|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 07. June 2007 18:43
quote:
If there is an eternal God, with eternal rewards awaiting those innocent victims and eternal punishments awaiting those that commit mass murder and destroy the earth
I don’t expect punishments awaiting those that commit mass murder, because the JUDGE…
Gen: Ch6
So the Lord said, ‘I will kill men, whom I have created. I will remove them from the earth. I will kill men and animals and birds. I will kill that entire crawl on the ground. I am sorry that I made them.
Due: CH 20:16, 17
You will take cities in the country that God is giving you. Then you must kill everything that is alive, people and animals. You must kill completely all the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perrizites, Hivites and Jebusites. The Lord your God has told you to do this.
quote:
If this be true, then we are without hope.
I do have a hope … that this God never existed.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 08. June 2007 09:00
miosim,
In what does your hope rest?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 09. June 2007 04:32
Melvin H. Fox
quote:
In what does your hope rest?
… Also on belief, but in human.
I do not have God feeling in my heart, but I understand how important it is to you. But is God in your heart is the same God described in old testaments? The religion, as a spiritual experience is healthy process, but I have problem with Religion as an institution that explodes our spirituality. Their theologians are telling us do not take Bible literally, but follow their interpretation. I do not think that relationship with God needs a middleman.
I prefer do not go deeper in discussion of Religion, but just tuch its moral implication.
After reading Bible I concluded that religion based on Old Testament HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO TEACH MORALITY. The words are cheap and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" don’t compensate for the atrocities committed by this God. Hitler and Stalin said a lot of good words also in their public speeches. Moral is taught by examples not by words.
I am rejecting God-centric moral values to please God at any cost. Within this religion moral values a human life is cheap especially, if it doesn’t belong to your neighbors, who doesn’t speak your language and do not believe in your God. I trust more to Human-centric moral values in which human life and relation with other human, regardless who they are, has a highest value.
[ 09. June 2007, 04:44: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 09. June 2007 11:29
miosim,
You wrote:
quote:
I trust more to Human-centric moral values in which human life and relation with other human, regardless who they are, has a highest value.
Now this is a sad thing. You have, rejecting the one true living God [Jesus Christ], put your hope in a thing that you know for a fact has failed and will continue to fail. Sadder yet, the reason you have done this is because God has done things you disagree with.
You wrote:
quote:
I concluded that religion based on Old Testament HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO TEACH MORALITY.
No, our only hope is a JUST God who created us and loves us. I don’t know if He created us by what John calls the PEH or not; but, I do know that He lives and works all things for the good of those who love Him.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 09. June 2007 13:59
miosim:
quote:
I don’t expect punishments awaiting those that commit mass murder, because the JUDGE…
Gen: Ch6
So the Lord said, ‘I will kill men, whom I have created. I will remove them from the earth. I will kill men and animals and birds. I will kill that entire crawl on the ground. I am sorry that I made them.
Due: CH 20:16, 17
You will take cities in the country that God is giving you. Then you must kill everything that is alive, people and animals. You must kill completely all the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perrizites, Hivites and Jebusites. The Lord your God has told you to do this.
I know that it seems highly contradictory, but there are explanations for such things - if you are open to them.
First, times were different then - men were largely savages (if you want to understand this, just look at Islamic terrorists and realize that these extremists still think like this). In the old testament times, God was primarily concerned about preserving the nation of Israel - purely for the fact that they were the blood line for the messiah to come. He ordered the Israelites to wipe out these other nations so that; 1) they would not be corrupted by their idolatrous practices and; 2) so they could live in peace. Israel did not obey God and look at the results - throughout the old testament they were plagued by idolatry and to this day they are surrounded by enemies.
The second consideration is the new testament. Jesus made it clear that the ways of the old testament were no longer valid under the new covenant. He said "You have heard it said 'Love your friends but hate your enemies', but I tell you - love your enemies and do good to those that hate you.". The new testament and the old testament are just that - new and old agreements (contracts) between God and man. As is the case with any legal contract, the new supersedes the old.
The third consideration is the question: What is 'death' to God anyway? If death is just a transition of life from the physical world to the spiritual world (and not an end of life), then it is; 1) no crime for God - who created both worlds and has decreed that all men must die anyway, and; 2) no punishment for humans - who are destined an existence of some sort throughout eternity as well. We, who know only this life and this world, may see death as the ultimate punishment, but it may not be so.
Things to consider.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. June 2007 16:51
I don't see what any of this has to do with the subject of this thread which is my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. That hypothesis does not require a living God but most certainly required one or more in the distant past.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 09. June 2007 17:57
Sorry Dr. Davison.
Speaking of your PEH, I've been reading "Questions of Paleontology" by Otto Schindewolf, and it occured to me:
If evolution was saltational, doesn't that eliminate the need for long time frames?
I'm new to the concept of dating and determining ages, and I haven't got far enough in the book to see if Schindewolf covers this, but I'm getting the impression that the entire dating framework is based on the long periods of time thought necessary for gradual evolution to take place. Since all evidence points to sudden, directed evolution, aren't the methods of dating and their calibrations subject to reassessment?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. June 2007 21:34
Daniel Smith
There is no question that organic evolution took place over millions of years but that does not mean that the process was gradual. Quite the contrary, every progressive step was instantaneous, unambiguous and irreversible. The frequency of such events has steadily decreased with geological time until the final products have been realized in the present flora and fauna which will no longer be improved. I am convinced that there is at present not a single organism that will ever become anything fundamentally different from what it is right now. Just as ontogeny terminates irreversibly with the adult, so phylogeny has terminated with the highest taxonomic categories, the birds, mammals and insects and their terminal members many of which have become extinct without being replaced. This statement is essentially a recapitulation of the remarkable conclusions of Julian Huxley which I have mentioned earlier. It is inexcusable that the Darwinians have pretended that one of their own also never existed. I refer you to my Manifesto and my published papers for the documentation.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 10. June 2007, 16:50: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 25. June 2007 05:27
"If evolution was saltational, doesn't that eliminate the need for long time frames?"
That's my point as well.
Salational processes do not require time. Saltations are though to unleash cryptic (redundant) information, but redundant genetic information cannot be retained in the genomes by natural selection (which is a conservative force).
How do you keep unused info in the genome for ages?
Therefore, PEH can only be defended in a younger earth setting.
John, I've made my comment before: The Darwinians require long ages and that is why your PEH is never going to be accepted.
Regards,
PB
[ 25. June 2007, 05:28: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. June 2007 17:49
Wrong Peter, that is utter nonsense!
The PEH DOES NOT require a young earth setting at all. I have no idea where that idea comes from. The Darwinian view DOES require a long time for presumably gradual modifications to accumulate. There is absolutely NOTHING in the fossil record to support such a scenario. Species and every other taxon all appeared suddenly. While there were intermediate stepping stones in much of creative evolution, I know of not a single continuum that can be established in any sequence. So discrete are each of the steps that it is not even possible to establish with any certainty which forms were ancestral to which. Each member of the horse series must be placed in a separate genus. That is typical of all serial paleontological species. That is exactly what would be expected with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) which involves restructuring of whole chromosomes. Many features will be simultaneously affected by such a mechanism, a device which has yet to be critically tested with suitable material. Even if it fails it may mean nothing because, as far as can be seen, creative evolution is finished and ceased long ago with the terminal members of each of the major higher phyla, including Homo sapiens, the last mammalian species which will ever be produced and, as near as I can see, the one which will have the shortest life span. All that remains is extinction which is all that can be documented.
How any one can still promote or even consider the Darwinian myth is beyond me. It can never be reconciled with the one arbiter that can never be ignored - the fossil record.
There is no reason to abandon reproductive continuity either. The only issues that remain are, first and foremost, the MECHANISM for a long ago finished evolution and secondly the number of times life was independently created and subsequently front loaded. Godless Darwnism is the biggest joke in the history of science. I repeat the mantra that got me banned from Dawkins' fan club after producing over 60,000 views in about a week.
"God or Gods are dead but must have once existed."
Dawkins' response was to describe me as a "time waster" and automatically reject all emails from my computer. The man is a charlatan and so is his New World surrogate, P.Z. Myers. I welcome both of them to defend their mindless, atheist, chance-happy ideologies at this or any other neutral forum. Neither showed at One Blog A Day and they won't show here either.
"Conscience doth make cowards of them both."
after Shakespeare
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 25. June 2007, 18:10: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 28. June 2007 07:01
John you say: "The PEH DOES NOT require a young earth setting at all. I have no idea where that idea comes from.
The idea is mine. Because of the redundancies your PEH requires. Redundancies are a prerequisit for the PEH to function as an evolutionary theory. If all information that makes humans, including the unique genes present în our genome, have been put in a genome millions or even billions of years ago, how could it ever be retained? Answer: it couldn't survive without natural selection to preserve it. The fact is nat sel does not act on those redundancies and will not be stable in the genome for millions of years. It is the end of the long age version of PEH. The only viable PEH is in a younger setting, say a few (hundred) thousand years. (You know, the mutation rate is very much higher than calculated under Darwinian assumptions of common descent.)
Still, chromosome swapping as proposed in PEH may contribute to speciation in a younger earth setting, as it doesn't require time. Does the development of leukemia take time after the chromosomes tranlocated? No, the cells immediataly acquire the new leukemic phenotype. It is instant, John.
Your hypothesis is instant evolution and as such does not require time. Stronger even, it cannot survive in an old earth, time consuming setting.
These are the facts.
"Another beautiful theory meets an ugly fact."
Who said that again?
Best wishes,
Peter
[ 28. June 2007, 07:08: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. June 2007 04:40
Peter
Thomas Henry Huxley said something like that. Incidentally, mutation rate never had anything to do with evolution either. If you think the earth is young I say good for you.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
