Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You have, on or about 2/10, defined the Law of Biogenesis as taking place in a "small closed" system. And you described just a little while ago Louie's experiment as also taking place in "small, closed systems". So...both biogenesis and abiogenesis take place in "small, closed systems"?

No. And I don't know where you got that idea. If I were the suspicious type I'd be suspecting that you are deliberately trying to distort what I'm saying.

For the record: Abiogenesis takes place in "large, open systems".

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, today when describing Louie's abiogenesis experiment, you preceded your remarks with this: "Subject to the Law:".

The only time I used the phrase "Subject to the Law:" was in response to your request for an example "Subject to the Law". Your words, not mine.

If I were the suspicious type I'd be suspecting that you of duplicity.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Were you saying the abiogenesis is scientific law?

Try to wrap your head around this:

Biogenesis, abiogenesis and the "Law of Biogenesis" are three separate things.

[boxcar]

Mr. Actor are you aware that Pasteur, Redi, and Spallanzani disproved spontaneous generation (a/k/a abiogenesis)?

[boxcar]

Unless otherwise noted, much of the material I'll be quoting is from the work of Dr. H. Robert Wilson titled Nullifying God - Evolution's End Game. Dr. Wilson is a biologist. His Ph.D is in Zoology (parasitology, anatomy and physiology), and all this was followed by a Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Pathology. He was also a former Chairman of The Department of Zoology at Rutgers University.

Abiogenesis' Challenge

The first critical challenge to evolutionary biology is it it must demonstrate the process of abiolgenesis with direct evidence to meet scientific standards. So, what is this direct evidence needed? It is the formation of a living organism, a viable whole cell that can live on its own (in biology, a free living cell).

That evidence cannot be limited to simply demonstrating the natural formation of bits and pieces of a whole cell (e.g. amino acids, protein fragments and other biochemicals because that leaves no plausible explanation of how these biological bits could randomly come together to form a whole cell. Anything short of that demonstration cannot be used as the direct evidence needed to establish abiogenesis as fact.

To grasp the enormity of this challenge, the first critical question is this: What are the minimum biological requirements for life?
(emphases not mine)

In my next post dealing with this challenge, we'll look at Dr. Wilson's seven minimum biological requirements.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. Actor are you aware that Pasteur, Redi, and Spallanzani disproved spontaneous generation (a/k/a abiogenesis)?

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same thing.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Go back and read the context of my "Superman" analogy.

And which "heart" would that be: The muscle that pumps blood? Or do you believe in an immaterial, invisible heart?

Finally, you see what you want to see in my posts.

Reading your Superman analogy, in context, still makes no sense - unless of course, you're trying to imply there are differences between fictional characters in comic books, and fictional character(istics) in scripture.

As for "in my heart", it's simply the common meaning of honest thought - I've never believed in the supernatural, at least in the common human defined constructs - be it God, spirits, Jesus, Santa Claus, Superman, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy (though I did score a few quarters from it...)

I do not "see" what I want to see in your posts - otherwise, I'd be giving you the benefit of the doubt, which I no longer can do. It's very clear to me that you're not what you claim to be, and all the misdirection, insults, twisted logic, and fraud pertaining to your motivations is, at the end of the day, a rather thin and pathetic smokescreen for anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

...Let's face it: The secularists bring their presuppositions to bear upon any findings and conclude a lot differently than do other scholars.

Yeah, nobody would ever accuse the creationists of bringing any presuppositions to the table....

Originally Posted by boxcar

...Of course, there are limitations, also, to archaeology. As writer of the last article I posted stated archaeology cannot prove every historical detail.

So, is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction? Scholars and people of many faiths line up on either side of the equation, and some say both. Archaeological discoveries have verified that parts of the Biblical Exodus are historically accurate, but archaeology can’t tell us everything. Although archaeology can illuminate aspects of the past and bring parts of history to life, it has its limits.

It certainly is exciting when the archaeological record matches with the Biblical account—as with the examples described here. However, while this evidence certainly adds weight to the historical accuracy of elements of the Biblical account, it can’t be used to “prove” that every detail of the Exodus story in the Bible is true.

Let's face it: The creationists believe FIRST the biblical account to be accurate, and scientifically based archaeological methods only as a means to "prove" the details - when of course the proper method would be vice-versa.

Originally Posted by boxcar

...Also, as I mentioned previously it was a custom of ANE cultures (including Egyptians) to literally cover up negative, unflattering or embarrassing events by either not recording them or expunging them later from the records. This was done to protect the reputation and image not only of the rulers but of their gods, as well! But the bible stands in very sharp contrast to this practice -- and this is one of the major reasons why I believe the bible is authentic and that it's history is accurate. The bible spares no one! Jewish writers recorded things as they were even when it more often than not put their own countrymen and their own rulers in a very poor light! Writers of scripture pulled no punches.

The Bible does not seem to contrast with other scriptures in terms of accuracy, cover ups, and the like. Warts and all is certainly within the Torah and Quran. While you've certainly drank a punchbowl of the Bible Kool-Aid, to accurately compare it to other scriptures flies in the face of your lack of knowledge of those works.

As for the Jewish writers putting their own in a poor light - it's rather a superficial and naive view to believe they were motivated to provide the true Christian story. Rather, it's much more logical they were motivated to ensure persecution of their own tribe to keep it pure and weed out the weak, and to provide a handbook to control the Gentiles. In that sense, it's been a very successful book.

I'm not saying that's really the truth, but I am saying it makes more sense than the public version of events we're told.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

I'll certainly agree that history is a game of telephone. Unfortunately, there have been numerous operators on the line with motivations far different than the original intent of thought.

"Diminishing of truth" is an interesting way to put it. I'd use the words "pollute" or "corrupt" though.

It makes me wonder how much accurate history is really available.

I have mentioned many times, (been debating here over 15 years)the distortion or corruption of western scripture due to purposeful manipulation is a major component of what we see after generations of hand me down religion, often turning 180 degrees opposite of original intent. However like many historical accounts, the "signal to noise ratio" deteriorates mostly thru' natural unconscious processes. That's why I used the game of telephone as an example. The degradation to the literal is by and large a mechanical outcome. Another example is how pavement cracks the initial cause , say thermal expansion and contraction manifests first as a few major breaks then turns into branching patterns. Fractal geometry describes a natural process. In fact the Tao Te Ching and Buddhism also talk about the transformation of one to manly

Boxcar is a knee-jerking philosopher. He argues without depth.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Finally, you see what you want to see in my posts.

And you see what you want to see in mine!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Yeah, nobody would ever accuse the creationists of bringing any presuppositions to the table....




Let's face it: The creationists believe FIRST the biblical account to be accurate, and scientifically based archaeological methods only as a means to "prove" the details - when of course the proper method would be vice-versa.



The Bible does not seem to contrast with other scriptures in terms of accuracy, cover ups, and the like. Warts and all is certainly within the Torah and Quran. While you've certainly drank a punchbowl of the Bible Kool-Aid, to accurately compare it to other scriptures flies in the face of your lack of knowledge of those works.

As for the Jewish writers putting their own in a poor light - it's rather a superficial and naive view to believe they were motivated to provide the true Christian story. Rather, it's much more logical they were motivated to ensure persecution of their own tribe to keep it pure and weed out the weak, and to provide a handbook to control the Gentiles. In that sense, it's been a very successful book.

I'm not saying that's really the truth, but I am saying it makes more sense than the public version of events we're told.

Whatever "warts" may be in the Torah and Koran pale by comparison to the sins recorded in the bible. Also, the Quaran was written a lot later than when the Exodus occurred which was in heyday of rampant polytheism. Cultures in the ME changed quite a bit over the centuries. But of course, I welcome you to provide evidence of said warts, anyhow.

So let me see if I have this right: The Jewish writers of scripture had a death wish for Israel? How would they know that the Gentile world which far, far exceeded the number of Israelites would not exterminate every Jew on the planet? You say that there were motivated to ensure persecution to "weed out the weak"? What are you even talking about? "Weak" in what sense? Spiritually-morally weak? If so, the writers failed miserably.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Reading your Superman analogy, in context, still makes no sense - unless of course, you're trying to imply there are differences between fictional characters in comic books, and fictional character(istics) in scripture.

As for "in my heart", it's simply the common meaning of honest thought - I've never believed in the supernatural, at least in the common human defined constructs - be it God, spirits, Jesus, Santa Claus, Superman, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy (though I did score a few quarters from it...)

I do not "see" what I want to see in your posts - otherwise, I'd be giving you the benefit of the doubt, which I no longer can do. It's very clear to me that you're not what you claim to be, and all the misdirection, insults, twisted logic, and fraud pertaining to your motivations is, at the end of the day, a rather thin and pathetic smokescreen for anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

Alright I'll explain the comic book character analogy. Try to keep up because I'm really good at analogies but skeptics or liberals usually have a very difficult time in straightening out their own broken minds in order to think straight. It's painful, I believe. (Kinda like straightening out a broken leg. Ouch!)

Hcap says scripture is myth. This means many of the characters are fictional or the events are fictional or the places are fictional, etc. But yet the apostles and Jesus interpreted much of the OT "literally" or what I prefer to call in its sensible sense as determined by context largely, as opposed to arbitrarily contrived, creative interpretations derived by great feats of mental gymnastics. And then I cited a specific example whereby the Jews of Jesus' day and Jesus himself interpreted the ancient Israelites' post-Exodus wilderness experience literally (cf. Jn 6:31-49).

To understand the significance to Jesus' teaching in the above cited passage, one must understand what Typology is about. Typology presents to us the Types in the OT and the Antitypes in the New. The Types in the OT involved actual persons, places, events, institutions, rituals in time and space that were designed and ordained by God to point to, prefigure deeper, eternal, internal, spiritual realities of the NT, namely the Antitype Jesus Christ who fulfills all the OT scriptures in time and space and even in eternity (Mat 5:17). Therefore, if the Jews and Jesus understood the Wilderness Experiences as nothing more than a fictional story, what Jesus taught in John 6 about himself would make absolutely no sense; [/b]for Jesus was commanding the Jews to act on the basis of his own words and who and who he was AND on an actual historical event (the 40 years of wandering in the Wilderness) and the even more specifically the event of being miraculously fed manna from heaven by God to keep the ancient Israelites alive. If the ancients were not literally fed physical food from heaven to preserve their physical life in a definite physical place in time and space, then Jesus teaching them to "feed" on him spiritually by faith makes absolutely no sense. Why would anyone act on the basis of a fictional story which is foundational to the motive? Typology is analogy conveyed by true stories that involved physical people, physical places, physical events, physical institutions, etc. in temporal reality And that analogy breaks down completely if none of these physical realities ever existed in temporal reality either in the OT or the NT.

And so this is where our hero Superman comes in. We know Superman is a fictional character (well, most of us do). And Hcap places scripture on the same level as the comic book -- myth or fiction -- whatever you want to call it, as long as you don't call it FACT. But if the bible is to be understood as fiction the way a comic book is, what motivates its readers to obey all the injunctions in scripture? Why would anyone act on the basis of fictional accounts? Does anyone act on the basis on the stories of Dell Comic Superheroes? Are they are injunctions in Dell Comics for readers to obey? Does Dell Comics tell its readers to believe in Superman and prove it by flying off the Empire State Building?

So, to sum up: The analogy between Dell Comics and the Bible is one of contrast. The main point to the analogy is not that there are "differences" between fictional characters between the two, but rather logically there is a difference in literary genre. One is fiction. The other is redemptive history revealed to us and explained to us by God. To drive home this point, listen to Paul carefully:

1 Cor 10:1-11
For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. 6 Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved. 7 And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, " The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play." 8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9 Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10 Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
NASB

Some examples if they were all fictional. And why worry about "instruction" either from the OT or Paul in this passage if he's talking about fictional stories?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And so this is where our hero Superman comes in. We know Superman is a fictional character (well, most of us do). And Hcap places scripture on the same level as the comic book -- myth or fiction -- whatever you want to call it, as long as you don't call it FACT. But if the bible is to be understood as fiction the way a comic book is, what motivates its readers to obey all the injunctions in scripture? Why would anyone act on the basis of fictional accounts? Does anyone act on the basis on the stories of Dell Comic Superheroes? Are they are injunctions in Dell Comics for readers to obey? Does Dell Comics tell its readers to believe in Superman and prove it by flying off the Empire State Building?

Dell Comics ceased publication in 1974. As far as I know they never did have a super hero. The closest would be The Lone Ranger and Tarzan, neither of whom had any super powers.

Superman, Batman, et al are part of DC Comics. The DC stands for Detective Comics, not Dell Comics.

[boxcar]

More from Dr. Watson's book which deals with the seven minimum biological requirements for life.

Evolutionary biology considers the most primitive cell to be the "Last Universal Common Ancestor" (the LUCA) or the "Last Universal Ancestor" (the LUA). Understand that LUCA is strictly hypothetical; evolutionary biologists have no evidence of any sort that it ever existed. Additionally, although it may not have been the first cell, it claimed as the ancestor of all life we know today. Evolutionary biology acknowledges that LUCA had to have been complex, had a genetic code (implying it could duplicate itself) and had a very involved metabolism. Whether or not LUCA was the first cell is unimportant. The crucial point here is that whatever the first cell was, or whenever it came to be, from the moment it gained "life", it would have to have had every single one of a required set of seven life
processes up and running efficiently. Not only that but LUCA or any cell that came before it would have had to be albe to simultaneously control every one of those processes in an integrated manner fromthe start. It would not have survived otherwise.

So...when the random mass of chemicals somehow came together and somehow formed the first free-living complete cell, from the very first moment that cell would have had to:

Acquire energy: take in energy (for example, heat) or energy-containing chemicals (nutrients) from the environment.

Use energy: release energy from energy-containing nutrients or other sources and use it to sustain every one of its cellular processes.

Regulate its internal environment: regulate and keep every life process balanced and stable even when external environment is constantly changing (the physiological principle of homeostasis).

Transport substances: actively move any stustance that it needs from its environment into itself (e.g. water, salt, nutrients) or out of itself (e.g. waste products) through a complex functioning living cell membrane. Such transport would have be selective to prevent unwanted materials from entering the cell (e.g. too much water or salt) or needed products from leaving the cell (e.g. critical amino acids, fats, proteins and enzymes, nucleic acid precursors)

Synthesize and degrade substances: make the various biochemicals it specifically needs exactly when they are needed and in the amount they are needed (e.g. for its membranes, proteins and enzymes, and the nucleic acids RNA and DNA), then break them down when they are no longer needed.

Excrete wastes: selectively remove wastes and used biochemicals

Reproduce: make new, duplicate copies of itself (i.e. daughter celss) at the proper time and in a controlled (not random) manner consistent with its environment.[b]

As Heller emphasized, these minimum requirements clearly show that even the simplest single cell is an incredibly complex entity because all functions must work in a highly regulated, and interactive manner. Take any one of these away and the cell would instantly cease to exist or would have never formed in the first place. This very complex framework then forms the core of a virtually insurmountable scientific challenge to evolutionary biology -- to demonstrate with direct evidence abiogenesis could occur. (emphases not mine)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Dell Comics ceased publication in 1974. As far as I know they never did have a super hero. The closest would be The Lone Ranger and Tarzan, neither of whom had any super powers.

Superman, Batman, et al are part of DC Comics. The DC stands for Detective Comics, not Dell Comics.

Well...at least DC is still around.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same thing.

Spontaneous generation, the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilized this process to explain the origin of life. ... Many believed in spontaneous generation because it explained such occurrences as the appearance of maggots on decaying meat.

In the abiogensis hypothesis, likewise living organism were "begat" by inorganic matter.

Close enough.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But if the bible is to be understood as fiction the way a comic book is, what motivates its readers to obey all the injunctions in scripture?

Are you saying that followers of non-Abrahamic religions are immoral? They make up half the population of the planet.

Are you saying Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists, Zoroastrianists, Rastifarians, etc. commit murder, theft, perjury at a greater rate than Jews, Christians, Muslims? If so then where are you getting your numbers?

Are you saying atheists fly planes into buildings?