Search This Blog

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Evolution versus Creation. Examining Hyper-Calvinism from a commenter's post. Conceptualizing the differences. Chaos Engineer Edition.

Unlike the majority of commenters, Chaos has posted a GREAT comment worthy of an entire blogpost to consider. His comments in black.  We will address his points and then take a thought journey together.  I will use my normal font to interject and add to the discussion:

Chaos-Engineer has left a new comment on your post "ANTI-SCIENCE DARWINISTS CANNOT EVEN GIVE A REASON ...":

"Free Will vs. Determinism is a pretty tricky philosophical problem. Christianity gets stuck on it too.

The problem there is that God is omniscient, and therefore knows exactly what's going to happen in the future. But if my future acts have been predetermined since the beginning of time, how can I be held responsible for them?"


Hyper-Calvinism, in other words.  Allow me to insert an excerpt from the link.  This is not a normative Christian worldview:


"The term Hyper-Calvinism refers primarily to a theological position that historically arose from within the Calvinist tradition among the early English Particular Baptists in the mid 1700's. It can be seen in the teachings of men like Joseph Hussey (d. 1726), Lewis Wayman (d. 1764), John Brine (d. 1765), and to some extent in John Gill (d. 1771).
It is called Hyper-Calvinism by its critics, who maintain that it deviates from the biblical gospel by (1) denying that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) denying that the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation.
This theological position was labeled Hyper-Calvinism in the mid 1700’s as the issue was argued and debated among English Baptists and others. It should be noted that, although Hyper-Calvinism became fairly widespread among the English Particular Baptists of that day, not all Particular Baptists agreed with the extremes of Wayman and Brine.
While this doctrine has always been a minority view, it has not been relegated to the past and may still be found in some small denominations and church communities today."

"This gets even trickier because God is also omnipotent, and therefore has the ability to create people who have free will but who never choose to sin. So God could have created "that version of me", but he chose to create this version instead, and therefore God bears the ultimate moral responsibility for all the consequences of that choice."

Not so, my friend!   God made you with free will.  If you cannot choose whether or not to sin, you are a robot not a man! We will address this further down the line.  But thank you for making a reasoned argument!  I grow weary of the typical Darwinist commenter who does not bring an argument along for the ride.  Props to you!!!

"Exodus 9:12 is a good encapsulation of the paradox."


Let's look at that verse in ESV:

"But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses."

We cannot simply take scripture out of context and understand it.   The matter of Pharaoh and Moses was not a one verse song.   Let me give you the shortened version.   Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, performed miracles by the direction of God to make sure Pharaoh knew that the God of Israel was real and then the two demanded that His enslaved people, the Children of Israel,  be let go.  Joseph was the son of Israel who saved Egypt and made it a mighty power by revelation from God that seven good years of crops and weather would be followed by seven years of famine.  By storing up grain in warehouses, Pharaoh's second-in-command, the former slave and imprisoned Joseph, allowed Egypt to feed the starving in exchange for riches and lands.

But eventually a Pharaoh came into power who did not remember Joseph and what he had done to make Egypt great.  He was afraid of the large number of Jews living in his lands and cruelly enslaved them.   Moses was a baby born to be (by edict) murdered at birth, but his mother and sister put him in a basket which the infertile daughter of Pharaoh found floating in the Nile and claimed him as her own child, unwittingly recruiting Mose's own mother to be his nursemaid.  Moses was therefore a son of royalty and could have become Pharaoh or at least the powerful brother of the Pharaoh.  But Moses' heart turned towards his suffering people and he murdered a cruel Egyptian taskmaster, and then ran to the wilderness to escape punishment, becoming a tender of flocks, married to the daughter of the Priest of Midian and with no plans to return to Egypt again.

Moses, shepherding flocks in the wilderness, noticed a bush burning without burning up and was drawn to this strange sight.  God spoke to Moses and identified Himself as I AM THAT I AM,  the self-existent God.  Moses and his brother Aaron would then become the representatives of God to Pharaoh to tell him to let God's people go free and back to their promised lands.   You have to read from at least Genesis 30 to Exodus 15 to get the entire story.

But the truth is that Pharaoh was given the chance to decide to free the Jews.  God did not force him to have a hardened heart.  But once Pharaoh deliberately hardened his heart after already experiencing five plagues on his people (and not on the Jews), God then more or less made the condition permanent after the sixth plague so that His power could be demonstrated to Egypt and all peoples for all time.   Here is a verse that explains this process, one that can happen to anyone:

King James Version of Proverbs 29:1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.

I believe that God will harden the heart of those who deliberately harden their hearts themselves.   The verse Chaos uses reveals the state of Pharaoh's heart after several plagues had already hit the Egyptians.  Pharaoh should have known that God was God.  He ignored all the proofs and evidence.  He would say that the people could go and then go back on his words.  So God decided to make an example of him (and his charioteers).   God took Pharaoh's hardened heart and froze it in that state, but Pharaoh was the one who decided to harden his heart in the first place and it was Pharaoh who did not keep his word.  God always keeps His Word!!!

"The only way to get around this is to adopt the Calvinist belief that God deliberately creates Evil in order to demonstrate the virtue of Justice by punishing it. That seems evil and unjust by human moral standards, but the way around that argument is to just say that anything God does is by definition "Good", no matter how hateful and destructive it might appear. Fred Phelps has a lot to say on the subject. "

Fred Phelps and his disgusting cult is not in any way a Christian organization.  You want to use Phelps as an example of Christianity, then let me use John Wayne Gacy as a typical Darwinist.  No?  Then keep the lunatics of the Westboro idiots out of an otherwise intelligent discussion.


I hope people understand that your use of "Calvinist" is actually "Hyper-Calvinist" so we can discuss that.  That God creates each of us before we are born in the womb and knows all of our deeds and thoughts is apparent from scripture, so we each have a unique life created by God and given to the world.  By heritage we get the genetic codes from our parents that build our bodies and the soul passed down through the blood.  But man also has an eternal spirit given to us at the creation of mankind.  We are made in God's image, three part beings (body, soul and spirit) just as God is Father, Son and Spirit.  We see in Genesis one and two the creation account, first a day-by-day account and then a narrative that focuses on the creation of man.  The Son of God breathed life into Adam, making him unique among creatures, an eternal person with a supernatural spirit in a natural world, meant to rule over creation with his wife, Eve and their descendants...if only they would obey the one commandment that was given to them.   Of course they disobeyed and sinned and brought death and woes inumerable upon mankind and all of creation.

Free will, then, was intrinsic to mankind from the beginning.  Since God is Omnipresent, He knows everything we will do but that doesn't mean He makes us do it, quite the opposite!  He deliberately made man to be creative, thoughtful, inventive and intuitive and able to have relationship with God Himself.  He also gave mankind a free will.  It is not the normal Christian who denies free will.

I would argue that just because God is not limited by time and has seen every life event of every person and in fact everything for all time does not make him a puppet-master.  God is a gentleman who does not force you to worship Him.  He gives you and everyone else a choice.  Every second of every day that you live you keep having that choice presented to you.  Will you accept the Blood Sacrifice of Christ for your sins and make Him your Lord and Savior?  Or will you deny Him?


"Anyway, the Humanist explanation for Free Will is a philosophy called Compatibilism. The link has a long discussion of the history, but basically Compatibilists believe that Free Will and Mortal Responsibility can exist as valid concepts, even if the underlying behavior is predetermined." 


Who says the behavior is predetermined?  Darwinists do, if they are pure Darwinists, but they also deny any absolute morality and also deny the existence of a Creator Who gave us the morality and will preside as Judge at the end of time.  All considerations of responsibility are moot if there is no moral standard by which actions may be judged.  Will you steal the morality of Christians while denying God?  Does that really make sense?

The story of mankind from the Biblical perspective has always been a case of man, given choices and moral direction from God being the one who decides whether to obey or rebel.  Darwinism is an organized rebellion against God and Godly morality.  We see that our society becomes more depraved the farther we wander from the belief that God is Lord of all and Judge as well.  

We Christians believe in the "conservation of the miraculous" in that God does not directly intervene in the affairs of men without good reason.   While God has given us salvation and direct relationship with Him, we Christians who are classic believers will pray and ask God to intervene on behalf of us, our family, our friends, people in need, our nation, our troops and all those who stand between the community and evil and for the people of the world.  We pray because He encourages us to pray.   We do not know how often He directly steps into the material world to guide events but we know that His Will for mankind is far more important than our own desires and so-called needs.  

God ended direct communication with mankind in general with the completion of the scriptures with the Book of Revelation, probably written before AD 65 by consideration of the events of the times and many other proofs.   That Jesus made predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in his prophecies is supported by Josephus and the early church fathers.  (Great link, I  hope you check it out)!  

Dispensationalism is a late attendee to the Christian faith and the spread of the idea that John's prophetic language in Revelation was meant to be read literally AND that Jesus's use of the phrase "this generation" should be stretched out for thousands of years is just bad use of Biblical hermaneutics and exegesis.  Sorry, Hawkeye, the subject came up here and I will believe what I see as truth.   I know you do not take money from folks.  Dispensationalism is not the historic position of the church and is based on one rather garbled quote from Iraneus and little else.  All the early church fathers almost without exception taught this and certainly the apostles were looking forward to the destruction of the Temple as the judgment of God against those who rejected His Son and as the end of true Judaism.  Rabbinical Judaism has taken the place of the Judaism of the time of Christ, for Christ was the Messiah and Christianity is the continuation of the true faith of Adam and Noah and Abraham and Israel and Joshua and Daniel and Jesus Christ and Peter and Paul.

Remember, when Jesus was crucified the Temple Veil was torn in two from the top down and the Glory of the Lord left the Holy of Holies forever.  Jesus predicted correctly that the Temple would be torn down stone by stone within the time of "this generation" to whom He was speaking.

I see that unscrupulous teachers convince their followers that God is a waiter ready to obey their prayers if they have enough faith...and usually one of the proofs of faith is giving money to the teacher!!!   There will be no great tribulation, no seven years of hell on Earth, no weird creatures tormenting people, no Anti-Christ and no new temple built in Jerusalem.   No, rather God will destroy this world and make a New Heavens and a New Earth just as He promised.  David Green has compiled 101 statements in the New Testament that support a fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse within the lifetime of the hearers.

Adam Maarschalk has authored an essay that reveals that Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy of Leviticus that demanded that the Temple be torn down.  


Leviticus Required the Temple in Jerusalem to be Torn Down


Excerpt, recommended for Dispensationalists:  "Today I learned something very interesting from a portion of Gary DeMar’s book, “Last Days Madness.” Gary demonstrates from the book of Leviticus why Jesus, as our great High Priest, was qualified to pronounce the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. This is a fascinating connection, and brings added covenantal meaning to the words Jesus used in Matthew 23 and 24:
The Jews of Jesus’ day had turned the temple into a “house of merchandise” (John 2:16) and a “robbers’ den” (Matt. 21:13). When a priest inspected a house and found it leprous, the house was to be torn down (Lev. 14:33–47). Jesus, as the High Priest, after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6), inspected the temple twice, found it leprous, and issued His priestly evaluation: “And Jesus came out from the temple” (Matt. 24:1), as the priest “shall come out from the house” (Lev. 14:38), and declared it “desolate” (Matt. 23:38), as the priest declared a leprous house to be “unclean” (Lev. 14:44).
A leprous house could be cleansed in only one way: “He shall therefore tear down the house, its stones, and its timbers, and all the plaster of the house, and he shall take them outside the city to an unclean place” (Lev. 14:45). When Jesus’ disciples pointed to the temple buildings after hearing of its desolation, Jesus answered: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt. 24:2).
-Gary Demar, Last Days Madness, 1999, page 108"


This means no more new revelations for mankind from any modern so-called prophets.  This means that we do not give to God as if He was a kind of investment portfolio with a guaranteed return on investment.   Nor do we order Him about.  God has a plan for His world and we are certainly important to Him, each of us, but His will for the world trumps my particular wants and needs.

LET'S TAKE A CONCEPTUAL THOUGHT JOURNEY!

Is there some mystery here?  Sure!  Let me repeat some assertions and then take a thought journey to consider them...from my last post:

"Darwinism believes a singularity magically appeared from nowhere.
Darwinism believes it exploded by unknown forces.

Both of those beliefs defy the Laws of Thermodynamics.   In fact the Big Bang is mostly miracles and fairy tales and an equation with 96% missing energy and matter. THEREFORE SCIENCE HAD NO EVIDENCE-BASED REASON TO ABANDON CREATION BY GOD! 

Darwinists believe life formed itself from non-life.
This violates the Law of Biogenesis.
THEREFORE SCIENCE HAD NO EVIDENCE-BASED REASON TO ABANDON CREATION BY GOD!

Darwinists believe "favorable mutations" (probably about as common as werewolves or zombies) collect and eventually form more advanced forms of life.
This belief violates the Laws of Statistics and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
THEREFORE SCIENCE HAD NO EVIDENCE-BASED REASON TO ABANDON CREATION BY GOD!

Darwinists believe information contained in DNA and the cell is simply random happy accidents.
This belief violates the Laws of Statistics and the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Laws of Information.
 THEREFORE SCIENCE HAD NO EVIDENCE-BASED REASON TO ABANDON CREATION BY GOD!"


Leaving the statistical portion of this to another time and many previous posts, let us consider three laws Darwinists ignore and let me tell you why they do it.   Use your imagination...Naturalists, think about the concept of not being bound by the four dimensions but actually having created those dimensions as God did.  To help you become unbound by materialism allow me to recommend reading Adventures in Flatland?



"Classic of science (and mathematical) fiction — charmingly illustrated by author — describes the journeys of A. Square and his adventures in Spaceland (three dimensions), Lineland (one dimension) and Pointland (no dimensions). A. Square also entertains thoughts of visiting a land of four dimensions — a revolutionary idea for which he is banished from Spaceland."

I could say the book is about a two-dimensional being discovering the amazing concept of a three-dimensional worlds and other dimensions as well and that would be so little to say about the book.   It is a must-read for those who want to consider philosophical thoughts seriously in my opinion.  It is a book about realizing both your limitations and how to see beyond them.   Now I hope I can help you see beyond the three-dimensional world bound by the fourth dimension in which you live and imagine more...God and His Limitless Magnificence!

THREE ASSERTIONS

The Law of Biogenesis makes life an miraculous occurrence.  Not natural.

The Laws of Thermodynamics make existence a miraculous occurrence. Not natural.

The Laws of Information make information and consciousness a miraculous occurrence.  Not Natural.

Therefore the Universe is itself a miracle upheld by God Himself.


Hebrews 1:1-4

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Supremacy of God's Son

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,  but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.  He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,  having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.


So if we could look at the entire Universe and say, let's only see the miraculous parts lit up, it would continue to shine in every place.  God made self-replicating organic machines and every star and planet and in fact all forces, laws, powers, time, every particle and subatomic particle and whatever the fabric of space might be, He wove it.  So we will dispense with imagining the miraculous wonder of His creation and focus on what is supernatural in fact within the Universe.

Information.  Since information does not come from material sources, see my link here, The Ultimate Information Post, for multiple proofs and arguments.  So if we were to only allow the information to shine out, we would still face many blinding lights.   We need to tone it down.

Life of man.  We were created with an eternal soul.  Only man among all living creatures has this gift that is also a responsibility.   We can know God...or we can reject Him.   Suppose we only lit up the eternal souls of people?  

The Universe would go dark but for one little blue planet which would shine like the Sun in a vast expanse of darkness.  Like lighting a campfire in the deep wilderness, the light of the lives of people would shine with eternal light as we go about our days in a world otherwise consisting of material and temporal materials destined to devolve and eventually be destroyed by the same Voice that called it into existence.  Those who have passed away from the temporal existence of life on Earth will be eternallly shining lights with God in communion with Him or will go dark, separated from God in isolation and torment, awaiting final judgment to come.  


Daniel 12:3

King James Version (KJV)
And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.


Think about this...the only beings made to be eternal in all of the history of existence are people like you and me.  You are meant to be a forever person.  This was God's intention from the beginning and He has made it possible to continue.  In fact, it will continue.  

Substitutionary Atonement.  Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and died a cursed death unjustly hung on a cross and died the death I deserved.  He became sin to pay for sin.  He paid the blood sacrifice required for sins while fulfilling the law on Earth.  He endured separation from the Godhead so you and I could be in relationship with God forever:

Matthew 25:31-46 ESV

The Final Judgment


“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.  Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.  Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,  I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’  

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?  And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?  And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’  And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[f] you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,  I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’  Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’  Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’  And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(f)Matthew 25:40 Or brothers and sisters

Take a journey beyond the humdrum of daily life.  Consider the possibility of the Supernatural being superior to the Natural and God being the Creator of all that is natural.  It is a life of frustration to try to explain the origin of the natural WITH the natural.   Paintings do not paint themselves.  Machines do not construct themselves.  The Universe did not make itself.  Be reasonable and thoughtful and see the TRUTH in the Supernatural God!!!

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Fred Phelps and his disgusting cult is not in any way a Christian organization."

Except of course that they are, quite clearly, a Christian organization, albeit a disgustingly extreme one.

"You want to use Phelps as an example of Christianity, then let me use John Wayne Gacy as a typical Darwinist."

On what basis?

"Then keep the lunatics of the Westboro idiots out of an otherwise intelligent discussion."

This from the guy who pretends the Nazis were an atheist group, which they were not, of course...

At least Fred Phelps's organization, a Baptist church, falls under the mantle of Christianity, so there is some truth to Chaos Engineer's observation.

"The Law of Biogenesis makes life an miraculous occurrence. Not natural."

As long as the LOB hasn't been tested on abiogenesis at the molecular level (which of course it never has been), the distinction holds that the LOB is in relation to relatively complex life. Even what you have called the "simplest possible life" is already quite complex, and the LOB is not subject to controversy among mainstream scientists.

"The Laws of Thermodynamics make existence a miraculous occurrence. Not natural."

No, it simply makes it clear that at some point in the distant past, something occurred that we cannot understand from our present perspective. We as humans can't really claim that we understand all of nature just yet, so we may call this "supernatural" for now but, like so many other things, it may well be understood better in future.

"The Laws of Information make information and consciousness a miraculous occurrence. Not Natural."

First of all, there are no scientifically tested "Laws of Information" in the same sense as, say, the Laws of Motion or of Thermodynamics. Werner Gitt made up a bunch of self-serving "laws", but contrary to actual natural laws, they have not been tested and found to consistently hold true.

Second, Gitt's Laws of Information as stated would actually not even apply to the information contained in DNA. This has been pointed out to you more than once.

Cowboy Bob said...

I stopped reading Nonny's nonsense after he clearly disunderstood the concept of double standards that he is approving.

radar said...

Anonymous said...
"Fred Phelps and his disgusting cult is not in any way a Christian organization."

Except of course that they are, quite clearly, a Christian organization, albeit a disgustingly extreme one.


Ignorant comment. Clearly the Phelps family cult is a non-Christian propagandized self-centered bunch of near sociopathic idiots who have nothing to do with Christianity. Your comment diminshes your credibility.

"You want to use Phelps as an example of Christianity, then let me use John Wayne Gacy as a typical Darwinist."

On what basis?


Because Phelps is no more a normal Christian than Gacy was a normal person.

"Then keep the lunatics of the Westboro idiots out of an otherwise intelligent discussion."

This from the guy who pretends the Nazis were an atheist group, which they were not, of course...


There goes the rest of your credibility. Of course the NAZI party was Socialist, anti-Christian and pro-evolution. The speeches and writings of Hitler confirm it. Children were taken from parents on Sundays and sent to Hitler youth groups to keep them from attending church. Your ignorance is revealed.

At least Fred Phelps's organization, a Baptist church, falls under the mantle of Christianity, so there is some truth to Chaos Engineer's observation.

No, Phelps group is not part of a Baptist organization. They use the word but they are rejected by all of Christianity.

"The Law of Biogenesis makes life an miraculous occurrence. Not natural."

As long as the LOB hasn't been tested on abiogenesis at the molecular level (which of course it never has been), the distinction holds that the LOB is in relation to relatively complex life. Even what you have called the "simplest possible life" is already quite complex, and the LOB is not subject to controversy among mainstream scientists.


This BS has been addressed thoroughly. Biochemists and Molecular Biologists know that the building blocks of life cannot form naturally. Ignorant comment.

"The Laws of Thermodynamics make existence a miraculous occurrence. Not natural."

No, it simply makes it clear that at some point in the distant past, something occurred that we cannot understand from our present perspective. We as humans can't really claim that we understand all of nature just yet, so we may call this "supernatural" for now but, like so many other things, it may well be understood better in future.


As I said, a true scientist does not abandon one hypothesis until a better one comes along. The Big Bang is a complete claptrap.

"The Laws of Information make information and consciousness a miraculous occurrence. Not Natural."

First of all, there are no scientifically tested "Laws of Information" in the same sense as, say, the Laws of Motion or of Thermodynamics. Werner Gitt made up a bunch of self-serving "laws", but contrary to actual natural laws, they have not been tested and found to consistently hold true.

Second, Gitt's Laws of Information as stated would actually not even apply to the information contained in DNA. This has been pointed out to you more than once.


Now you are setting records for inanity. The information in the cell is vast and remarkably well coded, much more sophisticated than anything mankind has developed. Again, real science does not abandon a position without evidence to overturn it. Darwinism has thumbed its nose at established laws and made up ridicuous fairy tales to take their place. Did you know that we still cannot code in DNA, we only use two of the potential four characters because we cannot do it properly? Ugh. You are the anti-Chaos. His comments were interesting and worth consideration. Yours are uninformed propaganda.

Anonymous said...

"Ignorant comment. Clearly the Phelps family cult is a non-Christian propagandized self-centered bunch of near sociopathic idiots who have nothing to do with Christianity. Your comment diminshes your credibility."

They profess to have an interpretation of Christianity that differs from yours. They are sociopathic idiots etc., but that doesn't mean they're not a bizarre version of Christian. You don't agree with Mormoms either, but they're also Christian, whether you like it or not.

"Because Phelps is no more a normal Christian than Gacy was a normal person."

What does that have to do with "typical Darwinist"?

"There goes the rest of your credibility. Of course the NAZI party was Socialist, anti-Christian and pro-evolution. The speeches and writings of Hitler confirm it. Children were taken from parents on Sundays and sent to Hitler youth groups to keep them from attending church. Your ignorance is revealed."

Anti-Christian is not synonymous with atheist, and nationalism and/or socialism are irrelevant to the issue. Hitler deeply objected to the Jewish aspects of Christianity, for obvious reasons, but you'd be engaging in a false dichotomy if you assumed that anti-Christianity = atheism. As for pro-evolution, that is easily disproven by the fact that Nazis included Darwin etc. in their list of banned books - along with a number of anti-Christian texts.

Besides, Hitler and his ilk agreeing that the Aryan superman and the monkey in the zoo shared a common ancestor? Yeah, right.

"No, Phelps group is not part of a Baptist organization. They use the word but they are rejected by all of Christianity."

Most of the different flavors of Christianity reject each other to some degree. That doesn't make them all non-Christian. Your logic is lacking here.

Anonymous said...

"This BS has been addressed thoroughly. Biochemists and Molecular Biologists know that the building blocks of life cannot form naturally."

First, you're evading the point I made, that the LOB has only been tested on relatively complex forms of life.

Second, amino acids can form naturally under some plausible scenarios in the primordial soup, as recent research has shown.

"Ignorant comment."

Aah, the constant stream of derision. You're aware derision's not an argument, right?

"As I said, a true scientist does not abandon one hypothesis until a better one comes along."

Which hypothesis do you imagine is being abandoned?

"The Big Bang is a complete claptrap."

It happens to be consistent with observable evidence, unlike YEC.

"Now you are setting records for inanity."

You're the one completely changing the subject, like a politician in duress, but I'm supposed to be the inane one? It's true, Gitt's so-called "laws of information" are not natural laws, but self-serving logically flawed arguments that don't even make sense when applied to DNA.

"The information in the cell is vast and remarkably well coded, much more sophisticated than anything mankind has developed."

Which has precisely nothing to do with the laws of information, nor is it relevant in any other way. You're engaging in an argument from incredulity.

"Again, real science does not abandon a position without evidence to overturn it."

Which scientific position do you imagine is being overturned here?

"Darwinism has thumbed its nose at established laws and made up ridicuous fairy tales to take their place."

The theory of evolution doesn't break a single scientific law or principle. Neither does research into abiogenesis at the molecular level. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat those canards, they won't suddenly become true just because you keep repeating them.

"Did you know that we still cannot code in DNA, we only use two of the potential four characters because we cannot do it properly?"

Well, the binary system happens to be convenient, though we could code in quaternary just as we do in hexadecimal. But again: what does this have to do with anything? Yet another argument from incredulity?

"Ugh. You are the anti-Chaos. His comments were interesting and worth consideration. Yours are uninformed propaganda."

Derision: still not an argument.

And judging by the number of logic errors you've produced in this comment alone, you should try to take another look at the propaganda you've been swallowing and even generating.

For example: are you really going to try to pretend that Gitt's "laws of information" are natural laws?

radar said...

Your follow-up comment may be bad enough to be the basis for a blog post, or rather it would be if I had not already used evidence to destroy the points you tried to make. Remember the statements made recently about scientific laws? No abandoning established laws without evidence to compel you. Apparently you do not understand this.

The LOB has not been violated, disproven or even challenged. It is just silly to claim it has not been tested on the molecular level, because as I have already pointed out in previous posts, all aspects of the formation of the building blocks of life HAVE been examined and there is no way for amino acids to form and exist in the wild, or avoid the racemic problem, let alone have a way to be enclosed in a cell. The cell cannot exist without DNA, DNA needs the cell, they both need ATP Synthase and that mechanism requires DNA and the cell.

Nothing at all about the Big Bang can claim to be observed. A starting point can be hypothesized, but with only natural causes you cannot obtain the singularity nor explode it. Plus some unknown nothing exploding doesn't explain anything about what we see in the Universe today.

The Laws of Thermodynamics remain unbroken and applicable.

Name an aspect of Information Law you can disprove. I will wait to hear it.

You are a propagandized commenter bereft of evidence. Better commenters, please!

radar said...

By the way, the only problem Hitler had with Darwin was that he wanted to hasten the process of evolution by taking action. The Nazis made propaganda films using the idea of evolution to support their plan to dispense of the infirm, the non-Aryans and especially the Jews. Hitler was a Socialist, a Darwinist, a tyrant, a maniac but he did come to power and he did try to push the so-called power of evolution by eliminating "inferior" humans.

Again, all organized Christian groups and any Christian or even non-Christian I know all reject Phelps and his inbred family cult idiots. Your attempt to associate them with Christianity is a desperate and unscrupulous attempt to deride Christianity.

It is pretty sad when the Darwinists have so little evidence that they just barf out the same old tired arguments I have already disproved. You want to be an illogical and brainwashed Darwinist, I am sorry that you are deliberately adhering to that philosophy. Sure hope it is not a permanent disability.

Anonymous said...

"I stopped reading Nonny's nonsense after he clearly disunderstood the concept of double standards that he is approving."

Thanks for that buddy. Off you go then.

Anonymous said...

"Remember the statements made recently about scientific laws? No abandoning established laws without evidence to compel you. Apparently you do not understand this."

I understand that perfectly. No established laws are being abandoned. The LOT and LOB are not being violated, and the laws of information thart you mentioned are not natural laws and have not been tested or confirmed. They amount to little more than a popular science essay with a heavy creationist agenda.

One aspect you may have lost sight of is that natural laws need to be overwhelmingly confirmed before they are deemed to be natural laws...

"The LOB has not been violated, disproven or even challenged."

Correct. But don't misrepresent the scope of the LOB. It certainly doesn't stand in the way of abiogenesis research at the molecular level.

Incidentally, you shouldn't forget (or maybe you're eager to forget) that even established natural laws are subject to revision pending subsequent discoveries. You seem to confuse natural laws with something legal or religious, as if these natural laws MAY never be violated. Newton's laws of motion seemed ironclad for centuries, but were subject to amendment down the line. Should scientists cower in fear of these laws or seek to understand them in more detail? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that natural laws are subject to unusual effects in extreme circumstances that we, from our current perspective, are unable to gauge.

Anonymous said...

"It is just silly to claim it has not been tested on the molecular level"

If the claim is as silly as you pretend, then please tell us who tested it when and how. The only example of the LOB being tested at the simplest possible level that you pointed to so far was not at the molecular level at all. Abiogenesis research has specific avenues, and they are not in violation of any natural laws.

Besides, what has you so worried about someone performing some experiment to try out some ideas they have?

"because as I have already pointed out in previous posts, all aspects of the formation of the building blocks of life HAVE been examined and there is no way for amino acids to form and exist in the wild"

1. What makes you think that ALL aspects of the formation of the bulding block of life have been examined? After all, you're the guy (or rather one of a number of people) who pretends, for the purpose of a bogus statistics claim, that there's only one possible avenue (a strawman, but still) in which you claim other people say life originated.

2. Recent research does indicate that amino acids can have formed in the wild in the primordial soup a long time ago.

"or avoid the racemic problem, let alone have a way to be enclosed in a cell. The cell cannot exist without DNA, DNA needs the cell, they both need ATP Synthase and that mechanism requires DNA and the cell."

What is the basis for saying the cell is the simplest possible form of life? Can something have come before it?

"Nothing at all about the Big Bang can claim to be observed."

Things around us can be observed, including the state of the Universe, background radiation etc. The BB theory is in line with that evidence. YEC has no explanation for it and plainly ignores it. Some OECs at least accept the evidence for the BB and then claim that God is behind it - which is at least logically coherent.

Anonymous said...

"A starting point can be hypothesized,"

Thank you for acknowledging that.

Question to any YECs out there: How could one proceed from all the data that, say, the BB theory takes into account and reasonably come up with a conclusion of a Universe starting 6,000 years ago? I'm not looking for silly potshots at mainstream science, I'm wondering if YEC actually take their own point of view seriously enough to pursue such questions.

"but with only natural causes you cannot obtain the singularity nor explode it."

With what we know today, no, we can't fully explain that. But we also can't profess a comprehensive understanding of the universe, so it's not surprising that there are some things we don't know yet, especially something as remote as the origin of the universe.

"Plus some unknown nothing exploding doesn't explain anything about what we see in the Universe today."

On the contrary, it explains everything. Nobody would accept the BB theory otherwise.

"The Laws of Thermodynamics remain unbroken and applicable."

Correct. Neither the theory of evolution nor abiogenesis at the molecular level are in violation of the LOT.

The notion of a hypothetical divine being creating something out of nothing actually is a complete violation of the LOT. Feel free to believe in it (after all, someone of your ilk invented God for that reason), but you should be aware that this kind of resorting to miracles is the exact *poof* that you like to try to blame mainstream science for.

Anonymous said...

"Name an aspect of Information Law you can disprove. I will wait to hear it."

There's really no need to capitalize "Information Law". There's no such thing as "Information Law". Werner Gitt presented something he tried to imply are scientific laws of information, and he has attempted to link his work to natural laws so that they would be shrouded in the credibility of those natural laws. It would be incumbent on Gitt (or yourself, if you feel up to the task) to confirm (or at least propose ways to confirm) any of the theorems. That would bring it a little closer to it being, you know, a natural law.

But since neither Gitt nor yourself appear to be up to the task, we can start with the first one: "A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity." The falsification of this has been mentioned before: thoughts are non-material entities, and a brain, which is a material entity, creates thoughts. Therefore this claim isn't true.

Your likely retort may be that there is something in the brain that is non-material that creates the thoughts, not the brain itself. However, there is absolutely no evidence for such a claim (if you have such evidence, by all means present it), though there is evidence that the material brain itself is generating these thoughts. Blast the brain with a shotgun, and the thoughts stop. More specifically, various kinds of physical brain damage can affect different aspects of thought and memory, as can various psychoactive drugs. So there is evidence against such a retort, yet none for it.

I also think that the distinctions that Gitt and yourself believe in - something is either composed of matter or is supernatural (and therefore, in your own implications, somehow divine/God-related) - are not really viable and constitute a false dichotomy of sorts. There are plenty of things that are not composed of molecules that are simply abstract and not necessarily supernatural: emotions, political systems, language, plans.

Anonymous said...

"You are a propagandized commenter bereft of evidence. Better commenters, please!"

Derision is still not an argument. It's so hard to take the schoolyard bully out of Radar, isn't it?

"By the way, the only problem Hitler had with Darwin was that he wanted to hasten the process of evolution by taking action."

Artificial selection rather than natural selection, you mean? Animal husbandry-style selection, the way creationists accept microevolution, is that what you mean? It doesn't take a belief in Darwin's theory of evolution to resort to artificial selection of this kind - seeing as creationists themselves are on board with this kind of selection.

"The Nazis made propaganda films using the idea of evolution to support their plan to dispense of the infirm, the non-Aryans and especially the Jews."

Which films are you referring to?

Anonymous said...

"Hitler was a Socialist,"

And yet also staunchly anti-communist and in bed with big corporations. You like to claim that Hitler pretended to be a Christian to appeal to the masses, and yet you place enormous stock in the label "socialist" being included in "national socialist" - as if that label wasn't also supposed to appeal to the masses.

"a Darwinist,"

A Darwinist who banned Darwin's books and any books promoting his theory, while at the same time banning anti-Christian books? Go on...

"a tyrant, a maniac but he did come to power"

Certainly all true.

"and he did try to push the so-called power of evolution by eliminating "inferior" humans."

Since when is the artificial selection of "inferior humans" tied to a conscious re-enactment of the theory of evolution? Were colonialists throughout the ages Darwinists for feeling superior to other races and deeming them as less worthy?

"The State should consecrate [marriage] as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"[I]t was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will." -- ditto

Does that sound like a pro-evolution atheist to you?

Anonymous said...

"Again, all organized Christian groups and any Christian or even non-Christian I know all reject Phelps and his inbred family cult idiots. Your attempt to associate them with Christianity is a desperate and unscrupulous attempt to deride Christianity."

They ARE idiots - I don't think you'll find many people outside of their little cult who respect them. But no special attempt to associate them with Christianity is needed. They pursue a blend of Calvinist and Baptist thought and are undeniably Christian, even if their approach may be unpalatable to you.

"It is pretty sad when the Darwinists have so little evidence that they just barf out the same old tired arguments I have already disproved."

Dodging arguments and later claiming you won is not "disproving" an opponent's argument. How many disproven or unfounded arguments have you presented on your blog?

"You want to be an illogical and brainwashed Darwinist, I am sorry that you are deliberately adhering to that philosophy. Sure hope it is not a permanent disability."

Aaaah, derision… so hard to resist, isn't it?

radar said...

If you do not provide evidence, then you leave me with nothing BUT derision as there is nothing of substance to argue AGAINST.

As to Hitler, I have given links to his movies, I have provided eyewitness accounts of his determined elimination of Christianity by forcing the children to come to Hitler Youth activities instead of church. He also began grabbing outspoken Christian pastors and sending him to his camps.

His propaganda began with using "God" to keep the Christian element from complaining while he took on the Jews and Commies. Yes, he was a Socialist who preferred Fascism to Communism. Do you understand the difference? Hitler was a Fascist, which means a Socialist with a strong central government but not going so far as to convert private holdings to communes. He did not want collective farms and factories, he wanted farms and factories operated by his kind of people.

Hitler was a devoted Darwinist but he did NOT believe that a natural process should be supported. He instead decided that the State (read Hitler and his cronies) would be the ones to eliminate the weak and non-Aryans and would not leave this to nature.

If you cannot comprehend all of this it is probably because you have not researched it.

As to Phelps and his people being Christians, you are simply bonking your heads against a tree. NO CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION OR MINISTRY will claim or support them. It is basically one family seeking publicity and having been propagandized by Fred into doing things that Jesus would detest and every normal person in the world would detest. Your continued attempts to link Phelps and his family to Christianity are feeble and detestable. You are either ignorant or evil yourself if you for one minute believe such nonsense and I am not putting up with it. The next person who says the Westboro idiots are Christians has identified himself as either an idiot, a blackguard or both. Is that clear enough? We support groups that fight to scare off Phelps, actually. For instance the Patriot Guard Riders. Also the MC Bikers.

I have some buddies who wear the leather. Thank God for them! In fact, even the distasteful KKK denounces the Westboro idiots.

Now quit being deliberately stupid, will you?

radar said...

I am going to make a statement that I challenge you to disprove, as you are barfing out so many disproven statements. I challenge you to bring evidence here.

1) As Biogenesis is a law and even the simplest organism has been tested and proved to obey said law, what evidence causes you to question it?

2) As the amino acids needed to build DNA cannot exist in the wild, by what means could you build an organism in nature>?

3) As the LOT are in place, how can a singularity *poof* into existence without breaking the LOT? What evidence (real evidence now) would cause you to claim the LOT do not apply to the past?

4) You commenters have failed FOR YEARS to give an example of how information can be generated naturallly. Radio telescopes have been turned to the heavens for years seeking one trace of information coming from the stars, but we have information in the cell that is more sophisticated than humans can make. So explain THAT!

I am waiting for evidence here, people. Spell it out or go home.

Chaos-Engineer said...

Sorry to get back to you so late...

I'd like to look at this bit that you wrote in more detail:

But the truth is that Pharaoh was given the chance to decide to free the Jews. God did not force him to have a hardened heart. But once Pharaoh deliberately hardened his heart after already experiencing five plagues on his people (and not on the Jews), God then more or less made the condition permanent after the sixth plague so that His power could be demonstrated to Egypt and all peoples for all time.

Under the naive definition of "Free Will", Pharaoh was making choices freely, which means that he could have made a different choice at any time. But according to the text, God already knew with complete certainty what choices he'd make - so Pharaoh couldn't have made a different choice.

To make sense of this, I'd need to use a better definition of "Free Will". I might say that it means that Pharaoh was "acting according to his nature, with no outside interference". Once Pharaoh's nature had been established, all of his future choices were predetermined.

Which is why the phrase "hardened Pharaoh's heart" is so puzzling. Did God change Pharaoh's nature, and cause him to make choices that he wouldn't have made otherwise? Or did this have no effect on Pharaoh's decisions at all?

You also said:

God made you with free will. If you cannot choose whether or not to sin, you are a robot not a man!

Aren't there people in Heaven who have free will but who choose not to sin? So it's possible for people like that to exist.

And if it's possible for people like that to exist, then it's possible for God to create only people like that, without accidentally creating other people who would choose to sin.

So take another look at Fred Phelps: He's basically saying "God deliberately creates people that he hates, for the sole purpose of punishing them." That's a vile thing to say, but it doesn't become any less vile if you dress it up in polite language and tone down the theatrics.

(That said, some Christians reject that belief in favor of Universalism; "God only creates people who will be saved". That seems reasonable, but it still gets stuck trying to explain why suffering exists.)

radar said...

Chaos, refreshing comment yet again! I am beginning to be reminded of good old DAN S. He tended to ramble on a bit more. Your comment is intelligent and very worthwhile and I hope you do not mind if I again use another blog post to answer? I have two good reasons:

1) Your questions are to some extent applicable to mankind in general.

2) They are worth taking the time to answer thoroughly as I may and that means more space than a comment will allow.

SO my next post will again use your reasoned response in context by referring back to the previous such blog post and then I will endeavor to answer your follow-up properly. Thanks for your comment!

Rehan Ahmed said...

Looking for Best and Trusted PTC Site..?
Here is a Best and Trusted PTC Site where you can earn money online without any invesment, earn with Just Clicking and Earn upto Daily 10$, Earn More with Referrals, Paid to Click System, Best upgrade plans and Best Advertising Plans. Legitimate Earning Website for ever you want
HotProClicks.com