Yippee & Horray! (again)

I just love this part of a debate because we get to define terms (shouldn't that have been done first?) and that gets us closer to truth.

In response to Egan:


Yes, much.

We're walking through a desert. We find a thick, yellowing paper scroll; obviously decades old, badly torn, yet we can see what looks like writing. You carefully unroll it, leaning over, analyzing the writing as if trying to make out the meaning of the curvaceous light-brown symbols amongst what seems to be a map, clearly depicting the dividing lines between what must be land and water. You say, "Look, that's the Atlantic Ocean". You trace your finger along the straight northern border of the United States. "And there's the border between the U.S. and Canada", you add, "This can't be too old."

In the distance we see the gentle outline of what appears to be a man with a gun. As he approaches, he points the gun at you and says, "Give me the map!" You immediately pass the fragile document to him. He disappears into the distance while you and I look, wondering.

Years later we again walk together, this time, through a museum. Commenting on the enormous care taken to protect the historical artifacts, you suddenly hear children. A guide directs the large group of young kids, all holding hands, to a display along the wall over which hung an inscription imprinted on a heavy brass plate: "Dante's Enigma".

As you watch, the kids stare with wonder at the broken paper, the guide speaks: "This amazing artifact displays the power and intelligence of mother nature. Found in a remote desert by U.N. peacekeeping forces, scientists believe that this object is a result of the forces of nature compressing sand and dust like a pancake into thin sheets and then depositing lines formed by iron oxide dust accumulated from years of blowing wind. Scientists are amazed at the complexity and form of the deposits."

As the group moves on, you hastily approach the document. Astonished, you look at me and say, "This is that thing we found in the desert. Look! This is really it! I can't believe it made it here and is now on display. How many people do you thing have seen this? Isn't it wild." Soberly, I reply: "No. It's a lie."

You are the evolutionist.

I am the Christian.


Ahhh, very good. Definitions are dividers between knowledge and speculation.


More than a bit, much more, yet, some still actually believe this. Amazing.


Very good. You see well.


Ah yes, the definition of evolution. A very fluid thing (keep that in mind).


And here we have the problem which exposes of the tactics of the liars.

Is this really the definition of evolution? Who's definition? Did Darwin "define" evolution in relationship to allele frequencies?

Actually, the definitions of "evolution" have changed through the years, and this, not by mistake. You see, as bad ideas evolve <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />, they have to specialize <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> in order to survive; That is, they become more specific and scientific-sounding because as technology exposes their flaws—just as when an investigation exposes a lie—the lie has to change to survive.

Most scientists would be embarrassed to say they embrace Darwins raw concepts. They will now instead say they embrace the adaptations <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> of Mendel's ideas ("systhesis"). Why? Because technology revealed something closer to the truth, and nobody likes looking stupid.

We know a lot about genetics today but there are still people running around proclaiming the ideas of chemical evolution, although one of it's two inventors gave in to the evidence and became a Christian.

I hope you're not changing the debate midstream.

Nonetheless, although science is purposefully further along than education is, the politics of science will eventually give way to the truth—yet not without resistance—about amalgam fillings. Likewise, ideas about mutation—particularly those derrived from Mendel's ideas—will change somewhat, even though the facts we now know about genetics will remain.

Within the context of this thread, particularly the things you said pertaining to Creationism, the separation of church and state and God, it's suspect—to say that least—that you now seemingly specialize <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> your definitions. In other words, this refined definition of your argument related to evolution is out of context in respect to prior posts on this thread. Why?

I am a bit suspicious.

Are you specializing your definitions? Have they become fluid—hard to pin down?

If we were to stay in context, and now based on your clairified definition of evolution, would you say there is a good explaination for life, symmetry, high order, intelligence?

Is it really unreasonable to suspect that a high intelligence put all these highly-ordered things together in a highly-ordered place with intelligence? The Mandel revisionism of evolution does not explain this. How would you?

It seems to me you actually have a problem with Christianity. Well so do I, but for different reasons. I believe Christ is exactly who He said He was precisely because it is the most logical conclusion when you study the events, prophecies and numerics involved. In fact, once you've studied it, it's hard to deny. It's really the false preconceived ideas that keep some people from reading the Bible in the first place. And these false preconceived ideas come from that thing I've mentioned so often in this thread: slander.

I watched the History channel Sunday night for several hours just to hear how they would slander the amazing book this time, and boy did they. Lies, lies, lies. Anyone who has reached even 202 level would see the lies clearly. 101'ers would be suspicous.

But some will never know the amazing benefits of understanding the concepts written in it even though people like myself openly speak about it. They will just follow the crowd and stay away—"Oh! What would people think?"

Yes, I have a problem with the religion of Christianity. Yet, I have no problem with the practice of Biblical concepts. The two—unfortunately—are no longer the same. I have no problem with Christ.


Here's another place special interests try to confuse by being ambiguous.

There is a big difference between evolving (in the traditional sense of the word) and adapting—real big, but because it is instinctively hard to see the difference, it's used as another point of confusion.

As I've said in other places on this forum, the ability for an organism to adapt is yet another evidence of intelligence in design. It's the difference in complexity between a toaster and a computer; Which one is more likely to have evolved? Yes, the more simple one, yet, hilariously, evolutionists use this added complexity—this incredible technology—as evidence for evolution. Amazing.

You see, when I look at a tree, I don't just see a tree. I see technology; A machine. We don't even understand the workings in a leaf; The systems, subsystems, systems-within-systems. How do they work? We don't yet know. It's beyond us. High order; Very high. Advanced technology, all based on a set of rules. Layer upon layer of systems based on rules.

I'm a computer programmer, among other things. I see the parallels between the internal design of a computer and man. I used to design computers (embedded systems) from the chip up.

The CPU is, of couse, the brain. The memory is, of course, the memory. The BIOS is instinct. There is a missing component, however, that's faith, creativity, inspiration. These are functions of the spirit that a man made computer does not possess. People often mistake deep algorithms for intelligence, but it only feels like intelligence. That's why those who are most emotional are least discerning.

This body is, again technology. A machine to be possessed for a time, for a purpose, to an end. It has high order and amazing construction, way beyond our current capabilities.

I challenge people to be unconventional. In this age of technology—which could be great if there were not evil people so often wanting to control everything—we know enough to know that complex things don't evolve or "adapt" without that functionality—the ability to adapt is a very high-functioning ability indeed—being already incorporated into the system.

We also have to remember this: DNA is a program, a program that is highly-formed and far more complex than any code we have today.

Who wrote it?


No, actually, you've confused adaptation—a highly intelligent design feature—for evolution. Very simple.

It's all in the interpretation of the evidence. Here's an example. This example is actually more in-depth and complicated than the distinction between evolution and adaptation, but it makes the point well.

There has been a long-standing belief that animals make people live longer. It's said that having a companion around to pet and talk to makes a person healthier so they live longer.

This belief is based on the interpretation of a study that showed that people who own pets have an average longer life.

Think for a minute. They didn't study the personality types of the people owning pets, neither did they consider a host of other factors that could be involved, but most importantly, they didn't consider this:

Many people are lonely, yet who are the ones who do something about it? Are they not the ones who go out and find a companion—they solve the problem of loneliness—as opposed to those who don't?

Logic seem to dictate that people who own pets are problem solvers. They get out and do something about the problem. They are also not afraid of responsibility, which a pet certainly brings to the table.

So, looking at this logically, you would be more likely to conclude that people who are problem solvers and not afraid of responsibility are more likely to live longer. There are other conclusions as well but this demonstrates the shallowness of this popular conclusion.


Adaptation was a pretty intelligent design feature, don't you think? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


Exactly, "unlikely".

You use the word unlikely because you've never studied conspiracy theories. If you have, you would see the logic in what I am saying. I will tell you, a true conspiracy is no less persuasive than anything you know because it is just that, a study. Like science, you perform research.

People who deny conspiracy theories deny the most pervasive form of corruption, and it's just plain naive.

And I'm not changing any perceived definitions here. I'm talking about things from Enron to Oklahoma City to 9-11 to Waco to Whitewater to the Florida SWFTMD ('swiftmud') scandal to your local cop who covers for the drug dealer for a buck.


Hint: Public _ _ H _ _ L System. Give me an "S". The coverage there is huge, and that's exactly where they want it.


To the children, the implications are obvious. If evolution is true in the way they're taught it, there is no God and the Bible is incorrect. If you visit the Smithsonian Institution as I have, it's a propaganda machine when it comes to evolution, promoting the mud to ape to man concept in artistic clarity.

However, for the adult, assuming you haven't experienced the childhood inundation as I have, most don't even know who Mendel is. And even if you do, the misrepresentation of the implications is still intellectually dishonest.

Nevertheless, the mainstream evolutionary belief undermines the Bible, and this is by design. But you say: How can it be by design when it's based on science?

Well, the same way NutraSweet is based on science; The same way mercury amalgams are based on science; The same way Vioxx is based in science. The punchline is:

The scientists don't make the decisions. The politicians and corporations do.

The bottom line is that we're both after the same thing, and that is truth. The difference between us is that I've done some serious homework on these matters and you haven't.

I don't mean to offend you in this, nor do I mean to brag. (that kind of) Pride (bragging) is a waste of time. It's simply that I've put many hours into searching for the truth in these matters, and everyone else I know who has, has come to the same conclusions. Furthermore, all of us who have researched these things have become astounded at how easy it is to fool the masses, and we clearly see the millstone at work.

A lie is the same whether it's told to one person or to the world, and if the lie is appealing, it goes over big. Even the unstudied in this area see remnants of these lies because they are hard to conceal. Yet, as the media explains it away—much as a con artist explains away his seemingly illogical actions—so do the media-mobster-bankers.

A visible remnant of these lies appeared on the History Channel Sunday night for three hours. They were plain to me, yet to anyone unstudied, well, they can't be sure.

This world is a great filter and it's doing it's job just as itended: To separate those who care from those who don't.

Denial.

Those who don't often study often suffer from it. They tell themselves they care, yet they don't use their actions as a mirror to see who they really are. It's the burdon we should all face if we are to become mature.

That's why the Bible states that the judgement of God toward each individual person, whether good or bad, will be based on our actions. Our actions are our mirror.


No. In fact, I'm not in favor of public schools at all.

The founders of America stated plainly and boldly that public schools would eventually be used by the government to propagandize children.

In a free society, you don't have these issues. Each family is free to teach however they choose.

In fact, this is the Christian way which is evidenced by the laws that depict the intended rights and freedoms everyone was supposed to have in the United States. In other words, where did these freedoms come from that they who slander us are taking away so feverishly while claiming to protect freedom (how incredibly ironic that you take away freedoms to protect freedoms)?

They came from God—the God of the Christians, Yahweh is His name.

Like I said before, we have a lot in common. You just have a lot of incorrect preconceived ideas about several things.


Wouldn't happen if there was no public school system.


I have made my sympathy my career and as we all have our issues we tend toward, mine are several:

• Truth and freedom in health so we can all have the right to take care of our bodies as we please.
• Truth and freedom in money so we do business unhindered and can have prosperity which is only sustained by a precious-metal-backed economy which has no direct taxation, i.e. Income Tax (see sec 1 art 9 of the Constitution)
• Truth in government so we can eliminate fear of corruption and disallow the government from providing unfair favor to anyone in business or any other way and to prevent government from oppressing anyone. In other words, stay within the bounds of Constitutional law (which happens derived directly from Biblical law)
• Truth in media so those who lie will be properly punished for the lies they tell and the damage they do.

Truth is my personal "issue" because I believe in letting everyone have access to it, all other good things will be revealed and eventually fall right into place.

Here are a few other issues I'd love to be involved, but working every waking hour of the day and having no extracurricular life as it is, I can only do what I can do, and I do part of it here on this forum.

• There are Christians being severly opressed and killed in China.
• There are Muslims being opressed in Iraq.
• There are people being shipped out of the U.S. by the U.S. and Canadian governments for torture (this is called "torture oursourcing")
• There are atheists being opressed by parents, corrupt cops, dishonest teachers and the like
• There are babies that are never given the opportunity to live.

Take your pick.

I do what I can with more passion than most.

One of my favorite sayings is:

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."
—Edmund Burke

So I'm doing something.