Posts by cognisonance

31

(dumb?) Fox News Host says Stupid Things to Scholar Who Wrote About Jesus

by fulltimestudent in

whether this woman asked these questions of her own accord, or they were written by staffers, is not the point.

the real point is how can people in a country with some of the world's best universities ask such dumb questions.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqhmllq-odw#at=13.

... and if you wonder what reza aslan's views are about jesus, listen to him here, courtesy of all saints church in pasadena a few days ago.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zi4o242d2s.

cognisonance

Unfortunately, like many here the interviewer did not do her research and ask the right questions. Searching the web one learns he does not have a PHD in religion, while he does have a PHD.

He does not teach religion, he is an assistant Professor of Creative Writing at University of California, Riverside.

He is founder of a media company, specializing in Middle East media.

Do a search yourself, (while I found many of his writings appear to have been scrubbed there is still much out there) and decide, can a person who misrepresents his own background be trusted to present accurate information.

I'm not so sure he misrepresented himself. He has a PhD in Sociology of Relgion.

Additionally, as regards being a professor/historian of religion, here is a comment defending Aslan's credentials on the First Thoughts article that questions them:

Mark Juergensmeyer July 29th, 2013 | 9:19 pm Since i was Reza’s thesis adviser at the Univ of California-Santa Barbara, I can testify that he is a religious studies scholar. (I am a sociologist of religion with a position in sociology and an affiliation with religious studies). Though Reza’s PhD is in sociology most of his graduate course work at UCSB was in the history of religion in the dept of religious studies. Though none of his 4 degrees are in history as such, he is a “historian of religion” in the way that that term is used at the Univ of Chicago to cover the field of comparative religion; and his theology degree at Harvard covered Bible and Church history, and required him to master New Testament Greek. So in short, he is who he says he is.

The original source is his tweet and comment:

I explain Reza Aslan's relig studies credentials in a comment I've posted at the end of the First Things piece. http:// bit.ly/16uDYH4

11

Size Doesn't Matter but a FALSE PREMISE does!

by Terry in

edward bishop elliot, anglican theologian and scholar, began a massive undertaking in 1837. .

by the time he finished his two-thousand five hundred page book, hours with the apocalypse, he may as well have created a highly-contagious virus in a test tube!.

his book contained 10,000 modern and ancient references toward developing a prophetic school of interpretation.. this tome became the masterwork foundation for any who dared diddle in bible prophecy for decades to come.

cognisonance

The bible contains many fulfilled prophecies that would have been unable to be orchrastrated by man, thus leading many to ascribe divine authorship.

Hmm... That article tries to show probabilities for these "prophecies" to come true on their own. It says thare are calculated as follows:

*The estimates of probability included herein come from a group of secular research scientists. As an example of their method of estimation, consider their calculations for this first prophecy cited:
Since the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years, there is, then, one chance in about 5000 that his ministry could begin in 26 A.D.
Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10.
Relative to the second destruction of Jerusalem, this execution has roughly an even chance of occurring before or after that event, that is, one chance in 2.

Why the appeal to annoymous authority? Which "secular scientists?" And how could one apply science to bible prophecy? I really doubt these people are scientists, following the scientific method (you know observations, hypothesis/predictions, peer review journals, etc.).

73

Bitter apostates

by Laika in

witnesses often go on about apostates being spiteful and bitter.

when you get cut off, shunned, or threatened with shunning just for the audacity of thinking differently, it's not surprising that getting angry at the witnesses is the reaction - it's like a self fulfilling prophecy.. but also, i recently posted an email from a 'friend' on this board who told me that everyone he'd spoken to about me said i had changed, become like another person.

it didn't occur to him that the day before i told my parents i'd quit the religion just 3 weeks ago, i met him for lunch, we had a good time and he didn't know anything was up.

cognisonance

Cold Steel,

Were you ever a witness? Just curious.

22

The Mermaid Goes to the District Convention and this is what She Hears

by Cadellin in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

cognisonance

Evil, poisonous, unruly, poisonous lies, deceive minds, prefer the table of the demons, slanderous, infected, diseased workers, pushed away from Jah's table, decided on the table of the demons, oppose Jah's will, part of the seed of the serpent, prideful, reject counsel, have earthly wisdom, animalistic, pride that escalates into bitterness, jealousy, reject God's service, draw men after themselves, only claim to worship God, too prideful to preach, like kidnappers, prey upon others, speak twisted things, create divisions, resort to distortions, half-truths, lies, malicious, intend to deceive, speak counterfeit words, twist scriptures, employ clandestine methods, use smooth talk in blogs, don't care about others, hypocrites, false faced, claim to be your brother, don't have an original thought, only want to criticize, claim to serve God but reject his representatives. Reject GB, reject overseers, reject elders, lie to authorities, seek to discredit organization, use media to lie, picket in front of Bethel, have wicked works, like someone with an infectious disease, mentally diseased, want to infect others, like rotten fish, not sincere in their expressions, double-hearted, want to undermine your faith, opposers, walk against the truth, part of the antichrist, work with Satan in his evil kitchen.

Wow! This is what my family and others I care about are being told about me? And then the religion trys to block me from creating the oppurtunity to clear up this misunderstanding (misunderstanding on my family and friends part since this is what they've been told, but of course lies on the religion's part). Oddly, me being an atheist, I'm suprised they consider apostates those that still belive in God. What about me? I know god doesn't exist and neither does satan. It's one big false premise. I just wish I had the chance to clear this up with my family! I'm not what they are being told that I am. I also do not have the intent to "prey on others," or "deceive." They also slander my character and say I don't care about my family and friends, that I am not sincere? Really? The nerve!

3. Evolution is now lumped in with the trinity and hellfire as false doctrine.

I remember them doing that in a Watchtower a couple years back. Really, Really odd! What does science have to do with religious doctrines? It couldn't be more far aware. What a huge categorial error!

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

cognisonance

Hey Cog our Phizzy was being Ironic, he is already well and truly on the right side of the debate!

Sorry Phizzy... just saw your question without reading the context...

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

cognisonance

So, is it alright to eat babies then ?

That's a strawman Phizzy, no one is arguing that cannibalism, or killing/eating babies is moral or okay, just because it was "natural" in nature at one point (or othe "red in tooth and claw" dark-sides to nature). To do so would be the Naturalistic Fallacy.

371

Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

by QC in

jw
friends

if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.

this is a game changer.

the bomb!.

cognisonance

Evolution is not science; it’s an ideology (an alternate secular world view, a philosophy).

False Dichotomy (it's not accurate to say evolution is either science or it's an ideology). It's not that black and white. It can be both. When people talk about evolution they can mean, usually, one of two things:

The science of evolution. This we have both the what (facts showing life today is different than in the past, and that life today has shared a common ancestor) and the how(such as the theory of natural selection and the scientific method involved to see if this theory holds water - that is to say, making predicitons, testing hypothesis, writing papers, peer review, sequencing DNA, examining fossils, biogeography, and other evidence, etc.)
Popular Evolutionism. To quote the philosopher of science, Michael Ruse:

"First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism—often an alternative to religion—exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time." Science 7 March 2003: Vol. 299 no. 5612 pp. 1523-1524

371

Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

by QC in

jw
friends

if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.

this is a game changer.

the bomb!.

cognisonance

You want to tap dance your way through this Evolution debacle with bluster bluffing that ‘there’s all this evidence.’ Nice try, but unconvincing.

I haven't convinced you becuase you have to research the facts for yourself. I've just given you some starting topics to look into. If you are interested in looking at the available evidence please read a book that focuses on the emperical facts, such as Why Evolution is True. If you go to the amazon link, you can use the "look inside" feature (click on the picture of the book) to read a bit before deciding to by the book.

Nonetheless, I bring up human chromosome 2, which I don't remember if that book talks about it or not. Apes, such as the chimp, have 24 non-redundant chromosome pairs. Humans have 23. If evolution is true and both apes and humans share a comon ancestor, then why do human only have 23 pairs of chromosomes? It's not like we could have just dropped one pair and not expect great damage being done.

So what did the evolutionary theory predict? That either the original ancestor had 23 pair and the other apes had one pair that broke into two, or that the original had 24 pairs and humans had two pair fuse into one. What did they find out when the examined the chromosomes of chimps and humans? This:

Take a look at the banding pattern (think of this as a finger print of sorts that identifies chromosomes, which is achieved with a staining procedure). The picture shows human chromosome 2 and chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b. Notice how similar the patterns are? Look at the two chimp chromosomes. They both have a centromere (found somewhere in the middle) and two telomeres (think of these as end caps if you will). The human chromosome has an extra centromere and the remains of two telomres also somehwere in the middle (in addition to the two at the ends). This is also supported by actually sequencing the dna and comparing the A, C, T, or G bases.

The simpliest explanation is that the common ancestor had 24 chromomes and humans had two of them fuse together. The evidence confirms what evolutionary theory would predict. If you are interested in reading the science about this, here is one paper: Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.

If evolution never happened, then how would you explain how humans have two chromosomes that appear to have been fused together to create one big one, and this fused chromosome matches up with two smaller ones found in chimps?

371

Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

by QC in

jw
friends

if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.

this is a game changer.

the bomb!.

cognisonance

SCIENCE and me expects you to prove full blown Darwinian Evolution, early life is your best (clear easy to see) shot at proving it

I don't have time to fully respond to your latest response, but I will say this. Why is this the best shot at proving that evolution happened and common ancestry? There is already an abundance of "clear easy to see" evidence that shows that evolution happened that come from different fields of scientific study that indepenedenly verify that evolutuion happened:

Dna [pylogenetic analysis, psuedogenes, retroviruses, human chromosome 2, nearly universal genetic code, etc.]
Embryology (human embryo's with tail bugs, dolphins with hindlimb buds)
Biogeography (look into Marsipuls)
Transitional forms in periods later than the pre-Cambrian (evolutionary prediction of where to find fish/amphibian transitional form resulting in the discovery of Tiakaaak)
Vestiges and atavisms (Ostrich wings, human's with tails, whales with vestigial pelvis/hind-leg bones)

Evolution indeed has happened. It seems more like you are wanting to use the pre-cambrian/cambrian era not becuase it should be easy to see evolution, but precisely becuase it would be hard to see the common ancestry.

If what you are wanting to do is find evidence that would completly blow common ancestry out of the water in the pre-cambrian strata (since this is what you are focusing on) would be to find avian or mammilian fossils in that strata (i.e. something that common ancestry says is impossible to exisit at that time period).

371

Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

by QC in

jw
friends

if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.

this is a game changer.

the bomb!.

cognisonance

We know definitively there is NO “common ancestry” fossil tree coming out of the Precambrian strata. Fossils supporting this fictitious idea do not exist.

Do you expect all evolution to happen at a constant slow and gradual rate? Have you considered that the speed of evolutionary change can be different depending on the environment? (i.e. punctuated equilibrium is one such hypothesis regarding the rate of evolution by natural selection). Also consider that fossilization is a rare event (and finding them even rarer), so if evolution happened quickly during that time period, we shouldn't expect to find fossils capturing the intermidate forms.

That said, I did a quick look at some recent research in this field. Here is a "common ancestry tree" that includes the periods before and after the Cambrian. It uses molecular clock dating and data from 62 genes from 122 taxa to infer the phylogenetic relationships and approximate time of divergence. Below is the tree from this paper. I'll admit I haven't read all of that paper, but wanted to bring it up as it seems somewhat related to this subject.

phylogenetic tree