Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

I like the way you continue to take the one answer out of context of the question real life. Didn't you just say we should be aware of the context?

Post the ENTIRE question if you want to even mention context again. You look like an idiot by taking things out of context while demanding others keep the context.

0 Replies

If you want to claim that I pulled something 'out of context' , (i.e. claimed it meant something it wasn't intended to ) , then make your case.

The quotes I provided from Eugenie Scott, Dr Porter and American Geological Institute show that I did not.

I interpreted the survey question the same way they did.

They referred to those who responded answer #1 as 'theistic evolutionists' . So did I.

Come up with a new objection.

0 Replies

New objection? We can only go back around in circles as you pretend you didn't say things that you obviously did.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
maporsche,

real life has claimed there can be no natural processes in a theory that says God created the universe and then left it alone to cause man to evolve.

A purposeful misrepresentation from you.

What did I misrepresent about your position? Please feel free to point it out.

Where did I say what you claimed I said?

The statement 'God guided the process of evolution' does not refer to a deistic scenario such as you describe, and nowhere will you find me making a statement resembling your twisted version.

I see, so the statement when taken out of context can't mean a deistic viewpoint. So which of the 3 answers would a person with a deistic viewpoint find "CLOSEST" to their view? You have twisted the question by turning what is "closest" to something that can't possibly include. You can't claim no one with a "deistic viewpoint" answered that way if you then want to argue that "theistic evolutionists" are included in the 40%.

Quote:

parados wrote:
The respondents to the survey clearly stated God created the universe and then left it alone for man to evolve.

How many indicated a deistic inclination? 2 that we know of , that's how many.

Dr Porter characterized 40% of the respondents (less these 2 perhaps) as 'theistic evolutionists'. He was surprised to see 'so many'.

Do you think he was referring to these 2 as 'so many'?

Or do you think he had the same problem distinguishing deism from theism as you have?

I doubt it.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3059504#3059504

Did Dr Porter have a hard time understanding what "theistic evolution" meant? We know that the standard definition of "thesitic evolution" included deism because I posted it several times from several sources. I think it is obvious that you are NOT interpreting the survey the same way Porter did. You are changing the meaning of "theistic evolution" then hiding behind your claim that you never said anything OTHER than "theistic evolution". This quote makes it obvious you are making it MORE than what Porter said by your redefining "theistic evolution" to NOT include deism. I guess if Porter had the "same problem" as I in distinguishing "deism" from "theism" then he had no problem at all. It is YOU that has the problem in trying to redefine "theistic evolution" to not include deism.

My case has been made several times. You only run and hide when it gets too hot for you.
1. Do you believe that "Theistic evolution" includes deism? If not then provide at least 10 sources that preclude deism in the definition since you claimed my definition is a minority. Anyone can google "theistic evolution" and "definition" and find the same ones I posted. Where can we find any to support your claim?
2. Please tell us which answer those with a deistic viewpoint would have selected. Admit that "closest" does not make an answer absolute as you have tried to do time and again.
3. Tell us how you can interpret the survey in several ways they did not but yet still claim you interpreted it the way they did.
a. None of them said the survey was about "naturalism" vs "supernaturalism."
b. None of them said the survey showed 40% of scientists think the universe couldn't have been created by natural processes alone. Do you believe this survey shows that 40% of scientists thin the universe couldn't have been created by natural processes alone? If you do believe that then that would mean those 40% are deists and it contradicts your claim they aren't. If you don't believe it then your claim about surveys showing they do believe it are NOT supported by this survey and you have yet to provide any surveys to support your specious claim.

I don't claim you pulled something out of context. I use YOUR words to show it. You can deny your words if you want. You can argue that you are a deluded idiot. I don't care. Your words are your words.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

New objection? We can only go back around in circles as you pretend you didn't say things that you obviously did.

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
maporsche,

real life has claimed there can be no natural processes in a theory that says God created the universe and then left it alone to cause man to evolve.

A purposeful misrepresentation from you.

What did I misrepresent about your position? Please feel free to point it out.

Where did I say what you claimed I said?

The statement 'God guided the process of evolution' does not refer to a deistic scenario such as you describe, and nowhere will you find me making a statement resembling your twisted version.

I see, so the statement when taken out of context can't mean a deistic viewpoint.

I suppose that if you were willing to take it out of context, you could suppose it to mean virtually anything.

But I wouldn't know for sure.

Why don't you ask someone who has taken it out of context?

0 Replies

I did ask someone. It seems they are going to lie about it now.

0 Replies

Is that statement the closest for one with a deistic viewpoint? Yes or no.

Remember the context of the answer is to find the "closest."

Let's look at YOUR statement again.

Quote:

The statement 'God guided the process of evolution' does not refer to a deistic scenario such as you describe, and nowhere will you find me making a statement resembling your twisted version.

Since you feel the statement does NOT refer to a deistic scenario which of the 3 answers would be closest for a deist that thinks God created the universe and then left it alone? I know which one the priest I studied my catechism under would choose. He was very clear about it.

If you want to argue that my "twisted version" isn't what you meant but you think natural processes can occur in a universe created by a supernatural being that's fine because it will contradict this statement by you.

real life wrote:

If you introduce a supernatural element, it is no longer a natural process. Period.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3051396#3051396

Then of course if you want to argue that you only meant the supernatural element must be involved in the process itself then your presentation of this study in support of this statement of yours becomes suspect. Particularly in light of the arguments you made about how humans are "complex beings" and part of the "universe."

real life wrote:

Surveys of scientists find that a fairly large percentage state that natural processes alone are NOT sufficient to account for the universe as we see it and for the complex life forms that we see all around us.

The study you presented ONLY asks about evolution of humans which would be a natural process according to a deist and would be sufficient for the creation of humans.

But then we have these 2 statements by you that again contradicts any claim you want to make that natural processes can occur if God put them in place.

Quote:

Inserting God into the equation means it was 'supernatural', correct?

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3035785#3035785

Quote:

If God intervenes in the 'universe' , such as guiding the process of evolution, it is 'supernatural', by definition.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3036476#3036476

And of course we have this statement by you.

Quote:

The focus of the survey is on the question of naturalism vs. supernaturalism.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3044379#3044379

You have put yourself in a box real life. You can't claim I misrepresented what you said without denying what you did say. You have on more than one occassion said that if there was any supernatural element involved then something can no longer be natural. You used that statement to back up many of your arguments. You then turn around and argue the opposite when you claim that it is a misrepresentation of your opinion to state you think that introducing God, a supernatural element, means it can no longer be natural. So in light of your above statements and the refutations of your possible arguments please explain how this statement of mine is a misrepresentation of your position.

Quote:

real life has claimed there can be no natural processes in a theory that says God created the universe and then left it alone to cause man to evolve.

0 Replies

Well theyve gone and done it. AIG has started to publish a journal"Answers Journal" a free, online, supposedly "peer reviewed" journal on "SCientific Creationism"
In their first issue Ive cc'd the Abstract from one of 2

Quote:

search, Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048
Catastrophic Granite Formation:
Rapid Melting of Source Rocks,
and Rapid Magma Intrusion and Cooling
Abstract
The timescale for the generation of granitic magmas and their subsequent intrusion, crystallization,
and cooling as plutons is no longer incompatible with the biblical time frames of the global, year-long
Flood cataclysm and of 6,000-7,000 years for earth history. Though partial melting in the lower crust is the
main rate-limiting step, it is now conjectured to only take years to decades, so partial melting to produce
a large reservoir of granitic magmas could have occurred in the pre-Flood era as a consequence of
accelerated nuclear decay early in the Creation Week. Rapid segregation, ascent, and emplacement
now understood to only take days via dikes would have been aided by the tectonic "squeezing" and
"pumping" during the catastrophic plate tectonics driving the global Genesis Flood cataclysm. Now that it
has also been established that granitic plutons are mostly tabular sheets, crystallization and cooling would
be even more easily facilitated by hydrothermal convective circulation with meteoric waters in the host
rocks. The growth of large crystals from magmas within hours has now been experimentally determined,
while the co-formation in the same biotite flakes of adjacent uranium and polonium radiohalos, the latter
from short-lived parent polonium isotopes, requires that crystallization and cooling of the granitic plutons
only took about 6-10 days. Thus the sum total of time, from partial melting in the lower crust to crystallization
and cooling of granitic plutons emplaced in the upper crust, no longer conflicts with the biblical time frame
for earth history, nor is it an impediment to accounting for most of the fossil-bearing geologic record during
the global year-long Flood catastrophe.

Its interesting sounding, scholarly in tone, and all wet. Granite doesnt occur as he says, since most granite plutons occur within the boundaries of already existing rocks, they "Intrude". That means that the "country rock" has to have been there in the first place. How does the sequence of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks that already exists get intruded in such a short time?
How is the mechanism for large crystal growth accomplished(Feldspars and quartzes in granite plutons are composed of many sized crystals and , through constant cooling of the pluton, gradually cooler and cooler temperatures allow the "freezing" of lower temperature minerals in line with the Phase Rule. How does the time alloted accomplish all this? He appeals to a superfast nuclear reaction in tune with rapid continental drift. None of these mechanisms are in evidence from the strat record, or are going on today. Whenever RL or others say that e cant reconstruct the past cause we werent there, these Creationists have totally dropped that admonition and come up with a superspeed tectonic province that has a lot of hot melts going on, at the same time that a flood is cooling things off??

0 Replies

MAybe my critique of the Creation Journal was a jargon battle, and I dont mean to confer a false sense of credibility by the critique. I just want the readers to understand that the "Journals" abstract is so all full of **** and lies that a beginning geo student would catch the fallacies in logic in a moment. An abstracts use of scientific jargon and big words doesnt imbrue it with any scientific truth.

The fact that granites dont form on "the ground surface" EVER, is a major error in science . Yet, it is the authors first shot out of the barrel. This is like saying "The moon is made of Swiss cheese' so now we have a lunar cheese theory as to what really forms the holes.

This paper is reminiscent of the CReation Geology articles by Morris about how the Grand CAnyon was carved in but a few months of flood water cascading through the rocks. I remember that one of my earlier profs took on Dr Morris by bringing the argument to
"OK, lets accept that the Colorado River was in flood and could carve the Canyon in a few months. What about the rocks through whicjh the River was carving? When were they emplaced? They, after all, had to be there in the first place. This is the same argument except substituting granite magma for water.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

So is it ok to teach this in a science classroom?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

So is it ok to teach this in a science classroom?

I love the way to stay away for a week and then come back to change the subject.

You could perhaps respond to my last post which clearly shows I didn't misrepresent what you had said.

I think every science classroom should be forced to teach that real life is a liar. :wink: Don't you agree?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

So is it ok to teach this in a science classroom?

I love the way to stay away for a week and then come back to change the subject.

Sorry if I forgot to submit a schedule to you, parados. Who anointed you king, buddy? Laughing

As far as changing the subject, we're not. We're still discussing this statement of yours in the context of the survey that was given.

Now I HAVE changed my mind about it, if you care to know.

I have decided to agree with you:

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

You're right. I give up, you're correct.

So, is it ok to teach this in a science classroom?

I think that creation/ID would fit very comfortably under your statement as 'science', don't you?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

So is it ok to teach this in a science classroom?

I love the way to stay away for a week and then come back to change the subject.

Sorry if I forgot to submit a schedule to you, parados. Who anointed you king, buddy?

Commenting on the way you act hardly makes me king. Are you feeling like a peasent? If so, you did that to yourself.

Quote:

As far as changing the subject, we're not. We're still discussing this statement of yours in the context of the survey that was given.

Oh? So we are talking about my statement in the context of "closest"? Or are you talking about it in your taking it out of context of the question?

Quote:

Now I HAVE changed my mind about it, if you care to know.

I have decided to agree with you:

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

So does that mean the survey was NOT about the natural vs the supernatural?

Quote:

You're right. I give up, you're correct.

So, is it ok to teach this in a science classroom?

I think that creation/ID would fit very comfortably under your statement as 'science', don't you?

There is nothing to teach. As farmer has pointed out, in science the statement is pointless since science doesn't look to prove or disprove God. The statement only shows that someone CAN believe in God and natural processes.

0 Replies

Quote:

DNA study supports African origin of man
Thu Feb 21, 5:22 PM ET

A new genetic analysis of people from around the world adds further confirmation to the African origin of humans. The study of genetic details from 938 individuals from 51 populations provides evidence of how people are related and different, researchers led by Richard M. Myers of Stanford University report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The team looked at variations in 650,000 sections of each of the DNA samples, providing a view of the similarities and differences between people in greater detail than had been available previously.

Scientists have long believed that modern humans first developed in Africa and spread from there to populate the rest of the world, a theory strongly supported by the new analysis, the researchers said.

In addition, they noted that residents of the Middle East can trace their ancestry to both Africa and Europe, which they said is logical since the region formed a bridge for movement back and forth between the areas.

Also, they noted, they found a close a relationship between the Yakut population of Siberia and native Americans, who are believed to have migrated from Siberia via a land bridge at a time of lower sea levels.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_sc/out_of_africa&printer=1;_ylt=Ajc9I9XHt2ZPTKlrj82pMaxxieAA

Well so much for that silly myth that all life originated in the Middle East from the family of a drunken old man who built a big boat.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Quote:
DNA study supports African origin of man
Thu Feb 21, 5:22 PM ET

A new genetic analysis of people from around the world adds further confirmation to the African origin of humans. The study of genetic details from 938 individuals from 51 populations provides evidence of how people are related and different, researchers led by Richard M. Myers of Stanford University report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The team looked at variations in 650,000 sections of each of the DNA samples, providing a view of the similarities and differences between people in greater detail than had been available previously.

Scientists have long believed that modern humans first developed in Africa and spread from there to populate the rest of the world, a theory strongly supported by the new analysis, the researchers said.

In addition, they noted that residents of the Middle East can trace their ancestry to both Africa and Europe, which they said is logical since the region formed a bridge for movement back and forth between the areas.

Also, they noted, they found a close a relationship between the Yakut population of Siberia and native Americans, who are believed to have migrated from Siberia via a land bridge at a time of lower sea levels.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_sc/out_of_africa&printer=1;_ylt=Ajc9I9XHt2ZPTKlrj82pMaxxieAA

Well so much for that silly myth that all life originated in the Middle East from the family of a drunken old man who built a big boat.

Since the function of over 90% fo human DNA is unknown, I think it a little premature to state with such certainty why certain combinations of DNA do or do not exist within a given population.

-----------------------------------

Also, in addition to the well known 'genetic code', there may also be at least a second layer of code which overlays the first.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html?ex=1311480000&en=34d8e6ced8d42f47&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

0 Replies

Quote:

Since the function of over 90% fo human DNA is unknown, I think it a little premature to state with such certainty why certain combinations of DNA do or do not exist within a given population.

We dont necessarily understand what the genes do, but we can map the close associations and patterns in the nuclear and extra nuclear DNA that shows relationships and radiation of species throughout their world. Knowing WHAT they look like is the real populational link. We are geting a good handle on the "regulator DNA" which had , until recently been called junk.
Sean CArrolls book The Making of the Fittests a good deconstruction of "fossil"DNA and how this substance has become the ultimate forensic record of evolution.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

You're right. I give up, you're correct.

So, is it ok to teach this in a science classroom?

I think that creation/ID would fit very comfortably under your statement as 'science', don't you?

There is nothing to teach. As farmer has pointed out, in science the statement is pointless since science doesn't look to prove or disprove God. The statement only shows that someone CAN believe in God and natural processes.

Is believing in 'God AND natural processes' the same as believing in 'God IN natural processes' ?

0 Replies

[URL=http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html]This Article[/URL] wrote:

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Survey: U.S. about to lose its status as a majority Protestant nation
Non-denominational churches are gaining members
25 percent of adults leave faith of their upbringing
Survey found a dropping confidence in organized religion

Maybe we're seeing pure religion shake free of the shackles of dogma which have corrupted it for centuries.... or maybe people just prefer to sit at home and watch cartoons. Either way... Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

[URL=http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html]This Article[/URL] wrote:

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Survey: U.S. about to lose its status as a majority Protestant nation
Non-denominational churches are gaining members
25 percent of adults leave faith of their upbringing
Survey found a dropping confidence in organized religion

Maybe we're seeing pure religion shake free of the shackles of dogma which have corrupted it for centuries.... or maybe people just prefer to sit at home and watch cartoons. Either way...

Switching from a mainline denomination (Methodist, Episcopal, etc) to a non-denominational church does not equate to no longer being Protestant.

(I am a member of a non-denom and I am very definitely Protestant , and I think the other members of my church would identify themselves as Protestants as well.)

The article is rather unclear on where this conclusion comes from.

The figure 78% is cited as being those of Christian belief. Then 51% is given as the Protestants. So, are the remaining 27% Catholic? Not really, because it says less than 1 in 4 are Catholic.

A rather poorly written article, IMHO. I would be interested in seeing the actual results.

btw ros, what do you consider 'pure religion' ?

Is it no longer pure if you find someone else who believes as you do, and you meet together to discuss your common views?

What exactly is it about gathering together ('organized' religion) that you consider makes religion 'impure' ?

(My church would be considered rather 'disorganized' by some. Laughing

)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

A rather poorly written article, IMHO. I would be interested in seeing the actual results.

I agree, the article was a bit ambiguous with its information, but I though it would be good for whipping up a squabble anyway Wink

real life wrote:

btw ros, what do you consider 'pure religion' ?

Well, I wasn't trying to establish a definition of 'pure religion' or anything, but I guess what I was thinking was the spiritual aspects of most religions removed from all the dogma surrounding them.

real life wrote:

What exactly is it about gathering together ('organized' religion) that you consider makes religion 'impure' ?

It's not so much the "gathering" together of people which annoys me, as much as the focus on the dogma of religion in favor of the deeper meanings of the various religions. I think too many people, even in their own religion lose sight of the core things their religion was trying to promote and focus instead on the rules and rituals. Fundamentalism also annoys me because it's so obviously irrational and potentially dangerous.

0 Replies

Quote:

(I am a member of a non-denom and I am very definitely Protestant

and will, no doubt be going to burn in Hell with all the other non-Catholic heathen. Transubstantiation kicks ass.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know