Posts by hooberus

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

As you do me when I use talkorigins. Thing is, you misrepresent the situation.
In the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1.ashx which basically has only been responded to by Creationists in the past two months, in your post http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810325/post.ashx#1810325 you say "see especially the third" when refering to some links. Okay then. If we look at that http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935, it is a post of yours I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO OVER HALF A YEAR AGO.

Your response to the specific talk origins errors was to attempt to attribute them to the difficulty inherit in making any "abiogenesisitic probability" calculation - when in fact his errors involve mathematics (e.g. making the entire earth a sphere of water), and omitting well known real world chemical obstacles to protein formation (e.g. chirality, polymerization, etc.), as well as starting off by giving the impression that creationists only criticize "instant" bacteria abiogenesis, and not abiognesis in stages (as they do as well).

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

hooberus
Now, I see you have been responding to old posts, in full knowledge these will be so far off my page of threads responded to I will never be aware of them unless you tell me. My, you must have looked forward to springing that one me. LOL.

You were told that I was responding to some of your previous points. (see end of the following post: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/104540/1810277/post.ashx#1810277)

No response about AiG? I can't see what you CAN say, credibly, so maybe that explains the silence.

My initial response was I feel adequate- however for the sake of clarification here are my commets again with detail as to why they were given: "Interested readers should read the arcticle carefully." -This was so that persons could get the detailed picture such as his specific salary, expense reimbursements, comparison with regional and national averages (of course in any average there will be many salaries both below and above the average), as well salary as a percentage of overall expenses, etc..

"Furthermore, it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."" -This was written as your accusation was also directed against AiG in general as you started it with: "AiG is a money making scheme;. . . " (note how my response was specifically directed against the general charge of AiG being a "scheme").

14

Found some older WTS publications!

by cyberdyne systems 101 in

jw
friends

i was going through some old boxes in my attic and found some older wts publications, mainly spanning late 60's to 90's, but among those was a couple from the 40's and 50's, but the real scoop was the book 'riches' by none other than jf rutherford!

i'm hoping to witness first hand some of the witnesses flip flops on doctrine.. does anyone know if there is anything significant in this book that i should look out for when reading it?.

arnie

hooberus

I was going through some old boxes in my attic and found some older WTS publications, mainly spanning late 60's to 90's, but among those was a couple from the 40's and 50's, but the real scoop was the book 'Riches' by none other than JF Rutherford! I'm hoping to witness first hand some of the Witnesses flip flops on doctrine.
Does anyone know if there is anything significant in this book that I should look out for when reading it?
Arnie

There is a quote in either "Riches" or "Religion" that in the context of opposing the Roman Catholic Church seems to also disparage their "Governing Body". (of course later on 1970'S the WT embraced the concept of a GB for themselves).

59

Christians - Do you believe the flood occurred?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

when i was a bible believer, i accepted the flood.

the frozen mammoths and seashells on mountaintops were "evidence", but the only needed proof was simply that the bible said so.

as a christian, do you believe the flood story?.

hooberus

When I was a Bible believer, I accepted the flood. The frozen mammoths and seashells on mountaintops were "evidence", but the only needed proof was simply that the Bible said so.
As a Christian, do you believe the flood story?
If not, why do you think it's in the Bible?
I'm also interested in any "sort of" beliefs involving for instance more localized flooding and why you think the Bible supports that view.
This isn't meant to be a "prove there was/prove there wasn't" thread, but more of a poll of those that believe in the Bible and their views on the flood.
Dave

I believe the flood account in Genesis and that it was global.

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

As for the link you provide to counter my assertions about AiG, this does not in any way do this. You have done this before, using the exact same link. If one follows that link and scrolls down from your defense of AiG you will find the following comment from me; . . .

And if one continued to "follow that link" to the next page (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/6.ashx) they will find that several of the (technical claims) points in your "following comment" were in fact responded to almost a month ago. Furthermore, I see no need to respond to most of your other comments (interested readers can compare and decide for themselves).

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

Tenebreux said:

I just watched an interesting video presentation by Dr. Bruce Lipton ("The New Biology") in which he shows how cells have the capability of selecting which of their genes will be put into action based on either their own perception of the outside environment or signals from the brain, and if necessary they are able to actually re-write their own DNA to suit the environment. The basic upshot was that genes and DNA are directly altered by perception, belief, and environmental factors - and that evolution (if indeed it happened that way) is anything other than a random process.

You might find interesting the recent paper "Perspectives on Aging, A Young-Earth Creation Diversification Model", T. Wood available from http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc03.htm The following is from a summary by Eric Blievernicht: "Geneticist Dr. Todd Wood of Bryan College presented his thesis of Altruistic Genetic Elements (AGEs), a theory for rapid diversification of life forms from the few survivors after the Cataclysm. Wood presented evidence that organisms can indeed alter their genetic material in response to environmental stimuli, some changes (such as barley in “Evolution Canyon” in Israel) amounting to thousands of genes difference. It is apparent that higher level programs exist within our cells that can direct genetic alterations along pre-determined paths to obtain beneficial results. This is not naturalistic evolution, because the alterations have to be anticipated and programmed in advance or the random results from changing large numbers of genes without specific knowledge of the result would be lethal.

In the AGE model, life forms spreading across the post-Flood earth would have rapidly given rise to distinctive sub-populations as they encountered different environments, leading to diversity such as the fossil horse series mentioned earlier, and current diversity of types of life such as canines and felines." (from http://www.rae.org/ICC2003.html)

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

hooberus

For example even if a primitve self-replicating entity capable of self-replication did come about once, numerous factors (e.g. rapid death from UV damage, hydrolysis by water, etc.) would still strongly weigh against its its even short term survival. Other factors would additionally factor against the survival of any potential offspring (error catastrophe, etc.).

Of course, here hooberus ignores no one has seriously talked about abiogenesis in water and open sunlight for decades. The Creationist's best technique - choose your battles carefully - make sure they are ones you can appear to win - and rely upon your audiences' level of knowledge to be at a low enough level for them not to be aware the bit of theory you are sniping out hasn't been credible for decades.

I have a copy of a 2002 college biology textbook, that places at least some stages of certain abiogenesis scenarios in water and under obvious sunlight. Furthermore, other factors that I listed (such as hydrolysis) apply to other abiogenesis (besides UV) scenarios as well (such as ocean hydrothermal vents).

As tetra points out, you ignore that statistics is no friend to those wishing to prove an Intelligent Designer, as that has to be the highest unliklihood of it all, unless you are a presuppositonalist.

So then why don't you provide us some statistical evidence against various types of hypothetical Intelligent Designers?

And if you are a presuppositionalist, your opinions count for nothing, as it doesn't matter what the evidence reasonably shows, you'll close your eyes to it and preach your presuppostions.

Someone such as yourself who has in the past on this forum defended the "presupposition" statement that "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" as being "reasonable" should be careful about making arguments that others are "a presuppositionalist" who's opinions "count for nothing" because they are those to whom "it doesn't matter what the evidence reasonably shows", etc.

Add your mean spirited assault against the scientific community, ad homing millions of people whose work and study have improved the average quality of life in the past hundred years beyond all recognition, and one doesn't know what to bother saying to you, as none of it will do any good, and you'll insult and impune those that you disagree with as if you can't beat someone in a fair discussion, you'll stoop to character assasination.

Readers can examine my post history here and decide for themselves if such claims are true or fallacious. Perhaps they should also examine your post history.

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

Abaddon said:

Ken Ham is really worth reading up on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham
AiG is a money making scheme; he is paid TWICE the average of a non-profit CEO for his post with AiG.

Interested readers should read the arcticle carefully. Furthermore, it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."

His 'science' is deceitful garbage. And hoo quotes from the site despite having been shown this? *sigh*

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/5.ashx

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

RodentBoy said:

The problem with Answers in Genesis and all the other Creationist outfits who make the "odds of abiogenesis" claim is that, in fact, they are beating a strawman of abiogenesis. They frequently start out with "it would take one in xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx to get from organic soup to DNA", when in fact no modern theory of abiogenesis says any such thing. Abiogenesis, like any chemical process, would occur in stages, and that primitive organisms would not have had all of the features that we find in extant organisms. The earliest very likely did not have DNA at all (look up RNA world).
I would recommend that you ought to read some real abiogenesis research, rather than going to organizations whose sole purpose is to misrepresent science to prop up their religious beliefs.

And the problem with some evolutionary sites (such as TalkOrigins http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935) is that they give the impression that creationists only argue against "instant" abiogenesis when in fact creationist sites (such as Answers in Genesis) actually deal with a wide varity of proposed abiogenesis scenarios (including occurence in "stages" "RNA world" etc).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

well, about the quotes hooberus, all i can say is that in the context you provide them, i disagree with this a priori stuff. because if god did turn out to be an explanation, then he *would* be natural. wouldn't he? now he just needs to stop being a baby by only appearing to the people who agree with him, and appear to us all and put us in our bleeding places, hey?!

I know of at least one creationist that has pointed this out as well (indeed if all things were created except an eternal God, then an argument could be made that the God would then the only truely "naturalistic" thing in existence)- however in practice evolutionists generally define "natural" so as to exclude God a priori.

"[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