|
|
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Vic 1:16At the risk of warping Shiva's reply which I expect will be based on much better science, I will address only the 'logic' of your post. I read Shiva's contribution as talking about mutations. NOT 'evolution', but 'mutation'. There is a difference. This shouldn't be outside your knowledge; Sudanese and Europeans are both 'H. Sapiens', of the same species; but Europeans tend to carry a mutation that diminished their ability to produce melanin. Result? That Europeans suffer skin cancers at a much higher rate than Sudanese. I know, because every year or so I have to go through the torture of incipient cancers being frozen off my scalp. Some call Melanoma 'The Australian Disease'! I've already pointed out to you that if we had every carcass of every generation from a grey wolf to a chihuahua, experienced veterinarians would not be able to definitively agree which grey wolf was the last in line, the next generation being the first chihuahua. Regardless of appearance, grey wolves and chihuahuas are generally accepted as subspecies within the same species. But most uninformed viewers, who had never seen either a wolf or a chihuahua before, would say that they are very different species! So your talk of 'common sense species' is shorthand for 'what someone who has no expertise might think is a separate species'. Buty if you want to stick to the standard anti-evolution escape hatch of labelling all micro-mutations as 'within the species', (for reasons other than scientific!) that's fine! But some 'of the same species' can kill you, and others 'of the same species' can't. That would seem enough of a 'common sense' difference for most people! |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
L_S used the phrases “evolutionary science” and “evolutionary theory” and you think he wasn’t talking about evolution? 🤔 |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 05:09 In other words, you (Victoriasas) have discernment, common sense and the Holy Spirit; I don't. That's one mystery solved! The next mystery is how I came out of a B.Th. with such a poor understanding. You say you know, but perhaps you might like to make sure by taking such a course yourself. I would urge you to do so! You might then understand more clearly why I'm so obnoxious and anti-social. <You’re once again not listening.> I assure you, I'm listening! I just have trouble trying to fashion what I read into something intelligible. What you post is often ambiguous, vague as to meaning, or downright self-contradictory; so it's to be expected that I might sometimes misunderstand. <But I am curious how you spent four years in a theology college and only came away with...> A large part of learning is UN-learning those silent, simplistic assumptions that block deeper insight. (As you would doubtless know from your own experience.) Perhaps this same awareness of 'Deus Ineffabilis' is the cause of your own lack of coherent expression. <may I suggest you...> Thank you for your suggestion. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 05:13 Good idea, Vic! Who was it who first mentioned 'special creation' in this thread? <explain your understanding of the foundational truths of Christianity and why you identify as a Christian when you don’t believe them?> I've done that. You disputed much of what I said, but without giving a coherent argument why. So feel free to start a thread yourself and give us YOUR understanding. I have already started a thread on your own topic, 'special creation'. Your contribution was very brief, no more than a few assertions backed by no discussion. Last time I looked you had not posted a response to my post. Feel free to contribute more of your wisdom in that thread. |
||||||||||||||
|
But I really think you oughta start a thread on the Bible and Christianity if that’s what you want to discuss. |
||||||||||||||
|
You have? Where? <<You disputed much of what I said, but without giving a coherent argument why.>> I don’t recall your ever explaining your understanding of the foundational truths of Christianity and why you identify as a Christian when you reject them, so obviously I don’t recall disputing them. I do recall your saying the cross of Jesus Christ is no longer relevant, apparently unaware that Christianity is built upon the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 05:50 But I don't think you know me well enough to make a call like that. You don't know my experiences, nor how I have interpreted them over many searching hours and years. No, I'm not 'trying to find God in textbooks, classrooms and theological essays'. I am on record as saying that although I am reasonably well-informed on 'Systematic Theology', yet I see it as secondary to Biblical Theology. As Aquinas said about his 'Summa Theologica' after a Christmas Mass, "It is all so much straw!" His most famous prayer which he spoke before his lectures was 'Creator Ineffabilis' (which translates to 'Indescribable Creator'), to remind his students that Truth was beyond our capacity to grasp; we can only stand in awe of it if and when we glimpse it. It is the experience and personal following of Christ that makes a Christian, not creeds or catechisms or doctrines. As for my 'fear, pretensions and arrogance', I will certainly admit to pretensions and arrogance. I can even tell you why they have latched so firmly onto me, the son of a factory metalworker and a ward of the state. But fear? I don't think so. I have a history of not just physical courage, but more importantly spiritual courage. I have trusted in God in several key incidents in my life, even to being shunned by the church I served in several senior capacities over forty years; because I would not bend the knee to a doctrine that accepted domestic violence as 'normal'. I tell you, being shunned by your faith community cuts deep! So I thank you for your concern for me, as I have tried to encourage you to push further in your journey. I have not criticised your faith, only your understanding of it! As for a thread on a Biblical theme, I'm up to it if you are. Pick your subject! Just be ready for me to hammer the need for context. |
||||||||||||||
|
<<But I don't think you know me well enough to make a call like that. You don't know my experiences, nor how I have interpreted them over many searching hours and years.>> I go by your own words, Bob. I go by your telling stalhandske you don’t know what you believe and by your telling FIAT LUX III you believe only that God is sovereign, omnipresent, incomprehensible and love. I go by your answering questions about Jesus Christ and the foundational beliefs of Christianity by quoting different interpretations gleaned from textbooks without saying what you yourself believe. I go by your obnoxious and frankly ignorant attitude toward evangelical Christians who do know what they believe. <<It is the experience and personal following of Christ that makes a Christian, not creeds or catechisms or doctrines.>> No, it is in believing in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and accepting Him as one’s Saviour. The Gospel is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The New Testament is filled with statements from the Apostle John, the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ Himself that believing in Jesus Christ is what saves. That’s not a doctrine in the sense of just words on a page. It’s the foundational belief of Christianity and something to be known and experienced at the level of the soul. <<So I thank you for your concern for me, as I have tried to encourage you to push further in your journey. I have not criticised your faith, only your understanding of it!>> Bob, you have no business criticizing my faith or my understanding of it, which is really one and the same. I question your faith *based on your own words* and in reaction to your uninformed and ignorant opinions of my faith, which you obviously know nothing about. You don’t know me, Bob. You don’t know my faith and you certainly haven’t experienced it. <<As for a thread on a Biblical theme, I'm up to it if you are. Pick your subject! Just be ready for me to hammer the need for context.>> I already started one. Tell me who you think Jesus Christ was/is – God incarnate; a created divine being (angel); or only a man. Don’t write a long essay on what theologians throughout history have said. Tell me what YOU think and believe. |
||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 28-Mar-25, 10:39 |
Deleted by jonheck on 28-Mar-25, 10:41.
|
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 07:46 <I go by your telling stalhandske you don’t know what you believe and by your telling FIAT LUX III you believe only that God is sovereign, omnipresent, incomprehensible and love.> Misleading editing is a form of misrepresentation. My full answer to Stal was "I don't know; or rather, I'm still learning'. Nor did I ever say that I "believe ONLY that God is sovereign, omnipresent, incomprehensible and love." (By the way, you left out 'transcendent'). Those are some of the elements that I am absolutely convinced about, and there are other aspects where I find some ideas insightful, so I hold them provisionally but subject to further critical examination and adjustment. The day anyone is rock-solid certain of everything is the day his brain dies. The rest of your post demonstrates yet again that you still lack the ability to deal with nuance and you can't grasp ideas unless they are said in the formulaic way you already think is the ONLY way of saying them. I can only repeat my urging; that you get yourself some mature, adult theological education. I have already responded to your new thread. I told you I would answer candidly and honesty, and I have. Whether you understand it or not is a different question. <Don’t write a long essay on what theologians throughout history have said.> So disappointing! Two thousand years of theological reflection by the best minds in Christendom, but you don't even want a summary! Instead, you want something you can attack! Vic, I've responded how I chose to respond, just as you choose to NOT respond to questions you would rather ignore. And I've already ignored your pea-under-the-three-thimbles trick; why should I have to choose one of the options you offer when I have an answer of my own? |
||||||||||||||
|
And the three options I gave were not a trick, nor were they my options. They were C.S. Lewis’ options – God incarnate, crazy or a liar. C.S. Lewis did not have “madman” as a fourth option as “crazy” and “madman” are essentially the same thing. We should really leave this thread to evolution, imo. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic |
||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 30-Mar-25, 04:11 |
Vic. I figured that was your likely position. Thanks for confirming. |
||||||||||||||
|
@jonheck It’s one thing to criticize someone’s faith based on assumptions. It’s another thing to question someone’s faith based on their own words. Understand the difference? |
||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 30-Mar-25, 04:58 |
V |
||||||||||||||
|
But I really have no interest in conversing with you on this subject based on what I believe is your hostility toward Christianity and your active imagination and storytelling on that subject (i.e. the alleged evangelist you claimed was screaming through a megaphone at a downtown festival where you live and who could be heard blocks and blocks away.) |
||||||||||||||
|
Gander vs. Goose |
||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 30-Mar-25, 06:52 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
Q: What’s the fastest way to get an atheist to talk about the Bible? A: Bring up any of the innumerable flaws with molecules-to-man evolution |
||||||||||||||
|
As requested by Vic, 22-04-25 So tell us what your question means, and we might try to answer it. Until you do that, the suspicion grows that not even you know what you mean. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic I responded less than an hour later saying <'Common Sense' is a term used to mean "What someone would assume if he didn't know any better". 'Common sense' tells us that whales are big fish, that the Sun and Moon go around the Earth, and that a straight stick bends at the surface of a pond; just look at it if you don't believe me! Sometimes Reality is not quite what 'Common Sense' would have us believe. So what is a 'Common Sense' species? > You never made a serious attempt to give that 'common-sense' definition'. Would you care to try now? |
||||||||||||||
|
This is another of your false accusations, Bob. I have not been asked “repeatedly” what I mean by “common-sense definition of species.” I can’t recall even being asked once. Do words mean nothing to you? I asked you in the other thread and will ask you here where I have been asked that question “repeatedly.” I suspect this is another of your false accusations for which you will fail to provide justification. <<I can't recall you ever answering satisfactorily; or even attempting to do so.>> Perhaps because I was never asked? <<Are the Black Rat and the Norwegian Rat the same 'common-sense' species?>> No idea and couldn’t care less. <<Are rats and rabbits, both rodents. the same species?>> No. <<How about Chihuahuas and Great Danes?>> I regard them both as dogs. And I regard dogs as a common-sense species, regardless of whether they can interbreed. <<or panthers and whales (both mammals)?>> No. <<So tell us what your question means, and we might try to answer it. Until you do that, the suspicion grows that not even you know what you mean.>> My use of the phrase “common-sense definition of species” is mostly in reaction to the ridiculous claim that (for example) 17,500 species of butterflies exist and 4,000 species of fruit flies exist. (And isn’t it interesting how the number of species always seem to land on a round number – not 3,984 species of fruit flies, but 4,000. And not 17,237 species of butterflies but 17,500. That alone should raise red flags that the number of species is not rooted in science. And some sources say 20,000 species of butterflies exist. Again, not 19,577 species, but exactly 20,000!) If I’m in a field and see two butterflies pass by, I regard them as the same species – not butterfly species 5,874 and butterfly species 13,334. I also consider a common-sense definition of species in terms of the language used to identify it (i.e. what they’re called.) Thus, blue whales, gray whales and sperm whales are all whales, and all whales are a common-sense species. Nevertheless, scientists even today are grappling with how to define species, and one way I would define a common-sense species is much how Justice Potter Stewart defined pornography (“I know it when I see it.”) <<Justice Potter Stewart famously declared "I know it when I see it" in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). He was addressing the difficulty of defining what constituted "hard-core pornography" under the obscenity laws, particularly in the context of a film, "The Lovers". **His statement was a way of expressing his belief that while it was hard to articulate a precise legal definition, he could recognize obscenity when he encountered it, even if he couldn't provide a clear, all-encompassing definition.**>> I suspect (correct me if I’m wrong) that you define a species as organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. I believe that’s the common definition now in use. But if that definition means 17,500 to 20,000 species of butterflies exist, I don’t think it’s a common-sense definition (or even a valid definition.) Do you think 17,500 to 20,000 species of butterflies exist? Or is this another question you won’t answer? |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
You: <<But asking me to cite a post where you DIDN'T acknowledge it is a rather silly request for you to make.>> Your obnoxious disingenuousness is getting tiresome, Bob. I’m asking you to cite a post where ***the question was asked*** and I didn’t acknowledge it. You: <<A bit like in Catch-22 where an airman says in reply to an allegation "I never said that!" and he is then asked "What else didn't you say?")>> Not like that at all. You once again (for obvious reasons) ignore that I asked you to cite a post where ***the question was asked*** and I didn’t acknowledge it. <<There are hundreds of them!>> Really? Hundreds? Then why couldn’t you cite one? <<Perhaps you citing a post where you DID address it might be more sensible.>> Wouldn’t be sensible if I was never asked. <<Let's leave this one alone from now>> Leave alone your false accusations and disingenuousness? I’m sure you’d like to. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic (various recent) You challenged me to cite ONE such request, and I did. You didn't ask me to cite EVERY such request. I did what you asked of me, and you use that as a basis for revising your request. Do you want me to trawl through every post? Why should I spend the time and effort to do so, when one example is sufficient to prove the point? 2. <I can’t recall even being asked once.> You don't have to 'recall'; I've just cited the post in question. In case you missed my citation, I repeat it here; <'Common Sense' is a term used to mean "What someone would assume if he didn't know any better". 'Common sense' tells us that whales are big fish, that the Sun and Moon go around the Earth, and that a straight stick bends at the surface of a pond; just look at it if you don't believe me! Sometimes Reality is not quite what 'Common Sense' would have us believe. So what is a 'Common Sense' species? > (my post 15 Mar. 19:16, immediately following your 18:22 post quoted above.) 3. {...I would define a common-sense species is much how Justice Potter Stewart defined pornography (“I know it when I see it.”) <<Justice Potter Stewart famously declared "I know it when I see it" in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). He was addressing the difficulty of defining what constituted "hard-core pornography" under the obscenity laws, particularly in the context of a film, "The Lovers".} This is the closest you have come to a 'definition'; that "I know it when I see it." That does not provide for much objectivity! But anyway, I'll accept your definition for the moment. I have read of world-respected researchers who 'know a new species when they see it', and who have reported in peer-reviewed scientific literature that they have witnessed a form of life that differs in functionality from its progenitor species; a new species. BINGO! A 'new species' by your own definition! Or have I made a mistake here? Do you mean it's only a 'new species' if YOU think it is? Is your subjective opinion now the top scientific authority on speciation? 4. <(And isn’t it interesting how the number of species always seem to land on a round number – not 3,984 species of fruit flies, but 4,000. And not 17,237 species of butterflies but 17,500. (If I’m in a field and see two butterflies pass by, I regard them as the same species) – That alone should raise red flags that the number of species is not rooted in science.> Your expertise in science is showing! Research continues; new discoveries are being made faster than the textbooks can keep up. That means new observations are still going through the process of peer review, cross-checking, verification and listing. So these numbers will always be approximate, and approximations in such cases are acceptable precisely because exact numbers vary so rapidly. What is beyond scientific doubt is that there is more than one species of butterfly. 5. <Thus, blue whales, gray whales and sperm whales are all whales, and all whales are a common-sense species.> Are you totally unaware of the difference between toothed whales and baleen whales? Your own examples show how erroneous your "I know one when I see one" definition is. 6. <Nevertheless, scientists even today are grappling with how to define species,> Yes, they are. Which might indicate that the question is slightly more complicated than any 'common-sense definition' answer might provide. Yet even knowing this, you still advocate a 'common-sense definition'. 7. <But if that definition means 17,500 to 20,000 species of butterflies exist, I don’t think it’s a common-sense definition (or even a valid definition.)> Why not? Because your 'common-sense' doesn't extend to big numbers? 8. <Do you think 17,500 to 20,000 species of butterflies exist? Or is this another question you won’t answer?> I have no idea how many species of butterfly exist. I don't pretend to know, nut I have seen at least three different types myself. Not counting moths. I just take the consensus of experts that it is more than one. 9. <your 00:44 post> I'm still trying to figure out what that actually means. 10. <Bob. I’m asking you to cite a post where ***the question was asked*** and I didn’t acknowledge it.> Think about it, Vic. I asked the question in one of MY posts, so how could that same post have YOU not acknowledge it? You're asking for an absurdity. But if you want to play absurd games, I'll play along. My 00:02 post just above asked the question, and nowhere in that post did you acknowledge the question. Or is your point just poorly worded, and you mean "In which of my subsequent posts did I not acknowledge it?" The answer to that is "In your 30 Mar 07:35 post in this thread you did not acknowledge the question." Nor your 5:21 immediately before that, nor your 04:18 immediately before that.... 11. <Really? Hundreds? Then why couldn’t you cite one?> Again, think about it! There are any number of your posts that don't acknowledge the question (I've already listed a few!), just as there are many posts that don't mention elephants. Asking which posts DON'T mention it is like that Catch-22 example I quoted. You even admit that you didn't acknowledge it by saying "Perhaps because I was never asked?" (00:38 post) and "Wouldn’t be sensible if I was never asked." (your 01:00 post) 12. <Leave alone your false accusations and disingenuousness?> You have already accused me of being a liar twice, and not put up any basis for this except the accusation itself. You have accused me of 'false allegations' more often than I could count, and not put forward one specific that holds water. Let me be blunt here, Vic. You have NO credibility left. Even in this recent exchange over the last couple of days, you have challenged me to cite ONE place where I asked what you define as a 'common-sense' species, which I did in my 15 Mar 19:16 post. Yet even after being reminded of that, you responded "I can’t recall even being asked once." Denying something even after being given a direct quote with time, date and the evidence; well, I call THAT a lie. Vic, I hold that you are a liar, and I tender the above information as a prima facie case. Now show that you have NOT lied. |
||||||||||||||
|
I’ll just say this in response to your tirade… • First and foremost, have you taken your blood pressure medication? • I now know why I didn’t recall seeing that question. Because I bowed out of discussions on this thread and stopped reading it for a while. Check the end of my post on page 2 before you asked that question… <<That said, I’m done participating in a discussion on this subject.>> And also because your posts are so overly verbose and rambling, I tend to only skim them, particularly if they’re on topics I’m not interested in. You imo have to learn the value of editing and that good writing is rarely a first draft. • You said I had “repeatedly” been asked that question, a claim you are unable to support. • You ignored that I used (and will continue to use) “common-sense definition of species” **in reaction to** the absurd proposition that 4,000 species of fruit flies exist and 17,500 to 20,000 species of butterflies exist. • You fault my response to your question to define a common-sense definition of species while, at the same time, refusing to give your own definition and refusing to say if you believe 17,500 to 20,000 species of butterflies exist. What’s the matter? Don’t you trust the “science” that says 17,500 to 20,000 species of butterflies exist? • You frequently and repeatedly – yes, repeatedly – ignore questions of mine, but I rarely make a big deal out of it because I know, based on your reliance on carnality, that you don’t understand the Bible and Christianity. • I have accused you of lying when you’ve lied. If you don’t like it, stop lying. Or to be more charitable, be more precise in your use of language and curb your arrogance enough to realize your theology degree has done more to hinder and damage your understanding of the Bible and Christianity and to connect with God than it has to aid and help. • I couldn’t care less if you think I have credibility. You reject clear Messianic prophecies for no apparent reason other than a desire to argue and insult; you’ve said in the past the cross of Jesus Christ is no longer relevant; you’ve said in the past you identify as a Christian because it best fits your worldview (whatever that means,) you repeatedly – yes, repeatedly – claim passages in the Bible are symbolic, metaphorical and illustrations without identifying the symbolism, metaphors and illustrations; you seem completely unaware of the overall theme of the Bible and how the Old Testament and New Testament are related; you repeatedly – yes, repeatedly! – ignore and/or dodge questions about the Bible and Christianity; you draw false conclusions from isolated examples; you seem overly combative and hostile, which in the past you blamed on a medical condition, which is why I cut you some slack; you violate your own club rules by insulting and attacking members without foundation; you admit and boast of your arrogance, and I could go on.and on… Based on your behavior on this website over the years, I find you to be a frequently dishonest and obnoxious guy who seems overly interested in what other people think of him and in elevating himself by arguing about nonsense. Lastly, what you falsely identify as a lie was due to my writing and posting before seeing your post. And no, I don’t rush to read your posts, which imo are nearly always far too long. Please find a way to calm down and have a trusted friend review your posts for tone and (especially) for length. Thank you! |
||||||||||||||
|
I should have simply said that while I don’t have a definition of species, I know what a definition of species isn’t. And that’s a definition that claims 4,000 species of fruit flies exist and 17,500 to 20,000 species of butterflies exist. In hindsight, I should have just ignored your request, which is what you frequently do of my requests, and stated the above. Forgive me for trying to engage in a dialogue in a club devoted to oneupsmanship, trolling and pointless arguing. On that point, you claim to “trust the experts” but don’t trust their claim that 17,500 to 20,000 species of butterflies exist. Seems like a contradiction to me. From AI… <<The scientific consensus is that there are around 18,000 described species of butterflies worldwide. This number is based on ongoing taxonomic research and updates to databases like those used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). However, it's important to remember that this is just the known number, and there are likely many more species yet to be discovered.>> So, since you “trust the experts,” you agree at least 18,000 species of butterflies exist. That’s where “trusting the experts” brings you. The same place trying to read and understand the Bible on a carnal level brings you. Not a good place. |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva Here's another strange to weird, offshoot of humans. www.google.com |
||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 23-Apr-25, 09:49 |
bro bro |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
