Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Paul of Eugene OR

Member
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Paul of Eugene OR last won the day on May 11 2012

Paul of Eugene OR had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Paul of Eugene OR

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    70
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
    Theistic Evolutionist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Eugene, Oregon

Recent Profile Visitors

78 profile views
  1. Paul of Eugene OR

    Questions From The Welcome Section On Validity Of Evolution

    I completely agree with this post.
  2. Paul of Eugene OR

    Questions From The Welcome Section On Validity Of Evolution

    My logic is simple. If God is omnipresent, then God is not a body of flesh <Non Sequitur> in the same was as I am a body of flesh, because we'd all be stuck trying to walk around inside a body of flesh which we could not do . . . . therefore, God is a spirit, just like Jesus said. And if Jesus is truly God, how could some of the appearances NOT be of Jesus? <Clear cases of misrepresentation> Well, let me be perfectly clear about this. We are created in the image of God. But the image of God in man is not in the two eyes, the two feet, the one head. Instead, the image of God in man is our soul, our mind, our spiritual nature. Consider the cherubim: Isa 6:2-3 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory." They too are in the image of God. <Clear cases of misrepresentation> And another point to make is that even if God have His own physical body as a target to copy as He fashioned us, this does not preclude Him from using evolution as a means to fashion us <Non Sequitur> . In such a case we would expect to see the evolutionary method resulting in one line among the many that more and more closely resembled His target for His image until - Bingo <Clear cases of misrepresentation> ! The process was complete. That is not my opinion about God's body and God's image, but it is a logical possibility that could be entertained. <Clear cases of misrepresentation> Well, you go ahead and believe God cannot change His image and I'll go ahead and believe God can appear in any form He chooses to and we'll just let it go at that. How can I set forth alternate possibilities for the sake of discussion and not be breaking forum rules on "equivocation"? <Complaining about board moderation> Well, of course, we disagree, don't we? Is this a surprise, somehow? I'll continue to believe my logic there is sound, you continue to believe it is not. Again, we simply disagree as to the forms being used in scripture. Does God or does God not have wings? <Clear cases of misrepresentation> Ps 57:1 Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me, For my soul takes refuge in You; And in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge Until destruction passes by. Is our image of God incomplete, as we lack wings? <Clear cases of misrepresentation> I say nay, these are poetic references, all of them. <Clear cases of misrepresentation> Clarification with emphasis on forum rules violations AND blatant fallacious claims. (Admin Ron) I beg your pardon, I did not realize that when you engaged me in debate you were also retaining all the prerogatives of your position as moderator as well. Very well, I shall attempt to keep that in mind. Nothing at all, it has to do with being literal in interpreting the Bible, the very thing you seem to want me to do. I'm speaking of the number of legs attributed to the locusts and in addition attributed to all other flying insects, which number is clearly stated as four. I don't see how one can follow such slavishly literal ways of interpreting statements about God speaking with His mouth and still accept that flying insects have more than four legs. But perhaps you DO accept that flying insects are four-legged. I don't know, yet, that you don't, and in that case perhaps you do remain consistent in your biblical interpretations. Most people interpreting this scripture about the insects being four-legged agree that insects are truly six legged and this passage is to not be interpreted literally, but it should be understood in some non literal fashion, perhaps counting the use of the phrase as an idiom, for example. Perhaps you are consistent and don't do that. Let me know.
  3. Paul of Eugene OR

    Radioactive Decay Not Constant

    Stellar evolution theory is well established in astronomy and stars are observed in every stage of stellar evolution. Its true we don't have millions of years of observation to watch a single star, so far, but we do have star clusters which, if as reasonable to expect all formed around the same time, show the steller evolution stages varying as expected (the heavier stars evolve faster than the lighter stars, allowing us to see many diffent stages within the one cluster.) Maybe our expectations of the timing need to be adjusted if something in the sun hastens nuclear reactions . . . . but that's not going to do away with the established order of things in stellar evolution, which would be that the sun used to be somewhat dimmer and have somewhat fewer nuclear reactions taking place in the past millions of years.
  4. Paul of Eugene OR

    Entropy

    by "some potential" I thinking of limits to population. Maybe the grasslands grow enough grass for a thousand gazelles, but not enough for two thousand gazelles. So when the population grows to a thousand, there is no more potential for more to be supported by that grass, and some gazelles are going to die! But only some. Not all Well, that's a great example of evolution in action. There is of course some random component to such a selection process . . . surely the fishermen don't get EVERY big fish in the lake . . . but there is a driving overall hazard associated with being bigger and that's enough to affect the average size of the next and following generations. Ooo, another example! But of course, size is also affected by having better nutrition, modern times allow more consistent nutrition, so lets just note that one as an interesting but unproved idea. Sure they have, over and over in controlled experiments, bacteria are shown to have new genes that allow them to defeat antibiotics that they didn't even have before. Genes there that weren't there = mutation. Helping them live in environment that used to kill them = new information in their genes. "kind" is to vague a word to use to deny evolution with. After all, since the first mammal, all mammals have been "mammal kind" including us . . . No matter or energy is destroyed in the ordinary process of living, not even in evolution. Why are you even mentioning this? Nothing can repeal the second law . . . but your kids are doing a new variation on your genetic structures. As for the energy we use, it all comes from the sun, and of course our sun will eventually die, but aren't we hoping for an alternate set of laws to live in by the time that happens? That's not true either; we see order being formed all the time naturally, from snowflakes to river systems to continents . . . water forms level, orderly surfaces spontaneously . . . Your mantra needs to be adjusted to say something other than "we see disorder from order". Have you noticed the wonderful patterns formed by hurricanes? Such a beautiful spiral! Order from disorder before you very eyes. Find a mantra that doesn't have such obvious counter examples and we'll consider it. Well, yes, it really is. God made the laws of the universe to allow for evolution, and I suspect He did that on purpose.
  5. Paul of Eugene OR

    Entropy

    I realize it is an article of faith to you that accumulating benefits must have a limit, but there is no natural law to that effect. What could impose such a limit? Its kind of like saying that if I give you a penny a day ever day, you will never get a million dollars, no not even in a million years. The monkeys typing are a far different scenario from the evolution theory. Because they don't preserve what resembles Shakespeare and build on it for their next typing. There is no connection between one monkey produced page and the next. But in evolution theory, with reproductive success preserved through natural selection, there is a preservation and a building on what has worked in the past. The analogy with monkeys typing is therefore fundamentally flawed.
  6. Paul of Eugene OR

    Questions From The Welcome Section On Validity Of Evolution

    I don't get it . Are you arguing God cannot look like us if we are evolved but can look like us if we are not evolved? That makes no sense to me. God can make Himself to be like us whether or not He created us by means of evolution. Here's the reasoning. Premise: Man shall live by every word that procedes from the mouth of god (words of Christ) Premise: All the worlds are created by the word of God (From Genesis) Conclusion: Evidence gleaned from the world is valid for learning true things. Premise: Evidence gleaned from the world shows us we are evolved. (innumerable scientific papers to this effect) Conclusion: Accepting evolution is not contrary to scripture. That's my reasoning. You might claim its invalid, but it does involve scripture. Oooo . . . you are indeed a hyper literalist <--- Ad Hominem abusive . I suppose you also accept that insects including grasshoppers all have four legs <-- Non Sequitur? I defy you to give any valid scriptural reasoning, consistent with your reasoning methods above, that allow you to believe they actually have six legs. Lev 11:22-23"These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you. NASU I bet you suddenly turn less that rigidly literal in interpreting that passage. <-- Negative One Liner Edited for emphasis (Ron)
  7. Paul of Eugene OR

    Questions From The Welcome Section On Validity Of Evolution

    Do you believe God is omniscient, omnipresent, ominipotent? If so, you don't believe God has a body, because God is in all places at once, and this is only compatible with God being a Spirit. However, we have the incarnation, that is, God became one of us as part of our redemption. Hence, after God condescends to become one of us in Jesus, God has the body of Jesus, of course. I accept that the appearances of God in the Old Testament are also Jesus coming to us in the likeness of our flesh. But the true essense of God is not in the likeness of our flesh, God is spirit. However, now that we are on the scene, for God to walk with us, talk with us, He takes on human form.
  8. Paul of Eugene OR

    Why Using Several Translations Is Wrong.

    Both are good translations in their english versions . . . of course I cannot comment on the Thai version. When you say you have a version of the King James, do you mean it was actually translated from English to Thai instead of from the biblical Hebrew and Greek to Thai?
  9. Paul of Eugene OR

    Radioactive Decay Not Constant

    Helium diffusion rates are not a reliable indicator of anything because helium is constantly created by radioactive decay and being a very slippery molecule - its a noble gas, you know, and doesn't bind to anything - it can slip into a crystal as well as out of a crystal and you can't therefore judge anything by how much helium is in a crystal. For sure, there is helium leaking upward from earth's core all the time.
  10. Paul of Eugene OR

    Nde - Near Death Experience

    Surely a fascinating topic. Suppose for the sake of argument that such experiences are, indeed, all a trick of the mind. Then surely such mind tricks have occurred throughout human history and explain much of our ideas about the afterlife . . . . ideas such as reincarnation, universal salvation, and so forth. Suppose that such experiences are actually real. Well, even if actually real, it seems quite apparent that the initial experiences are tailored by the angels on the other side to ease the transition of the soul from this realm to the next. Buddhists, for example, see Buddha welcoming them, Christians see Jesus. And sometimes some come back to actually state that whatever was on the other side was deliberately appearing as what would be most comforting to them. So even in that case, the previous state of the person matters! Due to this automatic accommodation of whatever causes these perceptions to the expectations of the recipient of the experience, I have no way to judge them. So I don't judge them, I leave them in the area of the unexplained. God has dealt with me personally from time to time and I accept that and we have the Bible and God has instructed me to follow Jesus so that's what I do.
  11. Paul of Eugene OR

    Radioactive Decay Not Constant

    The results are not in on that yet . .. But if the results are correct and the solar activity promotes radioactive decay to some small but unknown extent, surely it means that the radiometric age determinations have a systematic error of being a bit to small. The earth and the solar system must be somewhat older than previously estimated! That is because the solar activity is gradually increasing with time as the sun accumulates residues of its previous activity that promotes further activity. The sun is eventually going to become so active as to swell and engulf the inner planets, possibly including the earth, in about 5 billion years. In the past it has been a bit less active and a bit cooler.
  12. Paul of Eugene OR

    Entropy

    This question puzzles me because as I consider the theoretical operation of evolution dynamics I don't see where the entropy objection comes into play. Here are the basic steps of evolution, according to the theory: a) A species reproduces successfully in a given environment. (We see that happening, don't we? Must be ok so far) b - There are limits to the environment so some potential members of the species die without leaving descendants, others don't. (We see that happening, don't we? No species keeps growing its population indefinitely, there are ALWAYS limits) c) Members of the species will vary against others of their own kind as to how well they are able to reproduce, birthing the next generation. (Aren't some of us smarter than others, faster than others, sexier than others, etc etc?) d) members of the species with better abilities to reproduce will be preferentially represented in the next and following generations. (Kind of a tautology almost, but doesn't it make sense? Better reproducers will reproduce more?) e) Mutations come along (Surely nobody thinks this is ruled out) f) Mutations sometimes help and sometimes hinder reproductive fitness (Helpful mutations have been demonstrated time and again, including the rare but demonstrated reversal of a harmful mutation) g) Given the automatic, natural selection the bad mutations come to be represented less and less in the population and the good mutations come to be more and more represented in the population (down the line, in following generations, of course) h) Once a new good mutation is established, the whole thing can happen again over and over. i) Given enough time, an indefinate number of mutations can become established, to the point of a great change in the organism. OK that's the theory. Perhaps some might believe this theory is bogus . . . . but that's not the point of this thread. This thread is about entropy. Where in these steps is there anything against the laws of thermodynamics? Please specify the step and why. Added in edit . . . guess what, I accidently found a smiley quote. What do you get when you type "b" followed by ")"? You get
  13. The following was posted to me in the welcome section and I thought I might as well answer here as there. Thank you for your gracious query. Jesus taught us that God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. The image of God in man is not to be found in our flesh but in our spiritual nature. We are unique among all living things on earth in that we experience thinking in a transcendentally different way. We use language and the language we use is theoretically capable of expressing any possible thought. No other kind of living thing on earth has that. We can contemplate our eternal destination. No other living thing on earth can do that. We can dedicate ourselves to following God, following Truth, following the Way, following the Life. No other living thing on earth can do that. Huh? I lack the ability to figure out what you are asking here. But hey, I said this was NOT the case, so perhaps that's why this makes no sense to me. Jesus said we are to listen to every word from God. Matt 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, "MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" All things were created by the word of God. You can trust the word of God as found in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.
  14. Paul of Eugene OR

    Entropy

    Simple. In liquid water, the molecules are randomly oriented each to the other, and the orientation is constantly changing. in frozen water, the molecules are in fixed relation to each other, and the orientation is static, and keeps repeating the same pattern over and over. The very essence of order . . . observed repeating pattern. And this happens regularly here on earth. Why, just the other day, in defiance of all expectation, we had snow here in Eugene! And yet it is a widespread phenomenon. The sun naturally causes weather patterns on earth on an ongoing basis, including the creation of ordered crystals of ice, over and over. Snowflakes are created by the sun's energy acting on the earth without any information program involved. Therefore your idea that there has to be an information program in order to decrease entropy cannot be a universal truth. Also, I would think that the arrival of a snowflake counts as a creation of a pattern instead of a destructive act, and the sun's energy is clearly responsible. Adam and every son of Adam must return to the dust of the earth. But have you noticed that many of Adam's progeny are running around in good health as we speak? And there has been some microevolution among them, we notice racial characteristics have appeared. Adam's genes never did change, we suppose, all of his life, but down the line some mutations clearly came along and have spread among his children. Oddly, tropical descendants of Adam came to have appropriately darker skin and northern climate descendants of Adam came to have appropriately lighter skin. How did that happen? Some kind of pattern developed there . . . . are you supposing that was contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, or within the laws of thermodynamics?
  15. If evolution is correct, then EVERY species is an example of an evolved species, including the ones that went extinct, which means the known species that have evolved has to be greater than the known species that went extinct, simply because of all known species only some (many, to be sure) have gone extinct. So I don't get this logic.
×

Important Information

Our Terms