Forum Home | Login

A Critic's Mind Changed

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

A Critic's Mind Changed

built on solid evidence

As a student of the bible, I love to hear about the discoveries that have over the years only given much credence to this book. There have been many stories of brilliant minds that have attempted to disprove the scriptures only to succumb to the realization that the bible is truly a magnificant piece of literature unlike any other.

William Albright, known for his reputation as one of the great archaeologists, said: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."

He also said: "The exessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th & 19th centuires, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognititon to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Millar Burrows of Yale observes: "Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. it has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artifical schemes of historical development."

He also exposes the cause of much unbelief: "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."

This is still true today. How many of us are coming to the table with our predisposed beliefs based on what we've just picked up along the way? I hear alot of repititon from those that have no idea where they've heard such and such. It's like gossip. They are picking up and passing on what they have had whispered in their ears. I did this myself for a while until I realized I really had nothing to back myself up on other than what I heard from another.

He adds: "On the whole, archaelogical work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine". :

Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student in the German historical school of the mid 19th century. He believed the Book of Acts was a product of the mid 2nd century AD. He was very convinced of this belief. In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor he was compelled to consider the writings of Luke, the physician. As a result he was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He said this about his change of mind:

"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. it did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recenly I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topgraphy , antiquities and socieity of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a 2nd century composition and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."

Ramsay concluded after 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy......."this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Ramsay also says: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."

To even consider this book coming from an all powerful God it MUST meet certain requirements. It has to be transmitted to us accurately from the time it was originally written so we have exactly what God wanted us to have. Next it must be correct when it deal with dates, events and places. A book that has these things mixed up has no right to claim it comes from an infallible God.

If you test the NT documents with the same standard of tests applied to any of the Greek classics, the evidence overwhelmingly favors the NT. If someone states that we have a reliable text of classics, then that same person would be forced to admit that the NT is also just as reliable.

Actually many don't realize that the original NT copies were in better textual shape than the 37 plays of Shakespeare written in the 17th century, after the invention of printing. In every one of his plays there are gaps in the printed text where we have no idea what originally was said. Textual scholars were forced to make good guesses to fill in the blanks. With the abundance of existing manuscripts of the NT we know nothing has been lost through the transmission of the text.

Those who contend that the Bible is unreliable historically are not historians or archeologists. While I can't prove the bible is inspired or written by the very hand of God, (although I believe it to be true,) I do believe the evidence supports the claim the Bible certainly is the very word of God.

"

history

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Learned about the flagellum motor the other day. Was put forth as truth of intelligent design. Is it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Right reasoning asserts that every effect has a cause. All effects relate back to a primordial cause. Fire, mist, Time, energy, Matter, humankind or a tree all are effects of one first cause.

I am with you on this until the First Cause part and actually, you are answering your own question about life, its and effect of multiple causes. There is no evidence that there is a God that stands outside of causation.

Be well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Kingbee posts:

can you provide any single find supporting the notion all animal species that ever existed came into being at the same time and were once represented on earth simultaneously?

I cant'.

Perhaps you and Bryan Harstad can provide a single find on how all matter came into existence by itself...or how at a later time on our planet living creatures quite literally made themselves? How did matter self originate, arise from nothing and increase? If you believe these theories are true, perhaps you could provide any single find supporting where did the laws of nature come from?

Christianity can and does provide a coherant explanation but not scientific exactitude. I'm taking God's Word for it as it is accounted in Genesis. He afterall is the only One who was there at the time of His own Creation.

Put simply, I believe that God created time, space, and matter from nothing (ex nihilo). Not only was matter created, but organization of matter and laws of nature were placed in operation by which matter, time, space and energy interact. God impressed complex information into cells which can reproduce and pass on that info by way of secondary causes. God created the laws of nature and they govern the way that matter performs and autonomy was granted to life forms so they could effectively act as partners with God in the creation of new life. God can intervene in the operation of the Universe (Cosmos) to bring about what He desires, such as when Christ raised Lazurus from the dead or when He brought on the global Flood.

I understand very well that the complete details of the Origins event remain unclear and may well never be fully known, but so what?

God gave us brains, intuition and the sense of adventure to discover these things...He left knowledge about the laws of nature to be sought and discovered.

Kingbee posts: #38

which reputable, degreed scientists have proposed or concurred with anything of the sort within the last 100 years?

We know from the study of genetics that it is impossible for one species of animals to evolve into a completely different one such as Evolution Theory would have us believe. These crucial aspects were little understood 100 years ago.

Successfully updated karma reason!

SoDaiho posts:

There is no evidence that there is a God that stands outside of causation.

As to evidence, all I can say is look around...look at the Universe as a whole, and consider it as a great effect which it is. The simple declaration that the existence of Creation, man included, presupposes the existence of a Creator whom we call God Who always was and always will be, which must be a self -existent, a causeless cause, an independent Being.

Nothing in the world of phenomena came into existence by itself. Motion came from a Mover, design from a Designer, and life from Life. Either the Universe be it a misty nebulous substance or fully fully developed, is the work of a Creator or it came into existence by chance or through spontaneious generation. The claim of chance is absurd. Neither could the Universe take on any degree of order by accidental action or the reaction of the elements that compose it. As for the theory of spontaneous generation the atheists took refuge in, that is bad science that Louis Pasteur smashed long ago.

The only thing that science can say today after the laws of thermodynamics and common sense is that God created life...but it won't...to some and maybe you, Creation is unthinkable. Yet, even Thomas Huxley, Darwin's "Bulldog" conceded that God could have said, Let it be made, and have brought forth instantly a perfect Universe from nothingness.

Sodaiho, the proof from Design is simple and irrefutable whether dealing with a watch or the Universe. A watch is a design, a form, that predisposes a watchmaker. Same with the Universe. It manifests a design that presupposes a designer of infinite intelligence and power whom we call God.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Yoo Hoo....hello?

Your silence is the only answer I needed, KFC.

LW..you haven't a clue. Really.

You should know me by now. But you refuse to open your eyes to who I really am because you wish me to fit into the mold you have made for me.

If you haven't noticed, I haven't responded to anyone on this thread yesterday so I'm not ignoring you. For crying out loud, you didn't even give me a chance to respond. You just posted yesterday.

I do admit tho that I try my best to ignore you LW because you love to cause dissention and chaos. I find you to be very rude and nasty most of the time. I have on many occasions tried to be friendly to you over these last two years or so but you only wish to argue and be contrary to any position I hold to be true. I've seen you to be very pleasant (so I know you are able) and agreeable to another that had said something very similar to what I had conveyed. So I know and recognize clearly you wish to be contentious in dealing with me and those like me whom you detest. I'm sorry about that.

Here's my answers to your above demands:

I believe him to be a blood relative of yours, KFC

Then what more is needed? You believe it to be true. So be it.

It has nothing to do with the subject

Exactly. So why bring it up?

Not that it matters much, the accounts have been exiled.

then why are you so inquisitive? Again..... why does it matter?

Those of his alter ego (WildFlower something or another) can be seen on my thread 'Where's the Beef?'

I try not to go on your threads as much as possible. Sometimes I find myself there and when I do I don't stick around because you have made it clear you don't wish me to be around. I recognize when I'm not wanted and don't push the issue. But let me ask you this....how do you know that this Wallace Stevens has an aler ego? Maybe there are two people using the same computer? Isn't that what you and your husband do? So could you have an alter ego as EOIC as well using the same criteria?

But it's being said behind the scenes (and I won't say by who because that doesn't matter either) that this poster was one of your sons.

sooooo you want me to divulge information but you will not? Whoever is "speaking" behind the scenes seems to know. So then you should be satisfied...but then again you don't seem to be because you wouldn't be asking me now would you?

and the account seemed set up for one purpose, and one alone, to hassle Simon and myself.

Well maybe this is "what goes around...comes around?" because I think the same of you LW. I'm surprised you haven't accused me of being WS.

Don't play dumb and avoid the question, KFC,

I'm not dumb nor am I playing dumb. Actually I have answered that question before. I had no idea who Wallace Stevens was so thanks for the background info.

Is the blogger known as Wallace Stevens your son?

This is an easy one, KFC, stop playing dodgeball.

I owe you NO explanations nor do I feel compelled to answer your demanding questions. Besides, it really doesn't matter what I say because you will only believe what you want to believe. Nothing I have said to you thus far has been accepted positively by you so why bother?

Why does this bother you so?

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

But hey, don't feel too bad, even Jesus was denied by his loved ones when shit hit the fan.

hahahahah this is true. But even Jesus had his mother sitting at the foot of his cross.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Field evidence suggests a record of violent upheaval and of death and destruction rather than evidence of billions of years of Evolution progress.

Yes, this is true including the wooly mammoths found in Siberia with food still undigested in their stomachs. Masses of them died suddenly and from a creation standpoint the flood would be the answer to that mystery.

Instead of a drip drip drip of water over a period of billions of years, why can't it be possible instead to have a large amount of water all at once do the damage that a constant dripping (as thought) would do over a long period of time?

I still believe that Mount St. Helens opened up a whole new can of worms by showing us what one catastrophic event could do. This one catastrophy gave us an idea how one event could cause many layers of debris to settle giving it the appearance of more than one violent upheaval as originally thought.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee posts #34

even if an intact ark were discovered tomorrow, its existence would hardly be evidence of a global flood, much less one in which all mankind but noah's family was wiped out.

Well, it seems to me that if an intact Ark were discovered, then the very existence of Ark itself would indeed be evidence of a global flood especially since the Holy Bible isn't the only record of an enormous flood.

The Ark and the Flood is credible when a sufficiently capable Cause is assigned. But if the Cause alleged could not do it, then it becomes a question of fact. Did it occur? God says that He caused the Flood and its consequences. We cannot say that He is mistaken or deliberately deceiving us. I accept it on pure faith. You must make your choice. But you have given no sufficient reasons why you would not believe in the Flood.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

But you have given no sufficient reasons why you would not believe in the Flood.

I think you nailed it Lula in this one statement. It's not that they "cannot" believe. It's they "will" not believe. It's a matter of the will.

It's pretty clear isn't it? Kingbee said it so succintly. Even if the ark was found today, he "will" not believe.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bryan Harstad posts:

I believe the bible is based on history, but that doesn't necassarily mean that everything in the bible is true.
.........

With out just 'blindly believing'...

A Christian is a believer in supernatural religion. It embodies truths that are beyond though not contrary to reason. Christian believers use their reasoning faculty in a reasonable way when from demonstrations of common occurences, events, etc. he draws conclusions that are above and beyond the sphere in which man operates. Christian belief in God and in His Revelation, both written and oral is not blind believing, rather we believe by the supernatural virtue of pure faith. Pure Faith is doctrinal belief which is based upon a theological science and reason of which is the highest intellectual order.

All anti-Christian systems from Pantheism down to Atheism pretend to have us believe that there is no God and Rationalism holds that reason is the only source of knowledge and that God cannot communicate with us.

The Christian belief in God's Revelation and the rationalists and atheists repudiation of it is best explained by Fr. Devivier in his Rational Exposition of the Foundations of Faith,

"..Man having an intelligence finite and limited in so many ways, has however, received from God the power of communicating thoughts to his fellow man; and shall rationalism pretend to have us to believe that God cannot place Himself in communication with His creatures that He Himself has made? The learned man can communicate to others the secrets of naure which his genius has discovered, and shall it be said that God has not the means of making known to us or elevation to the supernatural order? It is, moreover, evident that far from destroying reason, far from rendering it useless, as they claim revelation presupposes reason and requires it. Besides, it makes it more perfect and enriches it, by manifesting it sublime and important truths, which unaided reason would never have been able to discover."

Successfully updated karma reason!

LW POSTS:

Sad. So very sad.

Actually, LW, what's sad and tiring is your dogged persistence to hi-jack threads seemingly in an effort to fulfill something that is going on inside you.

LW POSTS:

Are you that deeply ashamed of your creation?

KFC POSTS:

I owe you NO explanations nor do I feel compelled to answer your demanding questions.

I hope after that last question you mean what you say and say what you mean.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The only thing that science can say today after the laws of thermodynamics and common sense is that God created life...but it won't...to some and maybe you, Creation is unthinkable. Yet, even Thomas Huxley, Darwin's "Bulldog" conceded that God could have said, Let it be made, and have brought forth instantly a perfect Universe from nothingness.

Sodaiho, the proof from Design is simple and irrefutable whether dealing with a watch or the Universe. A watch is a design, a form, that predisposes a watchmaker. Same with the Universe. It manifests a design that presupposes a designer of infinite intelligence and power whom we call God.

Lula, your statement is elegant, as is the universe itself. I have no issue with the belief that God created the universe, I have issues with how that is understood and where that places God Himself.

The universe is beginningless and endless; its continuous process and God Himself is in it. The very name of God points to this.

Our problem as human beings, I think, is that we think as our brains are hardwired to think. We see beginnings and we see ends, but they are never that simple. Take the term "beginning" Show me a beginning without an intimatew cause linked to it. Impossible. Creation from nothing is a perceptual error, a result of our own inability to think outside the box.

Be well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Please explain.
Also Geetics 100 years ago?

Successfully updated karma reason!

lula posts:

Actually, LW, what's sad and tiring is your dogged persistence to hi-jack threads seemingly in an effort to fulfill something that is going on inside you.

A couple of things:

I think your and now with the latest from EOIC personal animosity toward KFC has moved beyond a judgmental tone to one bordering harrassment and over what....her right not to answer probing, personal and demanding questions?

The condition of being/remaining anonymous is one the beauties of the discussion format on JU. KFC has a right to that just as we all do.

I suppose I could write my own article on the topic, (and i might still)

Thus far, this thread has opened some very substantive issues on the discussion board. I've added my 2 cents worth and would like very much for others to comment. But truly who wants to tune in and have to wade through someone's taking out their personal gripes against another? I don't....and so writing your own article is the better way to go about getting whatever you have on your mind out in the JU open.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lula, your statement is elegant, as is the universe itself.

Thank you for the compliment. Absolutely, the Universe (Cosmos) is elegant and still wrapped in mystery.

Sodaiho posts:

I have no issue with the belief that God created the universe,...

....The universe is beginningless and endless; its continuous process and God Himself is in it. The very name of God points to this.

By this, if I understand you correctly, you're saying the Universe is God which would make your "cosmic God" mighty different from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, a Personal God, the Creator, in whose image and likeness man is made.

Christians believe that God is outside time and space, so from that standpoint God Himself cannot be the Universe or exist in it.

I say that the Universe is obviously created (and therefore has a beginning) and that what is created supposes a Creator who is uncreated (has no beginning). God was not created for if He would be a creature and would have a creator. His creator would then be God and not He Himself. God always existed and tells us so in the Holy Bible. He never began and will never cease to be. He is eternal.

I have no issue with the belief that God created the universe, I have issues with how that is understood and where that places God Himself.

I understand.....saying you have no issue with the belief that God created the Universe is different than actually believing it.

From that I would ask what is the meaning of life and why are we here in the world?

There are two world-views. How those are understood has great influence extending into politics, sociology, religion, and other fields that touch on the question of existence. One philosophy says the Universe and everything in it is here according to random change of Evolutionary process that goes nothing plus nothing equals 2 elements plus lots and lots of time equals a completely structured Universe and all physical laws in perfect balance and order....from this, dirt plus water plus time created life.

I believe the other one that says that God created the Universe and mankind is from Adam (ha, ha, no surprise there)!

As to how that is understood and where that places God Himself, I'd say.....

Since God is the Personal God, the Creator and we are the created ones, then we are necessarily subject to Him, His Authority and His laws. He has given us the free will and the power to choose right from wrong, truth from falsehood, good from evil in how we live.

With Evolution world-view, God is not required, man has rid himself of all knowledge of the transcendent Creator, therefore, people can make up their own rules about right and wrong. men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions. They stand alone in the Universe, a unique product of a long,impersonal, material process. These he owes to no one but himself. Man is completely liberated especially with his sexual freedom.

In life today, we see everywhere, how both concepts affect how people act and what they believe about the value of human life.

In the US, our unalienable rights as our Declaration says come from a Creator, a personal God, the Author of nature and not from the Universe. The Universe has no rights, animal have no rights, only man has certain rights becasue the Creator who made him like unto Himself with intelligence and free will endowed him with them.

The Socialist and Atheist doctrinaires the world over are logically based upon the cosmos as its "God".

Successfully updated karma reason!

The condition of being/remaining anonymous is one the beauties of the discussion format on JU. KFC has a right to that just as we all do.

That's where you're wrong, lula, and if you really think one's web presence is truly anonymous in any way, you must be delusional.

Well this is news to me, so then call me delusional although I'd prefer dense or naive!

In addition, 'KFC' either admitting or denying that 'WS' is her son doesn't exactly reveal any personal information, either, unless one thinks that fabricated nicknames constitute 'personal information.'

This is more in line with where I was coming from in bringing up the value of anonymity. I'm saying that getting personal info about one person could lead to getting personal info about another.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Let me introduce myself, my name is Brother Stevens. I am the brother of Wallace Stevens, his brother from the UK, and for the record we are not related to this KFC person....we don't even like chicken.

Now, from what my brother told me, emperor of ice cream must be mumbles, I really enjoyed your first movie....sequel??? You really are a bitter person. He even gave me a picture to post online, but I've restrained for now. However, with your current nastiness you might force my hand. Do you and Sabrina have a job....or are you another English failure? I did read your article "Where's the Beef", my niece "Wildflower" really laid into you huh? Why can't you buy real food? Or even a decent cup of tea?

Your mum, and the motherland says hello....my brother Wallace also says hello. He wishes you people didn't exile him so hastily. He really is a swell chap.

Successfully updated karma reason!

sOMEWHEREINND posts:

Please explain.
Also Geetics 100 years ago?

If you're really interested I'd advise reading Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.

Darwin's Evolution popularized the idea that over vast amounts of time one species evolves into a completely different one...that lower life forms over time give rise to higher ones. Evolution from amoeba to man requires the ongoing addition of new hereditary (genetic) information not previously possessed. Darwin and his followers considered only the anatomical steps and structures such as the whole eye, etc.

Today, this idea has been refuted by modern discoveries in biochemistry and molecular biology. We know know that the relevant steps in biological process occur ultimately at the molecular level and involve staggeringly complicated biochemical processes.

The concept of genetic variation shows the immense variety which exists in the genes of each kind or type. It recognizes that there are limits or boundaries which prevent change into a higher entity with a radically new genetic structure. Cats will always be cats, and dogs will always be dogs. Each kind has its own specific DNA code structure which effectively precludes the possibility of Evolution. Neither do recombinations or mutations result in Evolution.

The reality of irreducibly complex systems in the molecular level cannot be ignored. Absence of any one interdependent part causes the system to cease functioning. Behe illustrates this point with a mouse-trap...if any one part is missing, the trap cannot work.

Successfully updated karma reason!

LULA POSTS:

How ought we to live?

Byran Harstad posts #51 Society determins that, god had nothing to do with the following: slavery, womens rights, war, etc...

How does society determine how we live? By our laws, right? And where, whose authority do our laws come from? What are they based upon?

Here in the USA, the Declaration says that our unalienable rights come from the Creator.

Also regarding the Holy Bible and history, aided by archaeological finds, historians have been able to obtain more accurate picture of ancient times as well as almost every aspect of life mentioned. They've been able to document real historical truth and to differentiate the non-historical parts of the Bible from the historical parts(which KFC has referred to as in parables, stories, songs, etc.).

How many historical inacuracys have been pointed out in the bible?

I don't know of any.

The Holy Bible hasn't changed, but there have been changes in our understanding of parts of it. These changes are due to discoveries in the fields of language, archeology, and history.

Discoveries like those of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ancient copies of Bible books and other literature have helped us in our understanding of the Old and New T. Records in Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, etc. have enabled us to decipher ancient ways of writing and thinking.

Ancient monuments, even entire cities have been discovered in Egypt and in 2006, archaeologists claim to have uncovered one of the world's first churches, built on a site believed to have once housed the Ark of the Covenant. The site, located in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is richly decorated with brightly colored mosaics and inscriptions referring to Jesus Christ. The church dates to the late 4th century, making it one of Christianity's first formal places of worship.

The site contains an unusual inscription that refers to itself, Shiloh, by name. According to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the two tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments, was kept by the Israelites at Shiloh for several hundred years.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

I've asked her on other threads, lula, and have been ignored

I admit I do ignore you from time to time. When you're respectful I have no trouble conversing with you but most of the time I have a hard time finding you this way so I do ignore you. But I have no recollection on any thread you asking me about this subject. So would you like to enlighten me where I ignored you regarding this? If you have I'll readily acknowledge you on this, but honestly LW I have no rememberance of this ever happening.

As I mentioned before, I've asked her a couple of times, on lesser threads of hers

You keep mentioning this. So where did you mention this?

And if she did indeed raise such a creature, how dare she take credit for her successes with the other two, while denying any responsibility for how this one turned out?

I'm proud of all my children and their accomplishments. I only take credit for getting them to 18 in one piece and helping them in the direction they are now in. The rest (successes) is all theirs to call their own.

What's wrong with simply admitting she isn't perfect? That she has a son whose behavior is NOT condoned by her, but is loved all the same?

I have, many times, said I wasn't perfect. Sometimes I don't condone what my kids do, but I DO love them nonetheless.

She also has the ability to delete our comments here, and/or blacklist us as she sees fit. (Yes, the BL feature has been repaired.)

I will let your comments stand LW but I will delete your husbands. What he said is cruel and uncalled for.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Sorry Lula...

carry on. I'm enjoying your conversation with Sodaiho

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

The Holy Bible hasn't changed, but there have been changes in our understanding of parts of it. These changes are due to discoveries in the fields of language, archeology, and history

yes, exactly. I attribute this to God shedding light on every generation a bit at a time. I believe we will still continue to discover new and exciting things that will shed further light on the Word of God.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just now I am reading Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews and have found his treatment of the patriarchal period to be fascinating. I highly recommend this book to those who wish to review a historical review of the facts outlined in Hebrew scripture.

Be well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Behe illustrates this point with a mouse-trap...if any one part is missing, the trap cannot work.

Can things be added to the mouse trap, and still have it work?
Can this mouse trap become a much mor efficient mouse trap?
Could a piece of wood evolve into a mouse trap?

Of course not silly, a mouse trap is not a living object!!! Sorry trick questions.

irreducibly complex systems is an argument that is used over and over by creatonists, the simply cut and past, and rehash the same thing over and over. Counter arguments by evolutionists take the same approach. There is a better solution.

Instead of just googleing your side of the argument, check to see what is on the net about the other side. wikipedia tries to be nutral about its topics, it is usually a good place to start.

If your a supporter to irreducibly complex systems, maybe you should visit the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity At a minimium, read the examples section.

Successfully updated karma reason!

lula posts #101

SomewhereinND posts:

Please explain.

I did in reply 101. I summed it by saying:

The reality of irreducibly complex systems in the molecular level cannot be ignored. Absence of any one interdependent part causes the system to cease functioning. Behe illustrates this point with a mouse-trap...if any one part is missing, the trap cannot work.

SomewhereinND posts:

Instead of just googleing your side of the argument, check to see what is on the net about the other side. wikipedia tries to be nutral about its topics, it is usually a good place to start.

If your a supporter to irreducibly complex systems, maybe you should visit the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity At a minimium, read the examples section.

You asked a question. I answered it and it wasn't a cut and paste job. Becasue of the latest findings in the genetic field of science, namely irreducible complexity, it is impossible for one species of animals to evolve into a completely different one with new and different DNA. The fact of irreducible complexity in the DNA and cell completely debunks this part of Evolutionary Theory.

Either you agree or disagree on this point however, telling me that mouse traps aren't alive and don't evolve, while amusing, isn't a rebuttal if you disagree.

And suggesting that I do more research on the other side of the argument doesn't fly either. As far as I'm concerned only the Creator God could have made something as complex as DNA and Godless Evolution Theory can't back up their claim that we humans descended from apes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: