Posts by hooberus

38

Jonah as Fiction

by Leolaia in

the book of jonah contains one of the most famous stories in the ot: the account of a cowardous prophet who was swallowed whole by a giant fish.

the only other mention of jonah in the ot however is absolutely silent about this remarkable story (2 kings 14:25), and there is much evidence that the book is a late tale written after the babylonian exile.

the book is unique among the twelve minor prophets for being mostly narrative and it has much in common with post-exilic haggada (such as the first-century lives of the prophets, which added considerably to the jonah legend), the "great city" of ninevah is little more than a distant, vague memory (as evidenced by such things as the anomalous title "king of ninevah" and the non-mention of the king's name in jonah 3:6), legendary touches like the giant fish and the magical growth of the castor-oil plant, and especially the late aramaisms rife in the book (such as spynch in 1:5, ht'st "to think" in 1:6, stq in 1:12, mnh in 2:1, and so forth).

hooberus

I believe the account of Jonah actually happened. Sometime ago (when this thread was first posted) I printed a copy and spent a considerable amount of time on it. I hope to post a response to some of Leolaia's points (ie: to account for the reason for similarities without denying historicity). It will probably be posted over time, and it may be by subject (rather than in the order of the first post). I do hope to cover the main points. Furthermore, I don't plan on getting into extended debate, nor do I generally intend on dealing with "new" material not previously posted here.

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

hooberus

Alan F said:

Furthermore, whoever these reviewers were, they're demonstrably incompetent. As Weitzel wrote (see my earlier post for more context):
In a summary, the authors of "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" conclude that Meyer has merely constructed "a rhetorical edifice out of omissions of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations."
Any scientist who fails to see such blatant bad argumentation in a scientific paper is certainly incompetent. And of course, Sternberg is shown to be equally incompetent.

The arcticle titled "Meyers Hopeless Monster" (written by NSCE staff) is responded to here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2228

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

hooberus

The following is from this post: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1668115/post.ashx#1668115

Alan F said:

:: Furthermore, it appears likely that Sternberg chose some of his creationist buddies who hold science positions at several Christian colleges to do the required peer review.

hooberus responsed:

: The reviewers held qualified degrees in science.

Alan F then said:

"What's your proof? All we have is Sternberg's word. And since he's violated a trust, why should anyone trust anything he says?

I'll again quote Weitzel writing in the Skeptic article I quoted:

Dr. Sternberg further asserts that "Meyer's paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." Since it is not unusual for reviewers to remain anonymous, it is entirely possible that Sternberg sent the article to the qualified scientists of his Baraminology Study Group at Bob Jones University, The Master's College, and Bryan College, all of which are well-known Christian institutions that require their faculty to sign a statement of belief in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.

Do you disagree with this latter assessment, hooberus? If so, can you explain why any normal scientist would agree to review a pro-ID article and recommend its publishing in an obscure taxonomy journal?"

My response: Alan, even your own Skeptic source admits that those of his Baraminology Study Group (if they were who he used) were "qualified scientists" (ie: they are qualified in the sense that have qualified degrees in science). So your own resonse to my point "the reviews held qualified degress in in science" possibly contained the "proof" that you wanted.

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

hooberus

The following will be a brief resonse to some previous points:

Alan F stated:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1668115/post.ashx#1668115

You two, hooberus and Forscher, are really amusing stereotypes of the Fundamentalists who cause such trouble for reasonable Christians. You ignore everything you can't deal with, which includes the most telling arguments against your claims. Even when pointed questions are emphasized, you ignore them. That's dishonest, and exactly what I've come to expect from such people over the years. In that, you're much like the typical JW apologists who cherry pick what they'll respond to, and ignore most of the arguments they're confronted with.

Now to business.

As I've pointed out, and you've ignored, Richard Sternberg seems not to have violated "the letter of the law" as regards Smithsonian Institution rules and the written guidelines of the Proceedings journal. If he had, he would almost certainly have been fired. But he most certainly violated the unwritten rules of ethics that all scientists are expected to observe. In particular, he violated the common sense ethical rule for journal editors that if an editor wants to publish an article he knows will be extremely controversial and is liable to embarass most everyone else on the journal's staff, he should get a buy-in from the editorial board or governing council as a whole. It's irrelevant whether the journal has written rules about this -- it's a common sense ethical practice. All scientists are expected to have this common sense after having gone through a Ph.D. program. People who don't have this common sense are by definition bad scientists and should not be allowed to practice science in a reputable institution.

The fact is that the governing council of the Proceedings journal issued an official statement that Sternberg violated their confidence by making an end run around the unwritten rules he was well aware of. Sternberg knew in advance that publishing the ID article would be highly controversial. That's why he was careful to pick exactly the right people to discuss his plans with. It's extremely significant that none of the parties involved -- neither Sternberg's supposed peer-reviewers, nor the person on the Proceedings council who he claims he discussed it with (who is almost certainly another IDer, like Sternberg) -- have come forward to verify Sternberg's claims. So all we have is Sternberg's word. And of course, no one in the regular science community trusts him anymore, given his track record.

Alan, if you will check the post history you will find that on the issue of the consultation of the journal board your initial comment: ". . . he didn't run an article he knew would be extremely controversial by the board of editors of the journal." (found here http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1666544/post.ashx#1666544), was in fact responded to on my following post (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1667048/post.ashx#1667048,). Thus, there certainly was no "dishonesty" on my part. (Furthermore, even if a poster doesn't respond to all points does not necessarily mean that it due to a lack of honesty, it could be due to time constraints; an insulting attitude on the part of the questioner; feeling that the material was already covered; etc.) Anyway, since your initial comment on the "journal board" issue you added to your comments and if you would have liked a further discussion on it perhaps you should have respectufully asked rather than charge "dishonesty" on my part.

Obviously you two refuse to admit that you understand any of this, so let me once again pose the question from Eugenie Scott:
"If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?"
Your refusal to give a proper answer will prove that you're thoroughly dishonest.

Regarding your question from Eugenie Scott.
This whole question seems to presume that what Sternberg did was something that should have "really embarrased the administration" and that his publishing the paper "really blew it." Frankly, I have seen nothing in the original paper itself (or in its publishing) that merits such a response of "embarassment," thus, I see no analogy to Eugenie Scotts question.

If the "administration"did get "embarrassed" over this issue, it should have been over the actions of the evolutionists at the Smithsonian combined with the actions of the NCSE; the government investigation of their actions; and the negative publicity caused directly by their actions (see opening post), rather than the publication of the biological origins paper itself.

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

hooberus

hooberus:
ID concepts are able to be stated as being potentially falsifiable.
Please state them in such a manner.

Here is one (from ReMine): An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life. This is potentially falsifiable (for example by a demonstration that nautral processes are sufficient to account for life from non-life).

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

hooberus

Midget-sasquatch said:

hooberus

There shouldn't be any bias in scientific journals. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. Having agendas doesn't have to mean a loss in all objectivity though. The scientific agenda I was thinking about was its trying to explain nature on strictly material processes and phenomena, without calling upon supernatural forces. IDers have a competing agenda to show a need for a supernatural creator.

If trying to explain nature solely on "strictly material processes and phenomena" (the philospophical tenet of methodological naturalism) is the "scientific agenda" of some scientific journals, then the resulting exclusion of ID arcticles from appearing in them should not then be presented as a some sort of evidence against ID (since ID is being excluded on methodological/philosophical grounds, rather than solely on data/evidence).

Of course new ideas should be allowed an opportunity to make there case.

But how can they be, if they are excluded a priori (excluded based on the methodological philosophical viewpoint of scientific journals)?

Seeing as how that article didn't even mention relevant evidence for the side of the issue being criticized (just to make the other side appear stronger?), I'd say it did a poor job of being an objective and analytical review. Also the arguments for the ID side didn't include any falsifiable material. It wouldn't be biased to keep that article from being printed until the pertinent changes were made.

There is not always a need to present "relevant evidence for the side of the issue being criticized" if this evidence is already known to the readers. Regarding falsfifiability: ID concepts are able to be stated as being potentially falsifiable.

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

hooberus

IYou're right AA. He didn't make a sound editorial decision for that journal, even going so far as to put forward a competing agenda.

The only way that the arcticle could have put forward "a competing agenda" would be if the publication already had an agenda.

If "peer-reviewed" journals have an agenda, then evolutionists need to admit it and stop their frequent charge against ID merely because ID papers do not "appear" in them (see above).

If however these publications do not have an agenda, then they need to stop claiming that Sternberg did something wrong merely because of publishing a non-evolutionary biology.

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

hooberus

Correct me if I'm wrong (entirely possible), but this isn't a "free speech" issue, nor is it an "ID versus evolution" issue, it's just a question of how an organization handled an editor of one of their publications when he committed an error. (And perhaps as a side-issue, whether or not the error was intentional).

What was the "error"?

Regardless of my feelings about ID, I have to believe publishing the article was a serious mistake. Exactly the same as the Watchtower publishing a pro-atheist article, or Microsoft publishing a pro-Linux article. It's not about the ideas, it's about the inappropriateness of the forum chosen to voice them.

The problem analogies such as these is the fact that entities (such as the watchtower and Microsoft) have a specific pre-existing bias agena, whereas scientific journals usually don't claim to. If the publication in question had an "evolution only" doctrine statement in the front (which I don't believe that it had) then you would probably have a valid point. However, if the publication simply dealt with biology, then there shouldn't be a problem with the the printing of diverse papers (provided they are specifically on biological subjects). Evolutionists frequently claim that one of the reasons why ID should be rejected as "unscientific" is becasue ID arcticles are not found in "peer-reviewed" journals. The only way that such an argument could be valid would be if such journals are at least possibly open to such papers (if written properly, and if review is passed).

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

hooberus

28

romans 6 vs 9

by stillajwexelder in

(romans 6:8-11) 8 moreover, if we have died with christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.

9 for we know that christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.

10 for [the death] that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time; but [the life] that he lives, he lives with reference to god.

hooberus

If Christ is God - how could death have had mastery at anytime over the sovereign of the universe?

The only way that death could have had mastery at anytime over the sovereign of the universe would be if the sovereign had placed himself under death.

"As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:15-18

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 44:6

"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." Isaiah 48:12

"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." Revelation 1:17-18

"And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;" Revelation 2:8