Posts by hooberus

28

The Stake is a more pagan symbol than the Cross

by jwfacts in

i just found an interesting sumerian myth that i wanted to share.

the watchtower claims that the cross was not used by true christians and is of pagan origins.

(watchtower 1989 may 1 p.26 it reveres a pagan symbol masquerading as christian.

hooberus

Also the sacred poles erected on the high places and the groves of trees worshipped as phallic fertility symbols are condemned throughout the Bible, but the cross is never condemned.

good point

28

The Stake is a more pagan symbol than the Cross

by jwfacts in

i just found an interesting sumerian myth that i wanted to share.

the watchtower claims that the cross was not used by true christians and is of pagan origins.

(watchtower 1989 may 1 p.26 it reveres a pagan symbol masquerading as christian.

hooberus

A stake or pole has as great a sexual connotation as the cross and significant pagan usage.

In the past I searched the Watchtower CD for pagan references to the pole (I think I typed in "upright pole")- sure enough they admit it.

40

My problem w/ evolution vs. creationism

by TallTexan in

i personally don't care what anyone else believes.

i believe that there is a creator that created the heavens and earth.

i believe that it occurred over a period much longer than 7 literal days.. here's my problem.

hooberus

Furthermore even dedicated recent "evolution" books frequently start with abiogenesis and then transition into other aspects of evolution with no demarcation.

(The fact is that "evolution" can be defined in many different ways from the minimalist "any change in alle frequencies" to possibly also include things such as universal common ancestry, amphibians descending from fish, humans descending from ancient apes, even to the origin of life itself.)

Good point, Hoob'. Perhaps that example is not the best one, eh?

The fact remains though that evolution is an idea that is derided by people that don't even know what it is. How many of them can actually describe what natural selection really is? How many still ask, "If we evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps?" The fact that they ask questions that have answers shows that they don't actually understand what it is they don't believe.

I agree that if people are going to make specific arguments against evolution (e.g. "if we evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps?", etc.) that they should first attempt to know what they are talking about (see also this link http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp).

However, it should also be noted that many (though not all) evolutionists have a poor knowlege about evolution as well. Take for example what you mentioned- that is: "natural selection." Evolutionists commonly defer to what ReMine terms "naive natural selection" in the debate when in reality such a simplistic concept assumes a "uniform fitness incline, with no significant barriers in the terrain" as well as other non-real world factors. He goes on to discuss that what evolution really requires is "inventive natural selection". Though I don't agree with all of his points, I think that his book should be read by everyone who desires more knowlege on the subject (for example he shows why natural selection and population genetics can be treated as distinctly separate bodies of theory and why "The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection" was actually misnamed) . For more information see: http://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm -(I also know of a source where the book can be purchased less expensively).

40

My problem w/ evolution vs. creationism

by TallTexan in

i personally don't care what anyone else believes.

i believe that there is a creator that created the heavens and earth.

i believe that it occurred over a period much longer than 7 literal days.. here's my problem.

hooberus

I return to my earlier point that most creationists don't know what evolution is about, why it considered a fact, etc. Perhaps you do, but most do not. Most begin their argument along the lines of "There is no way life could have started by chance" which immediately shows their ignorance of evolution, since it doesn't address the question of how life itself began.

It should be noted that while today most evolutionists exclude the origin of life from "evolution" the fact also remains that even some evolutionists themselves have included it-including the prominent George Gaylord Simpson who wrote: "The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems." - opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of evolution" 1949)

Furthermore even dedicated recent "evolution" books frequently start with abiogenesis and then transition into other aspects of evolution with no demarcation. (The fact is that "evolution" can be defined in many different ways from the minimalist "any change in alle frequencies" to possibly also include things such as universal common ancestry, amphibians descending from fish, humans descending from ancient apes, even to the origin of life itself.) I believe that one of the reasons for the insistence by many evolutionists today that it must be "excluded" by definition is really in response to the scientific difficulties that have been revealed, and not to any empirical necessity that it be excluded.

40

My problem w/ evolution vs. creationism

by TallTexan in

i personally don't care what anyone else believes.

i believe that there is a creator that created the heavens and earth.

i believe that it occurred over a period much longer than 7 literal days.. here's my problem.

hooberus

For overall unifying theories of creation (from a Biblical/historical perspective) see:

http://www.creationresearch.org

http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm

http://www.icr.org

http://www.answersingenesis.org http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/archive/

40

My problem w/ evolution vs. creationism

by TallTexan in

i personally don't care what anyone else believes.

i believe that there is a creator that created the heavens and earth.

i believe that it occurred over a period much longer than 7 literal days.. here's my problem.

hooberus

How many things are predicted by ID and are actually found? What scientific evidence is there for ID. It is only a attack, showing some possible holes in evolution, prediction nothing, leaving nothing to be discovered. Therefor it is no science, therefor it should no be thought as science.

Here is a specific falsifiable prediction (paraphrased from ReMine's The Biotic Message): "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of biological life from non-life."
It is potentiallly falsifiable by demonstrating that unintelligent natural forces are sufficient to produce biological life from non-life. Similar predictive statements can also be extended to things such as the origin of biological structures*, predictive independent origin (non-evolutionary) fossil trends (http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/battson/stasis/3.html), etc.
* For example the following is a brief description of what is involved in obtaining vision from one componet (photoreceptor) of even "simple" eyes (It can be verified by comparing it with a college level biology textbook). Due to life's pattern neo-darwinian evolutionists have been required to believe that photoreceptors would have to have evolved independently by unintelligent, non pre-directed (purpose) "naturalistic" means at least 40-60+ times. Keep in mind that photoreceptors are required for even the simplest eyes, and also the below treatment does not discuss the complexity of the sub-compontets named (ie: rhodopsin) etc. source (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51)

Here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision. When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

hooberus

hooberus:

The Biblical creationist view does not precludes that "the world is real and largely as it appears to be, and that measuring, investigation and the use of logic can lead us to useful conclusions about the universe."

No, it doesn't preclude it, but such a view is secondary to their primary supposition that the Bible is true. Where there is a clear contradiction between the literalist interpretation of the Bible and the observable evidence (as in Abaddon's examples above), they choose the former.

Many creationists deny that they presuppose such a thing. At least AIG are honest and admit it, although to justify this view they need to claim that those who believe in evolution also have presuppositions, and that these are of the same kind as their own, a claim that is clearly untrue.

Many evolutionists do have presuppositions. For example one of them is that of only considering "naturalistic"(materialistic) * explanations for all phenomena including origins (before looking at and regardless of the data). Thus we find statements such as:

"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added)
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Scott C. Todd
Department of Biology, Kansas State University, 18 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA Nature 401, 423 (30 September 1999); doi:10.1038/46661 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6752/full/401423b0_fs.html

Furthermore many evolutionists (including the NAS and teachers groups) even go so far as to require that "science" itself be defined as being limited to only "naturalistic" explanations:

"The NAS defines science as a search for purely natural explanations for all phenomena. Under this definition, science is bound to oppose any theory of intelligent design, no matter how compelling the evidence. That is fine, but the NAS should admit that this definition is a philosophic choice, and a statement of faith that natural explanations indeed exist for all things, and indeed are true." (A Critical Analysis of Science and Creationism A view from the National Academy of Sciences In relation to Intelligent Design Theory By Casey Luskin)

“If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”
(Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)

Indeed much of the Kansas School Board controversy simply involves the definition of "science" itself -in which evolutionists are demanding that the definition of "science" itself be as being limited to only "natural" explanations: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world." (The other side is simply seeeking a definition that is philosophically neutral -that is that is: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.") http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Kan.htm

* As Denyse O'Leary stated: "In practice today, "natural explanations" is a code phrase for "explanations that rule out design or purpose." " (ID Report 07-16-05) (Lewontin and Eldrege quotes above provided by http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1169)

15

HOW TO THINK LIKE A FUNDY

by Reluctant Buddha in

planning a career in online christian fundamentalist apologetics?

how about the exciting world of young-earth creationism?

witnessing to, and debating with, atheists and other hellbound unsaved sinners on the internet can be hard work, so you need to familiarise yourself with the tried and tested methods used by fundies all around the world.

hooberus

The "better than you" attitude that the article cliamed to dislike in "fundies" are also often characteristic of their critics. They start with a narrow world view (there is nothing beyond the material universe) and engage in all the fallacies and uncouth actions that they so claim to abhor in "fundies". Just look around on this forum if you don't like what I just said. Anyone who disagrees with the materialist outlook is said to be narrow minded, fanatical, uneducated, or even just plain stupid. Whenever a theist attempts to engage in dialouge, they are usually subjected to ad hominem attacks, their comments are ridiculed, or brushed-off as irrelevant. Just look at some of the comments my little post inspired for instance.

The reason many theists avoid the debate is not because they can't hold a good debate, or because its unfair, it is because they think more highly of themselves than to subject themselves to the kind of mud-slinging that passes for debate with fanatical materialists. As I said earlier, with a little reworking, the article could do quite nicely for Fanatical Materialists as well. Show me where I am wrong!

I agree

107

Why God Cannot Have Used Evolution....

by Shining One in

here is an article from the 'stand to reason' ministry.

this is why i evolution and creation are incompatible.

designed by chance .

hooberus

Quite frankly, given the scale of error you show in the above, I won't bother with your vague claim;
Furthermore, what about the errors on your own preferred site (talkorigins) ? Here are some from a "must read" talkorigins arcticle:
.. about these links;
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1564222/post.ashx#1564222
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566934/post.ashx#1566934
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935
... until you actually specify what they are. As you notice, I say AiG is a pile of donkey poo AND GIVE EXAMPLES WHY IN DETAIL. Please, with your great knowledge of evolutionary science and biology, say what specific Talk Origins articles are in error and why. Wouldn't want you to be an empty vessel and clashing cymbal now, would we?

I did specify the talkorigins errors (there are others as well). The first link is to document your use of the arcticle and the last two are my responses (see especially the third).

107

Why God Cannot Have Used Evolution....

by Shining One in

here is an article from the 'stand to reason' ministry.

this is why i evolution and creation are incompatible.

designed by chance .

hooberus

This supposed back-up to your claims; http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf simply compounds this error from the abstract onward. It assumes the Flood to be fact throughout, when THERE IS NO PROOF. Is there any surprise this is a Creationist-only, non-peer reviewed paper? No.

The paper gives both independent evidence for the the flood (the presence of 14C throught the geological record- indicating a recent age for all samples which additionally would also thus indicate a global catastrophe for their deposition), as well as an explanation for the ratios within the catastrophic paradigm. The paper was written by 4 qualified scientists (including a Los Alamaos National Laboratory scientist) and was I believe also reviewed by other scientists for publication at an ICC conference well.

And it also, either out of sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive, ignores the fact that the simple explanation for very small amounts of C14 in any sample is C14 is NOT JUST PRODUCED IN THE ATMOSPHERE. I see no reason to illuminate you as to the process, or as to why this would be a variable rather than a constant as regards its effects on fossils, or to tell you whether it is a contaminant or something ingrained in the structure of the fossil, as you obviously don't know, and this further illustrates the point I continually make.

The claim that the radioactive decay of other isotopes (such as unranium) in rocks could produce the quantities of 14C observed has been discussed by the afore mentioned Los Alamos scientist (now with ICR) as being thousands of times to low at current rates to account for the data. Also a recent CRSQ arcticle discusses this (summarized below by Fred Williams):

"Finally, Russell Rotta's September CRSW article "Evolutionary Explanations for Anomalous Radio Carbon in Coal?", refutes the sister decay hypothesis mentioned by OC1.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstr...stracts41-2.htm

Rotta showed in a long, detailed analysis that “The concentrations observed in coal are at least a factor of 100,000 more than what could be generated by neutron activation within the coal, and this is the best case. There is just not enough C-14 generated by the low-probability radium decays, spontaneous fission or neutron activation of the coal. The anomalous concentrations of C-14 in coal cannot be explained by any of these generating processes.”

BTW, Rotta also cited evolutionists who admit that contamination is a toothless excuse, since the examples of in situ carbon-14 are so abundant."

Therefore your claims on this (especially "sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive") are fallacious. Futhermore, your claim that I "obviously don't know" about this is also false as I already was aware of both the statements by the Los Alamos scientist (I have his on DVD) as well as the above referenced information from Williams even before any discussions on this thread.