hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
6
ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN INTERVIEW IN NEW SCIENTIST
by badboy inprofessor of archaelogy at tel aviv university, he believes that many ot stories likeexodus and jericho didn't happen are fiction.
-
-
-
39
Noah's ark - Can't believe I once actually thought it was true
by sam_sane_now inwhen i was a jw i didn't even question that the noah's ark story might not be true.
i didn't realise that it wasn't achievable for a handful of people to gather literally millions of animals - two of each kind - and fit them into a boat where they would all survive for many days.
i didn't think about the fact that if the highest mountain was covered with water then how could plant life like trees and flowers come to exist again, especially so soon after, with the raven grabbing an olive leaf was it?
-
-
hooberus
If you want science disputing the flood, here's science. Every possible argument for the flood is thoroughly demolished by our good friend Alan Feuerbacher:
Scroll down to the flood articles.
Farkel
On the arcticle: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-3-where-did-water-come-from.html Alan F. spends most of his time arguing against things that virtually no informed creationist believes. If you remove these then isn't much left.
-
53
CREATIONIST TEACHERS
by badboy in1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.
-
-
hooberus
But - if evolution was falsified by DNA sequencing not showing evidence of common descent, if the fossil record didn't show evidence of gradually progressive complexity in species through time (that's a simplified statement, but accurate enough here), if animal species were scattered 'helter skelter' in the geologic column like rabbits found with dinosaurs, birds found before reptiles etc., if all dating methods didn't show evidence of a really old earth and universe, if there were no atavisms ("throwbacks"), no vestigial features, no signs of retroviral insertion points in DNA that must have occurred in a shared ancestor... To put it short, if the theory of evolution did not describe what we see in nature, then it would be falsified, and we'd have to look elsewhere for an explanation.
The problem is that evolutionary theory is so flexible that evolutionists simply change it to prevent it from being falsified by any certain line of data. Often this results in evolution being retreated into unfalsifiability in the particular specific area. ReMine (who is not specifically a Bibilical creationist) documents several instances of this and concludes that evolution is now either falsified or unfalsifiable depending on how its defined. His book The Biotic Message should be read by anyone who really wishes to fully understand evolution: contents: http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm (available from www.creationresearch.org)
That in and of itself would not mean everyone would have jumped on a literal reading of the Bible, but it would perhaps have become a story that was easier to swallow scientifically.
For more on the Bible and science (see www.creationresearch.org)
-
53
CREATIONIST TEACHERS
by badboy in1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.
-
-
hooberus
My point is that if (as an evolutionist here stated) evolution (common descent) "throws a massive wrench into a literal interpretation of the Bible because it means that Adam was not created 6000 years ago as the first man, there was no original sin, no fall from grace, no global flood, and no point in Jesus' sacrifice", then perhaps many of the "creationist teachers" are merely uncomfortable parroting a one-sided indoctrination of it to their students, (many of whom hold to the above beliefs).
-
53
CREATIONIST TEACHERS
by badboy in1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.
-
-
hooberus
The problem for ID proponents, especially those who consider themselves scientists, is that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Either way, if a lightning bolt in a pool of muck or the hand of God first created life, evolution has been at work ever since. Some are satisfied with this, seeing evolution as a mechanism put into place by god, but it throws a massive wrench into a literal interpretation of the Bible because it means that Adam was not created 6000 years ago as the first man, there was no original sin, no fall from grace, no global flood, and no point in Jesus' sacrifice.
So evolution is anti-religious (at least against or detrimental to somereligions).
-
ABIOGENESIS and the EVOLUTION DEBATE
by hooberus in"evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.
attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.
life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life.".
-
hooberus
"Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Theodosius Dobzhansky Science, 155:409-415, 1967
"The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems."
George Gaylord Simpson opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of evolution" 1949
Today even specific "evolution books" such as "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr have relatively lengthly sections on the origin of life (see chapter 3 of his book), with no demarcation between it and "evolution".
And of course its either explicitly (or implicitly) included in evolution in many textbooks. (picture from yecheadquarters)
Despite the above if a CREATIONIST mentions the issue in an evolution debate it the following frequently occurs- We are told that "it is not a part of evolution theory" or worse that we are guility if "dishonesty." The fact is that "evolution" can include many different things from the minimalist "any change in alle frequencies" to possibly also include things such as universal common ancestry, amphibians descending from fish, humans descending from ancient apes, even to the origin of life itself.) One of the real reasons for the insistence by many evolutionists today that it must be "excluded" is really in response to the scientific difficulties that have been revealed, and not to any empirical necessity that it be excluded as "not being a part of evolution". -
39
Noah's ark - Can't believe I once actually thought it was true
by sam_sane_now inwhen i was a jw i didn't even question that the noah's ark story might not be true.
i didn't realise that it wasn't achievable for a handful of people to gather literally millions of animals - two of each kind - and fit them into a boat where they would all survive for many days.
i didn't think about the fact that if the highest mountain was covered with water then how could plant life like trees and flowers come to exist again, especially so soon after, with the raven grabbing an olive leaf was it?
-
-
hooberus
from:
http://www.creationresearch.org
John Woodmorappe. 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 298 pages.
This remarkable book is the most compete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. The author has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti-Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the biblical account, and other relevant questions. -
46
Endosymbiosis --- A challenge to Dawkins' Universal Darwinism
by hamilcarr ininspired by dawkins' notion of universal darwinism, biologists have been trying to prove that all sorts of evolution can be explained by a simple paradigm of random mutation and natural selection.
because of dawkins' ardor to spread the word, many have no idea there's far more to discover about evolutionary mechanisms beyond natural selection.. one of these challenges to dawkins' universal darwinism is called the endosymbiotic theory, popularized by lynn margulis in the 90s.
she's known for her bold rejection of some neo-darwinian interpretations.
-
-
hooberus
On a related note,one of the passages I found interesting in "The God D elusion" was Dawkins statement that:
"Nevertheless, it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified. For example, my collegue Mark Ridley in Mendel's Demon . . .has suggested that the origin of the eucaryotic cell (our kind or cell, with a nucleus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria) was an even more monumentous, difficult and statisally improbable step than the origin of life." The God De lusion page 168.
(see also http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4341_endosymbiont.asp)
-
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
hooberus
hooberus:
So you don't think that it is fallacious to use an an argument based on the improbability of something coming about by chance against the probability of existence of something not believed to have come about by chance?
Not at all. Merely simplified. But I thought I said that already.
Really, so I guess then you don't have a problem with me claiming that Dawkins "almost certainly does not exist" based on the same logic.
After all any being like him would be very improbable by chance- therefore Richard Dawkins [nor any other atheist] "almost certainly does not exist." -
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
hooberus
In a way I do disagree with Dawkins trying to prove that God doesn't exist, yet I don't think he is so unintelligent as to actually use that as a real argument. I do believe that he is doing it for the purpose of using the theist's own arguments against them.
Dawkins is trying to use it as a "real argument."- I believe he even refers to it as "the central argument" of his book as to why "God almost certainly does not exist."
Nor could he merely be using "the theist's own arguments against them", since informed theists do not equate improbability of coming about by chance with improbability of existence, for things that need not to have come about by chance.
