Thanks Bobcat....marked in my bible now.
Posts by Perry
-
57A Clean Slate When You Die ??
by Perry infor the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.
- romans 6:7 (nwt).
i got a chance to witness to my dad scripture for scripture for one whole hour over the holidays.
-
-
-
130
Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...
by ILoveTTATT ini know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
-
-
Perry
Adamah writes,
See, you missed that the study's FINDINGS need to be replicable:
So according to your own tedious definition a study is separate from its findings, and only the findings need to be replicated for it to qualify as science? Then it follows that the study of macro evolution hasn't produced any replicatable "findings", suggesting that after 160 years of study, scientists really havent found anything scientific as far as macro darwinian evolution is concerned. This is accoring to your definition, not mine.
But the findings ARE there, they just aren't the findings Darwin expected in his grandiose slime-to-scientist paradigm. And, they are replicatable. Cats stay cats, bears stay bears and so forth. Darwinian evolution seems to me to be a very outdated 19th century theory, especially when you consider what we now know about the incredibly complex biological information strand called DNA. The amount of DNA information that can be stored in a space the size of a pinhead is equivalent to the information content of a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from earth to the moon. Where did all this information come from?
A single cell has been likened to the Complexity of a moderrn city with numerous parts that are irreducible complex. Nice video from Harvard University below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
I think most people are fine with manipulating the environment in a study to try and "speed up" the theoretical macro evolution process. Likewise, artificial selection is fine too as far as I'm concerned. But even with all this, in the two studies presented in this thread, a canine still ends up a canine and a bacteria still ends up a bacteria.
This is consistent with a biblical worldview as are thousands of other replicatable scientific "findings".
- The mathematical probabilities against the spontaneous generation of life are sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument for creation. The odds in favor of the chance formation of a functional simple cell are acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10 40,000 . [111] The scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle, a renowned mathematician from Cambridge known for many popular science works, [112] has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For a more graspable notion of the improbability, he has calculated the odds of the accidental formation of a simple living cell to be roughly comparable to the odds of rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row with unloaded dice. [113]
- As another comparison, Hoyle asks, what are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747 and just accidentally assemble it so as to leave it sitting there all set for take-off? “So small as to be negligible,” Hoyle says, “even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe.” [114] Although not a creationist, Hoyle’s calculations have convinced him that there must have been some “intelligence” behind the emergence of life on earth.
Based strictly on science, many have concluded that Macro evolution and spontaneous generation are simply elaborate fairy tales for adults. I can see no sound reason to refute this conclusion.
-
130
Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...
by ILoveTTATT ini know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
-
-
Perry
I should have expected such a response. Your belief system is secure from attack. Congratulations.
jnat,
Why the intellectual personal attack? You provided an example to support your conclusion that Darwinian (Macro) Evolution is true. Instead of supporting the fluidity of one "kind" of animal morphing into another "kind" of animal. The experimant in actuality better supports the biblical view that animals were created according to definite "kinds".
My belief isn't secure from attack as you assert. All you have to do is show me where one "kind" of animal can morph into another kind of animal through the selection process. It is a simple and reasonable request given the assertion of Macro (Darwinian) Evolution. Furthermore, it should be easy to do under controlled circumstances given that the theory claims that this has happened accidentally millions of times.
-
130
Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...
by ILoveTTATT ini know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
-
-
Perry
Adamah Says:
Where'd you get the incorrect idea that science requires replication?
So just change the definition when it suits you? Information is not simply a tool to attack opponents so long as the end justifies the means. That's unacceptable, to me at least..
UNDERSTANDING HOW SCIENCE REALLLY WORKS - UC Berkley
Scientists aim for their studies' findings to be replicable — so that, for example, an experiment testing ideas about the attraction between electrons and protons should yield the same results when repeated in different labs. This goal of replicability makes sense. After all, science aims to reconstruct the unchanging rules by which the universe operates, and those same rules apply, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from Sweden to Saturn, regardless of who is studying them. If a finding can't be replicated, it suggests that our current understanding of the study system or our methods of testing are insufficient. ... The desire for replicability is part of the reason that scientific papers almost always include a methods section.
Adamah,
Opponents to your views are going to ignore your posts that are formulated in this manner. Most people don't want to win an argument as much as just sift through some facts and make their own conclusions. Without challenges, You just end up with others with the same mob mentality that agree with you. This is intellectual isolationism.
You said:
MOUNTAINS of counter-evidence exists to disprove the Bible
Really? I've heard similar statements numerous times over the last 13 years on this discussion board. But, I've never heard one convincing argument. I'm willing to give you the opportunity. Instead of a MOUNTAIN, can you just provide one example?
-
130
Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...
by ILoveTTATT ini know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
-
-
Perry
jgnat,
I read the whole article. There was a self-congratulatory tone to the article. However, this seems to be the point:
"the granddaddy of these experiments--the 11-year, 24,000-generation E. coli cultures in Lenski's laboratory--is telling stories about predictability, chance, and history that other experiments have echoed. All 12 of Lenski's cultures experience the same stresses: a daily boom-and-bust cycle, in which the bacteria are transferred to fresh glucose medium every 24 hours, then undergo 6 hours or so of plenty followed by 18 hours of starvation. All 12 lines have adapted to this regimen; when the researchers do a head-to-head comparison between the evolved bacteria and the ancestral strain, plucked from the freezer and revived, the descendants now grow about 60% faster in their standard glucose-containing medium. All 12 populations show other parallel changes, too--for example, a still-unexplained, twofold increase in cell size."
Big deal. They started with bacteria and ended with bigger bacteria. It's still bacteria. Rather than supporting Macro (Darwinian) Evolution, this seems to demonstrate the incredible resistence of organism to change outside of their "kind" over time. How do you go from this to the outrageous, sweeping claims Darwin made?
-
130
Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...
by ILoveTTATT ini know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
-
-
Perry
It might be possible to turn a fox into a buzzard, but it would take millions of years.
That's not science. It can't be replicated, no matter how hard scientists have tried..... and boy have they tried. There always seems to be some "just so" story that accounts for something in the "millions" paradigm, and of course the other consistent feature is that it just so happens that it can't be replicated.
See, this is just where my Bull Corn meter just starts whizzzzizng out-of-control.
-
57
A Clean Slate When You Die ??
by Perry infor the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.
- romans 6:7 (nwt).
i got a chance to witness to my dad scripture for scripture for one whole hour over the holidays.
-
-
Perry
Right, but you still will be judged for some sin someone committed at some point in history, somewhere, some time ago.
I've read the bible a few times, been to several churches , all attended regularly, read thousands of pages written on the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, & created a website explaining the historic doctrines guided by none other than common sense and the Holy Spirit. I can honestly say I've never heard of a Chrristian doctrine whereby a person gets judged for someone elses sins. What New Testament scripture teaches this?
-
-
-
Perry
- Why do Jehovah Witnesses hate when you bring up going to Jesus?
For the same reasons that some atheists on this board hate it I guess.
-
57
A Clean Slate When You Die ??
by Perry infor the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.
- romans 6:7 (nwt).
i got a chance to witness to my dad scripture for scripture for one whole hour over the holidays.
-
-
Perry
So what's the deal with A&E?
I don't know. All I know is that the bible doesn't teach that I'll be judged for something they did.
-
130
Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...
by ILoveTTATT ini know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
-
-
Perry
That stated, I don't suppose you'd be interested in a small flightless dinosaur (theropod) that was the size of a kit fox that eventually turned into buzzards? There's been a TON of incredible fossils found in China within the last decade or so that reveal intricate details of wings and characteristic features of dinosaurs (add this to the famous archaeopteryx species specimens found over the last two centuries):
Adamah,
The infamous archaeopteryx isn't necessary for this discussion. Can't you provide at least one scientific example of where one "kind" turned into a different "kind" of animal. Surely science could accomplish something this simple if it happened millions and millions of times by accident.