Friday, October 14, 2016

Foundational Fallacies of Creationism


Buy on Amazon


Last evening I had the privilege of  meeting and talking with Aron Ra on  book tour here in Portland.  I have been asked to share this by Gary.




Aron Ra, for those who may not recall, countered Dave Pack's 12 part series on why Creationism and the Biblical account of creation is correct with a devastating rebuttal of his own 12 part series on why Dave doesn't know what he's talking about and is merely parroting old and ill-informed arguments. Aron mentioned he has three more goes at Dave Pack in the works.




"Religious  fundamentalists and biblical literalists present any number of arguments that attempt to disprove evolution.  Those with a sympathetic ear often fail to critically examine these creationist claims, leading to an ill informed public , and perhaps more troubling, ill-advised public policy.  As Aron Ra makes clear, however, every single argument deployed by creationists in their attacks on evolution is founded on fundamental scientific, religious and historical falsehoods--all of them.  Among their most popular claims is that evolution is a religion, that there are no transitional species and that there are no beneficial mutations.  Yet, as the evidence and the data plainly show, each of these claims is unequivocally and demonstrably false.  There is simply no truth to creationism whatsoever, and the entire enterprise rests on a foundation of falsehoods.  This exposes the worst of these lies and should be ready by all who honestly care about following the evidence no matter where it might lead in the pursuit of the truth."


On a personal note, I realize how difficult it is for those given to Biblical explanations rather than ongoing scientific discovery to even want to consider that their Sunday School version of life and meaning may be incorrect.  Religion discourages critical thinking as witnessed by any number of scriptures that scorn human reasoning or knowing.  Sitting down before that fact as a little child, as noted, and being willing to follow it into whatever abyss it leads one , or you will learn nothing that is actually true, is a difficult journey and there be few that find it.  The reason for this , in my view, is the fact that religion is formulated to address the fears our knowledge of our deaths provoke.  "What's going to happen to me when I die?"  Religion allays those fears.  I have no personal problem with being the current end result of millions of years of hominid evolution and that death is death.  It makes the present time in life precious beyond measure.  Many true believers are so heaven , or Kingdom bound, they are of no earthly use it seems.  In the Churches of God, offering a cup of cool water to one in need is a chore for others it seems.  We have to do the work!  And the reward is always a just around the corner and soon to come that lingers and proving to be of no earthly or present value in fact. 


"Diogenes, you can retire now!  Aron Ra, a remarkable figure in many ways, is an  indefatigable opponent of hokum, whether religious or pseudoscientific in nature...In this book Aron trains his analytical guns on "scientific" creationism.  Do you think this is a matter of beating a dead Eohippus?  It is not, because pseudoscience and superstition never sleep, and the proponents never tire of seeking ( and gaining ) government support to turn back the clock and to cripple science education precisely at the time our great country can least afford such charlatanism."

Robert M. Price, coauthor of Evolving out of Eden




The evolution of life on this planet over the past 4 billion years is a fact and all the "yea but.."s and "you'll think differently when you are cast into the Lake of Fire" aside, is a wonderful and amazing story that is constantly unfolding by good science done well.  We have hundreds of transitional fossils and "missing links" to tell the story of how we and the universe came to be. It is difficult for humans to take themselves out of the middle of the equation and demand that there must be "a purpose" for it all.  It just is , I understand , is not what most want to hear or believe, but again, beliefs are not truths and wish something to be true does not make it true anymore than the Bible , on Creationism ,is true because it says it is true.





Our parents were taught the Milky Way Galaxy WAS the Universe  That our Universe actually contains up to 2 trillion galaxies should give us pause to reconsider our centrality and purpose for it, as uncomfortable as that might be having been taught we are the purpose for it all. 

I would encourage anyone to never be intimidated or even discouraged by wherever real study and real facts take one.  It is common to think , "but that is so disillusioning," to which I have always said, "Who wants to live with illusions?"  I have since learned that many if not most are quite content with illusions.

But for those who at least want to be fair in their pursuit of reality, Foundational Fallacies of Creationism would prove to be an outstanding resource for the challenge.  While Dave Pack made one of the biggest public mistakes of his life presenting his archaic and out of date series on Creationism, he did provide an excellent opportunity to show all of these fallacies in play for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Never be threatened by what is.  Be amazed and grateful to be alive and conscious of the wonder of it all. 

Foundational Fallacies of Creationism
Well worth your time....If you really just ever wanted to know what is. 












64 comments:

ashley froud said...

From HWA to Aron "ra" Nelson. Dennis must have a high priest of some sort! Maybe he likes Aron because he can get high with him. Photos and autographs, and everything. Suck up real good Dennis!

Anonymous said...

The Theory of Evolution does not address the origins of life. It starts with an extremely complex biological system and then says through “mutations” and natural selection, one species can over a long time period change to another. It doesn’t explain how life came from non-life.

It doesn’t propose how this incredibly complex biological system came to be. It can’t explain how 1.5GB of DNA coding was “written” without a programmer.

Aron Ra promotes a silly fairy tale which has no scientific facts to back it up. He tends to use insults to those who believe in a Creator. But he could claim to be proof of a living fossil, Neanderthal.

Anonymous said...

Great work, Dennis.
Keep it up!
It's a sign that you're on the right track when the Armstrongites throw shit fits, as in the first comments here.

DennisCDiehl said...

Ashley, you're a piece of work. Ranting about people you don't know, books you can't or won't read and illustrating a mindset for which Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism was written to address. I don't smoke pot but can buy it freely about a block down the street. This is Oregon after all.

Anon 10:21 Come back after you have read the book. Your glittering generalities are showing and just as Ashley , you choose to denigrate the messenger. Aron has more compassion and kindness in him than I imagine you to have ever had judging by your words. You should see the attention and care he took to be sure a paralyzed audience member was comfortable and had their questions addressed. The ignorance of some of the folk who show up here , and their defensive pronouncements fit in with the 60% of Americans who don't want to hear about or can't explain the science and critical thinking behind the reality of the fossil record.

So far the comments are 2 for 2 ignorant.

DennisCDiehl said...

The autograph was to show he is not finished with Dave Pack, not that I got one. lol

Anonymous said...

Ashley reminds me of Dave Pack's comment that allowed him to dismiss Albert Einstein because "he had wild hair". Classic Church of God reasoning.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anon said:
"Aron Ra promotes a silly fairy tale which has no scientific facts to back it up. He tends to use insults to those who believe in a Creator. But he could claim to be proof of a living fossil, Neanderthal."

No scientific facts to back it up? What kind of ignoramus are you? And then you turn around after lamenting "he tends to use insult to those who believe in a creator" and
insults him. Who are you people?

Anonymous said...

Ashley, Please present a short list of books, besides the Bible, on the topic at hand, you may have read in the last year. Please include why or why not they did or did not inform you of anything you didn't know.

ashley froud said...

Dennis, you're a "new ager". I don't like your new age religion, or your high priest. If you're pissed at Herb, that's one thing. But don't try to proselytize for another religion.

Anon 11:35 AM; I remind some folks of the "Queen of Sheba" too. You'll get over it! Traitor Guy did.

ashley froud said...

Anon 12:06 PM; No! I'm not going to jump through your hoops.

"Anonymous" I think that's a shame, but keep your head down, keep concealed. No one will know who you are.

Where have all the cowboys gone?

You gutless wonders! ...WTF ! ! !

Stephen said...

Good times, Dennis. Wish I could have been there. Don't let the COG Trump supporters get you down. They might not vote, but that doesn't mean they would be part of his faithful alt-right base if only they did.

Kind of nasty there, Ashley. Is that doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? Sounds like you need another day of fasting to remind yourself that life is too short for this kind of nastiness.

It's true Anon10:21AM, the theory of evolution does not address the origins of life. Never has. Maybe the first form of life was a precursor to a ribozyme, but we don't know, and that's okay. Being able to admit that is the only honest position on the question, and it's the only position from which progress can occur. The fact is, nobody knows how life initially got started, not even those who pretend as if they know. A profound epistemic dishonesty is the life blood of religion, which teaches us not only to lie to ourselves about what we know and don't know but also to be satisfied with not knowing after all. Religious people are just guessing that life arose due to some anthropomorphic "creator" deity. But even if that were true, they're just guessing once again when they pretend like they know which one it was.

Anonymous said...

Ah, I see more fear that the fantasy is being debunked and the illusion of a great divine kingdom in which they will be able to boss everyone around as immortal beings on the god plane is going out the window, or whatever. Fate spare me the misfortune of ever having to kow tow to such individuals.

Anonymous said...

The selfrightous above us all preacher is now selfrightous above us all atheist, just because he is more "educated" than us?

Anonymous said...

Evidently if you want to bring out the ignorance and the shallow scorn of folk like Ashley, just show them a book.

Anonymous said...

When you gonna learn books scare church folk. Booklets! That's all they can digest and then just one at a time and thats it. Topic mastered. Information booth closed.

Hoss said...

...dismiss Albert Einstein because "he had wild hair".

Like John Ogwyn using "Get real!" as a rebuttal.

Regardless of my personal stance, flawed arguments just don't cut it.

DennisCDiehl said...

ashley froud said...
Dennis, you're a "new ager". I don't like your new age religion, or your high priest. If you're pissed at Herb, that's one thing. But don't try to proselytize for another religion.

Do you just make this stuff up? New Ager? lol. Hardly. I would suggest a good read of Fallacy Number 5 . "Evolution is the Religion of Atheism" Covers your misconception nicely. "Faith means not wanting to know what is true." Nietzsche. Or perhaps Mark Twain had it right. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Anonymous Anonymous said...
The selfrightous above us all preacher is now selfrightous above us all atheist, just because he is more "educated" than us?"

These comments are getting humorous and revealing. Only in the Church of God and fundamentalism would a posting about a Book being recommended to the critical thinker on Biblically related topics bring out such insecurity and inane comments. Why would someone say "just because he is more educated than us"? Just because???? You say that like it's a bad thing! Read a book and catch up.

Michael said...

"That our Universe actually contains up to 2 trillion galaxies should give us pause..."

Whoa, kudos on being up-to-date :)
(seeing as how just 2 days ago the figure was upgraded by x10 from about 200 billion to 2 trillion)

Anonymous said...

I don't see my post and that's not what I meant Dennis. I was just curious as to what 'others' would have done with that information. Any weak link in anybody's chain of circular reasoning is worth pointing out, right? The backdoor is usually not barricaded.

But I also understand that he has a family to take care of now and marriage is a relationship of give and take. Compramises must be made. Is the bird still alive? LOL
Cockatiels can be a pain in the ass!

DBP

Michael said...

Stephen wrote:
"It's true Anon10:21AM, the theory of evolution does not address the origins of life. Never has."

I wouldn't say I agree with that. You hear it a lot from the evolutionary camp (where I firmly reside), but I respectfully object.
(Arguments like "Evolution is not abiogenesis, that is something totally different", and statements to that effect.)
There was clearly a broad gradual spectrum from "non-life" to "life", as we would consider it, and evolutionary principles guided the whole process from start to the present, and in fact, "descent with modification" of the first crude replicators is what evolution is all about. Abiogenesis is simply evolution of the first replicating molecules and variations in the "gene pool" of their population.

I think they're so vigorously isolated, when arguing creationists, because to explain the evolution of the first replicators gets much more complicated, requires extensive knowledge of chemistry, and we don't have fossils or other hard evidence for it. But it is an integral part of evolutionary theory, no doubt at all.

John Thimakis said...

If anyone wants to actually "know" what the argument for and against creationism really are then this book is a must read.

Highly recommended. ✔

Joe Martin said...

ashley froudOctober 14, 2016 at 12:54 PM

Anon 12:06 PM; No! I'm not going to jump through your hoops.

That's a pretty transparent dodge, avoiding admitting that you have probably never read a book.

Byker Bob said...

We seem to be stuck between two polar opposites in our discussion here. The truth most likely lies somewhere in between. Speaking of books, I keep mentioning "Genesis and the Big Bang". It presents an excellent case for theistic evolution, ie God using the evolutionary process as part of the natural laws by which what we see around us today came about. This explains the origins of primitive life that others have already commented is lacking in some versions of evolution, it explains symbiosis, seeming communication amongst groups of living things which required parallel evolutionary processes in order to survive, and it incorporates relativity into the creation narrative. Basically, the book presents an assisted process, in which laws governing probabiity are guided and enhanced, tuning all of the ratios and spectra to the narrow band permitting life.

Evolution seems to be fact, based on what we can observe today in real time with the continuing development of certain viruses, with the growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, breeding techniques which have optimized plants and animals, the fossil record, geological records, underwater cave research, the ice layers of the poles, and many other phenomena. But, still, something had to happen somewhere along the line to defy the seemingly apparent law of biogenesis. That is one factor that troubled me deeply, and left me unable to explain any time it was brought up during the course of my past atheist years. About the only thing that could resolve that issue for me personally would be scientists being able to duplicate the cocktail, the primordial slime which was supposedly stimulated in some way to give rise to life. But, that's just me requiring my own kind of tangible evidence or proof.

BB

Anonymous said...

Ashley,

I understand how you could feel offended and intimidated by someone's rude request that you reveal the "list" of books you have read in the last year. You could feel the judgment implied by the request, as if any list you would give would be judged "not long enough" and as proof that your opinion didn't matter. So, let's try it another way. Dennis likes to tell us all sorts of things about the latest wild idea he has had from the latest wild book he has read. As a reader of this blog, I would like to ask you a request MUCH simpler than what Anon 12:06 threw at you.

Ashley, of all the books you read in the last year or two, please tell us about (1) the book about a Bible/Christianity subject that you read, published by a source other than an ACOG, that impressed you the most, and (2) the book about a non-Bible/Christianity subject that you read that impressed you the most.

That's not asking for a list or asking you to jump through hoops. Let us know about those two books that most affected or impressed you, and we'll have a better idea of where you're coming from.

If you haven't actually read two books in the last year or two, you won't have two books to recommend to us, but maybe that will wake you up to what cult membership is doing to your mind and your ability to reason thoughtfully. Otherwise, please let us know about those two books!

Anonymous said...

There was a similar discussion not long ago. There were 150 plus postings, and growing. And what did Dennis do? He pressed the delete key. So Dennis 'read the book' Diehl becomes Delete_Guy if the counter arguments begin to sound convincing.

ashley froud said...

Anon 5:54; No!
My comments on this string are to oppose Dennis' promotion of Aron Nelson, and his ideology. Dennis seems unstable in his sycophantic admiration of Aron, and would have us follow Aron's ideas. Dennis has done this before on this blog. This dose not help anyone who is dealing with bad splinter groups. (e.g. "Look what the cat dragged in!" Aron "ra" Nelson). This would tend to repel some folk. Dennis seems like a lout to me, so I oppose him on this.

Opinionated said...

ashley froud said...
From HWA to Aron "ra" Nelson. Dennis must have a high priest of some sort! Maybe he likes Aron because he can get high with him. Photos and autographs, and everything. Suck up real good Dennis!

October 14, 2016 at 9:43 AM


What a nasty little bitch you are.

Anonymous said...

Opinionated, you are missing the point. Ashley Froud has done us a great service by attacking Dennis personally in the manner she has chosen. We might otherwise have made the mistake of assuming she was a committed and serious Christian, reacting against Dennis because he is working to debunk her cherished beliefs. So, by seeing her vulgar and grossly unChristian ad hominem attacks on Dennis, we can be reassured that she is no better or worse than the other non-Christians who post their mutual insults to one another on this blog.

Why do I assume that Ashley is a non-Christian? It's not just the way her personal attacks violate Christ's commands. It's her very telling assertion:

Dennis must have a high priest of some sort!

A Christian would not mock the idea of someone having a High Priest, because for a Christian it is Jesus Christ who serves as High Priest. Ashley, however, puts HWA and Aron into that category, which would be blasphemous for a Christian, but would be well-expected from a carnal gutter-fighter. If Ashley thinks of herself as a Christian, it's only because she has never been exposed to the "real thing" thanks to her incarceration in her ACOG prison.

ashley froud said...

Opinionated; Indeed I'm not as patient, or kindhearted as Byker Bob. He has the ability to offer advice in a nice way. I don't have the patience for it.

But it's nice to know I'm a "nasty" little bitch though. Thank you Opinionated.

Anonymous said...

Whoops, I goofed! I didn't recognize the para-phrase, Dennis.
I thought you wrote "The selfrightous above us all preacher is now selfrightous above us all atheist, just because he is more "educated" than us?" in response to my post.

Can the Universe exist if there's no consciousness around to observe it?

"We are no longer satisfied with insights into particles, or fields of force, or geometry, or even space and time. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.” JAW
Roger Penrose, Orch-OR.

DBP

Michael said...

Byker Bob wrote:
"But, still, something had to happen somewhere along the line to defy the seemingly apparent law of biogenesis. That is one factor that troubled me deeply, and left me unable to explain any time it was brought up during the course of my past atheist years."

But there's a very good and reasonable explanation, Bob. The law of biogenesis merely describes what we see as being the case now. Because life has had over 3 billion years to get really, really good at assimilating organic molecules it finds anywhere on this planet.
So any new replicating molecules that might try to arise in this situation simply get gobbled up and never have a chance.
(Like, try offering up a new homegrown internet search engine these days - it won't go anywhere).
So as a result, the only life you will ever see is that of the existing replicators (the existing life forms), and hence the law of biogenesis. New life forms don't/can't arise spontaneously.

In a pre-life (sterile) environment, however, the situation would be different and that law wouldn't apply. The new replicators had very little competition and weren't being assimilated by other life, so they just had to be the best replicators to establish themselves. And once established they've made it virtually impossible for it to happen again independently.

Anonymous said...

The Road to Reality

Anonymous said...

Michael said:

"Stephen wrote: 'It's true Anon10:21AM, the theory of evolution does not address the origins of life. Never has.' I wouldn't say I agree with that. You hear it a lot from the evolutionary camp (where I firmly reside), but I respectfully object. (Arguments like "Evolution is not abiogenesis, that is something totally different", and statements to that effect.) There was clearly a broad gradual spectrum from "non-life" to "life", as we would consider it, and evolutionary principles guided the whole process from start to the present, and in fact, "descent with modification" of the first crude replicators is what evolution is all about. Abiogenesis is simply evolution of the first replicating molecules and variations in the "gene pool" of their population."

Thanks Michael, I appreciate your comment. I can understand your position, as a purely naturalistic account of life on this planet would depend first upon abiogenesis and subsequently upon evolution.

However, there is a good reason why scientists do not lump these together: the driver of evolution is natural selection, while abiogenesis requires a different driving principle. So a theory of abiogenesis must necessarily be a completely different theory, depending on completely different principles. That's why I maintain that natural selection has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

If you want to lump a theory of abiogensis in together with the theory of evolution, then I think you need to be using different terminology.

If you want to talk about a comprehensive theory of life, then I would agree, it's fine to lump both theories together under that terminology umbrella. But I think it's misleading and confusing to use the term evolution as a euphemism for theory of life.

ashley froud said...

Anon 7:20; I did not "attack" any one. I only dressed him down. You distort what you see. You could say that I'm being "ATTACKED" too, i.e. "nasty little bitch", but I'm not cry babying about it. You are playing sycophant with Dennis, in saying I'm attacking him. He's a big boy, he'll get over it.
Also; your comments show that you are unstable, by expecting others to fall into compliance with your assay of the situation. You are VARY presumptuous. A Christian would cry aloud and spare not. But you want me to shut up. No I'll call it the way I see it.

Byker Bob said...

Duly noted, Michael. However, in giving that type of logic a test drive, I can see how it could be used in partisan ways by either side to support conflicting viewpoints. As an example, what if acts of new creation were quietly, and in very limited fashion still be taking place today? Wouldn't they also be swallowed up and concealed by the totality of the whole?

Both creation and evolution at some point in time and discussion require a violation of or inconsistency with the laws of nature or the universe as we currently know and understand them today.

BB

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately Anon 8:49, the road to reality for all religious zealots is thru Fantasyland.

Anonymous said...

ashley fraud wrote at 9:53 AM:

You are VARY presumptuous

I bow to your education and your expert and correct use of the English language. Now why don't you just calm down and go get a nice frothy glass of milk, some cookies, and sit down for a juicy rare hamburger?

Anonymous said...

Byker Bob asked:

As an example, what if acts of new creation were quietly, and in very limited fashion still be taking place today? Wouldn't they also be swallowed up and concealed by the totality of the whole?


Define your terms. What qualifies as "creation"? A new birth? Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

If it counts as "creation" whenever energy becomes matter, then creation can exist comfortably without any deity and is indeed an ongoing process, as is the "destruction" that goes along in parallel.

However, if it is only creation when a previously whole system gains energy or matter and the previous equilibrium is overturned, then NO, such creation would NOT "be swallowed up and concealed." We would know about it, and physicists would not be able to count on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Anonymous said...

11.32AM according to a article on blog etiquette, one should not say 'go make a sandwich' to those you disagree with. So please, keep it civil.

Anonymous said...

The "second law of thermodynamics" argument applied to evolution is a simplified fallacy, unfortunately. There are valid arguments to make, but that isn't a good one.

Byker Bob said...

11:55, it is not incumbent upon me to define "creation". The discussion was spawned by Aron Ra's book: Foundational Fallacies of Creationism. So, it is how Mr. Ra defines it that would seem to be the key here. The second responder, at 10:21, introduced the topic of the origins of life, an aspect that generally enters into the creation vs evolution debate. Michael and myself were specifically discussing that aspect.

Biblical creation of life is based on the macro. Plants, animals, humans. Spontaneous generation of life is based on the micro, generally postulated as starting with the single cell. In my case, I don't happen to believe in a literal "poof and fantasma" creation process. I believe God used the natural, observable, process of evolution, functioning in accordance with the natural laws which scientists have identified, along with his guidance, to bring about all that we see today. So, if creation of life were happening today, say on a bacterial level deep in the jungles, or in the depths of the sea, it would not necessarily be detected by scientists for years or decades. And, it would certainly not be on the level of a massive energy infusion, perceivable as a violation of 2LTD. In fact, I'm not even convinced that you have a full comprehension of that law, a basic understanding of Einstein's Theory, or the law conservation of energy, or the law conservation of matter.

BB

Anonymous said...


Evilutionists like to claim that there are leftover body parts from evilution that currently serve no useful purpose. In the past, some ignorant evilutionists thought that tonsils were leftover from evilution and were unnecessary, and that all children should have their tonsils removed. Never let any ignorant evilutionists talk you into unnecessarily parting with any of your body parts just because they do not yet know what the parts are for.

Anonymous said...

"evilution" Seriously? Are you in junior high or what? Undereducated individuals usually mock those who know more than they do. Look at how Herbert and Meredith did/do that.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous on October 15, 2016 at 7:38 PM said..."'evilution' Seriously? Are you in junior high or what? Undereducated individuals usually mock those who know more than they do.”


Yes, seriously.

Look how those under-educated evilutionists try to mock God, who knows so much more than they do. God created everything. Evilutionists are just bulldunging you when they pretend to know more about biology than God does. Not knowing what tonsils are for is a relatively minor screw-up for evilutionists. Evilutionists do not even know what buttholes are for. Evilutionists have their heads stuck so far up their butts that they get their followers literally all buggered up too. They try to promote such behavior as something to be proud of. They will do anything to oppose God's plan to have people reproduce and multiply and fill the earth.

Evil? Uh-huh.

Michael said...

Anon 9:37 wrote:
"However, there is a good reason why scientists do not lump these together: the driver of evolution is natural selection, while abiogenesis requires a different driving principle. So a theory of abiogenesis must necessarily be a completely different theory, depending on completely different principles. That's why I maintain that natural selection has nothing to do with abiogenesis."

Well, that's exactly where I disagree. Once you have a replicator able to make modified copies of itself, all of the principles of evolution - mutation, natural selection, neutral theory, etc. - all of them clearly apply.

Granted, there is the fine point of what exactly do you define as abiogenesis, which is extremely slippery in the first place (because even science doesn't have a distinct iron-clad definition for what constitutes "life" beginning. It's like, in the electromag. spectrum, where does yellow end and green begin? Is a virus alive yet?)

If you are defining "abiogenesis" as the "appearance" of the first replicator just able to replicate itself (say, a three- or four-membered polymer), that just occurred randomly, there is no natural selection in that, but that would have been a very small part of the story, and not yet life at all.
So there would be long and hazy road from that to what most scientists would concur as being "life", and all of that would necessarily depend on mutation + natural selection amongst the new budding replicators, to determine who are the winners (survivors).

What I'm saying is that abiogenesis (leading up to... "life") is an evolutionary process as well, just evolution in embryonic form, and you can't divvy up the two. If all the evolutionary principles apply, I think it's completely reasonable to call it all evolution, no need for a separate term like "theory of life".

Michael said...

Byker Bob wrote:
"Both creation and evolution at some point in time and discussion require a violation of or inconsistency with the laws of nature or the universe as we currently know and understand them today."

I wouldn't say abiogenesis isn't "inconsistent" with the laws of nature, that is the point.
We observe that life doesn't arise spontaneously *now*, but understanding the nature of the environment explains why we don't. It's not that it physically or logically can't happen at all, but merely that the existing conditions don't allow it to happen now.

Michael said...

Michael wrote:
"If all the evolutionary principles apply, I think it's completely reasonable to call it all evolution, no need for a separate term like "theory of life".

Let me modify what I just wrote. It's not the terms I'm arguing for, and referring to "abiogenesis + subsequent evolution" all as "evolution" would be confusing.
It's not the terms. Theory of life would work just as well.

It's that in arguing for evolution, and a creationist brings up the fact that you have no evidence for abiogenesis, often the evolutionist (having no evidence for abio, of course, that's just the nature of the beast) will say something like "that's different, we're arguing evolution here, not abio which is completely unrelated". But they aren't, abio wouldn't have worked without "descent with modification". If evolution was a no-go, then abio wouldn't have worked either.
Abiog. was just mutation + natural selection on a smaller scale.

Anonymous said...

we are born knowing ABSOLUTELY nothing; we dont have the knowledge or intelligence to create the most rudimentary of cellular life, yet we dercree there there is no creator of such life forms as if we have some natural insight...

one thing is clear: we are naturally arrogant and presumptuous...we dont even know all the species of animals in the sea, nor do we know what all flora or fauna exists on land; we cannot cure cancer nor aids...

yet something makes we, who are little more than animals, think so highly of ourselves that we think we are the ultimate in intelligence and that if we cannot do it, none has done it...

Michael said...

I wrote:
"I wouldn't say abiogenesis isn't "inconsistent" with the laws of nature, that is the point."

I meant "I wouldn't say abiogenesis *is* "inconsistent" with the laws of nature"

Anonymous said...

Some promote Cretinism over Evilution out of elegence and litigous defusions

RSK said...

I never stop being amazed at how a simple post like this, which is only going to be of interest to some parties, can generate so much useless rancor. I mean, really? Do you people just get worked up over everything?

Anonymous said...

The problem, RSK, is that we were all once in a cult in which the preditor who started it had anthropomorphically perverted God. That causes a lot of rancor and confusion once people wake up.

This should have been an awesome experience for Dennis and his party, and now it has become bittersweet.

RSK said...

Maybe Anon 3:57 has a point. You wanna hide something from a COG adherent, hide it in a book. :)

Anonymous said...

It would have been better to let my first post through, Dennis!
Early vids of AronRa honing his craft?!

DBP

Anonymous said...

Very interesting replies and back-and-forths on this thread!

Here's what will probably be my only reply:
Ashley wrote, "This dose[sic] not help anyone who is dealing with bad splinter groups... Dennis seems like a lout to me, so I oppose him on this."

I looked up the word "lout" as it is used in modern times, and found the synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, thug, boor, barbarian, oaf, hoodlum, rowdy, lubber; tough, roughneck, bruiser, yahoo, lug, knuckle-dragger.

I fail to see how Dennis qualifies as meeting these characterizations.

Ashley was asked first for a list of 'non-WCG' theological books she's read, and then was asked for even two 'non-WCG' theological books she's read, etc.

In this thread, she keeps changing her reasons for declining such requests.

I will make another request of ashley froud:

Ashley, since you've used the term, "bad splinter groups", do you consider some splinter groups to be good?- And if so, which ones?

(Extra credit questions for ashley:
a) Are we in the "end times"?
b) Was HWA a false prophet?
c) You ask, "Where have all the cowboys gone? You gutless wonders! ...WTF ! ! !"

Ashley, are you in the market for a "creationist COG cowboy"?
If so, I know of one. But if you want to meet him be careful and make an appointment and identify yourself first, though. He's hoarding food and has lots of ammo and guns to shoot people who he thinks will be coming for his food.

Retired Prof said...

Ha! Maybe I should go on weekend hunting trips more often. I come home from stumbling through the northern Wisconsin brush, cussing a dog, and firing off a gun from time. Then after a good night's sleep I open up "Banned" and find a splendid thread you all developed in my absence.

Good work, everybody!

Anonymous said...

Byker Bob said:"As an example, what if acts of new creation were quietly, and in very limited fashion still be taking place today? Wouldn't they also be swallowed up and concealed by the totality of the whole?"

BB, are you suggesting a scenario like figure 27.9 on page 735 of The Road to Reality?

I apologize for not posting the page number 713, about entropy for that book.

DBP

John Jacobs said...

So your response is (since you have no concept of biology, chemistry, evolution or physics) is a snap of the fingers by a magic man in the sky?

Anonymous said...

Retired Prof,
Hope you had a good hunting trip.

Here on Banned, it's been like,

Bugs Bunny: It's Duck season!
Daffy Duck: It's Wabbit season!
Anonymous at 7:14: I hate wascawwy weaviwuionists! They'we sewf whighteous!
Ashley froud: I don't bewieve you Dennis becawse you'we a "wout"!
Dennis: Do you just make this stuff up, ashwey?
Ashley froud: No, I just keep making weasons up, to not give a stwaight wesponse!
Elmer Fudd: Ashwey wooses! It's Hewbie season! Shhhhhh! We're hunting Herbies!

Anonymous said...

John Jacobs, a thought enters my mind. With in a few seconds someone asks for directions, the time, or similar. This is God affirming the truthfulness of my thought. I have experienced this thousands of times over the decades. It's the God raising up people thingy. So you see, the 'magic man in the sky' is so very real. And he is no respecter of persons, so live by the 10 commandments, and the magic man in the sky will intervene in your life as well.
Reality testing is part of chemistry, biology, physics, no??

Retired Prof said...

Oct. 18 at 12:19, tell us what signal you get when the thought that enters your mind is in error. You must receive those too. After all, it is much more important to be warned away from a bad idea than to have a good one affirmed. And what about those times when no one "asks for directions, the time, or similar"? How can you carry on your affairs without constant reliable feedback?

Anonymous said...

"Aron Ra promotes a silly fairy tale which has no scientific facts to back it up. He tends to use insults to those who believe in a Creator."

DBP

ashley froud said...

Anon 10:30 AM; Well that was vary funny, and we all had a jolly good laugh.

Anonymous said...

Retired prof, very good questions. On a few occasions, God has shown disapproval of a thought or decision, by having some one else next to me being asked for directions. I haven't experienced this that many times. When no one is present, God communicates by putting a thought into a peoples mind (it's not just me) that has a unique emotional feel. Sometimes its both, a thought with the unique feel, plus someone asking for the time or directions. A week back, I was exercising in the local park at night, when a four wheel drive illegally drove onto the grass, stopped next to me and asked if I had seen a certain young person on a bike. This affirmed the thought I was having at the timer, and one of the rare occasions when it wasn't the time or directions being asked for. So you see, God can communicate to a person late at night, in the middle of a park. Frankly, I was surprised. Constant feedback? In to days world, every belief is eventually challenged. This blog is good example of this. The purpose of the affirmations is to give muscle to my beliefs. Something like Christ seeing the dove and hearing the voice telling Him that He was the son of God before Satan hit Him with the incessant 'if you are the son of God' line. It's affirmation rather than feedback. It's mostly affirming what I have read in books, so you can say that it's God blessing my effort.