|
|
| |||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 13-Jul-21, 16:52 |
 Responses to Advocates of Darwin’s Garbage Theory<<Basically, it accepts 'micro-evolution', but calls this 'natural variation within species. He includes different-shaped beaks on birds as such a 'natural variation'. Somehow he never bothers to explain why birds with differently-shaped beaks (e.g., eagles and parrots) are not able to breed, even though he explicitly mentions this aspect of speciation.>> The beaks cited within the article referred to finches, not all birds. Here is the statement from the article: “Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.” <<In science, observation of the predicted consequences (or failure to observe the predicted consequences) is considered an 'observation', to which data a tight intellectual assessment is then applied. What 'observations' are offered to support Creationism? As far as I have read, the answer is 'Zero'. Nor have I seen any 'predicted consequences' that can be considered 'testable'.>> Nowhere does the FIAT FLUX III member state what the “observation of the predicted consequences” of Darwin’s theory are. Surely he is not referring to the fossil record. I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but Darwin himself made this observation in his book On the Origin of Species: “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." How many “intermediate varieties” or transitional fossils have been found? Darwin thinks the number should be “truly enormous.” Is it? I’m not referencing creationism at all - nor should you. Let Darwin’s theory stand or fall on its own. But surely you know eyewitness accounts exist of Jesus Christ *after* His Resurrection. Surely you know Jesus Christ’s Resurrection is falsifiable (if His body were found in the tomb.) And there is at least some scientific test available on the Shroud of Turin, which is believed to be Jesus Christ’s burial cloth. As far as I know, scientists are still stumped as how the image on the Shroud was created. And no, the carbon dating done on the Shroud of Turin did not prove it to be from centuries after Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection. My understanding is the carbon dating test was done on a section of cloth that was rewoven after the Shroud was damaged in a fire. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Jul-21, 17:07 |
But I will respond to what you quoted in one of my messages to you, which was: <<"...you don’t take your faith seriously. I don’t want you in this club.">> That statement was in direct response to your comment to me that you didn’t know if the founder of FIAT FLUX III was justified in comparing me to Satan because you were still “gathering data” on me. To compare any human being to Satan is quite a stretch, and the FIAT FLUX III founder specifically stated why he compared me to Satan (nonsensical and flimsy though his reason was.) That you would view Satan (the real one, not me) in such a lighthearted and frivolous way told me you didn’t take your faith seriously. This has nothing to do with any feud. I’m simply providing reasons I think Darwin’s theory is garbage. I’m not talking about creationism like you are. I’m not questioning motives or making false statements or assumptions like you are. I’m simply providing reasons I don’t believe Darwin’s theory and don’t think it’s credible. If you want to get personal, that’s fine. But the fact you didn’t say why I wrote that excerpt from my message tells me you’re being underhanded and deceptive. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Jul-21, 17:14 |
And not only do I identify the article from which I am quoting but the author of that article provides sources for his statements and conclusions, which are scientific journals and publications. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 13-Jul-21, 17:33 |
<<1. I would like to know what theory he is advocating, if not some form of Creationism. If I have misunderstood his position, I will apologise.>> I’m not advocating any theory, nor should I have to. I’m questioning Darwin’s theory. Why do advocates of Darwin’s theory always want to interject creationism into the discussion. Can Darwin’s theory not be scrutinized on its own? <<2. Darwin's theory has changed a lot since Darwin first promulgated it. That's what science does; it tests, and on the basis of those results and observations it modifies. Proving Darwin 'wrong' means nothing, because evolutionists since Darwin have already done that many times over.>> Darwin’s central belief - that one species can turn into another species - has never changed. <<But instead, Flux put forward a lengthy quote from Darwin in which Darwin himself remarked on the scarcity of fossils. And so it was, 150 years ago. That is still true now.>> Really? How many fossils have been found? How many of the discovered fossils are from transitional forms, or what Darwin called “intermediate varieties?” Darwin said the number of fossils representing intermediate varieties should be “truly enormous.” Is it? <<Fossilisation is extremely rare, relying on a rare combination of circumstances and events. Most dead animals are consumed, bones and all. We have to work with the information we have, not the information we don't have.>> Let’s put numbers on these statements. How many is “extremely rare?” What percentage of that number is intermediate varieties or transitional forms? <<To conclude; I would like some clarification as to what theory is being advocated, if not Creationism.>> No theory is being advocated. I’m simply raising objections to Darwin’s theory. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Jul-21, 03:49 |
Denier of Darwin’s theory of evolution: “Here are some of my objections to Darwin’s theory.” Supporter of Darwin’s theory: “Let’s talk about creationism.” |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Jul-21, 09:20 |
Denier of Darwin’s theory of evolution: “Here are some of my objections to Darwin’s theory.” Supporter of Darwin’s theory: “You’re a fanatic. It’s not worth discussing with a fanatic.” |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Jul-21, 09:56 |
Are there eyewitnesses to the Resurrected Christ? Yes, and they went to their deaths rather than deny they saw Him alive after His crucifixion and entombment. Are there eyewitnesses to Darwin’s central claim, that one species can turn into another species? No. Was the Resurrection of Jesus Christ falsifiable? Yes. Had His body been found in the tomb that obviously would have invalidated His Resurrection. Is Darwin’s theory of evolution falsifiable? By their own admission, supporters of Darwin’s theory say any developments that seem to contradict the theory (and there already have been plenty) mean the theory must be modified. Note the fanaticism - the theory is believed to be true no matter what. Are there experiments that can be done to determine if Jesus Christ’s Resurrection took place? Yes. I know of at least one and it involves the Shroud of Turin, which some Christians believe is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. As far as I know, scientists still cannot explain how the image appeared on the cloth. Here are excerpts from a 2015 article that was published by the BBC: “On Sunday, Pope Francis will "venerate" the famous Shroud of Turin, which is thought by some to be the burial wrapping of Jesus Christ - and by others to be a medieval fake. Whatever it is, it's a mystery how the cloth came to bear the image of a man. Science writer Philip Ball discusses the theories.” “But regardless of the continuing arguments about its age (summarised in the box near the bottom of this page) the Shroud of Turin is a deeply puzzling object. Studies in 1978 by an international team of experts - the Shroud of Turin Research Project (Sturp) - delivered no clear explanation of how the cloth came to bear the faint imprint of a bearded man apparently bearing the wounds of crucifixion.” “According to an international team of scientists and other interested folk called the Yahoo Shroud Science Group, hypotheses about the genesis of the shroud ‘involving the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be rejected’. Among them, the group members write, ‘are hypotheses correlated to an energy source coming from the enveloped or wrapped Man, [and] others correlated to surface electrostatic discharges caused by an electric field’. Since these hypotheses appear to invoke processes unknown to science, which presumably occur during a return from the dead, it's technically true that science can't disprove them - nor really say anything about them at all. Some, however, are not deterred by that. Italian chemist Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua has proposed that the image might have been burnt into the upper layers of the cloth by a burst of ‘radiant energy’ - bright light, ultraviolet light, X-rays or streams of fundamental particles - emanating from the body itself. Fanti cites the account of Christ's Transfiguration, witnessed by Peter, John and James and recounted in Luke 9:29: ‘As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.’ This is, to put it mildly, rather circumstantial evidence. But Fanti suggests we might at least test whether artificial sources of such radiation can produce a similar result on linen.” www.bbc.com Are there experiments that can be done to determine if Darwin’s theory of evolution is true? Yes. Scientists have been attempting to prove Darwin’s central claim - that one species can turn into another species - in the lab with bacteria and fruit flies, which have very short generational spans. So far, nothing. See Part 1 in the thread, “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage.” |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Jul-21, 17:38 |
Seems a member of FIAT FLUX III and “rusted-on” Christian (according to his profile page) is now going the route of personal insults because I prefer to stick to discussing the theory of evolution and not an alternative theory. Here’s his post (in brackets) with my responses afterwards. <<Flux has posted three times since I put the question to him "What are you advocating in place of Evolution?" He has not even attempted to address this question. Instead he has a) accused me of diverting the topic to Creationism, even though my post specifically asks WHAT his theory is, if not Creationism;>> Right. Because I want to discuss the theory of evolution. <<and b) accused me of dismissing his posts without addressing their substance, which any reader will see is false.>> If you think you’ve adequately addressed the first two entries in the “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” thread, that’s obviously your opinion. I just disagree. I don’t think you adequately addressed those posts at all. But I’ll be making many more posts in that thread so perhaps you can have another go at it. <<But look on the bright side! He gave me the opportunity to outline (post 23:10) what the Doctrine of Creation REALLY means. Many exchanges ago he asked (I think he meant this to be 'cutting') why I don't present a Christian message to 'all my atheist mates'. It seems I'm able to do that quite often,>> Really? The reason I asked you that question is to find out if you were ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Discussing the “Doctrine of Creation” is quite different than discussing (or even mentioning) Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the cross. You enthusiastically told me in a PM that you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and what His crucifixion and Resurrection accomplished for mankind. But I don’t believe in the many months I read these forums before re-joining GK I ever once saw you mention Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ - not the “Doctrine of Creation” - is central and unique to Christianity. Surely you don’t think discussing creation in Genesis and how it’s really symbolic is central to Christianity. Islam and Judaism also accept Genesis. Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death and Resurrection and the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit in those who have accepted Christ are what Christianity is all about. I don’t recall you ever talking about any of that. <<while he can do no more than link the Name to his own preferred brand of ignorance and evasion.>> And here are the insults. You seem (as I noted in a PM to you) to insult only Christians on here. Not once have I seen you insult an atheist (and you’ve had plenty of reasons to.) You no doubt recall my concern that your interest in joining this club was just to rabble rouse and insult me to impress your atheist pals. Seems that concern was spot-on. <<Good-bye, Professor Flux!>> It’s not good-bye. It’s only so long. <<Let me know when you are prepared to play a constructive role, perhaps even propose a replacement for Evolutionary Theory.>> So I’m not being constructive in raising objections to Darwin’s theory and wanting to stick to Darwin’s theory? <<Or anything, for that matter. I sincerely say that I would welcome anything you can put on the table, supported by scientifically-credible evidence.>> Sure thing. I plan to discuss creationism *after* Darwin’s theory. Why are supporters of Darwin’s theory so afraid to discuss it? |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Jul-21, 23:04 |
It’s obviously going to take time to read through this rebuttal and offer comments, but I am curious as to why the author is apparently unknown. Not that it really matters but it is kind of odd (unless I missed his or her name.) His/her name isn’t on the article nor is it on his/her website (the url of which is at the bottom of the article.) It’s also kind of regrettable that the rebuttal doesn’t contain more citations or references to support what the author is claiming. Mr. Fischer’s article is replete with citations to scientific publications and journals. I think the use of citations is important because not all scientists agree on what is fact and what is not fact in the theory of evolution. And the use of citations/references becomes even more important when the author of a scientific paper is anonymous. Again, maybe I missed his or her name but I didn’t see it on the article or the author’s website. I was also a little disappointed that the author of the rebuttal did not address “orphan genes” that Mr. Fischer wrote about. Unless I missed it in skimming the rebuttal, I didn’t see the author address that point, which seems extraordinary if Mr. Fischer’s description of them and their presence and origin is accurate. But I look forward to reading the article more diligently and again thank the founder of FF3 (is this less objectionable than spelling out the name?) for finding it and posting it. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Jul-21, 23:28 |
In looking at other posts in your attack thread on me - BTW, you don’t know how much it warms my heart to see a thread entitled “We Love the Holy Bible” next to your name and the name of your club - I see you’re now comparing me to hell. First you compared me to Satan (for which you apologized, obviously quite insincerely) and now you’re comparing me to hell. I don’t know which is worse! But it is amusing you compared me to an entity you don’t believe exists and to a place you don’t believe exists. Well I think you’re a gargoyle living in the Enchanted Forest! |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Jul-21, 10:28 |
<<Professor Flux now criticises criticism against John Michael Fischer on the basis that there were no citations.>> I didn’t say there were no citations in the rebuttal that you posted. I simply said I wished there were more, *especially because the author of the rebuttal is anonymous.* <<I agree, but I have not found the original work by Fisher anywhere, nor any reference to who he is or his credentials. Could we not start from that?>> Sure, here is a link to his article. www.newgeology.us I’d say the credentials of someone who is extensively citing and quoting from scientific publications is much less important than someone who is rarely quoting from them as is the case with the anonymous author of the rebuttal. <<It is normal practice when referring to somebody's work to cite the source of that work.>> I agree and I did cite the source of that work. I just forgot to provide a link, an oversight that has now been remedied. I look forward to offering comments and thoughts on the rebuttal but will be limiting them to sections of the rebuttal that cover what I posted from Mr. Fischer’s article. It appears the author of the rebuttal wrote the rebuttal in order (from top to bottom of Mr. Fischer’s article) so that shouldn’t be hard to do. Hopefully will be able to start tonight. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 16-Jul-21, 19:17 |
It appears the anonymous author of the rebuttal (a link to which was posted by the founder of FIAT FLUX III) is responding to the Fischer article from top to bottom. I’m only going to offer comments on parts of the rebuttal that address parts of the Fischer article I’ve already posted. Let’s begin. The rebuttal is in brackets followed by my comments: <<Lie number 1: the fact that new information is added to the gene pool is established, observable FACT.>> I would love to see a citation or reference on this statement because the “established, observable FACT” appears to be in dispute. Here’s what Fischer’s article says: “The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory. As Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book "The Way of the Cell" published by Oxford University Press, "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Evolutionists often say "it evolved", but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.” Fischer’s article also quotes Francois Jacob, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965, as writing, "Evolution does not produce novelties from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one." "During chemical evolution in prebiotic times and at the beginning of biological evolution, all those molecules of which every living being is built had to appear. But once life had started in the form of some primitive self-reproducing organism, further evolution had to proceed mainly through alterations of already existing compounds. New functions developed as new proteins appeared. But these were merely variations on previous themes. A sequence of a thousand nucleotides codes for a medium-sized protein. The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero. In organisms as complex and integrated as those that were already living a long time ago, creation of entirely new nucleotide sequences could not be of any importance in the production of new information." Granted, 1965 was a long time ago, and 1977, when Jacob wrote that statement, is also a long time ago. But Franklin Harold’s statement in 2001, which essentially says the same thing, is much more recent. Where is the experiment that proves evolution adds new information to the gene pool? Until that experiment is cited, I don’t think an unsourced statement by an anonymous author carries water. Maybe what the author of the rebuttal wrote is true, but, if it is, he (or she) should have backed it up by citing the experiment that demonstrated it. <<OK, so the majority of mutations are bad, or have no effect, but some do not. Actually, even a bad mutation is technically "new information" in the way the author means it - just because it is bad information, that doesn't stop it being new.>> I feared this was the case - just as there is controversy (and shifting definitions) over what constitutes a species, so too there is apparently not a universally accepted definition for “new information” in the gene pool. <<(Is Scientology not a new religion just because it is bad?)>> I don’t think this is a good analogy at all. Human beings, as intelligent creatures, are capable of adding “new information” to the world in which we live. But Darwin’s theory is not guided by intelligence - it’s just random mutations (most of which are bad or have no effect) and natural selection. <<Natural selection is the force that acts on these new mutations, generally purging the population of the negatives and, in the right circumstances, facilitating the spread of the (much rarer) good ones.>> Sure, so a “much rarer” advantageous mutation survives in future generations while disadvantageous ones cause the recipients of the disadvantageous mutations to die out. <<If all variation was "already in the gene pool" then it would quickly be lost through natural selection and genetic drift and then there would be none left.>> Huh? So the rebuttal author seems to be saying, “If all variation were ‘already in the gene pool,’ the theory of evolution wouldn’t work. Therefore, all variation cannot already have been in the gene pool because the theory of evolution is correct.” This seems like a pertinent part of the Fischer article that the rebuttal author did not address (unless I missed it.) “What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.” I’ll be continuing to cite (and offer comments on) the rebuttal until I’ve posted all sections of the rebuttal that pertain to sections of the Fischer article I’ve posted. But my takeaway from the first paragraph of the rebuttal is, If new information being added to the gene pool is “established observable FACT” as the rebuttal author says, back it up. What’s the experiment that proves that? The rebuttal author provides no backup for that statement. Maybe it is true. But until evidence (via an experiment) is provided that proves it’s true, I don’t think any reasonable person can conclude it is true. Also, how to explain this paragraph from the Fischer article? “What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.” Maybe the rebuttal author addressed that point from Fischer, but I didn’t see it. And my understanding was he (or she) was responding to the Fischer article in order. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Jul-21, 04:30 |
I gave my source in the initial post. I stated the title of the article and the name of the author of that article in the initial post. You are being purposefully deceptive in saying I “finally gave the source.” <<I am glad that the Professor finally gave the link to the source of his wisdom.>> As stated, I gave the title of the article and author of the article from which I quoted excerpts in the initial (and subsequent) posts. I didn’t realize Googling with that information to find the article would be such a burden. When I realized you needed a link. I provided it. <<It is a truy amazing and very long expose,>> I agree. And I would add it is well sourced. <<To me it is still a great question mark as to who is the author of that 'article'. It is posted on the web, but certainly not in any scientific journal with peer review. In this sense, it is asking much from an average reader whether to trust it at all.>> The author of the rebuttal to that article, which you posted, is anonymous. Not only does the author of the rebuttal which you posted not identify himself (or herself) in the article you posted, he (or she) does not identify himself (or herself) on his (or her) website, which is also not a “scientific journal with peer review.” Further, the anonymous author of the rebuttal which you posted uses very few citations or references to support his (or her) statements, while the named author of the article I posted uses (if memory serves) close to 50 citations of scientific journals and publications. It is truly astounding that you can question the trustworthiness of an article (which I posted) that has a named author and dozens of citations and references to scientific publications and yet not question the trustworthiness of an article (which you posted) that has an anonymous author and very few references to scientific publications. And is also not in a “scientific journal with peer review.” |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Jul-21, 04:40 |
I also await a response to this paragraph from the article which I posted: “What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.” |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Jul-21, 07:16 |
Not really sure why the credentials of the author are of such concern to you when he has provided nearly 50 citations and references to scientific publications. I don’t believe these points are the same. And while you’re obviously free to characterize the outcome of a prior debate any way you choose, your implication that I vanished due to “losing” the debate is false. I left GK at the time because I was sick of the insults and harassment from you and members of your club. In less than two weeks since I re-joined GK, you’ve compared me to Satan and hell, have said I’m mentally ill and have said I’m bigoted, all of which are obviously false. And what did I do to deserve those insults? I called the theory of evolution “garbage,” which it is, and I chose as my screen name “Fiat Flux.” And those two things apparently so offended you that you blew a gasket. I would suggest that you have more of an open mind to criticism of Darwin’s garbage theory and not take your club so seriously. We’re not solving the world’s problems on here. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Jul-21, 07:22 |
But it would be nice to have responses to the two points I mentioned above, namely what experiment (with a citation) determined new information can be added to the gene pool by evolution and how does an evolutionist address this paragraph from Mr. Fischer’s article: “What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.” |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Jul-21, 10:36 |
Sorry to hear that. <<since you 1) don't accept that I apologised for the 'Satan comparison', and 2) never said you are mentally ill.>> You didn’t write this? <<We all have one or even a few screws loose. That's normal and makes many of us interesting and different from others. This is something completely different. A different category. I am sorry for not having realised that before I wrote those two first posts in this thread, so I deleted them. Unfortunately, I doubt there is a cure, and for purely humane reasons I hope that this expansive, active, happy phase will last.>> Your “apology” for comparing me to Satan was that you didn’t realize at the time that I was mentally ill. That’s some apology - kind of along the lines of, “I regret calling you a moron. I didn’t realize you were brain dead at the time.” And your apology was obviously insincere since you compared me to hell a short time later. <<On the other hand, you (of course) completely forget what you did to me in your earlier incarnations.>> It’s hardly worth revisiting but I was far less tolerant of insults and harassment back then, which you and your club members dished out in spades. <<Something you even apologised for at one point,>> If that’s the case, it was due to how upset you became. <<but then continued in the same vein.>> Unprovoked of course. <<From my point of view, you can keep your claims about evolution, or stuff them somewhere. I see absolutely no reason to continue the exchange,>> This is what usually happens when one is unable to post a substantive reply and realizes the insults and personal attacks aren’t derailing substantive queries. <<which I should not have entered anyway. I apologise that I was drawn into it once again.>> I suspect if you could post a substantive reply to those two queries listed above you would. And I’m not asserting Mr. Fischer’s conclusions are correct, though they are based on science and scientific literature. I suspect the first query hinges on the definition of “new information.” The second query appears to be more difficult to answer. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Jul-21, 21:22 |
If you read this post, I ask you to consider it. It is written to help and give you something to consider. In Matthew 6:24 You have seen it written a "man cannot serve two masters" This goes for anything we decide to serve. Matthew the apostle was formerly a tax collector, who was freed from the bonds of this world, left all he had and became an apostle. He also laid down his life for the faith. Did he rail against people? No he preached the gospel . The full verse is this... “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. I submit to you sir that you cannot both serve your own ego and God. No more than a man can both serve money and God. As the key phrase in that verse is "No one can serve two masters" I know that it isn't easy when one feels like they have been insulted. But it is your ego that takes offence. It is not easy to keep ones thoughts and ego captive. However until we do we are never really free. Please don't major in Minor things. I know that you have a strong heart for the lord. So I say this for your benefit. I hope you consider these words. It would be easier for me to say nothing. I wish you well.>> You posted something a few years back that struck me as odd at the time but I’ve come since then to more and more appreciate it. I don’t have the motivation to look for it, so will paraphrase, but I remember it as you relating how the Lord asked you at a moment in your life how you felt and when you responded about events you anticipated in the future, He replied, “No, how do you feel right now.” I’ve since come to appreciate that - the importance of the present - because I sometimes find myself worried about some future event, with that event and the consequences of that event occupying my mind, when, before I know it, I’m in that event and the consequences have no relation to what I imagined. Which brings to mind this verse from Matthew: “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (Matthew 6:34) The reason for this long preamble is I respect what you have to say and will certainly consider it. It is easy to become consumed and overly attentive to the things of this world, and ego and responding to slights, whether real or imagined, is part of that. I purposefully did not pay for a year’s membership on here when I rejoined because I figured I wouldn’t be here that long and it would be cheaper to pay monthly, But I’m glad you’re still here and wish you well also. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 18-Jul-21, 08:59 |
It might be helpful, if your members have decided to engage in a debate on Darwin’s theory, to start a separate thread for that and save the thread created to attack me and my club for its original purpose. If you’re just continuing with the lies, misrepresentations, insults and hate, sorry to disappoint, but I’m no longer reading that bilge or (obviously) responding to it. Life’s too short, fellas, and there are far better things to do 👋 🤗 |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 18-Jul-21, 17:09 |
But I welcome responses to those two queries and the latest installment in the thread on here “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage,” which looks at whether the fossil record supports the theory of evolution. To refresh memories, here are the two queries: 1) What experiment (with a citation) determined new information can be added to the gene pool by evolution? 2) How does an evolutionist address this paragraph from Mr. Fischer’s article: “What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.” I’ll continue to offer thoughts in the near future on the anonymous, thinly-sourced rebuttal article to Mr. Fischer’s article. Peace out! ✌️ |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 19-Jul-21, 18:44 |
But I was pleasantly surprised to see that wasn’t the case. I also appreciate stalhandske’s post, which I’ll quote and respond to below. I saw this post from stalhandske for the first time a couple of hours ago and appreciate his reaching out to his colleague and posting his colleague’s statements. I also appreciate his (more sincere) apology for comparing me to Satan. In a reciprocal gesture of good will, I will be changing my screen name in the next day or two. Since GK only allows one screen name change per year, I need time to think of a good one. Anyway, here are my thoughts on stalhandske’s post, which came right after the last post I read in that thread (from apatzer) a few days ago. <<I won't address the old stuff any further as it is useless.>> Agree. <<I'll just say that I am sincerely sorry that I kind of compared you with satan, just because of the malicious way you again re-entered GK.>> Yes, it was certainly malicious, and I’m not saying that sarcastically. In my defense, I had been thinking about rejoining GK for quite a while (few months) and when I finally did, it was on an evening when I was enjoying some adult beverages ( 🍺 🍻 🍺) and my judgment and sense of decorum were off. <<In my book, calling evolution theory garbage is something only an ignorant idiot would say,>> I do think the theory of evolution is seriously (maybe fatally) flawed as a way to explain the complexity of life, but I agree that it makes sense as a way to explain changes within a species. But I don’t think it’s credible as a way of explaining one species changing into an entirely separate and distinct species. (More on that later.) <<or, somebody who wants attention and wants it badly.>> I do like attention (my horoscope is Leo after all,) but I certainly don’t want or enjoy attention that takes the form of insults, false characterizations of what I have said and believe, and personal attacks. <<You clearly focussed your re-entrance on me by taking that username - one that you used in the past to ridicule my Club. No, please don't deny this, it is so obvious.>> Yes, I chose that username to tweak you and wouldn’t have done so had it not been for 🍺 🍻 🍺. But I’ll be changing it in the next couple of days. <<The only reason I am continuing discussions with you (against my better knowledge) is my devotion to science and responsibility. Science can and has to take criticism - that is an intrinsic, normal, part of it.>> I totally agree. Where you and I disagree is, I don’t think the theory of evolution is science. Its central hypothesis - that one species can change into another species through evolution - has never been scientifically demonstrated (as far as I know,) and a crucial, indispensable part of the theory - that evolution can add new information to the gene pool - also has not been demonstrated (as far as I know.) Those are two pretty big parts of the theory that have never proven to be true (to the best of my knowledge.) I could spend all day explaining how I could fly across a canyon with homemade wings and show drawings of the homemade wings with calculations related to wind speed and aerodynamics, but until I actually do it, people shouldn’t assume I can do it. <<It is NOT like a belief or faith as you have suggested. THAT applies to your thinking only.>> There is evidence that supports the Resurrection of Jesus Christ - see the thread in this club entitled, “15 Logical Reasons To Believe The Resurrection.” But you’re correct that science can never prove God exists, nor did God intend it to (see Hebrews 11:6.) It’d make no sense to me if an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God could be understood or proven by the human mind, especially since human beings have virtually no experience with the spiritual realm (if they even believe it exists.) <And I certainly wouldn’t (and don’t) expect a point-by-point refutation of Mr. Fischer’s article, which, as you know, is extremely long.> <<I still think it is important to learn Mr. Fisher's credentials. Yes, he has cited several well-known scientists (see below), but then drawn his own conclusions. Of course, he has the full right to do so, but to do it in a 'back chamber' unavailable to criticism is suspicious! I posted one objection but did that only because it was the only one I found on the web. I hardly even read through it.>> I’ll try to find his credentials before the week ends, but I don’t think it’s as important as you do as he is citing nearly 50 scientific publications. For example, reporters who write about crimes aren’t police officers or criminals, and reporters who write about politics aren’t politicians. They’re relaying information they have learned from authorities in those fields - and hopefully relaying it responsibly. <But it would be nice to have responses to the two points I mentioned above, namely what experiment (with a citation) determined new information can be added to the gene pool by evolution and how does an evolutionist address this paragraph from Mr. Fischer’s article: “What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.” > <<To say 'what evolutionists do not want you to know' is already a completely unfair accusation, and sets the entire stage of the 'discussion'. Killing it!!>> To say that statement is unfair is understandable, but to say it kills the discussion, I think is an overreaction. To be continued… |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 19-Jul-21, 19:31 |
Just for the purpose of trying to keep this a reasonable discussion, I sent an enquiry to Frank Harold, who was quoted by 'Prof Flux'. Frank is now 92 but clearly still very sharp and scientifically active. He wrote back:>> Thank you for reaching out to him. Just to clarify, though, I was quoting Mr. Fischer quoting Frank Harold (not sure if his title is Mr. or Dr. so I’ll use his first and last names.) <<"That sentence used by the creationist has earned more citations, and given me more grief, than anything else I have ever written. (Ironically, I may have unwittingly stolen the thought from James Shapiro, so there may be poetic justice after all.) However, broadly speaking I would still stand by it.>> I certainly don’t doubt that statement by Frank Harold received quite a lot of attention from creationists and undoubtedly caused him grief from evolutionists, though it shouldn’t have. <<To be sure, we now have a number of examples of just how novelty arises in evolution (for instance, in the immune system, or in the way E.coli learns on very rare occasions how to grow on citrate). I discussed what was known in 2014 in "In Search of Cell History". But when it comes to specifics, I am afraid we still depend heavily on general principles and wishful thinking: No one has yet seen the emergence of a truly novel structure, or a new morphology, in the lab.>> This is where the rubber meets the road (do people in Finland use that expression?) Frank Harold is saying (unless I’m misunderstanding him) that there are examples of *how novelty arises in evolution* but that it’s never been shown or proven to be true in an experiment. I think this is a case of an hypothesis vs. reality. An hypothesis may be demonstrated to be true in reality, but it may not. He says when it comes to specifics, evolutionists still depend heavily on general principles and wishful thinking. I think this is him saying the ability of evolution to create novelties is an unproven idea. And I think this statement from him is key: “No one has yet seen the emergence of a truly novel structure, or a new morphology, in the lab.” So am I mistaken in concluding that evolution’s ability to create new information in the gene pool has never been demonstrated? <<That does not undermine evolutionary theory, nor should it be taken as a criticism:>> Here I respectfully disagree with your colleague - I think a requirement for the theory of evolution to be true (that it have the ability to create new information in the gene pool) never being demonstrated absolutely undermines the theory. <<species do arise in nature but slowly, under pressure from the environment or from within, and can rarely be caught on the wing.>> This (enormous lengths of time) is often cited as a reason for the lack of what I consider to be crucial evidence for the theory of evolution. <<best prospect remain the long-term evolution studies with bacteria, such as those led by Richard Lenski.>> I believe Mr. Fischer referenced this study in his article and anyone interested in his views can read the first entry in the thread on here about criticisms of the theory of evolution. <<I suspect that we tend to focus too narrowly on gene mutations. Genes act always in the context of an organized system, a network of interwoven chemical and physical processes in a setting that is spatially structured. Cell heredity may play a much larger role in getting things organized than we presently believe. But these matters are hard to get at by experiment, and real evidence is scarce. I have presented my understanding of these matters in all my books, and in an article in Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews in 2005 ("Molecules into cells"), but as far as I can see my arguments have had little impact.">> Not being a scientist, what I took away from this statement is that real evidence is scarce and difficult to get by experiment. So upon what are we basing the theory? I think we can agree that without evolution having the ability to add new information to the gene pool and without evolution being able to turn one species into an entirely separate species, the theory falls apart. In fact, if evolution can’t do one of those, the theory falls apart. And there’s no evidence it can do either. <<I think Harold's reply is very clear and very honest.>> I agree. <<It reflects precisely how scientists think of the matter of evolution - as I have said many times: it is a theory!>> Yes, but we disagree on how credible it is. <<A theory that is alive and with some details that aren't clear at all.>> I think it’s a theory on its last legs, to be honest with you. I think the more science advances, the less credible the theory becomes. <<Yet, to kill a well-founded theory on the basis of some details that don't seem to fit immediately....is STUPID! Or, driven by some religious extremism.>> I think evolution’s apparent inability to produce new information in the gene pool AND the lack of evidence for evolution having the ability to turn one species into another species (whether in real time or the fossil record) are not details. <<The BIG difference is that evolution theory can (and should!) be criticised. A certain interpretation of 'The Holy Bible' cannot!>> I disagree. The question of how one obtains salvation is debated in Christianity. Catholics (incorrectly) think it’s by good works; Protestants largely (and correctly think it’s by grace through faith. Then there’s the question of how much free will man really has. There are a lot of debates that evolve (no pun intended) from the Holy Bible because the Bible is open to interpretation. Thank you again for reaching out to your colleague and for your post. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Jul-21, 08:15 |
Regarding whether Catholics believe salvation is by works, I would refer Bob to this article, which is one source that indicates they do. It also cites other non-Biblical practices and beliefs of the Catholic Church. Before posting the article, let me say, Bob, that it’s a pity you can’t have a discussion or debate without the cheap insults. But since you exclusively insult Christians on here (and not atheists,) I’m not surprised by it - just disappointed. “Are Catholic Beliefs and Practices Biblical? The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?” If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” ” www.gotquestions.org I realize this is one source, but I have heard from Catholics (even from a priest!) that good works are needed (along with faith) for salvation. So perhaps the church needs to do a better job of publicizing its position on salvation because its own members are mistaken. I go by the Bible - not by what a pastor, priest or person with a degree in theology says. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Jul-21, 08:39 |
responds, but in my opinion in a very odd way. If his idea of a theory (that s not garbage) requires that all aspects of it have been demonstrated by experiment (or observation), then there is hardly a single theory in science (that is not garbage).>> I did not say that. What I said was two crucial, indispensable requirements of the theory of evolution - that new information can be added to the gene pool through evolution, and that one species can turn into another species by evolution - have not been demonstrated by experiment or observation. <<New information IS found to be generated in a multitude of cases.>> I suspect our disagreement hinges on the definition of “new information.” Your colleague, Frank Reynolds, in a response you described as “very clear” and “very honest,” wrote, “No one has yet seen the emergence of a truly novel structure, or a new morphology, in the lab.” <<I have pointed this out repeatedly, but it is ignored. The typical way this occurs in evolution is tinkering with partial structures (and their corresponding genes) to combine them in an entirely new way (with a few mutations as well) for an entirely new function.>> I think this is different than new information. I think what you described is using (rearranging) existing information to create a new function. <<The eye is one such case, the bacterial flagellar motor another, the rotary ATP synthase a third.>> But are these examples the result of evolution adding new information to the gene pool or rearranging existing information to create a new function? The reason I think the difference is important is that if evolution cannot add new information to the gene pool, where did the information come from in the first place? <<When it comes to one species evolving into another, there actually ARE lab results showing just that although they concern relatively simple organisms such as bacteria and (if my memory serves me right) some insects.>> I would love to see citations on those lab experiments and a link to the scientific journal in which those experiments were published. <<The time required for this to occur in a more complicated organism is so long that any practical lab experiment is obviously bound to fail.>> Totally agree. <<However, based on DNA sequencing one can form a pretty good view of how, for example, the predecessors of whales and hippos evolved into those two groups of animals. There is, in fact, even a reasonable amount of such intermediary species found and described.>> As the above, would love to see a citation for this. <<But, certainly, much more information will be needed to refine the theory of evolution. To dismiss it and to call it 'garbage' just because all is not known in detail is both wrong and extremely unfair to the hundreds of scientists who have devoted their working lives to develop it. In fact, to call it 'garbage' is a serious offense and not a good start for any discussion.>> If I had the chance to title that thread over again, I would not have used the term “garbage” - not because I don’t believe it’s garbage but because the term is unnecessarily provocative. I instead would have used a more diplomatic term that essentially meant the same thing. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Jul-21, 08:43 |
Perhaps we need to agree upon a definition of species and determine whether the definition has changed over the years (or decades) to accommodate the theory of evolution. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Jul-21, 08:50 |
I'll leave it to the Ph.D. in biology (broadly speaking) to handle the science; I'll field the theology. Either way, Professor Flux is found to be lacking the competence.>> Another cheap insult. What a pity. <<Just a quick question, for clarity; What qualifications does Fiat Flux hold, from which institutions, and when were these credentials conferred?>> I would not be so foolish as to reveal biographical information about myself that would assist hateful people in learning my identity. <<I'm not suggesting that lack of formal recognition is a bar to making a contribution, but it would be helpful to know what level of academic rigour we should expect in this debate.>> You can determine that from the posts. But since you’ve already found me “lacking the competence,” it’s clear your mind is made up. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Jul-21, 09:01 |
Actually, my latest “finding” was Dr. Sean Pitman, a medical doctor who specializes in Hematopathology, Clinical Pathology and Anatomic Pathology. <<I have no idea about Fisher's credentials either,>> Fischer’s article includes nearly 50 citations to scientific journals and publications. And at the risk of repeating myself, the article you posted in response to Fischer’s article was from an anonymous writer who used very few citations. <<but he also only cites others. Flux doesn't consider scientific credentials important (he says so), as long as the writer cites their statements.>> The scientific credentials of a writer are not nearly as important as the scientific credentials of the people whose statements and conclusions he is citing. <<What he forgets here is that a scientific training is essential in order to compare one study or opinion with another.>> I disagree. I think an intelligent person can evaluate different conclusions from scientists when they are suitably explained. |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Jul-21, 09:16 |
I’m not a young earth creationist, but I think this question might be best addressed by first asking if time always existed. FWIW, the Holy Bible does not give an age for the earth (the 6,000-year figure is a manufactured number based on genealogies, which may or may not be complete) nor does ithe Bible say the earth is flat. But what is believed by some to be the oldest book of the Bible does have this curious verse: “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) “b. He hangs the earth on nothing: Job remarkably understood this. In contrast to ancient mythologies that said the earth was held up on the backs of elephants or giant turtles, Job knew that He hangs the earth on nothing.” enduringword.com |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Jul-21, 09:27 |
And since credentials seem to be so important, check the credentials of the people who examined evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and determined it was true (in the post directly beneath the article.) And consider these verses from the Holy Bible: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:9-13) |
||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Jul-21, 05:56 |
If this is referring to me, as I suspect it is as you’ve called me a fanatic in the past and have become quite upset with me, I would point out: 1) My criticisms of the theory of evolution have been based on science - not “just because [I] prefer to interpret the Bible in a certain way.” 2) All of the criticisms of the theory of evolution in the thread “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” are based on science. 3) if you’re reverting to name calling and dishonesty, that’s a pity, but unfortunately not surprising as this has been your modus operandi in the past. 4) We established that evolution has not been shown to create new information in the gene pool. Even your colleague agreed with that. 5) I am awaiting citations to support your claim that the theory of evolution has been shown to create one species from another species. This obviously requires that a definition of species be established and that we determine if that definition has changed over the years (or decades) to accommodate the theory of evolution. 6) None of the information I’ve cited in this thread or the thread entitled “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” to criticize the theory has to do with the Bible or Christianity. 7) Darwin’s theory is fatally flawed (imo) and the more science advances, the more people are realizing it. |
||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
