Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/14/2001 7:17:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 7:48:15 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could [u]not[/u] possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [u]Origin of the Species[/u], Charles Darwin. With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It's a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly. Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michael Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function. As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap. It contains 5 interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system. Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all. How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. - continued -
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:19:42 AM EDT
Michael Denton, in his book [u]Evolution: A Theory in Crisis[/u], states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated. In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before, such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner-it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against. Behe presents several examples of irreducibly complex systems to prove his point, but I'll just focus on one: the cilium. Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of "bridges"-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges. - continued -
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:20:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 7:22:20 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the "motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We can't evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost. This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, [u]Darwin's Black Box[/u]. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality. See article at:[url]http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idtheorymenu.htm#idsci[/url] Sorry, this is the 'Intelligent Design' website, you will have to scroll to the article in order to find it! Eric The('PunctuatedEquilibrium')Hun
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:36:29 AM EDT
Why am I suspicious "they" will NOT be too impressed with your article??? Creationism and evolution are essentially polar opposite religions - the unconverted, for the most part, REFUSE to see the other sides point. Th key difference is in teh "God" each religion puts forward. Creationism tells of a sophisticated, intelligent, order oriented God. Evolution tells of a random, mutational, adaptative god. In short, pick one. While arguing science HAS convinced a few to switch sides, mostly its a matter of faith, as BOTH theories are incapable of being tested. Good article, tho, Eric. But be prepared for the "you don't understand, " / "you refuse to acknowledge facts" / "you are willfully ignorant" / "you aren't samrt enuf to attain our level of thinking" diatribe that is SURE to follow. For scientific people, they SURE make alot of assumptions about people they have almost NO scientific contact with.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:40:41 AM EDT
[:K]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:41:45 AM EDT
. While arguing science HAS convinced a few to switch sides, mostly its a matter of faith, as BOTH theories are incapable of being tested.
View Quote
Science cannot be tested!! Ok now I just KNOW that your faith has warped your mind!! Science IS ALL ABOUT TESTING!! See you create a hypothesis Then you experiment for data Then you look at your data Then you make a conclusion. You may find that your original hypothesis is wrong. In which case generally you have learned enough to create a new one. Then you repeat the process again. Now Religion on the other hand CANNOT be tested.. You just choose to believe in things because they are written in a silly little book, of dubious origins. Now why does that not strike me as a very intelligent approach.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:42:30 AM EDT
Is the "intelligent design" theory falsifiable? If so, how?
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:43:21 AM EDT
How about just "silly"?
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:44:49 AM EDT
Most things complex that I can think of evolved. The only exception I can think of was the move from the vacuum tube to the transistor.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:44:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:47:38 AM EDT
It is amazing that the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion' which occurred approx. 540 million years ago bascially began all life forms which are discussed in evolutionary circles. But were there no life forms here before? Oh surely, the evolutionsists reply, it's just that they were soft tissued, microscopic life forms! But we have fossil records of just such soft tissued, microscopic life forms dating from the time of the Cambrian Explosion, why those and not their predecessors? Who knows? shrugs the evolutionists. Eric The(Yeah,Right!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:53:38 AM EDT
Post from stormbringer -
You just choose to believe in things because they are written in a silly little book, of dubious origins.
View Quote
Wow! With such a little sentence you question the underpinnings of the entirety of Western Civilization, which was, whether you like it or not, the fruit of Christendom! Some silly little book! Eric The(SoWhat'SillyLittleBook'DoYouFollow?)Hun[>­]:)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:53:59 AM EDT
As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap.
View Quote
A reducibly complex mousetrap: [url]http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 7:57:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: Exactly. That's why I say that I know too much about science to believe in evolution. Look at the beauty of the human eye with it's ability to detect and process the radiation from the sun - simply an amazing piece of biology.
View Quote
Exactly. Tell just what you're going to do with half an eye. Or, what makes any animal with some undeveloped oozing mass " spontaneously developing" on it's head more likely to survive. How does the developing species survive in the meantime, while apparently undergoing multiple completly random changes to the delicate code of it's DNA. Oh, and there's got to be at least two of these creatures that have had enough simultaneous similar mutations for them to breed. and produce another generation just like them? No, they had better give birth to a species that has fixed their parent's semi-developed highly complex organs. How? We don't know, but it must have happened like that, because intellgent design of complex organisms is just too much to take in. Like the watch I found today. I seriously doubt that anybody has to actually make a watch, the peices were formed by natural forces, and fell in the position. [rolleyes] It's no more impossible to beleive that every living thing came into being the same way, we're no more complex than the randomly generated watch... Right? Juggernaut
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:00:29 AM EDT
Post from renamed -
A reducibly complex mousetrap:
View Quote
And several examples of mousetraps that simply won't work. Amazing isn't it that with even one part removed, the mousetrap will not work, yet a simple cell has thousands of absolutely necessary parts, or it can't 'work' either! Eric The(StillAmazed)Hun[>]:)] BTW thanks for the site, I intend to surf it thoroughly!
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:01:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 7:58:27 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: ...the underpinnings of the entirety of Western Civilization, which was, whether you like it or not, the fruit of Christendom! Some silly little book! Eric The(SoWhat'SillyLittleBook'DoYouFollow?)Hun[>­]:)]
View Quote
Eric, Western Civilization is not based on the Bible. That's quite an exaggeration. Much of the "underpinnings" come from Greek thought, the Romans, and many other sources. The "Dark Ages" of Western Civilization were the "fruits of christiandom". The Renaissance was when Western Man began to lean in a more "Humanist" direction.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:02:34 AM EDT
Post from renamed -
A reducibly complex mousetrap:
View Quote
And several examples of mousetraps that simply won't work. Amazing isn't it that with even one part removed, the mousetrap will not work, yet a simple cell has thousands of absolutely necessary parts, or it can't 'work' either! How does MacDonald's experient work with the human eye? How many parts can be removed... Eric The(StillAmazed)Hun[>]:)] BTW thanks for the site, I intend to surf it thoroughly!
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:07:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 8:04:11 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By Stormbringer:
. While arguing science HAS convinced a few to switch sides, mostly its a matter of faith, as BOTH theories are incapable of being tested.
View Quote
Science cannot be tested!! Ok now I just KNOW that your faith has warped your mind!! Science IS ALL ABOUT TESTING!!
View Quote
Why must "you" ALWAYS IMMEDIATELY degenrate to the disparaging comment? That is the act of the religious zealot - MORE proof that evolution is a religion. (BTW - its also SOP for the gun grabbers, the Tom Daschles, teh Leftists, the Clintons of teh world. It is NOT the act of teh scientist you claim to hold in such high regard. In fact, it reminds me of the "Church Lady" - some of my religious brethren who are too scared to look at anything that doen't fir their preconceived ideas. The fact that you call evolution a science DOES NOT make it a science. Tell ya what - I have a proposal that would put this whole issue to rest. Conduct an experiment with hummingbirds. Put them in an environemnt where there beaks, now PERFECTLY suited for gathering their favorite food, are COMPLETELY useless in feeding them. Use, oh, say, 10,000 hummingbiirds. Wait 2,000,000 years, and then report back to us if the hummingbirds adapted to their new environment. We'll be waiting. [size=4]NO WE'LL ALL BE DEAD!!!!!!![/size=4] Untestable. COMPLETELY. Further, teh fact that you see "adaptation" now (finch beaks) is really proof of nothing, until you eliminate every other possiblity as to what caused the change in the finch beaks, In essence, the scinetist would HAVE TO disporve that God caused the change, or any other causitive factor caused the change, in order to prove evolution was the driver. In fact, teh finch beak example was a RAPID change, and then reversion to the original beak configuration, flying in the face of the "adaptation via natural selection" model that requires EONS of time. Now, OF COURSE, you'll dismiss my proposition in rapid pavlovian fashion, saying it is illogical, unreasonable, stupid, and then insert your usual disparaging comment about my intelligence, and then go skipping merrily on your way, convinced of your own intellectual superioity. But the FACT remains - both the Creation and evolution hypothesis are UNTESTABLE. Only differnce is, the Creationists admit it about their theory. The evolutionists refuse to for the most part. And the evolutionists who DO admit the untestable nature of the theory are scoffed at by the "purists."
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:09:31 AM EDT
Sorry, Major-Murphy, that dog won't hunt! Greek civilization and the possibility that they would propel Western Civilization to where it is today failed with the death of Alexander. The Romans were fast on their way to becoming an extinct society, when they became enlightened by the Christian faith. With the successive foreign invasions of Rome, the Christians fanned out and kept civilization intact as best they could! The next great European power after the fall of Rome was the Merovingian/Holy Roman Empire which was wholly Christian. What were the treasures from those days? How about illuminated Bibles? What of Italy? Churches and religious artwork? What of the Eastern Empire? Haggia Sophia and the perfection of Roman laws. Can you begin to see a pattern here? I hope so! Christianity ignited the continent to do what no others ever achieved! Eric The(IMeanYou'reSurroundedByIt!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:10:54 AM EDT
Look at the beauty of the human eye with it's ability to detect and process the radiation from the sun - simply an amazing piece of biology.
View Quote
Look at the many simpler eyes found in nature and note that there's a wide range of complexity.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:12:30 AM EDT
evolve? you mean like the Bible? the old Testament did not have all the necessary parts to fulfill the lies told to the peasantry, as their minds grew (evolved), and adapted from the dark ages into the enlightenment. thus what, three more versions arose from that quagmire, at the whims of whomever was in charge of the church, at that particular time? you all mention the wonder and complexity of the human eye. so without an eye, i would cease to exist? could i not live if i was born missing a toe? it strikes me as strange that most of the Creationist's theories begin with a healthy, white man, and "evolve" into arguments of complexity, never even realizing that black people exist, because the "irreducable complexity" theory killed off the light-skinned Africans through skin cancer (or, a breakdown of the system), thus blacks evolved into a separate race, not anywhere near the Cambrian period, but much closer. life before the Cambrian? maybe there was none! for proof, just look at Mars. they have found bacteria and water on Mars, but no life. why? i'm not God, i don't know, but i'm sure that God gave all creatures, planets and systems everything they need to evolve...or does your religion prohibit the belief of planets bigger than our own?
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:17:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Sorry, Major-Murphy, that dog won't hunt! Greek civilization and the possibility that they would propel Western Civilization to where it is today failed with the death of Alexander.[red] The Romans were fast on their way to becoming an extinct society, when they became enlightened by the Christian faith.[/red]
View Quote
YOU MEAN THEY EVOLVED AND ADAPTED TO SURVIVE????????????? EricThe(YouHeretic!)Hun, you just proved MY POINT FOR ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:17:43 AM EDT
Major Murphy, remove Jesus Christ as a subject for any artwork, remove His disciples and His followers as subjects, remove His life and death as subjects, remove any artwork that depicts the life of any Saint of the Church, remove any Churches, belltowers, bascilicas, tombs, icons, etc., that are Christian in composition, remove any illuminated texts, any thing that is directly connected with Christianity... And what do you have left? The Venus of Willendorf! Eric The(Now,That'sAJoke,Son,About'Venus'ButYouGet­MyDrift...)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:19:35 AM EDT
Does anyone think that the mousetrap design being discussed was the very first design ever attempted? Of course not, that would be silly. Using "removing parts" as an example to refute any theory is just ridiculous. Let me guess that the first, human invented, mousetrap was a stick to hit the mouse with. The guy with the stick got impatient waiting for a mouse to come within striking distance and tried to invent something. After many attempts, something worked. Another guy took one look at it & thought of a better way. And so on until we have the present form being discussed. Then again, look in a hardware store. There's probably a dozen different designs available, plus poisons plus "sticky" traps. The whole idea that removing a part from a mousetrap is able to shoot down anything but the speaker's intellignece is silly. Maybe the key word in all of this is "invent". Mousetraps didn't evolve, they were invented. Silly.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:21:45 AM EDT
Post from renamed -
Look at the many simpler eyes found in nature and note that there's a wide range of complexity.
View Quote
And yet even the simplest eye is extraordinarily complex! Eric The(AndGotThereOnIt'sOwn!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:26:55 AM EDT
Conduct an experiment with hummingbirds.
View Quote
Why not use fruit flies instead? They're much faster breeders. Hmmm... Actually, that's been done already! [;)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:29:28 AM EDT
its all very simple. if you take away the hammer from the trap, it ceases to be a trap ~ but it does not cease to exist! it would be called something else, maybe used as something else, but there it will be, on the table, perplexing and vexing ONLY THOSE WHO CANNOT THINK OUTSIDE THE SIMPLE CONTEXT OF HUMANS, AND THE VERY LIMITED THINGS THAT WE UNDERSTAND. a shark without gills cannot be shark, but does that automatically make it not exist? no, it makes it a whale. simple, if you use your God-given intellect.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:43:05 AM EDT
Post from Major Murphy -
Eric, Western Civilization is not based on the Bible. That's quite an exaggeration.
View Quote
No it's not based on the Bible, it's based upon the natural tendency of Christianity, above all other religions of any nature, to value human life, human freedom, and human endeavors. The great Universities of Europe were founded for the purposes of learning of, teaching about, and spreading Christianity, as were the colleges and universities in the New World. And critical scientific thought was born, not aborted, in those colleges and universities. The Catholic Church at times sought to undermine some scientific investigations and theories, but you can see how well that turned out! BTW, if Galileo knew Latin and could read the classics, it's because he learned it in a Catholic School! Eric The(Say'ThankYou',Galileo,ToYourTeachers!)Hun­[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:49:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: BTW, if Galileo knew Latin and could read the classics, it's because he learned it in a Catholic School!
View Quote
and yet he managed to EVOLVE into a smart man, regardless! why won't anyone argue my points??? am i THAT right?
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 8:53:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fatty: why won't anyone argue my points??? am i THAT right?
View Quote
Yes, you are.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 9:12:07 AM EDT
I wish that this discussion would stick to the issue of "irreducible complexity" and whether or not it implies "intelligent design", because it's a good one. (The side topics are interesting, too, but they deserve their own threads. )
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 9:19:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: I wish that this discussion would stick to the issue of "irreducible complexity" and whether or not it implies "intelligent design", because it's a good one. (The side topics are interesting, too, but they deserve their own threads. )
View Quote
see my post at the top of the page, i directly shot down the mousetrap theory, and am patiently awaiting rebuttle.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 9:58:08 AM EDT
Post from renamed -
I wish that this discussion would stick to the issue of "irreducible complexity" and whether or not it implies "intelligent design", because it's a good one.
View Quote
I don't mind the sidelines, but you're right it does lend itself to a great discussion. I've always thought the 'watch on the beach' argument begged the question. Surely you can say that there was creative intelligence in whatever caused the watch to be designed, but the fact that you're contemplating the question and doing so in a body that is marvelously engineered, is more of a confirmation to me of intelligent design! If there were just some slight changes in the universe, life, at least as we know it, would have been impossible. It is, remarkably, a very human-life positive creation. So the watch on the beach amazes me, but then so do the eye that sees it, the hand that picks it up, and the mind that comprehends it! Eric The(FirstThingsFirst)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:10:44 AM EDT
a shark without gills cannot be shark, but does that automatically make it not exist? no, it makes it a whale.
View Quote
Actually, taking the gills away would make it a dead shark. [;)] But the point is still a good one: evolution is not a teleological process. I.e., changes are driven by the opportunities present in a given environment at a given time, not by an attempt to reach some ultimate goal. (Veering away from the scientific to the philosophical for a moment, you [b]could[/b] argue that the laws of the universe were set in place by God, who knew that they'd result in the formation of the earth, the appearance of life, the evolution of man, et cetera. But it's not neccessary to see the hand of God tinkering in all the details.) All forms are transitional. This is a foreign concept to most human designers who are used to just starting from scratch and optimizing a machine to a specific task. If a new task has be done, we build a new machine. In nature, though, improvisation is the rule rather than the exception. This is overlooked by the mousetrap analogy which judges all possible "reduced" mousetraps only by their effectiveness at catching mice. Unlike Behe, natural selection requires only that a structure be useful for something, or at least not be an impediment to the transmission of genes.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:18:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 10:13:44 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: BTW, if Galileo knew Latin and could read the classics, it's because he learned it in a Catholic School!
View Quote
...and yet it was the church that branded him a heretic for his claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He was indicted for this, as a criminal. Humanists, during the Renaissance, were at odds with the church, constantly. The church has always stood in the way of scientific discovery. Their for this reasons are obvious.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:21:36 AM EDT
I've always thought the 'watch on the beach' argument begged the question. Surely you can say that there was creative intelligence in whatever caused the watch to be designed, but the fact that you're contemplating the question and doing so in a body that is marvelously engineered, is more of a confirmation to me of intelligent design!
View Quote
Would the creation of an artificial "contemplator" by humans weaken or strengthen your belief that we ourselves are intelligently designed?
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:21:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 10:16:09 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:23:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: BTW, if Galileo knew Latin and could read the classics, it's because he learned it in a Catholic School!
View Quote
...and yet it was the church that branded him a heretic for his claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He was indicted for this, as a criminal. Humanists, during the Renaissance, were at odds with the church, constantly.
View Quote
Keep in mind that this "Church" is the ROMAN Catholic Church" which both then and now is largely at odds with the Holy Scriptures (indulgences, transubstantiation, the whole concept of the Papacy, celibate priets - I could exceed the word limit of this post with examples.) The church of Jesus Christ made no such outlandish statements.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:27:37 AM EDT
raf, who says they can't? Not I! But I do require a little less faith in what we perceive to be scientific fact and a little more allowance for 'more things in heaven and earth' than we dream of, now. And we'll get into Gould's 'puntuated equilibrium' safety net for darwinsim at a later date! Clarity is something that should help us see the Designer, who I and several billion other folks, call God, a whole lot better! Eric The(FactsIsFacts)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:32:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Keep in mind that this "Church" is the ROMAN Catholic Church" which both then and now is largely at odds with the Holy Scriptures (indulgences, transubstantiation, the whole concept of the Papacy, celibate priets - I could exceed the word limit of this post with examples.) The church of Jesus Christ made no such outlandish statements.
View Quote
Only a Protestant would say such a thing. The Catholics feel the exact same way about your religious practices. You both teach from the same book. You both use the same mythology. Your religion 'evolved' from the Catholic faith. In fact, if it wasn't for Martin Luther, you'd be counting you Hail Marys right now. So which one is more correct?
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:33:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 10:29:29 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: BTW, if Galileo knew Latin and could read the classics, it's because he learned it in a Catholic School!
View Quote
...and yet it was the church that branded him a heretic for his claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He was indicted for this, as a criminal. Humanists, during the Renaissance, were at odds with the church, constantly.
View Quote
The church of Jesus Christ made no such outlandish statements.
View Quote
It is quite evident from pro-creationist posts in this thread, that people from "The church of Jesus Christ" are just as wary and fearful of scientific discovery as were the Catholics.... "The church of Jesus Christ" can only distance itself so far, from the church out of which it sprang. It was not "spontaneous" in it's creation, it was the product of evolution.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:42:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: As I said, Don't see why the two concepts can't coexist for the Religious-minded.
View Quote
The Bible CLEARLY states that Jesus Christ Himself was the Creator. While you may not think of evolution as a theory of origins, many do. To do so is an affront to Christ, the one who died and rose again for my sins. Its as if someone ounched my best friend in teh gut. But since you don't see evolution as a theory of origins, I'll move away from that. The idea that nature is somehow getting better thru adaptation flies in teh face of Scripture. Scripture tells us that the earth groans under the curse of sin. In fact, Scripture indicates that earth is winding down, NOT winding itself up. Evolution says the opposite. Further, Scripture tells us that Christ right now is holding the earth together ( Col.1 :16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. "Adaptation" negates the position Christ has in teh universe. It says nature is supreme. Romans 1:24 (They )changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the created thing more than the Creator, I could go on and on. They are polar opposite theories - like fire and ice. Thye have NO common ground anywhere. You simply cannot mix the two.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:46:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:48:02 AM EDT
Post from Major Murphy -
It is quite evident from pro-creationist posts in this thread, that people from "The church of Jesus Christ" are just as wary and fearful of scientific discovery as were the Catholics....
View Quote
Fearful" Hell, no! Wary? Sh|t, yeah!
"The church of Jesus Christ" can only distance itself so far, from the church out of which it sprang. It was not "spontaneous" in it's creation, it was the product of evolution.
View Quote
So the only 'true' church is the Roman Catholic Church? This is certain to offend some who are Eastern Orthodox, or Anabaptists, or Indian Christians, or Coptics, or Marionites, or a whole host of Christians who trace their heritage back to the little church in Jersualem, not to the big church in Rome! But you knew this, of course? Eric The(C'mon,DestroyThe'ChristianWorksOfArt'InYo­urGalleryAndSeeWhat'sLeftOfValue!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:52:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from Major Murphy -
"The church of Jesus Christ" can only distance itself so far, from the church out of which it sprang. It was not "spontaneous" in it's creation, it was the product of evolution.
View Quote
So the only 'true' church is the Roman Catholic Church? This is certain to offend some who are Eastern Orthodox, or Anabaptists, or Indian Christians, or Coptics, or Marionites, or a whole host of Christians who trace their heritage back to the little church in Jersualem, not to the big church in Rome! But you knew this, of course? Eric The(C'mon,DestroyThe'ChristianWorksOfArt'InYo­urGalleryAndSeeWhat'sLeftOfValue!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Quite a leap you just made. I think you know that those here who claim to be of "The church of Jesus Christ" are descendants of the Protestant faith, and therefore the Catholic Church. Or, as you just did, you can pretend that this is not true... ...whatever gets you through the night.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:52:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Muad_Dib: Your religion 'evolved' from the Catholic faith. In fact, if it wasn't for Martin Luther, you'd be counting you Hail Marys right now. So which one is more correct?
View Quote
Originally by Major-Murphy: "The church of Jesus Christ" can only distance itself so far, from the church out of which it sprang
View Quote
OK, I'M gonna go R-E-A-L slow for you, and maybe you'll see how silly those statements are. The church of jesus Christ...that came from whom? Polycarp? St. Augustine? Paul the Apostle?? No, girls and boys - it came from (are you ready) - Jesus Christ. That's why they call it "the church of jesus Christ." Now, boys and girls, listen closely - Which came first - Jesus Christ, or the roman Catholic Church?Does anyone want to answer??? Tha's right Tommy. Jesus came first. So, Tommy, can the "church of Jesus Christ" COME FROM an organization that was founded AFTER Jesus came to earth??? NO, becasue it is "the church of Jesus Christ." It was established WHILE He was here on earth - at least 300 years before the Roman Catholic Church was even dreamed up. Yikes. I thought we were past "chicken or the egg" discussions. [}:D] [}:D]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 10:58:55 AM EDT
That's just silly. You know damn well that that's a silly and irrational argument. The worship of Christ as Lord is a set of beliefs and practices that began when He lived, and evolved into what it is today. There were branches, offshoots, and changes along the way. This is a philosophy were talking about. A set of beliefs, a way of thinking. To pretend that it was the same in the year 50 AD as it was in 500 AD is ignorant and dishonest.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 11:06:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 11:00:00 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 11:10:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: That's just silly. You know damn well that that's a silly and irrational argument. The worship of Christ as Lord is a set of beliefs and practices that began when He lived, and evolved into what it is today. There were branches, offshoots, and changes along the way.
View Quote
Jesus Christ's teachings are CLEARLY given in teh Bible. ANY branching off, or offshoot from those teachings makes teh organization NO LONGER part of the church of Jesus Christ, by virtue of the fact that they reject His teachings. Can i say i am a Darwinian, and then go about espousing Biblical Creationism? Obviously, NO. I cese to be a Darwinian when I deviate from Darwins teachings. Once you get this concept, you and I will be well on our way to a beneficial meeting of the minds. You simply cannot blame Jesus Christ or His "church" for people who do whacked out things, claiming they are part of His church, when they DO NOT FOLLOW HIS TEACHINGS. Once they deviate from His clearly outlined teachings, thaey are BY DEFINITION no longer part of His church. This misunderstanding is pretty widespread, so I don't fault you for it. If Usama, once we catch him, claims to be a Christian, are you gonna beleive him?? I hope not, becasue his actions are SOOO far away from Christs teachings is ain't funny. "By their actions, you will know them." Don't blame Christ's church for the actions of people who are CLEARLY in violation of Christ commands to those who are TRULY part of his church. The Roman Catholic church added to the bible (the Apocryphal books )in deviation from his teachings. BINGO - no longer part of the church of jesus Chrsit. If an employee of your company violates company policy and gets fired today, tehn next week steals a company vehicle and rams a school bus, should your company be held laible?? No. Then don't blame Christ's church for those rogue disobedient false professors of Chrsitianity either.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 11:15:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: Sorry, not disputing Scripture, or your selections. I remain unconvinced that the two are incompatible.
View Quote
That's fine. I could be wrong. But if I am right, its NOT my job to either force you to beleive my way, or even to harass you with the way I see things. It would be WRONG for me to do that. I've given scriptural interpretation as best I can. God is big enuf to cause my wrong statements to be proven wrong or simply dissappear in time, and to use my right statements for His glory. Peace, my friend. garandman
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 11:18:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: OK, I'M gonna go R-E-A-L slow for you, and maybe you'll see how silly those statements are. NO, becasue it is "the church of Jesus Christ." It was established WHILE He was here on earth - at least 300 years before the Roman Catholic Church was even dreamed up.
View Quote
If you're talking about the United Church of Christ, you don't know a whole lot about the development of conservative Protestantism. You sir are about to be schooled [;D] Protestantism split from Catholisism around the 16th century. The main differences were developed by Calvin and Luther. I'm going to cut and paste a bit to save some time: [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_capr.htm[/url] The main differences: An individual is "justified" when "they are brought into right standing and into a right relationship with" God. Of all of the many points of disagreement between Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestant belief, the mechanism by which a person becomes "justified" is perhaps the most important. Lutherans "refer to justification as 'the chief doctrine upon which the church stands or falls'." The "classical reformed view of Calvin and Luther" teaches that there are two steps to salvation: Each individual is hopelessly lost in sin. He/she is at enmity with God. She/he can't even understand the gospel message; it appears as foolishness to them. Thus, the Holy Spirit must first intervene and change that person's heart, so that they can begin to understand the gospel message, and develop a faith in Jesus. This is termed "regeneration" or "rebirth." When the individual uses their newfound faith to trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior and repents of past sins, they are "justified." This is commonly referred to as being "saved." Salvation is a once-and-for-all change. Once a person is saved, they remain saved forever. Even if the person commits a dreadful sin in the future, their salvation remains intact. The Roman Catholic position is more complex: Each infant is hopelessly lost in sin. In the pasts, the church taught that infants are indwelled by demonic spirits that must first be exorcised. The infant is baptized, by spreading water over its face or by total immersion. By this sacrament, regeneration and justification is automatically granted to the infant. When the person attains the age where they are responsible for their actions, and commits their first mortal sin, then the justification that they obtained at baptism is destroyed. Through the sacrament of Penance (confession), if they have faith, they can have justification restored. Steps 3 and 4 are often repeated many times during their life. Both Evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe in grace ("the free and unmerited assistance or favor or energy or saving presence of God in his dealings with humanity..."). But Evangelicals view grace as a direct action by and from God; Catholics view grace as originating from God, but flowing through the conduit of the sacraments. Evangelicals see salvation and justification as one-time events; Catholics look upon them as being repeatedly lost and potentially regained through the church's sacraments.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top