Spirituality
13 Apr 12
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitFor replies to that specific video watch it again here with the edited responses:
He specifically mentioned that people object to ID as untestable and then provided no counterexample that evolution was similarly untestable. Instead, his only counterexample was that of unobservable entities. 😞
I kind of thought testability was a big thing for scientists. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc. were all able to give us theories with testabl ...[text shortened]... invented specifically to discredit evolution and not so much to make positive claims of its own.
&feature=relmfu
Originally posted by Pianoman1Smile for The Day: Seems a brilliant young man at university had arduously reached reached the point where he now seriously doubted his very own existence. One afternoon after classes were concluded for the day he approached the silver haired Professor of Biblical Languages and Apologetics with the request that his confusion might be included in the gentleman's fervent prayers as he went boldly to the Throne of Grace, specifically that God might provide guidance: "Of course, My Lad, be glad to oblige you. By the way, whom should I say is asking?"
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
W ...[text shortened]... punches! ...[text shortened] stuff!! (gues I'll just sit and wait for all the thumbs down!)
Grampy Bobby
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillHere's the theory presented as a possible alternate to Miller:
For replies to that [b]specific video watch it again here with the edited responses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5oFUHx5ebo&feature=relmfu[/b]
Humans were created in a separate creative event from the other primates, but with 24 chromosome pairs just like them. At some point early in human history, fusion of the chromosomes occurred to give us the 23 pairs we have now. All living humans descended from those in which the fusion occurred. So, the different chromosomal numbers between humans and apes doesn't necessarily indicate common ancestry. It is not evidence for when the event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event. It could just as easily mean that similar creatures with independent ancestries originally had the same chromosome number and general banding patterns - a number that was later altered by fusion mutations in the human population during a population bottleneck. Given another dramatic population bottleneck in the future, such a transmissible fusion could easily happen again - in either apes or humans ... or any other creature for that matter. In other words, those evolutionists who present this argument do not provide any evidence that the human ancestor who originally had 48 chromosomes (as apes do), was actually any more closely 'related' to apes, functionally or morphologically, than are modern humans.Now, here's an exercise for the reader...find the spot in this rambling, generalized scenario that actually addresses the very specific argument given by Miller.
Yes, he briefly mentions 'similar...general banding patterns' - that's it! Apparently, he has conceded the point that the fused human chromosome looks just like two separated chromosomes in the other primates. Well, that's Miller's whole argument. He is not arguing for a certain time of fusion, or a name of a common ancestor, or any of the other BS the video maker brought up as red herrings. He is eager to make Miller appear to be arguing for far more than he actually is, so that he can claim that Miller is not offering proof of his claims. Thus, he is able to bury a basic admission of Miller's point in a sea of generalized contrarian nonsense. It's a nice rhetorical trick, but I'm not buying.
He tops it off with a cheap shot at Miller for admitting he is a Roman Catholic Theist who believes in a designer. He commits the Fallacy of Equivocation - Intelligent Design as a concept is NOT the same as the so-called Intelligent Design theory, as I previously pointed out. Interestingly, by blurring the lines between the two, he risks admitting that there is nothing in evolution theory which rules out a designer.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI'm not concerned with the number of chromosomes or other BS which proves
Here's the theory presented as a possible alternate to Miller:[quote]Humans were created in a separate creative event from the other primates, but with 24 chromosome pairs just like them. At some point early in human history, fusion of the chromosomes occurred to give us the 23 pairs we have now. All living humans descended from those in which the fusion ...[text shortened]... sks admitting that there is nothing in evolution theory which rules out a designer.
diddly do squat. The fact is God created mankind in His own image, not in the
image of any ape. Any biological similarities only prove a common designer in
my opinion. And of course, everyone should knows the common designer is
the great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou my friend are the product of an earlier time when Christians could afford to be more brash. Today's Christians have learned the hard way that they have to be a bit more subtle if they're going to sneak God and Creationism back into the science classroom. I would love to have more people like you in the ID movement because it would show the public the true face of that movement.
I'm not concerned with the number of chromosomes or other BS which proves
diddly do squat. The fact is God created mankind in His own image, not in the
image of any ape. Any biological similarities only prove a common designer in
my opinion. And of course, everyone should knows the common designer is
the great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf there were more people like me, evolution would be ignored in school and
You my friend are the product of an earlier time when Christians could afford to be more brash. Today's Christians have learned the hard way that they have to be a bit more subtle if they're going to sneak God and Creationism back into the science classroom. I would love to have more people like you in the ID movement because it would show the public the true face of that movement.
we would produce more great scientists and less mediocre science theorists.
24 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Here's the theory presented as a possible alternate to Miller:[quote]Humans were created in a separate creative event from the other primates, but with 24 chromosome pairs just like them. At some point early in human history, fusion of the chromosomes occurred to give us the 23 pairs we have now. All living humans descended from those in which the fusion sks admitting that there is nothing in evolution theory which rules out a designer.
Now, here's an exercise for the reader...find the spot in this rambling, generalized scenario that actually addresses the very specific argument given by Miller.
This is argument by belittlement by refering to "ramblings". First invite the reader to listen to both or the second video that the criticisms of Miller's argument might be viewed.
I think that would be the honest thing to do rather than islolate this last paragraph. There is obviously more than one way the same evidence could be interpreted.
Miller -
Miller's comments critiqued - &feature=relmfu
24 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI'm fine with the reader watching the videos and judging for themselves. Absolutely.Now, here's an exercise for the reader...find the spot in this rambling, generalized scenario that actually addresses the very specific argument given by Miller.
This is argument by belittlement by refering to "ramblings". First invite the reader to listen to both or the second video that the criticisms of Miller's argument might be ...[text shortened]...
Miller's comments critiqued - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5oFUHx5ebo&feature=relmfu
I think they'll discover that I took pains not to quote anything out of context. There was one nugget in the middle of the paragraph that was actually a substantive response to Miller's argument. If I was a 'quote-miner' I would have only included that.
I'm disappointed to hear no substantive reply to my post other than 'There is obviously more than one way the same evidence could be interpreted.' [This is where ID shines - it's very flexible; it can incorporate just about any evidence into the theory 🙄] Yes, tell me something I don't know. That wasn't even the point of the Miller video. The point is that there exists tests that could falsify evolution.
Are you planning on doing some thinking and writing for yourself at some point, or are you just going to link more YouTube videos?
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI don't need to watch any videos because I believe God did it. HalleluYah !!! 😏
I'm fine with the reader watching the videos and judging for themselves. Absolutely.
I think they'll discover that I took pains not to quote anything out of context. There was one nugget in the middle of the paragraph that was actually a substantive response to Miller's argument. If I was a 'quote-miner' I would have only included that.
I'm disappo ...[text shortened]... riting for yourself at some point, or are you just going to link more YouTube videos?
24 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI notice that there has been a lot of debate and discussion over this particular issue raised by Ken Miller. A lot of back and forth. And I am going to examine some of the back and forth in the coming week.
I'm fine with the reader watching the videos and judging for themselves. Absolutely.
I think they'll discover that I took pains not to quote anything out of context. There was one nugget in the middle of the paragraph that was actually a substantive response to Miller's argument. If I was a 'quote-miner' I would have only included that.
I'm disappo riting for yourself at some point, or are you just going to link more YouTube videos?
No further comment today.
In looking at the many exchanges on this Chromosome #2 fusion matter, I also came across this one which expresses a problem I have with non - intelligently and "lucky" species advancing mutations (which would be vastly in the minority as positive ones).
&feature=watch_response
(Titles of Videos are not chosen by me, and I dont necessarily endorse all titles as good)
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillThis is the kind of videos I like:
I notice that there has been a lot of debate and discussion over this particular issue raised by Ken Miller. A lot of back and forth. And I am going to examine some of the back and forth in the coming week.
No further comment today.
In looking at the many exchanges on this Chromosome #2 fusion matter, I also came across this one which expresses a ...[text shortened]...
(Titles of Videos are not chosen by me, and I dont necessarily endorse all titles as good)
25 Apr 12
3 edits
RJHinds,
As I recall, and correct me if I am in error, you never did answer my question to you abouit Genesis 6:14 months ago.
The substance that Noah used to seal the ark was a pertroleum product - pitch, a tar. This is an indication of oil in the earth before the flood of Noah as decomposed and ancient compressed vegetation.
What is your explanation for the existence of pitch in the earth before the flood? Please do not assume anything else except my question concerning this one verse.
"Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make rooms in the ark and shall cover it within and without with pitch." (Gen. 6:14)
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by Pianoman1No need for a thumbs down. I reckon God heard all that. Judgement to be passed accordingly. (That is of course unless RD decides to repent and ask for forgiveness via His son JC) How can the created criticise his creator??? But I guess Pianoman1 believes he evolved from pond scum, and is simply an intelligent ape?
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
Wow ...[text shortened]... ve disposition.
Excellent stuff!! (gues I'll just sit and wait for all the thumbs down!)