[_ Old Earth _] Evolution 101

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:

The way organisms maintain themselves stationary at a fairly high level of orderliness really consists in continually sucking orderliness from its
environment.
In the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed
upon well enough.. The extremely well-ordered state of matter (lack of
Chaos) in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them
as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they return it in a very much degraded form -
not entirely degraded, however, for plants can still make use of it.
The point is, it is the outside order that maintains the negative entropy, not
the amount of entropy.

Maximum entropy, perfect equilibrium in the organism, is achieved at
death because the order from outside is no longer exchanged. We don't eat
animals or plants because their not at thermodynamical equilibrium, but
because their ordered, or lack Chaos.

jwu worte:

You can't be serious...that's absolutely ludicrous, and you completely made

it up.

I'll give you one warning jwu.

If you attack my intelligence, integrity, or character again, then were done.

Oran did the same thing when he got backed in the corner, twice, and we

were done. See the first of the post.

I am following Erwin Schrodinger's theory as presented in his book. Do a

google search for it.


Peace

 

[jwu]

I'll give you one warning jwu.

If you attack my intelligence, integrity, or character again, then were done.

Oran did the same thing when he got backed in the corner, twice, and we

were done. See the first of the post.

Let me remind you that it was you who began a somewhat fiercer tone when you called me "a wolf in sheep clothing", and accused me of being an "anti christ". That wasn't very nice of you, quite clearly an attack on my character.

I on the other hand merely pointed out that i found your latest statements highly absurde and that i don't believe that you got ot from Schrödinger but that you made it up yourself.

I am following Erwin Schrodinger's theory as presented in his book. Do a

google search for it.

I also already have explained how you are not following Schroedinger's works. Schroedinger basically said that an organism at thermodynamical equilibrium is necessarily dead. Because it cannot have a metabolism then anymore, it's that simple.
But one cannot turn that around to make the statement that dead organisms necessarily have thermodynamical equilibrium.
A => B does not mean that B => A. One can only conclude that (not B) => (not A). It's not dead, therefore it cannot possibly have thermodynamical equilibrium.

How can dead organisms be burned if they are at thermodynamical equilibrium?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Let me remind you that it was you who began a somewhat fiercer tone when you called me "a wolf in sheep clothing", and being an "anti christ".

I don't know if I'd call that a fiercer tone. I didn't say you were The AntiChrist.

But by propagating untruths about the gospel, you are in fact being an

antichrist.

1. To claim that Jesus couldn't see The Whole Universe, is an attack on

His Diety.

2. To say the story of The Flood is a myth and never happened is again

counter to the Christian belief of The Infallibility of Scripture.

3.Trying to prove The Scripture is errant, by little details such as Goliath

supposedly being killed twice is counter to Christianity.

4. And, of course, the ferocity with which you've attacked the Creation Story.



To me, the entirety of you commentary on the Christian faith is

anti-Christian.

I'll answer your other points above in the morning.

Peace

 

[jwu]

I don't know if I'd call that a fiercer tone. I didn't say you were The AntiChrist.
But by propagating untruths about the gospel, you are in fact being an
antichrist.

By the time when you called me that i had not made any statements about these things at all. It was the post in which you called me so which brought the Bible into this thread in first instance.

1. To claim that Jesus couldn't see The Whole Universe, is an attack on
His Diety.

If that is so, then the Bible itself attacks Jesus' deity by implying that it is necessary to take him onto a mountain to do so. And you yourself made the point that today astronomers put their telescopes onto mountains - how would this relate to the point if Jesus could see the entire universe no matter what anyway? I guess you're quite guilty of this yourself.

2. To say the story of The Flood is a myth and never happened is again counter to the Christian belief of The Infallibility of Scripture.

So unless one believes in the noachian flood one is not a Christian? One cannot be a Christian without considering the Bible infallible? I guess that is why e.g. Catholics aren't considered "True Christians (tm)" by many...

3.Trying to prove The Scripture is errant, by little details such as Goliath
supposedly being killed twice is counter to Christianity.

So one cannot point out self contradictions in what is considered scripture without being an "anti-Christ"?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:

By the time when you called me that i had not made any statements about these things at all. It was the post in which you called me so which brought the Bible into this thread in first instance.

10 Pages of anti-creation is enough, I believe.

You also had referred to the errancy of The Scripture.

I was trying to figure out why such an intelligent Christian would buy ToE.

You would be an excellent defender of the faith...especially in areas of

science. You "get" the relevant issues. If you could just turn your motivation

into defending instead of tearing down The Faith. ID types that really get

the issues are very rare. Most science types get it. Unfortunately, they buy

the whole ToE without even questioning it. This is usually because of the

indoctrination, and lack of alternate explanations presented at a very young

age in all public schools and most private schools.

When I first answered this post, Oran, (another Theistic Evolutionist) was

arguing with me that The First and Second Laws were irrelevant to the the

ToE/ ID debate.

That's when you came in, and you got where I was coming from (although

we might not have agreed).

If that is so, then the Bible itself attacks Jesus' deity by implying that it is necessary to take him onto a mountain to do so. And you yourself made the point that today astronomers put their telescopes onto mountains - how would this relate to the point if Jesus could see the entire universe no matter what anyway? I guess you're quite guilty of this yourself.

I just thought it was the icing on the cake. Obviously I don't think Jesus

needed to be on the mountain to see His creation. The point is, once again,

instead of trying to defend (which is much more meaningful and constructive

to The Faith) you fall in rank with the masses. You should try it on another

forum under a different name. You'll be amazed how easily the arguments

fall into place, if you try. With your knowledge of the issues, you would be

particulary effective.

So unless one believes in the noachian flood one is not a Christian? One cannot be a Christian without considering the Bible infallible? I guess that is why e.g. Catholics aren't considered "True Christians (tm)" by many...

Not according to the definition of Christian in this forum. John Wesley

University should be adhering to these tenants also, being a supposed

Protestant institution (I'm assuming that's from where your screen name is

derived) Unfortunately, 60% of the Methodist clergy do not believe in the

virgin birth, thus deny the diety of Christ; 82% say they do not believe the

Bible is the perfect Word of God.

UMC Bishop James Thomas has stated:"We do not believe in rigid doctrinal

concepts to hold us steady in a wavering world."

This is the Statement of Faith of our forums, and of our leadership.

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and

Holy Spirit.

The bible is the inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God.

Jesus Christ, God's only Son, was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born a virgin birth, lived a sinless life, died an atoning death upon a cross, raised from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father where He will one day return to the earth.

That man is in a lost and depraved condition by nature, and is in need of the new birth by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

In justification by faith apart from the works of the law.

That salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone, to whom we must respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Through Christ we come into a right relationship with God, our sins are forgiven, and we receive eternal life.

I wouldn't be on the forum if the statement of faith was not in line with

these basic tenants of Christianity.

So one cannot point out self contradictions in what is considered

scripture without being an "anti-Christ"? (emphasis added)

Correct.

Now, if you pointed out "apparent" self contradictions, and debated

constructively to resolve the issue, that would be a different question. But,

from what I've seen to date, you make no effort to reconcile the apparent

contradictions. The Greek reveals much in these apparent contradictions.

Most are translational issues. As a Christian, you should give The Scripture

the benefit of a doubt, and work from there.

Again, it's a matter of motivation.


I'd like to get back to the technical issues of the ID/ ToE debate

, but I definitely think this is important enough to stop and talk

about for a bit.


Peace

 

[jwu]

10 Pages of anti-creation is enough, I believe.

Not anti-creation. Only anti-literalist-creation. I am argueing against one specific interpretation of the creation story, nothing else.

I was trying to figure out why such an intelligent Christian would buy ToE.

Because the evidence convinced me.

You would be an excellent defender of the faith...especially in areas of
science. You "get" the relevant issues. If you could just turn your motivation
into defending instead of tearing down The Faith

I'm not tearing down the faith, quite the opposite. As soon as God is considered to have left fingerprints in His creation, faith by definition no longer is needed. I believe that since God wants to be known by faith, He wouldn't leave such fingerprints, and that is what i am argueing for.

Not according to the definition of Christian in this forum. John Wesley University should be adhering to these tenants also, being a supposed Protestant institution (I'm assuming that's from where your screen name is derived) Unfortunately, 60% of the Methodist clergy do not believe in the virgin birth, thus deny the diety of Christ; 82% say they do not believe the Bible is the perfect Word of God.

I cannot follow the line of reasoning why Jesus had to be born from a virgin to be God. I do believe that it happened that way, but i don't see any logical problem with it not being the case.

Now, if you pointed out "apparent" self contradictions, and debated
constructively to resolve the issue, that would be a different question. But,
from what I've seen to date, you make no effort to reconcile the apparent
contradictions. The Greek reveals much in these apparent contradictions.
Most are translational issues. As a Christian, you should give The Scripture
the benefit of a doubt, and work from there.
Again, it's a matter of motivation.

I just don't see any problem with self contradictions. I am convinced by evidence that the noachian flood never happened, and that it's just the sumerian flood myth that made it into the Bible. Hence i do not have any problem with errors in the Bible, and i think that Christians should rather stand by them, concede they exist, and focus on the core issues instead of coming up with sometimes mind boggling apologetics to explain them away.

Because these apologetics achieve little but to make us appear delusional in the eyes of non-Christians, and that makes it less likely for them to be saved eventually.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Not anti-creation. Only anti-literalist-creation. I am argueing against one specific interpretation of the creation story, nothing else.

But my guess is that you've probably believed ToE since you were

young..maybe high school, or even junior high. It's a shame, because that's

all we're taught is scientific in all public schools and most private schools.

That's why most ID types press for teaching more than one view of how we

came to exist. Somehow ToE has been accepted as the only "scientific"

representation of how we came to exist by most school boards and colleges.

But the bottom line is: Neither theory can be approached purely in scientific

terms. They lack observability and repeatability, which is necessary in the

scientific method. Both theories require an element of faith.

I'm not tearing down the faith, quite the opposite. As soon as God is considered to have left fingerprints in His creation, faith by definition no longer is needed. I believe that since God wants to be known by faith, He wouldn't leave such fingerprints, and that is what i am argueing for.

I don't believe God expects us to have a blind faith.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened"


Romans 1:18-21

"I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently will find me"

Proverbs 8:17

I cannot follow the line of reasoning why Jesus had to be born from a virgin to be God. I do believe that it happened that way, but i don't see any logical problem with it not being the case.

Here's an encapsulation from Wikipedia that sums up my beliefs concerning

the Virgin Birth:

The doctrine asserts that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother, the Virgin Mary, without the participation of a human father. Instead, the Miraculous Conception (not the Immaculate Conception -- see below) took place when the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Mary. This was not understood to mean that the human body of Christ was created ex nihilo (from nothing), for the tradition of the Church is that Christ "took his flesh from Mary." This is also understood to be a miracle, something not possible without divine intervention...

...Another reason that Christians who accept the Virgin Birth consider it to be significant is that it shows Jesus' divine and human natures at once united, paving the way for all of humanity to be united with God...


...In the wider sense, arguments for and against the Virgin Birth depend on fundamental philosophical assumptions: if one believes God does not exist, or if God exists but does not perform miracles, the Virgin Birth cannot have taken place in any traditionally accepted sense. The Virgin Birth violates a materialist philosophy and science based upon it...


Interestingly, Muslims hold the same doctrine:

... is also held to be true by Muslims (Qur'an 3.47), however, they do not call him (Jesus) "Son of God", rather "Servant of God". In the Qur'an, Jesus (Isa in Arabic) is consistently termed "Isa ibn Maryam" - a matronymic - because, in Muslim belief, he had no biological father...

I just don't see any problem with self contradictions. I am convinced by evidence that the noachian flood never happened, and that it's just the sumerian flood myth that made it into the Bible. Hence i do not have any problem with errors in the Bible, and i think that Christians should rather stand by them, concede they exist, and focus on the core issues instead of coming up with sometimes mind boggling apologetics to explain them away.

Well, first off, when we pick and choose what we think is true and untrue

based on our limited knowledge based on our limited life experience,

we start down that slippery slope I referred to earlier:

Disbelief is progressive. Whenever we say, "I know the Bible teaches this

but I still cannot accept it as true," we have opened the door for more and

more unbelief. We have started down the slippery slope. There is no logical

stopping point. Soon we deny more and more miracles or more and more

doctrines, etc., because we have undermined the foundation of belief.

Following this line of reasoning, many so called Christians reject anything

that is miraculous, because it doesn't agree with their world view:

materialist philosophy and the science based upon it. If one is a Christian,

and believes what Jesus said to be true (inerrancy of Scripture), then the

line of reasoning above should be exactly reversed. If the materialist

philosophy and the science based on it disagrees with Scripture, then it in

fact should be discarded:

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Corinthians 1:21-25

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"

1 Corinthians 2:6-9

jwu:

Because these apologetics achieve little but to make us appear delusional in the eyes of non-Christians, and that makes it less likely for them to be saved eventually.

I don't believe God's plan requires our help. He's got it under control.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 1:16

(emphasis added)

Peace

 

[jwu]

But my guess is that you've probably believed ToE since you were
young..maybe high school, or even junior high. It's a shame, because that's
all we're taught is scientific in all public schools and most private schools.

That's why most ID types press for teaching more than one view of how we
came to exist. Somehow ToE has been accepted as the only "scientific"
representation of how we came to exist by most school boards and colleges.

But the bottom line is: Neither theory can be approached purely in scientific
terms. They lack observability and repeatability, which is necessary in the
scientific method. Both theories require an element of faith.

As soon as ID begins making testable predictions that actually pose a problem to the hypothesis if they are found to be incorrect (i.e. offers falsification) and is used in practical science i will be fine with it being taught in science class. I don't see that happening anytime soon though.

Evolution on the other hand makes such predictions.

I don't believe God expects us to have a blind faith.

That's the other extreme - but there is a lot between blind faith and being convinced of God's workings based on material evidence, and that is the part that we apparently disagree about.

Here's an encapsulation from Wikipedia that sums up my beliefs concerning

the Virgin Birth:

[snip]

I still don't see how this makes virgin birth a requirement to Jesus' deity. Virgin birth means that there is necessarily something special about Jesus, but no virgin birth does not mean that there cannot be something special about Jesus. A => B, but one cannot conlcude from this that !A => !B. Only !B => !A.

Following this line of reasoning, many so called Christians reject anything that is miraculous, because it doesn't agree with their world view:

materialist philosophy and the science based upon it. If one is a Christian,
and believes what Jesus said to be true (inerrancy of Scripture), then the
line of reasoning above should be exactly reversed. If the materialist
philosophy and the science based on it disagrees with Scripture, then it in
fact should be discarded:

There being a slippery slope that one has to be careful about doesn't invalidate my line of reasoning though. I would indeed discard any miracles of which there is hard evidence that they did not happen, i.e. there being no traces of the miracle's reported effects on the material world while there should be some due to the type of the miracle.

[quote:fc79f]jwu:

Because these apologetics achieve little but to make us appear delusional in the eyes of non-Christians, and that makes it less likely for them to be saved eventually.

I don't believe God's plan requires our help. He's got it under control. [/quote:fc79f]Sorry, i don't get what you are saying there. My point is that certain apologetics are directly contraproductive to the spreading of the Gospel, as it makes some Christians appear delusional in the eyes of many non-Christians. Avoiding this seems like a good idea to me.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 1:16

Not being ashamed of the Gospel is one thing - being ashamed of some mindboggling apologetics that are used to explain away problems, many of which not even part of the Gospel but the OT, are an entirely different thing.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

As soon as ID begins making testable predictions that actually pose a problem to the hypothesis if they are found to be incorrect (i.e. offers falsification) and is used in practical science i will be fine with it being taught in science class. I don't see that happening anytime soon though.

Evolution on the other hand makes such predictions.

Such as?

I still don't see how this makes virgin birth a requirement to Jesus' deity. Virgin birth means that there is necessarily something special about Jesus, but no virgin birth does not mean that there cannot be something special about Jesus. A => B, but one cannot conlcude from this that !A => !B. Only !B => !A.

It makes Jesus the Son of God and Son of Man. Fully God and fully man.

There being a slippery slope that one has to be careful about doesn't invalidate my line of reasoning though. I would indeed discard any miracles of which there is hard evidence that they did not happen, i.e. there being no traces of the miracle's reported effects on the material world while there should be some due to the type of the miracle.

Here in Central Texas I've found significant evidence of a major flood,

including carvings of Tubal-Cain (who lived pre-flood- he was Noah's

brother) and metal workings of his lineage at the bottom of the stratum.


If your open to evidence such as this to help confirm the Biblical account of

the Flood, check out my website: http://www.preclovis.com .


If anything, it's pretty cool stuff. Also, I've observed in person several sites

here in Texas with human footsprints formed within dinosaur footprints

before both hardened into limestone bedrock.


The point is, if your looking objectively, the evidence is there.

Sorry, i don't get what you are saying there. My point is that certain apologetics are directly contraproductive to the spreading of the Gospel, as it makes some Christians appear delusional in the eyes of many non-Christians. Avoiding this seems like a good idea to me.

Apologetics such as defending The Creation Story, The Flood, The Exodus

and Jesus asscending into heaven, are not delusional in my opinion. Their

at the heart of the Gospel. Sadly, in science academia, to admit you believe

such concepts is often professional suicide. I definitely understand the peer

pressure Bible believing scientists must endure.


Jesus tells us the world will hate us because of him.


"You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved. If they persecute you in one town, take refuge in the next; and if they persecute you in that, take refuge in another."

Matthew 10:22-23


Peace

 

[jwu]

Such as?

The distribution of genetic sequences, of fossils in the fossil record, that newly discovered organisms fit into the twin nested hierarchy...

It makes Jesus the Son of God and Son of Man. Fully God and fully man.

It's a "sufficient condition", but not a "required condition". Jesus can be the Son of God and the Son of Man without virgin birth as well.

Here in Central Texas I've found significant evidence of a major flood, including carvings of Tubal-Cain (who lived pre-flood- he was Noah's
brother) and metal workings of his lineage at the bottom of the stratum.


If your open to evidence such as this to help confirm the Biblical account of
the Flood, check out my website: http://www.preclovis.com .

I have no idea how these support the flood account...perhaps we could make a thread about the flood and have a focused discussion there.

If anything, it's pretty cool stuff. Also, I've observed in person several sites

here in Texas with human footsprints formed within dinosaur footprints

before both hardened into limestone bedrock.

Like the paluxy tracks, which even creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis acknowledge not to be what they appear to be on first sight?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

Apologetics such as defending The Creation Story, The Flood, The Exodus and Jesus asscending into heaven, are not delusional in my opinion. Their at the heart of the Gospel. Sadly, in science academia, to admit you believe such concepts is often professional suicide. I definitely understand the peer pressure Bible believing scientists must endure.

With the exception of the last i do find them as such. Had people convinced me that i would have to subscribe to the noachian flood story and a literal interpretation of genesis, i wouldn't be a Christian today. Well, i guess going by the definitions of this messageboard i am none, and neither are about a billion other Catholics, and neither are these:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1140653 ... ution.html

 

[Barbarian]

The primary evil of YE creationism is that it adds all sorts of spurious beliefs to Christianity, which tends to drive away unbelievers who know some of them cannot be true.

God set the bar for salvation where he wanted it to be. Let us not tamper with it.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

See Completed Post Below.

 

[jwu]

And it's not possible in your opinion to explain these observations in ID terms?

I have yet to see a good ID explaination for the twin nested hierarchy or ERVs.

But then why would the Scripture document that Mary was a virgin?

Why wouldn't it? Not anything that is documented is required for Jesus to be God's son, is it?
Being of virgin birth isn't any more a requirement for being the Son of God as turning sand into popcorn is. It's nice if it happened and it shows that there is something special going on, but it not having happened wouldn't pose a problem in any way.

The author is not saying he doesn't believe this is the case, but that they need to be properly documented. Many individuals tried there best to get the Texas Universities to come out and conduct studies on them, but
because it is "impossible" in ToE terms for Dino's and humans to co-exist,
the finds were dismissed with no formal research ever being conducted ( at
least by any professional archeological organization at the time. I personally
observed the tracks 20 + years ago when they were freshly exposed by the
rapid erosion of the overlying alluvium. And no doubt about it, they were
human tracks. Unfortunately now, they are highly eroded.

The only picture that i know showing a human footprint supposedly shows a place that was "washed away", so it wasn't solid rock - and hence it can be of any age.

I've got a similar situation going on here with my site, but luckily with the recent confirmations of man being in North America at least 50,000 rcybp (outer limit of the particular dating technique used) and 1,000,000 ago (using radio active techniques) by
The University of South Carolina and Texas A&M respectively,
archeologists here in Texas are now much more receptive to investigating my claim that man had the ability to produce smelt iron prior to 50,000 rcybp...in North America.

That's interesting and personally i find it very exciting that "advanced" (i.e. melting metals and so on) human culture could be older than 10.000 years, but i don't see how this relates to the issues of this thread. It has little bearing on biological evolution, it's a matter of archeology.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The distribution of genetic sequences, of fossils in the fossil record, that newly discovered organisms fit into the twin nested hierarchy...

And it's not possible in your opinion to explain these observations in ID terms?

It's a "sufficient condition", but not a "required condition". Jesus can be the Son

of God and the Son of Man without virgin birth as well.

But then why would the Scripture document that Mary was a virgin?

I have no idea how these support the flood account...perhaps we could make a thread about the flood and have a focused discussion there.

Agreed.

Like the paluxy tracks, which even creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis acknowledge not to be what they appear to be on first sight?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promotersof these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existedâ€â€see Q&A: Dinosaurs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

The author is not saying he doesn't believe this is the case, but that they

need to be properly documented. Many individuals tried their best to get

the Texas Universities to come out and conduct studies on them, but

because it is "impossible" in ToE terms for Dino's and humans to co-exist,

the finds were dismissed with no formal research ever being conducted ( at

least by any professional archeological organization at the time). I

personally observed the tracks 20 + years ago when they were freshly

exposed by the rapid erosion of the overlying alluvium. And no doubt about

it, they were human tracks. Unfortunately, now they are highly eroded.

I've got a similar situation going on here with my site, but luckily, with the

recent confirmations of man being in North America at least 50,000 rcybp

(outer limit of the particular dating technique used) and 1,000,000 ago

(using radio active techniques) by

The University of South Carolina and a team of researchers from The

University of California-Berkeley/ Texas A&M respectively,

archeologists here in Texas are now much

more receptive to investigating my claim that man had the ability to

produce smelt iron prior to 50,000 rcybp...in North America.


Here's a couple of photos:

Approximately 18 " above the bedrock is a well identified Clovis stratum, as

verified by 90 + radio carbon dates taken 8 miles upstream at the

Wilson-Leonard site. From there to bedrock is an unidentified lithic

technology still under investigation:

The Clovis lithics resting above this preClovis layer correspond to the same

lithics and exist in the same well dated stratum as those dated at 13,000

cybp ( note, I don't agree with these absolute dates...there's many

problems with assuming radio carbon years and calendar years are

equal...all experienced archeologists are aware of this, and use rcybp as a

relative tool rather than absolute dating). The underlying stratums have not

been dated as of yet, but there's no doubt, the lithic technology that exists

in these stratums is very unique. There are many similarities between this

lithic technology and the lithic technology discovered by Dr. Al Goodyear,

from The University of South Carolina (radio carbon dated beyond 50,000

rcybp).

Topper Uniface:

Note the iron staining once again.


Central Texas Uniface:

Topper Blade:

Note the iron staining once again.


Underneath the stratum that contains these same style lithics and iron

staining lies the bedrock in which the furnace structures are carved.

World wide, at present, man is believed to have first smelted iron , at tops,

5000 rcybp.


The observations at Topper (>50,000 rcybp), modern human footprints

discovered by Texas A&M and The University of California-Berkeley dating

1,300,000 (radio-active dating), and solid evidence of man smelting iron in

North America >50,000 rcybp completely destroys the whole current

concept of Human Evolution. Remember, the researchers conducting

this research are predominately evolutionists...but their being damn good

scientists. The members of the both teams are considered by the

archeological community as elite, cutting edge, well respected and very

experienced. All of these discoveries have developed in just the last 3

years. Who knows what's to come.

It's exciting times!!!

jwu:

With the exception of the last i do find them as such. Had people convinced me that i would have to subscribe to the noachian flood story and a literal interpretation of genesis, i wouldn't be a Christian today. Well, i guess going by the definitions of this messageboard i am none, and neither are about a billion other Catholics, and neither are these:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1140653 ... ution.html

Correct.

Their not according to what the Bible teaches. That's why the Protestant

Church broke off from the Catholic Church.

The Papacy and Priesthood

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church.

The Worship of Mary

Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and was sinless all of her life. She is worshiped in the Catholic church as the "Mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven." St. Bernard stated that she was crowned "Queen of Heaven" by God the Father, and that she currently sits upon a throne in Heaven making intercession for Christians.

The Bible teaches otherwise. In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She said herself that she needed a "Saviour" (Lk. 1:47), and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24. Jesus was only her "firstborn" son, according to Matthew 1:25, because she later had other children as well (Mt. 13:55; Gal. 1:19; Psa. 69:8). There's only ONE mediator between God and men, and it isn't Mary (I Tim. 2:5). The last time we hear from Mary in the Bible she is praying WITH the disciples, not being prayed to BY the disciples (Acts 1:14). The Bible never exalts Mary above anyone else. Neither should we.

Purgatory

The Catholic Church teaches that a Christian's soul must burn in purgatory after death until all of their sins have been purged. To speed up the purging process, money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for an earlier release.

This heresy began creeping into the Roman Church during the reign of Pope Gregory around the end of the sixth century, and it has no scriptural support. In fact, Jesus warned us about this pagan practice in Matthew 23:14 when He spoke of those who devoured widows houses and made long prayers for a pretence. Psalm 49:6-7 tells us that a person couldn't redeem a loved one, even if such a place did exist: "They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:"

Peter addresses this issue in Acts 8:20 when he says, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." God's word is clearly against the doctrine of purgatory.

The Mass

By perverting the Christian practice of the Lord's Supper (Mat. 26:26-28; I Cor. 11:23-27), the Catholic Church has created the Mass, which they believe to be a continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ:

"Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of")

Jesus never made such a command. If you'll check the above references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

"In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into his blood, the species or outward semblence of bread and wine alone remaining." (Vol. 4, pg. 277, Article: "Consecration")

The Catholic Church teaches that the "Holy Mass" is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Now, what does God's word say about such practices? If you'll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.

Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but God's word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."

The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.

Image Worship

The Catholic religion is filled with all sorts of symbols, images, and relics. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states these words:

"It is lawful to have images in the Church, and to give honor and worship unto them..."

It's lawful to honor and worship images? Not according to God's word. Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Image worship is unscriptural and will end with the eternal damnation of those who practice it (Rev. 14:11).

Salvation by Works

Through infant baptism, keeping sacraments, church membership, going to mass, praying to Mary, and confession (just to mention a few), the Catholic church has developed a system of salvation through WORKS. God's word says that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins, because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6)

The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9:

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

Jesus PAID your way to Heaven for you! By receiving Him as your Saviour, you will be receiving God's ONLY means of Salvation for you. Are you willing to forsake YOUR righteousness and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your ONLY HOPE for Salvation? Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Are you willing to forsake your own righteousness, and trust Jesus Christ alone? He will save you just as He promised. Why not receive Him today and trust Him to give you a better way of life?

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html

The Good News is God provides justification by faith apart from the works of

the law.

By God's infinite Grace, salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone, to

whom we must respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Through

Christ we come into a right relationship with God, our sins are forgiven, and

we receive eternal life.


Peace

 

[jwu]

And it's not possible in your opinion to explain these observations in ID terms?

I have yet to see a good ID explaination for the twin nested hierarchy or ERVs.

But then why would the Scripture document that Mary was a virgin?

Why wouldn't it? Not anything that is documented is required for Jesus to be God's son, is it?
Being of virgin birth isn't any more a requirement for being the Son of God as turning sand into popcorn is. It's nice if it happened and it shows that there is something special going on, but it not having happened wouldn't pose a problem in any way.

The author is not saying he doesn't believe this is the case, but that they need to be properly documented. Many individuals tried there best to get the Texas Universities to come out and conduct studies on them, but
because it is "impossible" in ToE terms for Dino's and humans to co-exist,
the finds were dismissed with no formal research ever being conducted ( at
least by any professional archeological organization at the time. I personally
observed the tracks 20 + years ago when they were freshly exposed by the
rapid erosion of the overlying alluvium. And no doubt about it, they were
human tracks. Unfortunately now, they are highly eroded.

The only picture that i know showing a human footprint supposedly shows a place that was "washed away", so it wasn't solid rock - and hence it can be of any age.

I've got a similar situation going on here with my site, but luckily with the recent confirmations of man being in North America at least 50,000 rcybp (outer limit of the particular dating technique used) and 1,000,000 ago (using radio active techniques) by
The University of South Carolina and Texas A&M respectively,
archeologists here in Texas are now much more receptive to investigating my claim that man had the ability to produce smelt iron prior to 50,000 rcybp...in North America.

That's interesting and personally i find it very exciting that "advanced" (i.e. melting metals and so on) human culture could be older than 10.000 years, but i don't see how this relates to the issues of this thread. It has little bearing on biological evolution, it's a matter of archeology.

The observations at Topper (>50,000 rcybp), modern human footprints discovered by Texas A&M and The University of California-Berkeley dating
1,300,000 (radio-active dating), and solid evidence of man smelting iron in
North America >50,000 rcybp completely destroys the whole current
concept of Human Evolution.


Remember, the researchers conducting
this research are predominately evolutionists...but their being damn good
scientists. The members of the both teams are considered by the
archeological community as elite, cutting edge, well respected and very
experienced. All of these discoveries have developed in just the last 3
years. Who knows what's to come.
It's exciting times!!!

How so? 50.000 years ago we were already Homo Sapiens, and even if such sites can be found which predate even Homo Sapiens, then you still have to show that they were used by modern humans and not e.g. Homo Erectus or some entirely different species. All it can do is to cast doubt on the pattern of migration, not on the biological development. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Correct.
Their not according to what the Bible teaches. That's why the Protestant
Church broke off from the Catholic Church.

So anyone who disagrees with certain Protestants denominations on these issues is not a Christian? How about the Protestant denominations listed there, such as Presbyterians?
There are many things about e.g. Catholicism that i strongly disagree with myself, but i'd never accuse them of not being Christians.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I have yet to see a good ID explaination for the twin nested hierarchy or

ERVs.

Why wouldn't ERV's be designed into mammal's genomes. Their fetus's

wouldn't survive without them. It would be ridiculous to design mammals

without them. Same would apply for certain other "parasite/ host "

relationships.



Some Evolutionists hypothesize ERV's are just old viral infections that have

lost their ability to leave the host cell and infect other cells, at the same

time in which the overall organism has evolved to require the evolved virus.

This an example of coevolution, which hypothesizes two distinct organisms

evolving at the same time, in a way that is mutually dependent.


Now, you talk about faith...buying that this could actually occur naturally and

randomly requires much more faith than just buying into the Creation as

presented in Genesis 1.

Of course neither can be believed through purely

scientific deduction. Neither can be observed. Also, there is no

repeatability.

I'll answer your other points in the morning. Long day today...


Peace

 

[jwu]

Why wouldn't ERV's be designed into mammal's genomes. Their fetus's
wouldn't survive without them. It would be ridiculous to design mammals
without them. Same would apply for certain other "parasite/ host "
relationships.

Only one particular ERV sequence, HERV-W, is known to be utilized by the cell. It still has the typical genes 5' - gag - pol - env - 3' in that sequence flanked by LTR, which indicates that it wasn't always part of the genome, but got inserted by a virus. That shouldn't be there if it was designed that way from the start. Furthermore, there is no parasite host relationship as the cell does not produce any of these viruses - the insertion went wrong, which saved the cell in first instance.

Some Evolutionists hypothesize ERV's are just old viral infections that have lost their ability to leave the host cell and infect other cells, at the same time in which the overall organism has evolved to require the evolved virus.

This an example of coevolution, which hypothesizes two distinct organisms
evolving at the same time, in a way that is mutually dependent.

Source?
The cells do not produce the viruses, else they'd blow up and release them at one time. There is no symbiotic relationship, and with the exception of HERV-W i am not aware of any such sequence which is actually used by the organism for own purposes either.

Now, you talk about faith...buying that this could actually occur naturally and randomly requires much more faith than just buying into the Creation as presented in Genesis 1.

This requires no faith at all, as with common descent nothing unlikely is involved. it's exactly what one would expect to see with common descent! A literal interpretation of genesis however requires one to discard plenty of evidence against it.

Of course neither can be believed through purely
scientific deduction. Neither can be observed. Also, there is no
repeatability.

We can pretty much see viruses infecting cells today, retroviruses are even used to inject gene strands by geneticists in their experiments, if i recall correctly. And new ERV sequences are being discovered, so it is repeatable.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existedâ€â€see Q&A: Dinosaurs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

Charlie:

The author is not saying he doesn't believe this is the case, but that they

need to be properly documented. Many individuals tried their best to get

the Texas Universities to come out and conduct studies on them, but

because it is "impossible" in ToE terms for Dino's and humans to co-exist,

the finds were dismissed with no formal research ever being conducted ( at

least by any professional archeological organization at the time).

jwu:

The only picture that i know showing a human footprint supposedly shows a place that was "washed away", so it wasn't solid rock - and hence it can be of any age.

Peace

 

[jwu]

Then perhaps you should tell the AiG guys to update their page...these pictures don't exactly look like they were taken yesterday. What i see there are things that could be human footprints, but that's far from conclusive. And only the print on the second image looks like a closer candidate for a human print in first instance - the others can be either just about anything, or have distinctively wrong features which disqualify human origin - they're just roughly oval shaped with features which look like they could be toes, but e.g. way too wide in the middle section.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie:

I've got a similar situation going on here with my site, but luckily with the recent confirmations of man being in North America at least 50,000 rcybp (outer limit of the particular dating technique used) and 1,000,000 ago (using radio active techniques) by
The University of South Carolina and Texas A&M respectively,
archeologists here in Texas are now much more receptive to investigating my claim that man had the ability to produce smelt iron prior to 50,000 rcybp...in North America.

jwu:

That's interesting and personally i find it very exciting that "advanced" (i.e. melting metals and so on) human culture could be older than 10.000 years, but i don't see how this relates to the issues of this thread. It has little bearing on biological evolution, it's a matter of archeology.

The point I was trying to make is there is evidence of a widespread culture

using advanced technology in North America at greater than 50,000 rcybp.

If the culture was already widespread by that point, then you can deduct they

had been here a while before that.

Researchers from Texas A&M and Berkeley claim they have solid evidence of

human footprints in Mexico created 1.3 million years ago. Researcher's at

The Calico Site (Including Louis Leaky), in California, claim solid evidence of

human occupation at > than 200,000 years.

According to textbook representations of human evolution, "modern"

humans evolved in Africa 120,000 years ago.

Apparently some very reputable scientists disagree, and have

solid evidence to back their claim.


Peace