Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 100
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The big bang is, by definition, a past event.That means that it happened in the past.
    It is happening now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The past is a word that speaks of things not currently happening.
    The past is present in the now.
    "I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who comes, the Almighty.”


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This implies there is more than a single moment of time.
    All of eternity is present in every single moment of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    But if you want to get philosophical, I will agree that eternity is always now. There is still time, but the past and the future are always relative to now.
    ok


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that the Bible incorrectly states that the "earth" was created "in the beginning." It was formed 9 billion years after the beginning.
    It depends on how you interpret "beginning" --
    "b'reishit" - even written with "big B" (alluding to "big bang") - is not rightly translated with "in the beginning", for then it should have read "bareishit".
    Many see it is a status constructus : "In the beginning of His creation of the heaven and the earth (...) God said: "Let there be light". But I don't subscribe to that.

    I think Mark comments to "b'reishit" with his "archè tou euangeliou". "Archè" having two meanings, best expressed with Latin "initium" and "principium" (Since "beginning" also can have two meanings). (I wrote of this before).

    Vulgata Proverbs 1:7
    timor Domini principium scientiae,
    translates:
    יִרְאַת יְהוָה רֵאשִׁית דָּעַת "yirat hashem reishit daat"

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your use of the word "bigbanged" makes no sense to me at all. It is entirely contrary to the scientific meaning of that term.
    It's just an attempt to translate, like also "to create" is just an attempt.
    Hebrew uses two words "asah" and "bara" translated in LXX with the same "poiein"


    "bara" begins with "b(et)" - "b" is explosive. The second letter after "alef" - "alef" is silent. "B" - breath breaking through the closed lips.
    Last edited by sylvius; 06-23-2012 at 01:11 AM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Why wouldn't it be for both reasons?
    Might be, Mary (Mariam) seeming to have been a very common name. But the Gospelwriters obviously play with meaning,
    like "virgin birth" or even "conceptio immaculata" surely are not historical, like also not "the empty grave".

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    What does it mean to "add from the profane to the holy"?
    That you must stop with all your work already time before sabbat begins, i.e. "anticipate redemption" ,
    like also expressed in NT:

    Mark 12:32-37,
    “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake. Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning— lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake.”

    "the doorkeeper" surely alludes to "yom hashishi", the sixth day, called "day of preparation",

    Mark 15:42,
    And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath

    ("hashishi" being the 434th word in the Torah, 434 gematria of "delet" = door).

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    This fact is agreed upon by both Evolution and Creation scientists who have studied these things in recent years. In the articles posted below of the number of scientists quoted, all but two are Evolution scientists who speak on this subject.


    "Francis Crick, the biochemist who discovered the structure of DNA, won a Nobel prize with respect to the research he had made on the subject. Crick, who was an ardent evolutionist, stated the following scientific opinion in a book he has written after testifying the miraculous structure of DNA:"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."*Even in Crick's view, who was one of the biggest experts on DNA, life could never originate on earth spontaneously.
    Henry,

    I am so very sorry to see that you have been duped into spreading the deliberate lies of deceptive creationists. The quote from Francis Crick was taken out of context. Here is the quote in its original context:
    An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
    See those red words? Francis Crick explicitly stated the exact opposite of what the creationists said he wrote! THE EXACT OPPOSITE! He said nothing that would support the assertion that he believed "life could never originate on earth spontaneously." That statement is a flat out lie. And you even underlined for emphasis. This has been known for years. The creationist leaders who continue to publish these lies have no excuse. A one second search on Google reveals the LIE for what it is. Yet this lie continues to be propagated by creationists even after they have been exposed. From an intellectual perspective, people who deliberately lie like that are fools and knaves of the first order. From a Christian perspective, they are sons of the devil. How anyone could think they could overthrow science with transparent lies is beyond all understanding. It suggests a different motive. It suggests that they know the people they are writing for will never check the facts. This means their intent is to deceive gullible Christians, and you, unfortunately, are one of their victims!

    Henry, please listen carefully. Your "quote mining" proves absolutely nothing. Even if the quotes are not deliberately deceptive they are still just fragments of opinions taken out of context. It's an altogether fallacious way to try to refute any science. The Rational Wiki defines Quote Mining as follows:
    Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint.[1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
    The Wikipedia mentions this fallacious practice in their article on the Fallacy of quoting out of context:
    The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]
    If you want to refute evolution, you must begin by understanding what the theory states, and what evidence supports it. Then when you learn the best evidence supporting it, you can explain to us why it fails.

    Do you now understand why quote mining is a fallacy? And more importantly, do you understand why you cannot generally trust creationist websites?

    And one other point. The fact that creationists willingly lie through their teeth even after they have been exposed is yet another example that refutes the argument that the first Christians could not have claimed an empty tomb if it were not empty. Anyone can make up whatever they want without fear of being contradicted because religions are looking for BELIEVERS who do not question. That's why Joseph Smith could lie through his teeth. He didn't care if the skeptics showed he was lying. He was looking for BELIEVERS who would accept whatever he said "on faith." And that's why the wicked leaders in the creationist movement can lie through their teeth. They are not looking to convince real scientists. They know that is impossible because scientists demand evidence and truth. The leaders of the creationist movement are just fleecing the simple-minded sheep, feeding them lies to make money.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Henry,

    I am so very sorry to see that you have been duped into spreading the deliberate lies of deceptive creationists. The quote from Francis Crick was taken out of context. Here is the quote in its original context:
    An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

    See those red words? Francis Crick explicitly stated the exact opposite of what the creationists said he wrote! THE EXACT OPPOSITE! He said nothing that would support the assertion that he believed "life could never originate on earth spontaneously." That statement is a flat out lie. And you even underlined for emphasis. This has been known for years. The creationist leaders who continue to publish these lies have no excuse. A one second search on Google reveals the LIE for what it is. Yet this lie continues to be propagated by creationists even after they have been exposed. From an intellectual perspective, people who deliberately lie like that are fools and knaves of the first order. From a Christian perspective, they are sons of the devil. How anyone could think they could overthrow science with transparent lies is beyond all understanding. It suggests a different motive. It suggests that they know the people they are writing for will never check the facts. This means their intent is to deceive gullible Christians, and you, unfortunately, are one of their victims!

    Henry, please listen carefully. Your "quote mining" proves absolutely nothing. Even if the quotes are not deliberately deceptive they are still just fragments of opinions taken out of context. It's an altogether fallacious way to try to refute any science. The Rational Wiki defines Quote Mining as follows:
    Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint.[1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
    The Wikipedia mentions this fallacious practice in their article on the Fallacy of quoting out of context:
    The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]
    If you want to refute evolution, you must begin by understanding what the theory states, and what evidence supports it. Then when you learn the best evidence supporting it, you can explain to us why it fails.

    Do you now understand why quote mining is a fallacy? And more importantly, do you understand why you cannot generally trust creationist websites?

    And one other point. The fact that creationists willingly lie through their teeth even after they have been exposed is yet another example that refutes the argument that the first Christians could not have claimed an empty tomb if it were not empty. Anyone can make up whatever they want without fear of being contradicted because religions are looking for BELIEVERS who do not question. That's why Joseph Smith could lie through his teeth. He didn't care if the skeptics showed he was lying. He was looking for BELIEVERS who would accept whatever he said "on faith." And that's why the wicked leaders in the creationist movement can lie through their teeth. They are not looking to convince real scientists. They know that is impossible because scientists demand evidence and truth. The leaders of the creationist movement are just fleecing the simple-minded sheep, feeding them lies to make money.

    All the best,

    Richard
    Yes, it seems that Crick's statement was taken out of context. It would have been better to give the whole passage. Whether it was intentional or not is questionable. But to call the Creationists deceptive and deliberately lying because of a questionable quote in their article is unfair. How about the other quotes they used in their article (the article I posted) made by the Evolution scientists, were they misquoted to? They also stated the probability of life originating by chemical means as all but impossible (but leaving open a theoretical factor of course); which agreed with Frances Crick's statement.

    You said "do you understand why you cannot generally trust creationist websites?" You take a misquote out of one article and attempt to build a case of why you cannot trust creationist websites in general. They (creation websites) lie through their teeth and cannot be trusted because they are Christians looking for believers to believe them and fleece them out of money. Apparently from your statement anything coming out of the mouth of "Christians" can't be trusted at all. Don't you think your bias against Christians is showing here at its extreme?

    God bless---Twospirits
    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Yes, it seems that Crick's statement was taken out of context. It would have been better to give the whole passage. Whether it was intentional or not is questionable.
    Questionable? There is no question whatsoever. They asserted that "in Crick's view ... life could never originate on earth spontaneously." Their assertion DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS Crick's view which he expressed with perfect clarity in the sentence which they omitted. There is no way this could have been unintentional. It is a deliberate lie. Their wicked intent is confirmed by the fact that they have not corrected their error even though it has been exposed on the internet for years now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    But to call the Creationists deceptive and deliberately lying because of a questionable quote in their article is unfair. How about the other quotes they used in their article (the article I posted) made by the Evolution scientists, were they misquoted to? They also stated the probability of life originating by chemical means as all but impossible (but leaving open a theoretical factor of course); which agreed with Frances Crick's statement.
    I am stunned that you continue to push QUOTE MINING as a legitimate response to the science of evolution. Did you not read my response? Quote mining is not a legitimate way to refute a science. Quote mining is ABSURD because it takes quotes out of context to make it appear that the evolutionists agree with the creationists. If you want to know how absurd this is, all you have to do is read what the scientists who have been abused in this way say about the creationists who misquote them. There are very good reasons why the word "dishonest" has become essentially synonymous with "creationist." Take a look at the Quote Mining Project if you want to see how profoundly corrupt the entire creationist movement has become:

    Quote Originally Posted by Quote Mining Project
    One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous evolutionists" [1]. It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published [2].

    For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure [3], the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored" [4].

    In response, numerous people took the trouble to look up the source material to learn the context of the passages. The result of this considerable effort demonstrated that these "quotes" were, in very large part, so out-of-context as to qualify as complete distortions of the authors' intent. As noted by Dana Tweedy, one of the responders:
    Those quotations were carefully taken out of context, to change the meaning. The "evolutionist(s)" in those quotations [were] not admitting that "a portion of evolution" was "fraudulent". That is the whole point of a "lie of omission", to omit the part of the person's words that explains and clarifies the person's position. Those quotes you stole are classic lies of omission. They are false, and using them is perpetrating a falsehood . . . [5]
    Another responder, John Wilkins, continued in the same vein:
    [I]t is worth observing too that not only were these quotes taken carefully out of context, but that they must have been deliberately done so. After [unearthing the context] I could not find there is [any] way these could have been taken accidentally or in ignorance out of the context.
    Several of them turn out to be railing against creationists. More than a few turn out to be making the exact opposite point [than the bare words seem to indicate] and at least one was reporting secondarily on the ideas of others in order to rebut them. Once is a mistake, twice is carelessness, three times could be stupidity, but the sheer volume of these is a deliberately planned campaign of disinformation. [6]
    Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution. (Ironically, this is the same type of "copying error", i.e. mutation, that can be used to trace phylogenetic histories of populations.) More importantly, such thoughtless iterations demonstrate an unwillingness to understand the underlying issues and an indifference to the ideas and reputations of the people whose names they are appropriating.
    The whole idea of refuting science by tossing out a flurry of "quotes" that appear to contradict science is totally absurd anyway. Just think about it for a minute. To believe the quotes meant what the creationists say they meant is to assert that those scientists are TOTALLY INSANE - claiming that they both believe and don't believe in evolution. It's just plain nuts. And then when it is understood that the creationists don't even understand the science they reject, the whole picture becomes clear and we know with perfect certainty that the creationists who put together those quotes were being deliberately deceptive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    You said "do you understand why you cannot generally trust creationist websites?" You take a misquote out of one article and attempt to build a case of why you cannot trust creationist websites in general. They (creation websites) lie through their teeth and cannot be trusted because they are Christians looking for believers to believe them and fleece them out of money. Apparently from your statement anything coming out of the mouth of "Christians" can't be trusted at all. Don't you think your bias against Christians is showing here at its extreme?

    God bless---Twospirits
    I didn't say anything about "Christians" but I don't think you want to go there. We all know that Chrsitianity is in general totally corrupt. For example, the entire leadership of Liberty U and the entire leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention and countless Christian ministries (like John Ankerberg and Norm Geisler) LIED to cover up the LIES of Ergun Caner, the President of Liberty Theological Seminary who had LIED for TEN YEARS about having been raised a terrorist to "do what was done on September 11." And then I watched as other fundamentalist church organizations began to delete information from their websites to coverup the LIES. I'm talking about the kind of fundamentalists that preach nothing but JESUS JESUS JESUS day and night. They are LIARS willing to LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH to protect other LIARS. The exposure of Ergun Caner only confirmed that dogmatic religion tends to corrupt both the hearts and minds of believers. The fact that the leaders of the fundamentalist institutions were willing to LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH was the final catalyst that freed me from any allegiance to institutional Christianity.

    This is the great irony of Christianity. It claims to worship the TRUTH in the person of Jesus Christ when in fact in breeds a contempt for the truth.

    This is inevitable in as much as people hold to dogmas that are false.

    I know my post must seem rather hot, but I trust you can see why. I hate liars, especially when they claim to be "worshiping the truth." Their lies are stubble. I will burn them to ashes with the truth.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #67
    Richard wrote,

    I am stunned that you continue to push QUOTE MINING as a legitimate response to the science of evolution. Did you not read my response? Quote mining is not a legitimate way to refute a science. Quote mining is ABSURD because it takes quotes out of context to make it appear that the evolutionists agree with the creationists.
    There is a difference between “Quote mining” (misrepresentation) as defined in your post and “quoting” (properly representing) what the speaker said or wrote. In discussions such as we are having how can it be possible to provide any evidence for either side without quoting our sources? We can't. We can only be careful by looking to several sources to see if they agree with each other. If they do, odds are they indicate the information given is correct, but it's certainly not fail proof.

    Quoting (properly representing) is not “quote mining” and neither do “I continue to push quote mining,” It is regrettable but these things do happen at times. But “quoting” needs to be used in discussions like ours, there's no other way for discussions such as these, lest your forum come to a screeching halt.

    God bless---Twospirits
    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    There is a difference between “Quote mining” (misrepresentation) as defined in your post and “quoting” (properly representing) what the speaker said or wrote. In discussions such as we are having how can it be possible to provide any evidence for either side without quoting our sources? We can't. We can only be careful by looking to several sources to see if they agree with each other. If they do, odds are they indicate the information given is correct, but it's certainly not fail proof.

    Quoting (properly representing) is not “quote mining” and neither do “I continue to push quote mining,” It is regrettable but these things do happen at times. But “quoting” needs to be used in discussions like ours, there's no other way for discussions such as these, lest your forum come to a screeching halt.

    God bless---Twospirits
    Hey there Henry,

    I'm glad you asked!

    "How can it be possible to provide any evidence for either side without quoting our sources?" The answer is simple. You find one or two sources that give a sufficient and relevant account of the accepted scientific results which can be be used as evidence, and you present that evidence and we can discuss it. But that's not what you did at all. You splattered me with a dozen or more quotes from all sorts of sources, including people totally committed to creationism. And most of the quotes had nothing directly to do with my question, and worse, they were mere opinions.

    If you have real science on your side, simply quote one or two authentic scientific sources. Case in point: I had asked you for evidence that "matter cannot create information." This evoked a blizzard of quotes from all over the map. Most of them did not have anything to do with the question I asked. Here is what I wrote:
    If you disagree, then please cite some scientifically reputable literature that claims and demonstrates that "matter cannot create information."
    Did you cite any scientific literature like I asked? No. You simply gave me a blizzard of quotes from a wide variety of contradictory sources.

    So here's what you need to do. CITE AN AUTHENTIC SCIENTIFIC SOURCE THAT ASSERTS AND EXPLAINS WHY "matter cannot create information."

    Let me elaborate: Suppose I asked about the meaning of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You wouldn't give me a dozen quotes! You would link to the wiki article or an article on an authentic scientific website. That's all I'm asking now. Show me that scientists really have a developed theory that says "matter cannot create information."

    Thanks,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Henry,

    I'm glad you asked!

    "How can it be possible to provide any evidence for either side without quoting our sources?" The answer is simple. You find one or two sources that give a sufficient and relevant account of the accepted scientific results which can be be used as evidence, and you present that evidence and we can discuss it. But that's not what you did at all. You splattered me with a dozen or more quotes from all sorts of sources, including people totally committed to creationism. And most of the quotes had nothing directly to do with my question, and worse, they were mere opinions.

    If you have real science on your side, simply quote one or two authentic scientific sources. Case in point: I had asked you for evidence that "matter cannot create information." This evoked a blizzard of quotes from all over the map. Most of them did not have anything to do with the question I asked. Here is what I wrote:
    If you disagree, then please cite some scientifically reputable literature that claims and demonstrates that "matter cannot create information."
    Did you cite any scientific literature like I asked? No. You simply gave me a blizzard of quotes from a wide variety of contradictory sources.

    So here's what you need to do. CITE AN AUTHENTIC SCIENTIFIC SOURCE THAT ASSERTS AND EXPLAINS WHY "matter cannot create information."

    Let me elaborate: Suppose I asked about the meaning of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You wouldn't give me a dozen quotes! You would link to the wiki article or an article on an authentic scientific website. That's all I'm asking now. Show me that scientists really have a developed theory that says "matter cannot create information."

    Thanks,

    Richard
    I gave book quotes from Evolution scientists who side with you and the theory of Evolution, who better to know and turn to than them? And after years of research they make statements such as these in their books; here are just a few:

    In his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," about the invalidity of the theory of evolution, renowned evolutionist molecular biologist Prof. Michael Denton explains the unreasonable conviction of Darwinists:

    “To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply AN AFFRONT TO REASON. BUT TO THE DARWINIST, THE IDEA IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT A RIPPLE OF DOUBT - THE PARADIGM TAKES PRECEDENCE!”

    "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
    Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University.

    "... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..."
    Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space.

    Conclusion: There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures as DNA.

    This out of the very mouths of Evolutionists, what more evidence is needed?

    God bless---Twospirits
    Last edited by Twospirits; 07-03-2012 at 04:34 PM.
    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Henry,

    I enjoy talking with you and am glad you are participating in this discussion, but you know that you don't know much about science so it's rather foolish to try to argue along those lines. Science does not tell us what you just wrote. If it did, then scientists would agree with Intelligent Design! Don't you see how silly such claims are? They are trying to defeat science with pseudo-scientific claims that no scientist actually teaches. If your assertion were true then scientists would believe it since they are the ones who teach science.

    If you disagree, then please cite some scientifically reputable literature that claims and demonstrates that "matter cannot create information."

    Furthermore, your assertion is demonstrably false because any random mutation is "new information." It may be an improvement, it may be neutral, or it may be harmful. But whatever it is, it is new information. And you contradict yourself because any evolution, macro or micro, involves new information and you have admitted that you believe in "micro-evolution." And besides that, "macro-evolution" is just "micro-evolution" over long time scales.

    All the best,

    Richard
    This fact is agreed upon by both Evolution and Creation scientists who have studied these things in recent years. In the articles posted below of the number of scientists quoted, all but two are Evolution scientists who speak on this subject.
    Hey there Henry,

    There is no such "fact" agreed upon by Evolution and Creation scientists." If there were, you could have quoted an authentic scientific resource rather than cherry-picked quotes taken out of context and worse, quotes from one of the founders of the Creation Research Society! I'm talking about this quote from John J. Grebe:

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Chemist Dr. Grebe:

    “That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code.” [143]
    What kind of joke is this? Grebe is merely asserting his own personal anti-evolution stance. It is not an example of any "fact" that is "agreed upon by both Evolutionary and Creation scientists"! How can you think anyone would take such assertions seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Every "explanation" put forward by the theory of evolution on the origin of life is unreasonable and unscientific. One outspoken authority on this issue is the famous French zoologist Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences. Grassé is also an evolutionist, but he states clearly that Darwinist theory is unable to explain life and makes his point about the logic of "coincidence", which is the backbone of Darwinism:

    “The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.”
    This quote might have some content that would be worthy of further discourse. I found this page that says he was very critical of Darwinism. I don't know enough about him or his opinions to comment either way. But he looks like a very promising candidate for someone who is trying to "debunk evolution" via quotes of personal opinion of evolutionary scientists about aspects of the theory that are were being debated 35 years ago (the quote is from 1977 I think).

    Please note that the Grasse quote had nothing to do with the question you were supposed to be answering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Indeed, the theory of evolution, which claims that inorganic matter came together by itself and formed living beings with such glorious systems as DNA, is a scenario totally contrary to science and reason.
    Such assertions are contrary to science and reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    German evolutionist Douglas R. Hofstadler, states his despair in the face of this question:

    “How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.”5
    So what? Hofstadler said NOTHING that supports your assertions and nothing that has anything to do with the question you were supposedly answering.

    And he's not even a biological scientist! He's "an American academic whose research focuses on consciousness, analogy-making, artistic creation, literary translation, and discovery in mathematics and physics." (wiki). I read his book Goedel, Escher, Back many years ago in college. I thought it was great. But why did you waste your time and my time by quoting him???? Come on man! This not how you debunk Astrophysics! This is not how you debunk General Relativity! This is not how you debunk anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Another evolutionist authority, world renowned molecular biologist Leslie Orgel, is more outspoken on the subject:

    “It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS.”
    So what is the context? Where did you get this quote? Do you know what he was talking about? NO! You just copied and pasted some words without doing any actual research yourself. So how do you know if those three sentences relate to the vast topic of evolution? You don't. This is why quote mining is SO BLOODY STUPID!

    THINK ABOUT IT!!! YOU ARE QUOTING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE CONTEXT WAS. THIS IS ABSURD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    In his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," about the invalidity of the theory of evolution, renowned molecular biologist Prof. Michael Denton explains the unreasonable conviction of Darwinists:

    “To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply AN AFFRONT TO REASON. BUT TO THE DARWINIST, THE IDEA IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT A RIPPLE OF DOUBT - THE PARADIGM TAKES PRECEDENCE!”
    Oh yes ... a RENOWNED scientist! Just look at what the wiki says about the book written by this RENOWNED scientist:
    Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is a 1985 book by Michael Denton in which he claims that the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection is a "theory in crisis". Reviews by scientists say that the book distorts and misrepresents evolutionary theory and contains numerous errors.
    That is worth repeating: scientists say his book misrepresents evolutionary theory and contains numerous errors.

    The misrepresentations were either intentional or not intentional. If not intentional, then he was just being incompetent. If intential, then he was a liar. Take your pick. Here is how it has been received by his "scientific peers"

    Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."[4]

    Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton "details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points."[5] Mark I. Vuletic, in an essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.[6]

    Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertations accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."[7]

    Creationists
    including John W. Oller, Jr of the Institute for Creation Research,[8] and Answers in Genesis[9] positively reviewed Denton's book. Intelligent design proponents Phillip E. Johnson[10] and Michael J. Behe[11] say that they rejected evolution after reading the book. Christian apologist and intelligent design advocate Thomas E. Woodward[12] stated "Christians who are interested in the struggle of science to come to terms with the origin of the biosphere in all its variety should read this book and ponder its argumentation."
    I trust you are beginning to see the error of your ways.

    Well, that's enough for now.

    Maybe you should debunk the rest of your quotes yourself. It would be an excellent exercise. I'm tired of shooting ducks in a bucket.

    To speak in the style of CWH, all I have to say is CREATIONISM IS BULLSHIT.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •