The Proof

[IrishRockhound]

*sigh* Dannager, please do not mock the other posters here. If you disagree with them, fine, but be aware that the mods have specifically banned non-creationists from debating in the Creationism forum. Fellowship posts only, such as my post just before yours.

Polite and unemotional discussion is a hallmark of good debate.

 

[Dannager]

*sigh* Dannager, please do not mock the other posters here. If you disagree with them, fine, but be aware that the mods have specifically banned non-creationists from debating in the Creationism forum. Fellowship posts only, such as my post just before yours.

Polite and unemotional discussion is a hallmark of good debate.

You're right. I've edited my post.

 

[ptamper]

Yes I think we should show a little more respect on all sides. THis is for the good of all. I have proper and genuine respect for people like Dannager and Anonymous who are good and honest. These are people who I respect 110 percent even as my opinion is different absolutely.

But aslo we must accept that some us have received much pain for our thought. Yes I have been punched. Yes I havve been spit. Yes I have been ridiculed and called a stammeridiot.

Freedom of these is what makes this forum such a valuable place of gold and which should be preserved with ferocity. But lets embrace opponent view. I find the opponent viewpoint to be of supreme benefit.

This is a thing of great emotion for us all.. I believe it natural to have love and undersanding for all side.

 

[FallingWaters]

Yes I think we should show a little more respect on all sides. THis is for the good of all. I have proper and genuine respect for people like Dannager and Anonymous who are good and honest. These are people who I respect 110 percent even as my opinion is different absolutely.

But aslo we must accept that some us have received much pain for our thought. Yes I have been punched. Yes I havve been spit. Yes I have been ridiculed and called a stammeridiot.

Freedom of these is what makes this forum such a valuable place of gold and which should be preserved with ferocity. But lets embrace opponent view. I find the opponent viewpoint to be of supreme benefit.

This is a thing of great emotion for us all.. I believe it natural to have love and undersanding for all side.

Good for you, but it belongs in the other forum, not here.

 

[ptamper]

Good for you, but it belongs in the other forum, not here.

I see the point you make FallingWater. You are correct. THere is a fine path we step with the right form of discussion. This is noted. But I have some serious concerns about your general tone and treatment of peopel. Simple courtesy of fellow human seems to be out of fashion.

May I also observe that you seem to have anger and hate for peopel who put points which you disagree. Why are you so angry.

 

[FallingWaters]

You are mistaken. I am not angry, but I am done putting up with people who come in here and insult our world view.

I apologize that I offended you.

 

[anonymous1515]

Well, to be honest, I don't think that I insulted your worldview. I am just providing a reasonable alternative. If anybody should be offended, I would think it should be ptamper. I was quite dismissive and immature when I said:

I urge you to take a philosophy of religion class. And then take a philosophy of science class.

And then come back and redo your post.

I am not trying to insult your worldview Fallingwaters, but rather I am trying to show you how science works. Forgive me, but you seem quite hostile towards science in general. I was hoping to soften your attitude towards it, and perhaps introduce you to a more enthusiastic view of the scientific endeavour.

 

[FallingWaters]

Well, to be honest, I don't think that I insulted your worldview. I am just providing a reasonable alternative. If anybody should be offended, I would think it should be ptamper. I was quite dismissive and immature when I said:



I am not trying to insult your worldview Fallingwaters, but rather I am trying to show you how science works. Forgive me, but you seem quite hostile towards science in general. I was hoping to soften your attitude towards it, and perhaps introduce you to a more enthusiastic view of the scientific endeavour.

I am not interested in any non-creationist point of view.
And I happen to love science.

 

[anonymous1515]

I am not interested in any non-creationist point of view.
And I happen to love science.

Well that's not good! People other than creationists can have some very good ideas, you know. You might be limiting yourself for no reason. Just my thoughts...

Anyways, I can see I'm not welcome here. Take care all!

 

[ptamper]

I am not interested in any non-creationist point of view.
And I happen to love science.

Yes, I have seen many people with this approach. I have to stand very firmly agasint it. From my experience the person with this approach is very often a person with little true faith.

It is the person who has weak confidence in their belief that they spit and cuss at people who try to talk with them.

Yes I know these people as I have met many on both sides of debate. The scientist who refuses to take head out of books of graphs and numbers and computers and will never put his head up. And yes I have seen punched in the face by one of these kind who did not like my opinion.

And then we have peopel of our own. People who have fixed on passage from a book and refuse to put their head up. THer refuse to hear how people interpret passage. How passage changes with chaning of the world and such.

Both of these I have no time for. And when I see bullying take place I stand against. Like any decent Christain would/

 

[anonymous1515]

I have to spread some reputation around before I can give you more ptamper. Don't worry though, it's on the way.

 

[vossler]

Yes, I have seen many people with this approach. I have to stand very firmly agasint it. From my experience the person with this approach is very often a person with little true faith.

It is the person who has weak confidence in their belief that they spit and cuss at people who try to talk with them.

This is an interesting stance. Just because you seem to be offended that someone doesn't wish to dialog with you concerning a subject which they believe they are confident and well versed on, you then turn around and assert their confidence is weak. I would submit that it is your own confidence that appears weak. Why else would you be looking for a confrontation in an area where those that are there are not seeking it? Is that the example Jesus gave us? Hardly!

Yes I know these people as I have met many on both sides of debate. The scientist who refuses to take head out of books of graphs and numbers and computers and will never put his head up. And yes I have seen punched in the face by one of these kind who did not like my opinion.

Then you tell us you've been punched in the face for confronting someone. Hmmm...in all my years of dialog, both online and in person, no one has ever come close to doing that.

And then we have peopel of our own. People who have fixed on passage from a book and refuse to put their head up. THer refuse to hear how people interpret passage. How passage changes with chaning of the world and such.

Then you make the assertion that passages in the Bible change with a changing world. Is it any wonder that someone doesn't wish to dialog with you? I know after hearing that I'm certainly not interested hearing from you.

Both of these I have no time for. And when I see bullying take place I stand against. Like any decent Christain would/

The only bullying that I see happening is you and your attitude towards this subject and Falling Waters.

 

[FallingWaters]

...

Vossler!!
Just when I'd unsubscribed from this forum decided I was never coming back!
Here you are!
(Don't talk me out of it this time.)

Nice to see you again!

I've decided that I'm just going to spend my time studying Creation Science materials elsewhere.

You can always PM me if you want.

God bless you; I've missed you!

 

[ptamper]

This is an interesting stance. Just because you seem to be offended that someone doesn't wish to dialog with you concerning a subject which they believe they are confident and well versed on, you then turn around and assert their confidence is weak. I would submit that it is your own confidence that appears weak. Why else would you be looking for a confrontation in an area where those that are there are not seeking it? Is that the example Jesus gave us? Hardly!

I will say very firmly that I have no interest in debating with Falling Water. I see little to gain from a person who has such poor manners and lack of decent respect. My beef is with the kind of person who seems to wear like a badge the fact that they are not interested in the opinon of others. I do not stand for this.

Then you make the assertion that passages in the Bible change with a changing world.

Well yes Vossler you have picked up on poor communication by me here. I thank you for this as it is poor and bad worded. But my meaning should be obviousl. I do not mean the text of passage changes. I mean that the way interpret changes.

I give you example of this. THere is advice in Bible that peopel who cuss and swear should be stoned to death. No I despise the act of cussing. To me it is almost like a physical attack. But I do not call for peopel who cuss to be stoned to death

When this was written the world was different place and it would not seem so extreme. This is an example of how the interpretatin of paasages changes over time. Do you see?

Do you call for people who swear to be stoned? i would not be critical of you for this. Indeed I do know of people who hold this view.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, philosophy of religion was relatively secular. But if it wasn't approached in that manner, then it would just be church. I think it is wise that they show both atheistic and religious philosophical positions, rather than just one side of the coin.

That is not how it is presented. It's not like they have the courage of their convictions and present atheistic philosophy as an alternative to traditional theism. They simply assume that their naturalistic assumptions are superior and pretend to be objective, which is impossible. If this were a case of them just being resolute in their ideology we could have an interesting discussion on why they think so, but sadly that is not the case.

They are trying to systematically replace traditional theism with their atheistic philosophy and I am appalled at the dishonest and deceitful tactics.

Well, yes, alleles are variations in a given gene. A change in allele frequencies need not mean a change in allele frequencies that already exist though. For example, mutation can add a new allele into the population.

Show me even one example of how this kind of a mutation has a beneficial affect on the human brain. These genes are highly conserved for a very good reason, the deleterious affects would be devastating. If science has taught us anything it's that we do not assume anything and evolution would have us assume everything with regards to our origins.

Well, the mechanism has been explained. Random mutation and natural selection are mechanisms. I am not very familiar with the transition between apes and humans, but I do have a few questions about this study (and you seem to by the guy to ask about it )

First of all, with regards to the evolution of the human genome from that of apes, natural selection as an explanation has been rejected:

Although it is more difficult to quantify the expected contributions of selection in the ancestral population, it is clear that the effects would have to be very strong to explain the large-scale variation observed across mammalian genomes. There is tentative evidence from in-depth analysis of divergence and diversity that natural selection is not the major contributor to the large-scale patterns of genetic variability in humans. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature Sept 05​

It's ironic that they have the nerve to say that Darwin's 'predictions' have been marvelously confirmed and then reject his mechanism for the actual adaptation. The truth is that they never question the assumption of a common ancestor. That is in my view, pure, undiluted bias.

Has it been demonstrated conclusively that point mutations in any one of the 18 nucleotides involved in the change from chimps to humans would be fatal? For example, has it been demonstrated that you need to have all 18 nucleotides change at the same time for the human HAR1 gene to function? Or does it function equally or better when only one nucleotide changes at a time?

What has been demonstrated is obvious. It would require that an RNA regulatory gene be almost perfectly preserved for hundreds of millions of years and then suddenly, without explanation, get 18 substitutions. How becomes a vital question and they don't make the slightest attempt at an explanation.

The excerpt from the paper you provided does not explain it. The fact that such a drastic change had to happen so quickly does not falsify evolution.

I would submit that it does and they know it. Nothing can falsify an a priori assumption and and I have no problem with that, given one unconditional point. You have to state that before you pretend to base your ideas on science. The facts have demonstrated that there is no conceivable way for this extraordinary giant leap in evolution and if they had the courage of their convictions they would admit the alternative explanation.

They never do and it's leading science down a blind alley in the dark.

It is conceivable that that mutation and natural selection could have worked to produce such a change. The onus is now on scientists (and creationists) to design a test to falsify that prediction. You have not provided enough information here to satisfactorily do so here. Maybe there are other papers that deal with that particular sequence?

There are a bunch of them, read the two provided for you and we can move on to others. Don't pretend that this has no impact of your opinion because I have done this enough to know a shred of doubt when I see one.

But I do appreciate your post. It is very interesting, and quite fun to think about. Thanks.

Very glad you found it interesting and I appreciate the exchange.

By the way, if you think that this piece of evidence is enough to falsify evolution from common descent, then perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss it? Up to you.

There have been threads in the past and their will be others. I can't really start a new thread right now since I am a little preoccupied right now. Things may change in the very near future but I can't promise anything. Be patient and I will be happy to start a thread on that very topic, God willing and the creek don't rise .

Keep questioning and I wish you great success in your quest for the truth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

This is an interesting stance. Just because you seem to be offended that someone doesn't wish to dialog with you concerning a subject which they believe they are confident and well versed on, you then turn around and assert their confidence is weak. I would submit that it is your own confidence that appears weak. Why else would you be looking for a confrontation in an area where those that are there are not seeking it? Is that the example Jesus gave us? Hardly!
Then you tell us you've been punched in the face for confronting someone. Hmmm...in all my years of dialog, both online and in person, no one has ever come close to doing that.
Then you make the assertion that passages in the Bible change with a changing world. Is it any wonder that someone doesn't wish to dialog with you? I know after hearing that I'm certainly not interested hearing from you.
The only bullying that I see happening is you and your attitude towards this subject and Falling Waters.

I was just backing out of the thread when I happened across your post. Good to see you again brother, that is really all I wanted to say.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[anonymous1515]

Haha, excellent! I think that I will have to study this paper in a bit more detail before I make any counter-points to your arguments. I've only taken 2 or 3 genetics classes so far in my education, so alot of the terminology presented in the paper is a little difficult for me to understand. Not to worry though - I love learning new stuff, so I'll do my best to learn what I can from this article. I'm quite busy for the next week or so, but I'll do my best to read through it by next week.

For now though, I have a response to the first part of your post:

That is not how it is presented. It's not like they have the courage of their convictions and present atheistic philosophy as an alternative to traditional theism. They simply assume that their naturalistic assumptions are superior and pretend to be objective, which is impossible. If this were a case of them just being resolute in their ideology we could have an interesting discussion on why they think so, but sadly that is not the case.

They are trying to systematically replace traditional theism with their atheistic philosophy and I am appalled at the dishonest and deceitful tactics.

I am sorry that your philosophy of religion was so dishonest. My professor was actually quite good. He did not tell us his religious beliefs, and he did not bias the course in any way that I could see. He certainly didn't start his lectures by saying "Well, Augustine somehow convinced himself God exists with the following proof...."

We studied primarily Christianity, and arguments for and against the existence of God, the necessity of religion in society, and so on.

The course was like a roller coaster for most of the students involved - they began mostly as skeptics, then became convinced by proofs of God's existence, then convinced by proofs against God's existence, then convinced again of His existence. It was actually quite funny. The professor left us with none of his own thoughts on the issue, and encouraged us to research the topic for ourselves. It was quite well done. It is unfortunate that your experience was not similar.

 

[vossler]

I will say very firmly that I have no interest in debating with Falling Water. I see little to gain from a person who has such poor manners and lack of decent respect. My beef is with the kind of person who seems to wear like a badge the fact that they are not interested in the opinon of others. I do not stand for this.

Yet you continued your dialog with her in a forum where such dialog isn't encouraged and where she clearly stated it wasn't welcome.

Well yes Vossler you have picked up on poor communication by me here. I thank you for this as it is poor and bad worded. But my meaning should be obviousl. I do not mean the text of passage changes. I mean that the way interpret changes.

I give you example of this. THere is advice in Bible that peopel who cuss and swear should be stoned to death. No I despise the act of cussing. To me it is almost like a physical attack. But I do not call for peopel who cuss to be stoned to death

When this was written the world was different place and it would not seem so extreme. This is an example of how the interpretatin of paasages changes over time. Do you see?

I see your train of thought, yet I would say that our interpretation hasn't really changed just our response. In other words, people still see cursing as bad, we just don't stone them any longer.

Do you call for people who swear to be stoned? i would not be critical of you for this. Indeed I do know of people who hold this view.

Before you asking me this question it never crossed my mind. Having now given it a moment to digest I can't say that on the surface it's such a bad idea. That certainly would curtail or even eliminate a very bad characteristic. Ah but that is my human and legalistic side speaking, whereas biblically that can no longer be considered the proper response. So yes the idea is somewhat appealing but it isn't very doable or biblical according to the New Testament.

 

[vossler]

I was just backing out of the thread when I happened across your post. Good to see you again brother, that is really all I wanted to say.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thanks, it's nice to be welcomed. I've got a new job that doesn't allow for much free time hence the lack of posts here. Glad to see you and others are still here in defense of the Truth.

 

[FallingWaters]

...
Before you asking me this question it never crossed my mind. Having now given it a moment to digest I can't say that on the surface it's such a bad idea. That certainly would curtail or even eliminate a very bad characteristic. Ah but that is my human and legalistic side speaking, whereas biblically that can no longer be considered the proper response. So yes the idea is somewhat appealing but it isn't very doable or biblical according to the New Testament.

Being stoned to death for cursing would certainly help toward relieving the world over-population problem as well.