Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming

[Sparko]

This thread is on the alleged "Global Warming" fiasco. In numerous other posts I have plainly stated my position - that the entire "Climate Change" propaganda is a gigantic ruse, a sick lie by groups of criminals with a very sinister agenda. For this I have been called "paranoid" and other 'niceties'. Soon - if the government has its way - I may even be called "criminal" and actually jailed for opposing their agenda. I posted on that not too long ago (Attorney General Lynch and her band of criminal henchmen are contemplating labeling "Climate Change deniers" as "criminals").

Evidence that supports my position is legion but, just as for Evolution, the contrarians will never listen to anything that opposes them. Thus, I don't spend much time on this - you either know and embrace the truth or you embrace the lies.

That said, here's something that I just came across - it is quite revealing:

"Fraud:


More than "revealing", it is scary as all can be!

Of course, I expect no change from anyone here. But at least the deniers here cannot truthfully say that they haven't heard the truth. Then again, when have such people ever cared about TRUTH? They have embraced lies (such as Evolution) and are quite content with that status. "Truth be damned!" - they say.

Article here :

http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...warming-scare/


Jorge

Yeah but what about This?

[Roy]

This thread is on the alleged "Global Warming" fiasco.

And this thread is where you wrote

You willing to bet $150.00 on that?
Come on, be a man, put your money where your fat mouth is.

If I lose, I'll send the money to wherever you say. Call me out if the money doesn't arrive

This thread suggests the $150 be donated to TheologyWeb, but somehow it hasn't arrived.

In numerous other posts I have plainly stated my position ...

Your position is that you owe TheologyWeb one hundred and fifty dollars.

Pay up, welcher.

[Jichard]

Go read the post before this one Jichard. You don't have a clue what I meant or what I was trying to say in that quote. And you've made a fool of yourself using that hatchet job on that quote for 5 pages now. Next time, before you go off all cock sure of your own self, ask the person you are quoting if that is what they meant in the first place.

A simple yes or no will suffice, though you can elaborate further if you wish.

Did I repeatedly ask you whether you accepted a literal Adam and Eve to check what your position was. For example:

"So, ox, do you think there was a unique Adam and Eve?"

Did you ever answer this question when I asked it?

And if I did ask you that question, then why are you saying that "ask the person you are quoting if that is what they meant in the first place"?

I'm fairly sure that you're going to dodge these questions, just as you dodged the above question I asked you no less that 3 times.

the next time you decide to take revenge for some parody of your position on 'denialism', at least read the ENTIRE context of the discussion you are going to use as the basis for your attack ...

Before you make ignorant comments on denialism, make sure to read the scientific literature on what you're talking about. I get that you approach things from a political angle where you make political speeches before you know what you're talking about. But it looks silly when you do that.

[Jichard]

Ok - so I've had enough amusement for one day watching the arrogant one making a fool of himself.

And I've never had so much fun wathcing an uninformed person prattle on about evolution.

take a look at the context of this 'quote' that Jichard has bantered about so many times as defining 'my' position on Adam and Eve.

Here is the entire context of the quote. I am actually answering a question from seer about Ken Miller's position, I am NOT defining MY position on Adam and Eve:



Notice what Jichard left out. No ellipsis, not nothing. Just a quote ripped from context to make me say what I did not say. Sound like a Young Earth Creationist (e.g. Sarfati) tactic to anyone here???

How can be a dishonest quote-mine when I repeatedly linked to the original post you made so people could check the context, something you didn't bother to do?

And you're still missing the point: if you have to appeal to a miracle to avoid an implication on evolution, then your position is denialist. So that leaves you a choice: actually accept the science or be a denialist. You took the position of simply blowing off the science appealing to a miracle.

And to what was seer referring? My earlier discussion where I do in fact lay out a position, but not on Adam and Eve as specific individuals, but rather my THEOLOGICAL position on why God would have placed mankind/Adam and Eve into a creation that was itself not perfect:



In all of this, I never actually give a firm position on the 'how' of Adam and Eve. I simply talk about them as individuals and the theology of the Garden and the Fall. But the point of that particular thread of discussion doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not Adam and Eve are the first Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens on the planet. The focus is quite different. Why God would have created a world with death in it. The only clear thing I am saying about Adam and Eve in this exchange is that I believe they were NOT immortal before the fall, and I view that as THEOLGICALLY consistent with the existence of the Tree of Life, and SCIENTIFICALLY consistent with the evolutionary creation of their physical bodies.

So the 'jichard quote' on the difficulty of a unique Adam and Eve as regards evolutionary theory is just that - an acknowledgement there are scientific problems with taking the view Adam and Eve were not part of a population. I then simply acknowledge that is not a problem from a FAITH standpoint because scripture describes mankind's creation as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. This means there is nothing unscriptural about taking a position where evolution creates the animals and God specially creates mankind independent of that process. But - and this is critical - I am not in this quote offering any solution or reconciliation of those issues, nor am I defining my specific position on the matter, and hence despite what Jichard has implied over and over again, this quote is not defining my position on Adam and Eve.

And had Jichard not ripped the quote out of context, that would have been obvious to all.

You mean I didn't make it easy for people to check the context of the quote, by repeatedly link to the original quote, something you failed to do? Seriously, that makes no sense.

And you really weren't laying out your theological position that Adam and Eve were immortal? Really? When you say this in what you quoted above:

"A place where mankind could live forever if he but passed a single test. In it was the tree of life, which we know from scripture had the capacity to give immortality to Adam."

As I repeatedly told you, you have to deny basic biology in order to claim that humans are immortal:

"And that's not even touching on other biological absurdities, like having humans live for hundreds of years."

But I'll do what I've been doing from the beginning (though you pretend I haven't), and ask you directly: do you think Adam and Even could have lived forever?

Will you dodge the question, like usual? Will you start another post where you act as if I didn't answer the question?

And for the most part, even with it ripped out of context, it was fairly obvious Jichard had completely botched it.

And now your tactics are on full display. From the beginning, I repeatedly asked you whether you accepted a literal Adam and Eve to check what your position was. For example:

"So, ox, do you think there was a unique Adam and Eve?"

I asked you this at least three times.

Did you ever answer the question? Nope. You instead dodged it no matter how many times it was asked. That way, you could make lovely posts like this:

Next time, before you go off all cock sure of your own self, ask the person you are quoting if that is what they meant in the first place.

So instead of addressing my repeated requests that you state your position, you gave the above post where you act as if I never asked for your position and quote-mined you (even though I went out of my to link to your original quote). And in spite of all this, you still haven't answered the question.

[Roy]

A simple yes or no will suffice, though you can elaborate further if you wish.

Did I repeatedly ask you whether you accepted a literal Adam and Eve to check what your position was. For example:

"So, ox, do you think there was a unique Adam and Eve?"

Did you ever answer this question when I asked it?

Yes, he did. From post #496:

"Do I believe there were two distinct and first humans described as Adam and Eve - absolutely."

[Jichard]

The problem Jichard is that you can't tolerate your own medicine.

Oh, I'm tolerating it just fine. The difference between you and I is: I don't make up excuses for not addressing people or their points. You, on the other, will dodge scientific evidence by claiming that the person who presented is a meanie. I have nothing to worry about from you since, based on my experience with your previous posts, you tend to make claims about topic you don't know much about, fill the gaps in your knowledge with theology/politics, and then whine when the discussion reaches a point that's beyond your knowledge (you do this again below, when you complain about minutaie).

You have completely and totally botched my position, you've gotten it completely wrong, yet you sit there and insist over and over and over that you know what I think.

I've repeatedly asked you what you think. In response, you've repeatedly avoided the questions, and then acted as if the questions were not asked.

From the beginning, I repeatedly asked you whether you accepted a literal Adam and Eve to check what your position was. For example:

"So, ox, do you think there was a unique Adam and Eve?"

I asked you this at least three times.

Did you ever answer the question? Nope. You instead dodged it no matter how many times it was asked. That way, you could make lovely posts like this:

Next time, before you go off all cock sure of your own self, ask the person you are quoting if that is what they meant in the first place.

So what I have done is extend your words to their logical conclusion. The fact is, you saying you believe a Christian can believe in evolution, yet demanding that when a Christian believes the Theory of evolution is accurate they ALSO exclude any possibility God was directly involved in the process is itself self-contradictory.

Please learn to accurately represent what people say. What I said was that you cannot accept evolutionary theory and basic biology, while claiming that humans lived hundreds of years (or could be immortal), and that God creates specially apart from other life, as opposed to humans having evolved from non-human ancestors. I have told you that repeatedly:

"That isn't theistic evolutionism. That's creationism, where humans are specially created by God apart from other life, as opposed to humans having evolved from non-human ancestors. Not to mention the very problems you mentioned about population bottlenecks. And that's not even touching on other biological absurdities, like having humans live for hundreds of years."

Nowhere in there did I exclude the possibility that God was involved in the process. For example, God could have set the evolutionary process in motion. Instead, my point was that if you invoke God in a miraculous way that contradicts how evolution works, you've adopted a denialist position that rejects evolutionary theory.

It is not a requirement of the Theistic Evolutionist position, and my personal experience is that it represents a smaller fraction of the opinion of those that identify themselves and Theistic evolutionist and Christian.

It's a requirement of the theistic evolutionist position that you accept what evolutionary theory implies. If you posit a miracle to dodge an implication of evolutionary theory, then you're not a theistic evolutionist. You're instead a creationist who accept evolution only insofar as it's compatible with their religion.

I already answered it above in the previous two posts. The problem here is that you didn't read the context of my original quote

Actually, I did read it. That's why I was able to know that you claimed Adam and Eve could have been immortal, even though you didn't mention that in the post I quoted.

and ran off all half cocked not understanding that I was not presenting my position, but simply discussing two different elements that must be resolved IF one is to arrive at a scientifically consistent position on Adam and Eve. So your own sloppiness is to blame here, not any inconsistency in my own position.

And I already noted your mistakes in those posts. For example: claiming I didn't ask your position, when I clearly did. You're continual dodging of my questions. You distorting how evolution works in relation to speciation events. And so on.

It was not my purpose in that reply to formally define evolution. But rather to point out that the theory of evolution is not about defining the philosophical position on Naturalism, but rather, about explaining scientifically the evidence found as regards the history of life on the Earth.

Your point was to claim that evolution was not about particular events, but instead just processes.

"The Theory of evolution is about an overall process - and mostly NOT SPECIFIC EVENTS."

That might work with the middle-school level of evolution you gave. But a more sophisticated account of evolution would note that evolutionary theory (particularly macroevolutionary theory) gives an account of speciation events. That is: it species how species arises. That's why I included "speciation" in the list:

"But I'd expect high-school level students (and higher) to mention things like mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, speciation, and so on."

So if you claim that the first members of the human species arose by supernatural intervention that conflicts with the macroevolutionary processes specified by evolutionary theory, you've just contradicted evolutionary theory.

I never claimed they did. You simply didn't understand or apparently even read the full context of the quote, which I've explained for you above. As an example of how pitifully poor your understanding of my position is, I believe Adam and Eve where MORTAL from the start.

But you claimed that they could have been immortal, which is a biological absurdity. And unless you're interpreting the years in the text non-literally, you're committed to thinking they lived hundreds of years.

From this point I've eliminated elements of your argument based on the strawman that is your invalid conclusion concerning the quote you've been using incorrectly the last few days.

Addressed above.

One can be a Christian without believing that God intervened in evolution at all.

One CAN, but it is not a REQUIREMENT to be considered a Theistic Evolutionist, as has been pointed out to you many, many times.

Addressed above.

I mentioned this point simply to stop your silly strawman where you pretended that I claimed evolution entailed philosophical naturalism. when you offered stupid strawmen like this:

"But the bottom line is, unless you are a Deist who thinks God NEVER intervenes in history, Jichard says you are not accepting Evolution. That is what his world so far imply. It would not be even slightly illogical to conclude from his writings that it may well be that if You think God moved 1 molecule at anytime in the entire history of the Earth so as to cause a different result that would have occurred 'naturally', then you aren't accepting evolution according to Jichard."

So if you agree with me that Christians can think God never intervened in evolution, then feel free to retract your above strawman. I already know that Christians can claim intervened in elsewhere, without intervening in evolution.

But it doesn't focus on specific individuals, in the sense that it is concerned with the evolution within populations, not evolution within specific individuals - which was my point.

Once again, I am not talking about the evolution of individuals. Individuals do not evolve. I'm talking about speciation events. Speciation effects occur for populations (that is: they occur for populations). Macroevolutionary theory gives an account of speciation events. If you claim that the first members of the human species arose by supernatural intervention (that is: a speciation event occurred by supernatural magic) as opposed to one of the macroevolutionary processes specified by evolutionary theory, you've just contradicted evolutionary theory.

It should be a given that one understands that yes specific mutations occur in individuals. But evolution itself happens as certain mutations become fixed in a population through the process of natural selection.

Once again, you're preceding from a middle-school understanding of evolution, that completely side-steps macroevolutionary accounts of speciation. As a starter, please look up thing like allopatric speciation. The rest is covered in high school biology courses.

Jichard, I'm not going to waste time in these kinds of discussion with ridiculously pedantic formal definitions. They are unnecessary, except when dealing with ridiculously pedantic individuals that have nothing better to do than create rabbit trails over minutia. I'm not writing an essay here for publication in a peer reviewed journal. If for some reason you think my point is not sufficiently precise, it would be more efficient for you to simply ask for clarification.

It's not pedantic at all; it's high-school level biology. It's basic stuff. If your knowledge of biology does not extend as far as this, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to lecture me on biology. This shows that you're apparently unaware that evolution is more than random mutation and natural selection; furthermore, you're unaware of macroevolutionary theory's account of speciation events.

Secondarily, you continue to confuse methodological and philosophical naturalism.

Not even close. I never even broached the topic of philosophical naturalism, until you brought it up. You're the one who introduced the false claim that I'm connecting evolution to philosophical naturalism.

When I speak of God's action in guiding evolution, I am not necessarily speaking in terms of a provable miracle,or a jump that could only have been a miracle, I am speaking of God directing the process, making sure that the right mutation occur at the right time potentially along with the right environmental constraints so as to create who we are.

Again, that's not the issue. The issue is humans living forever or for hundreds of years, along with a wildly implausible account of supernatural speciation that contradicts macroevolution.

From you atheistic position, you would just call it blind luck or coincidence.

No, from an evidence-based perspective I'd call it that. And Christians can think mutations are random, too, and atheists can think mutations are non-random. So drop this nonsense about, "atheistic position".

Well the problem HERE is that you have wasted a lot of time refuting a position I don't hold. And if you would just have read the original context of my original comments, you might have been able to figure that out.

Maybe.

Addressed above.

[Roy]

From the beginning, I repeatedly asked you whether you accepted a literal Adam and Eve to check what your position was. For example:

"So, ox, do you think there was a unique Adam and Eve?"

I asked you this at least three times.

Did you ever answer the question? Nope.

Yep. see post #496.

[Jichard]

Yes, he did. From post #496:

"Do I believe there were two distinct and first humans described as Adam and Eve - absolutely."

I understand that you're trying to help ox's case, but you're not actually doing that. To see why, note that I asked ox this:

"So, ox, do you think there was a unique Adam and Eve?"

I asked him in the context of this post:

Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet.
Jim

Based on that post (which gives a roughly accurate account of what evolutionary theory's implications would be "a unique Adam and Eve"), if ox answered yes to my question, then he's committed to rejecting implication of evolutionary theory. Which was my point all along: a unique Adam and Eve that are the sole first two humans, requires a miraculous intervention that contradicts macroevolutionary accounts of how speciation occurs. So if you're suggesting that ox answered yes to my question, then his position is a denialist one; when science contradicts the supernatural, he chose the supernatural. If you instead think ox's answer was no, then you'll need to explain how you got no from the quote you just gave.

Of course, there's another interpretation, where ox didn't even answer the question. On this view, instead of answering my question about:

A1: "a unique Adam and Eve"

he dodged the question by re-phrasing this phrase with:

A2: "two distinct and first humans described as Adam and Eve"

The two need not be the same. For example, A1 implies a genetic bottleneck, the sort of bottleneck that macroevolutionary theory would not allow for in humans. A2 need not imply a bottleneck, depending on what means by "distinct".

[Jichard]

Yep. see post #496.

Addressed: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...124#post303124

[Jichard]

I cannot believe this is serious. One, there is no "them" there that i can see - there's only one link. And it's to an editorial, not a peer reviewed publication. And it's part of the BMJ Christmas issue, which is typically a bunch of jokes. Such as:
"Evidence of a Christmas spirit network in the brain: functional MRI study"

http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6266

You ever going to fix this oversight, Lurch? And is Catholicity ever going to explain why he/she mindlessly Amen'd a post that falsely claimed the publication was not peer-reviewed?

[oxmixmudd]

blah blah blah ...

Not going to continue this with you Jichard. I have explained my position, and your response boils down to nothing more the absurd notion that you know my position better than I do. Effectively, you are simply calling me a liar. Just using lots and lots of words (other than 'liar') to attempt to make the point. And further, you've demonstrated that no matter how wrong you are, you will not be corrected, by anyone, in spite of multiple readers other than myself pointing directly to your errors.

Denial is not an argument Jichard.


But it DOES make you a 'denialist'.


Jim

[Roy]

I understand that you're trying to help ox's case, ...

Not really - Jim doesn't need any help from me.

... but you're not actually doing that. To see why, note that I asked ox this:

"So, ox, do you think there was a unique Adam and Eve?"

I asked him in the context of this post:
Based on that post (which gives a roughly accurate account of what evolutionary theory's implications would be "a unique Adam and Eve"), if ox answered yes to my question, then he's committed to rejecting implication of evolutionary theory.

If Jim answered "yes" to your question, and you suggest here that you think he may have done so, then Jim has answered your question.

Roy

[TheLurch]

You ever going to fix this oversight, Lurch? And is Catholicity ever going to explain why he/she mindlessly Amen'd a post that falsely claimed the publication was not peer-reviewed?

It wasn't an oversight. The journal peer reviews papers that are submitted to it. But editorials are not typically submitted to journals - they're commissioned by the editors. And so they don't go through peer review. I know this because i have about 10 peer review papers and have done peer review for about five journals.

There's no oversight. You're simply wrong.

But here's the thing: i have not once seen you admit you're wrong, despite the entire board recognizing it and pointing it out to you. So i see no point in engaging in arguments with you at all. I haven't learned anything from you, and you haven't accepted anything that's been said by anyone who wasn't you.

I do, however, see value in engaging with your statements, because there may be others on this board with open minds who might benefit from some accurate information. So, you can safely assume that, even if i quote you and seem to be addressing you, i'm really ignoring you and talking to everyone else here.

EDIT: i cannot seem to grammar.

[Sparko]

It wasn't an oversight. The journal peer reviews papers that are submitted to it. But editorials are not typically submitted to journals - they're commissioned by the editors. And so they don't go through peer review. I know this because i have about 10 peer review papers and have done peer review for about five journals.

There's no oversight. You're simply wrong.

But here's the thing: i have not once seen you admit you're wrong, despite the entire board recognizing it and pointing it out to you. So i see no point in engaging in arguments with you at all. I haven't learned anything from you, and you haven't accepted anything that's been said by anyone who wasn't you.

I do, however, see value in engaging with your statements, because there may be others on this board with open minds who might benefit from some accurate information. So, you can safely assume that, even if i quote you and seem to be addressing you, i'm really ignoring you and talking to everyone else here.

EDIT: i cannot seem to grammar.

Well said. Jichard seems to be invincibly ignorant. I suspect he might have some obsessive personality disorder, but I could be wrong. His adamant denying of anyone's pointing out his mistakes without ever acknowledging even the possibility that he has misread something and calling everyone a liar if they dare disagree with him, is just so over the top as to be abnormal.

[Catholicity]

You ever going to fix this oversight, Lurch? And is Catholicity ever going to explain why ]he/she mindlessly Amen'd a post that falsely claimed the publication was not peer-reviewed?

"Check's carefully, doesn't see Jichard on her accountability list"