Those questions are debated</h1> <article> <h1>Those questions are debated</h1> <p>yeager — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:59:33 +0000</p> <p>Those questions are hotly debated, but we’ll try and give a general idea.</p> <blockquote> <p>1) How often do random (undirected) mutations occur?</p> </blockquote> <p>That depends on exactly what you count as a mutation. For the sake of making it easier on the evolutionary process, let’s use 1 in 1,000 generations.</p> <blockquote> <p>2) What is the ratio of beneficial to non-beneficial mutations?</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone agrees that is a <em>very</em> small number (probably much smaller than 1%), but be generous and say 5% of mutations are beneficial.</p> <blockquote> <p>3) How often do beneficial mutations occur and how beneficial are they?</p> </blockquote> <p>That’s using the answers to #1 and #2, but if 1 in 20 mutations are beneficial, then 1 in 20,000 generations a beneficial mutation would occur.</p> <blockquote> <p>4) Based on the (estimated) answers to these questions – how many years would it most likely take for a single living cell to transform itself into a mammal?</p> </blockquote> <p>???? That’s speculation. In short, it’s not going to happen, and they’ve been trying for since Darwin to prove it.</p> <p>Dawkins claims evolution isn’t random, so these calculations on random chance won’t apply to people who believe evolution isn’t random (you’ll quickly find out random mutations don’t work), but Dawkins does admin some outside force moves evolution along … non-randomly.</p> </article> <article> <h1>The basic premise of the</h1> <p>Bob — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:38:06 +0000</p> <p>The basic premise of the Theory of Evolution is rather simple and obvious. Genetic mutations generating healthier offspring are more likely to survive and over time will improve the genome. My question about Evolution is this: 1) How often do random (undirected) mutations occur? 2) What is the ratio of beneficial to non-beneficial mutations? 3) How often do beneficial mutations occur and how beneficial are they? 4) Based on the (estimated) answers to these questions – how many years would it most likely take for a single living cell to transform itself into a mammal?</p> </article> <article> <h1>Please provide specifics</h1> <p>yeager — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:58:52 +0000</p> <p>You must realize you’ve made general statements with nothing to back them up, which doesn’t really contribute to the discussion, does it?</p> <p>As to Dawkins, I’ve read most of the book, and it’s not very good. It contains logical errors, as many of Dawkins’ ideas do. For just a few of those mistakes, try these:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.dyeager.org/post/2009/12/problem-morality-where-does-it-come">Dawkins and morality</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.dyeager.org/post/2010/06/more-dawkins-morality-no-absolutes">Dawkins attempts to clarify morality</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.dyeager.org/post/2009/09/richard-dawkins-proves-god-exists-mistake">Dawkins proves God exists</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.dyeager.org/book/atheism-agnosticism/question-beginnings">Dawkins and beginning of universe</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.dyeager.org/post/2010/05/bill-maher-show-intolerant-atheists">Intolerant Atheists</a></li> </ul> <p>Dawkins’ ideas are the logic equivalent of junk food. It’s popular and frequently consumed, but a steady diet of it leads to decay. For an atheist trying to prove their case, they would be wise to stay far away from Dawkins’ ideas as they don’t use sound logic.</p> <p>Other atheists exist which do a much more credible job, but I’ll let you figure that out for yourself, if you’re interested in serious discussion instead of talking points.</p> <p>As to proof, please supply scientific proof of the following:</p> <ol> <li>Matter comes from nothing.</li> <li>Life comes from non-life.</li> </ol> <p>Science needs experimental data, so please supply people involved, dates, the experiment, and the journal or other publication so it can be researched. If you can’t do that, <a href="http://www.dyeager.org/post/2008/05/evolution-science">you don’t have science</a>.</p> <p>Start with proof of those two, so we can discuss specifics instead of generalities.</p> </article> <article> <h1>confused</h1> <p>Lars — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:01:29 +0000</p> <p>Oh please! Come on “Darrin”, you have such a terribly confused view on reality that you are in serious need for help. There are so many facts that are already proved with scientific certainty that completely disprove your faith “theory”. Its just sad to read that you talk about being open minded.</p> <p>If you dare taking your hands off your eyes and ears, go read Richard Dawkins “The God delusion” and you’ll realise that what you have written here is just complete and utter nonsense.</p> <p>How the heck did I stumble in here, talk about clicking the wrong link by mistake.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Evolution:Mathematically Improbable , Scientifically impossible</h1> <p>Heya — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:15:01 +0000</p> <p>First off, it is impossible to give a definite fraction for the probability of everything in the universe coming about by chance. but if you would like to figure it out make sure you count every single variable and characteristic there is (ex: why is grass green instead of orange, why are leaves the shape they are instead of another shape) fact is just one characteristic of any one thing is a fraction, if im having a good day i could have also had a bad day, a mediokre day, a fantastic day, if those were all the options my chances of having a good day are 1/4. what are the chances that grass is green, what are all the other colors it could be? if there are 100 colors, the chance is 1 in 100 (1/100) and thats just one characteristic we could also verify that grass grows at a certain rate and stops at a certain length, and also you must take this 1/100 or 1/4 and multiply by 0 because according to evolution we came from a small particle that exploded that essentially came from nothing, but even if you do give them the ‘1’ to start with so that they can even do the equation for the probability the outcome will be 1/more zeros than you could say,read, or count and those are just characteristics we havent even delved into how the organisms we are observing work, what dna they have that give them life or how they magically evolved the materials needed in order to do the work they need to do in order to survive AND evolve the instructions to know how to use those materials at their desposal, please include that number as well. YES there IS a mathematical probability that evolution could have occured, but if the number is so small that you cant possibly even solve it then why bother? some scientists are the hardest thinkers of todays society, but they choose to apply to such a incomplete and misguided idea. Scientifically? well lets take a look at the big bang theory.. physics is one of the most respectable science studies there are, its OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, DEMONSTRATABLE, REPEATABLE which is what good science is, look up the law of angular momentum then explain why some of our planets, galaxies, moons spin backwards? don’t respond with that “science is an ever learning and expanding process” crap, because thats unfalsifiability, and isnt that what you pin on us christians when we say “god did it”? . lets see, if god did it the probability is 1 in 1 , 100%… because when you say god you are explaining a being greater than yourself that is unlimited and has no boundaries (which is unfathomable, but that is what god is…) Im not going to say we should put religion in our textbooks, so get evolution out because thats all it is, is a religion you have to beleive that there is no god. get back to me on this please. id love to know what the probability is for this and why all of your ‘evidence’ for evolution is falsifiable.. dont try to explain to me how we evolved. if you want to talk origins start with the beginning. if thats the big bang theory then explain where those particles came from please. and as for ‘God using evolution’ i dont know what god your talking about cause its most obviously not jesus christ because he wrote a book telling you how long it took him to make the heavens and the earth, the verses in the bible that say “1 day to god is a thousand years and one thousand years is a day to god” are not saying that he is too dumb to create time and know how to communicate through it. i beleive god is intelligent enough to know how to make the bible understandable to the average person, so stop reading into it so much, if it says 6 days, it must say that for a reason.</p> </article> <article> <h1>The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you</h1> <p>yeager — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:36:07 +0000</p> <blockquote> <p>@Mp71 The American Republic was not founded as a Christian nation.</p> </blockquote> <p>That’s factually incorrect. At the very least, the US Supreme Court doesn’t share your opinion:</p> <blockquote> <p>These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that <strong>this is a Christian nation</strong>. (CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES, 143 U. S. 457 (1892), 471)</p> </blockquote> <p>SCOTUS declares “volume” and “mass” of proof stating your opinion isn’t correct.</p> <p>And that’s just <em>one</em> example. If you’re interested in studying this further, start with David Barton’s book “Original Intent”. It contains hundreds of footnotes with court decisions and other material which doesn’t agree with your opinion.</p> <p>The mistake people make is reading what historians have to say about what someone said, instead of reading what the founders and courts said themselves. Bartons’ book relates many examples of original sources, and lets them speak for themselves.</p> <blockquote> <p>@Mp71 reject any notion of devine intervention in the lives of the creatures created was the faith, if you call it that, was the clear, historically peer reviewed faith of Jefferson and a large majority of framers.</p> </blockquote> <p>That’s a popular opinion, but you must realize you cited <em>one</em> example (Jefferson), then made the leap to a “large majority” without any proof.</p> <p>Again, start with Barton’s book, then continue with Benjamin Morris’ book “The Christian life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States”, from 1864.</p> <blockquote> <p>I soon found them same, outdated and Afrophobic talking points..,</p> </blockquote> <p>OK, where are the mistakes?</p> </article> <article> <h1>Losing faith in christianity</h1> <p>Mp71 — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:45:00 +0000</p> <p>I have been a southern evangelical for 35 years. Sadly, I cannot in good conscience, Assemble or fellowship with the radical fringes of conservative America. I found your article well written, however, I soon found them same, outdated and Afrophobic talking points of Fox News, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.</p> <p>The American Republic was not founded as a Christian nation. The framers of our country’s constitution were grounded in Enlightenment thought, critical thinking based on the sciences explosive advances from Newton and Copernicus. Several founders rejected faith all together.</p> <p>Deism, the philosophy that believes that a creator exists, but reject any notion of devine intervention in the lives of the creatures created was the faith, if you call it that, was the clear, historically peer reviewed faith of Jefferson and a large majority of framers.</p> </article> <article> <h1>you cant disown someone</h1> <p>Anonymous — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:37:47 +0000</p> <p>You commented on here that Jesus was talking to the saved… and said, Jesus says if you disown him before men, He will down you in Heaven. Well you need to DISOWN that NIV bible of yours cause it is corrupt. The KJV Bible says that if you DENY me before men, him will I DENY before my Father which is in heave.</p> <p>Disown and Deny are two different meanings.</p> <p>To Disown means to let go, get rid of .</p> <p>To Deny means to refuse to accept or believe. To deny means they never accepted him. So.. he will not accept them.</p> <p>Really, you need to get rid of the NIV Bible cause they have left out so many parts of scripture, and even totally left out whole scriptures. They change words to mean a totally different thing.</p> <p>Revelations says: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which were written in this book.</p> <p>I pray you will rid of any Bible other than the KJV. It may have a few flaws, but it is the oldest and most reliable Bible. Satan has come along and threw in a bunch of new so called Bibles that has people decieved. They all have say something different. Blessing to you!</p> </article> <article> <h1>However, as it is written:</h1> <p>BondSlave — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:45:09 +0000</p> <p>However, 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” but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.</p> <p>“not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit” Were you taught by man? Forget what human wisdom you were taught and re-“read the Holy Scriptures for yourself, Just you and Jesus.”</p> </article> <article> <h1>Salvation</h1> <p>shipwrecksoul — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:04:28 +0000</p> <p>Hello Bondslave, Im so proud of you thinking it was my wisdom in stating the past post. Because im with you whenever someone tries to make merchadise of one (King James) In actuality its from Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, boy I hope I spelled those names right. God is alive then and he is alive today as well His name is Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ and he can and will save you if u let him!</p> <p>Nothing of man because its all been done already all we have to do is enter into the grace he has for us! 1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Walla God moves upon us all we do is accept it!</p> </article> <article> <h1>No wonder women aren`t</h1> <p>Mark Harris — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:00:46 +0000</p> <p>No wonder women aren`t allowed to teach the Church!</p> <p>I wonder how Dawn would answer the query of what, given her thesis of the creation of man, God meant when He said to Adam and Eve, IN THE DAY that you eat of the fruit of the tree you will surely die? We don`t see Adam dying after he ate the fruit but he did die spiritually on the very same day.</p> </article> <article> <h1>“That Baptism is God’s means</h1> <p>Jeff — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:19:16 +0000</p> <p>“That Baptism is God’s means of imparting His grace is especially clear in Romans 6 where St. Paul writes: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried there with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we too might walk in newness of life.”</p> <p>The Greek phrase used here, “by baptism,” is composed of the preposition dia with the genitive case tou baptismatos. Beyond dispute, grammatically Paul is speaking about Baptism as the instrument through which God incorporates people into Christ and His saving work. It is for this reason that Baptism is regarded as such a precious treasure.”</p> <p>I’m not going to deny baptizo used in the context of Romans 6 as our incorporation into Christ and His saving work. However, I will deny that it is water baptism. The grammar you describe is correct, but the application is incorrect.</p> <p>Romans 6 is a powerful dialogue of the Christian being dead to sin, being so, our old man is buried with Christ, baptized into His dead, and raised in newness of life. No where is Paul mentioning water baptism, but the same baptism he mentioned to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 12:13). At our conversion, we experience a “spiritual” baptism and receive the Holy Spirit.</p> <p>However, the word baptizo is used to identify both spiritual and water baptism, so it can be somewhat confusing. But, just as the site’s author says time and again: context - Genesis to Revelation.</p> <p>At the beginning of I Corinthians (specifically, 1:17), Paul tells us he came to not baptize (greek word here also is baptizo), but to preach the Gospel. If he did not come to baptize, then what baptism is spoken of in I Corinthians 12:13? (this is the same baptism he spoke of in Romans 6 that gives us such freedom over sin).</p> <p>Then one could argue what Peter preached in Acts 2:38. The word baptize here is also the greek word baptizo, but you have to look at the context of the word baptizo in salvation (not required, but we are baptized in spirit). These people did receive the spirit, were spiritually baptized, and were shortly physically baptized in water. But those saying if you don’t believe and aren’t baptized, then you aren’t saved are wrong because you are committing a negative proof fallacy. The only negative tied to Peter’s statement is if you don’t repent, then you are condemned (not saved). We can prove that with scripture, but that doesn’t necessarily let us know if we aren’t baptized, then we aren’t saved. We have proven if you don’t repent (and consequently, believe as is described by Romans 10:9 and Acts 16:31), you aren’t saved, but we cannot prove from the Bible if you aren’t baptized, you aren’t saved (actually, we can e.g. the thief on the cross, but this is more an exercise of the NPF than it is of Biblical doctrine.). If a proposition has not been proven then it can’t be considered true and therefore must be considered false - e.g. baptism. However, in our case, it has been proven, whether or not you agree with it. But I challenge you use this and try to find passages that only convey baptism and salvation - you will only find either belief (repentance) and salvation, or belief (repentance), baptism, and salvation. NPF and the thief on the cross gives us assurance that baptism is not required for baptism.</p> <p>Grammatically, you can also argue the greek word “eis” to change the verse to say “because of” the remission of sins instead of “for” the remission of sins. So our repentance and baptism are because of the remission of sins, not for them (e.g. Take 2 aspirin for your headache. This isn’t saying if you take 2 aspirin, you will receive a headache. We understand we take 2 aspirin because of our headache.). God only requires we put our faith in Christ and to believe on him. That is all that is required of us to receive grace because baptism is a work.</p> </article> <article> <h1>A better card example</h1> <p>Ray — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:41:13 +0000</p> <p>Excuse me if I’m repeating anything that has already been said, considering I haven’t read this entire thread and all of the comments. I have revised the card example to account for reducible complexity and natural selection. If we let a specific order of cards represent a certain species and each of the cards represent a specific gene, we can see how a specific ordering of the cards is not such an improbable configuration through natural selection. Lets say that the ace of spades occurring represents a desirable gene. All trials that deliver a configuration with the ace of spades first will represent a very simple organism with suitable traits for survival. All the other trials will “die off”. The probability of having such a configuration is just 1/52. We now only have to worry about trials that deliver configurations with the ace of spades first. Reconsidering our situation, we now find that the probability of obtaining the complete organism is 1/(51!). Now lets say configurations with the 5 of clubs as the second card are those suitable for survival. The probability of obtaining such an organism is now 1/51, since we already have surviving organism with the ace of spades as the first card, while any other is discarded. With configurations with these two cards first surviving unlike the rest, the final probability is now 1/(50!). This process repeats until we have the exact deck we want. Considering the grand number of genetic mutations that occur, there are many trials, and thus the probability of evolution NOT occurring is the miniscule one!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Judgment vs discernment</h1> <p>yeager — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:05:59 +0000</p> <blockquote> <p>@wbt4 difference between judgment and discernment</p> </blockquote> <p>I think I’ll put this on my “to-do” list of articles. It’s common to quote the “don’t judge me” part as if any disagreement becomes judgmental (or as someone said, vengeful). Yet the Bible (and Jesus) <em>did</em> judge between right and wrong, so it’s not disallowed; Paul spent several letters to Corinth discussing right and wrong. I think this issue deserves an article of it’s own.</p> <p>The discussion surrounding agape really defines the abortion debate, as you also noted, and I’ve said previously. It’s hard to fit agape into an abortion for convenience, or hurts career advancement or something like that. It’s trying to fit a square peg in a round hole — it just doesn’t fit; abortion for convenience violates Biblical agapao.</p> <p>If the mothers life is in danger, it’s unlikely any Christian would deny someone a legitimate need to terminate, although that moves into a much more difficult situation. And if the baby might have serious medical issues, to abort or not becomes <em>much</em> more difficult, and even grayer; it’s possible to see how someone could call that a loving choice (of course, those cases are normally excluded from the make abortion illegal side).</p> <p>If you haven’t faced the situation of a baby with medial problems, a drug-addicted child, a person in a coma and deciding to unplug the ventilator, or any of a thousand similar situations, you have no idea how difficult and gut-wrenching it can be.</p> <p>One of my favorite quotes from Yogi Berra — “in theory there’s no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is”. In other words, it’s easy to discuss academics, but when the rubber meets the road, will the academics work?</p> <p>Many of these issues we’re cursed with (like pulling the plug) come from medial advances. In the not-to-distant past, these issues didn’t pop up, simply because we didn’t have advanced medicine which yields information. Our technology has both blessed us with saving lives, and cursed us with information we didn’t use to have, which requires us to then “play god” with situations we really aren’t equipped for. It’s best to leave it to God, but sometimes we’re forced to make a decision.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Thanks for clarifying</h1> <p>yeager — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:29:10 +0000</p> <blockquote> <p>@KushielsMoon Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and medical abortions are different. But that doesn’t mean that one has to be acceptable and one has to be unacceptable.</p> </blockquote> <p>That’s true, but then it’s also true they require separate justifications.</p> <blockquote> <p>@KushielsMoon By the way, did you intentionally pass over the bit about abortion not being murder when it was illegal before 1973?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yep. I said it was <em>logical</em> to be murder. I’ve never researched the law pre Roe v Wade because it doesn’t really matter except in historical context. What the charge really was I don’t know.</p> <blockquote> <p>@KushielsMoon Children may be called Christian to denote an upbringing… Once a person is able to understand the faith behind believing in God and choosing to ask for forgiveness and acceptance by Christ (accepting Christ as their Savior), then they can be saved.</p> </blockquote> <p>Perfect.</p> <blockquote> <p>@KushielsMoon Having an abortion to make sure that you can feed the three children you already have- I’d say that’s love. A woman who aborts because she does not want to make a child suffer- that’s love.</p> </blockquote> <p>And that’s where we’ll disagree. There’s other options, and it’s a fact some abortions are performed because a baby is inconvenient, or bad for the career, or the boyfriend doesn’t want it, or…</p> <p>That’s selfish and self-centered, no matter how difficult they thought the decision was. No way could that be love, and the 1 Corinthians 13 reference is to understand agape. Love is a commitment, not an emotion, involving, well, commitment. Love is patient, kind, doesn’t seek it’s own, bears all things, never fails.</p> <p>Having an abortion because a child is inconvenient at the time or not good for career advancement can’t fit that description of love.</p> <blockquote> <p>@KushielsMoon I’m going to have to learn how to do that indenting at some point</p> </blockquote> <p>This blog uses Markdown syntax. It’s quite easy (similar to what you’d do in an email) and easily formats to HTML and PDF and LaTeX (lay-tech) formats for other uses. If you want more info, let me know, though I don’t know if blogger supports it.</p> <blockquote> <p>@KushielsMoon You are mixing up the legal reasoning why women could have abortions, and the personal reasons they choose to have abortions.</p> </blockquote> <p>Unfortunately, once a legal reason opens, it makes it available to anyone for any reason. <em>You</em> might not want an abortion for those reasons, but it would be legally justified. That’s the problem.</p> <blockquote> <p>@KushielsMoon Thanks for being polite and reasonable in your response.</p> </blockquote> <p>It’s sad you had to mention this. Why can’t people disagree? We’re on waaaaay different sides to be sure.</p> <p>I think this last comment clarified your position well. We won’t agree to be sure, but I understand where you’re coming from.</p> <p>If you believe Jesus Christ is God, came to the earth, died on the cross for our sin, rose on the third day, and by his sacrifice we are saved as no other name exists under heaven where by we must be saved, then dividing fellowship on other points is absurd, and splitting churches over pretrib/post-trib, Bible translations, predestination/free-will, etc is quite sad.</p> <p>I’ll avoid a long rant on the issue, but I wrote a book on “The Troubled Church” — using Corinth as an example. Sadly, we haven’t learned over 2,000 years as division and such still exist. The book is on Amazon, and MP3’s of the messages are <a href="http://www.dyeager.org/book/troubled-church/troubled-church">available for free download</a>.</p> <p>That’s not to say doctrine and issues aren’t important and don’t have right and wrong answers (I think your theology is quite incorrect), but the important issue is salvation. If someone gets that right they’re on the right path. If not, nothing else matters.</p> </article> </main></body></html>