Questions for Jesus-Freak

[cyborg]

Well I think that a reasonable and intellectually honest person cannot look at a peanut, a rock, an octopus, a turtle, and a human and think we all have a common ancestor.

Oh the rock thing again.

JF you do realise that 'rock' isn't one type of material right? You do realise there's a whole series of chemical compounds that form the types of material we would name 'rock'?

Secondly a reasonable and intellectually honest person WHO ALSO KNOWS ABOUT GENETICS can certainly look at a peanut, an octopus, a turtle and a human and think they have a common ancestor.

Why are you arguing as if it is sensible to make so-called 'common sense' conclusions about things when this is shown time and time again to be faulty?

Do you also consider quantum mechanics ludicrous? Why or why not?

It is no good saying you respect science because you do some electronics when all that really amounts to is that that's a bit of science that your Bible doesn't have anything to say on. You do not respect the process of science otherwise you would not keep on asserting that the last 150 years of biology is, essentially, unscientific.

 

[Ossai]

jesus_freak

Hey by the way I am all for science...I work in electronics which involves a little science, I go to a doctor when I am sick, my wife works in a hospital, and when my kids need antibiotics I am all for it, when my grandpa was cured of cancer I was very thankfull for science,and I am even using a computer beleive it or not which I think originated with some science...Do I think that all this means science or scientist have all of the answers? Nope...do I think that sometimes what science claims as fact is sometimes wrong?yes...Do I think that science overall is a good thing? you betchya...But I still think that it is ok to dissagree with theories that despite what some of you say cannot be proven, especially the origin of life and the age of the earth.

You at least admit you’re a hypocrite.

Ossai

 

[bruto]

Well I think that a reasonable and intellectually honest person cannot look at a peanut, a rock, an octopus, a turtle, and a human and think we all have a common ancestor.

The rock aside, I don't know about that. I remember many years ago reading an interview the Biologist George Wald, who had just won a Nobel prize, in which he remarked that humans and yeast have more genes in common than not. I think a reasonable and honest person might well look at those things and think yes, we might indeed all have a common ancestor. Of course if you base your conclusions on what is reasonable to occur in ten thousand years, because blind faith in biblical authority carries more weight than evidence, or if, ignorant of the actual theories, you contend that evolution means that one species might randomly produce another, then the words "reasonable and intellectually honest" may not apply in the first place.

 

[Lonewulf]

One of the problems of macro-evolution is that it takes longer than most can imagine. Micro-evolution can take places in decades, centuries, etc. But macro-evolution takes millions and millions and millions and millions of years; but if you can accept that the wolf changed, genetically, into the chihuahua over 10,000 years, then I don't see what's so impossible over major changes of species in 100 times that time.

 

[Mashuna]

Yes. There are TWO sides of the story. Both are not equal.

There are two sides as to whether the earth is flat.

Heads or tails? I'll flip, you call.

 

[Almo]

Come on, guys.

I've been reading this thread. Mr. JF does his best to answer questions using his belief system, and I think it would be best if people would refrain from making comments accusing him of being ignorant, since they accomplish nothing.

This would be best used as an opportunity for us to see what arguments a Bible-literalist uses, and for him to see what arguments non-literalists use. Probably, neither of us will convince the other. But we can learn about each other.

Just throwing insults at him is neither productive, nor what we are supposed to do in this forum.

 

[bruto]

I've been reading this thread. Mr. JF does his best to answer questions using his belief system, and I think it would be best if people would refrain from making comments accusing him of being ignorant, since they accomplish nothing.

This would be best used as an opportunity for us to see what arguments a Bible-literalist uses, and for him to see what arguments non-literalists use. Probably, neither of us will convince the other. But we can learn about each other.

Just throwing insults at him is neither productive, nor what we are supposed to do in this forum.

True enough, but some of his responses and straw-man arguments indicate that in addition to his questionable belief system, he has also, either from ignorance, carelessness or disingenousness, not given other ideas, such as evolution, the minimal respect of even trying to understand what they actually say, thus misrepresenting them in a way that is absurd and unproductive. Reading his responses one must conclude that he really is ignorant unless one prefers to accuse him of dishonesty.

 

[cyborg]

Ignorance is a state of being - not an insult.

The unforgiveable sin is to revel in ignorance, not to be ignorant.

 

[RandFan]

Ignorance is a state of being - not an insult.

The unforgiveable sin is to revel in ignorance, not to be ignorant.

As a former ID proponent I have to agree with this. I once defended ID because I was ignorant of the facts. However, I had made a commitment to the truth at one point in my life. I decided that I would change my mind if the evidence was against me. The problem with many believers is that the evidence be damned. To protect their world view they just need an opposing theory and set of evidence. Never mind that the theory is bankrupt and the evidence lacking.

Evolution is not reasonably controversial. The evidence is more than just a proponderance for evolution. The evidence supports evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Tanstaafl]

How do evolutionists respond to the zero likelihood of life arising by chance? The biochemistry text quoted above asks and then answers the question: “How then did life arise? The answer, most probably, is that it was guided according to the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest as it applies at the molecular level.”14 The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on. We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance.

We have "seen" no such thing.

answersingenesis has nothing to do with science.

ETA: Oops! Tricked by the end of the page yet again! I see this has been well handled already.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I could point out that the usual creationist canard of 'evolutionists can't explain this aspect of the creation of life' has nothing at all to do with evolution (which only deals with the evolution and change in EXISTING life through Natural Selection)...

but Foster and Beleth went ahead and posted refuting arguments anyway. Nice job. That's like winning the World Series and scoring a touchdown after reaching home plate.

Can I yell "GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!!!"?

But seriously folks: As I understand it, the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection really doesn't deal with abiogenesis. But that doesn't mean that the same forces of natural selection didn't operate in abiogenesis. I should also add, before my words get twisted by someone, that this doesn't mean that abiogenesis and subsequent evolution aren't related.

 

[skeptifem]

I've been reading this thread. Mr. JF does his best to answer questions using his belief system, and I think it would be best if people would refrain from making comments accusing him of being ignorant, since they accomplish nothing.

This would be best used as an opportunity for us to see what arguments a Bible-literalist uses, and for him to see what arguments non-literalists use. Probably, neither of us will convince the other. But we can learn about each other.

Just throwing insults at him is neither productive, nor what we are supposed to do in this forum.

Why shouldnt people call it what it is? He has been linked to a wealth of material and had some of it explained to him, and he simply ignores it, and clearly doesnt even read any of it (see the rock comment). Its ignorance. There isnt another word for that, and I hardly consider it an insult when its just reality.

 

[Myriad]

http://www.csbl.org/

Boys use more alcohol, drugs, and tobacco products, drive more recklessly, drive drunk more frequently, have more sexual partners, more unprotected sex, engage in high-risk physical activities, and are exposed to physical violence much more often than girls.

(bolding added)

Can someone explain the mathematics of this?

Are we talking about there being more sexual parnering between boys and older women than between girls and older men? Or more gay boys partnering with each other than gay girls?

Because if they're talking about heterosexual partnering within a peer group, it just ain't possible!

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Lonewulf]

(bolding added)

Can someone explain the mathematics of this?

Let us represent the boy with A, and the girl with B, and the second girl with C.

A sleeps with B. B tries to talk A into a committed relationship. A refuses, B is upset.

A sleeps with C. C tries to talk A into a committed relationship. A refuses, C is upset.

In both cases, B and C attempted to cause a committing relationship, but A refused. Now, I know a male friend that was a "playa" type when he was younger (but he believed in equality; he had no problem with women sleeping around), and most women he ended up with tried to either guilt-trip or convince him into a committed relationship.

This is anecdotal, and I wouldn't want to make any overgeneralizations, but from what I know about the differences between the sexes, one is more desiring of a committed relationship in general.

 

[Almo]

You're supposed to deal with the arguments, not the person. Saying, "Jesus-Freak, you are an ignorant person," is not what we're supposed to do here. We're supposed to say, "Jesus-Freak, you have ignored the evidence that I have pointed you to. Without discussing the evidence we can't make further progress on this issue." Maybe not that formal, but outright name-calling is just not what's supposed to go on here.

My impression is that JF likes to ignore any non-Biblical evidence, and I disagree with him just about entirely. But I feel no need to berate him personally. It accomplishes nothing.

 

[Myriad]

Let us represent the boy with A, and the girl with B, and the second girl with C.

A sleeps with B. B tries to talk A into a committed relationship. A refuses, B is upset.

A sleeps with C. C tries to talk A into a committed relationship. A refuses, C is upset.

In both cases, B and C attempted to cause a committing relationship, but A refused. Now, I know a male friend that was a "playa" type when he was younger (but he believed in equality; he had no problem with women sleeping around), and most women he ended up with tried to either guilt-trip or convince him into a committed relationship.

This is anecdotal, and I wouldn't want to make any overgeneralizations, but from what I know about the differences between the sexes, one is more desiring of a committed relationship in general.

Well, OK, but there are twice as many girls as boys in that population. Add a second boy, D, who doesn't sleep with B or C. Now the averages are the same: 1 sexual partner per boy, one per girl. If D does sleep with B and C, then it's 2 per boy, 2 per girl.

The statistic doesn't say anything about committed relationships, nor does it say that boys have more current or recent sexual partners. Just, more sexual partners, period.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bruto]

You're supposed to deal with the arguments, not the person. Saying, "Jesus-Freak, you are an ignorant person," is not what we're supposed to do here. We're supposed to say, "Jesus-Freak, you have ignored the evidence that I have pointed you to. Without discussing the evidence we can't make further progress on this issue." Maybe not that formal, but outright name-calling is just not what's supposed to go on here.

My impression is that JF likes to ignore any non-Biblical evidence, and I disagree with him just about entirely. But I feel no need to berate him personally. It accomplishes nothing.

I would not want to berate JF personally, because he is, at least, polite and capable of civil discourse, for which I commend him. On the other hand, some of his statements regarding evolution are so egregiously far from anything that resembles the actual theory of natural selection or any other science that it is impossible to conclude that he is not arguing from a position of profound ignorance, however nice a guy he may be. It is that or he is purposely making representations which he knows are ridiculous and false. I think ignorance is the better and less insulting choice, but it also betrays a deep and abiding lack of respect for the people and ideas against which he is arguing, that he cannot be bothered to correct the most basic and gratuitous misconceptions about evolution, preferring to parrot the arguments of persons who I suspect are far less honest, and far less agreeable, than he otherwise seems to be. It would be like an atheist arguing against Catholicism using the bigoted lies of the Ku Klux Klan. A rational argument cannot be carried on with someone who obstinately refuses to abandon obvious and fundamental misapprehensions of the ideas at issue. JF may be a good person, and a fine citizen, but on some subjects, he is just plain ignorant: a choice he has clearly made for himself, and for which he must expect to invite criticism.

 

[jesus_freak]

I don't advocate illegal or unethical behavior

Explain the unethical part please...whose sets the standard for what is or is not ethical...you do advocate all legal behavior is that correct?

 

[jesus_freak]

You at least admit you’re a hypocrite.

Ok so the fact that I beleive in creation means that I hate all science or at the very least don't believe any of it is true or can be used for good...I am just going to stop there, I don't think it is even worth my time.

 

[jesus_freak]

This would be best used as an opportunity for us to see what arguments a Bible-literalist uses, and for him to see what arguments non-literalists use. Probably, neither of us will convince the other. But we can learn about each other.

Just throwing insults at him is neither productive, nor what we are supposed to do in this forum.

Thanks but I have tried to use this approach and you know if you go through and read this thread for the most part I think we are having some good discussions and like you said both sides are getting to see how the other side feels...there are always going to be a few "bad apples" in every group on both sides that resort to name calling or flinging insults back and forth and I, and I think others here have just learned to take them with a grain of salt, and ignore them and try to act like adults and carry on. Thanks for the effort though.