Hey!? I agree Richard's ideas are "real", but are you suggesting that comments made by Dan K and myself are not "real"? And if so, which comments and why?
A new short video on some scientists/mathematician conversion from evolutionary belief to skepticism and disbelief in evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKPKuk6gF-4 This is part 2 of a new series by Ian Juby who interviews these individuals, Dr. Jerry Bergman, with several PhD degrees and masters degrees associated with genetics and medicine, and Alan Bergman, an actuarial mathematician. This is interesting and enlightening from several perspectives. In one case the change from atheism to belief in God accompanied the examination of the scientific evidence, and in the other case, the change from a sort of irrelevant theism to an understanding of Christ as Lord of Life, and how that opened up the eyes to the revelation of nature and the inconsistencies of evolutionary theory.
"...Scott and Branch say about Safarti's MO -- he agrees with the arguments of two evolutionists disagreeing with each other and uses this as evidence that evolution is wrong. If it's true, it's "parasitic science" indeed."
I have not seen this so far in his book. I have not seen that he uses the mere fact that evolutionists disagree with each other as evidence that evolution is wrong. His sense of logic is too strong for that. I don't know where you get "parasitic science" as a concept in this instance. Scientific conclusions almost always rely on other work, and Safarti gives credit, and even agrees with many experimental evidence and initial conclusions of evolutionary scientists. He agrees that there is natural selection within populations, for example, but does not agree that it is proof of evolution. I don't know if scott and branch are merely displaying their bias, but based on your comments alone, I would say that they are.
Norman, the latest reports indicate there is a five % difference. "But using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them."(David DeWitt). In addition, to get this 5% difference, many pieces of the DNA are not included in the calculation for various reasons. When you include everything, you tend to get a similarity of between 81 to 87%, according to other scientists(CMI). This is what an evolutionary mindset does; it assumes a great similarity and so refuses to consider obvious or potential dissimilarities. Other reported differences: ICR reports that chimp genome is 10% larger than human genome, the y chromosome is less than 70% similar.
The issue in this discussion is not the size of the difference. The issue is the evolutionary a-priori assumption of similarities even when only a small part of the genome was initially studied. The issue is ignoring obvious dissimilarities as if they are inconsequential. The issue is how the research is reported in terms of its bias. How often have you heard that the difference between the chimp and human y chromosomes is as different as between human and chicken? (J.F. Hughes - Nature 463)
Eventually, truth and significance is discovered. But it is in spite of the evolutionary paradigm, not because of it.
Of course, one would also expect genetic similarities even without evolution; that is something not so commonly considered. After all, why would morophological and physiological similarities not be caused by genetic similarities?
Excellent response. Our mission efforts should include muslims for sure! God and the angels in heaven rejoice much over the one in 100 who is lost when he is found! So do we. And we should pray!
The larger question is how we deal with our perceptions of muslim culture, the violence, beheading, shariah, etc., when we must as citizens make decisions about how to deal with it. This is not much different in some ways than how we deal with practicing homosexuals or fornication or abortionists, or adultery by unbelievers, while at the same time witnessing to them and showing Christ's love. Except that this also of course has more serious ramifications in terms of shariah, polygamy, death sentences for dress code violations, "consequences", terrorism, suicide bombing, etc. Well, maybe not more serious than abortionists, but you get the idea... If muslim culture gains more control over more countries, the opportunities to witness for Christ will decrease more and more, don't you think?
As human beings, we are often prone to looking at the problems rather than the opportunities. I wonder whether it is at least as valid for us in north america to look at potential opportunties that climate change might offer us, as well as the increased risks and costs of climate change. For example, we presently have three to eight months of winter in most of north america. Siberia also has long winters, which are costly in terms of heating needs , short growing season for crops, frost damage to roads and equipment, need for additional clothes and housing, etc. Longer summers in some of those areas will allow more crop production to take place, and will reduce heating costs. Other opportunities might be to increase housing in temperate climates, and to reduce winter vacation travel to warmer climates further south.
We are often inundated with the potential problems and hazards of climate change; but can you think of potential opportunities that climate change might offer us?
Okay, I agree Richard is very open, and humble. But authentic? Everyone is authentic, especially here, I think.
I have just gone through a Meyer's Briggs personality analysis, and have found it interesting how people of certain personality types relate to other personality types. It is important to realize that being open to change, and being humble, does not make a person more "real" or authentic. They are just different. The fact that people are different, means they respond differently to different things and to different approaches. Some people react with their feelings, while other people react with their logic and thinking processes. People that are openly emotional are not more "real" than those who control the expression of their emotions; they are just different people. But it is important to realize how you react to something.
If you react to someone's expression of love with cold logic, rather than with emotion, you will fall into the trap of suspicion.
On the other hand, if you react to someone's expressions of details and facts and logic with an emotional reaction or with an expression of "feeling" about the personality of that person, then you will cause suspicion and frustration in the other person.
So the reason I asked why you thought Richard was more real, was not really to discover your feelings so much as to find out how you would substantiate that statement. So I can see he is more real to you in a very subjective sense; it is simply how you "feel", but I cannot see how that applies to the discussion of whether we ought to consider emphasizing teaching more creation alternatives rather than going with and being swallowed up by the general cultural flow of evolutionary teachings. Maybe you could make the connection and clear that up for me.
I do not have scott hozee's book.... and would need a justification for getting it.... I would prefer your synopsis of the idea expressed in it.
Interesting recent news from London is that some scientists have discovered that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, thus putting Einstein's theory of relativity into a non-absolute finality. It is this type of thing that keeps me humble about the state of our knowledge at any given time. The fact that gravity can bend light, and also this new information about things faster than the speed of light demonstrate that theories we hold about "deep time" and past uniformity of present observed processes are always subject to the discovery of new information. In addition, any new information is also subject to subsequently as-yet undiscovered information. (We don't know what we still don't know. But God does know. )
Rinsen, you said, "I mean, how in the world can you argue with his "best" argument against Creationists about shared genes? ""
You didn't specify the entire argument. But the way I normally hear the argument about shared genes is that since genes can be transferred from one species to another, or since genes in some species are similar to some genes in entirely different species, these species must somehow be related, and must have descended from a common ancestor. It is an old argument. (Correct me if I am wrong in this summary of the common genes argument).
It seems to be a good argument since genes are instrumental in formation of structures of organisms. However, all genes are made of the same types of materials; they are just organized in different sequences. If you want to use the argument of shared genes or common genes, it is as valid to say that because all organisms are made of carbon compounds (thus the term "organic" is related to complex carbon molecules), they must have come from a common ancestor.
It would in essence be like saying that all living things on earth must have originated from a common ancestor simply because they are living.
The counter argument to that is that the same creator created all living things because He used a common materials and common genetic patterning process.
The E theory postulates that because a certain type of car looks like another type of car and is made of the same type of metal or plastic, it must have been made at the same factory. We know that isn't true, although we also know it was likely designed in one office.
Shared genes are consistent with evolutionary theory. But shared genes are not inconsistent with creation science.
The biggest problem with evolutionary theory still remains. We do not see it in the fossil record; there is a lack of intermediaries in proportion to existing and fossil species. We also do not see it occurring today in a consistent and dominant way; only we see what we think "might" be evolution occurring sporadically and rarely here and there. Predictions of missing links are consistently proved wrong. There is more speculation than proof about various intermediary species. Conclusions about ancient prehistoric fossils are shown to be wrong when the same type of animals still exist today (such as coelanth). Even radio active dating methods are not determinative, and have been found to be interpreted in various ways (because they rely on certain assumptions), and are made subject to the demands of the theory.
For all these reasons, we can conclude that there is no preponderance of evidence for evolution. The only preponderance of evidence is in the eye of the believer. Say it often enough and you will believe it. Say "preponderance of evidence for evolution" often enough, and you will begin to believe it, but that doesn't make it so.
Often Creation is referred to as a myth. Here is an Ian Juby youtube video, episode 11 or 12 showing how it is actually evolution that is more of a myth. youtube.com watch?v=UB0cjZMVjOo&list=UU23yiJV4Bkagj5dkH-UyHFA&index=1&feature=plcp
Well said, Bert. It reminds us of how all the commandments are so closely connected.
Marie, I would suggest that you try this for war, environmental damage, and poverty and see what happens. I could think of a couple of differences, however, depending on motive, knowledge, and responsibility. For example, war might be defensive to protect the innocent; how would that compare to agressive war to indulge imperialism? Or environmental damage from ignorance or to save lives, vs deliberate destruction with no purpose? Or poverty caused by others, vs poverty caused by sloth and sluggardly behaviour (as Proverbs mentions). Abortion is an action; war is an action; poverty is a result of actions; environmental damage is a result of actions. Hard to compare exactly.
No one, at least not me, is making light of it. But there are indications it has already happened. Growing seasons, frost-free period has already changed/increased in the last 100 years in western Canada. However, only concentrating on the negatives means we are not looking at opportunities. Besides which, our solutions will be found in the opportunities, and not by wallowing in the challenges/negatives.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Hey!? I agree Richard's ideas are "real", but are you suggesting that comments made by Dan K and myself are not "real"? And if so, which comments and why?
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
A new short video on some scientists/mathematician conversion from evolutionary belief to skepticism and disbelief in evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKPKuk6gF-4 This is part 2 of a new series by Ian Juby who interviews these individuals, Dr. Jerry Bergman, with several PhD degrees and masters degrees associated with genetics and medicine, and Alan Bergman, an actuarial mathematician. This is interesting and enlightening from several perspectives. In one case the change from atheism to belief in God accompanied the examination of the scientific evidence, and in the other case, the change from a sort of irrelevant theism to an understanding of Christ as Lord of Life, and how that opened up the eyes to the revelation of nature and the inconsistencies of evolutionary theory.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
"...Scott and Branch say about Safarti's MO -- he agrees with the arguments of two evolutionists disagreeing with each other and uses this as evidence that evolution is wrong. If it's true, it's "parasitic science" indeed."
I have not seen this so far in his book. I have not seen that he uses the mere fact that evolutionists disagree with each other as evidence that evolution is wrong. His sense of logic is too strong for that. I don't know where you get "parasitic science" as a concept in this instance. Scientific conclusions almost always rely on other work, and Safarti gives credit, and even agrees with many experimental evidence and initial conclusions of evolutionary scientists. He agrees that there is natural selection within populations, for example, but does not agree that it is proof of evolution. I don't know if scott and branch are merely displaying their bias, but based on your comments alone, I would say that they are.
Hope you enjoy your fishing.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, the latest reports indicate there is a five % difference. "But using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them."(David DeWitt). In addition, to get this 5% difference, many pieces of the DNA are not included in the calculation for various reasons. When you include everything, you tend to get a similarity of between 81 to 87%, according to other scientists(CMI). This is what an evolutionary mindset does; it assumes a great similarity and so refuses to consider obvious or potential dissimilarities. Other reported differences: ICR reports that chimp genome is 10% larger than human genome, the y chromosome is less than 70% similar.
The issue in this discussion is not the size of the difference. The issue is the evolutionary a-priori assumption of similarities even when only a small part of the genome was initially studied. The issue is ignoring obvious dissimilarities as if they are inconsequential. The issue is how the research is reported in terms of its bias. How often have you heard that the difference between the chimp and human y chromosomes is as different as between human and chicken? (J.F. Hughes - Nature 463)
Eventually, truth and significance is discovered. But it is in spite of the evolutionary paradigm, not because of it.
Of course, one would also expect genetic similarities even without evolution; that is something not so commonly considered. After all, why would morophological and physiological similarities not be caused by genetic similarities?
Posted in: What Is the Real Impact of Muslim Relations?
Excellent response. Our mission efforts should include muslims for sure! God and the angels in heaven rejoice much over the one in 100 who is lost when he is found! So do we. And we should pray!
The larger question is how we deal with our perceptions of muslim culture, the violence, beheading, shariah, etc., when we must as citizens make decisions about how to deal with it. This is not much different in some ways than how we deal with practicing homosexuals or fornication or abortionists, or adultery by unbelievers, while at the same time witnessing to them and showing Christ's love. Except that this also of course has more serious ramifications in terms of shariah, polygamy, death sentences for dress code violations, "consequences", terrorism, suicide bombing, etc. Well, maybe not more serious than abortionists, but you get the idea... If muslim culture gains more control over more countries, the opportunities to witness for Christ will decrease more and more, don't you think?
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
As human beings, we are often prone to looking at the problems rather than the opportunities. I wonder whether it is at least as valid for us in north america to look at potential opportunties that climate change might offer us, as well as the increased risks and costs of climate change. For example, we presently have three to eight months of winter in most of north america. Siberia also has long winters, which are costly in terms of heating needs , short growing season for crops, frost damage to roads and equipment, need for additional clothes and housing, etc. Longer summers in some of those areas will allow more crop production to take place, and will reduce heating costs. Other opportunities might be to increase housing in temperate climates, and to reduce winter vacation travel to warmer climates further south.
We are often inundated with the potential problems and hazards of climate change; but can you think of potential opportunities that climate change might offer us?
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Okay, I agree Richard is very open, and humble. But authentic? Everyone is authentic, especially here, I think.
I have just gone through a Meyer's Briggs personality analysis, and have found it interesting how people of certain personality types relate to other personality types. It is important to realize that being open to change, and being humble, does not make a person more "real" or authentic. They are just different. The fact that people are different, means they respond differently to different things and to different approaches. Some people react with their feelings, while other people react with their logic and thinking processes. People that are openly emotional are not more "real" than those who control the expression of their emotions; they are just different people. But it is important to realize how you react to something.
If you react to someone's expression of love with cold logic, rather than with emotion, you will fall into the trap of suspicion.
On the other hand, if you react to someone's expressions of details and facts and logic with an emotional reaction or with an expression of "feeling" about the personality of that person, then you will cause suspicion and frustration in the other person.
So the reason I asked why you thought Richard was more real, was not really to discover your feelings so much as to find out how you would substantiate that statement. So I can see he is more real to you in a very subjective sense; it is simply how you "feel", but I cannot see how that applies to the discussion of whether we ought to consider emphasizing teaching more creation alternatives rather than going with and being swallowed up by the general cultural flow of evolutionary teachings. Maybe you could make the connection and clear that up for me.
I do not have scott hozee's book.... and would need a justification for getting it.... I would prefer your synopsis of the idea expressed in it.
John
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Interesting recent news from London is that some scientists have discovered that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, thus putting Einstein's theory of relativity into a non-absolute finality. It is this type of thing that keeps me humble about the state of our knowledge at any given time. The fact that gravity can bend light, and also this new information about things faster than the speed of light demonstrate that theories we hold about "deep time" and past uniformity of present observed processes are always subject to the discovery of new information. In addition, any new information is also subject to subsequently as-yet undiscovered information. (We don't know what we still don't know. But God does know. )
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Rinsen, you said, "I mean, how in the world can you argue with his "best" argument against Creationists about shared genes? ""
You didn't specify the entire argument. But the way I normally hear the argument about shared genes is that since genes can be transferred from one species to another, or since genes in some species are similar to some genes in entirely different species, these species must somehow be related, and must have descended from a common ancestor. It is an old argument. (Correct me if I am wrong in this summary of the common genes argument).
It seems to be a good argument since genes are instrumental in formation of structures of organisms. However, all genes are made of the same types of materials; they are just organized in different sequences. If you want to use the argument of shared genes or common genes, it is as valid to say that because all organisms are made of carbon compounds (thus the term "organic" is related to complex carbon molecules), they must have come from a common ancestor.
It would in essence be like saying that all living things on earth must have originated from a common ancestor simply because they are living.
The counter argument to that is that the same creator created all living things because He used a common materials and common genetic patterning process.
The E theory postulates that because a certain type of car looks like another type of car and is made of the same type of metal or plastic, it must have been made at the same factory. We know that isn't true, although we also know it was likely designed in one office.
Shared genes are consistent with evolutionary theory. But shared genes are not inconsistent with creation science.
The biggest problem with evolutionary theory still remains. We do not see it in the fossil record; there is a lack of intermediaries in proportion to existing and fossil species. We also do not see it occurring today in a consistent and dominant way; only we see what we think "might" be evolution occurring sporadically and rarely here and there. Predictions of missing links are consistently proved wrong. There is more speculation than proof about various intermediary species. Conclusions about ancient prehistoric fossils are shown to be wrong when the same type of animals still exist today (such as coelanth). Even radio active dating methods are not determinative, and have been found to be interpreted in various ways (because they rely on certain assumptions), and are made subject to the demands of the theory.
For all these reasons, we can conclude that there is no preponderance of evidence for evolution. The only preponderance of evidence is in the eye of the believer. Say it often enough and you will believe it. Say "preponderance of evidence for evolution" often enough, and you will begin to believe it, but that doesn't make it so.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Often Creation is referred to as a myth. Here is an Ian Juby youtube video, episode 11 or 12 showing how it is actually evolution that is more of a myth. youtube.com watch?v=UB0cjZMVjOo&list=UU23yiJV4Bkagj5dkH-UyHFA&index=1&feature=plcp
Posted in: The Law of God and Abortion
Well said, Bert. It reminds us of how all the commandments are so closely connected.
Marie, I would suggest that you try this for war, environmental damage, and poverty and see what happens. I could think of a couple of differences, however, depending on motive, knowledge, and responsibility. For example, war might be defensive to protect the innocent; how would that compare to agressive war to indulge imperialism? Or environmental damage from ignorance or to save lives, vs deliberate destruction with no purpose? Or poverty caused by others, vs poverty caused by sloth and sluggardly behaviour (as Proverbs mentions). Abortion is an action; war is an action; poverty is a result of actions; environmental damage is a result of actions. Hard to compare exactly.
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
No one, at least not me, is making light of it. But there are indications it has already happened. Growing seasons, frost-free period has already changed/increased in the last 100 years in western Canada. However, only concentrating on the negatives means we are not looking at opportunities. Besides which, our solutions will be found in the opportunities, and not by wallowing in the challenges/negatives.