Wednesday, May 6, 2009

A great springboard for open air preaching...

One of the world's highest statues--Brazil

80 comments:

get_education said...

Hey Trish,

Just a quick message to Craig (stranger in strange land) that despite I will post no loner at Ray's I will do a bit of posting here (if you do not mind).

There is a better sense of congeniality here anyway.

G.E.

Angel said...

Wow! That is beautiful. It must be amazing to stand there and preach the Word of God underneath such a monument. :)

ExPatMatt said...

Are you suggesting that street evangelists should hook-up a huge bullhorn to the mouth of statue-Jesus to preach the Word to the inhabitants of Rio?

Because that would be pretty cool.

stranger.strange.land said...

I see a crowd is already gathering.

Craig

Fish with Trish said...

ExPatMatt, that wouldn't be a bad idea at all. :-)

stranger.strange.land said...

@ get_education

Trish runs a pretty smooth blog.

Craig

get_education said...

In Rio there is no need for crowds to gather. :-)

G.E.

Fish with Trish said...

Craig, I know the comment was @ get_education but thanks--means a lot.

Melissa Spence said...

Christ the Redeemer on Corcovado mountain, isn't this statue stikingly amazing and larger than life!? I'd love to see it in person one day. Did you know it was named one of the New Seven Wonders of the World?

I assume since you said this would be a "great springboard" that you find this statue a positive and awesome thing to impel or launch spreading the Good Word from?

I found that ironically amusing :) since this statue was proposed by a Catholic priest and the Catholic Circle of Rio and mainly funded by Catholics. And remembering back on previous anti-Catholic posts on your board it was made very clear how negative you feel about Catholic statues. No need to drag that topic back out - these were just thoughts that came to mind when I stopped by your blog tonight! :)

IMO not much street preaching needed there considering Brazil is the largest Catholic nation in the world! Therefore most of their people are already born again into Christ's family...hallelujah! :)

stranger.strange.land said...

@Melissa Spence

The Apostle Paul used a shrine "to the unknown god" as a springboard to preach Christ. Acts chapter 17. "Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you..."Craig

1611 said...

IMO not much street preaching needed there considering Brazil is the largest Catholic nation in the world! Therefore most of their people are already born again into Christ's family...hallelujah! :)

If by 'born again' you mean the Biblical response of repentance and faith then praise God!

ExPatMatt said...

Actually does this not count as a 'graven image'?

Serious question.

amontoya said...

Actually does this not count as a 'graven image'?It is an artistic representation of our Lord and Savior that is meant to lift our hearts and minds to Him, and to remind us of His willingness to forgive us, pour out His grace into our lives, and welcome us into His loving arms upon our repentance from our sins. It is not a "graven image" that is to be worshipped.

I think its a great idea to use images to teach the Gospel. Catholics have been doing it for two thousand years!

DAVID said...

It's also a great place to witness to people.How many do you think are having their picture taken in front of it? Simply ask them if you can take the photo for them and when you hand the camera back,hand them a tract also and start the conversation.Works great in front of the fountain at Southlake Town Square!

Great blog, Thanks for the encouragement!

DAVID said...

It's also a great place to share your faith.There must be hundreds of people taking pictures of each other in front of it. Simply ask them if you can take their photo for them and when you hand the camera back, hand them a tract and start the conversation. Works great in front of the fountain at Southlake Town Square!

Great blog, Thanks for the encouragement!

Quasar said...

Niiice... although I've always been an architecture person rather than a statue person, it's still an impressive structure.

******************************

I've got something to share, though. I was thinking of sharing it at Ray's, but decided against it, so I thought thought: who else do I know is an evangelical christian? :)

So anyway: I thought of this whilst reading another blog, the author of which was quoting a few people who had tried the WOTM technique. They all seemed to be saything things along the lines of "I'm really shy, but I finally got up the courage to hand someone a tract etc etc etc..." And as someone who is extremely shy, especially around strangers, I could really empathise.

So, just for a moment, I put myself in the shoes of the person doing the witnessing: approaching a total stranger, and handing them a tract.

And what I came to realise is this: for someone of my personality, the WOTM witnessing technique is psychological torture. No two ways about it: the stress it would cause me or someone like me to actually witness like that would be as bad as conventional forms of torture.

Obviously, I'm not currently in a position where this will become an issue: I'm not a christian. But still: it was a shock to realise just how difficult it must be for some of these people to share their faith. I just couldn't do it.

I suppose I just wanted to share.

stranger.strange.land said...

Funny thing about witnessing. I am always afraid when I first approach someone, but after I get the first two words out, the fear goes away. Don't know why that is.

Last week at the gas station, there was a Mormon at the island across from me filling his tank. I did NOT want to talk to him, but I prayed that if the Lord wanted me to, He would make an opening. A second later, a gust of wind blew my hat off and it landed at the feet of this guy. I bowed down before him to retrieve my hat, then handed him two "DontWasteYourDash" tracts (one for his partner). Of course, he had some literature to hand me as well.

Craig B

Fish with Trish said...

Very cool, Craig.

ExPatMatt said...

"A second later, a gust of wind blew my hat off and it landed at the feet of this guy. I bowed down before him to retrieve my hat, then handed him two "DontWasteYourDash" tracts (one for his partner). Of course, he had some literature to hand me as well.".

So the question is; whose god blew the hat off?

;)

Whateverman said...

Craig B wrote Funny thing about witnessing. I am always afraid when I first approach someone, but after I get the first two words out, the fear goes away. Don't know why that is

I feel the same way every time I have to speak to a group of people; when I'm fairly confident of what I'm talking about, the waiting is the worst part of it. Once I get up there and start babbling, the nervousness tends to go away.

As an aside, I used to get petrified by oral reports in school, but I discovered this phenomenon a few years before I went to college. I don't know whether it has to do with maturity or confidence or whatever (for me)

stranger.strange.land said...

ExPatMatt said...
"So the question is; whose god blew the hat off?
;)"

Good question, Matt. Since I wear an "Aussie Cricket Hat" Mfg. in N.Z. it has to be the one true God. ; )Craig B

Quasar said...

:D

Very nice story Craig. I've got this mental image of the two of you exchanging tracts.

And you and WEM are right, of course: I hadn't considered that the stress goes away once you start getting into the conversation. It's something I've noticed, too.

Still, I'd never be able to do it Ray-style without a major personality change. Aaaaannnd that came out wrong. What I meant was that I'd probably be able to witness to family, or at least try to make them see my side of things, and maybe even friends if I'd had a drink beforehand, but strangers? I'd have a heart-attack just approaching them.

Whateverman said...

Quasar wrote Still, I'd never be able to do it Ray-style without a major personality change.

I've never been sure enough about anything to do what Ray does.

BathTub said...

So Trish I am curious if you wrote the dishonest quote or are just passing it on in the press release for the book giveaway publicity stunt?

"the word 'theory' means nothing more than 'speculation' or 'conjecture.'"

Fish with Trish said...

bathtub, sorry...I'm not understanding your question.

BathTub said...

Well in the press release you just released to Christian News Wire,if you didn't release it it has your name attached. A press release about a give away that Ray said wasn't a publicity stunt btw. The author of the press release includes the very dishonest line Evolution is a theory and the word 'theory' means nothing more than 'speculation' or 'conjecture.'

Or were you not familiar with this press release?

Fish with Trish said...

Thanks for clarifying. Yes. I released that yesterday. Glad you got it.

BathTub said...

Ah so you are responsible for the dishonesty and have no qualms with Lying for Jesus. I am glad that we cleared this issue up. It's always good to know how trustworthy and honest people are, or not in this case.

Fish with Trish said...

Bath Tub, "dishonesty" can you explain what you are referring to??

Evolution is a theory are you saying that it's not a "theory"??

BathTub said...

I'm sorry I've quoted the dishonest section now twice I thought it would have been clear.

'theory' means nothing more than 'speculation' or 'conjecture.' This statement is quite wrong. Completely dishonest.

Lets see how it's really defined.

google "define theory"

first link.

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"

Second link, wikipedia, "The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class."

lets try Mirriam Webster...

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (the wave theory of light)

As I said I am quite glad your integrity is on display here. How does the verse go? By their fruits ye shall know them? Glad we got to know you better.

Fish with Trish said...

BathTub,

You seem to be more naive than I thought or at least are appearing so. Your ad hominem attacks are quite shallow. In every definition that you gave or found for "theory" which one defines theory as fact? No one is debating the idea that theory is an explanation. The debate is that evolutionists have filled the word theory to mean fact beyond question or at least a theory that is undisputable. I guess you are the one in the dishonest camp not us. We live up to the true meaning of the word theory you do not.

Also your research on the word "theory" is quite reductionistic. You seem to have only posted what is conducive to the definition that you want to believe in.

Here is another definition, "An unproven conjecture" (from wicktionary.com).

BathTub said...

Ur, no.

It's interesting that I have quoted the section three times now and yet you still ignore the lie.

It's funny that you claim ad hominem while responding to things I didn't say.

Do I need to quote the relevant part a 4th time?

'theory' means nothing more than 'speculation' or 'conjecture.'I only need to show where that is wrong to show that the statement is a deception.

You repeated attempts to dance around the issue only highlights it more.

And again your wicktionary quote was unnecessary because I included the following from wikipedia

"The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class."

So it was quite bad form to imply I was suggesting otherwise wasn't it?

Whateverman said...

Trish wrote, in response to Bathtub The debate is that evolutionists have filled the word theory to mean fact beyond question or at least a theory that is undisputable.

Creationists' inability to credibly dispute the theory of evolution is not evidence that the theory is indisputable.

I suspect you know this...

It's dishonest to suggest that the ToE is mere speculation and/or conjecture. Perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt, and imagine that this gaffe is merely ignorance of the science in question.

In fact, I will do just that. The theory is supported by scientific fact (data), and nearly 200 years of testing & shaping. It's not perfect, though - it can and will change if contradictory or new information is found.

BathTub said...

Well I was fine with giving her an out, she could say it was Ray's words and she was just 'following orders'. I mean Ray still knows that's a lie, but then at least she could save face. So Kudos at least for that.

DAVID said...

I was working in the garden earlier,which would make me a gardener,but have since come inside to sit on the couch which would make me a couch potato.That was an evolutionary process as I not only cleaned up and changed my clothes,but got older and wiser in the process.So,in that sense,evolution is a fact.A young gardener changed into an old couch potato.The Darwin THEORY of evolution is still very much a theory though as it pertains to an old couch potato being produced from a monkey.I came from Adam and Eve and I have the literature to prove it.Ok, all this thinking is making me hungry...think I'll go grab a banana.

ExPatMatt said...

Oh Trish,

I thought we had established in a previous thread that you don't know enough about evolution to pass any kind of judgment on it.

Must we add your lack of knowledge of basic science terminology to you total lack of understanding regarding transitional forms?

BathTub has correctly shown how your use of the phrase "nothing more than..." is incorrect with regard to the theory of evolution. Your attempts to weasel out of it are quite transparent and a little bit disappointing.

Also, you apparently don't know what an ad hom attack is either because you falsely accused BathTub of using one.

Please don't pretend that you don't know what the word theory means in relation to a body of scientific evidence.

I assume that you consider the theory of gravity to be more than speculation/conjecture.

What about the germ theory of disease, is that nothing more than speculation/conjecture?

How about Music Theory? Should we 'teach the controversy' there?



I think you'd be doing everyone (including yourself) a huge favour if you just admitted that you don't care if evolution is good science or not. What is important to you is that it apparently contradicts your interpretation of Scripture in such a way that, to you, it must be false. That's the only reason you rail against it so hard.

Or you can keep parroting the consistently-debunked fallacies of the Creationist crowd and do the whole of your faith a disservice in the process.


It's up to you really, but I expected better.

Regards,

BathTub said...

Oh I am quite sure they were Ray's words, he repeated the same lie immediately on the blog so I think it's just his lie of the moment.

Since Trish has retreated from this discussion I guess the most interesting thing to watch for is if she allows Ray to lie the same way, and using her name again, in other press releases.

DAVID said...

I reckon I aint no college genius type,but last time I fell off'n my motorsickle I was pretty sure that proved gravity was a law.Unless yall are gonna tell me the ground come up and hit me...

DAVID said...

I reckon I aint no college genius type like yall are but when I fell off my motorsickle yesterdy I remember as I was getting back up that I was thinkin that the LAW of gravity put me on the ground.Now if yall was figuring that the ground came up and hit me,I would have to call that my THEORY of inebriation.

ExPatMatt said...

DAVID,

Do you have anything of substance to offer, or are you just going to make lame fallacious comments?

Hope the garden's coming on nicely though.

Regards,

BathTub said...

Thanks David, people bringing up Scientific Laws are a great example of Scientific Ignorance.

Care to tell us what you think a Law is and how it compares to a Theory?

Then I will tell you the actual answer.

Fish with Trish said...

David, why do you have your profile hidden? Will you accept friends?

DAVID said...

Care to tell us what you think a Law is and how it compares to a Theory?

A law is a proven fact, a theory is just an educated guess.

Trish, my wife helped me fix the profile problem I believe and you bet I would accept friends(can you tell I'm a blog rookie?)

BathTub said...

Excellent David, completely wrong, I couldn't have done better if I was deliberately pretending to look stupid.

Laws are small self contained rules.

Laws can be parts of Theories.

Here are some examples of Laws.

Ohms Law V=IR

Keplers Laws
"The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at a focus."
"A line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time."
"The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."

Newtons laws of Motion including most well known F=ma

and of course Newtons Law of Gravitation.

F=G(m1m2/r^2)

You know what's interesting about that Law of Gravition David?

It's wrong.

Do you know what has replaced it?

Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity. Because Gravity is more complicated than that.

Theories are entire explanatory systems.

Not cute little soundbites like Laws.

They explain and predict things.

Importantly they are falsifiable.

They are considered True.

Here is a quote from the US National Academy of Science

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
So some examples of Theories

Quantum mechanics, Plate tectonics, Cell Theory, Germ theory.

Do you understand the difference?

DAVID said...

Do you understand the difference?

I think so Mr. Tub. It's kinda like when I was a little boy and my Grandpa took me fishing and we caught this HUGE fish.My Grandpa described the fish as "this big" by holding his hands about 12 inches apart.My description was quite different as I held my arms as far apart as I could (probably 2 to 2 1/2 ft.}.My description would be considered the "Special Theory of Fishing" since I really thought it was that big a deal when it really wasnt and my definition was filled with many,many more words to describe the actual catching of the fish and I couldnt understand why the world wouldnt accept my own definition of the HUGE fish over that of my Grandpa's.My Grandpa on the other hand told the simple truth,(or the Law of Fishing)with a much simpler, accurate definition of the fish and accurate portrayal of it being caught.

Thanks for clearing that up my friend.

...and when does a situation call for a person to deliberately look stupid?

ExPatMatt said...

Trish / DAVID,

Have you learned something from BathTub's excellent tutorial?

There's going to be a pop quiz at the end of the week...;)

Regards,

ExPatMatt said...

Well, I guess DAVID learned nothing; how about you, Trish?

Whateverman said...

David, although that was a cute story (no condescension implied), how was it related in any way to Bathtub's explanation of what a scientific theory is?

It seemed a non-sequitur at best...

BathTub said...

Well David, perhaps a situation where someone is too embarrassed to admit they were wrong.

Or too embarrassed to admit that they just refuse to accept something because it offends their religious belief?

Too embarrassed to admit to themselves that they enjoy all the comforts that science has bought to them, including the computer that they are using currently using, but they would rather defer to a mishmash of thousands of years old tribal stories if there is a conflict over how the natural world works.

That would be a good to time to pretend to be stupid and come up with some inane story.

bassicallymike said...

Mr. Tub said...Lets see how it's really defined.
Then went on to cherry pick definitios to support his contentions.
Well two can play that.
You gave First link a., we take First link b.
S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena).

But for the words "nothing more" Trish was pretty accurate according to the definition we choose to use.

WEM said...It's not perfect, though - it can and will change if contradictory or new information is found.
Glad you left yourself that caveat WEM! You are probably gonna need it.

Whateverman said...

bassicallymike did babble: WEM said...It's not perfect, though - it can and will change if contradictory or new information is found.
Glad you left yourself that caveat WEM! You are probably gonna need it.
Can you please explain this comment, 'Mike? It appears to be nonsensical...

BathTub said...

lol basicallymike, you are either a complete troll/dishonest or illiterate. It would be nice to know which.

How does your claim of cherry picking a definition match up with your second claim that it means one thing and 'nothing more'?

If it didn't mean different things in different uses there would be nothing for YOU to cherry pick from.

I wasn't cherry picking, I was explaining a specific usage.

You are cherry picking and pretending it's the definition for ALL use of the word. Which is just a lie. I can't say you're ignorant because clearly you had to look up the definition to do your cherry picking, so you are deliberately ignoring it's other uses.

Whateverman said...

BathTub wrote It would be nice to know which.

Mr. Tub, consider that 'Mike's favorite move is "Chariots of Fire". Perhaps that puts some perspective on the conversation :)

bassicallymike said...

Sure WEM!
Darwinist haven't ever had to reel something in shortly after it was rolled out as some great breakthrough discovery?

BathTub said...

What's a Darwinist?

Whateverman said...

After asking him to explain something, basicallymike responded to me Darwinist haven't ever had to reel something in shortly after it was rolled out as some great breakthrough discoveryI'm a "Darwinist"? Neat, I learn something new every day.

Well, if you had read what I wrote honestly, you'd understand that I was describing science in general. Nothing in science is set in stone; no scientific "law" ever is perfect, complete and unchanging. Every single thing we discover is subject to change if conflicting evidence is found.

You know that, right?

So, I wasn't giving myself a caveat. I was telling you how science generally (and the theory of evolution specifically) operates.

Are you of the opinion that something which changes is imperfect? You would be correct.

Only Creationists assert that science claims the ToE is perfect unchanging fact. Scientists themselves never make this claim.

So, what exactly was your point?

ExPatMatt said...

I guess Trish is going to sit this one out and hope the whole things blows over...

Guys,

Creationists don't always assert that scientists think the ToE is perfect and never-changes. When it suits them, they'll happily point out that it 'changes from day to day, whereas God's Word NEVER changes!'

Checkmate Darwinists!

Basicallymike,

"But for the words "nothing more" Trish was pretty accurate according to the definition we choose to use. ".

But she did use the words 'nothing more', didn't she?

Oh, and since when did you (we) get to 'choose' which definition applies?
I'll trust the NAS to properly define scientific terminology over a creationist blogger, if you don't mind.

Cheers,

bassicallymike said...

WEM..based on Tub's tutelage on the difinition of the ToE. Well..... let's just say it kinda came across as a set in stone fact beyond any question.

Whateverman said...

ExPatMatt wrote Checkmate Darwinists!

Terry is a walking-talking advertisement for atheism, and he doesn't even know it...

BathTub said...

wow basicallymike, in attempting to cover himself fell into exactly the same trap of ignorance that Trish fell into.

Twice in one thread!

You did even read my post?

But you seem to have stopped responding to me so I guess you are conceding the error.

Let me quote part of a previous comment.

"Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."
Wow, set in stone huh?

Or did you just skip over that part.

Or are you desperately grasping at straws to cover up your mistake?

Whateverman said...

basicallymike wrote WEM..based on Tub's tutelage on the difinition of the ToE. Well..... let's just say it kinda came across as a set in stone fact beyond any question.

Thanks sincerely for that honesty, 'mike.

Discussions like this tend to get polarized pretty quickly, Creationists on one side with their absolute truth, and Darwinists on the other. I can't say why it happens, but the ToE often gets portrayed as fact, which almost always gets equated with "absolute truth". While I believe the theory is fact, it's most certainly not absolute truth.

It is most definitely going to change. I'm certain that parts of it will be found to be wrong and be changed with enthusiasm.

---

Any person familiar with science should know that nothing can ever be proven to be infallible fact. It's possible that when you compare the surety of a faith-based answer with the uncertainty of an empirical answer-in-progress, those who champion the latter are seen to be portraying all scientific answers as "fact".

In reality, those answers are merely "the facts as we know them to be at this time".

Whateverman said...

Incidentally, sorry about the implied slam against your favorite movie :)

bassicallymike said...

Tub ...Did you read my response?.....My statement "Well two can play that game" was a clear indication of what I was going to do, yet you started beating me like a rented mule over your (wrong)perception that I was taking you to task for something I was doing myself. (cherry picking)
Matt seemed to get what I was getting at. LOL Didn't say he was impressed did I? I guess he understands Troll speak better than you.
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."



Looks like some think it is set in stone anyway. Last I looked comprehensive meant all-inclusive.
I know that this definition is from the NAS but would there be any scientist out there that would disagree with the ToE presented as such a well established fact?

bassicallymike said...

Whateverman said...
Incidentally, sorry about the implied slam against your favorite movie :)

LOL You feeling conflicted again WEM? Those crises of faith will do that to a fellow! {;o)

BathTub said...

I did actually include the Troll option if you recall.

Now I will admit to not fully understanding your intent.

Quite simply, facts aren't immutable. And I don't know anyone who has said otherwise. Your (and my) quotes agree with that perfectly fine. Follow the example you quoted, we don't know everything about gravity, we are still learning the details, but we don't deny Gravity. Newtons incorrect Law of Gravitation was used for 300 years before Einstein solved the problem.

Only a very very tiny percentage of Biologists (and Scientists in general) would disagree with Evolution being a fact. And almost 100% of those dissenters would be fundamentalist Muslims or Christians. Note, ID proponents aren't deniers of Evolution.

joelsplace said...

Bathtub,
Since you dodged my challenge to give me some evidence for evolution so I’ll follow you over here and ask again. I guess evolution does fit Trish’s statement (or quote) “nothing more than 'speculation' or 'conjecture.' ”. I’ve searched for all this evidence and find nothing but sketches and talk. (Not that I’ve spent a lot of time searching – you would think that it would be simple to find if it existed) I could give you a lot more evidence that zombies exist than you have given me for evolution. It’s sounding more like a religion all the time to me. You guys are the evangelists of evolution. You probably believe in global warming too. Why waste so much time arguing about words instead of giving evidence of what you propose? Do you not really believe what you are preaching or is it just more important to win a debate? Your definition of a theory would make everything a theory. Does anything exist? Are there any laws or facts? I’m still waiting for the “body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment” you keep insisting is out there somewhere. Bassicallymike? I know you weren’t in on the last discussion but there are scientists that don’t believe in evolution or God. We established this before Bathtub… More fun to come...

BathTub said...

You'll have to refresh my memory about what specifically you asked because I don't recall skipping anything. What thread was it?

I don't believe you've actually looked. a single site like Talk Origins would provide days and days of reading.

Or if you want a specificly Christian website you could read The Biologos Foundation http://www.biologos.org/

That includes Francis Collins former head of the Human Genome project someone who knows our DNA better than probably anyone else on earth.

So what questions don't those sites answer?

If you want 1 piece of neat and tidy evidence look up ERVs. They are the item that scared the pants off Ray and he refused to answer. Lets see if you can do better.

joelsplace said...

This was the first thing I found on ERVs' source "Infection and integration via an exogenous source virus"
How does that prove common ancestry?
You did refer me to Talk Origins before but all I could find there was talk - big shock!

joelsplace said...

http://www.biologos.org/ rejects the Bible so I wouldn't call that a Christian site just because they toss around words like Bible and God. I think that people should take the Bible for what it says or toss it out altogether. If you pick and choose what to believe you might as well just write your own book to go by.
Thanks for the link and answer.

BathTub said...

I'm sorry but what are expecting other than 'talk'? Honestly special magic rays beaming information into your head if you made the right incantation into google?

Biologos does not reject the bible how blatently dishonest can you be?

And in the few minutes between my response and yours how much of either site could you have possibly even looked at.

Oh and do research on ERV's

The first link in google for ERV is this blog http://scienceblogs.com/erv/

I don't know what you are looking at. How about you stop with the sneering and do some actual reading.

look I will give you a big head start so you don't even have to type ERV in google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

BathTub said...

Even Answers in Gensis concedes that nothing in Christs Messsage of Salvation requires you to believe in a literal Genesis reading.

If that's your lame reason for suggesting that the Christians at BioLogos "Reject" The Bible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp

joelsplace said...

Bathtub,
Evidence for evolution has to be more than talk. For words to be evidence they would have to come from a witness to the events. I will assume you don't claim to have any witnesses to evolution. I expect something tangible. If all you have is talk then how is it any more credible than zombies? I can at least give you history and pictures of them.
If I'm a liar about Biologos then you are a liar about evolution and there is no point in discussing it.
If a book says something and you say it isn't true isn't that rejection? Maybe we are using different terms. Let's see... "That's not true" means "I agree and base my life and beliefs on it." I guess that is just part of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
Catholics claim to be Christians but that doesn't make it so. If a Christian's belief system is not based on the Bible then why would they be called Christian? Christian means follower of Christ. Christ quoted the Old Testament as authoritative. Evolution also contradicts the Gospel. The Gospel tells us that wages of sin is death and that death came into the world as a result of sin. Evolution requires lots of death before humans and sin ever came into the picture.
I agree with the Answers in Genesis link that you can become a Christian without knowing evolution is false. I would disagree that you could continue to believe in evolution after seeing what the Bible has to say and how evolution contradicts scripture. Part of being a Christian is agreement with God and what He says. If you take a look at what He says and continue to reject it how can you claim to follow Him?
Here's a quote I came across about your evidence. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/fossil.asp
Here's a link on ERVs http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp
Thanks for the site tip.
Joel

BathTub said...

Ahh your one of those Christians. Anyone you disagree with isn't 'a True Christian'.

I agree since you believe it's fine to beat your slaves to death as long as they take over a day to die, there isn't really much to discuss.

Heh so if no one witnessed something there is no way to prove it happened. You should be a defence lawyer!

Besides since you refuse to link to the original thread I can't be sure you aren't just sneering to be a jerk or not.

The Answers in Genesis links are funny for two reasons.

Ida of course contributes to any issues with the first one.

And the second one AIG have the exact same LALLAALALAL not listening response that Ray Comfort did and specifically ignored the common descent ramifications. It's funny to see them pretend it's a junk or not argument. It isn't, some are, some aren't. It's why are they found in the genome EXACTLY how it would appear if they followed the path of common descent?

Why do Chimpanzees and Humans have the EXACT SAME Retrovirus, in the EXACT SAME location in their genome, but Orang-utans don't?
But why do those 3 all share a different Retrovirus in the EXACT SAME place but don't share it with Gibbons? Why do those 4 all have a Different Retrovirus inserted into their Genome in the EXACT SAME place but not Old or New World Monkeys? You can create an entire family tree that matches the predictions of the theory of evolution from this nested Hierarchy.

And remember that AIG article YOU linked to stated that ERVs came from outside the body by the viruses inserting their code into the genome.

Then we could start on pseudo genes. Did you know there 19,000 psuedo genes in your DNA? That's a gene which is there, but it's turned off.

You know genes for things like Prehensile Feet. You have a Gene for Prehensile Feet sitting there in your DNA, just it got deactivated by mutations. So it's still there, sitting dormant.

Like your gene for making Vitamin C. Did you know that? You could make your own but the gene is turned off. Strangely enough it's turned off in all Simians. Hmm so we another set of items that have a traceable family tree. 19,000 of them in fact. You can trace the reasons for them being switched off. And guess what, the family tree matches again the prediction made by the theory of evolution.

Pseudo Genes and ERVs are independent of each other, but their family trees just happen to match up, and they just happen to match up what is predicted by evolution.

God just made it look that way apparently, for some reason. I guess to fool those scientist types.

Even the Christian ones.

joelsplace said...

Bathtub,
“Ahh your one of those Christians. Anyone you disagree with isn't 'a True Christian'.”
You are misquoting me. Anyone that disagrees with what the Bible says is not a Christian.

“I agree since you believe it's fine to beat your slaves to death as long as they take over a day to die, there isn't really much to discuss.”
You clearly haven’t read the Bible or you read it in the same way you read my last post.

“Heh so if no one witnessed something there is no way to prove it happened. You should be a defence lawyer!”
You clearly didn’t read what I said.

“Besides since you refuse to link to the original thread I can't be sure you aren't just sneering to be a jerk or not.”
What are you talking about?

“Ida of course contributes to any issues with the first one.”
What does that mean?

“And the second one AIG have the exact same LALLAALALAL not listening response…”
Isn’t that exactly what you are doing with me?
Joel

BathTub said...

So you didn't say

For words to be evidence they would have to come from a witness to the events.
Interesting. I wonder who did.

The bible quite clearly condones slavery giving details on what sort of punishment is fine. You are the one who just used Jesus to argue for the authority of the old testament. There over 600 laws in there for you to follow. Including stoning rebellious children, stoning women on their wedding nights if they aren't a virgin, etc. Or are you picking and choosing which parts of the Old Testament you like and which you don't?

You said I ignored you, I have repeatedly asked you to link to the original thread so we could read it context. How hard is that question to understand?

Your first AIG link complained about the scarcity of fossils in the primate line. Ida is a fossil in the primate line. See how the 2 magically go together?

And how was my reasonably detailed description of the ramifications of ERV and psuedogenes in anyway ignoring the example I bought up?

joelsplace said...

Bathtub,
Sorry I missed that question. I was too busy looking up the other things. I also noticed that you did post after me and I didn't get the notice.
http://fishwithtrish.blogspot.com/2009/04/cute-laughable-absurd.html
I'm off to work so I'll address the other things later. Thanks, Joel

joelsplace said...

God is clearly a witness since He created the universe. He had Moses write it down for us.
The Bible does not promote or denounce slavery. God used it to put Joseph in power. The passages you are referring to were part of the penal code for Israel. I am not Jewish and Romans chapter 7 explains why I don’t live by that law and neither should any Christian. I don’t ignore it or pick and choose to the best of my knowledge.

About Ida – would a quote from two Profs at the Natural History Museum work for you? They are clearly evolutionists but here’s what they say about some of the popular missing links: “On this qualification, the Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx both fall down as true missing links: both have unique features that have not been passed on to any living creatures. In other words, despite their enormous importance, they are not true ancestors, but belong to small branches of the tree of life whose form is close to that of the true ancestor.
Is the same true of Ida? Well, her fossil's status as a missing link is controversial in a slightly different way. Ida lacks some of the features common to modern lemurs, but does not appear to possess any features unique to our own lineage of anthropoid primates. This renders Ida's evolutionary status ambiguous, at best.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/evolution/5385793/So-could-Ida-be-the-true-missing-link.html
Your LALLAALALAL is the way you have been doing a lot of talking without giving any proof. I keep asking for proof and you keep talking. You did finally make an attempt with Ida but by another evolutionist’s evaluation it was “ambiguous at best”. I haven’t seen any proof for ERVs just a lot of talk and speculation.
I hope I have addressed all your questions from the last post. Joel

BathTub said...

Oh so you think Moses wrote part of the bible. Which Books exactly?

So the new testament doesn't include some wonderful remarks as

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."

or

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."
I'll have to remember that.

Funny the only one here talking about missing links is ....

you.

You linked to a quote about the paucity of primate fossils, Ida is a newly discovered primate fossil. That's the only relevance here.

The Hype is just that, Hype! Something I have said plenty of times.

You're trying to change the subject, I really don't care about Ida.

I gave you 2 very specific examples. ERV's and Pseudogenes. If these examples are false and aren't evidence for common descent then you should be able to show that very clearly.

It's transparent that you are struggling or you wouldn't just keep blowing it off as talk. Explain why. If you are right and I am wrong this should be trivial to do.

BathTub said...

Ok easier question for you joelsplace (or Trish).

If I said to you "I am your father". Would you accept the results of a paternity test?

BathTub said...

Nothing? Clearly scared Trish and joeslplace off. Well I will remember that next time he comes sneering that I ignored him.