gdp's Comments

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Smell the Color 9

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:48:47 +0000

What comment? On this post this should be your third, and this is my third. I never got a notification if you had sent a fourth one.

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Smell the Color 9

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:11:48 +0000

I'm not ignoring all of the evidence, my friend. The fact is that you are. Check out this site, which lists comments he made that directly oppose other things he is supposed to have said: http://www.answers.org/history/hitquote.html . When Hitler's words and actions contradict the lifestyle of a Christian, I have reason to believe to doubt his Christianity. Feel free to believe that republicans in Florida are gay atheists if you see them hanging out in gay bars and ranting against the church and the foolishness of theism, or profaning a cross.

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Smell the Color 9

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:38:17 +0000

I have no doubt that Hitler was an atheist, actually, in spite of what sort of statements he made. He was a politician, after all. What can be absolutely certain is that his actions- regardless of what he claimed- were completely in opposition to the teachings of Christ. Jesus made it clear that “My kingdom is not of this world”, and that people should treat each other with dignity. He never advocated violence, particularly against Jews, since He was one Himself. I can call myself a Mercedes and sit in the garage, but that doesn’t make me a car. Of course I see very atheistic perspectives in all he did. There was a direct correlation between the writings of Darwin and the beliefs of Hitler. However, proving that Hitler was an atheist isn’t really within the scope of this post.

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Existence is Futile

Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:57:50 +0000

But that is precisely the line of thinking that someone such as Hitler had. Darwin himself wrote: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." –The Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 6. What about Peter Singer, who says there is no reason to avoid bestiality? Evolution teaches that “we are animals so that “sex across the species barrier ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. – Peter Singer, “Heavy Petting, 2001 Or these guys who say that rape is ok? Rape is “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage, akin to “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck. – Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, “Why Men Rape,” 2000 I have to disagree with the world peace thing, too. Frankly, fewer people to compete with for resources sounds like a good thing. If there are fewer males, that means more females to go around. I hardly think this fits in with a decent morality.

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : The Importance of Prejudice

Wed, 19 May 2010 22:45:23 +0000

Lol, I'm very serious, but I really have a hard time imagining that you are. Think about it: my whole point is that there are certain prejudices that are good to have, based on the fact that these ideas are either wholesome for a society or flat-out biblical. You announce that I have no common sense, that my view of "everything" is skewed (which is a little extreme, I must say, since nobody is skewed in every area), that I am corrupting youth, and that what I write is hate propaganda. Are you not demonstrating that you also have prejudice? If prejudice is indeed bad, you ought to live and let live. You ought to let me write as I feel I should write. Instead, you say in no uncertain terms that I am wrong- and without much discussion as to WHY I am wrong. Of course, then we must also settle where your ideas of good and bad came from, since those are also prejudices in the broadest sense. In short, you either have a baseless prejudice and pretend not to, or you are joking. I'm just going to assume that you are joking, since the alternative is absolutely laughable. Wow.

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Oh, For Crying Out Loud!

Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:10:16 +0000

Praise the Lord for moving in each of our lives, giving us divine appointments with other believers! I'll be praying for you. God bless!

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Separation of Church and.....Art?

Tue, 9 Mar 2010 05:13:53 +0000

I'd read it start to finish, actually. Numbers may be a challenge, but if you take a few of the important concepts out of it, it will help you with the rest of the Old Testament. If you're not up for the challenge, I'd start in John and finish up the New Testament, then head back to Genesis and read the Old Testament through. You'll have good momentum going by that point to handle Numbers, and there are some interesting connections between OT and NT. Bible reading is one of the most rewarding things you can do. Happy reading!

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Oh, For Crying Out Loud!

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:31:28 +0000

Maioribus, I welcome thoughtful discussion from anybody, provided they're willing to be polite about it. Frankly, I'm a little low on time these days, but if you don't mind my replies being a little delayed, I would enjoy talking with you!

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Oh, For Crying Out Loud!

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:56:28 +0000

Lol, glad you enjoy it, young Padawan!

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : The Poetry and Artistry of Evolution

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:28:51 +0000

Lol, it's an illustration of her point, actually. Trying not to take her word-for-word!

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Evolution: A Logical Lightweight

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:29:14 +0000

The statement that scientific investigation is inherently materialist is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. It is not a scientifically demonstrable statement, but one of belief. Your belief in an interpretation of evidence is based on your fundamental belief in materialism. You limit all of existence to that which may be scientifically discovered. Therefore, you require a Designer to use strictly physical processes to create. The very basic understanding of God, for instance, would require that He not be made of the same stuff as this universe nor be bound by the laws of this universe. If evolutionists are not required to come up with a way for life to have sprung into being by natural forces, I see no reason why ID folks or creationists should have to come up with a physical process for how the Designer God created life as we know it. Onward to evolution.... Microevolution deals with adaptation and natural selection, while macroevolution has no known physical processes. Hence, in 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No." In other words, I believe that theropods are not avians. There may be flying dinosaurs and land dinosaurs, and there may be flying birds and lands birds. These are two completely different types of organisms that grew up alongside each other. Darwinists, on the other hand, do claim that animals did eventually evolve and become human. I find that very difficult to believe, and that is a claim with very little evidence. See my previous post for more details on that, and there'll be another post coming out on Saturday, I believe. You claim that a belief in things beyond the realm of science may exist, but that a belief in such things is inherently unscientific. Where, then, do you propose we go? There's very little evidence for macroevolution taking place. There may even be none. The fossil record is a shaky place, and paleontology and biology are both fairly soft sciences. Therefore, another theory must be proposed. Scientists needs to act a little more logically, which is the point of my post in the first place. There must be room for logic to fill in gaps where the scientific process cannot. Already that is how paleontology in particular is being handled. As evolutionists lack all of the answers for the puzzle they are putting together, ID lacks answers as well. Give ID a chance instead of having it blacklisted by the scientific establishment, the courts, the media, etc.

Big Hollywood : Lonewolf Diaries: Perverse Sex is Fun, Kids! (Let the Fisting Begin)

Wed, 9 Dec 2009 04:13:38 +0000

You know, I found Hollyweird's attitude toward sex to be a bit off too. As a married guy who chose to remain abstinent until marriage, I can vouch for the fact that marriage is a great thing in and out of the bedroom. Of course, folks in Hollywood don't stay married long enough to figure that out.....

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Evolution: A Logical Lightweight

Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:27:33 +0000

Well, as is often the case, our differences are fundamentally based on philosophy and language. When you use the term "evolution", you appear to mean both microevolution and macroevolution. When I use the term, "evolution" (Darwinism), I refer only to macroevolution. The instances you have given me, the only observable sort of evolution, are instances of microevolution. I have no problem whatsoever new species developing if you say that primates will always be primates, finches will always be finches, turtles will always be turtles, etc. I do have a problem with saying that finches will eventually cease to be birds or came from something that was not a bird. I do have a problem with saying something that wasn't a human will become a human. I have a problem with this because there is no proof that the various species become something completely different. So, yes, I do see that microevolution takes place. New species will crop up from time to time. There don't appear to be any physical processes or amount of mutation that will cause these species to be anything other than what they are categorically. Secondly, we have a philosophical problem with each other, one that must first be resolved before we can go further. You are philosophically a materialist. You assume your materialism is true, and that taints your scientific experience. It is the filter through which you determine which scientific theories you wish to accept and which you wish to categorically reject. This materialism is not scientific in nature, because the assertion that only physical processes are capable of doing something is itself not a scientific assertion. As a theist, and more specifically a Christian, I believe philosophically that God created the world and all of the matter, energy, scientific laws, and information in the universe. While he miraculously intervenes on occasion, He usually allows the universe to run according to the way He designed it. When He said "Reproduce after your kind", He put into motion the ability for a number of species to come into existence. I have no philosophical problem with the existence of the supernatural alongside various physical laws. You put the universe in a box of your own creation, of your own philosophical background. When I say "think outside the box", I'm being quite real here. Consider something outside of the laws you have imposed or believe to be true. I'm not asking you to throw out everything we know to be true about science and buy in to some hocus-pocus. I'm asking you, scientifically speaking, to see that microevolution can exist because a Designer put it there. The Design implications of which I speak- irreducible complexity, the existence of DNA, and such- do imply the existence of a Designer. I'm also asking you as a fellow human being to consider the existence of a God that loves us so much He wants us to come to know Him. If truth is what you are after, and I can only assume that you must be considering you took time to read and write here, you must ask yourself about the Truth of that which lies beyond scientific inquiry.

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Evolution: A Logical Lightweight

Sat, 5 Dec 2009 22:09:12 +0000

3) You are overconfident in the ability of mutations to genuinely benefit the species as a whole. Were you a fan of X-men as a child, by chance, because science fiction is about the only place this takes place. Mutations are nearly always damaging, and positive mutations are so rare that they are irrelevant. Here's an example for you to ponder. There are about 4,000 diseases in humans alone that are caused by genetic mutation. Some forms of heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration have been demonstrated to result from one mutation or the other. Some mutations are so severely detrimental that the unborn child is spontaneously aborted; it cannot survive gestation. A 2005 study of human mutations listed 186 beneficial mutations (each of which had a drawback, such as sickle-cell anemia) and 450,000 negative mutations. The study found that for every one beneficial mutation, the next 10,000 mutations would be crippling. (Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Elim Publishing, 26.) There is no such thing as an unequivocally beneficial mutation. While it is true that there are mutations that are not phenotypic- they do not change the physical structure of the organism in any way- these mutations are not candidates for evolution either. Since there are no physical changes, natural selection cannot take place. Furthermore, non-phenotypic mutations actually degrade or delete genetic information, and are therefore not technically beneficial. If enough non-phenotypic ("neutral") mutations take place, they will cause the death of the species. Of course, then we have to ask how life on earth survived millions of years of such mutations. 4) So you believe that "imperfect inheritance of physical characteristics" and "environmental conditions" (reproduction with a slight chance of mutation plus natural selection) are responsible for evolution? That's weird, because I believe in both of those things too and I believe in Intelligent Design! I just don't believe that those two things are enough to explain the diversity of life that we see. So again, I have to ask you what you think makes evolution scientifically distinct from Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design states that because of the anthropic principle, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity, we have reason to believe that a Designer must have set everything we see into motion. By asking for physical processes you are begging the question and revealing an underlying materialistic presupposition that only physical processes can ever be invoked. In this way, ID is explanation by inference. If you'd like to see some of the physical processes for the creation of the cosmos, I'd recommend reading up on Moshe Carmelli and his cosmological relativity, since that has important meaning from an ID standpoint. As for the creation of life, the process of forming life is a secret of the Designer. I can't speak for all ID adherents, since they are not all Christians. I accept the biblical creation account as being literal. ID is in the position of being condemned by evolutionists if it does specifically posit the God of the Bible and condemned if it does not. If it does posit God, it is viewed as being religious in nature. You condemn it for not being specific enough. As I said at the beginning, perhaps you should be more open minded...

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Evolution: A Logical Lightweight

Sat, 5 Dec 2009 22:08:59 +0000

Tsk, Tsk, Dimensio, Think outside the box a little, buddy! Your basic premise seems to be that I'm ignorant of the arguments or supposed evidences of evolutionism (I add the "ism" because it's much more a philosophy than it is a science.) Give a guy some credit! It so happens that I make it a point to study this stuff. I just happen to not buy into it. 1) Whether or not it is outside the realm of evolution, if you want to propose evolution as the way life developed on this planet, you have to figure out how it started. You can't just say "we don't care about that, and we're not responsible for finding an answer to that question." The obvious flaw in Darwinism is that there is no natural mechanism for life arising from that which is not life, unless you want to espouse spontaneous generation. Of course, I thought we got rid of that silliness long ago! I'd also point out that you didn't explain where DNA came, either. 2) Once again, you've pointed out some interesting instances of natural (and not-so-natural) selection, genetic mutation, etc. What you have not done is demonstrate an instance of evolution actually taking place. I'm not interested in mice reproducing on an island. They still produced more mice. If the fact that the mice, insects, or fish prefer not to interbreed or are incapable of interbreeding is proof of a new step of evolution, then someone had best write a new textbook or something, because there's pretty solid evidence that Neanderthals and humans did interbreed. I'm not so sure that lack of interbreeding alone is proof of true evolution. I have no problem with new species being formed. Christianity, apart from any scientific study, teaches that creatures were made to reproduce after their "kind", not simply after their individual species. I am underwhelmed by the scientific establishment's attempt to support claims of evolution simply because finches develop different sorts of beaks or mice produce more mice. Intelligent Design also has no problem with species being formed. Be fruitful and multiply, I say. Well, actually, God said that first.

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Evolution: A Logical Lightweight

Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:40:28 +0000

Dimensio, I'm not aware of one instance in which evolution has been observed. We can observe adaptation and natural selection taking place, but we have never seen these give way to anything resembling true evolution. Secondly, I have no problem using the term "Darwinism" because, at the very least, it has little to no negative connotation outside of the United States. I'm not sure that lumping them in with the ignorant is a good plan.That aside, whatever the developments in the theory, there is still no hard evidence favoring it, as I mentioned above. There is only speculation and interpretation of evidence. In this way, any comparison between evolutionism and physics is also a logical fallacy. My statements regarding mutations are important in two ways. First of all, no experiment has demonstrated that mutation is a "valid explanatory mechanism." Whatever the mutation, it only duplicates or leaves out information. It does not create new information. It also is important because the simple fact that mutations do take place in the present do not tell us whether or not it even could be an explanatory mechanism. There is a great gulf fixed between observed evolution and observed mutation. I have to say I find it humorous that you criticize the hammer illustration. I actually borrowed the "experiment" from a similar one that graduate-level biology teachers have used to illustrate the work of biological evolutionists. The only difference is the one I am most closely aware of used screws, not hammers. Finally, I think your justification of Darwinism and disdain for Intelligent Design are very ironic. Explain to me the known, observable natural functions by which biological evolution take place. Explain to me a means of forming complicated life such as ours from that which is not living, of gaining information (DNA) without an intelligent, supreme Mind to put that information in place. What is your hypothesis that predicts a world unique from the world predicted by Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design looks at the information in DNA, the order we have discovered in our world through physics, and the structure of everything from the galaxies to the human cell to the subatomic particles and proposes the existence of a Being capable of ordering these things. I could go on and on at this point, but I've written on this subject numerous times on my blog, and, frankly, other folks do it better. View this paper if you want a much more developed theory of Intelligent Design: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.... Thanks for visiting!

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Starlight, Time, and the New Physics, Part 2

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:57:15 +0000

I did actually see that article, but it's been awhile since I read it. I don't know that any serious attempt has been made to debunk Carmeli and Hartnett. I've actually done similar searches and only found one old-earth creationist site and one evolutionist site that had much to say. Neither treated the physics aspect or the evidence available today. They simply reasserted their own position.

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Creationist Cosmology: Starlight, Time, and the New Physics

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:50:23 +0000

Ray, Kudos to you for taking on science and theology! It's a rewarding combination I've found personally. You're right, though, that people who dismiss ideas outright are making a mistake. If it's a viable theory, it ought to be investigated further not tossed out because it bucks the system!

Jewish Internet Defense Force : http://www.thejidf.org/2009/10/christians-curb-their-enthusiasm-for.html

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:07:02 +0000

I like to think of myself as a fairly decent person, and I don't see the humor in urinating on any sacred symbol. Yes, I'm a Christian, but I would think it was just as stupid to create humor based on mocking or defacing a depiction of Allah or Krishna or anybody else. Yes, the humor was about an accident, but the mockery of those writing the script was deliberate. If they can't come up with anything better than that, they probably ought to just cancel the rest of the season and find new material.

Kreitsauce's Musings @ RenewingMinds.com : Worship Songs Aren't for "Blokey Blokes"

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:49:09 +0000

Well, I'm with you, but I'm biased since I write the blog... I think that's why I have a hard time with even conservative Christian music sometimes, though. Like the song "Joy Bells" in the average hymnal. At the risk of a bad pun, it makes Christians sound like a bunch of ding-a-lings. And some of our newer conservative music sounds very sweet and syrupy, but it lacks real power. I like "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" and "Victory In Jesus" precisely because they present this life as filled with conflict but secure and certain because of our powerful God. Where is that in modern Christianity?