Just Accidental?

[metis]

I was referring to Babylon the great in Revelation 17 &18 and giving you the background for my conclusions.
This reference in 1 Peter 5:13 is the city of Babylon where Peter wrote his letter(s). It is a city and it is referred to in the feminine form as are other cities in the Bible.

According to Peter’s own testimony, he composed his first letter while in Babylon. (as stated in 1Pe 5:13)
Available evidence clearly shows that “Babylon” refers to the city on the Euphrates and not to Rome, as some have claimed. Having been entrusted with ‘the good news for those who are circumcised,’ Peter could be expected to serve in a center of Judaism, such as Babylon. (Galatians 2:8, 9) There was a large Jewish population in and around the ancient city of Babylon.

Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in [literal] Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter, “Babylon,” was the literal place by that name. Never does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome, nor does it state that Peter was ever in Rome.

The "Babylon" cited is in the feminine form, so it would make no sense for it to be the way you say if it referred to the town of Babylon. Plus, we well know that this was a fairly common term that was used for Rome, Plus, there's really no doubt from even Protestant theologians that Peter was writing from Rome, especially since the reference to such shows up in various 2nd century letters, including Ignatius' letter to Clement.

I have not read a single theologian, Catholic nor Protestant, that puts Peter in the Tigris/Euphrates region.

BTW, I did notice that you "changed your tune" in reference to "Babylon", so you really did undercut your position.

 

[metis]

The elements I added were the elements that the rest of scripture adds. If you remember I mentioned James 2:19 a few times.

"You believe that there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder. 20 But do you care to know, O empty man, that faith without works is useless?"

Is "belief" enough then? The demons "believe" and yet they know that they will perish.

James went on to say.....
"You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.....Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead". (v 24, 26)

So what is the difference between "belief" and the exercise of "faith"?

What does John 3:16 actually say metis?

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (NASB)

"For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." (Douay)

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (NKJV)

That is pretty much a universally accepted rendering of the verse......right?

Look closer....what is the opposite of "believing" in God's son? Most people concentrate on the first part of that verse without acknowledging the equally important second part. If one fails to "believe" then the penalty is "destruction".....not torment in a fiery hell, but to lose life altogether.

The word rendered "perish" in that verse means.....

" 1. to destroy

2. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin

3. to kill"

Genesis Chapter 1 (NASB)

So just "believing" is not all that is required. Its like the difference between 'having a dog and exercising the dog'....
If faith is not demonstrated in everyday life, then the time someone spends in church practicing ritual and repeating words is wasted.



It is far from ignoring what Jesus said because hes added so much more himself in the rest of his teachings. His apostles clarified things even more.

The two recommendations of the "law of love" that Jesus gave did not mean a mere acceptance of him as the Christ. It was not to be a blind faith with nothing but ritual performance to back it up.....more was required as Jesus' teachings indicated. He reinforced God's original standards for marriage and divorce, even to the point of saying "don't even look at a woman with the wrong motives or God counts that as "committing adultery in your heart". (Matthew 5:27-28)

He demonstrated what it meant to love one's neighbor, and commanded his disciples to preach. (Matthew 10:11-14; 28:19, 20; Acts 20:20) Do we see the churches doing that? What happens when one country declares war on another? The clergy are right there encouraging the slaughter as if Christ did not teach the opposite. This was the situation in the two World Wars....Catholic killed Catholic and Protestant killed Protestant.....were either of them obeying the Christ, who taught us to "love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us"? (Matthew 5:44)



I'm sorry but I am a stickler for detail.....if it results in a sermon I apologize.

The reason why I include relevant information is because these things are important.

I never stated nor implied that one is "saved" by mere belief, so why the sermon on that? As you say above, actions count more than mere words or p.c. dogmas that go beyond love (put into action) of God and man.

But, what JW's have done was to put in all sorts of "extras" as if they have some sort of exclusive lock on "salvation", and that makes no sense in the context of what the gospels actually say. Therefore, a JW has no more a lock on "salvation" than those from any other denomination, and that was my point. Just because someone may not share your or my opinion on the issue of war, doesn't mean that they can't be "saved". The early church really struggled with this issue, and maybe we can take that up later.

 

[Sapiens]

No, I accept evolution within species.

But I don't accept common descent. Neither did Jesus. -- Matthew 19:4-6

Furthermore, CD negates the value of Jesus' sacrifice. It renders it useless.

Until you define the word "species" your acceptance is specious.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As this thread seems severely affected by scope creep, I thought I’d summarize my understanding so far.[/quite]

I can't speak for Deeje but i think we agree on most of this.

@Deeje believes that the beauty of creatures, and their not-yet-completely understood capabilities, conclusively point to each being deliberately and intelligently designed for its niche.

among other things, yes.

She also believes that the weakness of the ToE is demonstrated by the careful wording of scientific material which avoids claiming fact and certainty, and that illustrations and diagrams are part of the whole attempt to pass evolution off as fact when it is ‘unproven’. The only proof acceptable would be to directly observe evolution between species.

direct observation of a single cell accidentally morphing itself into a human would be compelling evidence yes!

Of course that's impossible to observe, test, measure, repeat- but that inconvenience doesn't make the claim any more scientific. It makes it less so. 'the dog ate my homework' doesn't earn a passing grade.

Further, that where evolution is concerned, scientists as a whole are unable or unwilling to consider anything that could disprove evolution. She accepts adaptation within a species, but entirely rejects the possibility of any Biblical ‘kind’ evolving beyond that ‘kind’.

there are plenty scientists who doubt evolution, But 'evolutionary biologists' for example, are by definition are unwilling to consider alternatives yes. Paranormal investigators aren't the best people to debunk ghost stories either!

Although @Deeje accepts and uses tools developed by science and engineering, she differentiates between ‘true’ science and evolutionary science, because it depends on an unproven theory .

There is a distinction between science the method, and science the popular academic opinion yes, often diametrically opposed historically.

I for one, cannot conceive of a loving God who would punish people for failing to convert to an illogical position, so hopefully the ID proponents can demonstrate a logical basis – of course I may have missed it.

Can you conceive of a loving parent, who would wish their child to learn restraint, and avoid making themselves sick by eating an entire bag of candy? Even when this restraint seems utterly unfair and illogical to the child?

Then you understand the logical basis!

 

[Sapiens]

... there are plenty scientists who doubt evolution, But 'evolutionary biologists' for example, are by definition are unwilling to consider alternatives yes. Paranormal investigators aren't the best people to debunk ghost stories either!

No, in fact there are not.

Let's look at the so called, "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" petition circulated by the Discovery Institute. As of the August 2008 update, it contained 761 signatures and it continues to be used by the Discovery Institute in an attempt to discredit evolution by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support.

This represents less than 0.00023 of the world's scientists In their 2010 book Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins, science and religion scholar Denis Alexander and historian of science Ronald L. Numbers notes that, "On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press."

The reality is even worse for the Discovery Institute than that anemic showing. Many signatories coming from wholly unrelated fields, such as aviation and engineering, computer science and meteorology, medicine and dentistry and thus have no more expertise to be applied to evolution that your average stock clerk.

In 1999 there were just shy of a million biological scientists in the United States. Only about 1/4 of the less than 800 Darwin Dissenters are biologists, about 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are outside of that million cited, as they do not reside in the USA. Bottom line is that there were only about 100 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, that's one in ten thousand. Rather hard too describe, with a straight face, one in ten thousand as "plenty scientists who doubt evolution."

The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community. Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". That is a conservative underestimation.

Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice.

For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas at Dallas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position.

Visitors at prestigious institutions will have that affiliation listed, not their more humble home institutions. For example, Bernard d'Abrera, a writer and publisher of books on butterflies, appears on the list as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)", in spite of the fact that this museum had become independent of the British Museum three decades previously and had formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition. d'Abrera's primary affiliation is with his publishing company, Hill House Publishers. d'Abrera does not have a PhD either, nor any formal scientific qualification (his undergraduate degree was a double major in History & Philosophy of Science, and History), although creationists have called him "Dr. d'Abrera."

At least one other signatory, Forrest Mims, has neither a PhD nor any formal academic training in science. Additionally, at least seven signatories have their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences" that are currently being recruited: Ronald R. Crawford has his Ed.D. in Science Education, David Berlinski has his PhD in Philosophy, Tom McMullen has his PhD in the History & Philosophy of Science, Angus Menuge has his PhD in the Philosophy of Psychology, and Stephen C. Meyer has his PhD in the Philosophy of Science; and at least six, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Ricardo León Borquez (incorrectly listed as "Ricardo Leon"), Gage Blackstone, Daniel Galassini, Mary A. Brown and Thomas C. Majerus, have professional doctorates (such as an MD, DVM or PharmD), rather than holding a research doctorate (such as a PhD).

Also, in early editions of the list, Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate. At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in a peer-review controversy. Later versions of the list mention Sternberg's affiliation with Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University.

Critics also say the Discovery Institute inflates the academic credentials and affiliations of signatories such as Henry F. Schaefer. The institute prominently and frequently asserts that Schaefer has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Barbara Forrest and others allege that the Discovery Institute is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" despite that Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years and there being about 250-300 nominations per prize per year.

Responding in the form of a humorous parody, the National Center for Science Education launched Project Steve, a list of scientists named "Steve", or its equivalent (such as "Stephanie" or "Esteban"), who had signed a pro-evolution statement. As of 9 July 2015, the Steve-o-meter registered 1,371 "Steves."

After the Discovery Institute presented the petition as part of an amicus curiae brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design court case in October 2005, a counter-petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7,733 signatures from scientists in four days.

(thanks to wiki)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, in fact there are not.

Let's look at the so called, "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" petition circulated by the Discovery Institute. As of the August 2008 update, it contained 761 signatures and it continues to be used by the Discovery Institute in an attempt to discredit evolution by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support.

This represents less than 0.00023 of the world's scientists In their 2010 book Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins, science and religion scholar Denis Alexander and historian of science Ronald L. Numbers notes that, "On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press."

The reality is even worse for the Discovery Institute than that anemic showing. Many signatories coming from wholly unrelated fields, such as aviation and engineering, computer science and meteorology, medicine and dentistry and thus have no more expertise to be applied to evolution that your average stock clerk.

In 1999 there were just shy of a million biological scientists in the United States. Only about 1/4 of the less than 800 Darwin Dissenters are biologists, about 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are outside of that million cited, as they do not reside in the USA. Bottom line is that there were only about 100 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, that's one in ten thousand. Rather hard too describe, with a straight face, one in ten thousand as "plenty scientists who doubt evolution."

The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community. Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". That is a conservative underestimation.

Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice.

For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas at Dallas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position.

Visitors at prestigious institutions will have that affiliation listed, not their more humble home institutions. For example, Bernard d'Abrera, a writer and publisher of books on butterflies, appears on the list as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)", in spite of the fact that this museum had become independent of the British Museum three decades previously and had formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition. d'Abrera's primary affiliation is with his publishing company, Hill House Publishers. d'Abrera does not have a PhD either, nor any formal scientific qualification (his undergraduate degree was a double major in History & Philosophy of Science, and History), although creationists have called him "Dr. d'Abrera."

At least one other signatory, Forrest Mims, has neither a PhD nor any formal academic training in science. Additionally, at least seven signatories have their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences" that are currently being recruited: Ronald R. Crawford has his Ed.D. in Science Education, David Berlinski has his PhD in Philosophy, Tom McMullen has his PhD in the History & Philosophy of Science, Angus Menuge has his PhD in the Philosophy of Psychology, and Stephen C. Meyer has his PhD in the Philosophy of Science; and at least six, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Ricardo León Borquez (incorrectly listed as "Ricardo Leon"), Gage Blackstone, Daniel Galassini, Mary A. Brown and Thomas C. Majerus, have professional doctorates (such as an MD, DVM or PharmD), rather than holding a research doctorate (such as a PhD).

Also, in early editions of the list, Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate. At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in a peer-review controversy. Later versions of the list mention Sternberg's affiliation with Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University.

Critics also say the Discovery Institute inflates the academic credentials and affiliations of signatories such as Henry F. Schaefer. The institute prominently and frequently asserts that Schaefer has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Barbara Forrest and others allege that the Discovery Institute is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" despite that Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years and there being about 250-300 nominations per prize per year.

Responding in the form of a humorous parody, the National Center for Science Education launched Project Steve, a list of scientists named "Steve", or its equivalent (such as "Stephanie" or "Esteban"), who had signed a pro-evolution statement. As of 9 July 2015, the Steve-o-meter registered 1,371 "Steves."

After the Discovery Institute presented the petition as part of an amicus curiae brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design court case in October 2005, a counter-petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7,733 signatures from scientists in four days.

(thanks to wiki)

Lemaitre was one of a handful who dissented against the atheist preference for static/ steady state models of the universe
Likewise with Piltdown man

So 761 is plenty yes, even if that number were all. This number has the same problem as those pre-election Trump numbers, unfashionable positions are under represented in polls. And there is a tangible hostility towards dissenters.

That's why real science is a method, not an academic consensus- the whole point is NOT having to take anyone's word for it, the method itself is not influenced by peer pressure review

David Raup, paleontologist and curator of the Field Museum Chicago

• “We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
  
  Quote by David M. Raup

• “I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields.”
  
  Quote by David M. Raup

• “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”
  Quote by David M. Raup

I don't 'believe' these, I agree with them

 

[Olinda]

among other things, yes.



direct observation of a single cell accidentally morphing itself into a human would be compelling evidence yes!

there are plenty scientists who doubt evolution, But 'evolutionary biologists' for example, are by definition are unwilling to consider alternatives yes. Paranormal investigators aren't the best people to debunk ghost stories either!

There is a distinction between science the method, and science the popular academic opinion yes, often diametrically opposed historically.

Then you understand the logical basis!

Of course that's impossible observe, test, measure, repeat- but that inconvenience doesn't make the claim any more scientific. It makes it less so. 'the dog ate my homework' doesn't earn a passing grade.

Do you mean to say that you agree with @Deeje that the lack of complete proof means that a huge amount of evidence can simply be ignored?

Can you conceive of a loving parent, who would wish their child to learn restraint, and avoid making themselves sick by eating an entire bag of candy? Even when this restraint seems utterly unfair and illogical to the child?

Sure I can, but such a parent would be controlling and ineffective. Very young children should not have candy at all. Older children learn restraint under supervision, by occasionally being allowed to stuff themselves and suffering the bellyache afterwards. Maintaining control by rationing the candy is most likely to result in the child helping themselves when the parent is absent.

I also don't follow how 'control' parenting relates to a God requiring belief in an illogical position.

 

[Sapiens]

Lemaitre was one of a handful who dissented against the atheist preference for static/ steady state models of the universe
Likewise with Piltdown man

Two examples of where science got it right and was self correcting. It was not biblical scholarship that corrected things.

So 761 is plenty yes, even if that number were all. This number has the same problem as those pre-election Trump numbers, unfashionable positions are under represented in polls. And there is a tangible hostility towards dissenters.

As we have seen it is not 761, it is more like 100. In any case it is a number so small as to be lost in the noise of the signal. But most importantly it is a number that is dropping not rising.

That's why real science is a method, not an academic consensus- the whole point is NOT having to take anyone's word for it, the method itself is not influenced by peer pressure review

Real science results in academic consensus. There is academic consensus (at one level at least) concerning the Big Bang, there is absolute academic consensus about Piltdown Man, there is academic consensus concerning the Origin of Species.

Daviid Raup, paleontologist and curator of the Field Museum Chicago

• “We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
  
  Quote by David M. Raup

I don't 'believe' these, I agree with them

No, you are misunderstanding them and quoting them out of context. You do no agree with what Raup advocates, you just pretend that his views coincide with yours when they, in fact, do not.

When faced with the exposure of his underlying lie and his inability to find "plenty" of scientists who disagree with evolution, Guy switches to another lie, a quote mining of David Raup. We are faced with the standard creationist approach of lies piled on lies piled on lies. The Raup quote mine is neatly debunked by Evan Yeung, exposing Guy's exposition for the prevarication that it is:

On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

This was originally published in response to a Talk Origins Archive feedback question in June of 2001 (scroll down). It has been slightly modified.

Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (p. 25, emphasis mine)

Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.

And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)

The transitions Raup seems to be talking about, in the quote creationists use, are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf). Not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about. This seems to be the case here as well:

There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . . (p. 23, emphasis mine)

Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are favorite targets for this creationist tactic because their hypothesis of punctuated equilibria is intended to explain why, from a biological point of view, we should expect species level transitions to be rare in the fossil record. Thus in their writings they frequently state the problem(s) they are attempting to solve. Creationists quote them stating the problems but not the solutions they propose. This seems to be the nature of the quote they have taken from Raup. The beginning of the very next paragraph after the one they quote tends to confirm this:

Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works. (p. 25)

He then moves on to the fossil record:

​

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent. (p. 26)

He then goes on to discuss natural selection versus other possible explanatory mechanisms and how they might relate to the fossil record. He also discusses the effects of historical contingency as it relates to extinction pointing out that sometimes species may become extinct due more to "bad luck" than bad genes (this by the way is the basis for Raup's 1991 book Extinction - Bad Genes or Bad Luck?). Raup concludes this article stating:

The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance! (p. 29)

Not particularly damning. Perhaps the more interesting question is where do creationists get the idea that lists of such (out of context) quotations are a valid form of scientific argument?

For Raup's views on creationist arguments I suggest you look up one or both of the following:

"Geology and Creationism", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Mar. 1983, Vol. 54 No. 3 pp. 16-25)

"The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism" in Scientists Confront Creationism (1983), Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor), pp. 147-162​

Quote by David M. Raup

“I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields.”​

The biological sciences equivalent of the old Murphy's 3 Law of Engineering: "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."

Quote by David M. Raup

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”
​

​

Raup was not arguing against evolution, he was supporting punctuated equilibrium when it comes to evolutionary rates. Guy presents a non sequitur, that can be likened to arguing that there are no airplanes because it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Deeje]

Except its not. If I have a belief that the bus will arrive on time based on past evidence of the bus arriving it is very very very very different than the belief that the bus is actually a psychic whale that is eating little bits of our souls each time we ride it. Both are beliefs right? So they must be equal right?

If you think so.....?

The thing is...I believe someone designed and built the bus (not the psychic whale that is eating little bits of our souls).....but you think the bus 'poofed' itself into existence as an drop of oil and then gradually evolved into a bus over millions of years, (as a product of natural selection) producing wheels, tires and an engine, with no designer, builder or mechanic in sight. You are free to believe that if you wish.

You demand knowledge of something that you have no way of processing.

I take this exact statement and re-direct it to you. The only change I take is that when referencing god I say universe.

Which is what I have said all along....except I can process what science is suggesting.....I just think that its so far fetched that it leaves my designer God in the shade!
You think that the existence of an all powerful entity is not the first best explanation of how life began, let alone responsible for the magnificent way it presents itself in a staggering array of lifeforms on this planet......all self-replicating and in an environment that is self sustaining for every creature. All "just accidental" from your perspective. How many "accidents" do you know of that are beneficial?

I think our social skills are rather advanced. We don't know if we are the only creatures that contemplate our own death. Most creatures with a knowledge of self fear death and to a degree means that they contemplate it. They take calculated risks. But this is a side topic that doesn't actually have anything to do with our debate.

But it has everything to do with this discussion. Since these 'programs' for self preservation are inbuilt in most creatures, you say they require no programmer. How many programs do you run on your computer or tablet that have no programmer?

I was trying to pick stink bugs off my citrus trees the other day.....their ability to avoid my capture was amazing!

Are their tiny brains capable of anything but instinctive behavior? Instinct is programming....programming requires a programmer.

Creatures die. We, no differnetly than any other mammal, will die. Do you find it so strange that chickens die of old age? Or that bears die of old age? Its the same biological processes.

No I don't. But animals do not treat death like humans do. Wild animals have no burial rituals or funerals, nor does the death of a member of the herd or flock cause them to even acknowledge the loss in most cases.....for those creatures who live in family groups, it causes little more than a need to adjust their programming.

Some creatures are programmed to mate with the best available suitor, whereas others are designed to mate for life, even within the same genus. The loss of that mate can be a challenge for them, but they will seek another mate eventually. Humans are not only programmed to mate for life, but are physically geared to malfunction if multiple partners are sought. STI's are the result.
When God instituted marriage, he programmed humans to seek one mate and that the two would become "one flesh".
We humans have a sense of absolute betrayal when our mate is unfaithful. That is like having your other half ripped away, causing extreme emotional pain. That is not a social adaptation....that is a deliberate design, meant to keep families together, so that children are raised by the people who brought them into existence. Family members are designed to bond in these familial ties. Stepping outside of this arrangement creates all manner of problems....the most destructive is of course is domestic violence....way too prevalent these days.

It does not. Becoming depressed after tragety doesn't mean we are any more than chemical energy. Its just a side effect of cognition.

So its just an accident that humans have a collective desire to be happy? Even the animals that are domesticated like our pets, have a desire to be happy as a result of our role as caretakers of the animals kingdom.....is that just an accident too?

That isn't math. I asked for the math. Show me the math.

How convenient to throw everything under the same bus? God is not a mathematical equation any more than science's theories. But the logic science uses can be equally applied to the Creator. There is as much logic attached to life being the result of deliberate design than a haphazard, accidental series of beneficial mutations over millions of years. I ask again...how many accidents or mutations are beneficial?

No one can categorically prove either one. Science can make all the suggestions it likes, and it can interpret its evidence in a way that seems to back it up....but we all know that it is a theory, not a fact....no matter how much you protest.

 

[Deeje]

Science doesn't brainwash. Correctly taught it teaches children exactly why we have come to these conclusions.

Science does brainwash. Otherwise it would not be taught in schools as an established fact, when all it has to "prove" itself is educated guessing. It would not scorn and penalize children for having a different view. We have no choice but to educate our children...its the law of the land and I have no objection to that. But the only way to counteract the teaching of evolution is to educate our children to see the flaws. Home schooling is an option, but it is no open to all.

And really? Really? The breakthrough medical advances, ability to communicate, travel, go to space, air conditioning, ect? Science is a tool. It simply broadens our ability to do good or bad. If humans use it to harm then it is humans doing the harming. Religion however has done vastly more harm than science over the years and hasn't done us a lick of good!

I never said it had done no good....I said that for every good thing it has accomplished, there are many more evil things it has produced....not the least of which would be atomic weapons.

Science is quick to make available for profit, many of its 'inventions' but long term detrimental effects have not been thoroughly investigated. The invention of plastics for example, began as a boon for every household, but now the planet is drowning in plastic waste where people are either too lazy to recycle, or have no means to do so.
Check it out and tell me how wonderful plastic is.....?

plastic waste islands - Google Search

Chemical products too have been used as pesticides and artificial fertilizers and the like......what has been the result? More production but less nutrition. Poor quality, mineral deficient soil produces low quality mineral deficient food. Mineral deficiency results in poor health and a breeding ground for disease......I could go on for pages about the inhumane farming practices in livestock production, but what would be the point?

As to passing laws, there is nothing in the Bible about advocating government policy by promoting what the Bible teaches. That should be entirely voluntary. You cannot legislate people's morals, feelings or motivations.

I would like you to tell that to the Republican Party of the United States.

As a JW, we do not participate in political decisions but remain completely neutral in those things.
Jesus commanded his followers to be "NO part of this world", so any political meddling is counter to the teachings of the one the meddlers claim to serve. Jesus never once recommended overthrowing the Roman government, (which was oppressing his people) or meddling in its decisions, but he was himself a victim of Jewish influence upon it. The Romans executed Jesus but only because the Jews threatened to bring charges of sedition against Pilate if he did not acceded to their wishes.

Earliest known structure made by mankind is the Cairn of Barnenez which was built around 4850 bc. Humans first began leaving africa around 75,000 years ago. For a savant to have imbued his genes throughout the whole of the human race it would have had to have been prior to that piont. And that is if we totally ignore the Genetic Adam and Genetic Eve.

This is an assumption, since no one knows why savants are imbued with pockets of genius in certain areas whilst being deficient in others.

Savants, I believe are a throwback to the genius capabilities that all humans could have had as a general rule if Adam had not lost his physical and mental perfection. "Sin" is an often misunderstood term, conjuring up some cruel dictator who punishes people for being 'sinful' when they see the whole scenario as his fault. That could not be further from the truth. Understanding what happened in Eden, explains everything that has transpired ever since. But don't look to Christendom for answers, because they lost the plot so long ago that they don't have any logical answers either, which then sends people looking for answers in other areas. Evolution seems to be an alternative, but it is devoid of any satisfying answers to those BIG questions.

Science cannot answer those questions that most ordinary people have.....'Why are we here?' 'What is the purpose of life?' 'Where are we going?' 'Does death end it all?' 'Will I ever see my lost loved ones again?'
Why do you think people want the answers to those questions?

There is a part of the human psyche that needs to know.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Do you mean to say that you agree with @Deeje that the lack of complete proof means that a huge amount of evidence can simply be ignored?

It means I disagree with this:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...

― Richard Dawkins

I see a lot of passion for it, but like most people, I just don't see a compelling amount of evidence supporting it, I see logical problems in the chance driven process- and I see more support for a guided process in evidence we have- but I don't claim it as fact. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

Sure I can, but such a parent would be controlling and ineffective. Very young children should not have candy at all. Older children learn restraint under supervision, by occasionally being allowed to stuff themselves and suffering the bellyache afterwards. Maintaining control by rationing the candy is most likely to result in the child helping themselves when the parent is absent.

I also don't follow how 'control' parenting relates to a God requiring belief in an illogical position.

We agree then; ' a loving parent, would wish their child to learn restraint,' they would offer advice, hope it is heeded, hope that the child eventually learns trust, faith, in their wisdom and goodness, for their own salvation. As illogical as it might seem to them., They would not cater to every whim, or solve every challenge for the child, even when it is in their power to do so. right?

 

[Deeje]

BTW, I did notice that you "changed your tune" in reference to "Babylon", so you really did undercut your position.

I have one belief about Babylon the great that has never changed. Original Babylon is the model for what came later. So, what tune did I change? Or did you misinterpret what I said?

I never stated nor implied that one is "saved" by mere belief, so why the sermon on that? As you say above, actions count more than mere words or p.c. dogmas that go beyond love (put into action) of God and man.

You may not, but many people do have the notion that they are somehow doing God a favor just by 'believing' in him. Some have the notion that turning up at church once a week is a duty to perform, rather than any meaningful connection to God or Christ that modifies their behavior. The proof of that is when they leave their "Christianity" at he door on their way out.

But, what JW's have done was to put in all sorts of "extras" as if they have some sort of exclusive lock on "salvation", and that makes no sense in the context of what the gospels actually say. Therefore, a JW has no more a lock on "salvation" than those from any other denomination, and that was my point.

Please explain what "extras" you believe we have added. Be specific. I want to know what you think we do that is not scriptural or outside what Jesus or the apostles taught.

And, just to be clear, I do not believe that "JW's have a lock on salvation", except perhaps where doctrine is concerned. I believe that it is a process of elimination, and at the end of the day, JW have tick more boxes than most for sticking as closely as possible to Biblical commands. That doesn't mean that calling yourself a JW means that you have any less obligation than anyone else who claims to be a follower of Christ. We are all judged individually "according to our deeds", not according to what label we wear.

People are free to find that out for themselves why JW's are different. It was what drew me to them in the first place. I came out of Christendom believing that the denominational churches were all the same....just different 'branches' growing off the same tree. JW's have no connection to "the tree" at all.....for very good reasons.

Just because someone may not share your or my opinion on the issue of war, doesn't mean that they can't be "saved". The early church really struggled with this issue, and maybe we can take that up later.

If we do not share God's opinion on the issue of war....then that makes all the difference, wouldn't you say?

It is an interesting side issue if you want to discuss it.....I'm in!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Two examples of where science got it right and was self correcting. It was not biblical scholarship that corrected things.
As we have seen it is not 761, it is more like 100. In any case it is a number so small as to be lost in the noise of the signal. But most importantly it is a number that is dropping not rising.
Real science results in academic consensus. There is academic consensus (at one level at least) concerning the Big Bang, there is absolute academic consensus about Piltdown Man, there is academic consensus concerning the Origin of Species.

No, you are misunderstanding them and quoting them out of context. You do no agree with what Raup advocates, you just pretend that his views coincide with yours when they, in fact, do not.

When faced with the exposure of his underlying lie and his inability to find "plenty" of scientists who disagree with evolution, Guy switches to another lie, a quote mining of David Raup. We are faced with the standard creationist approach of lies piled on lies piled on lies. The Raup quote mine is neatly debunked by Evan Yeung, exposing Guy's exposition for the prevarication that it is:

On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

This was originally published in response to a Talk Origins Archive feedback question in June of 2001 (scroll down). It has been slightly modified.

Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (p. 25, emphasis mine)

Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.

And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)

The transitions Raup seems to be talking about, in the quote creationists use, are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf). Not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about. This seems to be the case here as well:

There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . . (p. 23, emphasis mine)

Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are favorite targets for this creationist tactic because their hypothesis of punctuated equilibria is intended to explain why, from a biological point of view, we should expect species level transitions to be rare in the fossil record. Thus in their writings they frequently state the problem(s) they are attempting to solve. Creationists quote them stating the problems but not the solutions they propose. This seems to be the nature of the quote they have taken from Raup. The beginning of the very next paragraph after the one they quote tends to confirm this:

Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works. (p. 25)

He then moves on to the fossil record:

​

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent. (p. 26)

He then goes on to discuss natural selection versus other possible explanatory mechanisms and how they might relate to the fossil record. He also discusses the effects of historical contingency as it relates to extinction pointing out that sometimes species may become extinct due more to "bad luck" than bad genes (this by the way is the basis for Raup's 1991 book Extinction - Bad Genes or Bad Luck?). Raup concludes this article stating:

The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance! (p. 29)

Not particularly damning. Perhaps the more interesting question is where do creationists get the idea that lists of such (out of context) quotations are a valid form of scientific argument?

For Raup's views on creationist arguments I suggest you look up one or both of the following:

"Geology and Creationism", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Mar. 1983, Vol. 54 No. 3 pp. 16-25)

"The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism" in Scientists Confront Creationism (1983), Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor), pp. 147-162​

The biological sciences equivalent of the old Murphy's 3 Law of Engineering: "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."

​

Raup was not arguing against evolution, he was supporting punctuated equilibrium when it comes to evolutionary rates. Guy presents a non sequitur, that can be likened to arguing that there are no airplanes because it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light.

" This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place"

Exactly, by this definition, Genesis also describes evolution.

Your argument is like showing the 97% poll of scientists acknowledging a very tiny forcing of CO2 - and publishing it next to a picture of Manhattan under water.

Many supremely qualified scientists like Raup are/were skeptical of classical Darwinism being an adequate explanation for life on Earth, while many creationist claims (universal creation event, Piltdown man being bogus, the gaps in the record being real) once dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' have been validated scientifically now.

 

[Olinda]

It means I disagree with this:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...

― Richard Dawkins

I personally dislike Richard Dawkins's strident tone and attempts to make a religion of humanism, but some of my acquaintances who grew up in fundamentalist religions are avid believers.

As @Deeje has mentioned many times, scientific papers use far more moderate and defensible language. Yet somehow that is also a problem . . .

We agree then; ' a loving parent, would wish their child to learn restraint,' they would offer advice, hope it is heeded, hope that the child eventually learns trust, faith, in their wisdom and goodness, for their own salvation. As illogical as it might seem to them., They would not cater to every whim, or solve every challenge for the child, even when it is in their power to do so. right?

Yes, I agree that parents should not over indulge children, nor solve their problems for them. Not sure where 'salvation' fits in, though?

 

[Sapiens]

I personally dislike Richard Dawkins's strident tone and attempts to make a religion of humanism, but some of my acquaintances who grew up in fundamentalist religions are avid believers.

As @Deeje has mentioned many times, scientific papers use far more moderate and defensible language. Yet somehow that is also a problem . . .



Yes, I agree that parents should not over indulge children, nor solve their problems for them. Not sure where 'salvation' fits in, though?

Dawkins writes differently as appropriate to each audience. He happens to be right and telling the truth. You happen to be wrong and demonstrably lying.

 

[Olinda]

Dawkins writes differently as appropriate to each audience. He happens to be right and telling the truth. You happen to be wrong and demonstrably lying.

@Sapiens, I enjoyed reading several of Richard Dawkins's books. However I see no merit in attacking the beliefs of others, nor in adopting a condescending attitude to them. It may be that his adherents are quoting out of context, but I've seen many religious 'moderates' have their beliefs ridiculed by people influenced by Dawkins.
If you believe I'm lying, that is for you to demonstrate rather than just throw out an unfounded accusation.

 

[Sapiens]

@Sapiens, I enjoyed reading several of Richard Dawkins's books. However I see no merit in attacking the beliefs of others, nor in adopting a condescending attitude to them. It may be that his adherents are quoting out of context, but I've seen many religious 'moderates' have their beliefs ridiculed by people influenced by Dawkins.

I first met Richard Dawkins when he taught my animal behavior class, I have never found him or his scientific writings to be anything except polite and correct. As to his popular pieces, they tend to be a bit stronger, but that (I feel) is necessary and warranted. Correcting stupidity and/or ignorance is not condescension, it is correcting stupidity and/or ignorance. Condescension is assuming without proof or argument that people who disagree with you are stupid and/or ignorant. In my experience Dawkins either accomplishes those goals or demonstrates, at the onset, that they are a given.

He is not responsible for the actions of others, but I've seen religious 'moderates' who well deserved to have their beliefs shredded. If you choose to call that ridicule, that's your trip and just because you choose to suffer fools gladly does not mean anyone else should be required to do so.

If you believe I'm lying, that is for you to demonstrate rather than just throw out an unfounded accusation.

I did demonstrate Guy's guilt. I got my replies crossed, I never meant to say that you were lying, I offer you abject apologies.

 

[Deeje]

As @Deeje has mentioned many times, scientific papers use far more moderate and defensible language. Yet somehow that is also a problem . . .

I don't think science would have to use such language if it was indisputable truth that they presented about their "evidence".
The language they use is not just "Moderate and defensible".....it is simply NOT the language of fact....it is the language of suggestion. "It is suggested that".....or....."this leads us to believe" is hardly a statement to bet your life on....is it?

It's like those ads on TV that say that a product "helps" with an implied benefit that really isn't there. Or the ones that "suggest" that a product is very good for achieving certain ends and when you get it home, you realize that its just rubbish.

If you have to sell something with a diagram and lots of conjecture, then how can it be true? There is no way to prove that evolution ever took place. The evidence presented could just as easily be attributed to an Intelligent Designer. There is no absolute proof for either view.
A fact is a fact, not a "might be".

 

[metis]

I have one belief about Babylon the great that has never changed. Original Babylon is the model for what came later. So, what tune did I change? Or did you misinterpret what I said?

When I looked back to see the "inconsistencies", I realized that you were quoting two different references to "Babylon", so sorry about that.

BTW, the feminine form only is found in Peter's epistle, not in Revelation, and that does make a difference in what we were talking about in that regard. The mistake you're making is ignoring what the 2nd century, pre-Constantine church, knew and believed in.

This is in large part one of the problems people often have when they read their handy-dandy English-language Bible with little to no knowledge of the immediate history from the 1st and 2nd century, plus no knowledge of Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic, as well as not being much aware of the cultural milieu of 1st century eretz Israel. This is why theologians, who specialize in these areas are so important. But even there one has to be careful because many of these theologians often are tainted by having a partisan agenda.

While I'm at it, let me just say that the most impressive book I have ever read on the early church was "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican). The book is out of print, although I did see a used copy at Amazon, but it was quite expensive. Hanson is very even-handed in his approach, but what makes his book so valuable is his heavy use of 2nd century (again, pre-Constantine) materials from the early church patriarchs and sages, which he very thoroughly quotes and footnotes.

Please explain what "extras" you believe we have added. Be specific. I want to know what you think we do that is not scriptural or outside what Jesus or the apostles taught.

I'll do that after the next quote.

And, just to be clear, I do not believe that "JW's have a lock on salvation", except perhaps where doctrine is concerned. I believe that it is a process of elimination, and at the end of the day, JW have tick more boxes than most for sticking as closely as possible to Biblical commands.

What you have admitted to above is your use of the term "doctrine", which is the "political-correctness" that I was talking about, and which defies what the gospels says. One is not "saved", according to the gospels, by having p.c. doctrine, but by believing in God and in Jesus and living out their lives accordingly.

It's not whether Jesus was crucified on a stake or cross (it was clearly the latter), or whether there's 144,000 special people (bad interpretation anyway), or whether one has a p.c. interpretation as to the issue of war, etc. The gospel's bottom line is belief in God and Jesus and living out the "law of love"-- the rest are just details. Anyone in any denomination can do that, so JW's have no logical advantage simply because they walk into a "kingdom hall" and agree with the doctrines thrown at them.

If we do not share God's opinion on the issue of war....then that makes all the difference, wouldn't you say?

Ah, but determining "God's opinion on the issue of war" is actually quite conjectural.

It is an interesting side issue if you want to discuss it.....I'm in!

Start a thread and let me know.

 

[dust1n]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

As opposed to a sentient being that no one can see meticulously taking their time to paint unique and varied ducks to the tune of trillions of individual species? And why does he prefer those ducks some reason to every possible variant of creature he could have created but currently doesn't exist. Why did God make it so a Leopard could mate with a Puma or a Lion, but a Puma or a Lion can't mate with one another?

How come you didn't use the equally aesthetically pleasure California Condor?

Or what about Malaria?

Why one anyone think that Malaria was made by accident, when it so beautifully kills so many children every year?