hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  16

  What is the greatest act of love God has done? Interresting question for non-trinitarians

  by teel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  currently i am not taking any of sides, but here's an interresting topic, i would be interrested what can an anti-trinitarian answer to this.. i found this article here: has the jehovah's witness' god performed the greatest act of love?.

  in a nutshell: john 15:3 "greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends".

  jesus laid down his life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  bttt
• 
  40

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  genetics- creationists need not be intimidated.. .

  internet evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and that there is no evidence for biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter.

  they will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from all the real scientists and all the facts from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other ology that one can think of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  This is the best recent book for “extincting” neo-Darwinian theory by showing that the deleterious mutation rates are vastly higher than evolution can allow for.

  This book is another pseudo-scientific junk publication stunt by creationists.

  Here we see Gerard dismissing yet another book without having read it. This is similar to what he perviously said about another book that he hadn't read either (but only the preface that was posted). see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/148600/2714534/post.ashx#2714534

  Remember my warning in the O.P.

  All living things undergo mutations during their lifetime; some are benign, some are not and some are apparently irrelevant. If the individuals monitored live in a green valey, they will have less mutations than those next to a toxic waste dump site; no secret about poison being bad for you. So for the 100000th time, those mutations helpful to better adapt to the environment are most likely to be passed on to future generations.

  If you would actually read the book, you would see that the author wouldn't necessarily disagree with the above statements.

  And someone put in this guy's religious head that evolution happens at the level of species over a time period of millions of years.

  Lets see, the author has a P.h. D. in genetics and is the (among other things) the:

  • Primary inventor of the biolistic (gene gun) process
  • Co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process
  • Co-inventor of the Genetic Vaccination process
  • Primary inventor of numerous conventionally-bred fruit varieties
  • Most of the world's transgenic crop acreage were transformed via my biolistic process

  http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/

  So I think that even his now"religious" (former atheist) mind might understand that "evolution" supposedly "happens at the level of species over a time period of millions of years".

  A rouge writer will never "debunk" evolution while mixing fantasy with facts.

  And a post writer here will never "debunk" a book while mixing fantasy with facts either.
• 
  40

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  genetics- creationists need not be intimidated.. .

  internet evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and that there is no evidence for biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter.

  they will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from all the real scientists and all the facts from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other ology that one can think of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  Internet Evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by “overwhelming evidence” and that there is “no evidence” for Biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter. They will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from “all the real scientists” and “all the facts” from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other “ology” that one can think of.

  I think that the situation actually somewhat different. Now, I’m not claiming that the following genetics specific resources “prove the Bible” or even that they “disprove evolution”. But they do show that the evolutionary dogmatist claims like the above are well . . . dogmatist claims, - and that creationists need not necessarily be intimidated by them.

  “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome” (second edition), available from http://www.creationresearch.org

  “Dr. Sanford’s popular book explores the limitations of evolution’s primary axiom. This axiom is the evolutionary change (i.e., common descent) is accomplished by a combination of natural selection and random mutations. Using modern genetics research, the former Cornell University scientist provides several challenges to this axiom. Organisms, including humans, are declining in health, not evolving to more advanced stages of evolution. This newest edition contains the addition of a glossary, index, and author’s notes.”

  This is the best recent book for “extincting” neo-Darwinian theory by showing that the deleterious mutation rates are vastly higher than evolution can allow for. Evolutionists admit that the deleterious mutation rate needs to be less (much less in reality) then 1 deleterious mutation on average per individual per generation - otherwise genetic degradation and extinction is inevitable. Contains shocking appendix documenting this from recent top evolutionary journals. Written by a very prominent geneticist. Highly damaging.

  This is also the best book available for an easily understandable explanation of other issues as to the absurdity of neo-Darwinism as our "creator". Very enlightning.

  A DVD is also available. See also: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_43-47.pdf -

  The book “The Biotic Message”. http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  Though not a biblical creationist book this is still a very informative and (though technical) resource providing information on how evolutionists developed their genetic models and the SEVERE remaining problems. For example gives the history on why evolutionists came up with the (now falsified) claim that 99% of DNA is “junk”. (This was not based on observation, but instead on what would be needed to “save” evolution in light of the high observed rates of mutation). Other evolutionists (possibly unaware) later parroted this “ 99% junk” DNA claim as “evidence” against a designer, when in reality it was a figure calculated to bring the effective deleterious mutation rate down by a factor of a hundred to push it to less then one per individual per generation to “save” evolution.

  The book also shows that regardless of the deleterious mutation rates, that the substitution rate of beneficial mutations into a population with long generation times i.e. humans, is so vastly slow that only a negligible amount of beneficial evolution (only a few hundred nucleotides) could occur even over the evolutionists own time frame . This was discovered a long time ago by a very prominent evolutionist and was never solved. "In my opinion the [Haldane's Dilemma] problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else."George C. Williams, a highly respected evolutionary geneticist, 1992,
  in his book, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges, p 143-144

  http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldane.htm

  The book also offers an excellent treatment of problems with a naturalistic origin of life and the genetic code. Responses are given to evolutionists attempts to defeat probability calculations. (Also available from the Creation Research Society)

  Article:

  “Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism”

  http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf

  Article:

  “Mitochondrial eve and the biblical Eve are looking good: criticism of young age premature”

  http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_1/j19_1_57-59.pdf

  Some responses to Evolutionists claims on things like junk DNA, Endogenous Retroviruses, Chromosome fusion, etc.

  http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

  A WARNING: Many internet evolutionists will frequently try to suppress the reading of any materials against their generally secular, evoltionary naturalist, worldview. They will often dismissively “review” books without even reading them, or search and link you to other “reviews” by other evolutionists who have never really read them. They will often immediately parrot any counter article on the internet without doing virtually any research, and dogmatically claim that the anti-evolutionary claims have thusly been “refuted”. They will also ad hominen the writers. They will appeal to the fact that any referenced evolutionary geneticists still “believe” in evolution, and claim that therefore it is wrong to cite them (even for specific technical points). Even if the anti-evolutionary article has been written and reviewed by qualified scientists (and even though it may document many of its technical point from even evolutionary technical literature), they will still proclaim that the explicit anti-evolutionary article is invalid since it has not been both peer-reviewed and published by editing evolutionist bodies in their evolutionary science journals.
• 
  21

  The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer part 2. (some responses)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on the thread "the probabilty of there being an intelligent designer" the poster "elsewhere" wrote:.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/187282/1/the-probabilty-of-there-being-an-intelligent-designer.

  here is my basic reasoning on why i reject id:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  bomh said (In response to the O.P.):

  Just some thoughts..

  First off, i dont want to put words in the mouth of Elsewhere, but i believe the thread was a very odd mix of the cosmological argument and a whole lot of other stuff. I believe the main points Elsewhere put forth are valid, but it is not meant as a 'strict' but rather an intuiative argument.

  Regardless of whether or not it is classified as a "strict" or "intuative" argument it is not a valid argument against actual ID theory, since it omits the important fact that ID theory always has had specifying criteria such as " organized complexity that has an origin," being best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than by the result purley naturalistic processes. Only by omitting these or other explicit or implicit specifying criteria, can opponets claim that ID thoery some also (to be consistent) "requires" the creator to himself have had his "own creator".

  For example there is nothing in the statement that "the origin of organized complexity from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than by purely naturalistic processes" that also requires the designer to also be himself composed of organized parts, or even to also have an origin. Hence, there is no necessity by the same argument for the designer to have his "own" designer.

  Perhaps the poster "elsewhere" is simply unfamiliar with actual ID arguments from theorists, and didn't realize that his reasoning chain thusly made errors. To be more accurate of ID theory his first point (listed in the O.P.) should be something more like:

  "1. People who support ID say they do because of how complex life and the universe are. They say such complexity certainly must have been created by a higher being, because they believe that "organized complexity that has an origin from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than by purely naturalistic processes"

  I dont think anyone would claim ID is a-priori illogical.

  Oh yes they would !!!

  As a matter of fact, the claim that ID is a priori "illogical" and "self - refuting" has been one of the main arguments used by evolutionists on this very forum (and by Dawkins in the God Delusion).

  It never seems to bother them much however that they accept ID as a logical, valid explanation for their posts here, (and the computer that they post on).
• 
  21

  The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer part 2. (some responses)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on the thread "the probabilty of there being an intelligent designer" the poster "elsewhere" wrote:.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/187282/1/the-probabilty-of-there-being-an-intelligent-designer.

  here is my basic reasoning on why i reject id:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  On the thread "The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer" the poster "Elsewhere" wrote:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/187282/1/The-Probabilty-of-there-being-an-Intelligent-Designer

  Here is my basic reasoning on why I reject ID:

  1. People who support ID say they do because of how complex life and the universe are. They say such complexity certainly must have been created by a higher being.

  2. I reject this because one is left wondering: Who created the creator?

  3. If the universe is so complex that it needs to have been created, then why does the creator not need to be created. The creator is, after all, more complex than the universe itself.

  4. I say leave out the extra step of the more complex creator and just leave the less complex universe by itself.

  There are several problems with your reasoning. First of all you are probably not consistent. You claim that you "reject ID", however I suspect that you (like other evolutionist) accept ID as a logical and valid explanation for things such as watches, pyramids, cameras, future confirmed SETI signals, etc. Therfore evolutionists are inconsistent when they claim that ID is somehow necessarily illogical.

  Secondly, you claim that the creator must be "after all, more complex than the universe itself" This assumes that a creator must be a material entitity composed of interdepenant parts. This is not something that the design argument logically requires, nor is it an attribute theologians believe that the God of the Bible posesses. Finally, you are overlooking the very revelant fact that the design argument has always either implicitly or explicitly dealt specifically with items believed to have an origin.- that is: "organized complexity (systems composed of componet parts) that has an origin (like watches, or biological life), is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as a result of purley naturalistic processes." There is nothing in such an argument that requires the designer himself to also be composed of organized complexity, nor even to have an origin at all, hence there is nothing in the above design argument that necessarily requires the designer to himself have his own creator.
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus: You do realise that John Sanfords program where he explore his ideas and show how humans will die out has been torn to schreds because it made several nonphysical assumptions, and contained a bug? His book did not fare a lot better...

  . . . Also note that his primary field is not evolution but genetics.

  A common tactic practiced by internet evolutionists here (and elsewhere) is to almost always attempt to immediately discredit all anti-evolutionary books and their authors- (the fact that they have never heard of them before, or read their material seeems to be no problem). See my 5th post on the below thread for other examples of evolutionists here doing the same on another book: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/170038/1/The-Book-Evolutionists-DONT-Want-You-To-Read By the way, one of the things genetics studies is evolution.
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  here is the correct link to the Creation Research Societyhttp://www.creationresearch.org
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Evolutionists would do well to examine mutation rate problems with the evolutionary story. The book "Genetic entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" lays these out in a relatively understandable format.

  It also contains a useful appendix with [shocking] citations from recent evolutionary journals. For example just the mutation rate of the mitochondrial DNA (only 1 / 200,000th of the genome ! ) should have led "to extinction of the evolutionary line leading to humans withing 20 million years" Loewe, L. 2006. Quantifying the genome decay parardox due to Muller's ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genetics Research 87:133-159.

  The book is available from http://ww.creationresearch.org. I have read it and It is excellent.

  There is also a new DVD "The Mystery of Our Declining Genes" which features similar material. According to the site:

  The science of genetics is proving to be a powerful tool for creationists. Geneticist, Dr. John Sanford, shows that with a conservative estimate of the mutation rate today, and the fact that good mutations are very rare, natural selection causes a decrease in fitness with time. Every organism is decaying faster than good mutations accumulate. This is called genetic entropy and falsifies evolution, but upholds the young earth model. Sanford shows how the computer model, called Mendel’s Accountant, dramatically and powerfully falsifies evolution.
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus

  Using the human-chimp divergence and the amount of genetic differences between them isn't the only way to get an estimate for the mit DNA mutation rate. I'm not sure if you know this or are just ignoring data that doesn't completely side with your own view.

  I used the phrases "generally" and "frequenty" to denote the usual phylogenetic [evolution based] methodology used in such calculations, which of couse implies other less used methods exist that don't necessarily use this assumption.

  Another way they calculated an average mutation rate for mitochondrial dna was by looking at the genetic data of people (like the Aborigines of Australia) whose ancestors migrated to an area at reasonably well known points in time. So even if we put the human-chimp divergence point method aside, they can get an estimate for the rate.

  Lets assume the rate from this method is faster (even ten times faster). It would still mean humans have been here longer than the 6,000 or 7,000 years believed by creationists who adhere to a literal reading of Genesis.

  I'm sure if you check that you will find that these "reasonably well known" points in time, are themselves calculated by the use of uniformitarian dating, which also contain assumptions inconsistent with Biblical history to begin with.
• 
  3

  36 Arguments for the Existence of God (and why they fail)

  by behemot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the novel 36 arguments for the existence ofgod, the work of atheist philosopher and novelist rebecca newberger goldstein.. scroll down a bit (after chapter 1) and read the (non fictional) appendix where the 36 arguments are set out and sistematically debunked:.

  http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/goldstein09/goldstein09_index.html.

  (long but worth reading).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  FLAW 2: Even without von Neumann's work (which not everyone accepts as conclusive), to conclude the existence of God from our not yet knowing how to explain the Original Replicator is to rely on The Argument from Ignorance.

  Design arguments involving the origin of life involve things like 1). probability analysis, and 2). known properties of chemistry, hardly merely an "Argument from Ignorance"

  Her other arguments against the necessity of an intelligent designer are dealt with (in excellent form) in the book the Biotic Message

  http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  available from www.creationresearch.org