Friday, October 23, 2009

Evolutionists Migrate?

Nathan JonesPDFBy Nathan Jones

Have you seen the seriously funny Ben Stein movie Expelled? If so, remember near the very end Stein questions one of the leading evolutionists Richard Dawkins and he reveals on his own, "Well, I think life probably must of happened by intelligent design from aliens from another planet." Wow! I could only sit there stunned, because after all, Dawkins is the most verbally hostile antagonist towards the Bible and the Creation account, writing such books as The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker.

Dr. Jobe MartinTo help in understanding this new migration of an Evolutionist towards Intelligent Design (ID), I went to Dr. Jobe Martin, former dentist, professor and Evolutionist. Having clearly seen God's eternal power and divine nature from what has been made (Rom. 1:20), Dr. Martin came to faith in Jesus Christ and a trust in the biblical account of the six days of Creation. He and his wife Jenna Dee have since formed Biblical Discipleship Ministries based in Rockwall, Texas to teach on campuses, classrooms and churches that we can trust the Bible's account of the Creation and Jesus as Savior.


With Dawkins slipping he's a closet Intelligent Design (ID) supporter, are we starting to see a migration of Evolutionists from believing in Evolution to believing in Intelligent Design?

You hear about life coming from aliens more of the time now from Evolutionists, but that doesn't answer the real question. The real question is: "Where did life come from?" Or, "How did it get started out there in the cosmos?" We know it must have started somewhere. Shifting to ID, though, just removes the question from where we can test it. So, they say ID to put the real question out there somewhere that we can't reach. Well, how do you test how life started? You know you can't get out there to see where it came from.

This shift illustrates the desperation of Evolutionist in their current arguments. In the movie Expelled another one of the scientists says, "Life came in on molecules riding on crystals." Well, I have to ask, "Where did the molecules come from? Where did the crystals come from? Where did the life come from in the molecules riding on the crystals?" Their answers really don't answer any of those questions.

When you realize you can't go far enough back to answer your questions over the origins of life, you just finally have to come and bow down before your Creator and say, "Okay, Lord, I have looked at all of this and there is just no way it makes sense apart from you." And that is what God wants us to do. That is what General Revelation is. We study the Creation and what God has made, and that should bring us to our knees before God.

What do we do next? We go into the Bible to find out about this God. That was kind of my life. I looked at everything and first thought Evolution was true, but then I realized, "Hey, wait a minute, maybe Evolution isn't true. What am I going to do?" The Bible had the answers I was looking for. General Revelation concerning the Creation should take us to Special Revelation or Specific Revelation which is the Word of God. That will lead us to redemption.

It can be very difficult when you have invested so much of your life into a particular philosophy or theory, even to the point of saying it is no longer a theory but a proven fact, to try to back off from that. It is very difficult. It is the worst for geologists. I just love those guys, but they are so steeped in the idea that those rock layers had to take billions of years. Praise God some of them get the point, but they are tough.

One of the scientific evidences concerning geology that has impressed me is from incredible catastrophes like Mount Saint Helens exploding in 1980. From that eruption we have learned first-hand how rapidly some things can happen that people have argued must take millions of years to happen. For example, look at polystrata fossils. Dead trees on the top of Spirit Lake began to float with the root end down as they got water logged, then they dropped to the bottom. Five days later or so another one drops to the bottom, but now some sediments filled in so it is up higher. Geologists used to say that it takes thousands of years of layering an ancient forest, then an ancient sea, and then another ancient forest and then another ancient sea. No, we are watching it happen at Spirit Lake, and now 29 years later we're seeing the whole organization of polystrata fossils.

When you look at the evidence, though, the hard true scientific evidence and not the evidence based on assumptions, you are left with only one conclusion. You end up concluding that there has got to be a Designer and He's got to be all powerful and all knowing. It has to be the God revealed in the Bible.


Resources

The Evolution of a CreationistThe Evolution of a Creationist Book by Dr. Jobe Martin:
This fascinating book describes Dr. Jobe Martin's personal journey from an evolution-trained scientist to a Bible-believing creationist. Dr. Martin examines many of the claims and theories of prominent evolutionists, comparing their often incredible, inconsistent, pseudo-scientific explanations of origins to the clear and simple description of the Creation as depicted in the Bible.

Creation ProclaimsCreation Proclaims Video by Dr. Jobe Martin:
Come face-to-face with some of the world's most fascinating creatures! You'll discover how Creation proclaims the character, majesty, power and, glory of our Creator God. In each creature feature, you'll learn how God is reaching out to mankind by making Himself known in unmistakable ways.

God of WondersGod of Wonders Video by Eternal Productions:
A feature-length Discovery-quality documentary without the evolutionary bias. Stunning nature footage, scientific insights and Scriptures combine to reveal the wonders of our Creator as observed throughout His creation.

96 comments:

Psiloiordinary said...

Isn't quote mining and quoting people out of context so as to deliberately distort their words wrong?

Shame on you.

Psi

Billy said...

Funny how anytime someone wants to disavow a comment that someone made that doesn't support their agenda the claim is made that it was taken "out of context".

If this quote is out of context then demonstrate how, otherwise your claim is worthless.

RG said...

Dawkins said what he said and his supporters have to live with it. It is true that there's a growing trend to shift the problem elsewhere. I believe Paul Davies has been suggesting the same thing.

hartdawg said...

so let me get this straight, for years scientist flat out deny intelligent design and the existence of God, then when proven wrong, repeatedly, they say, "well, there is intelligent design, it cant be God but it is something. we dont know what it is but it cant be a God". is that what is happening?

son of thunder said...

That's about it, hartdawg. Like Dr. Martinh said, they've just moved the situation to someplace untestable. I mean, this isn't "Star Trek". We can't just hop in our spaceship and blast off to Rigel V or the planet Vulcan to test these theories.

The question must now be asked, if life was planted on this planet, how did life on this other planet evolve?

Junbuggg said...

LOL, hey I know the answer to that one thunder.....we will all find out when we watch that new show coming on Nov.3rd......."V".

From the previews it looks like we are in for some "conditioning", if you know what I mean. ;-)

son of thunder said...

I liked the origiinal "V" back in the '80's. I hope this one lives up to that standard.

I've always been a sci-fi fan, and life on other planets makes for some good story-telling. But, as of yet, we haven't, with the Hubble, found a planet yet that could sustain life. They're either too close or too far away from their respective stars. Or the star is too big or too small.

Then we come across the problem of interstellar space travel. Unless these beings found a way to break the light barrier, it's infeasible with the distances we're talking about. These being would have had to travelled millions of year themselves.

son of thunder said...

And I hope the new "V" is as good as the original '80's version. But I doubt it.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Billy at al,

This is Dawkins explanation;

"Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings. "

From here.

Call it quote mining, or just lying but whichever you choose the post above misrepresents the truth.

Great morale behaviour.

Son of Thunder;

You asked;

"how did life on this other planet evolve?"

Variation, super-fecundity and inheritance.

Basic biology. Or evolution. Same thing.

Regards,

Psi

Katie Hesselton said...

Just curious, Psiloiordinary- since Dawkins said that the age of the universe is finite, what does he believe served as the causal agent for the beginning of the universe? and in what and where does he believe it came into existence?

Also, I've been doing some reading from various sources speaking to whether (macro)evolution is fact or theory (both from pro-evolution and pro-creation sources) and I was curious to see how most evolutionists or biologists would respond to the following arguments:
from Walter ReMine: "1) Life systematically lacks a pattern of fine-gradations of fossils joining disparate lifeforms together. 2) Life systematically lacks a pattern of clear-cut ancestors and lineages joining disparate lifeforms together. 3) Experimental demonstrations, in the laboratory and in the field, systematically fail to demonstrate a plausible naturalistic origin of our disparate lifeforms. Let me emphasize that these are three separate, independent, failures for evolutionary theory... Any one of these three areas would be sufficient to establish evolution as a fact. Yet the systematic, independent failure of ALL THREE shouts that evolutionary theory is wrong."
Thank you for your time,
Katie

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Katie,

"Just curious"

Wow - two of my favourite words!

Very happy to try to help.

First off, I am not Dawkins' keeper or follower. But I have read his books so I will try to answer this for you;

"what does he believe served as the causal agent for the beginning of the universe? and in what and where does he believe it came into existence?"

The quick answer is that science doesn't know. "We" are working on it though. My own favourite avenue of investigation at the moment is the Ekpyrotic Conjecture. This involves higher dimensions and "brane theory". We think that these are actually testable by analysing the faint echoes of the "g" at the end of the big bang (sort of anyway - I mean the CMBR). BTW did you know that if you tune a radio to static that some that noise is the noise of the big bang? Amazing!

- - -

Isn't not knowing but trying to find out absolutely exciting?

- - -

"Also, I've been doing some reading from various sources speaking to whether (macro)evolution is fact or theory"

I'll just stop you there for a moment to point out it is both. Science uses the word "theory" in a different way to common parlance. In science theory is a way of explaining a whole shed load of facts. By evolution I presume you mean natural selection?

- - -

"1) Life systematically lacks a pattern of fine-gradations of fossils joining disparate lifeforms together. "

Fossils only form very very rarely. So yes that's true. Although we do have some very good sequences now, the whales ones are my favourites. Also Tiktaalik was an intermediate form that was predicted by palaeontologists who then went and dug it up! (It's beautiful too!)

Stepping back a moment, this question seems to imply that fossils are somehow one of just three key pieces of evidence for evolution - they aren't. There are loads of other lines of evidence for evolution, fossils just kind of help out in looking at the history of life rather than understanding how evolution actually happens.

Psiloiordinary said...

"2) Life systematically lacks a pattern of clear-cut ancestors and lineages joining disparate lifeforms together."

Yes that's right. We think that about 99% of species that have ever lived are now extinct. I'm unsure why you think this is in anyway a challenge to evolution? Evolution does not predict they will all still be alive.

"3) Experimental demonstrations, in the laboratory and in the field, systematically fail to demonstrate a plausible naturalistic origin of our disparate lifeforms."

Sorry but I don't understand the question. Here is a list of some of the separate lines of evidence that includes thousands and thousands of such experiments all line up and support the modern evolutionary synthesis;

Phylogenetics; A consensus universal phylogeny, Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction, Maximum parsimony, Maximum likelihood, Distance matrix methods, Unity of life, Nested hierarchies, Convergence of independent phylogenies, Statistics of incongruent phylogenies,
Transitional forms; Reptile-birds, Reptile-mammals, Ape-humans, Legged whales, Legged seacows, Chronology of common ancestors

Past history; Anatomical vestiges, Atavisms, Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs, Humans tails, Molecular vestiges, Ontogeny and developmental biology, Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches, Snake embryos with legs, Embryonic human tail, Marsupial eggshell and caruncle, Present biogeography, Past biogeography,

Evolutionary opportunism; Anatomical parahomology, Molecular parahomology, Anatomical convergence, Molecular convergence, Anatomical suboptimal function, Molecular suboptimal function

Molecular evidence; Protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, Transposons
Redundant pseudogenes, Endogenous retroviruses

Change; Genetic, Morphological, Functional, Stages of speciation, Speciation events, Morphological rates, Genetic rates

Now any one of these lines of evidence could simply point in another direction than evolution, and would win someone a nobel prize for finding it, but they all line up in support of it.

This is one reason why evolution is given the ultimate scientific accolade of being called a theory, just like the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity etc. etc.

I hope this helps.

BTW why not pick any one of the long list of evidence given above and tell me if you see any problems with it and we can discuss it further.

- - -

Kind regards,

Psi

PS is there any chance the post will get changed to reflect the facts that I pointed out above? I presume this site wouldn't won't to continue to claim something that has been shown to be false?

son of thunder said...

I think it's absolutely amazing that somehow both a male and a female of every species happened to evolve at the exact same rate.

What are the odds? Especially since I heard lately that mitochondrial DNA has shown that all people can be traced back to just one female. And DNA traces back to just one male.

Am I the only one who thinks this is well beyond the realm of possiblity?

Anonymous said...

You gotta love Dawkins’ “charitable” attitude in giving the IDiots a fair hearing. Nice man!

Of course, people like Stein aren’t terribly smart compared to Dawkins so Dawkins should be forgiven for any slip of the tongue. I don’t know whether he was set up or not – he may have been.

If so, I just have to wonder how the brilliant Dr Dawkins let it happen again, especially after the 15 second pause fiasco some years ago.

Billy said...

I just watched the "V" miniseries and TV series again. From just the trailer I saw on the new "V" I give it a BIG thumbs down...but we'll see.

Never thought I'd comment on "V" at this site (especially knowing I'm way off topic!)

Anonymous said...

Tiktaalik

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Son of Thunder,

"I think it's absolutely amazing that somehow both a male and a female of every species happened to evolve at the exact same rate."

Species evolve together i.e. populations change. Evolution is often defined as changes in allele frequency in a population. So if a species is sexual it can evolve into another species that is sexual.

There is no popping into existence in one generation.

The concept of species is a convenient human labelling.

When Humans and Chimps split from their common ancestor you would not be able to tell.

Small changes built up over a period eventually lead to parts of population not being able to mate and then we call them separate species.

You statement demonstrates a lack of a grasp of even the basics of the science that you appear to be so certain is not true. The reality is far more subtle and nuanced than the straw man you have offered.

I suppose the equivalent would be me stating that your god can't be real as we now know how lightning works.

Have you ever studied science?

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Anonymous,

That Tiktaalik link is funny!

Anyone else spot them completely ignore the fact that it's existence was predicted and that they went to dig it up?

It's also good to see the old - look at the gap - oh you found something in it? - look at the two gaps now - shifting the goalposts move.

Shall we have a contest to spot how many logical fallacies, quoting out of context to chnage the authors menaing, and plain old fibs the article contains?

Anyone want to start?

Talk about morals?

Regards,

Psi

VeniSheckChicolte said...

***
Psiloiordinary said...

"Also, I've been doing some reading from various sources speaking to whether (macro)evolution is fact or theory"

I'll just stop you there for a moment to point out it is both. Science uses the word "theory" in a different way to common parlance. In science theory is a way of explaining a whole shed load of facts. By evolution I presume you mean natural selection?

***

Me says...

So, are you saying that (macro) evolution is both fact and theory? Are you saying it is proven by science?
Because if you are, I just gotta let you know that that is impossible. Because Science cannot prove anything. Nothing.
You may have (at least to you, i don't agree) LOTS of "evidence" for evolution. But just ONE counter example and the whole thing crumbles. And you have to go back to the drawing board.

***

The Scientific Method is this:

1) Make observations.

2) Form a hypothesis to explain your observations.

3) Collect data that test the hypothesis

***

Then you have a split track.

1)If the data are NOT consistent with the hypothesis, either REVISE or DISCARD the hypothesis.

2) Data DOES consist with hypothesis, and you got a theory!

***

4) Now, from here, it's generations and generations of data collecting.

***

Once again, we hit a split track!

1) It DOES NOT consist with your theory, REVISE or DISCARD the theory.

2) It DOES consist with the theory, it becomes a scientific law!

***

But even then, ONE counter example, and you go back to square one!

Nathan Jones said...

"Morals," Psi? Where did they come from?

Really, Embryonic human tail as an all-phase in-uterin example of evolution? Disproved in the 1800s. Anatomical vestiges? Remove those bones and see how well one functions. DNA functional redundancy? Need some kind of smarts to figure a backup system is a good thing. And so on.

I know us religious folks are all "Dims" to Dawkin's enlightened Evolutionists "Brights," so as long as you're riding that high horse you will never see the complex design within all that exists. Humbleness is the first required step to gaining knowledge.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." - Proverbs 9:10

VeniSheckChicolte said...

That's a good verse... I like it...

VeniSheckChicolte said...

Does anyone remember superconductivity? I just learned about it in Science!

A Dutch scientist named Heike Onnes discovered superconductivity, but couldn't figure out HOW to explain it. All he knew was that it had to be really cold for it to happen, roughly -450 degrees.

39 years later, three scientists (Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer) began to work on a hypothesis to explain why such cold temperatures caused superconductivity.
So, experiments were done and ten years later, they had a theory!
It was named the BCS theory in honor of them.
IMPORTANT: They said that the highest the temperature could be was roughly -400 degrees.
The theory was put to the test for the next 25 years, and it was confirmed by EVERY SINGLE EXPERIMENT.
After a while, this theory was accepted as fact. It was in physics textbooks posted as such.

In 1896 two scientists (J. George Bednorz and Karl Alex Muller) found a temperature for superconductivity higher then BSC theory allowed.

Since then, lots of people have gotten it higher and higher! Now the temperature can be as "high" as -321 degrees!

Now, it's not that B, C, and S were idiots. They were very smart scientists! They followed the Scientific method and came up with a very good theory!
But just because people are smart, doesn't mean that whatever they come up with will one day be a fact.

***

Note from me: I'm not trying to sound supersmart, I'm just sitting at my computer with my textbook right next to me! :)

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Veni,

Yes well done, science does not prove anything finally, everything is contingent on the next bit of evidence.

Evolution is still a fact and a theory in this sense.

Very very few folks deny evolution in the sense that organisms change. (YEC's need super speed evolution to provide all the species we see in the fossil record!)

The theory bit relates to an explanation of how this happened. The modern synthesis says that natural selection and genetic drift explain this.

You are also dead right that all of science could turn out to be wrong.

That's what makes it progress - as new evidence and new theories come along we try to get closer and closer to understanding the natural world.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Oh and BTW it was and is scientist who overturn theories with evidence - not religious fundamentalists who don't do science and who start with their conclusions.

So that is an excellent example of science in action.

The plate tectonic theory is another good example.

Cheers,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Nathan,

As you probably know natural selection produces design.

Design isn't the point at issue is it? I don't know anyone who accepts the evidence for evolution who doesn't talk about it in those terms.

Are you suggesting that science denies that things are designed? I thought most folks understood that it was the claim that design requires a supernatural designer that was at issue?

Please can you clarify?

- - -

"Really, Embryonic human tail as an all-phase in-uterin example of evolution? "

No just evidence supporting it;

Why did your designer give the genes for tails to humans, have them turn on part way through our development and turn them off again later?

Evolution explains the presence of such genes without having to resort to the explanation that he is god and do anything he likes even we don't understand it now. (shall we talk about falsifiability and an all powerful creator?)

Same thing with chicken teeth. Why do they have the genes for teeth? Evolution explains this.


"Disproved in the 1800s." I guess you must be referring to the theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - I'm not. Not sure why you would mention it here either? Perhaps you don't know much about it - can I help?

"Anatomical vestiges? Remove those bones and see how well one functions."

Can you be more specific please?

"DNA functional redundancy? Need some kind of smarts to figure a backup system is a good thing."

No not that kind of redundancy, I mean the changed in alternate coding seen in functional genes that happen to match the tree of life draw up using other lines of evidence.

"And so on."

Please carry on, I can keep this up all year.

You set them up and I'll knock them down.

Cheers,

Psi

PS so anyway - talking of morals - are you going to change the posting now that I have shown you where it is grossly misrepresenting the truth?

Nathan Jones said...

Hardly, Psi. You have neither presented anything that proves Evolution nor shown that Dawkins' response to Ben Stein is anything more than backpedaling for letting it slip that he finally has to admit intelligence is a requirement for life.

Once a person gives up being willfully ignorant and embraces what is clearly evident - that life is too complex to have evolved - then Evolution just falls apart as a framework to build one's worldview upon.

Me, the other's you'll encounter here, and even Dawkins for a briefly illuminated moment, have looked at the evidence for ID and have had our worldview changed. Once changed, there's no going backwards. Life, the universe, and everything starts clicking.

Psi, an exercise for you - for just a day, suspend your disbelief in a Creator and approach everything you do, read, and hear with the notion that it was created. Observe what your conclusions are. This is just a scientific excercise, so nothing's lost.

Junbuggg said...

Hello Mr. PSI,

I've been sitting back and just reading, but now I must ask you a question.

You don't believe in a creator, but do you believe in anything other than humans, here on this earth?

Buggg

Anonymous said...

That Tiktaalik link is funny!

Know what I thought was funny? I listened to a narration by Dr Berlinski where he ran through just some of the myriad internal and external physiological changes required for a cow to become a sea mammal. It isn’t just a matter of swapping legs for flippers although that, alone, would be a (pardon me) “miracle”.

I try to envision the process and the mechanics. I mean think about it, even if you could, why bother to become a sea mammal? Did these animals need to migrate to the sea because of predators or because they just felt like it? If it was the former, then one wonders how these animals evolved quickly enough to prevent extinction. Perhaps the DNA info was already there. How did it get there in an impersonal and chaotic environment? How do the mechanics of evolution work? What process allows a beach wading cow to pass on its intentions and experience to its progeny?

How many stages of development should we expect to find in between a cow and a whale? So science predicts a transition species, discovers Tiktaalik and jumps on it. But is it really transitional or just another fully functional animal like, for example, a platypus. Where are all the other half-leg and half flipper species? Oh, and if you have a problem with any information in that article, feel free to challenge the authors. I have a few times.

Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish

RG

VeniSheckChicolte said...

Hey Psi, you said:

Evolution is still a fact and a theory in this sense.

But... I don't see any proof laid out. I mean, none of us were there? So how can we know?

You also said:

The theory bit relates to an explanation of how this happened.

But see, that's all it is: A Theory. It can be proven wrong.

You said:

Oh and BTW it was and is scientist who overturn theories with evidence - not religious fundamentalists who don't do science and who start with their conclusions.

Why not "religious fundamentalists"? If the scientific method is used, anyone can study anything. You know what scientists have over other people? A degree and some other paperwork. Maybe some fame. But I honestly have a hard time believing that they have more brains then me because they have the title "scientists"
They may know more then I do, but I'm still learning, and some day, I may know as much as them. And if I'm a scientist someday, and I still believe this, and have experiments to back up my theory, then maybe I'm onto something right now.

Just think about it...

VeniSheckChicolte said...

Oh! I also forgot to say this:

I'm not saying that we have proof for the Bible. Science can't prove the Bible anymore then it can prove Evolution. And I do believe in Micro evolution. But what I'm trying to say is that it's not that there's evidence FOR the Bible, it's the evidence AGAINST evolution.

And in some cases, the Bible has been... I hate the word proven... studies have taken place and have come out pointing that the Bible is true. That's better.
I can give you a couple of those examples if you like, but I don't want you to feel like I'm trying to preach because I'm not. I just want to talk.

flippertie said...

@ Psilordinary,

You have the patience of a saint < /snark>

I've followed links to this site a few times, and soon realised that the blogger is a true follower of the school of 'Lying for Jesus'. He seems to believe it's ok
to misrepresent and misquote, lie to and and mislead his readers - as long as doing so allows him to get back to his central theme.

He regularly quote-mines or (as in this case) draws false conclusions and misrepresents facts. When presented with evidence that his 'revelation' or 'proof' is incorrect he consistently refuses to correct or acknowledge his error. This post is a clear example of that.

Dawkins is a respected academic who has for over thirty years maintained a consistent position with respect to the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. Not once in all his published academic or popular works has he ever claimed to believe a god or other intelligence has interfered in the process of evolution on this planet.

His explanation of the scene in 'Expelled' where he discusses the possibility of aliens is entirely consistent with that position.

His published work since Expelled appeared confirms his atheism, and opposition to the unsupported Intelligent Design hypothesis.

Whether you agree with Dawkins or not, to claim that he is leaning towards ID in the face of his explicit repudiation of such claims is dishonest and dishonourable.

The author of this blog should be ashamed of his words and, if sincere in his religious claims, should take pains to straighten things out with his god. For the Christians - Bearing false withess is a sin, and for the rest of us
'The end does not justify the means'




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth:_The_Evidence_for_Evolution )

Katie Hesselton said...

Psilordinary: "You set them up and I'll knock them down."
since you offered, how do you respond to a few more arguments(by the way, Christians have been stereotyped as not wanting to see or hear anything that might contradict their faith, but I am more than open to listen to opposing arguments. There is no other way to grow in faith than to confront something that may cause one to entertain thoughts of doubt):
Age of the earth:
natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" rather than an "Old Earth" have come into play recently. "Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities."

Lack of a Natural Mechanism:
"Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far."

I don't proclaim to have more than a very basic level of knowledge of biological concepts and theories and I'm sure my absolute knowing that God is real just discredits me further in your eyes, but I have one more question for you:
Most scientists say that theories involving supernatural origins have no place in science. But, why is it that science cannot evaluate supernatural theories and good reason to allow consideration of all theories and, thus, truly allow science to proceed towards the truth?
Thanks
Katie
ps- Psilordinary and Anonymous: The author of this post (Nathan Jones) simply posted a quote from Dawkins and then provided his interpretation of that statement. He has a right to his opinion and should by no means be ashamed.

flippertie said...

Katie,
ps- Psilordinary and Anonymous: The author of this post (Nathan Jones) simply posted a quote from Dawkins and then provided his interpretation of that statement. He has a right to his opinion and should by no means be ashamed.

The 'quote' in question is:"Well, I think life probably must of happened by intelligent design from aliens from another planet."

I'll make you a bet. If Nathan can provide (or you can find) a reliable source to show Dawkins uttered those words I'll buy, read, and honestly discuss with you any Christian apologetic book you care to name. I'll also publicly apologise on this blog and any other internet forum you or nathan care to name, using my real name and photo.

My belief is that Nathan was just typing something that approximates what he understood from watching that cropped interview scene in Expelled. Then he put it in quotes because that makes it look more authoratative, and will lead casual readers to believe that Dawkins actually said those words.

That is what I meant by 'Lying for Jesus' - and that (if it's true) is something to be ashamed of.
If it turns out that I'm correct then I'd like you to agree to buy and read carefully any of Dawkin's books.

I base this simply on the use of the construction 'probably must of' in the quotation. Dawkins is an articulate speaker and I do not believe he would ever utter such an ugly, gramatically incorrect phrase.

Flippertie

Psiloiordinary said...

"Hello Mr. PSI,

I've been sitting back and just reading, but now I must ask you a question.

You don't believe in a creator, but do you believe in anything other than humans, here on this earth?

Buggg"

Howdy Buggg,

I have two pet greyhounds, is that what you meant?

Best,

Psi

VeniSheckChicolte said...

Hilo flippertie,

Okay, first off i gotta point out this quote:

I've followed links to this site a few times, and soon realised that the blogger is a true follower of the school of 'Lying for Jesus'. He seems to believe it's ok
to misrepresent and misquote, lie to and and mislead his readers - as long as doing so allows him to get back to his central theme.

Okay, so let's just say Nathan and Dr. Reagan WERE lying (which I do NOT believe they are). As Christians and followers of Jesus Christ, we shouldn't believe everything we hear. We should look it up for ourselves! And so far, I've been keeping up with what they are saying and it all adds up.

Now, I haven't gotten to studying the quote yet, but I just might have to look into that.

~K&Vmeantheworld2me (that's a sign off btw)

Billy said...

Psi,

To help me understand you better could you please say whether or not you are a believer in Christ.

Thank you.

Nathan Jones said...

Using the ad hominem argument is always the last act of the desperate in a debate. By claiming in the interview with Dr. Martin that I am lying is an example of such a weak tactic.

For brevity I paraphrased the 6 minute interview Stein had with Dawkins to one line, so to hear the words right out of the leading Brights' mouth, visit YouTube beginning at 3:30. (You'll notice Dawkins paraphrases Russell.)

You'll also notice in the beginning of the interview that the very idea of the God of the Bible offends Dawkins. He quotes from his book just what he thinks of God.

Let's cut to the very heart of the issue for you, Flip and Psi, because you, too, like Dawkins find God offensive. Because of this, you choose not to believe He exists and pretend He's not there as all things created give evidence to.

Unfortunately, God does exist. He does have requirements for His tenants. But, He allows us the freedom not to believe in Him. There is a price, though, for our rebellion condemns us before justice, and belief in God's Son Jesus is the only lifeline to rescue us from the sentence of Hell. We have the free will to smack away the lifeline and pretend there's no God or consequences for our decisions, but pretending they don't exist will not in the end make them go away.

That is the central issue with every atheist. Everything else like Evolution is just smoke and mirrors.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hey guys,

Some great questions and topics for discussion here.

Justa quick holding comment to say that I will try to work through all the comments in turn.

Watch this space,

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Katie,

“since you offered, how do you respond to a few more arguments(by the way, Christians have been stereotyped as not wanting to see or hear anything that might contradict their faith, but I am more than open to listen to opposing arguments. There is no other way to grow in faith than to confront something that may cause one to entertain thoughts of doubt):”

More than happy to chat, I’m sure we can both agree that it is best to disagree without being disagreeable.

I commend your attitude and try to follow it myself.

“Age of the earth:
natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" rather than an "Old Earth" have come into play recently. "Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities."

OK lets step back a moment with this bit;

“ If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest.”

That’s my kind of thinking, I quite agree. I suppose that we must be careful to acknowledge that there will be some situations where a lack of knowledge about something in a field where we have lots if unknowns couldn’t in itself count as evidence against, after all the “argument from ignorance” is a logical fallacy isn’t it.
But anyway - we agree here so let’s look at these comments by turn.

I will be brief here bearing in mind these is just a comments list but I will be happy to dig deeper if you wish - you could always mail me if you prefer. As I write this bit I think I have the answers to each of them but I will have to go and do some research myself - so thanks, I enjoy looking into things and learning.

1 - Moon drift. This does in fact fit with known physics and is consistent with the currently estimate age of the earth at 4.6 billion years and the most popular current thinking on the origin of the moon i.e. a collision shortly after that time with a mars size body (this explains the make up of moon rocks as well BTW). This also fits with ageing of moon rocks, earth rocks and asteroid bodies.
2 - It also fits with an analysis of the thickness of shells of marine organisms that also fits with the slowing of the rotation of the earth and the retreat of the moon. All these lines of evidence agree with each other - pretty good odds we are on the right lines. And they all agree with several different radiometric and other dating methods as well.
3 - Magnetic field decay is answered byt he rotation of the material in the core, this in itself is backed up by the “bar coding” of the rocks in the ocean floor showing repeated flipping the magnetic field. Again these calculations all fit with the ageing of these rocks, again by several different methods. Again lots of independent lines of evidence all lining up together when they didn’t have to - so we think we might be on the right lines here.
4 - Erosion rates - not sure why you see this as a problem for an old earth - not come across that argument before - could you be more specific please?
5 - ocean chemicals/salinity - Whilst this was an object a century or two ago we have much more data now and this issue just melts away - we see cycles of such chemicals into and out of other “reservoirs” in the earth and atmosphere. Why do you think this makes the earth young?

BTW It’s probably also worth pointing out that many of the scientists involved in this work are religious so the odds of a worldwide atheist conspiracy also seem small.

continued . . .

Psiloiordinary said...

. . .

K next you said;

“Lack of a Natural Mechanism:
"Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far."

I don’t want to just say you are wrong but I’m afraid that these claims just seem to be mistaken;

“this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far”

I’ll just give you a link to one example but there are literally thousands of them out there - who on earth told you there are none?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18

Have a read and tell me what you think.

continued . . .

Psiloiordinary said...

“Most scientists say that theories involving supernatural origins have no place in science. But, why is it that science cannot evaluate supernatural theories and good reason to allow consideration of all theories and, thus, truly allow science to proceed towards the truth?”

Good questions again Katie.

The main things to say about this are as follows, science can only deal with what it can measure, and to help in this task science tries to control as many variables as possible in its experiments so that nature doesn’t fool us into getting the wrong idea. I don’t think anyone, of any faith or none claims they can control a supernatural all powerful being. So science just even try and just looks at what it can measure.

Secondly if a scientist can explain something by just saying, well god did that s there you go, then there is no point in looking for a natural cause. Apart from leaving all scientists without a job, we wouldn’t make progress e.g. why look into antibiotics, god just made bacteria that way.

Finally, and talking for myself and not trying to explain science, many attempts to measure the supernatural have failed to come up with anything. The most recent I am aware of measured the effect of prayer on the health of patients recovering from operations, it showed little effect. (In fact of the three groups those being prayed for who where aware of it fared the worst, those being prayed for and unaware of it were second best and the other group fared best of all)

- - -

“p.s.- Psilordinary and Anonymous: The author of this post (Nathan Jones) simply posted a quote from Dawkins and then provided his interpretation of that statement. He has a right to his opinion and should by no means be ashamed.”

So it looks like Nathan gave you the impression that he posted a Dawkins quote, now he admits he didn’t. Want to change your mind?

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Veni,

You said;

"I'm not saying that we have proof for the Bible. Science can't prove the Bible anymore then it can prove Evolution. And I do believe in Micro evolution. But what I'm trying to say is that it's not that there's evidence FOR the Bible, it's the evidence AGAINST evolution.

And in some cases, the Bible has been... I hate the word proven... studies have taken place and have come out pointing that the Bible is true. That's better.
I can give you a couple of those examples if you like, but I don't want you to feel like I'm trying to preach because I'm not. I just want to talk."

I just want to talk too :-)

Please fire away with you evidence against evolution or that indicating the bible is true. Always happy to try to learn something.

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Sorry Veni - I am addressing you posts in reverse order, just me being daft.

You said;

"Evolution is still a fact and a theory in this sense.

But... I don't see any proof laid out. I mean, none of us were there? So how can we know?"

Well here is a list I posted earlier;

Here is a list of some of the separate lines of evidence that includes thousands and thousands of such experiments all line up and support the modern evolutionary synthesis;

Phylogenetics; A consensus universal phylogeny, Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction, Maximum parsimony, Maximum likelihood, Distance matrix methods, Unity of life, Nested hierarchies, Convergence of independent phylogenies, Statistics of incongruent phylogenies,
Transitional forms; Reptile-birds, Reptile-mammals, Ape-humans, Legged whales, Legged seacows, Chronology of common ancestors

Past history; Anatomical vestiges, Atavisms, Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs, Humans tails, Molecular vestiges, Ontogeny and developmental biology, Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches, Snake embryos with legs, Embryonic human tail, Marsupial eggshell and caruncle, Present biogeography, Past biogeography,

Evolutionary opportunism; Anatomical parahomology, Molecular parahomology, Anatomical convergence, Molecular convergence, Anatomical suboptimal function, Molecular suboptimal function

Molecular evidence; Protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, Transposons
Redundant pseudogenes, Endogenous retroviruses

Change; Genetic, Morphological, Functional, Stages of speciation, Speciation events, Morphological rates, Genetic rates

Just pick one or two and I'll try to elaborate.

You also said:

"But see, that's all it is: A Theory. It can be proven wrong. "

Very true and a Nobel Prize awaits you if you can do it. Scientists all around the world are trying to prove it wrong (falsify it) as we speak. This is what we were talking about earlier when we said you can't prove it, but if you try really hard lots and lots of times to disprove it and you fail, then you can call it a theory (in the sciencey sense of the word).

This is another reason why creation isn't "scientific", god can after all do anything at all, so this is totally non falsifiable and hence not a scientific theory.

Then you said this; "Why not "religious fundamentalists"? If the scientific method is used, anyone can study anything. You know what scientists have over other people? A degree and some other paperwork. Maybe some fame. But I honestly have a hard time believing that they have more brains then me because they have the title "scientists"
They may know more then I do, but I'm still learning, and some day, I may know as much as them. And if I'm a scientist someday, and I still believe this, and have experiments to back up my theory, then maybe I'm onto something right now."

Just think about it..."

Absolutely you can have a faith and do science, but you must start with the evidence not the conclusion or you are not doing science as explained above.

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Anonymous;

"It isn’t just a matter of swapping legs for flippers although that, alone, would be a (pardon me) “miracle”."

Agreed. Not sure what your point is though.

"I try to envision the process and the mechanics." I can recommend some good books if you like.
"
"I mean think about it, even if you could, why bother to become a sea mammal? "

There is you first problem, there was no bother. If by feeding near the sea meant they left more offspring then more of them would feed by the see, if some of them fed in the sea and did better then they would leave more offspring, if some of those pursued prey into the water and perhaps outcompeted those who didn't then . . .

"Did these animals need to migrate to the sea because of predators or because they just felt like it?"

See above.

"If it was the former, then one wonders how these animals evolved quickly enough to prevent extinction. "

Ah but you forget that the predators evolve too - this is called arms race and is one of the most brutal, horrific and beautiful aspects of evolution.

"Perhaps the DNA info was already there."

Maybe but then we have observed such information being generated in the lab and in the wild.

"How did it get there in an impersonal and chaotic environment? "

Impersonal yes, but not totally chaotic. If some organisms are better at reproducing than others because of their genes then these genes get passed on to more offspring than those genes that didn't help their organisms.

Got it yet? Very, very simple. INcredibly powerful. An amazing mix of random chance and the total opposite.


"What process allows a beach wading cow to pass on its intentions and experience to its progeny? "

They don't pass on either, they pass on their genes. So if a population of 10,000 cows has just one that has a gene/gene combination that makes it even slightly better at surviving and reproducing in that environment then these genes get passed on to more cows in the next generation.

Unless you claim that no cows are ever different to any others, or that survival is totally random or that genes are not passed on then bingo baby you've got evolution happening ;-)

Just three things;

Variation - things are not identical
Super-fecundity - more things are born than survive to reproduce
Inheritance - things that have more kids therefore spread their genes to more organisms in the next generation.

"How many stages of development should we expect to find in between a cow and a whale?"

Every generation, in fact every organism is a transitional form.

When you appreciate the mechanism I sketched above you might grasp why most serious scientists ignore such questions , they are simply not applicable.

"So science predicts a transition species, discovers Tiktaalik and jumps on it. But is it really transitional or just another fully functional animal like, for example, a platypus. "

Yes it is and yes it is. Transitional forms are fully functional animals too! So again a bit of silly question - sorry.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Psi

Sal said...

"They don't pass on either, they pass on their genes. So if a population of 10,000 cows has just one that has a gene/gene combination that makes it even slightly better at surviving and reproducing in that environment then these genes get passed on to more cows in the next generation."

Are you saying the cows are adding information to their genes and dna? How?

Junbuggg said...

Psi,
I enjoyed your "tap dance", but you knew very well that I was not referring to you owning a couple of greyhounds. :-\

Buggg ~

RG said...

Berlinski:

"The interesting argument about the whale, which is a mammal after all, is that if its origins were land-based originally, what do you have to do from an engineering point of view to change a cow into a whale?...Virtually every feature of the cow has to change, has to be adapted. Since we know that life on earth and life in the water are fundamentally different enterprises, we have some sense of the number of changes. I stopped at 50,000, that is morphological changes, and don't think that these changes are independent. What's interesting about the cow to whale transition is that you can see that a different environment is going to impose severe design constraints on a possible evolutionary sequence and what does this suggest about what we should see in the fossil record?"

There is you first problem, there was no bother. If by feeding near the sea meant they left more offspring then more of them would feed by the see, if some of them fed in the sea and did better then they would leave more offspring, if some of those pursued prey into the water and perhaps outcompeted those who didn't then . . .

I think the problem is that you’re comfortable with the idea that the process is simply one of passing on of incalculable and favorable genetic accidents over eons of time to come up with a vastly different entity – for no reason. How does new, meaningful genetic information originate in the vast array of changes between a cow and a whale?

…we have observed such information being generated in the lab and in the wild.

That would be news to me.

Is it legitimate to demand of evolutionists an explanation for the origin of genetic information?

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

"So science predicts a transition species, discovers Tiktaalik and jumps on it. But is it really transitional or just another fully functional animal like, for example, a platypus. " Yes it is and yes it is. Transitional forms are fully functional animals too! So again a bit of silly question - sorry.

Sorry, but you miss the point – see Berlinski’s comment above. The change requires millions of years so, while every stage/organism must necessarily be fully functional, you should still see those stages of development in the fossil record. Isn’t that why scientists get excited when they think they’ve found a missing link?

RG

VeniSheckChicolte said...

I said in a previous post: "But see, that's all it is: A Theory. It can be proven wrong. "

And Psi said to that...:
Very true and a Nobel Prize awaits you if you can do it. Scientists all around the world are trying to prove it wrong (falsify it) as we speak. This is what we were talking about earlier when we said you can't prove it, but if you try really hard lots and lots of times to disprove it and you fail, then you can call it a theory (in the sciencey sense of the word).

Hey Psi, I'm only 13 and I have a lot to learn. So if that Nobel Prize is waitin for my, I'll be happy to try and take it! And if i do, you'll be in my acceptance speech! :)

Okay, so about that list of things that prove the Bible in some ways... I hope you don't mind, but I'm just gonna pull it directly from Exploring Creation with General Science 2nd edition, so anything in the next post, is from that book.

BTW, can anyone tell me how to put a picture on my thing? Thanks much!

VeniSheckChicolte said...

The first biblical prophecy comes from the book of Ezekiel, chapter 26, verses 3-21. A subsection of that text says:

(quote) ...therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock. She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken...Also her daughters on the mainland will be slain by the sword...I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon...He will slay your daughters on the mainland by the sword; and he will make siege walls against you...Also, they will make a spoil of your riches...and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water...And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more...
(quote)

According to the prophecy, things do not look good for Tyre. As mentioned before, we know for certain that this prophecy was written by about 250 B.C. The generally accepted date for the writing of this book, however, is 592-570 B.C. Most historians accept this as a rather strong fact because the book uses a very odd dating system that was used only for a brief time in the early sixth century B.C. Thus, the author was either writing at that time or was a very knowledgeable historian doing everything he could to deceive the reader.

Notice how detailed and precise this prophecy is. Ezekiel calls the city by name. He tells us that many nations will come against her and even singles out the leader of the first nation, Babylon. He is also very specific about Tyre's ultimate fate. He says that Tyre's debris will be thrown into the ocean; it will not be rebuilt; and it will become a place where fishermen can spread their nets to dry.

The other aspect of this prophecy that must be pointed out is the fact that anyone living in Ezekiel's time would consider his predictions to be absurd. Tyre was one of the greatest cities of the ancient world. According to Dr. Wallace Fleming, Tyre was founded more than 2,000 years before this prophecy was written. During that time, it had grown into the most important trading center in that region of the world.

The city was originally built on a large island that lay one-half mile off the coast of Syria. The island had nice ports where trading ships could dock. A smaller island near the original city was eventually linked to the larger island, making the total circumference of the city approximately 2½ miles. The outer wall of the city was up to 150 feet high and was surmounted by battlements. As a result of its prominence as a major trading center, Tyre grew quickly, and an extension of the city had to be built on the mainland. The combination of Tyre's outer walls, its strategic location on an island, and the mainland city as its first line of defense made the city seem invulnerable. In the words of Dr. Fleming, “...Tyre was not only a great city but was considered impregnable.” (The History of Tyre, Wallace B. Fleming, Columbia University Press: New York, 1915, p. 8)

VeniSheckChicolte said...

We see, then, that Ezekiel's prophecy went against the common human wisdom of the day. Had Ezekiel been trying to “make up” a prophecy that would come true, he probably would have tried to predict the fall of a city that seemed a little weaker than the great fortress of Tyre! Instead, Ezekiel pronounced the city's doom, and specifically mentioned many facets of its destruction.

To see just how well this prophecy came true, we only need to consult the history books. According to the ancient historian Herodotus, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, laid siege to Tyre from 585 to 572 B.C. In the siege, Nebuchadnezzar was able to destroy and take the mainland city, but he was unable to effectively attack the island city. As a result, he simply laid a 13-year siege, stopping all supplies from entering the island city. This pressure forced Tyre to accept Babylonian rule, but the island city remained intact. These historical facts are in perfect agreement with the predictions of Ezekiel.

Since Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre occurred very close to when the prophecy is assumed to have been written, this particular prediction is not all that impressive. It's possible the author wrote this “prophecy” after the fact, thereby ensuring its accuracy. Thus, if this were the only prediction made by Ezekiel, it would not be significant evidence for my hypothesis. The prophecy continues, however, as does the history of Tyre.

The prophecy states that many nations, not just Babylon, will stand against Tyre. It states that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city, but it says that “they” will throw Tyre's stones and timbers into the sea. In using the pronoun “they” instead of “he,” the prophecy makes the distinction between Nebuchadnezzar and the others that will stand against Tyre. Thus, the pronoun “they” does not refer to Nebuchadnezzar; it refers to the other leaders who will try to destroy Tyre. As history tells us, other leaders did, indeed, march against Tyre.

In 333 B.C., Alexander the Great demanded that Tyre allow him to occupy the island city. The king of Tyre, Azemilcus, was willing to grant Alexander dominion over Tyre, but was unwilling to let him and his army occupy the city. Alexander was thus forced to attack Tyre in order to gain full control over her strategic location. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Alexander had no fleet with which to attack the island city of Tyre, so he completely destroyed the mainland city and dumped all its debris into the ocean. There was so much debris that Alexander was able to construct a wide bridge of debris from the mainland city to the island city, making it possible for his army to march close enough to Tyre to build siege engines (like catapults) and attack the city.

VeniSheckChicolte said...

The “bridge” (more properly called a “mole”) that Alexander the Great constructed was predicted by Ezekiel almost 250 years before it was built! His prophecy specifically states that Tyre's debris would be thrown into the ocean by someone other than Nebuchadnezzar, and that's exactly what happened! Even the most hardened skeptic would have a hard time arguing that this part of the prophecy was not written down well before the events took place. After all, historians are convinced that the prophecy was written in the sixth century B.C. Even if a skeptic is unwilling to believe the generally accepted date, we know for a fact that the entire Old Testament was copied less than 100 years after Alexander's battle against Tyre. It's very unlikely that a revered document like the Old Testament could be altered so significantly and that the altered version could become generally accepted in less than a century! Clearly, this part of the prophecy had to have been recorded before the events took place.

Figure 2.6

Ezekiel also predicted that many nations would march against Tyre, and that's exactly what happened. After Alexander the Great's conquest, the Seleucidae, the Romans, the Moslems, and the crusaders all took turns conquering Tyre. After all this fighting, Tyre lay in ruins. Today, old Tyre is, indeed, scraped down to bare rock. According to historian Nina Jidejian, “The port [of Tyre] has become a haven today for fishing boats and a place for spreading nets” (Tyre Through the Ages, Nina Jidejian, El-Mashreq Publishers: Beruit, 1969, p. 139, emphasis added).

Think about that for a minute. Ezekiel's prophecy was so precise that it was able to predict the only future use for the city of Tyre – a place for fishermen to spread their nets out so they could dry and be repaired! The prophecy was written down long before Tyre was laid flat by all its conquerors. Only after about 600 A.D. did Tyre become a haven for the spreading of nets. How can all of this be explained? How could Ezekiel have made such an impressive prediction? Was he just really lucky?

If this were the only example of a specific prophecy in the Old Testament that had come true, luck might be a reasonable explanation. There are, however, many such prophecies in the Old Testament.

VeniSheckChicolte said...

That was all one example... I have another one here, not as long... I think. Sorry for the length of the last one, it was a lot longer then I thought.

Okay, the next one is about Judas betraying Jesus. After that, I'll try and list things against evolution.

VeniSheckChicolte said...

For example, Josh McDowell, in his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, outlines eleven other Old Testament prophecies that predict the future of other major cities in the ancient world. These prophecies were all written down before the events took place, and they all came true in the smallest detail! This is very good evidence in support of our hypothesis. After all, how can anyone except the Creator of time know what will happen in the future? The fact that the Bible is so good at predicting future events long before they take place is evidence that it was inspired by God.

The most impressive predictions that the Bible makes however, concern the life of Jesus Christ. These predictions, called the “messianic prophecies,” provide ample evidence for the divine inspiration of the Bible, as well as the validity of the New Testament itself. The single, unifying theme of the Old Testament is God's promise that He would send a Redeemer to the world. Throughout the Old Testament, there are literally hundreds of predictions made concerning the time the Messiah would come, the type of person the Messiah would be, the place from where He would come, and His activities on earth. Once again, we can be certain that these predictions were written down at least 250 years before Christ ever walked the earth, but they are, nevertheless, detailed prophecies that are incredibly accurate.

The most obvious example of the Old Testament's accurate predictions regarding the coming Messiah relates to His birthplace. In Micah 5:2, we read, “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah...from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.” This verse is clearly a prediction that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. We know that this verse is talking about the Messiah and not a human ruler, because of the last sentence. No human ruler's “goings forth” are “from the days of eternity.”

Interestingly enough, however, there is another Old Testament prophecy, found in Hosea 11:1, which says, “...and out of Egypt I called my Son.” Once again, this is clearly a statement regarding the Messiah (no human would be called God's Son in Old Testament times), but this verse predicts that the Messiah would come from Egypt. This seeming contradiction, however, is easily resolved in Jesus Christ. He was, indeed, born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), but He and His parents had to flee into Egypt to avoid Herod's persecution (Matthew 2:14). He ended up staying there until Herod died (Matthew 2:15). At least 250 years before Christ ever walked the earth, his birthplace and flight into Egypt had already been predicted!

The Old Testament's ability to predict events regarding the Messiah doesn't stop there, however. Another excellent example can be taken from Zechariah 11:12-13. In this passage we read:

(quote) I said to them, “If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!” So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.” So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord.
(quote)

VeniSheckChicolte said...

This passage is a lamentation by the prophet Zechariah. He is furious that the people do not value the Lord more highly. In the end, he quotes God as saying that the people think that He (God) is worth only 30 pieces of silver. Those silver pieces are so worthless in God's sight that they should be thrown to the potter in the house of the Lord.

This passage was a bit hard to understand until its words were finally fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the same as God (John 8:58) and was betrayed by Judas for the “magnificent price” of 30 shekels of silver (Matthew 26:15). Once Judas saw what was happening to Christ as a result of his betrayal, however, he returned to the temple (the house of the Lord) and threw the silver pieces on the temple floor in a fit of remorse and rage (Matthew 27:5). The priests, knowing that the money was tainted, did not want to put it back into the treasury, so they purchased a field for the burial of strangers. The field was named “The Potter's Field” (Matthew 27:7).

In the end, then, we see that this lamentation of Zechariah was actually a prophecy of some rather intricate details related to Christ's betrayal by Judas. It is truly incredible to think that more than 250 years prior to this betrayal, the Old Testament was able to predict how much it would cost, what would eventually happen to the money, and even the name associated with the final purchase!

Figure 2.7

If these were the only Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, it would be possible to explain them away as wildly improbable coincidences. According to Josh McDowell, however, there are 332 distinct prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled perfectly in the life of Christ! Such a large number of prophecies, all written down at least 250 years prior to the life of Christ, provides strong evidence that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God!

So, have I just proven that the Bible is the Word of God? OF COURSE NOT! Science cannot be used to prove anything! Have I produced an irrefutable argument with which all scientists would agree? OF COURSE NOT! There are many, many scientific theories that all have strong evidence to back them up, yet they are not believed by all scientists. You see, just because a hypothesis reaches the level of a theory does not mean that all scientists will accept it! If that were not the case, high-temperature superconductors would never have been found. Indeed, many areas of study have several different theories that all compete to explain the same thing! Each theory has a group of scientists who support it and a group of scientists who do not.

What have I done, then? I have applied the scientific method to show that there is evidence for the hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God. This means that belief in the Bible is scientifically reasonable. It does not prove that the Bible is the Word of God, neither does it demonstrate that all other religions are false. It simply shows that there is evidence for such a belief! There is a lot more evidence as well. If you are interested, you can read a book I wrote called Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity. It contains a lot more evidence to support the hypothesis. So much evidence, in fact, that the hypothesis can certainly be raised to the level of a scientific theory.

So you see that science can be used to study virtually any subject. After all, there are only three real limitations to science. First, it cannot be used to prove anything. Second, it is not 100 percent reliable. Third, it must conform to the scientific method. As long as you keep these limitations in mind, your study of science will be thought-provoking, stimulating, and rewarding!

VeniSheckChicolte said...

Okay, so now that I did that, I'd like to start with the evidence against evolution that Nathan and Dr. Reagan pointed out. The Beetle, Giraffe, Snake, Nudibranch, and Owl.

Also, I'm not sure what all your beliefs are, but I know some people believe that Dinosaurs and People didn't live together. Well then, why do we find pictures of Dinosaurs drawn on caves and rock walls? Why would ancient people draw something they had never seen? It doesn't make sense.

And some people say that Dinosaurs (which are reptiles) evolved into birds. Reptiles and Birds have different DNA and body parts. How can you have one turn into another? There would have to be a mixed creature at some point. And how can you have a luke-warm blooded, somewhat hollow-boned, scale\feathered creature thingy.
That's sounds more like something from a story. Like Amphithere, the feathered dragon.

I can't think of anything else right now, but I'll study it. *Yawn* it's late, bedtime soon. Can't think at this time. :D

flippertie said...

Nathan,

Using the ad hominem argument is always the last act of the desperate in a debate. By claiming in the interview with Dr. Martin that I am lying is an example of such a weak tactic.

In my original comment I said you use dishonest means to persuade your readers. That's not an ad hominem attack, it's a criticism of your blog's content and style.

You have admitted that the quotation you used in the first paragraph was not uttered by Dawkins. At least one of your readers (Katie) was misled into taking it as a direct quote from Dawkins.

Your question to Jobe Martin misrepresents Richard Dawkins as 'a closet Intelligent Design (ID) supporter'.

So I stand by what I said about misquoting and misleading.

NB - That is certainly how the movie tried to portray Dawkins. As he has explained, Ben Stein asked if Dawkins could think of 'any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred' and in response Dawkins came up with a 'science fiction scenario' involving aliens etc. It was a hypothetical story and most definitely not Dawkin's own view. Five minutes on Google would have shown you that.


Later you said:
Let's cut to the very heart of the issue for you, Flip and Psi, because you, too, like Dawkins find God offensive. Because of this, you choose not to believe He exists and pretend He's not there as all things created give evidence to.

I can't speak for Psi, but in my case you are wrong. I don't find your god offensive any more than I find Thor, Hermes or Santa Claus offensive.

I don't believe in the Abrahamic creation myth (in any of its Jewish, Christian, or Muslim versions) any more than I believe the ancient Greek or Hindu stories.

You are a Christian because of the environment in which you were raised. For the same reasons most people on the Indian subcontinent are Hindu, and those in Thailand are Buddhist etc.

From the outside there is nothing to make your particular sect more or less believable than any of the thousands of others that people have believed throughout history.

Flippertie

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Nathan,

You said;

"Hardly, Psi. You have neither presented anything that proves Evolution"

I have posted a long list of fields each containing piles of evidence supporting evolution, the fact that you chose to ignore it doesn't make it disappear. I am happy to engage in a civilised discussion of this evidence.

" nor shown that Dawkins' response to Ben Stein is anything more than backpedaling for letting it slip that he finally has to admit intelligence is a requirement for life."

Well if you read what Dawkins said that I posted above then you can see this isn't true. Please try to engage in what I write, you don't have to agree with it but please don't just ignore it, that isn't polite.

At least one of your readers has been mislead by your posting - will you apologise to her? How many other "quotes" on this blog have been made up by you?

"Once a person gives up being willfully ignorant"

Now you really are just name calling.

"and embraces what is clearly evident - that life is too complex to have evolved"

Just asserting something doesn't make an argument - present your evidence for this view and we can discuss it.

"Psi, an exercise for you - for just a day, suspend your disbelief in a Creator and approach everything you do, read, and hear with the notion that it was created. Observe what your conclusions are. This is just a scientific excercise, so nothing's lost."

I have done this several times already,

I don't see evidence for the supernatural, but I am happy to listen to any - looking forward to reading VEni's predictions later on.

I do see evidence agains the god of the bible though, the problem of evil seems insurmountable to me.

Here's a example - earthquakes bury thousands of young kids each year, many of whom die slowly over days whilst in horrific pain.

That just doesn't fit with an all-powerfull, all-knowing, and perfectly good god in my opinion.

Regards,

Psi

PS If you paraphrase someone you really should say you are doing so up front - that's basic good manners in my book

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Veni,

You said;

"And so far, I've been keeping up with what they are saying and it all adds up. "

There comes a point were things have to do more than just being internally consistent, they have to be consistet with the outside reality as well.

Try this;

http://cogitatute.blogspot.com/2009/04/dragon-in-my-garage.html

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

HI Billy,

You asked;

"To help me understand you better could you please say whether or not you are a believer in Christ.

Thank you."

I don't see evidence for the supernatural, but I am happy to listen to any - looking forward to reading Veni's predictions later on.

I do see evidence against the god of the bible though, the problem of evil seems insurmountable to me.

Here's a example - earthquakes bury thousands of young kids each year, many of whom die slowly over days whilst in horrific pain.

That just doesn't fit with an all-powerfull, all-knowing, and perfectly good god in my opinion.

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Nathan,

You made several claims here;

"Let's cut to the very heart of the issue for you, Flip and Psi, because you, too, like Dawkins find God offensive."

I don't think he exists, so how can I find him offensive. Do you find leprechauns offensive?

"Because of this, you choose not to believe He exists and pretend He's not there as all things created give evidence to."

Wow you can read my mind now?

I'll paraphrase your next bit;

You think I will be tortured in hell, with incredible pain every second for all eternity, along with most of the population of the world, including people born into other faiths who lived exemplary lives of giving and goodness but who never met a christian or ever really discussed it. But mass murderers who happen to say the right form of words before they die will be in heaven? And this is run by someone who claims to be all-goodness?

That seem ridiculous on the face of it to me - but perhaps you can explain these apparent contradictions?

"That is the central issue with every atheist. Everything else like Evolution is just smoke and mirrors."

Any actual evidence to back up either of these things?

Doesn't making assertions and never backing up your claims with an argument get boring after a while?

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

I much prefer talking to Katie and Veni, at least they are prepared to engage and discuss things rather than just throw assertions around.

I am aware that I am very outnumbered on this blog so it is going to take quite a bit of effort to get around to everyone's questions.

Please bear with me, I will get to them as soon as I can,

Regards,

Psi

VeniSheckChicolte said...

Psi:
You think I will be tortured in hell, with incredible pain every second for all eternity, along with most of the population of the world, including people born into other faiths who lived exemplary lives of giving and goodness but who never met a christian or ever really discussed it. But mass murderers who happen to say the right form of words before they die will be in heaven? And this is run by someone who claims to be all-goodness?

Me: Psi, God is perfect. That's all there is to it. God didn't CAUSE the earthquake that killed the kids, but he ALLOWED it to happen. Why? Because we live in a sin-filled world that is literally falling apart; Crumbling.
It's not that the good people go to heaven and the bad people go to hell; it's that people who repent go to heaven and those who harden their hearts go to hell.
You think that you're a better person then me? You think Nathan, heartdawg, Billy, Junebuggg, flippertie, RG, Sal, Katie are better then me? Think I'm better then any of them? Nope.
It's really hard to say, or even think, but when it comes right down to it, the people who took down the Twin Towers, are no less a sinner then me and you and everyone in the world. We look at ourselves sometimes and say 'well I'm not perfect, but I'm a whole lot better then that person over there' and maybe by our standards, we are. But God's not going to judge us on OUR standards. He's going to judge us on HIS. And those standards require that you have to be perfect, which, as hopefully all people know, is impossible; without Christ.
That's the whole point of the cross, that's why he came to earth.

Christians are not perfect;
just forgiven.

I know you didn't come hear to be preched to, but... I hope you at least read it.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hey Sal;

I said; "They don't pass on either, they pass on their genes. So if a population of 10,000 cows has just one that has a gene/gene combination that makes it even slightly better at surviving and reproducing in that environment then these genes get passed on to more cows in the next generation."

Then you asked;

"Are you saying the cows are adding information to their genes and dna? How?"

Think of a generation of cows, say 10,000 are born in a year.

They will vary, they are not identical.

The variation is random (more on this in a second).

Some of them will be better adapted to their environment than others by having a better set of genes and so will have more offspring than those that are not as well adapted.

So the random variation generated by sex and DNA duplication errors is selected simply by those that have most offspring having their offspring as a greater proportion of the next generation.

- - -

The random variation generates the "information".

Think of it this way. A beach of sand grains. The position of each sand grain is information.

When a wave hits some of the sand grains move, in the sense you mean this "generates information". It takes no intelligence or planning.

Now think of the sand grains as genes.

Sex is like a big wave mixing up loads of grains.

A mutation is like a sand grain sticking to another to perhaps being shattered into two pieces.

Most of the time such changes are harmful, but sometimes (rarely) they are an improvement. The improvement means more off spring, therefore the improvement spreads in the population.

- - -

I am aware that some creationists have written a maths paper on the subject of information. It has been widely ridiculed by mathematicians as having several major basic errors in it. The creationists have never responded to the mathematicians but seem happy to just keep quoting their paper and ignoring the flaws in it.

This can best way the main flaw can be pointed out is that if we use the creationists particular mathematical definition of information then we can say that leaves falling from a tree and being blown b the wind generate "information".

;-)

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Psi



They will t

Psiloiordinary said...

Hey RG,

You said;

"I think the problem is that you’re comfortable with the idea that the process is simply one of passing on of incalculable and favorable genetic accidents over eons of time to come up with a vastly different entity – for no reason. How does new, meaningful genetic information originate in the vast array of changes between a cow and a whale? "

Can you tell me what you mean by "reason".

Why does the evolution of an organism have to have a reason?

I said;

"…we have observed such information being generated in the lab and in the wild."

You said;

"That would be news to me. "

Well thats exciting for you then isn't it.

I think I linked to Lenski above. The genes to be able to live in in a whole new way off of different chemicals evolved in his lab. He didn't out the information in and it wasn't there before.

He has the genetic analysis showing the information popping up out of random variation - as soon as it did then that bacteria thrived and the beneficial mutation spread rapidly through the population.

The particular mutation he observed took several steps and was therefore the very definition of an irreducibly complex change - and it happened in a petri dish.


You asked this;

"Is it legitimate to demand of evolutionists an explanation for the origin of genetic information?"

Yes. The answer is from the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators.

BTW Abiogenesis is not evolution.

You said;

"The change requires millions of years so, while every stage/organism must necessarily be fully functional, you should still see those stages of development in the fossil record."

No you shouldn't, because the formation of a fossil is a very very rare event, and because evolution can happen over just a few million years (in some cases we have some evidence to suggest that even quite large evolutionary changes that might be detectable in fossils can happen even quicker.

You asked;

"Isn’t that why scientists get excited when they think they’ve found a missing link?"

No, thats because they get chance to learn something and argue with each other about which of their particular pet theories the evidence supports or not ;-)

Cheers,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Hey Veni,

I have a twelve year old daughter ( and two older sons).

I will hold you to that Nobel Prize speech promise!!

Hey man I must admit I was shocked to hear this;

"Okay, so about that list of things that prove the Bible in some ways... I hope you don't mind, but I'm just gonna pull it directly from Exploring Creation with General Science 2nd edition, so anything in the next post, is from that book."

Why would a science book cover off the bible?

Psi

VeniSheckChicolte said...

Psi said: Why would a science book cover off the bible?

Me: Why not?

Junbuggg said...

And still the man dances ~

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi buggg,

if you are referring to me and if you don't think that I have already answered your question then would you please spell it out for me?

Thanks

psi

Nathan Jones said...

Flip, Dawkins said so much more than the summary line (see video exerpt above), so your point that the phrase is misleading is moot.

Psi, you could provide "evidence" of Evolution till you're blue in the face, but since you one work off of a framework that discounts the existence of God and two fail to see the obvious evidence of a Creator in the Creation - your conclusions are all based on faulty assumptions and so they are incorrect and not worth reading.

But, I've read them all out of courtesy (as I read everyone's posts), and have been reading about Evolution for decades. I even was a Theistic Evolutionist back in high school. But, when one looks with an open mind at the evidence for a Creator (see the last month's worth of articles), Evolution is exposed for what it is - a house of cards one hides in to avoid our responsibility to our Creator.

I'm glad Psi, Flip, and Bobxxx have visited us. This is a site about Bible prophecy. Our evidences for a Creator will not convince you guys that God is real, but the fulfillment of Bible prophecy will.

When the Rapture happens and millions suddenly disappear, when Russia-Iran-Turkey are miraculously wiped out when trying to invade Israel, when a one-world ruler emerges out of a world divided into 10 region, remember this article - Jesus Came. What's Next?. Remember I told you ahead of time all this will happen, and that you have this article as your only hope of survival.

Sal said...

Bobxxxx has been making the news!

Junbuggg said...

Psi,
I don't like hijacking the tread, but you said that you did not believe in a creator....God. I have found that most people, like you, that do not believe in God, but evolution without one, also believe in intelligent life on other planets. This is what I was referring to. Do you believe in this?

Nathan,
I loved your last post. That says it all. ;-)

Buggg

Junbuggg said...

Hey Sal,
Ya think it's the same bobxxx???

VeniSheckChicolte said...

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT WAS BOBXXXX!
Man, that is so messed up...

Psiloiordinary said...

Hey Buggg,

Just a quicky - not ignoring the other questions.

I don't know if there are aliens on other planets.

I think that they are possible. I keep an open mind.

What do you think?

Cheers,

Psi

Ia03yaE_1uIoaGvRm4N_1510JZNTB44- said...

re BobXXXX

He's hardly making the prime time news - just the Discovery Institute getting upset that he's abusing them again.

I'd be pretty sure it's the same Bobxxxx - he seems to get the same news alerts that I do and turns up at a lot of the same sites.

He often makes valid points, as in this example:
* Robert Crowther does do PR and journalism, not science.
* The DI (the force behind ID) is funded by fundamentalist Christians
* If they got their way US science education would fall even further behind the rising Asian nations than it already is..

But unfortunately for us all Bobxxx chooses to fill his comments with invective and insult to the point that they're painful to read. I and I guess many others, just tune them out..

flippertie said...

So much for Yahoo and openID....

The previous comment was me trying to automate my login....

flippertie said...

@Nathan
Flip, Dawkins said so much more than the summary line (see video exerpt above), so your point that the phrase is misleading is moot.

The point is not moot - it's the core of why I made my original comment.

It's not just a phrase. They are your words displayed so that most people reading them will believe its a direct quote from Dawkins.

A majority of the people who reach this page will not watch the movie, and will not know the deception used to obtain the clip that so impressed you. They will accept your opinion (it's called 'Confirmation Bias - we all do it).

People will read your 'paraphrase' and believe they were Dawkins words.

They will see your boldface question that asserts Dawkins has become 'a closet Intelligent Design (ID) supporter',

And that is the false impression they will take away from the post - something along the lines of 'Dawkins secretly knows a designer is responsible for life on earth, but he can't believe in god so he says aliens'.

Just look at the first half dozen comments on this thread to see what I mean.

In simple terms : Your post will give most people who read it the false impression that Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design and that aliens started life on earth.

If you did not know you were purveying falsehoods when you wrote the post then the honourable thing to do would be to admit your mistake, and post a correction.

If you did know the real facts when you wrote the post ... well see my first comment on this thread.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Veni,

Sorry it has taken a few days to reply to your biblical prophesy claims.

Unlike Nathan I wanted to read it all thoroughly and give you a thoughtful answer, as unlike him I don’t know what certain evidence means to me until after I look at it.

To start off though you have also said this;

“VeniSheckChicolte said...
Psi said: Why would a science book cover off the bible?

Me: Why not?”

I weep for you Veni.

Science means not starting with any conclusions - look at Nathan’s blog next post.

That really says it all for me.

He starts with his conclusion, this is the antithesis of science.

I will return to this subject after I have spoken about your biblical prophecies, I have a couple of specific bible prophecies of my own for you to think about.

First of all let’s just be certain we do agree that the claim that the bible predicts the future (well the past now) is a huge claim to make and so we must look at this evidence very carefully. Have a read up about David Hume who said;
“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish”

Or more recently I think Carl Sagan said something like;” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

Let’s also just think about the type of claim you are making - a prophesy - and list a few common sense things about such claims that we might want to be able to check about them to be impressed by the claim;

1 - Specific and unambiguous - the more specific the better, dates and times would be impressive for example. Details are what we want.

2 - Made before the event - obvious I know but in here for the sake of completeness

3 - I would also add that it should be surprising i.e. a detailed claim that the sun will rise tomorrow wouldn’t impress many.

4 - Finally, I would say that it should also be unique in the sense that if I make say 200 predictions, then if one came true then you would not be very impressed.

cont . . .

Psiloiordinary said...

. . .OK let’s test the Tyre prediction against these criteria.

1 - No dates given.

Also, bearing in mind these prophesies were written at a time when there was a regular “campaigning season” each year, and cities and states fell with monotonous regularity, how clever is it to say that a certain town would fall at some unnamed date in the future?

Perhaps you can name me a few towns and states in that area that did not get invaded in the centuries since the prediction was made. That would make this prediction more impressive to me. Can you do that?

The naming of the king who invaded was impressive until your own source tells us this;

“Since Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre occurred very close to when the prophecy is assumed to have been written, this particular prediction is not all that impressive. It's possible the author wrote this “prophecy” after the fact, thereby ensuring its accuracy.”

Here is another strange bit of what you posted;

“His prophecy specifically states that Tyre's debris would be thrown into the ocean by someone other than Nebuchadnezzar, and that's exactly what happened! Even the most hardened skeptic would have a hard time arguing that this part of the prophecy was not written down well before the events took place.”

I might be described as a hardened sceptic (English spelling) and I am not impressed with a prediction that someone other than someone that wasn’t even born and who might have been written in after the event, would sack a city in a time when all cities were almost constantly at war.

I would also point out that making a prediction that a coastal city will be a place for fishing isn’t that clever either.

So scratch number 1 - subject to you answering my question above.

2 - Well let’s give you this one even though bits of this are in question even from your own source. However the fact that this is not specific or unambiguous does rather pull the rug out form under the weight of this criteria.

cont . . .

Psiloiordinary said...

. . .

3- Not looking good here again I’m afraid unless you can show me how other cities/states have not ever been attacked in this way and somehow Tyre stands alone in having fallen (;-)). Now that would be impressive. This is essentially the same question I asked you about point 1 above.
I agree with you that the prophesy meets this criteria at the time it was made, but it clearly doesn’t now.

4 - You can help me with this one Veni. How many predictions does the bible make? How many of them didn’t happen? (or haven’t yet?) I guess that you might claim that they are all true, you might even go to Nathan’s extreme position and say that If even pen is shown to be false then god doesn’t exist. The huge majority of Christians on the planet, and all of my Christian friends, don’t agree with this. To name a couple of famous ones; the pope and the archbishop of canterbury.

- - -


So anyway, come back to me on this and if you can either show me where I am wrong, or admit that this one doesn’t hold water then I will move on to your next one. OK?

To try to be fair I will take something from the Bible that I guess you have been told is literal truth and see where that takes us scientifically speaking.

Here is your starting point;
“All humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off the Ark”

That means a maximum of 16 different versions of each gene. (we all have two you see, one from your mother and one from your father)

Bearing in mind several folks on this very post have already claimed or implied that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation", there should not be any more than 16 versions of any one human gene.

However the evidence shows that some genes have over 400 different versions.

So here are some questions for you;

Where did these extra versions of genes come from.

Where did the extra information come from if it wasn’t from the process I described above?

(NB to work over the 4,000 years since the flood, your explanation needs to account for a beneficial mutation once every 10 years.)

I would also like to know what has stopped this breakneck speed of change just at the time we have developed the technology to spot it happening?

I look forward to your responses.

Finally, I would point out that my own children have learned about science without reference to any holy book and that they have also learned about the other religions in the world.

Perhaps you haven't been told but all the other religions make very similar claims to truth and the vast majority of them claim such prophesies as proof/evidence.

So I could also legitimately ask to you tell me what if different about your own claims. I don't think this would be fair though as I fair that you own education is sadly lacking in religious content regarding other faiths.

I will respond to your claims about evidence against evolution next.

Best regards,
Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Nathan said this;


"Psi, you could provide "evidence" of Evolution till you're blue in the face, but since you one work off of a framework that discounts the existence of God and two fail to see the obvious evidence of a Creator in the Creation - your conclusions are all based on faulty assumptions and so they are incorrect and not worth reading."

This is just you making up position and is perhaps best described as simple prejudice.

The pope and the archbishop of canterbury have no problems with evolution.

Your own church had no problems with an old earth until the 1920's. Are you allowed to access to your own sects history?

Regards,

Psi

Sal said...

You tried to explain away 4 prophecies but you have another 105 bible prophecies that were literally fulfilled by Jesus to go. There are nearly 500 about Jesus second coming.

Growing up I had all sorts of classes on world religions. Christians are taught a lot about other religions so we can know how to share Jesus with them better.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Sal,

You said;

"You tried to explain away 4 prophecies but you have another 105 bible prophecies that were literally fulfilled by Jesus to go. There are nearly 500 about Jesus second coming."

Well no actually I only addressed the first one that Veni told me about. I await his comments on my analysis.

Perhaps you can tell me what you think of my comments on that one? Have I made any mistakes?

Which is the strongest prephecy i.e. the one with the best evidence, in your view.

It seems to me that we might as well start with your best one!


You also said;

"Growing up I had all sorts of classes on world religions. Christians are taught a lot about other religions so we can know how to share Jesus with them better."

Good. That means you know that the other religions claim the same kind of prohecy evidence as does christianity.

Can you tell me why you accept the christian claims and not those of other religions. They seem very similar to me. What differences do you see?

Regards,

Psi

PS Is it me or has it gone quiet around here?

Flippertie said...

I'd like to believe you reasoned them into submission, and they're busy re-evaluating their worldview in the clear light of reality, but somehow I doubt that's the case..

Sal said...

Reason doesn't change hearts only the Holy Spirit working in people.

We've moved on to other topics. Have you even read anything else on this site?

You wanted other examples of Bible prophecy fulfilled... The Future Has Arrived!.

Katie Hesselton said...

I apologize in advance for such a long post:

Psiliordinary said “1 - Moon drift. This does in fact fit with known physics and is consistent with the currently estimate age of the earth at 4.6 billion years and the most popular current thinking on the origin of the moon i.e. a collision shortly after that time with a mars size body (this explains the make up of moon rocks as well BTW). This also fits with ageing of moon rocks, earth rocks and asteroid bodies.”
Here is what I found:
The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a NOVA special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphrey’s work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are quoted below.
The reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the previous one. In the same paper (Humphreys, 1990, p. 137), I discussed the non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded by saying the total energy of the field would still decrease.
Despite these creationist answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance of our responses, but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate for the energy lost from the dipole part.
I said, “hope,” because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes and support creationist models." 27 Emphasis Added
Psilioridinary said: “Magnetic field decay is answered byt he rotation of the material in the core, this in itself is backed up by the “bar coding” of the rocks in the ocean floor showing repeated flipping the magnetic field. Again these calculations all fit with the ageing of these rocks, again by several different methods. Again lots of independent lines of evidence all lining up together when they didn’t have to - so we think we might be on the right lines here”
Here is what I found:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This "results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon." This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth. The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; however, according to Physicist Donald B. DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.

cont'd

Katie Hesselton said...

Psiliordinary said: ocean chemicals/salinity - Whilst this was an object a century or two ago we have much more data now and this issue just melts away - we see cycles of such chemicals into and out of other “reservoirs” in the earth and atmosphere. Why do you think this makes the earth young?
Here is what I found:
“As noted, geologists concluded that the chemical composition of sea water and the ocean floor sediments is principally a product of the weathering of continental rocks. If this weathering of rocks was a very short time phenomenon, then one would expect to find far different proportions of elements in sea water than are found within the average rocks of the continents.
This seems logical since some rocks erode more easily than others, and therefore easily erodable chemicals should be most abundant in sea water. Differences in relative chemical proportions would also be due to other variables, such as the fact that some elements are not as readily transportable by rivers and ocean currents as others, and some are less soluble in water than others.
Nevertheless, if the duration of erosion was long enough, elements in the sea water and on the sea floor should quite accurately coincide with the chemical content of continental masses. Even the hardest of rocks would be eroded, and even the least transportable of materials would ultimately be carried by the rivers to the sea.
Thus when scientists talk about millions of years, on a world-wide basis, the proportion of one element in the sea water and on the sea floor to all other elements in the same environment should be approximately the same radio as that element to all other elements in the continental masses, for in a very general way all the mass must somehow be conserved.
Fortunately, scientists have determined rather accurately the chemical composition of both the sea water and the land masses. Sverdrup et al prepared a table showing the amounts of various chemicals that should have entered the oceans during a period of 260 millions of years. This is the estimated length of time which would be reqwui4ed to provide the present quantity of salt in the ocean water, assuming uniform weathering throughout this period of time.
He mentions an estimate by Goldschmidt in 1933 that accumulation of the present concentration of salt (NaCl) in solution would have required weathering of 600 grams of rock for each kilogram of water in the ocean.
For example, in a kilogram of sea water there is on the average about .5 mg. of aluminum in solution. This is only .001% of the estimated 53,000 mg. expected if weathering had continued for as long as 260 million years, the estimated time required to provide the observed amount of salt.
In fact, one concludes there is a total lack of relationship between the chemicals in the oceans and the continents.”
*Sverdrup’s table: http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/oceans/oceans.html
Psiliordinary said: “Good. That means you know that the other religions claim the same kind of prohecy evidence as does christianity.”
Well, the quran was written hundreds of years after the most recent portion of the bible was written, so Muhammed could have well been influenced from biblical prophecies. Honestly, not so sure about similar prophecies found in other religions but, please enlighten me.
Finally, while it may not have been a great idea to put a paraphrase in quotations, I still believe that Nathan Jones was not trying to mislead his readers and provided what he truly thought was the meaning of the statement in question.
In Him,
Katie

Nathan Jones said...

Katie, Islam did indeed borrow heavily from Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism.

Here's Dr. Reagan's article on Islamic Eschatology.

Katie Hesselton said...

Thank you Nathan.
I just read the article you provided and, wow, very interesting!
I had heard that Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, but had no idea he played such a big role in their end time- or near end time prophecies. Some very strange sayings of Mohammad were mentioned that really surprised me. For example, the islamic writings that state that Mary is the mother of Jesus and sister of Moses- very strange indeed!
Katie

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Folks;

Veni said this;

"Okay, so now that I did that, I'd like to start with the evidence against evolution that Nathan and Dr. Reagan pointed out. The Beetle, Giraffe, Snake, Nudibranch, and Owl. "

Feel free to either point me at the posts or to quote which bits you think are strong evidence against evolutionary science.

"Also, I'm not sure what all your beliefs are, but I know some people believe that Dinosaurs and People didn't live together. Well then, why do we find pictures of Dinosaurs drawn on caves and rock walls? Why would ancient people draw something they had never seen? It doesn't make sense."

I have seen some of these pictures Veni, but I haven't seen any that were very like dinosaurs, can you show me some that you think are accurate.

People do make pictures of things that they haven't seen. We have paintings of aliens but do you think they are all real?

A picture of something or even just a written description of something isn;'t counted as strong evidence because people have quite a record for making things up. In science even experimental results or measurements are not widely accepted until they have been duplicated by different folks.

"And some people say that Dinosaurs (which are reptiles) evolved into birds. Reptiles and Birds have different DNA and body parts. How can you have one turn into another? There would have to be a mixed creature at some point. And how can you have a luke-warm blooded, somewhat hollow-boned, scale\feathered creature thingy."

Have you seen the fossils of the creatures you describe? They are very beautiful. Do a google and have a look - or go to a museum and see them for yourself.

Your comment about the blood temperature is very intelligent - we aren't sure about dinosaurs being cold blooded and more evidence is being discovered that they were warm blooded after all.

As new evidence is discovered, scientists change their minds and try to get closer to understanding nature in this way. This is a huge strength of science and it also makes it very exciting.

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Veni,

I don't mind your preaching- here is some right back at you;

Veni said this;

"God didn't CAUSE the earthquake that killed the kids, but he ALLOWED it to happen."

Yes I understand that you think he has the power to stop this suffering but doesn't - if I did think he existed then I would judge him to be evil because of this.

I don't think it is just or fair to judge people for things that they haven't done.

No justice system in the whole civilised world thinks this either.

I don't think hell exists. I see no evidence for it.

I think that people who are good to avoid going to hell are not as good as people who are good because they want to be.

So I feel superior to you just as you feel superior to me.

I think that we should make our own standards of justice within the framework of a democracy and that we should think about this very carefully and that we should always be prepared to review our judgements in the light of new evidence.

I think that this would be better than being owned and created puppets who need to be threatened with eternal torture if we are not good.

Cheers,

Psi

Nathan Jones said...

What makes us not puppets is that God gave us a free will to choose Him or not. That choice has consequences, though, for our rebellion/sin separates us from God and sentences us to the punishment intended originally for the rebellious angels - Hell.

Acceptance of Jesus' loving act of taking the punishment for us by dying on the cross exonerates us before God and allows us to spend eternity in joy with Him.

We always have a choice, but in the end we must live with the consequences.

Psiloiordinary said...

A lovely sane choice to offer - do as I say or be tortured for eternity.

This is immoral behaviour isn't it?

Regards,

Psi

Nathan Jones said...

That's the crux of it for atheists, isn't it Psi? I've been told on a number of occasions by professing atheists that they don't like the "choose God or not" choices, and wish there was a third "just leave me alone" choice.

Since God is the creator of morality, then His behavior can never be immoral. And that's why man rebels against God. They don't like it that He's in charge and makes the rules, and they hate God for that.

You hate God for that, too, don't you, Psi? Never verbally will you say it, but in your heart you know you hate God, and that continued hatred and rebellion will one day sentence you justly to Hell.

It doesn't have to be that way, Man. Let God have His props. He's earned it by giving you life, and proved His love by dying for you so that you can live forever. A God who made you and loves you can't be that bad, right?

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Nathan,

Yes Nathan that is it - I think that this behaviour of your god is immoral.

- - -

Katie,

Sorry it has taken me a while to getting around to reading your postings - Real life gets in the way sometimes doesn't it?

I think your ocean salinity stuff appears to be nonsense - sorry. Where did you get it from?

Here are a few examples of what I mean;

"Nevertheless, if the duration of erosion was long enough, elements in the sea water and on the sea floor should quite accurately coincide with the chemical content of continental masses"

This is illogical. The chemical content in the oceans depends upon the rate at which each chemical goes into the oceans and the rate at which it leaves it.

This simply ignored in the extract you have quoted.

When you carefully measure all this for lots of different chemicals they all agree with an old earth.

Do you see what I mean?

Regards,

Psi

Nathan Jones said...

You would choose to literally go down in flames rather than to play by God's rules, Psi? Sounds like such a hollow and pointless victory.