Below is a post I wrote about how it seems that Islam is slowly but surely creeping into the mainstream of this country. I wrote it back in 2004, it is September 2010 now and I believe that Islam is now quickly infiltrating mainstream America. From the Mosque being built at ground zero to hidden messages in our children's toys, we are seeing a greater presence of Islam in American life. Many multi-cultural liberals and leftists woudl argue that this is a good thing, yet, people with common sense know otherwise. Our president has stated that American is no longer a "Christian" nation and has openly mocked the bible, yet at the same time contends that Islam is a religion of peace and has expressed his own reverence for the Quoran and Muslim prayer. Many Americans, over 40% actually, believe that
This link is just one example of how are country is slowly but surely moving towards a secular and eventually a Muslim/Islamo-fascist society. while certain earmarks of Christianity are being filtered out of public exposure, i.e. the L.A. county seal being altered, secular and Islamic symbols, practices and beliefs are being incorporated in to replace those Christian symbols and practices. Case in point is this article about how Muslims are slowly becoming the dominant religion in this small town.
And now recently we had a hostage situation in Russia. Children were being held against their will and eventually killed by Muslim extremists and yet we still have folks defending Islam as a religion of peace. When will we all wake up and realize that our existence in this world is affected by the balance of good and evil. When good people stay silent evil will reign. Even my 8 year old son realized this concept when he asked me about Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego and the fiery furnace. He wondered if they were right or wrong for disobeying the king and not bowing down to the statue. I told him no, they were right and the king was wrong. He then made a profound connection, stating, "...so because they did not obey and were not afraid to speak the truth to the king, God delivered them?" I confirmed to him, yes. He then pointed out that after the three Hebrew boys were delivered, the king acknowledged that their god was the god. We had quite a long conversation about this story and many others in scripture regarding standing up for God's truth. (as we do quite often)
I guess my point here is simple, if Mr. President and other so called Christians who hold positions of power in our government in this country are truly fighting the good fight, why isn't more being done to squelch terrorism? Why does it seem that they are more concerned with pandering to special interests rather than speaking the truth and acting on it. I figure, if you believe in what you say you do, you will do what it takes to not only share it and expound upon it but act on it as well, no matter what the consequences are. This is the philosophy of our enemies.
I believe, in regards to any further Christian persecution, that in the last days it will come not just through the repression of liberties by secular humanistic policies but will be amply enforced and applied through the tenets of Islam. The notions of Multi-culturalism, secular humanism, evolution, and tolerance are all there simply as a prop for the acceptance of the beliefs of Islam in this and any other country. Remember, just as with Christianity, anyone can be a Muslim or hold to Islamic beliefs. Don't be surprised if Islam becomes the perfect vehicle by which Christians in America are persecuted and eventually slaughtered. It already is in other countries.
The time is now to speak up and speak out!
Right on.
ReplyDeleteHamtramck is just down the road from me and was getting a lot of local press. Sad.
I think part of the problem is politics. Under Islam, there is no problem with lying in order to advance their cause by any means necessary. Sort of like the moonbats and ego-driven politicians that we're all too familiar with.
In the case of true Christians, the issue boils down to electability. Running under One Nation Under God is harder to do than to run on a platform of One Nation Under All gods.
However, it's not their fault for being pragmatic, rather it is ours. Afterall, your State elected Arnold over Tom. But I do get the sense that the pendulum is shifting.
Moreso, depending on how one interprets Revelations, this shift could be yet another indication of the end. times.
Anyway, I appreciate your writings and I hope you continue to blog.
God bless.
Andy Foster
Although I disagree with your implication that the religion of Islam incorporates a fundemental principle which will lead to the destruction of American society, I am not at this moment particularly inclined to debate the topic. I am curious, however, as to what you see to be the solution.
ReplyDeleteWell Ellbur, to be perfectly honest, I don't know what the solution is or if there really is one. Sometimes I feel that it is inevitable. I do know that those of us who profess Christ ought to spend every opportunity to speak the truth in love and reveal to others what is really going on and combat the influences of evil in this society and abroad. I also know that some of the methods being deployed currently just aren't working both on the religious front and on the political front because they do not emphasise truth but only serve to pander to one side or the other in an attempt to please all.
ReplyDeleteTo continue to remain political is ultimately dangerous. We have to be willing to deal with and accept the consequences of being a child of God. Right now, it just doesn't seem that there are many, especially who are in positions of power, who are willing.
Mr McClellan,
ReplyDeleteI respect your right, guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, to practice your religion. But that right ends where my right, under the Establishment Clause, to be free from your religion begins.
The United States is not and never was a christian nation. Christian have been dominant and have gotten away with legislating their beliefs for a long time. You should work to amend the Constitution to remove the Establishment Clause if you are worried about muslims and atheists taking over.
What persecution of christians are you talking about?
Sir you are sadly mistaken if you believe that America is not founded on Christian ideology. I don't believe I ever said that America is a Christian nation either, our laws and traditions may be routed in Christian beliefs but this country is far from Christian.
ReplyDeleteSo far as the Establishment Clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Where does it state that one is free FROM religion sir? You misinterpret this writing. The whole notion of separation of church and state is meant to protect the people from a government sanctioned church, while still allowing all to worship God as they see fit. That is what the framers intent was, and any honest person can see this.
In so far as the persecution of Christians, it is happening in other countries such as the Sudan and other parts of Africa, as well as communist China. You may not hear of such things because of the extremely liberal bias that exists in the media. If you truly want an example of such a matter, go to http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39927.
This is the inevitable future of all Christian men and women.
The Exercise Clause--"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"--prohibits the state from compelling persons to affirm any particular beliefs. In other words, we have a freedom FROM religion.
ReplyDeletesee: BRAUNFELD v. BROWN, 366 U.S. 599 (1961)
Once again, you mis-interpret the law. While I would agree that a person is free from; and read carefully here "A STATE" sanctioned religion or belief system, as this case file seems to imply, and as I stated earlier in quoting the Establishment Clause, my overall premise to begin with is the fact that through the "religions" of secular humanism, tolerance, and multi-culturalism the basic tenets of Islam are and will continue to be accepted and even imposed upon those who do not hold to those same beliefs, through state sanctioned legislation and public policies of "acceptance", inspite of past and recent terrorist activities spawned in the name of Allah.
ReplyDeleteThis is already the case with the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in that inspite of an overwhelming opposition by voteres to SSM, judges/polititions in Mass. and several other states have gone on to not only mis-interpret the laws in support of it, but to create new laws to supposedly protect "Gay rights". This is blatant anarchy, yet, most of the media pundits refuse to acknowledge this fact, and the politicians and judges themselves committing these acts try to pass it off as civil disobedience. The same is occurring here in L.A. , Ca. where the county seal is being re-designed to accommodate a minority few group of people (ACLU) while the majority of Angeleans opppose such a move. This is blatant extortion and discrimination against the Christian faith, but no one will call it what it really is.
Consider:
ReplyDelete"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
You might agree with him when the evil muslims are in the majority and christians are the minority.
Rob, you amaze me. For you fail to realize one key point in your last post...Muslims are already the majority.
ReplyDeleteSecular Humanism is already the majority.
Multi-Culturalism is already the majority.
Evolution is already the majority...being taught at every stage of education.
And Finally, Tolerance. It is truly at the heart of your debate no doubt, sir.
What is your hang-up on the word "tolerance"?
ReplyDeleteTolerance: 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.I let you practice your religion as you please as long as you don't interfere with anyone else's rights; you do the same for me. Doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
So, multiculturalism and tolerance are now religions? Interesting.
For your information, christians ARE the overwhelming majority in the United States. Between 70% and 84% of Americans self identify as christian. While only 0.5% identify themselves as muslim (I don't think that qualifies them as the majority). Funny, I didn't see "Multi-culturalist" on the list.
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions
"For your information, christians ARE the overwhelming majority in the United States. Between 70% and 84% of Americans self identify as christian."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet for some strange reason, we find ourselves pandering to them more and more in this country, as the articles I linked to clearly point out. Not to mention the legal attacks by the ACLU, especially recently with the removal of the cross on the L.A. County Seal. That doesn't sound like majority rule to me.
That makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteBut please refer back to the Jefferson quote that I posted earlier--majority rule with equal rights and protection of the minority.
I will clarify, my point sir is quite simple. While you may contend that Christians are the majority in this country and therefore, somehow they are imposing their beliefs upon others, the truth of the matter is that the oppossite is true. The ideologies of evolution, tolerance, multi-culturalism, political correctness, etc., etc. indicate more so that these principles and those who tout them are the majority. Christian morality is in the minority, especially in mainstream society and is even shunned upon in most public and private sectors as I stated earlier in regards to the ACLU. Does that make any sense to you?
ReplyDeleteIn regards to you quoting Thomas Jefferson, once again, you continue to pull out one point in the Constitution and use it as a crutch for your position, not to mention using it out of context. You are setting up straw men and then attempting to knock them down. You haven't cited one instance or example that supports what you are implying. Merely quoting bits and pieces of the Constitution in order to support your secular ideology is not enough.
While you continue to spout that you allow me to believe what I want as long as it doesn't interfere with your rights, well sir, what rights are you speaking of? How will my beliefs interfere with your rights?
Firt of all, evolution is not an ideology. Is quantum physics an ideology? What about molecular biology? Any part of science that contradicts you religious beliefs is not science but rather an ideology?
ReplyDeleteNext, how can the Constitution be taken out of context? The First Amendment is very clear and stands on its own.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And the Jefferson quote is from his First Inaugural Address--six paragraghs, you should go read it. He speaks of tolerance as well.
I get a sense of anger from that last statement. Calm down friend.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to evolution, I suggest you discontinue comparing it to quantum physics, or any other respectable science, since it is not a science at all but a belief system, hence the use of the term "ideology".
Evolutionists, when researching the past, start from an axiom of millions of years, big bang, goo to you, etc, etc. Then anything that is discovered is explained based on that premise. In other words, the so called science of evolution isn't science at all but speculation about the past based on the presupositions rationalized by a few historical figures, i.e. Darwin.
I am sure you will eventually make the same deduction about my religious beliefs, well to save you the trouble, you are correct. I working from a presupposed knowledge about the past in exactly the same way, yet I have far more evidence to back up my religious beliefs than an evolutionist has to back up his/hers.
"Jerry, I wonder what it is you want? How could America satisfy you? Do you want Christianity fully incorporated into the courts and the government? Do you want all legislation to be based exclusively on scriptural teaching? (If so, which brand of Christianity would you prefer? Mormon, Pentacostal, Jehova's Witnesses, Catholic?)"
ReplyDeleteNo I don't want any "brand" of Christianity incorporated into the Courts or Government, I just want our system to be based on the truth.
"For me the important feature of a secular government is that the kind of persecution / disenfranchisemnet felt by Christians in the Sudan and China is impossible."
Nothing is impossible. The simple fact that a government is open to being secular humanistic demonstrates my point. Secular thinking is an ideology, whether you agree or not. My contention is that a government ought to adapt to a truth based ideology in order to be a truly just government. This was the case with our founding fathers. You may argue that many of them were secularist themsevles, maybe they were, yet the majority of them agreed to an ideology based on Christian/Biblical premises, i.e. freedom, justice, equality, unalienable rights, etc.
"An American Muslim should feel that the government and courts represents him just as much as it represents and serves an American Christian, even though he has a minority faith. (The same applies to an American atheist)."
I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, yet, by your own logic, an American Muslim should not expect a government that adapts to his/her religious beliefs. Religion alone does not demonstrate truth or dictate justice, if that were the case then all religions would be the same in essence. They are not. My argument here is simple, our government ought to be based on truth and justice, and should not pander to ideologies. Any citizen of this country who is here legaly can and will be able to appreciate and take advantage of all freedoms that citizenry incurrs regardless of religion, this is already a reality.
"Wouldn't you prefer the Sudan to adopt the 'tolerence' and 'multiculturalism' than to persist as a theocracy?"
No. Then they would become as screwed up as we Americans are. I would prefer that they adapt to a government system of equality, justice and truth for all people.
"Evolution is not an ideology, it is considered a fact because of the overwhelming evidence. For a glimpse of just some of the evidence for evolution across species, take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4 ."
I do not have all day to refute your link here but most of what this site is proposing as fact has been debunked as falsehoods, innaccuracies and hoaxes. See this link if you need more information.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=+Australopithecus+africanus&loadpage=query.html&charset=iso-8859-1&btnSearchGo=GO
There is no evidence of any "transitional forms" in the so called fossil record. The entire notion of evolving from apes is so illogical it is rediculous. If one were to simply reason his way from beginning to end, one would or should eventually come to one simple conclusion: evolution is an impossibility, for it involves the transfer of existing information, the loss of information, and the obtaining of new complex information, aparently from no where. This premise is illogical, you cannot get complex information from simple information. The complexity of the information as to already be present, in which case the need to evolve would be useless. Not to mention, just in the use of some of the language of this site demonstrates the authors lack of any tangible, irrefutable information. He is merely hypothesizing and conjecturing based on the little info that he does have. In other words he is winging it, filling in the blanks when he has to, as most scientists who study the past do.
"Contrast that with the public evidence for your religion, which is not convincing (otherwise we'd all be convinced!) (I say public evidence because you might have had some personal revelation which would make your faith quite reasonable.)"
Once again, your logic here is incredibly inconsistent. You say that if there was convincing evidence for creation then all would believe, yet by the same reasoning then evolution would be believed by all as well. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation, yet, there is more compelling evidence in favor of creation, all you have to do is "think" and you have evidence.
"The mechanism which causes evolution is a matter of theory, and feel free to prove them wrong. If you do well, you might convince us that the cause of the observed evolution is the guiding hand of a designer God. Good luck."
You said it, evolution is a matter of THEORY not fact. A theory has to be proven therefore to challenge me to disprove something that isn't proven is quite disengenuous. Sir, the burden of proof lies with you, not me. As I stated earlier, there is more evidence to demonstrate creation than there is to demonstrate evolution, a person can simply reason and come to that conclusion, i.e. the invisible watch maker analogy. Simply put, Information comes from more complex information. If YOU have evidence to the contrary, by all means convince us of this "truth".
Also, what do you mean by "observed evolution"? There is no such thing. No one at any point in history has observed evolution taking place. Are you arguing for natural selection, well if so then once again you are being inaccurate with your premise. Even some evolutionist argue that natural selection is not evolution for it involves the loss of info rather than the obtainment of complex info, i.e. recently there was a news report of a dog born with no front legs, is this an example of evolution, will this dogs lineage suddenly become upright walking half-breeds of dog and man within a few years? The answer is obvious, any honest geneticist would contend that this animal suffered from a loss of specific genes/cells in his DNA that was responsible for the development of the front legs, nothing more. Most likely, if/when this dog breeds, his/her puppies will come out just fine, natural selection.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"A Voice of Reason", I get a sense of anger. Calm down friend.
ReplyDelete:-)
"Obviously that's golden option "c" which we all would pick if it were viable. But I'm asking you to pick between option "a", a hard-line islamic theocracy and "b", a tolerent society which interfered in a person's personal/religious life as little as possible. Please select one of these, "a" or "b"."
ReplyDeleteIt is viable.
"I'm not going to argue evolution in detail with you. However, I surmise from what you have written that you are broadly ignorant of what it is, how it works, how scientific theories in general are tested, and the nature of the evidence supporting evolution. If I'm wrong, please correct me, let me know what you have studied maybe. And I hope I haven't offended you by suggesting this."
Not offended at all, it only demonstrates your ability to make extreme assumptions due to the fact that someone disagrees with your beliefs about evolution(your ideology).
I've done a great deal of study into Darwinian Evolution, Natural Selection, the chemical sciences, dating methods and in understanding the laws of Thermodynamics over the course of the last 3 years on my own. I don't profess to be an expert in either evolution or creationism, I do have a brain though and common sense to boot. Any honest thinking person who studies either will eventually realize that the notion of random processes generating real, useful, complex information is a mathematical impossibility. Keeping it simple, complex information has to come from more complex information. Evolution suggests otherwise.
"If I'm right..,"
You are not.
"..how wise is it for you to dismiss something you know so little about as not only false, but obviously false. The descent of man from hominids is, to you, ridiculous, yet I suspect you are not equipped to sensibly make such a judgement."
Once again you are being quite presumptuous, how wise is that? Why would I not be equipped to make such a judgement? Because I don't agree with your ideology?
"I have a decent layman's knowledge of evolution, and in some areas of genetics I might be considered an expert. In addition, I have read Genesis quite carefully. I know which one seems more plausable to me!"
You mean, which one you choose to believe in and which one you don't?
"Rather than debate evolution, which would be difficult given your various misunderstandings of it, how about we look at the account in genesis? Do you believe it literally, each "day" being 24 hours long, a genuine world-wide flood, a 6000 year old earth?"
Have I hit a nerve? That is three shots at my intelligence in a row. Amazing?
To answer your question, yes, I do believe in a literal 24hr. period during the 6 day creation cycle, a genuine global flood, and a young earth (I wouldn't put a number on it as many dating methods are flawed).
"If so, where did the dinosaur fossils come from?"
They came from dinosaurs...and you insult MY intelligence?
"Why do they appear to be so old?"
Poor dating methods, and a great deal of educatd guessing from the framework of millions of years. Also, they probably look old because they've been buried for a long time. :)
Question: How do you know what something looks like at 1 million years old, 100 million years old, 200 million years old?
"Did they live at the same time as men? -- if so why no record of them, not even in cave paintings? (as an incidental question, why do cave paintings look so old??)"
Apparently your claim to have read a good portion of the bible is false, for there are several references to dinosaurs in the book of Job, Psalms and in a few other places. There are also references, stories and the like of large creatures,i.e. leviathon, etc., from "ancient" Native American cultures, African cultures as well as many others. In so far as the cave paintings, revert back to the previous answer.
"How come light from stars many millions of light-years away has already arrived on earth? Why does the universe look so old???"
It looks old to those who already believe it is old. In so far as the star light question, how do you know that it took millons of years to get to earth, were you there at the beginning? One possible explanation is fluxuating light speeds, but once again, this is in relation to a young universe. This is an odd question to challenge me with given that it is an unresolved problem with Big Bang believers as well. They cannot reconcile how different parts of the universe have the same temperature, and how is it that the CMB has one constant temperature if it began through random processes, and based on Big Bang models, the temperature should have actually varied in different regions at the beginning. So how did all of these regions gain the same consistent temperature?
"If it looks old because God has deliberately made it look older than it is, *why did he do this*?"
Once again, you are oporating from an old universe premise without offering any substantial evidence as to why it is millions and not thousands. You assume that your view of evolution is correct.
"Has he buried aged dinosaur bones sniggering to himself "we'll see who believes in me now!"? It's just something that would worry me, a prankster God tricking me into rejecting a literal interpretation of the bible like that."
*laughing* - Oh, foolish person you are. You must be careful, in such language you demonstrate your apprehension and therefore reveal your true colors. You are afraid to let go of what you think is reason and logic. Evolution is an alternate faith for you because, in your mind, it gives you answers from a human framework rather than a Godly one. Which allows you to not have to worry about being accountable to anyone for your actions or behavior.
"However, it does not take faith of any kind fo believe in evolution, since it is entirely rational to believe it given the evidence."
What evidence? Where have you witnessed evolution today? I gave an example in another comment of a dog born without front legs. Is this evolution?
"Creationism, and your religion in general, necessarily requires faith on the part of the believer, since it is not a purely rational belief derived from our natural senses. (It may be rational in the light of spme personal revelation, but I don't know what God has said to you in private!)"
What makes evolution rational? Why is evolution a science when it hasn't been proven, cannot be demonstrated honestly, and doesn't fall under the scientific method of observation and experimentation? That is a faulty science sir.
"Well, I'm sitting here thinking and I'm not getting any evidence for creationism. What am I doing wrong?"
You aren't thinking, that is what you are doing wrong."
You are rationalizing your preconceived beliefs. That is not thinking.
"I'm interested particularly in your explanation for the apparent age of the earth and your preference out of options "a" and "b" in the Sudan. Thanks."
So far as the age of the earth, that depends on what dating method you want to use and what assumptions about the past you are willing to make. As for me, I don't have a date for the age of the earth, but I do know that it isn't millions of years old.
In so far as the Sudan question, I already answered that. If not to your satisfaction, well, too bad, I didn't know that this was a multiple choice blog. ;)
"My question regarding the Sudan had a purpose. Do you prefer a government to be wrong and restrictive (the Sudan's present situation); or wrong and permissive (America's current situation -- all from your point of view). I'd advocate the latter, since at least under such a government you are not prevented from personally living correctly.
ReplyDeleteIf you prefer the former (option "a"), then that would be very interesting to me, and I hope you will comment about that."
As I stated already, I've answered that question. I can see that you've answered it for yourself and me as well.
"I've done a great deal of study into Darwinian Evolution, Natural Selection, the chemical sciences, dating methods and in understanding the laws of Thermodynamics over the course of the last 3 years on my own."
Good, it's fun isn't it? Which books have you read?
"Any honest thinking person who studies either will eventually realize [evolution is impossible]..."
"This is simply not true. IS everybody who believes evolution occured either unthinking or dishonest?"
Yes.
"That's a serious charge, which on its own I reject; for one thing, I consider myself both honest and thinking. Especially honest."
Yes, it is serious and so true as well.
"Really? Why is this? Can you give me the full argument for this?"
Yes I can, but I will not here. But, I will say this, common sense dictates that a watch does not make itself nor does it come from a more primitive watch on its own.
"I'd like to know what the mechanism is which stops a random mutation of DNA from adding complexity to it. Most possible mutations would reduce complexity, but some will add to it. What stops those mutations from happening?"
Nothing stops it, yet with DNA the information was already present within it in order to add information. The reality is that all mutations detract from an organism, if there is any semblance to additional info then it is due to that info already being present within the DNA. This is not evolution.
"I'm not being presumptuous, I prefixed this with "if I'm right", which I know you noticed because you commented upon it separately."
I stand corrected.
"Because I don't believe you understand what it is that you reject as ridiculous."
What makes you believe that I don't understand?
"They weren't shots at your intelligence, I just didn't want to debate a subject which I sensed you weren't up to speed on. You tell me you are, so let's go."
What gave you that sense? Is it because I don't agree with evolution?
"I should say that it is you who habitually calls me a fool or foolish, and dismisses my beliefs as ridiculous. Have I hit your nerve?"
I never called you a fool, but I have said that your statments have been foolish, especially regarding Biblical topics. Hopefully, God willing, you will see how rediculous some of your comments here has truly been.
"What problem is there with carbon dating? (Is this problem so serious that we would get the age of the earth wrong by 4 orders of magnitude)?"
Yes it is that serious.
"re: dinosaurs
So you believe that men and dinosaurs coexisted on earth."
Yes, I do.
"I am aware of the large creatures mentioned a handful of times in the bible. Those moments are ambiguous."
So is evolution. What makes those moments ambiguous?
"Couldn't Job's Behemoth be an elephant, for example?"
Could it? Job 40:15-24 (NIV)
15 "Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes,
or trap him and pierce his nose?
...Tail like a cedar? Doesn't sound like an elephant to me. The last verse is even more telling, "Can anyone capture him by the eyes or trap him and pierce his nose?"
"Creatures spotted rarely and not dominating the world's ecosystem do not correspond with my understanding of the dinosaurs. They were so huge that you couldn't miss them, they contained the dominant species and as such would have impacted severely on human life. There wouldn't be anything in the bible about herding sheep, it would all be to do with avoiding the huge dinosaurs."
Once again, a foolish statement. How would you happen to know this as fact? You are speculating based on your ownn evolutionary ideas. There is no evidence to suggest that humans and dinosours did not or could not co-exist. In fact there is quite a bit to the contrary.
Much evidence suggests that people and dinosaurs lived together, not separated millions of years as evolution suggests, case in point, many historical accounts of living animals, such as ‘dragons,’ are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs. The account in Job 40 of behemoth sounds like one of the big dinosaurs, such as a Brachiosaurus. There are also unfossilized dinosaur bones, some of which even have blood cells in them. How could they be million years or more old? It is a stretch of the imagination to believe they are many thousands of years old let alone millions.
"Carbon dating seems pretty good to me. If you think the rate of decay of Carbon-14 has varied over time, and you have evidence for that, then present it; your nobel prize awaits."
"Well, you've got to ask yourself a few questions. Which is more likely, a fluctuaing light speed or a very old universe? (Bare in mind that because of the importance of the speed of light to the rest of physics, the nature of a star, or even the possibility of one might disappear or change if c were that much faster near the beginning of the universe. The light we receive from distant start shows those stars to have been quite regular when the light left them)."
"Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of science. The fact that there exists no complete and unified theory of physics does not make it sensible to abandon the whole subject."
I did not suggest abandoning the study of origins, I am suggesting abandoning the theory of evolution. It is not entirely unheard of to abandon a theory.
"We can't reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics -- are they both useless? No.
There remain unsolved problems in cosmology. It doesn't solve those problems to say the universe is just thousands of years young, and wriggle around with the speed of light and the rate of carbon-14 decay just to make the evidence fit with your pet theory. Have you heard of occam's razor?"
Yes.
My pet theory? Amazing! You fail to see the hypocrisy of your own logic. If you want to apply occams razor, then creation, compared to evolution would be the simplest of models, given that no further assumptions have to be made and actually makes the most sense given my original point, that information comes from more complex info.
"But I needn't demonstrate the Big Bang theory to you in order to argue that the universe is several times older than claimed by a literal reading of the Bible. I stand by carbon dating as adequate evidence to challenge such an interpretation of genesis. I can add the lack of evidence for a global flood -- such an event would scar our rock and still be clear. Must you introduce yet more miracles to explain it? Again, why would God cover His tracks?"
It seems you are on the defensive here. Calm down buddy, everything will be o.k.
In so far as relying on carbon dating, or any dating method for that matter, I am sure you are aware that no method is 100%, not even 90% accurate in that there are to many varibles to consider when using these methods, especially C14 dating, i.e. cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere, the affects of the industrial age putting pollutants into the air, the testing of the A-bombs, etc.
Once again, scientists use these methods and then interject their own presuppositons into the data to forma conclusion. So, if one already accepts millions of years as truth then everything, including dating methods, will be interpreted from that axiom.
"this could be construed as a shot at my intelligence."
Not your intelligence just your wisdom.
"I'm not apprehensive at all. If I were a Christian, and if I believed that God would judge me on the basis of my belief in Him, I would wonder why He created that looked so much like He never acted on it, and which contradicted His holy comminucation to us. As I don't believe in any of it it doesn't worry me at all, but I am interested in how you deal with it."
That really didn't make much sense, you should really calm down a bit. God doesn't judge us based on our belief in Him but based on our works as a result of our faith.
"As I've said before, it is not a faith, it requires no faith for a rational person to believe it. I'm not saying it's *definitely* true, I'm not calling you a fool for not believing it (or even irrational), I'm just saying it is a *rational* response to the evidence to believe evolution."
Yes it is faith, as I pointed out before, it takes a belief in millions of years, big bang, etc. in order to accept it. No it is not rational at all. Simple common sense dictates that point.
"Irrelevent. Besides which, I am accountable to people."
This is actually the whole point, evolution is an attempt to define man absent of God. This in turn will allow man to do as he pleases without excuse.
"The development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals."
Sorry, very bad example. Once again an example of natural selection, not evolution. One reason is that drugs wipe out all the non-resistant germs, so the most resistant germs survive and multiply. This leads to a whole population that’s resistant to antibiotics. Also, bacteria can pass on information to other bacteria, through loops of DNA called plasmids. Sometimes plasmids contain information for antibiotic resistance. Yet, keep in mind, the information was already present, so this is not evolution either.
"The broad range of dog breeds. I know you accept that they are all descended from wolves, so consider for a moment the difference between, say, a chiwowa (sp?) and a st bernard. Incredible. And that's over a comparatively tiny time-span."
I never stated that all dogs are descended from wolves.Another bad example. Loss of info.
"Well, evolution isn't really a single event, a single birth. Clearly, one species isn't going to give birth directly to an alien species. But over several generations one species can diverge into two or more. That is the process we talk about. It is a cumulative process, so a single birth, even of a bizarre individual such as in your example, is not itself evolution."
I agree, yet even over large spans of time there hasn't been any real, observable examples of evolution, specifically within people groups.
I've already been to the site, was not impressed. I think Mr. Rob pointed me there earlier.
Good work Jerry,
ReplyDeleteIn reading this thread, I keep thinking about Psa 14:1 ' The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.' The theory of evolution, then allows one to reassure themself that God need not apply Himself to the equation.
With regards to the comment about a lack of a unified theory, Occam's razor would suggest scrapping the hypotheses and start over with proven facts. Brillant scientist have struggled long and hard to get their formulas to jive with the supposition that the universe is millions of years old. Perhaps if they re-applied their research assuming that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, the numbers might start adding up. But to even go there, means having to knock down the elaborate house of cards that has taken decades to construct.
Poor analogy perhaps, but take 1+2+x=y, both x & y are unknown, yet if one assumes y=1 million, therefore x=999,997. However, what if the assumption is wrong and x is actually 6000?
When I run into situations like this, my M$ Excel program tells me that I have a circular error. Sometimes Excel will display what appears to be a solution, yet if the error is not corrected, problems will show up later when that "result" is plugged into other formulas. Infinity and eternity then becomes problematic when trying to calculate a finite universe.
On a similar tack, I think this is sort of what Arthur C Clarke gets at w/ his Space 2001 series. He realizes there are issues with prevalent theories, hence the introduction of extrateristrial intelligence that seed accelerated lifeforms and geological formations. Arthur, why not just come out and say it was God. :)
God bless,
Andy Foster
Thank you Mr. Foster, I appreciate your input.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Arthur C. Clarke, I agree wholeheartedly. Rather than abandon a theory that is not working an evolutionist will merely "plug in" the x factor by way of creating something more "plausible" to him/her other than God Himself. As in your example, he will simple make x whatever he wants it in order to get the answer desired, such is the case with dating methods as well as many other anomolies of the evolution theory. Hence we get alien lifeforms who planted the first seeds of evolution, yet no one can demonstrate any evidence to support such a foolish notion. Not only that but when challenged, one cannot even give a reasonable rationale as to why any lifeform, let alone aliens, would want to start a race of humans and then leave us to our own whims. In addition, no one can explain where in the heck did THEY come from! The only true answer lies in the word of God, which tells us that we have a loving God who created us because He loved us, that we may worship Him and give Him glory. Creation is an example of God's glory, love and sovereignty.
Jerry E McClellan Sr. said, "God doesn't judge us based on our belief in Him but based on our works as a result of our faith."
ReplyDeleteAre sure you are a "born again christian"? According to http://www.born-again-christian.info/faith.htm "Salvation is received by faith in Christ's finished work alone, apart from all good works and merit."
also see:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that NOT OF YOURSELVES; it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8, 9).
I happen to be a big fan of "works" and I think that there is plenty of "scripture" that advocates works, but you must not be very popular among the born-again crowd for suggesting that they help others to gain favor with God.
Didn't Jesus command you to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the homeless, comfort the imprisoned, visit the sick? see: Matthew 25:35-40 http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/25/35-40#35
"Are sure you are a "born again christian"? According to http://www.born-again-christian.info/faith.htm 'Salvation is received by faith in Christ's finished work alone, apart from all good works and merit.'"
ReplyDeleteRob, this is true, yet, you are defining one aspect of salvation and comparing it to something entirely different, judgment from God. Please read carefully so that you can understand.(all emphasis is mine)
1 Peter 1:17
Since you call on a Father who judges each man's WORK impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.
(Whole Chapter: 1 Peter 1 In context: 1 Peter 1:16-18)
James vs.22-24; 2:14-
Doers Not Hearers Only
22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.
Faith and Deeds
...14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder. 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Revelation 20
Final Judgment
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to WHAT THEY HAD DONE as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to WHAT HE HAD DONE. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
So you see, we will all be judged by our works that were done through our faith. We may be saved absent of works from ourselves, yet we are saved unto good works. In other words we are to act on our faith.
"I happen to be a big fan of "works" and I think that there is plenty of "scripture" that advocates works, but you must not be very popular among the born-again crowd for suggesting that they help others to gain favor with God."
You are correct Rob, to some so called Christians, I am not very popular at all. Including some members of my own family. Yet, you are incorrect in your surmise that I or scripture is suggesting that by encouraging works that we are helping others gain favor with God. Our works alone do not gain favor with God, it is our faith God through Jesus Christ that generates the works, and that brings on God's favor, just as the passage in James cites Abraham as an example of faith and works. To give a very rough analogy, think of it as a car without an engine, you cannot have one without the other, either by themselves are limited and ultimately, useless.
"Didn't Jesus command you to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the homeless, comfort the imprisoned, visit the sick? see: Matthew 25:35-40 http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/25/35-40#35"
Yes, and there are many Christian based organizations that do just that as well as many churches and local Christian community goups and individuals.
A Voice of Reason;
"Imagine an animal A with genome G. A mutation occurs, say the insertion of a nucleotide, transforming the genome to G'. According to you, G' must have less information than G. Now imagine the reverse mutation, from G' to G which would be the deletion of the nucleotide that was added. According to you, that mutation must reduce the information in G'. But oh no! We already know that G has more information that G'.
This is a proof by contradiction, and it shows that there is a problem with your assertion. NB what a proof looks like, and how different it is from a naked assertion.
Further more there are non-biological examples of natural selection and random mutations working together to spawn increasing information. For example circuits have been "bred" using programmable field arrays to distinguish between 1kHz and 100Hz electrical signals -- random circuits were supplied, and useful circuits emerged, in an entirely unguided process. To refer to your favourite watchmaker, I could breed a digital clock ciruit in the same way."
A Voice of Reason is it? You are doing just what you are accusing me of doing, making naked assertions based on your own premises. Especially in the last analogy of breeding a digital clock circuit, where did the initial "spark" originate? Using terms such as "introduce" or "programmable" demonstrates the very fact that it took already existing info, i.e. you, to first develop the hypothesis and then carry out an experiment by gathering materials that were already there, this demonstrates my point, complex info comes from more complex info. Your notions are as foolish as some scientists attempting to simulate the process of evolution, something from nothing, not realizing that the mere fact that they are the initiators of the experiment goes against the very process they are trying to prove.
As I said in another place, calm down and go read, then come back and we can have an intelligent and honest conversation.
"That wasn't the point of the analogy. It's no good you taking my comments out of context and complaining that they don't serve some purpose I didn't intend them to."
ReplyDeleteI havent' taken anything you've stated out of it's context.
"The initial spark is not what I wanted to illustrate, it was purely the idea that unguided evolutionary forces can produce increasingly complex organisms, and could actually build an increasingly accurate/versatile watch, contrary to your protestations about watches needing watchmakers."
I agree, that you merely intended to illustrate that some form of evolution occurs, yet you miss the point in my retort, mainly that in order for anything to change from "simple" to "complex" the information has to first be present within the original organism. So called evolotion cannot occur unless information is already present, DNA, so far as a species changing into another species, there is no real evidence to support this notion. Only the opinions of scientists.
"It is as if there is a car moving very slowly through the desert, so slowly that it is hard to tell that it is moving at all, although it is just discernable by taking careful measurements. Behind the car are tyre tracks disappearing into the distance. I claim to you that the car rolled to its current position, travelling at its slow rate over a long time; but you want to use the fact that I can't say exactly where it started or how it began to move, to claim that it was manifactured in its current position, set perhaps in slight motion by God and that He fabricated the tyre tracks for no obvious reason other than to trick me."
This is not evolution either, the car is not changing physically or becoming more complex, it is still a car whether it travels three feet or 30 feet. It's position may change, but that isn't evolution, i.e. from one species to another. Also, you still have to ask, what set it into motion, it would have to be a force greater than the car itself, i.e. strong wind, gravitational force if it is on a hill or slope.
"Evolution happens now. You know natural selection occurs, and you know that children differ slightly from their parents so variation occurs -- evolution is an unavoidable consequence of those two things. How could it *not* happen? Is there some process which stops variation from crossing over a species barrier? Can successive genreations of hares become ever more rabbit-like until they become more rabbit than hare, or
is there something which stops variation from moving in the rabbit direction? If so what??"
You cannot equate evolution with natural selection. Yes there is a process that stops one species from becoming another, that is called DNA. The DNA is pre-programmed to form a certain species, While variations can occur with a group, this is usually due to a loss of that DNA material or codes within the DNA tha have been turned on or off, i.e. the legless dog example. Now where does this programming come from?
"I am arguing only that evolution occurs and is driven by entirely natural forces. I'm not engaged in demonstrating abiogenesis (the first origin of life), or any cosmology."" What is your definition of "natural forces"?
Once again, it sounds more like you are contending that natural selection occurs but you are calling it evolution. They are not the same. I argue that creation is a natural force. Anything occuring in the natural world is a "natural" force.
"These scientists are so stupid aren't they!? They get grants (from your taxes!) to do experiments to reinforce their silly
preconceived notions and/or destroy the nation's trust in God."
No, not stupid, foolish. That is unfortunate that they are allowed to receive grants for such silliness, yet people get grants everyday for foolish endeavors, i.e. LAUSD receiving money to knowingly build a school on top of a toxic wast site, finishing the school, then deciding not to go forward with it's opening because the general public found out, yet no one repremanded, and the money wasn't given back. So government money goes towards foolish endeavors all the time.
"This experiment is not designed to show "something from nothing" -- that's too vague. It is designed to chemically simulate the early conditions of earth, and see what molecules arise without intervention(some amino acids if I remember right). What's the problem with that experiment?"
Yes, it is to demonstrate something from nothing. How can you simulate the early conditions of earth when you weren't there to witness them? You said to see what molecules arise without intervention, do you see the inconsistency of that statement? There is already intervention in that the experiment was initiated by an outside force, the scientist. Once again, the scientist is operating for preconceived notions of how the world began and where we all came from.
"DNA is not pre-programmed, in the same way that the circuits in the programable field arrays were not 'pre-programmed'"
ReplyDeleteHow do you know DNA is not pre-programmed? Where then does DNA get it's sequencing from to begin with to form a man vs. an ape, vs. anything else? As you stated, where do the "rules" come from, who or what decides them? And as you stated before, how does it know to stop or start for that matter? Sir, that is programming. Just because that programming includes room for variation and the loss of informattion doesn't mean that it is not pre-programmed, if anything, it demonstrates pre-programming. Such as the experiment, the entire process is set up and structured by the scientist to generate randomness, either by not including certain info or including an abundance of it in the initial spark and allowing the spark to continue on a randomized succession. That is programming. All of your examples and analogies suggest an intelligence that first "sparked" it's process. Arguing evolution happens begins to become silly in light of this fact, especially since all of what you have stated as examples of evolution are in actuality Natural Selection and variation. Your attempt to redefine evolution is lost as a combination of these two is weak. Check out this article regarding the notions of DNA among evolutionists and creationists
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0425dna.asp)
it explains the points that I have made here, that evolution is not based in any experimental, structured science, but is based on ones own ideology (there goes that word again) and therefore is a belief system, not a science. I notice that whenever I counter your examples or analogies I am accused of taking them out of context or to not have some basic understanding, and then you redefine what you meant in the first place. The reason for this is that we are arguing from two completely different world views and therefore our understandings of truth, right and wrong are diametrically opposed. Another good article on DNA is this one:
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp)
discussing the relativeness of the amount of info(chromosomes, DNA) in different organisms.
"Do you believe every mutation causes disability or sickness?"
No, but there are few if any that would be consdered improvement or increase of information. A case in point is in this article
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0719superbaby.asp)
talking about a "superboy" born with an unusually greater muscle mass and therefore is exceptionally stronger than most children that age (4 years). Yet, this is not necessarily an increase in information in that the muscle growth is due to a loss of a key protein that helps to regulate its growth, therefore the growth is really information out of control rather than an increase. This protein element was lost due to the variation that occurs in DNA. A gene from the mom and one from the dad combined in a certain way causes this "loss" to occur. You may still argue that this is an increase in info and is beneficial, yet, it may not be beneficial in that the growth is uncontrolled and unregulated which could require special medications for the rest of his life, as well as the risk of heart trouble later in life as pointed out in the article.
In so far as your skull "evidence" check out this link about skull findings and the truth about interpreting such information through different presuppositions about the past. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/skulls.asp)
So far as your other responses regarding natural vs. supernatural, your definition takes on a evolutionary nature in that it assumes that the result of supernatural intervention (God creating the universe) is not natural at all, from a creationist viewpoint. We don't know of creation just from divine revelation, we know of creation by merely looking out of our window and realizing what I've pointed out to you all along, to no avail, that it takes a designer to make a design. While you seem to want to avoid debating about origins but want to stay hung on evolutionary processes, your arguments fail in that it denies the very foundation of it's premise, if evolution happens, what started it's progression?
The fact that you see little reason to accept a literal interpretation of the bible doesn't surpise me. What does surprise me is that you seem to dismiss it just as assuredly as I have evolution. Have you done any extensive research in Biblical Hermeneutics?
In so far as the literal 24 hour period in Genesis, the word Yom is used, you are correct, and it can be used to convey a long period of time, that is correct as well, yet you fail to realize or acknowledge that in Genesis, Yom is preceded by numbers to signify a particlar, specific day in a sequence. When used in this manner, i.e. first day, second day, etc...the only proper interpretation is a literal 24 hr. day. Yom is used throughout the bible in this manner and when applied in this manner, always signifies a literal 24hr. day.
These posts are becoming circular in that I am not convinced from what you have presented, especially since it is information that I've seen before and is not proven but in the minds of those who already accept it as truth. The same can be said of my argument, and that is my point. You choose to believe what you believe, not based on any real evidence other than your desire to not acknowledge a divine beginning, hence your proclivity to not debate origins. I would advise that you check out my links, read them with an "open mind" and then re-read the bible, as I suggested before with an "open mind".
Then afterwards, accept Christ as your Lord and savior. : - )
I wonder what Voice of Reason would make of http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
ReplyDeleteIt is a MIT study entitled "On the Common Ancestors of All Living Humans"
---------------
Abstract
Questions concerning the common ancestors of all present-day humans have received considerable attention of late in both the scientific and lay communities. Principally, this attention has focused on ‘Mitochondrial Eve,’ defined to be the woman who lies at the confluence of our maternal ancestry lines, and who is believed to have lived 100,000–200,000 years ago. More recent attention has been given to our common paternal ancestor, ‘Y Chromosome Adam,’ who may have lived 35,000–89,000 years ago. However, if we consider not just our all-female and all-male lines, but our ancestors along all parental lines, it turns out that everyone on earth may share a common ancestor who is remarkably recent.
This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. Furthermore, the model indicates that nearly everyone living a few thousand years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no one or of all living humans.
-------------------------------
Genetically speaking, that common ancestor would be Noah and his 3 daugthers-in-law.
As for the analogy of the car. If no one witnessed its travel from the starting point, how would one know if it rolled, or if it was driven at high speed until it ran out of gas and now just coasting under its momentum. If a linear foot of tracks represent 100 years, the fact that the car is slowing down is next to imperceptable and can only be deduced by reference to landmarks.
However, going back to my earlier post about making X fit whatever ideology, one could mathematically "prove" that the same car is accelerating, constant or slowing down. Especially so, since that foot of travel is so small of a slice of time, that even the slightest fractional rounding error will produce drastic divergence in the time-space mesurement.
I think I mentioned in another topic that some scientists are wonder if E=MC2 is actually E=MC2 minus X, where X is a value that is somehow related to time. That Hawkins is revising his theories on black holes is telling of this problem in trying to finding the great and elusive unifying theory.
Does God "hide" His mysteries from us? Yes and no. The evidence of His works & therefore existance is there in plain sight, however in our sinful and "detuned" state, we are simply unable to wrap our minds around the wonders we see.
Again, due to our defective state, we ass/u/me that we know all and come to outrageously foolish conclusions to say there is no God, the stuff of life just happened with no input from anyone. The folly of man's heart can be great indeed.
A good example would be the Tower of Babel, who knows how high it actually got, but probably not very high relatively speaking, since at 10K feet, they would be debilitated by the low oxygen. Yet the punishment was not for what they achived, raTHer it was their intent. To think they could artificialy build themselves up to be greater than God, or at least equal to Him. God could have left them to continue to build until they were stopped by nature, however, He chose to smack them down.
Reading the above postings, VoR is striving to prove that classical evolution is more than a theorical possiblity, but continues to sidestep the issue of the spark of life. Both must go hand in hand, otherwise there is nothing.
God bless
Andy Foster
I apologize for the delay, haven't had much time over the past few days trying to work and take care of family. Also, thank you Mr. Foster for your comment, it was well put.
ReplyDeleteAs far as VOR (you really ought to change that hook).
"It need not be. I've seen programs, and I've seen DNA. It doesn't look programmed to me"
DNA doesn't look programmed to you because you refuse to see the programming. That is like saying the internet is not programmed.
"Do you mean to start or stop being mutated? That's the question I ask you, because I don't think it does.
Or do you mean to start and stop being expressed? Because that's well understood, and really, three years into investigating this science you should know. Please, tell me what you've been reading."
Here's a little nutshell of molecular biology. A gene is code for a protein. It is expressed when an enzyme can bind to the DNA just in front of the gene start site and copy the DNA onto another molecule called RNA, from which the protein can be built in a construction organelle called the "ribosome". (check out any of these words in google for more background).
So the gene can be "stopped" by some other molecule blocking the enzyme from binding with the DNA, or by interfering with the RNA on its way to the ribosome. Notice that the molecule which blocks the DNA enzyme is itself a protein, expressed by some other gene, so we see cascades of expression flowing through the genome."
Your use of technical jargon is impressive yet if you haven't read the links I supplied then why bother commenting here? The burden of proof lies with you and you have yet to prove anything. You are merely regurgitating what other "scientists" have deduced and have chosen to accept their conclusions. Not to mention you contradict yourself when stating "A gene is code for a protein", how is a gene "code" if it is not programmed? Where did this code come from?
"DNA encodes proteins..." (another contradiction), and provides binding sites for transcription factors. It does not encode the ways it may or may not be mutated -- it does not control what variation it will or will not allow, nor is it equipped to distinguish between "information" and "noise".
For the third time, what do you mean by the term "information"?
Why do you think t is not equipped to distinguish between information and noise, could it be that it is programmed that way?
"..which experiment are you slandering this time?
I'll ask this again too: do you have a quote supporting your theory that to "proove something from nothing" was the motivation for the early earth simulation?"
I don't need a quote to support my opinion, proving something from nothing is the ultimate point of such attempts.
I'll say this again: evolution definitely happens."
Such an absolute statement. How do you know? Have you seen it happen? How did it begin?
"The set of species living a million years ago are different from the set of species living today."
How do you know that they are different? What evidence demonstrates this? Were they more or less complex? In other words, did "ancient" peoples have technology? Did they know less about the world than we do now? You are doing the same thing that you accuse me of. Be careful.
Nonetheless, that was an interesting thread...
ReplyDeleteBottomline, believing in evolution is a faith based proposition. Whether it IS the true faith remains to be seen, let alone proven, no matter how it's sliced. Unfortunately for VoR, the God I believe in tells me otherwise as laid out in the Bible.
Andy Foster
You give up so easily VoR. You accuse me of not wanting to learn, yet you don't seem to be very open at all.
ReplyDelete"But, I will ask this one question. Can *you* tell *me* where the original spark is? What made God? Why does He exist? Does the fact that you can't answer that question reduce the worth of the bible and the church to nothing? Why not?"
That original spark is God Himself VoR. You ask where did God come from? If you have read the bible you would know sir, He is eternal, always was and is and will be forever. God is absolute.
"Here's a little nutshell of molecular biology. A gene is code for a protein. It is expressed when an enzyme can bind to the DNA just in front of the gene start site and copy the DNA onto another molecule called RNA, from which the protein can be built in a construction organelle called the "ribosome". (check out any of these words in google for more background).
So the gene can be "stopped" by some other molecule blocking the enzyme from binding with the DNA, or by interfering with the RNA on its way to the ribosome. Notice that the molecule which blocks the DNA enzyme is itself a protein, expressed by some other gene, so we see cascades of expression flowing through the genome.""
How does this demonstrate evolution (goo to you) rather than simple variation and natural selection? How is DNA formed and/or where does it come from?
What is your understanding of irreducible complexity? How do you reconcile this with evolution?
As I stated so many times before, the same evidence you cite for evolution, can and usually is cited for evidence of creation. Example, the website you reference in regards to the ape/human skulls is a disengenuous example given that there are evolutionists who disagree as to what they are as well. There have been changes put out as to how old certain human fossils are as well as whether they are human at all by evolutonists, why is that? Becuase both camps (evolutionists & crationists) are using the same evidence today to speculate about the past based on presupposed beliefs. As we are doing now, even though you imply to not to. Evolution is a belief system set in an unproven theory and cannot be proven or demonstrated.
Creation is demonstrated by the simple fact that we as humans exist as intelligent beings. We have the ability to create beyond ourselves but are still bound by the natural laws of this world. While many perceive nature as being chaotic, it is in actuality quite ordered, i.e. trees taking in Co2 and emitting O2, humans breathing in O2 and out Co2. If we are products of some incidental, random process of "nature" then who is to say that the great works of Shakespeare aren't just random acts of jibberish? How do we know that any intelligent thought or truth we have is valid, if our minds are mere products of biological randomness?
One final question VoR, can truth be absolute?
Being from Holland and under the impression that the USA was one of the few if not the only western country where the christian culture wasn't undermined by the islam, i was shocked by your comment. The fact that matters are even worse here in Europe is not making things better for you, i guess. We have dealt with muslim immigrants( predominantly form Marocco and Turkey) since the sixties and bit by bit they have taken over the public life in the big cities. In Rotterdam and Amsterdam they already form 40% of the population. They refuse to adept to our culture and engage in criminal activities ten times as much as the average dutchmen. Churches are being teared down and mosques arise fatser than you can imagine. In 2015 they will be the majority. In the meanwhile the government closes its eyes for the problems and denying the problem alltogether. I am afraid that this is what you can expect as well. However, i don't see a big conspiracy against christians, i think that the problems we have now follow directly from the christian viewpoints of equality, forgiveness and turning the other cheek. They may be very wise and maybe divinely true, but when opposed to a religion that has revenge and introspection as their main characteristics, they might not hold. While we are all individualists and think for ourself, as a good christian is supposed to, they feel connected to every single one of their 'brothers and sisters' who share the same faith. For example: why are muslims all over the world so concerned about the Palestinians? Only because they are muslims. They don't care about people suffering in North-Korea or Rwanda. They only care about theur own. Do we do anything for christians in Indonesia, Sudan and Nigeria that are being slaughtered? No. Only when there are economic or strategic interests.
ReplyDeleteIf things keep evolving the way we are, we are going to be the first dominant civilization that is defeated, not by a more sophisticated and cicilized culture but by one who puts the world bakcwards hundreds of years. We will be defeated by our own altruism. How are we supposed to combat with people who are so motivated and and stupid as to set fire on thier own sisters and wives when they have been raped? Our prosperity has made us weak. We have too much to lose, while they are as fundamentalistic as we were in medieval times. How can we compete? This is something that worries me very much. To cut a long story short, my question is: do we need to reset our christian guidelines and adapt to a wolrd in which they appear to be in adequate?
"do we need to reset our christian guidelines and adapt to a wolrd in which they appear to be in adequate?"
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading my blog and taking the time to comment. With all due respect, I disagree with your assertion. A proper Christian world view is one rooted in God's word and grounded in reality, therefore, it is not altruistic or inadequate at all. The notions of turning the other cheek, etc. as you mentioned are misconstrued by many believers and non-believers alike. The Lord never intended us to turn a blind eye to evil or sin for the sake of unity. Even Paul the apostle admonished the saints in his day to put out the brother among you who continues in sin. Keep in mind that worshipping another god other than the true living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. While it is true that the notions of freedom are inspired by scripture, we must keep in mind that the principles found in the constitution are developed by fallible men and therefore are fallible as well, this is evident in the points brought up in this string, as well as in many other areas.
I think what has to happen is we as men and women of God have to begin to stand up boldly to the world without wavering and profess the truth of God's word. It may not turn the tide, but it will allow for great works to take place in the name of the true and living God.