FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » New Human Genome Discoveries Argue Against Evolution (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: New Human Genome Discoveries Argue Against Evolution
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's a good point, JanitorBlade. If there were no death, there could be no evolution. Evolution requires death. Creation does not.

Also, the way I understood it, when God created man, the Son of God pledged Himself as Surety for man, something like a co-signer. God of course knew what would happen, who would fall into sin, etc. But foreknowledge does not take away free will, and make it happen. I believe God created Lucifer first, knowing he was the one who would get it all started, so God could get dealing with sin over with as soon as possible, so the whole universe would finally be secure--even though filled with beings who had free will so they could truly love--for all eternity.

Sean, it happens every time a man and a woman have a baby girl.

Tinros, I think you are confusing science with the scientific method. I see no reason to make any concessions to the atheistic version of philosophy of science. Many people do not realize that is what they are doing when they buy into a philosophy of science where basically you cannot know anything for sure, and there can be no authoritative outside Sources of knowledge. If the Creator of the universe gives you His own testimony, is it sensible or even sane to ignore it, and call that close-mindedness science? What is sensible and sane is to evaluate that testimony, the way we weigh evidence in courtrooms, by establishing the credibility of the witnesses, and by comparing the testimony of other witnesses. Especially by testing to see if prophetic predictions concerning the basic outline of history are correct, given in the archival source of knowledge about the Creator.

Mr. Squicky, I think you may be just a bit presumptuous in calling God barely intelligent, just because you think it would be better if God had not used basic forms and adapted them for His purpose, rather than create each individual discretely in every way in every case.

I have heard of a case where a man has actually been able to produce small amounts of milk, when his wife died and he let the baby suck at his nipple. So maybe the fact that men also have the mammary ducts and glands is potentially useful.

There also appear to be in the genome of most species a library of alternate characteristics that are switched off by genetic switches, but can become turned on when those characteristics are needed to allow the species to thrive in a new environment. These used to be dismissed as "junk DNA." I have said before that this should be testable--complete analysis of the genome of related species (like woves and collies) should reveal if the unique DNA that produces the variation was present in whichever was the progenitor. This would mean that God not only created each unique species, He also created in each species the capability for adaptation and variation. Thus when God created the wolf (assuming that was the progenitor), He also created the collie, the airdale, the cocker spaniel, the greyhound, and all the other hundreds of kinds of dogs. How much intelligence do you think that took? And if we determine that the genetic code for all these variations are indeed on the original progenitor genome, then that means that genetic characterists that were not expressed were created. This would be an impossibility for evolution theory to account for, because natural selection could not operate to produce characteristics that are not expressed to begin with.

[ January 13, 2011, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Sean, it happens every time a man and a woman have a baby girl.

Uh, no, it is not the case, every time a man and a woman have a baby girl, that the baby girl has two X chromosomes that have both come from the male parent.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sean, one X chromosome comes from the man, and one X chromosome comes from the woman. True, that is not overtly the same thing as taking two X's from the man, but since the X chromosome is the same in a man and in a woman, it is the same thing in principle.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mr. Squicky, I think you may be just a bit presumptuous in calling God barely intelligent, just because you think it would be better if God had not used basic forms and adapted them for His purpose, rather than create each individual discretely in every way in every case.

I have heard of a case where a man has actually been able to produce small amounts of milk, when his wife died and he let the baby suck at his nipple. So maybe the fact that men also have the mammary ducts and glands is potentially useful.

But, again, that makes no sense. God created Adam with nipples, and, like you said, Eve would never had died without the Fall.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Sean, one X chromosome comes from the man, and one X chromosome comes from the woman. True, that is not overtly the same thing as taking two X's from the man, but since the X chromosome is the same in a man and in a woman, it is the same thing in principle.

But is it in practice? Do you know that a viable embryo could be produced with two X chromosomes from the father?

I brought it up, because I seem to recall reading (I think in 'Genome' by Matt Ridley, though I'm having a hard time tracking it down) that such an experiment has taken place, and a viable embryo could not be produced. If memory serves me correctly, an embryo with two X's from the mother was not able to form a spine correctly, and miscarried. An embryo with two X's from the father was not able to attach to the uteran wall.

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I swear, I'm going to make another Dr. Price thread if this keeps up.

I lol'd
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the Creator of the universe gives you His own testimony, is it sensible or even sane to ignore it, and call that close-mindedness science?
That's a pretty huge "if."
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob the Lawyer
Member
Member # 3278

 - posted      Profile for Bob the Lawyer   Email Bob the Lawyer         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sean, it has been successfully done with mice. I remember studying it back in 2000 -- it's not new science. I believe I've written about it here, but it was a long time ago and I haven't been in science for years now.

Not just the x-chromosomes either, but the entire genome can come from two fathers or two mothers. There are, of course, complications. There isn't a 50/50 shot of getting one parent's genetic information. Some genes are "gendered", for want of a better term, and if you lack a "male" and a "female" copy, interesting things happen.

Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting, Bob, thanks. I must be remembering something incorrectly.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not just the x-chromosomes either, but the entire genome can come from two fathers or two mothers
But Ron seems to be saying that Eve was created from two identical x-chromosomes taken from Adam (she couldn't have two daddies, because there was only one human with one x). So basically, she would have one chromosome duplicated.

How on earth could that work?

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is some serious angels-on-pin-heads stuff here. Ron believes in an actually omnipotent God. He can do *anything* that he wants. He could make it work with 32 copies of X and a breakfast burrito if he wanted to.

In a world where God can do absolutely anything, there is nothing that can't be explained by simply saying "God wanted it that way" including the idea that the photons from stars that appear to be billions of years old was created en route at the same moment the stars themselves were created, around 10,000 or so years ago.

So questions like "how on earth could that work" are sort of beside the point unless you think God must follow some rules beyond his own will.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I know. But Ron was specifying something reasonably coherent here and I was just thinking about how that could possibly go down in practice, if we all ignored the burrito philosophy.

But you're right. It's futile, really.

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can be sure of only two things in this thread:

1) Ron is wrong about evolutionary science & biology, and
2) Ron is very likely to be wrong about God & Scripture

Posts: 22496 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
I can be sure of only two things in this thread:

1) Ron is wrong about evolutionary science & biology, and
2) Ron is very likely to be wrong about God & Scripture

I am sure of one thing.

1) Bob is right about those two things.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, to be fair, I don't know how you can say with much authority that someone is more likely than someone else to be wrong about God unless they're holding something internally inconsistent.
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
This is some serious angels-on-pin-heads stuff here. Ron believes in an actually omnipotent God. He can do *anything* that he wants. He could make it work with 32 copies of X and a breakfast burrito if he wanted to.

Well yes, but Ron is also being inconsistent on this point, in saying that it couldn't have worked if the female had been created first, because where would the Y chromosome come from?

quote:
If God had started with a woman, He would have had to create an entire new chromosome, the Y chromosome, for the man.
Now for an omnipotent god who 'creates' by saying "Let it be so", this strikes me as a bit oh teh noes, extra works, whatever shall we do. But if you take it as given that the god only wants to do the chromosome-specifying bit once, then there is in fact a problem with the two identical X chromosomes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course, you are all entitled to your opinions. But I have backed up most of what I have said--from Scripture, to show I just didn't make it up myself; and verified by perfectly fulfilled prophecy concerning the entire outline of history, something true of no other writing or purported "holy scripture." This fulfilled prophecy is God's validating signature. He presents to us His "credentials" in the prophecies of the Bible, especially those in the book of Daniel.

As for how God actually made Eve, of course, I am just guessing. But I do assume that once God has ordained natural laws, He will work within them. The Bible says God took a rib out of Adam and made Eve from it. God could have taken an X chromosome from each of two of Adam's cells. Or He could have converted one of Adam's Y chromosomes into an X chromosome. The Bible does not say anything about how Eve was gestated. Presumably God made Eve into a fully developed adult, just as He did Adam, but starting with Adam's rib and genes.

As for how God was able to create a universe that was light, not darkness, to begin with--just as He created mature trees in Eden and not saplings--His methods are not revealed. But we do know that things had to be different at the very beginning of the universe, when the immense heat alone would have accelerated radioactive decay as much as a trillion fold (we have found this to be true in the lab with lutetium heated to the plasma state). This could reasonably imply that the speed of light in a vacuum limit was different at the very start.

What these things mean is not that natural law was suspended, but rather that there are corollaries to natural law--that under special circumstances, certain supposed "constants" will be different.

For example, Newtonian laws of motion work and seem accurate within certain limits. It is not until you approach the speed of light in a vacuum that Einsteinian physics takes over. This does not mean that the laws of physics are suspended; it means that we did not know all the laws of physics, including their extensions in special circumstances.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is my hope, Ron, that you someday learn to look more critically at what you consider the "perfectly fulfilled prophecies concerning the entire outline of history."

You're someone who is, after all, cynical enough to wonder whether doctors might have left a breathing tube in just to shut somebody up for a while longer; I am astonished that you do not treat Biblical prophecy with even a tenth of that skepticism.

Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Epictetus
Member
Member # 6235

 - posted      Profile for Epictetus   Email Epictetus         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know the thread has moved onto a different subject, but the anthropologist in me needed to get this out.

quote:
There are lots of different species of ape-like/monkey-like primates on earth. But where are all the human-like similar species? Unless you want to venture onto the mine field of claiming that African blacks and European whites represent different species, or some such thing, there are some branches of your supposed evolutionary tree that are conspicuously missing.
Homo neanderthalensis extinct
Homo floresiensis extinct
Homo habilis extinct, but within our evolutionary line
Homo erectus extinct, and currently thought to be the common anscestor of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis

While I don't know what caused the extinction of Homo florensis (mainly because as of my last course, its status in the genus Homo and the method of its extinction was still under debate.) we do know that Neanderthals went extinct due to: changing climate conditions to which they were not well adapted to, combined with competition with Homo sapiens for food and resources. In addition, there is some evidence, but by no means conclusive, that there were isolated incidents of human--neanderthal cross breeding. In other words, there are species within our own genus all of which are extinct. Our ability to study other species in our genus are frustrated by the climates where Homo erectus (the progenitor of humans and neanderthals) chose to live. In two climates, Africa and Europe, the climate was conducive to preserving their remains for a long time. In South and South-East Asia, on the other hand, we do not have a complete fossil record between Homo erectus and whatever species did or did not evolve from it there because organic remains do not last long in humid environments.

Other human-like species: where we define human like to mean homonid (sharing the homonid dental pattern and having opposable thumbs)

Australopithicus afarensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Proconsul
to name a few from memory.

As an added two cents: we do not have a full picture of human evolution because there is still more to be discovered. No evidence that has been discovered, has yet shown evolution to be false. At best, the evidence we have has only required us to revisit and revise evolution. We do not yet have compelling evidence to suggest that the theory is completely false.

Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, Ron believes in Truth and Science, which he proves by quoting bible verses. Which, of course, is neither.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Launchywiggin
Member
Member # 9116

 - posted      Profile for Launchywiggin   Email Launchywiggin         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*Read thread title*: "What?!? ...Ohhhh..."

*Click anyway...*

*Glance, skim...*

A post by TomD! *read carefully, feel enlightened*

Thanks, Tom.

Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Epictetus, perhaps you missed my point about all the monkey-like and ape-like species living in the world today, where I asked where all the human-like species are. You could not name any living today. You could only list species presumed to be extinct, based on fossil remains. I notice you did not include "Piltdown Man." I wonder if Neanderthals were alive today, whether we would classify them as simply a variation on modern man, and not really a separate species. (I always thought Yogi Berra looked a little like a Neanderthal, but that was just a subjective impression.) I recall reading some speculation that Neanderthal may have actually merged with modern man by interbreeding. If they could interbreed, then probably most people would say that indicates they are essentially the same species.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, I have looked critically at the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible compared to history using objective methods of interpretation, and as I have said several times, the prophecies foretold future history more than two thousand years in advance, perfectly in every single detail. What more evidence does it take to impress you?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have looked critically at the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible compared to history using objective methods of interpretation...
No, you haven't.
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, you asked -
quote:
There are lots of different species of ape-like/monkey-like primates on earth. But where are all the human-like similar species? Unless you want to venture onto the mine field of claiming that African blacks and European whites represent different species, or some such thing, there are some branches of your supposed evolutionary tree that are conspicuously missing.
Now you say -

quote:
Epictetus, perhaps you missed my point about all the monkey-like and ape-like species living in the world today, where I asked where all the human-like species are. You could not name any living today. You could only list species presumed to be extinct, based on fossil remains
Unless you are suggesting that all fossils are fakes created to trick us all (and I think you probably are), this doesn't make sense.

However, Epictetus answered your question extensively, and didn't miss a point which you didn't actually make. You asked where they are. Ep. told you - they're dead. It can't be helped if you don't happen to agree with that answer. Bones is bones.

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Epictetus
Member
Member # 6235

 - posted      Profile for Epictetus   Email Epictetus         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your original post did not specify "alive today". As a point of order, there are many species that exist today that while related to other species have no living members of their own genus: Sperm Whales are an example. Other genra such as Pan only have two extant species. Despite the fact that bonobos and chimps look like other monkeys, they are not classified in the same genus as gorillas, rhesus monkeys, or baboons.

You do not have to believe what I've written, I only wrote it to correct what I saw as a glaring error on your part. I've lurked long enough to know that trying to convince you otherwise is like pounding sand. Continue in your beliefs but do not expect me to take you seriously in matters of science. You have given me no reason to so far.

Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Epictetus, I said "There are lots of different species of ape-like/monkey-like primates on earth. But where are all the human-like similar species?" Do you see the key words, "are" and "on earth"? Not "were" and "under earth." Your refusal to acknowledge that my words did certainly imply "living on earth today" is just playing games. Why should I take seriously anything you have to say about science, when you so careless in your comprehension?

Tom: Yes I have. Show where I haven't. Cite any specific instance where a prophetic detail I quoted did not exactly correspond to history, or show where my methods of interpretation were not truly objective. I have listed them.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Cite any specific instance where a prophetic detail I quoted did not exactly correspond to history, or show where my methods of interpretation were not truly objective.
Ron, you do not understand what the phrase "truly objective" means, and your pride prevents you from recognizing the flaws in your process even when they are pointed out to you. You have demonstrated this at great lengths over the years.

I would be willing to go over this once more with you, had I any belief whatsoever that you were actually interested in learning why your methods are insufficient. I do not believe this, however; rather, I think you are heavily invested in believing that you have somehow "proven" your faith to your satisfaction, and worry that undermining this certainty would actually cause you a fair amount of distress.

Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You could do it anyway under the assumption that he's not at significant risk of distressing himself?
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Tom, I have stated my methods of interpretation, and anyone can see they are objective. I ask you again, instead of making unsubstantiated claims, give me a specific example of a Bible prophetic detail I have set forth that does not correspond to history perfectly, and show wherein I have not been objective in my methods of interpretation.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyone being 'anyone minus the greater majority of humanity, and the overwhelming majority of historians', of course. What strange distortions you must do with language, Ron.

Though, to be fair, Tom, I don't really credit that you're worried about causing Ron distress, not because I think that notion would be indifferent to you, but because I think you're quite aware you can't.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
give me a specific example of a Bible prophetic detail I have set forth that does not correspond to history perfectly
Tell you what: I'll play your game if you can ask the right questions, the questions that you would need to ask if you were trying to be "truly objective." Give it a shot.

(Hint: that does not include "which of my handpicked, personally-interpreted predictions fails to match history as I am willing to understand it?")

----------

quote:
I think you're quite aware you can't.
I dunno. I worry that Ron protesteth too much occasionally, if you get my drift. Someone who was completely and genuinely unflappable wouldn't need to be so demonstrative.
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about rapture and/or revelation? They certainly haven't happened.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
How about rapture and/or revelation? They certainly haven't happened.

I think you are using the wrong word when you say "revelation". Most if not all religious people believe that revelations have happened.

As for the rapture, I don't think Ron has ever specified a date for this event so the fact that it hasn't happened YET, is not an example of the unreliability of his predictions.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do not believe the so-called "Rapture" is a sound Bible teaching. It is a heresy dreamed up by subjectivists who took a very few selected passages out of context and interpreted them in a fanciful way.

Tom, et. al., you keep trying to wriggle out of it. But the burden of proof is on you. You have claimed that Bible prophecy does not correlate exactly in every detail to the history it speaks of, even though I have published in several forums (including Ornery) and linked to them in this forum, a representative example of how Bible prophecy does foretell the future of the world with exact accuracy in every detail of the prophecy, and I have published my three methods of interpretation, which surely any reasonable, fair-minded person would concede are objective, and not subjective. So I challenge you for a third time: GIVE ME A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.

[ January 16, 2011, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote:
When I am playing in a sporting event, I pray that evolution will give one of our players a mutation, so that we may win the game.


Depending on your choice of words, one could say I am a mutant but I would do poorly in most sports I am afraid to say. Running with my clubfoot is... well it argues against intelligent design.
AchilllesHeel, I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but its highly unlikely that your clubfoot is the result of a genetic abnormality so its a very poor example. There are much better examples like the poor design of the birth canal and a skeletal structure poorly designed for walking upright. The human body bears all the features expected in a design that has been repeatedly tweeked and modified to perform new functions and not one that was designed de-novo for a specific purpose.

The difficult is with this line of reasoning is that (presuming humans qualify as intelligent), intelligent beings engage in all kinds of design processes and intelligent beings design things will all manner of flaws (features [Big Grin] ). By this very same reasoning, we could include that there are no intelligent designers working for microsoft [Big Grin] .

This the very heart of why intelligent design (at least in its most popular forms) is not a scientific hypothesis. Its not predictive. It does not generate any falsifiable hypotheses.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But the burden of proof is on you. You have claimed that Bible prophecy does not correlate exactly in every detail to the history it speaks of, even though I have published in several forums (including Ornery) and linked to them in this forum, a representative example of how Bible prophecy does foretell the future of the world with exact accuracy in every detail of the prophecy, and I have published my three methods of interpretation, which surely any reasonable, fair-minded person would concede are objective, and not subjective.
Let me address some points.

1) You claim that the accuracy of the prophecies of the Bible constitutes proof that the Bible is true. This consists of three separate claims: that Biblical prophecy is accurate; that this accuracy could only be due to supernatural intervention/information; and that supernatural intervention on behalf of Biblical prophecy could only support the truth of the Bible.

These are three claims you are making. The burden of proof is on you for each of them.

Let's continue.

2) The "evidence" you've provided has been disputed everywhere I've seen you provide it. Disputations have included: a) that one or more prophecies were written following the event depicted; b) that the historical event chosen to match the prophecy was cherry-picked specifically because, after over a thousand years, it was the event that most closely matched the prophecy; c) that the predictions you are willing to consider prophecies are themselves cherry-picked, and that you have a tendency to consider unambiguous prophecies which went unfulfilled to be merely "metaphor;" d) that your interpretation of a given prophecy is often ridiculous, twisted beyond recognition to fit the historical event that best matches your narrative; e) and that many of the historical events you claim line up with a given prophecy often do not line up when you examine them more closely (like, for example, the number of "empires" since Daniel.) You often have a ready explanation for each of these criticisms, but I have yet to meet a single individual who has found those explanations satisfactory.

3) I do not accept the claim that you have never, in almost a decade of my acquaintance, spoken with a reasonable, fair-minded person anywhere I could see you. At yet, manifestly, in a decade, no one has found your arguments persuasive.

4) And let's be clear about that: we're talking about whether or not they're even persuasive. That's actually a far lower standard than "objective." Again, I'm not sure you know how to word one of your proofs of prophecy in a way that might be objective; I don't think you really understand what the word means. It's certainly true that there are a variety of fairly easy ways you could modify some of your claims to make them objectively true, but I've never seen you do it.

If you'd like to give it a shot, please do. I'm very curious to see whether you're capable of it.

Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I do not believe the so-called "Rapture" is a sound Bible teaching. It is a heresy dreamed up by subjectivists who took a very few selected passages out of context and interpreted them in a fanciful way.

You know, I don't think I can actually argue against that.

edit: Oh wait, snap, I can, your argument is an ad hominem although my biblical scholar friend agrees with your conclusion.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, in regard to your point (1), I have provided the proof.

On your point (2), I have refuted those claims that Daniel (for example) was written later than it claims--based on sound scholarship, cited from authoritative sources concerning the vocabulary used in the original languages, etc.--which in fact prove the opposite, that Daniel was written in 600 B.C. not 200 B.C. I also made the point that the prophecies of Daniel go far beyond 200 B.C., and continue to be perfectly accurate far into the Christian age, and even to modern times in the history of Europe.

As for cherry-picking, I presented long sequences of Bible prophecy, not just one verse here and there. I am well able to go through the entire chapter seven of Daniel phrase-by-phrase and symbol by symbol, and it would be the same. But that would take a book-length manuscript, while the examples I did give were representative.

As for your point (3), you claim that no one in a decade has found my arguments persuasive. Well, these are the main arguments my church uses in its evangelistic campaigns for the general public, and a hundred thousand people join our church every year, in rhe USA alone. The number is over a million worldwide.

Maybe you mean just in this forum. Just because you and less than two dozen other diehards refuse to be persuaded by anything I say does not mean that my arguments are not persuasive. That is your choice, not any deficiency in my arguments.

As for you point (4), I have listed before my methods of interpretation. Would you please state where these methods are not objective, as opposed to subjective--the type of interpretation that the Apostle Peter forbids in 2 Peter 1:20?

In case you are unwilling to look them up, here they are again. Tell me how these are not honest, fair-minded, logically sound methods of determining what the text actually means. I reproduce here the original statements I made:

In the interpretation of Bible prophecy, we must ever keep in mind the strict admonition of 2 Peter 1:20, 21: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (NKJV)

In order to avoid a private interpretation, we must do three reasonable things:

First, all prophetic symbols must be defined by Scripture alone. We can do this, because the prophets “spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Thus prophecies written a thousand years apart in different languages, can still be relied upon to be consistent in the meaning of the symbols used. This is one of the strongest evidences for the divine inspiration of the Bible—that this works! One Divine Mind is in evidence over all. An example of the way prophetic symbols are defined in Scripture is seen in Revelation 17:15: “Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.” (NIV)

Second, the prophecies must be applied to history, during the time periods context indicates to us that they apply. This is seen in the prophecies of Daniel (see for example Daniel 8:20-26, where the angel names the empires in historical sequence that correspond to the symbols). Also in Revelation five, the context is the Judgment. This indicates to us when the prophecies of the seven seals must be applied by comparison to history.

Third, we must be careful in understanding whether something is literal narrative, or symbolic. One of the most simple methods of doing this is to ask ourselves if what is described CAN reasonably be literal. If most likely not, then we should expect it to be figurative and symbolic. Also we should note if an image or statement is specifically defined as symbolic or is used frequently as a prophetic symbol or metaphor in other places in the Bible. We should not have to guess about this. We can look it up.

All these methods exemplify the principles of sound scholarship, which you would apply to understanding any literary work, even Shakespeare (who was highly metaphorical).

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
(1), I have provided the proof.
No.

quote:
On your point (2), I have refuted those claims that Daniel (for example) was written later than it claims--based on sound scholarship, cited from authoritative sources concerning the vocabulary used in the original languages, etc.
Again, no. You and I disagree on what constitutes, for example, an "authoritative source" and/or "sound scholarship."

quote:
As for cherry-picking, I presented long sequences of Bible prophecy...
Yeah, it's a lot like only looking at the coded DNA, really. [Wink] Bear in mind that you have arrogated to yourself the right to declare which predictions constitute real prophecies, rather than metaphors, and then comb through thousands of years of history to find the best matches.

quote:
As for your point (3), you claim that no one in a decade has found my arguments persuasive. Well, these are the main arguments my church uses in its evangelistic campaigns for the general public, and a hundred thousand people join our church every year, in rhe USA alone. The number is over a million worldwide.

Maybe you mean just in this forum.

I mean, as I said before, that I have never seen anyone convinced by your religious arguments. Not once. In ten years. On multiple forums. Do you really believe that the best explanation of this is that, over ten years, you have never spoken to a reasonable person where I could see it happen?

quote:
As for you point (4), I have listed before my methods of interpretation. Would you please state where these methods are not objective, as opposed to subjective--the type of interpretation that the Apostle Peter forbids in 2 Peter 1:20?
Are you choosing to define "objective" as "according to the instructions of the Bible?" Because that's not what it means.

If you want to try again, I'm willing to let you. When you've satisfied me that you know what an objective fact is, I'll have the rest of this conversation with you.

Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
just_me
Member
Member # 3302

 - posted      Profile for just_me           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron,

You need to start with the premise that the bible is not automatically correct/right and then demonstrate that the prophecies it contains were true. Almost every time I have seen you present any "proof" of something it's started with the assumption that the bible and/or your religious beliefs were "facts".

If you're serious about your scholarship and being able to "prove" these things then PLEASE take the time to do so in a step-by-step manner using commonly acceptable definitions of "proof". I have seen Tom challenge you repeatedly but I have yet to see you actually try to do so. Instead you continue to ignore the guidelines of normal scholarship and then just claim it's a conspiracy against you.

It's exhausting, embarrassing to watch and frankly I think I'm not alone in getting sick of it. I'm sure you're going to just complain again that we're dog-piling on you, but the reality is that you bring it on yourself by your arrogance in always insisting you are right, even once you've been PROVEN wrong.

PLEASE, PLEASE show me and everyone else that we are wrong about you and try to act like a respectful, thoughtful person and walk step-by-step through your proof. I'm very interested in seeing it, but I'm not interested in wading through your claims that anyone who disagrees or criticizes your statements is "out to get you" because you've "clearly proven.." etc etc.

Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must conclude you naysayers are all cowards. Three times I have challenged you to provide a specific example where a Bible prophecy I have mentioned did not correlate with exact accuracy to history, and you always duck this most reasonable of all challenges. You claim I am not objective--and again I have challenged you to show wherein the methods of interpretation I use are not objective.

I explained why the method of allowing the Bible to interpret all its own terms and symbols logically derives from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture, and some of you inaccurately try to claim I am using circular reasoning or something. That same method I use is appropriate for use in interpreting any work of literature, including Shakespeare--where we know one mind produced it. The fact that I derive the principle from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all the Bible, should be a devasting proof in itself, once you see that prophecy interpreted this way does indeed match history perfectly. It proves the inspiration of the Bible. You keep ducking and squirming around this. What you need to do is quit playing games and face up to it. I repeat again, GIVE ME A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. You know you can't. That's why you keep inventing every other irrelant comeback you can think of.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That same method I use is appropriate for use in interpreting any work of literature, including Shakespeare--where we know one mind produced it.
Um... no. We don't actually know that. In fact, whether Shakespeare's works were written by one person is one of the most contested points among Shakespearian scholars.

I happen to think that one person wrote it all. This makes sense to me and I can create arguments using carefully chosen extracts of certain works that support my claim. However, just because I am convinced, and might be able to convince you, doesn't actually mean that I am right.

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, again, I will have this conversation when you can demonstrate to me that you know what an objective fact is.
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, it's not that people can't. It's that you're playing a transparently crooked game, a sham of faith in God to be frank. You so frequently use words like 'objective, literal, logical'. These words stand on their own. You cannot rationally use them and then go about setting conditions as you then go right on ahead and do.

"I've got this objective, logical argument. It's unassailable. You can only challenge it in thus and so ways, however. Allow me to explain. If you challenge it in a way different from the method I've outlined, you lose and you're a coward." God doesn't need you to fight battles. Truth is true no matter what sort of rhetorical hoops you leap through. It's been awhile since I've heard something so silly from a human being as the notion that they have a lock on what is true but then suggest, in seriousness, that it cannot be challenged except under specific conditions.

That's the kind of thing that's encountered all the time among human beings, but in subtle unspoken ways. Yet you're quite above board about it. An honest hypocrisy, I suppose.

But even if I were to grant your first two conditions for your rigged game for the sake of argument, and I never would because, again, truth that cannot be assailed except under certain conditions is obviously not true, the third condition renders it critically suspect: the one that points out the need to understand the difference between the literal or the symbolic.

Now, please proceed to name-calling, or pretending this post never happened, or (one of my favorites) asserting that I'm an atheist agnostic detractor or something. I do so enjoy that. Or perhaps you can rope in a Second Amendment enemy? That was another line of inquiry from you that never went anywhere.

And yet you've the nerve to call others cowards, Ron. What an unpleasant judgment you'd face, by your own lights, for that kind of rank hypocrisy, over such an extended period of time. Fortunately your own lights are, even by those lights, so badly contradictory and mixed up that there's little chance of them being the real deal. Beams and motes, man. Apply some sound scholarship to that, if you dare. Which of course you won't.

Why not let this be like the time, quite recently, when you asked for professional medical opinions as to whether doctors would keep a government official intubated to gag her in defense of your bizarre opinion, and then when you got it just swept it under the rug with a casual, "Oh, what I really meant was..." Very manly, very strong. As strong as gun ownership, that is!

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I must conclude you naysayers are all cowards. Three times I have challenged you to provide a specific example where a Bible prophecy I have mentioned did not correlate with exact accuracy to history, and you always duck this most reasonable of all challenges. You claim I am not objective--and again I have challenged you to show wherein the methods of interpretation I use are not objective.

I explained why the method of allowing the Bible to interpret all its own terms and symbols logically derives from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture, and some of you inaccurately try to claim I am using circular reasoning or something. That same method I use is appropriate for use in interpreting any work of literature, including Shakespeare--where we know one mind produced it. The fact that I derive the principle from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all the Bible, should be a devasting proof in itself, once you see that prophecy interpreted this way does indeed match history perfectly. It proves the inspiration of the Bible. You keep ducking and squirming around this. What you need to do is quit playing games and face up to it. I repeat again, GIVE ME A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. You know you can't. That's why you keep inventing every other irrelant comeback you can think of.

Ron: Calling everybody who disagrees with you cowards, is just as bad, if not more so, than people calling you irrational.

You are filling more than your allotment of unacceptable posts. Please knock it off.

Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I explained why the method of allowing the Bible to interpret all its own terms and symbols logically derives from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture...

And why, again, should the rest of us make this assumption?
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Epictetus
Member
Member # 6235

 - posted      Profile for Epictetus   Email Epictetus         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why should I take seriously anything you have to say about science, when you so careless in your comprehension?
I have already stated my reasons for answering the question the way I did: I maintain your statement was not specific. You asked where they were and I told you they were dead. If you really think about this, you could make the evidence I presented to you work for your argument, but that's none of my concern.

As to why you should take me seriously? I'm sure I have no clue. That's for you to decide and I certainly never demanded that you take me seriously; I only said my two cents. It is up to you what you do with it.

Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just to throw it out there, because I do love creationism so much, if you prove that humanity was created a few thousand years ago does that really "prove" anything? It doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is right, just that one part is right. Accurately detailing creation doesn't lend a book any moral or spiritual worth beyond that detail. It certainly doesn't fix any other theological problems, such as the fact that there are two accounts of creation in the Bible or the inconsistency of testaments. Instead you are fixated on contingency, rescuing the possibility of your belief from being inconsistent. Of course I am an evil Catholic and am a firm believer that Protestant theology is weak ; )
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I kind of wanted this to just be about, you know, biology. As opposed to turning once more into Ron envisioning himself a biblical prophet-scholar of 'objective facts' or whatever.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2