Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

And the conclusion would be?
----evolution should be visible very frequently if it does occur.So, you want a half single celled, half multicelled example, or something similar? If so, please say exactly what you will accept as that example.
---yeah that would be the main part of what i want i want to see. i would want to see before definetly and after would help.What has molecular evolution got to do with observing macroevolution in our lifetimes? Molecular evolution deals with the evolution of molecules, & has nothing per se to do with single celled to multi celled transitions.
I hear the sound of goalposts moving. You wanted to SEE the transition occur, I pointed out to you that evolution claims to moves very slowly, & you will never see a complete transition. As such it was an unfair expectation to challenge evolution on something it never claimed in the first place. Now you are saying something about molecular evolution? What has that got to do with my original contention that evolution never claimed to move fast enough to produce such a transition?
Nothing.
---i was saying that molecular evolution would have to occur quite a bit and then macroevolution many more times than that. also molecular evolution would have to be spontaneous because it is very very very noticable and a very very large change. creationists are also treated very unfairly, get used to it. And if I asked you to produce those facts would they answer my original question? No.
I want evidence of the divine nature of the bible, not ID. You said it was fact, I’m asking for the evidence that is required to make it so, stay focussed.
---okayThe bible isn’t an independent source, it is the document in question. You say the divine nature of the bible is recorded in history, I’m asking for non Christian, non biblical texts to corroborate the bibles divine aspects. The bible can’t do it, it’s circular argument. It would be like saying evolution proves evolution. Or the defendants plea in court must be true because the defendant said so.
---thats probably almost impossible to find since all the other religions would be completely biased against christianity and only provide evidence against it, not for it. the bible is a collection of experiences from different men, which does help. i dont know of any nonreligous texts dating back to that time.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
And the conclusion would be?
----evolution should be visible very frequently if it does occur.

​

So, you want a half single celled, half multicelled example, or something similar? If so, please say exactly what you will accept as that example.
---yeah that would be the main part of what i want i want to see. i would want to see before definetly and after would help.

​

---

I shall type this V E R Y S L O W L Y. Macroevolution, which is what you’re talking about, should be observed happening all the time according to you. As I have explained, it occurs very slowly. You will not see generation 1 being entirely different to generation 2. Mutated alleles have to be fixed in populations, & then more build upon them, also to be fixed in populations. As such, in our lifetimes YOU WILL NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE MACROEVOLUTION.Do you understand the reason why?Seeing a before & after the event isn’t going to happen unless you have a truly large amount of time to play with. You will only ever see a snapshot of macroevolution. This is PREDICTED by the ToE.So, evolution doesn’t say that you will see large scale changes in a few years, OK. So saying that it does is no challenge whatsoever to the ToE.If you want "snapshot" examples, I still ask that you tell me what you would accept as a transition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

​

---i was saying that molecular evolution would have to occur quite a bit and then macroevolution many more times than that. also molecular evolution would have to be spontaneous because it is very very very noticable and a very very large change. creationists are also treated very unfairly, get used to it.

​

---

Molecular evolution doesn’t need to even change the function of the protein, so regarding phenotype, it can, & mostly is, very, very, very, unnoticeable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

And if I asked you to produce those facts would they answer my original question? No.
I want evidence of the divine nature of the bible, not ID. You said it was fact, I’m asking for the evidence that is required to make it so, stay focussed.
---okay

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

​

The bible isn’t an independent source, it is the document in question. You say the divine nature of the bible is recorded in history, I’m asking for non Christian, non biblical texts to corroborate the bibles divine aspects. The bible can’t do it, it’s circular argument. It would be like saying evolution proves evolution. Or the defendants plea in court must be true because the defendant said so.

​

---thats probably almost impossible to find since all the other religions would be completely biased against christianity and only provide evidence against it, not for it. the bible is a collection of experiences from different men, which does help. i dont know of any nonreligous texts dating back to that time.

​

---

Why does an independent historical text have to be another religion? YOU said the bibles divinity was historically verified, not me.So, what you’re saying is, it isn’t verified historically, after all?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

ill say this V E R Y S L O W L Y............ what im saying is show me evolution of a single celled organism to a multiple celled organism.
i dont no of any historical texts that arent biased to a religion that date back to the time of the bible, theyre may be some but i have no idea of where to look for information like that.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

ill say this V E R Y S L O W L Y............ what im saying is show me evolution of a single celled organism to a multiple celled organism.
i dont know of any historical texts that arent biased to a religion that date back to the time of the bible, theyre may be some but i have no idea of where to look for information like that.also im not changing goal posts either but you need to show me this first to make me accept anything else.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

​

[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
ill say this V E R Y S L O W L Y............ what im saying is show me evolution of a single celled organism to a multiple celled organism.
i dont no of any historical texts that arent biased to a religion that date back to the time of the bible, theyre may be some but i have no idea of where to look for information like that.

​

---

1/ This is like asking to me to show you a liver evolving. It does not test the ToE.2/ Would you then agree there is no independent evidence, historical or otherwise of the divine nature of the bible?If you can't provide this evidence KP, you can't really claim it.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
1/ This is like asking to me to show you a liver evolving. It does not test the ToE.

​

2/ Would you then agree there is no independent evidence, historical or otherwise of the divine nature of the bible?

​

If you can't provide this evidence KP, you can't really claim it.

​

Mark

​

---

1) so what did we evolve from? from what i was aware evolution still claimed to have started from single celled primordial goo or did that mechanism change too?2) why does the bible need to have divine nature? its about god written by different men's experiences. thats what it is.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[QUOTE][b]1) so what did we evolve from? from what i was aware evolution still claimed to have started from single celled primordial goo or did that mechanism change too?[/QUOTE][/b]Actually that's not evolution, but the Theory of Abiogenesis. And there are several different ideas out there but most of them do involve various amino acid solutions ("goo").Actually I think you are talking about multicellular life evolving from a single celled animal, as opposed to "goo".And there may have been several times when multicellular life evolved from single celled life. Single cellular life ---> multicellular life isn't so extraordinary. Fungi can be either single celled (yeast) or multicellular (molds, mushrooms) but they're still fungi. Protists can be single celled (Trypanosomes) or can be colonial (Volvox) but they're still protists. [QUOTE][b]2) why does the bible need to have divine nature? its about god written by different men's experiences. thats what it is.[/QUOTE][/b]A common premise in creationism is that the Bible is inerrant throughout, ie, the Bible itself is on its way to having its own cult following. Since you seem to imply that you worship God and not the Bible we won't have much of a problem on that point.

1) im just saying that it has to start somewhere; and that is where you need to start from. it doesnt just happen.2) cool, no beef from you but im sure someone will say something.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
1) so what did we evolve from? from what i was aware evolution still claimed to have started from single celled primordial goo or did that mechanism change too?

​

2) why does the bible need to have divine nature? its about god written by different men's experiences. thats what it is.

​

---

1/ This has nothing to do with single celled to multicelled transitions.2/ Creation, miracles, God him/herself are divine in nature, if it's not divine, then it s just a book of stories. A book without God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

show me molecular evolution from single cell to multiple cells. i dare ya. show me it actually happening. dont just give links or say baseless arguments, SHOW ME!! also the bible is fact it is not however a a scientific journal.

​

---

I have shown you why your challenge doesn't challenge the ToE, because the ToE never said you can observe such macroevolution.I have asked you for evidence of the divine nature of the bible, & you didn't deliver, despite claiming it was factual.So where does this leave you intellectually? You have no REASON to believe in Gods bible, or that God was involved in it. Don't claim now that it isn't important to have evidence, because your belief is a faith. You have inferred there was evidence, it was important enough for you to mention. I'll leave you to deal with the implications.I do not mean to undermine your faith, just your claims it is evidence based.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"2/ Would you then agree there is no independent evidence, historical or otherwise of the divine nature of the bible?"
--I think that this isn't what you would be looking for, you would be looking to see and test the 'accuracy' and infallability of the bible, as it has falsifications, divine nature does not.
--(added by edit) Potential falsifiability is a key in figuring plausability and validity in scripture. As many people seem to ask many questions that either cannot (or I know of no scientific technique or mechenism by which is testable) be tested or provide potential falsification in the scientific realm. Some of these questions would be like the evidence that can be provided that adam and eve originated in the middle east, or that the tower of babel was the origin of the races, ect.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-16-2002]

True Creation wrote: I think that this isn't what you would be looking for, you would be looking to see and test the 'accuracy' and infallability of the bible, as it has falsifications, divine nature does not.Pamboli writes:
You wouldn't be looking for accuracy or infallibility. There are accurate books which are not divinely inspired. Infallibility - if different from accuracy - presumably means that it would be entirely internally and externally consistent.The external consistency of the text - how it squares with the real world - is what you seem to regard as a question "that either cannot be tested or provide potential falsification."The internal consistency of the Bible is a matter of considerable debate resting on interpretation and exegesis: human (and therefore fallible) processes. The apparent infallibility may be the result of human misinterpretation of the text, which unlike scientific experiment or observation, cannot be repeated or tested or falsified.You are of course aware that interpretations of Biblical passages have evolved, often dramatically, over the centuries. The interpretations often contradict each other and cannot all be true. So one may end up begging an important question - what objective criteria do we use to decide which interpretation we apply our criteria for infallibility to?Amusingly, I have seen some arguments along the lines of "interpretation X of this passage must be the right one because otherwise it would contradict interpretation Y of another passage." The best which can be said of such a line of reasoning is that it suggests that there are possible internally consistent interpretations - but not that these are true.Accuracy and apparent infallibility are therefore not evidence of divine nature.Finally, there can be competing and incompatible claims for infallibility. What (preferably falsifiable) criteria would you use to decide between claims of the infallibility of the Holy Qu'ran and the New Testament?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"2/ Would you then agree there is no independent evidence, historical or otherwise of the divine nature of the bible?"
--I think that this isn't what you would be looking for, you would be looking to see and test the 'accuracy' and infallability of the bible, as it has falsifications, divine nature does not.
--(added by edit) Potential falsifiability is a key in figuring plausability and validity in scripture. As many people seem to ask many questions that either cannot (or I know of no scientific technique or mechenism by which is testable) be tested or provide potential falsification in the scientific realm. Some of these questions would be like the evidence that can be provided that adam and eve originated in the middle east, or that the tower of babel was the origin of the races, ect.

​

---

Mister Pamboli stole my thunder somewhat. A historical text could be accurate, but if it said at the end "God did miracles", I would expect evidence of it, this aspect would be unsubstantiated until evidence was provided. ONLY evidence of those miracles is evidence of those miracles. Internal consistency elsewhere is means it was proof read, nothing more.Until evidence of the bibles divinity is brought forward, it is a hopeful assumption, not fact.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
"Until evidence of the bibles divinity is brought forward, it is a hopeful assumption, not fact."

---

Much of the problem here is semantics.
We must define the word "divine" and observe how it was used by, and what it meant to, the people of ancient time.Divine may be used as a noun, a verb or an adjective, and in an informal sense may mean, "guess correctly" (Thorndike Barnhart).Ancient kings, as representatives of the gods, were considered to be gods themselves. The word "divine" was included among their many titles.
The "divine word," was an ultimately reliable message because it came from the highest authority - the government (representative of the deity).
Diviners were people who figured out mysteries. Theirs was an honorable and high paying profession. In today's world, they might have positions in the intelligence service.Whether a Bible qualifies as "divine" depends, in part, on whether it is recognized by the king (authorized version). Changes in the Royal house result in changes to the Bible. [See HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, by Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Oxford University Press, 1978]In our society (in the absence of a divine king), a Bible's divinity must be judged by how well it explains the mysteries of life, the universe and everything. And as former explanations are shown to be inadequate, the Bible loses some of its "divine" mystique.As regards cosmogony and cosmology, the Bible provides a wonderful peek into the development of popular science, but as a "divine revelation" of the mysteries of the universe, it is obviously dated.------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Much of the problem here is semantics.
We must define the word "divine" and observe how it was used by, and what it meant to, the people of ancient time.

​

Divine may be used as a noun, a verb or an adjective, and in an informal sense may mean, "guess correctly" (Thorndike Barnhart).

​

Ancient kings, as representatives of the gods, were considered to be gods themselves. The word "divine" was included among their many titles.
The "divine word," was an ultimately reliable message because it came from the highest authority - the government (representative of the deity).
Diviners were people who figured out mysteries. Theirs was an honorable and high paying profession. In today's world, they might have positions in the intelligence service.

​

Whether a Bible qualifies as "divine" depends, in part, on whether it is recognized by the king (authorized version). Changes in the Royal house result in changes to the Bible. [See HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, by Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Oxford University Press, 1978]

​

In our society (in the absence of a divine king), a Bible's divinity must be judged by how well it explains the mysteries of life, the universe and everything. And as former explanations are shown to be inadequate, the Bible loses some of its "divine" mystique.

​

As regards cosmogony and cosmology, the Bible provides a wonderful peek into the development of popular science, but as a "divine revelation" of the mysteries of the universe, it is obviously dated.

​

---

In this case divine is in the biblical sense, "Gods doing", miracles etc. There really isn't a definition problem here. If you take Gods work out of the bible, it's a story set against a historical background. So the elixir of the bible is God & his work, & this is the very bone of contention that needs evidence to make KPs bible "fact".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dr. Bill:
I note you list this in you "signature":Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda UniversityI have previously explored around the Geoscience Research Institute
website. ( http://www.grisda.org/main.html )They are based at Loma Linda University.I find the Adventist Churches strugle with reconciling science and the Bible to be rather fascinating.Do you have any comments on that situation?Still Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe