Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[Mallon]

you must be Joking.....

on second thought; it fits you quite well, not being able to understand what is obviously clear, through some very small obstruction.
And I am sure you will not understand this as well.

No, I'm not joking, withreason. This:

again....you feel in your lable contains within it, the right to exclusion. at the risk of overlooking possibillties of advancement, only do to the merits of your own standards.

... means nothing to me. I can make neither heads nor tails of it.
Nor does this run-on atrocity:

Statements such as this ; is the example of the arrogance of your educated mind, “decreasingly poorly understood complexities” it is the work of such men as Behe , “cramming God as you say”, that have set the Ground work for exploring these complexities, whether deemed un-scientific, by his peers or not, pragmatism, seems to be quite selective when a” suggestive” infringement to evolution is introduced in explorations of those complexities, how does the Scientific mind gain understanding without the exhaustive explorations of all purposed theory?

I can understand if English is not your first language.
Perhaps hsilgne can translate? I am being totally sincere, here.

 

[hsilgne]

Perhaps hsilgne can translate? I am being totally sincere, here.

I'll do my best. Here we go.

again....you feel in your lable contains within it, the right to exclusion.

Since you consider yourself more intelligent than others, you exclude the opinions and observations of others.

at the risk of overlooking possibililties of advancement, only do to the merits of your own standards.

Because you think you are more intelligent than others, you are actually doing yourself and everyone around you a disservice because it is likely you will not advance in your studies if you continue to ignore other possible answers to the problems at hand.

Statements such as this ; is the example of the arrogance of your educated mind, “decreasingly poorly understood complexities” it is the work of such men as Behe , “cramming God as you say”, that have set the Ground work for exploring these complexities, whether deemed un-scientific, by his peers or not, pragmatism, seems to be quite selective when a” suggestive” infringement to evolution is introduced in explorations of those complexities, how does the Scientific mind gain understanding without the exhaustive explorations of all purposed theory?

If you only look to fill the holes in your own understanding of a problem and at the same time you refuse to look at other possible answers to the problem, you will gain no further understanding of the problem.

Does that help?

withreason, you can correct me if my "interpretation" has missed anything.

 

[withreason]

I'll do my best. Here we go.



Since you consider yourself more intelligent than others, you exclude the opinions and observations of others.




Because you think you are more intelligent than others, you are actually doing yourself and everyone around you a disservice because it is likely you will not advance in your studies if you continue to ignore other possible answers to the problems at hand.



If you only look to fill the holes in your own understanding of a problem and at the same time you refuse to look at other possible answers to the problem, you will gain no further understanding of the problem.

Does that help?

withreason, you can correct me if my "interpretation" has missed anything.

then you do understand !!
and you choose to reply with your
Condescending attitude twords me, becaus...there is nothing left for you to excorsize..???

 

[withreason]

then you do understand !!
and you choose to reply with your
Condescending attitude twords me, becaus...there is nothing left for you to excorsize..???

sorry hsilgne; I thought I was posting to Mallon,
you are precise...thank you!

 

[Mallon]

Thanks, hlsigne. To respond...

Since you consider yourself more intelligent than others, you exclude the opinions and observations of others.

Nowhere in this thread have I claimed to be more intelligent than others. I have simply claimed to have more education and experience on the one subject of evolution than those here who would detract from it. withreason, for example, exhibits a clear misunderstanding of the philosophy of science when he assumes that evolutionary science discredits God. That's basic science philosophy, there. Something to be learned in a first year Philosophy of Science class.
So I do not discount your opinion because I think you are unintelligent. I discount your opinion because it is ill-informed.

Because you think you are more intelligent than others, you are actually doing yourself and everyone around you a disservice because it is likely you will not advance in your studies if you continue to ignore other possible answers to the problems at hand.

If we're going to discuss evolution, we are speaking undoubtedly within the realm of science. And if we are discussing science, we must bring evidence to the table. No one here who detracts from evolution has done that yet. All I have heard thus far is hearsay.

If you only look to fill the holes in your own understanding of a problem and at the same time you refuse to look at other possible answers to the problem, you will gain no further understanding of the problem.

What alternative answers has anyone here offered up? Magic? That answer isn't allowed in science. Sorry.

 

[withreason]

withreason, for example, exhibits a clear misunderstanding of the philosophy of science when he assumes that evolutionary science discredits God. That's basic science philosophy, there. Something to be learned in a first year Philosophy of Science class.
So I do not discount your opinion because I think you are unintelligent. I discount your opinion because it is ill-informed.

I have no clue where you can assert this remark ? My introduction into this thread was based on a Scientific approach to Behe's work, My entire premise was to introduce, the inducement of IPTG into Barry's EGB that allowed the reducabilltiy of Barry's EGB, and why Williams failed to disclose, and why Behe's discloser to the Science jurnals of Barry Halls admittance to enviornmental enfluence to the "Acid test" goes un-reported. the conclusion being ..the peer conferance to assess Behe's work as un-scientific.
you derailed me from continuing my direction with your responses, assuming I have no backgound to make such inferance to works that are for the educated few.
All my following posts are only for assessing the content of this thread, and your views and perceptions, of which I see to be lacking in content from both perspectives of faith, and Science.

 

[Parmenio]

Withreason. Can you link your article again? I'd like the opportunity to converse with some of my contemporaries as well as my advisers as to exactly what you are talking about. If you can link an abstract or something of that description that will be the most helpful. Or if you can reference what chapter in Behe's book it is in, I own it, so that would also be helpful. Thank you.

 

[withreason]

Withreason. Can you link your article again? I'd like the opportunity to converse with some of my contemporaries as well as my advisers as to exactly what you are talking about. If you can link an abstract or something of that description that will be the most helpful. Or if you can reference what chapter in Behe's book it is in, I own it, so that would also be helpful. Thank you.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_responsetokmiller0101.htm

 

[Parmenio]

You wouldn't happen to have a link to an abstract for Hall's experiment? It is very difficult to deduce from Behe exactly what occurred. Basically, I'm looking for diagrams and more precise information. Do you happen to know when it was published or the journal it was published in? I have a problem taking Behe at his word, especially since this article was written 6 years ago.

 

[Parmenio]

I just read the mousetrap chapter, and honestly.. I don't see what there is to refute. I don't see anything within it that is more than just an explanation of the theory of "irreducible complexity". Honestly, I don't see the purpose in attempting to refute an analogous example. It isn't actual, just an analogy.

Overall I'm satisfied with his reply because, although he continues to defend his position, from the substance of his writing I think it should be plain to most open-minded readers that he is struggling to fend off examples that weigh heavily against Darwinism.

This is odd to find. As Miller destroys most of Darwin's Black Box, yet Behe is only able to defend the mousetrap and the "acid test". All you need do to see a proper refutation of most every point within Behe's book is search Ken Miller on youtube.

Just a side note: I found the abstract for the publication. circa 1977. I didn't think it was that long ago, took me longer to find than I thought it would.

 

[Mallon]

I have no clue where you can assert this remark ?

Post #189:

Evolution....blind attempt at defining the mechanisms of God, Relative to the definition of theory....I do not understand how Evolutionists can find a place within the peradigms of faith.....denying while complying....a confusing concept....I am never without amusement in this calcophony of inclusion......cant wait for us to come to life!! for our own confusion testifies to the whole of our state of mind, faith, and infancy of knowledge

Post #196:

I have never denied that.....it is only quite recently that (evolution)oops! that cant be right....... has made allowance for God! not the other way around! at the same time creating a closer dialogue that was not even considered 20 years ago..I hope there will be ...A big Bang..Ha Ha...of love!! some day

Maybe I was wrong to read this into your posts. But to be honest, I've had a very hard time trying to decipher much of what you've had to say so far. Judging from the responses of some of the others here, it seems I'm not the only one.

 

[Parmenio]

It might be just a bit before I post my response. I'm conversing with Dr. Miller before I post in regards to your cited experiment.

I must agree with Mallon though, there needs be some experience in certain fields to adequately understand certain theories and results. If you'd like, I'll leave the article describing the experiment for your perusal. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/85/2/193.pdf

 

[withreason]

It might be just a bit before I post my response. I'm conversing with Dr. Miller before I post in regards to your cited experiment.

I must agree with Mallon though, there needs be some experience in certain fields to adequately understand certain theories and results. If you'd like, I'll leave the article describing the experiment for your perusal. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/85/2/193.pdf

That is what I am trying to do, gain some understanding of this issue, I have researched and viewed most of the Utube,Google videos, PDF documents,and dissertations I could find, This has troubled me the most, I know what the research results have shown....I am not trying to beat a dead horse, I am trying to find out if the lactose inducement, stimulating lac permease, is an issue that would have changed the resulting conclusion of Millers finding?

 

[withreason]

Post #189:


Post #196:


Maybe I was wrong to read this into your posts. But to be honest, I've had a very hard time trying to decipher much of what you've had to say so far. Judging from the responses of some of the others here, it seems I'm not the only one.

those posts are antagonistic replys from what I was viewing in this thread, it is only within the last 20 to 30 years that evolutionists, and Christians, are sharring the the same faith, as openly as it is now. it remains confusing to me to read some of these posts,knowing that one of our paradigims as a Christian is to teach and expound upon God as the reason and answer to all of life, and Christ as the means to gain true wisdom and knowledge,with the Genisis creation being the beginning, of our Christian roots.
Evolutionary science crediting, or discrediting God is not My argument, I was stating that evolution is a theory trying to explain God without proclaiming God, yet blind to that concept....I am sorry if that sounds confusing!
in the observance of our enviornment, the information that is digested does not compute with the first 2 chapters of genesis, so the evolutionist christian violates the root of Faith, to theorize a satisfying explanation, yet claiming to be a man, or woman of faith. SO....that is to me.... the real confusing issue.

 

[KerrMetric]

The first two Chapters of Genesis are not the root of the Christian faith.

 

[Melethiel]

those posts are antagonistic replys from what I was viewing in this thread, it is only within the last 20 to 30 years that evolutionists, and Christians, are sharring the the same faith, as openly as it is now. it remains confusing to me to read some of these posts,knowing that one of our paradigims as a Christian is to teach and expound upon God as the reason and answer to all of life, and Christ as the means to gain true wisdom and knowledge,with the Genisis creation being the beginning, of our Christian roots.
Evolutionary science crediting, or discrediting God is not My argument, I was stating that evolution is a theory trying to explain God without proclaiming God, yet blind to that concept....I am sorry if that sounds confusing!
in the observance of our enviornment, the information that is digested does not compute with the first 2 chapters of genesis, so the evolutionist christian violates the root of Faith, to theorize a satisfying explanation, yet claiming to be a man, or woman of faith. SO....that is to me.... the real confusing issue.

It is only recently that a certain interpretation of Genesis has been considered "foundational" to the Christian faith. For most of history, it was the Gospel of Christ that was foundational. There have been many different interpretations of Genesis throughout the years, long before evolution was ever theorized.

 

[withreason]

The first two Chapters of Genesis are not the root of the Christian faith.

In the beginning was GOD! how do you get more root than that?
in the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and ALL things that were created were by him!!
the root of faith is "in the beginning was God!!"
if any of you disclaim that ....you have problems1

 

[KerrMetric]

In the beginning was GOD! how do you get more root than that?
in the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and ALL things that were created were by him!!
the root of faith is "in the beginning was God!!"
if any of you disclaim that ....you have problems1

Jesus is the Word not OT Jewish mythology.

I'll repreat it - the first 2 chapters of Genesis are absolutely NOT the root of our faith.

 

[withreason]

Jesus is the Word not OT Jewish mythology.

I'll repreat it - the first 2 chapters of Genesis are absolutely NOT the root of our faith.

they are the absalute!
you can not remove the creation by God and claim to have faith in him!
reduction even explains that much, not to mention
2 Timothy, Chapter 3, 016: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
all except geneis 1&2,..right?
if you remove the first 2 chapters of genisis,you remove the root & law of all the order set by God.
The elementery principle of law is constant isnt it. or is it not??
to change one is to change the whole!!
but, lets ignore that becaus God does not work by the laws of science...right!
so..if Christ coming to bruise the head of the serpent from the garden of eden constitutes the first promise of redemption, as a result of the creation of Adam,
resulting from the 6th day...resulting from the 5th..down to.. in the beginning...then tell me..where is the root?
the whole of faith is centered around Christ, born from the seed of woman being geneologicaly traced down to Adam..(Eve coming from Adam) there is a reducible root my friend.

 

[KerrMetric]

they are the absalute!
you can not remove the creation by God and claim to have faith in him!
reduction even explains that much, not to mention
2 Timothy, Chapter 3, 016: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
all except geneis 1&2,..right?
if you remove the first 2 chapters of genisis,you remove the root & law of all the order set by God.
The elementery principle of law is constant isnt it. or is it not??
to change one is to change the whole!!
but, lets ignore that becaus God does not work by the laws of science...right!
so..if Christ coming to bruise the head of the serpent from the garden of eden constitutes the first promise of redemption, as a result of the creation of Adam,
resulting from the 6th day...resulting from the 5th..down to.. in the beginning...then tell me..where is the root?
the whole of faith is centered around Christ, born from the seed of woman being geneologicaly traced down to Adam..(Eve coming from Adam) there is a reducible root my friend.

Use a spellchecker and some formatting for crying out loud. That is nigh upon unreadable.