A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2012, 08:05 AM (This post was last modified: 30-08-2012 08:33 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Bunch of Smart
(30-08-2012 02:30 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 10:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I have some questions, person-whose-brain-is-atrophied-as-he-is-as-old-as-Genesis. etc
You know, our discussion would be really unimportant if there were no effects. Consider the exact nature with which prophecy has come true,and realise that (1) There is a God that has full control over the future (2) This future includes a day of judgement.
Not scare tactics. Just fact. All Jesus ask is "repent" and place your full trust in Him for your eternal life.
Neither me nor you have "won" as that is just arguments and does not change the facts. I wish you all the best.

Too bad, as usual, you fundies do not know enough about scripture to know that "prophesy" is not about telling the future, ("fortune telling"). A prophet is a "mouthpiece, who speaks truth to power, to the people of THEIR OWN TIME. So all your prophesy bullshit is not only ignorant of scripture's nature, it's also evidence of your actual lack of education in YOUR OWN field. It's not about Madame Zelda, and her Crystal Ball. You obviously went to the Hollywood Bible school. Too bad.

And BTW, if the "control the future thing" is true, then you have no free will.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-08-2012, 08:41 AM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2012 01:02 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Bunch of Smart
Fromgenesis

"I have not read much about DNA, but there is at present serious problems with evolutionary theory explaining DNA, RNA. So DNA is 100% for Christians, but apparently still a bit of a mystery for evolutionists. You are again defeating your own argument"

I think you just won't answer the question.

Sorry. If you accept DNA, you accept Evolutiion. You may be too ignorant of science, and Genetics, to understand why that has to be true.

The question of the origins of Genesis is 110 % relevant for someone discussing Genesis. Nice attempted evasion.

I will prove, using NO science arguments you are biased. See below.

You have evaded the question of the poll data.
The miracle evidence as being the LEAST probable evidence, has been debated ad nauseam. See Ehrman.









And this is why the miracle business is simple illogical.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 01:28 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2012 01:32 AM by Fromgenesis.)
RE: stupid shit
(30-08-2012 07:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 01:08 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  The type that necessitates the development op the punctuated equilibrium model. Most fossil evidence apparently suggests that new species occur fully formed and functioning rather than gradual changes. In line with this ID seems a more plausible answer.

Do you thus suggest that bias does not exist? Even this argument raised by you suggests bias - as the same set of data leads to different conclusions - indicating bias - some more likely than other - based on available evidence.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Evolution happens all the time, fossilization is a rare event. The 'punctuated equilibrium' model has been over-sold, it is merely looking at evolution at various timescales.

ID is implausible for two reasons. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and it comes from far more than the fossil record. The idea that their is an intelligent designer begs the whole question of design - who or what designed the designer?
No problem with micro evolution. An interesting article can be found here - which actually shows - in layman's language- the difficulty in classifying animals. You may enjoy it (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...wholphins)
ID is not as implausible as you suggest. Dawkins admits that nobody knows how the first self-replicating cell developed and then accepts that some form of intelligence was needed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
Fossilization is rare, but the problem is that fossilization seems to occur only with species in their "final form" and thus the need for a theory to explain this.
The problem is that we have different paradigms and we each interpret the evidence in terms of this paradigm. But let us not get side-tracked by one very small part of the discussion - which was in this case bias. I agreed I am biased and I suggested you (by implication) are biased based on for instance your belief in evolution. You accept that you are biased as well?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 01:52 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2012 01:59 AM by Fromgenesis.)
RE: A Bunch of Smart
(30-08-2012 08:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Fromgenesis

"I have not read much about DNA, but there is at present serious problems with evolutionary theory explaining DNA, RNA. So DNA is 100% for Christians, but apparently still a bit of a mystery for evolutionists. You are again defeating your own argument"

Bullshit. You just won't answer the question.

Sorry. If you accept DNA, you accept Evolutiion. You are just too ignorant of science, and Genetics, to understand why that has to be true.

The question of the origins of Genesis is 110 % relevant for someone discussing Genesis. Nice attempted evasion.

I will prove, using NO science arguments you are biased. See below.

You have evaded the question of the poll data.
The miracle evidence as being the LEAST probable evidence, has been debated ad nauseam. See Ehrman.

I have in front of me a textbook from a rare book collection from 1952, called "The Interpreter Bible'. It sources EVERY line in Genesis. Over and over and over, the MOST preeminent scholars in Biblical studies, say the text comes from Sumerian precursors, and say where. You need an education in the Bible, sir.





And this is why the miracle business is simple illogical.



I will respond to your post but would ask that you include the specific content that you are responding to re (DNA. example). It would be a case of common courtesy to respond to my request for information to substantiate your claims ? The request for a minimal 20 for your claim "There are many many other re-assembling, and re-writes known to scholars. " suggesting a corruption (and if not, what are you in effect saying as far as the accuracy of the content is concerned) is an example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 07:19 AM
RE: stupid shit
(31-08-2012 01:28 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  ID is not as implausible as you suggest. Dawkins admits that nobody knows how the first self-replicating cell developed and then accepts that some form of intelligence was needed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

No, he didn't. That's called "quote mining" and is despicably dishonest. He went on to say that the intelligence that might have done such a thing was itself evolved and that it only begs the question. Evolution and the origin of life are two different subjects.

Quote:Fossilization is rare, but the problem is that fossilization seems to occur only with species in their "final form" and thus the need for a theory to explain this.

No, this is simply not true. All fossils are transitional because evolution continues.
Besides, there are obviously recognizable transition fossils like Archaeopteryx and the fish/amphibian tetrapod found in the Arctic.

Quote:The problem is that we have different paradigms and we each interpret the evidence in terms of this paradigm. But let us not get side-tracked by one very small part of the discussion - which was in this case bias. I agreed I am biased and I suggested you (by implication) are biased based on for instance your belief in evolution. You accept that you are biased as well?

No, I do not. I am convinced by evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
31-08-2012, 12:04 PM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2012 01:08 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Bunch of Smart
(31-08-2012 01:52 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  I will respond to your post but would ask that you include the specific content that you are responding to re (DNA. example). It would be a case of common courtesy to respond to my request for information to substantiate your claims ? The request for a minimal 20 for your claim "There are many many other re-assembling, and re-writes known to scholars. " suggesting a corruption (and if not, what are you in effect saying as far as the accuracy of the content is concerned) is an example.

Seems like we need a summary of both Genetics, and Biblical origins here.
So I will make a short condensed version, for here, and link it to a much longer complete version for those interested in the subjects.

This will take some time. It was actually posted here for a while, this weekend, but I have removed it, as it's getting quite long, and disorganized. So as soon as it's ready I will be posting a reply. The long version will point out, for argument's sake, 20 changes, as you requested, some DNA/Genetics links. and what I think may be a summary of Biblical texts, and the current state of scholarship, first in the Old Testament, and then the New Testament.

Thanks for your patience.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-09-2012, 07:25 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scrip
When I'm asked about evolution by Christians, I recommend the book:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/cr.../21212.htm

It makes the case from an entirely Christian perspective that even if you completely ignore the fossil record and the distribution of species across the planet, that the evidence for evolution present in modern species DNA is irrefutable.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
03-09-2012, 01:36 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart
(30-08-2012 08:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Fromgenesis

"I have not read much about DNA, but there is at present serious problems with evolutionary theory explaining DNA, RNA. So DNA is 100% for Christians, but apparently still a bit of a mystery for evolutionists. You are again defeating your own argument"

I think you just won't answer the question.
Please repeat your initial claim with some evidence and I will be happy to respond.
Quote:Sorry. If you accept DNA, you accept Evolutiion. You may be too ignorant of science, and Genetics, to understand why that has to be true.
Please substantiate
Quote:The question of the origins of Genesis is 110 % relevant for someone discussing Genesis. Nice attempted evasion.
Please include the initial point made so I can respond relevant to that.
Quote:You have evaded the question of the poll data.
The miracle evidence as being the LEAST probable evidence, has been debated ad nauseam. See Ehrman.
The point of discussion is the accuracy of what we now have as the Bible. The Jesus seminar addresses whether Jesus actually said what the Bible claims- thus no discussion on whether the Bible accurately represents original documents and by implication accepts its validity.
Quote:I have in front of me a textbook from a rare book collection from 1952, called "The Interpreter Bible'. It sources EVERY line in Genesis. Over and over and over, the MOST preeminent scholars in Biblical studies, say the text comes from Sumerian precursors, and say where. You need an education in the Bible, sir.
It must be an interesting book. But please clarify (excuse my ignorance) what you are saying- in other words state plainly what you claim. That every verse in Genesis and further can be traced to Sumerian precursors? Please be specific.
Please also include the following texts (text as well as their assessment and what the Sumerian text says)
1)Genesis 1:1 ; Genesis 1:27, Gen 22:7
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2012, 04:24 AM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2012 03:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
The Science
Biology and Genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evol..._synthesis

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...09710.html ... (Genetic's DNA).
http://www.boston.com/whitecoatnotes/201...story.html












The Bible and The Theory of Evolution are 100 % incompatible. One is science. One is myth. There is evidence for Evolution, and there is not a shred of evidence that the Bible has, or even attempts to say anything on the subject, of Evolution.

I decided to start my own thread, and split this off from here. See my "The Old Testament Texts / Another Look" .

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-Look

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-09-2012, 07:26 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scrip
The thing about DNA and evolution is not that you have to understand and accept evolution to understand and accept DNA. DNA works fine without natural selection, although there are certainly sections of it that are difficult to explain without an understanding of the history of that molecule back towards the origin of life.

The key thing about DNA is that it wasn't known at the time of Darwin. On The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Fundamental experimentation with genetics only really began with Gregor Mendel between 1856 and 1863[2]. DNA's structure and simultaneously its role in genetics was discovered in 1953, almost a century later. With our increasing understanding of the behaviour of genes and of the mechanism behind those genes there have been ample opportunities to overturn the theory of evolution. We could have looked at DNA and found that humans and other apes actually don't share that much DNA in common. We could have found genes for feathers in Mammals, or genes for fur in birds. We could have found any number of things that would contravene the theory of evolution, but we did not. Instead we found perhaps more similarities than we expected to find between related groups. We found that vestigial features were not merely present in the bodies of specimens but also in the "junk" DNA that surrounds our genes. We even find we can tell things like which genes are actively being selected for by looking at how well preserved the junk DNA around those genes is.

Few theories are able to stand up to the amount of scrutiny evolution has seen, over such a long time, and over so fundamental a series of paradigm and technological shifts as the theory of evolution. It would be exciting and world changing to find evidence that it is false. Disappointingly I suspect we will have to live with this stubbornly robust theory for a long time to come Smile

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: