Archived - A thread about nothing....

[Bulldog]

I think that's called inbreeding and is fully supported in certain states.;)

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Jwilker
When interpreted your way....
So every time you say, "every time science challenges the Bible... the Bible always wins." It's fine and dandy for you but then I just come back with the exact opposite.

Interpretation really has nothing to do with it. Factual reality is involved. When some scientist states that the Bible is wrong because it speaks about cobras having ears and that scientist criticises the Bible because he states emphatically that cobras DON'T have ears... then years later we learn that yes, they do too... then that is a case of the Bible proving true, the scientist proving wrong... and there's no interpretation whatsoever involved in the matter.

When you and others here challenged the Bible and claimed "contraditions"... I answered every one of your challenges. Every one. Not a one of them proved true. That's not a matter of interpretation either.

So I'll re-state: in my experience, every time I've seen some scientist try to challenge the Bible-- the scientist always comes up on the short end of the stick.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by ikehiker
Boy, what a bunch of BS. The DNA you speak of proves humans evolved from a ‘single pair’ about 1,000,000 years ago and has no support whatsoever for a flood 4000+ years ago. The same DNA evidence shows man and chimps share 95% of their genetic material. You really like to throw out bits and pieces of scientific evidence as long as it supports your ‘theory’ but you conveniently leave out the actual conclusions of the studies.

You know, it's funny how coincidence works. I had just got on this board to address this very thing, and here you mention it. That's almost humorous.

Now, you claim that my statements regarding an original human pair are a "bunch of BS". Then you go on to say that "the DNA you speak of proves humans evolved from a 'single pair' about 1,000,000 years ago..."

Are you inferring that DNA genetic coding can be time traced to place that human pair at 1,000,000 years ago? Talk about a bunch of BS.

You mention that man and chimps share 95% of their genetic material. The article I read claimed actually more than that: scientists have detected "only a 4% difference between human and chimpanzee DNA encoding" (I'm quoting from memory from an article I read in the newspaper several months ago). Anyway, 95%, 96%... pretty close eh?

Well, it's close until someone decides to look closely at the matter. Because when we consider that DNA consists of BILLIONS of genetic links, then that "only 4% difference" actually entails millions of code links. HUNDREDS of MILLIONS. And that can make a big, big difference. (in fact, if my memory serves me, I actually covered this in detail many pages back. In the field of psychology, as well as many other areas of science, even a mere 2% is considered significant difference). 4% is a chasm.

The article presented this as "proof that men descended from apes". And you know, I knew when I read it that the average newspaper reader would not stop and actually think about it, and would swallow that propaganda hook line and sinker.

Similarities in species and similarities in DNA encoding in no way establishes or proves the evolution theory. Why? Again, because there are valid alternative explanations. If you know science like you claim you do (and I do not question that), then you already know that when there are several equally valid explanations, one cannot state with certainty that something is scientific fact. If it were-- there would be no other valid alternatives.

The truth is that it would be totally expected that different species would share similar design and that some DNA sequences would be similar between species-- if they all had a common designer. I mean, when people write books, they tend to show a similar style of writing between books. You can tell an artist's paintings because of a similar style. That doesn't mean one painting evolved from another. It just means the same creator had a hand in both.

So it is completely understandable that God might take previous designs that he used from already existing life forms and incoporate those into new creations. It is a totally logical concept.

Regarding your staements of Sir Hoyle's concepts of "panspermia"... Hoyle had a lot of unusual personal ideas... as do many people, both religious and scientific. Panspermia was a personal philosophy of his, which also included the thought that there is no beginning or end, but everything has always existed and will always exist. A form of this concept (if I am correct) can be found in the Vonnegut book "Slaughterhouse 5" in whch time is a continuous circle in which everything past, present and future is happening simultaneously and over which we have no control (ie, a sophisticated form of fatalism).

Nice theory... but like evolution, is just a theory. That doesn't however, prove evolution, nor make it any more valid, nor does it invalidate Hoyle's mathematical evaluation of the odds of life forming by accident. It's just his philosophy, nothing more and proves nothing, one way or the other.

[Bulldog]

Wayfinder, I admire stick-to-it-ness!
I am more of an observer in this thread and I am tired of saying the same things to my computer, you must be tired of typing them.
The only hope I have it the following story.

I used to track juveniles on parole and it was like banging your head into a brick wall daily. I could tell (and did tell) these kids daily, what was wrong with their behavior and or attitudes and how or what they could do to help themselves. Never seemed to matter.
One day while sitting in my office being fully disturbed by my lack of influence over these misguided youths. A former trackee walked in and told me how much he appreciated all my work with him and that I had helped him turn his life around. This was a kid that while I was tracking him I couldn't stand, couldn't wait to get rid of. Nonetheless I still had to work with him and treated him with the same respect and such as the rest of my caseload. It was something that I had said in passing that spurred him on a couple of years after I finished working with him.

I see what you (WF) are doing as planting seeds, some grow, some don't, and we may never know either way.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Howard2k
I still don't understand. If we have one male cat and one female cat today. And tomorrow we have 5 species of cat. How is that not evolution? Or are you saying that it is??

Are you totally unacquainted with the scientific fact of variety within species?

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Bulldog
Wayfinder, I admire stick-to-it-ness!
I am more of an observer in this thread and I am tired of saying the same things to my computer, you must be tired of typing them.
The only hope I have it the following story.

Very nice story. Inspiring. I know that is something that teachers love... when a student from years before comes to them and tells them of their influence on the student's life. Like you said, we never know what will sprout.

As for re-stating points already made-- yeah, it gets old. But some rocks are a little harder to chip than others and require extra strokes. Sooner or later some of this might start sinking in. Maybe. :p

[ikehiker]

Yes, the Bible is always proven right as long as you ignore the facts with which you don’t agree.

The Bible – earth and all the creatures created in 7 days (and by interpretation of the ‘begats,’ this was something around 5000 years ago).

Science – the earth is 4.5 billion years old, some creatures existed 3.5 billion years ago, humans arrived on the scene ~3.5 million years ago. [Sorry, I said 1 million in the last post but I did some checking the fossil Lucy is dated to 3.5 million- I know, Wayfinder claims it’s a matter of interpretation of the ‘facts’ but he is absolutely wrong. His explanation always comes down to, well the same supreme being did all this so of course it looks that way].

I frankly do not care that Wayfinder will never accept the facts of evolution, but people need to be aware of how dangerous he and his fellow creationists are. Some of the Christians on this site may think there is no problem with teaching creationism in schools as a science. I tried in earlier posts to explain why it cannot be considered a valid science, but also consider this. Evolution is the basis for modern biology which in turn, is the basis for modern medicine. When religious fanatics (and, in spite of Wayfinder’s claim of having done a critical evaluation of the facts in the Bible, any unbiased person reading his numerous posts in this thread would come to the conclusion that he is, in fact, a fanatic) insert their will into the education process, you end up with a system similar to what happened in Afghanistan during the rule of the Taliban. Within a score of years, you’ll have no more advances in the quality of life and, most likely, will see a decline to the late 1800’s.

And, if anyone thinks this is a flame, please report it to CJ or the other mods. Maybe one of them will close this thread.

[Jwilker]

Similarities in species and similarities in DNA encoding in no way establishes or proves the evolution theory. Why? Again, because there are valid alternative explanations

Which doesn't make evolution wrong. And certainly doesn't make creationism the correct answer. If you are going to entertain the fringe alternatives that's cool but it by no means makes one more right that the other.

So my pointing out that 40% of scientists can be a doctored number is worse than picking apart 4% difference to show how it can be a big deal? Yes there are millions of sequences but it's still 4%. No matter how you spin it.

Back to interpretation. You see the similarity as god cutting and pasting. But since the difference isn't between man and crocodile, or shark, or parakeet, it's between man and chimpanzee (ape) it lends credence to the theory of evolution. It would also indicate that if god were cutting and pasting he didn't do it much. which then begs, why?

It is a totally logical concept.

I don't know about logical, a leap sure. a plausible theory based in creationism certainly

So Sir Hoyle's comments that support your position are completely logical and fine and admissable, but the other things he says that may cast a bad light on him or his credibility as a scientist or his off kilter ideas or beliefs, don't matter and are not important? That's convenient.

[Jwilker]

Originally posted by ikehiker
Yes, the Bible is always proven right as long as you ignore the facts with which you don’t agree.

Well said Ike. THe whole post, not just the above.

It's no more flamey than any other in this thread.

[Wayfinder]

Ike, for the record, I don't consider your message itself a flame... but parts of it certainly are. I do think that your posting a message that could easily be taken for a flame-- just because you personally don't like the thread-- is shameful and irresponsible action from a moderator. With all due respect, if you don't like the thread-- you don't have to read it.

Originally posted by ikehiker
Yes, the Bible is always proven right as long as you ignore the facts with which you don’t agree.

I think that's a description that has more applied to the evolutionist argument here, isn't it? We've met and answered just about every one of the evolutionist claims. It is the evolutionist argument that has continued to ignore presented fact in this thread.


The Bible – earth and all the creatures created in 7 days (and by interpretation of the ‘begats,’ this was something around 5000 years ago).

This again, has been already discussed and dealt with. You must have missed it.

Science – the earth is 4.5 billion years old, some creatures existed 3.5 billion years ago, humans arrived on the scene ~3.5 million years ago.

I don't deny the basic age of the earth itself. Neither does the Bible. As far as your claims regarding life on earth, I think there is enough verifiable scientific debate on the age of life on earth to make that a nebulous claim, isn't there?

I frankly do not care that Wayfinder will never accept the facts of evolution, but people need to be aware of how dangerous he and his fellow creationists are.

I think far less dangerous than those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Almighty and impose that opinion upon society's children-- regardless of the wishes of the parents.

Some of the Christians on this site may think there is no problem with teaching creationism in schools as a science.

If I am not mistaken, I haven't seen one creationist state that this should be taught in school. One offered the possiblity that both creation and evolution might be taught, but in the same message also admitted the problems with that. I'm not for force-feeding anyone anything-- including evolution.

Evolution is the basis for modern biology which in turn, is the basis for modern medicine.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion that's emotionalistic nonsense. You are here proffering that modern medicine exists because of the concept of evolution and that we endanger the study of medicine if we don't believe in evolution. Obviously that is not the case.


When religious fanatics (and, in spite of Wayfinder’s claim of having done a critical evaluation of the facts in the Bible, any unbiased person reading his numerous posts in this thread would come to the conclusion that he is, in fact, a fanatic)

I think as a moderator, you need to step back a bit. Or should I start making claims regarding evolutionary fanatics?

Stick to the facts, Ike. You know the rules. Why should I have to be moderating you?

of the Taliban. Within a score of years, you’ll have no more advances in the quality of life and, most likely, will see a decline to the late 1800’s.

What have you been drinking?

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Jwilker

So Sir Hoyle's comments that support your position are completely logical and fine and admissable, but the other things he says that may cast a bad light on him or his credibility as a scientist or his off kilter ideas or beliefs, don't matter and are not important? That's convenient.

No. It was pretty predictable you were going to make this point, but no. You're discussing apples and oranges.

In one instance, he's using established mathematics and statistical analysis to analyze a known physical construct (enzymes and DNA).

In the latter, he's presenting a personal philosophy based on his observation of the universe. Those are two totally different things.

I would have hoped you would have already understood that. Are you trying to not understand?

(I have no intention of insult in this question... I'm asking you a question that I seriously believe you need to ask yourself.) Because the difference in his two presentations is to me, clear as night and day.

Originally posted by Wayfinder
I think as a moderator, you need to step back a bit. Or should I start making claims regarding evolutionary fanatics?

Stick to the facts, Ike. You know the rules. Why should I have to be moderating you?

Sorry, I don't consider what Ike wrote a flame. Just because someone is a moderator or admin does not mean they can't take part in a discussion. Yes we do need to abide by the same rules as you do, but he did not make any personal attack on you, just the statements you are making. You may do the same.

A fanatic is "marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea". I don't see anything in your statements that would say you don't feel that way.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by cageyjames
Sorry, I consider what Ike wrote a flame.

Well, there you have it! :p (need to edit, maybe???) :p:p

Sorry Ike! ;) - cj

A fanatic is "marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea". I don't see anything in your statements that would say you don't feel that way.

I don't think I'm "excessive" in my presentation of the Bible and creation. I'm not backing down for a certainty. I believe in it, yes. Excessive? I believe that by anyone's book CJ... calling someone a "fanatic" would be considered a flame.

Not that it matters to me. Just because Ike calls me a fanatic doesn't make it so. In fact, it actually labels his argument as being excessive.

But moderators especially need to watch their Ps and Qs.... kinda like the police. More is expected of those in charge than with the average person.

I've been a moderator... sysop... etc. Been there. Lots of experience. Know how it works.

I do understand however-- that Ike may have very strong feelings about these matters. I have seen enough abuse of religious dogma in my life-- and there's enough of a historical record of abuse-- to cause one concern. That does not mean however, that someone is "dangerous" or a "fanatic" just because they have an opinion different than Ike's. The potential exists for such things in anyone... that doesn't make it so.

The #1 tool of propaganda: if you can't attack the item of discussion... attack the person. None of us want to be guilty of that, agreed?

Not saying my own record is spotless. Probably a few unintentional "flames" of my own in these pages somewhere. But I hope not.

Very true, we do need to make sure we set a good example. But part of what makes this forum great is that everyone can speak their minds. This thread is a great example.

[Jwilker]

I think that's a description that has more applied to the evolutionist argument here, isn't it? We've met and answered just about every one of the evolutionist claims. It is the evolutionist argument that has continued to ignore presented fact in this thread.

You've met and answered every claim and question with evidence that is either equally dismissable by evolution supporters as ours is to you, or with statements like there's not enough evidence to support evolution so my position is the right one.

I think there is a fundamental difference in our definitions of evidence. You post a site that supports you, I post a site that supports me, you disregard my site.

This again, has been already discussed and dealt with. You must have missed it.

He's right Ike it was. In order for the bible to be correct you have to remove the real definition of a day (as defined by earths rotation) and guess at the length of God's day. It's all in how you interpret it, you're interpretting it wrong :D

I think far less dangerous than those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Almighty.

Oh I don't know. How dis the Taliban treat those who don't believe in THEIR almighty? What about those that don't believe in YOUR almighty? Whichever religion is the most agressive wins?

The right almighty gets you into a higher social class? houses with indoor plumbing?

I think as a moderator, you need to step back a bit. Or should I start making claims regarding evolutionary fanatics?

Which ones are those? THe ones who blow up abortion clinics? shoot abortion docters, attack other countries to "save" them? Oh wait those weren't evolutionist actions were they? :)

I can completely see what Ike's comparison was getting at.

With God in our lives why would we need to advance scientifically. Once we're all saved and living the blessed life who cares to invent new technologies, ways of doing things?

It may not go down like that at all, but the most recent model of a religious regime ruling I'm not comfortable taking the chance.