God's warriors
- Started
- Last post
- 703 Responses
- mrdobolina0
sdo you come from cro-mags then?
great band by the way... :)
- gramme0
the world has always been messed up, we just read about it 10 seconds after it happens now.
mrdobolina
(Aug 26 07, 16:35)It began well, if I'm to believe what I read. It will end with justice being served, though who the hell knows when or how exactly that will look.
Some people claim to see a clear picture of how it will all end, but it's really just chasing after phantoms. It's commonly known that Revelation is the most cryptic book of the Bible. Anyone who thinks they've cracked the code...might just be cracked themselves. Or maybe they're just lying.
Other parts of Scripture are much more transparent in their meaning, thankfully.
- gramme0
aren't the cro-mags an old punk band? Never listened, maybe I'll look them up.
I'm fried, need to spend some time with the wife. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, my contrary friend :)
- mrdobolina0
did you check out part 1 of zeitgeist yet? there are 25 stories in BC civilizations that have the same story as jesus based on the sun and zodiac. Why is christianity so special? because it is the pervasive religion in america?
- mrdobolina0
you should check out the cro mags, bud. you'd probably love it.
- gramme0
No dobs, I haven't checked out Zeitgeist yet, looks to be an hour and a half long, and time is a precious commodity for me these days...but I do plan on checking it out soon, as it seems to be causing a bit of a stir.
From a cursory glance, this sounds like a brand new theory: the idea that Jesus' story has been told 25 times in different ancient civilizations, that Judao-Christianity isn't the only source of this god-story. I find this hard to believe since the nature of God and particularly his son Jesus runs contrary to the capricious, often malevolent and often flawed nature of every other god I've researched (according to the Bhagavadgita and other sources of Hindu theology), Buddhist teachings, Celtic pagan history, Mesopotamian history, Mayan tradition, etc. etc.
C.S. Lewis talks about the stories and traditions in non-Christian faiths that bear similarities to Christianity, even if the analogies always break down at some point. Some of these stories bear striking resemblance to the story of Christ and even other Biblical events or parables. Lewis calls these stories/legends "good dreams"...As in they were close to tapping into some truth, that they found some vague evidence of the true God and reported on it. These stories never went the entire distance however. All of them were eventually discredited or hampered by conventions like pantheism, human sacrifice, earth, animal or ancestor worship, reincarnation, and so on. Thus, the similarities end here.
Like I said though, I'll have a good look at Zeitgeist, hopefully this week, and will let you know what my thoughts are.
- flagellum0
Brookoioioi: Utter nonsense. Behe holds to the Irreducibly Complexity argument stronger than ever. Just read his latest work: The Edge of Evolution. Where he expounds upon this devastating blow to Darwinian mysticism. Secondly, Behe is not a creationist. He accepts an old earth and common ancestry from one or a few common ancestors (though not by silly impotent Darwinian mechanisms). Behe, in his latest, demonstrates how the evidence proves front-loading (pre-programmed) change and how Darwinian mechanisms don't accomplish jack-squat. Finally, Ken Miller has been demonstrated dishonest time and time again, including his lying under oath at Dover. He's full of hot air and everyone in the debate knows this. After all, he's authored numerous textbooks that he doesn' want to have to edit or render obsolete.
- Brookoioioi0
YAWN...
extract from court records - Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
"On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe))"
Oh i did read The edge of evolution, i never imagined i would feel sorry for him but after that i did.
- gramme0
//if enough people agree, then it must be true
- Brookoioioi0
//if enough people agree, then it must be true
gramme
(Aug 27 07, 07:37)Sarcasm noted, unfortunately for you that is the best argument you've got.
Perhaps you should try these?
- gramme0
//if enough people agree, then it must be true
gramme
(Aug 27 07, 07:37)Sarcasm noted, unfortunately for you that is the best argument you've got.
Perhaps you should try these?
tinyurl.com/2qnn84
Brookoioioi
(Aug 27 07, 07:42)Um, try reading every post I've ever written about creationism vs. darwinism. There are maybe a few hundred. I don't have the time today nor the patience to repeat myself. If that doesn't register as a fleshed out argument for you, then see flagellum's thousands of posts. I might not always agree with his style, but the guy is certainly no idiot and he definitely does his homework.
- flagellum0
Oh of course you didn't read The Edge of Evolution and you know it. Now for Behe's response to the Dover nonsense:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
"In this section, despite my protestations the Court simply accepts Miller’s adulterated definition of irreducible complexity in which a system is not irreducible if you can use one or more of its parts for another purpose, and disregards careful distinctions I made in Darwin’s Black Box. The distinctions can be read in my Court testimony. In short, the Court uncritically accepts strawman arguments."
Peer Review:
"Several points:
1) Although the opinion’s phrasing makes it seem to come from my mouth, the remark about the studies being “not good enough” was the cross-examining attorney’s, not mine.
2) I was given no chance to read them, and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater. Yet the Court treats it seriously.
3) The Court here speaks of “evidence for evolution”. Throughout the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the word “evolution”, and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism.
Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller
-7-
I said in my testimony that the studies may have been fine as far as they went, but that they certainly did not present detailed, rigorous explanations for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection — if they had, that knowledge would be reflected in more recent studies that I had had a chance to read (see below).
4) This is the most blatant example of the Court’s simply accepting the Plaintiffs’ say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the opinions of the defendants’ experts. I strongly suspect the Court did not itself read the “fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system” and determine from its own expertise that they demonstrated Darwinian claims. How can the Court declare that a stack of publications shows anything at all if the defense expert disputes it and the Court has not itself read and understood them?
In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain the phrase “random mutation”; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true — they did not even try to demonstrate it. I further showed in particular that several very recent immunology papers cited by Miller were highly speculative, in other words, that there is no current rigorous Darwinian explanation for the immune system. The Court does not mention this testimony."----------
Don't you just love it when Darwinists have to resort to Judicial fiat to prop up and defend their tired religion? I know I do! :)
- flagellum0
gramme: Brookoi believes in a 19th century, civil-war era, naturalism. It's kind of druid, nature-worship kinda thing. So, you are not going to get reasonable discourse. I wouldn't even try, I would just point out the glaring errors so that open-minded lurkers can make honest judgements.
- gramme0
*dons antlers, grabs rown staff and walks 3 sunwise circuits around office during the time-between-times
- Brookoioioi0
Gramme: i have read your posts and that is your best argument so far.
Discipler: i have read behes latest screed, it was rubbish.
I wish i had more time for flame wars, i do enjoy it so, sadly not today.
- flagellum0
if you had read it and were honest, you would know that the book is a devastating blow to the Darwinian faith. Even arch-darwinists, like Larry Moran, are at least honest enough to admit that it is going to be impossible to counter the logic and data. After all, the book is simply lab data presented for the reader. Specifically, an examination of the limitations of Malaria and Drosophila experimenation over the years. You simply can't argue with the hard data.
That's what I love about the book - it's hard data. and that's why such panic is coming from the Darwinists.
- mrdobolina0
"Darwinian faith"
This is like saying I have a hobby of not collecting stamps.
- BonSeff0
i was thinking the same dobs
- Brookoioioi0
A way for him to test his calculations might be to send a mathematical paper to someone like the Journal of Theoretical Biology, because if his calculations are correct (and even a cursory glance by someone untrained like me can see many flaws) his calculations would prove wrong a generation of mathematical geneticists
including people like fisher, wright, Haldane etc...Where is the peer review, why do the discovery institute seem so keen to bypass this process in favor of going straight to bozo's like you for support? What are they afraid of if they're so sure? The Lizard Men of Science?
- Mimio0
Behe should have called his book "Artificial Selection". It's like he's not equipped to rebut the idea that he's just creating another "God of the Gaps" argument, while at the same acknowledging the mechanics of evolution(genetics etc.).