Posts by hooberus

5

looking for recent thread - loyalty /org. WT quote

by hooberus in

jw
friends

.

recenty (within the past couple of months) a thread was started which had a wt arcticle quote on loyalty to organizations.

does anyone have the thread ?

hooberus

Recenty (within the past couple of months) a thread was started which had a WT arcticle quote on loyalty to organizations. Does anyone have the thread ?

91

creationism in the us of a

by googlemagoogle in

just read in the newspaper that some 54% of americans favor creationism and diss darwin.

.

i know, never trust a stat you haven't faked yourself, but... is creationism (especially yec) really that wide spread in the us?

I recommend that interested persons actually acquire and read creationists and ID publications rather than merely rely on other's characterizations (ie: as "religion"; "theology" etc.) of their works:

For example here is the table of contents for one ID book:
http://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm

From a creationist perspetive I would also recommend the "Creation Research Society Quarterly" and the "Technical Journal." Here is an online Technical Journal arcticle (lists are available of all TJ arcticles):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

hooberus

hooberus

For those that don't know, ReMine believes the number of mutations that would arise from a common ancestor in the amount of time since a common ancestor is not sufficient to cause the difference between humans and that common ancestor (a take on the so called "Haldane's Dilema").
However, in doing so he does LOADS of stuff you'd not accept, (even if you ignore him accepting a FAR longer chronology than you hooberus).
For example he puts dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes in what he calls a 'monbaramin' (his definition of this is "a group containing only organisms related by common descent"). By doing so he is placing 12 genera and 34 species together and claiming common ancestry. He thus endorses macro-evolution, (even if he doesn't realise it himself), as not all of the species in his group are interfertile, and thus are different 'kinds' in Creationist-speak.
You, unless I am wrong, refuse to accept evolution beyond the boundaries of an interfertile 'kind'. Thus you endorsing his arguements by citation is actually endorsing arguments that contradict your own claims on several different levels.
Any clearer on why I think you quoting someone that diverges from your opinion to that extent is wrong?

Remine's Haldane population genetics argument (which I have discussed on this forum) deals with the calculated limits of the possible speed of the substitution of beneficial traits over a given period of time (by using evolutionists own population genetics calculations).

It is dealt with in a different chapter in his book than are his comments (which I have not discussed) on his beliefs of the determinations of the variation that has occurred within the basic created types (baraminology), and most importantly his Haldane style population genetics argument does not use, nor is it dependant on his baraminology variation beliefs. Thus, even if* his his baraminolgy variation beliefs were hypothetically different than mine, there is still no contradiction for me to use his population genetics calculation references. (It should also be noted that creationists do not believe that the variation within a created kind would necessaily have required the substitution of beneficial traits to have had occurred.)

Therefore your claims that I have endorsed "arguments that contradict" my "own claims" and that I have done something "wrong" is fallacious. Finally, see no further need to continue taking valuable time here to deal with anymore of your accusations on this issue (of my referencing ReMine).

*My use of the hypothetical "if" was primarily for the sake of the hypothetical point above, and was not meant to imply that ReMine's baraminology is necessarily at variance with what biblical creationists believe. If anyone would like to learn what creationists believe on this (as well as what typoe of biological change such baraminolgy truely "endorses") I will provide the titles of publications available.

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

hooberus

You say you only quoted ReMine for "population genetics and evolutionary theory", but ReMine's theories on those areas are incompatable with your beliefs.
You are quoting what you believe to be wrong to support an argument.
Can you see why I don't think it's good behaviour?

Which of ReMine's theories on the issues that I have referenced him for are "incompatible" with my beliefs?

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

hooberus

hooberus

Abaddon, there is no requirement that in order to credibly quote or reference a source for specific points that a person must also be in agreement with everything else that the source advocates.
No, no requirement, just an expectation of clarity and openess in scientific debate.

There is nothing in my references to ReMine that goes against "an expectation of clarity and openess in scientific debate."

ReMInes's beliefs as regards chronology directly contradict the possibility of your beliefs regarding chronology being true being true.
Personally I would not quote from someone in that way; quoting someone who thinks your beleifs regarding chronology (or whatever) are impossible without stating it when you do so is sloppy and deceptive, even if you didn't mean it to be.

First of all I doubt that Remine would consider my beliefs regarding chronology to be "impossible." More importantly, since I have not quoted from ReMine in regards to any specific chronology at all (but instead referenced him on issues such as population genetics and evolutionary theory), your accusation that my actions are "sloppy and deceptive" even if I "didn't mean it to be" is fallacious.

It is EXACTLY the behaviour in selective and partial quotation that the JW's get slammed for, and that I and others have criticised many Creationists for.

On every issue that I have referenced ReMine on I have represented his views accurately, therefore your accusation that I have engaged in "selective and partial quotation" is fallacious. The mere fact that on other issues (ie: chronology) he takes a different position than myself is no evidence of misrepresentation on my part. I'm sure that you will find that evolutionists themselves frequently reference the works of other evolutionists for specific points -despite not agreeing with every other point of belief on other different issues- and without bringing up the disagreement on the other different issues.

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

hooberus

Hooberus, are you still a 'Young Earth Creationist' who believes in an Earth that is less than/approximately 10,000 years old?
If so, how can you credibly quote from a source which doesn't hold the same opinion? ReMine, for example, accepts standard time scales. Yet you are willing to quote him to support your argument when it suits you, despite the fact that his view are utterly incompatable with yours.
It would be like a Hindu quoting part of a Christian Bible-literalist YEC theory puportedly supporting a low age of the Earth to support a Hindu Creationist theory.

Abaddon, there is no requirement that in order to credibly quote or reference a source for specific points that a person must also be in agreement with everything else that the source advocates. I'm sure that you will find that evolutionists themselves reference the works of other evolutionists for specific points -despite not agreeing with every other point of belief. Anyway, the fact is that there is much in ReMine's book that is compatible with Biblical creationism.

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

hooberus

Do you accept then that animals within a phylum are related, and that those within lower-level taxonomic orders are more closely related?

Regarding animals within phyla: It depends on what you mean by "related". If you mean "related" by having sharred similarities then yes. If you mean "related" by ancestor-descendant relationships then generally no. For example General Motors vehicles can be generally classified hierarchically, are "related" by various amounts by similar characters, with vehicles possessing more and more similarities as the classification scheme moves to lower levels (the similarities being products of a common creative entity-the corporation).

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

hooberus

OK, and do you believe those classifications are arbitrary (like classifying cars by colour, for example) or that they represent part of an actual hierarchical system?

It is generally accepted by creationists that animals are able to be classified by characters under a basic hierarchial classification system.

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

hooberus

Could you define the term "phylum" as youn understand it please.

Is a major taxonomic group that animals are classified into.

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

hooberus

>> A theory such as "that God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly" (which is thus potentially able to generate predictions about what will be and will not be found in the living and fossil world), does not also require that God is also defined "out of a personality or any capacity for creativity" - It is simply a potentially falsifiable/predictive theory as to how creation occurred.

There's the thing, Hooberus... you've just described exactly the opposite of a falsifiable theory. Basically the creation theory as you describe it is not falsifiable until you take God's intelligence away because it's impossible to have predictions.

I disagree, -the above theory can make predictions- for example: Combining the observed fact that in the living biota discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent and that all 30 phyla of living animals are separated from each other by a discontinous gap (Mayr What Evolution Is page 189) with the previous theory that: "God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly" we are thus thus able to generate predictions about what will be and will not be found in the living and fossil world such as: 1) All future animals discovered will be shown to belong to separate and distinct phyla in the living world 2) All animal phyla will be found to remain separate and distinct in the fossil record and not emerge other phyla. And, as I said previously, such a theory does not also require that God is also defined "out of a personality or any capacity for creativity" - It is simply a potentially falsifiable/predictive theory as to how creation occurred.

There's nothing to guarantee that you wont have some strange chimera of an animal *in principle* if you have an intelligent creator - it doesn't logically follow.

There is nothing in Evolution to guarantee that you won't have "some strange chimera of an animal *in principal*" either - In the event of finding such a creature evolutionists would simply invoke things such as "lateral transfer" evolution (DNA transposition) between the different and diverse lineages in order to "explain" such a creature.

That's why Evolutionary mechanisms are falsifiable - you can't just make up unfalsifiable exceptions to the rule to get out of sticky situations.

Some evolutionary mechanisms are falsifiable (and have been), others may not be. Evolution itself (as in the claim of the historical evolution) is quite conformable to "exceptions" (by its proponets) "to get out of sticky situations." See ReMine's "The Biotic Message" for numerous examples.

By the way, what *has* creation predicted and how has it helped increase our knowledge and understanding in various scientific disciplines?

The previous creation prediction of the separate and disctinct basic animal types has been born out in the living world and in the fossil record. (For example the various phlya of animals retain their disctinctiveness throughout the fossil record. http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGH.html)

What tangible benefits has this theory brought to mankind?

Perhaps you should first ask this of evolution. What "tangible benefits" has evolutionary theory brought to mankind that would not have been discovered had it not been for the existence of the theory?