Saturday, November 12, 2011

Kim's "Research" Reaches a New Low

Oh boy. I had decided not to do any more posts in response to Kim, but I couldn't resist this one. Of course, I don't expect Kim to learn anything from this reply. But it will serve as a lovely illustration of how Muslims deal with arguments against Islam.

In a recent post, I quoted both the Qur'an and the Hadith on the setting of the sun:

Qur’an 18:83-86—And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

I also put together a video on the subject:



Finally, I linked to a number of articles that give a far more thorough analysis, with many additional arguments and sources.

As I note in the video, the narration from Sunan Abu Dawud is classified as "Sahih" (meaning that it comes with a chain of reliable narrators going back to a companion of Muhammad). Since most of Islam's teachings come from Sahih ahadith, Muslims aren't supposed to reject a Sahih narration unless it contradicts the Qur'an.

How does the great investigator Kim answer my argument? She responds by giving a link to a brief article by Yahya Snow!

Seriously, Kim? Yahya Snow? YAHYA SNOW? When Kim was citing Bassam Zawadi and "Islam: Q&A," she was at least citing some apologists who know their material. Now she's gone directly to the bottom of the barrel by appealing to Yahya Snow. I actually have far, far more respect for even Nadir Ahmed and Osama Abdullah than I have for Yahya Snow. Nadir and Osama at least try to give evidence for their claims. Yahya makes things up and provides no evidence whatsoever, and then acts as if the problem has been solved! Let's have a look at Yahya's claims (and his awesomely deceptive video!). Here's the article:

Sun Sets in a Pool of Slime – Hadith?

It appears as though Christian missionaries are confusing folk concerning the sun setting in a pool of slimy water via a dubious narration. IslamOnline clears the confusion as the narration is not thought to have come from the Prophet Muhammad (p):

The author claims that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also explained it in a literal sense. He quoted a hadith in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported as saying, “Do you know, Abu Dharr, where this sun sets?”

He answered, “God and His Messenger know better.”

Muhammad said, “It sets in a spring of slimy water.”

According to most authorities, this statement is not from Prophet Muhammad but it is attributed to Ka`b Al-Ahbar, a Jewish rabbi who converted to Islam and who reported this from the Torah, not from Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).”



IslamOnline’s clarification of the reference to Zul Qarnain in Quran 18:86 can be viewed here:

http://infad.usim.edu.my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8851

Well, that's it. That's Yahya's entire case. I quoted the Qur'an and a Sahih Hadith. He responds by claiming, in effect, "Most scholars tell us that the Jews said it, not Muhammad," and voila! Problem solved! He doesn't give us a single scholar who says that the source of the quotation is a Jew and not Muhammad. He doesn't show us where this teaching is found in the Torah (since he declares that it comes from the Torah). He doesn't give us the arguments or reasoning of his mysterious "scholars." He doesn't show us how actual scholars such as Abu Dawud, Zamakshari, and Ibn Hanbal were fooled into including such a dubious Hadith in their collections. He doesn't explain why Darussalam's scholars, to this day, classify the Hadith as "Sahih." He simply says, "The Jews did it," and that's enough for him and for Muslims like Kim.

Is everyone starting to catch on? The evidence simply doesn't matter to Yahya or Kim. No matter how much evidence we produce, they'll simply respond, "Jews." We've seen this over and over again from Osama and others. They constantly place the errors and blunders of their prophet on the backs of Jews and Christians (and I thought Muslims reject substitutionary atonement!).

Wow! When honesty and integrity go out the window, so much is possible for Muslim apologists!

68 comments:

donna60 said...

You have to just let Kim go, David. You just have to let Kim move on and trust the thought you put in her brain to steep around in her brain a little bit, until it becomes a full-flavored brew.

The thing about thoughts is you can reject them for a long, long time, but unless you actually have some sort of organic brain damage, the thought is still in the brain.

A thought is the most infectious agent known to mankind.

Iconodule said...

That was a rather impotent article If I do say so myself, it really fits into that stereotype of blaming the jews for everything as if the jews were able to convince the early muslims of this narrative. Yeah right.

Zack_Tiang said...

Yahya Snow, "It appears as though Christian missionaries are confusing folk concerning the sun setting in a pool of slimy water via a dubious narration"

Compare with Qur’an 18:83-86,
"And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people."

Yes, I totally agree. Very dubious.
They should have just throw this verse out as a fraud and Jew-tainted... along with the rest of the book, actually.

Tharun Cheriyan said...

*facepalm*

hehe David do you trust Zakir Naik more than Yahya?

But yeah seriously I don't know how you guys debate the apologists who ask questions under one preconceived notion... and then answer your questions with a completely different method.

Anyway, keep up the ministry :) thanks

Deleting said...

I love how Islam means 'peace' and 'Blame it on the Jews'.

Question: Why would any Jew wish to touch the sunnah, koran or hadiths and make it worse for themselves? At all? Thoroughout history?
Muhammad drove them out or killed them all in saudi arabia and muslim occupied lands either they killed them or made them second class citizens.
If the Jews had corrupted the muslim scriptures wouldn't the treatment of them be better???
Food for thought.

Matlin said...

David once again good catch. Please don't stop exposing this false prophet and his religion. Brother you are in my prayers and you are a great blessing to many people all around the world.

Kim said...

http://infad.usim.edu.my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8851

Thats the fatwa they quoted that was answered by a group of Muftis/ Islam scholars. They didnt make it up.

That was concerning the hadith you gave us. I didnt say that it ended this issue. Just thought it was interesting to know that a Jew got this from his Torah.

Deleting said...

David there's a simple fix to the Kim problem. Ban her from the board. She doesn't want discourse or honest discovery and she insults everyone every single chance she gets or provokes people along with 1mm and Osama Abdullah.
Or posts youtube links, which I'd thought she'd outgrown by now but I guess she got tired of reading her perfectly 'clear' koran.

David Wood said...

Kim,

You simply don't get it, do you? Show me in the link you posted where the article cites ANY scholars (let alone a majority of scholars) who say that Sunan Abu Dawud 3991 is a false narration which actually comes from a Jewish convert, not from Muhammad. That's what the article says. Now where's their evidence? They don't give any.

And therein lies the problem. I'm quoting Muhammad in a Sahih hadith. You're quoting people who invent things and don't even attempt to back up their claims. So you're taking the words of men above the words of your prophet! That's called "innovation" in Islam, and according to Muhammad, "innovation" is a one-way ticket to hell. Or do you reject that as well?

donna60 said...

Kim,

A Jew got this from his Torah? What verse is that in the Torah?

David Wood said...

What's most ironic here, Kim, is that you once accused people on this blog of blindly following everything I say (which obviously isn't the case, since people here disagree with me all the time). And yet you're the one who blindly follows anything said by people like Yahya Snow, and you don't demand even the slightest degree of evidence! That's called "hypocrisy," Kim.

Deleting said...

" You're quoting people who invent things and don't even attempt to back up their claims. So you're taking the words of men above the words of your prophet! That's called "innovation" in Islam, and according to Muhammad, "innovation" is a one-way ticket to hell."

When I think about it....prayer 5 times a day came from Sabians, muslims pray face to the ground like hindus and buddists did long before mohammad, and all the stories about the prophets came from arabic and jewish sources so Mohammed was also the source of 'innovation' much like Kim and Yahya Snow are doing today...
Wonder where he is.

Deleting said...

David said: "What's most ironic here, Kim, is that you once accused people on this blog of blindly following everything I say (which obviously isn't the case, since people here disagree with me all the time). And yet you're the one who blindly follows anything said by people like Yahya Snow, and you don't demand even the slightest degree of evidence! That's called "hypocrisy," Kim."


whazzup Kim?

On a much, much different note...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqfU3OFNZA0

Search 4 Truth said...

For a Muslim to accept something as evidence in defense of Islam. It could come from a cracker jack box.

They dont need evidence, they just need another Muslim to say something, anything. And that is fact. Regardless of how much real evidence refutes it. They cannot and will not accept the truth. It is a serious mental and spiritual disorder!

jonnykzj said...

@All Christians

Sorry that I'm being offtopic here but I want to show people(and David Wood if you dont already know this PLZ take it into consideration and spread it to Pastor Joseph, Usama Dakdok, Sam Shamoun and all others), that the BIBLE IS NOT AT ALL INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTION N COMMON ANCESTRY BUT RATHER IN FAVOR OF IT UNLIKE ISLAM, INC BOTH QURAN N HADITH. I quote for example from the last para "conclusion" from http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html
"The concept of "baramin", an originally created and bounded classification of living organisms, is not what the Bible teaches. The Biblical usage of miyn and bara contains nothing that opposes the idea of biological evolution. Biblical kinds produce more of their own, although in rare circumstances a trained biologist can observe a speciation event. The usage of bara even supports macroevolution to some extent, because the Bible often uses the language of creation to describe bringing something new out of that which already exists. God has chosen to unfold His constellation of earthly life in wonderful abundance and diversity!
ALSO take a look at the front page http://www.theistic-evolution.com/index.html
I quote again a part from there:

"1. The most important goal of this web site is that you will come to know Jesus Christ if you do not know Him already, and that believing in Him you will have salvation and eternal life.

2. The second most important goal is that you will Test Everything! I hope that you will be instructed and inspired to check and verify everything that you hear or read. There is not enough checking going on in the study of creationism and evolution. If you are a Christian, you should test everything because the Bible tells you to in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. If you are not a Christian, you should do it because you don't want to be deceived by false teaching."

THIS IS ALMOST EXACTLY HOW I FEEL and i can say the Holy Spirit made me understand the Bible in a similar manner. I Hope that many Christians who dont yet accept evolution wld take a look into theistic evolution more deeply. EVEN IF dome Christians still like to insist on "creationism", which i say is not biblical anyways, AT LEAST they shld understand what scientists are actually saying as to how evolution works.

jonnykzj said...

@David Wood

Id like to add something to your following statement:

"Since most of Islam's teachings come from Sahih ahadith, Muslims aren't supposed to reject a Sahih narration UNLESS it contradicts the Qur'an."

JK- Actually dear David I've come to the conlcusion that this "unless it contradicts the quran" is just used by muslims as a statement so as to appear consistent COZ ONE can , if one tries hard enough, ALMOST MAKE ANY CONTRADICTION go away. Consider the following "contradiction":
Jonny climbs mountains frequently...Jonny NEVER climbs mountains.
All one needs to do here is say that the two "jonnys" here R NOT THE SAME or that the 2nd statement only referred/refers to a particular/specific time in which he never did/does so N VOILA, contra resolved! This is also why ive come to the realization now that the very challenge in the quran i.e. "if it were a book from allah than allah theyd have found in it many contras" IS ITSELF ABSURD n not falsifiable as muslims wld have it. Other than that if true then anyone reading the Quran should automatically come to realize that he/she is unable to even point out a contradiction which is obviously not the case. The Bible doesnt contain this statement. I now also agree with u on the other challenge of the quran to bring a sura like it. This one is totally subjective n hence once again the challenge itself is unfalsifiable.

Kim said...

Well I shall ask them then. And I dont follow Yahya Snow blindly, Ive seen 2 or 3 of his videos by chance. Thought it was interesting that the Hadith is said to come from a Jew.

donna60 said...

Kim

You are a good girl for going back to your sources and demanding more from them. Keep it up. You have the makings of a great Christian wife, mother and sister.

All of these roles require the very best of your heart and mind.

donna60 said...

Jonny,

Well, if you don't mind arguing with a dumb Christian, you and I could get in a fine, rip-roaring fight about evolution. Because my degree is biology, and my studies cause me to be more convinced than ever that the very concept of a one-cell organism, once at the bottom of the deep blue sea, evolved to form all of the variations of life we see today, including a human being, is pure nonsense.

Hazakim1 said...

When someeone's mind is made up, their mind is simply made up.....and no degree of contradictory evidence will convince them. Kim, like most fallen humans, is stubborn and stiff-necked.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

One of the most convincing evidences for the common ancestry btw just non human apes n men is Chromosome 2 Fusion and ERVS. Take a look how Ken Miller, devout Catholic Christian and biologist, explains this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
ALSO note that of all cretaures we are most similar to Chimps, NEXT to gorillas, NEXT to Orang Utans, NEXT other apes, NEXT monkeys and so on AND THIS NOT OLY OVERALL BUT IN ALMOST EVEVERY SINGLE GENE THE SAME HIERRACHY. Even the gene responsible for vitamin c production is found within us THOUGH IT IS BROKEN. And guess what. It is broken IN THE SAME PLACE in all apes AND HUMANS. Other animals like the guineea pig also have a broken vit c gene BUT IN ANOTHER LOCATION. Another powerful evidence are ERVs or endongenous retroviruses. These are inactive viral rmnants of which we share the K family with apes N ONCE AGAIN we ahre the most with Chimps, NEXT gorillas, then orang utans n so on AGAIN THE SAME HIERARCHY WITH AN INDEENDENT MARKER i.e. ERVs in this case. The fossil record also shows indenpdent of all that chimps and humans split of from a more recent common ancestor as did gorillas n other apes. ALSO NOTE that Chimps ARE MORE SIMILAR TO HUMANS GENETICALLY THAN THEY ARE TO ANY OTHER LIVING APES. All this makes no sense except if a) od deceived us making it appear as if evo occured OR b) it is the mechanism He used create every living thing inc us.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

Here u can read something about ERVs and bow they serve as excellent markers indicating common ancestry:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Take a look at "TRUE(not the pseudo one) human tails" that develop in some humans and also consider the similarity of the tail that develops in human embryos at the initial stages tothat of apes initial embryonic stages n evern other mammals BUT THEN via cell death disappears:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2
Next read the article on "Nested hierarchies" which is one of the core evidences for common ancestry:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

Foolster41 said...

Kim: Yes, and I think the claim that Flies come from bread is interesting, but that doesn't make it true, or something I would give as evidence. Did you actually say

"I don't know this is true, but it's interesting" or the like when you gave the link? Can you now bring up evidence to back up this claim, or do you admit this reason is wrong? If so, can you provide another refutation for interposition this verse non-literally, using cited sources?

donna60 said...

jonny,
The only thing these studies demonstrate is a common phenotype based on the fact that they share the common earth.

These studies show nothing about how these organisms aquired these alleles to begin with. Nothing in these studies provide evidence that these genes were gained by evolutionary processes. The only evolution that we are seeing in vitro have demonstrated loss of alleles and genetic information, not a gain of genetic information.

simple_truth said...

Kim said...

"Well I shall ask them then."

Why didn't you think of this before when you used them as sources? Did it ever occur to you to check out where they got their information from and try to determine if it was cited?

"And I dont follow Yahya Snow blindly, Ive seen 2 or 3 of his videos by chance."

Did you ever think about whether his information was true or not when you stumbled upon it?

"Thought it was interesting that the Hadith is said to come from a Jew."

Did you try to verify this information? At least for me, the very first thing that came to my mind is where did he see this in the Torah? My next inkling was to go and look it up to see if he was truthful or not (I already knew it wasn't though). Isn't that what your brain was telling you to do?

curly said...

It remind me Muslim claimed Mohammad and his army behead 600 to 800 Jews men because Prophet Mohammad follow the Torah. Although, there are no evidence for Torah. It is Distorted!

Radical Moderate said...

@Kim you wrote...

"Just thought it was interesting to know that a Jew got this from his Torah."

Ok so where in the Torah does it say that the Sun sets in a muddy pound?

jonnykzj said...

@donna60

"jonny,
The only thing these studies demonstrate is a common phenotype based on the fact that they share the common earth."

JK- NO donna coz if tht were the case God need not create the animals in a hierachy, neither wld He need to create us with viral markers(ERVs). Sure all cld have the same base pairs but not that e.g. we are more similar to apes first then monkeys etc. If direct creation were true we cld be more simialr to say a fish, at least in some genes, than to monkeys. INFACT if we were irectly created why is our body not a MIX OF ALL THE ANIMALS OR MANY OF THE OHENOTYPES. Whales or dolphins shouldve been more similar to sharks and other fish AT LEAST IN THE MAJ OF THEIR GENES BUT THEYRE NOT. IN ALL GENES theyre more similar to se.g. a mouse than to any fish. Other than that why do certain humans grow a REAL HUMAN TAIL WITH AT THE EXACT LOCATION WHERE IT ALSO GROWS IN MONKEYS.
This shows this is not merely some random bump BUT A REMNANT. Infact two genes resposible for tail development have been identified in humans.

"These studies show nothing about how these organisms aquired these alleles to begin with. Nothing in these studies provide evidence that these genes were gained by evolutionary processes. The only evolution that we are seeing in vitro have demonstrated loss of alleles and genetic information, not a gain of genetic information."

JK- Look up "nylonase" at talkorigins for example. The bacteria evolved the "info" to consume nylon WHICH IT DIDNT HAVE BEFORE. There r many other examples of such "new information" coming in. One can argue that all the information is out therein the universe already and things self assemble according to God's plan when there time comes.
ALSO wld u at least admit then tht humans and apes share a common ancestor by the evidence ive provided?

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

Let me give u a another example. To say as a biologist that evolution and common ancestry is not true is akin for a bible scholar to say that Jesus is nt Divine. COZ IN BOTH CASES the MAJORITY OF EXPERTS whove studied the issue come to the clear conclusion that common ancestry is true(>99% biologists worldwide) and that Jesus is Divine. SURE you'll find some scholars who deny Jesus Divinity like the Unitarians or Jehovas Witness but you wont trust them wld u? In the same way why should one trust certain individuals in bilogy who deny evolutuion N THOSE THT D ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE AN INHERENT BIAS AGAINST EVO N THE FIRST PLACE(namely their understanding of religious text doesnt allow for it). Thats another pt to consider.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

I'd also like to explain what information means especially in the context of molecular biology. Information is any kind of EVENT THAT AFFECTS THE STATE OF A DYNAMIC SYSTEM.
It is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need(not to say that there cant be) for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. THIS is definition used when referring to DNA containing information.
Information CAN BE RELATIVE TOO. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#As_representation_and_complexity
Also read through the entire article if you have time.

A SIMPLE EXAMPLE id like to provide you here are certain species of reptiles where THE ENVIRONMENTAL TEMP DETERMINES whether the sex of the newborn would be male or female. Here we see the MOLECULES of the ENVIRONMENT AFFECTING THE DNA FROM OUTSIDE. We cld say the environment or nature IS "INFORMING" the DNA. Informing also goes on within the DNA itself coz within it there is a microcosmical natural environment as well and the chemical reactions take place according to fixed laws of chemistry as well.
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED delving into more details about information and how it is used in science i suggest you read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

donna60 said...

Jonny,

I want to get some of your arguments out of the way to begin with.

No, I don't believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor. I believe that we share a common environment, that is the earth. And I believe that we share a common Creator, that is. the GodHead.--But I will deal with your evidences later, and that is a promise.

In regards to your notion that because most experts believe in evolution, I must, as well, is not logical.

What is truth, has frequently been shown to not be the popularly held belief throughout history. And at any given period, there have been lies, which were sustained by popular sentiment, until the truth could no longer be constrained.

There is a tiny debate about Pilate's question "What is truth?" while he was trying Jesus. Some Christians believe that Pilate was being flippant. That he was stating that he really didn't care what truth was. Other Christians believe that Pilate really was bewildered. There were so many lies being told in the first century Roman world, that Pilate couldn't begin to sort them out.

The fact remains that Satan is the prince of the world and the father of lies.

I have no reason to agree with the prevailing notions of the way the world was created, if they are, in fact, in direct opposition to the inspired word of God.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

"Jonny,

I want to get some of your arguments out of the way to begin with.

No, I don't believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor. I believe that we share a common environment, that is the earth. And I believe that we share a common Creator, that is. the GodHead.--But I will deal with your evidences later, and that is a promise."

JK- Ok then please explain to me
1) Why God made us most similar to Chimps IN ALMOST ALL GENES N OVERALL of ALL creatures n not a bit from every animal or even the best of every animal since were supposed to be special?,
2) why is the gene for vitamin c production present in our bodies BROKEN AT THE SAME LOCATION as is the case in other apes BUT NOT OTHER MAMMALS? Note that theres a million diff locations this gene cld get broken from but if inheritedfrom parents it copies itself n just stays there,
3) Why do we share ERVs, which are viral remnants if activated in our bodies wld cause immense harm, with apes IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION ON THE GENOME AS THEY DO N NOT ONLY THAT we share the MOST WITH CHIMPS(which has already proven to be most similar to us INDEPENDENTLY VIA OTHER GENES N OVERALL), NEXT gorillas, NEXT orangutans etc?,
4) knowing that apes have 24 pairs of chromsomes and we have 23 why do we find the ends and the middle part of our chromosome pair nr 2 ALMOST IDENTICAL to tht of two specific ape chromosome pairs?
5) Say if we only consider Lucy as fully chimp and not part human, part chimp(which scientists in the field say she is), THEN WHY IS IT that the younger these fossils, still similar to Lucy, become via e.g. homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo sapien THE MORE SIMILAR THEY BECOME TO HUMANS?
6) Shouldn't we expect, if creationism were true, that chimps be overall genetically more similar to other apes like orang utans, gorillas etc THAN THEY R TO HUMANS?

"In regards to your notion that because most experts believe in evolution, I must, as well, is not logical."

JK- Well then muslims can say tht coz the majority of experts studying the Bible say tht it clearly claims Jesus to be Divine, tht doesnt logically mean tht theyve to understand the Bible the same way. We do have to rely on expertise in the relevant fields otherwise everyone can say their view is true.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

"What is truth, has frequently been shown to not be the popularly held belief throughout history. And at any given period, there have been lies, which were sustained by popular sentiment, until the truth could no longer be constrained."

JK- This was the case with POPULAR BELEIFS, sure, held by ppl NOT EXPERTS on the subject. Has there ever been a time when the majority of Bible scholars denied the Divnity of Christ though? Didnt happen to my knowledge.

"There is a tiny debate about Pilate's question "What is truth?" while he was trying Jesus. Some Christians believe that Pilate was being flippant. That he was stating that he really didn't care what truth was. Other Christians believe that Pilate really was bewildered. There were so many lies being told in the first century Roman world, that Pilate couldn't begin to sort them out."

JK- Again at that time one would have to refer to the people who were experts in studying the Bible as one wld need to do today. They cld be wrong on minor issues at any given time BUT OVERALL the majority of EXPERTS wld have the most things right LOGICALLY COZ ALL THEY DO IS COCNENTRATE ON THEIR RELEVANT FIELD OF STUDY.

"The fact remains that Satan is the prince of the world and the father of lies."

JK- Like i said if you argue this way then who knows maybe Satan made Christian experts who studied the bible come up with Jesus being Divine after all whilst he actually isnt n msulims r right. Doesnt make sense.

"I have no reason to agree with the prevailing notions of the way the world was created, if they are, in fact, in direct opposition to the inspired word of God."

JK- BUT AS I PTED OUT THEYRE NOT in contra to the Bible and the majority of BOTH Catholics(EVEN THE POPE) and Protestants agree it doesnt contradict the Bible n have no probs accepting it. Infact direct creation stands in contra to the Bible verse saying "Let the EARTH BRONG FORWARD living creatures..." and NOT "Let God assemble living creatures piece by piece".

donna60 said...

Jonny,
Sorry I have been reading all day. I want to talk about Flavobacterium k172, which evolutionists are pitifully attempting to turn into a case for evolution. So I read the original published articles by the researchers; I read evolutionists that called me "cretard" and I read Intelligent Design scientists. I also dusted off my old genetics text-book, because I wanted to make sure I didn't embarrass myself by mispeaking.

You mentioned Flavobacterium K172 as a bacteria organism which had acquired new information to create enzymes that hydrolyzed nylon to use as a source of nutrition. This organism has been studied since 1975. It was first believed by Ohno that it was the result of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation, but in 2007, Seiji Negoro found no frame-shift mutation involved at all, but supposed that it was most likely to be a single-step mutation.

What Flavobacterium k172 has in they both are able to degrade nylon, and the ability to do is because of the mutability of the plasmids within their cells.

The plasmid in Flavobacterium k172 is called pOAD2. Pseudomonas species have a number of plasmids in their cells, enabling them under stress, to break down all kinds of organic substances--toluene, camphor, salicylate, alkanes and naphthalene

But the problem with pointing to a plasmid's ability to adapt to stress as proof of evolution, is that it sure looks like design to me! Please look up the definition of a plasmid for yourself. There are plasmids that proffer resistance towards antibiotics and toxins, known as R Plasmids. There are degradative plasmids, which are the plasmids which were identified as degrading nylon in both of these organisms. Some bacteria even contain plasmids that resist heavy metals.

These plasmids aren't utilized by the cells until the cell becomes under a situation of stress, such as increased temperature, toxic environment of starvation. But it is a stretch to state that the organism "evolved" and "gained new information due to these plasmids.

Here is an analogy. Right now, my kitchen does not contain a pumpkin pie. But in slightly over a week, it will. It has all of the material necessary to create a pumpkin pie--oven, sugar, flour, pumpkin, cinnamon, eggs. And in less than two weeks, "stress" will also be applied.

In about ten days, will my kitchen have "evolved?" to contain a pumplin pie?--Well, what is your definition of evolution?

donna60 said...

Jonny,

Okay, I'm not done with flavobacterium K172. Sorry, it is just the way I am. I get a bone and start gnawing. What can you do, right?

I just want to say one tiny more thing about this organism, along with P. Aeroginosa. That is the amount of time these organisms took to transform due to the change of their plasmid genotype mutations.

Flavobacterium was discovered in 1975. It was startling because nylon itself was a new product, which does not occur in nature. That was why it was presented as evidence of evolution.

But you might recollect, that random mutation, according to evolutionists takes millions of years! If evolution occurs normally this quickly, then why aren't we seeing new genus types all of the time? I am avoiding the term speciatian because there is too much debate on what is a species--but if you want to argue about it, we can.

In any case, the P. aeruginosa bacteria developed the ability to degrase nylon after nine days! Nine days!

Here is a cut and paste of the article itself:

"Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO was clinically isolated in New
Zealand and has been well studied biochemically and genetically
as a standard strain of Pseudomonas (5). The wild-type
PAO1 did not use Acd (Fig. 1) and the Ahx linear dimer (Ald)(data not shown); therefore, this strain was used to study whether microorganisms can acquire the ability to metabolize nylon oligomers experimentally. P. aeruginosa PAO1 was grown on M9 minimal medium (18) containing 2 g of glucose and 1 g of NH4Cl per liter (M9-Glu medium). Various dilutions of the culture broth were spread on M9-Ahx plates (M9
minimal plates containing 2 g of Ahx per liter as the sole carbon and nitrogen source). After 9 days of incubation at 308C,hypergrowing colonies were obtained at a frequency of 1023. As a control experiment, the same culture broth was spread on an M9 plate containing no carbon source. However, no colonies were observed even after 9 days of incubation.

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, May 1995, p. 2020–2022 Vol. 61, No. 5
0099-2240/95/$04.0010
Copyright q 1995, American Society for Microbiology
Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution
IRFAN D. PRIJAMBADA, SEIJI NEGORO,* TETSUYA YOMO, AND ITARU URABE
Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka 565, Japan
Received 7 November 1994/Accepted 8 February 1995

Put this in perspective. If the mutation within the plasmid had been the result of "random mutation" would it really have only required nine days?

Or think about this a different way. If an organism can transform after only nine days, why on earth aren't we seening literally thousand--billions of new life forms?

donna60 said...

Jonny,

I really am afraid of high-jacking David's article. This blog is supposed to be about Kim's research, and since it at least seems to me that she appears to be honest-hearted, I don't want her to have to hack through all of this to get to people who she is listening to about research.

In which case, David might kick me off his website

However, you have my personal email address, so if you want to continue, I don't mind explaining to you why I find the concept that the coccyx of the human being to be entirely bogus, along with your hierarchy of evolution hypothesis.

donna60 said...

Jonny,

In regards to the notion that we believe that the bible is the word of God, because most experts agree that it is, which I believe you are trying to state--that simply isn't they way I establish truth.

I wouldn't care if any "bible-experts" believed that the bible was the word of God. I believe the bible is the word of God because the apostles who wrote it, stated that it was.

Obviously, I would have to historically prove that the bible was written when it was said to have been written, by the attributed authors, but I can do that with the historical facts myself. I don't need "bible experts" to confirm it.

In the same way, I don't care what Catholics or Protestants claim about evolution. I am neither a Catholic or a Protestant. I realize you don't know that. Some people who have read what I has to say might suspect it, or have figured it out. I am a Restorationist, and to be honest, I don't agree with a whole lot of things that Catholics and Protestants agree with each other on. I don't find that truth is ever found in a popularity vote.

I believe in the bible alone as a sole source of authority in relgious matters. That flies in the face of both Catholics and Protestants. Catholics use the Pope as the source of authority and Protestants utilize councils and denominational conventions to confirm doctrines.

In addition, it is the so-called "experts" of a particular issues, who drive the popular beliefs. Most people, are like you. The turn to experts in medicine, religion and social studies to form their opinions. That however has been shown to be dangerous thinking.

One example, and I really could go on forever, is Diethylstilbestrol (DES) a synthetic form of estrogen given to pregnant women of my mother's generation for about thirty years, beginning in the 1940s.

Later it was discovered that the use of DES cause increased risk of adenocarcinoma of the vagina and cervix, breast cance and fertility problems in the daughters of these women.

Not only that but the daughters of these women also passed on increased health risk of their own children.

But at the time, the "scientific experts" were teaching doctors and women that DES was a good thing. If women willingly swallowed DES, because their doctors prescribed it, it was because they understood that "experts" approved of it.

Another example of "experts" getting it wrong is the discovery of the Hittites. For decades, the bible was the only source of information about the Hittites, and history "experts" stated that this demonstrated that the OT was a fabrication, because Hittites were not recorded in historical sources.

Then in 1876, an Archeologist named A H Sayce discovered and identified a Hittite site. Does that mean that the bible was wrong before the discovery? Good Grief no! That means that the experts were wrong, and the bible was right.
But you didn't need the experts to believe in Hittites. A person who believed in the bible, believed in Hittites, because of the historical reliability of the bible, regardless of what "experts" taught.

C said...

@ Kim

I see this issue is a thorn for you and it should be. You have to make taqleed-follow the reinterpretation of the Khalaf(later generations) because critical thinking is not allowed for a layman like yourself since the doors to that were closed 1000 years ago, and you can not bring yourself to follow how the Salaf(early generations) understood such texts. Your link said the following

" “he found it setting in a muddy spring…” means that he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something that everyone who goes to the coast or beach can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea, but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed. The muddy spring or hami’ah is derived from the word hama’ah which means ‘mud’. "

There is a principle I learned from Imam Abdullah Al Ansaree a Master's degree grad from al-Imam Muhamamd ibn Saud university, and that was if you speak on this deen you better have a Salaf who proceeded you in what you are saying. That was the methodology of the Muslims for centuries. The four Imam's all followed the same basic principle in their usul al fiqh first the Quran then Sunnah then ijma(consensus), and would only resort to qiyas(analogy) under strict circumstances.

The problem with the people you are taking your understanding from is they they have left off the principles of tafsir of the Muslims of the past and skipped on a head over the Sunnah, or the athar(narrations) and ijma and have gone straight to their own reasoning.

A quote from your link " he found it setting in a muddy spring…” means that he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. "

The problem with this is when did Muhammad or his Companions say this? If we can not trust what Muhammad and his companions said why should we trust this Quran they narrated at all? Were did this understanding of the verse come from besides his own whims and desires? This is the problem with most modern Muslims, they wish to switch world views at the drop of a dime.

When the plain reading of the hadeeth doesn't jive with their post-modern influenced minds all of a sudden they are not authentic..that's not what your Salaf were saying. When the plain reading the Quran doesn't jive with your post modern sensibilities all of a sudden you have a new Khalafi bid'ahi(innovative) interpretation.

................. conted

donna60 said...

Jonny,

One more thing

"The fact remains that Satan is the prince of the world and the father of lies."

JK- Like i said if you argue this way then who knows maybe Satan made Christian experts who studied the bible come up with Jesus being Divine after all whilst he actually isnt n msulims r right. Doesnt make sense."


As you have already noted about the Christian faith--We test all spirits.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

"Sorry I have been reading all day. I want to talk about Flavobacterium k172, which evolutionists are pitifully attempting to turn into a case for evolution. So I read the original published articles by the researchers; I read evolutionists that called me "cretard" and I read Intelligent Design scientists."

JK- BUT u do realize that even top ID advocate Michael Behe DOES NOT REJECT COMMON ANCESTRY, do u? I quote:
"I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I HAVE NO QUARREL WIT THE IDEA OF COMMON DESCENT, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."

AND THIS IS MY MAIN PT. All the rest is rather irrelevant to the pts i raised. We can talk abt atheists claiming things ultimately arose by chance out of chaos. For that i suggest you read about "Chaos Theory" at wiki. Evolution and common decent pose NO PROBS for the diea of God. INFACT quite the opposite it indicates more tht all living beings r TRULY CREATED BY ONE GOD.

"I also dusted off my old genetics text-book, because I wanted to make sure I didn't embarrass myself by mispeaking.

You mentioned Flavobacterium K172 as a bacteria organism which had acquired new information to create enzymes that hydrolyzed nylon to use as a source of nutrition. This organism has been studied since 1975. It was first believed by Ohno that it was the result of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation, but in 2007, Seiji Negoro found no frame-shift mutation involved at all, but supposed that it was most likely to be a single-step mutation."

JK- Ok but a mutation nontheless after which it was able to do so showing that even a single mutation cld at times be advantageous. NOW sure creationists can claim that this info was already inside the DNA, 1) for which there is no evidence and 2) scientists can then make the same claim for the first living cell CLAIMING TH IT CONTAINED ALL THE INFO TO GET ALL THE SPECIES WE HAVE TODAY. So this argument does nothing to debunk common decent.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 aagain

"What Flavobacterium k172 has in they both are able to degrade nylon, and the ability to do is because of the mutability of the plasmids within their cells.

The plasmid in Flavobacterium k172 is called pOAD2. Pseudomonas species have a number of plasmids in their cells, enabling them under stress, to break down all kinds of organic substances--toluene, camphor, salicylate, alkanes and naphthalene

But the problem with pointing to a plasmid's ability to adapt to stress as proof of evolution, is that it sure looks like design to me! Please look up the definition of a plasmid for yourself. There are plasmids that proffer resistance towards antibiotics and toxins, known as R Plasmids. There are degradative plasmids, which are the plasmids which were identified as degrading nylon in both of these organisms. Some bacteria even contain plasmids that resist heavy metals."

JK- One cn make similar claims for apes and humans. All that is there in them is basically in us JUST IN DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS. So at the very least you should accept that humans and apes are one design then.
BESIDES that there are other beneficial mutations. Here take a look at benefical mutations WITHIN HUMANS THEMSELVS:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

" These plasmids aren't utilized by the cells until the cell becomes under a situation of stress, such as increased temperature, toxic environment of starvation. But it is a stretch to state that the organism "evolved" and "gained new information due to these plasmids."

JK- Have you read my posts regarding what "information" means in the biological sense?

"Here is an analogy. Right now, my kitchen does not contain a pumpkin pie. But in slightly over a week, it will. It has all of the material necessary to create a pumpkin pie--oven, sugar, flour, pumpkin, cinnamon, eggs. And in less than two weeks, "stress" will also be applied."

In about ten days, will my kitchen have "evolved?" to contain a pumplin pie?--Well, what is your definition of evolution?"

JK- Actually yes if we take the kitchen as being a dynamic system where there is an active interchange of arious materials going on. In that case due to an event from the outside, if a CHANGE in the dynamics a pie results out of even the existing materials(after all every substance is made out of basically three particles electrons, the up and the down quark so this when everything is there can always be argued) the KITCHEN HAS BEEN INFORMED.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

"Okay, I'm not done with flavobacterium K172. Sorry, it is just the way I am. I get a bone and start gnawing. What can you do, right?"

JK- Well ok.

"I just want to say one tiny more thing about this organism, along with P. Aeroginosa. That is the amount of time these organisms took to transform due to the change of their plasmid genotype mutations.

Flavobacterium was discovered in 1975. It was startling because nylon itself was a new product, which does not occur in nature. That was why it was presented as evidence of evolution.

But you might recollect, that random mutation, according to evolutionists takes millions of years! If evolution occurs normally this quickly, then why aren't we seeing new genus types all of the time? I am avoiding the term speciatian because there is too much debate on what is a species--but if you want to argue about it, we can."

JK- Random mutations occur all the time and every newborn has some. Sometimes a few or even one mutation cld lead to A MICRO ADVANTAGE. this does not yet change the overall shape of the creature signficantly. many such advantageous ones wld be required to do so.

"In any case, the P. aeruginosa bacteria developed the ability to degrase nylon after nine days! Nine days!"

JK- As i said microadvantageous can happen very quickly especially with microorganisms whose reproductive rates r very quick unlike large animals which dont by any means reproduce tht often. I think we shld now move on from this but ill address something below reg this.

"Put this in perspective. If the mutation within the plasmid had been the result of "random mutation" would it really have only required nine days?"

JK- First of all u shld know that the term "RANDOM" IS RELATIVE. Scientists may call it random coz usually wht they observe most mutations pose neither BENEFIT NOR HARM to an organism. Whether it is random in the absolute sense CAN NEVER BE KNOWN SO U CAN WELL argue tht all the diversity in life IS GOD GUIDED N NOTHING IS RANDOM. STILL this doesnt disprove common ancestry WHICH IS THE ISSUE.

"Or think about this a different way. If an organism can transform after only nine days, why on earth aren't we seening literally thousand--billions of new life forms?"

JK- Coz a NEW LIFE FORM IS WHT WE DEFINE AS SUCH. BUT if a macro organism such as a mammal evolvex the ability to say start consuming eucalyptus which it cldnt before WE WLDNT YET CALL IT A NEW LIFE FORM but RELATVE O US tht isnt a signficant change. on the micro level we cld say such billions of new life forms do appear all the time u so will. On the macro level were only tempted to quantify somehting as a new life form ONES A RELATIVELY HUGE AMOUNTS OF BENFICIAL MUTATIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE. Did u get it?

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

"Jonny,

I really am afraid of high-jacking David's article. This blog is supposed to be about Kim's research, and since it at least seems to me that she appears to be honest-hearted, I don't want her to have to hack through all of this to get to people who she is listening to about research.

In which case, David might kick me off his website

However, you have my personal email address, so if you want to continue, I don't mind explaining to you why I find the concept that the coccyx of the human being to be entirely bogus, along with your hierarchy of evolution hypothesis."

JK- It's not just the coccyx WHICH I DIDNT EVEN USE as evidence. theres a difference btw TRUE human tail that grows from the coccyx and just the coccyx which all of us have. BUT EVEN THT was not my main pt. my main pts are clearly listed as qs to you.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

"In regards to the notion that we believe that the bible is the word of God, because most experts agree that it is, which I believe you are trying to state--that simply isn't they way I establish truth."

JK- I agree that one part must be the heart BUT dont forget the soul AND THE MIND part. So would you disagree with all the Chrisitians here tht clearly told me tht i cant just rely on my feelings? That's where the mind and intellect comes in. NOW since God hasnt created us as individuals but as social beings we can't just think tht we can find the Truth on our own. That's where the experts in the relevant fields come in. IF u disagree with that id like to know how u think.

"I wouldn't care if any "bible-experts" believed that the bible was the word of God. I believe the bible is the word of God because the apostles who wrote it, stated that it was."

JK- But what makes you trust the apostles? What makes you think they even existed and the whole thing wasnt just made up, perhaps even by satan? HOW CAN U DIFFERENTIATE btw those apostles being true compared to all other religions which also claim those ppl were Divinely inspired? AGAIN u need ppl whove studied these things SPECIFICALLY and made comparisons.

"Obviously, I would have to historically prove that the bible was written when it was said to have been written, by the attributed authors, but I can do that with the historical facts myself. I don't need "bible experts" to confirm it."

JK- Facts dont stand on their own. They can be subjective. The best facts have shown to come out WHEN EXPERTS IN A SPECIFIC FIELD come together and converge on a conclusion INDEPENDENTLY. It's the same with historical fact. ALSO just coz one now knows tht the Bible and the spostles r truly from God doesnt mean one can understand all by oneself wht theyre actually saying.

"In the same way, I don't care what Catholics or Protestants claim about evolution. I am neither a Catholic or a Protestant. I realize you don't know that. Some people who have read what I has to say might suspect it, or have figured it out. I am a Restorationist, and to be honest, I don't agree with a whole lot of things that Catholics and Protestants agree with each other on. I don't find that truth is ever found in a popularity vote."

JK- True but i was just pointing tht out coz u made the claim tht evo isnt compatible with the Bible n ive showed u thereby tht many Christians wld disagree.

"I believe in the bible alone as a sole source of authority in relgious matters. That flies in the face of both Catholics and Protestants. Catholics use the Pope as the source of authority and Protestants utilize councils and denominational conventions to confirm doctrines."

JK- "Sola Scriture" u mean? Even Orthodox Christians are against that for they say that the Holy Spirit inspires one continuously N HENCE the EMPHASIS ON CHURCH TRADITION AS WELL.
For example there is no direct statement in the Bible prohibiting the rape of ones own wife but via the Holy Spirit Christians have deduced tht a husband who does so shld be held accountable. Same wld go for slavery or marrying young children.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again


"In addition, it is the so-called "experts" of a particular issues, who drive the popular beliefs. Most people, are like you. The turn to experts in medicine, religion and social studies to form their opinions. That however has been shown to be dangerous thinking."

JK- NO to the contrary. ONE IS WLCOME TO CHALLNGE THE experts. In scienc the process is called peer review where ANYONE can take part. But to be accepted it has to pass the proxess which employs rigiorous methods to ensure tht bias is eliminated as much as possible. In regards to the Bible one cld do this as well. Bible scholars are for the most part not close minded. theyre ready to accept new understandings if new info comes in through further study or issues pted to them BY ANYONE from the Bible, even if he/she be non christian.

"One example, and I really could go on forever, is Diethylstilbestrol (DES) a synthetic form of estrogen given to pregnant women of my mother's generation for about thirty years, beginning in the 1940s."

JK- I understand the pt ur making n so i wont quote all but address this. SURE experts make mistakes LIKE ALL OF US. BUT ON AVERAGE THEY GET MORE THINGS RIGHT THAN ANY OF US INDIVIDUALLY WLD N THT IS THT ISSUE. To claim tht u or me on ur own cld on average get more things right than the experts in the relevant fields wld be extremely arrogant to say the least. Did u get it?

"Another example of "experts" getting it wrong is the discovery of the Hittites. For decades, the bible was the only source of information about the Hittites, and history "experts" stated that this demonstrated that the OT was a fabrication, because Hittites were not recorded in historical sources.

Then in 1876, an Archeologist named A H Sayce discovered and identified a Hittite site. Does that mean that the bible was wrong before the discovery? Good Grief no! That means that the experts were wrong, and the bible was right.
But you didn't need the experts to believe in Hittites. A person who believed in the bible, believed in Hittites, because of the historical reliability of the bible, regardless of what "experts" taught."

JK- You have to look also what the OVERALL evidence of the Bible is and see if tht stands out, which it always did COZ THE majority of EXPERTS STUDYING THE BIBLE came to those conclusions. JUST one or even a few historical oddities wld then certainly not discredit the Bible just like a few oddities wld not discredit evolution or common ancestry. Infact uve just shown by this example why just coz we dont understand each and everything in regards to biological systems it doesnt mean evo is wrong.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

"As you have already noted about the Christian faith--We test all spirits."

JK- Yes but HOW DO U TEST? Just by ur own personal feelings? Are u alone enough to make comparisons? If so then individual muslims can claim they made comparisons n they came up with christianity being a false spirit. SO AGAIN this very test is made by experts in the relevant fields here NAMELY COMPARATIVE RELIGIONS for which we have e.g. right here like David Wood, Sam Shamoun, James White and many others. And sure anyone is welcome to input. nothing against that but unless we ouselves reach a level of expertise THEN JUST AS U SAID EVEN THE MAJORITY OF PPL SAY ONE THING it doesnt mean it is so. THIS is infact where the majority is the problem. U need to understand the DIFFERENCE BTW MAJORITY OPINION OF PPL NOT EXPERTS IN THE PARTICULAR FIELD TALKED ABT N MAJORITY OPINION OF EXPERTS IN THT VERY FIELD!

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

Also Donna you did not address my main points in regards to evolution and common ancestry which I posted to you agan as questions. So here they are again:

1) Why did God make us most similar to Chimps IN ALMOST ALL GENES, N OVERALL, of ALL creatures n not a bit from every animal or even the best of every animal since we're supposed to be special?
2) why is the gene for vitamin c production present in our bodies BROKEN AT THE SAME LOCATION as is the case in other apes BUT NOT OTHER MAMMALS? Note that theres a million diff locations this gene cld get broken from but if inheritedfrom parents it copies itself n just stays there
3) Why do we share ERVs, which are viral remnants n if activated in our bodies wld cause immense harm, with apes IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION ON THE GENOME AS THEY DO(which wld not be the case if we got infected from the external environment but only via inheritance) N NOT ONLY THAT we share the MOST WITH CHIMPS(which has already proven to be most similar to us INDEPENDENTLY VIA OTHER GENES N OVERALL), NEXT gorillas, NEXT orangutans etc?,
4) knowing that apes have 24 pairs of chromsomes and we have 23 why do we find the ends and the middle part of our chromosome pair nr 2 ALMOST IDENTICAL to tht of two specific ape chromosome pairs?
5) Say if we only consider Lucy as fully chimp and not part human, part chimp(which scientists in the field say she is), THEN WHY IS IT that the younger these fossils, still similar to Lucy, become via e.g. homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo sapien THE MORE SIMILAR THEY BECOME TO HUMANS?
6) Shouldn't we expect, if creationism were true, that at the very least chimps be overall genetically more similar to other apes like orang utans, gorillas etc AS COMPARED TO HUMANS?

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

I forgot to bring up this important list. Guess which two creatures in each are more similar to each other genetically:
1) hyena, coyote, lion
2) manatee, walrus, elephant
3) golden mole, mole, elephant
4) dolphin, shark, mouse
5) human, gorilla, rhesus monkey
6) crocodile, lizard, bird
7) water buffalo, hippopotamus, dolphin

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

Sorry i forgot to post the link to the article from Michael Behe i quoted from. It is the 4th para of:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

donna60 said...

Jonny.
Okay, let's go ahead and use this post, and if David tells us to stop we will.

First of all, I don't care about Michael Behe's religious beliefs. I only care about my compiance with scriptures, because the bible is the word of God, and it is the word of God which I will be judged by.

And there sure are a lot of points to cover. I am on my way to work, so I am just going to state a few things, and then when I get home, I will respond to your other points

First of all, I thought you were referring to the coccyx when you kept making reference to a human tail bone. That is the organ that most evolutionists refer to when they are discussing the "human tail bone." So I apologize if you were referring to something different, and I will look it up.

Also, before I quit, I want to remind you that I don't care what the Orthodox church teaches in regards to Sola Scriptura. If I cared, I would have joined an Orthodox church instead of the Church of Christ, right?

What the apostles taught us is that we have to obey scripture to get to heaven. Not only are we required to obey scripture, but we are guilty of rebellion if we step outside of scripture as our source of authority.

Please consider these verses:


2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.


Revelation 22:17-19
17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” Let anyone who hears this say, “Come.” Let anyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who desires drink freely from the water of life. 18 And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the words of prophecy written in this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone removes any of the words from this book of prophecy, God will remove that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.



2 John 1:8-11
8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 [a]Anyone who [b]goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds



This is just an added note about the last passage in 2 John. The term "goes too far" is translated from the Greek word which means

παραβαίνω
Transliteration
parabainō
Pronunciation

pä-rä-bī'-nō (Key)


Part of Speech
verb

Root Word (Etymology)

From παρά (G3844) and the base of βάσις (G939)

TDNT Reference
5:736,772
Vines
View Entry

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to go by the side of

2) to go past or pass over without touching a thing

3) to overstep, neglect, violate, transgress

4) so to go past as to turn aside from

a) to depart, leave, be turned from

5) one who abandons his trust


I would like you to consider the usage as the term "go past." "Goes beyond."

It is the definition of the term "progressive."

donna60 said...

Jonny,

One more thing and then I am taking off. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches you to not rape your wife, but not, perhaps in the way you are thinking.

The Holy Spirit wrote the bible. In that way, it is the Holy Spirit who taught you to not rape your wife. By reading the words written, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the book of Ephesians, you would learn not to rape your wife.


Ephesians 5:25-29
25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word.[a] 27 He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. 28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. 29 No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church.

donna60 said...

Jonny,

Wow, I am really beat up tonight. In any case, let me just reply to your responses on trusting experts.

I listen to experts, but all and all, my decisions are from my own research.--That is regards to my religious practices and beliefs and the medicine I chose to use or avoid. Thirty years ago, I made a decision to have home births. Most "experts" including my own doctor was very negative about this, but it is one of the best decisions I have ever made.

The stories of "experts" getting it wrong in science, are countless. I've taken two classes on evolution at the univerity I got my degree in. One of them was mandatory and the other wasn't. I've examined the evidence, and I don't believe that anyone can believe in evolution, unless they make a decision to believe in evolution.

Please, please, please don't allow "experts" to make your religious decisions for you. You can do this yourself. The bible is so easy. It is written so that a third grader or younger can understand it.

Let me explain this to you. No one is going to appear before the judgement seat of God for you. The only ones who will come close are your elders. The bible says that they will give an account for your soul, but even though they will have to give an account, you are still going to pay the price for sins you have committed which you haven't repented of.

I enjoy James White's lectures and debates. He's engaging and informative, and frequently funny. I also have no problem learning about ancient manuscripts from him. I would take a class from him, con gusto. But utimately, I have to learn and think about what is biblically correct for myself.

And I am going to learn what is right, the exact same way that you are.--By examining scripture. Even though I'm not young anymore, this verse still applies as much to me as to you.


Psalm 119:7-10
7 As I learn your righteous regulations,
I will thank you by living as I should!
8 I will obey your decrees.
Please don’t give up on me!
Beth
9 How can a young man stay pure?
By obeying your word.
10 I have tried hard to find you—
don’t let me wander from your commands.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

"Okay, let's go ahead and use this post, and if David tells us to stop we will."

JK- Ok sure.

"First of all, I don't care about Michael Behe's religious beliefs. I only care about my compiance with scriptures, because the bible is the word of God, and it is the word of God which I will be judged by."

JK- But u used the claims of ID to support ur views. It would be inconsistent of you to pick and choose then whilst you cite them use only those parts which suit you. As for the Bible being the Word of God, no one is disputing that. IT'S THE INTERPRETATION which is being disputed.


"First of all, I thought you were referring to the coccyx when you kept making reference to a human tail bone. That is the organ that most evolutionists refer to when they are discussing the "human tail bone." So I apologize if you were referring to something different, and I will look it up."

JK- Perfect plz do tht. And yes most ppl believing in direct creation I've come across tend to first think that this is the same as the coccyx.

"Also, before I quit, I want to remind you that I don't care what the Orthodox church teaches in regards to Sola Scriptura. If I cared, I would have joined an Orthodox church instead of the Church of Christ, right?"

JK- But u can't just dismiss 1000 yrs of Church history and dont forget THEY ALSO DERIVED THEIR TEACHINGS FROM SCRITPURE ULTIMATELY. It's just tht and i say it again THE INTERPRETATION that is different in some cases.

"What the apostles taught us is that we have to obey scripture to get to heaven. Not only are we required to obey scripture, but we are guilty of rebellion if we step outside of scripture as our source of authority."

JK- BUT scripture itself says that God is ALSO UNDERSTOOD FROM THINGS THAT ARE MADE.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that men are without excuse.
ALSO IN ORDER to have access to thr Bible in the first place ONE NEEDS TO HAVE LANGUAGE N UNDERSTAND THE TERMS which again one learns from the environment. You cannot have scripture without nature.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60
Ill use >><< for quoting ur text from now on.

>>I listen to experts, but all and all, my decisions are from my own research.--That is regards to my religious practices and beliefs and the medicine I chose to use or avoid. Thirty years ago, I made a decision to have home births. Most "experts" including my own doctor was very negative about this, but it is one of the best decisions I have ever made.<<

JK- I already explained that occassionally ones own decisions CAN TURN OUT to be better than those already mad by the experts. In that case if this can be demontrated by the individual THE EXPERTS THEMSELVES absorb this new method one has come up with and it becomes par of the pool of expertise. ALSO note that experts dont have a lot to say abt wht ppl shld decid in their day to day lives only on certain issues. AND OVERALL THE EXPERTS wld get more things right THAN ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL CLD REGARDING THT PARTICULAR FIELD. This is only logical. Say if you have studied phenomenom X for yrs N INDEENDENTLY came to the same results as another person Y whom u contacted anonymously. Are you two going to be more accurate reg tht phenom OR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL who claims to have alone got to explain the very same phenom? Did u get my pt now?

>>The stories of "experts" getting it wrong in science, are countless. I've taken two classes on evolution at the univerity I got my degree in. One of them was mandatory and the other wasn't. I've examined the evidence, and I don't believe that anyone can believe in evolution, unless they make a decision to believe in evolution.<<

JK- There is some outdated evidence which might not be as convincing or might not have appeared or explained to you properly. Iv presented you a whole list of powerful evidence. What do you have to say to that?

>>Please, please, please don't allow "experts" to make your religious decisions for you. You can do this yourself. The bible is so easy. It is written so that a third grader or younger can understand it.<<

JK- Last but not least IVE STUDIED THE EVIDENCE MYSELF. Thats why there's my qs to you above which im still awaiting a reply for. None of that makes any sense if we dont share a common ancestor.

>>Let me explain this to you. No one is going to appear before the judgement seat of God for you. The only ones who will come close are your elders. The bible says that they will give an account for your soul, but even though they will have to give an account, you are still going to pay the price for sins you have committed which you haven't repented of.<<

JK- Sure but remember God judges BY INTENTIONS. Hence it makes no sense of there being such a thing as UNintentional sin. Sins are ALWAYS DELIBERATE ACTS of disobedience. BUT EVEN those are paid for by Christ AND WHT REMAINS is offenses comitted to other ppl wht i understand teven the christians if theyd done such violatons wld have to be taken accnt for. ALSO ofcourse one is to do his/her best not to sin even after accepting Christ.

>>I enjoy James White's lectures and debates. He's engaging and informative, and frequently funny. I also have no problem learning about ancient manuscripts from him. I would take a class from him, con gusto. But utimately, I have to learn and think about what is biblically correct for myself.<<

JK- Sure that is fine. Im doing the very same myself. As i said the evidence for evolution and common ancestry that ive studied is overwhelming and undeniable to me.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

>>One more thing and then I am taking off. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches you to not rape your wife, but not, perhaps in the way you are thinking.<<

JK- Yes so this means th Holy Spirit can also inspire one abt things NOT DIRECTLY stated in the Bible which was exactly my point.

>>The Holy Spirit wrote the bible. In that way, it is the Holy Spirit who taught you to not rape your wife. By reading the words written, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the book of Ephesians, you would learn not to rape your wife.<<

JK- Correct but just reading those verses without th Holy Spirit one cld still say tht ok so i love my wife but this doesnt mean she can be disobedient to me and has to comply in matters of sex. Now im not saying such an understanding is not absurd just tht the Biblical text alone doesnt mean anything without the Sprit inspiring one. Consider muslims who routinely rip verses out of their context(in our understanding) to show that Jesus is not Divine and other such stuff.

donna60 said...

Jonny,

I am going to get to your lists on my next day off. I don't want to be too tired, and I don't want to make mistakes, but I haven't forgotten you.

donna60 said...

Jonny,

Okay, I really need to get up early this morning, but one more thing about wives, because this is important, and very easy to answer.

First of all, I want to make this clear. If you abuse your wife, even emotionally, it is your free-will that caused you to do this.

It isn't the Holy Spirit, "inside you." that causes you to disobey the bible that the Holy Spirit wrote, and it isn't because you don't have the Holy Spirit inside you.

Every man on earth is given free will. And there is no church council or synod that is responsible for telling you what abuse is. The preacher's job is to tell you what the bible teaches, and it is your choice to follow it or face judgement unprepared.

However, there is some additional verses in the bible, which I omitted, that you need to remember in regards to wives. Because it isn't just hitting your wife, or raping your wife which is a sin. It is abusing her physically, emotionally, socially or spiritually. That is all of the parts of a woman that you are responsible for.



Colossians 3;19
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them


1 Peter 3:7
7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with [a]someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.


1 Corinthians 7:2-3
2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.


Matthew 19:2-6
2 Large crowds followed him there, and he healed their sick.
3 Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’[a] 5 And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’[b] 6 Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”

donna60 said...

Okay, and one more thing that I am going to say, and I am going to get back to you about your endoretro-virus markers, Friday night, but I am still reviewing information about them, so I am just going to say this analogy because it is easy.

And please forgive me for always ,making analogies about the kitchen, and women's work.

I happen to sew--a lot. I used to sew about everything I wore, but my eyes aren't very good anymore, so regardless, I would like to make this analogy

Suppose you would walk into my closet and pull three garments off of the hanger.--a blouse, a jacket and a dress.

You pull them inside out, and you notice identical markings. The curves appear to be clipped with the same sissors, the darts happen to be in the same places, or close to the same places.

Interfacing was used around the same areas of the bodice, and when you examined the interfacing, it looked like the exact same material in all three garments.

Would you assume that this was evidence that these garments came from a common ancestor?--meaning that one garment came from an earlier garment--Or whould you assume that the garments were created from a common creator?

Okay, and I read what you posted about my "evolved" kitchen too. So let's think a little bit more about this evolved kitchen of mine.

This is what you wrote:
JK- Actually yes if we take the kitchen as being a dynamic system where there is an active interchange of arious materials going on. In that case due to an event from the outside, if a CHANGE in the dynamics a pie results out of even the existing materials(after all every substance is made out of basically three particles electrons, the up and the down quark so this when everything is there can always be argued) the KITCHEN HAS BEEN INFORMED.

Now by the word "informed" you mean it has acquired new information, correct? Because I would like to know how.

Everything in my kitchen is there, right now. The cook-book, the oven, eggs, sugar, etc. Would you agree that this was the materials and information required to create that new product?

Because these are already there. These ingredients weren't acquired into my kitchen by random events. These ingredients got into my kitchen through design and productive effort.

I would like to suggest to you, that what happens next week, in my kitchen, is that these materials, and information are rearranged. Not acquired, but rearranged.


That is what I believe the study of plasmid "evolution" is consistant with, and quite frankly, so far as to what I have read about ERVs, I have not yet found any material that is causing me to believe that these retrovirus stands, are any different than the fact that all of my garments have darts, facing and interfacing at identical areas. They all contain buttons, too. How about that?

donna60 said...

Okay, and just one more thing about sin.

This is what you wrote, and I believe it is scriptural error:

JK- Sure but remember God judges BY INTENTIONS. Hence it makes no sense of there being such a thing as UNintentional sin. Sins are ALWAYS DELIBERATE ACTS of disobedience. BUT EVEN those are paid for by Christ AND WHT REMAINS is offenses comitted to other ppl wht i understand teven the christians if theyd done such violatons wld have to be taken accnt for. ALSO ofcourse one is to do his/her best not to sin even after accepting Christ.


I don't mean to sound harsh. I just don't want you to get sucked into the Calvinist doctrine, that says that you can go to heaven, no matter what you do, because of "Once saved, always saved" or any of the other clap-trap which they teach.

We are judged by our actions, not just our intentions. And the purpose of the church is to encourage each of us to keep behaving in a godly manner, so that we are ready to be judged.

When you are young, some of these sermons are hard to hear. Just keep hearing them.


2 Corinthians 5:8-11
8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

My pt was that it is ultimately the Holy Spirit who will teach one the Bible and also what abuse is as youve pointed out. Many muslims read the Bible superficially n they think it says tht man can mistreat women. ALSO i said that IF there is a difference of opinion regarding certain Biblical verses THEN THOSE INTERPRETATIONS WHICH THE PPL WHOVE INTENSIVELY STUDIED THE BIBLE CONVERGE ON, even moreso if they do so INDEPENDENTLY, ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE TRUE than the interpretations done by individuals, given that all are believing Christians.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

>>Okay, and one more thing that I am going to say, and I am going to get back to you about your endoretro-virus markers, Friday night, but I am still reviewing information about them, so I am just going to say this analogy because it is easy.<<

JK- Sure.

>>And please forgive me for always ,making analogies about the kitchen, and women's work.<<

JK- No problem.

>>Suppose you would walk into my closet and pull three garments off of the hanger.--a blouse, a jacket and a dress.

You pull them inside out, and you notice identical markings. The curves appear to be clipped with the same sissors, the darts happen to be in the same places, or close to the same places.

Interfacing was used around the same areas of the bodice, and when you examined the interfacing, it looked like the exact same material in all three garments.

Would you assume that this was evidence that these garments came from a common ancestor?--meaning that one garment came from an earlier garment--Or whould you assume that the garments were created from a common creator?<<

JK- The analogy is problematic COZ GARMENTS R STATIC i.e. NON DYNAMIC in the sense that there are no chemical reactions going on inside them as is the case with living cells. ALSO garments DO NOT SELF REPLICATE with variation. BUT lets try it with ur example n say tht humans r the dynamic agents acting on various clothing. Say a person copies a garment BUT MAKES IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, NOT INTENTIONALLY but just spontaneously he/she tries out another knit type in the middle. A new garment comes along with a light variation n lets say tht also happens to have an advantage in a certain environment say it is now more air tight or so. This is appx analogy of wht happens at the cellular level using ur example.

>>Okay, and I read what you posted about my "evolved" kitchen too. So let's think a little bit more about this evolved kitchen of mine.

Now by the word "informed" you mean it has acquired new information, correct? Because I would like to know how.

Everything in my kitchen is there, right now. The cook-book, the oven, eggs, sugar, etc. Would you agree that this was the materials and information required to create that new product?<<

JK- Information doesnt necessarily mean that things be added BUT WITH THOSE PRESENT BEING REFORMED OR ORDERED IN A DIFFERENT WAY BY SAY AN OUTSIDE EVENT. But again this only applies to DYNAMIC SYSTEMS so i added that the tings in ur kitchen must be moving or mixing here n there already.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

>>Because these are already there. These ingredients weren't acquired into my kitchen by random events. These ingredients got into my kitchen through design and productive effort.<<

JK- Not necessarily by design. One cld rnadomly by things/stuff as it strikes ones mood and then place them in ones kitchen. BUT AS I SAID the analogy isnt good COZ IT LACKS DYNAMICS.

>>I would like to suggest to you, that what happens next week, in my kitchen, is that these materials, and information are rearranged. Not acquired, but rearranged.<<

JK- NEW INFORMATION AS WELL AS NEW THINGS CAN BE ACQUIRED VIA REARRANGING. That was exactly wht i was also trying to explain. You can rearrange wood in such a way to form a table, chair etc for example.
ALSO have u not read wht i posted in regards to what scientists mean by information in genetics?

>>That is what I believe the study of plasmid "evolution" is consistant with, and quite frankly, so far as to what I have read about ERVs, I have not yet found any material that is causing me to believe that these retrovirus stands, are any different than the fact that all of my garments have darts, facing and interfacing at identical areas. They all contain buttons, too. How about that?<<

JK- K_ervs are useless and infact if reactivated harmful. There is no reason for Godf to design us with K type-ERVs. Thats why theyre so powerful evidence. ALSO there is no reason for God to intentionally break our vitamin c producing genes in exactly the same locations as that of apes n monkeys but then break them differently in say the guinnea pig. IF this happened by chance the odds of two vit c genes in entirely seprate kinds breaking at same locations R STAGGERINGLY SMALL for there r millions of ways in which these genes can break BUT WE KNOW THT VIA INHERITANCE they maintain almost their same broken structure as theyre copied along with the rest of the DNA with slight variation.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60

>>I don't mean to sound harsh. I just don't want you to get sucked into the Calvinist doctrine, that says that you can go to heaven, no matter what you do, because of "Once saved, always saved" or any of the other clap-trap which they teach.<<

JK- Absolutely correct and i wldnt BUT THE REVERSE I BELIEVE IS ALSO TRUE meaning tht u wont goto hell/be eternally separated from God just coz u comitted some sins after having believed in Christ.

>>We are judged by our actions, not just our intentions. And the purpose of the church is to encourage each of us to keep behaving in a godly manner, so that we are ready to be judged.<<

JK- I believe that OUR ACTIONS ARE JUDGED BY OUR INTENTIONS STRICTLY. It doesnt make sense otherwise. Here an example. I run fast, bump into someone and he dies. Technically i killed him but have i sinned? Thats what i mean. The intention to kill has to be there in order for it to be a sin.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

I forgot to add something to my reply to ur garment analogy. I quote from what i wrote here:
"..A new garment comes along with a light variation n lets say tht also happens to have an advantage in a certain environment say it is now more air tight or so..."

JK- Notice that the garments dont replicate themselves so human agents are doing the replication here BUT THEY NEED NOT ALWAYS BE consciously intending each and every step that can turn out to be advantageous. NOW say if numerous such copies are made with slght variations n we have 1000s such garments. NOW we can look at their internal srtrutures n see a hierarchy n show relatedness n the later ones we cld trace back to a family of more recent ones till we get back to the one from which all copies were made. We can also see where the variations diverge n how much. We notice a non random pattern n cld even see a nested hierarchy but not a perfect one coz after all these copies dont become reproductively isolated as is the case with living organisms when theyve diverged enough. To see what im talking about type in "ring species" at wiki.
NOW remember within living organisms THE ACTIVE AGENTS ARE THE CELLS THEMSELVES. They "knit" themselves all over again BUT WITH SLIGHT UNINTENDED VARIATIONS each time. mostly these variations have no or an insignificant effect on the organism but sometimes its beneficial or otherwise harmful. The environment then does the "selection" such that organisms best adapted survive and pass on their genes.

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

Here are some youtube videos which explain IMO very good n in detail how and why evolution works. The first one is actually a biologist too. Please watch all parts of one first and then the next one with all it's parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

jonnykzj said...

@Donna60 again

O I almost forgot. The following video also makes my pt clear as to why the "similar genes or similar organisms just means same Designer argument" does not work COZ OF THE hierarchy for which there is no reason if all organisms were designed separately:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl5BB2AkZE&feature=channel_video_title

Bruce said...

Abu Dawaud 3991 of sahih Muslim Hadith...DEVASTING to Islam! Wow.

Kreem said...

Hi Dave great article. All your work have been real eyeoperners. I challenged a muslim friend aping the points raised in your video. However, he told me that he could not find the reference to Abu Dawud 3991. I tried to search it but I couldn't either. It would be great if you can publish a scanned page or something similar so that I can show it to him as proof. Thank you so much