Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
38 online now:
GDR, jar, PaulK, ringo, Theodoric (5 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,068 Year: 19,104/19,786 Month: 1,524/1,705 Week: 330/446 Day: 69/59 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hugh Ross
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 46 of 90 (570158)
07-26-2010 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ringo
07-25-2010 11:53 AM


Re: thats some lie
Specifically, what "evidence" are all creationists ignoring, that constitutes lying?

That's a pretty strong charge, so you must be able to provide some very specific examples of what evidence you are referring to.

You are not saying that a few examples of bacterial mutations must be enough to convince everybody on the planet that Darwinian evolution must be correct or they are liars are you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 07-25-2010 11:53 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 07-26-2010 1:37 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17455
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 47 of 90 (570159)
07-26-2010 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by kbertsche
07-26-2010 1:05 AM


Re: thats some lie
kbertsche writes:

But where, specifically, is he "lying" about origin of life research?


As I said:

quote:
At best, they're lying to themselves.

Hint: It's a general statement, not directed at a specific frame in the video.

Edited by Ringo, : Fixed quote.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by kbertsche, posted 07-26-2010 1:05 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17455
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 48 of 90 (570161)
07-26-2010 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 1:16 AM


Re: thats some lie
Bolder-dash writes:

Specifically, what "evidence" are all creationists ignoring, that constitutes lying?


You've been given examples in numerous topics. If you want to start a specific topic on it, I'm sure people will be happy to provide a lot more.

Bolder-dash writes:

You are not saying that a few examples of bacterial mutations must be enough to convince everybody on the planet that Darwinian evolution must be correct or they are liars are you?


No, I'm not talking about a "few examples of bacterial mutations". I'm talking about the thousands that you ignore. And no, I'm not talking about Darwin. Move into the twenty-first century. And no, I wouldn't expect any amount of evidence to convince people who have such an anti-science agenda.

Edited by Ringo, : Corrected missspelling.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 1:16 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 2:04 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 49 of 90 (570163)
07-26-2010 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ringo
07-26-2010 1:37 AM


Re: thats some lie
Well, it is YOU, who has made the accusation that people are ignoring, thosands as you say, so it is incumbent on you to give a few of these examples.

You are pulling the same stunt that so many do on this forum, claiming evidence abounds, and then shucking off that responsibility to show any, by saying it is in some book, or others have already provided it.

So since you are claiming the evidence is so overwhelming as to be obvious to anyone who isn't "lying" as you charge, then you must back up that statement with evidence, or it is you who is doing the lying.

Are you just throwing about baseless accusations are not? Don't just talk out your ass. Back up your claims. I thought that was a fundamental rule of this forum-if you make outrageous claims, you should be able to support it with evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 07-26-2010 1:37 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 2:12 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 90 (570164)
07-26-2010 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 2:04 AM


Re: thats some lie
Maybe you could start with:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

and then, after you've read that, explain why you don't find it sufficient. If you need more we can Google Scholar it for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 2:04 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 2:45 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 51 of 90 (570166)
07-26-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
07-26-2010 2:12 AM


Re: thats some lie
That is a link to a discussion about common descent, which is not what the question is. The question is what mechanism was used to create the common descent. How can we know it wasn't intelligently planned that way?

Secondly, if all you can do is throw out a link, you are going to have to explain where in that link it provides the answers you are suggesting it does.

For instance, one paragraph says: "One of the oldest, most basic, and most frequently used methods for character resolution is the maximum parsimony (MP) criterion (Edwards and Cavalli-Sforza 1963; Kitching et al. 1998). The parsimony criterion mandates that the best tree describing the data is the tree that minimizes the amount of character conflict...."

Now, how would one know if THIS is the evidence you are citing to claim that it is overwhelming, if none of you are even able to state for yourself what evidence is overwhelming.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 2:12 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:15 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 90 (570167)
07-26-2010 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 2:45 AM


Re: thats some lie
That is a link to a discussion about common descent

No, it's a link to "29+ evidences for evolution." You're supposed to follow the outline.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand that you were being given a fairly substantial reading assignment, but you asked for the evidence for evolution that creationists were ignoring, and that's it - creationists, like you, are ignoring all that evidence. And more.

Secondly, if all you can do is throw out a link, you are going to have to explain where in that link it provides the answers you are suggesting it does.

At the link. Follow the outline.

For instance, one paragraph says: "One of the oldest, most basic, and most frequently used methods for character resolution is the maximum parsimony (MP) criterion (Edwards and Cavalli-Sforza 1963; Kitching et al. 1998). The parsimony criterion mandates that the best tree describing the data is the tree that minimizes the amount of character conflict...."

And?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 2:45 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 3:40 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 53 of 90 (570169)
07-26-2010 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Flyer75
07-25-2010 9:56 AM


Re: My take on Hugh Ross
Thanks for your response, Flyer. Let me start by commenting, as others have, on your portrayal of Lyell and Hutton as atheists.

If wikipedia is anything to go by:

Wikipedia article on Lyell:

quote:
Later, Darwin became a close personal friend, and Lyell was one of the first scientists to support On the Origin of Species, though he did not subscribe to all its contents. Lyell was also a friend of Darwin's closest colleagues, Hooker and Huxley, but unlike them he struggled to square his religious beliefs with evolution. This inner struggle has been much commented on. He had particular difficulty in believing in natural selection as the main motive force in evolution

quote:
In other respects Antiquity was a success. It sold well, and it "shattered the tacit agreement that mankind should be the sole preserve of theologians and historians". But when Lyell wrote that it remained a profound mystery how the huge gulf between man and beast could be bridged, Darwin wrote "Oh!" in the margin of his copy.

One alternative source I googled quotes Lyell as saying: (page 14)

quote:
We have been able to prove that beings lived,
called by the Creator into existence on this
planet-to display the beautiful and perfect
harmony of the Universe-to show that all is
modeled on one plan; that different as are the
various genera that have lived...Geology shows
that all things are the work of one Intelligence-
One Mind-all links of one chain: that the Earth
must have been admirably fitted for successive
states which were to endure for ages. Thus do we
learn to admire the variety and beauty of design
displayed when we find traces and signs of the
same design, the same unity of plan, the same
harmony of wisdom through so vast a series as
has been established by the Infinite and Eternal
Creative power.

Wikipedia on Hutton:

quote:
As a deist, to him this mechanism allowed species to form varieties better adapted to particular conditions and was evidence of benevolent design in nature

Need I go on? I was actually not previously aware of Lyell's and Hutton's beliefs before I looked it up now, and it's fascinating to see how theories that so many YECs consider "atheistic" today, were originally put forth by individuals who believed in an Intelligent Designer (so to speak). Even Darwin was a believer when he began working on his theory, though certainly over the years he became increasingly skeptical of Christianity.

Of course, it doesn't really matter does it? Lyell and Hutton could have been radical atheists that roasted babies over piles of burning bibles, and their theories would still have to stand on their own. We need to evaluate their theories based on the current evidence, and apply the same rigorous examination to interpretations of scripture. If an interpretation of scripture is viable, it too can stand scrutiny, and it doesn't matter which pious individual theologian so-and-so's are its proponents.

To sum up my argument on the (un)importance of a proponent's religious perspective on the validity of a theory I'm going to quote St Augustine of Hippo. He was a Christian theologian who lived during the 5th century who wrote a work titled "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (De Genesi ad literam) where he wrote that Genesis should be taken as metaphor where it conflicts with known science. He wrote:

St Augustine writes:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

The debate is older than most people think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Flyer75 writes:

For example, Peter mentions the flood refers to it as a literal event. Christ loosely mentions creation and refers to it as a literal event. I feel that people who deny the literalness of the flood, but can yet accept Peter's words in the NT, have a serisous issue with Scriptural "authority".

Yes, I've heard this argument before. As far as I can tell there is no way to know whether Jesus actually believed the flood was both literal AND covered the entire planet. He refers to a well known story from Jewish tradition to make a point. Similarly, a theologian today could refer to a story, like George and the Dragon, to make a theological point, without necessarily explicitly specifying that the story is a myth. If the literal truth of a story doesn't really matter to the point you're making, it isn't necessarily important to mention whether it's literally true or not.

Flyer75 writes:

I'd have a hard time believing that they would have compromised scriptural authority based on science too

Do you think St Augustine compromised scriptural authority by seeing Genesis as metaphor?

Flyer75 writes:

IF Adam and Eve are myth or allegory, if the flood is just a version of a Babylonian folk tale, then we've been lied to, not only in the OT, but also throughout the more modern NT. The flood account in Genesis 6-9 is the MOST detailed account of event in ALL OF SCRIPTURE. The detail that the author goes through in those 3 chapters is astounding. And all for a myth?? We are given less detail in things that you would consider literal in scripture! Furthermore, Peter reiterates the account (in less detail) and likens it to the end times....so, will the end times be myth, localized, a select few....or are we being lied to. I have a feeling where this part of the conversation will lead us but I'll wait for your response.

The amount of detail in a story is hardly cause to consider whether it was inspired by a true event, or whether it was a legend, inspired by God to teach a lesson about His relation to us. To make a wild comparison that is a bit irreverent: George Lucas has put a lot of detail into the Star Wars universe, yet we all know that Star Wars is fiction. My point is that detail alone is not necessarily an indication of the literal truth of a story.

We also know the writers were human. I would guess that the writers of the Noachian deluge myth probably did believe it. Presumably it had been passed down from generation to generation over long periods of time. Deluge myths are prevalent among many different belief systems, and I would a hazard a guess that while some may have arisen independently, many stem from folk memory of past deluge(s). We know that catastrophic floodings have afflicted people many times in the past. It is certainly possible that God was involved in one of these, inspiring a family to build a vessel to save them from the disaster. I won't rule that out, though I suspect that the size of the ark given in Genesis is hyperbole, as is the magnitude of the flooding.

Or it could all be an allegory of salvation. It could be that God adapted a wide-spread folk myth and incorporated it into the faith of his people to shape their view on salvation and prepare them for the future arrival of Christ.

Do I think God is a liar? No, certainly not. Today with our scientific view of things and a rather bland sense of culture and tradition we demand that our stories be either complete fiction (like Star Wars) or literally true (science textbooks and police reports). I don't know if this has always been the case, but I doubt it.
Do I believe God has a plan for humanity? Yes, I believe that.
Do I think God truly influenced the beliefs of his people? Yes, I do.
Am I a theologian? No, I am not. All I can do is speculate and guess, and have faith that in the end, God knows best, and has a plan for us. In the meantime, I won't be afraid to challenge any of my beliefs (which are fallible) in light of the physical evidence that God's creation provides us with. I think Jesus would have approved.

Flyer75 writes:

FYI, I appreciate your conclusion Melindoor.

Thank you Flyer. And I appreciate your civil and honest debating style, even when you're wrong :D

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Flyer75, posted 07-25-2010 9:56 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 3:43 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 54 of 90 (570170)
07-26-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
07-26-2010 3:15 AM


Re: thats some lie
Is it asking too much for you to actually read the link that YOU posted?

The name of the article is QUOTE: "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent"

Did you catch the line that says-'The Scientific Case for Common Descent"? Well, there's a clue there. It's talking about the case for common descent!!!!!

Geez, and you wonder why creationists can't believe what you say?

As a whole, I don't think the evolutionist side of the argument on this forum, although clearly the great majority of posters, can be very proud of their abilities to communicate intellectually.

You all would probably just be better off saying "Well, I can't answer any of your questions, but I know it is in a book. Someone told me"

No, wait, that IS what your side always says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:15 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:43 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 75 by killinghurts, posted 07-27-2010 12:33 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 90 (570171)
07-26-2010 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 3:40 AM


Re: thats some lie
Did you catch the line that says-'The Scientific Case for Common Descent"? Well, there's a clue there. It's talking about the case for common descent!!!!!

And that's the evidence that creationists ignore. Which is what you asked for.

Can you be more specific about the problem you're having, here? Because right now it seems like you're intent on ignoring evidence.

You all would probably just be better off saying "Well, I can't answer any of your questions

Can you be more specific about what questions you've asked that have not been answered by the material I linked to? You understand you're supposed to read all those links, right? (It's ok if you want to start with the ones most germane to your interests, you don't have to read them in order.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 3:40 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:09 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 56 of 90 (570172)
07-26-2010 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 3:35 AM


Re: My take on Hugh Ross
If wikipedia is anything to go by:

It most definitely isn't.

At least when it comes to writing objectively about worldviews. In fact, I would say it is downright propaganda.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 3:35 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:44 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 3:48 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 90 (570173)
07-26-2010 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 3:43 AM


Re: My take on Hugh Ross
In this particular case, on these two particular articles, what is Wikipedia in error about? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 3:43 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 58 of 90 (570174)
07-26-2010 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 3:43 AM


The reliability of wiki
Hi Bolder-dash,

That's why I also relied on a separate source for Lyell. But you can simply google for information on Lyell and Hutton's religious beliefs and find plenty of information from a variety of sources.

Do you disagree with the quoted passages from wiki?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : Changed title


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 3:43 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:25 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 59 of 90 (570176)
07-26-2010 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
07-26-2010 3:43 AM


Re: thats some lie
I am sorry to be so blunt, but now you are sounding downright silly.

Go back and read what you just wrote. No wait, let me just show it to you right here so you don't get lost on the way:

That is a link to a discussion about common descent (me talking!)

No, it's a link to "29+ evidences for evolution." You're supposed to follow the outline. (you talking!)

I repeat, its a discussion about common descent! Thus the title.

Now, if I asked you to show evidence that all life on earth is somehow related, then hey, you might have something there. Did you accidentally recall hearing that?

I think you have convinced me of one thing however. It is fundamentally useless to discuss evolution on this website. I have already seen how ineffectively the rules of discussion are enforced, I have seen how un-opened minded, and incapable of reflection most of the posters are, and now lately I am seeing just how plain uninformed the evolutionists here are about their own dam theory. They believe in something they don't even have the darndest clue about, so they certainly aren't going to be able to articulate why they believe it.

And yet they rave on and on about how dumb and misguided creationists are.

I am not referencing you in particular, but the wealth of mindless blind faith and ignorance on this website is astounding.

And quite a waste of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 3:43 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 4:21 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 4:25 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 587 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 60 of 90 (570178)
07-26-2010 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 4:09 AM


Re: thats some lie
Bolder-dash writes:

Now, if I asked you to show evidence that all life on earth is somehow related, then hey, you might have something there. Did you accidentally recall hearing that?


Did you or did you not, in Message 49, when you said this:

Bolder-dash writes:

Well, it is YOU, who has made the accusation that people are ignoring, thosands as you say, so it is incumbent on you to give a few of these examples.


Ask for evidence that creationists are ignoring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:09 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:30 AM Huntard has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019