Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For You To Believe In Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#101 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 10 June 2011 - 03:24 AM

Theres quite a lot you'v given me, are there any main points you would like me to respond to or should i just gradually reply to it over time?

Anyway I'll start going.

But, what I find as odd here is that in your above submission, you are attempting to misrepresent what I have always said, and always maintained, AND have said within the context of our conversation by attempting the standard spurious tactic of “conversion by definition” (i.e. equivocation). The following “ACTUAL QUOTES” is the line of discussion that led up to your fallacious reply:


I wasnt deliberately trying to misrepresent you. I thought we agreed that macroevolution was microevolution/adaptation( which we agree on) over time. So when you call macro time plus prayer then it sounded like you were calling adaptation prayer. My apologies.


First and foremost, listing “main points” has absolutely nothing to do with providing “evidence” and “Facts”; it is simply making more assumed statements, and pretending that they will be accepted as facts.

Secondly, if you’d like to attempt to provide the “evidence” and “Facts” that show how these “main points” factually prove “Macro evolutions”, by all means, do so. And as you do, I’ll expose the assumptions and presuppositions built into your assertions.

Further, I realize that this is what you were taught at university, but I also submit that the “critical thinker” doesn’t merely “accept” what they are taught, but are determinant in reconciling those lessons with the “evidence” and “Facts” of reality. And from that point will either validate or refute as assumptive, said teachings.


1st. I never meant to list those main points simply as fact, my intention was for you to choose one and we go through them one by one.

2nd. I will never claim things to be fact. I think the only time i did so was when i mentioned Evolution was accepted as fact which i'm happy to retract.

3rd. Im actually still at high school. I somewhat thanked you before about your point here. I never really thought about it but i haven't actually delved into the evidence myself. I'v generally accepted what my teachers taught me but haven't gone into individual examples.


First – Are you implying that ALL atomic theory (or that atomic theory in its entirety) is FACTUAL? If so, please provide your facts and evidences that ALL atomic theory is FACTUAL!
Second – Are you assuming that I HAVE to accept atomic theory in order for you to provide the actual “Facts” and “Evidence” to support your assertions? You do see the fallacy in your logic here, do you not?
Third – I apologize if I misinterpreted your assertion on the space between atoms.
Fourth – Explain (using FACTS and EVIDENCE) as to how ALL of the atoms in the universe have enough “space” between the nucleus and electrons of said atoms to squeeze together in order to contain the entire universe in that space; and to do so under the auspices that the universe had to expand from a point smaller than that of say “a period in this page”, as the big bang assumes.
Fifth – Use Atomic Theory via “Facts” and “Evidence” in your explanation of number four above.
Sixth – And do so without being “hypothetical”, otherwise it’s an hypothesis!
Seventh – I won’t even throw the “origins of the atoms” question monkey wrench into your hypothesis.


I believe the main experiment in determining the atoms structure was with Ernest Rutherford alpha particles at the gold screen . When most particles were shown to pass straight through Rutherford reasoned that the atom must be made of mostly empty space.


“Materialistic Evolution” has no “Factual” evidence to contradict the complexity in EVERYTHING around us; thusly rendering materialistic evolution as further and further away from logical and scientific verifiability, and closer and closer to a faith filled worldview that requires dogmatic zeal to defend.


Interesting, what matches materialism with evolution? And why would evolution contradict the complexity in the world.

#102 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 10 June 2011 - 04:36 AM

Zendra, in your “examples”, you attempt to posit the actions of the “enzymes” inside your mouth, and the bonding actions of dna nucleotides as analogues to empirical evidence I called for. You really need to understand analogous reasoning a little better:


Perhaps i do
a·nal·o·gy
   /əˈnælədʒi/ Show Spelled[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural -gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.
Biology . an analogous relationship.
EXPAND

I'v only really used it in the first way. As similes. I'm unsure about the 2nd way, perhaps that is the way you think of it.


It pains you to thank me? I find that odd


Dont take it too personally, i think it was mostly a mixture of pride, and disappointment to realize i haven't studied what I'm debating as much as I'd like to believe.


The problem you’re having here is assuming that something can be both “most likely” and a “fact”. I’ll do this one more time for you:

Fact (Noun):

Something known to be true - something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened.

The Truth or Reality of something - the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something.

Piece of information - a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth.

Now, if you’ll notice the word TRUTH is used in each of the above referenced definitions of the word “fact”… So what does “Truth” mean:

Truth (Noun):

Something factual - the thing that corresponds to fact or reality.

True quality - a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.

True Statement - a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.

Obvious fact - something that is so clearly true that it hardly needs to be stated.

Neither “Macroevolution” nor the fictitious “evolutionary fossil record” fit within any of the above definitions.

The fossils ARE a part of history, BUT the evolutionary ties (promulgated by evolutionists) are merely assumptive, because you have absolutely no historical evidence other than the fossils as your factual evidence. So, whenever YOU attempt to tie these fossils together, across supposed “Millions” of years (more assumption), you are filling in the gaps with your mere opinion, not facts.

Further, “my version” of history is only the historical facts. Even I am not so bold as to call my assumptions “facts”. Why… Because I understand the definition of the word “fact”, and cannot dishonestly claim something a fact, which is clearly NOT a fact. Those are “faith statements” alone, not facts. And when a “faith statement” is defended dogmatically with vigor and zeal, it is the makings of a religion.


I dont remember you actually doing this a first time but thanks. Yes i treated a fact as the 2nd and 3rd definition, I feel you have been meaning the 1st.
I still maintain that there can be a most likely fact due to your 2nd and 3rd definition. The problem I still find is where you treat the links as assumptions. Assumptions contain no real basis for believing them, but finding the links is finding the most likely fact or truth based on the evidence.



I didn’t misunderstand anything. If you go back to the original assertions (by both you and I) you’ll see that you failed to make your case, and further moved the goal posts to attempt to correct that. I, on the other hand soundly refuted BOTH of your assertions. If you want to rehash your mistakes, I’ll be more than happy to go over them again.


Actually i think you simply highlighted the differences between linking the photographs and linking the fossils. You didnt seem to acknowledge my point in that it wasnt simply guessing. Although perhaps we need to go over the definitions of a guess. To me it means the same as an assumption but in reality it may mean having a basis.


Yes, reasoning IS guessing, if you are attempting to make your points (or draw your conclusion) “without facts”, or attempting to fill in the gaps between facts with your reasoning alone. It is nothing more than assumptive guessing. In other words, if you do not base your conclusion on facts alone, your conclusion is assumptive. You do understand that, do you not?


The facts are the fossils/photographs. The links are the similarities between them. By noting the similarities we can estimate which photos are likely of the same person. If that is still assumption to you then perhaps we should simply agree to disagree.

#103 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 10 June 2011 - 05:11 AM

What particular herb was on hand, and available to the common Jew in Israel that would mimic death?


Best bets look to being rhododendron ponticum. Though I'm unsure how available it would be. It seems to be found in the Mediterranean.

And, in the case of Jesus; what particular herb was on hand, and available to the common Jew in Israel that would mimic death, AND help Him to “FULLY” recover from a brutal Roman scourging , crucifixion, and spear thrust THROUGH THE HEART within three days so as to be able to walk around with no ill effects, walk through walls (yet another miracle, converse normally and walk miles across Israel to communicate to over “FIVE HUNDRED” different people? This should be interesting…


Interesting, could you elaborate on this five hundred people. As far as i was aware Jesus only appeared to his followers after his death.


So now the eye witnesses are liars? Do you have contemporaneous evidence of this as well, or is this simply more ‘a priori’ assumption? And, to what would it benefit his followers to lie for Him? At best, they would face the brutal Roman scourging and crucifixion as well. Can you even provide logical reasoning for his followers to lie?


Depends which eye witnesses, could you be more specific? I cant say i have direct evidence, you asked for an alternative explanation, I'm giving you one. The benefits would be the treatment of them by the public.


Let’s see, the comment about the wine was that it was of the highest quality. What solvent of the period, do you suppose, would render water as the highest quality wine available? Further, Jesus ‘spoke’ the water into wine; therefore it is even a greater miracle, because, according to your logic He ‘spoke’ the solvent into existence that turned the water into the ‘highest quality’ wine.



I'm not very educated on wine, could you tell me what gives it its quality (at least in the biblical times). Could you provide the quote of Jesus speaking the water into wine. I always thought he had asked servants to get water and when they brought it back it was wine.


And exactly which of the hundreds of healings are you speaking of, that was caused by the “placebo effect”. Was it healing the blind? Perhaps healing the lepers? With so many to choose from, I’m sure you have something in mind… And, of course, once again, you have contemporaneous evidence?


Like i said i only had an explanation for small scale healing. Also again i dont have much evidence. As i said above, you asked for an alternative and i gave one.


Again with the “believe” word… That implies “faith” you know…


Not necessarily, it depend how it is used. I could say i believe in a god(faith). Or I could say that given the sun has risen for my whole life i believe it will rise tomorrow( belief from evidence).

#104 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 10 June 2011 - 05:31 AM

Have you not read the New Testament? Do you have any contemporaneous evidence to counter the eyewitness evidence contained in the New Testament? Have you not read the writings of the Early Church fathers? Do you have any contemporaneous evidence to counter the eyewitness evidence contained in the writings of the First Church fathers? Have you not read the writings of Carius Cornelius Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian, Thallus, Celsus, Tertulian, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Quadratus of Athens, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hegesippus, Papias, (etcetera… etcetera…)? Do you have any contemporaneous evidence to counter their writings? Or are you simply contenting yourself in making spurious quips like “All i know of the miracles is what i heard in the children's section of church”, because you have no real answer to the questions I posed, AND you have no real evidence to support your assertions? Because that would as disingenuous as me saying “all I know about the miracles of macroevolution is what I got fed in grammar school and high school”, and not providing you evidence for my assertions.


I dont think many Atheists will spend much of their time reading religious text. When i mentioned that most of my biblical learning came from childhood I am telling you that I am not well educated in that area and so it would help if you didnt expect me to know all the details of a miracle i attempt to refute.


First – I am very aware of what evolutionists posit as ‘evidence’. But you are the one making the claims that macroevolution is true, therefore it is incumbent upon YOU to provide said evidence. If you cannot provide said evidence, you are doing nothing more than submitting mere opinion.


If you truly wanted to access the plethora of evidence FOR the “Historicity of Christ”, google is a good start. Further, if you wish to truly discuss the evidences for Jesus and His miracles, you really need to get over your penchant for inane quips. Because the archeological evidence supporting Christ, the New Testament AND Christians; and the textual support extant supporting Christ, the New Testament AND Christians is overwhelming.


So it is unto me to provide evidence of my assertions. But it is also onto me to research the evidence behind your assertions?


Third – You have absolutely NO evidence provided that any of this can be explained other than miraculously


Check my above post.

Further, it seems that you are attempting to posit logically fallacious accusations simply because you don’t like the miracles of Jesus.


Whats not too like about the miracles of Jesus? I'm simply proposing that they weren't magic.


If this weren’t the case, you would either have “actual evidence”, or admit your aggressiveness is basically assumptive and presupposed.


Like I said above I only have limited learning in the bible itself let alone evidence. I'm putting forward explanations that dont need cheat codes. Also what makes me seem aggressive? I actually worried you were starting to get worked up.

#105 Newhope

Newhope

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Astronomy, soap making, bush walking, gym.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • NSW, Australia

Posted 10 June 2011 - 11:43 PM

While puntuated evolution is more rapid than gradualism is does still work in the same way. The main difference is that the selection pressure is much stronger and therefore less time is taken for the advantagous gene to spread across the gene pool.

Read this
http://www.scienceda...80717201837.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126203207.htm

I still dont see your difference between macro and micro. How big does the change have to be before you would consider it to be macro?
I understand the seemingly silly something from nothing point though as far as i understand the big bang theory it actually started with matter simply compressed together.



In terms of life from non-life I'm not too well learned in abiogenesis, however if you think about life simply being chemical reactions then it doesnt seem as unlikely. I realize I havent explained my point well and I'll be happy to clarify if you like though I feel we are getting of course.




Just to clarify, do you mean nothing suddenly created everything complex or over time?

Non life I touched on above.

What do you class as intelligence? Also I feel created is the wrong word, evolution states that intelligence gradually evolved.
I think lighting and controlling fire is a complex task. It makes no sense that control of fire was found in primates with supposed intermediate sized brains. Something is not right. A creature with the intelligence of a child or less will not work out how to use flint or rub sticks on their own. !



I think limits to microevolution are seen in dog breeding. No matter how hard breeders try they will never breed a dog as big as a horse. There is also research that appears to back not only limits to the speed of evolution, but a limit to an organisms ability to adapt, while contnuing to accrue mutations. I wonder why now these limits appear! Given that evolution and common desent rely on an ability to adapt from a few living cells to the diversity of life seen today. Can a small deer become a 20 meter whale? I seriously do not think so. Why.?? Because there is no evidence to suggest that such change is possible. Rather there is evidence that there are limits to adapatation.

In catastrophe it is not adaptation that is key. It is luck. Luck that an an organism has a trait that gives advantage, eg small mammals during KT.

I feel that evolutionists using the excuse that macroevolution is unobservable because of the time it takes does not detract from the point that it is unobservable. It is assumed. Fossils of all sorts are used as transitional evidence yet PE suggests that long periods of stasis are followed by periods of rapid evolution over 10,000 years or so. 600 generations of drosphila research, equivalent to 12,000 human years, shows fruit flies remained fruit flies. The allele the researchers tried to fix in the population for 'accelerated development' did not fix in the population at all, as hoped. Again one proffered excuse was 'not enough time'.

http://www.nature.co...ature09352.html

This research below also suggests limits to an organisms ability to indefinitely adapt.


In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.

http://www.scienceda...91102171726.htm

I seriously think the evidence at hand actually supports the creation of kinds rather than cells.

#106 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 11 June 2011 - 01:01 AM

View Postzendra, on 31 May 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:
While puntuated evolution is more rapid than gradualism is does still work in the same way. The main difference is that the selection pressure is much stronger and therefore less time is taken for the advantagous gene to spread across the gene pool.

Read this
http://www.scienceda...80717201837.htm
http://www.scienceda...90126203207.htm

I still dont see your difference between macro and micro. How big does the change have to be before you would consider it to be macro?
I understand the seemingly silly something from nothing point though as far as i understand the big bang theory it actually started with matter simply compressed together.



In terms of life from non-life I'm not too well learned in abiogenesis, however if you think about life simply being chemical reactions then it doesnt seem as unlikely. I realize I havent explained my point well and I'll be happy to clarify if you like though I feel we are getting of course.




Just to clarify, do you mean nothing suddenly created everything complex or over time?

Non life I touched on above.

What do you class as intelligence? Also I feel created is the wrong word, evolution states that intelligence gradually evolved.
I think lighting and controlling fire is a complex task. It makes no sense that control of fire was found in primates with supposed intermediate sized brains. Something is not right. A creature with the intelligence of a child or less will not work out how to use flint or rub sticks on their own. !


I would appreciate it if you didn't edit my posts when you quote them,otherwise it might look like I'm saying something i didn't. Perhaps that's why you highlighted it red.

Read this
http://www.scienceda...80717201837.htm
http://www.scienceda...90126203207.htm


Interesting, I still think my selection pressure explanation is valid, though perhaps it has less of an effect than I thought.

I think lighting and controlling fire is a complex task. It makes no sense that control of fire was found in primates with supposed intermediate sized brains. Something is not right. A creature with the intelligence of a child or less will not work out how to use flint or rub sticks on their own. !


When i was around 10/11 I created fire in the form of sparks by accident throwing rocks. The only thing I would have needed to do was make the connection with fire and try to repeat it with more control.


I think limits to microevolution are seen in dog breeding. No matter how hard breeders try they will never breed a dog as big as a horse.


http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/animalkingdom/ig/Crazy-Critters/World-s-Biggest-Dog.htm

Can a small deer become a 20 meter whale? I seriously do not think so. Why.?? Because there is no evidence to suggest that such change is possible.


My father( a christian) suggested i post this link. I held back because Ron didnt seem to prefer links but you seem open to them and this one is pretty cool. Whale evolution. There is another video where they show the fossils of each stage but I'm on dial up sorry and dont have the time to check.

In catastrophe it is not adaptation that is key. It is luck. Luck that an an organism has a trait that gives advantage, eg small mammals during KT.


And that lucky survives and reproduces. Soon pretty much the whole population has that trait. Some people would say the population has adapted. But then again a catastrophe often wont last long so you have a point there.


I feel that evolutionists using the excuse that macroevolution is unobservable because of the time it takes does not detract from the point that it is unobservable. It is assumed. Fossils of all sorts are used as transitional evidence yet PE suggests that long periods of stasis are followed by periods of rapid evolution over 10,000 years or so. 600 generations of drosphila research, equivalent to 12,000 human years, shows fruit flies remained fruit flies. The allele the researchers tried to fix in the population for 'accelerated development' did not fix in the population at all, as hoped. Again one proffered excuse was 'not enough time'.


Funny that. Theres probably a mix of failed and succeded experiments. Lenski .
Theres another one I'v heard of regarding some type of fish.

#107 Newhope

Newhope

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Astronomy, soap making, bush walking, gym.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • NSW, Australia

Posted 11 June 2011 - 04:13 AM

I would appreciate it if you didn't edit my posts when you quote them,otherwise it might look like I'm saying something i didn't. Perhaps that's why you highlighted it red.



Interesting, I still think my selection pressure explanation is valid, though perhaps it has less of an effect than I thought.



When i was around 10/11 I created fire in the form of sparks by accident throwing rocks. The only thing I would have needed to do was make the connection with fire and try to repeat it with more control.




http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/animalkingdom/ig/Crazy-Critters/World-s-Biggest-Dog.htm



My father( a christian) suggested i post this link. I held back because Ron didnt seem to prefer links but you seem open to them and this one is pretty cool. Whale evolution. There is another video where they show the fossils of each stage but I'm on dial up sorry and dont have the time to check.



And that lucky survives and reproduces. Soon pretty much the whole population has that trait. Some people would say the population has adapted. But then again a catastrophe often wont last long so you have a point there.




Funny that. Theres probably a mix of failed and succeded experiments. Lenski .
Theres another one I'v heard of regarding some type of fish.


The highlights are in red to address or refute your assertations directly.

As for the whale ancestry link. Thanks, but yeah I know this and it is an excellent example of why PE is so incredible and unbelievable. As anyone can see the fossil evidence for whales there is pakicetus that looks absolutely nothing like the next creaure Ambulocetus, which looks nothing like the next kutchincetus. Where was Indohyus which is no more than a variety of mouse deer? A variety is alive and well today. Mouse deer are semi aquatic and none of them look like they are morphing into an ambulocetus style creature. This is why Gould had to come up with PE. Really, the fossil data should have put an end to the TOE, but another theory was created to explain the evidence for creation away. Seriously, and with no disrespect, the only thing that appears to be macroevolving around here is TOE.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/indohyus-almost-like-a-mouse-deer/

So your E.ecoli, after 20,000 generation were still ecoli, and finally scored an adaptation to the envoronment. Adaptation is not an anti creationist notion. Even mankind in the space of one lifetime can adapt to varying climates and environments somewhat. Organisms require immunity, this is another example of an irreducibly complex system, we see great variation in dog kind and mankind and ability to adapt to a great variety of situations. However no organism became both a dog and a cat, and no organism became a chimp and a human, and no organism became both a deer and a whale.

More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

Above is a snip from one of the research papers from your link. Again if anything this research backs the drosophila research I posted suggesting that E. Ecoli ''key inovations are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection", and no fixation in the population. Much the same as saying the drosohpila research I posted.

Evolutionists often speak to microevolutionary adaptations such as e ecoli adapting to a different environment, or immunity. However, these in no way explains how a deer becomes a whale, nor that something like a hippo has a common ancestor with something like a whale.

What would it take for me to believe in evolution. Let me see! Well if the theory of evolution was not a theory in constant evolution, itself, it may be more convincing. Really, there has been much so called irrefutable evidence for TOE and they are disgarded and discredited all the time. eg human knuckle walking ancestry gone with Ardi, brain size tied to bipedal walking gone, LUCA gone with HGT, Mendelllian inheritance as the only means of genomic inheritance gone with epigenetic inheritance(Lamark), Darwins gradualism gone with the fossil record and subsequent need for the theory of punctuated equilibrium, dates constantly changing eg human chimp divergence. Darwins basis on population genetics gone also with Lamarkian style epigenetic inheritance, the list goes on ad anuseum.

So you see the biggest reason I do not believe in TOE is that there is no evidence for it. Rather there are many assumptions and many models based on probabilities that often change. The evidence appears too flavour of the monthish to be taken seriously.

A second reason, TOE is irrefutable. These researchers would have to come up with better to call TOE a science. A precambrian mammal being the best any researcher, like Dawkins, could come up with and hardly adequate to meet the standard. Finds such as the huge and remarkable difference in the human & chimp Y chromosome should have been sufficient evidence to demonstrate mankind and apes to do share a common ancestor. The ireducible complexity of a living cell, once seen, should have demonstrated life cannot arise on its' own and why abiogenesis will not occur in a laboratory setting, it is too complex. The research on HGT and epigenetics has invalidated Darwin, and the new modern evolutionary synthesis. This is further reason to not belive in TOE in general.

Thirdly, TOE is a theory in evolution itself, has little if any predictive capability. There needs to be much more known about how and why, and not the likely and maybe's that appear to litter much research.

You see creationists also do not need a theory of everything to see sufficient evidence for the creation. But from the research and data there is out there, and despite it all being based on the assumption of ancestry and questionable modelling methods,the research tends to more support the creationist stance and this would need to change for me to have any faith in TOE.

#108 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 June 2011 - 05:40 AM

What particular herb was on hand, and available to the common Jew in Israel that would mimic death?


Best bets look to being rhododendron ponticum. Though I'm unsure how available it would be. It seems to be found in the Mediterranean.


So, in other words… I asked for facts and evidence, and you continue to speculate and him-haw around, so I will be far more specific, and in doing so, pin you into a corner that you cannot wriggle out of.

What specific herb was on hand, AND what evidence do you have that Jesus dishonestly used it on Lazarus in order to fake the miracle of raising him from the dead? Further, how could He do this without alerting His disciples (His constant companions). Please provide only facts and evidence to support your assertion.





And, in the case of Jesus; what particular herb was on hand, and available to the common Jew in Israel that would mimic death, AND help Him to “FULLY” recover from a brutal Roman scourging , crucifixion, and spear thrust THROUGH THE HEART within three days so as to be able to walk around with no ill effects, walk through walls (yet another miracle, converse normally and walk miles across Israel to communicate to over “FIVE HUNDRED” different people? This should be interesting…


Interesting, could you elaborate on this five hundred people. As far as i was aware Jesus only appeared to his followers after his death.


Sure, I can absolutely do that Zendra… Just as soon as you actually provide the facts and evidence I originally asked you for, to support your assertions. The ones you’ve been failing to provide, and yet continue to waste time by dragging the conversation out, in order to keep from backing up your accusations.

It you actually did your due diligence, and fulfilled your responsibility, I would find that interesting…


So now the eye witnesses are liars? Do you have contemporaneous evidence of this as well, or is this simply more ‘a priori’ assumption? And, to what would it benefit his followers to lie for Him? At best, they would face the brutal Roman scourging and crucifixion as well. Can you even provide logical reasoning for his followers to lie?


Depends which eye witnesses, could you be more specific? I cant say i have direct evidence, you asked for an alternative explanation, I'm giving you one. The benefits would be the treatment of them by the public.


Once again, you are incorrect Zendra… I at no time asked for “alternative explanation”, I asked for FACTS and EVIDENCE to support your assertions for your assertions. Playing innocent and ignorant as a tactic to keep from your responsibilities (to back up your assertions)only exposes your tactics.

#109 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 June 2011 - 05:42 AM

Let’s see, the comment about the wine was that it was of the highest quality. What solvent of the period, do you suppose, would render water as the highest quality wine available? Further, Jesus ‘spoke’ the water into wine; therefore it is even a greater miracle, because, according to your logic He ‘spoke’ the solvent into existence that turned the water into the ‘highest quality’ wine.



I'm not very educated on wine, could you tell me what gives it its quality (at least in the biblical times). Could you provide the quote of Jesus speaking the water into wine. I always thought he had asked servants to get water and when they brought it back it was wine.


First - The qualities of wine are as they have always been Zendra, sans the preservatives added to some modern wines. It is dependant upon the quality of the grape and the experience of the winery/wine maker (etc...). But, these preservatives are shunned by wine purists, micro wineries (etc…). So your attempt to posit a "solvent" added to water, and pretend it will result in "quality" wine is quite a stretch.

Second – You are the one who attempted to posit your “solvent hypothesis”, therefore it is your RESPONSIBILITY to provide the evidence for it. You WILL NOT now be afforded your continued attempts at pleading ignorance after making [spurrious] claims and assertions. So here is your choice… Either provide the evidence, or admit your accusation is foundationless and we will move on.

Third - You need to educate yourself a little better before you make your accusations [as if they have merit]. You'll most likely, then, catch your own gaffs and not look so foolish when your statements are exposed.

Fourth – Your attempt to shift the miracle over to the servants (etc..) will not fly here. You WILL NOT now be afforded your continued attempts at pleading ignorance after making BOLD claims and unsupported assertions. And your lack of actually investigating that which you are making claims about will not be allowed either. So here is your choice… Either provide the evidence for your assertion, or admit that your accusation is foundationless and we will move on.

And exactly which of the hundreds of healings are you speaking of, that was caused by the “placebo effect”. Was it healing the blind? Perhaps healing the lepers? With so many to choose from, I’m sure you have something in mind… And, of course, once again, you have contemporaneous evidence?


Like i said i only had an explanation for small scale healing. Also again i dont have much evidence. As i said above, you asked for an alternative and i gave one.


Zendra, you don’t have ANY evidence AT ALL, otherwise you would have provided it long ago. Instead you keep positing unfounded hearsay, opinion, presuppositions and ‘a priori’ claims. And yet you are pretending that you can continue to sling mud, and hope it sticks somewhere. You then claim, “oh, I really don’t know much about this or that”, and play the “innocent” and “ignorant” game, but that ceases today. You may get away with this elsewhere, but here your WILL be called on it.

From this point forward, you will either provide facts and evidence for your assertions, or you will be exposed at every turn (or worse).



Again with the “believe” word… That implies “faith” you know…


Not necessarily, it depend how it is used. I could say i believe in a god(faith). Or I could say that given the sun has risen for my whole life i believe it will rise tomorrow( belief from evidence).


First – You are attempting to use the conversion by definition fallacy. You are attempting to switch the definition of “faith” with “blind faith”.

Second – No Christian believes in God via “blind faith”. ALL Christians believe in God via the testimony of other ‘eyewitnesses’, and other ‘evidences’ first, and then continue on their own testimonies, evidences and experiences.

Third – Therefore the Christian can say “there IS a God, because He proved Himself for my entire Christian walk therefore I believe it will continue to do so tomorrow as well.


Now, if you want to get into the arguments against induction by the famous skeptic/atheist David Hume (who totally refuted your assertion on induction) we can do that as well.

#110 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 June 2011 - 10:06 AM

Funny that. Theres probably a mix of failed and succeded experiments. Lenski .
Theres another one I'v heard of regarding some type of fish.


Personally I do not see how the Lenski is a "succeded experiment" in favour of evolution at any stretch.. I've only done a semester of Microbiology and I already know where the experiment has gone wrong.

1. Bacteria are STILL bacteria
2. New functions can arise via plasmid genes, (horizontal gene transfer), or via jumping genes.
3. New plasmids can be found anywhere, and can provide new genetic information, jumping genes swtich information around in order to create new match-ups... The problem for evolution is that jumping genes are ENGINEERED, since they are regulated via proteins, if this was the mechanism of evolution how did these proteins evolve initially?

Hence all we have seen in this experiment is a bacteria's capacity for horizontal gene transfer... The fact of which makes any classification of "species" of bacteria via genetic parameters useless, since the genetic parameters of the bacteria in question can change via the jumping genes from one day to the next....

Lenski SHOULD know this, hence this experiment does nothing of what it claims to do.

#111 Newhope

Newhope

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Astronomy, soap making, bush walking, gym.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • NSW, Australia

Posted 11 June 2011 - 12:25 PM

First - The qualities of wine are as they have always been Zendra, sans the preservatives added to some modern wines. It is dependant upon the quality of the grape and the experience of the winery/wine maker (etc...). But, these preservatives are shunned by wine purists, micro wineries (etc…). So your attempt to posit a "solvent" added to water, and pretend it will result in "quality" wine is quite a stretch.

Second – You are the one who attempted to posit your “solvent hypothesis”, therefore it is your RESPONSIBILITY to provide the evidence for it. You WILL NOT now be afforded your continued attempts at pleading ignorance after making [spurrious] claims and assertions. So here is your choice… Either provide the evidence, or admit your accusation is foundationless and we will move on.

Third - You need to educate yourself a little better before you make your accusations [as if they have merit]. You'll most likely, then, catch your own gaffs and not look so foolish when your statements are exposed.

Fourth – Your attempt to shift the miracle over to the servants (etc..) will not fly here. You WILL NOT now be afforded your continued attempts at pleading ignorance after making BOLD claims and unsupported assertions. And your lack of actually investigating that which you are making claims about will not be allowed either. So here is your choice… Either provide the evidence for your assertion, or admit that your accusation is foundationless and we will move on.



Zendra, you don’t have ANY evidence AT ALL, otherwise you would have provided it long ago. Instead you keep positing unfounded hearsay, opinion, presuppositions and ‘a priori’ claims. And yet you are pretending that you can continue to sling mud, and hope it sticks somewhere. You then claim, “oh, I really don’t know much about this or that”, and play the “innocent” and “ignorant” game, but that ceases today. You may get away with this elsewhere, but here your WILL be called on it.

From this point forward, you will either provide facts and evidence for your assertions, or you will be exposed at every turn (or worse).





First – You are attempting to use the conversion by definition fallacy. You are attempting to switch the definition of “faith” with “blind faith”.

Second – No Christian believes in God via “blind faith”. ALL Christians believe in God via the testimony of other ‘eyewitnesses’, and other ‘evidences’ first, and then continue on their own testimonies, evidences and experiences.

Third – Therefore the Christian can say “there IS a God, because He proved Himself for my entire Christian walk therefore I believe it will continue to do so tomorrow as well.


Now, if you want to get into the arguments against induction by the famous skeptic/atheist David Hume (who totally refuted your assertion on induction) we can do that as well.



Evolutionists must have faith in so much when it comes to their TOE. They fill in and cover over many gaps and controversies related to their theory, yet are unable to comprehend that Jesus's miracles are only miracles because we do not know nor comprehend the science/physics behind it.

Let's not forget the scientific community 'accept' such things as multiple dimensions, big bang theory that does not hold up, and complex systems, life, arising by chance/luck. I do not know why turning water into wine is so hard for atheists to believe.

#112 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 11 June 2011 - 01:09 PM

Evolutionists must have faith in so much when it comes to their TOE. They fill in and cover over many gaps and controversies related to their theory, yet are unable to comprehend that Jesus's miracles are only miracles because we do not know nor comprehend the science/physics behind it.

Let's not forget the scientific community 'accept' such things as multiple dimensions, big bang theory that does not hold up, and complex systems, life, arising by chance/luck. I do not know why turning water into wine is so hard for atheists to believe.

the scientific community as a whole accepts the multiverse?

#113 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 11 June 2011 - 04:13 PM

As for the whale ancestry link. Thanks, but yeah I know this and it is an excellent example of why PE is so incredible and unbelievable. As anyone can see the fossil evidence for whales there is pakicetus that looks absolutely nothing like the next creaure Ambulocetus, which looks nothing like the next kutchincetus. Where was Indohyus which is no more than a variety of mouse deer? A variety is alive and well today. Mouse deer are semi aquatic and none of them look like they are morphing into an ambulocetus style creature. This is why Gould had to come up with PE. Really, the fossil data should have put an end to the TOE, but another theory was created to explain the evidence for creation away. Seriously, and with no disrespect, the only thing that appears to be macroevolving around here is TOE.


Im surprised you feel they look nothing like each other. They may be different but can you not see the link between them? That mouse deer does look similar and if we could show they were related to the Indohyus then that would probably damage evolution. Then again i suppose that is what we do with the fossils. I checked out the link and im surprised they seem to be assuming the ecological niche and therefore the selecetion pressure to evolve would be the same. No disrespect taken, the whole idea of theories are that they do change due to the evidence. Though i can see how that sounds like cheating.

So your E.ecoli, after 20,000 generation were still ecoli, and finally scored an adaptation to the envoronment. Adaptation is not an anti creationist notion. Even mankind in the space of one lifetime can adapt to varying climates and environments somewhat. Organisms require immunity, this is another example of an irreducibly complex system, we see great variation in dog kind and mankind and ability to adapt to a great variety of situations. However no organism became both a dog and a cat, and no organism became a chimp and a human, and no organism became both a deer and a whale.


Yes they were still E coli, but they had speciated. Should being able to grow in citrate be part of E coli? If yes then they have evolved into E coli. If no then common salmonella shouldn't be called E coli.


Evolutionists often speak to microevolutionary adaptations such as e ecoli adapting to a different environment, or immunity. However, these in no way explains how a deer becomes a whale, nor that something like a hippo has a common ancestor with something like a whale.


A deer adapts to being able to hide in water, then it adapts to be able to travel better in the water, then it adapts to obtain food in the water, then it adapts to live mainly in water, then it adapts to be able to live in deeper water. Then we call it a whale. These are rough and few adaptations but they are just an outline.



Once again, you are incorrect Zendra… I at no time asked for “alternative explanation”, I asked for FACTS and EVIDENCE to support your assertions for your assertions. Playing innocent and ignorant as a tactic to keep from your responsibilities (to back up your assertions)only exposes your tactics.


Very well, I'll research your religion. However I'v been responding to this post below.

Second - There is not even ONE miracle that Jesus performed, that you can explain “naturally” today.


If you could provide me with one of your quotes asking for a detailed proved explanation of how those miracles occured in Jesus's time I'll be more than happy to apologise for not providing facts.


What specific herb was on hand, AND what evidence do you have that Jesus dishonestly used it on Lazarus in order to fake the miracle of raising him from the dead? Further, how could He do this without alerting His disciples (His constant companions). Please provide only facts and evidence to support your assertion.

I just gave it to you, rhododendron ponticum. Found in the Mediterranean which is also where Jesus's life was based was it not? And I never said Jesus used it on Lazarus. Im proposing Lazarus had an arrangement with Jesus beforehand. The disciples could or could not be in on it. "Matthew 14:23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone," . You asked for evidence, this is the only evidence i could think of although personally i question the bible's validity. What its meant to show is that Jesus did go of on his own which gave him an opportunity to meet others without his disciples.

Sure, I can absolutely do that Zendra… Just as soon as you actually provide the facts and evidence I originally asked you for, to support your assertions. The ones you’ve been failing to provide, and yet continue to waste time by dragging the conversation out, in order to keep from backing up your accusations.

I may in fact not be able to refute the miracle seeing as i do not know all the details. Thats why Im asking you to elaborate on this miracle( something i have yet to see you do for any).



First – You are attempting to use the conversion by definition fallacy. You are attempting to switch the definition of “faith” with “blind faith”.

Second – No Christian believes in God via “blind faith”. ALL Christians believe in God via the testimony of other ‘eyewitnesses’, and other ‘evidences’ first, and then continue on their own testimonies, evidences and experiences.

Third – Therefore the Christian can say “there IS a God, because He proved Himself for my entire Christian walk therefore I believe it will continue to do so tomorrow as well.


My apologies, i treated faith and blind faith as the same thing.


Now, if you want to get into the arguments against induction by the famous skeptic/atheist David Hume (who totally refuted your assertion on induction) we can do that as well.


Sorry what was my assertion of induction? could you please provide quotes?

#114 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 11 June 2011 - 04:20 PM

1. Bacteria are STILL bacteria
2. New functions can arise via plasmid genes, (horizontal gene transfer), or via jumping genes.
3. New plasmids can be found anywhere, and can provide new genetic information, jumping genes swtich information around in order to create new match-ups... The problem for evolution is that jumping genes are ENGINEERED, since they are regulated via proteins, if this was the mechanism of evolution how did these proteins evolve initially?


1. Yes they are still in the same kingdom, the point was that they did evolve to speciate from typical E coli.
3. We are going back to abiogenesis which i am unable to explain, your god may have in fact started life.


Evolutionists must have faith in so much when it comes to their TOE. They fill in and cover over many gaps and controversies related to their theory, yet are unable to comprehend that Jesus's miracles are only miracles because we do not know nor comprehend the science/physics behind it.


If you like, join in with the discussion Ron and I are having about those miracles.

#115 Newhope

Newhope

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Astronomy, soap making, bush walking, gym.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • NSW, Australia

Posted 11 June 2011 - 07:20 PM

1. Yes they are still in the same kingdom, the point was that they did evolve to speciate from typical E coli.
3. We are going back to abiogenesis which i am unable to explain, your god may have in fact started life.




If you like, join in with the discussion Ron and I are having about those miracles.


Point 1. The concept of speciation is identical to adaptation in a creationist sense. I do not presume to speak for all creationists. What I see proven is a bird may grow a larger beak and may start to eat a different diet due to environmental factors. Evolutionists may call such a bird a new species eg Cryptic species, and these may or may not be able to mate, which often presents a 'species definition problem'.. However this level of speciation only refers to an organisms ability to adapt and is insufficient to explain the mechanisms involved in a deer becoming a whale. It is assumed that what evolutionary researchers have shown as an adaptive God created mechanism esential to all life, mulitplied over and over will result in macro change. The assumption is refuted by dog breeding limits and other research. Here is one example that speaks to limits to adaptation as well as speed limits to the pace of evolution.
http://www.scienceda...91102171726.htm

Point 3. I agree. Given that researchers are still unable to produce life in a lab, the points here go to creationists. Even the RNA world proposition suggests RNA life, a complex system, arose on its own by chance. It appears unlikely.

The Pakecetus is a land dweller, it's fossil is similar to a mouse deer and ambulocetus fossil looks like a crocodile. Flesh and representations are guestimated. A good example is the mess researchers made of depicting Neanderthal as apeish and intermediate. Now Neanderthal appears just human in many representations. DNA comparisons changed Neanderthals morphological representations, not better fossils as researchers always had plenty of them and still got it plenty wrong

http://www.wired.com...e-a-mouse-deer/



Miracles are only what mankind cannot explain with their science. Noah was given comands to wash hands before eating but knew nothing about germs and would not have understood germs or hygiene in his time. A lighter or fire stick would have appeared quite miraculous in Noahs time also.

Mankind responds to placebo effects and can self heal many ailments without anymore intervention than faith. How much more so can an almighty spirit be able to manipulate the physics of the world to suit His purpose?

http://www.scienceda...70314195638.htm

#116 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 June 2011 - 07:34 PM


Once again, you are incorrect Zendra… I at no time asked for alternative explanation”, I asked for FACTS and EVIDENCE to support your assertions for your assertions. Playing innocent and ignorant as a tactic to keep from your responsibilities (to back up your assertions)only exposes your tactics.


Very well, I'll research your religion. However I'v been responding to this post below.

Zendra, at this point you are just being disingenuous. You don’t have to “Research my religion”, you need to provide the facts to support your assertions. And you need to do this for ANY assertion you are attempting to posit as factual or evidentiary. I have reminded you of this over and over, therefore you are having a hard time reconciling your assertions with reality, or you are being purposively obstinate.




Second - There is not even ONE miracle that Jesus performed, that you can explain “naturally” today.

If you could provide me with one of your quotes asking for a detailed proved explanation of how those miracles occured in Jesus's time I'll be more than happy to apologise for not providing facts.


Absolutely! I’ll provide you with a number of them: If you read post #67 I made three points, then I asked for “your current empirical scientific explanation”. In post #77 I said “if you are going to “claim” that the miracles that Jesus performed are analogous to the pseudo-miracles in the Sherlock Holmes movie, you need to provide the evidences that support your assertion. Because simply saying so, does not make it so (Assertum Non Est Demonstratum). Lay the evidences side-by-side, and make the correlations, or admit that you were incorrect”. In post # 98 I said “Further, what actual “FACTUAL” evidence (other than your mere opinion) do you have to counter the eye witness testimony? Can you provide contemporaneous counters to the actual evidence?”, I also asked a few other times in that post for “contemporaneous evidence” as well.


What specific herb was on hand, AND what evidence do you have that Jesus dishonestly used it on Lazarus in order to fake the miracle of raising him from the dead? Further, how could He do this without alerting His disciples (His constant companions). Please provide only facts and evidence to support your assertion.

I just gave it to you, rhododendron ponticum. Found in the Mediterranean which is also where Jesus's life was based was it not? And I never said Jesus used it on Lazarus. Im proposing Lazarus had an arrangement with Jesus beforehand. The disciples could or could not be in on it. "Matthew 14:23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone," . You asked for evidence, this is the only evidence i could think of although personally i question the bible's validity. What its meant to show is that Jesus did go of on his own which gave him an opportunity to meet others without his disciples.


There are a number of points you’re either having a hard time with here, or are intentionally avoiding, or deliberately misleading to avoiding answering:

First – How large is the “Mediterranean”, and in which parts of the “Mediterranean” do you find rhododendron ponticum?
Second – What part of the “Mediterranean” did Jesus live?
Third – Actually, in post# 90, you said:

Lazareth and Jesus dead for 3 days= particular herb taken to mimic death.

Your insinuation was that Jesus was involved with pulling a hoax on His disciples by faking the death of not only Lazarus, but Himself as well. But, you totally fail to provide any facts and evidence to back up your hypothesis; therefore rendering it as nothing more than mere opinion. Further, if you are going to make such assertions, you need to be considerate of all the other ramifications that this would pose on others involved (like knocking over dominoes). But you have failed to work these into your fallacious logic.
Fourth – In Matthew 14:23 what did it say Jesus was doing? Did it say that He was going off conniving to fool His followers? Or did it say that He was going off to pray? Because, according to your assertion, Jesus was a liar… Do you actually have any factual evidence to back up this assertion?
Fifth – Yes I asked for evidence, but you haven’t provided any yet. You have only provided opinion; therefor your hypothesis fails again.
Sixth – Personally, you can question the Bible’s validity to you hearts content, but you (again) have provided absolutely no factual evidence to call into question the Bible’s validity. Therefore you are doing nothing more than providing more of your own faith statements as your evidences.
Seventh – What is actually being shown here is that, when called upon, you cannot provide any facts to substantiate you attacks on the Bible or Jesus.

#117 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 June 2011 - 07:36 PM


Sure, I can absolutely do that Zendra… Just as soon as you actually provide the facts and evidence I originally asked you for, to support your assertions. The ones you’ve been failing to provide, and yet continue to waste time by dragging the conversation out, in order to keep from backing up your accusations.

I may in fact not be able to refute the miracle seeing as i do not know all the details. Thats why Im asking you to elaborate on this miracle( something i have yet to see you do for any).


But that’s one of your main problems Zendra, you come in here spouting off about having all this evidence FOR macro evolution, and evidence AGAINST the Bible, Jesus and His miracles. And you haven’t even provided ONE shred of factual evidence! Then when you get called on it, you claim ignorance, attempt to move the goal posts, misrepresent what others have said, equivocate over terms and definitions, and attempt to brush aside evidence by saying it isn’t evidence.

Which brings me to this point: The New Testament itself is a series of Books by eyewitnesses of Jesus and His miracles (Matthew, John, James, Jude, Peter (etc…): or as dictated by an eye witness (Mark), or a thorough investigation in the historical vein (Luke). And this isn’t even mentioning the miracles of the Apostles (the Book of Acts), or the books of Paul. This means that the New Testament itself is FACTUAL EVIDENCE for the miracles of Jesus.





First – You are attempting to use the conversion by definition fallacy. You are attempting to switch the definition of “faith” with “blind faith”.

Second – No Christian believes in God via “blind faith”. ALL Christians believe in God via the testimony of other ‘eyewitnesses’, and other ‘evidences’ first, and then continue on their own testimonies, evidences and experiences.

Third – Therefore the Christian can say “there IS a God, because He proved Himself for my entire Christian walk therefore I believe it will continue to do so tomorrow as well.

My apologies, i treated faith and blind faith as the same thing.



That’s fine… This is a common misconception that has many people deceived.




Now, if you want to get into the arguments against induction by the famous skeptic/atheist David Hume (who totally refuted your assertion on induction) we can do that as well.


Sorry what was my assertion of induction? could you please provide quotes?

Absolutely! In your below quote, you site the inductive “given the sun has risen for my whole life i believe it will rise tomorrow” statement:


Again with the “believe” word… That implies “faith” you know…

Not necessarily, it depend how it is used. I could say i believe in a god(faith). Or I could say that given the sun has risen for my whole life i believe it will rise tomorrow( belief from evidence).


This is an inductive statement because you are basing it on all the past days that the sun came up.

#118 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 11 June 2011 - 10:39 PM

Point 1. The concept of speciation is identical to adaptation in a creationist sense. I do not presume to speak for all creationists. What I see proven is a bird may grow a larger beak and may start to eat a different diet due to environmental factors. Evolutionists may call such a bird a new species eg Cryptic species, and these may or may not be able to mate, which often presents a 'species definition problem'.. However this level of speciation only refers to an organisms ability to adapt and is insufficient to explain the mechanisms involved in a deer becoming a whale. It is assumed that what evolutionary researchers have shown as an adaptive God created mechanism esential to all life, mulitplied over and over will result in macro change. The assumption is refuted by dog breeding limits and other research. Here is one example that speaks to limits to adaptation as well as speed limits to the pace of evolution.


Yes it has adapted but in the case of the E coli there were now different types of it. In this case of speciation it is not simply the E coli evolving but branching out in its evolutionary tree.


Point 3. I agree. Given that researchers are still unable to produce life in a lab, the points here go to creationists. Even the RNA world proposition suggests RNA life, a complex system, arose on its own by chance. It appears unlikely.


Well actually it appears life has been created in a lab. The only problem is making the conditions as early earth like as possible. Life in a lab


Miracles are only what mankind cannot explain with their science. Noah was given comands to wash hands before eating but knew nothing about germs and would not have understood germs or hygiene in his time. A lighter or fire stick would have appeared quite miraculous in Noahs time also.


I agree, so why assume that the miracles Jesus performed were in fact that.


Absolutely! I’ll provide you with a number of them: If you read post #67 I made three points, then I asked for “your current empirical scientific explanation”. In post #77 I said “if you are going to “claim” that the miracles that Jesus performed are analogous to the pseudo-miracles in the Sherlock Holmes movie, you need to provide the evidences that support your assertion. Because simply saying so, does not make it so (Assertum Non Est Demonstratum). Lay the evidences side-by-side, and make the correlations, or admit that you were incorrect”. In post # 98 I said “Further, what actual “FACTUAL” evidence (other than your mere opinion) do you have to counter the eye witness testimony? Can you provide contemporaneous counters to the actual evidence?”, I also asked a few other times in that post for “contemporaneous evidence” as well.


Ok, i apologise. So what type of evidence would you like me to present? The main one I can think of is bible quotes, my main concern is biasing and quality but I can find them if you like.


First – How large is the “Mediterranean”, and in which parts of the “Mediterranean” do you find rhododendron ponticum?
Second – What part of the “Mediterranean” did Jesus live?


Its currently found in Turkey,
Jesus traveled to Nazareth, South Lebanon, Galilee, Jerusalum. Unfortunately seeing as Jesus didnt visit Turkey i cannot provide evidence that he obtained the plant even through trade. That is where my explanation hits a hole.


Your insinuation was that Jesus was involved with pulling a hoax on His disciples by faking the death of not only Lazarus, but Himself as well. But, you totally fail to provide any facts and evidence to back up your hypothesis; therefore rendering it as nothing more than mere opinion. Further, if you are going to make such assertions, you need to be considerate of all the other ramifications that this would pose on others involved (like knocking over dominoes). But you have failed to work these into your fallacious logic.


Just done that, perhaps not completely but enough to be valid. Also do you mind not filling in what you think I am proposing. I never set limits as to who was involved.


Fourth – In Matthew 14:23 what did it say Jesus was doing? Did it say that He was going off conniving to fool His followers? Or did it say that He was going off to pray? Because, according to your assertion, Jesus was a liar… Do you actually have any factual evidence to back up this assertion?


No the point of this quote was to contradict your assumption of his disciples always being with him.


Sixth – Personally, you can question the Bible’s validity to you hearts content, but you (again) have provided absolutely no factual evidence to call into question the Bible’s validity. Therefore you are doing nothing more than providing more of your own faith statements as your evidences.


Does its age, lack of knowledge at the time of writing and multiple translations count as evidence? Also is it faith to accept it as completedly true despite those problems or faith to question it. What is your evidence for believing it?


But that’s one of your main problems Zendra, you come in here spouting off about having all this evidence FOR macro evolution, and evidence AGAINST the Bible, Jesus and His miracles. And you haven’t even provided ONE shred of factual evidence! Then when you get called on it, you claim ignorance, attempt to move the goal posts, misrepresent what others have said, equivocate over terms and definitions, and attempt to brush aside evidence by saying it isn’t evidence.


I beg to differ. If you would turn to posts 89,93,101,106,113 I feel i have presented at least a shred of factual evidence. And when did I ever claim that something wasn't evidence?


Which brings me to this point: The New Testament itself is a series of Books by eyewitnesses of Jesus and His miracles (Matthew, John, James, Jude, Peter (etc…): or as dictated by an eye witness (Mark), or a thorough investigation in the historical vein (Luke). And this isn’t even mentioning the miracles of the Apostles (the Book of Acts), or the books of Paul. This means that the New Testament itself is FACTUAL EVIDENCE for the miracles of Jesus.


Do you have outside evidence of this being true and of the Bible being valid?

#119 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 June 2011 - 10:01 AM

1. Yes they are still in the same kingdom, the point was that they did evolve to speciate from typical E coli.
3. We are going back to abiogenesis which i am unable to explain, your god may have in fact started life.


NO, horizontal gene transfer is not abiogenesis and in saying this you've attempted to dodge the bulk of my post...

If you listen to one thing I say here, listen to this...

It is futile to classify bacteria based on genetic parameters.... This is because horizonal gene transfer can change these parameters from day to day..

As previously said before, all the experiment has shown is bacteria's ability for horizontal gene transfer, such an event is NOT speciation, it is a mode of adaption. Since (as mentioned before), jumping genes are regulated via proteins hence it is not a random process it is a function of the cells capacity to adapt.


Furthermore, what is a "Species", since even the definition is ambigous how can it be an integral part of a "scientific" dicipline... Here I thought science was about facts, and getting rid of ambiguity... ;)

This is based on the definitions of species learnt in evo class last year at Uni..

1- Homology- they look the same, simple... Animals that have different looking genders defy this concept
2- Can produce a fertile offspring together... Wolbachea infection in insects, (and other things), defy this concept...


Only the first concept applies to bacteria hence according to the evo's own rules we should classify bacteria as follows...

1- cocci shaped
2- rod shaped
etc etc etc

#120 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 June 2011 - 10:25 AM

Yes it has adapted but in the case of the E coli there were now different types of it. In this case of speciation it is not simply the E coli evolving but branching out in its evolutionary tree.


Well actually it appears life has been created in a lab. The only problem is making the conditions as early earth like as possible. Life in a lab




And guess what a different type is..... a BREED.... or in bacteria it is a new strain... Hence it is not a new "species" be definition.

It really annoys me the love affair modern scientists have with the words "evolved" and "species". Last year we had some marine biologist talking about squid, and he wasn't sure if the different species could breed together.... Now hang on, isn't that a part of the definition of a species, hence if he doesn't know this information perhaps he should hold off from declaring all these squid as different species....

Hypothetically lets say they were deemed different species, but lets also say that later on they find that these different species can inter-breed... Does this mean that the offspring will also be new species since they will contain half the genetic material of each species which thus would make it different, but at the same time similar to both?... No it is the same case as breeds of dogs, only that the evo love-affair compels them to call everything a new species.


Furthermore, they haven't created life, just RNA. Perhaps you should read your links before posting them ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users