need more proof, try this link....


www.askelm.com/temple/t000701.htm

bigkahuna said:

: I just think you're hilarious man.

Why am I not surprised?

Self-deprecating humor in the face of overwhelming proof of error is common.

Readers will continue to note your complete avoidance of discussion of evidence.

AlanF

mkeverydaycnt said:

: Alan... why are you here?

Why is there air?

AlanF

Alan, just for the record, I had a post typed and ready to post this morning when "poof" a power failure hit and I lost the whole thing. No time to redo it because I had to leave for work.

I'll give you an answer, but then I think I will be done with you. All you want to do is attack and not discuss.

I have seem plenty like you, as you seem to hold a similar opinion of Christians, you friends notwithstanding. And also for the record, yes, Jesus is the Messiah. But, since you were raised JW, I have a much better understanding of your vehemence toward Christ.

And sadly, for all your library, you don't understand, or are unwilling to understand. But you are not alone, there are lots of people in your camp.

Astute readers will note I am keeping my word about this debate

Just out of curiousity, Alan, why are you on Marriage Builders? You have posted nothing anywhere but on this thread and none of it is related to infidelity in your life or anything other than an attack on Christ and creation as a model for "how things got here," so what is your motivation for being here and how did you come to find this site, let alone this ONE thread among hundreds?

Gee....I don't know. Perhaps lack of time. Perhaps better things to do. Perhaps fate. Perhaps because some don't care how "fast" you want a response.

Perhaps because we don't care what you think or what you think because you've made it obvious you want an adversarial conflict and not a real discussion.

Just speculation, of course, because I'm not a mindreader.

Have you guys read your own Bill of Rights lately. Sheesh, it's nearly July 4. Isn't that when you celebrate your freedom to discuss a subject like this without fear of someone tracking you down and MAKING you believe something?

I'm a New Zealander (so wouldn't really know what the American version is) but I'm sure it says in there somewhere about freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc.

Come on someone, quote it to me. You all grew up with it.

The Bill of Rights:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This thread has really gone to pot lately.... I'm loathe to post when there is such a horrible antagonistic spirit around...what happened?

I think that Fh deserves an answer so I'll be brief (huge pile of marking for tonight...)



Yes, he wasn't much of a scientist. In any case, his work, while no doubt novel in 1880, has been totally superceded today. As a scientist, he was a great artist!



I guess I don't understand exactly what 'evidence' you mean in this context. Also, could you please explain what you mean by 'creation model', in this context?



Ditto with this one... what exactly do you mean by 'evolution model' and 'creation model', in this context?


These are interesting questions. It really depends on how you define 'living'. As you no doubt know, viruses can reproduce and have a genetic sequence, so in that sense, they are 'living'. On the other hand, they require another organism, because they must insert their genetic sequence into that of another organism to reproduce...so do they 'become' that other organism, during the time when their RNA is a part of the genetic sequence of another organism?? Its really a philosophical question.

I felt really sad reading this, FH. Its personal for me. I wonder how or where you developed such a poor opinion of how science and scientists work.
It guess it may be partly our fault. IMO scientists as a group have failed to communicate well about what we do with the public.
Actually, before I even address this at all, I would like to ask what basis you have for saying this?

Its important to me, because sadly, this seems to be a symptom of science education on the decline in many western countries. I think one of the best gifts we can teach children is to have intellectual curiosity, to develop a natural fascination with how and why things work, to have open minds and to know how to think critically and come to conclusions for themselves. Now more than ever.

What ARE you talking about? Who is "tracking" down whom and how can they "make" them believe anything? huh? Is there a congressional member on this thread? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Come on Alan... thought there would be a quick and "educated" comeback to the evidence you have yet to discuss....
Hmmm... perhaps you are scanning some of your dog eared 4000+ library for a sharp retort!

KiwiJ - let me get this straight, you think asking someone WHY they are posting is some sort of attempt to "infringe upon their rights of free speech" in the US Constitution?

First, at this point I don't even know if (I assume you are referring to AlanF) is a US Citizen where the Constitutional protections and provisions would be applicable, but,

Second, asking someone WHY they post in no way, shape, or from, denies them the right to post whatever they want to post.

But the WHY gives us a better understanding of the person's motivation and intent. It's quite "okay" with most folks to "bash" Christians and their beliefs when they scream "bloody murder!" if a Christian dares to disagree with them, let alone oppose them and THEIR faith in something "unproven."

I am surprised with you KiwiJ. I would have thought if anyone might understand the "value" in knowing "why" and in being able to discuss rather than fall into an emotional, reactive, tirade about actions and/or speech that "differs" from someone else's belief in "what is right and what is wrong," it would BE a repentant WS who has had first hand knowledge of the pitfalls of "thinking emotionally and rationalizating one's choices."

For the record KiwiJ, I (I can't speak for others) have NO "fear" that anything AlanF or anyone else might say could "MAKE" me abandon my faith in Jesus Christ. The First Amendment notwithstanding, I would ask you in return "why is teaching creation as a Model of Orgins so vehemently opposed by evolutionists when the same Amendment ALSO provides for the protection of such speech (Congress shall make NO law PROHIBITING the FREE EXCERCISE of...)?"

There is NO question about it, they are "into" the abridgement of rights of many people. They are into "brainwashing" into ONE and only ONE way of thinking based solely upon their rejection of a creator and the subsequent Creation Model and then attempting to force all scientific inquiry to "conform" to their way of thinking. Why do you think it's so hard, if not impossible, for papers to be accepted for publication in the so-called "peer reviewed" journals? Rather than examine the science, they reject out of hand anything that does not support an Evolution Model. Then they claim, "see, it's not been published in one of OUR journels, therefore it's 'bad science'."

Here, on this thread we have already seen the same thing. A request was made for SCIENTISTS (degreed) to offer a "different" interpretation of the data than evolution, and when two such papers were presented for discussion the "answer" was, "well, I'm not even going to read the first one and the second one I'm simply rejecting out of hand as 'drivel.'" So, when one doesn't like what one hears, the "answer" is to denegrate it and NOT discuss it. THAT is "open-minded?" THAT is not attempting to "censor" an opposing idea without discussing the relative merits of the ideas, results, data interpretation? Just who is attempting, in your view, to "limit free speech?"

It certainly has NOT been me. I am willing to discuss, despite what I might think is the ultimate futility of such a discussion, the TWO Models of Origins regardless of whether or not I agree with any given poster.

As an example, in the case of AlanF's attempt to TELL me what I believe and what I was asking about in the Mt. Everest example, HE ASSUMED an incorrect position and then went on to "bash" HIS assumption of what he thinks I believe. Rather than discussing the issue, he jumped to conclusions (wrong ones by the way) and set up a "straw man" for him to attack. Others have "bought into" his false assumptions (like 2long) and have jumped on the bandwagon of attack.

This is typical evolutionist zealous behavior and not unexpected. It uses emotional responses, faulty logic, and outright fabrication in some cases as "proof" of their preconceived presupposition.

In any event, this thread was set up to DISCUSS opposing beliefs in the areana of attempting to explain "what we see and find" through scientific inquiry into the world around us. TRUTH is truth regardless of what anyone believes and all we are attempting to do is to see how the data CAN be interpreted by either model with the least amount of manipulation in so far as Science can use the scientific method and careful analysis of what IS found.

Ultimately, NEITHER creation nor evolution can be "proved" scientifically and is relegated to a "belief system," a "faith" in something, be it unthinking random processes of nature or the conscious and deliberate action of a living creator. It is "faith in something outside the control of man." In short, it IS a "religious" belief regardless of how "nauseating" or "frightening" that term might be to some staunch evolutionists.

Dr. smur - Actually, before I even address this at all, I would like to ask what basis you have for saying this?

I would submit that my "basis" for this is rather clear. The often violent and uniform opposition to presenting the Creation Model along with the Evolution Model in schools is "beyond question" and proof of that "restriction of thought" is abundant.

Furthermore, in a "microcosm" of that bias, this thread, with a few notable exceptions, is NOT willing to discuss the Models. They resort to name calling and denegration of ideas as the "proof" that the data can only be interpreted from an Evolutionary model. I suspect, though I have no empirical evidience to cite, that such attempts to "shut up the opposition" is founded in a "fear" that if a creator exists then many other "beliefs" not directly related to science may be called into question. Ultimately the existence of a creator WOULD call into question many things that have their basis in "Molecules to Man" and only random chance accounting for people. There is, in short, "no higher authority than man himself, individually," on any number of subjects from morality to "life after death."


I felt really sad reading this, FH. Its personal for me. I wonder how or where you developed such a poor opinion of how science and scientists work.

Okay. It's personal for me too. I wonder where so many staunch evolutionists developed such a poor opinion of scientists who also hold to a Creation Model and the careful scientific work and analysis that they do?

To set the record straight, it is NOT a poor opinion of "how science and scientists work" that at issue. It is with the presupposition that many scientists "bring to the table" that I have question. Suffice it to say for now, many of the leading scientists of the past, who believed that God created an "ordered" and "purposeful" creation, were the leaders in scientific inquiry BECAUSE of their belief in God. Their "presupposition" if you will was that in "following after what God has already done" they could uncover what God actually did and how things "work."

Today, many scientists begin with premise that God did NOT create and that only random chance accounts for not only the universe, but the diversity of LIVING things that arose through the gradual process of evolution in a "molecules to man" sort of trial and error approach. There is no proof of that, just more speculation and assumption because that is WHAT the Evolution Model requires.


I think one of the best gifts we can teach children is to have intellectual curiosity, to develop a natural fascination with how and why things work, to have open minds and to know how to think critically and come to conclusions for themselves.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I wonder why it is that the "critical thinking" is ONLY "correct" if it presents only the Evolution Model? There is not one creationist who argues for NOT teaching the Evolution Model, unless like some evolutionists, they are just reacting emotionally. Creationists would argue for the presentation of BOTH Models of Origins precisely FOR the reason you state.

On a personal level, I was indoctinated into the "evolution only" model as a student majoring in Biology. It frankly was not until I examined Jesus Christ and accepted him as my Lord and Savior that I had to "go back" and reexamine what I was taught as "undoubtable truth" about evolution. That was because I had been, "brainwashed" if you will, into thinking there could be NO alternative to evolution, even though evolution as a model is based in presupposition, not in "scientific method" proof.

That's one of the reasons I want to read the article you cited. I DO like to "see all sides" now and keep abreast of new discoveries, not just the "evolutionary interpretation" of it.



Edited to add: By the way, I really liked your previous post and intend to respond. I will have to delay that response a little bit simply because I have used more time this morning in responding already, and must get some work done. In the meantime, with respect to viruses, how does evolution account for viruses who could NOT exist, or at least NOT reproduce, without the cells of complex living organism existing prior to the "appearance" of a virus. In simpler terms, why wouldn't "natural selection" select OUT a virus long before the needed cells evolved to support their "invasion" and use of the host cells DNA to reproduce it?

ISTM to be possible to argue otherwise, and that the distinction between the buildings of the Temple and the retaining walls of the Temple Mount makes Jesus' prophecy technically true.

As I said, it's a quibble, but so (to be fair) is your assumption that Jesus could not possibly be speaking figuratively.

Jesus speaks of the sun rising, but I wouldn't take that as proof of a geocentric universe, either. Although I don't doubt that He believed in one, or (more probably) took it for granted.

I couldn't imagine. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

OK, I am lying - I can guess. In pursuit of this -

I have mentioned a couple of times the fact that evolutionary theory has an explanation for the similarity between the DNA of humans and other great apes. Creationism, apparently, has none.

Would you please take a crack at using creationism to explain the observed fact? If it helps, feel free to pretend that your ICR guy's assertions of 90% similarity are correct.

Failing that, perhaps you could cite some prediction that has been (or could be) made based on creationism that contradicts a prediction made by modern evolutionary theory, and that turned out to be correct.

Something like "If creationism were correct, and all the dinosaurs died in the Flood, one would predict that all the different varieties of dinosaur would tend to be found buried in roughly the same strata. Those that were found in different strata would likely have some determinable cause for their displacement. Whereas, if evolution were correct, then the tendency would be reversed - different varieties of dinosaurs would tend to be buried in different strata, and these strata would correspond globally. And it would be more common to find some determinable cause if the strata seemed to be disturbed."

And then show that the first prediction was true and the second false. Something like that.

Regards,
rs0522

From AlanF:


Hmmmm. Time to take this back to some of the principles that we work with here on MB. One of them is that we are supposed, according to the Terms of Service, not deal out what's known as "LoveBusters" to one another.

Among them are disrespectful judgements and selfish demands, as well as angry outbursts.

There are at least four people who have posted to this thread in violation of those requirements. That includes folks on both sides of this debate, and I am not pointing fingers at anyone.

I am going to say, however, that this is a pattern -- a cycle -- of the kind of disfunction that can become inherent in a marriage.

(I happen to hold beliefs that are more similar to Alan's than to FH's or bigkahuna's, just so we're clear on where I am in all this.)

I also happen to believe, because I have seen it work astonishingly well, in a technique called Compassion Power, which is something Dr. Steven Stosny teaches to all kinds of folks, something he originally taught to violent offenders in domestic violent cases. (Stosny was raised Catholic and is now a PhD psychologist. I have no idea how he feels about evolution and creationism.)

One of the most fascinating things about the research on human responses to anger is the one that you just named. If you are negative to someone, there is an almost 100% chance that they will be negative back. On the other hand, if you're positive, about 70% of the time you'll get a positive response back.

Thusly, all of the name-calling (from both sides), ranting, raving, and verbal abuse is almost guaranteed to provoke negative responses. We are extraordinarily lucky here at MB; there are a whole lot of folks who've lived through nightmares and their ability to stay grounded in the middle of a fight has been honed by their experiences. 2Long, for example, did not rant and rave when he very well could have. Nor did smur (thank you, smur, for your ongoing intelligent contributions to this thread).

So I will end with this thought.

"Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. (1 Peter 3:8-10) (Emphasis added.)

I'd ask that we stop beating each other up with our words. It benefits none of us.

Here:

"Regardless of any "tie" to a religion, or religions, the Creation Model is an alternative "explanation" of how things "got here" and the data should be considered in the light of both models as we search for the truth. "

is one of the keys.

There IS NO data 2 support the so-called "creation model" (really creationism, a belief system) so there is nothing 2 consider.

"special creation," as it was unders2d over 100 years ago when evolution was first discovered, was unable 2 fit the observations, so it fell out of favor - it was "falsified" at that time.

When an idea is wrong, particularly when it's proven repeatedly 2 be incorrect over the next several generations, it stays wrong. Good scientists, or anybody for that matter who were "fond" of an old idea for whatever reason, are willing 2 move past it on2 other topics when that idea is demonstrably incorrect, knowing that no real harm has been done, as it's all a part of the process of understanding the world around us.

It was never about evolutionists "attacking" specific or general religious thinking.

So, this discussion shouldn't be about evolution versus creationism, it should be about whether the very different approaches 2 understanding our world and our selves in it - religion and science - need be at odds.

Methinks there's no problem. Never really been one, except in the imaginations of some.

-ol' 2long

This reminds me of our friend Appy, a scientific as well as a very religious man (you too of course 2long, although we'll replace religious with spiritual in your case).

He once posted that the more he learns in the scientific world the more in awe he is of life and our world...the beauty and mystery (my words, not his but what I think he meant).

When a person becomes truly spiritual, these questions lose all meaning because they live in a constant state of wonder and awe...but until we can get to that state (by a change in perception), it seems like we look for proof upon proof so that we can open our eyes.

I once worried about proof before I could believe...now I believe and worry not at all.

It matters not to me what form God is any longer, because all around me I see God, and as you said 2long, I see it in creation...but I don't look with my eyes any longer, I look with my heart and the wonders I embrace are indescribable with words.

Well I'm rambling...again. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well, howdy weaver!