-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christian Schools Sue State University
- Thread starter jcrawford
- Start date
Oh, so that's why young earth creationists seem to think that it's ok to commit all sorts of logical errors and misrepresentations in the defense of young earth creation. If evolution is false, why does it matter what means is used to destroy it?
Utilitarian and extremely unbiblical.
And I think you need to review your rules of logic.
Utilitarian and extremely unbiblical.
And I think you need to review your rules of logic.
They shouldn't be discriminated against for any reason but until Christians start charging the state with teaching and promoting a scientific form of neo-Darwinist racism, they will continue to be discriminated against in public high schools and other state institutions of 'higher' learning.
I personally think that Darwinism is a humanistic attempt to explain 'how God created'. Unfortunately, I find that it does not show the maturity of a 'theory' that is more than 3,000 years newer than the 'theory' that God put forth through His mouthpiece 'Moses'. Truthfully, with 3,000 years to mature, Humanism (Darwinism) should have quickly developed a finalized theory. That should have taken no more than 10 to 20 years. A century and a half later and the humanistic theory is not complete, it is ludicrous to demand that rational students be forced to submit to it.
According to Lubenow, neo-Darwinist theorists confuse racial variation in the human fossil record with 'species' variation in order to connect and associate all human ancestral types with African non-human primates. This is a form of scientific racism since there is no fossil or genetic evidence of non-human primates ever mutating into African people by 'natural selection.' Rather are the original African people racially selected by neo-Darwinist race theorists that associate and mix the fossil remains of 3 foot chimpanzees with African pygmies in the false taxon of Homo habilis.
At every step and point of neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa, racist ideologies and conclusions rear their ugly heads. How about arbitrarily declaring all the original inhabitants of Asia and Europe members of extinct 'species' just to make way for more highly evolved and genetically complex African Homo sapiens to migrate out of Africa and completely repopulate those land masses with superior human genes?
Crying religious discrimination won't get Christians anywhere with neo-Darwinist race theorists. The only thing they respond to and can't deal with are Lubenow's charges of racism inherent in all theories of human evolution. Of course, one may have to read and refer to Lubenow's scholarly work in order to feel competent to make charges of racism against neo-Darwinist race theorists in public institutions oneself.
Leading evolutionists have to keep changing and rearranging their pet theories and fossils of human evolution though, because every 20 years or so, someone points out how racist their latest theories and practices are. Christians can charge a theory with being "humanistic" all day long but the state will just shrug and say, "What do you think we are?" What the state doesn't want to be associated with, or accused of, is harboring or employing high school science teachers and college biology professors who can be shown to be teaching neo-Darwinist racial theories of human origins in and out of Africa.
Lubenow provides scientific evidence and makes an excellent case for observing the ideological racism inherent in all theories of human evolution in and out of Africa. As more and more Christians read his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," I expect more Christians will be filing charges of racial discrimination against state institutions which tolerate such racial theories being taught to sudents with civil rights.
By the way, that is an "appeal to popularity".</font>[/QUOTE]You obviously need to review the rules once again. If anything, that would be an appeal to authority, and appeals to authority are only fallacies if the authorities are actually ignorant of what you say they support.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
"I answered you misdirection quite a lot just after my father passed away."
Uh, no... I don't recall you showing where anything I said was wrong. I do remember you doing a lot of dancing around trying to avoid the question that I raised about geology and oil. You know, the one where I point out that all the oil that is found is found using the assumptions of old earth geology and no oil is found bsaed on the contradictory assumptions that would come from using a young earth / global flood based geology. These giant oil companies are voting with their dollars. The results speak for themselves.
"I had gotten to the point of calling your lies, 'lies'."
Still looking for you to point out a lie. Or for you to point out factual mistakes to prove your assertion that I do not understand the issues. Or to give the source of where you think I am copying and pasting from.
"You often post dozens of pages of material to prove one point, without any explanation of 'how' your links apply."
I often post pages because the data is so overwhelming that I try and break it into smaller bits. Here is the most recent post where I go for proving a large number of supporting documents.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html#000000
You will see that I spell out my objective right up front. In contrary to the YE claims that there are no processes to generate new genetic "information," biologists are aware of such processes, they have observed them and the genome shows evidence of having been shaped largely by the duplication and mutation process that is asserted.
The first post is an example of data that supports the assertion by showing a particular gene family that was produced through duplication and mutation.
The second post addresses irreducible complexity issues by showing how an IC system was produced by gradual replacement of an earlier system.
The third post describes how almost all genes can be shown to belong to one of a relatively small number of gene families produced through duplication and mutation.
The next on topic post was about another gene family. In this case, the paper referenced goes into detail about the duplicated section of junk DNA and repeated units in the genes themselves showing how the gene family was produced by repeated dupliations.
Then another paper describing how the process of evolution of a specific gene family was traced.
And the thread continues down that path of providing documentation to support my assertion about how new genes arise. I have not copied this from anywhere. I went straight to the original literature myself. And no one has been able to offer an alternative to why we observe such features.
"Then you quote a responder to make you material look longer and more important."
No, I usually just pull out the part I want to respond to. SOmetimes I get lazy on short responses and just hit the reply button.
"Do I look more intelligent, yet?"
No, but don't quit trying.
"Don't quit reading, yet. I might make a real point soon ... hold your breath ..."
I won't be.
In contrast, I have given you links to several fact filled discussions you can join. You seem to have decided against factual posts and instead prefer to engage in endless name calling. Have it your way.
Uh, no... I don't recall you showing where anything I said was wrong. I do remember you doing a lot of dancing around trying to avoid the question that I raised about geology and oil. You know, the one where I point out that all the oil that is found is found using the assumptions of old earth geology and no oil is found bsaed on the contradictory assumptions that would come from using a young earth / global flood based geology. These giant oil companies are voting with their dollars. The results speak for themselves.
"I had gotten to the point of calling your lies, 'lies'."
Still looking for you to point out a lie. Or for you to point out factual mistakes to prove your assertion that I do not understand the issues. Or to give the source of where you think I am copying and pasting from.
"You often post dozens of pages of material to prove one point, without any explanation of 'how' your links apply."
I often post pages because the data is so overwhelming that I try and break it into smaller bits. Here is the most recent post where I go for proving a large number of supporting documents.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html#000000
You will see that I spell out my objective right up front. In contrary to the YE claims that there are no processes to generate new genetic "information," biologists are aware of such processes, they have observed them and the genome shows evidence of having been shaped largely by the duplication and mutation process that is asserted.
The first post is an example of data that supports the assertion by showing a particular gene family that was produced through duplication and mutation.
The second post addresses irreducible complexity issues by showing how an IC system was produced by gradual replacement of an earlier system.
The third post describes how almost all genes can be shown to belong to one of a relatively small number of gene families produced through duplication and mutation.
The next on topic post was about another gene family. In this case, the paper referenced goes into detail about the duplicated section of junk DNA and repeated units in the genes themselves showing how the gene family was produced by repeated dupliations.
Then another paper describing how the process of evolution of a specific gene family was traced.
And the thread continues down that path of providing documentation to support my assertion about how new genes arise. I have not copied this from anywhere. I went straight to the original literature myself. And no one has been able to offer an alternative to why we observe such features.
"Then you quote a responder to make you material look longer and more important."
No, I usually just pull out the part I want to respond to. SOmetimes I get lazy on short responses and just hit the reply button.
"Do I look more intelligent, yet?"
No, but don't quit trying.
"Don't quit reading, yet. I might make a real point soon ... hold your breath ..."
I won't be.
In contrast, I have given you links to several fact filled discussions you can join. You seem to have decided against factual posts and instead prefer to engage in endless name calling. Have it your way.
"This is hardly scientific literature."
I have read some higher level writeups of what he was dicsussing and what he gave was an accurate assesment.
"Please remember that the most widely used high school biology text (Modern Biology by Otto, Graham, Towle, et. al.) was still teaching phylogenetic recapitulation just a decade ago although every reputable graduate embryology text and embryologist had repudiated this theory several decades previously."
Are you sure it was not teaching ontogeny. Many YEers get recapitulation and evo-devo confused. You should be less likely to have that problem, based on your stated educational background, but it still happens.
"BTW, you didn’t answer my question but I presume that you are unable to give a cogent scientific answer."
I think an example of how new and dangerous influenza bugs are being produced through evolutionary processes is a descent example.
I have read some higher level writeups of what he was dicsussing and what he gave was an accurate assesment.
"Please remember that the most widely used high school biology text (Modern Biology by Otto, Graham, Towle, et. al.) was still teaching phylogenetic recapitulation just a decade ago although every reputable graduate embryology text and embryologist had repudiated this theory several decades previously."
Are you sure it was not teaching ontogeny. Many YEers get recapitulation and evo-devo confused. You should be less likely to have that problem, based on your stated educational background, but it still happens.
"BTW, you didn’t answer my question but I presume that you are unable to give a cogent scientific answer."
I think an example of how new and dangerous influenza bugs are being produced through evolutionary processes is a descent example.
By the way, that is an "appeal to popularity".
I personally got tired of fallacies last year while I was in the process of burying my father, uncle, and others. And while you might consider that an appeal to sympathy: It is a simple fact. </font>[/QUOTE]But not a fallacious appeal to authority. If you appeal to someone who is a recognized expert in the field, that is what you are supposed to do in a debate. I often provide links and quotes directly from the primary literature. That is to be encouranged if you are debating scientific issues.
It is fallacious to appeal to authorities who are not really authorities. They have no more standing to comment than any other lay paerson and they have no particular expertice to respect.
This is a fairly simple concept.
paidagogos
Active Member
(sigh) You must not read much. But here, read this article: </font>[/QUOTE]You’re right! I’m probably down a few pages from my previously 1500 pages or more weekly. Alas, I must be getting old and slowing down on my reading. With my writing, teaching, research, working on projects, political activities (I suppose that I should skip dinner with the Governor next month), serving on boards and committees, participating in forums, speaking and preaching, etc., I just don’t read as much as I would like. Then, there are my personal pursuits such as spending time with my family, bear and deer hunting, hiking and camping, gastronomical hobbies (Sushi making, Oriental cooking, grilling & smoking, etc.). I don’t read newspapers (skim a few political articles in my friend’s newspaper) or watch television (get a synopsis of the news from CNN) but I do need at least four hours of sleep per night. So, I did miss reading that article but I feel no loss. (BTW, I don’t usually read the second rate drivel of pop evolutionists from your link—in addition to reading Scripture, I read parts of Steward Custer’s and Charles Ryrie’s commentaries on Revelation yesterday, Will Durrant’s autobiography, and Seldes memiors last night.) Also, I do waste a certain amount of time to relieve my stress by arguing with posters on BaptistBoard.
paidagogos,
I read it ... I did not see the answer to your question. Did I miss it? Shouldn't the answer to your question be obvious? </font>[/QUOTE]It was right there. </font>[/QUOTE]Shore nuff? Are viruses living organisms? How do we know this is evolution and is not an inherent ability that is not previously expressed? According to evolution, are viruses the evolutionary precursors of living cells or are they debris from once living systems? Is this evolution or variation within the existing genetic parameters? If viruses are evolving at such a rate, then explain why we don’t see macroevolutionary change posited as having occurred in other organisms? In other words, viruses are still viruses despite all the supposed evolution that we should have been able to observe over the past couple of decades. At this rate of change, we ought see some new intermediate life form. However, viruses are still viruses including the new emergent forms.
Well, if this is your level of scientific citation, then you are rather light in your understanding and evidence. At best, your source is high school biology and at worst, it is tabloid science for public consumption. Sorry but I don’t feed at that trough.
Well, a hypothesis is an educated guess. So, I read this as a guess biased toward an evolutionary answer. If evolution is wrong, then it is a boner. This in no way substantiates the previously mentioned claims of evolution leading to biological discoveries. It’s all supposition. No, it doesn’t answer my question. It’s just more swill for the trough.
Great profound point!
You would have made a great Pharisee trying to tell others how to live and what to say but you are a few generations too late. Now, this is ad hominem! I am poking fun at you. Let’s see how much humus you have.
