Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Id's "wedge"...was: higher criticism/humanism

Expand Messages
  • Gabriel
    Hello all! I was perousing a little before making my presence known, and thought I d pop in and say hi. I am as some here know, agnostic. Some may claim that
    Message 1 of 179 , Aug 30, 2006
      Hello all! I was perousing a little before making my presence known,
      and thought I'd pop in and say hi.

      I am as some here know, agnostic. Some may claim that is cowardly...
      but I say no it's not. I just have doubts right now. No "Pascal's
      Wager" on my part. My comments below are based on 30 years of
      study... just in case any wonder if I am just another fundie or not.
      I am *not*, again as some here know. I know the universe and earth
      are billions of years old. I know the cosmos evolved. I am not quite
      as sure about biological evolution. My opinion on that, for the
      record, is that the term "evolution" is being used to explain
      *everything* biological, even if it seems not to be quite correct. I
      will expound on that as we go along. But not yet.

      I have *scientific* (believe it or not) evidence that convinces me of
      the possibility of a higher order intelligence that may or may not
      have started it all.

      Anyway, I begin here, because I saw the below comments and just could
      not help but throw in a few of my own:

      --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Raymond"
      <randytoad@...> wrote:
      > > Hopefully it's reasonable in your sight that one covenant
      > > (agreement) can replace another. This is substantiated many
      > > in the New Testament, and it is the NT by which Christians are to
      > > live. The NT is the covenant by which *I* live.
      > ********************************************************************
      > Randy:
      > Then all the Mosaic commandments are null and void?
      > And what about: Matthew 5: (I believe it's in Mark and Luke too)
      > 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
      Prophets; I
      > have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
      > 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
      > smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
      > disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

      Note: accomplished... or completed, or finished. Fulfilled. IOW the
      law was going to see an end... supposedly in Jesus.

      > 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and
      > others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,
      > but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called
      > in the kingdom of heaven.

      Which comandments? Jesus' commandments, of course! Love one another
      as he loved them. The "beattitudes", the "golden rule" and the like.

      > 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of
      > Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter
      > the kingdom of heaven."

      The Pharisees and Saducees were being condemned as being ovebearing,
      self-righteous hypocrites... remember? His disciples had *better* be
      more righteous, coupled with humility, compassion, love and tolerance.

      Matthew 22:36-40:

      "Which are the greatest of the law?

      "You must *love* the lord with all your heart, soul, mind and
      strength, and you must *love* your neighbor as yourself.

      "On these the *whole* law hang."

      "Love is the law's fulfillment."

      > > Luke 12:33
      > > Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for
      > > yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will
      > > not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
      > > -- Jesus
      > ********************************************************************
      > Randy:
      > And do you follow this particular commandment? Have you sold your
      > possessions to give to the poor? If not, why not? It is part of
      > new covenant is it not? I see! It means something other than it
      > appears to mean.

      Jesus also said "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
      throw it away from you" and the same with the right eye. Do we
      literally do this? Or do we see it as metaphor?

      Heck, if by Jesus' definition of sin I myself were to cut off my hand
      or poke out my eye, I would be deaf, dumb, blind, and limbless!

      Do you think that those things were to be taken to those kinds of
      extremes, especially since later on Paul says that all things should
      be done in *moderation*?

      Remember, Jesus condemned the religious leaders of "straining out the
      gnat", meaning they were extremists with traditions on top of the
      law, enforcing such when the smallest tradition was broken, while
      ignoring more important things.

      "I desire *mercy*, not sacrifice." Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13, Matthew

      > ********************************************************************
      > >
      > > Here Jesus is emphasizing the temporary nature of material
      > > the need for trust in God and an eternal perspective; the purses
      > > treasure to be received are not material, but spiritual:
      > >
      > >
      > > Perhaps. But it's still better than doing nothing, and God knows
      > > the heart. He will deal with it.
      > Randy:
      > You are of course, correct, and I do not completely agree with this
      > point of view. I was just giving a common argument that some
      > secularists (and many Christians for that matter) subscribe to.

      As for the behavior of many:

      Titus 1:16

      "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are
      detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good."

    • Randy Raymond
      ... ******************************************************************** Arrrgh. I messed that one up. 3-methyl indole is not called sapromyophily, being
      Message 179 of 179 , Oct 3, 2006
        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Raymond"
        <randytoad@...> wrote:
        > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <NewSipapu@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Gabe:
        > > > Aaaargh!!!! I think I am running around in circles here. What
        > > mutated
        > > > the gene? Sorry if this sounds a certain way... if it has any
        > > > impression of anything negative.
        > > >
        > > > Please assume I already know the above answer (that you gave),
        > > since
        > > > I have heard it a thousand times before.
        > > >
        > > > I am curious about what exactly happened to cause a vegetation
        > > cell,
        > > > with biochemistry different from animal life, to produce the exact
        > > > same chemicals that a bacteria feeding off meat produces, with
        > > > enirely different biochemical structures.
        > > >
        > > > And I grant that both plants and animals have a common ancient...
        > > > extremely ancient... ancestor.
        > > >
        > > > I am curious about the mechanism details (and if you say evolution
        > > I
        > > > will SCREAM!!!) ;-).
        > > >
        > > > Like I could ask, "How is a car made" you can say "In a factory"
        > > but
        > > > thaty won't answer my question. "On an assembly line" won't do it
        > > > either. "It is bolted and welded together" might be closer, but not
        > > > quite, and is obvious.
        > > >
        > >
        > > Hi Gabe,
        > >
        > > Here are a few thoughts concerning this Rafflesia plant and your
        > > latest post.
        > >
        > > 1.) Mutations happen all the time, for no apparent reason. Nothing
        > > needs to 'cause' them. Most are in fact repaired by the DNA proof-
        > > reading and repair machinery, but a small percentage are simply
        > > missed for one reason or another. PLants, particularly, have
        > > quite 'flexible' genetics, which is why plant hybrids and cross-
        > > pollination are more common in plants than in, say, animals which
        > > have more sophisticated DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms. So
        > > the more rational question is NOT "what caused this mutation?"
        > > but "why don't we see more mutations like this?"
        > >
        > > 2.) Many plants produce small amounts of chemicals like cadaverine
        > > and putrescine, the stinky compounds in rotting meat, particularly
        > > when the plant is bruised or damaged in some way. You see, these are
        > > quite small, simple organic compounds- cadaverine is just 1,5-
        > > diaminopentane ( C5H14N2 ) and putrescine is 1,4-diaminobutane (
        > > C4H12N2 ). They tend to be generated as breakdown products by larger
        > > organics.
        > >
        > > So one can easily envision a situation where a parasitic plant,
        > > sucking its sustenence from its host, yet depending on its host's
        > > good health for its survival, might not have the chemical resources
        > > to crank out lots of the high-energy, sugary nectar and flowery scent
        > > molecules that other flowers do in order to attract bees and
        > > butterflies and such- which then just steal the nectar, necessitating
        > > the production of more... Yet, the Rafflesia flower, particularly in
        > > times of stress, might inadvertantly release a little cadaverine or
        > > putrescine. And since the odor is not masked by the usual sweet
        > > smells of a flower the bad smell is more easily detected- by flies
        > > and such.
        > >
        > > OK, so a few flies stop in now and then and spread the Rafflesia
        > > pollen. At least Rafflesia doesn't have to compete with the other
        > > sweet-smelling flowers for the attention of the bees. It just has to
        > > produce a little bit of these stinky chemicals. The ones which
        > > produce a little more of it tend to get more of their pollen spread
        > > around, fertilizing the female flowers. Now a natural selection
        > > positive feedback loop for this odoriferous trait is set in motion.
        > > So, perhaps there is some sort of limit to how much of these
        > > chemicals the tissues of the flower can crank out. How then to make
        > > the smell stronger and waft a big plume of the stink into the jungle
        > > to attract flies from afar? Well, one way is to increase the size of
        > > the flower and so increase the volume of the tissue which generates
        > > it.
        > >
        > > Now, of course, this is one of those "just so" stories Gould warned
        > > about, but the point is that I think it's perfectly plausible given
        > > what we know of these chemicals and these plants and these flies,
        > > etc. There may be no way at this time to actually determine exactly
        > > what *did* happen in the evolution of Rafflesia and why. But the
        > > flower poses no problem for evolution that I'm aware of.
        > >
        > > OK, gotta go,
        > >
        > > Take care,
        > >
        > > Eric
        > >
        > ********************************************************************
        > Randy:
        > Also it should be pointed out that using rotten smells to attract fly
        > or beetle pollinators is not unique to rafflesia. It even has a
        > botanical name "sapromyophily". It is used by many species of
        > flowering plant. There are also plants that smell like shit for the
        > same reason. Fecal smells also come from relatively simple organic
        > compounds. I believe one of them is called skatole 3-methylindole.
        > It even has a botanical name "sapromyophily".


        Arrrgh. I messed that one up. 3-methyl indole is not called
        sapromyophily, being pollinated by dung or carrion insects is called
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.