LIFE AFTER THE MMC 2008


What happens NOW?

We partook of the impartation of life at the MMC 2008, all of us, 60,000 men. We all had a bite or two and we all experienced this life – something awesome changed inside of us…

Are we going to take hold of this life we have received at the MMC and commit ourselves to it, no matter what? The lives we live are tough and we face confrontations and challenges daily. Each and everyone that met with God at the MMC will still have these confrontations and challenges, but it will seem different, because we look at it through different eyes. This new life is first a dying and secondly a resurrection. We succeed only when we die to live. The theme of this year’s MMC was Dying to Live, and rightly so because we were called to die.

Jesus Said:

…If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me.
(Luke 9:23)

Taking up your cross is the process of dying; it is your walk towards death. Jesus’ words was that we have to die daily, not just carry a heavy load…
Our success lies in the way we die…

No matter what the circumstances are we must die daily to everything else and live for Him, our Lord God and King, our Life-giver. For true life is only found in Him. When we die to everything else the salvation we found in Him becomes our resurrection…

John the Baptist said:

He must increase, but I must decrease.
(John 3:30)

and Paul said:

…that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death; if by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead.
(Philippians 3:10-11)

We have to begin each day with God, dying if need be. We have some good traditions and habits, but we also have bad traditions and habits. These bad things must be killed daily in order for us to follow Him. Killing these bad habits is hard and at times it feels like we are dying with it, but do not fear for HE is our resurrection!!!

I don’t know about you, but I don’t die easy. Dying is painful and tough. I cling to stuff that I should actually let go of, which only increase the intensity of the whole dying process. Dying to self does not come easy, but it is possible and together we can do it. It is important to know that you cannot do it alone, you need God first and also the support of family or friends that are willing to walk to death with you that you may “attain to the resurrection of the dead

39 gedagtes oor “LIFE AFTER THE MMC 2008”

  1. on September 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm Said: Edit Comment

    If you are not filled with the HS you will not understand.
    There is not only a revival in South Africa, but all over the world. people are hungry for more – and the more is God.
    We are living in the end times.

    all of you criticising God over here – you are only doing so because you have never experienced Him. you cant prove God – you experience Him

    and yes my dear friends up here – what if there is a heaven and a hell? what if there is not? well, we that believe that Jesus died for our sins and give eternal lif e – cant loose out. you have a 50/50. because if you are right and we are wrong – we dont loose anything. but if we are right and you are wrong – you loose everything.

    life is not just for now, its eternal. i met Jesus a year ago only and was just like all of you denying that there is a God. my life turned upside down. and let me tell you – if you dont have Jesus – you have got nothing

    God loves you – all of us – all equally.
    get to know Jesus – you wont regret it

    Like

  2. Hey Renier

    yeah i know it’s been weeks. between going away on leave, being sick and being swamped with work and my wife’s birthday party as well as my band recording in the studio, it did not quite have the leisurely time to go through everything.

    that does not mean that I conceded to your point or that I am too scared to converse further. but I assume you are not checking in regularly now that conversation has stifled a bit 🙂

    you have fun too! i will continue to explore as you obviously also do. just one comment on “peer review” – it’s nice to see it as decisive in scientific issues, but it’s not worth much if all your “peers” subscribe to the same worldview and propaganda and will obviously not have anything good to say about something that compells them to relent their own control over their selfish lives and puffed up minds to One who is higher. The essence of a God-shunning world is that people want to be god of their own lives, to be able to do what they want free of conscience, morality and justice.

    Like

  3. No reply from anyone? Geez, it’s been weeks! Expected as much. Cheers people, have fun.

    Like

  4. Something that might help:
    “http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html”

    Like

  5. “http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html”

    The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

    Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2007

    Claim CB200:
    Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system’s function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.
    Source:
    Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box, New York: The Free Press.
    Response:

    1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

    * deletion of parts
    * addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
    * change of function
    * addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
    * gradual modification of parts

    All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

    Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an “irreducible” system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

    2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

    3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a “part” is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

    4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
    * The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
    * The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
    * In spite of the complexity of Behe’s protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
    * The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

    Links:
    TalkOrigins Archive. n.d. Irreducible complexity and Michael Behe. “http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html”
    References:

    1. Aharoni, A., L. Gaidukov, O. Khersonsky, S. McQ. Gould, C. Roodveldt and D. S. Tawfik. 2004. The ‘evolvability’ of promiscuous protein functions. Nature Genetics [Epub Nov. 28 ahead of print]
    2. Bridgham, Jamie T., Sean M. Carroll and Joseph W. Thornton. 2006. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312: 97-101. See also Adami, Christopher. 2006. Reducible complexity. Science 312: 61-63.
    3. Dujon, B. et al. 2004. Genome evolution in yeasts. Nature 430: 35-44.
    4. Hooper, S. D. and O. G. Berg. 2003. On the nature of gene innovation: Duplication patterns in microbial genomes. Molecular Biololgy and Evolution 20(6): 945-954.
    5. Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery. 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
    6. Meléndez-Hevia, Enrique, Thomas G. Waddell and Marta Cascante. 1996. The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43(3): 293-303.
    7. Muller, Hermann J. 1918. Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors. Genetics 3: 422-499. http://www.genetics.org/content/vol3/issue5/index.shtml
    8. Muller, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14: 261-280.
    9. Pennisi, Elizabeth. 2001. Genome duplications: The stuff of evolution? Science 294: 2458-2460.
    10. Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist’s response to “The biochemical challenge to evolution”. Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

    Further Reading:
    Gray, Terry M.. 1999. Complexity–yes! Irreducible–maybe! Unexplainable–no! A creationist criticism of irreducible complexity. “http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/evolution/irred_compl.html”

    Lindsay, Don. 1996. Review: “Darwin’s black box, the biochemical challenge to evolution” by Michael Behe. “http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/behe.html”

    Miller, K. 1999. Finding Darwin’s God. Harper-Collins, chap. 5.

    Shanks, N. and K. H. Joplin. 1999. Redundant complexity: A analysis of intelligent design in biochemistry. Philosophy of Science 66: 268-298. “http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/POS6-99ShenksJoplin.html”

    Ussery, David. 1999. (see above)
    created 2001-2-17, modified 2007-7-19

    Like

  6. Hi Johannes.

    Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond. Ironic enough, I was waiting for M. Behe’s pet “theory” of “irreducible complexity” to pop up. It was one of the points the religious right brought op in the Dover trial. As a side note, Ken Miller (Christian biologist) took Behe apart on the “irreducible complexity” idea. But we can still look at your claims and weigh them up for value. Also Ironic, both Behe and Miller are catholics.

    Johannes wrote: ” A lot of your arguments are based on Evolution as described by Charles Darwin in his book “On the Origin of Species” published in 1859.”

    The science of MET (Modern Evolutionary Theory) is based on Darwin’s ideas. Darwin was not right about everything, but we tested and concluded he was right about some things, like random mutation and natural selection. Since we discovered genetics, our understanding of the mechanism (genes) of evolution has expanded greatly. It boosted the theory of evolution when we found how genes are related among related organisms.

    Johannes wrote: “Natural selection implies that a certain species’ biological appearance is changed over time through slight changes invoked by natural selection. These changes help the species adapt to its environment and thus gives it a better chance of survival.”

    Well said and fairly accurate. The slight changes (mutation) are not envoked by natural selection though. Most often it is due to copy errors in the gene duplication process. Natural selection “sifts” through these options/alleles and “chooses” the better mutations to reproduce, thus spreading the newly mutated gene through a given population.

    Johannes wrote: “The greatest flaw in Darwin’s theory is the fact that in 1859 it was thought that the basic building block of living organisms (the cell) was very basic.”

    Darwin’s flaw? What are you talking about? He made observations and formulated his theory according to the observations. The ignorance regarding the inner workings of a cell was not Darwin’s fault, it was the understanding that everyone at that time had.

    Johannes wrote: ” If one investigates the cell in detail one finds a very complicated system existing inside the cell.”

    Yes. It’s all chemical interactions, no super-natural stuff though. But you are right, they are complex and even today we do not know everything yet.

    Johannes wrote: “Darwin did not have any knowledge of how proteins, DNA and other complicated parts of the cell are formed and how they “need” one another to be created.”

    True. But is it not amazing that even though Darwin never knew about genetics he still realised there must be some mechanism that transports information (inheritance) from one generation to another? It was a Christian monk, Mendel, that discovered genetics even though he never saw one gene in his life. When genes got discovered it provided futher support for evolution, since evolution predicted that such a mechanism must exist. After all, evolution needs a mechanism for inheritance else it would just be mumbo jumbo.

    Johannes wrote: “The fact is proteins consist of long chains of amino acids which have to be connected in exactly the correct sequence to form proteins.”

    Can one protein not do the job of another? Of course they can. Grashopper blood is green and ours is red, yet the blood still transports oxygen.

    Johannes wrote: “The sequence is copied of a “master copy” contained in the DNA of the cell. The information is copied from the DNA on to messenger RNA, “matured” and then used by the ribosome to synthesize protein.”

    Yes. Sometimes errors creeps in during the copy process. It is there errors that will change the structure of the protein, the same errors we call Random Mutation since it is not very predictable. The new protein may be better at the job, worse at the job or do a brand new job. Most often than not it is worse though, about 1000 to 1 if I am not mistaken. These sort of copy errors also cause certain types of cancer.

    Johannes wrote: “This brings us to the problem often defined as “irreducible complex systems”.

    Yes yes, Michael Behe (Catholic) is the religious biologist that came up with this “issue”.

    Johannes wrote: “The system can only exist and function as a whole.”

    Yes yes, the whole idea that if you tinker with any one part, the whole thing will break down.

    Johannes wrote: “Without DNA it would not have the information to synthesize protein, and without protein the cell could not exist to store complex DNA…and round and round we argue.”

    Agreed. DNA needs the cell to replicate, and the cell derives its functions from the protein that DNA codes for. Of course, vast areas of the DNA structure does not code for protein. It used to be called “junk DNA” or pseudo genes. These are genes that have lost function, are viral genes embedded in our DNA etc. Yet, RNA most probably was involved in early life and not DNA.

    Johannes wrote: “Natural selection can only work its magic on living, reproducing organisms.”

    I wrote a computer program a while ago to test the Random Mutation and Natural Selection thing for myself. The results were amazing. It was a very “entry level” program but once in a while I even had one population split of into two different populations. Natural selection works all around us, even in the way language, culture, religion and technology evolves.

    Johannes wrote: “If something like a complex protein molecule would come to existence “by chance” natural selection would not be able to act on it because it has no function on its own.”

    A protein without any function is utterly useless. If a population is really squeezed for resources then the organism that wastes food/energy/time/resources in making a useless protein will not be better off and have a harder time reproducing.

    Johannes wrote: ” For it to lie around in a hot pool of dirt for “billions of years” would not make any difference.”

    I don’t understand this statement. Are you referring to early life? We still don’t know what the first replicators were so we don’t know how life got kick started yet. Yet, I don’t think we are looking at a very complex protein, with no function and no replication ability as a good candidate for the origin of life. It could be, but it seems very improbable. My understanding is that RNA is being looked at for answers.

    Johannes wrote: “This is only one example of many that exist. This argument has created doubts even in the minds of scientists who have supported and studied evolution for over 30 years.”

    Ah. But here is a problem. You are now making a shift to the origin of life. For life to evolve, we need life. How life got started is not known yet, but once life started we can see how Mutation and Selection worked for the first replicators. Please don’t confuse evolution and abio-genesis. We know a lot about evolution but are still in the dark regarding abio-genesis (how life started).

    Johannes wrote: “It is not religion that drives us to deny that evolution exists, but the facts suggest that there must be an “Intelligent Designer” behind our existence on earth.”

    Well, then please state these “facts”. I see no “facts” that requires an Inteligent Designer (aka GOD). Inteligent Design is religion and not science. What prediction does Inteligent Design make? How can we test it? How can we falsify it? What science articles in science journals, peer-reviewed are there in support of ID? ID is just a fancy way of saying “goddidit”. It is an argument from ignorance at it’s base. “I don’t see how it could have evolved therefore god did it”.
    You also fail to see that even if we discover something that disproved evolution, then it is still not a free ticket to claim that ID is true. ID must be tested like all science and since we cannot, it is not science. Michael Behe, the ID fundie and man behind “irreducible complex systems” admitted in court that in order for ID to be classified as science we would also have to classify astrology as science. Think about it and read about it.

    Johannes wrote: “I urge you to look in to / study the concept of “irreducible complexity” ”

    I have, years ago actually. It’s wind. The Type-3 Excretion system in bacteria was enough to knock this whole flagellum mumbo jumbo for me. There is no substance to such claims. Claims *have* to be proven. An issue with evolution, real or perceived, is not evidence for ID. It is really really simple. ID has to be proven, it don’t get no free ride by pointing fingers at perceived (and often made-up) issues with evolution.

    Johannes wrote: “and see for you self why a growing number of scientists doubt Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

    Growing? Sorry, please supply your source for this statement. My research into the issue has shown that the vast, vast majority of biologists supports evolution and that the lunatic fringe like Behe and his ID propaganda are loosing ground. Heck, even the creationists are running away from ID after the US court found there is no science to it, just religious claptrap.

    Johannes wrote: “even if monkeys have a broken vitamin C gene.”

    I never said monkeys, I said apes. We are apes, not monkeys. We don’t have tails outside of our bodies for one. Our split from monkeys are way more back in time than our split for chimps. Yet I wonder why you fail to note that your ID hero, Behe with his “irreducible complexity” fantasy, agrees that all the evidence are there for common ancestry. It means Behe admits that the evidence that we evolved from apes are real. So why do *you* have an issue with it? See, you fail to see that Behe supports evolution. Behe’s problem is his attempt to cram poor god into the gaps. Evolution is true except for the bacterium’s propeller butt? Please. God had to constantly tinker to keep evolution on track? Did he not plan ahead when he started? Did he make mistakes and had to keep on fixing them? God the genetic tinkerer. Is this realy what you want to propose? And yet, there is no evidence, not one bit, that any god ever tinkered with any gene. But people have to rape science in their attempt to reconcile their religious beliefs with reality.

    Johannes wrote: “Also look into the complexity of the flagellum (a tail like structure to)”

    Yes, let’s do so. Let’s reference scientific publications, peer reviewed and accepted. Here’s what the scientists thinks about Behe’s mental ejaculations. See next post and thank you once again for engaging in the conversation in a constructive way.

    Like

  7. Renier,

    A blog limits one in debating an issue as big as this as it only gives one a few pages to state your view. I cannot describe in a few words what books and scientists describe in books. But allow me to say this.

    A lot of your arguments are based on Evolution as described by Charles Darwin in his book “On the Origin of Species” published in 1859. Darwin’s theory is based on what is known as Natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races. Natural selection implies that a certain species’ biological appearance is changed over time through slight changes invoked by natural selection. These changes help the species adapt to its environment and thus gives it a better chance of survival.

    The greatest flaw in Darwin’s theory is the fact that in 1859 it was thought that the basic building block of living organisms (the cell) was very basic. (Electron microscopes changed that). If one investigates the cell in detail one finds a very complicated system existing inside the cell. Darwin did not have any knowledge of how proteins, DNA and other complicated parts of the cell are formed and how they “need” one another to be created. The fact is proteins consist of long chains of amino acids which have to be connected in exactly the correct sequence to form proteins. The sequence is copied of a “master copy” contained in the DNA of the cell. The information is copied from the DNA on to messenger RNA, “matured” and then used by the ribosome to synthesize protein.

    This brings us to the problem often defined as “irreducible complex systems”. The system can only exist and function as a whole. Without DNA it would not have the information to synthesize protein, and without protein the cell could not exist to store complex DNA…and round and round we argue. Natural selection can only work its magic on living, reproducing organisms. If something like a complex protein molecule would come to existence “by chance” natural selection would not be able to act on it because it has no function on its own. For it to lie around in a hot pool of dirt for “billions of years” would not make any difference. For if it has no purpose and does not give an organism (which hasn’t evolved yet) any advantage for it to be favoured by natural selection.

    This is only one example of many that exist. This argument has created doubts even in the minds of scientists who have supported and studied evolution for over 30 years. It is not religion that drives us to deny that evolution exists, but the facts suggest that there must be an “Intelligent Designer” behind our existence on earth. I urge you to look in to / study the concept of “irreducible complexity” and see for you self why a growing number of scientists doubt Darwin’s theory of evolution. even if monkeys have a broken vitamin C gene.

    Also look into the complexity of the flagellum (a tail like structure to)

    Regards,

    Johannes

    Like

  8. Imagine you write a book. It is a book about sound and how it behaves. You publish the book and have copyright on it. A couple of months later, you pick up another book about sound. You are furious when you notice that someone else has copied your work, and you promptly take them to court.

    Now, how will you prove that the other person copied your book, since all the facts about sound, and how it behaves, are stated in the same way in both books? The other person could of course get the facts right too! In fact, the 2 books appear about 95 percent the same (factually)! You cannot tell the judge: “Well, your honour, I wrote the speed of sound is 330 m/s, and the other person wrote the same!”. The judge will laugh at you, since you claim that because the other person got his facts right, that he must have got it from you.

    But, if there are errors in your book, errors about know facts, and they appear in the other book too, then you have a strong case for copyright infringement. If you made a mistake in your book, and wrote that the speed of sound is 632 m/s, and the other person repeats that EXACT SAME mistake, then you can prove that he copied your book. Your case would be even better if you could come up with 37+ errors that you made that were repeated in the impostor’s book!

    Humans must eat Vitamin C. They cannot fabricate their own Vitamin C. Why is that? It is because our gene for Vitamin C (GULO) fabrication is broken. It was a mutation that destroyed the function of the Vitamin C gene, therefore we have to eat stuff with Vitamin C in it, or else we would die (Skeerbuik/Scurvy). You know who sits with the same problem? Chimps! They also have the broken Vitamin C gene, and it is broken in the SAME sort of way that ours is. Why is that?

    We know our DNA and Chimp DNA are VERY close to each other, about 95%. But apart from the entire DNA that works, that are the same, in both our species, we ALSO share ERRORS, like the Vitamin C gene (and many others, called pseudo-genes), with Chimps. To me, this is good proof that we and Chips evolved from the same type of ape thing. We share common ancestry (Thus, we did not evolve FROM Chimps; we simply share a common ancestor). We BOTH inherited the DNA that works, AND the various ERRORS from the common ancestor.

    Relate this back to my copyright story at the start of this post and you will understand. But take it further. The 2 books are WORD FOR WORD, FACT AND ERROR, the same and ordered the same, except for about 5% max, that differs. Reach your own conclusion.

    Like

  9. Morkel wrote: ‘ I am once again pressed for time today so I will reply in full force later.”

    Thanks for committing to the discussion. No offense to your religion but you are a notch up on the norm.

    Morkel wrote: “I did not merely bring up SLOT because somebody “infected me with a theory”. I am actually a qualified engineer and therefore went through chemistry 1 and physics 1 & 2 as well as dynamics 2 so I am not a religious nut who operates on hearsay.”

    Then how on Earth did you miss the obvious fact that Earth is not a closed system? You should also have realised that entropy does not = disorder. We can find order even in an open system when energy is taken out of it, such as ice crystals forming when water vapour is cooled.

    Morkel wrote: “one question evolution fails to answer is:
    if men evolved from apes, why do apes still have ape babies? why are there still primates at all?”

    If you are descendant from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans being born? But jokes aside, we are apes. Why would you classify a chimp as an ape and not a human being? No offense, but I get the impression you don’t really know what evolution is or how it works. If I may point you to a good web resource, go and visit http://www.talkorigins.org/ – You will even find Christians there that supports science.

    Morkel wrote: “why are there still primates at all”

    The fact that there are primates is not an issue for evolution at all. In fact, it would be expected. Populations of primates gets isolated. There is thus no gene flow between the original population A and the new isolated population B. DNA changes (random mutation) and is selected for (natural selection). Natural selection is very simple. If a mutation makes an organism more fit for the environment, then that organism has a better chance to reproduce. The mutations is therefore selected for. So we have population A and population B. After an extended period of time, the DNA differences in the two populations accumulate, they drif away. At some stage a threshhold is passed where population A and B can no longer reproduce with one another due to genetic diversity. Or, they can reproduce but the offspring is fertile. A common example is a horse and a donkey. They can have offspring (mule) but the mule is almost always sterile. This is how we differentiate one species from another. The horse and the donkey came from the same origional population. We call this original population the “common ancestor”. We and chimps share a common ancestor that split off about 6 billion years ago. Between that split and modern humans there were many species of proto-humans, like Neanderthal, Erectus, Habilus, Heidelbergensis etc etc. In the same way, we are not descendant from Neanderthal but do share a common ancestor with Neanderthal.

    A very interesting thing is that Chimps have one chromosone more than we do. So what now? Then they found the merging point on one of the human chromosones that shed light on why there is a chromosone difference. Most amazing. It was actually a Christian, Ken Miller, that shared this info in a recent court case in Dover, USA. The court case was on the issue if Inteligent Design (Creationism is a clown suit) is science or not. Of course, all this data on the chromosone was peer-reviewed.

    Wiki has an alrightish article on human evolution although some statements lack citations. The reference list appears to be in good order though. “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution”

    Christians often hate Richard Dawkins. However, his book, “The Ancestor’s Tale” is an amazing piece of work. It is one of those books that has many “wow!” moments. It is science though, not about religion like “The God Delusion”.

    Morkel wrote: “looking forward to the developments of this discussion. would be interesting for me to know what led you
    a. from NG to charismatic (a move I myself have made)
    b. from Christianity to atheism”

    It is a long story. A lot a factors played a role in how I came to be an Atheist. I think the start of it all was when I realised that doubt is a honest and good position. I set out to not believe anything I was told but to check up on things. Surley god would not be angry if I was honest? I was a staunch creationist. I was so dissapointed in being lied to by fellow Christians about science and data that I had no choice but to reject such dishonest positions. I wanted to be honest, most of all with myself. After years of research, reading and thinking I concluded there is no evidence for god and decided that in the total lack of evidence my position is that there is no god.

    Morkel wrote: ‘I might also add that, in general, my “expertise” (if I have any at this stage) is more in philisophical apologetics than solely focused on the creation/evolution debate, therefore the need to read up on the things you bring up because I do not want to speak out of ignorance.”

    Then allow me a word of caution. The net is full of junk. I think you know by now what science is and how it works based on your profession. Don’t let people bamboozle you and call it science. Don’t trust people just because they are Christians. Peer-review, verification, actual tests and experiments. Cold clinical science. I am sure you know how important it is (see Karl Popper) to have to be able to disprove any scientific theory. If it cannot be disproven, it cannot be science, since what test can one do to falsify it?

    Morkel wrote: “more in philisophical apologetics”

    Sounds interesting. I am not much of a philosopher myself but would be very interested in any philosophical arguments that you might deem worthy.

    Morkel wrote: “Have a great day…”

    Thanks man, you too.

    I mentioned the GULO gene that really impressed me. Allow me to share the reasons why instead of just claiming it is a good argument. See next post.

    Like

  10. I might also add that, in general, my “expertise” (if I have any at this stage) is more in philisophical apologetics than solely focused on the creation/evolution debate, therefore the need to read up on the things you bring up because I do not want to speak out of ignorance.

    Have a great day…

    Like

  11. Renier, thanks for your eloquent responses.

    I am once again pressed for time today so I will reply in full force later.

    I did not merely bring up SLOT because somebody “infected me with a theory”. I am actually a qualified engineer and therefore went through chemistry 1 and physics 1 & 2 as well as dynamics 2 so I am not a religious nut who operates on hearsay.

    one question evolution fails to answer is:
    if men evolved from apes, why do apes still have ape babies? why are there still primates at all?

    will go and look at the evidences you brought up since I am not that familiar with all of them, albeit with some of them.

    looking forward to the developments of this discussion. would be interesting for me to know what led you
    a. from NG to charismatic (a move I myself have made)
    b. from Christianity to atheism

    Like

  12. Hi Debbie. Hitler gathered hundreds of thousands, never mind a mere sixty thousand. Do you feel the urge to listen to what he said?

    Instead of telling me to shut up, why don’t you rather address to points under discussion or at least try and contribute something of value? Can you gather sixty thousand people? No? Then by your own crappy logic I have no reason to pay attention to you either.

    Like

  13. Hey Renier
    Renier WHO???
    gather 60 000 men and you might have some clout buddy! otherwise it seems you’re just another jealous critic who’s really done nothing but critisize and complain….
    like I say – when you can gather 60 000 men together – WE WILL LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY…. otherwise … you really should keep quite.

    Like

  14. Morkel wrote: “A-ha I see the hornet’s nest is alive again.”

    The arguments and debate is all in good spirit. I think it is vital that we voice our perceptions and open it to critique from other people. That way we invite other to help us discover the flaws in our opinions and perceptions.

    Morkel wrote: “Please refrain from subliminal innuendos that attempt to insinuate that all believers in God want to be violent and “literally” stone everybody.”

    I just stated with what the Bible said should be done to rebellious teenagers, and that is to stone them. If you have an issue with the Bible, take it up with your god instead of asking me to refrain from stating what the Bible states.

    Morkel wrote: “Of course I was merely goading you to do what you did, which is lambast me.”

    I just commented dude, just commented.

    Morkel wrote: “But I’m up for it. Not that I think God needs ME to defend Him. He will, however, use what I say as seeds to plant in the hearts of the stubborn.”

    So the believers often claim. You ever check back later to see if your (or God’s) words had the effect you claim it will have or do you simple believe it?

    Morkel wrote: “So – even though I can’t hang around and blog all day, I will attempt to have civilised discussions with you guys, cause hey, freedom of speech right?”

    That’s right, and thanks for taking the time to actually try and engage in the discussion. We had a situation yesterday where a Christian came to our blog trying to cast the demons out of us. Your attitude is so much better and I am glad we can discuss things. Too often people start quoting the Bible like parrots as if it is a substitute for rational and logic conversation. Quoting the Bible to an atheist is like quoting Little Red Riding Hood to a Christian.

    Morkel wrote: “Point is, in this postmodern world it might prove quite a difficult task to sit around and debate about “TRUTH”…but gathering from your thought-patterns, Renier, I would guess that you’re more of an old-school atheist, with a naturalistic/materialistic worldview, thus a modernist.”

    I am an ex-Christian. I used to belong to the NG church, then moved on to the Charismatic churches like Rhema and His People (Now All-Nations). But I think you are correct. I am “naturalistic” in my views for the simple reason that I observe only nature and no super-natural.

    Morkel wrote: “Let me first address your claim in the second-last post. You speak of all things being the result of random matter meets energy as if it was a proven fact.”

    No, it is in my opinion the logical conclusion. Without evidence for anything super-natural I conclude that only the natural exists. Without evidence for fairies I conclude that fairies don’t exist. Without evidence for a god I conclude that no god exists. Its very simple, really. The people who claim that the super-natural is real are the ones who makes the claim and therefore needs to provide evidence for their claims. Our current understanding does not require the intervention of any god to explain the things we observe today. Of course, what happened before the Big Bang we do not know since time and space only got started then. Yet, there is no reason to stick in a god as the force that caused the Big Bang.

    Morkel wrote: “I want to point out that “Darwinism” (as I affectionately call the religion of which you are part) is not a scientifically hard-proven fact anymore than the existence of God is.”

    Your opinion is not grounded in knowledge. There is vast evidence for evolution. Read up on our broken Vitamin C gene. There is no contention in the scientific community that relates to the truth of evolution. Only religious issues, no scientific issues. Scientists accept the data, the observations, the tests and our current understanding of genetics as solid proof. Evolution is a fact. How evolution happens is what current scientific theory of evolution deals with, namely Darwin’s theory with modification based on genetic data. Darwin never even knew about genetics. Therefore, I would say you lie to claim this about evolution: “not a scientifically hard-proven fact anymore than the existence of God is”. There are vast amounts of evidence for evolution and not a single one for any god. One such fact is the Vitamin C gene I mentioned. It is broken, it does not work. Who else has a broken Vitamin C gene? Chimps. Humans and Chimps inherited the broken GULO gene from a common ancestor (split 6 million years ago). The alternative is silly, that god mucked up the gene in both humans and chimps.

    As for the word “Darwinism”, it was coined by the religious. How is evolution a religion? No rituals, praying, worship, prayer or any such things, just science. What a dishonest tactic to smear an opposing view as religion simply because you disagree with it on religious grounds. Investigate, observe, test, gather data, experiment, verify, publish in peer-review etc. Same as all the other areas of science. Do you call people who accept Einstein’s Relativity Theory Einsteinians?

    Morkel wrote: “You have to have faith for any of those to be plausible.”

    No faith required. The publications and data with experimental results are open for all to read and reach a conclusion. If evolution is false it will be easy to disprove with observations, like fossils of mammels in the Cambrian layer. No, the theory of evolution fits the observations like a glove. Biologists will tell you that evolution is the foundation of biology.

    Morkel wrote: “You say science discovered things that made God obsolete? What exactly?”

    I said that we don’t need a god to explain any of our observations. Science cannot disprove a god but it does disprove the creation myth as found in Genesis. The Universe is a lot older than 6000 years, there was no global flood, there was no Adam and Eve as first humans etc.

    Morkel wrote: “Deify the human mind (which is flawed).”

    No, science is a method. Sorry if the method works a lot better than faith when seeking knowledge. Faith has never given us any knowledge and we should remember that where there is knowledge, then no faith is required. Faith is in my opinion not a good thing. It flourishes in ignorance and denies reality.

    Morkel wrote: “Verify that there is a created order to things.”

    No. There is order in nature. It is an outcome of natural forces. No “created” required, non at all.

    Morkel wrote: “The Law of Gravity.”

    What about it? We have Gravity and Einstein’s General Relativity to explian it and do calculations. We have evolution and Darwin’s theory to explain what we see in organisms and genetics. One prediction of evolution that really amazed me was the searh for Tiktaalik and the actual discovery of it. It was the link between fish and amphibians that evolution predicted must be there but we never had any evidence, until they calculated where to look for it, went digging and actually found the fossil we now call “Tiktaalik”. Yet more proof.

    Morkel wrote: “The Second of Law of Thermodynamics (which actually works against evolutionary theory).”

    Oh please. How does SLOT (Second of Law of Thermodynamics) prohibit evolution? It is a lie you are spreading. If you took five minutes to read up on what SLOT is you would have seen that it refers to a CLOSED system. Is Earth a closed system or did you fail to understand that there is energy influx from the sun? See that thing in the sky that shines really bright? It’s a star called the sun. It’s about 4.5 billion years old. It radiates energy by fusing hydrogen to helium.. That energy reaches the earth in about 8 minutes from departure (The sun is about 8 light minutes away). Stand in the sunlight. Feel the heat? See the light? Long enough and the radiation will damage your skin. The radiation also hits DNA causing random mutations. It’s all energy that reached the Earth. So how on Earth can you claim that SLOT applies to the Earth as a whole? It’s obviously an open system, very obviously. Whoever gave you the idea that SLOT prohibits evolution lied to you. Is lying not a sin?

    Like

  15. A-ha I see the hornet’s nest is alive again.
    Hi Renier.

    Please refrain from subliminal innuendos that attempt to insinuate that all believers in God want to be violent and “literally” stone everybody. Of course I was merely goading you to do what you did, which is lambast me. But I’m up for it. Not that I think God needs ME to defend Him. He will, however, use what I say as seeds to plant in the hearts of the stubborn. So – even though I can’t hang around and blog all day, I will attempt to have civilised discussions with you guys, cause hey, freedom of speech right?

    Point is, in this postmodern world it might prove quite a difficult task to sit around and debate about “TRUTH”…but gathering from your thought-patterns, Renier, I would guess that you’re more of an old-school atheist, with a naturalistic/materialistic worldview, thus a modernist.

    I will try to answer all the points raised. As far as the Bible condoning corporal punishment…I’ll get to that later.

    Let me first address your claim in the second-last post. You speak of all things being the result of random matter meets energy as if it was a proven fact. I want to point out that “Darwinism” (as I affectionately call the religion of which you are part) is not a scientifically hard-proven fact anymore than the existence of God is. You have to have faith for any of those to be plausible. You say science discovered things that made God obsolete? What exactly? The only two things which science has done is:
    a. Deify the human mind (which is flawed).
    b. Verify that there is a created order to things. The Law of Gravity. The Second of Law of Thermodynamics (which actually works against evolutionary theory).

    Like

  16. Morkel wrote: “Now go on, stone me…”

    Sorry, I am an Atheist, I don’t do stoning, I prefer talking. Stoning is something the Bible encourages, like to stone rebellious teenagers.

    Like

  17. Morkel wrote: “Now go on, stone me…but be prepared, cause I am prepared. God makes sense. Even Newton, Pascal and CS Lewis saw that…”

    And then science discovered more things that made it clear we don’t need god to explain anything. If all things are the result of natural forces and energy (matter is also energy) then why try to cram a small god into the gaps?

    Like

  18. Hi Morkel.

    Morkel wrote: “Can you scientifically “prove” your thoughts???”

    Words are expressions of thoughts. We can get many people together and verify that they express thoughts with words. It does not mean that what they think is true as related to reality, but the act of thinking can be determined.

    Morker wrote: “I am talking about an independant, external scientist, linking cables and monitors to my brain and telling me what exaclty it is that I AM THINKING.”

    That’s a tall order. We can however link you up to machines and see how different emotions fires up different parts of the brain and also check inhibitor levels such as dopamin and seretonin.

    Morkel wrote: “It is beyond the materialist worldview of measurable things. Just like God.”

    We have proof that thoughts exist. Your typed words on this blog is proof that you think. As for god, can you prove he thinks? Can you prove he exists? How do you differentiate your god from something that does not exist, like Zeus or Santa?

    Morkel wrote: “But that being said, once you have seen someone that is demon-possessed fling 4 strong grown men from him, eyes blackened and voice growling, and you see someone just speak the Name of Jesus to him, and see him calm down, like a meek little lamb, the rage and black eyes leaving him in an instant, and his humanity returning, it is difficult to doubt the existence of not only a Spiritual Realm, but the authority of the God who made that realm and ours.

    Funny that other religions also chase demons out of people without using the name of Jesus eh? Funny that I have seen the things you mention and that I used to participate in such session as backup prayer etc. I also “chased” demons out of people in Jesus name and got “demons” chased out when I got “reborn”. I floored more than 4 people (men). You ever wondered why people react like that when people scream “Jesus name, Jesus name” in their face? Ever heard of anger and people believing so much that they act according to their beliefs? Did you ever consider negative emotions of fear and pain as a reason why people go ape-shit? Of course, people would NEVER act like that to get attention, would they now? Medication works better for the mentally ill than any “Jesus name” nonsense. We have proof that prayer for heart patients makes no difference.

    The thing is Morkel, when people believe they are demon possessed, then they will act like it. When people believe Jesus can “bind” the demons, they will act like it. How about you drop your assumptions that demons exist and provide some objective verified proof that things such as demons exist? Things with no body, yet they have thoughts, things with no hormones or sex organs, yet they lust. How can I differentiate demons from things that don’t exist? How do you know those people are not just following their beliefs, their perception and is actually possessed by things that takes up no space and cannot be detected? It’s silly superstition, nothing more. Do you also believe in cobolts, fairies, unicorns, angels and talking snakes? How about donkeys? You believe donkeys can talk when possessed by your god, as per the Bible and the story of Balaam? I don’t.

    Like

  19. Renier, and everybody who are so “scientific”…

    Can you scientifically “prove” your thoughts??? I am not talking about proving that neurons travel to your brain and create certain frequencies when you have thoughts…

    I am talking about an independant, external scientist, linking cables and monitors to my brain and telling me what exaclty it is that I AM THINKING. There is no way that can be done! No scientist or machine, how brilliant and advanced they might be, can tell me that at this given moment, I am thinking of Paris in the Spring. It is impossible, and the reason is that subjective thoughts exist over and beyond the “physically measurable”.

    It is beyond the materialist worldview of measurable things. Just like God. But that being said, once you have seen someone that is demon-possessed fling 4 strong grown men from him, eyes blackened and voice growling, and you see someone just speak the Name of Jesus to him, and see him calm down, like a meek little lamb, the rage and black eyes leaving him in an instant, and his humanity returning, it is difficult to doubt the existence of not only a Spiritual Realm, but the authority of the God who made that realm and ours.

    Now go on, stone me…but be prepared, cause I am prepared. God makes sense. Even Newton, Pascal and CS Lewis saw that…

    Like

Lewer kommentaar

Verskaf jou besonderhede hieronder of klik op 'n logo om in te teken:

WordPress.com Logo

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by WordPress.com. Log Out /  Verander )

Google+ photo

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by Google+. Log Out /  Verander )

Twitter picture

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by Twitter. Log Out /  Verander )

Facebook photo

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by Facebook. Log Out /  Verander )

Connecting to %s