PHILOSOPHY IS KING

Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I think that may be attaching too much significance to the avatar. I hope you are joking
______________________________________________________________________No I am not joking. I identified something that evidences Romans 1:23,25. Read these verses, this is what happens when God responds to rejection and defiance; persons end up obsessed with creatures in place of the Creator. Paleontologists take the place of God and declare that mankind evolved from an animal. Nevermind that the total amount of evidence by volume is meagre to make this claim, yet it is made because the God of Genesis is not an option. WHY ? Their "receiver" has been removed AKA "God sense" for flipping God off.The unwavering insistence of evolutionists to cling to the dogma of mankind evolving from animal/ape can only be explained by the Romans verses/punishment.

WT, your thoughts on the avatars of the evos here is pushing it. By your logic you are obviously pagan as the willow was sacred to many groups. Don't try to get out of it...confess, you're a secret heathen.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

quote:

---

Nevermind that the total amount of evidence by volume is meagre to make this claim, yet it is made because the God of Genesis is not an option. WHY ? Their "receiver" has been removed AKA "God sense" for flipping God off.

---

Using your same logic, I will argue that creationists have been stripped of their God Sense because they deny how God created life on this planet.My evidence is that young earth creationism goes against what we find in God's creation. By denying God's creation, creationists have been stripped of their ability to understand evolution and its signifigance within God's plan. So it is not your fault, Willow, that you are not able to understand the evidence supporting evolution. It is your a priori rejection of God's plan through natural evolution that has resulted in God sense removal. God's plan can be seen through his creation, and it is creationists who are denying it because their own arrogance (which God also dislikes) will not allow them to be descendents of animals.

Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Using your same logic, I will argue that creationists have been stripped of their God Sense because they deny how God created life on this planet.
______________________________________________________________________The only problem is that I am not using logic - I am pointing out what scripture says and then saying that these verses explain why so many people are hostile to the God of Genesis. You ignore the fact that evolution conveniently carries the emotive and reportive meaning that the God of Genesis was not involved.Your statement also assumes the existence of God and that He created via what science calls evolution. This statement complies with the two-fold demand of Romans that God be given credit/thanks(?).Loudmouth, if you or anyone wants to say God created via evolution then fine, that is the position of TE (minus mankind). This position is in compliance with Romans requirements. Maybe you should take a few minutes and read my argument in post number 36 of this topic.Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________
My evidence is that young earth creationism goes against what we find in God's creation.
______________________________________________________________________I am not a YEC and I completely agree with this statement. I will agrue with you against the nonsense of YEC tooth and nail.If you want to hold to the dogma that mankind descended from an animal then this position is contrary to Genesis. Where do you get your beliefs about God from ? If you say Genesis, then I only want to point out that Genesis has God creating Adam suddenly AND THEN God created the animals. Now, if you or anyone wants to dismiss this as the error of literalism I challenge you to provide your alternative interpretation OF WHAT I SAID.It is my position that there is valid evidence that the animal kingdom has evolved to a certain extent but not mankind.Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________
God's plan can be seen through his creation,______________________________________________________________________Yes, that is what Romans says, and it says it in the context of His wrath, which is THEN declared to be directed at anyone who denies Him credit/thanks. Evolution and its emissaries clandestinely thrash against the God of Genesis while hiding behind the Divine neutral clauses of RE and MN when called on it.To claim God is for giving credit to animals for evolving into mankind is a gross reversal of any source you want to cite to evidence this nonsense.Romans says "who exchanged the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (1:25)[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-22-2004]

Let me try to put this into three syllogisms.If God exists, then Romans is true, therefore people who deny the existence of God are in error.If Romans is true, then there will be people who deny the existence of God, therefore God exists.If the people who deny God's existence are in error, then God exists, therefore Romans is true.Did I sum it up at all?That is an interesting point about the avatars though, I never thought of that. Can I ask for a bit of clarification though? Do these people know that those avatars are their Gods?

quote:

---

If you want to hold to the dogma that mankind descended from an animal then this position is contrary to Genesis. Where do you get your beliefs about God from ? If you say Genesis, then I only want to point out that Genesis has God creating Adam suddenly AND THEN God created the animals. Now, if you or anyone wants to dismiss this as the error of literalism I challenge you to provide your alternative interpretation OF WHAT I SAID.

---

My own interpretation (and certainly not the final and best) is that when God "created man in his image" this did not mean that we were made to look like him. Instead, we were given the reasoning and moral judgement that God also has. So man's physical form could have been descended from animals but his mental abilities were bestowed by God. I think this fits in fine with both the Genesis account as allegory as well as the theology of the Bible. This also fits with the Tree of Knowledge, as we gain knowledge of sin and death that seem to be limited to the human species. I look at Genesis as a recounting of man's arrival as a sentient being, not a special physical form made from dust.Just as a side note, if you are not a YEC, what flavor are you? You may have described it earlier, or in a different thread, so I apologize if I am making you repeat yourself.

Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
If God exists, then Romans is true, therefore people who deny the existence of God are in error.If Romans is true, then there will be people who deny the existence of GodIf the people who deny God's existence are in error, then God exists, therefore Romans is true.
______________________________________________________________________Cynic1, I deleted "therefore God exists" from the end of the second line. Your summation above, in edited form, I can live with.IF you are tempted into crafting a response that levels an indictment of circularity then I advise caution as I have loosely said that I can live with what you presented.Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
That is an interesting point about the avatars though, I never thought of that. Can I ask for a bit of clarification though? Do these people know that those avatars are their Gods?
______________________________________________________________________Of course not ! What modern well educated person of the world would admit to primitive idol/god worship ?Romans doesn't say that they think animals/creatures are intelligent gods, it says that these animals are the inordinate object of their focus in place of the Creator. I am simply pointing out what Romans says (2000 years ago) and then pointing out slivers of evidence that support the declarations/verses.When God reacts to premeditated rejection/defiance via the removal of "God sense", recipients are left in a state unable to recognize or apprehend God. The Roman verse in question proclaims that persons in this state of wrath will be obsessed with and promote creatures in place of the Creator.Evolutionists are excessively focused on creatures instead of the Creator. I am glad you at least see the "irony" of this verse of scripture.

Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________
My own interpretation (and certainly not the final and best) is that when God "created man in his image" this did not mean that we were made to look like him
______________________________________________________________________The number one rule when interpreting scripture is that God means what He says and says what He means UNLESS there exists the clear use of symbolism, typology, analogy, allegory, or parable.Loudmouth, I am a God sense creationist. We demand God be given credit as the ultimate Creator. We believe man was created special by God and that there are eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.These eons and eons of time COULD accomodate the massive amounts of time that animal evolution requires but not 4 1/2 billion years.
Certain evos have seized this interpretation to do just that. I reject the emotive meaning of theistic evolution because the average TEist winks at God and lets Genesis exist in the rape rooms of atheist evos.The Bible says man started out real good and then rapidly decayed under the influence of Satan. This decay was obliterated by God in the Flood. Then man continued in his exalted state but gradually descended downward ending in the Dark Ages.The Renaissance began man's ascent back up as we are slowly approaching the intelligence of the ancients.OTOH, evolution has man in primordial soup and slowly improving. These two scenarios are far apart and only one of them can be correct.Thanks for listening.Edited to add this P.S.Loudmouth would you take a hack at the science portion of post number 71 in this topic ?[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-22-2004]

"willowtree" is used in a line of lyric in one of my favorite songs.The lyric says "a willowtree is strong enough to bend".Also, I live near a street called "Willow".Asgara, while I have you I want to respond to your question about the evidence of the apostles deaths that came in your post to that fiend.
Could you re-ask the question in your Resurrection topic and notify me and then I will answer this long standing question of yours ?About the avatars, can you see the irony of the verse in reality ?

quote:

---

IF you are tempted into crafting a response that levels an indictment of circularity then I advise caution as I have loosely said that I can live with what you presented.

---

If circularity doesn't bother you, then I think we are done on that topic. I'd much rather take God completely on faith than create a circular argument to "prove" him. That's just me though, and I don't judge your route to faith.I also am going to have to disagree with you on the issue of the avatars. While I do agree that many proponents of evolution are more focused on animals than the Creator (except perhaps theistic evolutionists), I do not think it is a correct comparison to liken this focus with focus on a God. I have thought about it for a while, and I just think it is too much of a stretch.

WillowTree,I have addressed Behe's claims in another thread which I started (Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted). As you can guess, I am opposed to ID theories, even opposed to calling them science. But, this aside I will try and give brief comments on Behe and others from post 71 with the caveat that further discussion be in the above thread or in a new thread (tyring to clean up my topic drift habits).

quote:

---

Michael Behe's IC systems, IF they are in fact IC, then his simple claim that these IC systems cannot be attributed to the slow step by tiny step evolutionary mutative process ?
  —WillowTree

---

I will concede that these systems are Irreducibly Complex (IC), as defined by Behe. I will even concede that some IC systems pose a difficulty for DIRECT evolutionary pathways. However, what Behe and other IC proponents ignore is INDIRECT evolutionary pathways. That is, each part of the system may have been used for a different function before they became part of the IC system. If I remember correctly, Behe conceded that such pathways can result in IC systems but that indirect pathways are not possible. In other words, the whole IC argument rests on Behe's credulity of possible evolutionary pathways, not on a model or a logical and testable hypothesis.

quote:

---

IDists have interpreted this evidence to clearly say, by deduction, that the alleged Creator was involved.

---

Just as a note, in public IDists claim that an Intelligence is involved, not necessarily a diety. Of course, privately they are insinuating a role for a supernatural diety, but a diety is not necessarily required.

quote:

---

Physicist Mark Perakh, in his 2004 book "Unintelligent Design" wants to refute Behe by redefining IC systems to already belong to Algorithmic Theory of Probability (ATP) which of course is a product of randomness/chance.

---

Sounds like an interesting read. I am a little weak on my physics, but may be worth the effort. ATP sounds like a combo of natural selection and mutation which is not strictly an algorithm of pure chance. Chance/non-chance is a huge can of worms which would be better served in another thread.

quote:

---

This refutation (providing that I have accurately represented his position) is in fact not a refutation, but an admission that the systems are IC (which Perakh assumes as he is not a micro biologist) and that the IC systems are to be arbitrarily assigned to randomness.

---

Don't forget the non-random factor: selection. Fitness is not arbitrary and non-random, and it is selected for.

quote:

---

This "refutation" completely ignores and fails to address Behe's claim against the long standing evolutionary processes of ultra-slow step by tiny step improvement. I was extremely disappointed to see Behe's claims sidestepped.

---

You might want to check out my thread which is referenced above. If I have also sidestepped this claim, let me know or bring it up within the other thread.However, there is one claim that Behe doesn't back up. He claims that these IC systems had to come about "in one fell swoop". He never shows any evidence that these IC systems did come about in one fell swoop. This is a weak point for Behe, as he bases his whole theory on evidence that isn't there. In my opinion, until Behe shows how the flagellum came about in a saltation like matter, or in one fell swoop, his theory falls flat. Ditto for his other mechanisms. As an aside, I feel that Behe's use of IC systems that don't fossilize is a sidestep as well. In my thread I address the mammalian middle ear IC system and how it evolved from reptillian ancestors. Behe should pick systems that he can track in the fossil record, but he refuses to be pinned down by evidence. I don't see how the middle ear system is any different than his pet mousetrap IC system.

quote:

---

Perakh is interpreting claims of Divine involvement, which are based upon evidence, that an IDer was not involved based solely on his worldview - fine.

---

I haven't read Perakh's book, but I will go with my views on this one. The ID "theory" is not based on a testable hypothesis. What good is a theory if you can't test it? This is the problem, it is a claim by the IDists that such systems came about due to supernatural fiat. However, they themselves are not able to decide what is designed and what isn't designed. There is not a way to look at a stretch of DNA and decide if it is designed or not, at least within the confines of ID theory. All they seem to do is point a finger and arbitrarily call things designed. A testable theory/hypothesis would rid ID theory of its subjective nature by using objective evidence/models.To the admins and Willow, this is a one time deal within this thread. Hopefully this will be a teaser for going through the above mentioned thread on Behe or starting a new one. I will gladly reply to anyone with questions or criticisms, but only outside of this thread. Thanks.

Actually darlin', I would prefer that you just go there and answer it. I have asked so many times that it would be rather ridiculous to ask me to repeat myself yet again.Just find the thread and say...Asgara I will finally answer you. Then you can procede to answer. Don't worry, I will see it.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Hi Willow, sorry about the delayed response. Work has been busy, to include some fairly extensive (and tiring) travel, so I haven't had much chance to even read the forum, much less pursue our discussion. Actually, "nagging uncertainty" (although without the negative connotation) is precisely what drives my interest in evolutionary biology. One of the things that keeps me going out into the weeds and fighting mosquitos, chiggers, and perpetual mud is a burning desire to reduce uncertainty - by making observations and adding to the store of human knowledge (is that a pretentious statement, or what? ). Really, I want to know - so I keep looking. And everything I encounter on nearly every excursion into the natural world simply reinforces the amazing capability of evolutionary science to explain the incredible diversity, intricate interdependencies, and odd-ball quirks and occasional weirdnesses I run into. So, to answer your second question: no, I'm not desensitized to uncertainty - it's what drives me and motivates me to keep learning and observing.As far as the "big questions" like "what happens after we die" go, I can glimpse enough of an answer in nature to satisfy my curiosity. For instance, I have watched enough populations go extinct - disappear from a habitat from one year to another through ecosystem degradation or other problems - never to reappear, to understand that death is the expected ending for all life forms on the planet. I'm not egoist enough to be concerned about the fact that the rule applies to me personally as well. So I simply don't worry about it. It is enough to have lived life as best I can. And if I have been able to make the world even the teensiest tiniest increment better (which may be subjective, but I think a case can be made for "better" in an objective sense as well), then from a philosophical standpoint I consider that I have fulfilled "my purpose" - beyond simple biological replacement. Who can ask for, or IMO needs, more?edited to add: And that, I think, is about as "philosophical" as I can ever get. [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-01-2004]

You're welcome. However, as to your "blasting scientism" remark, I have to say that in all the threads I've seen where you've brought up the issue, you have consistently failed to present any actual case where any practicing scientist has "surreptitiously offer[ed] personal worldviews in the reporting of scientifc research". I have subscriptions to a few mainstream journals ("Trends in Ecology and Evolution" - although I don't pretend to understand all of the articles - and "Conservation Biology"), as well as reading a lot of the freebies on line (like PNAS) that refer to my field in some way, and I have never seen anything like what you suggest. I guess I'm still waiting for your concrete example of where this occurs. No, not really. Or at least I don't yet understand why you claim this. I would be interested in hearing why you can't simply take the neutrality basis of MN as I've presented it at face value - that is, support your contention with specifics. The ToE, since it is wholly an MN approach to understanding the diversity of life, and even you admit that MN is wholly "divine neutral", logically the ToE is neutral as well. There's no additional or hidden agenda - or if there is, you need to present specific cases so I can understand what you're on about. As I noted, whether or not the God of Genesis was involved - or any other supernatural entity for that matter - is a question that is simply unaddressable using MN. The falsification criteria is only one of the reasons why this is the case. YOU personally may hold the opinion that the ToE implies that "the God of Genesis was not involved", but that is your unsubstantiated (thus far) opinion. The mere existence of Christians who are believers but who also accept the findings of science and the utility of MN (consider Trixie and B2P, here on this forum, or my wife for that matter, as examples), itself falsifies your contention. I will admit that the findings of science tend to reduce a literal reading of Genesis to absurdity, but what does literalism have to do with the existence of your God?As far as the IC discussion - I haven't really studied Behe that much, only excerpts from his book. Loudmouth did a pretty good job of discussing some of the weakenesses in Behe's theory - especially the part about direct/indirect evolutionary pathways. No one doubts that there are irreducibly complex biological systems. However, my understanding of Behe (admittedly second-hand), is that he presents a logical leap from "currently irreducible" to "impossible to evolve" without considering all the possible ways that they COULD evolve - one of the problems with trying to prove a negative, I suppose. As long as a plausible pathway to how a system could have evolved (not "did evolve") is presented that is logical and consistent with other observed instances/mechanisms of change at the microscopic level, then Behe's weak initial premise is refuted - rendering his entire argument untenable.I admit I have no clue what Perakh is on about, and leave that issue.

Quetzal quote:
______________________________________________________________________
to say that in all the threads I've seen where you've brought up the issue, you have consistently failed to present any actual case where any practicing scientist has "surreptitiously offer[ed] personal worldviews in the reporting of scientifc research
______________________________________________________________________Any atheist scientist/paleontologist is making statements about the Divine in their research whether they mention God or not. It is a given. Evolution has the emotive and reportive meaning that the God of Genesis was not involved.Quetzal quote:
_____________________________________________________________________
I will admit that the findings of science tend to reduce a literal reading of Genesis to absurdity, but what does literalism have to do with the existence of your God?
______________________________________________________________________Thanks for your honesty.Real quickly: Literalism is the invented slur intended to eviscerate Genesis of meaning. This was done, in part, as a reaction to the nonsense of YEC. Let me ask rhetorically: Since when does Genesis not mean what it says or say what it means ? What basis is there, from Genesis, or anywhere in the Bible to conclude that it doesn't mean what it says ? There isn't any, it just that certains do not like what it says so they change it or the way it should be understood.Most of the problems between science and Genesis originate from theologians who know nothing about science, and scientists who know nothing about the Bible/Genesis.IF God IS, then how could creation contradict Genesis ?Quetzal, TEists are puppets who give lip service to God then let Genesis exist in scientific rape rooms. There theism is dwarfed by their allegiance to science/matter based deities. Just my opinion.Quetzal, I really do not want to go on and on in a topic that I know you are bored with. A while back you said that you would reply to anti-evolution evidence by Richard Milton. If I post it are you still willing ? I will post it how I understand it then await your response. I will not be an opponent - just a learner/semi-devils advocate. I will create a topic with your name in it - ok ?It will be Milton's challenge to dating methods/veracity.What do you think ?