

it is not about whether mutations are a plausible mechanism for evolution

Yes it is but it specifically focused one of many theories and untolled hypothesis that have all failed to produce a selective advantage for the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction.

point 3 is what they were actually trying to show, because it is the proposed mechanism for the evolution of sex (synergistic epistasis)

Yes and that is synergistic epistasis as opposed to antagonistic. They offset one another since they are consistantly equal thus resulting in stasis, not evolution.

what they found in fact, is that multiple mutations can be synergistic (multiple mutations contribute to each others harmfulness in a multiplicative way), or they can be antagonistic (multiple mutations mask or alleviate each others harmfulness)

Multiple mutations produce less of a selective advantages and thus no demonstrated mechanism. I did understand the article and the implications for the subject of the thread were very signifigant.

yeah, you definitely didn't understand the article

prokaryotic flagella are found in prokaryotes - who reproduce asexually most of the time - the article on the evolution of sex therefore has no relevance

Yes it does since the other aspects of evolutionary change from a single common ancestor are key. There are broad implications for the lack of a demonstrated mechanism for evolution.

you're so very confused about this mark - epistasis is about gene interactions - it has nothing at all to do with the kind of stasis you think exists in the fossil record post cambrian explosion (numerous phyla, and most extant species have arisen after the cambrian)

I made a response to a discussion of how scientific method demonstrates that a hypothesis test a theory on a pass or fail basis. These many test demonstrated stasis not evolution. I am anything but confused and am working on another demonstration of how another key transition produced no selective advantage or demonstrated mechanism.

the first sentence is nearly accurate if and only if, we're talking about the origin of sex

What we are discussion is the emergence of species from a unicellular common ancestor. I simply demonstrated that the myth of evolution was produced by denying the empirical evidence.

 

[yossarian]

Thus the mutation as a demonstrated mechanism is null.

no, thus synergistic epistasis is rejected, NOT mutation

With synergistic and antagonistic interactions being even equal you have stasis describe as log-linearity. The imlplications are pretty obvious, +1 + -1 = 0 and that is stasis no matter how you dice it up.

no, no no no no

its saying that epistasis is both synergistic and antagonistic, for different fitness functions, and different interactions between loci

so on the one case, while sexual reproduction may increase the removal of deleterious alleles by synergism - in other cases, it slows down their removal, because of antagonism

3) Therefore,the mutational deterministic hypothesis seems to fail not because interactions between deleterious mutations are very rare, but rather because synergistic and antagonistic interactions are both common.

The third statement was the result of another series of experiments that yeilded virtually the same results.

it is not the "mutational deterministic" hypothesis that they were testing - they were testing whether synergistic epistasis was adequate to explain the evolution of sex - and their results rejected the hypothesis

Yes it is but it specifically focused one of many theories and untolled hypothesis that have all failed to produce a selective advantage for the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction.

its an unanswered question

Yes and that is synergistic epistasis as opposed to antagonistic. They offset one another since they are consistantly equal thus resulting in stasis, not evolution.

no - for some traits sexual reproduction increases the removal of deleterious alleles, for other traits, it slows their removal - evolution still occurs

Multiple mutations produce less of a selective advantages and thus no demonstrated mechanism. I did understand the article and the implications for the subject of the thread were very signifigant.

thats not the point of the paper at all - the results aren't the slightest bit relevant to the thread unless this thread is about the evolution of sex

Yes it does since the other aspects of evolutionary change from a single common ancestor are key. There are broad implications for the lack of a demonstrated mechanism for evolution.

no, there are not broad implications for mechanisms of evolution - the paper is specifically about exploring the advantage/disadvantage of sexual reproduction

I made a response to a discussion of how scientific method demonstrates that a hypothesis test a theory on a pass or fail basis. These many test demonstrated stasis not evolution. I am anything but confused and am working on another demonstration of how another key transition produced no selective advantage or demonstrated mechanism.

the paper did not demonstrate "stasis", it had nothing to do with stasis - it was about a specific hypothesis for the evolution of sex

What we are discussion is the emergence of species from a unicellular common ancestor. I simply demonstrated that the myth of evolution was produced by denying the empirical evidence.

what are you talking about - the authors of the paper rejected a hypothesis on the basis of the evidence - if only creationists would do the same - we wouldn't even be having this argument

 

[mark kennedy]

no, thus synergistic epistasis is rejected, NOT mutation

This is a crucial transition in the descent from a single common ancestor. This paper specificlly addressed the role of mutation in this transition and said at the outset that the origin and mechanism of sex is still one of the greatest myteries in biology. What this shows is that the synergetic mutations are offset by the antagonistic and thus no demonstrated mechanism.

no, no no no no

The evidence says, yes yes yes yes. This also happens in the fossil record and stasis is the rule and the sudden appearance of fossils in the strata is well established in natural history:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed' (Gould, 1977).

So tell me, if we are going to formulate a series of hypothetesis for the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction do we rely exclusivly on mutations as the driving force of this evolutionary change? I don't think there is any question that for the unicellular common ancestor model to be demonstrated this is a crucial transition. What is more this transition must produce a selective advantage.Mutations reduce survivability of the mutant strains and the more mutations the less of a selective advantage they have.

its saying that epistasis is both synergistic and antagonistic, for different fitness functions, and different interactions between loci

My point exactly and as they demonstrated it is log-linearity.

so on the one case, while sexual reproduction may increase the removal of deleterious alleles by synergism - in other cases, it slows down their removal, because of antagonism

Right and since the beneficial mutations (synergetic) are offset by the damaging ones (antagonistic) there is no demonstrated selective advantage for a mutated strain. So as Aron-Ra put it, go back to step 3.

it is not the "mutational deterministic" hypothesis that they were testing - they were testing whether synergistic epistasis was adequate to explain the evolution of sex - and their results rejected the hypothesis

Like I said, go back to rule 3.

its an unanswered question

A major change, for example, a sharp increase in the heart beat or the diminution by half of the kidney and thus a reduction in renal secretion, would by itself have wrought havoc with the general constitution of the animal. In order that an animal might persist after a change of this magnitude it would be necessary that the other organs of the body be also proportionally modified. In other words, an organism must change en bloc or not at all. Only saltatory modification could occur, and this idea was to Cuvier, as it is to most modern zoologists, but for very different reasons, unverified and basically absurd. Transmutation by the accumulation of alterations, great or small, would thus be impossible.
(Georges Cuvier by W.Coleman)

no - for some traits sexual reproduction increases the removal of deleterious alleles, for other traits, it slows their removal - evolution still occurs

If it doesn't produce an inheritable genetic allele in populations over time it is not evolution. If it does and it does not create a selective advantage then it results in extinction.

thats not the point of the paper at all - the results aren't the slightest bit relevant to the thread unless this thread is about the evolution of sex

You have the cart before the horse. The definition used for species was described as an undiscoverable mystery. Where this true it would render the terms microevolution and macroevolution meaningless. Science has demonstrated that stasis is the rule and never identified the demonstrated mechanism for the descent from a unicellular common ancestor model. So, like I said, go back to step 3.

no, there are not broad implications for mechanisms of evolution - the paper is specifically about exploring the advantage/disadvantage of sexual reproduction

There are not broad implications for the theory of evolution unless stasis is the demonstrated mechanism at crucial points of transition, which is exactly what both natural science and natural history have done.

the paper did not demonstrate "stasis", it had nothing to do with stasis - it was about a specific hypothesis for the evolution of sex

That's is exactly what it demonstrated, stasis as opposed transmutation.

what are you talking about - the authors of the paper rejected a hypothesis on the basis of the evidence - if only creationists would do the same - we wouldn't even be having this argument

This is what I am talking about:

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs" (Grasse, 1977).

Like I said, go back to step three.

 

[yossarian]

This is a crucial transition in the descent from a single common ancestor. This paper specificlly addressed the role of mutation in this transition and said at the outset that the origin and mechanism of sex is still one of the greatest myteries in biology. What this shows is that the synergetic mutations are offset by the antagonistic and thus no demonstrated mechanism.

no, what it says is that synergistic epistasis is likely not the explanation for the evolution of sex - it did not adress the role of mutations in the transition - it adressed the role of epistasis between mutations

So tell me, if we are going to formulate a series of hypothetesis for the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction do we rely exclusivly on mutations as the driving force of this evolutionary change? I don't think there is any question that for the unicellular common ancestor model to be demonstrated this is a crucial transition. What is more this transition must produce a selective advantage.Mutations reduce survivability of the mutant strains and the more mutations the less of a selective advantage they have.

mutation and natural selection - yes
mutations may either reduce or increase fitness - they do not always reduce "survivability"

My point exactly and as they demonstrated it is log-linearity.

I honestly don't think you know what your point is

Right and since the beneficial mutations (synergetic) are offset by the damaging ones (antagonistic) there is no demonstrated selective advantage for a mutated strain. So as Aron-Ra put it, go back to step 3.

no, you misunderstand again

synergism and antagonism in this case refer to the interactions between deleterious mutations - beneficial mutations never enter into it

if there is synergism - the cumulative effect of multiple deleterious mutations is greater than the sum of their individual fitness costs and thus the deleterious mutations are cleared from the population more quickly - which would provide an advantage for sexual reproducers

Like I said, go back to rule 3.

rule 3 is REJECTED by this paper

if by rule 3 you mean:
"3) Multiple mutations are typically more harmful together then would be expected."

A major change, for example, a sharp increase in the heart beat or the diminution by half of the kidney and thus a reduction in renal secretion, would by itself have wrought havoc with the general constitution of the animal. In order that an animal might persist after a change of this magnitude it would be necessary that the other organs of the body be also proportionally modified. In other words, an organism must change en bloc or not at all. Only saltatory modification could occur, and this idea was to Cuvier, as it is to most modern zoologists, but for very different reasons, unverified and basically absurd. Transmutation by the accumulation of alterations, great or small, would thus be impossible.
(Georges Cuvier by W.Coleman)

thank you for that irrelevant quotemine

If it doesn't produce an inheritable genetic allele in populations over time it is not evolution. If it does and it does not create a selective advantage then it results in extinction.

this is a bizzare non-sequituer

You have the cart before the horse. The definition used for species was described as an undiscoverable mystery. Where this true it would render the terms microevolution and macroevolution meaningless. Science has demonstrated that stasis is the rule and never identified the demonstrated mechanism for the descent from a unicellular common ancestor model. So, like I said, go back to step 3.

it did: its called mutation and natural selection

There are not broad implications for the theory of evolution unless stasis is the demonstrated mechanism at crucial points of transition, which is exactly what both natural science and natural history have done.

I tried to make sense of this sentence and see how it applied to the paper you brought up, but it just doesn't make sense

That's is exactly what it demonstrated, stasis as opposed transmutation.

no, it demonstrated that synergistic epistasis occurs in some cases and not in others - it has nothing to do with stasis

This is what I am talking about:

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs" (Grasse, 1977).

Like I said, go back to step three.

another quote mine, and another reference to a "step three" which demolishes your own argument

 

[mark kennedy]

Interesting the same denial made over and over while the actual substance is ignored. Relevant source data rejected as quote mining with virtually no reference to the article offered as evidence. I have come to expect this approach but really don't have time for it anymore.

By the way, I was refering to step 3 in Aron-Ra's post where I first quoted and cited the article. I don't know if you read the article but I am convinced that you are not bothering to read my posts.

Since you are oblivious to my actual point here it is one last time before I move on to the next one:

"The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs" (Grasse, 1977).

Note: This is a reference to the secular scientist who dogmaticlly asserts their false beliefs dispite the evidence, thus creating a mythology.

Have a nice day

 

[yossarian]

Interesting the same denial made over and over while the actual substance is ignored. Relevant source data rejected as quote mining with virtually no reference to the article offered as evidence. I have come to expect this approach but really don't have time for it anymore.

what substance - i'm not denying anything - i'm explaining things that you have misunderstood

and rather than "quotemining", how about "appeal to authority"

By the way, I was refering to step 3 in Aron-Ra's post where I first quoted and cited the article. I don't know if you read the article but I am convinced that you are not bothering to read my posts.

I see now what you mean by going back to step three - you're right, some new hypothesis (or already existant competing hypothesis) for the evolution of sex will have to be proposed and tested

I am reading your posts, and they continually demonstrate that you have not understood the article you referred to

"The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs" (Grasse, 1977).

Note: This is a reference to the secular scientist who dogmaticlly asserts their false beliefs dispite the evidence, thus creating a mythology.

I know of very few examples

 

[mark kennedy]

what substance - i'm not denying anything - i'm explaining things that you have misunderstood

Dispite the fact that all you have did is contradict me I have to ask, what exactly do you think I misunderstood? I did read the article and it demonstrated that the beneficial mutations and the antagonistic ones offset one another. Another interesting point of interest was that the more mutations the more the selective advantage is reduced, mutations are not driving evolution they drive organisms closer to extinction. That's natural selection in action and it is clearly demonstrated at all levels of our mythical descent from unicellular creatures.

and rather than "quotemining", how about "appeal to authority"

And instead of a substantive retort how about resorting to clutch phrases.

I see now what you mean by going back to step three - you're right, some new hypothesis (or already existant competing hypothesis) for the evolution of sex will have to be proposed and tested

The trouble is that there is no shortage of these new hypothesis being tested, its just that this supposed transition cannot be demonstrated. That is why the origin and mechanism of sex is such a mystery, just like the undiscoverable species. Science is mystified when the myth of descent from a unicellular common ancestor is confronted with real world evidence. Maybe these unicellular organisms can't evolve beyond the taxa they were created in.

I am reading your posts, and they continually demonstrate that you have not understood the article you referred to

You say you read the posts and yet you can't demonstrate that you did. You misunderstood what I meant about rule three, said you have no idea what my point was, and never bothered to examine the evidence. You just keep insisting that I do not understand the article when you didn't even bother to address the particulars of the article. How would you know I misunderstood it, you didn't even read it.

I know of very few examples

I can see at least two examples of it in you're responses to me.

 

[yossarian]

Dispite the fact that all you have did is contradict me I have to ask, what exactly do you think I misunderstood?

how about the meaning of the word epistasis, which you clearly thought had something to with the kind of stasis that refers to the fossil record

Dispite the fact that all you have did is contradict me I have to ask, what exactly do you think I misunderstood? I did read the article and it demonstrated that the beneficial mutations and the antagonistic ones offset one another.

it only took you two sentences to demonstrate that you misunderstood it

it didn't demonstrate that at all - it demonstrated that epistasis is sometimes synergistic and sometimes antagonistic - its not the fitness effects of the mutations themselves - but the interaction between them

Another interesting point of interest was that the more mutations the more the selective advantage is reduced, mutations are not driving evolution they drive organisms closer to extinction.

actually the whole point of the paper is that while this is what the mutational deterministic hypothesis would expect - they actually found the opposite in some cases - more mutations reduces the fitness cost of the individual mutations: antagonistic epistasis

this is a major misunderstanding

And instead of a substantive retort how about resorting to clutch phrases.

there was nothing of substance to retort to

The trouble is that there is no shortage of these new hypothesis being tested, its just that this supposed transition cannot be demonstrated. That is why the origin and mechanism of sex is such a mystery, just like the undiscoverable species. Science is mystified when the myth of descent from a unicellular common ancestor is confronted with real world evidence. Maybe these unicellular organisms can't evolve beyond the taxa they were created in.

theres absolutely no problem demonstrating the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction - because there are organisms that do both

the mystery isn't over the how the transition occured - its why it occured: what advantage was there in sexual reproduction

thats what the paper and such hypotheses are trying to adress

You say you read the posts and yet you can't demonstrate that you did. You misunderstood what I meant about rule three, said you have no idea what my point was, and never bothered to examine the evidence. You just keep insisting that I do not understand the article when you didn't even bother to address the particulars of the article. How would you know I misunderstood it, you didn't even read it.

I could tell from the abstract that you'd misunderstood it

i've since downloaded and read the actual article and it backs up exactly what i've been saying

I can see at least two examples of it in you're responses to me.

given that you don't even understand the evidence you think i'm ignoring, I don't take your accusation very seriously

 

[JAL]

I am not sure on that authenticating part, but let's leave it at that. I would like to ask you that if you aren't sure if someone, or something did or did not say, it would be good not to mention that person's name. For example: I was seriously confused where you got all that Moses stuff from. Could you next time be sure instead of saying that a random character did it?

It seems to me you are questioning Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch. This is a bit nit-picky, isn't it? I don't think it's necessary for me to write a book defending my belief in Mosaic authorship before I'm allowed to use his name in a post on this forum. I really don't see what this has to do with my post. (Certainly I don't expect any Muslim to prove Mohammed's authorship of the Quran before borrowing his name). Frankly I don't really care who wrote the Pentateuch because my belief in the Bible is based on revelatory experience, although it is enjoyable to see where science lends the Bible a bit of credibility (such as eighth-day circumcision). That said, the majority of ancient Hebrew tradition supported Mosaic authorship as well as the entire New Testament. When I took a secular history class in college where the textbook was written by atheists, the authors stated that the Bible has been shown to be an extremely reliable historical document barring the miracles.

And please don't respond with that silly argument that Moses' death prevented him from finishing Deuteronomy. These kind of strawmen miscontrue Yahweh as an incompetent idiot. If He's God, He could easily have had Moses pre-record the narration of his own death. Or He could have had Joshua write that particular section. God could even have written it Himself (remember how His own Fingers inscribed the Ten Commandments on stone?). It really doesn't matter. You really expect me to break with the Hebrew tradition of Mosaic authorship just because a bunch of liberals feel starved for a way to refute it? Is that really what you're getting at?

 

[mark kennedy]

how about the meaning of the word epistasis, which you clearly thought had something to with the kind of stasis that refers to the fossil record

How about the meaning of epistasis...are you kidding me? 'epi' and 'stasis' are are compond word and the word is supposed to have nothing to do with stasis?

it only took you two sentences to demonstrate that you misunderstood it

Fine, quote them and demonstrate how this is so.

it didn't demonstrate that at all - it demonstrated that epistasis is sometimes synergistic and sometimes antagonistic - its not the fitness effects of the mutations themselves - but the interaction between them

What it demonstrates is that synergeistic and anagonistic mutations both are produced in relatively equal numbers, and in effect, this demonstrates stasis.

actually the whole point of the paper is that while this is what the mutational deterministic hypothesis would expect - they actually found the opposite in some cases - more mutations reduces the fitness cost of the individual mutations: antagonistic epistasis

this is a major misunderstanding

I said that strains with one mutation had a better chance of survival then the ones with multiple ones and you think this is a misunderstanding? Just read the paper and we can get back to this one.

there was nothing of substance to retort to

Close, there was nothing of substance in the retort.

theres absolutely no problem demonstrating the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction - because there are organisms that do both

Of course there is a slight problem of a selective advantage as a result. It does not help if the change leads to extinction.

the mystery isn't over the how the transition occured - its why it occured: what advantage was there in sexual reproduction

The question is if it occured.

thats what the paper and such hypotheses are trying to adress

The hypothesis left the question unanswered except in the negative, that is why it is called the greatest mystery in biology. Exactly what Darwin said about the essense of species 'an undiscoverable mystery'. This demonstrates a major misunderstanding on you're part, the article is related directly to the subject of the thread.

I could tell from the abstract that you'd misunderstood it

Of course saying it and proving it are two different things.

i've since downloaded and read the actual article and it backs up exactly what i've been saying

All I have to demonstrate the truth or falsity of what you say is that you say you did. Believing something to be true and demonstrating it to be so or two different things. Read the article and we can talk about this some more.

given that you don't even understand the evidence you think i'm ignoring, I don't take your accusation very seriously

Given the fact that you have not refered to the actual evidence once I would have to say that the evidence is beside the point with you.

 

[JAL]

Aron-Ra:

Much of your last reply to me consisted of strawmen. For example you said that there was no evidence for Adam. That missed my point. I explicitly said that I wasn't ASKING you to believe in Adam. I was merely using him to show how it could be logically POSSIBLE that even infants stand guilty before God.

You gave examples of immoral people who CLAIMED to be sure that God was speaking. Those claims don't impress me because I don't believe them. I react to those immoralities the same way you did - with outrage. Had I lived in Abraham's day, therefore, I would have been equally outraged at his attempt to slaughter his on - UNLESS THE SAME VOICE CONVINCED ME THAT ABRAHAM WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING. And that's exactly what happened to me. That is to say, God's voice convinces me that Abraham did the right thing, so I cannot feel outraged at his act, much as I might try, even though I would feel terribly outraged at anyone else who tried to do the same violence today.

So instead of debating about all these perpretators named by you, I would rather debate your assumption that religion based on God's voice is an illogical concept. You seem to believe that religion should be believed only if it can be demonstrated logically and scientifically. But if God exists, you are tying His hands severely. You want to be logically and scientifically shown, point by point, that every possible objection to the doctrines of the Bible has been convincingly refuted. To begin with, you would have to master all science, all philosophy, all theology, and all Hebrew and Greek. And then you would have to be shown, point by point, that a particular intepretation of the Bible is correct. All this would take at least an entire lifetime of research at a library. Not only would this requisite exclude all children from knowing their heavenly Father, but even adults in third world countries who can't get to a library to do the research would stand no chance of ascertaning the truth about religion. Whereas any infant can know Him instantly if it's just a matter of hearing His voice. The very fact that the Bible depicts God's voice as the central issue lends it a bit of credibility as a religion.


Of course you will complain, "but how can I believe something if I think it's illogical?" That's the whole point. If God exists, He knows that there is really only one solution to this problem as follows. He had to give everyone a conscience that warns them, at least occasionally, that some kind of God might exist. The right thing to do is cry out for truth (just like some atheists in mortal danger who have cried out, "God, if you are there, please help me now!). That's all He asks. If this is done persistently, He must speak in such a way that the Voice CONVINCINGLY apprises you of the true religion (whether it be Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or something else). My experience convinces me it's Christianity so I would be a fool to accept anything else.


Secondly, God is a person. Tell me, why do you believe in people? Can you prove that they exist? They could be hallucinations, right? Isn't it true that you believe in them because of the evidence presented to your senses? That is to say, YOU HEAR THEIR VOICE AND SEE THEIR FACES AND BODIES? According to the NT, every Christian not only hears God's voice but receives at least vague impressions of God's enthroned form and face (see 2Cor 4:4-6). That is why Jesus rebuked the Jews thus, 'Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape' (John 5:37). Thus 'every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life' (Jn 6:40). Even if you were blind, you would believe in me by the sound of my voice. So please don't try to convince me that God's voice could not be good reason for believing in Him. (Of course He has to convince you that the true God is speaking). God would never condemn people for ignorance of Jesus Christ. He only condemns those who refuse to seek "God" in the general sense as defined by their conscience. When they seek the God-of-conscience, they end up, in my opinion, finding/hearing Christ (though not necessarily by that name). And if they eventually learn the name Jesus Christ at a later date, the same Voice confirms to them that He is the same God they already knew/heard in their conscience. Thus the OT saints made it to heaven merely by knowing God instead of the name jesus christ. It's the same person.

You spoke of your earlier days as a Christian. If you now think Christianity is illogical, I believe it's because you let the voice wax dull. It gets louder with prayer. It becomes quite convincing as it gets louder. If you won't seek God this way, you are actually tying His hands and, worse yet, possibly violating your own conscience.

 

[Mistermystery]

It seems to me you are questioning Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch. This is a bit nit-picky, isn't it? I don't think it's necessary for me to write a book defending my belief in Mosaic authorship before I'm allowed to use his name in a post on this forum.

I am asking you to back up your claims with sources. Being unable to produce such sources will lead to less credibility with me. If it is your belief (and only that) then next time state that it is. If you were to ask me where the term bacteria came from, or something simmilairy "nitpicking" I'd be happy to produce the sources on that as well. I am not questioning your beliefs as in " who wrote the bible" but in a specific practice (namely circumsision which you apperently atribute to Moses).

When I took a secular history class in college where the textbook was written by atheists, the authors stated that the Bible has been shown to be an extremely reliable historical document barring the miracles.

heh haha. Funny. I'd fail to see what this or your next part has got anything to do with the discussion at hand though. You are diverting from the allready wildly diverted topic. If you want to discuss Deuternomomy, make a new thread about it.

 

[JAL]

I am asking you to back up your claims with sources. Being unable to produce such sources will lead to less credibility with me. If it is your belief (and only that) then next time state that it is. If you were to ask me where the term bacteria came from, or something simmilairy "nitpicking" I'd be happy to produce the sources on that as well. I am not questioning your beliefs as in " who wrote the bible" but in a specific practice (namely circumsision which you apperently atribute to Moses).

How far do you want to carry this nonsense? That's your terms? Ok, from now on, every word that you use I want sources. If you happen to mention, say, a book written by an evolutionist, I want proof of authorship. You have to prove to me that he was the one who wrote that book, even if that fact is totally irrelevant to your argument, even if the CONTENT of the book is really the issue in debate, not the authorship.

heh haha. Funny. I'd fail to see what this or your next part has got anything to do with the discussion at hand though. You are diverting from the allready wildly diverted topic. If you want to discuss Deuternomomy, make a new thread about it.

If you don't see it, then I have to conclude that you don't really read my material. According to the NT, Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That's a historical claim. If these atheist scholars admit that the Bible makes reasonable historical claims, and they do so admit, then the idea that the Law was written by Moses is a plausible claim by their showing. The books used in my history class did not challenge Mosaic authorship. Other books have. So what? Most historical claims have been disputed even the holocaust.