tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post5704374077904601819..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Trouble with CladingTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-89681310503831940282010-08-11T23:16:30.727+01:002010-08-11T23:16:30.727+01:00I would characterize "frontloaders" and ...<i>I would characterize "frontloaders" and "theistic evolutionists" as foolish.</i><br /><br />Okay, but this means you didn't even read my post; you simply reacted to the terms I was using.<br /><br />I pointed out that because TF is NOT a frontloader, he shouldn't be using frontloader arguments.<br /><br />If you think frontloaders are foolish, and you think wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-42436515132522817432010-08-11T23:11:21.150+01:002010-08-11T23:11:21.150+01:00Srnec, the problem with recommending Fodor etc. is...Srnec, the problem with recommending Fodor etc. is that his arguments undermine our own side. It's like when Moslems use arguments from the Ehrman/Jesus Seminar/higher criticism/etc to undermine the Bible, not realizing that if one accepts their arguments, they destroy not only the Bible, but also the Koran (many times over!).<br /><br />-Wmwtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-42291602221697971662010-08-10T20:03:27.164+01:002010-08-10T20:03:27.164+01:00Wtanksley,
sorry for the confusion.
The foolishn...Wtanksley,<br /><br />sorry for the confusion.<br /><br />The foolishness claim I make is to make a point about natural Science that seems to cross over to make a point about God.<br /><br />In my initial response to yours to TF's thread, you say:<br /><br /><i>I do think a high level of similarity is something that the advocates of "frontloading" would have predicted (most of whom Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-28566680295925205322010-08-10T19:38:57.106+01:002010-08-10T19:38:57.106+01:00For an evolutionists take on why cladigrams are es...For an evolutionists take on why cladigrams are essentially pointless, I'd recommend Gee's "In Search of Deep Time." Also, Jeffrey H. Schwartz in his book "What the Bones Tell Us" questions the usefulness of genetics as indicating common descent. According to Schwartz, morphologically it is very clear that man has the most common traits shared with Orangutans. He Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-74300064217431059352010-08-10T18:36:03.866+01:002010-08-10T18:36:03.866+01:00natamllc, thank you for expressing your desire to ...natamllc, thank you for expressing your desire to not be adversarial. I'm glad you recognize that your repeated use of "foolish" might be seen that way.<br /><br />Fortunately, I didn't see it as adversarial so much as completely incomprehensible. I had, and have, no idea what point you're making.<br /><br />Are you trying to say that my words are foolish? Or are you trying wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-37614501538496217052010-08-10T17:27:53.684+01:002010-08-10T17:27:53.684+01:00Wtanksley,
I apologize if you took my comments to...Wtanksley,<br /><br />I apologize if you took my comments to be adversarial?<br /><br />I would point you to my words here:<br /><br /><b>"I would add to it the Words of Jesus..."</b><br /><br />In hindsight I can see if you did it might be because of these, my words also, later on in my post:<br /><br /><b><i>"....is not strive foolishly with those non-issues you suppose front Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-85018800075296219542010-08-10T04:07:31.974+01:002010-08-10T04:07:31.974+01:00natamllc, yes. I also affirm that Christ died for ...natamllc, yes. I also affirm that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen afterwards by many people, of which many remained to testify as the Scriptures were being written.<br /><br />That's an important question you've asked, and I'm glad to be able to affirm wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-33699779735996916122010-08-10T00:23:10.245+01:002010-08-10T00:23:10.245+01:00Wtanksley
Have you received the Holy Spirit?
Are...Wtanksley<br /><br />Have you received the Holy Spirit?<br /><br />Are you "born again" along the lines of these verses:<br /><br /><b><i>1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, <br />1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-2639782809797997712010-08-09T23:48:16.558+01:002010-08-09T23:48:16.558+01:00So, the best that can be done by a son of the Resu...<i>So, the best that can be done by a son of the Resurrection is not strive foolishly with those non-issues you suppose front loading theistic evolutionists would foolishly strive over?</i><br /><br />Except for the Scripture you quoted (which doesn't seem to pertain to any issue at hand), I don't understand a word you're posting.<br /><br />What do you mean?<br /><br />-Wmwtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-63031595897948808772010-08-09T22:05:45.936+01:002010-08-09T22:05:45.936+01:00Dear Turretinfan,
NP! I know I can be prickly an...Dear Turretinfan,<br /><br />NP! I know I can be prickly and insufferable, and I appreciate your graciousness. Please forgive me for getting snarky. If only the folks who rush this stuff onto the web would vette their sources more carefully so working stiffs like us wouldn't have to triple-check them!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729965956946739033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-31288709047946625402010-08-09T19:26:13.607+01:002010-08-09T19:26:13.607+01:00Wtanksley
You wrote of TF, this:
I do think a hi...Wtanksley<br /><br />You wrote of TF, this:<br /><br /><i>I do think a high level of similarity is something that the advocates of "frontloading" would have predicted (most of whom are theistic evolutionists), but you're not a frontloader; you're a special creationist, and special creationists wouldn't generally make any predictions about similarity at all.</i><br /><br />I Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-12006580915744582772010-08-09T13:40:58.137+01:002010-08-09T13:40:58.137+01:00DD:
No problem regarding the duplicate postings -...DD:<br /><br />No problem regarding the duplicate postings - I've removed the duplicates.<br /><br />Thanks for the link back to the original Nature article. The 70% number is not quite as dramatic when it is only connected with a subset of the genome, obviously.<br /><br />Thanks for pointing this out!<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-80148229749631398482010-08-09T06:27:43.418+01:002010-08-09T06:27:43.418+01:00I recommend Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini's Wha...I recommend Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini's <i>What Darwin Got Wrong?</i> to all of you. It may correct misconceptions about evolution and at the same time dismantle the neo-Darwinism that is currently the loudest version of evolutionary theory. The authors are atheists and nonscientists, but it is still a good read.Srnechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10474493908162946111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-57110295928567773912010-08-09T04:18:55.085+01:002010-08-09T04:18:55.085+01:00Dear Turretinfan,
Sorry about the duplicate posts...Dear Turretinfan,<br /><br />Sorry about the duplicate posts here. Form some reason the post function kept coming back with a "URL too large" error and I presumed it meant the post was too long.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729965956946739033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-40972607466427777232010-08-09T04:14:50.012+01:002010-08-09T04:14:50.012+01:00Dear Turretinfan,
This whole issue may be a tempe...Dear Turretinfan,<br /><br />This whole issue may be a tempest in a teapot. After reading the original article in Nature, I think we've been had by someone looking to make a splash with a sensationalistic headline. <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7307/full/nature09201.html#/conclusions" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the paragraph of the original article from which the claimAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729965956946739033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-66178681618749407752010-08-09T03:05:45.056+01:002010-08-09T03:05:45.056+01:00WT:
That's about right. Of course, it depend...WT:<br /><br />That's about right. Of course, it depends which 70% overlap, and whether those can be accounted for by common descent.<br /><br />- TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-9693189121529885292010-08-09T02:05:37.952+01:002010-08-09T02:05:37.952+01:00Anonymous,
Yes - and of course the eye is an orga...Anonymous,<br /><br />Yes - and of course the eye is an organ. One could take something else that's fairly easy to identify, such as bioluminescence. One finds that characteristic in one species of snail, in fireflies and glowworms, certain kinds of worms, a variety of fish, a variety of marine invertebrates, and in some fungi.<br /><br />- TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-22057828263621130592010-08-09T02:00:22.171+01:002010-08-09T02:00:22.171+01:00Are able to see how a high degree of genetic simil...<i>Are able to see how a high degree of genetic similarity between sponges and humans is problematic for a theory of common descent?</i><br /><br />No, I don't. Since your blog is read by a lot of people without biological expertise, I think it would serve your readers very well for you to explain this point rather than simply asserting it.<br /><br />I do think a high level of similarity is wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-49551953886902669652010-08-09T01:55:18.297+01:002010-08-09T01:55:18.297+01:00For my perspective it takes much more faith to bel...For my perspective it takes much more faith to believe something came from nothing. The best answer you can get mutation lovers is "it was just always there".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-63242891264281832482010-08-09T00:33:04.726+01:002010-08-09T00:33:04.726+01:00As I see it, the articles pose problems for evolut...As I see it, the articles pose problems for evolutionary theorists in the following ways:<br /><br />Chimp 1 suggests that humans are more similar to a supposed “common primate ancestor” than are chimpanzees. That’s problematic because (well, maybe I’m just bigoted as the article suggests, but from my lay perspective) chimps seem to have far more in common with other primates than do humans. ThisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-76010482489537502592010-08-09T00:21:39.390+01:002010-08-09T00:21:39.390+01:00DD:
Evidence against =! disproof
Sponges are in ...DD:<br /><br />Evidence against =! disproof<br /><br />Sponges are in Phylum Porifera and humans are in Phylum Chordata. According to the current estimates among evolutionary scientists, the subkingdom of which porifera is a part split from the rest of the animal kingdom about 940 million years ago.<br /><br />Are able to see how a high degree of genetic similarity between sponges and humans is Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-29947267506399121482010-08-08T23:17:03.726+01:002010-08-08T23:17:03.726+01:00Dean wrote,
OK, make a better case then, without ...Dean wrote,<br /><br /><i>OK, make a better case then, without special pleading and arguments from authority.</i><br /><br />All arguments are from authority.<br /><br />And, in a godless universe, special pleading is all you would have. There would be no laws, no regularity on which one could depend.Ex N1hilohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05386655937760778985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-47382841173196809132010-08-08T21:47:23.987+01:002010-08-08T21:47:23.987+01:00Dear Turretinfan,
Would you like to go out on a l...Dear Turretinfan,<br /><br />Would you like to go out on a limb and explain in detail how this sponge finding falsifies common ancestry? Or, point to someone else who has already done so<br /><br />Nothing in the chimp articles you cited even suggests that the findings present any problems for evolutionary theory. You draw that conclusion yourself. OK, then, defend it.<br /><br />This has Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729965956946739033noreply@blogger.com