Jerry Bergman

Joined

• started 19 topics
• posted 279 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jerry Bergman

• 
  69

  Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

  by Abaddon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.

  it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Wonderful Jerry, now you have free time to post red herrings (you've proved nothing by your last post and imply you have)

  Red herring?? The claim that humans and some primates are genetically almost identical now seems to be totally wrong. Genetically, huge differences exist and more are being discovered all the time. Hardly a red herring. No one ever thought that we would see the gaps now seen.

  Maybe you will grace us with actually responding to the numerous issues you have failed to address in the post My response to Gerhard Besier that you started.

  I am working on it.

  If you remember, you said you felt it was unfair that evolutionists had a bad reputation for lying, etc., and then when I gave you loads of examples where this was clearly a deserved reputation, you were suddenly too busy

  Can you give one documented example of a mainline graduate degreed creationist that has been proven to have lied, using the legal definition of lying? And I am not talking about claims make by talk origins (this group has little credibility with me. They exist to slam those in any way possible that they disagree with. Have they ever published anything favorable about a single creationist? They have not that I could find) Remember about 90% of Americans are creationists of some type. Are you saying these 90% are all liars but the 5 to 10% atheists are the only honest people around?? Your examples of lies are hardly anything close but more like you disagree with what they claim to be true. This is hardly a lie but, at best, a disagreement.
• 
  69

  Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

  by Abaddon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.

  it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Now we are down from 99.8% all the way to 94-95%. A lot of Darwinists now look very foolish.

  Article from Nature
  Full text here:
  http://www.nature.com/nsu/030428/030428-3.html
  
  Donald M
  
  Chimps expose humanness
  
  Preliminary genome comparison points to primate individuality.
  29 April 2003
  
  HELEN PEARSON
  
  By studying chimpanzees, scientists are honing their genetic view of
  humanity, researchers told this week's meeting of the Human Genome
  Organisation in Cancun, Mexico.
  
  A group presented the first detailed comparison between a large chunk of
  human DNA and the equivalent from our closest relative. The genetic make-up
  of chimpanzee chromosome 22 is hot off the press, having just been
  sequenced, and matches human chromosome 21.
  
  The data call for some revision of the estimated genetic similarity between
  us and our closest relatives. Previously, human and chimp genetic sequences
  were quoted as being nearly 99% identical, with a difference of only a few
  DNA's letters. In fact, the similarity may be as low as 94-95%, says Todd
  Taylor of the RIKEN Genomic Sciences Center in Yokohama, Japan.
  
  Taylor's team factors in whole segments that they found to have been added
  to or subtracted from one of the genomes; previous estimates were often
  produced by comparing smaller areas. "There's still not a good way to say
  how much we're similar," admits Taylor.
  
  It is not yet clear how these rearrangements and single-letter changes
  underlie 'human' characteristics such as talking, abstract thinking and
  certain diseases. But, "if we want to find the very fine differences that
  make us human we have to look at our closest relative", Taylor says.
  
  The team found that one gene that is linked to Alzheimer's disease - a brain
  disorder that does not seem to afflict chimps - produces a slightly
  different protein in chimps from the corresponding human version. In all,
  around 16% of genes in the compared sequences have such variations. Another
  good example, says geneticist Stephen Scherer of the Hospital for Sick
  Children in Toronto, was found last year in a gene called FOXP2, which seems
  to control human language. Chimpanzees have two key changes in the gene,
  which may prevent them from articulating speech.
  
  Taylor's is one of two international groups that are now working their way
  through the chimpanzee's genome. They also hope to pinpoint cases in which,
  although chimp and human genes are very similar, they are active at
  different times or places in the body.
  
  Researchers announced only last week that they have largely completed the
  human genetic sequence. But "it's not enough to tell us everything about
  ourselves", says Human Genome Organisation president Yoshiyuki Sakaki, also
  at the RIKEN genome centre.
• 
  24

  A new book on the JW's by Hartman

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  psychological terror

  question: who is accusing jehovah`s witnesses of psychological terror?.

  answer: those people are no friends of jehovah`s witnesses.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Psychological Terror

  Question: Who is accusing Jehovah`s Witnesses of psychological terror? Answer: Those people are no friends of Jehovah`s Witnesses. Quite often they are apostates but also church institutions. Question: What is meant by the expression "apostates"?[1] Answer: As defined by Jehovah`s Witnesses, an "apostate" is a baptized supporter of the religious association who had an intensive Bible study recognizing the Bible as God`s Word and the truth. Consequently, of his own accord he professed himself towards God as his witness and subsequently got baptized in public. At some point the person concerned ended up forgetting his devotion to God and consciously and without repentance disregarded God`s laws for personal reasons that contradict Bible principles (smoking, adultery and the like). Quite often the former religious association gets blamed for this - frequently even in public - without revealing the true reasons that led to excommunication. Biblical prohibitions are then presented as prohibitions by the religious association. Question: According to Jehovah`s Witnesses, what are the reasons for apostasy and the accusation that the elders as well as members of the congregation exercise "psychological terror" on brothers who doubt the respectability of the Watchtower Society? Answer: We have recognized "hurt pride" and/or a "bad conscience" as the main reason. The moral and ethical standards of the Bible are very high and it takes strong faith as well as complete devotion to God`s will to merely endeavor to observe them. Even Adam and Eve surrendered to Satan`s temptation and so mankind lost Paradise. However, in the Bible God prophesied a restoration of paradise conditions and proclaimed great hope for those believing in him and the ransom sacrifice of his son Jesus Christ which led them to live a Christian life. Doubts and the realization of shortcomings can present a great strain. Being or remaining a non-smoker can be or become a strain. Avoiding extramarital or premarital intercourse could be considered an unreasonable demand. Devoting oneself to political neutrality meets with little understanding in society and honesty in paying taxes is often considered to be tomfoolery. If in such a situation of strain elders encourage that person in line with the Bible, however, the "one having doubts" has a greater inner urge to continue his offenses - I want to smoke, I do not just want to sleep with my wife, I want to indulge in promiscuity, I do not want to give Caesar`s things to Caesar, I do not want to give God`s things to God - the Bible shows the consequences of such a stubbornness and accordingly the unrepentant person is on the brink of being disfellowshipped from the religious association (excommunication). Apostasy does not develop from mere doubt, not even from a sinful act but from a conscious persistence in sin that the Bible warns of as well as a conscious rejection of the idea of turning back.. No person will be disfellowshipped because of a sin. That will only happen if this person proves to reject advice and continues to practice sin unrepentantly. The attitude of Jehovah`s Witnesses is supported by the Bible, according to 2John 6-11; Romans 16:17; 1Corinthians 5:11-13 and Titus 3:9-11; see also Hebrews 10:26,27. Godly, Biblical repentance means turning around (Acts 3:19). Would you call it psychological terror if a partner in marriage refused the other one his/her consent to a “ménage à trois"? If the internal revenue service mobilized its bureau for an investigation of tax offenses or if the body`s reaction to smoking was illness - is that psychological terror? On the other hand, however, do you not find the reference made by the Catholic Church to eternal torture in hell fire as a result of sin to be psychological terror? We surely have to distinguish at least between two interpretations of the expression "psychological terror" - between the actual "intimidation of the soul, the "living being" meaning the human being, by others” which would, for example, be the threat of "eternal torture of sinful human beings in hell" that even Luther found so horrible, and "self-made psychological terror".

  Source: Go to his website, click on the English version and take it from there.
  
  http://www.hd-hartmann.de/
  
  Any thoughts? Were you disfellowshipped? If so why? I resigned so never went through that experience.
• 
  54

  My response to Gerhard Besier

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  all creationists liars?

  response

  to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  So you working on your ninth degree? May I ask from what U? Medical college of Ohio in Toledo (a major state medical school)
• 
  54

  My response to Gerhard Besier

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  all creationists liars?

  response

  to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Here are some recommendations which cover the other side (theism): A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe
  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000010.html Obsessively Criticized but Scarcely Refuted: A Response to Richard Wein by William Dembski
  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000051.html Addicted to Caricatures: A Response to Brian Charlesworth by William Dembski
  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000055.html Mike Gene's Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey"
  http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/index.html
  http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag2/index.html
  http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag3/index.html
  http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag4/index.html
  http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag5/index.html Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller by William Dembski
  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000053.html Evolution's Logic of Credulity: An Unfettered Response to Allen Orr by William Dembski
  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000046.html Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design by William Dembski
  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000025.html Does Evolution Even Have a Mechanism? by William Dembski
  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000020.html The Chance of the Gaps by William Dembski
  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000013.html Here's another interesting exchange:
  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000008.html
• 
  54

  My response to Gerhard Besier

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  all creationists liars?

  response

  to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  OK I will. One at a time. First is the CPU issue. My paper on this is so far 12 pages long.
• 
  54

  My response to Gerhard Besier

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  all creationists liars?

  response

  to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  A few thoughts. Lynn Margulis (mitochondria), Carl Woese (origins), and Joan Roughgarden
  (sexual selection) have all
  
  1) added to scientific knowledge (so far as we know) and;
  2) stated that they found Darwinism very unhelpful if not harmful in the process. These folks believe neo-Darwinism is not sufficient. However, on the philosophical point
  they are still materialists, i.e., "blind watchmaker" adherents -- they
  believe that the introduction of these novel genes was by chance.
  To get somewhere in understanding what is going on
  in nature, these researchers had to step outside the Darwinian paradigm.
  
  That is bad news for a paradigm.
  
  Darwinism is in danger of ceasing to be "the best idea
  anyone ever had" (Dennett). That's because it just isn't giving
  ground-level researchers the explanatory power they need.
  
  Here is my question: Is Darwinism slowly being relegated -- in practice
  -- to a minor subset of explanations for some changes over time?
  
  Of course, it will be relegated quietly unless someone chooses to draw
  attention to the process. Key people have stock in the business, after
  all, and they need time to get their assets out.
  
  Meanwhile, good and honest science teachers will be shouting themselves
  hoarse at school board meetings in defense of a proposition that
  researchers are quietly abandoning, not because of changed religious
  beliefs, but so they can get something useful done.
  
  As to the relationship between Darwinism and methodological naturalism,
  well, Darwinism is one of MN's showpieces. You can certainly be a
  methodological (or metaphysical) naturalist without believing in
  Darwinism. But then you must go down the basement and invent another
  "universal acid." The amount of time that may take is unforeseeable.
  Moreover, at least some of your time must be spent propping up
  Darwinism, at least in public.
  
  There is definitely a market out there for a better idea. Whether ID is
  the better idea depends on whether it produces fruitful research.
  Researchers take their grants and prizes where they find them, I am sure.
  
  Thus, they help the anti-Darwinist slightly by arguing that the
  existing mechanistic/ materialistic theory is insufficient, but try to
  bolster the pro-Darwinist materialist philosophical program by
  providing another mechanism that can by chance and
  coincidence explain the complexity of life -- the "apparent design" -- as we
  find it today. For example, entirely new proteins and genes can just show
  up and work without having to pass gradualistically through the
  vast functionless/non-folding space that separates one protein from another
  in the neo-Darwinian model. The chance of them "just showing up" at the
  right time may be improbably small, but we know it happened since they
  are there today! The multiuniverse hypothesis will take care of the underlying
  probabilistic difficulties (in some universes they didn't show up at the
  right time and biological systems never got so advanced).
  
  To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com
  The book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the
  Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) was published in the Fall of 2003.
• 
  54

  My response to Gerhard Besier

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  all creationists liars?

  response

  to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  PS

  Another reason is I am working on a paper about CPU which I will put on this site.
• 
  54

  My response to Gerhard Besier

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  all creationists liars?

  response

  to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Great, a whole weekend and not ONE point raised in my rebutals has been addressed by Jerry It is clear to me that you (as I have found is common among Darwinists) are only interested in putting down a group of people that you do not like and seem to hate (theists) and have no interest in learning from others who hold ideas different from you. I have offered to send you my papers in progress for your feedback (which I have no doubt will be helpful) but have never heard from you. You have no interest in advancing knowledge, only in slamming others. As a Witness I was slammed for years by the "world"and am very tired of this approach and people who respond in this way to those they disagree. No matter what I say and what evidence I present, you will find some way to put me down even though you know virtually nothing about my life and background. I do not want to be around people like that, and have now found a large group of friends (mostly scientists and science college professors) that are supportive and do not spend all their time hurting others, but rather trying to help others. This situation with you is exactly like trying to convince a committed Witness. They are true believers and no amount of information will convince them.
• 
  54

  My response to Gerhard Besier

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  all creationists liars?

  response

  to professor dr. dr. gerhard besier

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Or, what exactly do you think the Watchtower got right about college professors? A FEW REFERENCES that explain what I mean: 1. Betrayers of the Truth. Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (Broad and Wade) Simon and Schuster. This is the classic book on this topic. 2. The Lecherous Professor; Sexual Harassment on Campus (Dzeich) Beacon Press 3. Poisoned Ivy. (Hart) Stein and Day. I have close to 50 more books on the same topic by major publishers. There is no point in my repeating my experience when it is well documented in the literature. Check the primary sources.