The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Evolution Weekend: different ways of knowing > Comments

Evolution Weekend: different ways of knowing : Comments

By Michael Zimmerman, published 6/2/2014

This weekend marks the ninth year that hundreds of religious leaders all over the world have agreed to celebrate Evolution Weekend.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. All
There is only one way of knowing and it's through scientific enquiry, 'Evolution Weekend' is an attempt at squaring the circle.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 6 February 2014 8:52:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is perhaps a worthy project.
But how does the process of evolution work in the body-mind-structures of human beings and therefore by extension on the Earthworld altogether?
This essay describes how it works:
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/divine_physics_of_evolution/index.html
Checking out the various links on the authors recommended websites (etc) I see that it features all of the usual suspects that try to reconcile old-style "creator"-God religion with that proposed by science. Including various attempts to interpret the meaning(s) of the books of Genesis. Most of which presume that the "garden of eden" was an historical place, rather than a description of the subtle psycho-physical structures of each and every human being, fully awake to his/her True Condition prior to the "fall".
This reference gives a unique esoteric interpretation of the "garden of eden" as a garden of Indestructible Light.
http://www.beezone.com/adidajesus/adamnervoussystemeveflesh.html
This reference criticises the essentially reductionist nature of the usual Christian attempts to reconcile religion and science. Attempts which reduce religion to entirely secular purposes.
http://www.adidam.org/Content/teaching/print-files/religion-and-science.pdf
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 6 February 2014 11:10:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of circles and/or the dreadful mind that wants to square the circle or confine humankind to Weber's famous iron cage, and eliminate any kind of paradox and ecstasy from the humanly created world, this perception of Reality is very interesting.

The Nature of Reality Itself can be said to be Spherical, without center or bounds.
It is not elsewhere. It is not a point. It is not separate.
The "ego" versus "object" - mind - is a mental fiction. It is not a description of Reality Itself, not a description of what experiencing is in any moment.
Experience is not based on "point" and separation.
There are no "points".
There are no "centers".
There is infinite association.
Boundless Touch.
Centerless Being.
Everything is organized in the manner of spheres - NOT points. What appears to be a point is an apparent conjunction of spheres.
There is no point,no center, no finalty, no dilemm, no ego.
All difficulty can be transcended, because everything is a Sphere, - Boundless, Centerless Being, Bright.

The irreducible paradox of unobservability and unknowability is the actual state of every one and every thing.

Scientific materialism has deprived humankind of all profundity of view - relative to the nature and significance of the conditional universe, and relative to the Divine Nature of Reality Itself.
Scientific materialism is a global "cultural program", which has so effectively supported the ego's motive to achieve a perfectly independent state of "self-sufficiency" that, as a result, the human collective has brought itself to the point of global destruction and universal despair.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 6 February 2014 12:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mac, you said:

"There is only one way of knowing and it's through scientific enquiry, 'Evolution Weekend' is an attempt at squaring the circle."

Scientific enquiry can't prove your statement. Therefore you can't claim to know that this view is correct.

Since your viewpoint ultimately lies in the realm of the unknowable, we should reject it.
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 6 February 2014 1:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question for me is who on earth considers such a pointless event to have any usefulness in the year 2014.

Let's be clear, any alternative view to that of evolution can only be based upon a religious belief. My evidence for this is that there is not a single young-earth creationist who has arrived at their conclusion without reference to the bible.

There's a piece in today's SMH on the subject.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/creation-vs-evolution-the-debate-that-went-nowhere-20140205-hvbcl.html

"Ham... sought to draw a distinction between observational science and what he called 'historical science'. Since no one was around to watch ice layers form or the rings of ancient trees being created, he said, scientists could not claim to be sure how it happened... while creationism is backed by the eyewitness testimony of God."

This observation is also quite revealing:

"For three hours the audience appeared to be captivated, obediently applauding only when given permission to by the CNN moderator. Another 1 million people watched online and at one point the debate was one of the top four trending topics on Twitter. For all that attention, though, it seemed few minds were changed."

I sincerely doubt that any minds, at all, were changed.

Debating Creationism vs. Evolution is like debating zombies vs. Queen Victoria. To accept the existence of zombies, you need to be able to believe that dead people can walk around with bits of themselves missing, going "aaaaargh" a lot. To accept that Queen Victoria existed, you have to rely upon the word of a whole load of historians, since none of us can actually vouch personally for her existence.

Come to think of it, that might actually make for a far more interesting debate... but if you went into the debate believing that zombies are real, I doubt anything a historian could tell you would make any dent at all in your conviction.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 6 February 2014 1:08:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

You row your boat and I'll row mine. You're at liberty to employ theologians or philosophers to give learned opinions on reality, as in the past, however, I'll rely on engineers to design aircraft or science-based medicine if I'm ill. If you do the same, the implication is that some ways of knowing are far superior to others. As far as I understand, theology has never established a single fact, not even that the supposed object of study actually exists.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 6 February 2014 1:25:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac, that's great. Good for you!

But please realise that creating an either/or scenario simply has no substance if you're discussing with intelligent theologically informed Christians.

In my worldview God is responsible for everything including science itself. He does not merely exist in the parts of our understanding that science has not yet touched. The idea that he does is a myth perpetuated by the likes of the ill informed Richard Dawkins and, sadly, some fundamentalist Christians.
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 6 February 2014 1:35:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
as evolution at best is a myth this is a waste of time.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 February 2014 2:14:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

This does nothing to set you apart from creationists (or represent what Dawkins thinks, for that matter).

<<In my worldview God is responsible for everything including science itself. He does not merely exist in the parts of our understanding that science has not yet touched.>>

I don’t know of any creationists who would disagree with the suggestion that God “is responsible for everything including science itself”. Nor do I know of any creationists who think that God is hiding “in the parts of our understanding that science has not yet touched”. God hide’s everywhere. That’s the theology.

If, however, you mean to suggest that it’s just as clear that God is responsible for the ‘knows’ as it is that he is responsible for the ‘unknowns’, then I’d be fascinated to hear how you identify this unnecessary additional layer of explanation.

All that aside, though, your second sentence doesn’t even follow from the first, because those who believe that unknowns suggest the existence of a god don’t then necessarily conclude that that god is only responsible for those unknowns.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 6 February 2014 2:46:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry AJ I'm not sure I understand your point.

My response was aimed at mac's idea that there is some kind of split between "what God does" and "what medicine does". Eg: "You row your boat...I'll use medicine. "Etc. There is no such split in Christian thinking. God created everything including medicine. This is Sunday School 101. To a Christian God is at work in all things including the Doctor's prescriptions.

If anyone wants to argue with Christians they should first understand what Christians believe and what Orthodox Christianity teaches.
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 6 February 2014 2:55:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, though, it doesn’t explain your suggestion that that’s what some fundies may believe or the non sequitur that your post clumsily attributed to their way of thinking - which is more what I was addressing.

<<My response was aimed at mac's idea that there is some kind of split between "what God does" and "what medicine does" … There is no such split in Christian thinking. God created everything including medicine. This is Sunday School 101. To a Christian God is at work in all things including the Doctor's prescriptions.>>

I understand this, though it does get rather messy when you bring the all-important free will into the mix. How, after all, can we really have free will if God is doing everything through us and everything that is done is his will? It’s interesting, too, how quickly this bit of Christian thinking is dumped when something bad happens.

<<If anyone wants to argue with Christians they should first understand what Christians believe and what Orthodox Christianity teaches.>>

Check and check.

I totally agree. Fortunately, in general, atheists are way ahead of Christians in the latter department there: http://tinyurl.com/mm2veb6
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 6 February 2014 3:33:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

I wasn't actually suggesting a split between 'what God does' and science, but that there's no evidence of any God anywhere to do anything at all, and that belief isn't a "way of knowing", it's just, belief.

I understand your belief that God is responsible for everything, including science and our intellects, which are divine gifts, however, on that premise, how do you reconcile the problem of theodicy? Is evil and suffering in the world a gift from God? The doctrine of free will is not a defence.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 6 February 2014 6:43:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, they exist...

"To accept the existence of zombies, you need to be able to believe that dead people can walk around with bits of themselves missing, going "aaaaargh" a lot."

As evidence I cite the members of the House of Lords of the United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Not all of them admittedly, but sufficient numbers of them absent any useful synaptic activity to substantiate the belief.
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 6 February 2014 7:13:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kingdom
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 6 February 2014 7:13:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, we care all waiting for your proof that evolution is a myth.
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 6 February 2014 10:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

>>This observation is also quite revealing:
"For three hours the audience appeared to be captivated, obediently applauding only when given permission to by the CNN moderator. Another 1 million people watched online and at one point the debate was one of the top four trending topics on Twitter. For all that attention, though, it seemed few minds were changed.”<<

Well, this is an observation about a silly debate with a Young Earth Creationist YOU CHOSE to refer to here, whereas the article by Zimmermann is of a completely different nature, about clergy and scientists engaged in a constructive conversation, where the relevant quote would be:

“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.”

I presume that you, and also Bill Nye as well as most of us, would agree with at least the first two sentences.

Nevertheless, your post enlightened me in one way: I used to think that Young Earth Creationism was an American disease, now I see it spread to Australia as well.
Posted by George, Friday, 7 February 2014 12:21:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AUTHOR/quote..<<>.Because evolution is so central to biology >>

its the other way arround
biology..is a science/evolution..is the theo-ry

why invert the bleeding obvious
evolution=theory of evolution
biology is falsifiability true..[Mendelian inheritors refute evolution

evolutionists have never evolved any new genus/ever
[except by PHENOTYPE/..pheNO-TYICAL lie..]..AS fossils HAVE NO DNA..*thus no genetic link/SCIENCE FALSIYABILTy..can be affirmed..

its TAXONOMIC LIE..[phenotype=looks LIKE..but iSNT
[or rather cant be proved TO BE..CAUSE..no dna]

biology teaches us that in-breed's revert back to wild type
what BIOLOGICAL..PROOF They have for evolution..is easy refuted by the laws of biology[except THE IGNORANT S..take the atheist godless theory as fact..[WHEN ITS THEORY..get it?]

survival of THE fittest has only evolved fat cats
no new genus recorded ever..SCIENCE..never[theory get it?..

<<..and because the scientific method is so central to human advances,>>

yes egzactly..build up peert respect..while the lab coated demons slow kill us all with its DEMONIC GODLESS/PERVERSIONS

<<.it is not an exaggeration>>

NO ITS A theory

<<..to say that allowing this narrow-minded perspective to flourish undermines many fields of study and perverts education>>

Too right..to limit science..just to the flesh realm..is insane
the spirit realm is infinite..but DEMONS want us in material fixation/stasis..where they rule unseen over US.

if people only studied biology before they learn the evolving lie
Posted by one under god, Friday, 7 February 2014 7:40:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ/REPLY/QUOTE..<<..''To a Christian God is at work in all things >>

aj..<<..I understand this, though it does get rather messy when you bring the all-important free will into the mix. How, after all, can we really have free will if God is doing everything through us and everything that is done is his will?>>

evil..is by our choice..so is the will to do good
[god/THE COLLECTIVE GOOD..knows that freewill must be by informed concent..of free choice

aj would you rather we were slaves only to GODSWILL/ie like we were BEFORE..satans fall..from grace..into human faLSITY/but freewill falsifyably

<<..It’s interesting, too, how quickly this bit of Christian thinking is dumped when something bad happens.>>

thats clearly wrong aj
i hear amy aTHeists crying out TO GOD
then thanking chance or science..wHEN the fear has gone

please dont invert a bias..ol mate

we all know how fast the godless find GOD
WHEN evil strikes..[and thats just fine with god..he knows we all come home..in our own time..cause we all shall know the truth..it will set us free

look atheists agnostics etc..ignoring that science labels 'auto-response'..how do you MAKE YOUR Heart beat..how do you make your broken body repair..thing is even science dont know.

but god dont care how we came to see love
that..via logic..light love become life
ONLY THAT..we each receive equal GRACE...MERCy..once we get here.[equal/wages]..

we each have our loves /hates..but god alone loves us ALL*
Posted by one under god, Friday, 7 February 2014 7:59:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Creationist denies Bill Nye’s joy
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/05/creationist-denies-bill-nyes-joy-in-scientific-discovery-because-hitler-ate-jews-for-lunch/

in scientific discovery because Hitler ate Jews for lunch

JUDAS GOATS?

Creationist author Terry Mortenson doesn’t understand how an atheist like Bill Nye “the Science Guy” can find joy in scientific discoveries.

Following the debate between Nye and Creation Museum founder Ken Ham on Tuesday night, Mortenson sat down with Creation Today co-hosts Eric Hovind and Paul Taylor to discuss the event.

“I was kind of intrigued by one of Bill’s last comments about the joy of discovery, but I thought, what is the joy of realizing that I came from pond scum as a result of an explosion and that eventually I’m going to die and I won’t be here, I won’t remember that I ever lived, nobody else will ever remember,”

Mortenson said. “What is the joy of that? It is purposeless, as Richard Dawkins and William Provine and others have said.”

Webmaster's
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Commentary:

As a Christian who also rejoices in science,and the incredible discoveries humankind has made through its time on earth, I disagree profoundly with the views of Terry Mortenson and Ken Ham.

As a Christian, my job this lifetime is to be kind to everyone I encounter, and try to leave this world a little better than I found it. My job is being loving, and where I can, to make that loving practical, in terms of donating what I can to people in need. When we love, we touch the future in incredible ways.

Was it not Jesus himself who said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?!?!

As he has expressed many times, Mike is not a "faith guy"; but in having the courage to express his opinions in a logical, forthright manner, he is one of the most moral people I have ever encountered this lifetime: this is one of the many reasons I love him with all my heart.

The God I understand is not a bigot, but loving to all of its creations, even to people who may not believe.

DITTO..get well..soon mike*
Posted by one under god, Friday, 7 February 2014 9:15:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Runner, we care all waiting for your proof that evolution is a myth. '

actually GlenC I am waiting for explantion 5003 as to why the idiotic fantasy that order came from chaos is not faith. Something that not even the 'true' believers can give anywhere close to rational answer. Your irrational faith defies logic.
Posted by runner, Friday, 7 February 2014 9:26:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi AJ

There was no “Clumsy” attribution - I’ve read much of Richard Dawkins’s book, and all of the relevant chapters that deal with these issues. Dawkins worships at the alter of science without taking a moment to reflect on what science actually is. He talks about science and faith as if they are competing explanations but I see no good reasons to follow him there. At most, there are small areas of conflict within specific areas of science. At most. But on the whole, there is deep concord between the Christian idea of God and the ordered natural universe that science has the ability to discover. Many of the great early scientists saw this clearly.

Re: How God’s will interacts with ours. This is a very complex issue for a reason. We’re talking about an infinite being who is beyond time. So why would I, a being confined within the constraints of time, expect to reach a full and exact comprehension of how this infinite being relates to time? On the contrary, I’m now very sceptical of any attempt to fully explain this, because I don’t expect that we should be able to explain it fully given the attributes of God.

Mac, since this is going into many different topics, I need to clarify some things before jumping ahead. (Things that are central to the issues and questions you‘ve raised): What’s your definition of evidence? And second, what kind of world would you expect to exist if a God(s) did exist?

Thirdly, you seem to be indirectly criticising "belief" without scientific evidence, but you do understand the issue I raised initially in this thread, right? ie: Your belief that science is the only valid way of "knowing" is also a belief that cannot be proven by science.
Posted by Trav, Saturday, 8 February 2014 9:52:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THE proof wenT POOF
but here is an example..of evolutions proofs
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0088329``
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088329.g006

It is therefore argued that the shape of the footprints suggests that they were most likely to have been formed by hominins and none of the prints are consistent with those formed by other mammals [18]. In some cases, left or right and front or back of the foot were also apparent, including one instance of toes, provided information about direction of movement (Figure 7–8).

SO GO TAke a look..[at 7 and 8]
the only ones with toes..[lol..all 3 of em][ie 3 toes/only]
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088329.g007/largerimage

The depth of the imprints is consistent with formation in a soft-stiff muddy substrate, as firm mud does not retain footprint impressions and semi-liquid mud has insufficient strength to retain a clear, undeformed impression [18].

The less elongated features might also be hominin footprints, where impressions from just heels or the front of feet have been preserved, or overprinting has obscured original features. The time elapsed from initial exposure to recording will also have led to some erosion of the surface, which will have affected the shape and clarity of the prints.

ANYHOW..THE ORIGINAL NOW GONE
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088329.g007/largerimage

AND LOOK..at the skulls..[all plaster casts]..the origonals lost trying to 'keep em safe]
but hey the plaster cast..IS YA PROOF

THE real stuff allways goes poof.
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 8 February 2014 6:11:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sorry half the post self deleted
here is the SEARCH term..

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Footprints+washed+away

watching the vidio'S IS A WASTE of time[but heck i watched..eM..for you]

and the other deleted but..THIS RECORDS THE ORIGONAL..'huh-man?..skull'S LOST IN TRANSPORTATION.
http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/Java_Man_%26_Peking_Man
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 8 February 2014 6:25:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

"What’s your definition of evidence?"

The standard dictionary definitions--"an indication, sign....that which tends to prove or disprove something"

I'm sure the difficulty is not the definition of "evidence", but what actually constitutes evidence, and remember the onus of proof is on the believer, not the sceptic. The existence of the Universe is simply evidence that the Universe exists, not that it was created by some agency beyond space and time.

The work of science is subjected to continuous review and any theory, at any time, can be demonstrated to be in error, if religion could be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny if would have my respect. There is no scientific evidence that "belief" has any validity, humans have believed in thousands of religions and gods over the millennia, where are they now? Again the onus of proof is on the believer to demonstrate that belief is a 'way of knowing', not science. Science has even investigated the evolutionary reasons as to why humans believe in the supernatural.

"....what kind of world would you expect to exist if a God(s) did exist?"

The answer is really dependent on the nature of the God/gods, who created the Universe, isn't it, so how many kinds of gods could there be? Some religions are relatively more successful at reconciling the reality of existence and human experience than Christianity, the key term is "relatively".
Posted by mac, Sunday, 9 February 2014 7:59:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>The existence of the Universe is simply evidence that the Universe exists<<

Well, the existence of XYZ is simply evidence that XYZ exists, whatever you wish to substitute for XYZ, Universe, God, my foot or what.
Posted by George, Sunday, 9 February 2014 8:20:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

Either you agree of you're impervious to sarcasm. Which is it?
Posted by mac, Sunday, 9 February 2014 9:15:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mac,

Sarcasm or not, “the existence of XYZ is simply evidence that XYZ exists” says nothing. If you PRESUME the existence of XYZ, why would you need “evidence” (whatever that means in the abstract context of e.g. contemporary theoretical physics and cosmology) to confirm what you assumed?

Some people believe in God (whatever that means to them), some don’t; like some believe that science can potentially tell us everything about “reality” (quotation marks for the same reasons as above), some don’t.

My post was not to arrgue for or against any of these beliefs (basic worldview assumptions), only to point out that the sentence

“the existence of something is evidence that that something exists”,

the same as e.g.

“the greatness of something is evidence that that something is great”

is meaningless.
Posted by George, Sunday, 9 February 2014 9:52:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wasn’t talking about Dawkins, Trav.

<<There was no “Clumsy” attribution - I’ve read much of Richard Dawkins’s book…>>

Aside from a passing mention in my first post to you, my response was not in regards to Dawkins and everything I had said since my mentioning of him should have made that crystal clear.

That being said, can I take your lack of any mention of Christian fundamentalists as your acceptance that I was in fact right about your clumsy attribution?

As for the rest of your first paragraph to me, you’d need to be a little more specific for me to answer adequately: -

What are the “small areas of conflict? To which “specific areas of science” do you refer?

What I’d really be fascinated to know, though, is what this obsession with Dawkins is that so many of you theists have? He’s not an authority. Why can’t some theists just listen to what those with whom they are having a discussion believe and address that?

<<Re: How God’s will interacts with ours. This is a very complex issue for a reason. We’re talking about an infinite being who is beyond time.>>

There’s another possible reason for why this is such a complex issue, and that is that this god doesn’t actually exist and that this has all just been made up by people trying to reconcile some very contradictory concepts based on some very contradictory writings. Given the implausibility of your position at this point in time, you would need to provide some evidence for the god to which your argument applies before it warrants any serious consideration. Until such time, the non-existence of this god becomes the more plausible and rational assumption.

Even if your evidence for the Christian God’s existence is sufficient, though, one still cannot answer a mystery by appealing to another mystery; that just pushes the problem back a step and prevents one from ever discovering a different, more valid answer as you no longer feel the need to think.

One way in which science and faith certainly are at odds with each other.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 9 February 2014 4:34:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science, as we recognise it today, is the new boy on the block. It has demonstrated a phenomenal growth in its breadth of scope and application, in its accepted credibility among all who use it and are benefited by it. The results of its pursuit are intensely intellectually satisfying and creates an awe for the natural, the observable and the rational method of inference from evidence.

Were one to be an adherent of the supernatural he might be prompted to declaim upon these qualities as being accurately descriptive of their systems of allegiance. Yet, only when science's advance in human understanding began to clash with supernatural belief has the believer sought with increasing desperation to gather the new competitor for the human mind's allegiance to itself and with Constantinian guile sought to adapt it to being a branch of the supernatural realm.

Religious belief, in its fight for survival, demands it. Science ignores it and will advance inexorably, implacably and with magnificent indifference.

To turn the religious argument on its originator: If you cannot provide compelling evidence that humankind will never "know" everything then we must approach this issue positively and assert that we will, indeed, know everything. And the supernatural will have died a lingering death.
Posted by Extropian1, Monday, 10 February 2014 5:38:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Extropian1,/QUOTE..<<..Religious belief, in its fight for survival, demands it. Science ignores it and will advance inexorably, implacably and with magnificent indifference.>>..

YOU SOUND..SO SURE..your mind is made up

ARE you sure of the fundamentals?

<<..To turn the religious argument on its originator: If you cannot provide compelling evidence that humankind will never "know" everything then we must approach this issue positively and assert that we will, indeed, know everything.>>

lol

INTERESTING..POINT..you have resolved the point
you now shall be content..having removed the other options

fundamentalism..is simply a point decided rESolved
you by having irrevocably solved the co-nundrun..are content

well done number one sun
[its explained better here]

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/tedradiohour/past-programs/

Our Buggy Brain

Our amazing brain, with all of its harmonious functions, also performs any number of peculiar actions, which we might find unexpected and counterintuitive.

<<..Which brings us to the more interesting issue of what their psychological problems are!>>..

by having re-solved..the fundi-mentals..
fun-di-mentaly..the issue is resolved..[Providing the mind says case closed...]

i will confirm it for you absolutely
[we know infinite is lots and lots and lots..[right]
well some gain the great mental boost..of lots is only 1/12 th

so read the [presently]..lAST POST
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6217&page=11

what we see here
decide for yourself..but its fundamental..to resolving this topic
unless we add a random variable..[stir..the surety]..and give alternates..to create new doubt..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15914&page=0

<<And the supernatural will have died a lingering death.>>

you..sound so fundamentally sure of this

TRY LISTENING TO THIS..to..realise why

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2014/02/trh_20140208.mp3

ask why you need to get closure..on your fears
Posted by one under god, Monday, 10 February 2014 5:54:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac, a follow up question to your definition. What is “proof”? And can something which can’t be proven, or hasn’t been proven, have “evidence” supporting it?

I prefer the definitions given in the Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia. Anything that “enhances the reasonableness” of something. Or anything that “can make a difference” to what it is reasonable to believe in.

Yes I agree that the issue is in what constitutes evidence. I have no doubt there are plenty of things I’d consider to be evidence of God, that you would say are not evidence for God at all. Take the origin of the universe as just one example. Plenty of intelligent people look at this as evidence for God, and plenty of intelligent people say it is not.

But I disagree on the burden of proof. There is a burden of proof on whoever is making a claim. If the sceptic says “The natural world is all that exists”, then they are making a claim and there is a burden of proof on them to show that claim to be true. If you say “There is no evidence for God” then you have a burden of proof as well.

Which religions are “relatively more successful at reconciling the reality of existence and human experience than Christianity” and why are they more successful? How successful are they?

AJ, Plenty of Christians talk about God in terms of their answered prayers and their spiritual experiences but they do not talk about him in terms of the everyday workings of the world. They create a divide between the workings of God and the workings of the world. I doubt there’s anything about fundamentalism that necessitates thinking that way, it’s just that fundamentalists do seem to think on those terms. It implicitly backs God into a corner where he never placed himself.

So you believe faith encourages people not to think? For me, it's quite the opposite.
Posted by Trav, Monday, 10 February 2014 9:11:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree, Trav

>>If you say “There is no evidence for God” then you have a burden of proof as well.<<

What evidence could I produce to support a statement that there is no evidence? Evidence of a non-existence of evidence can only be non-existent.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 10 February 2014 9:54:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, You could try to show a pattern by identifying things that are most commonly given as evidence for God* and showing that they are not evidence for God at all. This would support the idea that there is no evidence for God, or minimal/negligible evidence for God. It wouldn't prove it, but it would provide some support for it.

Some things may not be able to decisively be proven, but this doesn't mean there is no "burden of proof"- burden of proof simply means you're obliged to provide support for your view.

*eg: The Origin of the Universe, The Contingency of the Universe, Fine Tuning, Objective Morals.
Posted by Trav, Monday, 10 February 2014 10:25:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

Here I must agree with Pericles, although in general I am of the same worldview outlook as you.

In my opinion, the frequent use in English of the word “evidence” when speaking about worldviews (even just philosophy of science!) is probably of David Hume provenience. For instance, German and Slavic languages cannot distinguish between the words “proof” and “evidence”. In English one has circumstantial evidence, convincing evidence, etc. whereas in serious debates the word “proof” (never circumstantial, equally convincing for everybody) should be preserved only in the context of formal logic or mathematics.

Evidence can be convincing only with respect to a particular context, e.g. to the jury in a court trial. The same for “burden of proof” (in mathematics you can ask for the proof of the existence of something as well as for the non-existence of something, not in real life). Today (in distinction to Hume’s days) the word “evidence” is ambiguous also in a philosophy of science (theoretical physics) context.

There is plenty of “convincing evidence” for the existence of God, meaning convincing to e.g. a Christian, and one cannot expect an atheist to accept it as equally convincing to him/her since then he/she would cease being an atheist.

One can provide arguments in favour of the one or the other fundamental position but they are very seldom convincing for somebody of the opposite worldview orientation, because that would mean conversion or loss of faith, a fundamental change of one’s entire worldview outlook. These things happen, but are only indirectly, usually a posteriori, related to this or that evidence that used to be non-convincing becoming suddenly convincing or vice versa.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 12:22:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

I’m not interested in how some Christians talk, in this case.

<<Plenty of Christians talk about God in terms of their answered prayers and their spiritual experiences but they do not talk about him in terms of the everyday workings of the world.>>

Only what they believe, and having been a church-goer, Youth Group leader and avid attendee of my church’s Bible study group every week in the twenty-something-odd years that I was a Christian, I have never known of any Christian who does this…

<<They create a divide between the workings of God and the workings of the world.>>

Unless something bad happens, of course. Then it’s suddenly the fault of humans because God granted us more free will than even he has himself. For some reason, it was important to him that we be able to commit evil deeds, when not even he himself can this due to his nature. Apparently the inability to do wrong would make us like robots, but not him.

<<So you believe faith encourages people not to think?>>

Absolutely. You even gave a good example of this yourself. I didn’t just pull that remark out of thin air. It was inspired by your attitude towards seeking an answer regarding "[h]ow God’s will interacts with ours".

Faith is not a starting point for any objective inquiry; it’s the surrender of the mind. Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something. Christians even unwittingly admit this when they incorrectly refer to an atheist’s lack of belief as a ‘faith’; or when they assert that an atheist must necessarily believe that the universe came from nothing and then label that imposed belief a ‘faith’.

As for your evidences, they're easily discredited anyway:

The Origin of the Universe: God-of-gaps fallacy.

The Contingency of the Universe: Special pleading fallacy.

Fine Tuning: Assumes the laws of physics are mutable; ignores how uninhabitable the universe is (including much of our own planet); based on false probabilities that we couldn’t possibly calculate given our sample size of 1.

Objective Morals: Euthyphro dilemma.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 1:04:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, Trav, after seeing a post from George and then re-reading my post, I should probably clarify that I have never known of any *fundamentalist* who does what you describe (hopefully you would have assumed that that's what I meant anyway given that fundamentalists were what we had been discussing).

There are plenty of Christians who "create a divide between the workings of God and the workings of the world", but they're not the types who "talk about God in terms of their answered prayers and their spiritual experiences", and they're certainly not fundamentalists. They're the more educated and "sophisticated" Christians who wouldn't dare speak of their prayers or their spiritual experiences, and they certainly wouldn't place their god close to the "workings of the world" because they realise how vulnerable these ideas are to criticism. Particularly when it comes to free will and the problem of evil.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 1:53:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ/Quote..<<..I have never known of any Christian who does this…

<<They create..a divide between the workings..of God and the workings of the world.>>

aj/Unless something bad happens,..of course. Then it’s suddenly the fault..of humans because God..granted us more free will..than even he has himself.>>

aj..you go from beginning point..[never xtianS..DO THIS..
to saying..*we say..WE HAVE MORE FREEWILL THAN GOD..[MATE PLEASE..THINK]

IF THATS..your fundamental point
[god has no free will]..its little excuse..to deliver a lie

please present..PROOF..god has no..LESS FREEWILL]..THAN ME/YOU..ETC

while WE ARE AT IT..please present proof..of big bang
[ie..was it..BY..the brane theory?..BRANE THEORY..MEANS TWO OPPOSING 'Dimensions..BUMPED TOGETHER[..lol....without naming them..light dark/heaven/hell..without calling them..anything..YET IN THE BIBLE IT NAMES THEM..'HEAVEN/EARTH']

THEN..*LET THERE Be..light[bang]

but..big bang..began with..the two brane/realms colliding..two opposite worlds..[FREE-WILL]

that belongs/to god[ditto 'natural selection..ditto..
survival..of the fittest/;GODS..[science IS VERIFIABLE..PRESENT YOUR PROOF]

THOSE ASSUMING/SCIENCE..FACT,,ARE DECEIVED

GOD ALL-WED..THAT FREEWILL..so you could see
he allows it..that dont mean..he dont have it...OR HAS LESS.

<<>.For some reason,..it was important/to him..that we be able to commit evil deeds,>>

that we learn..the bitter fruits of the tree of knowing/KNOWLEDGE*
it began with assuming..nakedness a sin..IT ENDS..ONCE WE ALL SEE GODS IDEA/good-will..ends in grace/mercy..[the buck stops with him*

<<.. when not even he himself..can this due to his nature.>>wrong*

GOD IS..ALL SELF*..[ALL/selves/all living.
[THAT..YE DO TO THE LEAST..ye did to..the most*]

ITS NOT ouR Smallness..we fear[but our greatness
jesus added..and the greatness..in other*

LOVE GOD
BY TRYING TO LOVE other*

<< Apparently the inability..to do wrong..would make us like robots, but not him.>>

what higher proof do you need..you made you..the robot..not god.

we could do..like the atheist/foundation says..retrain/educate you ignorant..but god says no johan,.,freewill..only

none come to me.. but by love grace mercy..ie[service to other][as you saw..our beloved Christ do..[nonE but..by the way as christ..walked..the talk..of freewill.

we are..the living god within..revealing himself to himself
if you were making law..for you..[thyself]..would you takeaway..freewill..in yourself...of course not

mr phillips..this is satans realm...he do like..abusive-freewill..[ie..we do..his will]..
thus this realm exists..TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE..

chose sides..YOUR WITH FREEWILL OR NOT*...regardless present..proof..
NAME THE FIRST..'LIFE-genus'..AND WHAT..genus..IT 'EVOLVED'..INTO.[by science-proof]

IF NOT..BRANE-THEORY/WHAT..MADE..the..'BANG'
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 7:49:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exactly, Trav.

>>...burden of proof simply means you're obliged to provide support for your view<<

Which, in the case of a negative, is structurally impossible.

At the risk of being slightly flippant, that is akin to asking me to justify my view that the concept of time travel is pure fiction. There are, and have been, absolutely no examples that have any foundation in reality, yet there is an overflowing shelf of literature on the subject. Similarly UFOs, alien life forms visiting Earth, CIA responsibility for 9/11 etc. etc.

The difference, as has been pointed out, is faith. Faith does not require evidence of any kind, simply an internal conviction to believe. Which - apart from any other consideration - explains the existence on this planet of a plethora of different "religions", each with faith in their own interpretation of literature, hearsay and oral histories.

(It also explains conspiracy theorists, of course, but that is at another mental level entirely)

I have absolutely no interest in converting you to my viewpoint, simply because it is patently obvious that words will have no effect on a conviction, based on a belief, based upon faith. This Forum is ample evidence of this fact.

I do however have an abiding interest in the thought processes involved, on both sides of the "faith divide".
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 8:22:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PERICULES..i admit..to having had faith..in science
till i learned..it has feet of clay.[you arE A MAN OF LOGIC..please name THE SCIENCE..proofs..of first life by chance..[wHAT SPECIES GENUS]..FORMED..BY CHANCE?

you have proof..present it..or be revealed to have faith[not science]

lets be honest..most of the science of evolution..is by faith alone
bUT THE SCIENCE ISNT TRUE SCIENCE..they been duped*..[faith in the false evolution science god..IS FAITH.

SOME TRUST THE ACTUAL BIBLE
show me where the evolution bible is..

name names..what first living geNUS?
WHAT THE NEXT 'EVOLUTION'..BY WHAT SCIENCE PROOF?

fill ijn some gaps for those having faith in your faith

mate how was the world 'created'..by which 'chance'
what made the 'change'..IF ENERGY CANT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED..how can your 'science'..predict a beginning or end?

mater science is fraud..you got faith
just like us..but you canT SAY GO TO PAGE 1..LINE ONE..AND THATS WHAT WE HAVE FAITH..IN*

SHOW ME..THE SCIENCE BEGINNING BIBLE
SHOW ME JUST ONE EVOLUTION INTO NEW GENUS EVER*
[LET ALONE ONE CHANGE OF GENUS BY 'science'..[you been deceived bloke*]..IF YOU CANT DEFEND YOUR BELIEF..STOP ASKING US TO VALIDATE OURS

OURS IS FACTS BASED..BY THE BOOK
present yours..beginning and process..name one genus SCIENCE HAS MADE

NO EVOLUTION..INTO NEW GENUS EVER RECORDED*
PRESENT PROOF OF CONCEPT..ot allow your acolytes to see you only got faith..too.
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 9:01:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,

It sounds like you and I know or know of different fundamentalists! And different "sophisticated" Christians to boot.

Seems like we have a different idea of faith too. I'm not quite sure if there's any point repeating this but allow me: for me, my own faith and belief in God and Christianity encourages me to think. And historically many have shared my understanding. As the editor of this website wrote recently, if this was 600 years ago he would've been a Bible publisher. Literacy, thought and Christian faith go hand in hand. Just check out the original mottos and histories of the great Universities of the world. Eg: Yale (Founded by clergymen) or Oxford (Motto- The Lord is my Light).

George, are you suggesting we dispense with the concepts of evidence and proof altogether because they are too ambiguous, unless we’re talking about strict black and white topics such as mathematical equations?

Pericles, I still don’t completely understand why you think this is “structurally impossible”. If you are making a claim then you need to show some support for that claim, regardless of what that claim is. And I maintain that virtually any claim is theoretically capable of being supported, regardless of whether it can be decisively proven. I’d be interested to know your thoughts on Alvin Plantinga’s comments in a recent interview when he talks about Russell’s Teapot and argues that actually, we have evidence against “teapotism”.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?hp=&rref=opinion

On faith: faith should be seen as trust, as opposed to “blind faith” and it should be supported by some degree of evidence. My idea of evidence is a broader one than the narrow view adhered to by many people.
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 12:18:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't agree, Trav.

>>If you are making a claim then you need to show some support for that claim, regardless of what that claim is<<

But thanks for introducing the unashamedly frivolous teapot argument.

[Russell's thoughts] "...the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and is enough to support a-teapotism..." [Plantinga's response]... "Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on."

Which is, of course, merely another way of avoiding the key issue: if you believe that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, then you are required to do so on faith alone, since there is absolutely no evidence of it. Proposing that a sane person would use "we would have read about it, surely" to support a-teapotism can hardly be said to constitute an intelligent contribution to the debate.

I am sure that you will find, somewhere, a written description of UFOs. That is neither evidence for or against the proposition that UFOs exist. The crucial point is that they have not been demonstrated to exist, except in someone's imagination.

I feel precisely the same way about religion. Much is written on the subject, from myriad points of view, each describing "God" in their own, unique way.

To me, these descriptions are as real to the individual as the images of UFOs are to the ufologist. But it is pointless mounting any kind of argument against their existence, simply because they only exist in the minds of the believers.

Those who have "faith" have no interest in proof or disproof of their position. They just... believe.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 1:14:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love..the selective blindness
perry dont got a clue..re the first loving genus
because his science dONT//know*

.[AND PERRY IS ONE OF TH.MORE ECLEVer ones/..he would know..the first living thing..WILL/would have its scientific name and genus

IE SOMETHING LIKE..alpha annumus...origona..[genus]
..or somethingequaly ..greek..or latin..or math..[discriptive]..by what some scientist..thinks it it..THEIR THESIS.

or maybe prOto/apha AMIUS..GENUS
[EVOLVED]..INTO BETA ANIMUS..[GENIU]..that evolved into cellular animus..FLI0RA /FAUna animus/minerta/traNsiTiona [etc]

thing is..i just made them up
but per ridicule..*SIMPLY *IGNORES..THE QUESTION

why ?

he lives in faith..according to him it wasnt a teapOT
AND IF A TPOt [EVOLVED]..IT HAS ITS ExSIStANCE..[reason for being..AS ITS 'PRIMA VALIDUS'..replicatus

OR IF it was puT THERE BY ALIANS..[who dont drink tea in that place where gravity dont function]

anyhow regardless of how clever,,even he dont know
thus takes alien tea Pot EVOLUTION..AS IF IT WAS PROVED..

*yet he the most clever guy at the forum cant name names..

lol..he *has never created any [neo]..new-life..
[nOR hIS OWN Genus][HAS NEVER SEEN AN EVOLUTION INTO OTHER GENUS]..yet still has faith in a godless theory..cant even use his language skill to wing it

pericles..MATE
LIFE ;..WHAT WHY WHERE WHEN WHO?

GO Ahead..make my day*
DONT RUN AWAY AGAIN..PLEASE..

its no shame to admit you dont know..[thats why god put us here for]..Just to know*..we couldnt replicate it*...ever..*..its foolish not to admit..even that.
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 2:32:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AND THE FOOL CONFOUNDS THE WISE*

SOMe more..fOR YOUR EDIFICATION/read education
LETS TEST YA STRING THEORY THEORY?

<<.. You are probably aware of the intense interest in theoretical physics in finding a quantum theory of gravity, a marriage between quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GTR), the two great theoretical advances of the twentieth century. Of the approaches to this challenge, string theory is the most prominent.

*However, as Dawid explains (chapter one), this enterprise is (apparently*) different from previous revolutions, because it is not driven by empirical anomalies,>>..

IE ITS ALL SPECULATION
NO SCIENCE FALSIFICATION..EXCEPT BY Fl*AWED MATH
ie see..[eternity =1/12..THREAD..thats an insult..to ANY reasoning man
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6217&page=0

anyhow..quote..''<<..*nor is it..well-controlled by experiments, because characteristic processes..typically occur in situations>>>

where fact is lacking
or IN-ABILITY to replicate..IE IN theory8[LOL]
OR WHAT IF PRESUMPTION/FEIGNING SCIENCE/ABILITY TO REPLICATE [as the koran..SAYS..'TO MAKE JUST ONE LIKE IT'.

<<..(for instance involving huge amounts of energy) that are far from any experimentally*..*accessible regime. lol..(What motivates the enterprise in the absence of anomalies are the remarkable successes of QM and GTR, coupled with the fact that there are situations in which both apply.)

LOL

<<..And yet, even without narrow empirical constraints,[IE REALITY/] string theorists are confident*..lol..that they are on the right track. Why? The aesthetics of the mathematics is one answer given (e.g., Greene 1999).

LOL

<<..Self-deceptive 'groupthink' >>

OH LORD FORGIVE THEM..THEY KNOW NOT What they do/say..reply.[the blind leading the blind comes to mind]

come oN PERICULES..your better than these decievers?

..SELF DECETIVE GROUPTHINK..LOL..<<..is another (e.g., Smolin 2006). The purpose of Dawid's book is to describe and defend a methodology between these optimistic and cynical extremes>>.

YEAH..LOL
PLEASE NAME NAMES..or stop saying we got nuthin
you got nuthin..but dumb and dumber think you do

evolution..is a godfree/mirage
you live in hOPE OR FEAR..but he is all loving all living all light[in strings/think like ball lightening]..all grace all mercy..all logic

ps trav..thanks for a great link
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 3:58:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think it's that we "know of different of fundamentalists", Trav.

<<It sounds like you and I know or know of different fundamentalists!>>

I suspect you may just have an unusual idea of what a fundamentalist is. I define a fundamentalist as the dictionaries do (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3Afundamentalism&oq=define%3Afundamental&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j69i58j69i59l2.7122j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8); that being a theist who takes a literal interpretation of their holy book, i.e. someone who rejects evolution and believes that the Israelites were once slaves of the Egyptians, and other such scientifically and historically and debunked ideas like the Exodus.

So going by the definition of "fundamentalist" that most of us go by, it makes little sense to claim that a fundamentalist - who believes that God played such a hands-on role in the creation of the universe and answers these prayers you mention - would "create a divide between the workings of God and the workings of the world". Remember, too, that fundamentalists, by definition, stick strictly to the theology - contradictions 'n' all. It is in fact "sophisticated" Christians who stray from it, and often for the reason that I mentioned. Two of OLO's contributing authors, Sells and Crabsy, are good examples of this type of Christian. To some of these "sophisticated" Christians, the Bible is just a collection of fables and poetry and largely irrelevant to the theology they have invented for themselves, yet still manage to refer to as "Christian" while attending church every Sunday.

<<Seems like we have a different idea of faith too.>>

It seems we do. Once again, I go by the dictionary definition (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3Afaith&oq=define%3Afaith&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2684j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8). And so do many other Christians apparently, as I pointed out earlier.

[It would be much more conducive to productive discussion if you could demonstrate why the examples I provide, in support of my arguments, are not valid before simply ploughing on to repeat the same claim.]

<<...for me, my own faith and belief in God and Christianity encourages me to think.>>

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 10:00:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

About what exactly? I'm not sure we're on the same page anymore (this is a good example of why it's counterproductive for you to ignore the support I provide for what I say). Of course a religious belief is not going to stop one thinking about *everything*. It won't even stop them thinking about the theology of their faith. What it will do, however, is limit the scope of their inquiry and stop them thinking when the most plausible and rational conclusion is too uncomfortable to draw. As you had demonstrated earlier.

That being said, your 'literacy' and 'universities' examples are irrelevant to what I'm saying.

<<...faith should be seen as trust, as opposed to “blind faith” and it should be supported by some degree of evidence.>>

If it were supported any relaible evidence at all, then it would not be referred to as a "faith".

It's interesting that theists will alternate between the first two definitions of faith that I linked to, when it suits them.

The correct context for 'faith' is apparently fine when speaking disparagingly about an atheist's lack of belief ("You have a faith too"); protecting their own beliefs from criticism ("But it's my faith!"); or running out of arguments for God's existence ("Well, you just gotta have faith").

But as soon as it's pointed out that faith is - by definition - blind, then suddenly it's just about trust. Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Theists refer to their belief using an adjective that describes it, not by the trust they put in the god that is the subject of that belief.

<<My idea of evidence is a broader one than the narrow view adhered to by many people.>>

The problem with this being, of course, that if you broaden your idea of what constitutes evidence beyond that which is demonstrably reliable (e.g. including 'personal revelation' when only evidence and reasoned argument based on logical absolutes has so far proven itself to be the only reliable pathway to truth), then you will inevitably hold some false beliefs or some true beliefs for bad reasons.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 10:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

>> are you suggesting we dispense with the concepts of evidence and proof altogether because they are too ambiguous <<

Concepts like evidence, proof, truth, existence, reality, faith etc are ambiguous when used in an abstract (philosophical) context - hence in discussions one should be careful using them until all sides can agree on their meaning, if that is possible at all.

No such ambiguity when used in everyday language: Horses exist and there is plenty of "evidence" to prove the truth of this statement. Unicorns don’t exist because we all have the same idea of a unicorn and we all agree that such a creature does not exist. In the philosophy of science, of religion, metaphysics etc things are not that simple.

[In particular, one thing is to talk about the existence of UFOs, Russell’s teapot or Dawkins’ Ultimate Boeing 747, concepts that make sense only as belonging to physical reality, another thing to assume the existence of a divine realm related to both the mental and physical but reducible to neither of them. An important contribution to philosophy and history is built around the latter, but not around any of the former. I think this is what Platinga has in mind when talking about a-teapotism.]

I have suggested one way of distinguishing between proof, evidence and argument-for, that I see as more or less universal. In this language e.g. Aquinas’ “proofs” (of God’s existence) would only be arguments convincing to some not convincing to others. Or when Jesus said “I am the Truth” He certainly did not have in mind the Boolean algebra of truth values.

So yes, debaters who cannot agree on the meaning of these abstract terms should treat them carefully as ambiguous.
Posted by George, Thursday, 13 February 2014 8:28:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
forget words meaning
put the word in context
who is saying what to who?

if im speaking for god/*/then im accountAble TO GOD
whether..I BELIEVE..in a true god..or a false god..
or regardless of what..YOU..the hearer thinks god to be.

in law..god is supreme..thus he is*..final judge
as much as..non believers may deny..it

aj/quoted..<<..If it were supported any reliable evidence at all, then it would not be referred to as a "faith".

It's interesting that..theists will alternate..between the first two definitions of faith..that I linked to,..when it suits them.......>>..LOL

if you got faith..in jesus or aj phylips..its faith..
but question the clever guys..that say..*they got more..we find faiths..IN SCIENCE/evolution

that..isnt science*[THATS THE LIE..THAT MADE FAith..in science god]..ie faithlessness*

evolution..isnt science
you been deceived..by thosE..them-SELF DECEIVED

VALIDATE EVOLUTION..any..of you?

REVEAL JUST one..*science evolution into new genus
name name..oh ye faith in deceivers..YOU HAVE FAITH*IN SCIENCE..[FULL STOP]

OR PRESENT YOUR SCIENCE/gnosis=knowing

<<..The correct context..for 'faith' is apparently fine
when speaking disparagingly..lol..about an atheist's lack of belief ("You have a faith too");..

so do you aj
be honest with thyself mate
or reveal the science..you dont..you ONLY GOD FAITH/TOO

<<.. protecting..lol..their own beliefs from criticism..("But it's my faith!"); or running out of arguments..for God's existence..("Well, you just gotta have faith")...

prove your science*!*

yOU CLAIM fact..claim science..present it*!*

<<..But as soon as it's pointed out..lol..that faith is - by definition - blind,>>

the blind blunder..into their next faith/lessness
if you cant PROVE THESIS..ITS NOT SCIENCE..*[ITS FAITH]

<,.. then suddenly..it's just about trust.>>

AHH GREAT POINT..WHO YOU GOING TO TRUST
in the last seconds..of your life?

the science..that slow killed you/deceived you
sickend/you..or him*..who sustained you..your every breath..?

<<.. Sorry, but that doesn't wash...Theists refer to their belief using an adjective..that describes it,..>>

GIVE PROOF..OF THESIS..PLEASE

<<..not by the trust..they put in the god
that is the subject of that belief.>>

I FEEL SAFER TRUSTING
THE GOOD..GRACEFULL/LIVING LOVING GOD..MORE
more*..THAN ANY Or all of you./.[FULLSTOP]

:}

id say..you trust him to0..more
over trusting me..CORRECT?

misare
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 13 February 2014 9:54:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lo guys im not sayiNG YOUR IGNOrant
im simplY SAYing..if you know it you could explain it to a questioner

perhaps if you listen to michael..explaining that the billion dollar smashing macHINE..is only to find a 'god particle'..called the higgs BOSUM..

that the theory of relitivity [E =mc2]..proves somehow the big bang
by being a super blackhole..couldnt ever escape the blackhole[unless reality is suspended ever so briefly..by a higgs boson[so the theory goes[and none of you 'science types cared to explain

there is more to it..but spirit really thinks its pearl before swine
some hints=THINK OF A BLACK HOLE AS A PROCESS OF 0SMOSIS..AND EQuilibrium/PLUS MOMENTUM..into change of state..that inverts INTO THE NEXT REALITY[WITH A FLASH AND A BANG.

its that simple[except that TIME CHANGES as space changes and the inversION..IS TOTALY OUT OF TIME[ETERNAL]..TILL GOD GRASPS her next beath..AND BEATHES OUT THE MANNA FOR THE NEXT LOT OF GODHEADS[YOU]

anyhow name first life/genus..you dont know do you
but worse you dont care do you

the only thing you really hope[believe]..have faith in is no god because your too SELF OBSESSED[DECEIVED]..to look for his sign

life love logic grace mercy
light SUSTAINING LIFE..that life seek like
after the balance[in the pre big bang darkness]

i wish you science faithful at least would give info
fundamentalists ARE DYING TO INFORM YOU..but fundamentally all ya got is faith..[trUST]..LOL..NO FACTS MAAAM..I WILL TAKE IT ON FAith..causE I dont grasp the concept or the math.

bah*
silence..indicates true shamed ignorance
yet the biased opinion indicates passion..but sadly no fact
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 13 February 2014 4:19:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, if we’re isolating Plantinga’s comments on “teapotism” then the relevant question is whether the proponent of “anti teapotism” has any obligation to provide support or evidence for their view, or whether that is simply the default view.

A question for you: Do you believe that all religions rely on blind faith to the same extent in terms of supporting their key propositions?

(That is, entirely blind faith in total absence of any evidence or support whatsoever)

AJ, interesting thoughts but you focused almost exclusively on evolution and origins. That is a very small part of science, and in fact has little bearing on how we interpret the world and how we talk about our everyday lives. Furthermore, how we talk about our everyday lives may or may not have a close connection with how we interpret the Bible. That is, fundamentalists may or may not be consistent.

Re: Faith, I’m fairly confident that some equivocation is impossible to avoid when talking about concepts like this. So in that respect, to some degree your criticisms may have validity. But it goes both ways. Ie: You can easily define faith as you wish and then disparage it as you wish, but I don’t expect many religious believers would be perturbed by your attempt at setting the discussion on your terms. And nor should they be.

Re: Evidence, Since God claims to be a personal being and not merely a proposition, then if God did exist we would expect evidence to be personal and subjective to some degree or another. If you aren’t willing to accept this much then it’s best to agree to disagree and bring this part of the conversation to a close.

Finally, please don’t expect me to “demonstrate” why your “arguments” are wrong. We’d be here forever. Holding these discussions is stimulating, interesting and fun but please don’t take the fun out of it by complaining that I’m not answering every single point you make. I never intended to. And nor do I expect you to answer every comment I make either.
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 13 February 2014 10:29:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, just re read your comment and realised by statement that you focused on evolution and origins was not correct- you were more broad than that.

However the substance of my comment is still true- I was referring to our everyday lives, and the way in which some Christians force God into a box by limiting him to the unknowns. Yet when we talk about normal everyday things (that are perfectly "explainable" by everyday science and knowledge from our senses) we don't always remember that God is ultimately behind those too. Consistency is important.

George- your comments are definitely stimulating!

I agree with your main idea: "Concepts like evidence, proof, truth, existence, reality, faith etc are ambiguous when used in an abstract (philosophical) context - hence in discussions one should be careful using them until all sides can agree on their meaning, if that is possible at all"

I often attempt this but it's difficult. Perhaps, some fruitful discussion can still be had despite this limitation.
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 13 February 2014 10:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I WAS GOING TO POST THIS..AS A CONTINUED From another topic
BUT AS IT BESt..relATES TO THIS..topic..I POST IT HERE

ITS DESCRIPTIVE..OF how..i have applied my different way of 'knowing'

I Figured to ask..SPIRITS..for help..and..MY POSTS..simply pass..MY MINDS EYE/ENVISIOning on..[LIKE ANY POSTAL Worker..i TRY NOT TO JUDGE THE MESSAGE]..OR CLARIFY..WHAT IM OFTEN required to post..NOT..by editing nor censure..[IT IS AS IT IS..the best i can do]

just as the messengers..in the book passed their messages on
[we have a book..test is on our books/not your disbelief]

i..JUST PASS IT/al..ON..as i know you must
I WILL BE..NEXT MEETING WITH YOUR MATES..ON 6 MAY
IT SEEMS SPIRIT.HAS MUCH IT WISHES ME..TO ASK..by what authority..[que warrento]..

[I WOULD LOVE IT IF YOU WERE THERE..AS I WOULD ALLOW..you standing to 'be there'..TO HEAR..WHAT I HAVE TO SAY TO THE summery-MAGGI Straight..[not judge]..because the first thing..i wiLL BE ASKING your peer..is to affirm his standing...to even be there.

either as..a royalist/or loyalist..OR otherwise..a fellow swearer..of oath-to her royal highness..[just wont do[SEE HRH HAS BEEN BETRAYED..BYSECULAR-HIGH treason..RULED BY DEMONS UNAWARE.

AND THE MAGGI..HAS THE DUTY..TO AFFIRM..AND CONVEY To hrh..[her hairs and suckceazers]..the WRIT..OF QUE WARRENTO..by what right..?..[THIS WAR ON A SEEDY PLANT..GOD GAVE TO EVERY/ANYONE..[GEN1;29]..

and BY WHAT RIGHT..GOVT pervert..the laWS OF POSSESSION..
[WHEN THE personhood..of STATE/CANNOT HAVE POSSESSION../NO INFORMED transmittance of right..BESIDES YOUR MATES TAKING IT..PROVE I NEVER HAD POSSESION

aNYHOW..MY 3 RD EDIT..IT JUST GETS MESSY
AND THE OTHER stuff,,that shows they dont want me talking..say cut the post in half..and stop posting..so this i do

by what right?..they use the conditions of war..to criminalize INTO Possession..being the crime..its demonic/..BUT GOD GAVE FREEWILL..THE WAY/MEANS..BUT ENOUGH..[GOD BLESS..THE MAGNA CARTA CHARTA]

or as an injured party..but i guess..we all can wait[but the innocent cry out..from the grave..that those criminalized..by govt DECLARATIONS OF REAL WARS..ON LIVING KIDS FOR RELEASING A lowly PLANT SPIRIT..BACK TO OUR FATHER

[GIVEN..it sounds nuts..i deliverd it regardless
cause thats how it was given..of spirit..unto me]

thaTS..HOW GOD..*WITHIN/US..*ALL WORKS...
THAT..YE DID...TO/FOr..THE LEAST..YE Did..*to..him*
Posted by one under god, Friday, 14 February 2014 5:45:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SEE CURRENTLY..IM WAITING TO POST ON 3..THREADS
little known/let ALONE.. thought of..by 'science'..is just how mucH WE TRUST..other[thus take itt on faith]

soME OF US..TRUST..externals..others trust internals
like..'science..has its theoies..[like they say THAT 'PRESURE'..BUILT UP IN A CONTAINMENT VESSEL..CREATES PRESURE...by banging ..of non named particles..on the sides of the vessel[or some other such delusion]
none of you geniuos types care to post[BUT WHAT really is happening..is at the lower than micro-scopic levels..the molicules are at tHE ATOMIc/levels..being forced ..TOGETHER..[lets upscale..it to big bang scale.

see our earth..as if/IT..HAS..8 or 9 orbiting electrONS[PROTRONS NEUTRONS ETC=VENUS MARSE URANUS..etc]

solets pump the solar sySTEM..[like it was an airmolicule]..INTO A CONTAINER/LETS call that 'containER'..BLACK-HOLE..ANYHOW WE PUMP IN 50 or so earTH LIKE SOLAR SYSTEMS..AND JUst like air..in a container..it liqufies..[ie changes state..from air..into water]

now iT HASNT..properly changed state..BUT ONLY CHANGED STATE..BY VIRTUE/means..of the presSure container restraining THEIR 'SPACE'

WHERE AS BEFORE WE HAD THE SOLAR SUNS BODY OF AFFECT[a solar system..=one air molicule]..PUT ENOUGH INTO A BOTTLE..THE ORBIT OF the 50 plutos[outer RING ELECTRONS]..BEGIN BUMPing into each other

they are forced into a lower orbit..ever lower orbits..till in time
all outer orbits are forced onto say..the earth level of orbit

now if we opened the bottle..all them suns and planet suystems[read air MOLECULES]..RUSH OUT AND BECOME AIR AGAIN..[OR SOLAR SYSTEMS /AGAIN]..

but before this..compression..[SPIRITS SAY PEARL BEFORE SWINE]
THEY DONT ASK..MEANS THEY ARNT MEANT TO KNOW

you say what science *says happens
i will show you..science has feet of clay.

NAME NAMES/SCIENCE-process..?..reveal it
in plauin speak/RECALL SYNTAX IS IMPORTANT FOR SOME
AND MATH JUST CONFOUNDS THOSE NOT KNOWING THE FORMULATED CHANGER'S OF STATE..

our holy texts are written..so the reader can replicate their exact meaning/

meaning..if you cant teach..it..you been lied to.
YOU WERE TAUGHT LIES.
Posted by one under god, Friday, 14 February 2014 6:11:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect, Trav, others will explain some of the problems with...

"Evidence, Since God claims to be a personal being and not merely a proposition, then if God did exist we would expect evidence to be personal and subjective to some degree or another."

But setting those aside (eg. the 'claims' bit) doesn't the sentence allow that every iteration of God - by every faith and religion and by every believing individual - is evidenced?

Are they then, all true? Even though most are mutually contradictory or exclusive?

Sometimes I wish that the conversations were more along the lines, not of why my belief in my God is right, but why your belief in your God is not.

Having then dealt with all the false Gods, theists would be able to really confront athiests with 'what' was left standing.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 14 February 2014 7:33:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

Thanks for your correction at the end there. However, we are now back to where we started. I understood that this is what you were saying:

<<I was referring to our everyday lives, and the way in which some Christians force God into a box by limiting him to the unknowns.>>

The only reason I brought up evolution and the geographically, geologically and archaeologically debunked stories in the Bible was to show you the contrast between a fundamentalist and a sophisticated Christian, and demonstrate the inconsistency in your claims regarding the type of thinking we generally see in these two types of Christian. I am still waiting for you to explain to me how you single-out fundamentalists when making the following claim:

<<Yet when we talk about normal everyday things (that are perfectly "explainable" by everyday science and knowledge from our senses) we don't always remember that God is ultimately behind those too. Consistency is important.>>

Though the softening and generality of your chosen wording here seems to indicate that my points have had some impact: “…when we talk about…”, “…we don't always remember…”.

Can I take it that you no longer attribute the above merely to some fundamentalists?

<<That is, fundamentalists may or may not be consistent.>>

In light of everything I have pointed out, how do fundamentalists deserve singling out here?

Re: Faith. ‘Faith’, in general - whether it be about trust or a belief in something - is a word we use when we don’t have a good reason for that trust or belief. Colloquially, we say we “have faith” in someone or something when the trust we are placing in them/it hasn’t yet been earned, or may have even been abused at some point in the past yet we want to ease our concerns. We would also tend to say that we “have faith” that something will happen, when in reality, we couldn’t know either way.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 14 February 2014 10:12:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

No matter which way you frame it, ‘faith’ is a term used when we can’t know something, have a reason to doubt it, or the trust we are placing in something is excessive. And once again, most Christians seem to understand this. The best you could argue would be to say that it is merely an unfortunate co-incidence that a word used to describe religious belief also means ‘belief without evidence’. But that would really be pushing it.

<<Since God claims to be a personal being and not merely a proposition, then if God did exist we would expect evidence to be personal and subjective to some degree or another.>>

To some degree, yes, but only to the individual. More important is the degree to which the evidence is objective, because without any objective evidence, the subjective may be dismissed by both the individual and an outsider, and may even render the believer ‘delusional’ in the persistent absence of objective evidence; leaving them to rely on - funnily enough - faith.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 14 February 2014 10:12:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure I understand why you would need to ask the question, Trav.

>>A question for you: Do you believe that all religions rely on blind faith to the same extent in terms of supporting their key propositions? (That is, entirely blind faith in total absence of any evidence or support whatsoever)<<

As may have become apparent, I am an atheist.

Because of this, I am certain that there is no such thing as "God". It therefore follows that my position must be, that anyone who does believe in such a being (or non-being, I'm not being prescriptive here), necessarily relies on "blind faith".

For example, as I view Christianity, I see that in order to accept the Bible as evidence of the existence of God, Christians have to believe that there is a God to begin with. If you do not, then none of its stories makes a skerrick of sense, except as an interesting historical document that sheds some light upon the thought processes of an ancient civilization.

So, to me, the justification for rejecting the concept of "blind faith" in favour of "evidence-supported faith" disappears. The evidence of a God-of-Christianity is actually based on a conclusion that is itself based on the evidence.

Which is nothing more than a version of the "I am not a liar" problem.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 14 February 2014 10:55:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

>> a version of the "I am not a liar" problem.<<

I am sure you are not a liar, and I do not see any problem there :-)). You probably meant one of self-referential statements like “I am a liar” or more precisely - to make sure it is clearly self-referential - “Everything I say is a lie” or “All Cretans are liars, says the Cretan” or Russel’s paradox, or the almighty God creating a rock He cannot lift, etc.

>>So, to me, the justification for rejecting the concept of "blind faith" in favour of "evidence-supported faith" disappears.<<

Maybe so, but those are actually just two sides of the same coin: my “faith” - actually a whole system of beliefs forming my Christianity-informed worldview - is based on a lot of “evidence” convincing to me, and most other Chrtistians (for reasons only marginally related to what science can tackle) but not to others, including atheists, while at the same time the same “faith” most look “blind” to an outsider.

>>The evidence of a God-of-Christianity is actually based on a conclusion that is itself based on the evidence.<<

This sounds very much like meaningless as “the existence of XYZ is simply evidence that XYZ exists”, discussed above, which I suppose you wanted to point out comparing it a aself-referential statement.
Posted by George, Friday, 14 February 2014 11:37:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
comparing it to a self-referential statement.
Posted by George, Friday, 14 February 2014 11:40:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, yes, George. Sort of.

>>You probably meant one of self-referential statements like “I am a liar” etc...<<

But I used "I am not a liar" quite deliberately because it cannot be refuted, whether the speaker is telling the truth, or not.

Try it and see. If I am a liar, the words are a lie; if I am telling the truth, the words are the truth. In your version, the liar would be telling the truth, and the truth-teller would be lying. Such a paradox does not enter into my version.

So if someone says "God is real", based upon their belief in the Bible, there is simply no basis for invalidation. And this is in fact exactly the Christian position: there is a God, because the Bible says so.

Put another way, Every Christian I have met uses the Bible as evidence of the existence of God. And I don't believe this is a coincidence.

And I fear you may have the wrong end of the stick on this, too:

>>>>The evidence of a God-of-Christianity is actually based on a conclusion that is itself based on the evidence.<< This sounds very much like meaningless as “the existence of XYZ is simply evidence that XYZ exists”<<

Well it isn't, actually. It is much more along the lines of "the existence of God can only be argued if you first believe that God exists", which is not the same thing at all.

Which is why I cannot make any logical headway with a Christian, when the question is "does God exist", since the answer is already part of the question.

It's the same with UFOs. It is pointless discussing their existence or non-existence with someone who already believes that they do. Whereas any discussion on the same topic with a non-believer in UFOs (all-same Christianity) will have the exact same outcome: there is no evidence.

>>...my Christianity-informed worldview - is based on a lot of “evidence” convincing to me...<<

Precisely. For the reason stated above. You believe in the Christian God, therefore the Christian God exists.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 14 February 2014 3:49:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pericules/quote..<<..It is much more..along the lines of
"the existence of God..can only be argued..if you first believe..that God exists",..which is not the same thing at all...>>..

IF YOU BELIEVE..'THAT GOD EXISTS'
THE EGZISTANCE..OF GOD..CAn*t..be argued.WONT BE IN DISPUTE

JUST LIKE YOUR insistance..he dont egsist....makes any debate mute..[to your ears]..[if your not hungry..your not looking for*..Food.]..so why debate and con volute?

[OUR FAiTHS ARE BEYOND DISPUTE]....but not whos
trust/faith....is OF REALITY/true..but by opinion..as sepperate frOM FACT,,NAR THE TWAIN..SHALL MEET.

<<..Which is why I cannot make any logical headway with a Christian, when the question is "does God exist", since the answer is already part of the question.>>

so what..i know you exist..in word's
BUT I cant prove your not a perfect computer..YOUR JUST TOO PERFECT..[YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTIONS..CAUSE YOU CANT FRAME REAL ZINGERS?]

OK..I BELIEVE..IN GOD..but not ufo's
i will refute your first quote/see top]

<<..It's the same with UFOs. It is pointless discussing their existence or non-existence with someone who already believes that they do.>>

so you like me..dont believe..in ufo's?
do you believe..in other dimentions?
TIme travel?..spirit?..ALTERNATE REALITIES..[like if someone..is tripping on lsd?

see how yet again..you reply thyne owN THESUS?
[its because your too clever..to say something..we could refute]

DO I LOOK FAT IN THIS?

<<..Whereas any discussion..on the same topic with a non-believer in UFOs..(all-same Christianity)..will have the exact same outcome: there is no evidence.>>

THAT COULD Convince you?
of either..Common bro..your clever..ask the right questions
then refute our answerS..not ya own*?
Posted by one under god, Friday, 14 February 2014 4:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

I stand corrected, you were not after paradoxes (statements which can be neither true nor false) but after sentences that cannot be refuted, of which there are a legion. Whatever factual statement you make I cannot refute it if I do not know the context - e.g. whether you have ever lied.

On the other hand, the sentence

“the existence of XYZ is simply evidence that XYZ exists”

represents a circular reasoning or even tautology which can not be falsified. The same for your sentence

>>The evidence of a God-of-Christianity is actually based on a conclusion that is itself based on the evidence.<<

This is more explicit if one reformulates it as “the existence of God-of-Christianity (guaranteed by the Bible) is evidence that the God-of-Christianity exists.”

A third example of this kind would be the claim “since all that there is can be investigated by (natural) science, and science cannot find God (does not need that concept), it follows that the existence of God (who by contemporary understanding is beyond the reach of science) is most unlikely.”

To summarize, all these statements are meaningless as arguments for anything.

As I keep on saying, Occam’s razor is an valid argument - convincing to some, unconvincing to others - against the existence of a divine realm beyond the physical (hence also against the existence of God), but not these tautologies.

>>Every Christian I have met uses the Bible as evidence of the existence of God. <<

Well, you obviously did not meet philosophically sophisticated Christians. Even the medieval Aquinas ARGUED (in his Quinque viæ or Five Ways) from philosophical considerations, not from the Bible. Even more so, contemporary theologians - who speculate on HOW to represent/model God in our minds, and here the Bible is relevant - are not seeking scientific “evidence” for His existence.
Posted by George, Saturday, 15 February 2014 9:29:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
george/qUOTE..,in reply to..['Bible as evidence of the existence of God.'].. <<,.<<..Well, you obviously did not meet philosophically sophisticated Christians.>>

NOR THE OTHER HOLY TEXTS..of the other abrahamic/buddist/you name..it other spiritual beliefs[even primitives pre writing had their fetishes..[ie beliefs in higher unSEEN..powers

<<>..Even the medieval Aquinas ARGUED (in his Quinque viæ or Five Ways) from philosophical considerations, not from the Bible.>>

how about swedenberg/marybaker eddie/lUther wesly bacon etc....who interpreted versions of it /IE the bible isnt the 'BE ALL..end all to..god..personal revelation/personal inspiration/experience..is

people wrote THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF THE UNKNOWn
the bible didnt write itself[only by experience/the lot of it

personally/specifically/individual[not by group/book as ,mych as ,y witness/in writing.....[testimony*]....first person testi-meant.

LIFE FIRST PERSON REVALUATION/
PERSONAL-WITNESS*..ala mosus on the ,mount

<<..Even more so, contemporary theologians - who speculate on HOW to represent/model God in our minds, and here the Bible is relevant - are not seeking scientific “evidence” for His existence.>>

but till you ask god..personally..
NO BOOK CAN DO 'IT'..for you..if you deaf dumb and blind..he yet is there in thyne mind/just waiting for that live living moment..we ask him..for anything.

yet we recognise him not

ahhhh....men
mene mene mene./so MANY MESS-ANGERS HE has replied
NONE OF THEM LIED..TO DENY GOD IS TO CALL..THE BEST OF MANKIND..LIARS*

YEP ITS THINKING LIKE THAT
THAT LETS YOU INTO WHERE They..are*
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 15 February 2014 10:02:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WMTrevor, My comment wasn’t intended to prove that there was such thing as “reliable” personal evidence (that’s something I’ll make a suggestion about below), rather I was saying that if there were a God, he would expect belief not purely on the basis of objective reasons.

Perhaps experiences provide “evidence” for what the different experiences have in common. Virtually all religious experiences create a conviction that there is something out there, something beyond the bare, natural material world. Personal experiences may provide evidence of this general truth. Interestingly, this idea lies somewhere within the core of virtually all religious faith.

Whilst the propositions of individual belief systems are mutually exclusive, it's nonetheless true that we can find this common thread at the Centre of many different religious traditions. The idea that there is something transcending the material world is a core idea that contrasts religious faiths with the philosophy of naturalism.

I would argue that virtually all religious faiths are relatively similar at the core, if you are comparing them in the context of other philosophies eg: naturalism, materialism. This is not to deny their differences, it's merely pointing out the context.

AJ, Can you take it that I don’t attribute this behaviour above merely to some fundamentalists? Yes. But it is my personal belief, based on my knowledge of the views with people from whom I have interacted, that people I would categorise as probably being “fundamentalist” are guilty of this moreso than others.

But I actually have minimal interest in determining whether my definition lines up with the dictionary one (further, that’s not even possible in this context since I’m merely noting a general personal impression based on many years of life and various interactions, so how would I find out if their beliefs line up?) or in testing my view on this in any more detail. It’s an extremely minor point in the context of the big issues of science, faith and worldviews, so I’m not sure why you continue to press it when there’s far more important and interesting things to consider. Such as…..

(TBC)
Posted by Trav, Saturday, 15 February 2014 10:20:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faith. You say it’s used when “We can’t know something” or when we “have a reason to doubt it”…. In my way of thinking, there’s very little that we can know for sure without having some reason to doubt it. The fact that something can’t be known with certainty is far from a good argument against it, whatever that view or issue may be.

Evidence. What is “objective” evidence anyway? Does the fact that plenty of atheists claim there is no evidence for Christianity mean that there is no “objective” evidence? It does if you define objective evidence as evidence that anyone recognises as evidence. To me, the fact that plenty of atheists claim there’s no evidence just shows that there’s plenty of irrational atheists. George might take a more charitable approach and interpret this as meaning that we simply can’t agree on what evidence actually is.

Pericles, the key to my question was “to the same extent”. I was interested in your comparison of religions. Many atheists seem to think all religions are similarly unintelligent or that all religions have the same level of evidence (none).

My interpretation of your comments is that you believe religious faith necessarily relies on circular reasoning. That might be true once you really drill down, I’m not sure, but virtually all beliefs ultimately rest somewhere which can’t be proven. We all rely on philosophical considerations to support our beliefs, but philosophical considerations are not usually certain.
Posted by Trav, Saturday, 15 February 2014 10:24:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Pericles, You claim that all Christians rely on the Bible as evidence. I’d like to flesh this out.

In my experience, Christians primarily rely on personal experience or their interpretation that there’s design in the Universe to support their belief in God or the supernatural. An empirical fact is that the majority of people around the world accept the existence of a God or something supernatural. I agree with you that once this is accepted, the jump to believing the Bible isn’t nearly as big as it otherwise would be. So by “relying on the Bible as evidence”, they’re seeing their basic beliefs come to light and get made sense of in the form of Biblical stories. The Bible provides a framework to make sense of these existing beliefs.
Posted by Trav, Saturday, 15 February 2014 10:25:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PLUS+..EDIT..THIS..

SERIOUSLY..every written word..was inspired..to the writer
[each..OF US..by..inner..personal revelation]..

with-in our minds..we were moved
to write/THAT..wrote/..BY/rote.

[little known..is
WE EACH..ARE EXTRA DIMENSION'S..OF..alternATE/realities..of THE EVER Inmate..[inate]INFINITE..[within]..that..WE ATTEMPT..TO MAKE/real..ie..REALIZE/RELEASE..[capture]..AS a DEFINED/ set/fixed/material validated..FINITE...[proof]

UET..just..by asking..for..personal-proOF..we recieve
SEE that..ALL HOLY TEXTS WERE INSPIRED..by gods personal*..PROOF..personal/s[ecigicly/indoviualy..

SOME/EVEN..WITH..[THEIR NAMES/UPON
*THEIR WITNESSED TEXTS../TRUELY/HOLY...[SIGNED SEALED]

george/qUOTE..,in reply to..pericules..WITNESS<<..['Bible as evidence of..the existence of God.']....<<,.george..<<..Well,..you obviously did not meet..philosophically/sophisticated..Christians.>>

me../NOR/NET/READ..THE OTHER HOLY-TEXTS..WITNESS..of the other abrahamic/buddist[you name..it.]..in...ALL..other spiritual beliefs..[even the most/primitives..[pre writing]..EVEN children..had/have their fetishes..[ie beliefs..in higher unSEEN..[PARENTAL/CARING]..UNSEEN/HIGHER..powers

<<>..Even the medieval Aquinas ARGUED (in his Quinque viæ or Five Ways) from philosophical considerations, not from the Bible.>>

how about swedenberg/marybaker eddie/lUther wesly bacon etc....who interpreted versions of it../IE..the bible[2TRIBLE]..isnt the 'BE ALL..end all to..god..[personal revelation/personal inspiration/experience..is]

people/wrote/PROMOTE..of our/ow PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF THE Unknown/unrecognized..one[sustaining life..in everyone]

the bible ..didnt..write itself..IE*.*[only by PERSONAL/SPECIFIC/INDIVIDUAL..[ONE*2*ONE]..in person..experience..

IE/the lot of it*

was..personally/specifically/individual..revealed..[in its day
[not..writ..by..group/../but..YET..BOUND..into..sacred-book/

write..RIGHT..NOt MIGHT..writ..it right
as..,mUch as..,By..SPECIFIC/..OFTEN..NAmed..PERSONAL/living..witness/

then installed..in writing.....[books..leaves..stone..leaf/yrees beast/you/me..them/us..just look..ITS ALL..[testimony*]....first person LIVING-live..testi-meant.

LIFE-experience..of the higher powers..by FIRST PERSON*/doing. Re-EVALUATION/experience..that/the textS..WITNESS*..[THE PERSONAL-WITNESS*'..ala mosus..on the ,mount

<<..Even more so,..contemporary theologians .who speculate on HOW to represent/model God in our minds,..and here the Bible is relevant - are not seeking scientific “evidence”..for His existence.>>

but im-till..you ask god..personally..
NO BOOK..CAN DO 'IT'..for you..

THINK..if youR deaf dumb and blind..he
yet is there..in thyne mind/..just waiting for..
that..GLORIOUS/live living moment..we ask him..for anything.

yet..we recognize him/within..all..*not

ahhhh....men
mene mene mene./..*y*

so MANY MESS-ANGERS..HE has replied..supplied/PROOFS
see..NONE..OF THEM LIED..MOST..R..FORGOTTEN

THINK..OH S0NS..OF MEN..TO DENY GOD
IS..TO CALL..THE BEST*..OF MANKIND..LIARS*

YEP..ITS THINKING..LIKE THAT
THAT LETS YOU..INTO WHERE They..are*..AT...[NOT*]

BUT TO READ..THEIR WORDS..
LINKS..YOU/ME..WITH/THEIR ETERNAL BEING/..
from WITHIN..OUR,own..,OWNED-life..to our..present being..
realize..to recall their word forms..is..TO LIVE..on..IN OUR living MINDS..they come..thus..to inform/..[receptive minds]
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 15 February 2014 10:56:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

Indeed, what is “objective” evidence? My dictionary has the definition of evidence as “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid” which implicitly means that

(1) this “body of facts or information” must on its own be supported by evidence or be self-evident,

(2) the verb “indicate” used is weeker than “prove” but stronger than “suport”, (which would better fit the definition of "supporting evidence" not much different from "argument").

(3) it all depends on the context, namely who are the recipients of this indication constituting evidence, like the jury in a court trial. (For instance, a photo showing the accused about to stab the victim would be incomprehensible a couple of centuries ago, would be a strong evidence in the first half of last century, and is practically worthless since Adobe Photoshop.

For fundamental worldview statements like “the cosmos is all that is” or “all reality is physical or derived from it and can be in principle investigated by scientific methods” or “there is a divine realm - alternatively there is God - beyond both the physical and the mental” you will never find evidence sufficiently convincing to both theists and atheist, i.e. “objective evidence as evidence that anyone recognises as evidence” as you point out.

So I would not say that atheists who demand evidence for God are necessarily irrational only that they cannot say what would be that evidence which would convince atheists as well as theists.
Posted by George, Saturday, 15 February 2014 11:35:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=wruten+sIGNED+WITNESS+RELIABILITY&i

never put it in writing
because?

writing is a higher proof
when signed before witness..its a matter of honor*
[pRESENT YOUR PROOF THEY LIED*]

''..A hearsay witness is one who testifies what someone else said or wrote. In most court proceedings there are many limitations on when hearsay evidence is admissible. Such limitations do not apply to grand jury investigations, many administrative proceedings, and may not apply to declarations used in support of an arrest or search warrant. Also some types of statements are not deemed to be hearsay and are not subject to such limitations.

An expert witness is one who allegedly has specialized knowledge relevant to the matter of interest, which knowledge purportedly helps to either make sense of other evidence, including other testimony, documentary evidence or physical evidence (e.g., a fingerprint). An expert witness may or may not also be a percipient witness, as in a doctor or may or may not have treated the victim of an accident or crime.

A reputation witness is one who testifies about the reputation of a person or business entity, when reputation is material to the dispute at issue''

Please..PRESENT PROOF THEY LIED
i for one have faith..in theIR EXPERIENCES
IN FACT..SEEN..MANY things your science say imPOSSABLE
BUT THEY WERE MINE..

go ask god for thyne own
[in fact just wake up..to what he has been doing..for YOU YOUR EVERY LIVING MOMENT.]

as mahamoud said..
FIRST*..make just one..LIVING BEING..or witness..like it
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 15 February 2014 12:42:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh well, Trav. If you’re just speaking from your own personal definition of what a fundamentalist is, then I guess I can’t argue with that. Though to avoid confusion, you may want to clarify what you mean by “fundamentalist” in the future if you are going to use your own definition.

<<Faith. You say it’s used when “We can’t know something” or when we “have a reason to doubt it”…>>

Not quite. It’s used when we can’t know something or when we have a reason to doubt it, yet we assure ourselves of the truth of it anyway. I think I made that pretty clear.

<<The fact that something can’t be known with certainty is far from a good argument against it...>>

Absolutely, and I’m surprised by how often I need to explain to theists that it is not an argument for it either.

Regarding evidence, it’s not just about the lack of it. There’s actually evidence against the Abrahamic god. The problem of evil and free will debunk an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god. We can know that the Abrahamic god does not exist.

<<What is “objective” evidence anyway?>>

Evidence that would be bias/worldview independent. And before you ask why we should even expect to find such evidence, remember that we are talking about a god who has an important message for us all and wants to share it. George’s points ignore this and are only relevant to a god who is not willing or able to communicate with us in any reliable or effective manner.

I don’t know what evidence it would take to convince me that a god exists. It would be arrogant for me to assume that I knew. But one thing I do know is that if this god of yours does exist, then they’d know what it would take to convince me of their existence, and the fact that they haven’t yet done so means that either this god doesn’t exist, or it doesn’t care enough about those who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it.

So which one is it?
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 15 February 2014 1:54:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> Evidence that would be bias/worldview independent. <<

You don’t have this even in contemporary theoretical physics. As I quoted Hawkins-Mlodinow in www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464 :

“our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. … These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."

>> George’s points ignore this and are only relevant to a god who is not willing or able to communicate with us in any reliable or effective manner.<<

You are confusing the belief in something beyond both the physical (investigated by science) and mental that I called the divine REALM, and the Abrahamic REPRESENTATION/model (terminology borrowed from philosophy of science) of this realm.

For instance, Einstein (and Spinoza) accepted the existence of the former but rejected the Abrahamic (and Christian) model of it, actually any modelling of the divine on the concept of "person“. So what I wrote was relevant to BOTH what Einstein believed as well as what a Christian believes, although the latter believes also in the adequacy (again a term borrowed from philosophy of science) of the Christian model of the divine. We can KNOW neither the physical nor the divine reality AS SUCH without referring to this or that representation of it in our brain. (The adequacy - closeness to “the truth” - of this or that representation is a different matter, tackled differently in the two case.)

>> if this god of yours does exist, then they’d know what it would take to convince me of their existence <<

This is a subjective complaint, not an argument. Why did God make Himself “known” to others but not to me? Why do others understand mathematics more than I?

Here we are on the grounds of psychology. These questions cannot be answered by your “brain” only by your “heart”. How can you understand mathematics, if you close your “brain” and how can God make himself known to you if you close your “heart”?
Posted by George, Saturday, 15 February 2014 9:06:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a reason we believe (chorus)

Oh I'm looking out my window
And I can't believe my eyes
There's a lamb and there's a lion
There's a rainbow in the sky
1 Corinthians 13 is totally devoted to the subject of love, and one of the attributes of God given to us in the Bible is that God is love (1 John 3..,..4:1-14..NOTE THE eXAMPLE

WITNESS,1 JOHN 4;..15-21..,5;1-9..WITNESS..,10-11[RECORD]..12-21

, 16).

The foundation of the Christian system is rooted in love,

Many people find the teachings of Jesus to be impossibly difficult when they read that they are to love their enemy, to do good to those who do evil to them, to turn the other cheek, and the like.

All of this is rooted in our problem of comprehending
what love is all about and in seeing the logic of love...OF good.[god]

Then a bullet breaks the silence
Oh, how many can we stand?

Till the day we find an answer
Please don't let go of my hand

we have characteristics in our make-up that are like God, and one of those characteristics is love.

The Greek language is especially helpful to us in this discussion, because the Greeks had different words to describe different kinds of love. When the Greeks wanted to describe passionate sexual love they used the word eros from which our word erotic is derived.

This word is not used in 1 John because that is not what real love is about. The word phileo was used in the Greek language to describe a brotherly kind of love, and our American city of brotherly love (Philadelphia) gets its name from that root.

The word that is unique to our discussion and is the key to understanding the biblical concept of love is the word agape which refers to a self-sacrificing, non-demanding, unselfish kind of love
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 15 February 2014 9:54:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect you might be using Occam's Razor to split hairs, George.

>>This is more explicit if one reformulates it as “the existence of God-of-Christianity (guaranteed by the Bible) is evidence that the God-of-Christianity exists.”<<

An argument - especially the "guaranteed" bit - that only a Christian would even consider vaguely relevant to the point I was making. Which is, strangely, exactly the point I was making.

>>A third example of this kind would be the claim “since all that there is can be investigated by (natural) science, and science cannot find God (does not need that concept), it follows that the existence of God (who by contemporary understanding is beyond the reach of science) is most unlikely.”<<

I am guessing this to be the thought process that you attribute to atheists. In which case, you are entirely wrong.

Science does not search for God. Only those who believe in God do that. Unsurprisingly, in these investigations they often do find God, usually in some "holy" text or other.

>>Well, you obviously did not meet philosophically sophisticated Christians. Even the medieval Aquinas ARGUED (in his Quinque viæ or Five Ways) from philosophical considerations, not from the Bible<<

Yeah, our churches are packed with Christian philosophers who argue their faith from first cause, are they not?

What? They're not?

Then my argument stands, with some minor, irrelevant exceptions.

Even Aquinas' arguments fail in their task to produce a God. Except, as usual, to those who already believe in the existence of one.

Every one of the "five causes" is open to interpretations that do not include a divine presence. He carefully sidesteps this by making such self-justifying statements as "et hoc omnes intelligunt Deum" - "this is what people understand to be God".

When (or if, of course) you break this into its component parts, it stands at the same intellectual level as "Cats have four legs. My dog has four legs. So my dog is a cat".

Only one who already believes in a deity would countenance Aquinas' conclusion.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 16 February 2014 1:35:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PER HINTS..<<..Every/one of..the "five causes"..is open to interpretations..>>..[FREE-WILL]..<<..<<that do not include.a divine presence.>...

you know me..i juST WANT..TRUTH

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=EQUINAS+5+CAUSES&

Aquinas gave five classic.."proofs"..for the existence of God.[TAKEN/FROM ATHEIST WEB-SITE]..These are..a class handout, which in turn..is taken from his..massive Summa Theologica..(Part 1, Question 2,..Article 3).

The class handout..also includes..a whimsical.."Five proofs
for the existence..of Santa Clause" --..which I'll use in class to make some points...about Aquinas's arguments.[BIASED].

These computerized/exercise materials..are copyrighted (c..2002 by Harry J. Gensler; but they may be distributed freely.>>..

pericules..and your science proof..?
if not god..then WHAT.?

<<..1 - FIRST MOVER/ACTION..MOVEMENT/MOTION
IE CHANGE OF STATE: [non-life/life,]..IE..LIFE-cause.

Some things..are in motion,[RE-ACTION/REACTING/REDACTING..]..anything THAT..is moved is moved..by another,..[causal act]..and

there can't be..an infinite series..of movers...[infinite motion]..So there must be..a first mover..(a mover..that isn't itself moved by another)...This is God...if not whaT?

NAME NAMES?

2 -..FIRST PRIME-CAUSATION:..ALL..things..are caused,..anything caused..is caused by another..[cause].., and there can't..be an infinite series of causes..IF THUS-So..there must be..a first cause(a cause that isn't itself caused by another)..This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING:..Every contingent being..at some time fails to exist...So if everything were/contingent,..then at some time there would have been nothing --..and so there would be..nothing now -- which is clearly false...[SOMETHING BEING..first ..cause,,CAUSED/THIS being..of..some-THING.

iF/So not everything..is contingent.
IF-So there is a necessary being/WAY/MEANS...[life comes..from liFE]..This is God..[SUSTAINING..ALl life.

Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 5

4 - GREATEST BEING:..Some things..are greater..[BETTER/Worse]..than others...Whatever is great..to any degree..gets its greatness from that..which is the greatest.[FIRST..PRIMo/PROTO/ALPHA]

I+F/So there is.a greatest being,
which is the source of all greatness...[we see it best..in other]..This is God.[with/us]

5 - we/see..the fragility..of earth..IS By INTELLIGENT DESIGNER:..
Many things in the world..that lack intelligence..act for an end/RESULT..FROM EXPECTANT CAUSE...[by logic/by REASON]..

Whatever acts for..an end..[purpose]..must be directed by an intelligent being...OR BY HIS Will..So the world must have an intelligent designer...as his will is reflected..by our WILL..This is THE WILL..OF God.

Web resources

Click below..to read Aquinas's writings:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm

Click below to read..an article about Aquinas:

http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/14663b.htm

DARE ASK..if..not/WHO/WHY WHEN..then..WHAT HOW ?
[reveal..the science..now..]
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 16 February 2014 3:04:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

While the problem of what we can and cannot know is an interesting one, it is irrelevant here. This ‘But what can we really know?’ approach is an appeal to a sort-of solipsism; it is a big red herring and is only ever raised by theists to divert attention from the fact that they have no rational justification for their beliefs. It’s also often used as a method of shifting some of the burden onto the non-believer so that they too feel they need to defend a position that doesn’t actually require defending at all.

I don’t really care about what we can and can’t know. I’m more interested in what you believe and whether it can be rationally justified, because we don’t wait for knowledge to act, we act according to our beliefs. And an appeal to the haziness of certain concepts is not the first place someone goes when they have good reasons for their beliefs.

<<So what I wrote was relevant to BOTH what Einstein believed as well as what a Christian believes, although the latter believes also in the adequacy (again a term borrowed from philosophy of science) of the Christian model of the divine.>>

You can’t get around this by pointing out that Christianity is just one possible model of the divine realm, because that model makes specific claims that should negate the problems and barriers that your post to Trav mentioned.

<<This is a subjective complaint, not an argument.>>

Actually, it’s an objective observation and a valid argument, because what Christian theology states is independent of what I may or may not want it to state; that the Christian god has an important message for us all and wants to share it would have to be one of the most unambiguous and universally agreed upon tenets of Christian theology. Furthermore, it would make no sense for me to complain about a god, that I don’t believe in, not providing evidence for its existence.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 16 February 2014 4:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<Why did God make Himself “known” to others but not to me? Why do others understand mathematics more than I?>>

This clarification and maths analogy are, only relevant to a god who is not willing or able to communicate with us in any reliable or effective manner, or only wants to communicate with certain people. They do not apply to the Christian god.

<<These questions cannot be answered by your “brain” only by your “heart”.>>

This is rather unfortunate given that our “hearts”, time after time, prove themselves to be an incredibly unreliable source of information. As I said earlier, there is only one reliable pathway to truth, given what we currently know. As someone who has always tried to make out that religious belief need not be irrational, I was blown away to read this from you.

<<How can you understand mathematics, if you close your “brain” and how can God make himself known to you if you close your “heart”?>>

There are multiple problems with this. Firstly, it forgets that I had once had my “heart” well and truly open - filled with personal revelation ‘n’ the lot. Secondly, it assumes that my “heart” is now closed somehow. Finally, it forgets that anything that could qualify as a God would not be stopped by such a trivial barrier.

Contrary to what many Christians claim, our free will would not be affected if God’s existence were self-evident.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 16 February 2014 4:44:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ/QUOTE..<,..Contrary to what many Christians claim, our free will would not be affected if God’s existence were self-evident.>>

so many..issues with that..first..kids often behave different
with/others..than they do with their parents..i know i post a little more gently..with the old/young or female/..i know i shouldnt modify..yet i do.

next..to have a self evident god..how would we feel..'sin'
god dont judge us..others [peers]..judge us..once you know god is eternal/infinite..omnipresent..[the bE ALL that ends within us all]....you begin thinking..in those terms..you have changed.

recall aj..the 50 percent of the angels that rejected..gOD
[the 50..percent..even now runninG DEMONS RAGged in hell..THING IS
THOSE WITH GUILT..NEED TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD[mainly cause they got the wrong IDEA..of god[and even of good]..and evEN OF LOVE

IE EVIL..SO LOVES ITS VILE
the god of love dont judge what we love
ie in hell..we are sorted..by our freewill works..we dun here

thus the lovers of murder..share the same hell/murdering only each other[you love to murder..how much more you will love BEING THE VICTIM..[karma/works]..like racist hell is true hell..all them racists of all CREED BREED Colors..hating only themselves.

the sheeple with the sheep/the boats with the boat
the wheat WITH the wHEAT..the tares with..the tares

we become that we love..and the unique thing about the atheist HELL..is..for THOSE there to hold their faithlessness..in the face of overwhelming proofs..the rejected..unthinkingly.

WE ALL BEGAN IGNORANT
IGNORANCE..IS A THING REVEALED..ONLY BY KNOWING TO ASK THE RIGHT....QUESTION...to the wise..there are no dumb questions.
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 16 February 2014 5:13:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, the issue as I see it is that there is no such thing as worldview independent evidence. Especially when we’re analyzing worldviews. Every person has a difference lens through which they’ll view things and interpret evidence. Parts of this lens may be formed by prior beliefs or presuppositions, while it’s also influenced by our own prior experiences and environment. Further, the various layers of beliefs and views all interact with each other.

As an example, many people have found that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is strong or even highly compelling, while others claim it is laughably weak. One key difference is prior beliefs about the character of the universe. Do supernatural events happen? Are they likely? Even possible? Different answers to this question could be influenced by philosophical considerations and personal experiences, and yet the answers given will profoundly impact on how one assesses the historical claims of Jesus Christ
Posted by Trav, Sunday, 16 February 2014 9:35:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay then, Trav. I’m happy to go with everything you’ve said in your first paragraph because I don’t think it really matters.

Let’s say we can’t know anything, everything is subjective and there is no such thing as objectivity. Now how do we decide what is reasonable to accept as likely to be true as we go about living our lives? Most people make such decisions in most areas, but some have been conned into not doing it when it comes to religious belief.

So how do we determine what it reasonable? We have methods and we have consensus in some ways. Is there an absolute and discrete point by which we can determine whether or not it is reasonable to accept a claim? No. And each claim will be different because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, while trivial claims don’t. It’s a constant process of comparing and contrasting various claims: Will accepting a claim be worldview altering? Will accepting a claim change everything else that you had accepted before? How big of an impact will it have on you if you’re wrong?

For example, compare a claim from someone that they own a dog, with the claim that they were abducted by aliens for a week while a clone took their place when they were gone. It would be good enough to take the former on someone’s word alone because we know that dogs exist and people own them. The latter, on the other hand, exceeds the boundaries of what we already understand, and accepting it on someone’s word alone would require that we abandon other claims that we accept for very good reasons. Now where one draws the line on what is reasonable to accept and what is not is entirely up to the individual, but where it is actually rational to draw the line isn’t just a matter of subjective personal opinion. Which is why we can look at people experiencing serious delusions and conclude that it is reasonable to lock them away for their safety and everybody else’s.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 16 February 2014 11:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

The lines may be blurry sometimes, but they’re not arbitrary.

Now let’s apply this to your example…

<<Do supernatural events happen? Are they likely? Even possible?>>

Given that no-one has been able to demonstrate or reliably document a supernatural event, the only reasonable position to take here is ‘negative’ to the first two and maybe a ‘probably not’ with the third, on a good day. Assuming nothing is the only default position. We don’t get to assume the supernatural or God and then claim that that is an equally valid starting point to a non-believer’s disbelief. An assumption has been made; an additional layer added; and it’s made to seem valid because, hey, it’s just a presupposition. Well, such a presupposition is an assumption, and an assumption that has not yet been justified. The way theists try to get away with doing this is by creating a false dichotomy in assuming that the non-believer necessarily assumes that the cosmos is all that there is.

<<Different answers to this question could be influenced by philosophical considerations and personal experiences, and yet the answers given will profoundly impact on how one assesses the historical claims of Jesus Christ>>

Going by your methodology and philosophy, one can assume anything as a presupposition and the claims they later accept because of it are equally justifiable, or at the very least, indistinguishable in their level of reasonableness from a sceptic’s scepticism simply because it was one of their philosophical considerations.

I’m sorry, but the world doesn’t work that way. It would be a very confusing place if it did and I see no reason to be giving religion special consideration in this regard when you would not apply this methodology and philosophy to any other area of life.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 16 February 2014 11:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aj/quote..<<..So how do we determine..what it reasonable?>>

IS ret*oricle..but..if it hurt's..[deceives..no other..[AND ISNt hurting them..[who's business..is it?

<<..We have methods..and..we have consensus in some ways.>>

very few..it seems that we have groups..where consensus..could be imp-lied..but full consensus gets delusional..[recall the atheist party?..there was a guy who jumped to claim so much consensus..he presumed to speak..for all..[and was quickly reigned IN/BY 'HIS'-OWN.

YET..THEY WERE ALL WRONG..[IN..denying the existence..of gOd]
EVEN THE MESSENGERS HOUSES ARE DIVIDED..[LOOK AT JUST THE Thousands of christ sects/alone]..

consensus..implied is consensus lied.

[YES ITS A METHODOLOGY..BY THAT WORD
IS CLOSE TO MYTHOLOGY..even..ideology...[IDOL-I-TRY]..[a fetish]

<<..Is there an absolute and discrete point by which we can determine whether or not it is reasonable to accept a claim? No...

not SO..IT IS JUSTIFIABLE..TO PRESUME.that WRITING/ATTRIBUTED TO ONE..[IS IN FACT WHAT..they wrote]..IF Wrapped in their covers..it necessitates the onus of proof..upon then saying they lied..to prove it.

GENERALIZATIONS WONT DENY..THE AUTHOR..his script
and even if wrote by deciple..or rote by agent..it still holds a firm claim..to represent..that persons experiences/witness..or..testimony]

<<..And each claim will be different because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, while trivial claims don’t.>.

IF YOUR TALKING ABOUT SANTA CLAUSE
CANNOT BE EQUAL..TO TALKING OF OUR..[REASON DE'TRA..]..
reason/for being..or by what hand/.the MEANS WE ARE BEING..

or why we collectively..are here now..feigning his ongoing being..by continuing..his ways..[sure this may apply to christ/satan/santa]..

but not god...*
not to the..*very reason.CAUSE..of life..itself*

the holy of holy..inFINITE..cant be compared
TO..ANY FINITE..LIKE SANTOS...[satan/nor christ]..CREED seed OR WEED

CTD
Posted by one under god, Monday, 17 February 2014 7:23:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<..It’s a constant process of comparing and contrasting various claims:>>

AT LEAST COMPARE APPLES
WITH APPLES..NOT WIKIPEDIA..[SAME WITH SAME]

AJ/MATE..SEE THAT DEBATING WHO WINS OLYMPICS
is as nothing to the epic..OF WHY WE ARE HERE*..THIS IS THE BASIS OF LIVING/BEINg itself

we need SURE PROOF..HE DONT EXIST
AND MAN CANT EVEN MAKE A SIMPle cell membrane..[or a hand]
or life..or even heal..broken bones..[science sets bones/then god heals

prove how a doctor TELLS THE BONE TO HEAL
SANS DOCTER..*THE BONE HEALS 'itself'..TOO?
OF COURSEBONES CANT 'HEAL/THEMSELVES..GOD Does that automaticly[see the miracle..right there]..how does 'automatic/response'..explain healing/natural selection..means it wasnt science/surviVAL OF THE FITTEST ISNT AS IMPORTANT AS BREED-ABILITY

[LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE]
this science must witness too
life from non life is insane..till science does it

BUT IT HASNT*
till it doES..ITS THEORY*
GOD IS FACT...ONCE YOU SEE ALL HE DOES..for every living thing
you will be astounded you missed the bleeding obvious..just to APPEAR 'CLEVER'..ever..eve*[ever clever eve]..THE ONE ADAM THOUGHT TO DECIEVE.,..[STOP EDITING]

<<..Will accepting a claim..be worldview altering?>>

some claims are spurious..others vital..to be correct
i say..if you say..ITS NOT GOD..YOU NEED PROVE THEN WHO?

<<..Will accepting a claim change everything else that you had accepted before?>>

DEPENDS IF ITS A FRINGE ISSUE[OR THE CORE ISSUE]

<<..How big of an impact will it have on you if you’re wrong?>.

if i die..and nuthin..I WILL NEVER KNOW

IF YOU DIE..and your not dead..how long will you[and your fellow deceived feign death]..before saying sorry lord..i didst..not believe..YOUR CHOICE OF MESSENGER.

you shall forever[eternally]..unless you reincarnate].recall you denied..honorable/indeed venerable- MEM/..[*BY SIDING WITH IGNORANT GODLESS..AT-HEIST..SHEISTER HISTERS/MISTERS PROFESSORS/MANIPULATORS
who need the gulible to share their godless hells]
Posted by one under god, Monday, 17 February 2014 7:30:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

>> Which is … exactly the point I was making.<<

I was not saying anything else. This is how I understand “reformulate”.

>>I am guessing this to be the thought process that you attribute to atheists. <<

I agree this was a clumsy formulation. I was referring to the reasoning starting with the claim that all that exists can be investigated by science followed by Dawkins’ claim that the existence of God (who - unlike a teapot or Boeing 747 - is understood as not being accessible by science) is most unlikely. This is an obvious implication (tautology) even if “existence is most unlikely” is replaced by “does not exist”.

>>Science does not search for God. <<

If by "science" you mean scientists (atheists or not), doing scientific research then, of course, I agree.

>>Only those who believe in God do that. In these investigations they often do find God, usually in some "holy" text or other.<<

You cannot "investigate" God, He is not the solution to scientific problems. It is a different matter if you mean "search" in the sense of Augustine's advice to open-minded people (believers or not) "seek within thyself, truth resides inside of man". A "holy" text that is part of the culture you were bought up in, or are familiar with, can serve as a background for this "search within thyself".

>>Yeah, our churches are packed with Christian philosophers who argue their faith from first cause, are they not? <<

I never claimed that. I only assumed that when you offer an opinion or argument of a philosophical nature you should expect it to be taken on that level and not that of an average church-goer.

>> it stands at the same intellectual level as "Cats have four legs. My dog has four legs. So my dog is a cat".<<

I don't think Bertrand Russell would agree with your understanding of Aquinas, although I agree with the other things you wrote about the Five Ways.

>>Only one who already believes in a deity would countenance Aquinas' conclusion.<<

Again, I never claimed otherwise.
Posted by George, Monday, 17 February 2014 8:33:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

I reacted to three of your statements hoping that some of those who read this will understand what I meant. I am sorry you were not one of them. On the other hand, I did not understand the relevance to my post of most of what you wrote.

>>You can’t get around this<<

I was not getting around anything by pointing out that belief in the existence of something beyond both the physical and the mental does not necessarily lead to the Christian concept of God (model of the divine).

The rest is actually only a sort of confirmation that here we landed on the grounds of psychology which is very much outside my competence. I appreciate your offering an insight into your thinkings and feelings. You are not the only one who lost his faith and you would not be the only one to find it again, although not as a consequence of not being able to "defend a position that doesn’t actually require defending at all".

You apparently have a troubled "heart" concerning matters of belief and unbelief. That - if I may say so - somehow reminds me of Augustine's entry phrase in his Confessions: "For Thou hast made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee."
Posted by George, Monday, 17 February 2014 8:41:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oddly, if I understand your last post correctly, I think we may actually be in agreement, George.

>>>> Which is … exactly the point I was making.<< I was not saying anything else. This is how I understand “reformulate”.<<

For the avoidance of doubt, as the lawyers say, my "point" was:

"An argument... that only a Christian would even consider vaguely relevant to the point I was making. Which is, strangely, exactly the point I was making."

Our new-found level of understanding would appear to be in the area of "arguments for or against the existence of God are only relevant to people who already believe that there is a God". And its corollary, "arguments for or against the existence of God are by definition meaningless to those who don't already believe that there is a God".

If so, I shall happily leave the field for you to split a few more hairs...

>>You cannot "investigate" God, He is not the solution to scientific problems.<<

But... I believe you offered this:

>>...the claim “since all that there is can be investigated by (natural) science, and science cannot find God (does not need that concept), it follows that the existence of God (who by contemporary understanding is beyond the reach of science) is most unlikely.”<<

That's what I mean about splitting hairs. You proposed the concept "investigated by (natural) science, and science cannot find...", then deny that God can be investigated anyway. Colour me bemused by your logic.

>>I only assumed that when you offer an opinion or argument of a philosophical nature you should expect it to be taken on that level and not that of an average church-goer.<<

And the opinion in question?

"Every Christian I have met uses the Bible as evidence of the existence of God"

It may be a sad omission on my part, but my social circles do not include the kind of Christian who questions their faith on a philosophical level. My view extends to the "average church-goer" only.

But hey, it's good that we agree on the main issue.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 17 February 2014 9:02:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav, I suspect you may be thinking yourself into a corner.

>>Pericles, if we’re isolating Plantinga’s comments on “teapotism” then the relevant question is whether the proponent of “anti teapotism” has any obligation to provide support or evidence for their view, or whether that is simply the default view.<<

If by "default view" you mean the view that exists in the event of a lack of external stimulus, then my answers would be no, there's no obligation, and yes, the default view is a-teapotist. For example, if you were to find yourself in the command module of a space shuttle, your default position would be "wtf?", until some external stimulus (this is the start button, this opens the door) is applied.

(I realise I am making the assumption that you are not NASA-trained. Apologies if that isn't the case)

>>Pericles, the key to my question was “to the same extent”. I was interested in your comparison of religions. Many atheists seem to think all religions are similarly unintelligent or that all religions have the same level of evidence (none)<<

Big correction here. I don't believe it has anything to do with intelligence. I know some highly intelligent people who are also religious, in that they believe in the existence of a supreme being. Also, I don't see any association between intelligence and a particular religion. I am fortunate to know a number of people who are way, way smarter than I. Some are Christian. Some are Muslim. And some, believe it or not, are actually atheist.

But you are dead right about the evidence.

>>...all religions have the same level of evidence (none)<<
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 17 February 2014 9:19:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

I cannot react without trying to clarify things even if you call it “splitting of hairs.

>>"An argument... that only a Christian would even consider vaguely relevant to the point I was making. <<

I cannot find this sentence in your previous post. What you wrote was “Only one who already believes in a deity would countenance Aquinas' conclusion.”, and I agreed because it explicitly referred to Aquinas’ Five Ways.

There are many arguments for or against the existence of God (which are neither proofs nor evidence), and they should be considered by any open-minded person, theist or atheist. They can strengthen one's beliefs or unbeliefs, but seldom - if at all - lead to a conversion, one way or the other. If you agree with this then indeed we are in agreement.

>>"arguments for or against the existence of God are only relevant to people who already believe that there is a God".

I checked this thread but did not find anything where I would have said this (even less your corollary), though I would agree if you replaced “relevant” with “persuading” or “convincing”.

>>But... I believe you offered this:<<

You are referring to what I conceded was a clumsy (because lengthy) formulation. It was starting with “since”, so it was of the form A implies B, and I claimed it was a logical tautology. I did not claim the premise A ! Like the implication “since everybody in this room speaks sillinese, John who does not speak sillinese is not in this room” is valid irrespective of which room, who is John and what language is sillinese.

>>And the opinion in question? <<

For instance, the sweeping statement “And this is in fact exactly the Christian position: there is a God, because the Bible says so.”
Posted by George, Monday, 17 February 2014 10:11:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There seems to be a bit of ducking and weaving going on here, George.

Not that it really matters, of course, since we seem to be in agreement on all the key issues. But...

>>>>"An argument... that only a Christian would even consider vaguely relevant to the point I was making.<< I cannot find this sentence in your previous post.What you wrote was “Only one who already believes in a deity would countenance Aquinas' conclusion.”, and I agreed because it explicitly referred to Aquinas’ Five Ways.<<

Yer tiz, George. This sentence, here...

"An argument - especially the 'guaranteed' bit - that only a Christian would even consider vaguely relevant to the point I was making. Which is, strangely, exactly the point I was making."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277881

And it didn't involve Aquinas, who made his appearance slightly later, as someone who did not need the Bible to posit God. Unlike all my Christian acquaintances, who rely upon it entirely to underpin their beliefs.

>>>>"arguments for or against the existence of God are only relevant to people who already believe that there is a God".<< I checked this thread but did not find anything where I would have said this (even less your corollary), though I would agree if you replaced “relevant” with “persuading” or “convincing”.<<

Well you wouldn't find it, would you. Basically because it was something I had said, not you.

>>>>And the opinion in question?<< For instance, the sweeping statement “And this is in fact exactly the Christian position: there is a God, because the Bible says so.”<<

Different opinion. You can't just go round substituting something out of context, and expecting to use it as justification for anything. I was quite specific which of my opinions I was referring to, and it was not that one. Once again, it was the observation that my Christian friends, every one, relied upon the Bible for their Christianity.

But we are rather drifting away from the point, so I can see why you might be becoming a little confused.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 17 February 2014 1:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I understood what you meant, George.

<<I reacted to three of your statements hoping that some of those who read this will understand what I meant. I am sorry you were not one of them.>>

However, you were indirectly rebutting me in saying…

“Indeed, what is “objective” evidence?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277837)

…right after Trav had responded to me saying…

“What is “objective” evidence anyway?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277831)

So given that the Christian god was the god that Trav was defending, it became appropriate for me to point out that the defence you offered was not relevant there.

You then came back saying that I was confusing Spinoza’s more general concept of a god with the more specific Christian model…

“You are confusing the belief in something beyond both the physical … and mental that I called the divine REALM, and the Abrahamic REPRESENTATION/model … of this realm.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277863)

So I then pointed out to you (assuming that you had kept up with where the discussion was at) that the distinction you were making didn’t get you around the fact that your defence was irrelevant to the Christian god.

<<On the other hand, I did not understand the relevance to my post of most of what you wrote.>>

I figure that now. Hopefully the above brings you back on track.

<<You are not the only one who lost his faith and you would not be the only one to find it again, although not as a consequence of not being able to "defend a position that doesn’t actually require defending at all".>>

I agree with you there… I think. Which is why I like to challenge my beliefs (or lack thereof) on OLO and by reading and countering apologetics. My pointing out of the fact that the non-believer does not need to defend their position was purely from a philosophic standpoint and was not meant to reflect my actual approach.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 17 February 2014 6:45:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THERE ARE..known truths..knowable truths..un-nowable truths..BUT
whaT..is the truth..of god?..[the logic revealed in gods love-light..sustaining life/living.]

THE strength..of the christian..trinity..comES to mind
the idea/specifically..of /the holy spirit..[that isnt god the father]
not christ..a son of the father sun.

YES I HAVE MEt [or rather seen..'god'..we all have..god is the sun
the sUN..[IS one of infinite suns of the holy spirit]..THE HOLY SPIRIT..IS OMNI-present..our gods true NAME..is @N@..[OR ANA]..[APHA NEGATIVE ALPHA]

FREEL FREE TO..confirm..or deny..anyhow now you know
undeniably..life exists..cause of our father sun..clearly..via sunspot..activity..the father brings the rain..in its season..HIS LIGHT SUSTAINS ALL LIVING.

to deny the sun..is absurd..SCIENCE STUDIES 'THE SUN-FATHER/AND THE EARTH Mother..faTHER SUN EJECTULATED..from himself..our fertile earth motHER..[AS WELL AS 8 other brides..[the father SUN..OF COURSE IS A RELITIVE TERM..[GOD IS SANS 'SEX']

anyhow above..[in the heavens]..are many 'gods'..OTHER SUNS..[INFINITE GODS/SUN-GODS..EACH SUN having its oWN LET THERE BE LIGHT MOMENT..AND EJACULATING HIS WORD SEED..UPON THE deep..let there be light..live..via logic..that life find love.

THERE IS REVEALED..MUCH..IN THE DEEP..[STRANGELY..THE LIFE THAT BEGAN..IN THE DEEP..dont rate much of any mention/in the evolving theory of chance linial-evolution..VIa infinate genus..

anyhow..there are demons in hell
AND hell is surrounded..by a ring..of fire
the dark MATTER MANNERS[JINN]..attacks the light relentlessly
TRY TO OBSCURE THE LIFE SUSTAINING light..thus send them selves..to hell..[sUN SPOTS ARE huge battles..going on in hell.]..

indeed LIGHT FROM THE SUN..is emissions of the SPIRITUAL hateful-hurtfull..SINFUL passions..EMMIT TED/RADIATED BY HELLS MINIONS ..by such who deceived others awaY FROM THE Father..

or those who subverted/perverted free will..and other gross hurTS

PLEASE REFUTE..[I HAVE LOOKED UPON OUR FATHERS FACE
HE LOOKS..like an engorded nipple..radiating life fORCE
PROVIDING THE HOLY SPIRIT..THE LIVES WITH WHICH..THE Holy spirit reveals herself..

[thinK as you will..but as we evolve away from..human nature[mankind]..we evolve our HUMILITY..AND OUR humanity
TILL THE DAY..WE HAVE OUR OWNLET THEre be light moment..[ye shall trueLY BE SUNS OF THE HOLY-SPIRIT..[radiating not thyne own light..but his.

into ETERNITY..THE HEAVENS SHALL BE FILED WITH SUNS
EACH ADDING/REVEALING/PRESERVING..OUR HOlY SPIRITS..REVEALINGS.

so now you know gods infinite
refute.
Posted by one under god, Monday, 17 February 2014 7:51:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

>>There seems to be a bit of ducking and weaving going on here.<<

This patronising remark does not do you credit.

So it was your sentence not mine that you quoted. The link you provided reminded me that I did not understand it, so I offered a reformulation, apparently unsuccessfully. Of course, I have nothing against you agreeing with your own statement.

>>my Christian friends, every one, relied upon the Bible for their Christianity.<<

Of course, they did, I never claimed otherwise. This is quite different from your previous “this is in fact exactly THE Christian position: there is a God, BECAUSE the Bible says so”(my emphases). The Bible is about what God said, did, etc, no arguments for His existence. That is tacitly assumed. People can read the Bible as fiction and find inspiration from it, without being led to believe in God, and many do so. For those to whom the Bible was originally addressed was the existence of God, (or gods) as obvious as that of the sun. It was much later that Christians begun to philosophise, “faith seeking understanding” as St Anselm put.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 18 February 2014 8:35:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

Sorry, but I cannot express more clearly, that belief in SOMETHING beyond the physical and mental comes BEFORE the belief in a “personal” GOD of Christianity, Judaism or Islam: You can believe the former without believing in the latter but not the other way around.

I did not write a defence of anything only attempted to clarify the terminology. I was not rebutting you but the concept of “objective evidence” based on a standard definition of evidence showing that evidence makes sense only within a given context, a set of facts, concepts and their meaning, that ALL INVOLVED A PRIORI AGREE UPON. In trivial everyday situations “all involved” mostly means everybody but this is impossible when asking for evidence for things described in the preceding paragraph.

I quoted Hawkins-Mlodinow (scientists not philosophers) who infer that there is no “objective evidence” even for the existence of Cosmos, the physical world, although ALL of us believe in it. So you can hardly expect an "objective evidence" for the existence of the divine that SOME of us believe in.

I do not know what apologetics you are/were reading, it is not my stuff. In my opinion, we all face “life equations” to which we seek our personal solution. The trivial, materialist solution (more or less informed by science) is available to all of us and many are satisfied with it (or worse, succumb to a fanatical ideology parasiting on religion or science).

However, some of us yearn for more, not in order to clash with the materialist life solution (hence my dislike of apologetics) but to enhance, complete or “lift" it on all levels, emotional, rational and moral.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 18 February 2014 8:47:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed, George.

>>The Bible is about what God said, did, etc, no arguments for His existence. That is tacitly assumed.<<

'Til next time
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 18 February 2014 9:13:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Old Testament Armed Forces
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/02/49899-philip-giraldi-old-testament-armed-forces/

Religious zealotry runs rampant in the U.S. military, and among those wishing to deploy it.
http://www.redressonline.com/2014/02/israeli-secret-service-mossad-hires-rabbi-to-advise-it-on-tactics-and-operations/
There is a cliché about soldiers, atheism, and fox holes which is probably as true or untrue as most clichés. That the United States military appears to be increasingly a professional force that has few links to the general population is by itself disturbing. That it also might be developing a warrior class ethos that includes a certain kind of evangelical religiosity as a key element only serves to increase the distance between soldiers and most civilians, apart from the constitutional issues that it raises

http://investmentwatchblog.com/billionaire-george-soros-doubles-his-bet-that-the-market-is-heading-for-a-crash/
http://investmentwatchblog.com/amazing-photos-of-mexican-drug-lords-home-and-23-billion-in-cash/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/israel-palestine-shifting-paradigms-single-state/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-death-of-8-world-bankers-is-mysteriously-sinister/

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/expert-warns-of-hyperinflation-the-american-way-of-life-will-be-destroyed_02172014

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/17/study-reveals-unavoidable-danger-hpv-vaccines/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-17/israeli-minister-slams-boycotts-as-new-form-of-anti-semitism-.html?cmpid=yhoo

welcome to the nutty yahoos end times..
its worth recalling..you shall hear..of..etc

"He who controls the present, controls the past.
He who controls the past, controls the future." -- George Orwell

0K PERICULES THANkS..anyhow.
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 18 February 2014 10:04:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
not sure if any of you know what emp means
electro/magnetic/pulse..*..[*}

[that seems the grand scheme..of the demons..RUNNING THE DEMONIC-MOCKERY/..CALLED DEMOCRACY..back into the dusts..from which our works created it]

then*
blame IT ON..'GOD'.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/this-is-a-monster-sunspot-now-larger-than-jupiter-continues-to-unleash-solar-flares.html

thing is..if we ignore madmen
we yet cant avoid..the fruits of their collective insanity
ARE WE NOT GREATER COLLECTIVELY..more..THAN INDIVIDUALLY..

[INDEED..co-creators]

IN-DEED..who IS worse..those who dont think..or those who do..

dont BE ignoring..what we think..we validate..
IF GOD EXISTS..then why do..psychopaths..have no conscience..[BECAUSETHATS WHAT THEY WANT US TO THINK..if gods 'judge'..then we can judge...too.

FACT IS either..you know god DONE IT..[LIFE/CREATION/EVOLUTION]
OR YOU THINK SCIENCE.MAN/YOU.. DID IT..

but please ask them to prove it.
[CAUSE PSYCHOPATHS DONT CARE...WHAT/WHO DONE IT..
ONLY THAT THEY RUN IT...AND CAN DESTROY IT]..JUST TO MINIMIZE GOD=GOOD

ITS REVEALING
THAT JESUS CAME TO HIS OWN/AND THAT..THEY KNEW him not...[why?]..
he wasnt..what they have been conned..TO BELIEVE..WAS COMING...THUS REJECTED..him..and his god.

IF YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHATS COMING..you already missed it
[two thirds will die..if these times are not cut short]..

no thats not found IN ANY ATHEIST TEXT..nor re/the mark of the beast...[nor knowing 'them/by their works

but heck who follows FAIRY TAILS.

not the mocking demons..[of course not]
no supreem god..=..no supplicate bad.

i see nuthin.
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 18 February 2014 12:12:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

You may have alluded to this, but I don’t think you said it explicitly…

<<Sorry, but I cannot express more clearly, that belief in SOMETHING beyond the physical and mental comes BEFORE the belief in a “personal” GOD of Christianity, Judaism or Islam: You can believe the former without believing in the latter but not the other way around.>>

Though it doesn’t always come before (and never after, obviously). In fact, from my observations, sensing the Something is usually skipped and those who only believe in the Something rarely ever progress to a specific theology. Those who will always skip the assumption of “Something” are those who are indoctrinated as children. I, for example, did not decide that there was Something else out there beyond the physical and mental, and then narrow it down to Christianity or assume that Christianity was that Something’s way of speaking to my culture. What Child brought up in a religious household would have the chance to? No, I was told from a very early age what to believe and how to believe it.

That being said…

<<I was not rebutting you but the concept of “objective evidence” based on a standard definition of evidence showing that evidence makes sense only within a given context, a set of facts, concepts and their meaning, that ALL INVOLVED A PRIORI AGREE UPON. In trivial everyday situations “all involved” mostly means everybody but this is impossible when asking for evidence for things described in the preceding paragraph.>>

You try fit religious belief into this ‘a priori’ category so that it may sidestep reason and hide in a place in which the need for a rational justification would be considered absurd. But your claim that religious belief is an a priori presupposition relies on the assumption that there are but two types of people in this world: those who are born to sense that there is Something beyond the physical and mental, and those who are born to sense that the physical world is all that exists. And that both positions are equally valid default positions.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 18 February 2014 1:22:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

There is, in fact, only one default position because we all start with no assumptions regarding any of this. Our life experiences (and possibly our DNA to a certain extent too) influence our feelings on whether or not there is that Something out there. So this first step that you speak of (that I think the vast majority of people either skip, or don’t tie to religion at all (e.g. New Age mystics)) is not an a priori presupposition. It is an assumption based on experience (both personal and upbringing) and so, by the way, is the assertion that physical reality is all that exists. Neither position is a priori and both require justification. However, the materialist is naturally going to have an easier time rationally justifying their position.

This postmodernist thinking in classifying the assertion that there must be Something else beyond the physical and mental as a priori is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep rationally justifying the assumption.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 18 February 2014 1:22:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LETS NOT..<<..sidestep rationally justifying the assumption.>>

SEEMS RATIONAL..on the face of things..as they appear to be
we can saY THAT men cAN FLY..but ignore that extra bit..in a plane.

I GUESS THATS JUST Assumed/presumed..because
MEN HAVE ALWAYS FLOWN..IN PLANES..thats the only way..men can fly.

tell that to the flying man..[rocKET-MAN?]

ANYHOW MY RATIONAL..post-cedent..to knowing gods reality
is via the words offered in writing..they..certainly..do not<<..sidestep rationally justifying the assumption.>>

BUT JUST BY THE PROOFS..*not OFFERED..HERE
THUS..evolution..>>sidestep's rationally justifying their assumption...WITH FACTS OR RATIONALITY]

at what stage does micro-evolution..ie [within species]..evolve into a new genus..?

its not roCKET SCIENCE..genus exta[outside]..its genus cant breed
even within genus..theiR ALLWAYS INFERTILE..OR FATAL

what proof the fossils 'evolved'[none are falsifyably links to nuthin

IN SHORT DONT CLAIM RATIONAL/faith..in luE OF FACT
IF YOU Had proof..you would present fact[but at best its a godless theory

<<..sidestep the rationally..*justifying the assumption...THat satanic demons war WALK..AMOUNG US?

how to awake the sleepers?

IE SCIENCE says..doctors heal?
or is it doctors who say science heals?

hang-on/they BOTH LIE

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/17/study-reveals-unavoidable-danger-hpv-vaccines/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/pharma-got-doctors-prescribe-risperdal-wellbutrin-bextra-neurontin-prempro/

http://xrepublic.tv/node/7059

yep even redirection
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2014/02/huge-amount-of-birth-defects-in.html

http://aviationintel.com/60-minutes-disgraceful-f-35-news-brochure/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/amazing-photos-of-mexican-drug-lords-home-and-23-billion-in-cash/

keep doubling up..till its sure tO HAPPEN?
http://investmentwatchblog.com/billionaire-george-soros-doubles-his-bet-that-the-market-is-heading-for-a-crash/

FIND YOUR OWN CURE
http://republicbroadcasting.org/Stang/index.php?cmd=archives.month&ProgramID=77&year=14&month=2&backURL=index.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives.getyear%2526ProgramID%253D77%26year%3D14%26backURL%3Dindex.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
http://xml.nfowars.net/Alex.rss

WHERE IS THE LOVE..{?]
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 18 February 2014 2:05:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

One can agree or disagree with the view that “what science can (potentially) investigate is all there is” (a reformulation of what I called the Sagan maxim) only after one understands what is meant by “potentially investigated by science” or briefly, what (natural) science “can know”.

I tried to describe this before, but it is all that science (and on the most fundamental level only through mathematics) can make meaningful statements about. This includes phlogiston, that nobody claims any more exists, quarks that are supposed to exist (although not in the obvious sense like that of the sun, that everybody understands) or the multiverse where the jury is still out. You can believe in a multiverse, you can believe in God: the former is a a scientific hypothesis subject to scientific investigation, the latter is not.

You cannot expect a child to understand this difference, and also past thinkers (I would say living before quantum physics came) including Hume could not have had this kind of delineation of science’s field of competence, explicitly involving mathematics. Of course, I cannot claim that this delineation is final, I am talking about the present understanding of what is natural science, not future. And not past: I am not a historian but I am sure that for Christians in the Middle Ages, and even beyond, the question of the existence of God was as simple (and usually equally affirmatively answered) as that of the sun.

Similarly for a child who will accept the existence of a strange animal if he/she is given a description he/she can understand (shown a picture of) and the same for religious concepts like God. Only gradually will the child understand that God is of a different nature than creatures he/she can see, and much, much later (if at all) the adult will understand what natural science is about, hence what “beyond its reach” means.

Thanks for the incentive that made me try to articulate my thoughts on this.
(ctd)
Posted by George, Wednesday, 19 February 2014 12:51:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(ctd)

>>You try fit religious belief into this ‘a priori’ category<<

I did not mention religion there. I only argued that people can agree on what is and what is not evidence only if they have something to build their agreement or disagreement on. Only in trivial practice, e.g. in the court, “common sense” might suffice.

Scientists, (or mathematicians) who are theists can communicate, talk about evidence for this or that, with scientists (or mathematicians) who are atheists on matters of their common scientific interests. This is not the case when looking for "evidence" to believe or not in something that is independent of what science can judge (the exception being what is known as the problem of divine action that I tried to tackle in a separate article).

>> those who are born to sense that there is Something beyond the physical and mental, and those who are born to sense that the physical world is all that exists. <<

You are not born to sense anything, you BECOME a materialist or a Christian etc as a result of your life experience, which you evaluate rationally as well as emotionally and which, of course, involves education.

>>both positions are equally valid default positions<<
Yes, but not because you are born with them.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 19 February 2014 1:08:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I SEE the big issue being defining what is meant..by god*
SO LETS look at the science term..'god*particle"..what is the god particlE..[a higgs boson]..WHAT IS A HIGGS BOSON..its the equiveLENT OF [X]..THE UNKOWN..theorised that 'it' must exist..AS THERE ISNT ENOUGH MATTER..to make e-mc2 work..

i think its even called darkmatter.=god particle[in theory]

so science will say..the god*part-icle..=dark matter

yet god is light..[light itself is unseen/
yet reveals the seeing..by the science called illumination..
so the opposite of light = dark..CAUSE IT DONT ILLUMINATE..it hides.

yet god is the light..light is a particle..called a photon
yet..PHOTONS ARE Released..in things called events..these are seen as waves ..THUS LOOK AT SAY A CANDEL

THE 'LIGHT'..is released by heat[itself unseen]
light comes in Different spectum..depending on the length of their waves..[themselves unsEEN..UNTILL THEY HIT ON A SAME WAVE..AnD SET OFF An oscillation wave..in synche..with the given colour ..of the revealed thing. [see sympathetic vibration]

BUT ALLREADY/YOU LOST..the seeing..but lets continue

see that there are..long striNGS OF LIGHT..THAT Formed mass
[as revealed by their colour specrum/WAVE LENGTH]..[its best explained AS BEING LIKE..BALL LIGHTENING..[BASICLY..A STRING..[strEam]..Of particles..THAT SOMEHOW FORMED A LOOP..that then rejoins..[to itself]..READ UP ON BALL LIGHTENING and YOU GRASP STRING THEORY.

but all satrings arnt/equal..some have longer..causal events
others bigger loops..but i see its pearl before swine[till science caN EXPLAIN..THE UNSEED OF DArkmatters..it cant see the light[only that which the light reveals.

aHH MEN..LORD FORGIVE ME..i see the way
yet lack the means to explain..that you reveal unto me

I KNOW THE CAUSE=YOU..THAT YOU ARE IN ME..NOT OF ME
i know im not you..i see ALL YOU DO..AND SIMPLY SAY YET again..THANKYOU...FOR THE INNER LIGHT BY WHICH YOU ALLOW ME THE SEEING.
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 19 February 2014 6:50:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some fascinating discussions are going on here!

AJ, I never claimed or implied that any presupposition should be accepted without question. I was merely pointing out the complexities of analysing evidence and how we interact with it. In this context, your request for “worldview independent evidence” was unrealistic, if not impossible.

Regarding the assumption that non believers believe the cosmos is all there is, I’d simply ask whether the context is purely debating Does God Exist, or rather whether the discussion is actually more focused on finding the truth (note: Not mutually exclusive options, I realise). If the latter, you know as well as I do that 99.5% or more of self described Atheists in Western countries do in fact believe that the cosmos is all there is.

Pericles, your analogy fails because it still smuggles in the assumption that there is a neutral worldview. I see no reason to accept that there is a neutral set of metaphysics, or a neutral philosophy of life. The only response I can really see to this is “Who says you need a view of things?”, to which I’d respond that it isn’t really a choice we have. There is no such thing as a view from nowhere.

On a semi related note, in the 1960’s a Russian cosmonaut went into space and smugly noted that he hadn’t found God. Of course he hadn’t. I wouldn’t expect Romeo and Juliet to stumble across Shakespeare in the attic either.
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 20 February 2014 12:48:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

<<Yes, [both positions are equally valid default positions] but not because you are born with them.>>

Actually, they're not. The theistic default position violates Occam's Razor.

Trav,

I wasn’t necessarily targeting you specifically.

<<I never claimed or implied that any presupposition should be accepted without question.>>

I was pre-empting a form of argument that I hear from time-to-time. Sorry if it came across like that.

<<I was merely pointing out the complexities of analysing evidence and how we interact with it. In this context, your request for “worldview independent evidence” was unrealistic, if not impossible.>>

Well, there are certain things such as water running downhill that I would consider pretty worldview-independent (and there’s no reason why anything that could qualify as a god couldn’t make themselves that self-evident). But if you consider a worldview to be so all-encompassing as to include something as simple as water running downhill, or the sun rising in the East, then fine; that’s why I showed you how we can still make a determination of what is reasonable to accept and what is not, even if we really are so trapped by our worldviews.

<<Regarding the assumption that non believers believe the cosmos is all there is, I’d simply ask whether the context is purely debating Does God Exist, or rather whether the discussion is actually more focused on finding the truth (note: Not mutually exclusive options, I realise).>>

It can be whatever context you like. It doesn’t change a thing.

<<<If the latter, you know as well as I do that 99.5% or more of self-described Atheists in Western countries do in fact believe that the cosmos is all there is.>>

It doesn’t matter if it’s 100%. What matters is whether or not disbelief necessitates, or necessarily leads to, a belief that the cosmos is all that there is; and until it does, there is still a false dichotomy there.

You tried this line of reasoning here too (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15381#265807) and it doesn’t work. It is philosophically unsound and leads to all sorts of fallacious arguments such as the strawman and the red herring.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 20 February 2014 1:48:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ/QUOTE..<<>.Actually, they're not.
The theistic default position violates Occam's Razor.>>

love the way..you dont explain..how it relates..TO OC
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=occam's+razor+examples&i

..<<>.Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose two explanations are equally likely. In this case the simpler one is usually better.>>

not which is more true
nor which more scientific
nor more commonly held/and other thesis*

nothing relates//to the point..and yoUR REPLY
under occums razer..this indicates..you got nuthin/specificly

lets test the shultz-theory..[of nothing]

<<I wasn’t necessarily targeting..you specifically.>.

true..but irrelivant..to topic

<<..I was pre-empting a form of argument >>

now the arguement..isnt linked to
nor explained/under oc*..=nuthin

<<..Well, there are certain things..such as water running downhill that I would consider pretty worldview-independent>>

YEp..but that by oc*=..noT A REAL LOT

<<>.(and there’s no reason why anything that could qualify as a god couldn’t make themselves that self-evident).>>

GREAT..FINALY..NO REASON WHY..YEP CORRECT
BUT HANGON..DO KIDS CHANGE BEHAVIOUR..if dad is in the room

OK
NOT occums raiser..its disputable
there are endless testiments..that god does..MAKE HIMSELF SELF EVIDENT

OC8/refited/needs more info
BETTER GNOSIS

<<..that’s why I showed you how..we can still make a determination of what is reasonable to accept and what is not,..even if we really are so trapped by our worldviews.>>

YEP
THE IMAGE..of a shot foot..comes to mind
there Is no god..because..we can..MAKE*..A Determination*..[of what is reasonable*

and what is unreasonable..
[SIMPLY BASED ON..WHATs more likely]..NOT TRUE*.

IS IT MORE LIKELY A MAN WITH A GUN..
WILL ..a]..have a gun...[or B]..kill someone/]

LETS EXAMINE..THE DEAD..cant own nuthin..cause THEY GOT DEAD
DEAD CAnt own nuthin..[but wait..patent LAW..extends the right to own..LONG AFTER..'DEAD'..ah but then they CAN OCCUPY BY SPIRIT POSSESSION..and confound the foolish..and wise alike.

ok i think a]
clearly to have posesion/means he lives

[i know its nonsense..but rubbish in..rubbish out
give me facts..just truths..or that you believe=true[FOR YOU]

ok..for you=its not important
unless your unsure..see a previous quote/..of pericules?]

occams RULE=nothing.
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 20 February 2014 2:50:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nonsense, Trav.

>>Pericles, your analogy fails because it still smuggles in the assumption that there is a neutral worldview.<<

Where exactly is this assumption "smuggled in", pray tell?

I assume you are referring to the space capsule analogy. The default position is ignorance. No need for justification. And you can enter the module with any worldview you like, and the result is the same. You can even believe the moon is made of green cheese, that will not have an impact on your default position concerning the space capsule.

(Although if you did eventually find yourself on the moon, your worldview might be severely tested...)

>>I see no reason to accept that there is a neutral set of metaphysics, or a neutral philosophy of life.<<

Nor I. It requires a level of education, or at least the ability to hear and see, before you would be able to establish your metaphysical or philosophical starting point. But whichever way you polish it, if you started that journey without a belief in a Christian God, you would also end the journey without such a belief.

Unless, of course, along the way you were introduced to the Bible. In which case, you might choose to go down that path. But without it, you wouldn't be able to reach the same point, would you.

And this is an interesting statistic.

>>99.5% or more of self described Atheists in Western countries do in fact believe that the cosmos is all there is<<

I think that might be an invented number, Trav.

Now, if you had said that 100% of atheists believe that this life is all they have, I would readily believe you.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 20 February 2014 5:43:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

>>Actually, they're not. The theistic default position violates Occam's Razor. <<

You have a point here, although my “yes” did not include the theist position but referred to the alternatives as you clearly put them:

(a) that there is Something beyond the physical, and
(b) that the physical world is all that exists.

The theist position is (a) PLUS belief in the existence (as that Something or within it) of God who communicates with us both ways.

You are right that the Occam’s Razor principle can be seen as a strong argument in favour of (b). And - answering your objection to Trav - disbelief in (a) necessitates (b) and vice versa, since they are formulated as propositions A and non A.

From Wikipedia: "(Occam’s Razor principle) states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced."

So this principle depends essentially on whether there arise circumstances that could prevail over this simplicity. Newtonian physics was certainly simpler than what we have now but its simplicity had to be “traded for greater explanatory power” because of new empirical facts.

In case of (a) vs (b) there are no such empirical (i.e. verifiable or falsifiable by science) facts that would compel me, for instance, to “trade in simplicity”: The “greater explanatory power” comes from outside natural science (history, psychology, sociology etc) AND my personal life experience, not from what I know about natural science.

Again, thanks for making me try to better articulate my beliefs/thoughts.
Posted by George, Friday, 21 February 2014 1:41:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

>>if you started that journey without a belief in a Christian God, you would also end the journey without such a belief.<<

This might be true if by “journey” you mean reasoning in a theist-atheist debate, not in real life. People who were brought up as atheists and became Christian converts are a legion, not only in former Communist countries, although admittedly not as many as those who went the other way around. Actually, adult converts tend to be the more sincere Christians, sometimes even too zealous and “conservative”.
Posted by George, Friday, 21 February 2014 1:44:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
george/quote..,,<<..adult converts tend to be the more sincere Christians, sometimes even too zealous and “conservative”...>>

FOR BALANCE..its more true..without..the classifier..'Christians'

adult converts tend to be the more sincere ,as they have seen the issues/problems..and went looking..for a truth/that explains thing..

they..[we]..tend tO LOOK DEEPER..get involved by testing things themselves..unlike those force fed the cure..by parentals..desperate to guide their loved ones..upon a safer path..FOR LIVING.

sometimes these parents [and mature converts]....ARE even too zealous and “conservative”...FOR THOSE NOT SIMULARILY MOTIVATED...[thus creating the karma..of fallen away children]..that then become their anti-thesis.

some find god
only to loose their kids..[thats why we have the simple kiddy versions]..kids should be forbidden..knowing..till they ask/then like the santa scaM..GIVE EM THE TRUTH..god loves you/god is looking after your puppy..now.

as adults allow the full truth..of how we together trad many wrong paths..to now see the right path=..is by love of other/that..ye do to the least..ye did to god.

thing is god is person-ALL..one to oNE
LET THE KIDS KNOW GOD MAKES THEIR BODY/LIVE..THATS IT.
TEACH THEM THE FORMULA..NOT THE MATH.

where life is there is god..
[love grace mercy..sustaining OUR LIVING
VIA HIS LIGHT..THAT..sustains US OUR LIFE..that we reveal/HIS WILL..IS OUR DE-LIGHT...that his will is we find love..via giving grace mercy..we show we 'get it'.
Posted by one under god, Friday, 21 February 2014 9:07:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's not at all where I was coming from, George.

>>This might be true if by “journey” you mean reasoning in a theist-atheist debate<<

I meant, quite simply, that you cannot arrive at Christianity from first principles. To reiterate:

>>...if you started that journey without a belief in a Christian God, you would also end the journey without such a belief. Unless, of course, along the way you were introduced to the Bible.<<

And this only underlines my point for me...

>>People who were brought up as atheists and became Christian converts are a legion<<

Quite. They were "converted". They did not apply their own reasoning to the question "is there a God, and if so, what would one look like". So my position stands - that without intervention no-one could reach a position that "there must have been this guy called Jesus", which - I am making just the tiniest of assumptions here - is the fundamental starting-point of being a Christian. As you yourself said:

>>The Bible is about what God said, did, etc, no arguments for His existence. That is tacitly assumed.<<

Fons et origo.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 21 February 2014 11:42:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
damm..different..ways of knowing..
yet more throwaway search terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_et_origo

Fons et origo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fons et origo is a Latin term meaning "source and origin".[1] >>

HOW about..CAUSE ACTION..[actio]

<<.Typical usage of the term describes Athens as the fons et origo of democracy, or Italy as the fons et origo of classical music. Lancelot Ware (1915–2000), the founder of Mensa, was awarded the honorary title Fons et Origo by the society in 1987.[2]
References[edit]

1. Jump up ^ OED "fons et origo":
"The source and origin (of something)>>

ERGO..[OCCUMS RAZEING]

[the source../god\..and the /original\..:.. creation

THE QUESTION/ARISES..qed..
by what way../means..the source dun The origin
[its a science tempt..do refute existent thesis
''and god said..[LET THERE BE LIGHT]..AND LET THE LIGHT SUSTAIN LIFE/LIVING.

I KNOW ITS ALL GREEK..TO MANY
but latin?..is liKE TALKING..in tongues..
[it dont create/GIVE answer..IT ONLY LEADS TO OTHER GNOSIS..BY SUPPLYING ANOTHER question]..IN law thats called..a re direction.

the alpha origino..=..ORIGINAL SOURCE...=..GOD
as god is WE beta...MUST BE..as our will is free.

ANd the fruits of the willfully free HASN'T Named names..BY GENUS Nor species/of ways nor means..[by O.C=not a real lot..the simplest cause of any act..is the original energy..that set IT IN MOTION...[IT MOVES BECAUSE HE MOVED IT...

[..as a meer cat cant reaLLY SAY..[ITS..SIMPLES..]....
(;-)=[*}..

[THE BIBLE STATES..this FIRST MOVEMENT..was a sound wave -form/..Harmonic/oscillation[cause]..that is codified..within..the original vibe..SOUNDS..that became..represenative..of the written word form/sounds..of

*'LET THERE BE Light'*
Posted by one under god, Friday, 21 February 2014 1:25:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ANd thus with a wimper..came THE WEAK END

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=angels+and+demoNS+THESIS+ILLUMINATI&wU

ANYHOW..IM WATCHING A MOVIE CALLED ANGELS AND DEMONS
its talkING OF THE SCIENCE/ILLUMED ONES..THAT BRING DOWN..the church

presently 4 wanna be popes..are going to gradually 'die'
for a revenge thing when the church branded THE WISE ONES[SORRY WISE IN THEIR OWN EYEd illuminatIE

THEY MANAGED TO WORK in the sign of the eye earelier
to steal..dark matter/anti matter..ALSO CALLED THE 'GOD'-PARTICLE

DARK MATTER FROM THE ILLUMED ONES?
antimatter i could grasp..[versis creation/matter]
but god is the light [gnosis..of the light is supposed to be the illumed ones[ithink the fallen angel comes into it there somehow

anyhow they got one day..and the illumed ones deSTROY THE VATICAN..in a pUFF OF DARK MATTER/,,thus not light..anyhow..its hoped we see the light[of the illumed ones backing evolution/LOL..FOR A WEAK END

well jUST TRYING TO SGHARE THE ILLUMINATION
[I ASKED/I RECIEVED]..LOL God the light=DARK MATTER..LOL[ANTI-MATTER..AFTER Creating matter?

whats the dam mATTER WITH THE GODLESS ONES THAT SEEM INTENT..IN THE UNION/WITH THE ILLUMINATI?..nope..sorry enlightened ONES..the dark one decieves

ok the church dun wrong
but seems thE ill/lumed ones [think god particle dark matter anti life and all matter..thats SEEING THE LIGHT..NOW OPEN UA EYE

GOD=THE ACTIVE..THAT FORMS MATTER..MY FINGER FEELS SOLID/HITTING A SEEMINGLY SOLID 'KEY'..BUT WE KNOW..ITS ALL JUST ATOMS..WITH ORBITING ELECTRONS NEWTRONS protons electr-rons etc[ie mainly empty space/or ratheR FIELDS OF AFFECT

much like a PLANET's whole orbital PLANE..BEING A SOLID FEELING RING[THINK LIKE IF SATURNS RINGS WERE SOLID..in reality there is nothing orbiting nuthin..SO Fast..its here/as much as tHERE[TO COMPOUND THE FIELD OF AFFECT..THEY FALL ARROUND EACH POLE/BEFORE SHOOTING OFF TO The opposing atom[nuclious pole..thus the actual field of affect..looks like a cross[think LIKE A FIGURE 8]

ITS A WEAK END.
BUT THE REASON DETRA FOR THIS THREAD WAS A WEAK START

BAck to my movie.
Posted by one under god, Friday, 21 February 2014 9:18:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
its funny how movies/FICTIONS allways..have thaT TWIST[HOOK]
anyhow..the concept..of a young pope..[that lives long..in the faith]..STABILIZES..THINGS.

so we return to the snowden/ultimatum[peace terms]..to hrh[if prince phylip/ot her..isnt the head/who is..illumintas..[forget titles].there i suggested..the settlement/[edward/THE UNITER..EMBODIMENT..OF THE FAITH..AND THE CROWN..UNDER A COMMON WEALTH SEAL/USING THE SEED from the tree of life/underpinning the queens coin

its more clear..at the thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152&page=0#178808

ps note all the 8's
oh well movie is back/back to the illusion box.

cheers
johan9
Posted by one under god, Friday, 21 February 2014 11:12:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

>>you cannot arrive at Christianity from first principles<<

Depends on what you call “first principles”, but in general I might agree. People “arrive at Christianity” for many reasons given by their life experience that makes the atheist default position unsatisfactory or insufficient for them. They choose a Christian belief system only AFTER having opted, for, or been educated in, the Christian option, and in both cases the New Testament naturally plays a role.

>>They were "converted". They did not apply their own reasoning to the question "is there a God, and if so, what would one look like”.<<

I think this is where we essentially differ. I would never accuse in such a sweeping manner those who became atheists (“lost their faith”) of irrationality, lack of intellectual integrity and in general the ability to think for themselves, by claiming for instance that such a person had to have “been converted” by whomever.

This is not about who is “right”, theists or atheists, but about how adherents of the two worldview and cultural orientations can live together in our society in a civilised manner where we respect each other, even if we do not share their “first principles”. There are irrational, immoral, fanatical or simply silly Christians and other theists as well as atheists. This does not give us the right to denigrate en gros those of the opposite “first principles”, because there are scientists, philosophers and other scholars, again both among Christians and atheists.

>>without intervention no-one could reach a position that "there must have been this guy called Jesus”<<

I think most historians would not accept that they needed an external “intervention” to come to the conclusion that a person called Jesus existed.
Posted by George, Saturday, 22 February 2014 9:20:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How would they find out, George?

>>I think most historians would not accept that they needed an external “intervention” to come to the conclusion that a person called Jesus existed.<<

Someone would have to tell them, wouldn't they? That's the intervention. You can only become a Christian if someone tells you about Jesus. Legions of missionaries throughout the nineteenth century ran their entire lives on that principle.

Nobody, on the other hand, needs to have atheism explained to them.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 22 February 2014 6:36:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
never thought i would heAR it here
but please..this is simply insane..,,..<<..nobody, on the other hand, needs to have atheism explained to them>>..

yES TEACHER..IGNORANCE NEEDS NO TEACHER..
before wisdom/there was nothing..yep/no one needed explain it/
just as none needed to explain..they were naked/till they aTe the fermented/rotted fruits..but its presence alone/reveals much.

before I WAS A MAN..I THOUGHT AS A CHILD
I FOUND IN MY IGNORANCE..the same AS OTHERS IGNORANCE'S
BUT FOR THE WANT..OF A nail/the war was lost...BUT FOR LACK OF KNOWING HE WOULD HAVE BEEN A GENIUS.

ITS THE SAME LEVEL OF STUDY..TO BE IGNORANT
AS TO NOT even try...yet even they arnT THE SAME THINGS.

OVER SIMPLISTIC SIMPLIFICATION may/be due..to the lack/of WILL TO KNOW
LACK OF THE WILL TO LOOK..OR [lack of fact]..WhICH ONES..[specifically]..indicate much..to some..

BUT YET AGAIN..Little to others WHO KNEW NOT..THEY WERE SKINNY DRIPPING...[NA-KID]..by rote INSTALLED THEIR OWN MOTE..that others denote.OR Wrote...BUT BY LACK..OF TEACHING..HE BEGAN PREACHING OF THE TEACHERS..reaching..NOT preaching..errant TEACHING
but to THE IGNORANT..THEY KNOW NO begining means no END.
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 23 February 2014 2:10:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

>>How would they find out, George?<<

I was referring to professional historians, which I am not, so I am not going to try to explain to you how they work.

So let me just refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Existence, containing e.g. “Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.”
Posted by George, Sunday, 23 February 2014 8:49:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALL THIS SILLYNESS..of did jesus exists is irrelevant

think of christ as a concept/A TEACHING..[LIKE THE lessons in shakespear]..who reportedly..introduced MORE CONCEPTION CONCEIVED NEW WORDS THAN THE BIBLE..MAINLY BY HIGHLIGHTING THE DEMONIC THESES..in its death/..murder FORBIDDEN-relationship themes

[just like dante'..much was directly CHANNELED THROUGH HELL.]
never the leSS..THEIR NAME..LINKS THEIR WORKS..TO A SURE END

jesus lives in you
or he dont..one cant serve two masters
HE EITHER/OT OTHER..LIVES WITHIN YOU/AS REVEALED BY THYNE WORKS

your chosen works/wrought of thyne own freewill
embody..either demons or angels/serving the Christ..[good/charity untoi other]..or him the illusery embodiment..oF SANTA/Materialism..

please oh embodymENT..INCARNATE OF THE VENERABLE Pericules
see that wether or not a persopn..a body or works rESPESENTS THE ETERNAL/OF OUR BEing

ie none..in heaven..nor hell know of any 'satan'
MANY CLaim to serve him..yet he exists only in the same/way..'uncle sam..could claim..to exists..[the embodyment of all the good of the yanki

or the chicken coLONEL/OF KENTUCKY FRIED..OR LOUI THE Fly
ITS WHAT THEY REPRESENT..embody..together..all of christ can say lie christ said of our father

to see me..[ie that ye see me do].
[IS AS OUR FATHER DOES]..TO SEE ME../is to see my father
TO SEE THE EMBODYMENT..OF HIS WORks..=is=his churcH..
THE WORD MADE FLESH.

YOU CHANNEL..A HIGH SPIRIT
YOUR Validation..THOSE KEy QUALITIES/CONCEPTS..are THE EMBODIMENT..of him

this HAS SET IN TRAIN..Sympathetic vibration..[COMPOUNDED oscillation/VIBE].. think harmonics..A JOINING OF QUALITIES INTO HIGHER POTENTIAL...now EMBODIED VIA VISUAL AUDITORY que's..IN-PUTS..into WORD FORM.
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 23 February 2014 9:27:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear george..please do not forget
atheist rule number one

perrycrudoss/qUOTE..<<...
.<<..nobody, on the other hand,
needs to have atheism explained to them>>..

as atheism..is based on ignoring..ESPECIALLY detail/of a 'FABLE'..
STUFF/info..they Attribute AS being IRRELEVANCY..TO educating THEIR chosen..IGNORANCE

ignorance..needs have nothing EXPLAINED..TO IT
cause ignorance..PIN THIS CASE]..is BY THE DEED/omission/avoidance

you can lead a hourse to water
but you cant make a dumb THING..think..[facts are pearl before swine]
[any response refutes the ignorance/..[meaning he couldnt use it ever again/without us requoting it to him.

but ignorance can be a two edged sword
it could explaIN..THE REASON..FOR THE ATHEIST BEING..[

WILL-FULL avoidaNCE..OF REFUTAL OF THESIS
IN ORDER TO REALISE BY OZMOSIS RATHER THAN GNOSIS
THAT INHERENTLY TOO FRIGHTFUL OR FEARFUL../..

thus WE HAVE...yeah..though we may walk through the val;y of fear
we shall fear no evil..because we got the gnosis

the ibly thing they got
the only thing to..Fear is fear..AS AN..'ITSELF'

but as we need fear nothing
noT EVEN..MATERIAL DEATH..AT ALL

WE CAN CHOSE..TO SAY..Fear
fu

BUT INSTEAD WE CAN..SAY..FEAR GO AWAy..

YE SHALT BE FEARLESS
BECAUSE GOD LIVES..AS JESUS LIVES..
WITH-and-IN..ALL OF YOU..fully and completely..
ETERNALLY..BECAUSE..the bible tells us so..THUS WE KNOW
THUS AS WE DID REAP/THUS TOO..SO DID WE SOW...LET the tares and the wheat..GROW together/UNTIL..AT HARVEST..[the sleep that precedes rebirth]..THAT..THUS THEN....BY THEIR WORKS..THEIR SEED BE Divided.

OH WELL The weak en
Posted by one under god, Monday, 24 February 2014 8:33:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
please refute/
.Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth-
-New Research Data..by Jeffrey Tomkins,Ph.D. *

A recent presentation..at the 2011 Creation Biology Society..(CBS) meetings has stirred the pot..once again on the human-chimp DNA similarity issue among creationists,.intelligent design proponents, and some evolutionists.1

It was reported that a query..of 40,000 chimp genomic DNA sequences against..the most recent assembly..LOL..of the human genome provided an average similarity estimate..of 97 to 98 percent.2

Evolutionists frequently cite..such percentages..as an indication of common ancestry,..*..but the ICR life sciences team has been examining the question of human-chimp genetic similarity—and what we’ve discovered..raises significant challenges..to the standard claims.3

For example,..a report in 2007 showed that 23 percent
of the human genome..shares no immediate genetic ancestry*..with chimpanzees,..mankind’s supposed closest living relative.4

A more recent study..showed extreme dissimilarity...(> 30 percent) between human and chimp Y chromosome DNA sequence.5..*Furthermore, when data..are provided in research papers..that allow the determination of DNA sequence gaps..in alignments,..please note*..actual overall identities are 70 to 87 percent.

To help clarify actual data..associated with the ongoing controversy, the Institute..for Creation Research has become actively involved in human-chimp DNA similarity research...Based on the CBS report, the ICR life sciences team obtained..the same 40,000 chimp DNA sequences—individual random fragments (about 735 bases each) from the chimpanzee genome sequencing project.

For an initial test..of the chimp data,..we generated 1,600 DNA alignments with the human genome..using the software BLASTN with default parameters.

In contrast to the results presented at the CBS meeting, we only obtained a genome-wide sequence identity of 89 percent. The CBS report did not indicate which BLASTN parameters were used...Perhaps those parameters were more stringent and only produced alignments of extremely high similarity.

edited/not that you..faithfull..in science/spin care..

<<..The GSS sequences were derived..from a project that involved mapping the chimp genome...In addition,..we are testing a variety of different alignment parameters.

Our preliminary results..show that the human..and chimp genomes are more dissimilar ..than commonly reported...Our research also shows that highly selective..and stringent alignment methods..can exclude important data,..*providing inflated genome similarity estimates.

continues../@\..link

how/you\..say..in latin..;..*hung../on\..own..petard?

http://www.icr.org/article/evaluating-human-chimp-dna-myth-new/
Posted by one under god, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yet again silence/i know those who back evolution
think they 'hang'..with the clever huys

yet i present a science paper..that says as little as 70 percent
[NOT 98 percent]..simularity..between chimps..and us..[but not them.

anyhow..ignoRING THE SCIENCE
WHEN YOU CLAIM SCIENCE..that 'silence'..speaks volumes
their so sure of their theory..yet cant defend it/CAUSE THEY HAVE FAITH IN EVOLVING..not gnosis.

lest we recall we share 50 percent..of our dna with banana
so be careful eating our ancestors..it reveals why THEY TAKE GODLESSNESS ON FAITH.

its sad but its obvious..tOO
taken on faith anything is better THAN Trying to defend/what you dont grasp/..EVOLUTION-THeory'..yet these faithful/Scientology..ACCO-LITES OF THE DARKNESS..[IGNORANCE]..swear true../FACT..[lol]..A FALSE THEORY/..EVEN NOW..A REFUTED THESIS..to the point of deneying god his rightfull glory..of creation

one cannot serve two masters
one creator god..that made co-CREATORS/you havnt lost a faulse god
you FOUND THE TRUE ONE..THE ONE..wholly holy spiriT/WITHIN YOU..WHOS presence helps us more than most can ever know

indeed ..that ye did to the least..
ye gone and dun to him..the most merciful and graceful
who gives is life that we may affirm..our faiths into truths[and falsities..

so THAT WE MAY sort the wheat from the chaff..
SIMPLY/by telling sheep dna from goat dna and chimp dna from atheist dna..and theor-ries of men..from factoids of god.

ahh men
its still A WEAK END..AS im right/correct/provably true
yet alone..AND THATS WHAT THE GODLESS REALLY ARE AFRAID OF..BEING ALONE..[better think they to be wrong/together...than correct alone/thats the dIFFERENCE..BETWEEN GOD AND MEN.

a sun of the holy light..is willing to stand alone
AS OUR SUN gave birth..alone in the waters..his ejectulations saw the light..AND SAW WHAT THE LIGHT REVEALED..TO..BE GOOD..[LITTLE KNOWING HE WAST GAZING..UPON HIMSELF.

see what i am means..AS YOU TOO AM
ME
WE

see+?
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 6:24:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hang around..and talk
DONT/RUN..AWAY..LIKE,..ALL THE/OTHER TIMES.

TO QUOTE..YOU..<<..Exactly what are..we to understand..by the words "immediate genetic ancestry"..in terms of..our genetic relationship with chimpanzees?>>

GOOD QUESTION
IN THE IMMEDIATE..Family LEVEL genome..[genus]
the people/..AT THE LINK FEEL/confirm..they have the proof..OF..nix nadda...nuthin

ie..that mankind..<<..shares no immediate genetic ancestry*..with chimpanzees,." >.

ITS NOT/ROCKET SCIENCE..OR GOOBER GOOK
we cant*have come,..*by apes..[and the LINK PROVES IT]

[IT WAS PIGS/SEE..OTHER-LINK]..BUT..expecting YOU SCIENCE GUYS..TO BE CLEVER*..ENOUGH..iN GNOSIS..OF YOUR SCIENCE..TO UNDERSTAND**WHATS BEEN REVEALED..BY STUDYING THE FACTS..seems/too..HARD..[IGNORANCE/BEING..BLiSS?

science fact./now refutes..the chimp/CHUMP evolution THESEUS
but..you lot took so much..on faith..you gOT..NO Comprehension of SCIENCE METHOD...THAT/FINALLY..REFUTED..THE LIE.

[AND]..that was ONLY..ONE OF The revelation's..the other
is on..the HAM*-my..christian..THREAD..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16038&page=0

but please feel/free to refute..that/too.if you can
even..if you..cant name one science/quality evolution..into new genus[ever]..not one..

..yet ya fooled..em all/FOR/A WHILE..ONLY..but in the end[weak end]..true science..finds only god creation standing..]..ie science dont know..IT/WAS..BY PIG.

now..we think/KNOW..its that we came from pigs
i posted that..the last evolutionist THREAD
BUT GOOGLE IT..And weep ..

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=MAN+COMES+FROM+PIGS+NOT+CHIMPS

but swine..we are come from..not ape
[MISSED IT/BY..THAT MUCH..LOL]

ANYHOW..[GOD loveS ya
anyhow][now ya know..why pig is unclean*..its ya grandma.]

SUCH..A CLEVER/APE..LOL

2b ctd
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 27 February 2014 7:29:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the theory of Darwinian evolution..of chimps into man..IS a self-contradiction, a grandiose and grotesque presumption to legitimacy that appeals to the intellectually dis functional...of those faithful..TO A godless god free creation/story.

in sciences..being half wrong is being all wrong
the math never did ad up..till you got the pig 'evE'..OF MEN-KIND
what got RAPED BY SOME APE LIKE CHIMP ADAM..that wanted what 'the beasts got'..a mate.

ANYHOW..THE OLD Sow [eve]..gave birth to 11 wee tiny piglets
There was a shortage of feeding stations/thus these critters..fought for their suck at the nipple[they been fighting EVER SINCE.

now i haven't been studying 'mules'..HYBRIDS..BUT WHERE THEY ARE NORMALLY INFERTILE..BUT CLEARLY TWO OR MORE ..OF THESE PIG APES..bred successful..because here WE ARE

Where are we now..../OUR RACE WAS CREATED BY WHAT LOOKS LIKE RAPE[or a very lusty sow..lets TRUST IT Was the later]..and of the resultant hybrids..at least 7 of the f1..was fertile/EVES..[IF YOU FOLLOW THE 7 EVE THEORY]..ITS LIKELY ONE [OR TWO]..was a fertile male..

by our races we could determine their piggy colors
BUT ITS WORTH NOTING..THAT roman wolf..feeding romulous et'al
is closer to the root OF Man..only the wolf is a sow/feeding little ape men
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSMbR-XscaSXekDOpW9JtkKBUzWTl_x3SC3tKrAiEZcAoAgqLN3KH7gcfd

thing is you heard this science
via a CREATIONIST..WHO YET SEES GOD HAND IN ALL OF THIS

[I KNOW BY THE STUNNED SILENCE..both sides feel they lost
but get over it..both of us were a little RIGHT..A LITLE WRONG
but how darwin missed the pig thing/and all of you 'evolutionists'..as well/

*thats because you haVE FAITH....in science
not by science KNOWING..let alone comprehension..or application

to get to fertile f2/f3..etc
f1 hybred pig..APES..NEEDED TO DO THEIR RECOMBINATION
so..you too..can say..i am..because cause was being as I AM/BEFORE ME.
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 27 February 2014 8:05:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When it comes to topics like human origins, where the opinions are rigid and the evidence thin, reservation of judgment is best. It is my hope that the arguments presented here will serve as an intellectual springboard allowing the mind to rise above the inflexible creeds of traditional evolutionary thought.

I must admit that I initially felt a certain amount of repugnance at the idea of being a hybrid. The image of a pig mating with an ape is not a pretty one, nor is that of a horde of monstrous half-humans breeding in a hybrid swarm. But the way we came to be is not so important as the fact that we now exist.

As every Machiavellian knows, good things can emerge from ugly processes, and I think the human race is a very good thing. Moreover, there is something to be said for the idea of having the pig as a relative.
ITS ONLY HIDEN..FROM SEEING BY TAXONOMY/lies..IT turns out
the same..'TAXONOMIC'..features evolved..via many MUTATIONS/many GENE-RECOMBINATION.S

god..did not place pigs..and humans..in different taxonomic/orders. Taxonomists did...A great deal of evidence..(read a discussion of this topic)..exists to suggest..that taxonomists are,..in no way, infallible.

http://www.macroevolution.net/dubious-assumptions.html
Our ideas..concerning the proper categorization..of animals are shaped..by bias and tradition..to such an extent..that it would be rash to reject,..[solely on taxonomic grounds,]..the feasibility of such a cross.
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-section-6.html

My opinion of this animal has much improved during the course of my research. Where once I thought of filth and greed, I now think of intelligence, affection, loyalty, and adaptability, with an added touch of joyous sensuality — qualities without which humans would not be human.

LEARN..OF KARYOTYPe
http://www.macroevolution.net/karyotype.html
Posted by one under god, Friday, 28 February 2014 10:17:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SOME/EDITS..RE GENUS..4..science/GENIUSES
http://www.macroevolution.net/karyotype.html

In the upcoming discussion..of stabilization theory,.the vagueness of the word species and..the consequent difficulties of its application in a theoretical context..are avoided through the use of chromoset, chromotype,..somaset,..and somatype,..words more specific than species

The sorts of structural differences just described distinguish, for example, the human karyotype from that of a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Humans and chimpanzees do not have the same number of chromosomes and there are also differences in the structure of the individual chromosomes.

The Y chromosome differs markedly in size in humans and chimpanzees. An obvious structural difference is that the equivalent of human Chromosome 2 exists as two separate chromosomes (2A and 2B) in the chimpanzee...Moreover, various other human chromosomes cannot be aligned intact with those of a chimpanzee.

For example, there are regions on human chromosomes 1 and 18 that are inverted relative to the same regions on the equivalent chimpanzee chromosome. Two large inversions also distinguish a human Y chromosome from that of a chimpanzee...There are many other structural differences differentiating these karyotypes...In general, the karyotypes of more distantly related organisms are more extensively rearranged relative to each other.

Chromotypes and Chromosets.

Since many populations treated as separate species differ with respect to karyotype, many hybrids have chromosomes that do not exactly match in pairs...This mismatching is a result of the normal process of sexual reproduction, where a parent typically passes only one chromosome..of each of the types present in its karyotype to its offspring.

Since the other parent does the same, an F1 hybrid receives a pair of a given type only when that same type is found in both its parents. Any type of chromosome found in only one parent will have no match in the hybrid...Individuals with such unmatched chromosomes, ones not occurring in pairs,..are known as structural heterozygotes.

Each of the chromosets within the single somaset Mus musculus constitutes a reproductively stable population because all members of a particular chromoset have the same karyotype...But when the members of different chromosets come into contact and interbreed, they produce structurally heterozygous offspring..[hence..the gaps-theory..is fraud].

http://www.macroevolution.net/reproductive-isolation.html
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 1 March 2014 10:12:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.macroevolution.net/reproductive-isolation.html

QUOTE..Regarding the activities of taxonomists, Ernst Mayr (1963: 499)..once wrote that.."an outsider would never realize..how many interesting cases..of evolutionary intermediacy.are concealed in the seeming definiteness..of the..TaxonomiC.. genus/species and subspecies designations."

If it were true..[that natural populations..could be tidily sorted into two categories,]..those that do interbreed and those that do not,..[the fact that various degrees of interbreeding..are conceivable would be irrelevant.].. However,

real pairs of populations..do exhibit a seemingly continuous spectrum of degrees..of..ONGOING interbreeding.7//This fact makes definitions in terms..of reproductive isolation..entirely arbitrary.

Although he sporadically..used biological definitions of species, as the occasion suited him,..Darwin was clearly aware the fertility of hybrids..was an impractical criterion.[..He reached this conclusion by comparing the results of Kölreuter..(1761-1766)and Gärtner/(1849), whose works..were at that time the primary sources.of information on hybridization in plants:

If we followed Kölreuter's simple rule..&.called all plants,..which were quite fertile together,]..varieties,..it might be thought that we should at least arrive at a decided result;..but this is not so, for we have seen..that the two most laborious..

EDITED

If we followed Kölreuter's simple rule careful experimentisers [Kölreuter and Gärtner] who ever lived, often come to a diametrically opposite conclusion on this head;..and this alone suffices to show that, practically, fertility will not serve to distinguish varieties from species.8

Indeed, Darwin was well aware..that the fertility of hybrids is a continuum,..varying from one type of cross to another.

Thus, he points out that,..With forms that must be ranked as undoubted species,.a perfect series exists from those which are absolutely sterile..when crossed,..[to those which are almost or completely fertile.]..The degrees of sterility..do not coincide strictly with..the degree of difference..between the parents in external structure or habits of life.9

Moreover,..even those who try to use them admit definitions based on reproductive isolation are limited in scope in comparison to morphological ones.

As Grant (1981: 64) points out,.The biological species concept applies to biparental organisms...[Uniparental organisms,..which do not form interbreeding groups,..are not embraced by this concept.].. Yet uniparental reproduction..is common in plants,..as well as in various groups in other kingdoms.

BUT..im wasting/my breath
http://www.macroevolution.net/reproductive-isolation.html
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 1 March 2014 10:41:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the etymology of the name Loki..has yet to be solved.
It may be related..to Old Norse luka, meaning.."close"

The first living being..[infinite/SPIRIT]..formed in the primeval chaos..CALLED the deep..[FINITE/MATTER]..out of the joining..of these two extreme forces..from either world..[in the great void]...MAY ENERGY..MANIFEST..or divest...[CHANGE STATE]..

THAT MATTER MAY DIVEST..ITS COLD/
AND SPIRIT MAY RADIATE..ITS WARMTH ..And when the rime and the blowing of the warmth..met*..so that it thawed and dripped,..[changed state]..there was..a quickening[life]..from these flowing drops[LIFE-FOEMS].due to the power..[APPLIED-ENERGY/..IN STASIS]..of the source of the heat,..and it..became the form.

the first..fORMS..WERE THE BEASTS
IN TIME//LOKI DID HIS THING..with the jotnar

the Jötnar..are given..some of..the most important..roles in the world.

Many giants..play..thus...greatly influence the natural world;
they could even..equate with..A WORKING Relationship with Nature..[edit]..AS THE nature..of their being..quantifying that inherent..of natures/nurture..as gods [beasts]..of nature.

ALONG COMES LOKI..Loki's relation..with the gods varies by source. Loki sometimes assists..the gods and sometimes causes problems for them...[Loki is a shape shifter..and in separate incidents he appears in the form of a salmon,..mare,..seal,..a fly,..[A PIG..]..and possibly an elderly woman.

Loki's positive relations..with the gods end with his role in engineering...the death of the god Baldr. Loki is eventually bound by the gods..[HUNG BY THE INTESTINES..OF HIS last miss creation]

this can be presumed..to have occurred pre the flood/when many of lokies..FALSE GODS CROSSED OVER...Loki is foretold..to slip free from his bonds..and to fight against the gods..among the forces of the jötnar,.at which time he will encounter..the good of Heimdallr and the two will ssss..lay each other...why?

its funny really..much we attributed..to gods creation
might well be due to loki...Calling the gods arrogant,..Loki asks why they are...unable to speak,..and demands that they assign him a seat and a place...for him at the feast,..or tell*..him to leave.

The gods declare that Loki..deserves a horrible death if he cannot find a scheme...that will cause.the builder..to forfeit his payment, and..threaten to attack him...

Loki,..afraid,..swears oaths..that he will devise..a scheme to cause the builder..to forfeit the payment,..REWARDS..whatever..it may cost..HIM/himself..[CONFOUND/..THE WISE][WITH..LOL...GODLESS SCIENCES]

HENCE..THE JESTER.
BUT HECK..WRITE Your own ending.
[im feeling..silly writing..to myself..YET AGAIN.]
http://www.macroevolution.net/reproductive-isolation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16038&page=0
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 2 March 2014 1:48:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Written for reason of self amusement..[WORDYWANK/mastication]

"Reproductive..isolation"..[inducing/fixed speciation..into genus]..is widely considered..an essential ingredient..[FACTOR/ Affirming/classifying..its taxon..into genus division]....thus..in defining the world.into specific..TAXON..genus/SPECIES.via infinite LINEAR Linus/taxonomi. species,..is itself vaguely and inconsistently defined.

Definitions of species..in terms of..reproductive isolation..[GENUS][homogeneous]..are called "biological Mono/Cultural memes."..The main intellectual motive*...for using biological..definitions has been.the widespread belief..that interbreeding populations..will blend together..

AND HOMOGENIZE...INTO New genus..[the taxo/genus division]..being breeding/breeding..viable kin..after their kind[....Ability OF FERTILE VIABLE OFFSPRING/THAT SURVIVE..passing on their life gifts/able to successfully reproduce/after iTS OWN KIND.

Darwin clearly thought..reproductive/isolation..is important in maintaining distinct populations...For example,.in the Origin he says "species within the same country.could hardly have kept distinct had they been capable.of crossing freely."1

Elsewhere/he writes.."indeed it is obvious..if all forms freely crossed,..nature would be a chaos."..The idea that reproductive isolation/is key in the production..and maintenance of distinct forms is certainly..emphasized in neo-Darwinian theory.

if one fails to observe*.interbreeding in a given case,...can one safely conclude that the organisms in question..are in a state of reproductive isolation?

It is always possible..that hybrids may exist.in some location other than those..that have already been searched. .Or they may occur in the same place at some other time...Surveys of natural populations are always of limited scope.

As Buffon once said,.regarding.the possibility
of natural-hybridization.among birds,

Who knows of every tryst in the depths of the wood?.Who can number the illegitimate pleasures..shared by creatures of separate species?

http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-section-6.html#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_tot=20&at_ab=-&at_pos=10

These difficulties.have led to the practice/of treating morphologically distinct..forms as separate species..so long as they are not known to hybridize.[breed]..Once hybrids have been reported between two such forms,..however, their taxonomic treatmen.. is often changed.so that they are treated as subspecies.of the same species.

In other words,..they are no longer treated as separate..GENUS/species.

Many forms...treated..as distinct species..are now..known/to hybridize that once/were..not known to do so...Indeed,..in the writer's experience..several such pairs..are reported among birds..ALONE.

every month..It can therefore..be inferred that many/such pairs that are..not now..known to hybridize...will..be found to/do so..in the future..Thus,..forms are..typically treated..as species/y default when..their actual stasis/STATUS..with respect to..reproductive isolation is unknown...HOW.

neither of..the two primary types..of taxon/definitions usually offered for species..(neither..the morphological..nor the biological) succeeds..in clearly/stipulating..how and..when..the word's..should be applied.
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-contents.html
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 10:34:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BEGINNING..OF THE END..THE/BIRTH..OF MAN..[Theses]
once-upon..a TIME.....A HERD..OF PIGS/FELL-OFF..A CLIFF.
[broken..legs..BLOOD-GUTS....etc]...[THEY WERE..in season]..one or all...were raped..by rogue/male chimps..

BY..FEEDING..OFF THE..ape/feast/FOOD-SOURCE..SHE SURVIVED/CONCEIVED..AND/IN..DUE SEASON..THE PIG BIRTHED..HER/Young[F1]
..[successive rounds of..crossing/back crossing]..would convert any such..chimp/pig-derived genes..into..variants..of their piggy/chimpanzee counterparts...ie..men.

http://www.macroevolution.net/images/holliday-junction-298-480-35.jpg
EXtRACTED..FROM
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-section-6.html#diffs

And yet,.all of these..converted genes..would be expected..still to code the same types of RNA..and protein..that they did originally. The biochemical/action..of its..protein product..would notin most cases..be greatly altered...(for example,.the various genes./coding for actins,...would still..code/for actins..even after conversion).

As has..already been said,.the main/factor..affecting development of an organism..would be the overall.set of genes defined.by its karyotype,..[HOMEOSTASIS/GENE/QUOTIENT]..and the associated interactions..of genes..and regulatory sequences/present in new combination..or..in different..CONCENTRATES/dosages...[INC divergent..MODIFIED/CHANGED..PROCESS SWITCH on/off times]

A karyotype..in a zygote..can be thought of..as a set of initial/GENETIC/conditions...The life cycle,..of any stable organism is recursive..because.at each stage..of its..life cycle..each of the cells..in the organism applies*..the set of rules..specified by the karyotype..[BIOTA QUOTANT].to produce..the next stage.[Evolution]

What is called..evolution..."development" of an organism is merely a specific portion..of the overall/life cycle..AND RANDOM/CHANCE EVENT/ALLOWING OPPORTUNITIES..[quota].of that organism,..typically the period..during which a zygote..develops into a mature organism.

Now suppose..that a particular zygote..contained a chimpanzee karyotype,..and therefore.the particular 32,887 genes contained in such a karyotype..(this number..is the current estimate..for the number of gene/sequences..POTENTIA..in chimpanzees — see table above),..together with the regulatory sequences..and all of the other molecules.regularly present in that karyotype....Under such circumstances,..the zygote begins dividing..and its descendant cells go through..the series of stages..that ultimately../produce an adult chimp/pig chimera .

However,..suppose some of these/same genes,..regulatory sequences, and..other molecules were deleted,..and that other such genes, sequences..and molecules were added from pig,.so that a different organism with 37,381 genes..(i.e., a human, see table above)..was produced.

Then..the set of rules..governing..EMBRYONIC/development..would have changed...The interactions of genes..and regulatory sequences at each stage of development..would differ because those genes...and regulatory sequences/DEVELOPMENTAL PHASES..would be present..in new RE-combination's and..in different dosages/RATES/STAGES..PROTOTYPICAL/PHENOTYPical/invariant biological/physical--EXPRESSIONS.

At any given stage..of development..some proteins..would be produced in greater quantities,..others in lesser,..so that within the developing organism..each cell would respond differently..from the way it would respond..if it contained..a chimpanzee karyotype.

The differences..at each stage..along the path of development..would cumulatively result in...the production of a human..being instead of a chimpanzee/pig.....at..any..time/..past...

[the beginniNG]
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 11:23:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html

Cytologists now realize..that a living cell contains hundreds of thousands of different complex parts //such as various motor proteins that are assembled to produce the most complex..“machine”..in the Universe—a machine far more complex than the most complex Cray super computer...We now also realize after a century of research that the eukaryote protozoa thought to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin..in Darwin’s day actually are enormously more complex than the prokaryote cell...Furthermore,/molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is..essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals...

In terms of their basic biochemical design...no living system can be thought of as being primitive..or ancestral with respect to any other system,..nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth(Denton, 1986,.p. 250).

This is a major problem for Darwinism ..because life at the cellular level..generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it ascends the evolutionary ladder..from protozoa to humans..The reason that all cells are basically alike..is because the basic biochemical requirements..and constraints for all life are the same:[see orgone energy]

A curious similarity.underlies the seemingly varied forms of life we see on the earth today:.the most central molecular machinery of modern organisms has always been found to be essentially the same...This unity of biochemistry has surely..been one of the great discoveries of the past 100 years ..(Cairns-Smith, 1985, p. 90).

The most critical gap..that must be explained..is that between life and non-life because..Cells and organisms are very complex...[and] there is a surprising uniformity..among living things...We know from DNA sequence analyses that plants and higher animals are closely related, not only to each other,.but to relatively simple single-celled organisms such as yeasts.

Cells are so similar..in their structure.and function that many of their proteins can be interchanged..from one organism to another..For example, yeast cells share with human cells.many of the central molecules that regulate their cell cycle,..and several of the human proteins will substitute in the yeast cell...for their yeast equivalents!..(Alberts,.1992,..p.xii).

2B CTD
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 6 March 2014 11:45:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The belief that spontaneous regeneration,..while admittedly very rare,.is still attractive..as illustrated by Sagan and Leonard’s conclusion,..“Most scientists''..EDITED./.NEW LINK

Orgone Energy/Wilhelm Reich,..a titan among 20th century scientists, discovered orgone energy in the late 1930's..as an outgrowth of his study of the psychic..and physiological functions of the..*sexual orgasm..[LOKI]..of which he first published studies..in 1923...

His numerous experiments..led him..to a microscopic observation of decaying plant..and animal cells...He noticed that..the cells of decaying grass..or moss,..suspended in water,..would gradually break down..and reform into very small energy vesicles..(only seen at 2,000x and higher magnifications).which he termed bions.

*These bions gave off an intense...blue light and eventually would congregate..into bion heaps,.which-incredibly-later transformed themselves into living protozoa,..such as amoebae or paramecium!!

(This discovery alone..should have earned Reich..the Nobel Prize,..but instead, the government threw him into federal prison on a trumped up charge..and he conveniently died of a 'heart attack' in 1957 after serving less than one year of a two year sentence.)

Reich found that he could obtain much larger quantities of bion vesicles..by first heating the organic..(e.g. blood)..or inorganic substance..(E.g. ocean sand) to a very high temperature and then causing the heated substance to be swollen by immersion it in a specialized liquid medium..This procedure allowed copious quantities of bions to be..'released'..from these substances which were now available.to reform into new living organisms.

By persistent observation,..Reich realized that it was Orgone energy which accounted for the blue lumination..and the biogenensis activity of the bions...He discovered that orgone energy is permeated not only within all living substances,...but it is also found in non living substances (E.g. sand, coal, and soil )..and is ubiquitously present in the atmosphere...The sun being the major 'supplier' of orgone energy.

Reich's discovery of orgone energy..is laid out in two books first published in German, but later translated into English:.."The Function of the Orgasm".and "The Cancer Biopathy" available from http://orgone.org ,.a web site hosted by James DeMeo dedicated to disseminating information about this giant among men.

Joe Cell Construction
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/fejoewatercell.shtml
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 6 March 2014 11:52:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IT/SEEMS..the powrs/that be..dont want...this info on the petrol thread
SO/PUT IT HERE[link from ismise]
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/Joe_Cell.html
Download PDF document
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/download/Joe_Cell_explanation.pdf
download PDF
References

Joe Cell interview Peter Stevens of Byron New Energy:
http://pesn.com/2006/04/27/9600265_Make_Run_Joe_Cell/

Charge compression, implosion physics in water, Daniel Winter: http://www.soulinvitation.com/watercharged/

Gravitational thrust produced by capacitors which accelerate charge by recursion
http://www.soulinvitation.com/thrust/

Hydrogen bonding and memory effect of water:
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html

Icosahedral water clusters. Martin Chaplin:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/icosahedra.html

Dr. Emoto’s hexagonal water:
http://www.hado.net/indigo_water.html

Torsion fields, Nikolai Kozyrev:
http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/01.htm

E.H.D. Flying Sourcer, Jean Louis Naudin:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/ehdfsv3.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/ehdfscs.htm

Vortex gravity control, Paul Richard Price, 2004 :
http://www.americanantigravity.com/paul-price-article.shtml

Source charge problem, Tom Bearden:
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Fact_Sheets/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Source%20Charge%20Problem10.doc

Electrogravitics Systems, Paul La Violette
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-ES.html

Biefeld-Brown effect:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/Lifter-Article.pdf

Blaze labs research, lifters in the vacuum
http://blazelabs.com/l-vacuum.asp

The electric universe:
http://www.holoscience.com

Cymatics, Hans Jenny
http://www.cymaticsource.com/

Woutje Winkler-Prins and Donave water:
http://www.nulpuntenergie.net/dng/donave.htm
Posted by one under god, Friday, 7 March 2014 7:16:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry for my late entry, but I would like to add my opinion following this article. The author claims he wishes to champion proper scientific reasoning, while aiming to promote an understanding of the relationship between religion and science. I wouldn't quarrel with these aims, and don't know anyone who would so wish.

Yet he far exaggerates evolution by referring to it as a foundational scientific truth. Far from being an established fact, it remains unconvincing to many an academic and appears spurious to the man on the street.  

Exactly what benefit has the story of molecules-to-man evolution brought to human knowledge and achievement? This article attempts to supply not even one example. Yet evolution's man gains are apparently philosophical, allowing atheists more comfort and restful sleep.

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

As a theory of history, evolution is beyond the regular type of experiment that has brought any practical advancement. Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 10 March 2014 9:19:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No need to apologize, Dan S de Merengue. It's always good to see you here.

>>Sorry for my late entry...<<

And thanks for introducing a new name into the evolution/creation mix.

>>Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself.<<

I am interested, though, to learn where he fits into your own young-earth creation worldview, given that he quite clearly accepts the general theories of how life has evolved...

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/marc-kirschner-and-john-gerhart

...and indeed, has clarified for us some of the aspects of Darwinian theory that have remained relatively poorly formed, into the "facilitated variation" concept.

But I do agree that the article itself lacks any kind of intellectual rigour, and is simply a vehicle that advertises some kind of self-congratulatory, semi-formal talkfest, that has no point except to promote itself. Sadly, our underemployed world is full of such well-meaning, but irrelevant, groupuscules, all competing for a fleeting moment in the sun.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 10 March 2014 10:09:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pericles,
Kirschner is probably the same to me as he is to you, he's the chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, a respected authority with regard to evolutionary thinking.

As Zimmerman was banging on about the importance of subscribing to evolutionary ideas in this article, I kept looking for his reasonings. Seemingly his only contention was that evolutionary thinking has brought great benefits to humankind, though he couldn't seem to list one.

I don't think evolution has brought any practical benefits scientifically (with regard to our understanding of the workings of physiology or medicine), and I've listed here one respected proponent of evolution (i.e. someone who is not speaking from mine or any creationist corner) who's openly willing to admit as much.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 12:19:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ITS CLEAR TO ME..NOW..JUST HOW..god created 'man'
then took his dna..[took out the troublesum 'y' chromosone]..and doubled up on the XX..the fruits of the pig/ape hybred..[lol high breed]

really you atheists dont realize the humor oF OUR FATHER

anyhow..in support of the pig thesus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1896531.stm
scaffold" made from pig's intestine could improve the healing of damaged knee ligaments, say experts.

Once all surrounding tissue is removed, connective tissue from the gut of the animal forms a strong mesh.

It is unlikely to be rejected by the human immune system, claim scientists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16904586
anatomically similar to human knee joints

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/16303685_The_mechanical_function_of_the_meniscus_experiments_on_cadaveric_pig_knee-joints
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 5:49:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=50+knee+joint+refutES+EVOLUTION&o
#
An evolutionary perspective of the knee.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3654710
&#8206;

* Similar

1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987 Sep;69(7):976-83.
... The complex asymmetrical..*design of the human knee is ancient in origin. The distinctive characteristics of ...>>..PORKy pig?
#
why Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link — The Forerunner
www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html
&#8206;

But another evolutionary writer says this about the search for humanlike (homonid) ... facts, however your refuting evidence is based on looking at angles..and testing distances. .... For a full history of this claim, read the talk.origins knee-
joint FAQ file (Lippard 1997). ....
#
why evolution succeeds where the teleological argument fails – Part 4
inquirers.wordpress.com/.../the-design-debate-why-evolution-succeeds-where-the-teleological-argument-fails-part-4/
&#8206;

19 Sep 2011 ... Criticisms of Evolution Despite the tremendous strength of evolution theory, there are those that ... design, they must not have, and the presence of irreducibly complex surely refutes evolution. ... 2005 “Are 'defective' knee joints evidence for
Darwinism? ... Brain and Behavioural Evolution 50 (4): 253–59.
#
Plantaris vestigial - creation.com
creation.com/plantaris-vestigial
&#8206;

Journal of Creation 14(2):50–53 ... A sequel that comprehensively refutes
arguments to support evolution. .... of the triceps surae are attached near the ends of either the distal femur or proximal fibula on the posterior aspect of the knee joint.
#
Was Lucy An Ape-man? - Institute for Creation Research
www.icr.org/article/was-lucy-ape-man/
&#8206;

He calculated her to have stood about 3'6" tall, and to have weighed about 50..pounds. ... Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee/joint—the strongest ... at worst, she was a mosaic, yet she is still touted as the..
best "evidence" for human evolution. ... Does 'Y-Chromosome Adam' Refute
Genesis?
#
Evolution - Way of Life Literature
www.wayoflife.org/index_files/category-evolution.html
&#8206;

The ICONS OF EVOLUTION that we refute include mutations, the fossil

The first bone discovered was a knee joint, which Johanson first considered to be>>

IREDUCABLY complex..in 50 points/ot couldnt 'evolve'
I just cant find the link..but push me//i dare you.
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 6:00:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Understood. For some reason I thought there was subtle plug for creationism hidden in your post, Dan S de Merengue, my apologies for having such a suspicious mind.

So we do actually agree on the lack of relevance in the article itself.

However...

>>...Zimmerman was banging on about the importance of subscribing to evolutionary ideas in this article... I don't think evolution has brought any practical benefits scientifically (with regard to our understanding of the workings of physiology or medicine)...<<

I would suggest that an understanding of human evolution has delivered significant value to the development of DNA-related medicines and genome sequencing in general. There are even web sites established, where - in return for a DNA sample - you are advised of the relative likelihood of your being more, or less, prone to specific genetically-transmitted health issues.

Being aware that I share around 2% of my DNA with Neanderthal man is, of course, a side-benefit.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 9:41:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> Being aware that I share around 2% of my DNA with Neanderthal man is, of course, a side-benefit.<<

Poor Pericles, for other humans this sharing is much higher:

“According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.” - see Than, Ker (6 May 2010). "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence". National Geographic Society.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 10:29:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ITS FUNNY..<<..Being aware that I share around 2% of my DNA with Neanderthal man is, of course, a side-benefit.>>

SO SHARING HALF YOUR DNA WITH A BANNANA
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=man+shares+50%25+DNA+WIth+bannana&ie=
how that make you feel?..
all SOFT MUSHY AND warm inside..and gooey?
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 10:45:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quran fortold of matching Human DNA to Pigs and Ape?

* Janny asked 3 years ago
Was originally asked on Yahoo Answers India

Are apes and pigs actually cursed humans?
Read surah 6:60.
Allah hath cursed some humans and transformed them into apes and swine.
The Qur'an is more than 1400 yrs old.

In 1995 the scientists study was completed, and this is what they said:

We took the human genome, cut it into 173 puzzle pieces and rearranged it to make a pig,” explains animal geneticist Lawrence Schook. “Everything matches up perfectly. The pig is genetically very close to humans.”

Additional Details
Why did allah secifically chose two common animals share dna with humans, why not a snake, or a tiger? and the word DNA did not exist in those time, it just a sign that allah wanted u to find.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7713309/
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 11:03:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Different measurement, George.

>>Poor Pericles, for other humans this sharing is much higher: “According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.”<<

This is the basis of my 2.6%:

"Neanderthals — Homo neanderthalensis — and modern humans — Homo sapiens — lived along side each other for thousands of years. Genetic evidence suggest that they interbred and although Neanderthals disappeared about 30,000 years ago, traces of their DNA — between 1 percent and 4 percent — are found in all modern humans outside of Africa."

So - as I read it - we are not talking about the totality of the base pairs, only those that differ.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 11:34:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
We do have an amazing DNA structure and can see the wonders and benefits in documenting the genome. So for these, do we pay homage to evolution, or marvel at the creative abilities of the Divine originator? That's the question. That's the beginning of the discussion.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 11:23:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

You apparently understand these things better than I. My joking remark was only about your use of words. You spoke of “sharing DNA with” not of “traces being found”.

We allegedly share 98.8 % of DNA with chimpanzees but are there any “traces of chimpanzees’ DNA found in all humans” ? If yes, this would mean - as I understand it - that some of our predecessors were chimpanzees, which is quite different from saying that we share predecessors with chimpanzees.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 2:14:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting delineation, Dan S de Merengue.

>>So for these, do we pay homage to evolution, or marvel at the creative abilities of the Divine originator?<<

By now you know well enough my answer to that.

But it does raise a question back to you: what is the meaning of the term "Neanderthal Man" to a young-earth creationist?

And thanks George, I was aware it was a light-hearted observation, I was just clearing up my own imprecision. You do raise a fascinating point, however:

>>We allegedly share 98.8 % of DNA with chimpanzees but are there any “traces of chimpanzees’ DNA found in all humans”?<<

I don't know the answer to that, but I am now keen to find out how it fits into the picture.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 6:12:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I think we share ancestors (hence the bulk of our DNA) with chimpanzees, but I don’t think that chimpanzees were among our ancestors. However, I might stand corrected.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 7:25:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The differences can be fascinating... sharing 50% of human DNA is the banana, adding another 10% of shared DNA yields a fruit fly.

But something all life has in common, even athiests and creationists, is the reliance on proton gradients.

I don't know whether god does also, but I'm unaware if the question of whether god is alive or not has been established? If not alive what is the alternative?

On a philosophical level god seems to require belief to exist and, according to many adherents, demands worship... maybe worship is a form of god nutrient?
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 8:41:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, isn't the idea in evolution that every living thing has shared ancestry? 

Pericles, I understand that people only ever had other people as ancestors. Many, if not most, would class Neanderthals in the category of 'people'.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 8:44:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue,

Of course, we share ancestors with any “living thing”, e.g chimpanzees or cockroaches. The question is only how far down the Darwin’s tree of life they are (which is reflected in the percentage of DNA we share with them).

I just don’t think chimpanzees (or cockroaches) are among our ancestors.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 8:56:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i just love how the pug hybred seems that step..too far

anyhow..the genes..make the features..we got knees from pigs/pig heart valves ETC/BLIND FREDY WILL SEE THE LINK..BUT SOMEHOW..APES SEEMS MORE 'BELIEVABLE'

QUOTE..mm,,<<But it does raise a question back to you: what is the meaning of the term "Neanderthal Man" to a young-earth creationist?>>

AN UNRELATED 'OTHER APE PIG HYBRED'
A TEST RUN IF YOU WILL BETWEEN A DIFFERENT SPECIES OF APE AND PIG

[its not rocket science..once ya get fertile cross breeds/read how the echidna/platypus are the result of the same/how else ya get mammalian egg layers..unrelated to nuthin/THUS..no evolution ..only a long period of homogenization..into a new genus/'prOGRESSION'[IE RAPE OR OVER ZEALOUS LOVE MAKING/..THINK JUST LIKE CATS PLAY WITH RATS..OR BEING RAISED BY WOLVES.

>>We allegedly share 98.8 % of DNA with chimpanzees but are there any “traces of chimpanzees’ DNA found in all humans”?<<[NOGEORGE THATS THE LIE..PLEASE READ THE PREVIOUS LINK

PERICULES REPLY..<<>.I don't know the answer to that, but I am now keen to find out how it fits into the picture.>>

YET JOHAN and his piggie theory...IS WRONG/wrong..wrong..i mean it must be wRONG[RIGHT?]..BAH WE HAVE WITNESSED THESE THINGS/STILL CRITTERS GET RAPED IN 'NATUre'..all the time/by pig got fertilized by as horny chimp/

no we know cheeta couldnt do..that

lol
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 9:22:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WM/INTERESTING COMMENT..<<The differences can be fascinating... sharing 50% of human DNA is the banana, adding another 10% of shared DNA yields a fruit fly.>>

ITS FUNNY..BUT RECALL OUR DNA Accumulated via plant virus/alterations
[see symbiosis]

,,<<..But something all life has in common, even athiests and creationists, is the reliance on proton gradients.>>EXCELLENCE [insightful words again]..im this i see the artists hand/his methodoligy..if we will.

<<>.I don't know whether god does>>..god is recognised by his qualities[the logic..of our gnosis..being by virtue..of us living..and god sustaining our living via the light..that in time by randiom selection..he evolve..a semblance of thyself[it helps to be more like lucy the pig..not lucy the ape,,atheist-eve]

MM>>..also, but I'm unaware if the question of whether god is alive or not has been established? If not alive what is the alternative?>>

is your 'life energy'..alive..or sustaining you to live?
is electricity..that it empowers..to 'live'..the quality of the thing..or the motive power?

on no level does god seems to require belief to exist nor require/demands worship.....but its just so nice when the kiddies finally see what he does for EVERY LIVING THING

<<>>maybe worship is a form of god nutrient?>>
that much depends on the level of perception..giving back..tHE PRAISE..and why..[like i feed my fish..unthinking..they wag their taIlS/almost jumping out of the tanks..with excitement..THE REPTILES JUST SEE THE FOOD..THE CHOOKS COME A RUNNING..whereas the dogs..HEAR MY STEP AND BEGIN DROOLING..THEN COME ON THE HUNT WITH ME.

YET EACH IS A FORM OF GIVING BACK..AND ENERGY MUST FLOW..i agree.
t.y.
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 9:22:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wel, ye-e-e-e-e-s, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I understand that people only ever had other people as ancestors. Many, if not most, would class Neanderthals in the category of 'people'.<<

I was actually asking you, as a young-earth creationist, where you see the Neanderthals fitting into your worldview. As in, how long ago did they live, where did they live etc. etc. Were Adam and Eve perhaps Neanderthal? If so, at what point did they mate with non-Neanderthal "people"? Or was one Neanderthal, the other not?

I am genuinely curious as to how you include these items, that some would classify as anomalous, within your creationist theories.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 10:50:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
I also do not believe that chimps or cockroaches are among our ancestors.

Pericles,
I find investigation into the earth's history or life's origins intriguing. Yet of the recent discussion between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, you said. "I sincerely doubt that any minds, at all, were changed." What did you mean by that?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 3:00:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.christianforums.com/t7713309/
Getting back..to the typical charts..used to sell
Man's descent..from early apes..(hominids),
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fp3LJAJyhvE/UOM3MubIYwI/AAAAAAAAEc8/9GaJq_jmihQ/s1600/DNA-chart1.png

We must now note..the glaring problem..in interpreting..the percentages..shoved in our face.

If Man shares 25%-50% of his DNA with fruitflies and yeast,
then..about that amount..must be ignored..when discussing the question
of Man's relation to early Apes.

98%..now becomes..something more along the lines..of 35-48%
of DNA code/.which might be claimed..as significant to the question of Common Descent..from early Apes.

This 35-48%..must be further trimmed.by another 10% for generalized
mammalian code..and perhaps another 20%.for regulatory coding that
will be common..to..*all species of animal and even plant.

We are looking.at a residual 10-15%.of DNA codingthat might be
useable..as some kind of evidence/of common descent.

As the latest investigations conclude,...even this much genetic overlap..may be of little significance at all,.because the bulk of physical features..that define speciation are not controlled by normal..Genes, but rather..by the 'regulatory-DNA' which has been unappreciated hitherto:

Quote:

'Junk DNA'..Defines Differences..Between Humans and Chimps

...
"The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology
John McDonald..has verified that..while the DNA sequence of genes
between humans..and chimpanzees is nearly identical,
..there are large genomic "gaps"..in areas..*adjacent to genes
that can affect/the..*extent to which..genes are "turned on" and "turned off."

The research shows..that these genomic/"gaps" between the two species
are predominantly..due to the insertion...or deletion (INDEL) of viral-like..sequences called retrotransposons that are known to comprise about..half of the genomes.[of both species. The findings are reported in..the most recent issue of the online,..open-access journal Mobile DNA.'

"These genetic gaps have..primarily been caused by the activity of
retroviral-like transposable element..sequences," said McDonald.
"Transposable elements..were once considered..'junk DNA'
with little or no function...*Now it appears that they may be
one of the major reasons..why we are so different from chimpanzees."

That is,.genetic biologists..have discovered that speciation is
primarily/caused by the areas..of DNA..*previously ignored.

The actual differences between Man PIgs..mand Chimps in respect of
gross,.raw or bulk DNA is of little significance..to speciation,
and therefore.of little significance for Common Descent.
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 6:27:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And furthermore, Pericles, I didn't really appreciate your sarcastic tone at the beginning of your last post after I answered your question. To say that Neanderthals were people is not an entirely obvious answer. 

There some who don't count Neanderthals as people. There were some in the 19th Century (soon after the release of Darwin's 'Origins') who shot Aborigines as specimens for British museums. There were some about 100 years ago who put an African pigmy on display in a New York zoo. There was a professional football match in Melbourne last year, which was held up for a time when a teenage spectator yelled the word 'ape' in the direction of Adam Goodes. 

In this day and age, such questions are not always obvious.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 10:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry if you felt offended, Dan S de Merengue, but you misheard me...

>>And furthermore, Pericles, I didn't really appreciate your sarcastic tone at the beginning of your last post<<

That wasn't sarcasm, that was an indication that I was leaning back, stroking my chin in contemplation of your response. Here it is again...

>>Well, ye-e-e-e-e-s, Dan S de Merengue.<<

See it now? Good. The slight air of bemusement that went along with it was continued in the next sentence:

>>I was actually asking you, as a young-earth creationist, where you see the Neanderthals fitting into your worldview. As in, how long ago did they live, where did they live etc. etc.<<

And I am still very interested in your response.

As for this:

>>Yet of the recent discussion between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, you said. "I sincerely doubt that any minds, at all, were changed." What did you mean by that?<<

I'm not entirely sure which conversation you refer to here, perhaps you could point it out more directly? But if I were to guess what I had in mind at the time, it was most likely along the lines that folks who believe in a supreme being think differently from those who don't. Therefore there will be no single argument, or even dialogue, that will clinch the deal one way or the other, for either party.

There is not even common ground on what can be construed as evidence, when you think about it. I am convinced, for example, that the lack of any evidence of Jesus' miracles outside the collected works that are now called the "Bible", is a significant impediment to believing in them. No such limitation is accepted by your average Christian, who actually will cite the Bible as evidence in itself - which, to me, makes the entire rationale circular instead of linear.

I'd still be interested in how you fit the concept of Neanderthal man into your young-earth creation story. Any thoughts?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 13 March 2014 5:08:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pericules/quote..<<>...There is not even common ground on what can be construed as evidence, when you think about it...>>

that seems rather loose..evidence ..is things like personal witness accounts[gospil/means witness]..there is written witness and verbal witness[as well as honouring with the lips alone.

in short wHAT IS PROOF IS CLEAR
but because of freewill ..we can decide what the proof reveals

<<..I am convinced, for example, that the lack of any evidence of Jesus' miracles outside the collected works that are now called the "Bible", is a significant impediment to believing in them.>>

its funny..EACH PERSONAL WITNESS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT THEY SAW
IE PAUL FROM HIS HEARING OF RUMOR TO BRING HIM DOWN/MARC THINKING HE WAS THE PROMISED MESSIAH LUKE FROM HS VIEUW

i will try to Explain..[booze is EVIL RIGHT?
DRUNKS DRINKING TOO MUCH..IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
THUS THE WITNESS THAT IS ATTESTED TO IS ERANT..ie JESUS SAID BEFORE THE WHINE INTO WATER THINg..its not yet my time/i hear mu mind expand on that..with..in fact anything that happens now is nought to do with me..in fact i couldnt care less if yOU FED THEM THAT DIRTY WATER FROM THE HAND WASH JAR

so servants not willing to loose face..go to the masters private stash..and serve that..so as to not loose face/as the servants of a master with lost face is lowest of all

think of it like human nature..EVEN IF CHRIST HIMSELF SAID SERVE THE BEST WINE FROM A TOILET/WGho would dare/ditto the teaching of the eatring without the handwash ritual..means yes you can 'feed 4000.all they want..if you sit them opposite each other..with unclean hands[recall the shew bread/incident..the deciples didnt know the concept..of ritual cleanliness TO EAT

Go wash your hands jeffry*..[GET IT]..DIRTY HANDS DIDNT EAT/
thats..unclean

to be ctd
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 13 March 2014 5:52:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BACK THEN..to be unclean..meant exclusion fROM RITUAL
AND YOU CANT PUT THE BEST WINE into any dunny..let alone get a servant..to draw it off..to drink FROM what is literaly

TOILET WATER..HERE THEY SAW WHAT THEY EXPECTED TO SEE
even on hearING THE WORDS YEARNED FOR A PROOFF..[YET DIDNT GET THE TRUE TEACHING..thats how i know the stories are true..the little things they told without telling

jesus himself said they expect miracles..HE TOLD US WE EACH ARE THE MIRACLE..to see me is to see our father..men miss the real mAJIC..IS LIFE MIRACLE..hence the koran teaches /says''FIRST MAKE JUST ONE LIKE AS IT[ie a living thing]..before you tell me god didnt do IT/PROVE YOU CAN DO IT.

OTHER MIRACLES..LIKE RAISING THE DEA..HAVE TO DO WITH THOSE EXPUNGED FROM THE COMMUNITY [OUTCAST-DEAD]..AND HEALING OF A SKIN BLEMISH THE PRIESTS HAD DEEMED TO BE 'other'..same samE..GO TELL YA CHURCH MAN ITS NOT LEPROSY..SEE..[the hemp healing oil is also missed..but such are the teachings of the tree of knowing good from not good

all good is of god
GODS SURE SIGNS ARE LIFE[where life is there is god]
the life sustained by the light..that life learn love grace mercy and know all good is of god..CALL YE NONE GOOD BUT ONE..

[SUN[of the SON]
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 13 March 2014 6:02:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
Sorry for accusing you of sarcasm if that’s not what you were intending. It was a difficult comment for me to interpret.

As for the CNN supported discussion between American evolutionist Bill Nye and Australian creationist Ken Ham, I thought you might know more about than me, as you were the one that brought it to our attention here.

George, I used to think that Darwinism was a British disease, now I see it’s spread to the colonies as well.

Pericles, I think there easily can be found a lot of common ground between folks who believe in God and those who don’t. We share our humanity, we often share citizenship, and we often share workplaces. We’ve often been to the same schools and have been brought up understanding the same history and philosophy of our culture. We can both understand the rules of logic.

Don’t think that people are never persuaded by good arguments. You might not see this happen all the time, as people are stubborn by nature, but it does happen. I know plenty of people in the circles where I mix who were once evolutionists and then were persuaded by the creationist argument. And I’ve also known some who went the other way.

I think what is to be encouraged is intelligent discussion and debate. And that’s what this website is meant to be about. And that’s what the recent public discussion between Nye and Ham was meant to be about. If the SMH believes that such discussion was pointless, I think that reflects more on the biases of the SMH reporter (or editor) than anything else. Why would they say ‘few minds were changed’? Can the people from SMH now read minds? (I find it hard to understand why a newspaper editor or reporter would be scared of open discussion, but such is the state of our newspapers currently.)

(cont. …)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 13 March 2014 11:25:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I think Zimmerman is wrong in suggesting that Christianity and scientific thinking don’t play well together. I believe that they are natural friends and not natural enemies, or at least they should be, looking at their shared history. The title of his article, Different Ways of Knowing, seems to be at the heart of some of your concerns. You perceive that Christian believers are quoting the Bible as evidence for something, and quoting scriptures doesn’t sit well for you. But everything has its place in its proper context.

Christian Scripture is a written testimony, and often an eye witness testimony, of something that occurred in a time and place in history. Testimony has a place in our culture and in our shared thinking. Without testimony, written or otherwise, we will often know precious little about historical events. You say you don’t accept certain alleged miracles on the basis of Scripture alone. Yet in this, we have a written, perhaps an eye witness, account. Even for any 21st Century thinking, and especially for a believer, that counts as runs on the board. Why shouldn’t it?

You say you ‘genuinely’ want to know the creationist perspective on Neanderthals. I’m wondering for what purpose. Your mind seems pretty made up that the creationist view is towards the fruit loopy side of legitimate. For the huge interest that you’ve shown in this subject, responding to virtually every post I’ve ever posted on it over many years, I would have thought that by now you might have researched for yourself the basic ideas behind what creationists believe.

But maybe not. So here are the basics. God created two people. All other people are descended from those two. So if Neanderthals were people, and there is quite a bit of evidence (anatomical, paleontological and genetic) suggesting that they were, then they were also descendants of those two original people. As for the anatomical, paleontological and genetic evidence, I am no expert. But to more fully understand the creationist view, I suggest you could find a more detail here: creation.com
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 13 March 2014 11:37:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even after all this time, Dan S de Merengue, it is still difficult to pin you down on the views that you hold.

>>For the huge interest that you’ve shown in this subject, responding to virtually every post I’ve ever posted on it over many years...<<

If, during all those years, you had provided just a little more insight into why you are comfortable with the beliefs you hold, my questions to you would undoubtedly be fewer. Instead, you invariably fob them off with...

>>As for the anatomical, paleontological and genetic evidence, I am no expert. But to more fully understand the creationist view, I suggest you could find a more detail here: creation.com<<

You see? You claim not to understand the evidence for evolution, but have chosen to stick to the Bible's view instead. Since you appear to be an intelligent, fully functioning human being, I am quite fascinated by the disconnect between the evidence that we all can see, and the conclusions that you seem to reach.

The best we have ever achieved, you and I, is to agree that the essential prerequisite to your worldview is the Bible. Which, regrettably, enables you to produce the most circular of reasonings.

>>God created two people. All other people are descended from those two. So if Neanderthals were people, and there is quite a bit of evidence (anatomical, paleontological and genetic) suggesting that they were, then they were also descendants of those two original people.<<

Which completely bypasses the question related to your beliefs, which was for you to describe where, in the lineage between Adam and Eve and ourselves, did Neanderthal Man appear, and then disappear?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 14 March 2014 8:45:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pericules..we all have circular reasoning..for good reason
the facts begin and end at one point..AS FIRST Put by god himself
when he was asked his name..i am..that i am..[i think WHAT I AM/i talk with those who might know what i am/WITHOUT Needing to explain.

thing is..we know the science THEORY..is just a theory
its NOT A SCIENCE..yet some give it as FACT..AS IF SCIENCE..THE GODLESS CIRCULAR REASONING..BEGINS AND ENDS WITH NO GOD..OTHERS HAVE EQUAL RIGHT TO BEGIN AND END..WHERE THEY CHOSE.[AND UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO EXplain..that they can only answer at the end of their living..when they have tHE LIFE EXPERIENCES/life wisdoms..to deciDE.

Its not important we decide..nor that we explain
its enough..that we try to reply if asked..IN A REPLY..THAT dosnt reply that BIT..not immediately relivANT.

TAKE the young eartH THEORY..SO MUCH..has been put onto 'creatorism'..THAT ISNT ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE..

NO WHERE DOES IT SAY..WE ARE ONLY living out the 7 th godfree day..but it may be infurED..OR THAT THE EASRTH IS FLAT..[IT MAY BE INFURED BY EVERY EYE SHALL SEE]..BUT AGAIN..NO WHERE IS IT IN THE BOOK..THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT.

YET WE GET TESTED..get told then who made god
think..of HOW..we have physical laws..who made the laws
..it didnt need TO create itself..ITS NATURAL LAW..NO SUPER nature needed..[but then it isnt really a law/but by our observation/in space time..it may be infured]..but outer space needs no LAW/just as spirit needs no law.

yet logic dictates this amassing life/living [material being]
iS SO PRECISE THERE MUST BE A LOGICAL CAUSE .process/..fruiting
AND If so facto..where else to look but that by way of a god[a good god]..who's sure sign is light sustaining life INTO LOVE VIA LOGIC

if you push me..you would get there more quickly
but instead you push..for a reply..from OTHER..WHAT REPLY WOULD YOU REPLY..TO HIS REPLY..THAT HIS GUIDANCE COMES FROM THE HOLY TEXTS

if dan says yeS..THEN WHAT?
IF DAN SAYS NO..WHAT THEN..[im prepared to say anything..
just tO HEAR THE NEXT LINE...OF THE REVEALING..MAYBE NO REPLY IS CONGEALING...[YOU GOT A PLAN..so ok..YES]

..NOW WHat?
Posted by one under god, Friday, 14 March 2014 9:24:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AS to..THE 'WHEN' DID NEO*AND/HER-TALL/DISAPPEAR
[I THINK THE FLOOD STORY COVERS THAT?]
BUT MORE SO..BY THE BEGINNING.

as to appearance..think it out
SEE GEN 4;12..ie 4=lasT CALL

AS to..WHAT IS EVI-DENCE
,,..<<Crime scene investigators know that,

“Physical evidence cannot be wrong;..it cannot perjure itself; ..it cannot be wholly absent...Only its interpretation can err.”..(Paul Kirk, Crime Investigation)..>>..

http://on.fb.me/1lXucIB
Posted by one under god, Friday, 14 March 2014 11:49:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I don't know why you expect me to do your home work for you. If you want to understand creationist views, why don't you research them for yourself? You're obviously at least a bit interested.

I accept the Bible's view of history for what I see are good reasons. I believe the Bible has a lot of runs on the board (in cricket parlance.) You seem to be claiming there's evidence out there contradictory to the Biblical view, evidence "that we all see". I'm obviously not seeing what you're seeing. I'm not sure what you're seeing.

The evidence that I see matches well with the Biblical view of history. Creationists have detailed how the present evidence is consistent with a world flood in ancient times and a subsequent ice age. As I understand it, Neanderthals were probably people associated with the post flood ice age.

By the way, when you said I claim not to understand the evidence for evolution, I have no idea what you're referring to. (You're sometimes trying to put words in my mouth.) Which evidences are you talking about? 

To summarise, to me you appear to be among those who sit back and say you do not and will not believe in God until presented with undeniable and incontrovertible positive evidence. While there's others who sit back and say they do and will believe in God until shown similarly strong evidence to the contrary. Also, you also appear to be saying that the first position is somehow superior to the second. Is that a fair summation?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 14 March 2014 7:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue,

To be fair to Pericles, to believe in God and to believe that Genesis has to be taken literally (thus concluding that the Earth is 6000 years old) are two very different beliefs. Pericles believes neither, however, there are many of us who will endorse the first but not the second belief.

To use a metaphor, when I was a child my father explained many things to me on the level appropriate for my age. Some of these explanations I still remember but I do not take them literally as factual information. I can now figure out these things better for myself while appreciating the deeper meaning what my father apparently must have had in mind, and admiring his ability to open new perspectives for my infant mind, thus becoming an indispensable factor in the formation of my own, adult, worldview.
Posted by George, Friday, 14 March 2014 8:02:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DAN/quoTE..<<..Pericles,..I don't know why you expect me to do your home work for you.>>

MY DEAR dan..im QUITE SURE..PERS DONT WANT US TO DO HIS HOMEWORks..for him..he allways has relevant probing questions
im suRE HE COULD OUT talk both of us and george..besides..but with all that knowing still rejects aspects..[or as george would say accepts the possibility of option one/BUT STAUNCHLY REJECTS BLIND OBEDIENCE[AS IF GODS WORD]..OF OPTION two

pericules please forgive us our presumptions
we ARE just unsure where this all leads.
wELL ACTUALLY[HERE I GO PRESUMING..[ASSsuming..us YET AGAIN..when i mean them..THEY DOnt need go that deeply..it HOLDS THE MEEting of their needs without getting muCH MORE OBSESSIVELY..INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS

like someone/said circular reasoning/yes i have this in spades
say a fear comes near me..THERE..is no need to find thE FEAR..BECAUSE BY circular reasoning i know any hurt from the fear..cant come near[energy can cause change/injury..but i am energy..its just a change of state.

i dont write it as clear as you three do
but by circular reasoning..WE ALL CAN CHOSE TO SEE IT TOO

I KNOW THERE IS GOD
JUST AS I CAN HOLD THE BIBLE In my hands
GOD HOLDS ME IN HIS..THE BIBLE HAS PROVED accurately enough as a guidance..MORE SO THAN THE SCIENCE

[some may recall i was raised with one god[science]..ie atheist..tILL I FOUND SCIENCE HAS FEET OF CLAY[WHICH ONLY MADE ME LOVE Sciences more..BUYT..cant concieve loving anything..more than god..who helped me immensely..just as he helps each one of the rest/yep atheists too
i wish you could get to the core

<<.. If you want to understand creationist views, why don't you research them for yourself? You're obviously at least a bit interested.
Posted by one under god, Friday, 14 March 2014 10:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, Dan S de Merengue, I am far more interested in your views.

>>I don't know why you expect me to do your home work for you. If you want to understand creationist views, why don't you research them for yourself?<<

As you are surely aware by now, I have followed the creationist links you have provided, and read their content. Sadly, I remain unconvinced. Having a "real live" creationist to discuss these matters with is an opportunity to ask the sort of questions that cannot be addressed to those sites. So forgive me if it seems a little like I am stalking you. But I am genuinely interested in the thought processes that are prerequisite to accepting what, for me, is a fascinating feat of mental gymnastics.

>>... to me you appear to be among those who sit back and say you do not and will not believe in God until presented with undeniable and incontrovertible positive evidence<<

Since we both know that is never going to happen, I think we can dismiss it, and simply accept that some people, like me, cannot accept the Bible as a factual description of, well... anything at all, really. You may be completely reassured, though, that I am not "sitting back" at all. I am leaning forward, eager to learn from you about your beliefs. Which, to me, are unorthodox and confusing.

Any further thoughts on those Neanderthals? Specifically, that is, as to where they fit into the "begats". Which, as I understand it, are what creationists use to date the Earth's age.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 15 March 2014 7:28:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<..Any further thoughts..on those Neanderthals?
Specifically,..that is,..as to where they fit..into the "begats".>>

OK..IN..THE BEGINNING..LIFE BEGAT LIFE..
If nothing else,..LIFE/LIVING indicates..THE LINKAGE..[LINKING..*LIVING../*\..LOVING..=life]..

its revealed...in..our/very/loki-like..[behavior]..be-have-ya

THUS..[be/it....about]..the beliefs..people have held..OR LEARNING'S..Input by..GUIDES/INCLUDING\spirits]..and..other wise/or OTHER/CLUE..TO explanatory process..AND/or..historic GUIDANCE/record..

lets examine...the/cain aberration..BY..LIGHT/OF..*the first law
'LIFE/..LIVES to pro-create..LIFE.'*...[its about..ex'ta-genus rapine;...the proto-creating hybrids..[MIS?]-NAMED..AS GENUS*]
http://www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids.html

For example,..it’s interesting..that many people...(including such as acknowledged geniuses..as John Locke and Voltaire)..have expressed the belief..[BY..LIFE WITNESS..OF THE SPITIT-REALM?]..OR

that.. POSSIBILITY..[THAT humans..can hybridize with animals],.. whether or not reliable..physical-evidence..[PROOF]..Remains to support\..such a notion materially.

The parallel's..between hybrid crosses..[see/links]..and..THE VISIONS OF DANTE'....and..Plutarch’s historical personages..can perhaps be made clearer..

with an example...Take Jesus Christ...There are many people who do not believe..that Jesus ever existed,...let alone that he was divine. And yet,..even an a*gnostic/a*theist..would admit*.that there are historical references..to a person..of that name.

Thus,.*..while not believing..in the real existence of Jesus,..a fair-minded atheist/agro*nostic..might admit..that such references do exist...He or she might even read,..ablE/TO..RECALL/ASSOCIATE/list or quote them.

Both the honest believer..and the honest un*believer would be justified...in collecting/importing..every shred of evidence relating to..the existence..[or nonexistence]..of Jesus...The former might gather it..with the intention of bolstering Christianity’s case...The latter..*might wish to show ..hat available historical data is entirely insufficient..to justify..THEIR EXPRESSED/belief.

A third type of person,..however,..SAY....a neutral historian, might simply wish to assemble all the information bearing upon the topic. It..is this third motive..that has guided the creation..of this book.
http://global.oup.com/academic/product/handbook-of-avian-hybrids-of-the-world-9780195183238;jsessionid=83A88C1BF4E44CCEF6FA2C42A482F410?cc=us&lang=en&

In the case of every cross,..I have endeavored not to express my own beliefs..as to whether it might occur...My intention,..instead, has been to collect reports/bearing on the phenomenon of mammalian hybridization..
http://www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids.html
and to record each such piece..of information under the headings of the various crosses..to which it relates...Viewed in this light, each separate type of cross..is a distinct historical entity to be investigated.

The crosses...“dog × cat” and “gorilla × chimpanzee” are topics that can be researched,..just as Jesus and Mohammed can,..whether you believe in them..or not...

*With this..pure/science/methodical..approach,..which brings a strong historical element..to the study of natural history,..belief can be largely set aside.
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 15 March 2014 10:49:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like Zimmerman, Pericles, you talk about evidence that "we all see" without listing any. 

So, yes, I think we may be in agreement. Incontrovertible evidence and undeniable proofs (for either case) are not going to suddenly appear (at least not this side of the 2nd coming.) 

But I like your turn of phrase, 'mental gymnastics'. To believe in evolution (non-living molecules having arranged themselves into all life forms, including man, against all our experience of the entropic workings of the physical processes which we all see,) does appear an exercise in mental gymnastics.

And I would reserve similar words for Zimmerman, or other professing Christians, who claim allegiance to the Christian Scriptures, yet attempt to squeeze evolution in there somewhere or somehow. This requires no grander effort in mental gymnastics.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 15 March 2014 5:07:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can "list evidence" if you would like me to, Dan S de Merengue, but I'm not sure it gets us any further forward.

>>Like Zimmerman, Pericles, you talk about evidence that "we all see" without listing any.<<

You can start here, if you like.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis

Without going into the detail of denying the validity of carbon dating, asserting that fossils were formed in the flood etc., which I accept as your beliefs, could you suggest where Neanderthal Man fits within Biblical genealogy?

>>So, yes, I think we may be in agreement. Incontrovertible evidence and undeniable proofs (for either case) are not going to suddenly appear (at least not this side of the 2nd coming.)<<

Exactly. So in the meantime, I am one of those people who chooses to go along with the concept of "weight of evidence", and "testable hypotheses", since science itself provides no guarantees, just ever-increasing likelihoods.

But you do raise an interesting sub-topic, if you would care to help me explore it. Among the many versions of Christ's return to earth that exist across and within denominations of Christianity, in which form do you, personally, anticipate its arrival?
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:36:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the/BODY OF CHRIST..ON EARTH..IS HIS CHURCH MATE

pere/cules/please see tHIS LINK
http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/imagecache/lightbox/images/landscape/primate-family-tree-780x520_0.gif

iTs FROM YOUR LINK
PLEASE NOTE,,at link..THE WRITING..dis-closure..IN RED

PLEASE CONFIRM..THAT IT SAYS..THE LAST COMMON ANCESTOR..OF HUMANS AND CHIMPS/lived between 8 AND SIX MILLIONS Of years ago

elsewhere on your site link/proof lol
it says the last neoanderthol..lived 200,000 years ago
further i seem to recall..THAT HUMANS ARE BETWEEN 80 MILION and 120 million years old

does nare the twain shall be MEET
MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU"

but heck..look at the pretty pictures..chimps chimps chimps man..its insane[that you a man of science cant see the white crossbreED PIG THAT SIRED THE CLUCH OF PIggy faces

ditto that imagry
of the ape wALKING E A MAN..INTO A MAN WALKING LIKE AN APE..INTO A BENT OVER MAn before standing..[look at the Images/APE FROM MAN IMAGE ISNT ANYTHING ALIKE EXCEPT WITH ARTISTIC LICENSE

THINK HOW MANY IMAGES..THEY SHOWn us..based on a few fossil fragments[its that fraud that inspired climate change MODELING/THE ROOT OF THE BAD FRuit is bad science

you still refuse to name names
that reveals IT ALL

YOUR LINK IS NUTHIN/BUT PROOF YA GOT NUTHIN

AS YOUR SO FOND OF SAYINg say it in your own words
when GOD ASKS YOU WHY DO TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DENNEY HIM

Below are some of the still unanswered questions about H. neanderthalensis that may be better answered with future discoveries:

1. Will more studies of Neanderthal DNA help us identify what is unique about the modern human genome compared with our closest extinct relatives, the Neanderthals?

DNA has been recovered from more than a dozen Neanderthal fossils, all from Europe; the Neanderthal Genome Project is one of the exciting new areas of human origins research...that has dead ended..long ago/like the tree of life and taxonomy just quietlY DIED
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 16 March 2014 9:32:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
We all believe we're following the weight of evidence (or at least I do).

I struggle to understand the motivation for your questions. You seem comfortable with your atheist position, yet continually ask about my beliefs. If atheism be true and correct, then my beliefs are meaningless, and I'm wasting my time even considering them, and consequently, so are you in questioning them.

There are endless questions we could explore and discuss here if time was unlimited (e.g. locating in exactly which Biblical generation the Neanderthal people lived in Europe after the flood,) as interesting as they may be. 

But to try to stay on topic, I usually try to limit my postings to points related to the original article in question. In this case, I wanted to challenge Zimmerman's article and his advocacy for Darwinian evolution. I wasn't impressed by much of what he said, and thought I could offer a creationist counterpoint. I think I have stated my objections to his article reasonably in my posts above.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 17 March 2014 3:20:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's exactly what fascinates me, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, We all believe we're following the weight of evidence (or at least I do).<<

What makes you such an interesting correspondent is the fact that the entire "weight of evidence" that you follow rests in a collection of writings founded in bronze-age mythology. Which I find quite intriguing.

>>I struggle to understand the motivation for your questions. You seem comfortable with your atheist position, yet continually ask about my beliefs.<<

That is precisely my motivation. You seem as comfortable in your young-earth creationism as I am in my atheism. Neither one of us has the faintest chance of persuading the other out of our beliefs, which makes for a thoroughly non-threatening environment in which to explore the thought processes behind that conceptual chasm.

>>If atheism be true and correct, then my beliefs are meaningless, and I'm wasting my time even considering them, and consequently, so are you in questioning them.<<

I am pretty certain that there can be no agreement between us as to what is "true and correct" here, as we patently differ in the way we view the world. So it is pure intellectual curiosity on my part, and it would be disappointing - for me - if you thought you had nothing to offer on that basis.

>>There are endless questions we could explore and discuss here if time was unlimited (e.g. locating in exactly which Biblical generation the Neanderthal people lived in Europe after the flood,)<<

Well, yes. That's what I had in mind.

Any offers?

>>But to try to stay on topic, I usually try to limit my postings to points related to the original article in question.<<

Oh.

Ok then.

Perhaps another time?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 17 March 2014 10:15:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pericules..CHILDREN/CAN BE GUIDED BY THE WORDS OF OLD TEXTS
who are known by their fruits across at least two Milena[you take old/to mean one thing..I TAKE OLD AS MEANING MANY BEFORE YOU WERE GUIDED/BY THE LEANINGS OF THESE TEXTS

in court you are required to swear stuff is true ON A TEXT
much of what we call law AND GOVT..even science/education literacy ETC..all have received inputs from these texts..olD dONT MEAN DEFUNCT/OBSOLETE OR INCORRECT

think of them like a puzzle..each generation CAN MULL OVER
OR IKE THE PLAYS OF SHAKING SPEARS..OR THE OLD MAN OF THE SEA[OR THE THOUGHTS/ORDERS AND LOGISTICS OF PERICLES ..OR THE EVOLUTION OF Species..[because evolution of genus is insane][see how Darwin/even then knew genus was the boundary of related species.

i reckon if we dwelt [DELAY]..long enough..the fact that we got no proof of evolutions theses..FROM PERICULES..LIKE THE FIRST LIFE FROM NON LIFE AND THE science proof of even one genus creating another genus..[SANS THE pig rape thesis]..that created the hybriD CALLS HUH?-MAN

ITS OK TO BE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED BY ONE not knowing of what HE SPEAKS...thus hounds other so he wont be seen AS RUNNING AWAY YET AGAIN..hoping the other gives up first and he somehow can claim to have has final say..[DESPITE NOT SAYING MUCH]..the only thing MORE PATHETIC IS MY Keenness T0 REPLY HIS REDIRECTION..

HOW clever are you if you..take as gospel truth
a theory AS FULL OF FRAUD Error and bias..such as evolution..as if science..but in fact just a god free thesis to deceive kids taught it as if science.

anyhow dan..you got him on the hook
CAUSE HE THINKS Your the bait
here is some BAIT..SEE WHEN YOU CAN SEE THE HUMAN BECOME APE
http://www.gifbin.com/986355
a bigger 'PRINT'/VERSION
http://9gag.com/gag/a9dqoYo/the-evolution-of-prehistoric-ape-to-man

The ones we were raised on
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4TxNdb3tFeEKxUsQbtiq4YEeDA3QkLKZM7O55OanhAlK2gqOJrugTacI
Posted by one under god, Monday, 17 March 2014 11:30:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I think I've pointed out to you before that the evidence we share is the same: the rocks, the fossils, the data; the body of empirical evidence. It's all the same. The difference is in the way we might view the evidence. I view it through a biblical lens, you through a long age/evolutionary/atheist lens. Of course, the resultant interpretation of the [same] evidence will be different. If you believe the evidence just 'speaks for itself', you're probably not accounting for the effects your culture and upbringing have had on your interpretations.

I don't share your curiosity for things which are not true. I seek the truth. Any scientific endeavour should aim at finding truth.

But here's me doing your homework for you. It's a possible creationist timeline, written by Australian geologist, Andrew Snelling.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n2/ice-age-biblical-history
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 12:23:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There can be no doubt that we assess evidence in an entirely different manner, Dan S de Merengue.

For example, this excerpt from the "homework" you kindly provided:

"The Bible also reveals that humanity stayed at the plains around Babel until “the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9). This means that at least three generations passed between the Flood and the first appearance of humans in Africa, Asia, and Europe."

I'm not sure what the word "scattered" means to you, but to me it would imply a form of lifting up and distributing. Given the speed with which the people of those days were able to travel under their own steam, as it were, what images form in your mind, when you read sentences like that? Do you actually "see" the people being transferred from one place to another by divine intervention?

The author of the piece certainly sees it that way:

"Twice the Bible repeats that “the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8–9). Notice that this was the Lord’s doing. This supernatural event is essential for a proper understanding of human history. Yet without God’s written Word archaeologists would have no way of knowing this happened."

That last sentence is particularly odd reasoning, to my mind. Archaeologists understand ancient migration patterns pretty well, without requiring the Bible as a reference point.

And this is exactly the reason I look forward to our exchanges. It provides an insight into a mode of thinking that I find completely fascinating.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 6:54:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cules..please note you can personally ask the author
<<>.Chat live with the author on the Answers magazine Facebook page (facebook.com/answersmagazine)
http://www.facebook.com/answersmagazine
on Tuesday, April 16, 2–3 PM/ET. Mike Matthews looks forward to answering your questions and responding to comments on our wall!>>..D

the point is mute..but lets try to think why scatter..is uSED RATHER THAN Dispersed..or worse expunged.explused..cast/out like in heaven..or cast down/like they do in hell

WERE YOU HALFWAY SERIOUS YOU WOuld offer the further thinking that lists the aternate words..not just rdicule two words by inferance sans resolution/solution

you show your clever ols mate by offering atTERNATIVES
then explain to us lesser beings why you..you*/CHOSE THE WORDS you did/JUst as i explain the words i used

SCATTER CLEaly isnt driven
and likely closer to riven
but i took that as a given
the jokers keeps on givinG

BUT IS THIS ONE OF THEM CONVOLUTED 7000 year old earth thingies
if so why you dont jump in on that

or this

<<..The Bible gives us an inerrant chronology for marking historical events. It tells exactly how many human generations passed from the Flood to Abraham’s birth: eight.1 God’s judgment occurred at Babel sometime during the days of Peleg, who was the fourth generation after the Flood (Genesis 10:25; see the timeline below).2>>

PERSONALY I THINK THAT 'SCIENCE'..HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH BIOLOGY
BAR THAT it dont say all life WAS RIVEN THus driven ouT...SCATTERED TO THE WINDS CAUSE THE GMO THEY WERE DOING..[Getting too close to their own creation/but not yet ready to bare the curse of cain..that bought the swine out of the chimp..making him the chump
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 7:20:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FROM DANS LINK..TRY TO READ THE NOTES/LIKE THE NOTES IN MY NOTE BOOK DECREE A BACK CROSS BETWEeen an f3 and an f5..[ya SCIENCE TYPES KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS][MICRO-EVOLUTION/WITHIN GENUS]

<<The Bible also reveals that humanity>>by whim will reason aND PURPOSE.TO TRY TOP HOMOGENIZE THE APE PIG Genes..//remain in a closed breeding line..with backcross as GOD MADE AVAILABLE SUITABLE 'mates']

<<..stayed at the plains around Babel until “the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).3>>

once the genes were fixed

<<.. This means that at least three generations >>

wHEN ONLY 7 RACES/7 eves]..hommoginzed theirt conjoined humanity...[that..AT LEAST 3 RD GENERATION..<<..passed between the Flood and the first appearance of humans in Africa, Asia, and Europe. >>

as each of noahs 7 sons went its own way/to fix..race features..[away from more ape imputations

<<..Meanwhile, the animals on the Ark had already fulfilled God’s command to “abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 8:17). 4>>..[FOR MORE MICRO EVOLUTION/SURVIVAL OF FITTEST..ETC..differential viRUS IMPUTES ET al

<<>.The Bible also tells us precisely..how many years passed from Peleg’s birth to Abraham’s birth...According to the most-often used Hebrew version of the Old Testament..(the Masoretic text),..the total is 190 years.of cross backcROSS IN BREEding hybridizing...homogenizing the humane GENOME

[PLEASE SEE THe skin mating system of the first people]
8 skin groups..[the 7 siGns plus thE MARK/OF CAIN/seath like paleness/THUS..[FOREVER YOU SHALL LOOK LIKE A PALE CORPSE/Like tHou/didst to thyNE BROther/..ABLE.

<<..Each generation lasted about thirty years until Abraham’s father, Terah.>>

using oldER AGE BREEDING STOCK..INDUCES MORE RANDOM VAIRIATIONS[READ MUTATIONS]..THATS WHY I USED TO ONLY BREED Youth

CONTINUES
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 7:56:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
but see now here is a backcross..realy old type[as will be refECTED BY THEIR NEGRO GENES..<<>. He waited seventy years to have children, so you could say he waited two generations, [F3..to f5?]

<<..making a total of either five or six generations from Babel to Abraham.>>

<<With this information, can we set an approximate date for the start of the Ice Age?>>>[by using cOLD TO DEEP/FREEZE THEm ever further from EDEN..[THE ANTARTIC] ]..

the tower/of babbling on..was moved on
and these great lands scrubbed clean[till the exile mosus came back here 60 /0000 years ago]

its/OVER..AND DRiving every one out of the great south lands/van die meNS LAND..NEW HOLE LAND ET-CET/era...in the first place..wAS LONG AGO..YET mosus found his way back?

wHO KNOWS/YOU GOT NO IDEA OF THE VISIOns im allowed to see
see im a retard..the wisdom..isnt of me..[thus neither the insanity]
I JUST PUSH THE BUTTONS OF THAT I SEE BEFORE ME..THANKS FOR HELPING ME SEE

ONE FOOT IN REALITY
THE OTHER STANDING FIRMly on the see
from the dutchie..OF THE HEAD OF THE DEER
AND THE HORN OF ISSIA AND THE GOLDEN HORN OF PLENTY[levi]
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 7:56:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
INTRODUCTION: A NEW THEORY
http://www.macroevolution.net/table-of-contents.html
Why the author chose to create an alternative theory of evolution and his approach to doing so. Read on >>
http://www.macroevolution.net/introduction.html
1: ON SPECIES
http://www.macroevolution.net/Definition-of-Species.html
This section discusses some of the serious problems biologists have had with defining species, a word at the heart of modern evolutionary thought.

* 1.0 Introduction. A brief explanation of why the word species needs to be dealt with before any real progress can be made in evolutionary thought. http://www.macroevolution.net/Definition-of-Species.html

*
thomas aquinas
1.1 On the origin of the word species. Species was originally a word used by philosophers, for whom it had a much clearer meaning than it has for scientists today. http://www.macroevolution.net/species.html

* 1.2 The natural order. An account of how scientists inherited the term species from the schoolmen of the medieval era. http://www.macroevolution.net/natural-order.html

* 1.3 Hybrids and immutability. Read how early naturalists thought of hybrid sterility as the essential factor maintaining the natural order. Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-animals.html

* 1.4 Carolus Linnaeus rejects creationism. Read how Linnaeus was the first major naturalist to break with the idea of immutability and how he proposed one of the first evolutionary theories.
Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/carolus-linnaeus.html

* 1.5 Creationism versus hybridization. How creationists responded to Linnaeus' theory Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/creationism.html

* 1.6 Binomial nomenclature. An explanation of what it means to be "treated as a species." Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/binomial-nomenclature-theory.html

* 1.7. The "essence" criterion. John Locke's cogent critique of "species." Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/essentialism.html

* 1.8 Definitions of species. A discussion of the various concepts of "species." Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/definitions-of-species.html

* 1.9 Reproductive isolation: A vague criterion. Why reproductive isolation can never serve as a satisfactory basis for defining species. Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/reproductive-isolation.html

* 1.10 Species: Resolving the problem. A simple way to resolve the species question. Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/species-classification.html

2: ON HYBRIDIZATION
http://www.macroevolution.net/definition-of-hybrid.html
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 2:50:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
-just spent half an hour doing research
but it dissappeard in posting..BECAUSE IT WAS TOO IN DEPTH/IT GOT STOLEN..SO STUFF DOING IT AGAIN..THIS LINK FILLED IN THE GAPS..MORE THAN MOST

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/the-platypus-unravelled/

But the clue...[10 sex chromosomes veal/camE FROM ELSEWHERE
anyhOW..IT WAS AS GOOD AS I COULD GEWT IT..AND IT GETS STOLEN[TRHATS WHY I NORMALY DONT TRY TOO HARD/THE EXTRA EFFORT THAT Got stolen..JUST HAPPens a bit too many times.

AND I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT YA BELIEVE..ANYHOW
I KNOW WHAT I KNOW,,I see gods hand in nthe little things
the mundane..comon..AS MUCH AS UN THE RARE AND 'EXCLUSIVE'
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 7:43:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the chiCKEN..FROM HELL..[CASSOWARY/CROCODILE Cross..hybred]
noted cause thats WHAT I DO

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=CHICKEN+FROM+HELL&
IGNORE IT IF YOU wish..or explore IT..BUT MOST I KNOW WILL IGNORE IT

#
The fossilised remains of a bizarre,
bird-like dinosaur, nicknamed the "chicken
from hell" by scientists, have been unearthed in the US.
#
'Chicken from Hell' skeleton sheds light on 250kg feathered
&#8206;

19 hours ago ... A 250-kilogram 'chicken from hell'
with features similar to the cassowary is the
latest dinosaur discovery by US scientists, who have named the ...

i would say look at THE DRAWINGS/CARTOONS..BUT AFTER YOU SEEN THem//you believe..the spin

Elysium vs World War Z, setting the agenda and mass mind control
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Ruth Hull

Movies and literature inspire
and program the masses to love, to hate,
to believe disbelieve..to sin and to spin..to protect or to kill.
http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/elysium-vs-world-war-z-setting-agenda.html

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=elysium+AGENDA+21

http://thecommonsenseshow.com/tag/agenda-21-2/page/3/
http://rss.infowars.com/20140320_Thu_Alex.mp3
Posted by one under god, Friday, 21 March 2014 10:07:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
funny/how..EVOLUTIONISTS..CAN MICRO-EVOLVE ANYTHING/..BUT THEIR THINKING..extracteD FROM
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message861599/pg1

All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction".
That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.

If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.

The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.
]
So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.

It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.

Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.

He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 22 March 2014 9:43:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message861599/pg1 Clearly, the earliest fish were as much fish as today's fish. Guiyu is "a representative of modern fishes" from the Silurian, before the so-called "age of fishes." (Devonian).7 In the evolutionist's mind, "a whole series of major branching events... must have taken place well before the end of the Silurian." "A significant part of early vertebrate evolution is unknown."7

Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs.

That was supposedly 65 million years ago.

Here it is today, alive and unchanged.

Where is the evolution?

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/pdf/nature06936.pdf
Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.
http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird.
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-infertility.html
However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.

That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree.

Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.

The same is true for the famous horse series. Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction.

There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found.

The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time.

In the late 1800's, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series.
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 22 March 2014 10:07:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But it’s not just the outward appearance of the chromosomes that bears a resemblance to birds. Mammals like us (eutherians) or kangaroos (marsupials) all determine sex by having different sets of sex chromosomes. Getting a pair of the two big X’s makes a female. An X and a little Y, makes a male. Birds on the other hand have an opposite system. Two copies of a big Z chromosome make you a male, while a Z plus a little w, makes you a female.

But not all animals have different sex chromosomes. In many species of reptile for instance, males and females have the same chromosomes. Their sex is determined by temperature.

If you’re a turtle egg, in cool conditions you’re a male; if it warms up you’re female. the chromosome pair had to stay different, and so they drifted further and further apart, till the point that you have the almost unrecognisable pairs of X and Y or Z and W.

So what do we see in the platypus? For starters, they have ten sex chromosomes! Females have five pairs of X and males have five X and five Y. It’s a finding that nicely aligns with the theory that sex chromosomes evolved from ordinary ones.

the platypus sex chromosome is very much like the big sex chromosome of the bird – the Z. its clear that the platypus X-5 and the chcken Z, share hundreds of genes; they’re virtually the same [chromosome].”

For many researchers this is totally confounding. Birds and platypus are on very different branches of the evolutionary tree.

But Graves suspects their common ancestor may well have had both systems of sex determination: XY and ZW, and that their offspring may have opted for one way or the other, or even both. It was she says, “not supposed to be able to happen”. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/the-platypus-unravelled/ But the Japanese frog Rana rugosa, shows it can happen. Some populations are XY; others are ZW. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/pdf/nature06936.pdf http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
Posted by one under god, Friday, 28 March 2014 10:11:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
there is a well known..way[ta0]..to learning
and thats by deduction..seeing what 'is'..and explaining,,'why it is so'..or asking why it is not so

so the most important..question..is evolution
one cvell to may..or many cells devolving into ever smaller /more viral deadly micro[deduction says before many..we must have one]..why is it..that those who name..everything/by itsd 'evolution'step/FEATRURE ETC.

WHAT WAS PROTO*UNO ORIGONATUM..[THE FIRST NON-[LIFE]
And what was alpha/BETA DUO DECENTUM[FIRST EVOLUTION..INTO LIFE]

thing is..this first life/must have been most likely to succed via back cross..[but this law applies to all of em]..ie equally to every evolution..from that time on

thus mans true decendant..is most likely to produce living backcross
and most likely validate its fettility[but you can bet ya boots..that wont look like either]..the point being

the first..life..crossbred like mad
infinite possibility provided the next 'evolutionary step'
then the inbreeding..that sets up the next evolution..till the next inbreeding fixates the next etc

that every breed exists..is the result of that dreaded 'inbreeding'..from a hybred..that maaged a fertile backcross
thus there must be a common ancestor..of pig and chimp..who 'evolved..just enough that the extreme out cross hybred pig chimp adam..survived..and mated with his grand children..so long as the back cross cant happen/evolution cant 'evolve nuthin...full stop..

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16166&page=10
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 3 April 2014 11:23:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SCIENCE=INTERPRitation/peer 're-viuew
thus..as evolution CLAIMS 'SCIENCE-method'
and as science long ago sold us out..here..more proof to reveal the feet of clay

Why vaccines spread disease;
an in-depth analysis of flawed vaccination science
http://www.bobtuskin.com/2014/04/10/why-vaccines-spread-disease-an-in-depth-analysis-of-flawed-vaccination-science/

(NaturalNews) Infectious diseases that the system insists have been mostly eradicated due to the advent of vaccines are starting to reemerge, with much of the blame for this being levied on the unvaccinated, who are automatically assumed to be the culprits.

But a deeper look into the history of vaccines, how they work and what level of long-term protection they truly provide reveals that these golden calves of modern medicine are actually the vehicles through which infectious disease is being spread, with vaccinated individuals as the primary disease carriers.

we cant trust guys with science..theories elevated to godhead sacredness.sacred cows..don't give meat,,nor milk,,science makes a poor god.

where did them damm vaccination blurbs threads go to
Posted by one under god, Friday, 11 April 2014 5:58:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mitochondrial Eve..is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2].Unlike her biblical namesake,...she was not the only living human female of her time..*However,..her female contemporaries, except her mother,..failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day*..Matrilineal descent goes back to our mothers, to their mothers, until all female lineages converge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Branches are identified by one or more unique markers which give a mitochondrial "DNA signature" or "haplotype" (e.g. the CRS is a haplotype)...Each marker is a DNA base-pair that has resulted from an SNP mutation.Scientists sort mitochondrial DNA results into more or less related groups, ..with more*or less*..recent common ancestors.
....

This leads to the construction of a DNA family tree where the branches are in biological terms clades,..and the common ancestors such as Mitochondrial Eve sit at branching points in this tree.

..Major branches are said to define a haplogroup (e.g. CRS belongs to haplogroup H),..and large branches containing several haplogroups are called "macro-haplogroups".

A haplotype (from the Greek:"onefold, single, simple")..in genetics is a combination of alleles...(DNA sequences)..at adjacent locations (loci)..on a chromosome..that are inherited..together..if any occurred

The mitochondrial clade..which Mitochondrial Eve defines..Is the species Homo sapiens sapiens itself,..or at least the current population or "chronospecies"..as it exists today...In principle, earlier Eves can also...be defined going beyond the species,*for example one who is ancestral..to both modern humanity..and Neanderthals,.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplotype..

*or,..further back,..an "Eve" ancestral..to all members of genus Homo and ..chimpanzees in genus Pan..

According to current nomenclature, Mitochondrial Eve's haplogroup..was within mitochondrial haplogroup L because..this macro-haplogroup contains all surviving human mitochondrial lineages today,..
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 13 April 2014 3:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and she must*..predate the emergence of L0.

The variation of mitochondrial DNA between different people can be used to estimate the time back to a common ancestor, such as Mitochondrial Eve...

n pig heart mitochondria, phosphatidylethanolamine makes up the majority of the inner mitochondrial membrane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_mitochondrial_membrane

However, acyltransferase activities involved in the reacylation of MLCL had not been identified or characterized in any mammalian tissue until 1999, by the Hatch lab at the University of Manitoba, in rat heart mitochondria.[2] In 2003, the same lab purified and characterized an MLCL acyltransferase in pig liver mitochondria,[3] and by comparing this protein against a human protein database, they identified a sequenced but uncharacterized human protein as the enzyme responsible in 2009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1074%2Fjbc.M210329200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolysocardiolipin_acyltransferase

This works because,..along any particular line of descent, mitochondrial DNA accumulates mutations at the rate of approximately one every 3,500 years per nucleotide.[30][31][32] A certain number of these new variants will survive into modern times and be identifiable as distinct lineages. At the same time some branches, including even very old ones, come to an end, when the last family in a distinct branch has no daughters
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 13 April 2014 3:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
n a different analysis, Durbin and Li compared an X chromosome from an African with one from a non-African to determine when their ancestors stopped interbreeding after the first humans left Africa and colonized other parts of the world. Human remains and artefacts unearthed in Europe, Asia and Australia seem to suggest humans rapidly colonized these places by about 40,000 years ago, diminishing the opportunities to interbreed with Africans.

However, Durbin and Li suggest that these groups continued to interbreed until as recently as 20,000 years ago. One possible explanation, Durbin says, is that after the first humans left Africa some 60,000 years ago, successive waves of Africans followed suit, interbreeding with the ancestors of the earlier migrants.
Mix and match

Chris Stringer, a palaeoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London, says that human populations outside Africa were probably small and widely dispersed 20,000–50,000 years ago, so regular interbreeding with Africans seems unlikely. "There could have been surges of gene flow at particular times, driven by innovations or environmental change, but it would be surprising if these continued right through that period," he says.


Mining individual genomes can't reveal every chapter of human history, notes Reich, who now works with Li at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The approach reveals little about upheavals of the last 20,000 years, such as the peopling of the Americas, because few chunks of the genome are young enough. Similarly, Durbin and Li's method can't deduce the history of human ancestors who existed before about 2 million years ago because few regions of the genome are much older.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110713/full/news.2011.413.html
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 13 April 2014 5:02:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy