perhaps maybe part of the butterflies plan is to get ignorant people like you to stop being so full of themselves and to notice the incredible awesomeness of our creator.
You are going to have some huge explaining to do come Judgement day when God rules this land with an iron rod, and if you don't return to God, you'll perish just as in the days of Noah.
Wait wait a second, are you saying that this creature doesn't serve a purpose or overcome obstacles to reach a certain goal? How about completely changing from one creature to another? Impressive, right? How about pollinating plants? Sounds like a plan right? and when everything looks way too complicated, fall back on the "stuff happens" and evolution is fact ploy, if you haven't got anything logical to say, don't say it it eatmylogic, who is the one with the ego?.
Butterfies are not consciously designed the way helicopters are. Butterflies develop out of nature. Machines designed by intelligent beings suit a purpose, are extensions of a personal will to overcome obstacles to reach goals. Nature needs none of these, it simply does what it does, without ego.
You demonstrate my point for me! The OT says some fine things about how to treat one's fellow humans and then turns around and attempts to justify some really nasty stuff, (e.g. the punishment of David's wife for crimes she did not commit) especially towards women and the poor.
THAT is why I cannot have a literal interpretation of the OT. Because it is contradictory and hypocritcal and in parts it directly contradicts the teachings of Christ.
@mafarmerga - there is no contradiction - you just choose not to understand context... That is fine - you can choose to believe what you want. I did my part.
@mafarmerga - your understanding is off on the 2nd scenario. Compared to verses 25-27 - It does not say she was forced - nor is there denoting of "crying out" in protest (check the Hebrew). However - taking the virginity of a girl not betrothed is still a violation. Deuteronomy is the summary of laws - so you'd have to look at previous examples for the source - see Exodus 22:15-16. "Weaken the message of Christ"?? You think He was condoning of sin? See what He says about the time to come.
No I think Christ was preaching love and forgiveness. Given the way he treated prostitutes I seriously doubt that Christ would have supported the public and cruel execution of a young girl for any insult agins her family's honor.
Of the women you know, how many would not be here today if this heinous punishment were practiced in our society?
What sort of honor would the murderers of a young girl be entitled to?
@mafarmerga - he offered forgiveness to those who were willing to repent (change their lifestyles). If you look at persons he healed... and even the adulteress woman who He counseled - what were his words? "Go and sin no more" - because as He said - "a worse thing may come upon you". There will be a judgement. How many do I know today?? Well that's the problem with why society is in such shambles. And actually anyone who really follows Jesus knows we deserved death for our lifestyles.
@mafarmerga - as his apostle Paul said in Romans "the law is spiritual but we are carnal - sold to sin"... and likewise he said in Corinthians "a natural mind cannot understand things of the spirit". The thief/murderer who was crucified right next to Jesus received punishment for His crimes - which he admitted himself rightfully so - but Jesus sees the heart of man and obviously the guy repented truthfully. OT is not of God?? Read Jesus word in Matthew 5:17-20. No way around it.
@Amidat "your understanding is off on the 2nd scenario."
Every English version of the Bible I can find describes this as "taking hold of her" or more appropriately "rape" Please direct me to a single accepted version that describes this as a consensual act.
Since you are so familiar with the original Hebrew text perhaps you should create your own English language translation of the OT.
Just be careful, remember what they did to William Tyndale!
@mafarmerga - I don't have to create my own translation... they exist already... Also concordances allow you to look up every individual word. That is poor scholarship to translate v 28 as rape. "Force" (v 25) denotes violence in Hebrew and is used for rape in other scenarios. Hence her "crying out". The "taking hold" doesn't denote the same thing... Not to get too sensual - but in most cases the man is the one who does the handling. Again Exodus 22:15-16.. same scenario with diff details.
@Amidat "I don't have to create my own translation... they exist already... "
OK, then providing me with a link to a single version of the OT that translates the passage in the benign terms you suggest should present no problem to you.
I checked out over a dozen and they all describe it as a one-way forcible encounter.
@mafarmerga - I've explained it plainly several ways. You don't really want "truth" - you want to argue. I will give you the words "chazaq" and "taphas". Different words and different scenarios... but the key difference is the lack of protest. There were 3 scenarios described between vs 22-29 - adultery - rape - and improper relations - with 3 different "results". I pointed you to the tools you need - so get a concordance and/or a Hebrew verison go look for it if you really want truth.
@Amidat "You don't really want "truth" - you want to argue."
You are correct in thinking that I do not believe that you, or anyone else for that matter, knows the "truth" It is indicative of your arrogance to assume that you have a monopoly on the truth or that I do not seek understanding.
I provide numerous examples of how the OT contradicts the teachings of Christ yet still you wonder how a Christian cannot have a literal interpretation of the OT.
@mafarmerga - the problem is that you didn't show any contradiction... the tools are there to correct your misunderstanding... including the reference I gave you of Jesus own words that He could not go against what is called the OT. No one can force another to believe anything. We are not the butterflies - nor birds and bees - even though we have the same Creator. Our moral code is the one give to us that as I referenced - Jesus Himself He didn't come to destroy - but fulfill.
I sat down with the children and watched the whole DVD recently and we all really enjoyed it. The photography was amazing we were all impacted by the beauty and complexity in the way God designed caterpillars and butterflies. Even though some of the material was a little too advanced for the children, they watched the whole thing without losing interest as the video was so beautifully made. Thanks for producing such a high-quality dvd - that made us appreciate God's stunning creation more.
Hannah's comments: Wow! The dvd is amazing. I think butterflies are are one of God's most gorgeous and intricate creations. Thanks for sending it. I really enjoyed it.
Aliyah's comments: It was beautiful. It was lifelike and educational. I liked the way that they explained about the butterfly and what it did.
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
Hmmm, forcing a woman to have sex against her will sure sounds a lot like rape to me. Doesn't much sound like a picnic with the neighbors does it?
@mafarmerga - there is no means of forcing going on there.... no more than David forced himself on another's wife. you are reading in English (which is not the original language) and with your prejudice.
@Amidat "there is no means of forcing going on there.... "
You are delusional. I do not care if it is in English, ancient Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic itself, when the Bible talks about taking a man's wife and giving her to his neighbors in order to "raise up evil against thee out of thine own house" it leaves little to interpretation.
As for your warped ideas about slavery, try rereading Leviticus 25:44-46.
@mafarmerga - for a scientist who claims to like to extrapolate the inner workings of things you are not surprisingly very close minded when it comes to understanding what the actuality of scriptures you don't like is. Btw - a foreign "slave" in Israel according to biblical principle would have had a better life than the millions of homeless even in the United States. The ability to properly answer is limited in this forum so feel free to email me if you are really serious.
@Amidat "Btw - a foreign "slave" in Israel according to biblical principle would have had a better life than the millions of homeless even in the United States."
The same arguments were made about America's slaves and how much "better off" they were than they would have been being free in their native Africa. In fact American slave owners invoked the same awful biblical passages to justify their crimes against humanity.
@mafarmerga - the difference is that they quoted - but didn't follow the bible. for one thing - they stole those ppl - which was outlawed in the bible. And for your information - I'm not white... so you're wrong again. Anyway as I said - if you want to really discuss it then email me. If you want to hold on to ignorance then go ahead. WWJD - he said "blessed are the meek - they will inherit the earth". When He said that - He was quoting the Old Testament that you disavow.
I never said, nor implied, anything about your racial background. I said that by defending slavery (throught the warped justification that some people were better off as slaves rather than living free) you echoed EXACTLY what American slave owners said. Like you they invoked the Bible as justification for their crimes against humanity.
That is why I said that you and they were of a kindred spirit.
Neither you nor they could see the hypocrisy in your positions.
@mafarmerga - too bad you're too ignorant to know that the Europeans knew they were "stolen" people... again it had absolutely nothing to do with what the bible allowed... but of course you're a "know it all". You quote Leviticus 25 but out of context!! The key is the person fell into poverty (comparing a native/foreigner) and SOLD THEMSELF!! It was more an act of mercy as there was no "welfare" or homeless shelters!! It was NOTHING like American slavery. Again - there goes the word "email".
@mafarmerga - in continuation... the same way God allowed them to purchase a foreigner WHO FELL INTO POVERTY AND COULD NOT SUPPORT THEMSELVES - he also told them to "be kind to strangers (foreigners)"... because they themselves were opressed in Egypt... so as I pointed out in the previous one... learn to be in context... and stop cherry picking when you have looked at the whole tree. That is NOTHING like what was done to my ancestors.
@mafarmerga - you obviously have little understanding of history.. just like you don't the bible. For one thing the slave owner was able to just beat his slave. As usual - you are out of context. The context is right before where men fight and the "winner" pays for the healthcare and wages of the loser. In the case of a slave - the owner obviously didn't have wages to pay... but if he was killed the owner would be charged. Likewise if you understand the totality (Exodus 21:26).. continued..
@mafarmerga continued... you would know that if a slave so much as lost a tooth or had an eye damaged they would have to be set free. You think that says an owner can beat a slave like what whites did to blacks??? WOW! Also - if you read Torah in it's entirety you would know you couldn't "trade" slaves nor buy "stolen" ppl. Likewise strangers were commanded to be treated well because Israel's ancestors themselves had to go to Egypt to be survive because of a famine in their land... continued..
@mafarmerga - continued...as you see in Exodus 22:21... and that was something that happened all the time in ancient days... famines started in one land and ppl migrated and often had to sell themselves into servitude to survive.. which is the backdrop for your misconception of Leviticus 25 making MERCIFUL provision for the purchase of ppl from surrounding nations. But of course a "know it all" like you - who really lacks understanding will just stick to your misconceptions.... continued...
@mafarmerga - continued - FINALLY - the context of the man selling his daughter was again he being in poverty and not being able to care for her. Ask children in today's homeless shelter's or foster care. Those provisions you referenced ensured that she was to be treated fairly... she was to be taken care of... better than she would have been with her impoverished father... If the owner failed to do so she could leave for free. It's amazing your lack of understanding and arrogance.
The institution of slavery is built on the premise that a person can "own" another human being, that they are the "property" of another. Regardless of the conditions of how they came to become the property of another I repudiate ALL slavery. I do not think one person should own another.
The passages of the OT I cite condone and legitimize the institution of slavery. Which is it for you? Do you reject the concept of slavery or do you accept its legitimacy as spelled out in the Bible?
@mafarmerga - I'm quite clear that I am on the side of what the bible says. You can repudiate all you want... but there is very much economic slavery right where you live! The same "OT" that you don't understand which is based on the premise the prophets such as Jeremiah always espoused (22:3) "Execute judgement and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, fatherless or widow ..." Sounds like Jesus - huh?
@Amidat "I'm quite clear that I am on the side of what the bible says. You can repudiate all you want..."
So that would be the institution of slavery as sanctioned by God. This is why you share a great deal with American slave owners, they used the same justification.
It is also why I treat the OT as a book written by privledged men enacting laws to keep women, the poor, foreigners, and homosexuals as second class citizens.
It is also why I cannot accept the OT without being a hypocrite.
@mafarmerga - Those Euro-Americans terribly distorted what the scriptures said. Trans-atlantic slavery has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bible. If you don't understand then then it must be because your heart is closed to it. If you want to look at the New Testament - read what Paul and Peter said to slaves and masters. Pray for understanding.... but it appears you don't want it. I just put in context every scripture you cited to prove you wrong - but you continue to be dense.
@ZebreI10I - i've read it very thoroughly... go back and read my comments.... you are factually incorrect. it makes provision for persons who fall into poverty and have no means to support themselves to become a servant to someone. It does not promote. The provisions were to ensure that persons are treated fairly - even though they are destitute. Again - go check all of the references I answered to "mafarmerga".
@Amidat However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
@ZebreI10I - go back and dig deeper... it says clearly that a person has to sell themself to you because they are too poor to support themself. Borrowers are still slaves to lenders now. If you default on your car loan or your mortgage - what happens??? Your house or car is re-possessed. Well there were no bank loans back then. It's really not different at all. Don't let your mind be skewed by the wickedness humans did. Actually it was more merciful - because a bank leaves you homeless.
@mafarmerga being a slave in the OT was more like a contract for being a servant where you would serve that person...UNTIL 7 years...once 7 years were passed the "contract was over" they were allowed to leave...but if they chose otherwise they could stay and continue to serve...and quite often they would stay...more often than not the slaves were even poor people...so becoming a servant would have been best for them as it would have provided work and food and a house, etc
I do not accept that it was EVER morally right for one person to own another, regardless of their situation. Every day poor families in Asia, Africa, and the Mid. East sell their children into bondage. They sell daughters as young as ten as "brides."
Amidat sees this as a sign of God's "mercy". That is SICK!
If God were truly merciful God would lift those families out of poverty, and not sanction the selling of their children. The OT is full of lies written in God's name.
@mafarmerga - what people do and what the bible says are different. don't blame God for people's wickedness. you can't see the difference between the two... just because things look or sound the same doesn't mean it is. Human beings cause our own suffering and teaches us to turn to God... He gives people free-will but I guess you don't think people are evil. And don't talk about other continents... teenagers are having sex "freely" right where you live... but I guess you think that is ok???
You asked me why I do not accept all that is written in the OT. I think I have defended my position quite well. The God that Jesus teaches us about would never sanction the owning of another person, Hebrew or otherwise. Jesus's God would not sanction the selling of daughters as unwilling "brides"
I speak of children today being sold into the sex trade and in your twisted logic you interpret that as somehow being equal to teen sex????
@mafarmerga - you didn't defend your position - you've been proven wrong many times. And in no way am I condoning childen sold in the sex trade... my point is that it happens right where you live now behind the scenes.... AND there is just as much wickedness in children being allowed their own "sexual freedom"... of course you don't see that though because it's their "choice".
@mafarmerga - there you go again and again misinterpreting scriptures. #1) arranged marriages was a staple of human civilization (even in western countries) until maybe the last 100 years. #2 In biblical culture there were restriction on who a father could marry his daughter off to. Go back and read again. It was always with the mind of making sure the daughter was protected and taken care of. Leviticus 19:29 STRICLY FORBIDS allowing your daughter to be sold for sex!!!
@mafarmerga - again you can't believe in Jesus if you don't believe the OT because EVERYTHING he taught was from the OT. The year of Jubilee was the when the slaves were set free and every man was given back his land of inheritance (that won't work in capitalism).... The prophets announced that Jubilee is a sign of the Messiah - and that is what Jesus Himself said. We live in a rebellious world... and that is what the "laws" of the bible were given. The Messiah came to set us FREE from sin!!
Like a lawyer insisting that their actions were "legal" you repeatedly avoid the central question I pose. Was it ever "morally" acceptable for one person to OWN another human being? Did the God of Jesus condone this as a moral act, or was the OT written by powerful men, invoking God's name and claiming his supposed will, so that they might control the less powerful, especially women?
I say it was the latter. Slavery has ALWAYS been immoral.
@mafarmerga - you said I answered like a lawyer? We are discussing a law code!!! You also don't understand that those laws were given on the basis that we human beings are corrupt and will do corrupt things... so those laws are to mitigate unfairness in a crooked world. You still don't get the essence of what being a bond servant was. Go take out a mortgage and stop paying it... the bank will take it and you will be homeless. With that in mind - go read those verses again.
1) The owning of a human being (slavery) has always been moral (God said it is OK as long as the slave is poor, hungry, female or a child).
2) Slavery used to be moral (above) but since Jesus it is immoral (God changes the rules and morality is determined by humans and the times in which they are living).
3) Slavery has ALWAYS been immoral (The OT was written by men to control the poor, hungry, women and children & making up stuff claiming that God said it was OK).
@mafarmerga - well I see you just want to hold on to your incorrect understanding with arguments that just go around in a circle but never reaching the point they should be. It reminds me very much of what Jesus said to Nicodemus... "if a man can't understand earthly things - how can he expect to understand heavenly things"?
And I see that you refuse to answer the simple question as to whether slavery (one human being controlling another human as "property"), as written about in the OT and as supposedly condoned by God was ever a morally acceptable institution. I contend it was not. I believe Christ would agree (hence I continue to consider myself a Christian).
And you?
I understand that this is a difficult thing for you to come to grips with. It was for me too.
@mafarmerga - what part of my answer didn't you see? What you contend I showed you from the scriptures is absolutely incorrect. You have a vain philosophy that does not go along with scripture so what you call yourself is up to you. Bond-servants was NOT a big portion of the population of God's people - hence only the few verses discussing it verses the hundreds of verses that instructs His people to be kind to the poor - widow - fatherless - and strangers (foreigners)... too many to list!!
@jesus1208sda "being a slave in the OT was more like a contract for being a servant.."
This is a selective interpretation of scripture. The 7 year rule only applied to Hebrew slaves not gentiles.
Second it only applied to men. If a male slave married then his wife and children still belonged to the master. They were his property. If the male slave refused to leave his family the owner punched a hole in his ear and kept him for the rest of his life.
@mafarmerga - and again - you are wrongly interpreting scriptures. I'm tired of explaining that you skip the verses showing that even foreign bond servants had to be treated with mercy and respect. For the record though - the land of Israel was never meant to be a democracy. It was a land explicitly for the worship of God. Any foreigner could convert at any time and have full rights (see Exodus 12:48-49)... they didn't need a visa or green card first. Endeavor to learn - instead of arguing.
@mafarmerga - again interpreting things incorrectly... if a man was married when he sold himself to be a bondservant - he took her when he left. It was only when he married a servant of his master - or his master's daughter - while in his master's custody that he couldn't take them. He could not be forced to marry them... so he was aware of it beforehand. This was a contract - but you refuse to understand it - and you continue to misinterpret.
@mafarmerga not only that...there were certian laws in which the master had to follow in treating the slave properly...Praise God that Jesus abolished those types of laws and the sacraficial laws when He died on the cross...note:not every law was abolished, as some Christians think. the 10 commandments are still in effect...references upon request (just thought i would throw that in there.)
@jesus1208sda - Jesus didn't abolish any laws.... he delivered his people from sin... which is the opposite... but of course - that won't happen until the end of this present age when we are all fully delivered. All those sacrifices teach about what exactly he did... so he didn't abolish them.
American slave owners did not "steal" Africans. They bought them from slave traders, exactly as the OT says they were allowed to, since those slave traders came from "a different land."
The more you try to defend your position the deeper the hole of hypocrisy you dig.
@mafarmerga - sorry but that was no gang rape - it only says that the women would lay with others... in the same way he took another man's wife...there is no indication of rape. And yes David deserved punishment for his crime... he stole a man's wife and had the man killed. God never changed... and Christ was there from the beginning... It actually shows the justice of God... David was God's chosen one... but God punished him in proportion to what He did.
REALLY? I mean really, you believe what you are saying?
That in your form of Christianity God punishing an innocent woman for the sins of a husband is OK?
It is OK to own slaves if they come from a different country? To beat them as long as they don't die and can get back up after two days? That if a freed slave refuses to leave his wife and kids you can keep him forever?
Sorry but this is not my God, and I do not think it is the God of Jesus.
@mafarmerga - again - you are WAY out of context. There is not enough space to correct your errors... but I will touch on a couple. Slavery allowed by the Bible is NOTHING like what was done to Africans in America. If you beat a slave that even if there eye or tooth was damaged you had to let them go. Also - they were only allowed to take slaves IF THEY AGREED after a war - or they owed them a debt. If you just went and took someone to make them a slave you could be executed yourself.
@mafarmerga - I'm sorry but you should go back and read Jesus/Yeshua's words again. He is One with His Father and was there from the very beginning. There is NO SEPERATION.
@witchtelus Did you not watch the video? 2'13" "It is very carefully ENGINEERED". Engineering = engineer = design = evolution does not have an answer for this or many many other questions. Proponents of evloution simply stick to their mantra of "how can you be so stupid?" Reverse that and ask, when David Attenborough is confronted with things like the vanila plant and the malipona bee (neither can exist without the other) and says "isn't it LUCKY they evolved at the same time"... is that smart?
@robatrhema Like I already said, this is why people who are ignorant of biology should not talk about biology.
You should go back to school and learn before you deign to comment on things you know nothing about. However I realize that Creationists, like birthers, and chemtrailers, and flat earthers will never be convinced, because you not only do not have the required education, you don't want the required education. You are not only ignorant of biology, you are wilfully ignorant.
@robatrhema It's called co-evolution. You should try reading about it sometime. Many organism pairs show this kind of reliance on one another. The specificity of the relationship is due to the fact that the evolution occurred over a geologic time scale.
disliked because od 4:05 but really touching video :) i loved it, made me a little sad because there arent as many buttlerflys as there were when i was young
"Its sophisticated.. almost beyond our comprehension". "Ask yourself in your experience, what kind of cause could bring about these results..?". "I think the only reasonable answer is...[voice-over].. differential expression of gene products from variances in silencing and modulation by the effector small RNAi pathways like miRNAs". "For evolution to have created this kind of pathway gradually, it would take... [voiceover] ... about 355 million years after the divergence from stem Trichoptera...
the only reasonable answer is // oh yes, gradual stepwise accumulation of adaptive mutations that were naturally selected. Sorry, the last bit needs a voice over.
If something is mysterious to you doesnt need a divine explaination, it needs you to look into the explaination.. its called research. Scientists are doing it right now..
@sjl197 clearly your are not listening to the guy 3:47....it took INTELLIGENCE that TRANSCENDS the NATURAL world....I laugh at you and people like you.....because science has an answer, therefore God does not exist.....this is stupid logic.
"Since the existence of a supernatural intelligence can neither be proven nor falsified it would seem to fall outside the realm of science regardless of who defines it." Here's your principle: it's only science if it can be falsified or verified. So take Newton's 1st law - it talks about what happens in the absence of external forces. There is nowhere in the universe it would apply, so it can't be verified or falsified. So N's 1st law isn't scientific? That seems like the wrong result.
Given the fact that we remain woefully ignorant of all the external forces in the universe (check out the winners of yesterday's Nobel in Physics for a good example) it would be imprudent of me to state whether or not Newton's can ever be falsified. Indeed one could argue that the observation that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion DOES falsify parts of Newton's first law. A body at rest does NOT stay at rest. So yeah, it is science.
There is a simple argument here (I've seen the whole film). The life cycle of a butterfly depends on the destruction of itself in the chrysalis. It is implausible to think that evolutionary naturalism could ever use this approach because it would merely lead to the death of the caterpillar UNLESS it knew the next steps that should be taken to re-convert the old, useless genetic material into something useful. How could that process make it through natural selection? Teleology is the best answer.
@larsjungnell That is a simple explanation. The truth however, that entomologists have long understood much of the complexity of this supposedly "miraculous" tranformation, is more difficult to grasp. But that does NOT mean that scientists have no answers to these questions.
The only thing this video proves is that Illustra Media either does not know about this research (poor scholarship) or it intentionally ignores it (dishonesty). Either way I would not put much faith in it.
@mafarmerga The fact that scientists have a story to tell does not mean they have their story right, or that it's without holes. 100 years ago Maxwell calculated the density of the ether to several significant figures. He had a story too, about the ether and how it supports the propagation of EM waves. The only problem is, there's no ether. You seem to think that empirical observations can only be interpreted one way, and that if a scientist says it then it must be true. That's just false.
Good points, science does NOT know everything about how the universe works. But in every case that you mention the existing theory was supplanted by one that provided a better NATURAL explanation. This film argues for a SUPERNATURAL explanation (listen to what Paul Nelson says) to explain things. In doing so it can no longer claim to be science.
@mafarmerga I would think that what everyone wants, including scientists, is the RIGHT explanation. Why eliminate agent causation as a possibility? That's prejudice, not science. Science is mostly the quest for natural causes and regularities, but it's question begging to presume that all explanations must involve ONLY those causes and never intelligent ones. When did science establish that only science can determine what caused something, and that all true causes must be impersonal?
Unlike religion, science never claims to know "the truth" The goal of science is to have the best (most logical) explanation for natural occurances possible. These are certain to change as more data is acquired, and science is fine with that.
The problem comes when one accepts a supernatural explanation. This is untestable and all inquiry stops. If "God did it" is the answer why delve further?
Not only is ID not science, it is a science stopper
@mafarmerga You must be a scientist, because only scientists talk that way. Of course science claims to know the truth - if it didn't, why would anyone do it or listen to scientists? And again, the point is to get the right explanation, not just the 'scientific' one. I'd rather have the right answer and have it be non-scientific than have a scientific explanation that's untrue. Isn't the point to get the story right, not just to tell it according to the strictures of methodological naturalism?
Yes I am a scientist and no I do not pretend to know "the truth." A good scientist will change their mind about something in an instant if new data suggests a better alternative explanation. People should listen to scientists not because we are "right" but because we have the best possilbe explanation given the available data.
So tell me, how does one objectively decide that an explanation is "right"? That no amount of new data will contradict the interpretation?
@mafarmerga The data under-determine the explanation, that's the whole point. Multiple equally valid interpretations are available for any given data set. You say we should listen to scientists because they have the best possible explanations - yet you also say they don't pretend to know the truth? Interesting. But at any rate, Behe is a scientist with access to the best data; why can't I listen to his interpretation that life was designed? It is based on his observations, i.e. his science.
Behe is either a dreadful scholar or a liar. I have said so in publications and I say so again. An undergraduate in one of my classes found a paper that undermined his arguments about the origin of cilia published TWO YEARS before his "Edge of Evolution" In an email to me he said he "missed it" BS! The guy is a charlaton and we who actually know something about cell biology know it.
Regrettably you do not. Want references and copies of emails?
@mafarmerga I've published on these things too, though from the philosophy of science perspective (my profession). You're right that I'm no scientist, and I'm not competent to judge whether Behe is a good one or a charlatan as you say. But I'm competent to judge other things. I just spent three days with him and I was not impressed either, to be honest. But 500 characters doesn't go very far, and I'd enjoy continuing this by email but I didn't understand what your email is. (I'm low tech!)
@mafarmerga Like I said before, it is mere prejudice to say that only naturalistic explanations of observations can be allowed - what experiment ever established that epistemological maxim? None did; none could; it is not itself scientific, but philosophical. What seems to you to be the best explanation of a phenomenon might seem ludicrous to another person looking at the same thing. The inference to design is based on empirical observations for which natural processes seem inadequate.
No, it is NOT prejudice. Like I told "TheTantanski" one does not get to redefine science based on ones personal preference. We need to defer to the wisdom of professional scientists (e.g. the National Academy of Sciences) or in the case of the US, the Federal courts (e.g. Judge Jones in Dover PA).
In either case science in the 21st Century does NOT encompass the supernatural. You do not get to make up the rules as you go along.
@mafarmerga I'm not redefining science, I'm saying that there's no principled reason that empirical features of the world cannot be explained by something personal. And I totally disagree that we should defer to the wisdom of professional scientists; in fact, they should defer to the wisdom of philosophers in these questions because scientists routinely embarrass themselves with their decidedly conspicuous LACK of wisdom. Philosophy is the study of wisdom. Science is just the study of stuff.
I'm then curious about your opinion of Karl Popper and the philosophy of empirical falsification. Since the existence of a supernatural intelligence can neither be proven nor falsified it would seem to fall outside the realm of science regardless of who defines it. This is why a federal judge declared ID as unscientific.
As for science being the study of "stuff" and philosophy the study of "wisdom", well that statement just doesn't strike me as being very wise.
"This is why a federal judge declared ID as unscientific."
Where is your source for this? Karl Popper declared Darwinian theory to be an unfalsifiable metaphisical research programme, but that doesn't seem to have hindered it's popularity?
In response to my comment that a federal judge declared ID as unscientific you asked, "Where is your source for this?"
The ruling of Federal Judge John Jones from the Dover PA trial in 2005 is available from many sources on the internet. Simply search for "Dover Trial Judge Ruling" and you will find many links to it. youTube does not allow me to post any of them.
. . . I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts. [Popper, 1957, p. 106;]
There exists no law of evolution, only the historical fact that plants and animals change, or more precisely, that they have changed. [Popper, 1963b, p. 340]
I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution and very ready to accept evolution as a fact. [Popper, 1976, p. 167]
"I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts."
Popper could certainly say this, even if Darwinism were hogwash. It's easy to bee seen as "the most successful explanation" when the main competitor is being ruled out apriori.
Popper famously called evolution via natural selectionis “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” He was absolutely right. Prove otherwise.
What would satisfy you as "proof" of biological evolution (i.e. common descent of all creatures on Earth)?
What is someone actually witnessed and documented a speciation event? What if they did it with controls (an identical side by side population that did not speciate and another one that did,). Would that do it for you?
"common descent" is one of the many meanings of "evolution". An intelligfent designer could choose to create through a process of common descent. Speculative theories of common descent go back to antiquity. Without a credible evolutionary mechanism that can be shown to have the capacity to generate new species, complex organs and new biochemical machines and processes, common descent becomes an (unfalsifiable) methodology used to govern interpretation of the data.
Please stop side stepping the question and answer it.
Would the witnessing and documentation of a new biological species be sufficient evidence for you that the theory of biological evolution is more than just a metaphysical approach to understanding nature?
I will allow that an intelligent designer "could" choose to create organisms that give the appearance of common descent. but such a God would be a very deceitful deity. Don't you think?
"witnessing and documentation of a new biological species be sufficient"
What do you mean by "a new biological species" ??? If you mean the extremely rare documented instances of species dividing into non interbreeding populations, then this would be a trivial step on a long journey, and it could also have other interpretations. It would hardly establish the claim that all life evolved naturally. I asked for documented evidence of new organs or biochemical machines and processes.
"Please stop side stepping the question and answer it."
You are evading my question now. Do you have any canonical demonstration for the sufficiency of the Darwinian process to generate the level of complexity observed?
I asked my question first, so you igonred first. Also, would not the creation of a new biological species be "canonical" enough for you?
Are you concerned that I might know of such a well documented example of speciation which is why you are evading the question?
By species I mean a genetically distinct population of organisms that possess a trait that is absent in the parent species. The result of a new biochemical process.
"would not the creation of a new biological species be "canonical" enough for you?....."
How on earth could the division of a population into two near identical populations establish that the same process can be reliably extrapolated to explain wings, brains, host of biochemnical processes, and indeed, all of lifes diversity?
So your position amounts to "unless you can demonstrate the existence of EVERY intermediary from the origin of life to the present, I will not believe it."
Fine, your burden of proof is too high for anyone, even God, to meet.
It matters not whether you accept biological evolution. Like all other natural processes it continues along regardless of mankinds understanding or ignorance ot it.
"unless you can demonstrate the existence of EVERY intermediary from the origin of life to the present,...."
I asked for a reason to believe that the same process that has been observed to produce trivial microevolutionary changes can also create complex organs, biochemical structures and process. Your faith in naturalistic philosophy (equivalent to believing in a non intervening God) assures you that RM and NS are adequate to produce lifes diversity, but where's the evidence?
"Are you concerned that I might know of such a well documented example of speciation which is why you are evading the question?"
I am aware of examples, as I already implied. They are extremely rare, and could potentially have alternative explanations. Is there any reason to believe that such trivial examples represent part of a grand evolutionary scheme? Might these isolated quirks have alternative explanations?
Do you really think that God put the same defective GULOP in all the great apes in the hope that we would discovery this and be tricked into thinking that we share a common ancestor?
Or do you think, as I do, that we DO share a common biological ancestor?
" tricked into thinking that we share a common ancestor?"
You have clearly misunderstood me. Perhaps we do have a common ancestor with apes, but the explanation for that evolutionary divergence might be an intelligently directed process. Common descent is distinct from the process mechanism driving divergence, such as RM and NS. I thought I had made that clear. Why would a designer be decietful for using common descent to evolve his designs according to a preconceived plan?
Let's stop the BS with "designer" and call God by name shall we?
If God wanted to create by disrupting our ability to make vitamin C she certainly could have done so. But this is not testable under the tenets of science. That is my problem with this video. It wants to call itself science when it most clearly is not.
As for RM and NS giving rise to a new species, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the work of Rich Lenski and the longterm E. coli experiment.
"But this is not testable under the tenets of science."
Nor is the claim that the mechanism of RM and NS is sufficient to account for the astronomical level of complexity we observe in living systems. As I said, Darwinism is a metaphysical research programme that does have evidence for trivial microevolutionary changes and rare population divisions that nobody disputes. What is not established is the claim that the same mechanism can account for anything remotely complex.
Ah the old "micro" vs. "macro" evolution argument finally rears its head. As if they are not both merely arbitrary benchmarks along a continuum of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. Where is your boundary? Speciation? Careful, I've got that one covered too.
Nothing remotely complex? How about Nylonase?
BTW did you enjoy reading Judge Jones' decision? How about the part where he states that ID is NOT science but merely creationism in a new form? Did you read that far?
Does it not strike you that the examples you are presenting as evidence of the power of RM and NS are dwarfed by the unfathomable complexity of living systems. No one denies that this mechanism may throw up a few quirks, but what spectacular new machinery arose to allow for the digestion of nylonase? How complex were the genetic changes? No ID proponent denies that RM's might throw up a few sucesses, but what permits you believe so much based on so little?
"perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the work of Rich Lenski and the longterm E. coli experiment"
Lenski is one of the few Darwinists who are actually trying to show experimentally what RM and NS can actually achieve, as opposed to being imagined or wished to achieve. His experiments are excellent confirmation that even with thousands of generations, the changes to be expected through RM and NS are trivial, usually involve LOSS of traits and usually occur early in the experiment
The ability to use citrate as a carbon source is "trivial" What are you nuts!! A LOSS of traits?
The inability of E. coli to use citrate was a defining feature of that species. Lenski's new species blows that to hell.
Obviously no amount of data will ever convince you of anything. Hence you prove my original position that ID and its supporters are NOT scientists and have no claim to call themselves such.
"The inability of E. coli to use citrate was a defining feature of that species"
The ability to digest a new molecule might be impressive if some novel biochemical machinery appeared. Did it? What is the name of Lenski's "new" species BTW. Do you think that this trivial result is really sufficient to estrapolate the Darwinian process to butterflies? Why does the evolution of Lenski's E.coli seem to have stalled? Is their any reason to believe that such varients would arise in the wild?
You ask for evidence of evolution. I provide it and you switch to questions about metamorphosis (and yes, we understand that pretty well too). I point out the appearance of new metabolic pathways in two types of bacteria and you ask "Has it been named?" I produce tangible evidence of evolution at work and you demand "Can you show it to me all at once?"
As I said, evolution proceeds whether you understand it or not.
"You ask for evidence of evolution. I provide it and you"
Your best examples (I know these are about the best) are utterly simplistic in relation to what you ask me to believe about the power of RM and NS, based on evidence. The evolution of butterflies and metamorphasis is light years beyond what has actually been observed. Our best expalantions for butterflies ( consisting of many billions of cells) amount to silly "just-so" stories with no basis in observation or experiment
Not entirely, if you have a better appreciation of the povery of solid examples of Darwinian evolution in action. You have understood the difference between the proposal of common descent, and the explanation for that descent.
"I point out the appearance of new metabolic pathways in two types of bacteria"
I asked you for the scientific names of the "new" species produced. Are these novel bacteria able to survive and compete with existing wild strains of bacteria in nature, or would they dissapper, through being unable to compete? Out of interest, can they interbreed with the original strains? Just asking.
"I produce tangible evidence of evolution at work and you demand "Can you show it to me all at once?""
I am not asking for it all at once. I am asking you to admit that the very best evidence you have AT PRESENT is utterly uncompelling, and to recognise that your confidence that some naturalistic process (probably RM and NS) has indeed been responsible for all of lifes diversity, does not arise from the evidence, but rather from philosophical and theological prejudices
"Obviously no amount of data will ever convince you of anything. "
It has been said that Darwinists frequently indulge in wishful speculations and are prepared to believe anything, provided it is cosistent with their theory of mutation and selection. Be honest enough to admit that the Darwinists are a million miles from establishing that their mechanism is adequate to account for lifes diversity. Be aware of your own philosophical prejudices and assumptions.
@IDtaksovr "Be aware of your own philosophical prejudices and assumptions."
Show me a scientist who is not skeptical and I will show you a lousy scientist. If you or anyone else produce evidence for an intellitgent agency (and remember unanswered questions is NOT the same as evidence of anything other than gaps in our knowledge) and I will adapt my position. That is why science makes progress and religion is stagnant; stuck in certainty.
What exactly is a "Darwinist" I have been accused of being one many times (most recently by you) but have yet to hear a cogent definition.
I am a Christian, in that I try to live my life according to the teachings of Christ.
I do NOT live my life according to the teachings of Darwin. For one thing he had no knowledge of genetics or symbiosis. I know a LOT more than Darwin ever did.
A Darwinist is someone who thinks that all of lifes diversity evolved from one or a few common ancestors, principally by the blind and purposeless process of NS acting on random genetic mutation. A Naturalist is someone who assumes that life arose by a fully naturalistic process, such as Darwinism, i.e. without any direction or end goal e.g. (the creation of humans as a planned outcome). If you dissagree with any of this, then you may be an ID proponent
A Darwinist is someone who thinks that all of lifes diversity evolved from one or a few common ancestors, principally by the blind and purposeless process of NS acting on random genetic mutation. A Naturalist is someone who assumes that life arose by a fully naturalistic process, such as Darwinism, i.e. without any direction or end goal e.g. (the creation of humans as a planned outcome). If you dissagree with any of this, then you may be an ID proponent
Then you should look beneath the confident (and arrogant) Darwinian facade. Butterflies consist of tens of billions of cells. Each cell consists of around 100 billion atoms. The cell is best described as a fully automated, self replicating city, complete with highways, vehicles, an information data base, information processing machinery, error correction abilities, QC systems, turbines, motors, solar panels, recycling plants and production lines etc. etc. etc.
Look, if you are seeking a scientist to admit "I do not know all the answers" then fine. I and everyone I know will fit the bill. A good scientist is critically aware of what we do not know and yet seek to understand.
If you are looking to me to then say "I do know these things so I will substitute my lack of understanding by appealing to God to fill in the blanks." Well sorry that is NOT how science works.
It is however, the definition of ID and the crap promoted in this video.
" A good scientist is critically aware of what we do not know....."
Perhaps in an ideal world, but in the real world, scientists are often the very last people to admit or even recognise the philosophical prejudices that underlie their work, and the effect that they have on it. e.g. the apriori denial that anything like intelligent design could have taken place at any time in the universes history has profound consequences for the kind of theories that can be advanced
Who are you to speak on behalf of "Science"? What is science? Who has the authority to say how science MUST work? The character of science has changed radically, and repeatedly throughout history, and will likely do so again. Science is whatever it's practitioners decide it should be at any point in time. Scientists can chose to abandon the un-supportable and dogmatic limitation of science to purely natural explanation, if they choose.
Well, for one thing I am a Ph.D. scientist who is active in the field of evolutionary biology.
What are you advocating? That you can make up the rules as we go along? You must be very good at Calvinball.
Here in the 21st Century we have a pretty good consensus of what constitutes science and an appeal to supernatural deities is not part of it. Even Judge Jones agrees.
"I am a Ph.D. scientist who is active in the field of evolutionary biology."
How does your biology qualification justify pronouncements about the nature / rules of science generally. Philosophers of science study science, whereas biologists study biology. Anyway, yours is an appeal to authority, rather than an objective reason to believe that the current understanding of what constitutes valid "science" is absolute and final. On what authority do you mandate natural explanations.
you write "Science is whatever it's practitioners decide it should be at any point in time."
Great, so then we agree that I as a practitioner of science am more qualified to make this determination than you are. But wait, let's see what the collective wisdom of scientists say. Consult the National Academies of Science and you will see that they too reject supernatural causation as being a vital part of science.
As for Dover, that is a legal definition. And you lost that one too!
" as a practitioner of science am more qualified to make this determination...."
No. You have missed the point. You conceded that the rules of science are decided anew by each generation of scientists; that their is no such thing as a final and objective definition of science. The definition of science could easily change in future toiwards ID, if the concensus of scientists agree. You also reveal that the current "orthodoxy" is something that needs to be protected by the COURTS!
"collective wisdom of scientists..." "National Academies of Science" "Dover, that is a legal definition."
These are all fallacious appeals to the current orthodoxy. The Catholic chuch could easilly have ammassed the same level of justification for Galileos censorship. What on earth do "legal definitions" have to do with what scientists believe, how they do their research, etc. In future, Dover will provide an embarrasing reminder of antiscientific censorship by a dominant orthodoxy
"who then decides what is and what is not science?"
You understand that what it means to do "science" changes all the time, and could potentialy shift towards the ID understanding in future. The nature of science will ultimately depend on evidence, rather than the stength of the current orthodoxy, social pressures, or court rulings. Looking at the trends since Darwins time, it is now clear that life is astronomically more sophisticated that Darwin or anyone else ever dreamed of.
You say that you care about science, but in practice, this amounts to your desire to defend the current narrow orthodoxy, while suppressing alternative views. I care about the TRUTH, rather than some arbitrary definition of science. The ID perspective will get to the truth. It requires that naturalistic explanation be advanced, while leaving open the possibility that certain features of the natural world cannot be reduced to nature acting blindly
I'm a physics grad working as an enginneer. That makes me able to recognise design when I see it, but it doesn't qualify me to assert how science must be practiced, and what constitutes valid science or scientific arguments. What exactly is your Ph.D in?
Frankly it does not surprise me that you are an engineer. A lack of understanding of evolution seems to come most strongly from chemists, physicists, and computer scientists.
My Ph.D. is in Cell Biology, so I am well prepared to take on Dr. Behe and others when they venture into the realm of cell function and biochemistry.
I stand by my accusation that he is a dreaful scholar. His Edge of Evolution is the worst (best?) example of this.
"it does not surprise me that you are an engineer. A lack of understanding of evolution seems to come most strongly from chemists, physicists, and computer scientists."
LOL. The serious sciences have difficulty with evolutionary biology, because they appreciate the enormity of the chemical, engineering and informational hurdles that were supposedly overcome by a blundering, tinkering process. Darwinists don't allow such concerns to get in the way of their wishfull speculations
I agree that science, and the definition of science, is always changing. But the history of that change has consistently been away from supernatural causation. This happened as we have understood more about how the universe actually works.
You may fervently wish that the "current orthodoxy" will eventually bring us back to time when we were content to explain such things as God's will. But I'm afraid* that history is not on your side on this one.
"the history of that change has consistently been away from supernatural"
It is fully reasonable that the naturalistic paradigm has been developed first, because much about origins can be explained perfectly by appeal to purely natural causes. At the same time, paradigms have a habit of bringing about their own downfall, when they inevitably expand to the point where they reveal stubborn anomalies that cannot be resolved from within their framework.
"I'm afraid* that history is not on your side on this one."
Since Darwins time, further study of living systems has not helped to make the case for a naturalistic origin. Instead, the appearance of design has grown by orders of magnitude, and as such, the problem of explaining such complexity by appealing to blind, puposeless processes has grown astronomically. The more we learn, the more life looks designed, the less likely we are to find purely naturalistic explanations......
@IDtaksovr "The more we learn, the more life looks designed, the less likely we are to find purely naturalistic explanations......"
As I have said, nearly two thousand years of discovery have shown you to be dead wrong about this. I do not wish to dissuade you from prayng that I am the one that is wrong. But if you expect scientists to roll over just because you and a few other religiously motivated activists say so, you will have a long wait on your hands.
Amazing
dionemariposas 1 week ago
perhaps maybe part of the butterflies plan is to get ignorant people like you to stop being so full of themselves and to notice the incredible awesomeness of our creator.
briandawkinsforever 3 weeks ago
You are going to have some huge explaining to do come Judgement day when God rules this land with an iron rod, and if you don't return to God, you'll perish just as in the days of Noah.
briandawkinsforever 3 weeks ago
Wait wait a second, are you saying that this creature doesn't serve a purpose or overcome obstacles to reach a certain goal? How about completely changing from one creature to another? Impressive, right? How about pollinating plants? Sounds like a plan right? and when everything looks way too complicated, fall back on the "stuff happens" and evolution is fact ploy, if you haven't got anything logical to say, don't say it it eatmylogic, who is the one with the ego?.
briandawkinsforever 3 weeks ago
Butterfies are not consciously designed the way helicopters are. Butterflies develop out of nature. Machines designed by intelligent beings suit a purpose, are extensions of a personal will to overcome obstacles to reach goals. Nature needs none of these, it simply does what it does, without ego.
eatmylogic 3 weeks ago
You demonstrate my point for me! The OT says some fine things about how to treat one's fellow humans and then turns around and attempts to justify some really nasty stuff, (e.g. the punishment of David's wife for crimes she did not commit) especially towards women and the poor.
THAT is why I cannot have a literal interpretation of the OT. Because it is contradictory and hypocritcal and in parts it directly contradicts the teachings of Christ.
How can you rationalize the contradictions?
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - there is no contradiction - you just choose not to understand context... That is fine - you can choose to believe what you want. I did my part.
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat "you just choose not to understand context... "
Would that be the same context that commands me to stone my daughter to death for having pre-marital sex and not telling me about it? Deut. 22:13-21
Or the context that if a rapist give 50 shekels to a girls father then she has to marry the rapist and live with him forever? Deuteronomy 22:28-29
As you and others make excuses for the moral authority of the OT you actually weaken the message of Christ.
I too have done my part.
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - your understanding is off on the 2nd scenario. Compared to verses 25-27 - It does not say she was forced - nor is there denoting of "crying out" in protest (check the Hebrew). However - taking the virginity of a girl not betrothed is still a violation. Deuteronomy is the summary of laws - so you'd have to look at previous examples for the source - see Exodus 22:15-16. "Weaken the message of Christ"?? You think He was condoning of sin? See what He says about the time to come.
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat "You think He was condoning of sin?"
No I think Christ was preaching love and forgiveness. Given the way he treated prostitutes I seriously doubt that Christ would have supported the public and cruel execution of a young girl for any insult agins her family's honor.
Of the women you know, how many would not be here today if this heinous punishment were practiced in our society?
What sort of honor would the murderers of a young girl be entitled to?
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - he offered forgiveness to those who were willing to repent (change their lifestyles). If you look at persons he healed... and even the adulteress woman who He counseled - what were his words? "Go and sin no more" - because as He said - "a worse thing may come upon you". There will be a judgement. How many do I know today?? Well that's the problem with why society is in such shambles. And actually anyone who really follows Jesus knows we deserved death for our lifestyles.
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat "he offered forgiveness to those who were willing to repent"
Kind of hard for a young woman to repent when she has had her skull bashed in by rocks thrown by the male members of her family. Don't you think?
I suppose God can still forgive her sins after death. Will God also forgive her murderers?
The more you try to defend these interpretations of the OT the more I become convinced that these were man's laws written by men, for men.
They were not the words of God.
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - as his apostle Paul said in Romans "the law is spiritual but we are carnal - sold to sin"... and likewise he said in Corinthians "a natural mind cannot understand things of the spirit". The thief/murderer who was crucified right next to Jesus received punishment for His crimes - which he admitted himself rightfully so - but Jesus sees the heart of man and obviously the guy repented truthfully. OT is not of God?? Read Jesus word in Matthew 5:17-20. No way around it.
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat "your understanding is off on the 2nd scenario."
Every English version of the Bible I can find describes this as "taking hold of her" or more appropriately "rape" Please direct me to a single accepted version that describes this as a consensual act.
Since you are so familiar with the original Hebrew text perhaps you should create your own English language translation of the OT.
Just be careful, remember what they did to William Tyndale!
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - I don't have to create my own translation... they exist already... Also concordances allow you to look up every individual word. That is poor scholarship to translate v 28 as rape. "Force" (v 25) denotes violence in Hebrew and is used for rape in other scenarios. Hence her "crying out". The "taking hold" doesn't denote the same thing... Not to get too sensual - but in most cases the man is the one who does the handling. Again Exodus 22:15-16.. same scenario with diff details.
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat "I don't have to create my own translation... they exist already... "
OK, then providing me with a link to a single version of the OT that translates the passage in the benign terms you suggest should present no problem to you.
I checked out over a dozen and they all describe it as a one-way forcible encounter.
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - I've explained it plainly several ways. You don't really want "truth" - you want to argue. I will give you the words "chazaq" and "taphas". Different words and different scenarios... but the key difference is the lack of protest. There were 3 scenarios described between vs 22-29 - adultery - rape - and improper relations - with 3 different "results". I pointed you to the tools you need - so get a concordance and/or a Hebrew verison go look for it if you really want truth.
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat "You don't really want "truth" - you want to argue."
You are correct in thinking that I do not believe that you, or anyone else for that matter, knows the "truth" It is indicative of your arrogance to assume that you have a monopoly on the truth or that I do not seek understanding.
I provide numerous examples of how the OT contradicts the teachings of Christ yet still you wonder how a Christian cannot have a literal interpretation of the OT.
I wonder how one could?
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - the problem is that you didn't show any contradiction... the tools are there to correct your misunderstanding... including the reference I gave you of Jesus own words that He could not go against what is called the OT. No one can force another to believe anything. We are not the butterflies - nor birds and bees - even though we have the same Creator. Our moral code is the one give to us that as I referenced - Jesus Himself He didn't come to destroy - but fulfill.
Amidat 1 month ago
I sat down with the children and watched the whole DVD recently and we all really enjoyed it. The photography was amazing we were all impacted by the beauty and complexity in the way God designed caterpillars and butterflies. Even though some of the material was a little too advanced for the children, they watched the whole thing without losing interest as the video was so beautifully made. Thanks for producing such a high-quality dvd - that made us appreciate God's stunning creation more.
pouredoutmel 2 months ago
After watching the whole DVD:
Hannah's comments: Wow! The dvd is amazing. I think butterflies are are one of God's most gorgeous and intricate creations. Thanks for sending it. I really enjoyed it.
Aliyah's comments: It was beautiful. It was lifelike and educational. I liked the way that they explained about the butterfly and what it did.
pouredoutmel 2 months ago
Comment removed
ZebreI10I 2 months ago
2 Samuel 12:11-12
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
Hmmm, forcing a woman to have sex against her will sure sounds a lot like rape to me. Doesn't much sound like a picnic with the neighbors does it?
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - there is no means of forcing going on there.... no more than David forced himself on another's wife. you are reading in English (which is not the original language) and with your prejudice.
Amidat 2 months ago
@Amidat "there is no means of forcing going on there.... "
You are delusional. I do not care if it is in English, ancient Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic itself, when the Bible talks about taking a man's wife and giving her to his neighbors in order to "raise up evil against thee out of thine own house" it leaves little to interpretation.
As for your warped ideas about slavery, try rereading Leviticus 25:44-46.
Pax - mafarmerga
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - for a scientist who claims to like to extrapolate the inner workings of things you are not surprisingly very close minded when it comes to understanding what the actuality of scriptures you don't like is. Btw - a foreign "slave" in Israel according to biblical principle would have had a better life than the millions of homeless even in the United States. The ability to properly answer is limited in this forum so feel free to email me if you are really serious.
Amidat 2 months ago
@Amidat "Btw - a foreign "slave" in Israel according to biblical principle would have had a better life than the millions of homeless even in the United States."
The same arguments were made about America's slaves and how much "better off" they were than they would have been being free in their native Africa. In fact American slave owners invoked the same awful biblical passages to justify their crimes against humanity.
You seem to be of a kindred spirit with them.
WWJD?
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - the difference is that they quoted - but didn't follow the bible. for one thing - they stole those ppl - which was outlawed in the bible. And for your information - I'm not white... so you're wrong again. Anyway as I said - if you want to really discuss it then email me. If you want to hold on to ignorance then go ahead. WWJD - he said "blessed are the meek - they will inherit the earth". When He said that - He was quoting the Old Testament that you disavow.
Amidat 2 months ago
@Amidat
I never said, nor implied, anything about your racial background. I said that by defending slavery (throught the warped justification that some people were better off as slaves rather than living free) you echoed EXACTLY what American slave owners said. Like you they invoked the Bible as justification for their crimes against humanity.
That is why I said that you and they were of a kindred spirit.
Neither you nor they could see the hypocrisy in your positions.
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - too bad you're too ignorant to know that the Europeans knew they were "stolen" people... again it had absolutely nothing to do with what the bible allowed... but of course you're a "know it all". You quote Leviticus 25 but out of context!! The key is the person fell into poverty (comparing a native/foreigner) and SOLD THEMSELF!! It was more an act of mercy as there was no "welfare" or homeless shelters!! It was NOTHING like American slavery. Again - there goes the word "email".
Amidat 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - in continuation... the same way God allowed them to purchase a foreigner WHO FELL INTO POVERTY AND COULD NOT SUPPORT THEMSELVES - he also told them to "be kind to strangers (foreigners)"... because they themselves were opressed in Egypt... so as I pointed out in the previous one... learn to be in context... and stop cherry picking when you have looked at the whole tree. That is NOTHING like what was done to my ancestors.
Amidat 2 months ago
@Amidat "That is NOTHING like what was done to my ancestors."
If a man refuses his freedom to stay with his family he becomes the property of his owner for the rest of his life (Exodus 21 2-6)
An owner can beat a slave because they are his "property" (Exodus 21 20-21)
A man can sell a daughter like she were livestock (Exodus 21 7-11)
The "context" you speak of is men controlling women, and other human beings, as if they were merchandise. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - you obviously have little understanding of history.. just like you don't the bible. For one thing the slave owner was able to just beat his slave. As usual - you are out of context. The context is right before where men fight and the "winner" pays for the healthcare and wages of the loser. In the case of a slave - the owner obviously didn't have wages to pay... but if he was killed the owner would be charged. Likewise if you understand the totality (Exodus 21:26).. continued..
Amidat 2 months ago
@mafarmerga continued... you would know that if a slave so much as lost a tooth or had an eye damaged they would have to be set free. You think that says an owner can beat a slave like what whites did to blacks??? WOW! Also - if you read Torah in it's entirety you would know you couldn't "trade" slaves nor buy "stolen" ppl. Likewise strangers were commanded to be treated well because Israel's ancestors themselves had to go to Egypt to be survive because of a famine in their land... continued..
Amidat 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - continued...as you see in Exodus 22:21... and that was something that happened all the time in ancient days... famines started in one land and ppl migrated and often had to sell themselves into servitude to survive.. which is the backdrop for your misconception of Leviticus 25 making MERCIFUL provision for the purchase of ppl from surrounding nations. But of course a "know it all" like you - who really lacks understanding will just stick to your misconceptions.... continued...
Amidat 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - continued - FINALLY - the context of the man selling his daughter was again he being in poverty and not being able to care for her. Ask children in today's homeless shelter's or foster care. Those provisions you referenced ensured that she was to be treated fairly... she was to be taken care of... better than she would have been with her impoverished father... If the owner failed to do so she could leave for free. It's amazing your lack of understanding and arrogance.
Amidat 2 months ago
@Amidat
The institution of slavery is built on the premise that a person can "own" another human being, that they are the "property" of another. Regardless of the conditions of how they came to become the property of another I repudiate ALL slavery. I do not think one person should own another.
The passages of the OT I cite condone and legitimize the institution of slavery. Which is it for you? Do you reject the concept of slavery or do you accept its legitimacy as spelled out in the Bible?
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - I'm quite clear that I am on the side of what the bible says. You can repudiate all you want... but there is very much economic slavery right where you live! The same "OT" that you don't understand which is based on the premise the prophets such as Jeremiah always espoused (22:3) "Execute judgement and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, fatherless or widow ..." Sounds like Jesus - huh?
Amidat 2 months ago
@Amidat "I'm quite clear that I am on the side of what the bible says. You can repudiate all you want..."
So that would be the institution of slavery as sanctioned by God. This is why you share a great deal with American slave owners, they used the same justification.
It is also why I treat the OT as a book written by privledged men enacting laws to keep women, the poor, foreigners, and homosexuals as second class citizens.
It is also why I cannot accept the OT without being a hypocrite.
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - Those Euro-Americans terribly distorted what the scriptures said. Trans-atlantic slavery has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bible. If you don't understand then then it must be because your heart is closed to it. If you want to look at the New Testament - read what Paul and Peter said to slaves and masters. Pray for understanding.... but it appears you don't want it. I just put in context every scripture you cited to prove you wrong - but you continue to be dense.
Amidat 2 months ago
@Amidat the bible promotes slavery, have you read it?
ZebreI10I 2 months ago
@ZebreI10I - i've read it very thoroughly... go back and read my comments.... you are factually incorrect. it makes provision for persons who fall into poverty and have no means to support themselves to become a servant to someone. It does not promote. The provisions were to ensure that persons are treated fairly - even though they are destitute. Again - go check all of the references I answered to "mafarmerga".
Amidat 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Amidat However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
ZebreI10I 2 months ago
@ZebreI10I - go back and look at the answers I already gave. you have to be in context.
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat it says clearly that you can buy human beings, like they have a price or something
ZebreI10I 1 month ago 2
@ZebreI10I - go back and dig deeper... it says clearly that a person has to sell themself to you because they are too poor to support themself. Borrowers are still slaves to lenders now. If you default on your car loan or your mortgage - what happens??? Your house or car is re-possessed. Well there were no bank loans back then. It's really not different at all. Don't let your mind be skewed by the wickedness humans did. Actually it was more merciful - because a bank leaves you homeless.
Amidat 1 month ago
@mafarmerga being a slave in the OT was more like a contract for being a servant where you would serve that person...UNTIL 7 years...once 7 years were passed the "contract was over" they were allowed to leave...but if they chose otherwise they could stay and continue to serve...and quite often they would stay...more often than not the slaves were even poor people...so becoming a servant would have been best for them as it would have provided work and food and a house, etc
jesus1208sda 2 months ago
@jesus1208sda
I do not accept that it was EVER morally right for one person to own another, regardless of their situation. Every day poor families in Asia, Africa, and the Mid. East sell their children into bondage. They sell daughters as young as ten as "brides."
Amidat sees this as a sign of God's "mercy". That is SICK!
If God were truly merciful God would lift those families out of poverty, and not sanction the selling of their children. The OT is full of lies written in God's name.
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - what people do and what the bible says are different. don't blame God for people's wickedness. you can't see the difference between the two... just because things look or sound the same doesn't mean it is. Human beings cause our own suffering and teaches us to turn to God... He gives people free-will but I guess you don't think people are evil. And don't talk about other continents... teenagers are having sex "freely" right where you live... but I guess you think that is ok???
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat
You asked me why I do not accept all that is written in the OT. I think I have defended my position quite well. The God that Jesus teaches us about would never sanction the owning of another person, Hebrew or otherwise. Jesus's God would not sanction the selling of daughters as unwilling "brides"
I speak of children today being sold into the sex trade and in your twisted logic you interpret that as somehow being equal to teen sex????
Go back and revisit your values.
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - you didn't defend your position - you've been proven wrong many times. And in no way am I condoning childen sold in the sex trade... my point is that it happens right where you live now behind the scenes.... AND there is just as much wickedness in children being allowed their own "sexual freedom"... of course you don't see that though because it's their "choice".
Amidat 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - there you go again and again misinterpreting scriptures. #1) arranged marriages was a staple of human civilization (even in western countries) until maybe the last 100 years. #2 In biblical culture there were restriction on who a father could marry his daughter off to. Go back and read again. It was always with the mind of making sure the daughter was protected and taken care of. Leviticus 19:29 STRICLY FORBIDS allowing your daughter to be sold for sex!!!
Amidat 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - again you can't believe in Jesus if you don't believe the OT because EVERYTHING he taught was from the OT. The year of Jubilee was the when the slaves were set free and every man was given back his land of inheritance (that won't work in capitalism).... The prophets announced that Jubilee is a sign of the Messiah - and that is what Jesus Himself said. We live in a rebellious world... and that is what the "laws" of the bible were given. The Messiah came to set us FREE from sin!!
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat "EVERYTHING he taught was from the OT."
Like a lawyer insisting that their actions were "legal" you repeatedly avoid the central question I pose. Was it ever "morally" acceptable for one person to OWN another human being? Did the God of Jesus condone this as a moral act, or was the OT written by powerful men, invoking God's name and claiming his supposed will, so that they might control the less powerful, especially women?
I say it was the latter. Slavery has ALWAYS been immoral.
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - you said I answered like a lawyer? We are discussing a law code!!! You also don't understand that those laws were given on the basis that we human beings are corrupt and will do corrupt things... so those laws are to mitigate unfairness in a crooked world. You still don't get the essence of what being a bond servant was. Go take out a mortgage and stop paying it... the bank will take it and you will be homeless. With that in mind - go read those verses again.
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat
1) The owning of a human being (slavery) has always been moral (God said it is OK as long as the slave is poor, hungry, female or a child).
2) Slavery used to be moral (above) but since Jesus it is immoral (God changes the rules and morality is determined by humans and the times in which they are living).
3) Slavery has ALWAYS been immoral (The OT was written by men to control the poor, hungry, women and children & making up stuff claiming that God said it was OK).
I vote for #3
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - well I see you just want to hold on to your incorrect understanding with arguments that just go around in a circle but never reaching the point they should be. It reminds me very much of what Jesus said to Nicodemus... "if a man can't understand earthly things - how can he expect to understand heavenly things"?
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat
And I see that you refuse to answer the simple question as to whether slavery (one human being controlling another human as "property"), as written about in the OT and as supposedly condoned by God was ever a morally acceptable institution. I contend it was not. I believe Christ would agree (hence I continue to consider myself a Christian).
And you?
I understand that this is a difficult thing for you to come to grips with. It was for me too.
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - what part of my answer didn't you see? What you contend I showed you from the scriptures is absolutely incorrect. You have a vain philosophy that does not go along with scripture so what you call yourself is up to you. Bond-servants was NOT a big portion of the population of God's people - hence only the few verses discussing it verses the hundreds of verses that instructs His people to be kind to the poor - widow - fatherless - and strangers (foreigners)... too many to list!!
Amidat 1 month ago
@jesus1208sda "being a slave in the OT was more like a contract for being a servant.."
This is a selective interpretation of scripture. The 7 year rule only applied to Hebrew slaves not gentiles.
Second it only applied to men. If a male slave married then his wife and children still belonged to the master. They were his property. If the male slave refused to leave his family the owner punched a hole in his ear and kept him for the rest of his life.
Sound like an employment contract to you?
mafarmerga 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - and again - you are wrongly interpreting scriptures. I'm tired of explaining that you skip the verses showing that even foreign bond servants had to be treated with mercy and respect. For the record though - the land of Israel was never meant to be a democracy. It was a land explicitly for the worship of God. Any foreigner could convert at any time and have full rights (see Exodus 12:48-49)... they didn't need a visa or green card first. Endeavor to learn - instead of arguing.
Amidat 1 month ago
@mafarmerga - again interpreting things incorrectly... if a man was married when he sold himself to be a bondservant - he took her when he left. It was only when he married a servant of his master - or his master's daughter - while in his master's custody that he couldn't take them. He could not be forced to marry them... so he was aware of it beforehand. This was a contract - but you refuse to understand it - and you continue to misinterpret.
Amidat 1 month ago
@mafarmerga not only that...there were certian laws in which the master had to follow in treating the slave properly...Praise God that Jesus abolished those types of laws and the sacraficial laws when He died on the cross...note:not every law was abolished, as some Christians think. the 10 commandments are still in effect...references upon request (just thought i would throw that in there.)
jesus1208sda 2 months ago
@jesus1208sda - Jesus didn't abolish any laws.... he delivered his people from sin... which is the opposite... but of course - that won't happen until the end of this present age when we are all fully delivered. All those sacrifices teach about what exactly he did... so he didn't abolish them.
Amidat 1 month ago
@Amidat
American slave owners did not "steal" Africans. They bought them from slave traders, exactly as the OT says they were allowed to, since those slave traders came from "a different land."
The more you try to defend your position the deeper the hole of hypocrisy you dig.
mafarmerga 2 months ago
Dang, it cut off all the other passages that I cannot abide by (but apparently you can):
The worst of them all: 2 Samuel 12:11-14
Really dude? Public gang raping of his wife for HIS crimes? THIS is your God?
I call myself a Christian because I try to live my life according to the teachings of Christ.
Not according to the ramblings of misguided, slave owning, misogynists from two thousand years ago.
How do you define Christian?
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - sorry but that was no gang rape - it only says that the women would lay with others... in the same way he took another man's wife...there is no indication of rape. And yes David deserved punishment for his crime... he stole a man's wife and had the man killed. God never changed... and Christ was there from the beginning... It actually shows the justice of God... David was God's chosen one... but God punished him in proportion to what He did.
Amidat 2 months ago
@Amidat
REALLY? I mean really, you believe what you are saying?
That in your form of Christianity God punishing an innocent woman for the sins of a husband is OK?
It is OK to own slaves if they come from a different country? To beat them as long as they don't die and can get back up after two days? That if a freed slave refuses to leave his wife and kids you can keep him forever?
Sorry but this is not my God, and I do not think it is the God of Jesus.
Yes, I have read the Bible.
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - again - you are WAY out of context. There is not enough space to correct your errors... but I will touch on a couple. Slavery allowed by the Bible is NOTHING like what was done to Africans in America. If you beat a slave that even if there eye or tooth was damaged you had to let them go. Also - they were only allowed to take slaves IF THEY AGREED after a war - or they owed them a debt. If you just went and took someone to make them a slave you could be executed yourself.
Amidat 2 months ago
@mafarmerga - I'm sorry but you should go back and read Jesus/Yeshua's words again. He is One with His Father and was there from the very beginning. There is NO SEPERATION.
Amidat 2 months ago
"Moths, butterflies and frogs represent a serious challenge to evolutionary theories."
/facepalm
See this is why people who are ignorant of biology should not talk about biology.
The stupid... it burns...
witchtelus 3 months ago
@witchtelus Did you not watch the video? 2'13" "It is very carefully ENGINEERED". Engineering = engineer = design = evolution does not have an answer for this or many many other questions. Proponents of evloution simply stick to their mantra of "how can you be so stupid?" Reverse that and ask, when David Attenborough is confronted with things like the vanila plant and the malipona bee (neither can exist without the other) and says "isn't it LUCKY they evolved at the same time"... is that smart?
robatrhema 3 months ago 7
@robatrhema Like I already said, this is why people who are ignorant of biology should not talk about biology.
You should go back to school and learn before you deign to comment on things you know nothing about. However I realize that Creationists, like birthers, and chemtrailers, and flat earthers will never be convinced, because you not only do not have the required education, you don't want the required education. You are not only ignorant of biology, you are wilfully ignorant.
witchtelus 3 months ago
@robatrhema It's called co-evolution. You should try reading about it sometime. Many organism pairs show this kind of reliance on one another. The specificity of the relationship is due to the fact that the evolution occurred over a geologic time scale.
dzelryfee 3 months ago
disliked because od 4:05 but really touching video :) i loved it, made me a little sad because there arent as many buttlerflys as there were when i was young
Filipa1122 4 months ago
"Its sophisticated.. almost beyond our comprehension". "Ask yourself in your experience, what kind of cause could bring about these results..?". "I think the only reasonable answer is...[voice-over].. differential expression of gene products from variances in silencing and modulation by the effector small RNAi pathways like miRNAs". "For evolution to have created this kind of pathway gradually, it would take... [voiceover] ... about 355 million years after the divergence from stem Trichoptera...
sjl197 4 months ago
the only reasonable answer is // oh yes, gradual stepwise accumulation of adaptive mutations that were naturally selected. Sorry, the last bit needs a voice over.
If something is mysterious to you doesnt need a divine explaination, it needs you to look into the explaination.. its called research. Scientists are doing it right now..
sjl197 4 months ago
@sjl197 clearly your are not listening to the guy 3:47....it took INTELLIGENCE that TRANSCENDS the NATURAL world....I laugh at you and people like you.....because science has an answer, therefore God does not exist.....this is stupid logic.
HaShim383 4 months ago 4
fascinating discussion. the arguments favour of the ID side - for now at least
Appletree34 4 months ago 2
I am still perplexed why the number one linked video to this one promotes racism.
Do you think that there is an overlapping audience?
mafarmerga 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mafarmerga
[I am still perplexed why the number one linked video to this one promotes racism.]
key word overlap most likely. both pertain to beauty
Appletree34 4 months ago
"Since the existence of a supernatural intelligence can neither be proven nor falsified it would seem to fall outside the realm of science regardless of who defines it." Here's your principle: it's only science if it can be falsified or verified. So take Newton's 1st law - it talks about what happens in the absence of external forces. There is nowhere in the universe it would apply, so it can't be verified or falsified. So N's 1st law isn't scientific? That seems like the wrong result.
larsjungnell 4 months ago
@larsjungnell
Given the fact that we remain woefully ignorant of all the external forces in the universe (check out the winners of yesterday's Nobel in Physics for a good example) it would be imprudent of me to state whether or not Newton's can ever be falsified. Indeed one could argue that the observation that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion DOES falsify parts of Newton's first law. A body at rest does NOT stay at rest. So yeah, it is science.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@larsjungnell
Hey Lars, you following this?
Curious as to what you think? You seem more thoughtful than IDtaksover
mafarmerga 4 months ago
Lol, I laughed.
treasuredroperX 5 months ago
Butterflies are so beautiful. Its amazing! :)
musicproducer16 5 months ago
There is a simple argument here (I've seen the whole film). The life cycle of a butterfly depends on the destruction of itself in the chrysalis. It is implausible to think that evolutionary naturalism could ever use this approach because it would merely lead to the death of the caterpillar UNLESS it knew the next steps that should be taken to re-convert the old, useless genetic material into something useful. How could that process make it through natural selection? Teleology is the best answer.
larsjungnell 5 months ago
@larsjungnell That is a simple explanation. The truth however, that entomologists have long understood much of the complexity of this supposedly "miraculous" tranformation, is more difficult to grasp. But that does NOT mean that scientists have no answers to these questions.
The only thing this video proves is that Illustra Media either does not know about this research (poor scholarship) or it intentionally ignores it (dishonesty). Either way I would not put much faith in it.
mafarmerga 5 months ago
@mafarmerga The fact that scientists have a story to tell does not mean they have their story right, or that it's without holes. 100 years ago Maxwell calculated the density of the ether to several significant figures. He had a story too, about the ether and how it supports the propagation of EM waves. The only problem is, there's no ether. You seem to think that empirical observations can only be interpreted one way, and that if a scientist says it then it must be true. That's just false.
larsjungnell 5 months ago
@larsjungnell
Good points, science does NOT know everything about how the universe works. But in every case that you mention the existing theory was supplanted by one that provided a better NATURAL explanation. This film argues for a SUPERNATURAL explanation (listen to what Paul Nelson says) to explain things. In doing so it can no longer claim to be science.
The ID crowd cannot have it both ways.
mafarmerga 5 months ago
@mafarmerga I would think that what everyone wants, including scientists, is the RIGHT explanation. Why eliminate agent causation as a possibility? That's prejudice, not science. Science is mostly the quest for natural causes and regularities, but it's question begging to presume that all explanations must involve ONLY those causes and never intelligent ones. When did science establish that only science can determine what caused something, and that all true causes must be impersonal?
larsjungnell 5 months ago
@larsjungnell
Unlike religion, science never claims to know "the truth" The goal of science is to have the best (most logical) explanation for natural occurances possible. These are certain to change as more data is acquired, and science is fine with that.
The problem comes when one accepts a supernatural explanation. This is untestable and all inquiry stops. If "God did it" is the answer why delve further?
Not only is ID not science, it is a science stopper
mafarmerga 5 months ago
@mafarmerga You must be a scientist, because only scientists talk that way. Of course science claims to know the truth - if it didn't, why would anyone do it or listen to scientists? And again, the point is to get the right explanation, not just the 'scientific' one. I'd rather have the right answer and have it be non-scientific than have a scientific explanation that's untrue. Isn't the point to get the story right, not just to tell it according to the strictures of methodological naturalism?
larsjungnell 5 months ago
@larsjungnell
Yes I am a scientist and no I do not pretend to know "the truth." A good scientist will change their mind about something in an instant if new data suggests a better alternative explanation. People should listen to scientists not because we are "right" but because we have the best possilbe explanation given the available data.
So tell me, how does one objectively decide that an explanation is "right"? That no amount of new data will contradict the interpretation?
mafarmerga 5 months ago
@mafarmerga The data under-determine the explanation, that's the whole point. Multiple equally valid interpretations are available for any given data set. You say we should listen to scientists because they have the best possible explanations - yet you also say they don't pretend to know the truth? Interesting. But at any rate, Behe is a scientist with access to the best data; why can't I listen to his interpretation that life was designed? It is based on his observations, i.e. his science.
larsjungnell 5 months ago
@larsjungnell
Behe is either a dreadful scholar or a liar. I have said so in publications and I say so again. An undergraduate in one of my classes found a paper that undermined his arguments about the origin of cilia published TWO YEARS before his "Edge of Evolution" In an email to me he said he "missed it" BS! The guy is a charlaton and we who actually know something about cell biology know it.
Regrettably you do not. Want references and copies of emails?
Write to me. mafarmerga
mafarmerga 5 months ago
@mafarmerga I've published on these things too, though from the philosophy of science perspective (my profession). You're right that I'm no scientist, and I'm not competent to judge whether Behe is a good one or a charlatan as you say. But I'm competent to judge other things. I just spent three days with him and I was not impressed either, to be honest. But 500 characters doesn't go very far, and I'd enjoy continuing this by email but I didn't understand what your email is. (I'm low tech!)
larsjungnell 5 months ago
@mafarmerga Like I said before, it is mere prejudice to say that only naturalistic explanations of observations can be allowed - what experiment ever established that epistemological maxim? None did; none could; it is not itself scientific, but philosophical. What seems to you to be the best explanation of a phenomenon might seem ludicrous to another person looking at the same thing. The inference to design is based on empirical observations for which natural processes seem inadequate.
larsjungnell 5 months ago
@larsjungnell
No, it is NOT prejudice. Like I told "TheTantanski" one does not get to redefine science based on ones personal preference. We need to defer to the wisdom of professional scientists (e.g. the National Academy of Sciences) or in the case of the US, the Federal courts (e.g. Judge Jones in Dover PA).
In either case science in the 21st Century does NOT encompass the supernatural. You do not get to make up the rules as you go along.
Answer my question. What is "right"?
mafarmerga 5 months ago
@mafarmerga I'm not redefining science, I'm saying that there's no principled reason that empirical features of the world cannot be explained by something personal. And I totally disagree that we should defer to the wisdom of professional scientists; in fact, they should defer to the wisdom of philosophers in these questions because scientists routinely embarrass themselves with their decidedly conspicuous LACK of wisdom. Philosophy is the study of wisdom. Science is just the study of stuff.
larsjungnell 5 months ago
@larsjungnell
I'm then curious about your opinion of Karl Popper and the philosophy of empirical falsification. Since the existence of a supernatural intelligence can neither be proven nor falsified it would seem to fall outside the realm of science regardless of who defines it. This is why a federal judge declared ID as unscientific.
As for science being the study of "stuff" and philosophy the study of "wisdom", well that statement just doesn't strike me as being very wise.
Just dismissive.
mafarmerga 5 months ago
@mafarmerga
"This is why a federal judge declared ID as unscientific."
Where is your source for this? Karl Popper declared Darwinian theory to be an unfalsifiable metaphisical research programme, but that doesn't seem to have hindered it's popularity?
IDtaksovr 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr
In response to my comment that a federal judge declared ID as unscientific you asked, "Where is your source for this?"
The ruling of Federal Judge John Jones from the Dover PA trial in 2005 is available from many sources on the internet. Simply search for "Dover Trial Judge Ruling" and you will find many links to it. youTube does not allow me to post any of them.
Enjoy reading it. It is very informative.
mafarmerga 5 months ago
@IDtaksovr
Let's see what Popper actually said...
. . . I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts. [Popper, 1957, p. 106;]
There exists no law of evolution, only the historical fact that plants and animals change, or more precisely, that they have changed. [Popper, 1963b, p. 340]
I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution and very ready to accept evolution as a fact. [Popper, 1976, p. 167]
mafarmerga 5 months ago
@mafarmerga
"I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts."
Popper could certainly say this, even if Darwinism were hogwash. It's easy to bee seen as "the most successful explanation" when the main competitor is being ruled out apriori.
Popper famously called evolution via natural selectionis “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” He was absolutely right. Prove otherwise.
IDtaksovr 5 months ago
@IDtaksovr
What would satisfy you as "proof" of biological evolution (i.e. common descent of all creatures on Earth)?
What is someone actually witnessed and documented a speciation event? What if they did it with controls (an identical side by side population that did not speciate and another one that did,). Would that do it for you?
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"common descent" is one of the many meanings of "evolution". An intelligfent designer could choose to create through a process of common descent. Speculative theories of common descent go back to antiquity. Without a credible evolutionary mechanism that can be shown to have the capacity to generate new species, complex organs and new biochemical machines and processes, common descent becomes an (unfalsifiable) methodology used to govern interpretation of the data.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
Please stop side stepping the question and answer it.
Would the witnessing and documentation of a new biological species be sufficient evidence for you that the theory of biological evolution is more than just a metaphysical approach to understanding nature?
I will allow that an intelligent designer "could" choose to create organisms that give the appearance of common descent. but such a God would be a very deceitful deity. Don't you think?
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerg
"witnessing and documentation of a new biological species be sufficient"
What do you mean by "a new biological species" ??? If you mean the extremely rare documented instances of species dividing into non interbreeding populations, then this would be a trivial step on a long journey, and it could also have other interpretations. It would hardly establish the claim that all life evolved naturally. I asked for documented evidence of new organs or biochemical machines and processes.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"Please stop side stepping the question and answer it."
You are evading my question now. Do you have any canonical demonstration for the sufficiency of the Darwinian process to generate the level of complexity observed?
"such a God would be a very deceitful deity."
Why?
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
I asked my question first, so you igonred first. Also, would not the creation of a new biological species be "canonical" enough for you?
Are you concerned that I might know of such a well documented example of speciation which is why you are evading the question?
By species I mean a genetically distinct population of organisms that possess a trait that is absent in the parent species. The result of a new biochemical process.
Would that do?
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"would not the creation of a new biological species be "canonical" enough for you?....."
How on earth could the division of a population into two near identical populations establish that the same process can be reliably extrapolated to explain wings, brains, host of biochemnical processes, and indeed, all of lifes diversity?
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
So your position amounts to "unless you can demonstrate the existence of EVERY intermediary from the origin of life to the present, I will not believe it."
Fine, your burden of proof is too high for anyone, even God, to meet.
It matters not whether you accept biological evolution. Like all other natural processes it continues along regardless of mankinds understanding or ignorance ot it.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"unless you can demonstrate the existence of EVERY intermediary from the origin of life to the present,...."
I asked for a reason to believe that the same process that has been observed to produce trivial microevolutionary changes can also create complex organs, biochemical structures and process. Your faith in naturalistic philosophy (equivalent to believing in a non intervening God) assures you that RM and NS are adequate to produce lifes diversity, but where's the evidence?
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Are you concerned that I might know of such a well documented example of speciation which is why you are evading the question?"
I am aware of examples, as I already implied. They are extremely rare, and could potentially have alternative explanations. Is there any reason to believe that such trivial examples represent part of a grand evolutionary scheme? Might these isolated quirks have alternative explanations?
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"a genetically distinct population of organisms that possess a trait that is absent in the parent species. The result of a new biochemical process."
Such as?
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
"such a God would be a very deceitful deity."
Why?
Do you really think that God put the same defective GULOP in all the great apes in the hope that we would discovery this and be tricked into thinking that we share a common ancestor?
Or do you think, as I do, that we DO share a common biological ancestor?
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
" tricked into thinking that we share a common ancestor?"
You have clearly misunderstood me. Perhaps we do have a common ancestor with apes, but the explanation for that evolutionary divergence might be an intelligently directed process. Common descent is distinct from the process mechanism driving divergence, such as RM and NS. I thought I had made that clear. Why would a designer be decietful for using common descent to evolve his designs according to a preconceived plan?
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
Let's stop the BS with "designer" and call God by name shall we?
If God wanted to create by disrupting our ability to make vitamin C she certainly could have done so. But this is not testable under the tenets of science. That is my problem with this video. It wants to call itself science when it most clearly is not.
As for RM and NS giving rise to a new species, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the work of Rich Lenski and the longterm E. coli experiment.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"But this is not testable under the tenets of science."
Nor is the claim that the mechanism of RM and NS is sufficient to account for the astronomical level of complexity we observe in living systems. As I said, Darwinism is a metaphysical research programme that does have evidence for trivial microevolutionary changes and rare population divisions that nobody disputes. What is not established is the claim that the same mechanism can account for anything remotely complex.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
Ah the old "micro" vs. "macro" evolution argument finally rears its head. As if they are not both merely arbitrary benchmarks along a continuum of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. Where is your boundary? Speciation? Careful, I've got that one covered too.
Nothing remotely complex? How about Nylonase?
BTW did you enjoy reading Judge Jones' decision? How about the part where he states that ID is NOT science but merely creationism in a new form? Did you read that far?
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"How about Nylonase?"
Does it not strike you that the examples you are presenting as evidence of the power of RM and NS are dwarfed by the unfathomable complexity of living systems. No one denies that this mechanism may throw up a few quirks, but what spectacular new machinery arose to allow for the digestion of nylonase? How complex were the genetic changes? No ID proponent denies that RM's might throw up a few sucesses, but what permits you believe so much based on so little?
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmer
"perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the work of Rich Lenski and the longterm E. coli experiment"
Lenski is one of the few Darwinists who are actually trying to show experimentally what RM and NS can actually achieve, as opposed to being imagined or wished to achieve. His experiments are excellent confirmation that even with thousands of generations, the changes to be expected through RM and NS are trivial, usually involve LOSS of traits and usually occur early in the experiment
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
The ability to use citrate as a carbon source is "trivial" What are you nuts!! A LOSS of traits?
The inability of E. coli to use citrate was a defining feature of that species. Lenski's new species blows that to hell.
Obviously no amount of data will ever convince you of anything. Hence you prove my original position that ID and its supporters are NOT scientists and have no claim to call themselves such.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarme
"The inability of E. coli to use citrate was a defining feature of that species"
The ability to digest a new molecule might be impressive if some novel biochemical machinery appeared. Did it? What is the name of Lenski's "new" species BTW. Do you think that this trivial result is really sufficient to estrapolate the Darwinian process to butterflies? Why does the evolution of Lenski's E.coli seem to have stalled? Is their any reason to believe that such varients would arise in the wild?
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
This discussion really is pointless.
You ask for evidence of evolution. I provide it and you switch to questions about metamorphosis (and yes, we understand that pretty well too). I point out the appearance of new metabolic pathways in two types of bacteria and you ask "Has it been named?" I produce tangible evidence of evolution at work and you demand "Can you show it to me all at once?"
As I said, evolution proceeds whether you understand it or not.
I'm glad that I do.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerg
"You ask for evidence of evolution. I provide it and you"
Your best examples (I know these are about the best) are utterly simplistic in relation to what you ask me to believe about the power of RM and NS, based on evidence. The evolution of butterflies and metamorphasis is light years beyond what has actually been observed. Our best expalantions for butterflies ( consisting of many billions of cells) amount to silly "just-so" stories with no basis in observation or experiment
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"This discussion really is pointless"
Not entirely, if you have a better appreciation of the povery of solid examples of Darwinian evolution in action. You have understood the difference between the proposal of common descent, and the explanation for that descent.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mafarmerga
"I point out the appearance of new metabolic pathways in two types of bacteria"
I asked you for the scientific names of the "new" species produced. Are these novel bacteria able to survive and compete with existing wild strains of bacteria in nature, or would they dissapper, through being unable to compete? Out of interest, can they interbreed with the original strains? Just asking.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"I produce tangible evidence of evolution at work and you demand "Can you show it to me all at once?""
I am not asking for it all at once. I am asking you to admit that the very best evidence you have AT PRESENT is utterly uncompelling, and to recognise that your confidence that some naturalistic process (probably RM and NS) has indeed been responsible for all of lifes diversity, does not arise from the evidence, but rather from philosophical and theological prejudices
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"Obviously no amount of data will ever convince you of anything. "
It has been said that Darwinists frequently indulge in wishful speculations and are prepared to believe anything, provided it is cosistent with their theory of mutation and selection. Be honest enough to admit that the Darwinists are a million miles from establishing that their mechanism is adequate to account for lifes diversity. Be aware of your own philosophical prejudices and assumptions.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Be aware of your own philosophical prejudices and assumptions."
Show me a scientist who is not skeptical and I will show you a lousy scientist. If you or anyone else produce evidence for an intellitgent agency (and remember unanswered questions is NOT the same as evidence of anything other than gaps in our knowledge) and I will adapt my position. That is why science makes progress and religion is stagnant; stuck in certainty.
Did you read the Jones decision?
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
BTW
What exactly is a "Darwinist" I have been accused of being one many times (most recently by you) but have yet to hear a cogent definition.
I am a Christian, in that I try to live my life according to the teachings of Christ.
I do NOT live my life according to the teachings of Darwin. For one thing he had no knowledge of genetics or symbiosis. I know a LOT more than Darwin ever did.
I cannot make the same claim about Jesus.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarme
"What exactly is a "Darwinist""
A Darwinist is someone who thinks that all of lifes diversity evolved from one or a few common ancestors, principally by the blind and purposeless process of NS acting on random genetic mutation. A Naturalist is someone who assumes that life arose by a fully naturalistic process, such as Darwinism, i.e. without any direction or end goal e.g. (the creation of humans as a planned outcome). If you dissagree with any of this, then you may be an ID proponent
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mafarme
"What exactly is a "Darwinist""
A Darwinist is someone who thinks that all of lifes diversity evolved from one or a few common ancestors, principally by the blind and purposeless process of NS acting on random genetic mutation. A Naturalist is someone who assumes that life arose by a fully naturalistic process, such as Darwinism, i.e. without any direction or end goal e.g. (the creation of humans as a planned outcome). If you dissagree with any of this, then you may be an ID proponent
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"I am a Christian..."
Then you should look beneath the confident (and arrogant) Darwinian facade. Butterflies consist of tens of billions of cells. Each cell consists of around 100 billion atoms. The cell is best described as a fully automated, self replicating city, complete with highways, vehicles, an information data base, information processing machinery, error correction abilities, QC systems, turbines, motors, solar panels, recycling plants and production lines etc. etc. etc.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
Look, if you are seeking a scientist to admit "I do not know all the answers" then fine. I and everyone I know will fit the bill. A good scientist is critically aware of what we do not know and yet seek to understand.
If you are looking to me to then say "I do know these things so I will substitute my lack of understanding by appealing to God to fill in the blanks." Well sorry that is NOT how science works.
It is however, the definition of ID and the crap promoted in this video.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
" A good scientist is critically aware of what we do not know....."
Perhaps in an ideal world, but in the real world, scientists are often the very last people to admit or even recognise the philosophical prejudices that underlie their work, and the effect that they have on it. e.g. the apriori denial that anything like intelligent design could have taken place at any time in the universes history has profound consequences for the kind of theories that can be advanced
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"that is NOT how science works."
Who are you to speak on behalf of "Science"? What is science? Who has the authority to say how science MUST work? The character of science has changed radically, and repeatedly throughout history, and will likely do so again. Science is whatever it's practitioners decide it should be at any point in time. Scientists can chose to abandon the un-supportable and dogmatic limitation of science to purely natural explanation, if they choose.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
"Who are you to speak on behalf of "Science"?"
Well, for one thing I am a Ph.D. scientist who is active in the field of evolutionary biology.
What are you advocating? That you can make up the rules as we go along? You must be very good at Calvinball.
Here in the 21st Century we have a pretty good consensus of what constitutes science and an appeal to supernatural deities is not part of it. Even Judge Jones agrees.
Did you ever bother to read his court decision?
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"I am a Ph.D. scientist who is active in the field of evolutionary biology."
How does your biology qualification justify pronouncements about the nature / rules of science generally. Philosophers of science study science, whereas biologists study biology. Anyway, yours is an appeal to authority, rather than an objective reason to believe that the current understanding of what constitutes valid "science" is absolute and final. On what authority do you mandate natural explanations.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
you write "Science is whatever it's practitioners decide it should be at any point in time."
Great, so then we agree that I as a practitioner of science am more qualified to make this determination than you are. But wait, let's see what the collective wisdom of scientists say. Consult the National Academies of Science and you will see that they too reject supernatural causation as being a vital part of science.
As for Dover, that is a legal definition. And you lost that one too!
mafarmerga 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mafarmerga
" as a practitioner of science am more qualified to make this determination...."
No. You have missed the point. You conceded that the rules of science are decided anew by each generation of scientists; that their is no such thing as a final and objective definition of science. The definition of science could easily change in future toiwards ID, if the concensus of scientists agree. You also reveal that the current "orthodoxy" is something that needs to be protected by the COURTS!
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"collective wisdom of scientists..." "National Academies of Science" "Dover, that is a legal definition."
These are all fallacious appeals to the current orthodoxy. The Catholic chuch could easilly have ammassed the same level of justification for Galileos censorship. What on earth do "legal definitions" have to do with what scientists believe, how they do their research, etc. In future, Dover will provide an embarrasing reminder of antiscientific censorship by a dominant orthodoxy
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
"These are all fallacious appeals to the current orthodoxy."
So who then decides what is and what is not science?
According to you practicing Ph.D. scientists may not.
The National Acadamies may not.
The US Federal Courts may not.
Who is left?
IllustaMedia? The Discovery Institute? Answers in Genesis?
Sorry, those of us who care about science will not yield the playing field so that you and others can play Calvinball.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"who then decides what is and what is not science?"
You understand that what it means to do "science" changes all the time, and could potentialy shift towards the ID understanding in future. The nature of science will ultimately depend on evidence, rather than the stength of the current orthodoxy, social pressures, or court rulings. Looking at the trends since Darwins time, it is now clear that life is astronomically more sophisticated that Darwin or anyone else ever dreamed of.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmer
"those of us who care about science."
You say that you care about science, but in practice, this amounts to your desire to defend the current narrow orthodoxy, while suppressing alternative views. I care about the TRUTH, rather than some arbitrary definition of science. The ID perspective will get to the truth. It requires that naturalistic explanation be advanced, while leaving open the possibility that certain features of the natural world cannot be reduced to nature acting blindly
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
I'm a physics grad working as an enginneer. That makes me able to recognise design when I see it, but it doesn't qualify me to assert how science must be practiced, and what constitutes valid science or scientific arguments. What exactly is your Ph.D in?
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
Frankly it does not surprise me that you are an engineer. A lack of understanding of evolution seems to come most strongly from chemists, physicists, and computer scientists.
My Ph.D. is in Cell Biology, so I am well prepared to take on Dr. Behe and others when they venture into the realm of cell function and biochemistry.
I stand by my accusation that he is a dreaful scholar. His Edge of Evolution is the worst (best?) example of this.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"it does not surprise me that you are an engineer. A lack of understanding of evolution seems to come most strongly from chemists, physicists, and computer scientists."
LOL. The serious sciences have difficulty with evolutionary biology, because they appreciate the enormity of the chemical, engineering and informational hurdles that were supposedly overcome by a blundering, tinkering process. Darwinists don't allow such concerns to get in the way of their wishfull speculations
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr
I agree that science, and the definition of science, is always changing. But the history of that change has consistently been away from supernatural causation. This happened as we have understood more about how the universe actually works.
You may fervently wish that the "current orthodoxy" will eventually bring us back to time when we were content to explain such things as God's will. But I'm afraid* that history is not on your side on this one.
*I'm actually pleased it will not.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"the history of that change has consistently been away from supernatural"
It is fully reasonable that the naturalistic paradigm has been developed first, because much about origins can be explained perfectly by appeal to purely natural causes. At the same time, paradigms have a habit of bringing about their own downfall, when they inevitably expand to the point where they reveal stubborn anomalies that cannot be resolved from within their framework.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"I'm afraid* that history is not on your side on this one."
Since Darwins time, further study of living systems has not helped to make the case for a naturalistic origin. Instead, the appearance of design has grown by orders of magnitude, and as such, the problem of explaining such complexity by appealing to blind, puposeless processes has grown astronomically. The more we learn, the more life looks designed, the less likely we are to find purely naturalistic explanations......
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr "The more we learn, the more life looks designed, the less likely we are to find purely naturalistic explanations......"
As I have said, nearly two thousand years of discovery have shown you to be dead wrong about this. I do not wish to dissuade you from prayng that I am the one that is wrong. But if you expect scientists to roll over just because you and a few other religiously motivated activists say so, you will have a long wait on your hands.
mafarmerga 4 months ago