The Too Hard Basket

[david]

Quote

It would have removed ancient cave paintings. Why are they still there?

So you can't or don't want to answer the question then? If that' the case, I'd stop speaking about mountains.

[Stu]

Quote (david @ July 01 2008,11:14)

Quote It would have removed ancient cave paintings.  Why are they still there? So you can't or don't want to answer the question then?  If that' the case, I'd stop speaking about mountains.

What? Is it not an answer because you don't want it to be? How about you answer this point which I have raised several times before? So many lying charlatans, Morris for example, have made a great play for the massive convenience of a global flood to bury fossils on a grand scale and make the earth appear ages-eroded beyond its biblically literally-supposed few thousand years. Well he can't explain the ordering of fossils and as far as I am aware he never mentions cave drawings. Why not? Because he was a liar.

Stuart

[kejonn]

From time to time, i come back and lurk on this board. I find it so very interesting that Christians argue so much over what their bible “really” says. Here it is, thousands of years later, and they are still arguing over what the “good book” says.

God may not be the author of confusion, but those who wrote in his name certainly are.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Stu @ April 09 2008,18:58)

There was mention of the Too Hard Basket in another thread. There are many very good questions that have been asked in these fora for which no one has produced a good answer. Science has a Very Hard Basket and a We Think It Could Be Impossible Basket but no 'Too Hard Basket'. First item: How did the Kiwi get from Mt. Ararat to Auckland after the supposed flood? Stuart

simple, the bird could originally fly, but over time lost the ability due to there being no necessity for the bird to have to fly in order to survive.

blessings,
ken

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Stu @ April 10 2008,20:53)

Is a large meteoric crash-landing god's way of killing billions more of us? Stuart

could be…..

blessings,
ken

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Stu @ April 10 2008,21:33)

The ‘dirt’ that makes me up has decided that killing by a supposedly omnipotent being is immoral. Stuart

this reminds me of Cornelius Van Til's pointing out that man railing against his Creator is like a little child who is sitting in his father's lap who slaps his father in the face…. the child could never have been able to do this had the father not been holding the child up high enough to enable them to do so…. so too for the atheist who cries “no god!!” for they can only do this as they are supplied the very air they breathe by the very Creator they rail against….!!

[Stu]

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 09 2008,13:31)

Quote (Stu @ April 09 2008,18:58) There was mention of the Too Hard Basket in another thread.  There are many very good questions that have been asked in these fora for which no one has produced a good answer.  Science has a Very Hard Basket and a We Think It Could Be Impossible Basket but no 'Too Hard Basket'. First item: How did the Kiwi get from Mt. Ararat to Auckland after the supposed flood? Stuart simple, the bird could originally fly, but over time lost the ability due to there being no necessity for the bird to have to fly in order to survive. blessings, ken

Hi epistemaniac

Good on you for having a try. But…have you seen a kiwi?

http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/AboutTh….+NZ.htm

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 09 2008,13:34)

Quote (Stu @ April 10 2008,20:53) Is a large meteoric crash-landing god's way of killing billions more of us? Stuart could be….. blessings, ken

What a merciful and loving god.

Stuart

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Stu @ April 11 2008,23:05)

The Kiwi is an astonishing bird. New Zealand has no ground-dwelling native mammals and the Kiwi has lost the ability of flight and virtually adopted the mode of life of a mammal. The Kiwi's existance and adaptations cannot be explained without the theory of natural selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi Subject to further attempts to explain how the Kiwi got to Auckland from Turkey, the score stands at Reality 1 Biblical literalism 0. Next question: Why is there a fossil record with the oldest rocks containing the oldest fossils and showing a progressive change in the morphology of species over hundreds of millions to billions of years? Stuart

biblical literalism and common sense 1

skepticism 0

__

as to the “next question” you have differing opinions even among the atheistic “experts…. you seem to ascribe to classical Darminianism…. but some evolutionists (eg Stephen Gould) feel that this belief system is false and the fossil record does not support long periods of slow change. “Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.” (Wikipedia) Atheists like teach instead that the absence of proof in the fossil record for classical Darwinianism can mean only one thing, punctuated equilibrium!!! that is to say, animals morphed really quickly from one species to another in order to fill rapidly abandoned ecological niches…. that is, say a natural disaster of some kind wiped out nearly all life forms, well this theory says that the remaining life forms adapted and changed (evolved) very very rapidly in order to fill all the ecological niches left by the previous life forms. In other words, we now have a theory based on a LACK of evidence!!! lol…. and Christians are criticized for blind irrational faith!! lol

blessings,
Ken

[Stu]

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 09 2008,13:45)

Quote (Stu @ April 10 2008,21:33) The ‘dirt’ that makes me up has decided that killing by a supposedly omnipotent being is immoral.   Stuart this reminds me of Cornelius Van Til's pointing out that man railing against his Creator is  like a little child who is sitting in his father's lap who slaps his father in the face…. the child could never have been able to do this had the father not been holding the child up high enough to enable them to do so…. so too for the atheist who cries “no god!!” for they can only do this as they are supplied the very air they breathe by the very Creator they rail against….!!

…which is nonsense logic because it presupposes the existence of the 'father'.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote

as to the “next question” you have differing opinions even among the atheistic “experts…. you seem to ascribe to classical Darminianism…. but some evolutionists (eg Stephen Gould) feel that this belief system is false and the fossil record does not support long periods of slow change. “Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.” (Wikipedia) Atheists like teach instead that the absence of proof in the fossil record for classical Darwinianism can mean only one thing, punctuated equilibrium!!! that is to say, animals morphed really quickly from one species to another in order to fill rapidly abandoned ecological niches…. that is, say a natural disaster of some kind wiped out nearly all life forms, well this theory says that the remaining life forms adapted and changed (evolved) very very rapidly in order to fill all the ecological niches left by the previous life forms. In other words, we now have a theory based on a LACK of evidence!!! lol…. and Christians are criticized for blind irrational faith!! lol

It is generally fundamentalist christians who dishonestly try to muddy the water by making this black-and-white argument. Let’s not forget that evolution has occurred, as evidenced by the fossil record and comparative DNA study. Now what is the explanation for evolution? It is the theory of natural selection with its various mechanisms. There is real honest debate about the relative importance of those mechanisms but there are ways that long slow change AND punctuated equilibrium can both be right. Recently it was reported that there are proteins with the job of holding other proteins in the right shape to carry on doing their original jobs even though there has been a mutation that could have rendered the functional protein useless otherwise. When the environment becomes very tough for the organism the ‘holding protein’ does not get made and the proteins are no longer protected from failure. This would result in mutations being hidden then suddenly unleashed on the population of a species at a time when genetic variation was most critical to survival. Indeed many mutations would be lethal but some would contain an adaptive advantage in the changed environment. This is a different mechanism from allopatry or genetic drift, and is exactly the kind of thing you would expect to cause occasional bursts of rapid change in genomes against a background of slower adaptation.

There is a very good reason why christians are criticised for blind irrational faith. Not sure why you are saying there is no evidence – unless you ridiculously demand the mathematical proof that science (and christians) cannot give.

Stuart

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Cato @ April 11 2008,23:59)

Samuel, Sometimes the vehemence of your writings leaves me perplexed. That the earth is especially suited for life (at least as we know it) is obvious, otherwise life would be more apparent in other worlds or it wouldn't exist on ours. In a universe of apparently near infinite proportions, probabililty alone would dictate there would be some stars with planets that may develop in an area conducive to the development of life. Science like spirituality is not static, but changes over time. How long ago was it that Christians thought the earth the center of the universe and that the Sun revolved around the earth? Look at the difficulties Galileo had with the Church so do not be so quick to judge foolish science. Science is not opposed to God, it tries to measure and explain the natural universe which if you believe was created by the Almighty, simply tries to explain the mechanisms of creation. You must break free of the mindset that scripture equates with God's word, it is not. Science and scripture may be oppossed but science and God are not.

First, I hear echoes of the Anthropic Principle dancing around…. for more on this and it's help towards proving the existence of God see William Lane Craig http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html

“the church” here was the “Roman Catholic Church”, eg a church that had elevated Aristotle's views of geocentricitty to the level of biblical authority, NOT that the Bible itself taught geocentricity!! This is an important and crucial point.

“In the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church's response to Galileo (1564 – 1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354 – 430), Thomas Aquinas (1224 – 1274) and others who 'baptized ' the work of these pagans and termed them 'pre_Christian Christians'. This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.

Confusion persists to today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs. science, when it actually was a matter of science vs science. Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming. This mistake is identical to those
today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the big bang, billions of years, or biological evolution. Therefore, any evangelical Christian misinformed of this history who opines that the Bible is geocentric is hardly any more credible a source on this topic than an atheist or agnostic.” (http://www.refcm.org/RICDiscussions/Science-Scripture/X%20
Geocentricity/geocentrism_and_creation.htm)

PS, this is not to say that “philosophy” is evil, the word simply means to love wisdom, and this is a very biblical thing to do. We must not allow man centered man created philosophy to carry us away from biblical truth, and we must be aware of the difference between our interpretation of the Bible and the Bible itself. One is infallible, the other is not. Mixing this fact up has led to all manner of difficulties.

Finally, in response to “You must break free of the mindset that scripture equates with God's word, it is not. Science and scripture may be opposed but science and God are not.”

I see no reason whatsoever to stop thinking that Scripture is God's word, Certainly you would not expect me to stop thinking so simply because you said so. This would carry about as much weight with me as it would with you were I to state, very dogmatically I might add, “You must break free of the mindset that scripture is not God's word, it is. Science and scripture are not opposed, and neither are science and God.”
Are you now prepared to abandon your beliefs? I thought not. Surely you would not expect anyone holding to the belief that Scripture is God's word to abandon their beliefs based on your post either.

blessings,
ken

[Stu]

Quote

First, I hear echoes of the Anthropic Principle dancing around…. for more on this and it's help towards proving the existence of God see William Lane Craig

“Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it
fits its hole”
– Douglas Adams

Quote

“the church” here was the “Roman Catholic Church”, eg a church that had elevated Aristotle's views of geocentricitty to the level of biblical authority, NOT that the Bible itself taught geocentricity!! This is an important and crucial point.

Genesis teaches geocentrism. Everything in space is attached to a concentric firmament.

Stuart

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:10)

Quote as to the “next question” you have differing opinions even among the atheistic “experts…. you seem to ascribe to classical Darminianism…. but some evolutionists (eg Stephen Gould) feel that this belief system is false and the fossil record does not support long periods of slow change. “Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.” (Wikipedia) Atheists like teach instead that the absence of proof in the fossil record for classical Darwinianism can mean only one thing, punctuated equilibrium!!! that is to say, animals morphed really quickly from one species to another in order to fill rapidly abandoned ecological niches…. that is, say a natural disaster of some kind wiped out nearly all life forms, well this theory says that the remaining life forms adapted and changed (evolved) very very rapidly in order to fill all the ecological niches left by the previous life forms. In other words, we now have a theory based on a LACK of evidence!!! lol…. and Christians are criticized for blind irrational faith!! lol It is generally fundamentalist christians who dishonestly try to muddy the water by making this black-and-white argument. Let’s not forget that evolution has occurred, as evidenced by the fossil record and comparative DNA study. Now what is the explanation for evolution? It is the theory of natural selection with its various mechanisms. There is real honest debate about the relative importance of those mechanisms but there are ways that long slow change AND punctuated equilibrium can both be right. Recently it was reported that there are proteins with the job of holding other proteins in the right shape to carry on doing their original jobs even though there has been a mutation that could have rendered the functional protein useless otherwise. When the environment becomes very tough for the organism the ‘holding protein’ does not get made and the proteins are no longer protected from failure. This would result in mutations being hidden then suddenly unleashed on the population of a species at a time when genetic variation was most critical to survival. Indeed many mutations would be lethal but some would contain an adaptive advantage in the changed environment. This is a different mechanism from allopatry or genetic drift, and is exactly the kind of thing you would expect to cause occasional bursts of rapid change in genomes against a background of slower adaptation. There is a very good reason why christians are criticised for blind irrational faith. Not sure why you are saying there is no evidence – unless you ridiculously demand the mathematical proof that science (and christians) cannot give. Stuart

I see dishonesty in fundamentalist atheists all the time. For instance, rather than admit that their earlier statement only made room for classical Darminianism, and the fact that among scientists this worldview is now doubted, there is an attempt to toss in a red herring or 2 about proteins and some stumbling rhetoric about christians and their supposedly blind irrational faith (which, btw, has in no way been scientifically proven, so why believe it?) along with a smattering of unsubstantiated claims of dishionesty (and people are supposed to take you seriously? you are supposed to represent “scientific rationalism”!!! lol) and try to shift the reader's gaze from the fact that the initial post was mistaken and ONLY made room for classical Darwinianism, eg slow change over billions of years. So, here's a lesson in basic logic for you, its called the law of non-contradiction and it says that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. So, either evolution was accomplished over extremely long periods of time, which atheistic scientists Gould and Eldredge said “the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.” OR change occurred rapidly so that there is no real record (“virtually non-existent” is what Gould and Eldredge say) of changes in animal forms…. both cannot be true. Either classical Darwinianism is true, or it is false. If you choose to stand against atheistic scientists like Gould and Eldredge, and STILL believe in classical Darwinianism DESPITE the lack of evidence in the fossil record for classical Darwinianism, then it is YOU my friend who is being irrational and close minded. It was not some Creationist making the claim for the non existence of proof for classical Darwinianism in the fossil record. It was respected atheistic scientists. If you don't like their findings, complain to them.

As it is, punctuated equilibrium is just a last gasp of the metaphysical worldview known as “evolutionism” and is, as another non Christian scientist maintains (Michael Denton), merely another sign that evolution is a theory in crises. On the other hand, Intelligent Design fits the data just fine. But then again, you are too close minded to consider this possibility. Ahhh… so much for open mindedness ehhh?

blessings,
Ken

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:50)

Genesis teaches geocentrism. Everything in space is attached to a concentric firmament. Stuart

prove it

blessings,
Ken

[Stu]

Quote

I see dishonesty in fundamentalist atheists all the time.

OK. With god, anything is possible.

Quote

For instance, rather than admit that their earlier statement only made room for classical Darminianism, and the fact that among scientists this worldview is now doubted, there is an attempt to toss in a red herring or 2 about proteins and some stumbling rhetoric about christians and their supposedly blind irrational faith (which, btw, has in no way been scientifically proven, so why believe it?) along with a smattering of unsubstantiated claims of dishionesty (and people are supposed to take you seriously? you are supposed to represent “scientific rationalism”!!! lol) and try to shift the reader's gaze from the fact that the initial post was mistaken and ONLY made room for classical Darwinianism, eg slow change over billions of years.

Pardon me for not conforming to your strawman of Darwin’s theory. Where did I say I was proving anything? Science does not deal in proof. Didn’t I say that to you only a couple of posts ago?

Quote

So, here's a lesson in basic logic for you, its called the law of non-contradiction and it says that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. So, either evolution was accomplished over extremely long periods of time, which atheistic scientists Gould and Eldredge said “the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.” OR change occurred rapidly so that there is no real record (“virtually non-existent” is what Gould and Eldredge say) of changes in animal forms…. both cannot be true.

Please actually read my previous post.

Quote

Either classical Darwinianism is true, or it is false. If you choose to stand against atheistic scientists like Gould and Eldredge, and STILL believe in classical Darwinianism DESPITE the lack of evidence in the fossil record for classical Darwinianism, then it is YOU my friend who is being irrational and close minded. It was not some Creationist making the claim for the non existence of proof for classical Darwinianism in the fossil record. It was respected atheistic scientists. If you don't like their findings, complain to them.

There you go again using the ‘p’ word.

Quote

As it is, punctuated equilibrium is just a last gasp of the metaphysical worldview known as “evolutionism” and is, as another non Christian scientist maintains (Michael Denton), merely another sign that evolution is a theory in crises. On the other hand, Intelligent Design fits the data just fine. But then again, you are too close minded to consider this possibility. Ahhh… so much for open mindedness ehhh?

Sure. Post your falsifiable and predictive theory of intellient design, and maybe we could have a ‘debate’.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 09 2008,14:59)

Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:50) Genesis teaches geocentrism.  Everything in space is attached to a concentric firmament. Stuart prove it blessings, Ken

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

Stuart

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:50)

Quote First, I hear echoes of the Anthropic Principle dancing around…. for more on this and it's help towards proving the existence of God see William Lane Craig “Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole” – Douglas Adams Quote “the church” here was the “Roman Catholic Church”, eg a church that had elevated Aristotle's views of geocentricitty to the level of biblical authority, NOT that the Bible itself taught geocentricity!! This is an important and crucial point. Genesis teaches geocentrism. Everything in space is attached to a concentric firmament. Stuart

I was not aware that Douglas Adams was an expert in the sciences… I thought his education was in literature… on the other hand, if he can be brought in an authoritative source, I guess anyone else can be as well, and that works for me too…

blessings,
Ken

[Stu]

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 09 2008,15:02)

Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:50) Quote First, I hear echoes of the Anthropic Principle dancing around…. for more on this and it's help towards proving the existence of God see William Lane Craig “Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole” – Douglas Adams Quote “the church” here was the “Roman Catholic Church”, eg a church that had elevated Aristotle's views of geocentricitty to the level of biblical authority, NOT that the Bible itself taught geocentricity!! This is an important and crucial point. Genesis teaches geocentrism.  Everything in space is attached to a concentric firmament. Stuart I was not aware that Douglas Adams was an expert in the sciences… I thought his education was in literature… on the other hand, if he can be brought in an authoritative  source, I guess anyone else can be as well, and that works for me too… blessings, Ken

It would be unkind to you for me to compare your understanding of science with his. So I won't.

Stuart

[Stu]

Douglas Adams on the origin of god:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDC_NcihiV8

Stuart

[Author]

Posts