3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou put your stupid accusation in my mouth and generously accept that.
So, your excuse for writing something then denying the reason for writing it, is that you had nothing better to say after making an utter fool of yourself in this thread? OK, I'll accept that as a reasonable excuse.
Fraud.
Don't watch the video twhitehead.
Others: I suggest you watch the whole thing as I am now doing again. Its a good talk.
And if anyone was mislead, I am human and can make a mistake in recollecting something I heard. And I certainly do not feel like twhitehead's needed "utter fool" no more than probability studies on evolution are "utter nonsense".
2 edits
Originally posted by sonship===" In some notable cases they did. But that is another discussion.What is the significance of this being a Chinese scientist? There are Christians in China too you know and they did not get their Christianity from divine inspiration so much as from western missionaries.
In some notable cases they did. But that is another discussion.
How did God advance particular enlightenment to Chinese Christia ...[text shortened]... belief that such rationals are wrong out of the shoot and should not be given a second thought.
How did God advance particular enlightenment to Chinese Christians quite apart from the enfluence of Western missionaries ? " ===
You are quite right, as in the example of the Taiping rebellion, which seems to me to have its orgin in the way American missionaries distributed pamphlet accounts of Revelations, the most undiluted fanatical weirdness available in the bible, to Chinese people having no access to balancing information in order to put any of this into context; it fitted instead with traditional occultism and magical thinking, as it does of course today among so many - mainly American - contributors to this forum. :
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War ( literally "Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement" ) was a massive rebellion or civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly Kingdom of Peace. The Taiping Rebellion began in the southwestern province of Guangxi when local officials launched a campaign of persecution against a Christian sect known as the God Worshipping Society led by Hong Xiuquan, who believed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ. The war was mostly fought in the provinces of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, and Hubei, but over 14 years of war, the Taiping Army had marched through every regularized province of China proper except Gansu. The war was the largest in China since the Qing conquest in 1644, and ranks as one of the bloodiest wars in human history, the bloodiest civil war, and the largest conflict of the nineteenth century with estimates of war dead ranging from 20 to 70 million dead, as well as millions more displaced.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
You should read about this bizarre and yet devastating affair, which was indeed sparked off by the illegal distribution of missionary pamphlets by American evangelical nutjobs, too culturally blind to comprehend that their (illegal) pamphlets could not be interpreted by Chinese people of that time in the way they expected.
Notice how even Wikipedia today chooses its words: "local officials launched a campaign of persecution against a Christian sect known as the God Worshipping Society led by Hong Xiuquan, who believed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ." The campaign of persecution" was the work of government officials against a group of madmen creating havoc in the region and the need to control them was evidenced by the eventual harm they did. Westerners systematically undermined Chinese government then stood back to admire the havoc they created. Even today they cannot give the Chinese government of the time credit for being a responsible agency which the west set about wrecking.
Originally posted by sonshipWell since twhitehead has never once even attempted to convince you of that, it really is not surprising.
But to the problem at hand. Twhitehead has not convinced me that probability studies of the likelihood of the Evolutionary mechanism are on general principle useless and nonsensical.
Twhitehead has however demonstrated that nobody in this forum is willing to meet the challenge in the OP and in fact the vast majority of posters, Christian and atheist agree with my assertion.
You disagree, but only on principle, not because of any rational argument you are able to put forward.
Originally posted by sonhousethanks for the link sonhouse. It was interesting.
Recent work on chemical evolution. That is the term for figuring out how life got here before life was here, where chemicals had to go from simple to complex somehow:
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-links-brewed-primordial-puddles.html
Simple chemicals producing complexes a lot like RNA.
This is the Miller experiment taken to the next level.
Trade you one - Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
Originally posted by sonshipBack to calling me a fraud are we? I don't think you have yet apologised properly for the last FALSE ACCUSATION you made using the word FRAUD in which you accused me of not discussing a topic that you yourself were pointedly avoiding.
Fraud.
Don't watch the video twhitehead.
I won't. I never questioned the existence of the video or the contents thereof. Watching it would serve no purpose whatsoever.
And if anyone was mislead, I am human and can make a mistake in recollecting something I heard.
I have not questioned your recollection, I have questioned your reason for posting it. You have admitted that you simply had nothing better to say and thought that saying that questioning evolution is not possible in the US would make a nice jibe but you didn't have the guts to just say it yourself so you quoted someone else quoting someone else saying it.
You have since essentially confirmed that I was correct in my summation of what you wanted to say and the way you went about saying it.
Originally posted by finnegan
===" In some notable cases they did. But that is another discussion.
How did God advance particular enlightenment to Chinese Christians quite apart from the enfluence of Western missionaries ? " ===
You are quite right, as in the example of the Taiping rebellion, which seems to me to have its orgin in the way American missionaries distributed pamphlet ...[text shortened]... the Chinese government credit for being a responsible agency which the west set about wrecking.
How did God advance particular enlightenment to Chinese Christians quite apart from the enfluence of Western missionaries ?
You don't know how hard you are about to pull on my chain.
Read The Normal Christian Church Life by Watchman Nee.
Ask poster Caljust. He might tell you not to get me stirred up talking about the local church.
The missionaries criticized him much because he proved from the Bible that every city should be matched with one church and not many denominations. And I got totally convinced with his teaching. It changed my Christian life for the better.
And he did not get any of these enlightened concepts from Western missionaries who were dismayed at seeing Nee's insight into the weakenesses of Western Christianity.
After all God is not the God of the WEST you know? Why can't God reveal recovered truth to a place of virgin Christian faith ? The blood of the Body of Christ can flow not only from the West to the East. It can also flow from the East to the West.
I could open up a new thread on the subject on The Normal Christian Church Life.
Anyway, the other things you mentioned about the missionaries antics is not that relevant to my statement
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Back to calling me a fraud are we? I don't think you have yet apologised properly for the last FALSE ACCUSATION you made using the word FRAUD in which you accused me of not discussing a topic that you yourself were pointedly avoiding.
[b]Don't watch the video twhitehead.
I won't. I never questioned the existence of the video or the contents there ...[text shortened]... at I was correct in my summation of what you wanted to say and the way you went about saying it.[/b]
Back to calling me a fraud are we?
Yep, if you want to continue to paint me as a charlatan.
Though I really should not return evil for evil.
You can dish it out in spades to others. You have a glass jaw when it comes back your way fella.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Back to calling me a fraud are we? I don't think you have yet apologised properly for the last FALSE ACCUSATION you made using the word FRAUD in which you accused me of not discussing a topic that you yourself were pointedly avoiding.
[b]Don't watch the video twhitehead.
I won't. I never questioned the existence of the video or the contents there ...[text shortened]... at I was correct in my summation of what you wanted to say and the way you went about saying it.[/b]
I won't.
Good.
Maybe I'll make a list of lectures for you to run away from.
Originally posted by sonshipI will paint you as a charlatan because you are a charlatan.
Yep, if you want to continue to paint me as a charlatan.
Over the few posts you have been suggesting that I questioned your accuracy in quoting from a video and even suggested that others watch it to confirm your story and apologised for any inaccuracy in relating the story.
The truth is that I never once questioned your accuracy in quoting from the video. To suggest otherwise is and OUTRIGHT LIE on your part. That you hide it behind vague langue doesn't change that. You are deliberately and MALICIOUSLY misrepresenting what I said.
Though I really should not return evil for evil.
So your excuse for bad behaviour is my own supposed bad behaviour? So what EVIL had I committed when you earlier called me a FRAUD for supposedly not disusing a topic that you yourself were avoiding like the plague? Was it because I had pointed out one of your favourite authors had made a fundamental error in his book and thus the whole chapter was UTTER NONSENSE? Is that what upset you? If you think that was evil of me then please demonstrate it was so. Demonstrate that my assertion was wrong. Instead you have not addressed my assertion even once but instead kept on setting up strawmen over and over and over.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunkhttp://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1138
[b] Another weakness of the Creationist position, especially when yoked to the young Earth hypothesis, is that it fails to account for diversity; given the rate at which genetic mutation occurs, 6,000 years is not enough time for the various human races (Negro, Asian, Indian, Caucasian, Aborigine) to have diverged from one initial Adam and one initial Eve.
You know this how?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusIt was a very pertinent question. The book sonship quoted from would have us believe that every single beneficial mutation is so highly improbable that it could not possibly happen without intelligent input.
Was there an answer to twhitehead's question, whether God intervenes in individual gene mutations? If so, I missed it in the melee. Seems a pertinent question for those who maintain Intelligent Design.
But, if God is guiding each mutation, then who is to blame for all the bad mutations? Will there be another 'cursed earth' explanation or 'Satan did it'? How does God decide which ones he will do and which ones he will live Satan in charge of? If I go though my genome will there be more Godly mutations or more Satanic mutations in it? If I get lung cancer, is that because I smoked too much or was it Satan?
Originally posted by twhitehead"Beneficiality" is not timeless in a changing environment. What is beneficial for one generation or in one environment (during an ice age, for example) might turn out to be not so for another, and v.v.
It was a very pertinent question. The book sonship quoted from would have us believe that every single beneficial mutation is so highly improbable that it could not possibly happen without intelligent input.
But, if God is guiding each mutation, then who is to blame for all the bad mutations? Will there be another 'cursed earth' explanation or 'Satan did ...[text shortened]... atanic mutations in it? If I get lung cancer, is that because I smoked too much or was it Satan?
If God is intervening at the molecular level, one has to ask whether God also intervenes in traffic accidents where a busload of school children plunge to their deaths. Seems arbitrary to say that God works miracles in molecules and in cases of miraculous cures of leprosy, but in cases of bus crashes he just stands back and lets physics run its course.