New year brings new attacks on evolution in schools
The new year is bringing new controversy over teaching evolution in public schools, with two bills in New Hampshire seeking to require teachers to teach the theory more as philosophy than science.
Meanwhile, an Indiana state senator has introduced a bill that would allow school boards to require the teaching of creationism.
New Hampshire House Bill 1148 would “require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists’ political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism.”
The second proposal in the New Hampshire House, HB 1457, does not mention evolution specifically but would “require science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes.”
Continue reading at www.msnbc.msn.com
And that's exactly what evolution is: a THEORY. That is why it is referred to as, "the THEORY of evolution."
-Linda F.A scientific theory means a guess, right?
Umm, no. People often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook's law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
-Jeff DixonJeff D. sez: "A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events…"
Then by your definition, evolution cannot even be a valid theory, since there is nothing observable, repeatable, or testable about it whatsoever. It is merely a speculation of something that supposedly happened in the past.
"…and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers." How can it be verified if it cannot be observed nor tested? Again, evolution fails your test for being labeled as a theory.
-keyboardsharkA theory is SPECULATION,Period.
-blackhawkYour ignorance of scientific terms is your issue and has nothing to do with whether the terms mean what you want them to mean or not.
-Jeff DixonRelativity theory, too, is "SPECULATION,Period" [sic]?
Nice emotional response, blackhawk. But next time, calm down before bellowing.
Now, go find yourself a good dictionary and look up 'conjecture', 'hypothesis', and 'speculation'. In fact, why not visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trinity_Site_Ob…? It could open your closed, little mind.
-Paul TrombleyThe origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconception…
-Jeff DixonThis shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
-Jeff DixonHowever, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
-Jeff DixonThe thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconception…
"For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents." Yes, there are variations in gene EXPRESSION, but those variations were already present in the gene pool to begin with. No new genetic information was created, only a re-shuffling of existing genetic information. Humans, for example, have varying lengths and thicknesses of arms and legs (appendages) but they are still human. No evolution again.
"Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success." Natural selection at work again, not evolution
"For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today." once again, natural selection, not evolution.
-keyboardsharkBiologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time.
-Jeff DixonYes, there can be a change in the gene pool of a population. But it would be a LOSS of genetic information, not newly-created genetic information. The original, created kind (not species, which branched off as a result of natural selection) possessed all the genetic information it would ever have, and would ever need, in its genome. The variations we see are either dominance of different genes in some populations, or a loss of genetic information resulting from mutations in other populations.
For example, the dog "kind" includes wolves, coyotes, German Shepherds, Poodles, and Schnauzers. All dogs, but very different in appearance. Many domestic dog breeds were the result of artificial selection (selective cross-breeding by humans).
-keyboardsharkAre mutations deleterious?
According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that "most mutations are deleterious" and that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation", there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.
But wait ———-
today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.
That raises a few questions —–
if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16)?
if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here?
But wait — there's more:
Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, "theory", all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* — the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ——- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know
what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but
what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it)?
But wait — we're not done YET . . . . . .
Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them "cancer victims".
But wait, we're STILL not finished . . . . . .
In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells — sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.
If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits — such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist "arguments" would certainly have killed all of Noah's children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.
Explain, please
By: Lenny Flank http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009…
-Jeff DixonJeff (re: Are mutations deleterious)
You give the example of Noah as apparently, from what I gather, as an argument against deleterious mutations continuing on through history. But you are forgetting one very important fact: The Bible lists the ages of certain individual throughout the history of the Bible, and we can see a very sharp drop-off in the number of years people lived.
For example, before the flood, Methuselah lived 969 years (Gen 5:27), Enos lived 905 years (Gen 5:11), and Cainan lived 910 years (Gen 5:14). Noah himself was 600 years old when the flood began (Gen 7:6), and lived a total of 950 years (Gen 9:29). But after the flood, the death ages of men dropped precipitously. Shem, one of Noah's sons, lived 600 years (Gen 110-11), and his son Arphaxad lived 438 years (Gen:11:12-13). A few generations later, we see Reu lived 239 years (Gen 11:20-21), Serug his son lived 230 years (Gen 11:22-23), and his son Nahor, who was the grandfather of Abraham, lived 148 years.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
So we can already see the effects of genetic degeneration as it affected the lifespans of men even thousand of years ago. Later, Abraham lived to be 175 years old (Gen 25:7), Isaac his son lived 180 years, and Jacob his son lived 147 years (Gen 47:28), and so on, to the present day, where the average lifespan is now about 72 years. Very definite evidence of a genetic deterioriation.
You are oversimplifying when you say, " that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus" . The human genome is stored on 23 chromosome pairs. 22 of these are autosomal chromosome pairs, while the remaining pair is sex-determining. But the haploid human genome occupies a total of just over 3 billion DNA base pairs, so there are far more gene combinations possible for a human to express than 16, if that is what you are implying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
-keyboardsharkPART 3
Some other information to consider: "There are estimated to be between 20,000 and 25,000 human protein-coding genes. The 2.9 billion[13][14] base pairs of the haploid human genome correspond to a maximum of about 725 megabytes of data, since every base pair can be coded by 2 bits. Since individual genomes vary by less than 1% from each other, they can be losslessly compressed to roughly 4 megabytes."
This issue is far more complex than your simplified cut-and-paste explanation. "today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now."
-keyboardsharkPART 4
You are oversimplifying. There were not 16 alleles on the ark, and now over 400. That is simply not so. You do not need 100 individuals to get 400 or 700 allels. There are far more combinations than 16 in a population of 3 adults, considering there are about 3 billion base pairs and 20,000 to 25,000 protein coding genes alone.
As for the deleterious or neutral mutations, you have to remember that most of them would not be carried on to the next generation, so the idea that there would be an exponential explosion of deleterious mutations is also oversimplified. Harmful mutations often greatly shorten the lifespan or cause sterility in the organism affected, so they would be far less likely to reproduce. We do see a historic degeneration in the lifespan of man, but not to the point to where it has affected reproduction. Yet.
-keyboardsharkEach person has two. With 8 people that gives a maximum of 16. You need to read up on genetics.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/genetics…
PART 1
Actually you are correct, Jeff. We do have two alleles, sometimes three (blood). It's somewhat confusing because an allele is one of two or more forms of a gene or a genetic locus (generally a group of genes), yet there are estimated to be between 20,000 and 25,000 human protein-coding genes. I was thinking in terms of the number of genes, not alleles, and your observation is correct.
But does that mean that there would not have been enough genetic INFORMATION on the ark to continue the population? Let's look at an example:
-keyboardsharkYou are missing the point. Since each human only has two, that means there could be no more than 16 different ones when the flood was over. 2 alleles times 8 people equals 16 maximum alleles. However, today there are much more than 16 existing. Therefore, there has been an increase of genetic information. That is the bottom line.
You said there is no increase in genetic information. You are wrong.
And Joe, throwing out misinformation is not providing an actual response.
-Jeff DixonJeff, this problem has been resolved. The only one handing out "misinformation" is you. Don't you have something better to do?
-Joe Anzilottilol. The only thing that has been resolved is that you keep demonstrating an appalling lack of scientific knowledge.
-Jeff DixonI have provided you with objective correct information repeatedly Jeff. You know it and I know it.
-Joe AnzilottiNo, you keep offering me your delusion. That is not useful in any way, shape or form.
-Jeff DixonYou know Jeff, debating you would be an entertaining thing to do–as it would require little thought to surpass your canned tripe.
-Joe AnzilottiYour bacchanalian selfishness is shining right through and blinding me
-Joe AnzilottiYes, it is very selfish to bring accurate information to people. You have an odd definition of words.
-Jeff DixonFrankly Jeff, you are not providing any accurate information to anyone.
-Joe AnzilottiOf course I am. I provide links to the current information on science. Your refusal to accept them is your problem.
-Jeff DixonYour statements do not warrant 100% certainty–furthermore, you are no more than an agnostic in actuality.
-Joe AnzilottiI have never claimed my comments are 100% certain. In fact, I have admitted to making mistakes on here several times. More meaningless twaddle from you.
And you are hardly in charge of deciding my personal self-identification. Atheist describes me more more accurately.
-Jeff DixonEach human has only two for each trait, not just two total. They are cumulative. An allele is only specific to each trait. Remember, an allele is one of two or more forms of a gene or a genetic locus (generally a group of genes).
Obviously, there are hundreds of different gene groups that define different characteristics, such as eye color, hair color, etc., but each one would have its own two alleles, so there are far more than 2 alleles/person. There are 2 alleles/person/trait (gene group). Since there are estimated to be between 20,000 and 25,000 human protein-coding genes, do the math.
-keyboardsharkJeff has seen this answer previously Keyboardshark, and he will disregard it again.
-Joe AnzilottiCorrect, two for each trait. Which is what my original post clearly stated. Trying to divert the topic when you are losing the debate is humorous.
Joe, I do not disregard anything. I point out why it is wrong. as I did here.
-Jeff DixonLet me be very specific here. as my original post clearly states, but you glossed over, if there were 8 people on the ark with alleles on each trait, there would be a maximum of 16 alleles on each trait. On some traits, there are now hundreds of alleles.
The 16 has increased to hundreds. That is an increase in genetic information, unless somehow 16 is the same as hundreds in creationist math.
You claim there is no increase in genetic information. You are wrong.
-Jeff DixonLet me see Jeff–again–2 alleles by themselves do not make a trait. What is so hard about that? A combination of alleles make a trait. Can't you see that?
-Joe AnzilottiAnd the 16 alleles have increased to several hundred. Which is an increase in genetic information. What is so hard for you to understand about this simple fact?
-Jeff DixonI explained this to you already. Why are you trying to aggravate folks with this silly repetition again? Go back to your narcissism at the gym.
-Joe AnzilottiTo put it yet another way: An "Allele" is not as simple as you think. This is a fact. See if you can understand that. Explained that to you already.
-Joe AnzilottiNo reply again Jeff. As expected when the going gets tough.
-Joe AnzilottiYour response is nonsensical. It matters naught if an allele is simple or not. We are discussing math, not complexity. I realize your are scientifically illiterate, but you are outdoing yourself today.
-Jeff DixonSimply put Jeff, as you like it, the DNA is not as simple as you surmise. Further it is not yet completely understood either. A fact my friend.
-Joe AnzilottiPART 2
"At the gene locus for the ABO blood type carbohydrate antigens in humans,[3] classical genetics recognizes three alleles, IA, IB, and IO, that determine compatibility of blood transfusions. Any individual has one of six possible genotypes (AA, AO, BB, BO, AB, and OO) that produce one of four possible phenotypes: "A" (produced by AA homozygous and AO heterozygous genotypes), "B" (produced by BB homozygous and BO heterozygous genotypes), "AB" heterozygotes, and "O" homozygotes. It is now known that each of the A, B, and O alleles is actually a class of multiple alleles with different DNA sequences that produce proteins with identical properties: more than 70 alleles are known at the ABO locus.[4] An individual with "Type A" blood may be an AO heterozygote, an AA homozygote, or an A'A heterozygote with two different 'A' alleles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele
So to summarize, there are 3 alleles for blood type: IA, IB, and IO, or more commonly as we know them A, B, and O. So there can be 6 types produced: AA, AO, BB, BO, AB, and OO.
-keyboardsharkPART 3
Remembering that each parent contributes 1/2 of the genetic material to the fertilized egg, all we would need in order to pass on all 3 of the alleles is for one parent to be AB and the other AO, BO, or OO OR one parent to be AA and the other BO or OO, OR one parent to be BB and the other to be AO or OO, and so on, with the following 12 combinations: AB/AO, AO/AB, AB/BO, BO/AB, AB/OO, OO/AB, AA/BO, BO/AA, BB/AO, AO/BB, AO/BO, BO/AO.
So we can very easily see that even two persons would be highly likely to pass on all 3 alleles unless they were both the exact same type (OO/OO, AA/AA. BB/BB) or lacked one (AA/BB, OO/AA, OO/BB). And with six people (3 couples) it would virtually assure that all 3 would be passed on.
The same principle applies for other characteristics, such as eye color, hair color, pigment, etc. Most have only two alleles, one dominant and one recessive: "In many cases, genotypic interactions between the two alleles at a locus can be described as dominant or recessive," (same ref), so it would be even easier for 6 individuals to pass on all possible alleles.
-keyboardsharkKeyboardshark, don't waste your time explaining all of this to Jeff. I have done it already–over the exact same data that he put up–up above. He simply will not listen to reason. He uses the cut and paste to cause dissension and that is it. He just needs prayer.
-Joe AnzilottiIt is you that refuses to listen to reason. As with all your posts.
-Jeff DixonPART 2
So you are correct, that the Law has to do with the transfer of energy, but the transfer also represents "a standard increase in disorder" and likewise " disorder must be continually augmenting evenly throughout the universe." In other words, systems naturally progress from a state of order to a state of disorder.
This is where evolution falls short, as it claims to be based on an INCREASE of order in a natural system. Now, if there were an outside force working upon the system to maintain or increase its state of order, then entropy could be overcome. But evolution's claim is that it is an entirely natural process requiring no external input.
-keyboardsharkIt does not matter if they disappear. The issue is they exist at all.
-Jeff Dixonthis was posted in the wrong place.
-Jeff DixonBut where is the mechanism? Sunlight, or wind, or gravity, are just raw energy. For a living organism to be able to use an energy source, there must be a mechanism to convert that energy to a useful form, such as chemical energy.
-keyboardsharkThe evolutionists make no claim that evolution requires no external input. Organisms must eat (an external input) and receive warmth (an external input) etc.
-SteveEntropy means that in a closed system, things revert to ever-lower energy states. But if a "complex" system requires less energy to maintain than a simpler one, then entropy favors the development of complexity. Which is harder to keep alive in your house: a relatively complex animal like a cat or a dog, or a simpler one like a goldfish?
Entropy cannot be overcome ONLY in a closed system. But if the universe is a closed system, there is no God. So entropy is as deadly to creationism and intelligent design as it is to evolution.
Steve: External inputs are not the issue. Food and light can be considered external to the organism, but in and of themselves, they do not cause anything to happen without a mechanism, i.e., a digestive system, chlorophyl, etc. In fact, sunlight is useless to most animals because they have no ability to convert the light energy to a useful form, such as chemical energy, but a plant does. Vitamin D production in humans is the only direct benefit of sunlight I can think of offhand, though there may be a few others.
Not sure what you mean about a complex system requiring less energy, because a more complex system would need a larger initial input of energy to begin with than a less complex system. If the complex system then sustained itself partly with stored energy, it might need less external energy input for a while, but eventually the energy would have to be replaced from an external source, such as sunlight, food, or some other material having stored energy within itself.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
A cat or dog might be easier to keep alive than a goldfish, simply because they have a far greater lifespan on average than a goldfish, and do not require a container of oxygenated water in order to survive. But it takes far more energy (calories) to keep a dog or cat alive, so I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
Yes, entropy can be overcome in both a closed system and one that is not, AS LONG AS there is an energy input and a mechanism of some kind to convert the energy into a useful form.
Not sure why you think the concept of a closed universe is fatal to creationism or God's existence. When the universe was created, it was supplied with all the matter and energy it would ever get or ever need, so I don't know why you would think that God would have to continually keep added matter or energy. That would violate the Laws of Energy Conservation. A closed universe is perfectly compatible to both God and creation. I'm not even sure what that would have to do with creation at all. Perhaps you could elaborate.
-keyboardsharkJeff sez: "However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things." Yes that's true, but you are forgetting one thing: The tomato plant has a mechanism (photosynthesis) for converting the sunlight's raw energy (light energy) into a usable form (chemical energy in the form of glucose). http://www.ehow.com/facts_7599167_plant-light-ene…
Without that mechanism the sun's energy would be useless. So if you are claiming that evolution is somehow assisted by sunlight, then you have to explain what mechanism it is using to convert the energy into a useful form, and more importantly, how that mechanism was able to create itself.
-keyboardsharkhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/0211…
Here is an article that discusses that very thing. Enjoy.
-Jeff Dixon"Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order."
All of these examples are of non-living things, and are based on the behavior of materials in relation to the laws of nature that God has instituted to maintain order in the universe. They are only temporary, and random events as well.
For example, lets say that right after a very windy day, we observe a beautifully formed sand dune, with nearly perfectly symmetrical sides. Now, the question is, is that sand dune likely to maintain or increase its order when a hurricane shows up tomorrow? Don't think so. It has now, in fact, almost certainly drastically DECREASED its order, or possibly formed another formation, but the original "order" has been obliterated..
A snowflake: As soon as the temperature rises above freezing, it melts and all semblance of its crystal structure vanishes, and it returns to a liquid state. None of these examples proves anything about whether living cells could increase their orderliness and become increasingly complex.
-keyboardsharkHere is a good, simplified explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: "Applying this knowledge to nature, physicists found that the total entropy change (change in S) always increases for every naturally occurring event (within a closed system) that could be then observed. Thus, they theorized, disorder must be continually augmenting evenly throughout the universe. When you put ice into a hot cup of tea (aristocrats of the Victorian era were constantly thinking of tea), heat will flow from the hot tea to the cold ice and melt the ice in the beloved beverage. Then, once the energy in the cup is evenly distributed, the cooled tea would reach a maximum state of entropy. This situation represents a standard increase in disorder, believed to be perpetually occurring throughout the entire universe." http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae28…
-keyboardsharkFrom Jeff's source: "One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years."
-keyboardsharkHow is this evolution? We start with an insect, and we end up with an insect. The only difference is that the first one had a recessive trait for pesticide resistance, and the second had the same trait, but by cross breeding, it became the dominant trait. In other words, the genetic information was already present in the population of insects, but became dominant through natural or artificial selection. Natural selection, yes. Evolution, no.
Keyboardshark,
Your very question and conclusion betray a severe ignorance about what evolutionary theory teaches and predicts. You're redefining "evolution" for your own purposes: to build a strawman and attack it. May I suggest you read scientific literature other than YEC or ID material?
-Mike BeidlerMike: Then perhaps you'd care to explain the "real" definition of evolution, and how it could cause a single-celled organism to eventually "evolve" into a complex, multi-cellular organism like a lion, for example (or a Green Bay Packer).
I'm fully in agreement that organisms can change over time through natural selection, but this is NOT evolution. Natural selection is merely a re-shuffling of existing genetic information, whereas the kind of 'evolution' that would be necessary to go from single cell to extreme complexity would require the creation of vast amounts of NEW genetic information. Insects developing a resistance is not adding any information–it was already present in the gene pool.
-keyboardsharkMutations.
-Jeff DixonPART 1
PROBLEM # 1: Mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014.(10 to the power of 14–didn't copy very well-KBS) That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.
-keyboardsharkPART 3
What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.
-keyboardsharkPART 4
It was at this level (just four related mutations) that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to four different antibiotics at the same time. The odds against the mutation explanation were simply too great, so they began to look for another mechanism—and they found it. First of all, using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods of time, they found out that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were “invented.” Genetic variability was “built right into” the bacteria. Did the nonresistant varieties get resistant by mutation? No. Resistant forms were already present. Furthermore, certain bacteria have little rings of DNA, called plasmids, that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn’t mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.
-keyboardsharkPART 5
Bacteria can be made antibiotic resistant by mutation, but biologist Novick9 calls such forms “evolutionary cripples.” The mutation typically damages a growth factor, so that the mutationally crippled bacteria can scarcely survive outside the lab. The antibiotic resistance carried by plasmids results from enzymes produced to break down the antibiotic. Such bacteria do not have their growth crippled by mutation. Their resistance is by design.
TO READ REST OF PROBLEMS: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/muta…
-keyboardsharkJeff:
Quick answers–Speciation is not evolution. Evolution would require the creation of massive amounts of NEW genetic information, and hence many new forms and functions. Speciation does not fit the bill.
"Evolution has never been observed." "One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years." This is natural selection, not evolution.
"Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over.." Making observations of fossils does not predict anything. Evidence does not speak for itself. It must be interpreted. Similarity of design does not prove descent.
"The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming". And they are…..(they were not listed). Again, observing fossils is no proof of anything.
-keyboardsharkYour attempt to change evolution is cute, but futile. Speciation is evolution. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time, which occurs when during speciation.
-Jeff DixonPART 1
Speciation does not produce NEW genetic information. It is only a re-ordering of existing genetic information.
For example, Darwin's (in)famous Galapagos Islands finches are provided as an example of speciation. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Biology…
In short, there are 13 species of finches found nowhere else on earth listed, of which 7 are ground finches, and 6 are tree finches. There are various characteristics listed for each type, such as stout beaks for eating seeds of one size or another, beaks adapted for eating insects or nectar, etc.
But where is the evolution? They are all clearly finches, even though they have somewhat different beaks and slightly different appearance, but are all still finches. This is a very good example of natural selection, of which I am in full agreement is a valid, natural process that can be observed occurring in recent history.
-keyboardsharkhttp://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk…
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/muta…
-keyboardsharkPART 2
The genetic information necessary to produce the varieties of beaks and minor changes in appearance was already present in the population of finches, but became dominant due to these features (longer beak, etc.) being advantageous to their survival in the conditions in the area to which they migrated. Again, I fully agree that this is a valid, natural process.
But what I don't agree with is that this is claimed to be evolution. Macro evolution, which would result in entirely new forms or functions, would require the creation of vast amounts of NEW genetic information, which is not happening with speciation.
Look at domestic dogs, for example. We notice a very wide range of features when you compare Great Danes, Schnauzers, Poodles, German Shepherds, and Pit Bulls, for example. They are all domestic dogs, yet look quite different, but the varieties were produced by cross-breeding, not evolution.
-keyboardsharkhttp://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers…
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/spec…
-keyboardsharkI post scientific information from scientists and you post quasi scientific babble from theologists.
As I asked you earlier, would you try to get accounting information from people who think the barter system is a better way to handle finances?
-Jeff DixonIf you think it's 'babble' then refute it point-by-point with factual evidence.
All of your sources are from scientists with evolutionary presuppositions. My sources are from scientists (yes, scientists, not theologists) with creationist presuppositions. Every scientist has to have a frame of reference, a presupposition or worldview, from which to start, so why do you imply that your sources are somehow more objective or unbiased?
I find it incredible that you won't even read what creation scientists have to say. I have at least read parts of the sources you provide, and made comments based on those sources. Why the trepidation? Doesn't sound like you're very secure in your evolutionary beliefs if you won't even read what the opposite side of the aisle has to say.
-keyboardsharkMy site does that very thing.
I read what creation scientists say all the time. You are making unfounded comments here. But that is pretty standard for you.
-Jeff DixonYou may indeed do that on your own site, but on this site, where the conversation is occurring, you are refusing to address the creationist arguments. I wasn't trying to say that you NEVER address creationist arguments, but since I am not familiar with your site, I have to base my opinion on what you write here.
-keyboardsharkAt best, the idea of evolution is no more than a hypothesis, for there are no observable changes from one species to another; nor are there observable developments of the complex parts of the body such as the eye, the ear, the digestive system, and many others which all work together to be the body.
-JohnnyFor Jeff: Best-selling author Ray Comfort has a love-hate relationship with atheists: They hate him, but he loves them. Atheists, notes Comfort, are disturbed when he simply and elegantly states exactly what they believe-that nothing created everything, which is a scientific impossibility-and in so doing exposes the common error that atheists are committed to illogical thinking. Now, as the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" approaches, Comfort debunks this prominent view with his latest book: "Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution".
-msjallen"Nothing Created Everything" offers readers a fascinating and intensely thought-provoking glimpse into Comfort's world-an ongoing dialogue with professed atheists.
#2 for Jeff: Comfort dedicates the book to popular contemporary atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins, who introduced the oxymoronic concept "Nothing Created Everything": "To Richard Dawkins, in the sincere hope that he looks beyond the hypocrisy of organized religion, before he goes to meet his maker."
-msjallenDawkins wrote in his 2004 book "The Ancestor's Tale": "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing-is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
"Nothing created Everything" is Comfort's informative, loving, and no-holds-barred response to Dawkins. "Anyone who tries to actually justify that nothing created everything has to be insane," writes Comfort. "This is a scientific impossibility." He continues, "There's no way to say it kindly, but such thoughts show that the atheist doesn't think, and proves the Bible right when it says that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlhFB-93Zwk&fe…
-Jeff DixonJeff,
You're right – in science, a theory is supposed to be postulated when there is enough evidence to support it in a significant number of cases. Then it is tested and repeated until, if found to be true in every known case, it is classified as a law.
The problem is that evolution – not species variation and adaptation, but chemical evolution which purports that life came from inanimate chemicals that by time and chance grouped in just the right way to produce the components which then by more time and chance over and over combined to produce the simplest form of life, which by more time and chance became more complicated and eventually produced "life as we know it" in all its complexity and diversity – is not even a theory. There is no definitive scientific evidence to support it, it has never been observed to happen, is not happening now, and even when in laboratory environments, knowing the outcome we want to have happen, we cannot make it happen. Therefore it is what is known as a failed theory. That should be no problem. Science is rife with failed theories. That's the point of discovery and experimentation. Observe, theorize, test, discard the false, keep the true, reiterate and eventually arrive at the truth.
The problem lies in the fact that despite the obvious lack of evidence, the lack of ability to reproduce what is believed to have occurred, no one is throwing out the false. Why is that? Perhaps the most honest answer is to be found in these statements:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
(Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.)
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
-Paul(Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997)
The theory of evolution is not concerned with how life started. The theory describes how existing life changes. Your strawman argument has nothing to do with evolution. You are talking about Abiogenesis, which is a completely different theory.
Life could have been created by a god and it would not change one aspect of the theory of evolution.
-Jeff DixonIt should also be taught that Science does not prove anything because it can always be disproved by one counter example. Science is about discovery and when mixed with politics, it becomes propaganda (ex: evolution).
-SingerAnd Evolution has stood up to every challenge.
-Jeff DixonJeff D. sez: "And Evolution has stood up to every challenge. "
Except for the challenge of common sense, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and lack of observable, testable and repeatable phenomena. Evolution cannot even explain how the first life form came into existence. Spontaneous generation has already been proven a failure. Last I heard, they were claiming it arrived here from space aliens, or by an asteroid from some other galaxy, which still does not answer the question of, where did the space aliens come from?
I think you are confused. It is the BIBLE that has stood up to every challlenge. It alone has the answers to the origins of life.
-keyboardsharkEvolution does not concern itself with how the first lifeform was created. It could have been created by the Christian god, Zeus or Quezacotl. Evolution describes how existing life changes over time.
-Jeff DixonJeff D. sez: "It (life) could have been created by the Christian god…" Wait a minute, I thought you were a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. Now you are saying that the Christian God, or some other God, may have created life. You can't have it both ways, my friend.
And you cannot pick and choose what you wish to believe from the Bible. It is either all true, or else we can't trust anything it says. The Bible flatly states that all life forms were created on the 3rd – 6th days of creation. There is absolutely no provision whatsoever in the Bible for evolution. If we are going to accept that God DID create the first lifeform, then we have to accept His account of HOW He did it as well.
-keyboardsharkI am not having it both ways. I am explaining that the theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. Evolution simply describes how existing life changes over time.
-Jeff DixonPART 2
Zeus could not have created life because, number one, he was a myth, and number two, even if we accept the account of his mythology, he was supposedly the child of two other mythological 'gods' and so was not considered the first lifeform in this mixed-up myth. http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_1…
As for Quezacotl, he is apparently a guardian force from Final Fantasy VIII, so I'm not sure why you would include this as a possibility for a creator. Methinks you have been spending too much time playing games and not enough time thinking logically.
-keyboardsharkQuetzalcoatl [ˌkɛtsəlkəʊˈætəl]
-Jeff Dixonn
(Non-Christian Religions / Other Non-Christian Religions) a god of the Aztecs and Toltecs, represented as a feathered serpent
They are all myths. However, just because Zeus was fathered by others gods, would not limit his being responsible for life on earth.
-Jeff DixonYou are saying they are all myths, but I thought you just got done saying that it was possible that they created the first life form. I'm confused, unless you mean that just Zeus and Quetzalcoatl or Quezacotl or whatever 'his' name is, are myths. If that is the case, then it sounds like you are acknowledging that the God of the Bible is really the creator (which He is). Amen, brother, I'm glad you have finally seen the light.
-keyboardsharkThey are all myths. You reading comprehension skills need some serious improvement.
-Jeff DixonThen your conclusion is that a myth created the first lifeform.
-keyboardsharkIt does not offer any real answers. It provides a mythical account of the origins of the universe, as do all religions.
-Jeff DixonBut yet evolution has no logical or scientific explanation of how the first lifeform came into existence through entirely natural processes, nor how the universe itself came into existence. But the Bible explains both.
-keyboardsharkBull crap
-blackhawkEvolution has stood up to no challenge. The idea of evolution persists only because the alternative is to allow for a creation, by a creator, and if that's true then we are accountable to that creator. It would be more palatable for a natural process to be the reason for life, because then we only have to answer to ourselves. Palatable, but ultimately fatal. Because the evidence that defies evolution supports the Biblical account of creation. And the same Bible warns that we are on a collision course with our own destruction, unless we take advantage of the one solution – substitutionary atonement through Christ Jesus.
-PaulOr, better yet … "ex: creationism." Which, BTW, goes against any and all scientific reasonableness.
-Mike BeidlerYou really meant to say that evolution goes against any and all scientific reasonableness, did you not?
-JohnnyNo, Johnny, I meant that special creationism goes against any and all scientific reasonableness.
-Mike BeidlerI thought you were confused; now I know that you are extremely confused and are unable to think things through.
-JohnnyJohnny: You can still believe in the triune God and possess a Christ-centered faith as a theistic evolutionist. You'll also have a greater appreciation for Genesis in its cultural and literary context. Worked for me. Feel free to visit my blog and start reading from the first entry in 2007. You'll find I'm a lot more educated that you suggest and have thought things through considerably.
-Mike BeidlerI'd be interested to see where the Bible teaches evolution….. Hmmm, I don't seem to be able to find it.
-keyboardsharkThen you've been reading with discernment, searching the Scripture to see if it is so. Excellent!
The others who claim "theistic evolution" are just trying to fit the world into God's word instead of measuring the world BY God's word.
-PaulActually Mike, you can't.
You see the same triune God, who revealed Himself, man's problem and provided the solution for that problem through the substitutionary atonement of His own Son's sacrifice to pay for our sin, ALSO said He created all things in 6 days, that each was created and reproduces only after its own "kind" (dogs are dogs, and never can be cats, apes are apes and never can be man) and that there is one flesh of birds, and another of fish, and another of man (no crossing of flesh types allowed). So, either He lied about the 6 days of creation (and yes, it was 6 actual, literal, morning to evening days of about 24 hours – see Exodus 20:11) or He's telling the truth. If He's lied about that – then He can't be believed about anything else He says in His word, including triunty, Christ, atonement, salvation, or anything.
Sorry. This is clearly the case of "let God be true, but every man a liar" and "…because they did not see fit to keep God in their knowledge any longer, He gave them over to a depraved mind…and because they did not honor Him as God they became foolish in their speculation…"
-PaulI think it's high time the public schools taught Creationism and Darwinism on an even and level playing field. It should be the right for students to study both, and then decide what they choose to believe. Darwinism has been stuffed down the throats and indoctrinated into the brains of our nations young people as the only belief system. Bravo for New Hampshire!
-SargeE5@SargeE5
-PaulRight, since both can never be proven or observed and therefore require faith (although all creation cries out that there's a creator, so believing in a creator God is reasoned faith).
Sarge, do you also think we should teach astrology along side astronomy, alchemy along side physics and voodo along side medical science?
-Jeff DixonI think it is high time we abandon the public Schools all together http://exodusmandate.org/
For The Record : Public School Is Evil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edZ1xhozjzQ
-MegansDadFor The Record : How To Win The Culture War http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0d0uzRalHY&fe…
-MegansDadReading through the comments at the msnbc site it is apparent that real science is not taught in our educational system. What is being taught is "evolutionism" and it is a religious worldview system. This evolutionary religious has now become the religion of the educational indoctrinators in our system and is the enforced religion of judges of the state to be the religion of the state and our schools are churches of the state. Evolution is not science never has been it is just another cosmological theoretical system that is atheistic in its core. Dawkins is the premier evangelist of the evolutionary religious system. The same old canards against any critique of evolution is in all the comments and reveals a complete loss of reason, rational thinking and hard evidence that shows evolution is impossible is dismissed as is truth. Considering this is an msnbc article the substance of the irrational Pavlovian responses to objections to the religious worldview of evolution should surprise no one.
-woodyIsn't it funny that, even with evolutionists in control of the media, schools, university, and the mainstream scientific community, that a mere 16 percent of respondents subscribed to the belief of "secular evolution": that humans have evolved with no divine guidance. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-am… (link from Huffington Post, a very liberal web site, BTW). 40% believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years.
Hmmm, you don't suppose that the reason the public is not buying it is because evolution makes no sense and is not true? Naaah.
-keyboardsharkThe reason the public is not "buying it" (in your words) is that the public is, for all intents and purposes, uneducated and ignorant about the topic. Might just have to make some more donations to the NCSE soon …
-Mike BeidlerYou mean "not fully brainwashed", not "uneducated and ignorant". How could they be "ignorant" of evolutionary teaching when that is all they get from public schools and universities where they are taught, and are also force-fed the same malarky by the secular scientists, with the help of the secular/atheist media, that it is true?
I'll match your donation to NCSE with mine to AIG.
-keyboardsharkAnd 31% of the public believes in astrology. That hardly makes it true.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008/12/11/31-…
That's correct, but on the other hand, the schools and universities are not teaching that astrology is true, and the mainstream science community, with the help of the mass media, is not force-feeding the public the same ideas that it is true at the same time. If evolution really were true, the numbers should be far higher for it considering the mass indoctrination.
-keyboardsharkKeyboardshark hit the nail on the head. How frightening it is to progressives, atheists, liberals, and other psuedo thinkers when one questions the highly speculative, unproven, inaccurate, and "faith driven" theory of Darwinism, which requires one have faith in a evolutionary process built on a very sandy scientific foundation. To look at Darwinism as "established fact", as many of our academics do, is to dismiss critical thinking and turn the scientific approach of actually proving your theory into one of merely accepting what Darwin conjectured. I would invite serious students of the evolution vs creation controversy to read the questions and answers posted from a creationist perspective on the Oro Valley Christian Reader.
-John J FlanaganAll the HuffingtonPost story proves is that when you present poorly worded survey questions to a scientifically illiterate population you get meaningless answers.
-SteveAnd you know how the survey was worded? Please provide some proof, Steve.
-keyboardsharkI followed the link to the Gallup site. None of the three choices presented by Gallup means much to folks whose understanding of evolution is that it's "just a theory" or who are ignorant of what was going on 10,000 years ago (humans were creating sophisticated artworks in the caves of Europe and beginning to settle down and raise crops in the Fertile Cresent).
-SteveHad you read either the huffpost story or the survey itself carefully, you would have found that the percentage of Americans who believe that God created humans in their present form has fallen from 44% to 40% since 1982 (that delusion peaked at 47% in the 1990s), while the percentage who belive that humans evolved (with or without divine guidance) has risen from 47% to 54%. So the public is (slowly) realizing that evolution makes far better sense than any of its critics. Perhaps it's time for you to get on board?
No, this change shows that the public is less able to think things through because of indoctrination.
-JohnnyIf the change had been in the other direction, you'd be crowing about the wisdom of the American people. You'll also note that the survey found that the more education people have, the more they believe in evolution.
-SteveSorry, you're losing the argument because your beliefs are illgocial and so un-Christian.
"In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God . . . all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made." ("Logic" is as good a translation of logos as "the Word" — maybe better, given the overtones the word had in Jesus' day that our word "word" lacks.)
"In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God . . . all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made." It says without HIM was not anything made. Logic is not a "HIM". Jesus Christ is a person, not a concept.
"You'll also note that the survey found that the more education people have, the more they believe in evolution." Yes, as I noted, this is where the heaviest indoctrination (translation:brainwashing) is concentrated, so we would expect those with the most exposure to this propaganda to buy into it most heavily. No surprise there.
BTW, some of the greatest minds, such as Steve Jobs, Abraham Lincoln, William Shakespeare, Mark Zuckerberg, billionaire founder of Facebook and many, many others (http://www.collegedropoutshalloffame.com/index.htm) never attended or never completed college, so let's disavow ourselves of the idea that college grads are intellectually superior.
-keyboardsharkIf anything, Steve, it proves that evolutionists are confusing the public with their indoctrination. Since only 16 percent of respondents subscribed to the belief of "secular evolution" that means only 16% don't believe in God. Of the other 84% who DO believe in God, 32% (38% X 84%) have been confused into also believing in evolution, thanks to the constant drumbeat of indoctrination in the public schools, universities, media, and so-called mainstream scientists.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
You cannot believe the Bible AND believe evolution, because the concept of evolution is found nowhere in the Bible–the two are mutually exclusive. When individuals who are perceived as authority figures (school teachers, profs, scientists, etc) repeat over and over that humans have evolved from apes, then even those who believe in God become confused. They know for fact that the world itself could not have come into existence by itself, and they know God is the creator of life, so they know God is real, on the one hand, yet some very-intelligent sounding authority figures insist evolution is true, so they try to blend the two ideas together, not realizing how illogical it is to do so.
So the only two intellectually (not factually) honest positions one can hold are: 1. God created everything in its present form the way He says He did in His Word OR 2.There is no God and everything somehow, some way, created itself and evolved. I'll take 40% over 16% any old day.
-keyboardsharkYou are right! I am convinced! Now tell me which of the seven biblical accounts of creation is the one that is the true and inerrant one? The seven day one that begins with watery chaos? The one day one that begins with a parched earth? Lady Wisdom's account? the Psalmist's? John's prologue? Jesus' conflation of the twoGenesis accounts? Isaiah's account where God slays the dragon?
-SteveAnd, by the way, no serious scientist has ever claimed that humans evolved from apes. Individuals perceived as authority figures (preachers, creation scientists, and some who post here) have repeatedly claimed that evolution says that, but it's a lie. The anti-evolutionists who have actually studied the science know it's a lie, but they also know that gulliable and/or intellectually lazy people will fall for it.
And next time you're sick or need help with a legal problem, don't go to a college-educated doctor or lawyer. I'm sure you'll get better advice from a high-school dropout whose mind hasn't be clouded with intellectuallly dishonest book learning.
Now I see the problem, Steve. You apparently do not know the difference between an account of one event told in different ways at different times by different writers vs. thinking that each mention of the creation in the Book is a DIFFERENT account. They are all one in the same. There are not seven, or six, or four or even two accounts of creation. It is the very same account.
There are two accounts of the birth of Christ, one in Matthew and one in Luke, told in different ways. Does this mean that Jesus was born twice, or that there were two seperate people named Jesus born about the same time, in the same villiage? Think about what you are saying.
-keyboardsharkBut was Jesus born in a stable, because as Luke says his parents came to Bethlehem for the census and there was no room in the inn, or in his parents' house because Matthew claims Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem before and after the birth? That's two different stories, not one story told two different ways.
-SteveSimilarly, Matthew clearly says the Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two donkeys (the disciples "brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon"), while John say there was only one ass, and that Jesus got it himself. They can't both be factually correct accounts of the same event, although both Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to the event.
Likewise, you can make the seven creation accounts one only by inventing an eighth story that contradicts at least some details of at least some of the Biblical seven.
Matthew 2:11 says, "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. "
Notice it says "the young child", not a baby. When the wise men came from the east, it was at least a year, and probably two years, after He had been born. That was why Herod slew all the children in Bethlehem TWO YEARS OLD AND UNDER (verse 16), because he was no longer looking for a newborn baby.
This is why you have to read God's Word carefully. If you diligently examine all of the different mentions of the creation account, cast off your skeptical bias, and go to the Lord in prayer, you will find that they are all referring to a one-time creation event.
-keyboardsharkMatthew 21:7 says, "And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. ". It does say there were two animals, an ass and a young ass, or colt, but it does not say they set him on both animals simultaneously (which would actually be quite difficult if you think about it). John 12:14-15 says, "And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. " it says He FOUND the ass, not that he retrieved it.
So putting the two accounts together, we find that the disciples brought two animals together, the ass and young ass, Jesus picked out the young ass (colt) and sat thereon to fulfill the prophecy about Him coming on an asses's colt. Not too difficult to reconcile if you read carefully, with prayer, and without a skeptical eye.
-keyboardsharkYou haven't put the two accounts together. You've invented a third that makes both Matthew and John liars.
-SteveSteve: I'm sorry to have to put it this way, but you are making God a liar by saying there are contradictions in His Word. If you are going to continue to look at the Bible with a skeptical eye and nitpick every slight difference in wording between two separate accounts of the same event, you will create all kinds of apparent contradictions in your own mind.
Let me illustrate. Let's suppose there was an automobile accident. Let's also assume there were three eyewitnesses–a car dealer, a doctor, and a lawyer. Here is how there accounts of the same accident might differ:
Car Dealer: The blue 2010 Honda Accord sedan with the one-touch moon roof and 2.4-liter i-VTEC® 4-cylinder with 177 hp hit the red 2012 Ford Focus with the new Electronic Power Assist Steering and Six-Speed PowerShift™ Automatic Transmission as it was going through the intersection.
-keyboardsharkSorry, there are contradictions. Otherwise, Paul would be a liar: "9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."
-SteveAre you saying that God's Word cannot stand the sort of scrutiny you would give to the histories of Herodotos, Josephus, or Gibbon?
Or are you saying that the perfect has come and you are it?
You are correct, Steve: WE know in part… Of course our understanding of the Bible is imperfect, but that does not give us the right to claim that there are contradictions. I am in NO way claiming I know everything about the Bible, but I do know this: God does not lie, and He does not contradict Himself.
In my own life, I can say with certainty that I have contradicted myself on many occasions, although not intentionally. OK, maybe a few times intentionally, if I'm going to be honest, but it's certainly not my normal practice any more since becoming saved some years ago. But God is perfect, and I am not.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
God's Word absolutely can stand up to any scrutiny, but if you keep trying to find a contradiction hiding behind every rock, you are certain to convince yourself that God DOES contradict Himself.
When on rare occasion I spot what APPEARS to be a contradiction, or someone like Jeff D. brings one to my attention, I know that there is a logical, biblical explanation as to why it APPEARS to be a contradiction. I am not afraid to address any and all apparent contradictions to the best of my ability. Will I always give a perfect answer? Of course not.
-keyboardsharkGod is not a liar, it is simply that the men who wrote the bible made mistakes. There is no god behind the bible or any religious text.
-Jeff DixonJeff sez: "There is no god behind the bible or any religious text. "
Except for the One you admitted may have created the first lifeform:
"Evolution does not concern itself with how the first lifeform was created. It could have been created by the Christian god,….." (J. Dixon, 1 day ago)
At least you are honest enough and logical enough to admit that there is no plausible naturalistic explanation for how the first lifeform came into existence. Life cannot be manufactured from non-living materials. It can only come from pre-existing life, as you correctly realize.
-keyboardsharkI am not admitting a god created life. I was pointing out that evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. No matter how life started, it does not change the theory of evolution one bit.
I am also amused how Christians try to twist the quotes to their benefit.
And even if there a god and it created the first life, that hardly shows the biblical god is that god.
There are many plausible naturalistic explanations for the origins of life.
Once again, the site Talk Origins is an excellent source to review. It has hundreds of articles that refute these basic arguments you present.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconception…
From your source: "Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA.
Just because carbon atoms can form complex molecules spontaneously does not prove that life can form on its own. Carbon atoms or molecules are non-living. If it were possible to produce life from non-living materials in an uncontrolled environment, then we should be able to do so under controlled laboratory conditions much more easily. But it hasn't been done and never will.
-keyboardsharkPeople have made claims in the past about the limits of science. Fortunately, scientists do not allow themselves to be limited by this narrow view.
To say it never will be is simply an unfounded opinion.
-Jeff DixonI prefer the "narrow" view that says God's Word is absolutely, 100% true and that we can trust what He says about not only origins (where we came from), but also about who we are, why we are here, and where we are going. I don't trust my opinion nor your opinion either, because we could both be wrong. I prefer to let God be the final arbitrator, not science or any other endeavor of fallible mankind.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
Doctor: Two late-model autos collided as one apparently ran the red light. The driver of the blue sedan escaped with only minor injuries, but a passenger in the red sedan sustained lacerations of his left femur and required the immediate attention of medics, and was transported to Smith General Hospital for further evaluation.
Lawyer: This was a clear-cut case of negligence on the part of the driver of the blue Honda Accord. He illegally ran the red light, striking the red sedan, causing serious injuries to my client, Joe Jones. John Smith, the driver who was at fault, can expect a summons to appear in municipal court before month's end. (or something like that–you can tell I'm not a lawyer).
But anyway, I hope you see my point. One accident, three different accounts from 3 people who witnessed the accident. They all told the truth, yet their accounts differed.
-keyboardsharkI'll readily buy different accounts by different witnesses — that's why four Gospels are more credible than one, and why the discrepancies (if you have the wit to see them and teh courage to admit they are there) add to the veracity. But you're claiming inerrancy for the words themselves, and that is manifestly false. Given the differing accounts, the underlying truth is forever lost to us, so the facts can't be the inspired message. I have no doubt that Jesus was born (and no doubt that he was the incarnate Word of God), but the evidence we have points in several different directions and we have no way of telling whether he was born before 4BC to parents resident in Bethlehem, or in AD6 to parents who went to Bethlehem for the census Quirinius conducted when Judea became a province of the Roman Empire, or in Nazareth as Mark and John seem to assume.
-SteveI'm afraid that I AM claiming inerrancy for EVERY WORD that God has written. I can do no less. Mind you, I'm talking about the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts themselves, not the fallible "modern" translations and paraphrases. If God's Word is NOT inerrant, as you claim, you will have to ask yourself: Where is God telling the truth, and where is He telling a falsehood? In doing so, you will make yourself the judge of God when in fact He is YOUR judge.
You are correct, we do not know the exact year when Christ was born, and the Bible never claims to give us such information. But we do know absolutely for sure that He was born in Bethlehem, and that the reason for Mary and Joseph to be in Bethlehem was because of a decree from Caesar Augustus:
-keyboardsharkPART 2
"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. " Luke 2:4-7
I don't know how much clearer it could get than this.
I have already commented on the Matthew account, where it says the wise men went to a house, and it is very clear from the language (the young child, Herod's decree to kill all the children 2 years old and under) that this was 1-2 years after the birth in Bethlehem. You are trying to convince yourself that there is a contradiction where none exists. I have to question why you view God's Word in such an unfavorable light.
-keyboardshark"no serious scientist has ever claimed that humans evolved from apes." OK, OK, if you want to argue semantics, I should have said the claim goes like this: "Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat…
Sorry I don't keep current with the latest developments, but evolutionist's ideas change so often, it would be hard for me to keep up with it, since I don't follow it with any interest because it isn't true to begin with.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
My point is, that it is claimed we evolved from a less-complex animal, whether it be an ape, an ape-like ancestor, or whatever. Doesn't change the fact that it is impossible for this type of change to occur without the creation of vast amounts of new genetic information, and there is no proof that there is such a mechanism or that such information was ever created. Similarity of structure in animals does not prove descent. Rather, it proves a Creator that used a similar design for similar creatures.
Nor does the Bible ever mention evolution, so your theistic evolutionary position is intellectually bankrupt. If you're convinced evolution is correct, at least be honest with yourself and admit that you do not believe in God, instead of making a god (little g) in your own mind that does not resemble the God of the Bible.
-keyboardsharkThe problem with believing that something occurred 5 to 8 million years ago when genealogical, historical, and scientific evidence points to an earth that is less than a million years old is…it doesn't fit.
The problem is that science demands that we be able to test and prove, through experimentation and observation. Throwing out the "belief" that something happened 5 to 8 million years ago but has no evidence, is not observed, and cannot be repeated is simply faith, and that in something that can't be seen.
The problem is that theory of evolution (it's not actually a scientific theory because there is no evidence or means to test, it's therefore a conjecture and preconceived notion) is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics.
Faith in something with that many problems is just…. wishful thinking.
I prefer to put my faith in the One who gave prophecy which then came to pass exactly as prophesied, and is recorded as such in history as proof. It's still faith – but faith in One with a proven record of Truth.
-PaulIf you understood the 2nd law, you'd have a different opinion. First, it applies to energy, not complexity, and so isn't directly relevent. More importantly, it applies only to closed systems, ones that can receive no energy from outside forces. If the universe is a closed system, then evolution might be unsustainable throughout the system as a whole (although it could work just fine for a few million years or so on a few stray planets like ours). BUT IF the universe is a closed system, then there is no God, or at least no God who can affect events within the universe. So the law is even more deadly to your faith than it is to evolution.
-SteveAs for the geological evidence, you've got it backwards. There's just no way to cram what we see into a million year time span. Unless, of course, you believe the Creator deliberately made the earth and stars look much older than they are to trick us into error. If so, you can't trust God or his book or his prophets, because you already know he lies.
Starlight alone shows the universe is older than a million years.
-Jeff DixonYou are profoundly gullible Jeffrey.
-Joe AnzilottiNo, educated
-Jeff DixonYes, you are one educated Comics specialist Jeff
-Joe AnzilottiRight Jeff–an educated Comics specialist, and now Chrome Google.
-Joe AnzilottiSteve: Yes, the 2nd Law applies to energy, but what does a living organism use to stay alive? Energy.
The universe is a closed system. No new energy inputs are being added because the universe already has all the energy it is ever going to get or need when God created it. The amount of USEFUL energy in the universe is constantly decreasing, so even though the TOTAL amount of energy will always be constant, the amount of useful energy will be continually decreasing, until at some point, the universe will collapse.
There is no "million year time span". These ages have been extrapolated using flawed dating methods (potassium argon, for example) that rely on uniformitarian assumptions.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
God created the universe with the appearance of age. For example, when Adam was created, he was not a newborn baby, but a full grown adult at the age of one day. Likewise, the earth and universe were similarly created with an appearance of age.
Also consider that modern research has shown that the speed of light may NOT be constant after all. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/9910…
-keyboardsharkSo the universe does not have to be millions or billions of years old based on starlight. No "deception" as you claim.
Even if the speed of light has changed, (and that is a very big if), it hardly compresses the timeframe of universe from billions to thousands or even millions.
-Jeff DixonJeff: Since you have referred me to several articles from your sources, I will offer you this link to an artticle about distant starlight as related to the age of the universe, written by a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder : http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does…
-keyboardsharkYou are educated in accounting, correct? If you needed accurate information on accounting would you refer to a website that discusses GAAP or one that discusses the barter system and why it is more accurate than modern day accounting?
AIG is the equivalent of the barter system.
-Jeff DixonYes I am educated in accounting (BBA) and I believe you said you were in the financial services profession so I'll assume you are too, but I'll ignore your poor analogy and just say this much: You expect me to rely upon information from your sources, which are clearly pro-evolution, yet you will not even bother to examine a pro-creation source that I offer.
I have actually read portions of several of the sources YOU have linked to, and based various posts on the contents of those sources, but apparently you won't even read ONE article that I provide a link for. I am surprised and disappointed at your double standard.
I have to ask, Why the trepidation? If you think their arguments are fallacious, then you must at least READ them and come up with a reason why you believe them to be false. The article I linked to was written by a PhD in astrophysics, so certainly he must have some credibility. I thought academic credentials carried some weight with you.
-keyboardsharkJeff,
You're strangely silent on this thread. Thought I'd hear at least one more come-back. I hope I didn't offend you with my crack about your analogy being "poor". I'll change it to "questionable" instead.
Besides, what's wrong with the barter system? The way Western governments have spent themselves into oblivion and debased the paper currencies, we may soon get to the point where we have to barter for goods because the currency won't be worth the paper it's printed on. Just thought I'd throw that in for no charge.
-keyboardsharkI am not strangely silent. There are dozens of posts on this site and it is not uncommon to start following a new line of arguments while an older one remains undiscovered until later as I just did with this series of posts. I read creationist views all the time. I have my own blog where I refute many of them.
For example, I have pointed out several times that you are confused about my example on alleles, which is evident when you were confusing alleles and the number of genes, yet kept arguing that you were correct when you were completely wrong.
-Jeff DixonJeff you really are a messenger of evil. Again when the answers are needed you are "strangely silent." Go back to the gym.
-Joe AnzilottiNumerous times you have done that with my questions–no answer.
-Joe AnzilottiYou used to actually be more realistic. You would ask if I had seen a posting of yours. Now, you simply make unfounded statements. There are also many postings of mine that you did not respond to.
But i showed that both you and despeville lied about me on the information of comic books. There is no reason to assume you will not lie again.
-Jeff DixonDespeville is generally correct about you. It is a shame what you are doing.
-Joe AnzilottiI am sure you consider any information that shows your beliefs to be delusion to be a shame.
-Jeff DixonPART 1
Yes, I am confused about your example on alleles because it makes no sense. You are trying to say that every human has only 2 alleles total when in fact it is 2 alleles/trait (or sometimes more). When I did some further research I found a clearer definition of alleles that pointed out the flaw in your argument.
Your contention that there would not be enough genetic diversity on the ark with 6 people (3 couples) would indeed be true if every person had only 2 alleles, but such is not the case. If that were true, even evolutionist's arguments would fall flat, because they claim that a newly evolved pair of "new" humans then went on to produce an entire population of humans. If that pair did not have sufficient genetic diversity, the population would have quickly died out.
-keyboardsharkI have never said every human only has two alleles in entirety . I have said repeatedly they have two alleles for each trait.
-Jeff DixonThen that agrees with the fact that there was enough genetic diversity on the ark.
-keyboardsharkOnly by increasing genetic complexity.
-Jeff DixonNot sure I catch your point. Do you mean that you believe humans are more genetically complex now than at the time of the flood? Why would genetic complexity need to increase?
-keyboardsharkI did not say it needed to increase, just that it has. And no, I am not saying that humans are more genetically complex. I am saying that the fact that the number of alleles has increased from 16 to several hundred shows that complexity has occurred.
-Jeff DixonWell Jeff, at least we know that you are not any more genetically complex
-Joe AnzilottiI'm still not sure you understand the definition of an allele.
"An allele is one of two or more forms of a gene or a genetic locus (generally a group of genes). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele
An allele is a FORM of a gene or group of genes, in other words, a trait. For example, there are 3 blood types: A, B, and O, which can combine as AB, OO, AO, etc. There were not originally 16 blood types and now several hundred.
An allele does not refer to the number of traits an individual has, but rather the number of FORMS a gene or gene group (trait) can take. So each trait would have a certain number of alleles, usually 2.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
If we were to take 2 normal, healthy adults in their early 20's, one male and one female, and place them on an island with ample food, water, and shelter, and someone (not us, we'd already be dead) were to come back 200 years later, they would find a normal population, possibly numbering in the hundreds or thousands, of humans.
True, there might be a higher rate of harmful mutations than normal because of close kin interbreeding, but that is a result of thousands of years of degradation of the human genome, which would not have been true of those on the ark since they lived 600 years or more, compared to the modern average death age in the 70's.
-keyboardsharkNo, you would not find a healthy community. The inbreeding would prevent it.
Biologists striving to save threatened animal species from extinction have developed some rules of thumb for estimating population sizes to overcome genetic problems:
A size of 500 to 5000 individuals may ensure overall genetic diversity (Frankham).
-Jeff DixonAnother figure (based on work by Soulé and Foose in 1986) states a founding population of 20 to 30 individuals that are unrelated and non-inbred would preserve 90% of the original genetic diversity for 200 years.
An initial population size (the founders) of 50 (Frankham and Franklin) avoids inbreeding problems. http://www.wonderquest.com/space-colonization.htm
A case study
Starting in 1816, fifteen British immigrants settled the most remote island on our planet, Tristan de Cunha ― located almost half way between Cape Town, Africa and Buenos Aires, South America in the Atlantic Ocean. We know much about the islanders' founders and their lonely struggle for survival. Colonizing a remote island is similar to colonizing a remote planet.
It all started with Napoleon, imprisoned on St Helena, about 2,430 kilometers (1,510 mi) to the north. The Brits had exiled Napoleon to this tiny windswept island in 1815. But now, rumors of rescue plans reached the halls of Parliament. What if the French launched a rescue of Napoleon from Tristan? In August 1816, Britain annexed Tristan de Cunha to thwart the possibility.
The Royal Army sent five officers and 36 soldiers from South Africa to take possession of Tristan da Cunha in 1816. Corporal William Glass from Kelso in Scotland, with his South African wife and two children, asked to stay when the troops withdrew a year later.
Glass and his family became the first settlers of Tristan. In all, just 15 people (seven founders and eight men) founded the colony, says geneticist Himla Soodyall from the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. They arrived at various times between 1816 and 1908. Colonizing over the decades undoubtedly increased the colony's genetic diversity and helped them survive.
We have traced the mitochondrial DNA of the present approximately 300 people back to just five female ancestors, including one pair of sisters, says Soodyall. The population grew and fell with the flow of immigrants and disasters:
By 1827, shipwrecked sailors, brides from St. Helena and South African settlers boosted the total from 15 to 24 (7 men, 6 women and 11 children)
1832: population of 34 with 6 couples and 22 children
1852: 85 people
1856: population reached 96, then fell to 71 when 25 left for Massachusetts after Glass' death
1857: population crashed to 28 (only four families) because 46 left on the rescue frigate HMS Geyser, to avoid starving to death.
1887 started off well with a population of 107, but then 15 out of the island's19 adult men died at sea trying to intercept the ship, West Riding, and barter for food. Their potato crop had failed, so, despite poor weather, the men launched their longboat and were never seen again. This left only 92 people (4 elderly men and 88 women and children)
1890: 34 emigrated to South Africa, leaving 58 on the island.
1987: population of 296. [Data from Steve Mack and Arnaldo Faustini.]
Only seven family names are in use now, corresponding to the original eight male founders (minus one). Any pair of the 300 islanders is as closely related as first cousins. But it's a healthy human population since it survived. The people (taken as a group) were able to cope with the hardships they encountered, and the few inheritable diseases were not life-threatening.
By and large, this is an impressively successful (and lucky) colonization still viable almost 200 years later.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.wonderquest.com/space-colonization.htm
"Any pair of the 300 islanders is as closely related as first cousins. But it's a healthy human population since it survived." Seems to prove my point that close-kin interbreeding wouldn't be that big of a problem. A little complicated, though, as there was apparently movement of people to and from the island over the years.
-keyboardsharkyou claimed there would be thousands of people with no other people involved after 200 years. this hardly proves your point.
-Jeff DixonI didn't say it proved my point. I said that the example you gave was more complicated than my simple example, because there was migration to and from the island. But at the end, it said that the 300 islanders were as closely related as first cousins, yet healthy, which offered at least anecdotal evidence that close-kin interbreeding would not likely pose an insurmountable challenge.
-keyboardsharkThey did not start with two either, as you claimed it was entirely possible to do.
-Jeff DixonI was giving a hypothetical example.
-keyboardsharkAs I mentioned, the inbreeding problem is not relevant to the ark because the genome had not been corrupted by that point in history. The clear evidence is the fact that they lived 600 years or more, compared to today's 70 odd years or so. God's commands against marrying close kin did not come until thousands of years after the flood
-keyboardsharkUntil you can prove the stories of the bible are true, your point is irrelevant.
-Jeff DixonWhether I can "prove" them to be true is irrelevant. It would not matter if you, I, and other every single human being on earth did not believe that the Bible was true. That would not make it false. God's Word is true whether anyone reads it or believes it. Truth is not determined by consensus. Man is sinful and his words cannot be trusted. God is perfect and His Words can be trusted.
Of course, we do have evidence to support the claim that the flood actually happened, by the world-wide occurrence of fossil layers and polystrate fossils, for example, but the main reason we can be sure it happened is because God's written record specifically tells us why and how it happened.
-keyboardsharkUnless you are a lawyer Jethro, no one has to prove anything to you. God, of course, does not have to do anything further for you.
-Joe AnzilottiThere is nothing wrong with the barter system, it simply has no relevance to GAAP. I asked where you would get information about modern accounting.
AIG provides religion information, but as a scientific source, it is irrelevant.
-Jeff DixonJeff sez: "AIG provides religion information, but as a scientific source, it is irrelevant." If you believe that is the case, then perhaps you'd care to analyze some of the statements they make and point out where they are false and why, using facts and not opinion.
-keyboardshark"There is nothing wrong with the barter system, it simply has no relevance to GAAP." That may be true, but it's a flimsy analogy to compare that with the creation science vs. evolutionary science in an attempt to discredit creation science.
-keyboardsharkNo, it is a completely fair analogy. Creation science is not a science at all.
So what is the basic philosophy of Intelligent Design, and how does it differ from the philosophy of science? Well let's review: the Intelligent Design argument goes like this:
"Evolutionists cannot explain exactly how [insert species or organ name here] evolved."
"Therefore, evolution theory cannot explain how it evolved."
"Therefore, it could not have evolved."
"Therefore, it must have been magically created by God … er, an "intelligent designer"."
Each of these steps is riddled with falsehoods and basic logic errors. Let us address them one at a time, before we discuss the fundamental reason why Intelligent Design is completely useless.
Step 1: "Evolutionists cannot explain exactly how [insert species or organ name here] evolved". In a surprisingly large number of cases, this statement is actually false. In many cases (such as the Bombardier beetle), the feature is described inaccurately, in order to exaggerate the unlikelihood of it evolving naturally. In other cases, it is claimed that there is no scientific explanation when in fact there is. But nevertheless, with millions of species in the world, it is obvious that scientists could not possibly have developed a complete family tree for every single one. The real question is: why is this a problem? It may seem like a problem to you, but it is actually not, as we shall see.
Step 2: "Therefore, evolution theory cannot explain how it evolved." If you pick a name of a species and an organ from that species out of a hat and I can't fill in its family history, then I lose, right? Well that's not really how it works. Contrary to what you might think, there is a difference between explaining how things work (ie- science) and giving a complete history. As an analogy, imagine that you see me get into a car in Toronto on Friday morning and you hear that I arrived at my destination in Philadelphia late Friday evening. You would naturally conclude that I drove my car to Philadelphia. If you could not say exactly which route I followed, would that shake your confidence in this theory? Of course not.
You don't know whether I crossed the border at Niagara Falls or Buffalo. There is a "missing link", yet that does not disturb you at all, does it? The correct way to disprove this theory is not to point to the "missing link", but to show that the theory makes predictions which are different from the outcome. For example, the theory predicts that it would take at least 10 hours. If I arrived in Philadelphia one hour after leaving Toronto, the theory clearly makes a prediction which is much different from reality, hence the theory fails. Perhaps I took a flight and then rented a car which just happens to be the same make, model, and year as my car. But the fact that a theory can't give you a complete history does not mean it fails; you need to generate a prediction with that theory and then show that this prediction is different from reality.
-Jeff DixonStep 3: "Therefore, it could not have evolved." To return to our previous analogy, this is like saying that I could not have driven from Toronto to Philadelphia if you cannot explain which route I took. Let's be very clear about this: neither science, religion, or any other intellectual method will ever produce a reliable complete history of all the species on this planet. Too much evidence has been obliterated over the eons. There will always be unanswered questions. But these are not "holes in the theory"; they are holes in our history.
The distinction between theory and history is a crucial distinction which "intelligent design" proponents invariably ignore in their zeal to attack evolution. The scientific theory of evolution only provides a mechanism which successfully predicts many otherwise staggeringly unlikely patterns in nature and in the fossil record. It does not provide a complete history of our entire biosystem, nor should it be expected to. It would be thoroughly illogical to conclude that a mechanism must not work if you can't use it to fill in a complete history. It works if its predictions are not contradicted by observation and it is found to be necessary, ie- it explain patterns that would otherwise beg for an explanation, such as the coincidental patterns of species characteristics and migration paths, or the fact that features never abruptly jump from one animal family to another. Evolution meets and passes these tests with flying colours, which is why "intelligent design" proponents try to move the goalposts. That is why they unreasonably demand that it fill in a complete history of our world before it can be considered a successful theory.
Step 4: "Therefore, it must have been magically created by God … er, an "intelligent designer." Now it goes without saying that this is primitive logic: this is the exact same flawed logic used by the ancient Greeks to conclude that since they didn't understand lightning, it must have been thrown down from Mount Olympus by Zeus. The reasoning here is that if you can't explain the mechanism for something, then any story about it must be correct. And keep in mind: once again we encounter the distinction between a mechanism and a story, ie- a scientific theory and a history.
Of course, an "intelligent design" proponent would argue at this point that "intelligent design" actually fulfills my earlier tests for a scientific theory. After all, it can predict any kind of species, so its predictions are never contradicted by observation1. And since evolution theory can't generate a complete history, "intelligent design" is necessary! However, this argument has three crucial flaws. As stated previously, it is not necessary for a scientific theory to function as a complete history, and in fact, expecting it to do so is totally unreasonable. Also, the theory is generally defined in such a manner that it denies evolution, so the patterns which were explained by evolution would require explaining once again. But the argument also has a third huge flaw. Can you see it?
Here's a hint: "intelligent design" can predict any kind of species, no matter what it looks like. This is touted as the great strength of "intelligent design" theory, but it actually proves that "intelligent design" is completely useless. You see, if you make a real prediction, you are not just predicting what will happen: you are also predicting what will not happen. If I use the theory of action/reaction to predict that a rocket will move forward in space when the engine is fired, I am not just predicting that the rocket will move forward: I am predicting that it will not move backwards or stay still. Similarly, the mathematical equation 2+2=4 does not just say that 2+2=4; it also says that 2+2 does not equal 3, or 5, or 100.
Predictions and the Failure of Intelligent Design
That is what it means to make real predictions; if a "theory" predicts that anything can happen, it is not a scientific theory at all. Imagine if someone promoted a theory of rocketry by saying that no matter whether the rocket goes forward, backward, or nowhere, his theory will predict it. You would be quite justified in asking what on Earth his theory is good for, right?
When you think about it, a theory which can predict anything is actually a theory which predicts nothing. An open-ended "prediction" which is incapable of ever saying "no, we won't see that" is absolutely, utterly, completely useless. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is "intelligent design" theory in a nutshell: completely useless.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/IntelligentD…
PART 1
Jeff sez: "So what is the basic philosophy of Intelligent Design, and how does it differ from the philosophy of science? Well let's review: the Intelligent Design argument goes like this:
"Evolutionists cannot explain exactly how [insert species or organ name here] evolved."
"Therefore, evolution theory cannot explain how it evolved."
"Therefore, it could not have evolved."
"Therefore, it must have been magically created by God … er, an "intelligent designer"."
That is your opinion (or your copy/paste author's opinion) of creation science. Creation science does not consist solely of refutation of evolutionist's arguments any more than does evolutionary theory consist solely of refuting creationist's arguments. You obviously have not studied creation science in the slightest detail if you believe that is the sole philosophy of creation, AKA intelligent design. This is a complete distortion of what creation science is actually all about.
.
-keyboardsharkOf course it does. It does no science on its own. It simply exists to try and prove evolution wrong.
-Jeff DixonJeff sez: "It simply exists to try and prove evolution wrong."
In your opinion, based on your straw-man definition of creation science.
Look at it this way. The idea of divine creation has been in existence for thousands of years. Darwinism has only been around since the 1800's. If anything, we would have to say that Darwinism came into existence to disprove the creation model, since the creation model has been in existence far longer. Your claim that it is the other way around defies logic.
-keyboardsharkYou have an odd habit of continually putting inaccurate words in my mouth.
-Jeff DixonSuch as……? I quoted you verbatim.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
I simply do not have time to undertake a point-by-point refutation of your little essay, and it's not necessary because it sets up a straw man definition of creation science as the premise for the essay. But let me just list one example;
"Therefore, it could not have evolved." To return to our previous analogy, this is like saying that I could not have driven from Toronto to Philadelphia if you cannot explain which route I took. Let's be very clear about this: neither science, religion, or any other intellectual method will ever produce a reliable complete history of all the species on this planet. Too much evidence has been obliterated over the eons. There will always be unanswered questions. But these are not "holes in the theory"; they are holes in our history. "
What does "producing a complete history" have to do with whether either side of the argument is true? Creationists are not claiming they can produce every piece of historical evidence, nor are they claiming evolution is not true because it cannot either. A nonsensical argument, one among many in this piece
-keyboardsharkBut yet you expect me to undertake a point by point refutation of your posts. lol
-Jeff DixonHmmm, where did I say that?
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark58p · 1 day ago
-Jeff DixonJeff sez: "AIG provides religion information, but as a scientific source, it is irrelevant." If you believe that is the case, then perhaps you'd care to analyze some of the statements they make and point out where they are false and why, using facts and not opinion.
Note the word "some".
-keyboardsharkLook at it from this perspective. If 99% of accountants held to one view of GAAP and 1% held to a different view, it is likely that the 99% hold the correct view. If the 1% held their view of GAAP based on a reading of a book that 2000-3000 years old, and the 99% held their view based on modern understanding of accounting, it is even more likely you would agree with the 99%.
That is what you face when you try to compare evolution to creation science. 99% of biologists in the world accept that evolution is accurate.
-Jeff DixonPART 1
Accounting is a field of study dealing with numbers and legal issues. These can be readily observed and studied in the present. For example, there are rules that govern how a corporation constructs their income statement. An accountant can analyze the income statement of a corporation, in the present, and determine if the corporation prepared it in accordance with GAAP, and can check the accuracy of the numbers by manual calculation or software programs. This is all observable, testable (another auditor can check their work), and repeatable (the operations can be performed again in the same manner.)
Evolution, on the other hand, is a speculation about something that supposedly happened in the past, and is not occurring today. It is not observable, testable nor repeatable. It's truthfulness cannot be determined by comparison to man-made laws of financial reporting or natural laws of mathematics. So origins science, which always deals with events of the past, has no correlation with accounting, which deals with analysis in the present.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
I wouldn't care if it was 100% of scientists that said young earth creationism (I do not ascribe to the ID position as they make too many compromises) was false. They still have to have a sound, scientific basis for saying something like that, and I have not seen any credible evidence that would prove evolution true or creation false.
Neither evolution nor creation can be said to be observable, testable, and repeatable phenomena in the present, so the creation model cannot, by definition, be shown to be false. Evolutionists can state their OPINION that they believe it is false, but that's all it is–an opinion. Certainly we can examine evidence from the past, such as fossils, and use this evidence to arrive at a conclusion as to whether evolution is correct or whether creation is correct, but the evidence does not speak for itself–it must be interpreted.
-keyboardsharkPART 3
Truth is not determined by consensus. For example, the vast majority of government economists follow the Keynesian theory of economics, which in essense says that government should intervene in the markets by spending large sums of public money and incurring huge budget deficits, and that fiat currencies should not be held to a gold standard. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is a typical example of a Keynesian.
We are now witnessing the destructive effects of this school of thought as most major economies, including (and perhaps, especially) the US, are so deeply in debt that there is no hope they will ever be able to pay off the debt, unless they unleash massive inflation. This inflation would greatly devalue the dollar and would effectively rob US citizens of their money, but would allow the government to pay off the debt in much cheaper dollars, which they would simply print.
-keyboardsharkPART 4
Since the Federal reserve was created in 1913, the value of the dollar has fallen by over 95%, after having remained relatively stable from the founding of the republic until then. The US now has over $14 trillion in National debt, or $48,630.00/citizen, and a staggering $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities such as social security, or $1,037,841.00/taxpayer. http://usdebtclock.org
We can thank our college-educated, PhD, majority philosophy Keynesian economists for the policies that have effectively led us to financial ruin. Truth from consensus? I don't think so. In fact. I would go as far as to say that when the vast majority of academics "agree" that something is true or is the best system, then it's highly likely that just the opposite is true, and it's time to run as fast as you can in the other direction.
-keyboardsharkI also note keboardshark is an expert at the liar's side-step: when caught in a lie, dismiss difference between the lie and the truth as "arguing semantics" and attack the evolutionists for changing their ideas so often. They haven't changed on the "descended from apes" bit because they never said it. It's a lie, and those who repeat serve the Father of Lies, not the God of Truth.
-SteveSteve: To a layman such as myself, there is very little difference between ascending from apes or ascending from an ancestor of apes. It doesn't matter anyway because they are both untrue. As I clearly stated, I do not study evolutionary theory in any detail as I do not wish to waste my time on falsehood. Neither ascendancy from apes nor ascendancy from an ancestor of apes is true in any case.
It's your privelege to lob accusations of being a liar at me if you choose. However, it seems rather sleight-of-hand to take an offhand remark I made about evolution that I never claimed was based on any research, but proved inaccurate, and then turn a misstatement of a theory into a lie. When you pointed out my error, I did indeed research it online and quickly corrected myself. If you want to consider that a "lie" then that is your problem.
-keyboardsharkI would actually agree with that comment. There is very little difference between decending from apes or an ancestor of apes. However, given that you readily admit to having no knowledge of the topic, it humorous that you try to argue against it.
To argue against a position, one has to understand what they are arguing against.
The universe is the way it is, whether you like it or not.
-Jeff DixonJeff: I said I did not study evolution theory in any detail, not that I didn't know anything about it. Re-read my post above more carefully.
I do not need to study evolution in detail to know it is not true. I do know that it's basic premise is that simple life forms supposedly evolved to higher and higher life forms, and I know enough about genetics, the Laws of Thermodynamics, fossilization, time dating methods, and just having plain common sense to know that it could not posssibly have happened. There is no evidence whatsoever that the vast amounts of new genetic information that would be needed for evolution to be true could be generated by natural processes.
-keyboardsharkIt is obvious you do not understand biology. You have shown that with your claim that people do not have two alleles.
-Jeff DixonGosh, you are strangely silent here. Why would that be?
-Jeff DixonSo, can we dispense with the strangely silent comments from here on out?
-Jeff DixonYou sidestepped the issue, dismissed the difference as "symantics," and then returned to the lie in a new guise. What else can you be? A fool, perhaps?
-SteveYes, Steve, I am a fool for Christ. (I Corinthians 3:19, 4:10)
You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Even Jeff D., who is pro-evolution, agrees that it is a very minor distinction between descending from apes vs. descending from an ancestor of apes (see his comment above). If you wish to continue calling a minor nuance in a theory a lie on my part, then so be it. I will let God be the Judge betwixt you and me.
-keyboardsharkIf Jesus is a myth as I assert, then you would be a fool for Christ.
Christians often assert that the evidence for Jesus would stand up in court of law. However, that is completely wrong. The only court that would accept this conclusion is a kangaroo court. Allow me to clarify the issue.
In a court of law, there are two opposing sides, each being represented by legal council. (Yes, I realize a person can represent himself). They would each offer testimony that would favor their case. There are specific rules of conduct over what is allowed to be presented. There would be examination of witnesses and cross examinations and follow up examinations. There would be forensic evidence presented of the case. There is none of this when the claims of the bible are considered. What is considered is simply the writings of the bible itself. Now, hearsay is generally not allowed in court. Hearsay is not allowed because there is no way to prove it is accurate. Now, why is that relevant? Because all the testimony for Jesus in the Bible is hearsay. Not some of it, all of it.
In a bizarre expression of circular logic, the Apologists' prime source of proof for the existence of their storybook hero is the storybook itself. The Bible is given the special privilege of confirming its own truth since the Bible is held to be "unique" and "historically reliable".
But what about the four Gospels? There is no agreement on who wrote the gospels or when they were written. There were actually many gospels that have been written about Jesus. It is important to understand that the early church leaders are the ones who choose which gospels were to be accepted. Irenaeus of Lyon was one of the most influential. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures– the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies).
Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament– like those discovered at Nag Hammadi– are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]
Therefore, we are taking the word of biased individuals that the gospels were written by the people they are attributed to, in other words, hearsay.
How about other New Testament accounts? Well, they are all hearsay as well.
Epistles of Paul: Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination.
Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter writer, but which James? There were several people names James in the Bible. We cannot be sure it is even of of those. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.
Epistles of John: Again, we have no way to know which John this references. In addition, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. We simply do not know who wrote these epistles.
Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown author also named Peter (a common name) or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.
One of my favorites is when the bible claims there were 500 people who say they saw the risen Christ. This has to be one of the biggest attempts at hearsay in the history of the world. No names, no one verifying their statements. It is simply supposed to stand on its own as proof of the event. If someone came to court stating there 500 people who saw an event and did not provide any information about these 500 people, they would be laughed out of court.
Would the facts of a historical and risen Jesus stand up in a court of law? Of course not, that is complete nonsense. Case dismissed.
-Jeff DixonSince you have apparently figured out a way to post large blocks of text on Zionica, and mine get flagged as too long after about 2 paragraphs, I'll just have to post some links in response:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.h…
-keyboardsharkhttp://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidenc…
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authenti…
Use Goggle Chrome as your operating system.
-Jeff Dixon????????
-Joe AnzilottiYou are absolutely gullible Jeffrey.
He was indicating that he was unable to post large segments without having to break them up. I was experiencing the same problem myself. Despeville, among others told me to move to Goggle Chrome.
So, since I am only offering the same advice that Despeville offered, I guess you believe he is absolutely gullible as well.
What is even more humorous is why you think that has anything to do with beliefs.
You are truly lost in this world.
-Jeff DixonTheology research on "google" is impaired at best. Knowledge of God is in your heart Jeff. Or it isn't.
-Joe AnzilottiWe were not discussing that issue. Are you capable of grasping anything?
-Jeff DixonI forgot–you are into self-worship. Sorry.
-Joe AnzilottiWhat Despeville does is his business. Not mine BTW.
-Joe AnzilottiOf course it is. And what I do my my business. And what you do is your business. None of which has anything to do with the issue at hand. You attack me for providing information, not realizing it is the exact same information that your mentor provided me.
It shows you are not attacking me for providing bad information, but for simply making a post.
Your hatred is truly pathological.
-Jeff DixonDid you get your Gym merit badge yet?
-Joe AnzilottiYou are really moving Jeff! I am impressed.
No, just a good workout. Healthy mind and body, remember? The concept you said you actually agreed with me on.
-Jeff DixonRight… go for the "Chrome" google.
-Joe AnzilottiYou remind me of a gargoyle projecting garbage from the gutter.
-Joe AnzilottiI see your issue with name calling as completely disappeared. Hypocrite.
-Jeff DixonIt is the same game you play Jeff. I said "you remind me"–didn't call you anything.
-Joe AnzilottiYou really have no idea what words mean.
re·mind/riˈmīnd/
-Jeff DixonVerb:
Cause (someone) to remember someone or something.
Cause someone to think of (something) because of a resemblance or likeness.
The game you play all day long–after the gym fun.
-Joe AnzilottiGoogle Chrome, eh? Who wouldda thunk it. I wonder why that makes a difference to Zionica? Maybe they haven't updated their algorithm yet to catch it. It is annoying, though, to have to break everything up. I can understand why they'd have some kind of limit, but it seems awful low to me.
-keyboardshark"And next time you're sick or need help with a legal problem, don't go to a college-educated doctor or lawyer."
You are reading too much into what I said. I did not say that college grads were useless, or intellectually inferior, or whatever. Heck, I'm one myself (BBA-Accounting).
My point is, that a college degree, especially when it comes to subject matters that have been tainted by biased instructors or subject matter, such as evolution, or those with a political agenda, such as economics, is no guarantee that the possessor thereof has gained a truthful knowledge of the subjects he has studied. College can be valuable for certain subjects, as you mentioned, but that does not include the study of origins where there is a heavy bias toward untruth at the vast majority of public colleges and universities
-keyboardsharkTechnology and medicine are sciences that are testable, repeatable, and provable. The results can be predicted and the results seen over and over.
Origin "science" is not testable, repeatable, or provable. To believe in special creation or evolution takes faith. The question is who are you going to believe? God or man?
-PaulPaul, that is not the question. The question is can the bible be shown to actually be the word of god. Until that can be proven, it is simply a book written by men. Therefore, you are simply taking the word of some men over other men.
And the word of scientists is far superior to the myths of the bible.
-Jeff DixonNo matter what people say; the Bible has the final say so…
-msjallenI Cor 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (II Kings 18:27)
"And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall they camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee." (Deuteronomy 23:13-14)
"If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it." (Malachi 2:2-3)
-Jeff DixonI am sitting here shaking my head sideways trying to figure out what in the world you are trying to say with those verses. They mean when people do not do as God has taught them to do they will be disciplined and He has every right to do so since He is the creator or all things including humans and provisions to sustain those who trust in Him.
-msjallenColossians 1:15-17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for His purpose. He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.
Yet, the first two verses do not say that god commanded the people to do these idiotic things. They simply did them.
The point is that the bible is not the final say so. It is simply nonsense.
-Jeff DixonThe Bible is the ultimate story of action and consequence.
The Bible does not say it's a good idea to do those things, but points to the fact that man is indeed "sinful in his heart, from his youth" and that "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked".
God tells us again and again, and shows us in His word again and again that apart from God, if not for God's grace, we would be completely destitute and lost.
-PaulJeff, I know that you "believe" there is no God–however, why are you always upset or angry with HIm? Strange.
-Joe AnzilottiII Kings 18:27: This was a threat from the King of Assyria's general to frighten Judah into surrender, not a commandment from Hezekiah:
"And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem." It was merely bluster from an enemy trying to mess with their heads, if you catch my drift.
Deut. 23:13-14: Instructions for sanitation. What's the problem? Oh, I think I see what you're looking at. The word "walketh". You are wondering how God can "walk" through their camp. It is used figuratively here, and elsewhere: " And thou sayest, How doth God know? can he judge through the dark cloud? Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven." (Job 22:14)
-keyboardshark"Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. " (Psalm 101:6) And others.
PART 2
-keyboardsharkMalachi 2:2-3: God's judgement on man's disobedience. I guess you might be having an issue with the word "dung". Dung can mean feces, but it can also mean refuse or waste: "Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this." (Ezra 6:11)
Jeff, just because God commands people to do things doesn't mean they do them; thus, discipline. People's nature is sinful and it is easier for most to do what is wrong or idiotic instead of what is right. Mainly because they don't know what God says in His Word. His Word is the mind of Christ and everytime one reads His Word they are getting a message from the Lord as long as they (Jeff) don't take verses out of context to degrade Him. If the Bible is nonsense then why does it work for so many people? It works for me everyday of my life. It gives me peace when I go through tribulations like sickness (cancer for me) or the death of a loved one or problems that could have shattered my life. As for me…
-msjallenEphesians 6:10 -Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
God is great!
-Thomas MThat is because you are not used to providing accurate information. You should give it try. It is not painful at all.
-Jeff DixonI will be at the gym in the am. Getting something useful accomplished.
-Jeff DixonWhy don't you try to help that man in prison in Iran–there for no other reason than his belief? The reason is: you can't think beyond where your skin ends. Not surprising.
-Joe AnzilottiNothing I can do for him. Since you seem to be concerned, why are you not flying over there to help him? Of, I forgot, you are all talk and no action.
-Jeff DixonThere are some things you can do for Youcef Nadarkhani! And he would probably appreciate it. Just as if you were jailed and he or I were to do something for you.
-Joe AnzilottiBy the way–one thing you can do is to write to the Iranian embassy in the United Kingdom. That is something you can do. You can use your powerful grasp of the English language and its grammar to possibly help save this man alive. How about that Mr. English Major?
-Joe AnzilottiThus as you can see–you can actually do something to help him. I can also pray.
-Joe AnzilottiNo, it would not help him. A letter from someone the Iranians are on good terms would be much more helpful. Try praying that Putin writes a letter on his behalf.
-Jeff DixonHow you doing on finding someone who has regrown a new arm or leg? Surely, your god has answered the prayers of at least one deserving amputee.
-Jeff DixonGod is the One who decides on the deserving Jeff.
-Joe AnzilottiRegardless, it is rather bizarre that in the entire history of the world, he has never found one deserving amputee.
-Jeff DixonThe only thing bizarre here Jeff, is your thought pattern. Or perhaps a lack of any pattern!
-Joe AnzilottiInsofar as you have not been there in any and all situations–seeing that sometimes you were in the gym.
-Joe AnzilottiGo back to self worship Jeff. Do you want another merit badge for your gym time?
-Joe AnzilottiActually if by flying over there I would be able to help him, I think I would consider it.
-Joe AnzilottiNonsense. More lies.
-Jeff Dixon"lol"–a typical response for you. Shameful.
-Joe AnzilottiBetter than the way you and Despeville lie. You are a sad little man.
-Jeff DixonThanks for the name calling–makes any debate easier actually. If I should call you any names, go ahead and call me out on it.
-Joe AnzilottiIt is not calling you a name. It is describing how you act.
You should also brush up on your grammar.
-Jeff DixonI am afraid you are incorrect again Jeff.
-Joe AnzilottiNo, a name would be a noun. The word lie in my sentence is a verb. Once again, you demonstrate an appalling lack of knowledge.
-Jeff DixonLet me see Jeff–"a sad little man." Nouns or adjectives–how do you want to look at it? Wrong again as you usually are Jeff! Sad.
-Joe AnzilottiThat is a description of you again.
-Jeff DixonGo back to your self-worship my friend.
-Joe AnzilottiAgain your "gym" thing does not surprise me. Self-worship behavior on your part is part and parcel of what is going on nearly everywhere in our society today.
-Joe AnzilottiI am sure you do not take care of your body at all. You have neglected your mind, so why should you care about the rest of your body.
However, a healthy body goes hand in hand with a healthy mind. The two compliment each other.
I work out to stay healthy so I can continue to provide for my family. You know, real people. Not the imaginary ones you pray to.
-Jeff DixonYou are making assumptions as usual my friend. You don't know me. For all you know I am a "marathoner," as you self-worshipping folks like to put it.
-Joe AnzilottiThen you would not be criticizing me for working out. Try to be consistent.
-Jeff Dixon"I am sure you do not take care of your body at all"! How can you say that? Absurd, you do not even know me or what I do or do not do.
-Joe AnzilottiIf you were interesting in taking care of your body, you would not criticize someone for working out. Trying to get a logical thought from you is impossible.
-Jeff Dixon"However, a healthy body goes hand in hand with a healthy mind. The two compliment each other."–this I agree with.
-Joe AnzilottiLike I said, you are completely inconsistent. Which is a sign of a delusional mind.
-Jeff DixonYes, I am certain that the main reason you go to the gym is for that which you put up above. Right.
-Joe AnzilottiYes, that is exactly why I go to the gym. As always, I tell the truth. You might try it sometime.
-Jeff DixonJoe, you have tried debating me. You get confused, say you come up with a response and then run away.
-Jeff Dixon