tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post823441134306442609..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Study: The Human Brain Has an Almost Ideal Network of ConnectionsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63170468001261067512015-07-12T08:21:26.975-07:002015-07-12T08:21:26.975-07:00Louis,
"I believe that every New Testament b...Louis,<br /><br />"I believe that every New Testament book with the exception of the book of Revelation was very likely tampered with in the first few centuries of the Christian era."<br /><br />So God is not capable of insuring that his word is transmitted to us accurately and that this accuracy is maintained through the generations?<br /><br />Were they tampered with, or only very likely tampered with?<br /><br />"I discovered years that several of the books of the Bible, such as Ezekiel, Zechariah and Revelation, contain world changing scientific secrets hidden in plain sight with the use of clever metaphors. From what I've been able to figure out so far, one message has to do with fundamental physics and the other with the brain. They were meant for our age and they will transform the world in very radical ways. That's all I can say for now."<br /><br />Ahhh, yeah, Okay. I'll look forward to your book.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61654085028303482972015-07-11T23:33:00.433-07:002015-07-11T23:33:00.433-07:00Well, I must say that explains a lot.
I believe ...<i>Well, I must say that explains a lot. </i><br /><br />I believe that every New Testament book with the exception of the book of Revelation was very likely tampered with in the first few centuries of the Christian era. There has always been evil men in the Churches. They left Revelation alone because they had no clue as to what it means. And even then, that did not stop them from conjuring up all sorts of cockamaie interpretations.<br /><br /><i>In what way?</i><br /><br />I discovered years that several of the books of the Bible, such as Ezekiel, Zechariah and Revelation, contain world changing scientific secrets hidden in plain sight with the use of clever metaphors. From what I've been able to figure out so far, one message has to do with fundamental physics and the other with the brain. They were meant for our age and they will transform the world in very radical ways. That's all I can say for now. Take it or leave it. Have a good one.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6383393406183785682015-07-11T21:44:52.298-07:002015-07-11T21:44:52.298-07:00Louis,
"There is a lot of crap in the Bible,...Louis,<br /><br />"There is a lot of crap in the Bible,..."<br /><br />Well, I must say that explains a lot. <br /><br />"I'm doing a lot more than you might suspect."<br /><br />In what way?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56625920712507181112015-07-11T15:36:45.177-07:002015-07-11T15:36:45.177-07:00Nic
The question is not what he could or could no...<i>Nic<br /><br />The question is not what he could or could not do but what he said he did</i><br /><br />Here's the problem Nic.<br /><br />On one hand you've got a collection of 2000 year old stories written by fallible men, translated by fallible men, re-translated by fallible men, re-re-translated by fallible men, added to by fallible men, deleted from by fallible men, interpreted by fallible men, re-interpreted by fallible men.<br /><br />On the other you have a whole <b>planet's</b> worth of scientifically verified physical evidence that clearly show a very old age for the planet (4.5 BY), a very old age for life on the planet 3+ BY), and clear branching patterns of morphological changes in those life forms over the 3+ billion years. <br /><br />Some people desperately want to believe their 6000 year old Earth interpretation of scripture is correct but that means the <b>*billions*</b> of contradictory pieces of evidence must somehow all be wrong. The scientific evidence, much of which was found by Christian researchers, doesn't claim to show there is no God or that God wasn't involved. Evolution isn't religious and doesn't make any claims about religion. It's just a science that only makes factual statements and conclusions about what we have empirically seen and measured.<br /><br />As one songwriter very eloquently put it:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw" rel="nofollow">Humans wrote the Bible, God wrote the rocks</a>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91858058912166731952015-07-11T15:35:35.754-07:002015-07-11T15:35:35.754-07:00Nic,
You're preaching to me from the Bible. T...Nic,<br /><br />You're preaching to me from the Bible. The Bible is not my god. I don't worship it. There is a lot of crap in the Bible, IMO. I use the Bible like I use any other book, for reference only. I don't trust everything I read in it.<br /><br />The only thing that Yahweh asks of me, AFAIC, is faith. That is all. Everything else, including even the righteousness of forgiveness that you seem to be so proud of, has to be given to me. If I don't have righteousness, it's because I never had any to begin with and it has not been given to me yet. I'll wait. I'm happy for you and Cornelius that you already received your portions.<br /><br /><i>I hope you can change your attitude as I think you could contribute something worthwhile.</i><br /><br />I'm doing a lot more than you might suspect.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27743505156254574752015-07-11T14:39:18.885-07:002015-07-11T14:39:18.885-07:00Louis,
"They have offended something else, s...Louis,<br /><br />"They have offended something else, something much greater than me,..."<br /><br />And He asks you to forgive those that trespass against you, as you have trespassed against Him and He has forgiven you. He certainly does not need you to feel offended for Him, He asks you to treat your fellow man with respect and kindness. Heaping ridicule does not accomplish that.<br /><br />I hope you can change your attitude as I think you could contribute something worthwhile.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34603345156121676112015-07-11T13:47:41.018-07:002015-07-11T13:47:41.018-07:00Cornelius:
No, that has already been done, many t...Cornelius:<br /><br /><i>No, that has already been done, many times over. You greatly misunderstand the heart (Mt 11:16-19).</i><br /><br />Oh, I understand them alright. They are delusioned. But I disagree that this has been done over and over in the case of Darwinism. Something is indeed coming very soon that will blow everybody's socks off, including yours, BTW.<br /><br /><i>More importantly, and to Nic's point, you also show no signs of forgiveness, which is job one. If you can't do that, nothing else matters.</i><br /><br />You're preaching to me, Cornelius. Don't do that. I, too, have my own doctrine and I can do the same to you: <br /><br />These people don't need my forgiveness. They have not offended me. They have offended something else, something much greater than me and that pisses me off. So I'm like David, "Who are these uncircumcised heathens (i.e., jackasses) that they should challenge the Lord Yahweh of Israel."<br /><br />That's my take on it. I would point to chapter and verse but I hate doing that and you know what I'm talking about. And please don't talk to me about turning the other cheek or other such Christian favorite (the work of the Devil, really) because I will respond with the Proverbial, "there is a time for everything."<br /><br />Continuing on this tangent would be a useless waste of our time.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20318496072956312772015-07-11T12:24:21.435-07:002015-07-11T12:24:21.435-07:00Louis:
a new discovery that blows everybody's...Louis:<br /><br /><i>a new discovery that blows everybody's socks off</i><br /><br />No, that has already been done, many times over. You greatly misunderstand the heart (Mt 11:16-19).<br /><br />More importantly, and to Nic's point, you also show no signs of forgiveness, which is job one. If you can't do that, nothing else matters.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81310978017711411212015-07-11T11:37:05.442-07:002015-07-11T11:37:05.442-07:00Nic,
You are wasting your time. There is nothing ...Nic,<br /><br />You are wasting your time. There is nothing constructive about arguing with a Darwinist unless you're just doing it for fun. There is only one thing that will defeat the government funded Darwinist propaganda machine and that's a new discovery that blows everybody's socks off, scientists and laymen alike. Good luck.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46906321383736106732015-07-11T09:57:53.889-07:002015-07-11T09:57:53.889-07:00Louis
"I just want to heap ridicule on all d...Louis<br /><br />"I just want to heap ridicule on all dirt worshipers, day in and day out."<br /><br />I must say, Louis, I am disappointed in your attitude. The point is not to 'heap ridicule' on anyone. It is to explain in a concise, decent and respectful manner the reasons evolutionary thinking does not stand up to scrutiny.<br /><br />Friendly banter is one thing; Thornton and I had a great time doing that; but heaping ridicule is counter productive.<br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53645306006790839632015-07-11T09:52:24.004-07:002015-07-11T09:52:24.004-07:00ghostrider,
"Theistic evolution is accepted ...ghostrider,<br /><br />"Theistic evolution is accepted by many more Christians worldwide than special Creation,..."<br /><br />Have you got support for this claim?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22988089291063076572015-07-11T09:49:56.532-07:002015-07-11T09:49:56.532-07:00ghostrider,
"Couldn't an omnipotent God ...ghostrider,<br /><br />"Couldn't an omnipotent God use evolutionary processes to produce the life forms He wanted?"<br /><br />By asking this question in this way you seem to be implying God could have created ex nihilo but simply chose not too. Is that correct?<br /><br />Being omnipotent God could create in any manner consistent with his nature. <br /><br />The question is not what he could or could not do but what he said he did.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16588887268506461142015-07-11T01:18:10.305-07:002015-07-11T01:18:10.305-07:00"Natural selection produces nothing. Accordin..."Natural selection produces nothing. According to the real evolutionary theory, natural selection does not and cannot influence any design changes."<br /><br />Yes, that's quite right. Natural selection can only potentially explain why a biological entity survived, not how it emerged, because by definition it only selects for survival that which already exists.Alethinon61https://www.blogger.com/profile/09826280552590911315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32377309790610414542015-07-10T23:14:55.059-07:002015-07-10T23:14:55.059-07:00Except I just spelled it out clearly right above.
...<i>Except I just spelled it out clearly right above.</i><br /><br />No you did not. You spelled out Aristotelianism. You don’t understand your own belief system.<br /><br /><br /><i>It's also spelled out clearly in countless freshman biology textbooks and numerous places online, such as at the U. of California / Berkeley's Understanding Evolution site<br /><br />Misconceptions about natural selection</i><br />http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32 <br /><br /><br />First line: “Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations …”. <br /><br />Classic Aristotelianism. <br /><br />Natural selection produces nothing. According to the real evolutionary theory, natural selection does not and cannot influence any design changes. If a mutation occurs which improves differential reproduction, then it propagates into future generations. Natural selection is simply the name given to that process. Natural selection has no role in the mutation event. It does not induce mutations, helpful or otherwise, to occur. Every single mutation, leading to every single species, is a random event with respect to need, requirements, design principles, etc.<br /><br />This dogma is essential to evolutionary theory. It is the core theoretic which must be protected at all costs. Gradualism, common descent and every other sub hypothesis can be forfeited and from time to time have been thrown under the bus to protect evolution’s core theoretic which is Epicureanism—no god or gods would have intended or created this world. This entails a rejection of final causes, teleology, design, creation, etc. Darwin’s book was full of religious claims which were handed down from previous centuries and the evolutionary literature is no different, from Le Conte to Coyne and all the apologists in between. Simply put, evolution is a theodicy (though there is much more to the underlying theology at evolution’s foundation) where God must be distant from the world. Evolution is a religious theory and the religion mandates unguided, random creation.<br /><br />This is why evolution must be a fact. The insistence of evolutionists that there can be no question of this fact, itself, reveals the dogma.<br /><br />Only religion could have erected and mandated such a prima facie ludicrous idea. Evolution isn’t even wrong. It is the height of scientific absurdity.<br /><br />This is why evolutionists have devised ersatz renditions of their idea. Their language is teleological and natural selection is portrayed as a creative, productive process. Evolutionists will also say that God uses or guides evolution. All of this is contradictory to evolution’s core theoretic which evolutionists promote when the coast is clear.<br /><br />So you have the real evolutionary theory which is strictly ateleological and random. It has produced a long and growing list of false predictions. Every fundamental prediction from the past has turned out false. And of course it has no explanation for how the world could have spontaneously arisen, as it claims. It is our modern mythology and dwarfs all the rest. From a scientific perspective, it is utterly ridiculous.<br /><br />And then you have the for-public-consumption versions of the theory which seek to hide the shame and absurdity with makeup.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2751062250830960412015-07-10T23:11:05.816-07:002015-07-10T23:11:05.816-07:00This YEC would not want to find a better connectio...This YEC would not want to find a better connections in us relative to any creature. This implies, if so, our intelligence is of the material world. Yet the bible says its immaterial. its our soul that does the thinking. No brain is needed except for a material existence. Therefore I think its just a memory machine. the memory is a real thing and is the only thing that van break down relative to human thinking ability.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37837241545057130142015-07-10T23:11:00.227-07:002015-07-10T23:11:00.227-07:00This YEC would not want to find a better connectio...This YEC would not want to find a better connections in us relative to any creature. This implies, if so, our intelligence is of the material world. Yet the bible says its immaterial. its our soul that does the thinking. No brain is needed except for a material existence. Therefore I think its just a memory machine. the memory is a real thing and is the only thing that van break down relative to human thinking ability.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79458166958475262015-07-10T21:30:25.767-07:002015-07-10T21:30:25.767-07:00That's the theory, but they can't spell it...<i>That's the theory, but they can't spell it out clearly because it is so untenable</i><br /><br />Except I just spelled it out clearly right above.<br /><br /><b>Evolution isn't a completely unguided, random process of chance. There is a random component to the genetic variations that occur but there is also a non-random component of feedback from the local environment that influences which random changes get kept and added to the gene pool for future generations. </b><br /><br />It's also spelled out clearly in countless freshman biology textbooks and numerous places online, such as at the U. of California / Berkeley's <b>Understanding Evolution</b> site<br /><br /><a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32" rel="nofollow">Misconceptions about natural selection</a> <br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84347137711006888912015-07-10T21:18:05.828-07:002015-07-10T21:18:05.828-07:00PhillyMike
The math on "the chance of a 200 ...<i>PhillyMike<br /><br />The math on "the chance of a 200 component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion." from The mathematical Impossibility of Evolution But hey! The Laws of Probability shouldn't ruin a good story, right?</i><br /><br />Sorry but anyone who claims they can calculate a probability of evolution occurring is talking out of their nether regions. No one has near enough information about historical events to do even a rough calculation. You'd need to know the exact number of possible outcomes and the exact number of successful outcomes. You also can't calculate the probabilities associated with an iterative feedback process like evolution from a one time snapshot. You need a detailed history of every iteration, of every generation. The feedback provided by the environment makes the probabilities of success much greater than random chance alone, just like draw poker gives you a better chance at a good hand that just a straight five card deal.<br /><br />Arguments for probability are just another poor attempt by creationists to cast doubt on the solid science they don't understand.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51088809115125741462015-07-10T20:38:11.096-07:002015-07-10T20:38:11.096-07:00Doesn't sound like much of a life to me, but i...Doesn't sound like much of a life to me, but if it brings happiness to your otherwise dreary existence, don't let me stop you. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71873550022108325372015-07-10T20:24:03.790-07:002015-07-10T20:24:03.790-07:00and too bad I can't edit for spelling and such...and too bad I can't edit for spelling and such...ohandy1https://www.blogger.com/profile/07374693723371788011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16518696523363468702015-07-10T20:22:00.317-07:002015-07-10T20:22:00.317-07:00Couldn't an omnipotent God use evolutionary pr...<b> Couldn't an omnipotent God use evolutionary processes to produce the life forms He wanted?</b><br /><br />I see two problems with this logic.<br />First, this implies an interventionist God which renders ToE impotent. It becomes impossible to draw a line between the natural selection/naturalistic mechanisms and the intervention of God. It even implies a creative process which places the naturalistic power of evolution in precedence over God who is relegated to nudging and tweaking.<br /><br />Second, there is no place in academia for this concept, presumably due to the issues brought up by problem one. This notion is entirely up to your imagination since it's not even acknowledged by any curriculum I'm aware of in any level of education. ToE is only ever used to replace God, not empower him.<br /><br />The comment I replied to was <b>"its really too complicated to have evolved naturally then it has obviously been designed"</b>. <br />My point was that this very logic is employed by evolutionists in the form <b>it lives therefore it evolved</b>. There are countless examples of this logic throughout this site and that's one of the things that draws me back here. I had never before read the original published papers, only the textbooks and articles meant to "interprete" them for public consumption. How often are "must haves" and "could haves" translated to "did" in textbooks? Wild imagination often becomes fact in a school textbook which I never understood before.<br /><br />p.s. I think my first reply was better but in true blogspot fashion it disappeared without reason. too bad this blog isn't proprietry and could be moved to a WordPress platform.ohandy1https://www.blogger.com/profile/07374693723371788011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58365074207563605232015-07-10T19:15:30.455-07:002015-07-10T19:15:30.455-07:00Who says I want to have a civil discussion with th...Who says I want to have a civil discussion with the likes of you? I just want to heap ridicule on all dirt worshipers, day in and day out.<br /><br />LOLRebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11385605757846190792015-07-10T18:55:47.512-07:002015-07-10T18:55:47.512-07:00"Man, give it a rest. You are out of your lea...<i>"Man, give it a rest. You are out of your league. You people have mediocre intellects. You are nothing but a bunch of dirt worshippers.</i>"<br /><br />Hi Mapou. If you think that you can have a civil discussion without resorting to Joe style nonsense, please let me know. Until then, have a nice weekend. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12963101472140130762015-07-10T18:40:08.017-07:002015-07-10T18:40:08.017-07:00Tonsa,
Man, give it a rest. You are out of your l...Tonsa,<br /><br />Man, give it a rest. You are out of your league. You people have mediocre intellects. You are nothing but a bunch of dirt worshippers.<br /><br />The probability of anyone existing is exactly 1. The probability of life arising out of dirt via random chemical interactions is exactly 0. The probability of a single cell evolving into an elephant over tens of millions of years is exactly 0. Why? Because random transformations are orders of magnitude more destructive than they are constructive. It takes a certain kind of order to create functionality but order cannot ever be born out of chaos because destructive forces always kills dead it before it's even born. The only way to create order is to have a system that seeks order and is immune to destructive forces.<br />Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9768926758572447472015-07-10T18:06:09.503-07:002015-07-10T18:06:09.503-07:00"But hey! The Laws of Probability shouldn'..."<i>But hey! The Laws of Probability shouldn't ruin a good story, right?</i>"<br /><br />Let me ask you a question. What is the probability that you, as the unique person you are, should exist? I challenge you to do the math. The odds of the one ova that was your mother's contribution being fertilized are small. But they are exponentially dwarfed by the fact that you are also the product of one of your fathers millions of sperm cells. Then add the odds that your mother and father would actually get together. <br /><br />At this point, the probability is extremely low. Now add the probabilities going back several generations. It doesn't take many generations before the probabilities become astronomical. <br /><br />But the fact is, the probability that you exist is one. You exist. <br /><br />My point is that arguing using probabilities is a dangerous game. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.com