Ivan Panin

[alec cotton]

Hello Richard .
I find it increasingly hard to fathom where you are or what is motivating you. . In reply to my post you said ' wrong , that statement is based on assumption . Of course it is . What is implied is ;that I have no right to assume anything unless and until it can be established by conventional laboratory controlled conditions. Step back sixty years : better make it eighty.Most people had never heard of a flush toilet. The lavatory was a small building in the back yard .There was a board with a hole in it and that was all. In towns and city s there were thousands and thousands of them The stink must have been eye watering and yet we never noticed it . We had never heard of E col ,botulism . Salmonella or any other food poisoner. When we got diarrhoea we just said ' I've got the wild shites, it must be something I ate. My point is quite simple. In those days it was unheard of for anyone to die of any hospital acquired infection. You went into hospital, got better and came out. In these days it is quite common to go into hospital , get M.R.S.A and die. What changed? In the old hospitals there was a distinctive smell. I didn't know then but it was a mixture of ether and carbolic. Brass was everywhere. Brass knobs and brass rails. Today it is all stainless steel an chrome. Bugs can n live happily on chrome but they don't like brass.

Quote>

Again, I must ask, where are you getting your information? A little research quickly reveals that bacteria evolve. There is no question about this; it has been observed. If you want to disagree, you will have to respond to the scientific studies that have concluded bacterial evolution is true.


This seems to be the crux of the problem . I am at ease with mutation . I refuse to accept the notion that it is accidental . I am convinced that it is deliberate. What you seem to be saying is that viruses and bacteria are constantly changing. . That D.N.A within this packet of protein is constantly slipping and when adverse conditions arise , the law of the survival of the fittest engages.The bacterium which is able to survive the new conditions thrives. The rest succumb. There is no external influence , Just chance. With Martin Luther King Jr. I say ;' I refuse to believe that man is nothing more than a few whirling electron in a wisp of smoke from a cosmic smouldering.'
On the subject of the spider you seemed to miss my point completely . I was pointing out that the professionals stated (Wrongly ) that spiders are short sighted. I was criticising the 'experts ' whom you seem to revere. Let me remind you of what one or two of these 'experts' did . One concocted thalidomide. It was Synthesised in 1954.. 5000-10000 babies were born without limbs . Some were born with none . Just stumps. Valium was hailed as a wonder drug and doctors thought that it was non addictive . It is highly addictive and has ruined the lives of millions. The researchers torture animals in the name of science and when the voice of protest is heard they reply ,' Well you wouldn't want us to experiment on people would you. ? The lousy hypocrites . They do just that and they call it clinical trials. The data does not extrapolate to humans anyway. These same 'clever 'People whom you seem to admire Invariably use placebos in their trials. The folly of that concept is readily seen by any one with half an eye. If the placebo has no effect then there is no point in offering it. If it has an effect (such as suggestion) then that effect would have to be quantified and the result deducted from the total . You unfairly ask me to give precise reasons for my conclusions and yet when I asked you to point out one disease which had been cured as a direct result of D.N..A research you ignored it. Information about the Grand Canyon is mostly from the encyclopaedia Britannica. My assumption as to the period was from a documentary . In it and behind the presenter I saw a fossil triceratops and related that to the Cretaceous. I have grown weary with this . Let us get down to the bottom line. I have asked direct questions before like , What is sin , what is righteousness. Should we obey the law? .After a lot of twisting and twirling ducking and dodging slipping and sliding the question ends up in the long grass. Is God in complete control or not. ?
Alec

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard .
I find it increasingly hard to fathom where you are or what is motivating you. . In reply to my post you said ' wrong , that statement is based on assumption . Of course it is . What is implied is ;that I have no right to assume anything unless and until it can be established by conventional laboratory controlled conditions.

Hey there Alec,

I think I found the source of some of your confusion. You have quoted your own words as if they were mine. In post #37 you said the following:

Hello Richard
I am deeply indebted to you for taking the time to debate this subject with me . This post might get quite long . I hope it does.'t get boring. Quote . 'Where are you getting this information from? Natural selection is not 'accidental' ( it must be deliberate then) On the contrary natural selection can mimic deliberate selection. For example you know that bacteria evolve to become resistant to antibiotics.Right?. Wrong. As always that statement is based on assumption. No bacteria or virus has ever evolved to resist the poisonous effect of copper.

The red words are words that YOU WROTE. You quoted my words (in black) and in response to my question "Right?" you wrote: "Wrong. As always that statement is based on assumption."

This is why you are having trouble understanding me. You are mixing up your words with my words. I think we need to simplify the conversation. You are bringing up too many topics all at once, and that makes the conversation hard to follow. My position is very simple. I think that the current scientific results relating to evolution are fundamentally correct. So rather than arguing over this or that odd point, we should be discussing the fundamentals. For example, you said that you agree that mutations happen. That is a very good start. But then you say you do not think they are random. That makes no sense to me at all. Why would God be causing the deadly bacteria to mutate to be resistant to penicillin????

All the very best,

Richard

[alec cotton]

I absolutely agree with you Richard. We were getting lost in the labyrinth. You just asked the legitimate question ;Why should God be causing deadly bacteria to mutate?. That is similar to the question ; why does God allow suffering?. . It is almost impossible to give a brief and at the same time , definitive answer. However , that leads me to the subject which I have tried to engage in on this forum , which is , Should we keep the law. God pleads with man :' Why will you die. Turn and live'. God does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wicked should turn from his evil ways and live. That begs the question , what is evil and what is good . By what standard do we calibrate. I say that we must keep the law of God as given to us through Moses. Immediately I am smothered in an avalanche of protest. 'We are under a new covenant now ' is a favourite. All right , I read in this new covenant writings specifically that we must not steal,commit adultery , bear false witness , eat things strangled and blood. Honour your father and mother , love God and your neighbour .' If you love me you will keep my commandments. 'He who breaks the least of these commandments ( the ten) and teaches men so shall be called least in the Kingdom. If God says don't do that and I do not do it , I am showing my faith in God and it is counted to me for righteousness. Everything I do impacts another and that in turn affects someone else. Righteousness exalts a notion. . That is what I think of as fundamental
Alec

[Mad Mick]

Alec, It would be good to see this debate transferred to one of the science threads. There are a couple of current debates happening there at the moment which I believe should include the direction of where this thread is going.

Happy Headbutting!

PS. I came across some DVD's put together by an American by the name of Kent Hoban. Briefly he began as a disgruntled parent who believed his children had the right to learn of other theories that existed, which were contrary to Darwin's.
As time progressed he unwillingly became an unofficial authority on the whole creationist debate.

He's a clear thinker and puts forward a very good argument for creation.
I'll see what I can dig up.

Mick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

PS. I came across some DVD's put together by an American by the name of Kent Hoban. Briefly he began as a disgruntled parent who believed his children had the right to learn of other theories that existed, which were contrary to Darwin's.
As time progressed he unwillingly became an unofficial authority on the whole creationist debate.

He's a clear thinker and puts forward a very good argument for creation.
I'll see what I can dig up.

Mick

Do you mean Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino?

What was his best argument for creation?

[Mad Mick]

Yeah, that's the guy, Kent Hovind.
I saw a DVD a couple of years back, he spoke of the circular reasoning Darwinists use to prove dates which I agree with Kent on this point.

There were a number of other points (provided they were verified) showed a leaning to a much younger catastrophic past.

I'd like to get further into it, but have too much on my plate.

I don't like Ken Hams reasoning, it seems too hollow and presumptuous.
Yet Kent's arguments are more logical and better prepared.

I saw Dr Baugh (Creation Evidences Museum) back in the late 80's on a K.Copeland series. That interview brought up a number of good points.
Unfortunately the site today is nowhere near as scientific as was the argument he put forward back then.

It's like the whole thing has been dumbed down.
Like by Law, he had to omit piles of info, which rendered his argument pointless.
There was one thing he brought up then which took my notice.
He supposedly had a Mathematical Theory which was given to him via an atheist eastern block scientist that evidently claimed the age of the universe is at 8,000 +/- 2,000 years.

I could never get hold of it. Now it's claimed that the modern human artefacts below and alongside Dinosaur bones are fakes. I know if I went to Rosewood Texas myself I could prove it one way or the other.

It doesn't make sense. For years they had independent tests done which supposedly backed them to the hilt.
How is it that now someone is claiming it to be fake?

God I hate LIARS.
But even worse are dissinformationalists who make the TRUTH out to be a LIE!
May they both rot in hell!

Anyway one thing I do know and can be verified;
When Mt St.Helens erupted, I was told that the gully that was gorged out by the flow in one day was 1/40th that of the Grand Canyon (GC).

This then verifies that the GC could have been formed in a short period of time. The massive silt layers covering Dinosaurs caused by an immediate world wide flood could have easily been gouged out by the receding waters, especially while the silt was still fresh. One point Kent brought up was the positioning of the petrified vertical trees along the sides of both the GC and Mt St.Helens. Two key points which solidified his argument that the GC formed quickly.

Richard, have you come across or heard about this Math Theory Dr Baugh was talking about?

Mick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yeah, that's the guy, Kent Hovind.
I saw a DVD a couple of years back, he spoke of the circular reasoning Darwinists use to prove dates which I agree with Kent on this point.

I've heard the circular dates argument. Basically, he says that we use fossils to date the rocks, and rocks to date the fossils. If things really were that simple, then he might have an argument. But they are not that simple. There are many converging lines of evidence used to date rocks and fossils. I think his argument is false.

There were a number of other points (provided they were verified) showed a leaning to a much younger catastrophic past.

I'd like to get further into it, but have too much on my plate.

I don't like Ken Hams reasoning, it seems too hollow and presumptuous.
Yet Kent's arguments are more logical and better prepared.

We agree about his reasoning. I think it is entirely hollow and presumptuous, and I would add, false. But we don't need to dig into YEC right now if you are busy. You know I reject it completely, on the level of Flat Earthism.

I saw Dr Baugh (Creation Evidences Museum) back in the late 80's on a K.Copeland series. That interview brought up a number of good points.
Unfortunately the site today is nowhere near as scientific as was the argument he put forward back then.

It's like the whole thing has been dumbed down.
Like by Law, he had to omit piles of info, which rendered his argument pointless.
There was one thing he brought up then which took my notice.
He supposedly had a Mathematical Theory which was given to him via an atheist eastern block scientist that evidently claimed the age of the universe is at 8,000 +/- 2,000 years.

An 8000 year old universe is as absurd as a 10 year old universe. It simply does not match the facts on any level.

I could never get hold of it. Now it's claimed that the modern human artefacts below and alongside Dinosaur bones are fakes. I know if I went to Rosewood Texas myself I could prove it one way or the other.

Excellent work! Yes, they are fakes. Humans did not live with dinosaurs. Just look at the geological column. Human fossils are never found with dinosaur fossils.

It doesn't make sense. For years they had independent tests done which supposedly backed them to the hilt.
How is it that now someone is claiming it to be fake?

God I hate LIARS.
But even worse are dissinformationalists who make the TRUTH out to be a LIE!
May they both rot in hell!

I HATE lies too! In a big way. A pox on all their houses!

Anyway one thing I do know and can be verified;
When Mt St.Helens erupted, I was told that the gully that was gorged out by the flow in one day was 1/40th that of the Grand Canyon (GC).

This then verifies that the GC could have been formed in a short period of time. The massive silt layers covering Dinosaurs caused by an immediate world wide flood could have easily been gouged out by the receding waters, especially while the silt was still fresh. One point Kent brought up was the positioning of the petrified vertical trees along the sides of both the GC and Mt St.Helens. Two key points which solidified his argument that the GC formed quickly.

There's a huge problem with that whole theory. The dinosaur fossils are sorted by layers. This naturally fits the theory of evolution. But it completely contradicts the flood theory because a flood could not sort them in order of their morphological evolution!

Richard, have you come across or heard about this Math Theory Dr Baugh was talking about?

Mick

I've heard that someone did a special relativity calculation that concluded the universe would only look like it was six days old from God's "frame of reference" but I've never evaluated it. I'll let you know if I find it.

All the best,

Richard

[Mad Mick]

I've heard the circular dates argument. Basically, he says that we use fossils to date the rocks, and rocks to date the fossils. If things really were that simple, then he might have an argument. But they are not that simple. There are many converging lines of evidence used to date rocks and fossils.

When you get a chance it would also be good for your argument to highlight the types of modern methods that are used to date rocks and fossils.

Excellent work! Yes, they are fakes. Humans did not live with dinosaurs. Just look at the geological column. Human fossils are never found with dinosaur fossils.

Regarding the geological column I was led to believe by the creationists that a complete column does not exist anywhere on earth and that their are places where certain periods were in reverse order. Evolutionists counter claimed that through the ages massive crust upheavils at the plates caused certain sections of the crust to flip.

I HATE lies too! In a big way. A pox on all their houses!

As much as we shouldn't curse, "Your talking my language!"

There's a huge problem with that whole theory. The dinosaur fossils are sorted by layers. This naturally fits the theory of evolution. But it completely contradicts the flood theory because a flood could not sort them in order of their morphological evolution!

Archeologists or should I say gold diggers, generally aren't interested in the evolution debate. They generally rely on funding via the universities thus they're inclined to highlight or repeat whatever their told to satisfy their superiors for the sake of their greater agenda.

Regarding their morphological evolution account, it would be interesting to see if it lines up with specific gravity. This could be proven if a number of carcasses of various species were placed simultaneously in a silo of churned muddy water.

I've heard that someone did a special relativity calculation that concluded the universe would only look like it was six days old from God's "frame of reference" but I've never evaluated it. I'll let you know if I find it.

The latest theories are relying on the premise that light is slowing down.

The theory I was alluding to was supposedly created back in the mid 80's.

Good Hunting and most of all, God bless your endeavor.

Mick

[awhirledaway]

Among Ivan Panin's critics is a common argument which I think misses the point. Basically, their argument is that since so many works in literature contain patterns of code, the code(s) contained in the Scriptures are no more/less significant. This critique is inherently flawed since it attacks an argument Panin never asserted. It has always been my understanding that THE POINT Panin was attempting to prove was that ALL 66 BOOKS CONTAINED THE EXACT SAME CODE. It is this assertion which Panin mathematically demonstrates, and thus "proves" to the googleth power, there must have been a "devine designer", since most of the text's "authors" not only didn't know one another, they lived at different times in history. To my knowledge, no one has been able to disprove his mathematical proofs supporting this assertion. Would you agree?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Among Ivan Panin's critics is a common argument which I think misses the point. Basically, their argument is that since so many works in literature contain patterns of code, the code(s) contained in the Scriptures are no more/less significant. This critique is inherently flawed since it attacks an argument Panin never asserted. It has always been my understanding that THE POINT Panin was attempting to prove was that ALL 66 BOOKS CONTAINED THE EXACT SAME CODE. It is this assertion which Panin mathematically demonstrates, and thus "proves" to the googleth power, there must have been a "devine designer", since most of the text's "authors" not only didn't know one another, they lived at different times in history. To my knowledge, no one has been able to disprove his mathematical proofs supporting this assertion. Would you agree?

I am convinced that there are legitimate alphanumeric patterns in the Bible (see my holographs section) but I don't think Panin's work proved anything. Your assertion that the "same pattern" is found in all 66 books sounds very extreme. Did Panin really say that? It seems unlikely since I doubt he had a chance to evaluate each and every book.

So a good place to start would be to find a precise assertion that Panin actually made and then we can test it to see if it holds up.