Evangelicals & Jesus

[betsy]

in fact we're related to most if not all living things on the planet...a quick browse on the web one site has sharing 50% dna with a banana, another 75% with a chicken...

I'm not surprised! DNA is God's word processor. He made the template and then needed only minor adjustments to produce the monkey...or the monkey's banana!

[ToadBrother]

I'm not surprised! DNA is God's word processor. He made the template and then needed only minor adjustments to produce the monkey...or the monkey's banana!

Common descent predicts that all living things will fit into a nested hierarchy.

Creationism makes no such prediction. There's no more reason to expect to see a nested hierarchy than to no system at all. For your explanation to actually have any emperical rigor at all, you have to actually explain why "God reuses DNA" is in fact a logical prediction arising out of the theory.

Of course, you also have to have an actual theory, but let's ignore that.

Now, we know that common descent requires a nested hierarchy, so why does the theory of Goddidit?

[betsy]

Common descent predicts that all living things will fit into a nested hierarchy.

Methodology? or Jean Dixon predictions?

Prediction takes on a whole new meaning when faced with undeniable evidence that there's an Architect behind all these!

The only reason that there is an element of prediction in scientific theories is because they discover the things that are already in place. They found the law of nature that they didn't know before. It doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Edited March 26, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Common descent predicts that all living things will fit into a nested hierarchy.

Creationism makes no such prediction. There's no more reason to expect to see a nested hierarchy than to no system at all.

On the contrary there is a system! Intelligent Design makes more sense than that silly Common Descent prediction. These are some of the "fine-tuning" pro-ID scientists are talking about!

Excerpt from Charles Price:

...everything in this world is just so finely balanced. The earth must be just the right size to

sustain life, its rotation must be just right, the distance of the earth from the sun

must be within very narrow limits if life is going to exist and it’s just exactly right.

Its tilt must be exactly right to cause the seasons. The land and water ratio is a

very delicate balance. Biologically we are extremely fragile – a little too hot and

we burn; a little too cold and we freeze – either way we die. We are just exactly able to live because the temperature is right. We need light but not too much ultraviolet, we need heat but not too much ultrared.

We have an air screen above us that shields us from literally millions of missiles

every day. If you get the chance to lie out under a clear sky, see how many

shooting stars we call them, which are the tiny little pebbles really that come into

our atmosphere and get burnt up. It protects us; otherwise we’d be bombarded

all the time. And we live just ten miles away from a terrible heat. We’re shielded

by a rock screen below our feet. We’re only ten miles away apparently from a

heat that would destroy us instantly under the earth’s surface.

Now, it’s either by chance that all these things have worked out so exactly or it is

by design. The universe is either an accident or a plan. And of course if we say

it’s by chance, that’s not providing an explanation for our existence; it’s actually

abandoning an explanation and saying there is no explanation, which actually is

what some people have concluded and therefore life has no meaning.

But the teleological argument is the argument that says there is evidence of an architect,

an intelligent architect behind this world because of the way things work so

exactly. And you examine any portion of our marvellous creation, whether it’s the

human body with its incredible design and ability or any other part and there’s

evidence of intelligence that lies behind it.

http://www.livingtruth.ca/pdf/transcriptions/KNG/KNG_1.pdf

[SF/PF]

The relativism continues....

Oh yes... the relativism canard again. You'd do well to avoid using words that you don't understand the meaning of.

Dre accepted that the chimp is her uncle. Nobody said anything about descended or mentioned "descendant"....except Jonsa!

You're right. No one mentioned any of those 3 together, except you. In a desperate attempt to find some sort of argument on a topic for which you have none.

[Oleg Bach]

I may be realated to all live forms - but I was never a monkey and a monkey was never me. Evangilists have done no good what so ever....they have been around along time and like political leaders and economic tycoons...have accomplished nothing in the betterment of mankind...Jesus would whip the bastards if he were here today....and why is it that most evangelists look like they classic demon? Why is that?

[betsy]

Oh yes... the relativism canard again. You'd do well to avoid using words that you don't understand the meaning of.

You're right. No one mentioned any of those 3 together, except you. In a desperate attempt to find some sort of argument on a topic for which you have none.

Your response doesn't make any sense. Kindly scroll back and follow the flow of discussion.

Speaking of the meaning of relativism and its usage, you never did get back to me to point and correct me where I was wrong. Why don't you explain?

Methinks either you know that there was nothing wrong....or you can't tell.

Edited March 26, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

The morphological similarities between the various primates are pronounced, and were observed by the likes of Linnaeus decades before Darwin began working on the theory of evolution. Of course, neither Linnaeus or Darwin had the benefit of the molecular data gained over the last forty years which firmly place all the primates; Old World and New World monkeys, apes (including chimps and humans) and lemurs into the same genetic tree. Or to put it the other way, the morphological and taxonomical trees built since the 18th century were, in large part, confirmed by the genetic data.

Humans are apes, are descended from a monkey-like creature and all primates share a common ancestor.

in fact we're related to most if not all living things on the planet...a quick browse on the web one site has sharing 50% dna with a banana, another 75% with a chicken...

It's bad enough they can't agree between a chimp and a monkey! Throw in a lemur, apes, all primates, "monkey-like," ....maybe including a baboon-like cat....inclusivity-galore!

...then include the banana and the chicken.....and yes, Dawkins said to also include the "slime" (the green or the clear?), whatever that means....the more , the merrier!

Ayayayayayaya!

Edited March 26, 2011 by betsy

[SF/PF]

Your response doesn't make any sense. Kindly scroll back and follow the flow of discussion.

It makes perfect sense.

Speaking of the meaning of relativism and its usage, you never did get back to me to point and correct me where I was wrong. Why don't you explain?

You're the one making the charge of relativism. Point out where I adopt a relativist position.

Methinks either you know that there was nothing wrong....or you can't tell.

You made a rather nebulous charge of relativism, and have since refused to explicity state what it is that I've said that constitutes relativism. You made the claim, support it or drop it.

[ToadBrother]

It's bad enough they can't agree between a chimp and a monkey! Throw in a lemur, apes, all primates, "monkey-like," ....maybe including a baboon-like cat....inclusivity-galore!

Cladists and other taxonomists disagree on what to call the common ancestor of any lineage, yes, but none of them disagree that there was a common ancestors.

...then include the banana and the chicken.....and yes, Dawkins said to also include the "slime" (the green or the clear?), whatever that means....the more , the merrier!

Ayayayayayaya!

Your contempt only indicates your lack of understanding.

[ToadBrother]

Methodology? or Jean Dixon predictions?

Prediction takes on a whole new meaning when faced with undeniable evidence that there's an Architect behind all these!

T-shirt sloganeering isn't science. Besides that's a separate question from evolution. There are biolgoists who believe in God and evolution.

The only reason that there is an element of prediction in scientific theories is because they discover the things that are already in place. They found the law of nature that they didn't know before. It doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Shockers! Science bases theories on evidence.

Let's put this another way. Common descent predicts all living organisms fall into a nested hiearchy. It would be falsified if you found an organism that didn't.

Now, what possible observation would falsify your claim that God did it?

[betsy]

T-shirt sloganeering isn't science. Besides that's a separate question from evolution. There are biolgoists who believe in God and evolution.

Why does ID have to be separate from evolution?

[betsy]

Okay, okay..... let's see who can give me the most satisfying answer. I'm really curious. Here are the questions.

If you atheists believe that your existence happened by fluke or by sheer accident, you believe that this is the only life you get, that once you die you die, and that there is no life after death....

Evolution-wise, why then do you care so much to know how you came to be?

Why does it matter so much to you that religous people be proven wrong?

Edited March 26, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

Why does ID have to be separate from evolution?

If you're referring to what Dembsky, Behe and their DI buddies made up to sneak pack the US First Amendment, it's because it's vacuous and lacks any explanatory power. As the judge in the Dover Trial pointed out, there is no scientific theory of ID.

[ToadBrother]

Okay, okay..... let's see who can give me the most satisfying answer. I'm really curious. Here are the questions.

If you atheists believe that your existence happened by fluke or by sheer accident, you believe that this is the only life you get, that once you die you die, and that there is no life after death....

False dichotomy. Not all those that accept evolution are atheists.

[betsy]

If you atheists believe that your existence happened by fluke or by sheer accident, you believe that this is the only life you get, that once you die you die, and that there is no life after death....

Evolution-wise, why then do you care so much to know how you came to be?

Why does it matter so much to you that religous people be proven wrong?

False dichotomy. Not all those that accept evolution are atheists.

I'm not asking all evolutionists. My question is directed to atheists and I've explained why.

Edited March 26, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

I'm not asking all evolutionists. My question is directed to atheists and I've explained why.

I don't even know what the hell you are asking anymore. If that was the purpose, then you win, this atheist has no clue what you are talking about anymore.

[betsy]

If you're referring to what Dembsky, Behe and their DI buddies made up to sneak pack the US First Amendment, it's because it's vacuous and lacks any explanatory power. As the judge in the Dover Trial pointed out, there is no scientific theory of ID.

If I'm not mistaken, theey were going to appeal the ruling however the members of the board who promoted ID were all replaced....so that put an end to the plan for an appeal. The main reason it got that ruling was due to the fact that it broke the groundrules of science regarding the supernatural.

Common descent predicts that all living things will fit into a nested hierarchy.

Methodology? or Jean Dixon predictions?

Prediction takes on a whole new meaning when faced with undeniable evidence that there's an Architect behind all these!

And I stress again, why do we put a limit to how we come to the truth?

There is a first cause in creation of the universe (which makes more sense than an accident happening given all the fine-tunings that's been pointed out.)

And the fossil records have not produced a single evidence! Not one! So again, that points to an Intelligent Designer.

So I asked: why do they - ID and evolution - have to be separate?

Edited March 26, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

If I'm not mistaken, theey were going to appeal the ruling however the members of the board who promoted ID were all replaced....so that put an end to the plan for an appeal. The main reason it got that ruling was due to the fact that it broke the groundrules of science regarding the supernatural.

One more time. Science cannot deal with the supernatural. Never has, never will.

And I stress again, why do we put a limit to how we come to the truth?

You may put that limit on yourself based on your past, which seems to be governed by religion.

There is a first cause in creation of the universe (which makes more sense than an accident happening given all the fine-tunings that's been pointed out.)

And the fossil records have not produced a single evidence! Not one! So again, that points to an Intelligent Designer.

The absence of proof for one, does not mean it is in any way, proof for the other.

So I asked: why do they - Creation and evolution - have to be separate?

Creation is religious based.

Evolution is scientifically based.

What kind of pound test are you using for trolling these days? Have you tried upgrading to downriggers? They are way more effective.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not asking all evolutionists. My question is directed to atheists and I've explained why.

So this has nothing to do with anything on this thread. Why not start another thread?

[ToadBrother]

If I'm not mistaken, theey were going to appeal the ruling however the members of the board who promoted ID were all replaced....

Thrown out, because they're little legal battle had cost the school district a lot of money and their "backers" pulled out of it once it was evident that it was a lost cost.

It didn't help that at least two of the members of the board had been caught perjuring themselves either.

so that put an end to the plan for an appeal. The main reason it got that ruling was due to the fact that it broke the groundrules of science regarding the supernatural.

They broke more than that. As I said, two of the members were caught in outright lies, one laughably trying to defend his divergent testimony on an oxycontin addiction.

And I stress again, why do we put a limit to how we come to the truth?

And there is where you go off the rails. Science isn't about truth, save in a provisional sense. It's about the best explanation that explains the evidence. It is a methodological approach. That's what sets it apart from all the other systems of knowledge before it, and why it's been so much more successful than those previous systems. A claim must have emperical backing. If it doesn't, no matter how true it may actually be, it isn't testable, verifiable and falsifiable. That's why string theory, despite the attraction that it holds for many physicists, is not yet science, not until there's a means of testing its predictions.

There is a first cause in creation of the universe (which makes more sense than an accident happening given all the fine-tunings that's been pointed out.)

First of all, why does their need to be a first cause. And as to fine-tuning, if you accept it, then you accept that God is not infinite, as it puts a limit on the kinds of universes that God could create.

And the fossil records have not produced a single evidence! Not one! So again, that points to an Intelligent Designer.

This is just outright false.

So I asked: why do they - ID and evolution - have to be separate?

Because one is science and one is not.

[betsy]

So this has nothing to do with anything on this thread. Why not start another thread?

I take it you don't want to answer these.

If you atheists believe that your existence happened by fluke or by sheer accident, you believe that this is the only life you get, that once you die you die, and that there is no life after death....

Evolution-wise, why then do you care so much to know how you came to be?

Why does it matter so much to you that religous people be proven wrong?

Tough questions to an atheist I suppose. It's okay, you don't have to if you don't want to.

Edited March 26, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

And there is where you go off the rails. Science isn't about truth, save in a provisional sense. It's about the best explanation that explains the evidence. It is a methodological approach. That's what sets it apart from all the other systems of knowledge before it, and why it's been so much more successful than those previous systems. A claim must have emperical backing. If it doesn't, no matter how true it may actually be, it isn't testable, verifiable and falsifiable. That's why string theory, despite the attraction that it holds for many physicists, is not yet science, not until there's a means of testing its predictions.

First of all, why does their need to be a first cause. And as to fine-tuning, if you accept it, then you accept that God is not infinite, as it puts a limit on the kinds of universes that God could create.

This is just outright false.

Because one is science and one is not.

Says you. Clearly we'll never agree on this.

[GostHacked]

Says you. Clearly we'll never agree on this.

Clearly after 10 pages on this thread, and multiple pages in other threads. This will be the case. Ignorance is bliss from what I've been told.

[ToadBrother]

I take it you don't want to answer these.

Tough questions to an atheist I suppose. It's okay, you don't have to if you don't want to.

First off, being an atheist does not eliminate curiousity or to know our roots. Second of all, I don't have a need to disprove religious people, but if religious people make claims that are absurd, I will, as I will with political people or backgammon people or anyone else saying nonsensical or invalid things, correct them. Nothing to do with atheism, everything to do with this being a discussion forum, and not your soap box.

Does that answer your questions that have nothing at all to do with what we're talking about?