Some kind of order to (random!) evolution
Olivia Judson is at it again, using reason and logic to prove random, pointless, mutation-happy evolution. This time, she’s saying that a species, even when members of that species are isolated from one another, tends to evolve in the same way. Her essay focuses on micro-evolution, or alterations within a species, which is the kind of evolution that many non-evolutionists believe in (including me). For example, put a bunch of deer on an island and leave them there for 1,000 years. They will probably be and look a little (or a lot) different than their deer friends on the mainland. This is proven and something a lot of us skeptics can believe in. But what’s interesting about Judson’s essay is that she’s so proud that evolution repeats itself, so proud that evolution seems to have a pattern. Even though, by definition, it doesn’t.
Looking around the Earth, it’s striking how often similar traits evolve in similar environments. So: birds living on remote islands typically lose the power of flight. Males in species (be they chimpanzees or yellow dung flies) where females are promiscuous tend to evolve high sperm counts and large testes. Animals that live in caves lose their eyes and their color: whether they live in Rwanda or Romania, they’re a pallid, blind lot, the troglodytes. Mammals that specialize on eating leaves – be they cows or langurs (that’s a monkey) – have evolved foreguts where bacteria break down the leaves, as well as special enzymes to help with digestion. Amazingly, the same phenomena are also seen in the hoatzin, a leaf-eating bird from South America. In short, evolution has a remarkable tendency to repeat itself.
Of course, repetition suggests some kind of design. Which is to say, when members of the same species are isolated from each other, yet micro-evolve (like the deer) in the same way…well, that seems to say that there’s a purpose and a design behind the evolving. But that won’t stop Judson from contradicting herself.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top128 Comments to “Some kind of order to (random!) evolution”
“the kind of evolution that many non-evolutionists believe in (including me).”
Very few people are so delighted to trumpet their blinkered willing abject stupidity to the world. Thanks for this.
Report comment to moderator
Repetition involves design?
Snowflakes. garnet crystals. sand. wait are you serious? if you go listen to the ID people they will strongly disagree with you. But you probably know that, O Deceiver, and knowing better has never stopped any creationist from lying for Jesus.
Harrison, O Obliviot, what is the purpose of evolution?
If you don’t believe change between species, is there anything that we can call this other than willfully underinformed? How can you not believe in things that have been observed?
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, HSK. Love it!
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, the last time I checked, REPLICATION, not “observation”, was required to prove a hypothesis or theory. Social scientists get taken to task all the time for asserting that observation is sufficient. The same standard should apply to any science.
Report comment to moderator
And, please, enough with the ad hominem attacks.
Report comment to moderator
In typical elitist fashion, I am reminded by Erasmus just how low I am. I’ll go back to growing my cabbage now guvna.
Report comment to moderator
Janie please look up ad hominem. it doesn’t mean what you apparently take it to mean.
the same standards do apply to science. What is it that you wish to replicate? Hiroshima? The formation of the marianas trench? the resurrection of Mithra? The civil war?
Is history of the civil war not “scientific”?
Report comment to moderator
Harrison, this is twice now you’ve come with one of Judson’s articles and insisted it means just the opposite of what it does. You excerpt the one passage that seems to suggest what you want to claim, and disregard the rest of the article which explains why your interpretation is mistaken.
In this case, Judson goes on to illustrate her real point with the example of the three-spine stickleback, a fish that lives in both oceans and freshwater lakes. In the past they were like salmon, living mostly in the sea but swimming to fresh water to spawn. During the last ice age, ice closed off some of the spawning grounds, making them into lakes where trapped sticklebacks began to develop down a different path than those still in the ocean.
She notes that the three-spine sticklebacks that live in the ocean have a form of natural body armor made of bony plates that freshwater sticklebacks usually lack.
The reason: Mutations to a gene called Ectodysplasin. In this case, a rare version of the gene exists at a low frequency in marine sticklebacks. Two copies of the rare version (you inherit one from each of your parents), and you have no plates. Two copies of the regular version, and you have all the plates. But if you have one of each, the sort of armor you have can vary. Some individuals will have all their plates. Others will have a sort of half-armor.
What seems to have happened is that when sticklebacks invaded each lake, some of the invaders carried this rare version with them. In the ocean, being without body armor is deadly: it makes you vulnerable to predators. But lakes don’t have the same dangers as the ocean — and armor is heavy and makes you less agile. Thus, in these new environments, being without body armor conferred a significant advantage, and so in lake after lake, the rare variant of the gene swept through the population.
So this is just natural selection in action. In the ocean, the fish without the armor usually become prey. In the lakes, what is a deadly defiict in the ocean becomes an advantage, as the more agile unarmored fish, not subject to the predators of the ocean, are able to outcompete the armored ones for food.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, you were expecting honest discourse from this guy?
really?
Report comment to moderator
HSK,
As I understand it, the idea of natural selection in itself involves no pattern, but since the article is discussing “similar environments” that itself introduces the pattern.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline … natural selection just means that an organism that is better adapted to survive in a particular environment will be “selected for,” that is, will thrive and succeed and become dominant.
In the example of the stickleback fish that Judson describes, not having the bony armor in the ocean is a deficit. It makes the fish susceptible to predators, so the armored version becomes the norm for the ocean-dwelling fish. But those that live in fresh water don’t have the same predators to worry about, and the unarmored ones then have the advantage. They’re faster and more agile and can get food more effectively than the armored ones. So they become dominant and eventually, freshwater sticklebacks don’t have armor.
This plank of evolutionary theory is just common sense. I think even a diehard Creationist would have to agree that the species better able to survive will survive better. That’s all it really means.
The underlying cause of the stickleback change is a gene that normally causes the bony armor to develop. A rare version doesn’t code for that, and in the ocean, fish with that rare version don’t survive well. But if a few of them got trapped in the fresh water, they would suddenly find themselves surviving quite well, passing on their version of the gene in much greater numbers, and outpacing the armored ones until they become the norm for the lake dwellers.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, this example counts against the Creationist argument that mutations are usually harmful. In the sea, the mutation that causes the lack of armor indeed is harmful. But in a different environment, one not subject to the same pressures as the sea, the disadvantage becomes an advantage.
Report comment to moderator
See no evil
Hear no evil
Speak no evil
See no design
Hear no design
Speak no design
See no evolution
Hear no evolution
Speak no evolution
There is a monkey here somewhere.
Report comment to moderator
steve it is important to point out that these sorts of morphological changes are correlated with speciation events.
speciation is likely faster or easier in small isolated populations. we know that major population level changes in gene frequencies are easier in small populations. we also have evidence that small populations of some species have local adaptations not found in larger populations. these have genetic bases.
those who deny that natural selection has the ability to change, add or remove phenotypes are stuck in 19th century biology. there is a literature on this that is 100+ years old, Harrison. Try actually reading the primary literature instead of the crib sheet from the DI and AIG.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, good of you to wade into the ongoing ’science of history’ debate. While we can so determine that a battle occurred at Gettysburg, the farther we get away from the event the more interpretation that must be done. So one day, people will be wondering if Gettysburg had anything to do with 1st Manassas.
The narrative that surrounds the discovered facts is what HSK is questioning. Why is Jusdon’s narrative to be believed? The interpretation ‘natural selection is a peculiar species generator’ takes a bit of embellishment. Natural selection does make weaker genes fall to the background but those genes exist although dormant.
If you don’t believe me about the history stuff, just go to a museum and see how many now call themselves ‘interpretation centres’.
Report comment to moderator
members of that species are isolated from one another, tends to evolve in the same way.
Regardless of the role of the environment. Another attack of “determined ignorance”. A true display of the lack of understanding evolution.
So, when it comes to evolution, did “determined ignorance” evolve or was it created, “fully formed and functional”?
purpose and a design behind the evolving
Uh, yea, it’s called adaptation. The purpose and design is to survive in a changing environment.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, thanks for explaining the example.
It still seems like a long way from a deformed fish to a human being. Does it ever seem even a little far-fetched to you?
Report comment to moderator
Is the sanctimonious arrogance of the evolutionist a result of his genetics or his environment?
Report comment to moderator
StuBob, that’s a good question.
Here’s another. Would any of us get away with treating non-Christians that way?
Report comment to moderator
Would any of us get away with treating non-Christians that way?
Ask the gays.
Report comment to moderator
HSK: Two questions.
How does any kind of change in a species support the existence of a designer, unless the designer intends to have the species survive?
Given that 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived are now extinct, will you concede that the designer is clearly not an omipotent god? Or is not at all interested in the survival of any of his/her/its creations?
Well that’s two and half, but anyway…
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A at #17: It still seems like a long way from a deformed fish to a human being. Does it ever seem even a little far-fetched to you?
It is a long way. That’s why it took four billion years or so to get there.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19208580/
Some cool new discoveries. Everyday, more evidence is found that supports evolution. No evidence is found to support mysticism. Ever.
Decidedly odd.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus:
1Very few people are so delighted to trumpet their blinkered willing abject stupidity to the world. Thanks for this.
2 Harrison, O Obliviot,
3 Steve, you were expecting honest discourse from this guy?
Janie, is precisely right; all of the above are unquestionably ad hominem slurs unworthy of civil discussion.
Report comment to moderator
I have a question.
When a species has a beneficial mutation, doesn’t this natural selection result in a loss of genetic information?
Report comment to moderator
Geez..
Ask a simple question, and everyone heads for the hills.
Report comment to moderator
Solon
I’m sorry, did you think i was addressing HSK’s lack-of-an-argument? No, I was in fact addressing his delight in trumpeting his blinkered willing abject stupidity to the world. In no way was I saying that this made him wrong. In other words, that’s not why he is wrong. Your point 1 fails as an adhom. Perhaps not very nice, but stupidity is tiresome and abundant.
2 reference every single HSK post on creationism. note his inability or unwillingness to learn from being corrected. Obliviot seems like a charitable characterization of his method. Again, that’s not why he is wrong. Fails again.
3 Now, you may have a point here. I’m not sure. Again, reference every single HSK blither about cretinism and note the dishonesty (for example, Steve pointed out how HSK has obtusely mischaracterized the past two Judson articles. While this could be a legitimate ad hominem, I don’t think so. The dishonesty is exactly the topic, not some other issue where dishonesty is brought in as a discrediting tactic. The bottom line is that is true that HSK has so far shown that he is incapable of honest representation of the facts regarding Intelligent Design Creationism and the other flavors of creationism floating around out there in the ignorati milieu.
Solon that was considerably less grumpy than usual. You feeling OK?
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner
species don’t have mutations, individuals do.
this is not natural selection.
if you have no measure of ‘genetic information’ then it is impossible to assess your claim.
if mutation is a point nucleotide substitution, then the DNA sequence remains the same length. probably doesn’t fit ‘loss of information’, but sure doesn’t fit ‘gain of information’.
if mutation is a duplication of a gene, then the DNA sequence is now longer. this can happen in reverse, where sequence becomes shorter. many examples of longer sequences caused by duplication are known, see ‘gene copy number humans’ with ye olde google. longer sequence means more ‘information’ under some definitions of ‘information’, not under others. Intelligent Design creationists like to obfuscate this issue.
If mutation is insertion of sequence elements into another sequence, all sorts of things may happen. sequence is longer. more or less ‘information’ depending on what definition you use.
so any useful definition of ‘information’ will recognize that this measure varies between individuals. the idea that mutation and selection always cause loss of information is not supported by a single piece of evidence, just rhetorical tirades from slick talking creationist PR men.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner: Further on what Erasmus said, it’s important to understand that the inner workings of beasties are not neat and tidy.
Gene replication is not a neat and tidy thing, and so some fairly simple organisms have many more genes than some complex ones. Many of the genes may be non-functional, but they’re there.
The idea of “genetic information” is likewise not neat and tidy. I think many Creationists assume that simple organisms should have fewer genes than complex ones, and that leads to the idea that if the function of a gene changes, “genetic information” is “lost.” But it’s not as linear as that.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner, (re #25) I think your question might be the problem.
When the specs for a 2008 Mercedes replace those of the 2007 model, is there “loss of design information?” Now imagine that for each page of specifications and instructions relevant to building this year’s car, there are 90 pages of figures, text and numbers that the factory never looks at. If some of those currently irrelevant pages fall out from year to year and are replaced by others, now is there loss of information? Not that anyone would notice, at least until it adversely affected the product. And even then, changed, replaced or evolved would probably be better terms than lost.
Regards,
SG
Report comment to moderator
SG what does this have to do with MrM’s question, again? You lost me with the wild analogy
Report comment to moderator
“evolutionary theorists rely on mutations to create the raw material on which natural selection can then operate. But that is a separate issue. It has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on theoretical grounds in this area.2 One of the world’s leading information scientists, Dr Werner Gitt from Germany’s Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says, ‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’3 His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published.”
Is this material out-of date?
Can you show where the mutation by gene duplication can result in a gain of information, that doesn’t result in a tumor, or a blood disorder of some type?
Or results in anything that benefits the individual, at all?
Report comment to moderator
E (#32),
It addressed (in a sideways way) how the construction/development specs used to produce one iteration of a product or organism could change with additions and deletions of both relevant and currently irrelevant information without really qualifying as a “loss of genetic information.” And it did so without the attitude. That might be why you got lost. I should have tagged on “you bibble thumpin obliviotic deceptineocon” for a reference point so that folks would clearly see where I was coming from and know to look up when addressing me. My bad {:~)
Report comment to moderator
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22879714/
Oh wow. Here is another new find. Fossilized skin of the Duck Billed dinosaur. So cool. New dinosaurs are being found every day. I love the way the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow. And with “proof” yet. Don’t cha just love “proof” and “evidence”?
Report comment to moderator
#22, SteveG, you point out a problem I have with evolutionary theory. Because it would take 4 billion years (much longer, I would guess), then 4 billion years is given as the time that life has existed on earth. If somebody showed that it would really take 400 billion years, then that would be the given timeframe. But neither the process of evolution or the timespan of life on earth has first been proven.
#34 RDean, are you suggesting that the finding of a new dinosaur species is proof of evolution? You’re going to have to do bettter than that to convince me.
Oh, and the best proof of “mysticism”? How about that you and I even exist? That’s a pretty strong proof.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A: #22, SteveG, you point out a problem I have with evolutionary theory. Because it would take 4 billion years (much longer, I would guess), then 4 billion years is given as the time that life has existed on earth. If somebody showed that it would really take 400 billion years, then that would be the given timeframe. But neither the process of evolution or the timespan of life on earth has first been proven.
Not proven down to the calendar day, no, but established pretty well by reasons that have nothing to do with evolution.
Your argument here is that the dating of the age of the earth is circular reason based on some assumption or measurement about the age of life. That is mistaken.
The age of the Earth has been estimated at between 4 billion and 5 billion years old through a variety of dating methods inclulding several different types of radiometric methods. (I found a decent article on that here.
None of this has anything to do with life on Earth; the age is established by other means. But we can then say that it took somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 billion years for evolution to produce mankind and other modern animals, because we know at least within a range how old the planet is.
Report comment to moderator
#35: You’re going to have to do bettter than that to convince me.
You believe in the occult without any proof at all. Who could compete with that?
Report comment to moderator
Given that 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived are now extinct.
I wonder where in the world Arcadia dug up that nugget of fiction? Probably alongside Donato’s duck-billed dinosaur fossils.
Report comment to moderator
arcadia – We don’t have evidence to show that 99.9% of all of the species that have ever lived are now extinct. That is extrapolation based upon the presupposition of marco-evolution as the operative mechanism.
The Creator may well have had reasons to let some cycles of die off take place. We who get to spend time with Him later on will have to remember to ask Him about that.
Report comment to moderator
KRM:
The Creator may well have had reasons to let some cycles of die off take place.
Hey, why not? It’s kind of fun to make things and then break them up. My grandson does it with his Legos every time.
And of course, drowning (not just neglecting) every living human being, save a couple, was sooo much fun.
And…what the heck makes you think he will answer your departed soul any more clearly than he does your corporate form?
The whole idea that humans are somehow just so precious to your Designer seems to me a supreme conceit belied by almost the entire bible.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, you stated the earth is 4 BILLION years old? Yur kidding, right? I mean….there are scientific methods that reach that conclusion?
Evolution: from goo, to the zoo, to you in 4,000,000,000 years…….
hahahahaha To borrow RDEAN’s terminology, that is the definition of a myth.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for being ever the wild man, Justus.
But try reading some science sometime. It’s actually kind of cool, and I promise it won’t turn you into a nerd.
Report comment to moderator
HARRISON . . . evolution seems to have a pattern. Even though, by definition, it doesn’t.
By definition, the patterns are the result of one mindless algorithm or another operating in time.
Harrison’s resistance to the theory of evolution seems to stem from his disappointment with the supposed pretentions to Truth and Proof, which he bitterly capitalizes in these posts. Science makes no claim to such foreclosed categories of metaphysics.
Does Harrison express equivalent skepticism about his concept of Design (now my turn for bitter capitalization). It seems to me, he needs to have some theological as well as philosophical misgivings about this shibboleth.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: You highlight one of the difficulties of the debate. People who want to reject evolution seem to believe that if they can highlight a weakness or two in evolutionary theory, they’ve somehow proved Creationism.
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately, they are not able to “highlight” a weakness. They only highlight their lack of understanding. It’s why it’s fun to argue. And then they point to mysticism as the basis of their “truth”. Fables and children’s stories are their “evidence”. And nothing like their mastery of “logic”. How many times have I heard, “The Grand Canyon COULD have been created by the great flood”? Arcane creationism is based on, “could” “maybe” and “the Bible says”.
Report comment to moderator
KRM
it seems that you raise doubts regarding the confidence interval around that estimate.
Precise? Accurate? How do you presume to know?
Is this what greater tards than I have labelled ’selective hyper-skepticism’? How would one presume improve this estimate?
donato nothing is as entertaining than the willingness to shout one’s personal stupidity from the rooftops. all the perches are occupied ’round heah.
Report comment to moderator
Justus,
You mean other than things like radiological dating based many many different materials, observed rates of sedimentation and plate tectonic movements, estimates of cooling rates after planet formation, observed red-shifts of stars that let us calculate their distances, and so provide an estimate for the age of the universe, stellar astrophysics that allows us to get a reasonably accurate estimate on how old the sun likely is, and other pesky things like that.
And the fact that those things lead to estimates that appear to be consistent, and within an order of magnitude lead to an age between 1 – 5 billion years?
Report comment to moderator
Justus is one of those people who is proud of not knowing anything outside of the Bible. I’ve decided to find it charming.
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s scary.
Report comment to moderator
donato, don’t fear the tard. just wash your hands after you leave here.
I’ve got a buddy who used to be a pretty big drunk. Sometimes he’d get to feeling guilty and down and he told me during one of those periods that he felt like the Lord had put him here to be an example to other people. And I said, O Really? He said, yeah, I feel like if people can look at me and say, ‘Wow, I don’t want to be like that’, then perhaps his life still had some meaning.
And this is pretty much the great value in those who deny the entirety of scientific knowledge (as 47 points out), choosing instead to seek solace in the reification of some comforting murmurs from fairy tales . You wouldn’t want to be like that.
Lord help me to suffer this fool gladly, I believe, is the appropriate prayer.
Report comment to moderator
they are not able to “highlight” a weakness. They only highlight their lack of understanding.
Creationists understand very well the danger of evolution to their authority and prestige. Even if it discovers no answers, the Discovery Institute will stay in business as long as it highlights unanswered questions, which will emerge until we know everything about everything.
The irony Harrison is running away from is that it takes so much Mind to discover the mindlessness of nature, and so little wit to discern Design.
My favorite argument against evolution slapped down Darwin while he was still living. A prominent English physicist calculated the rate of cooling of the molten core of the earth, thus proving the earth was much too young. Darwin never overcame the logical incompatibility of his theory with the Facts. Decades later, physicists discovered radiological decay, the cause of the core’s great heat.
Report comment to moderator
The sad thing is, I think people like Justus — who seems like a perfectly smart, likeable guy to me — are afraid to let themselves seriously understand the science, because they worry they will have to modify their religious belief.
They say they have “the truth,” but in order to hold onto the belief they have to shut out discovered knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
Tard is not nice. Just because you refuse to learn, doesn’t mean you’re a tard. It just mean you are close minded.
Report comment to moderator
“I think people like Justus … are afraid to let themselves seriously understand the science, because they worry they will have to modify their religious belief”
I think his is an understandable if not necessarily defensible worry, a reaction to the message of folks who have aggressively and incessantly (even if quite wrongly) insisted that science requires rejection of religious belief — that the validity of evolution invalidates theism. These buffoons have postured long and loud enough to gain sway in the general discourse of our culture. And it will likely take some time for many Christians to recognize the sham of their threat, see them for the poseurs they are.
In this sense, RDean’s posts serve a valuable purpose, reliable examples of the gaseous and insubstantial (though unpleasant) sort of thinking that follows in the wake of prats like Dawkins and Hitchens. They show how little there really is to fear and that science is not quite the atheistic club its wielders wish Christians to believe.
Report comment to moderator
Science is a tool. Like a hammer or a broom. It only deals with the “real” world.
Religion is about the occult. The belief in supernatural and arcane creatures that can’t be seen and have no measurable effect on the “real” world.
They are exact opposites.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, RDean, for another encouraging post {:~)
Report comment to moderator
donato, i was not calling justus a tard. tard is a description of that mode of thinking.
SG if science is not an atheistic club, how can it be wielded?
It’s a lot easier to dismiss something as unsubstantial (google: The Courtier’s Reply) than to deal with merits.
Kelvin’s calculations still demanded a much older earth than many theologians demanded.
donato, Dawkins does not deny the possibility that there are indeed invisible fairies in his garden. he says, what good is that proposition? that is why SG is a little off base. What good is the proposition of unobservable gods? None that I can see. Those who claim Dawkins unfairly caricatured religion in a crude lampoon have never came to worldblog and listened to commenter after commenter say idiotic things like there should be millions of halfmen half monkeys, or half men half donkeys running around in the world. That is pure tard.
Report comment to moderator
SG are you saying that YEC idiocy would disappear if atheists would just shut up?
Report comment to moderator
#58: Probably not all at once. But it’s a relatively recent and partly reactionary development. I suspect it’ll fade away on its own. And with it the source of fun for many a bellicose evolutionist whose bluster will then become entirely joyless {:~)
Report comment to moderator
Serious George at #54: I think his is an understandable if not necessarily defensible worry, a reaction to the message of folks who have aggressively and incessantly (even if quite wrongly) insisted that science requires rejection of religious belief — that the validity of evolution invalidates theism. These buffoons have postured long and loud enough to gain sway in the general discourse of our culture.
You appear to be talking here of buffoons such as Dawkins and Hitchens.
That may be a fair point, but I suspect that the real pressure on religious believers comes from the Creationists. They also insist that science destroys faith, but they come at it from the belief that science is misguided at best and possibly evil. They also pump out reams of misinformation about the validity of the science.
So the poor ordinary Christian is hearing from both sides that if they dare to give the real science a fair hearing, they’ll be sucked right into hell. (Dawkins wouldn’t put it that way of course, but the Christian is filtering the message through his own beliefs.)
No wonder they don’t want to know.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG. @#60
I think that’s probably a fair assessment.
SG
Report comment to moderator
They also insist that science destroys faith
If some people want to say there are mystical beings and demons and fairies and Captain Marvel, fine. As long as they hold to their belief in stuff that’s invisible and can’t be measured and that no one has ever seen, then there is no problem.
But, when they insist there is a mystical and supernatural cause to the “real” world. That natural formations and events have an occult basis, then it’s not science destroying faith, but faith trampling reason. That’s quite a big difference.
The Grand Canyon being created from a magical flood. The world being created with “powers”. The world being only a few thousand years old with a supernatural beginning. I understand believing these things centuries ago, but come on, that was centuries ago. We know better now. I just don’t get the excuse or the attack on science.
Report comment to moderator
donato post #62, I suspect that there will always be those people and that YEC or other assorted idiocies are going nowhere.
That is a prediction made from the observation that religious authority and power in general tends to coalesce into hierarchical structures, with inflexible dogma. It’s much easier to construct a narrative using entities and processes that do not exist than it is to tailor such a narrative to empirical facts. The reason for that I suppose is that one demands that conclusions come first, and that is a general tendency of sorcerer’s explanations for any particular phenomena.
Report comment to moderator
Well, this whole argument of science v religion is based on a false premise. This false premise is derived from a little misunderstanding…
The very first Hebrew word in the Bible provides an answer to a question upon which gallons of ink, whole forests of paper, and now excessive amounts of bandwidth have been expended.
This Hebrew word – B’reesheeth – is in a compound relationship, i.e. construct and following genitive. It is actually four words in English. It means ‘in the beginning OF’.
Only one little word – OF – has been left out. But it changes the entire meaning of the introduction to the Bible.
Paraphrased then: “In the beginning OF God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep.”
That’s right…God imposed order on a pre-existing world.
God breathed his ’spirit’ into a creature, Adam (man), with the intention of ‘creating’ the mind of this creature in its Creator’s own image for the benefit of both creature and creation.
The creation story is about the Creator and his relationship to man, about bringing ‘light’ into the mind of man.
It is not a timeline history of the world or of man. It is an allegorical tale about God intervening in the world to impose his harmony, his order and his boundaries upon man.
God sets parameters for man – responsibilities, authorities and boundaries – and warns of the natural consequences arising from man’s stepping outside those parameters.
It is a message of very deep significance quite lost on literalists, creationists and evolutionists alike.
Report comment to moderator
yes that is very deep.
didn’t you leave something out about thetas, and reptilians?
Report comment to moderator
Not every thing opaque and wavy is deep. If the phrase was “before the beginning of God’s creation” or “even as God was beginning His creation” Vynette would have a point. Since it isn’t, she doesn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette –
Thanks for the close reading. Ironically, bloggers here pay very little attention to the words of the Bible, being far more interested in abortion, low taxes, and militarism.
Not knowing ancient Hebrew, I’m a bit skeptical of building a cosmology upon the inflection of a noun, but I think you’re making a valid point. Ancient cosmologies almost always saw the cosmos as eternal. Only much later Jewish thought produced the powerful concept of creation out of nothing
Report comment to moderator
scroop, except they really didn’t. simply transferring the concept of eternity from matter to some invisible sky beast.
it’s only powerful if you consider thetas and reptilians and fairies in the garden and teapots orbiting jupiter powerful.
I have another word for it, and it ain’t powerful. Well, that might be a good modifier.
Report comment to moderator
VYNETTE,
“it changes the entire meaning of the introduction to the Bible.”
It certainly does. Especially when you mistranslate the Hebrew. A genitive construct in Hebrew occurs when two nouns are placed next to each other (in the Hebrew not English). The order of the words in Hebrew in Gen 1:1 is B’re’shith bara’ ‘elohim – In the beginning created God. Also you have changed the verb – created – into a noun – creation.
SCROOP MOTH,
“bloggers here pay very little attention to the words of the Bible”
Some of us do.
Report comment to moderator
VYNETTE,
“it changes the entire meaning of the introduction to the Bible.”
It certainly does. Especially when you mistranslate the Hebrew. A genitive construct in Hebrew occurs when two nouns are placed next to each other (in the Hebrew not English). The order of the words in Hebrew in Gen 1:1 is B’re’sheeth bara’ ‘elohim – In the beginning created God. Also you have changed the verb – created – into a noun – creation.
SCROOP MOTH,
“bloggers here pay very little attention to the words of the Bible”
Some of us do.
Report comment to moderator
But many don’t, and with good reason.
Report comment to moderator
#70 — Do you consider brazen ineptness a good reason? If so, your point is well taken {:~)
Report comment to moderator
SG I think there are myriad good reasons worth considering before one considers your flippant characterization in #71.
You seem to walk the fence on this issue yourself.
I think SBG and I would find a rare ground for agreement here: all or none.
It’s clear that none is the most parsimonious explanation. THat doesn’t meant it is true. But such arguments demand evidence. Curiously, that is precisly what is lacking here.
Report comment to moderator
My typo – It should have read “In the beginning OF God’s creating…” – ‘creating’ being the English gerund which makes up the noun phrase. There is no consonantal difference between the two forms of ‘bara’ – just placement of vowel signs.
The fact that B’reesheeth is in a compound relationship, i.e. construct and following genitive, was pointed out to me by my old university Classical Hebrew and Ugarit teacher, Professor Francis Anderson, a scholar of international renown and author of several monographs on Hebrew and its kindred Semitic languages e.g. “Spelling in the Hebrew Bible”
Now, I’m no expert, but Professor Anderson certainly is and I think I’ll take his word for it. And he’s not alone – this fact has been recognised for centuries by such learned Jewish sages as Rashi and Ibn Ezra.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette, there are other places in the Bible that state clearly that God created the world in six days. Exodus 20:11, for example, says clearly that the Lord God created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them in SIX DAYS.
As for interpreting the six days literally, it makes perfect sense. We interpret every other “day” mentioned in the Bible as a literal 24 hours, so why should an exception be made here?
Also, the Hebrew word for “day” used here is “yom”, which has several possible meanings. While it could potentially mean an indefinite period of time, there are several other things to consider.
“Yom” is the only Hebrew word that could mean a 24 hour period. If God meant an indefinite period, why did He not make it clear by using one of the many other Hebrew words with only that definition?
In addition, when combined with a number, as in the case of “3rd day”, or “sixth day”, “yom always means a literal 24 hour period.
Finally, when “yom” is combined with the “evening and morning” phrase, it always means a 24 hour period.
It is obvious that God is talking about six LITERAL days.
Report comment to moderator
Logical
“It is obvious that God is talking about six LITERAL days.”
I think that this is true. I think it is also obviously true that the account of your god is wrong about that.
Report comment to moderator
VYNETTE,
1 – The Hebrew genitive construct requires two nouns next to each other.
2 – If B’resheeth was next to elohim, which it is not, then you would have In the beginning of God or In God’s beginning and we know that God has no beginning. God would be the adjective of beginning.
3 – To form the Hebrew gerund (verbal noun) – creating – you add a yoth before the third letter of the verb and a heh after the third letter so you would have beth-resh-yoth-aleph-heh or “baryah”.
4 – One last try – if you make bara a participle – creating – then bara would have to be after elohim.
With the order and form of the words we have – B’re’sheeth bara elohim – there is no other way to translate this than In the beginning God created.
Simple Hebrew grammar – you don’t need an expert to help you with this. Check out a Hebrew grammar book from your local library. Or search the internet for Hebrew genitive, Hebrew verbal noun and Hebrew participle. I’m not trying to be flippant here. I sincerely hope that you research this for yourself.
Report comment to moderator
VYNETTE,
Here is Ibn Ezra’s Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning of God’s creating, God used natural forces to set boundaries, forming the created ante-mundane matter into the visible sky, the invisible spheres, and the dry land.”
Does this sound like a literal translation or his own commentary?
Here is Rashi’s Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth.”
This isn’t a complete sentence with either creation or creating.
Report comment to moderator
SBG why do you presuppose that any of it should be or is coherent?
Report comment to moderator
78 …
You made it a complete sentence by combining verses 1 and 2 and ignoring the “waw” at the beginning of verse 2.
Vynette’s Gen 1:1,2
“In the beginning OF God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, (AND) the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep.”
You left out the (AND) above which is at the beginning of every other verse in Genesis 1. You left it out because it wouldn’t make sense when you try to combine verses 1&2.
Report comment to moderator
Fascinating article; ignorant comments by Harrison.
Harrison, let’s repeat together:
“Natural selection is NOT random.”
Now keep going – write that on a board 1,000 times.
Also – look up “CONVERGENT EVOLUTION”
Report comment to moderator
#64 etc.
So VYNETTE – would you consider yourself a “GAP” creationist or a “DAY-AGE” creationist??
d
Report comment to moderator
SBG,
I did mention in my original post that I was ‘paraphrasing’ i.e. not giving the Hebrew word order, so I am aware of those facts you raise.
Even if ‘bara’ is not a verbal noun, it is still perfectly acceptable Hebrew syntax to have a noun in the construct state with a perfect verbal form. For instance, Hosea 1:2 has the same form as Gen. 1:1.
But, whatever we do with ‘bara,’ we cannot get past ‘reshit’ which is definitely in the construct state, so must be followed by ‘of.’ Check Jer. 49:34 “In the beginning of (the reign of Zedekiah)
The ‘w’ beginning verse 2 is not simply the conjunction, but is used to introduce a circumstantial clause which typically gives background information and follows the for ‘w + subject + predicate.
But, SBG, the difference between us is really theological/philosophical – you procede from creation ex nihilo, (I think) whereas I do not.
We can both adduce reams of academic arguments supporting one position or the other, but the matter will never be resolved.
Report comment to moderator
SBG,
I did mention in my original post that I was ‘paraphrasing’ i.e. not giving the Hebrew word order, so I am aware of those facts you raise.
Even if ‘bara’ is not a verbal noun, it is still perfectly acceptable Hebrew syntax to have a noun in the construct state with a perfect verbal form. For instance, Hosea 1:2 has the same form as Gen. 1:1.
But, whatever we do with ‘bara,’ we cannot get past ‘reshit’ which is definitely in the construct state, so must be followed by ‘of.’ Check Jer. 49:34 “In the beginning of (the reign of Zedekiah)
The ‘w’ beginning verse 2 is not simply the conjunction, but is used to introduce a circumstantial clause which typically gives background information and follows the for ‘w + subject + predicate.
But, SBG, the difference between us is really theological/philosophical – you procede from creation ex nihilo, (I think) whereas I do not.
We can both adduce reams of academic arguments supporting one position or the other, but the matter will never be resolved.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve tried several times to post replies to SBG and Spinoza – just testing to see if this gets through
Report comment to moderator
Finally OK. Wordpress keeps telling me I’ve already posted the replies to SBG and Spinoza but I’ll keep trying…
SBG,
I did mention in my original post that I was ‘paraphrasing’ i.e. not giving the Hebrew word order, so I am aware of those facts you raise.
Even if ‘bara’ is not a verbal noun, it is still perfectly acceptable Hebrew syntax to have a noun in the construct state with a perfect verbal form. For instance, Hosea 1:2 has the same form as Gen. 1:1.
But, whatever we do with ‘bara,’ we cannot get past ‘reshit’ which is definitely in the construct state, so must be followed by ‘of.’ Check Jer. 49:34 “In the beginning of (the reign of Zedekiah)
The ‘w’ beginning verse 2 is not simply the conjunction, but is used to introduce a circumstantial clause which typically gives background information and follows the for ‘w + subject + predicate.
But, SBG, the difference between us is really theological/philosophical – you procede from creation ex nihilo, (I think) whereas I do not.
We can both adduce reams of academic arguments supporting one position or the other, but the matter will never be resolved.
Report comment to moderator
WordPress keeps telling me that this is a duplicate comment but here goes again……
SBG,
I did mention in my original post that I was ‘paraphrasing’ i.e. not giving the Hebrew word order, so I am aware of those facts you raise.
Even if ‘bara’ is not a verbal noun, it is still perfectly acceptable Hebrew syntax to have a noun in the construct state with a perfect verbal form. For instance, Hosea 1:2 has the same form as Gen. 1:1.
But, whatever we do with ‘bara,’ we cannot get past ‘reshit’ which is definitely in the construct state, so must be followed by ‘of.’ Check Jer. 49:34 “In the beginning of (the reign of Zedekiah)
The ‘w’ beginning verse 2 is not simply the conjunction, but is used to introduce a circumstantial clause which typically gives background information and follows the for ‘w + subject + predicate.
But, SBG, the difference between us is really theological/philosophical – you procede from creation ex nihilo, (I think) whereas I do not.
We can both adduce reams of academic arguments supporting one position or the other, but the matter will never be resolved.
Report comment to moderator
It fascinates me that many contemporary evolution examples (living species) are about “lost” information. Lost sight, lost flight, lost might. There are some the other way around, of course … but it makes you wonder: In the case of apparently “gained” genetic information, could it be instead that the whole rest of the population lost it because they didn’t need it? The ones that have it are the ones that kept it. (Or, more complicated, dormant characteristics lost by the main populations re-emerged in species that needed them.)
Report comment to moderator
SBG,
I’ve twice tried to post a reply to your #77 and 78 but Wordpress keeps telling me its a duplicate comment – perhaps it will show up later like it did on another thread – 2 days later.
Spinoza,
Neither of those. I think I’ve already said that the creation story is about God and his relationship to man, about bringing ‘light’ into the mind of man.
It was never intended to be a ‘history’ of the world. It is an allegorical tale about God intervening in the world to impose his harmony, his order and his boundaries upon man.
To read the Bible in a linear, historical, data-driven sort of way is to impose on the texts the relatively modern science of history recording.
Report comment to moderator
VYNETTE,
I had that happen when I was trying to write B’re’sheeth with an “i” instead of “ee”. I think it was because of an imbedded four letter word if you get my drift. That might be why they aren’t posting your reply.
Report comment to moderator
#85 VYNETTE –
just curious – and clearly too distracted to follow everbody here (sorry).
Report comment to moderator
SBG please answer #79
Report comment to moderator
I’m having one more try at posting my reply to SBG.
SBG,
I did mention in my original post that I was ‘paraphrasing’ i.e. not giving the Hebrew word order, so I am aware of those facts you raise.
Even if ‘bara’ is not a verbal noun, it is still perfectly acceptable Hebrew syntax to have a noun in the construct state with a perfect verbal form. For instance, Hosea 1:2 has the same form as Gen. 1:1.
But, whatever we do with ‘bara,’ we cannot get past ‘reshit’ which is definitely in the construct state, so must be followed by ‘of.’ Check Jer. 49:34 “In the beginning of (the reign of Zedekiah)
The ‘vav’ beginning verse 2 is not simply the conjunction, but is used to introduce a circumstantial clause which typically gives background information and follows the for ‘w + subject + predicate.
But, SBG, the difference between us is really theological/philosophical – you procede from creation ex nihilo, (I think) whereas I do not.
We can both adduce reams of academic arguments supporting one position or the other, but the matter will never be resolved. The reason I raised the issue at all is to show that there is a biblical alternative to creation ex nihilo.
Report comment to moderator
ERASMUS,
Sorry – I would have to refer to the invisible sky beast that you don’t believe in to answer your question so I didn’t bother – I apologize.
My answer to #79 is – it’s God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
SAVEDBYGRACE- 89
Erasmus…… POST 68 WRITES……….. -”scroop, except they really didn’t. simply transferring the concept of eternity from matter to some invisible sky beast.”-
Who is the “sky beast” ? Is this a reference to GOD Allmighty? ….. if so, this is more than disgusting.
POST 89………from SAVEDBYGRACE to …….. -”ERASMUS, Sorry – I would have to refer to the invisible sky beast that you don’t believe in to answer your question so I didn’t bother – I apologize.”-
I wouldn’t have thought anyone such as you SAVEDBYGRACE, to refer to God as the “sky beast” just because someone else does. You SAVEDBYGRACE, apologize because you can’t answer the question? Are you unable to ‘CORRECT’ someone when they make a ‘SLUR’ against God? Are you not able to use words which others use which are vular words to describe GOD?
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA,
“I wouldn’t have thought anyone such as you SAVEDBYGRACE, to refer to God as the “sky beast” just because someone else does.”
I use their vernacular at times in order to maintain a relationship so that I might have an audience in the future. I realize that Erasmus is pushing buttons in order to elicit an emotional response so I would rather not give him one. And I’m sure Erasmus knows that I don’t believe that God is an invisible sky beast.
I didn’t say I can’t answer the question. I said I didn’t bother to answer the question. Experiencing the flavor of his responses in the past, I had a feeling that his question was not all that sincere – so I apologized to Erasmus.
I am able to correct someone when they make a slur against God. But we cannot expect someone who doesn’t believe in God to care about how he refers to God. Also he didn’t make the comment in a response to me and it’s not the first time he has made comments like this.
Report comment to moderator
SBG
Others can and will say what they wish, calling GOD and Jesus Christ whatever comes to their mind, not using RESPECT showing their distain for our LORD. There is no excuse when we chime in, and then believe its only to maintain a relationship. . . . . “in order to maintain a relationship so that I might have an audience in the future.”-
There is no relationship when anyone allows someone to show disrespect for the LORD.
Report comment to moderator
SBG, as I mentioned in 79, that is what you presuppose. Your entire system for believing the bible is the word of god is an exercise in affirming the consequent.
Victoria you are a trip. You remind me of a cross between the Church Lady and Aunt Bea.
Man is a beast like the rest of the beasts, and you have created a god in your own image and placed him in the sky where no one might see him in the heavens. What other word for that is there, than Sky-Beast? Just like when the sky beast was made into flesh, the sky-beast became man-beast. If you are self aware at all then you know deep down that all of the imaginings of sky-beasts are the dreamings of man-beasts. This is why the one unpardonable sin in christianism is to deny the self-hood of your man beast.
Report comment to moderator
The HEATHEN RAGE, but the LORD who sits in the heavens shall laugh. Man is so small, yet he rages against God.
1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Psalms 2
We are here told who would appear as adversaries to Christ. As this world is the kingdom of Satan, unconverted men, of every rank, party, and character, are stirred up by him<b. to oppose the cause of God. But the rulers of the earth generally have been most active. The truths and precepts of Christianity are against ambitious projects and worldly lusts. We are told what they aim at in this opposition. They would break asunder the bands of conscience, and the cords of God’s commandments; they will not receive, but cast them away as far as they can. These enemies can show no good cause for opposing so just and holy a government, which, if received by all, would bring a heaven upon earth. They can hope for no success in so opposing so powerful a kingdom. The Lord Jesus has all power both in heaven and in earth, and is Head over all things to the church, notwithstanding the restless endeavours of his enemies. Christ’s throne is set up in his church, that is, in the hearts of all believers.
Matthew Henry
Report comment to moderator
Good grief, Victoria. Give the persnicketty shtick a rest. Keept throwing frivolous fits of acrimony and you’ll be too hoarse to be seriously heard when the time for real offense arrives.
Caute,
SG
Report comment to moderator
ERASMUS,
My “entire” system of belief is not based solely on a presupposition. Prophecy, archeology, the resurrection, etc. are reasons for me to accept that presupposition.
VICTORIA,
So you are not going to “allow” Erasmus to show disrespect for the LORD. How exactly? Are you going to tie his hands behind his back so he can’t type on his computer keyboard? His post above proves my point that he doesn’t care what you think about his disrespect because he doesn’t believe in God. The only people in my life that I’m able to not “allow” to do things are my children. And that list of things will become shorter and shorter as they get older. God “allows” people to disrespect Him every day. Hopefully I can be patient with Erasmus, as God is, and present the truth in a loving way.
Report comment to moderator
SBG…… YOU POST: . . . . “VICTORIA, So you are not going to “allow” Erasmus to show disrespect for the LORD. How exactly?”
SBG, I can’t stop anybody from saying a single word, what I can do is STAND UP for what is right. Not doing a waffle act thinking as you do that (post 96) “in order to maintain a relationship so that I might have an audience in the future.” That’s a weak excuse SBG, people don’t respect us when we say nothing when the LORD is attacked and His name is mocked.
I don’t want to stand before the LORD some day and give some lame excuse as to why I couldn’t stand for HIM, couldn’t at least say something when someone took a shot at HIS Name. And then offer an excuse as you have given ….. “in order to maintain a relationship so that I might have an audience in the future.”
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t want to stand before the LORD some day”
you do this everytime you look in the mirror, and there will be no other time. your godbeast is a reification of the manbeast. If your god is so puny to get excited about events that he (according to your mythology) omnisciently foretold before eternity began, then what a jealous little child that god is. Sounds very much like the whimsy of a petulant 3 year old manbeast child. I wonder why that is? Projection of the manbeast onto the godbeast, perhaps? Just as I have said all along?
SBG Victoria is the type of christianist, apparently, who wishes to extend the active ruling authority of her god-beast to encompass the entire sphere of man-beasts. Fortunately, that is precisely what we here in these hills are willing to fight over.
Report comment to moderator
#95: Are you unable to ‘CORRECT’ someone when they make a ‘SLUR’ against God?
If he’s interested, he’ll do it himself.
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA,
Just curious, and I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, are you feeling any respect from Erasmus based on posts 98 & 103?
I look forward to standing before the Lord some day and thanking Him for washing me clean of all my sin by the blood of His Son because I’m not perfect and hopefully He will say to me “well done good and faithful servant.”
Report comment to moderator
SBG
I can’t control what anyone says in any of their posts, but I can say something when anyone mocks God and calls Him a name which is vular…….just as I when someone uses the LORD’S name in vain, I speak up. I don’t sit idly by, thinking I will be more of an example by ’silence’-
Report comment to moderator
Respect is what I am here for. I wish you guys could all gather in for a big group hug.
Victoria did you know that there people who think that when you say ‘the LORD’ that you are taking that name in vain?
some folks say (that believe in the same gods as you) that this name should never be uttered, indeed cannot be uttered?
do you know that some folks say that your name for God is an idol?
just wondering if you had ever thought outside of your beast-box. i’m listening. and i’m not disrespectful. i just don’t appreciate your respect me or else attitude, lady. it is not a good way to start a conversation. unless you like echo chambers (echo chamber: where you can get an AMEN for just saying any old thing)
Report comment to moderator
fun thread!
good one for lurking
A real knee-slapper
I wish I’d been around to put my two-cents in to SBG and Vynette’s conversation a couple of days ago. That would have been interesting.
Erasmus:
Ed used to say invisible sky-daddy.
Your’s is a little hacky, even in atheist circles.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Mr Meaner
I’m sure you meant something else than “Your’s”. That doesn’t mean anything.
Sky daddy doesn’t even begin to describe the horrors committed by the sky beast. Daddy seems, to me (as a daddy) to imply some sort of responsibility. It is plain from even a cursory glance at the sky beast mythology of the OT that responsibility is a property curiously lacking of that sky-beast.
I guess you’ll have to tell more about atheist circles. I don’t know of any such things. Are they like drumming circles? Prayer meetings? Ring Species? Positive Feedback loops? Do tell?
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA,
Just my humble opinion, when you do stand up against someone mocking God, I think you need to balance post #99 with a bit of God’s love as well. My seminary preaching prof told us in simple terms to take them to hell and then bring them to the cross. Again, just my humble opinion, but if you tell Erasmus that God is laughing at him without presenting any part of the gospel, then I doubt it will have the effect you are hoping for. I would probably add – in the face of God’s judgment that if Erasmus repents, then he can receive God’s forgiveness for his sin because of what Jesus did for him on the cross.
Grace and peace to you, Victoria and to you, Erasmus.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
forgive my gratuitous use of an apostrophe.
But your hacky use of those terms have only two possible purposes.
1) You’re really just an Ed-like jerk…entirely possible. But then you have to ask yourself,”Why do I bother wasting so much time ridiculing Christians…on a Christian site?
You may well just be a jerk..I don’t know you.
2) You want to hear something..some bit of information that can help you figure out what it is that we see.
Whether it’s because you want to use our beliefs to ridicule us…or you want to legitimately want to know why every one but you and 10-15% of the people on the planet believe in a creator…
That’s for you to decide. I don’t mind playing these little verbal jab games. It offends some people, but not me. But if you really want to know what drives us to believe as we do, (in various ways) using Ed’s MO won’t get you very far….unless you really do just want to be a jerk.
Personally, I don’t think you do.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner, pardon me if I fail to hand you a few more nails to crucify yourself with. Immolation complexes have never been as interesting, to me, as train wrecks.
Of course, it is possible that you don’t understand what happens when a person is able to shake the bonds of christianism or any other cult. I could be a jerk. That is not mutually exclusive with your second alternative, is it?
I want YOU to see what it is that you don’t see. This is because I have labored under the delusion of christianism my self. Not because you possess a truth (if that were so, it would be demonstrable. To date, no such demonstrable truth has been shown here, only the subjective post modern bastardization of the concept of truth as ‘interpretation’.
If you are resorting to mere statistical arguments then you are perhaps closer to the end of the tunnel than you might have guessed. If you haven’t noticed, people often do what those around them do. Watch the little ones. I believe your man-god-beast said something similar. Instead of reifying that scripture, perhaps consider the lillies?
I am indeed interested in what you perceive. Pluralism is as strong an argument in denial of categorical explanation as can possibly exist. The divisions between those of you here is strong testament to the lie behind the notion of a unified dogma or transcendent truth behind christianism as any more detailed explication can reveal. You are not what you pretend to be. I see this from inside as well as from outside.
Report comment to moderator
SBG…YOU WRITE….. “Just my humble opinion, when you do stand up against someone mocking God, I think you need to balance post #99 with a bit of God’s love as well. My seminary preaching prof told us in simple terms to take them to hell and then bring them to the cross.”
SBG, you nor anyone on this earth can take anyone to hell and you sure can’t bring them back to the cross, unless they choose to accept Christ and repent, no matter how unique you want to word this. People send themselves to hell by not accepting Christ.
Post #99 has seven verses, and Matthew Henry’s commentary for that passage of Scripture. I didn’t compose any part of that post. I am not the author of Psalms, nor do I take credit for what Matthew Henry wrote.
YOU WRITE:…. “Again, just my humble opinion, but if you tell Erasmus that God is laughing at him without presenting any part of the gospel, then I doubt it will have the effect you are hoping for.”
The post wasn’t addressed to any person, however I wanted to make plain what the Bible says about the ‘heathen rage’- I posted four verses of Scripture, which you might be referring to, one of which is:
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision. Psalms 2
Every single person on this blog (if they have been here over a month) has heard the Gospel many times. They know the Scriptures, regarding Salvation.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
Do go on. Please.
Report comment to moderator
Hoo!
Where to start?
Forgive me for trying to use my pseudo-psychology on you.Really..it won’t happen again.
Obviously, you are so far advanced in knowledge, I should just stand back in awe at the wisdom that is literally dripping off my screen.
“Of course, it is possible that you don’t understand what happens when a person is able to shake the bonds of christianism or any other cult”
Just so you don’t feel so lonely, I do understand what is it to shake the bonds of a cult. (some who go by various Christian doctrines)
In fact, I’ve been to church exactly five times since I was able to leave what I still consider to be a Christian cult. That was 28 years ago.
“I could be a jerk. That is not mutually exclusive with your second alternative, is it?”
Certainly not. I can be one, myself at times. But I don’t publicly ridicule someone for their religious beliefs..At least those beliefs that don’t include blowing me up, or beheading me.
“I want YOU to see what it is that you don’t see. This is because I have labored under the delusion of christianism my self.”
How do you know that you haven’t laboured under someone else’s delusion of what Christianity is?
“Not because you possess a truth (if that were so, it would be demonstrable. To date, no such demonstrable truth has been shown here, only the subjective post modern bastardization of the concept of truth as ‘interpretation’.”
I’ve never offered my opinion on the complete truth…because I don’t know it. And it is stupid to make absolute claims on things that are subjective. But all we have are interpretations.
But to write off information as garbage, because you refuse to “believe” it, or you can’t understand it at the time, is like saying “I’m as smart as I’ll ever be, so why bother wasting my time with something I don’t understand?”
I realize that judging by some’s comments, here and there, it appears that some do believe they have it all figured out….And yes, that’s sad.
They have the same problem that you do.
You already know that it’s a bunch of tripe…so that’s what it will always be in your mind.
Some Christians believe that when mean people die, they burn forever in a pit of fire.
There is no convincing either of these groups (for one example) that they might be wrong.
Believe me, I speak from experience.
“The divisions between those of you here is strong testament to the lie behind the notion of a unified dogma or transcendent truth behind christianism ”
No, it’s a strong testament to the point I just made.
Report comment to moderator
“All we have are interpretations” is the begging of a very slippery strong drink. I have named that drink “solipcism”. It is intoxicating and many never return.
Shake it just a bit. Add the tiniest ’some interpretations are equal’. pluralism again you know. savor it.
now, pour in a foundation of objective logics, splash the subjective communication of knowledge, mix with the problem of no common fundamental denominator. Stir.
All possibility of knowledge is gone. But it sure is satisfying, huh? Don’t have to worry about it any more. As a fellow once said when I asked him if maybe he ever thought it was a bad idea to (what amounted to) clear cut the top of shelton pisgah, he said “Don’t worry about that, son. Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawds gonna take care of that”. And I thought “well hell, i have a big patch of ginseng up there you dummy. guess you don’t know about that either”.
MIM, what cult?
mine was a missionary baptist church that never joined the convention. fruits of fruitland.
Report comment to moderator
“solipcism”
If you’re going to chide me for using an extra aposrtrophe, you could at least spell your insults correctly.
I’d rather not mention the cult. There are members on this site. I’ll just say they spend a lot of time rolling around on the floor screaming out phrases that sound like “jump-start your Honda!”,for example
Like I mentioned earlier, I’d rather not single out any religious groups by name, that don’t go around blowing people up.
I feel sad for them. But I’m not going to point my finger at them, and scream “You liars!”
Even though I am sometimes tempted to.
But it’s just like you said, using objective logic to attempt to understand text that is subject to different interpretation, can be a thankless endeavor. Especially if the people you’re trying to communicate with aren’t open to considering any other possibilities.
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA,
“you nor anyone on this earth can take anyone to hell and you sure can’t bring them back to the cross, unless they choose to accept Christ and repent, no matter how unique you want to word this. People send themselves to hell by not accepting Christ.”
What are you doing? You do realize my prof was using metaphoric language. Do you really think he meant to literally take them to hell or literally bring them to the cross? That would obviously be impossible. He means make them aware of their sin nature and God’s judgment of sin. Then tell them about God’s forgiveness available through the sacrifice of His Son.
“Every single person on this blog (if they have been here over a month) has heard the Gospel many times. They know the Scriptures, regarding Salvation.”
Well, I will continue to present the good news on this blog when given the opportunity. My mission as an ambassador for Christ, as I understand it, is to try to lead people to be reconciled with God.
God Bless!
Report comment to moderator
SBG
When you posted 110:……. “My seminary preaching prof told us in simple terms to take them to hell and then bring them to the cross.”
And now you say post 118:….. “What are you doing? You do realize my prof was using metaphoric language. Do you really think he meant to literally take them to hell or literally bring them to the cross?”
SBG, that’s an old ‘excuse’ when people post or say something that doesn’t work out well, and then it’s “I was just kidding” or “it was a joke” or as you have said above “You do realize my prof was using metaphoric language”- Whatever loop hole you want to use, it’s deceptive and un-skillful in making a point.
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA,
Now you are accusing me of using a loop hole and being deceptive because you can’t recognize an obvious metaphor. You’ve gone too far, Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
SBG
You made the remark, you used it to make whatever point you felt you had to make, then you backed off with the excuse it was a “metaphor”-
You my friend went to far when you made the remark. The remark made no sense in reality, and it makes no sense as a “metaphor”-
Report comment to moderator
Victoria has broken my brain.
Report comment to moderator
Try glue.
Report comment to moderator
What’s your point, Victoria?
I have a hunch I know what you’re accomplishing in nitpicking SBG’s posts to death, but wonder what you think you’re accomplishing, and doubt they’re the same thing.
Caute,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, you should not be saying ‘Try Glue’ but TRY JESUS!!one!!!
MIM, solipcism is a valid spelling. i prefer this anglicized version to ’solipsism’. The latter just does not have the sexxi_hawt appeal of the former.
I know what she thinks she is accomplishing: Standing Up For Jeeeesus.
Report comment to moderator
I’m starting to think Victoria tried the glue. She actually thought SBG’s professor meant the students should somehow literally take people to hell?
Report comment to moderator
What’s your so called ‘hunch’ George?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – I don’t know if you’re still reading this – just today I remembered it was one I hadn’t skimmed through, though it’s several days old –
I “got” the metaphor SBG quoted from his professor the first time it was mentioned. I’ve heard the same thing myself.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!