T-Bone

In an article Dover in Review by John West makes an interesting observation – "C. A Similar Rule Applied to Plaintiffs' Own Expert's Publication Would Disqualify Dr. Kenneth Miller's Textbook. Plaintiffs claim that references to "creation" and "creationists" deleted from pre-publication drafts of Pandas establish the equivalence of intelligent design and creationism. Yet the first two editions of a biology textbook actually published by plaintiffs' expert Dr. Kenneth Miller explicitly affirmed the anti-religious claim that Darwinian theory "required" belief in philosophical materialism: "Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts... Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us... Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us." Dr. Miller was quick to point out that later versions of his textbooks removed such anti-religious statements. But if unpublished drafts—never seen by the school board or students—evidence the "real meaning" of Pandas, what should be the significance of language that Dr. Miller actually published? Plaintiffs' attempt to rely on pre-publication drafts of Pandas not only ignores the context in which the constitutional issues in this case arise, but threatens to open a floodgate to lawsuits challenging the "hidden agenda" of textbooks widely used by students today." Excerpt from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_review_pt_3_did_judge.html Perhaps something similar can be said of how some people want to ignore the centuries-old ground rules of science by embracing the theory of macroevolution with a religious-like faith. It seems obvious to me after reviewing Darwin's Origin of Species that his theories didn't originate from a purely scientific standpoint either.

Have a great birthday, Pawtucket!!!!!!! from Tonto + T-Bone

The reason I reject Darwinism is not because it challenges the Biblical account of creation – but because it proves to be invalid by the scientific method – observation and experimentation. And if scientists are able to figure out that continents move through the various disciplines of archeology, geology, etc. [i.e. scientific method – especially keen observation skills] – then what do the fossil records reveal? Entirely new species just appear on the scene! Which from my Christian viewpoint suggests creation! Where is the evidence to support this ever-so-slow macro-evolutionary process? Darwin admitted in Origin of Species "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most serious objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution." This excerpt is towards the end of the first paragraph of Chapter 9, On the Imperfection of the Geological Record, and see link below for the entire chapter: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-09.html Let's look at it from the experimentation angle. Darwinism's argument is that if artificial selection [scientists using breeding techniques] can make significant little changes in a short time – then large changes could have occurred naturally [natural selection – or really Darwinism's blind chance] over a much longer time-frame. But this is like comparing apples to oranges. There is intelligence and purpose behind artificial selection – which imho indicates that's the way the stuff was started in the first place – God! Usually breeders pick preferred characteristics in species they want to perpetuate or enhance for some reason. Breeders have a very active and purposeful role in the selection process – protecting/isolating preferred characteristics and eliminating undesirable qualities - hopefully reaching their goal at some point along the line of the generations. I have no desire to "scientize" the Scriptures or prove the validity of the Bible through science – some movement you think every Christian must follow. From my viewpoint, which I've stated earlier as believing there is a harmony of science [the study of the physical world] and Scripture since the author is the same – I don't see a problem between the Bible and true science. When the Bible speaks of things in the physical world – I understand them to be true – even though stated in unscientific terms. When scientists study the evidence that suggests a Big-bang event – I see Genesis 1:1 as a summary statement for the beginning of all matter, energy, space, and time. Scientists base their knowledge on physical constants, laws, principles – of which the establishment of these things can be found in Genesis 1:1-25. Scientists explore the possibilities and limits of genetics – which in Genesis 1:11-25 is expressed in very simple terms.

I have to disagree with you saying that more and more evidence points towards an evolutionary process. You're going to have to get more specific – something better than the Brazilian Cat/Dog thing. I think it takes a lot more faith to accept blind chance as the key to the development of species/genus… …So you're telling me this evolutionary process takes place ever so gradually - over a progression of time – and it must be an awfully long time – because we're not able to observe it happening. What I do see happening is certain groups of people looking at the data and giving their explanation of how they think these things came to be this way. Fine – but when their explanation defies basic principles of physics – it's starting to look more like a faith-based agenda to me. From nothing we get something? From chaos we get order? Simplicity slowly developing into great complexity?...Genetic research is really wasting a lot of intelligence, resources and time – why don't they just go to Las Vegas and kill time until they get a call from the janitor "hey you guys something interesting is happening in the petri dish." Let's get more specific on the issue – like this excerpt I posted below: "Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely... Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4] Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5] And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]" The above excerpt from: http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

It appears to me that Darwinism depends more on a philosophical viewpoint than scientific evidence. Imho a lot of the scientific method can be understood as a disciplined approach by observation and experimentation. There's evidence for changes within a species – sometimes referred to as microevolution. Man has taken advantage of that with techniques in domestic breeding. But where is the evidence for macroevolution - where man has been able to produce a totally new species? Where is the proof it occurred naturally overtime – where is the missing link? Has anyone created life in a lab? Going by the basic principles of the scientific method – Darwinism and macroevolution doesn't stack up for me.There's a dispute among some scientists over the scientific validity of Darwinism. Here's a link with some info on the dissent: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Yo, Medic! You and Mrs.Medic are frequently in my prayers - glad to hear she's doing good...Say - - with that gold potty - does anybody ever wonder if someone took a leak and didn't flush? Gosh - there's so many uncertainties in life...Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Thanks, Pirate - I love hearing about stuff like that happening - and thanks, Kit for the Wikipedia link on Grace.

And let the one read in tongues and the other interpret. Now remember - to release the genie you must tap on the book three times like this...hmmmmm...This book must be all tapped out.

Say...weren't they convicted of legal malpractice by the law firm of Olsen, Kent and Lane?

Yeah...and that's a good thing...it'll keep stubborn ol' creationists in line - like me!

Welcome to Grease Spot, Nato. Usually at this point I offer a newcomer a cup of Cappuccino – but I see from your MySpace post you’re pretty much as wired as you need to be. Can’t say that I blame yah…So…let’s dispense with the rest of the formalities – and here – a nice tall glass of long island ice tea – that should take the edge off of things…Stick around…you’re in good company now…this is a great place to work things out – and learn of new ways to cuss on line.

Happy Anniversary and Congrats on the big 20

Garth, I don't like it either – when Christian zealots go all out to prove the Bible is true by appealing to science. Imho the way of Christian Faith is the way of coming to the Father by taking His written word to heart. It is a relationship with Him based on a personal connection of faith. I think this was a severe shortcoming in VPW's ministry – he ranted and raved over the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the Bible. Knowing the Bible became an end in and of itself…it became their God. Imho – the Bible is a means to an end [connecting with God] and not an end in itself. Being a Christian I have no problem with studying the Bible to learn more about the Creator or studying science to learn more about the creation. I personally don't see a contradiction between the two since God is the author of both. But I will say imho – the Bible is NOT a scientific book! I think the purpose of the Bible is a unified message to man from God that speaks of the nature of man, man's purpose, man's problem, man's redemption – in other words all of these topics deal with spiritual matters – or philosophical things if you like that term better – not something you can quantify or measure in a lab. I think sometimes well-meaning Christians throw around scientific terms and plug them into Scripture - taking liberties with Scripture over topics they were never meant to address…The Bible doesn't explain science and science doesn't explain God. …I do wonder about you mentioning light particles having no mass and not being affected by things like inertia. I thought Einstein's theory of relativity showed mass and energy were equivalent. That being the case – isn't the thing about the gravitational collapse of objects in a Black Hole is that it exerts such a massive gravitational pull that even light cannot escape? …Now this isn't a science forum – but since you brought this stuff up – it would be fun to digress – Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos are both a good read on matter and energy causing space and time to warp and curve. I addressed this on another thread – referring to Ross' book that shows an old earth creationist viewpoint that gets into the creation days being a whole lot longer than a 24 hour period – accounting for the true age appearance of the celestial bodies – as Carl Sagan used to say "billions and billions of years." http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=244454

Tom, you say that with such passion - okay be honest with me now, Strange Guy - were you the fifth Beatle?

The world would be a boring place if we all thought alike. Here's a another interesting site – I think GeorgeAar mentioned this on another thread: http://skepdic.com/ and I found this one great too: http://www.skeptic.com/index.html I for one have found what Garth said to be true – atheists are normal human beings like everyone else. I got over that hurdle of ignorance after leaving TWI. I love the freedom to associate with whomever I want and not being caught up in using some religious groups' criteria for choosing relationships…And I'm not being Pollyannaish when it comes to open forums like Grease Spot Café. Of course there's times we all get a little crazy and vicious [just mentioning Pineapple Pizza can tick some people off in a heartbeat! :) ]. But for the most part I've found discussions with atheists a tremendous learning experience – reminds me of something I read in The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, on Atheism: "The Loyal Opposition. Atheists are the loyal opposition to theists. It is difficult to see the fallacies in one's own thinking. Atheists serve as a corrective to invalid theistic reasoning. Their arguments against theism should give pause to dogmatism and temper the zeal with which many believers glibly dismiss unbelief. In fact, atheists serve a significant corrective role for theistic thinking. Monologues seldom produce refined thought. Without atheists, theists would lack significant opposition with which to dialogue and clarify their concepts of God."

Yeah I had a problem with opening it too. Googled it and found this http://www.trunkmonkeyad.com/index.htm There they played okay for me - # 4 is my favorite too Dmiller, thanks!

Man oh man! Every time I come back to this thread I find another CD I’ve gotta get. That sounds like a good one, Waysider – thanks for mentioning it and Donald Duck Dunn – geez that guy gets around check out his discography http://www.duckdunn.com/discography.html Just watching Dunn play is soothing – a very mellow fellow… My want list keeps growing and growing…Ever hear of the London Howlin’ Wolf Sessions? I used to have the LP – gotta get that one again on CD…interesting guests: Eric Clapton; Lafayette Leake; Steve Winwood; Hubert Sumlin; Bill Wyman; Phil Upchurch; Charlie Watts.

Thanks for that clip, Chatty. That's a great clip to start the day. There's just one picture of a snake that got me all shook - - but other than that I'm ready to take on the day.

A wonderful poem...It hits home for me...thanks, Bagpipes.

Thanks for sharing that stuff, Sunesis. I also want to add some stuff from a favorite author of mine. The following excerpts are from The Genesis Question by Hugh Ross, chapter 16, pages 125-130: "…A check of cross-references to the Nephilim in other parts of Scripture, however, raises doubts about the consistency of interpreting them as strictly human…The chilling descriptions of the Nephilim focus on their superhuman size and strength. Goliath, identified in I Samuel 21 and I Chronicles 20 as a descendant of Rapha, stood six and a half cubits [at least nine feet, nine inches] tall and demonstrated great mobility and strength in battle while carrying at least 250 pounds of armor and weapons. Og, the king of Bashan, had to sleep in an iron bed measuring nine by four cubits [at least thirteen and a half feet by six feet]… …"Giants also are described in extrabiblical literature. The Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Mesopotamians, and Egyptians, for example, all wrote stories of famous heroes, men of supernatural size and strength. Greek literature is especially rich in this respect, and the Philistines who settled in the coastal plain of Canaan came from Greece or Crete. In all their accounts, the superheroes came from the sexual union between immortal "gods" and mortal humans. These giants resemble the biblical Nephilim in their penchant for fighting and in their tendency to manifest birth defects [iI Samuel 21:20]. The extra-biblical stories differ from the biblical ones, however, in attributing virtue and immortality to at least a few of the giants. The biblical Nephilim are evil and mortal, without exception. In addition to the enormous weight of weapons and armor the Nephilim were able to carry, their great stature, if our values for biblical cubits are accurate, supercedes human capabilities and the limits of biological engineering. The bone mass necessary to support the muscles and resist the effects of gravity rises geometrically with height [just as the weight of a building's supporting beams goes up geometrically with the length of the span they support]. This ratio implies an increasingly severe loss of mobility and stamina once human height exceeds about eight feet… …Given human physiological limits, the Nephilim must have been in some way superhuman. Strictly human bodies cannot manifest this combination of size, power, agility, and endurance… …The primary objection to the notion that the sons of God were angels comes from our perception of angels as asexual beings. Genesis 6 indicates that the "sons of God" did engage in sexual intercourse with women and impregnated them. The objection to the angelic interpretation is based on three points: (1) nowhere in the Bible is sexual capacity explicitly attributed to angels; (2) not one case of a demon impregnating a woman or transmitting semen to a woman has been documented; (3) Jesus explicitly declares in Matthew's gospel: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." [Matthew 22:30] Rejoinders to all three points have been published. Many scholars have pointed out that Jesus' explicit statement can be interpreted two ways: (1) it may indicate that angels have no capacity for sexual relations; or (2) it may indicate that angels in heaven simply do not engage in marital relations… …Angels who have broken their relationship with God through rebellion and who follow Satan instead of God have lost that unity, that oneness, and all the pleasures and joys of heaven. Their loss of place, purpose, and, more importantly of relationship with God possibly might tempt these angels-turned-demons to seek the kind of union they observe among humans. Paul made a subtle reference suggesting this possibility in I Corinthians 11:10. In his guidelines for propriety in worship, he instructed women believers to wear "a sign of authority" when the congregation meets, not only because it would demonstrate appropriate respect toward God and men, but also "because of the angels." The text does not elaborate on this point, and it has been interpreted in various ways, but it possibly could fit with the notion that angelic beings can, in some way, be influenced or tempted by women's behavior. We must remember too, that sexual acts of various kinds were part of Greek and Roman worship in the temples of the gods. While it is true that the transmission of semen from a demon to a human has never been documented, the sexual interest of demons seems consistent with a great body of documentation on occult practices. Evil spirits, and humans operating under their influence, manifest an obsession with sex to a level much higher than the average population. The incidence of rape and sexual assault on women and men proves extremely high among those involved in occult encounters and practices…" End of excerpts Ross ends the chapter [sorry I'm tired of typing] offering some ideas on why there is no evidence of the fertilization of an ovum in modern times. One reason could be the threat of consignment to the Abyss [Jude 1:6,7] for such an act. Another viewpoint suggests that the fallen angels invaded and possessed human males in such a powerful way back then that the genes in the human semen were altered to produce the supernatural Nephilim.

Boy was I a dumb-shuck...even signed up for The Way Corn.

Tom, I read your post…really didn’t take it seriously…then a funny thing last night…As I walked past a local pub owned by K.D. Laing, I caught my reflection in the mirror behind the bar. It was me alright – I recognized that big hat and suspenders – but something disturbed me…The PFAL book I was carrying [rather hurriedly back to the library because it was overdue] did NOT cast a reflection in that mirror! And in the alleyway reverberated the pitiful wailings of a drunk rustling through the dumpster – I can still hear his off-key song “A hundred hours of class on the floor…a hundred hours of class…” …Today as I went about my work – like a bolt out of the blue – I remembered a weird dream from last night. I saw a downtrodden city – ruled by a Sick Czar! Rising up out of the populace was a giant of a man – his hand outstretched towards me – pleading “Come over here and whelp us.” And on his forehead were…letters and a number…no – more precisely – a name, a letter and a number. Let he that interprets dreams [except for that new guy in doctrinal] understand the meaning of the name, the letter and the number – for they mean what they say and they say what they mean…or they’re mean when they say whatever – I mean…and they are L – a – r – r – y – P – 2. …Sorry I doubted you, Tom. After all this bar and Czar business I read this thread. It’s a riot! Thanks for bringing it back up!

Well…I was thinking about this thread and for some reason TWI's teaching on the law of believing popped into my head…I wasn't even believing for that …anyway…TWI suggests the law of believing is a power that can physically alter reality…You ever have one of those days where you kind of mix everything up in your head – move things around…stand back…look at it and go "Huh?" …So…I dunno… ...Here's another one of my dumb musings about TWI's law of believing, faith, viewpoints: If there's any such thing as a "law" of believing - what if it's about the principle of beliefs...Rather than it being a force that emanates outward from us or some force we come up alongside of and steer or commandeer...What if it's an inward process...wonder if there's actually some kind of reverse effect on the "believer" – in that what a person believes becomes a "law" that governs how one sees reality…Instead of believing equals receiving maybe it's more like believing equals perceiving… ...Sorry...I'm just trying to get enough material together for my own class...You're right...I deserve to be in time-out...I'll go turn myself in right now...

Sounds like bull $ h I t it…he must have did it!