Human foot print tells a story.

[Micaiah]

Today at 05:07 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #81 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=662305#post662305)

O, sorry, forgot about the third. And like I said before, neither side has shown me compelling evidence to convence me one way or the other. If Mr Kuban would not had been so bias in his ways of obtaining his info. I would have given it some thought. But if some one sneaks behind your back and has their own people test something to prove it's wrong, what would you think?

Could I advance the tally to four sides:

1. Christians who believe the Bible - God created the earth in six days.
2. Christians who don't believe the Bible - God caused the life forms to evolve.
3. Athiests who recognise the folly of assuming life arose spontaneously by chance, and the need for intelligent design.
4. Athiests who believe live forms evolved

Edit - reversed order of 3 and 4

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 04:24 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #73 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=662268#post662268)

I have been corrected! And I don't have a problem saying I was wrong! Came across a web site that had pics of the people who did investagate. And that's the first I've heard of anyone else doing it.

Also being a creationist does not mean that you only believe in God's word, Just like being an evolutionist does not mean you believe in everything Darwin says.

I did notice the way they took a cast image and hid it from Mr. Carl Baugh. Baugh does not own the land so why hide it? He cannot stop them. Which means they had some bias plans on testing the print. If they wanted to be non-bias, they could have took a cast of the print in front of Baugh, went to a person that neither one knew and had it tested. But Mr. Kuban's goal was to sneak and hide it and have his own people test it which is bias and would not hold up in a court of law. When ever evidence is gathered in this fashion it is thrown out of court. Just like must of the evidence was thrown out during the O.J. Simpson trial. Because a Bias Man handled it.

You are to be commended for your willingness to admit error or ignorance. I would be interested to see the results of your visit.

From what I could see, and I plan to check it out further, AIG weren't saying that the tracks were fraudulent, just that over time they have eroded to such an extent that it is difficult to see the detail that was once present.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:24 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #73

I did notice the way they took a cast image and hid it from Mr. Carl Baugh. Baugh does not own the land so why hide it? He cannot stop them. Which means they had some bias plans on testing the print. If they wanted to be non-bias, they could have took a cast of the print in front of Baugh, went to a person that neither one knew and had it tested. But Mr. Kuban's goal was to sneak and hide it and have his own people test it which is bias and would not hold up in a court of law.

You are reaching for straws.  From John Morris' article:

"Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order."

Now, this is a creationist reaching his own conclusions after examining the tracks without evolutionists being present. Want to throw this out, too?

I notice that Baugh hides all his research from scrutiny, never submitting his work for peer-review.  Was any evolutionist present at his experiments concerning the biosphere that you claim are completed? Isn't that just as "biased" as what you claim above? 

The conclusion is very clear: you cannot validly use the Paluxey tracks as evidence against evolution, as you tried to do when starting this thread.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:12 AM Micaiah said this in Post #101

Could I advance the tally to four sides:

1. Christians who believe the Bible - God created the earth in six days.
2. Christians who don't believe the Bible - God caused the life forms to evolve.
3. Athiests who believe live forms evolved
4. Athiests who recognise the folly of assuming life arose spontaneously by chance, and the need for intelligent design.

Nope. #2 is very biased.  The Christians believe the Bible. They look at the two contradictory creation stories and realize God never meant you to read them literally.  What you insist on doing, Micaiah, is elevate your interpretation of the Bible as the only valid one.  That places you above your fellow Christians and above God.

There are more that 4 sides. See http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp for all the sides in the creationism-evolution continuum.

For instance, Hugh Ross at www.reasons.org doesn't fit any of the 4 categories above.  Neither does Behe.  He is a Christian, doesn't believe in the 6 days, but holds to intelligent design.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 07:16 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #44 

  

Showing that regaurdless of what evidence was presented your minds were already made up once you found out what the sudject was on.

False conclusion, Ikester.  What your poll doesn't take into account are those of us who started out open-minded and looked at all the evidence we could find -- including that evidence falsifying the footprints as human that we have presented to you.  Instead of being close-minded, we were convinced by the evidence that the Paluxey footprints are NOT human!  This isn't reflected in any of your polling questions, is it?

 

[Micaiah]

So we meet again on this topic. You have yet to tell me where you stand on this matter. Are you a Christian. I don't think you are particularly well placed to give an assessment on what Christians should or shouldn't believe if you make no claim to being a Christian.

It is a common ploy to brand those who stand for what is right as being self righteous. Those who understand God's teaching will recognise being willing to believe His truth is no cause for pride. It is simply a matter of faith and obedience.

Agreed, there will be a continuum, but the above describe the four main positions.

 

[Micaiah]

Yesterday at 11:58 PM lucaspa said this in Post #105 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=662619#post662619)

False conclusion, Ikester.  What your poll doesn't take into account are those of us who started out open-minded and looked at all the evidence we could find -- including that evidence falsifying the footprints as human that we have presented to you.  Instead of being close-minded, we were convinced by the evidence that the Paluxey footprints are NOT human!  This isn't reflected in any of your polling questions, is it?

I understand the tracks have been eroded over the years, and are now not as clear as they once were. There are old timers who were apparently convinced these tracks were human prints. Did you see the tracks when they were first formed. If not, I'd suggest some caution in the assertions you make would be warranted.

 

[Micaiah]

This AIG Link will provide information about Hugh Ross. He sits between 1 and 2 above but clearly doesn't believe the Biblical account of Genesis.

 

[Micaiah]

This AIG Link will provide information on Behe. He is a Roman Catholic. The article is not clear on whether he is or considers himself to be a Christian. I'd put him somewhere between 2 and 3.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:42 AM Micaiah said this in Post #108 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=662679#post662679)

This AIG Link will provide information about Hugh Ross. He sits between 1 and 2 above but clearly doesn't believe the Biblical account of Genesis.

When you say, "doesn't believe the Biblical account of Genesis", you mean he doesn't take it literally. But he still believes God created everything, which is the underlying message in Genesis.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:16 AM Micaiah said this in Post #106
So we meet again on this topic. You have yet to tell me where you stand on this matter. Are you a Christian. I don't think you are particularly well placed to give an assessment on what Christians should or shouldn't believe if you make no claim to being a Christian.

It is a common ploy to brand those who stand for what is right as being self righteous. Those who understand God's teaching will recognise being willing to believe His truth is no cause for pride. It is simply a matter of faith and obedience.

Agreed, there will be a continuum, but the above describe the four main positions.

It's not even close to the main positions.  Whether I am or am not a Christian is something you'll have to decide for yourself.  It has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments or whether Christians do or can accept evolution.

Where did I say "self-righteous"? I am simply saying that you are mistaking your human interpretation of Genesis for God.  Do you deny that?  You are the one saying that anyone who does not agree with creationism doesn't believe in the  Bible, not I.  I submit that insisting that your interpretation must be the correct one is indeed a matter of human pride.  In fact, I'll go farther. I say it's apostasy.  You are setting yourself up as above God.  You get to tell God how He created.

I submit the main positions are:

1. Young earth creationism.
2. Old earth creationism.
3. theistic evolution.
4. atheistic evolution.

ID falls into old earth creationism. altho that can be argued, since IDers are a little confused, and Behe describes himself (sometimes) as a theistic evolutionist.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:25 AM Micaiah said this in Post #107

I understand the tracks have been eroded over the years, and are now not as clear as they once were. There are old timers who were apparently convinced these tracks were human prints. Did you see the tracks when they were first formed. If not, I'd suggest some caution in the assertions you make would be warranted.

The "erosion" is taking out some of the loose mud fill that led to the false conclusion that they were human prints.

However, that doesn't affect that your poll was poorly phrased and your conclusion of bias in the respondents open-mindedness. What you are doing now is simply arguing against the conclusions we arrived at after examining the data.  You are saying that the "original data" (which we conveniently can't get to) backs your position.

What you are doing, Ikester, is making your hypothesis unfalsifiable.  By going back to some unobtainable "original" you are saying that we can't examine the "real" data. You are no longer appealing to science but to belief. The best you can say is that the footprints might be an anomaly.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 01:13 AM lucaspa said this in Post #111 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=662732#post662732)

It's not even close to the main positions.  Whether I am or am not a Christian is something you'll have to decide for yourself.  It has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments or whether Christians do or can accept evolution.

Where did I say "self-righteous"? I am simply saying that you are mistaking your human interpretation of Genesis for God.  Do you deny that?  You are the one saying that anyone who does not agree with creationism doesn't believe in the  Bible, not I.  I submit that insisting that your interpretation must be the correct one is indeed a matter of human pride.  In fact, I'll go farther. I say it's apostasy.  You are setting yourself up as above God.  You get to tell God how He created.

I submit the main positions are:

1. Young earth creationism.
2. Old earth creationism.
3. theistic evolution.
4. atheistic evolution.

ID falls into old earth creationism. altho that can be argued, since IDers are a little confused, and Behe describes himself (sometimes) as a theistic evolutionist.

Your reluctance to make your position clear leads me to one conclusion.

What about the guys (seesaw) who suggest we started from little creatures dropped here from outer space aliens. I think your groupings are boring and do not cover all bases ( and neither do mine, but mine are not boring)

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:42 AM Micaiah said this in Post #108

This AIG Link will provide information about Hugh Ross. He sits between 1 and 2 above but clearly doesn't believe the Biblical account of Genesis.

I have information on Hugh Ross. I don't need AiG to do my thinking for me.  Go to www.reasons.org and see for yourself. 

Notice that AiG doesn't say Ross isn't Christian, just that he disagrees with their view of creationism.  As you acknowledge, he doesn't fit into any of your categories, but lies between them. Which shows your categories to be flawed. My original point. Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:51 AM Micaiah said this in Post #109

This AIG Link will provide information on Behe. He is a Roman Catholic. The article is not clear on whether he is or considers himself to be a Christian. I'd put him somewhere between 2 and 3.

Again, I don't need AiG to do my thinking for me. I've read Behe's Darwin's Black Box and many of his other works.

Now, why would a Roman Catholic not consider himself to be a Christian? If he were not a Christian, he would hardly belong to the Catholic Church, would he? How could he get thru the Apostle's Creed?  You are attempting to re-define "Christian" as only those who are Biblical literalists and YECers.  IOW, only those who agree with you.  Does that sound prideful?  It sure does to me.

"Q. You're a practicing Catholic and a believer in God. Have your religious beliefs influenced your scientific work?

A. My religious beliefs haven't influenced my scientific work."
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_pittinterview0201.htm

Again, if you have to put him between categories, then the categories are flawed in exactly the manner I suggested. Thank you for backing me up, Micaiah.

Micaiah, are you aware that Christian theologians were even more eager to accept evolution than scientists?  YEC and special creation had put Christianity into some really tight theological corners.  Evolution got them out.

 

[Micaiah]

Give me a clear and precise definition (preferably one that is correct) on what makes a person a Christian as a starting point.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:22 PM Micaiah said this in Post #113

Your reluctance to make your position clear leads me to one conclusion.

Well, you have already shown you are good at jumping to conclusions you want to reach.  So why should this be any different?

Micaiah, one more time: "To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."  I am in this forum as a scientist.  My personal worldview is irrelevant.  What I can do is point out that respected Christian theologians explicitly reject your literalistic reading of Genesis, including Luther and Calvin.  I can point out that a literal reading of the text shows two inconsistent creation stories, indicating that they are not meant to be read literally.  I can point out the logical theological consequences of your position.  Now, if you want to argue the arguments, then go ahead. 

Instead, if you want to take the easy way out and label me an atheist so you can ignore anything I say, I can't stop you.  However, the tactic will be transparent to everyone else, including you.

What about the guys (seesaw) who suggest we started from little creatures dropped here from outer space aliens. I think your groupings are boring and do not cover all bases ( and neither do mine, but mine are not boring)

LOL!! So now you want to include "interest" as a criteria?  Not accuracy, but entertainment value? Yes, that would be conistent with your other positions -- go for show instead of substance.

I am not aware that seesaw had that position.  When the panspermia position gets examined, it too is falsified.  Phylogenetic studies would pick that up by having the genes be independent entities (when they were dropped).

 

[Zadok001]

Today at 03:12 PM Micaiah said this in Post #101

Could I advance the tally to four sides:

1. Christians who believe the Bible - God created the earth in six days.
2. Christians who don't believe the Bible - God caused the life forms to evolve.
3. Athiests who recognise the folly of assuming life arose spontaneously by chance, and the need for intelligent design.
4. Athiests who believe live forms evolved

Edit - reversed order of 3 and 4

Allow me to note how incredibly bias those terms are.  "Folly?"  "Believe the Bible?"  This 'list' is an advertisement for your beliefs.

But more importantly, #3 is an actively contradictory postition.  No atheist believes intelligent design is necessitated, heck, no atheist believes in intelligent design theory AT ALL.

Atheist = No belief in God.  ID = Necessitates the existance of a deity.  The two positions are totally incompatible.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:40 PM Micaiah said this in Post #116

Give me a clear and precise definition (preferably one that is correct) on what makes a person a Christian as a starting point.

So, you want to argue semantics?  You mean you used the term Christian and decided that people were or were not Christian without having an idea of what makes a person a Christian?  Shame on you.  I bet you had an idea, but now are scared to defend it.  OK, let's look at some definitions.

"A Christian is someone who has decided to entrust his or her life to Jesus Christ. A Christian trusts Christ for forgiveness of sin, a right standing before God, and guidance in life."  http://www.riverpower.org/answers/real_christian.htm

"Three Tests of Authentic Christianity
<P align=justify>In the first epistle of John, the apostle gives a definition of authentic Christianity and an authentic Christian. John says that a true Christian is born of God and therefore has a new heart—a heart of flesh, not of stone. Because a Christian has a new heart, he also has a new intellect, a new mind, a new will, and new emotions.
<P align=justify>In 1 John 5:1 we read, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." One who is born of God has a new mind and will make the correct, orthodox confession that Jesus is the Christ. Why does a Christian have a new mind? He has been born of God. So this confession made with his intellect is the result of supernatural regeneration. Thus, we can make this proposition: Regeneration precedes faith.
<P align=justify>In 1 John 2:29 we read, "If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him." This means the person who obeys God and does righteousness has been born of God. His obedience proves that he has received a new will because he experienced the great miracle of God called regeneration. Thus, we can make a second proposition: Regeneration precedes obedience.
<P align=justify>Not only does a regenerate person have a new intellect and new will, but he also has new affections, new emotions. In 1 John 4:7 we read, "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God." A Christian loves God. He has this new affection, new emotion by which he loves God because he has been born of God. Thus, we can make a third proposition: Regeneration precedes love.
<P align=justify>These are three tests the apostle gives regarding authentic Christianity."&nbsp; http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/sermon_trans/2002/Apostolic_Definition_of_Authentic_Christian.html
<P align=justify>"Overview:<!--mstheme-->

One of the more interesting, and frustrating, features of religion is the variety of meanings given to common terms. Many religious words have multiple -- often mutually exclusive -- meanings. For example:
<P align=justify><!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist-->
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><!--msthemelist-->
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=baseline width=42><IMG height=15 alt=bullet hspace=13 src="http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/nature/nabull1.gif" width=15></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="100%"><!--mstheme-->[font="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica"]We have found 9 meanings for the term "<I>cult</I>:" one positive, four neutral, three negative and one very negative.<!--mstheme-->[/font]<!--msthemelist--></TD></TR><!--msthemelist-->
<TR>
<TD vAlign=baseline width=42><IMG height=15 alt=bullet hspace=13 src="http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/nature/nabull1.gif" width=15></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="100%"><!--mstheme-->[font="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica"]We have found 17 meanings for the term "<I>witch</I>" - mostly unrelated to each other; mostly negative.&nbsp;<!--mstheme-->[/font]<!--msthemelist--></TD></TR><!--msthemelist--></TBODY></TABLE><!--mstheme-->[font="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica"]

There are also many distinct definitions of the term "<I>Christian.</I>" Different people have defined a "<I>Christian</I>" as a person who has:

1. Heard the Gospel in a certain way, and accepted its message, or
2. "Saved" in their youth or adulthood, (i.e. trusting Jesus as Lord and Savior), or
3. Been baptized as an infant, or
4. Gone to church regularly, or
5. Recited and agreed with a specific church creed, or
6. Simply tried to understand and follow Jesus' teachings.

Following these different definitions, the percentage of North American adults who are Christians currently ranges from less than 1% to about 75%.

Within a given denomination or wing of Christianity, there is usually a consensus about who is a Christian, and who is not. However, there is often little agreement between members of different faith groups on a common definition of "<I>Christianity</I>." "&nbsp; http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

"Main Entry: <B><SUP>1</SUP>Chris·tian</B> <IMG height=11 src="http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif" width=16 border=0>
Pronunciation: <TT>'kris-ch&amp;n, 'krish-</TT>
Function: <I>noun</I>
Etymology: Latin <I>christianus, </I>adjective &amp; n., from Greek <I>christianos, </I>from <I>Christos</I>
Date: 1526
<B>1 a</B> <B>:</B> one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ <B>b </B>(1) <B>: DISCIPLE [/font]</B>2 (2) <B>:</B> a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) <B>:</B> a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961"&nbsp; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Which one do you want to go with, Micaiah?&nbsp; All of them have in common a belief in the&nbsp;teachings of Jesus.
<P align=justify><!--msthemeseparator-->

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:44 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #118

Allow me to note how incredibly bias those terms are.&nbsp; "Folly?"&nbsp; "Believe the Bible?"&nbsp; This 'list' is an advertisement for your beliefs.

But more importantly, #3 is an actively contradictory postition.&nbsp; No atheist believes intelligent design is necessitated, heck, no atheist believes in intelligent design theory AT ALL.

Atheist = No belief in God.&nbsp; ID = Necessitates the existance of a deity.&nbsp; The two positions are totally incompatible.

Nice catch.&nbsp; Yes, it is an advertisement for Micaiah's beliefs.&nbsp; It's not at all neutral or an attempt to accurately portray the position of the different groups.&nbsp; It's a way for Micaiah to lump all those who accept evolution into the category "atheists".&nbsp;

It's a great embarrassment to creationists that most Christians accept evololution and reject their literalistic interpretation of the Bible.&nbsp; So there are 2 tactics: kick anyone who accepts evolution out of Christianity and insert those subtle words like "folly" in describing any other position.

AiG says it wants to bring people to Christianity.&nbsp; Kicking people out of Christianity seems a strange way to do that.