Why I believe God Created Life.

[Bunyip]

Gee, I wonder why. The world power of it's day and all it's gods humiliated and defeated by the God of their former slaves. Even today in autocratic countries, anything unfavorable to the rulers is suppressed when possible. Egyptian rulers were the same. Thutmose III, for example, removed the name and representation of Queen Hatshepsut on a stone monument uncovered at Deir al-Bahri in Egypt. (Archaeology and Bible History, by J. P. Free, 1964, p. 98 and photograph opposite p. 94.)
This quote from g 11/10 is pertinent: "Accurate history is often revealed in the details—customs, etiquette, names and titles of officials, and so on. How do the books of Genesis and Exodus, the first two books of the Bible, measure up in this respect? Regarding the Genesis narrative about Joseph, a son of the patriarch Jacob, as well as the Bible book of Exodus, J. Garrow Duncan says in his book New Light on Hebrew Origins: “[The Bible writer] was thoroughly well acquainted with the Egyptian language, customs, beliefs, court life, and etiquette and officialdom.” He adds: “[The writer] employs the correct title in use and exactly as it was used at the period referred to. . . . In fact, nothing more convincingly proves the intimate knowledge of things Egyptian in the Old Testament, and the reliability of the writers, than the use of the word Pharaoh at different periods.” Duncan also states: “When [the writer] brings his characters into the presence of Pharaoh, he makes them observe the correct court etiquette and use the correct language.”

I have no idea what the point you are trying to make is. There remains no Egyptian record of the Exodus.

 

[Bunyip]

Fruit flies that do not mate in the wild have been mated in laboratories. They may choose not to mate, but are capable of doing so. The real question is do they become a different kind of creature? "The evidence says they do not. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64)

Why bother telling such transparent lies? Do you really think that you can just make stuff up and nobody will notice?

No offence, but this is why creationists get such a hard time - you are far too prone to invention.

No, the different genus of fruit flies can not interbreed, there are over a thousand different species from 5 different families.

What has been observed is one group of flies that are cross fertile diverging into sub groups that are no longer cross fertile - exactly what Lonnig is denying.

 

[Simurgh]

Fruit flies that do not mate in the wild have been mated in laboratories. They may choose not to mate, but are capable of doing so. The real question is do they become a different kind of creature? "The evidence says they do not. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64)

'Oooh,you quoting a creationist pseudo-scientist who apparently studies Chinese Lantern--the plant, not the little light carrying thingies. And lo and behold, he is an ID guy who publishes in some obscure creationist "journals". Oh yes, he is a viable source of scientific data for sure. That's the first people I run to when I havequestions regarding evolution--the creationists.:thud::thud::thud:

 

[McBell]

There is so much misinformation presented with such assurance.

Yes there is.
Now the question is when are you going to stop repeating the misinformation?

That is why I believe it is important to check the facts for oneself,

That is a most excellent idea!

So, when are you going to start?

rather than relying upon unsubstantiated claims made in this forum.

Trying to support your unsubstantiated claims with flat out lies, more unsubstantiated claims, quote mining, and wishful thinking does not help your original unsubstantiated claims.

 

[idea]

Did not want to start a new thread, but interested to hear others thoughts on this:


Agassiz (1869): Darwinsim - Classification of Haeckel

 

[Looncall]

Did not want to start a new thread, but interested to hear others thoughts on this:


Agassiz (1869): Darwinsim - Classification of Haeckel

1869!!!! Don't you have something more -you know- modern to contribute?

After all, scientists have learned a few things in the last 146 years!

Ah, the utter futility of scripture-based thinking.

 

[rusra02]

'Oooh,you quoting a creationist pseudo-scientist who apparently studies Chinese Lantern--the plant, not the little light carrying thingies. And lo and behold, he is an ID guy who publishes in some obscure creationist "journals". Oh yes, he is a viable source of scientific data for sure. That's the first people I run to when I havequestions regarding evolution--the creationists.:thud::thud::thud:

Right. The constant refrain from some ToE propagandists. If you cannot attack the message, defame and ridicule the messenger. Lonnig is one of many courageous scientists who refuse to be bullied into toeing the evolution line. Thus, their good names are smeared.(Romans 1:18-20)

 

[rusra02]

Why bother telling such transparent lies? Do you really think that you can just make stuff up and nobody will notice?

No offence, but this is why creationists get such a hard time - you are far too prone to invention.

No, the different genus of fruit flies can not interbreed, there are over a thousand different species from 5 different families.

What has been observed is one group of flies that are cross fertile diverging into sub groups that are no longer cross fertile - exactly what Lonnig is denying.

Can you cite a source that states fruit flies cannot interbreed? Thanks.

 

[rusra02]

Yes there is.
Now the question is when are you going to stop repeating the misinformation?


That is a most excellent idea!

So, when are you going to start?



Trying to support your unsubstantiated claims with flat out lies, more unsubstantiated claims, quote mining, and wishful thinking does not help your original unsubstantiated claims.

Perhaps you should have included the parts of my post you omitted?
"Except that there is mention of Jesus. Roman historian Suetonius (first century); Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (early second century); Josephus and Tacitus of the first century mention Jesus as a historical figure.
There is so much misinformation presented with such assurance. That is why I believe it is important to check the facts for oneself, rather than relying upon unsubstantiated claims made in this forum.(Proverbs 14:15)
Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

Personal attacks do not add anything constructive to RF discussions, IMO.

 

[Bunyip]

Can you cite a source that states fruit flies cannot interbreed? Thanks.

There are thousands of different species of fruit fly that can not interbreed. Look up diptera on wiki, Or get a book on flies.

 

[Ouroboros]

The 10,000 year evolution of modern corn is also interesting, from teosinte to maize. My understanding is that the chromosome number has changed, the genome has increased drastically, but only 5 major genes are responsible for the most important changes, all through natural mutations and human selection. We didn't force the genetic change (except in the GMO in the past 10 years), but still the genetic code has changed drastically.

 

[Simurgh]

Right. The constant refrain from some ToE propagandists. If you cannot attack the message, defame and ridicule the messenger. Lonnig is one of many courageous scientists who refuse to be bullied into toeing the evolution line. Thus, their good names are smeared.(Romans 1:18-20)

Ok, let’s do that one again—and I will be typing really slowly so you understand it. A guy who is a creationist and espouses Intelligent Design is not a scientist but a religious propagandist. There is sufficient and abundant evidence to support evolution. And quite frankly it is tiresome to keep rewriting the same old thing and citing sources for people of your ilk, because you lack the common sense to get off your religious righteousness hobby horse and acknowledging the fact that religion and science are not the same. One is a belief driven system with no proof that any of it is real, while science is based on empirical evidence. So quit throwing out those red herrings and making noises like a wounded rat.

Lonning is not courageous. If he were, he would not be some obscure little squirrel who publishes in even more obscure creationist journals that are almost undetectable since none of his articles are peer reviewed by real scientists. He is more concerned with affirming intelligent design than anything scientific. Yeah, what exactly does it contribute to biology when you insist that parts of plants were designed to be perfect whatevers and proof the existence of god thereby?
Encore une fois: he is not a scientist but a religious propagandist. He was fired from the Max Planck Institute for his shoddy work, his insistence on using non-scientific criteria to arrive at “results” that proved ID instead of doing his actual job. In short, he was canned for his methodology, or rather lack thereof and for besmirching the institute’s good name by his shenanigans. This is not an attack on some so-called authority you cited, that’s the truth of his pseudo-scientific endeavors.

Perhaps you should have included the parts of my post you omitted?
"Except that there is mention of Jesus. Roman historian Suetonius (first century); Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (early second century); Josephus and Tacitus of the first century mention Jesus as a historical figure.
There is so much misinformation presented with such assurance. That is why I believe it is important to check the facts for oneself, rather than relying upon unsubstantiated claims made in this forum.(Proverbs 14:15)
Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

Personal attacks do not add anything constructive to RF discussions, IMO.

And one more time, just because the editor of the EB says that the assumptions of some religious scholars into the historicity of the bible proves the existence of Jesus, doesn’t make it so. There are much more compelling studies out there that state that it cannot be ascertained since all those sources that cite an historical Jesus are copied from each other and cite each other too.

The quote attributed to Jospehus is seen as a later addition to his writings, and I mentioned that before (Testimonium Flavianum). Also there is the Docetism of the early church fathers, i.e. Clement of Alexandria. And the gospels weren’t even written until roughly 70 to 150 years after the so-called Jesus apparently lived.
Now to those so-called sources that prove that Jesus existed. Yeah, right as if they actually did that. It is fairly well established that the TF was a later insertion in Jospehus text, who wrote a very exhaustive history of the time according to what he heard about it and he does not mention Jesus ever.

Except that there is a mention of that Jesus guy inserted in his Testimonium Flavianum. It has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery. The consensus is that it was inserted by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. This debunking is so solid that very few credible scholars cited the passage after the turn of the 19th century.

Now to Pliny the Younger. Again, the consensus of reputable biblical scholars is that Plinys letter, written ca 110CE refers to meetings of the followers of Serapis, who was a Christos in the Graeco-Eqyptian world and whose stories are of the same general theme as those of the Roman christos figure. Early incarnations of Osiris-Serapis are referred to as chrestos—a title not a name. Christos simply means anointed and that can just about be anyone who gets anointed, right?

Then there is the whole thing about “chrestos” another popular designation of the time. It is a word that means “good /helpful. So that also makes it a popular first name.

And Tacitus, yeah he too, seems to have suffered from the unscrupulous machinations of earlier religious fanatics. The passage that speaks of Christ have been deemed forgeries as well. First, because the terminology is wrong for the time and his function as an imperial writer who would simply not have referred to Jesus as Christ, nor would he have made the error of referring to Pilatus as a procurator since he was a prefect. The more charitable scholars are willing to say that he did not write the passage referring to Christians but merely quoted someone else. Let’s also remember that this Tacitus passage isn’t even mentioned until the 15th century, so yeah, forgery.

And in case you also want to quote Suetonius: [FONT=&quot]Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit[/FONT]. He talks about Claudius' expulsion of rabble rousing Chrestos from Rome, how that proves the existence of an historical Jesus is beyond me, since Claudius reigned from 41 to 54 and Jesus died around 30CE.

In short, all the references you trot out speak about followers of a Chrestos, who that was and how many of them there were is not decipherable. The Osiris cult, the followers of Serapis, Mithra, and others all had the same goal, to find a new god that was more in tune with their needs than the old ones. For us to now insist that all those men were one person is absurd. It cannot be proven that Jesus the man as he is portrayed in Christian literature even existed. Obviously, there were plenty of guys willing to forge documents to give him reality. But that does not make him real. It just means that those forgers needed to prove something to themselves and others. That is the fragile state of the religious mind. They need prove of things not provable.

 

[rusra02]

Ok, let’s do that one again—and I will be typing really slowly so you understand it. A guy who is a creationist and espouses Intelligent Design is not a scientist but a religious propagandist. There is sufficient and abundant evidence to support evolution. And quite frankly it is tiresome to keep rewriting the same old thing and citing sources for people of your ilk, because you lack the common sense to get off your religious righteousness hobby horse and acknowledging the fact that religion and science are not the same. One is a belief driven system with no proof that any of it is real, while science is based on empirical evidence. So quit throwing out those red herrings and making noises like a wounded rat.

Lonning is not courageous. If he were, he would not be some obscure little squirrel who publishes in even more obscure creationist journals that are almost undetectable since none of his articles are peer reviewed by real scientists. He is more concerned with affirming intelligent design than anything scientific. Yeah, what exactly does it contribute to biology when you insist that parts of plants were designed to be perfect whatevers and proof the existence of god thereby?
Encore une fois: he is not a scientist but a religious propagandist. He was fired from the Max Planck Institute for his shoddy work, his insistence on using non-scientific criteria to arrive at “results” that proved ID instead of doing his actual job. In short, he was canned for his methodology, or rather lack thereof and for besmirching the institute’s good name by his shenanigans. This is not an attack on some so-called authority you cited, that’s the truth of his pseudo-scientific endeavors.

And one more time, just because the editor of the EB says that the assumptions of some religious scholars into the historicity of the bible proves the existence of Jesus, doesn’t make it so. There are much more compelling studies out there that state that it cannot be ascertained since all those sources that cite an historical Jesus are copied from each other and cite each other too.

The quote attributed to Jospehus is seen as a later addition to his writings, and I mentioned that before (Testimonium Flavianum). Also there is the Docetism of the early church fathers, i.e. Clement of Alexandria. And the gospels weren’t even written until roughly 70 to 150 years after the so-called Jesus apparently lived.
Now to those so-called sources that prove that Jesus existed. Yeah, right as if they actually did that. It is fairly well established that the TF was a later insertion in Jospehus text, who wrote a very exhaustive history of the time according to what he heard about it and he does not mention Jesus ever.

Except that there is a mention of that Jesus guy inserted in his Testimonium Flavianum. It has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery. The consensus is that it was inserted by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. This debunking is so solid that very few credible scholars cited the passage after the turn of the 19th century.

Now to Pliny the Younger. Again, the consensus of reputable biblical scholars is that Plinys letter, written ca 110CE refers to meetings of the followers of Serapis, who was a Christos in the Graeco-Eqyptian world and whose stories are of the same general theme as those of the Roman christos figure. Early incarnations of Osiris-Serapis are referred to as chrestos—a title not a name. Christos simply means anointed and that can just about be anyone who gets anointed, right?

Then there is the whole thing about “chrestos” another popular designation of the time. It is a word that means “good /helpful. So that also makes it a popular first name.

And Tacitus, yeah he too, seems to have suffered from the unscrupulous machinations of earlier religious fanatics. The passage that speaks of Christ have been deemed forgeries as well. First, because the terminology is wrong for the time and his function as an imperial writer who would simply not have referred to Jesus as Christ, nor would he have made the error of referring to Pilatus as a procurator since he was a prefect. The more charitable scholars are willing to say that he did not write the passage referring to Christians but merely quoted someone else. Let’s also remember that this Tacitus passage isn’t even mentioned until the 15th century, so yeah, forgery.

And in case you also want to quote Suetonius: [FONT=&quot]Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit[/FONT]. He talks about Claudius' expulsion of rabble rousing Chrestos from Rome, how that proves the existence of an historical Jesus is beyond me, since Claudius reigned from 41 to 54 and Jesus died around 30CE.

In short, all the references you trot out speak about followers of a Chrestos, who that was and how many of them there were is not decipherable. The Osiris cult, the followers of Serapis, Mithra, and others all had the same goal, to find a new god that was more in tune with their needs than the old ones. For us to now insist that all those men were one person is absurd. It cannot be proven that Jesus the man as he is portrayed in Christian literature even existed. Obviously, there were plenty of guys willing to forge documents to give him reality. But that does not make him real. It just means that those forgers needed to prove something to themselves and others. That is the fragile state of the religious mind. They need prove of things not provable.

Choose to believe or not believe what you will. I think the historical record speaks for itself. And for someone you claim never existed, Jesus Christ certainly has had a profound effect on the world, even down until our day. Tacitus wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
Since you seem good at rewriting history, can you prove your assertion Lonnig was fired from the Max Planck institute? Everything I have read is that he retired. for example, "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany. He spent most of his career as a plant geneticist at the prestigious Max Planck Institute. Although he retired in 2008 (in Germany you have to retire at the age of 65), he has continued his research since then."

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

for someone you claim never existed, Jesus Christ certainly has had a profound effect on the world, even down until our day.

As did the Greek pantheon of gods did in their day.

 

[Ouroboros]

As did the Greek pantheon of gods did in their day.

And the theory of Evolution today. It has more influence on medicine, agriculture, and more today than religion. And medicine has healed more people than religion in the last 100 years.

 

[Simurgh]

Choose to believe or not believe what you will. I think the historical record speaks for itself. And for someone you claim never existed, Jesus Christ certainly has had a profound effect on the world, even down until our day. Tacitus wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
Since you seem good at rewriting history, can you prove your assertion Lonnig was fired from the Max Planck institute? Everything I have read is that he retired. for example, "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany. He spent most of his career as a plant geneticist at the prestigious Max Planck Institute. Although he retired in 2008 (in Germany you have to retire at the age of 65), he has continued his research since then."

Whatever influence a fictional character may have on whatever, still does not mean that he was also a real person. So your thing about his influence is a meaningless non sequitur. But that is just par for the course with you bible bangers, so let’s put that thing to sleep.
on that Christians are so named because of Christ thing, let me say that again too. Christos and Chrestos--two different things--are titles. one means anointed the other means good /helpful. Those are not personal names but TITLES!!! so start actually reading some of the scholarship surrounding all that stuff before you quote sources that are proven to be tainted and look at the context in which it is written.

Now Lonning’s so called retirement. Yeah, sure. Here is the most succinct article about how the guy embarrassed the institute and that after a three hour crisis meeting, they closed down all his web pages within the institutes purvey schöpfung: Entwürfe in Gottes Namen | ZEIT ONLINE . It also led to new regulations concerning all publications on the institute’s website to avoid further embarrassment to MPI. His methodology was shown to be unscientific and flawed and so on and so forth. Yes he “retired” and that is a matter mostly of law and tenure system, but he had been sidelined and been basically silenced in the actual scientific community since 2003 if not earlier. The damage his idiocy did the institute’s reputation is another factor in the disposition of his case, ranking members thought it wiser to simply shut him down and hope that his writings go away and no-one would associate him with MPI rather than drag him through proceedings that would call more attention to his crap. And it worked. The only people who actually know the dude exists are fellow ID proponents. Yeah, he retired alright, since that is what you do when you hit 65 and they do not have to keep you around any longer. So I consider being shut down 5 years before that happens being fired. Mea culpa.
The reality though is, that if you look him up on the web, the only places you can find his crap is on ID sites and that really is no recommendation for any real scientist.

 

[McBell]

Personal attacks do not add anything constructive to RF discussions, IMO.

Claiming that stating raw facts is a personal attack does nothing to further your credibility.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right. The constant refrain from some ToE propagandists. If you cannot attack the message, defame and ridicule the messenger. Lonnig is one of many courageous scientists who refuse to be bullied into toeing the evolution line. Thus, their good names are smeared.(Romans 1:18-20)

Oh okay. So I guess when you need medical advice you call a botanist? Since you seem to think that field of study matters not in science.

If Lonnig's work doesn't stand up to criticism and peer review, then it doesn't matter how great you think he is. Sorry.

 

[rusra02]

There are thousands of different species of fruit fly that can not interbreed. Look up diptera on wiki, Or get a book on flies.

Can you cite a source that states fruit flies cannot interbreed? Thanks.

 

[rusra02]

And the theory of Evolution today. It has more influence on medicine, agriculture, and more today than religion. And medicine has healed more people than religion in the last 100 years.

Drugs and smoking have had a profound influence on medicine also, but any good accomplished pales against the harm caused. Same with the ToE, IMO.