Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Richard Dawkins to target teens
With his latest book project, Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, plans to target teenagers with his anti-Christian message. According to a report, What Is a Rainbow Really? will be “an illustrated book which will take a myth-busting approach to questions about the natural world. The scientific reasoning behind topics such as: who the first man and woman were, why there are seasons, what the sun is and how old the world is, will be presented with perspectives from opposing camps—myth and legend, and ‘lucid scientific explanation.’”
The book is scheduled for release next fall.
As Tim Challies points out on his blog this morning, “Dawkins ought to read Mark 9:42 before sending the book to his publisher.”
Topic: Books, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top395 Comments to “Richard Dawkins to target teens”
Blind faith is worse than no faith at all.
I’ve always wondered why so many fundamentalists discourage students from, well, studying. Asking questions actually strengthens faith, methinks, and today’s students are not going to be satsified with “Because I said so.” as an answer.
Report comment to moderator
Short enough to quote. Why link?
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
Is this a threat against Dawkins, or just wishful thinking?
Conservative Christians have had their point of view taken as worthy of respect for so long, and have taken it for granted for so long that they can insult and criticize atheists, liberals, homosexuals, government employees and so on without much demurring, that they are astonished and shocked when people such as Dawkins use similar criticism against Christianity.
If you dish it out, don’t be astonished when people dish at you.
Report comment to moderator
“Calibration” refers to a process where one goes from very crude methods of achieving goals to more precise and less destructive methods.
In the history of Christianity, religious leaders exerted control over governments and burned opponents at the stake or used other brutal methods to suppress them.
Over time, and with influence by humane leaders such as Roger Williams, Christians learned to exert influence by less violent mthods.
In the history of secularism, non-believers were quite violent and oppressive during the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution and persecuted believers severely.
For the most part, secularists such as Dawkins mostly write books that irritate believers.
Everybody is aiming better and using less destructive ammunition. As long as you don’t live in the Middle East.
Report comment to moderator
wow so much hate there Random Name.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, You’re that sure that’s what were teaching our kids?
Report comment to moderator
I might read this book, if I can get it from the library. I don’t want to fund this foolishness.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells,
Answers has done a new book that discusses kids leaving the church, and not just college kids.
It would seem to also posit that sunday school is ineffective.
So Thomas1 at least has a point that we need to examine what they are learning and why its failing to some extent.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS, I’m not sure. The tone of this post suggests that the book and the author shouldn’t exist, and that teenagers are incapable of sustaining both faith and a commitment to science.
All of which is horsepuckey.
It is, however, a wonderful illustration of the evangelical obsession with anti-intellectualism.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
I think its more that parents just leave their kids to the church…as a babysitter…
I think it has little to do with anti-intellectualism.
Report comment to moderator
T1 and RN now join Dawkins in fighting an opponent they make up in their own heads. Once again I nominate the “Straw Man” for Man of the Year.
As for “studying”, T1 apparently has little contact with the Christian School movement, largely fueled by semi-fundamentalists (in the sense that these atheists use the label). Rigorous study is the hallmark of these schools–more AP course graduates per capita by far than any public school.
And RN projects “astonishment and shock’ onto believers who would be shocked to find “faith” treated even objectively in the media and in academia, let alone respected.
Dawkins, for his part, has long told believers what they are thinking before he proceeds to debunk these phantom concepts. In all fairness, atheists are also told what they think by believers in this great non-debate–sort of dueling “preachers to their choirs”.
Even though I enjoy the new trend of quoting Dawkins (and Democrats) and allowing those quotes to receive their just derision and mockery, I don’t find much enlightnement about “reality” in such faux debates. Such “Fisking” give the appearance of rationality but is really little more than sniping at semantics.
So, let’s all get busy finishing those books we intend to write and let’s make them demonstrate solid scholarship. (We can always lie about the actual contents in the book jackets in order to boost sales.)
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – what science?
As for anti-intellectualism? I would say that is found on the left and their junk science they are pushing,
Report comment to moderator
Contemporary American evangelicalism has, sadly, become somewhat anti-intellectual. And Thorn makes a good point.
I belong to a conservative Presbyterian church in which the children (all ages) stay in the full worship service with adults — and youth classes in the past have included such topics as logic. Tough questions are encouraged.
The church needs to recover its intellectual vigor — and it is doing that, in some important and influential corners, I think. But as the “new” atheism becomes more emboldened and aggressive, the church needs to better prepare itself to be up to the task.
(No one here is suggesting the Dawkins’ book shouldn’t be written or read, by the way. Where did that come from? But Mark 9:42 is, indeed a relevant verse to cite.)
Report comment to moderator
#10 — The Christian school movement (and a return to the classics and good scholarship) is a welcome trend indeed.
Report comment to moderator
Captain Faris, this post and the mindset it reflects do not exist in a vacuum. This is not a straw man.
Also, this was interesting: Rigorous study is the hallmark of these schools–more AP course graduates per capita by far than any public school.
Of course! Private schools are not obligated to take everyone, including special-needs kids. Which kinda skews the numbers, no?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, you are guilty of that which you accuse others.
Did you read the post? The book in question will provide mythological explanations for natural phenomena, followed by lucid scientific facts.
Report comment to moderator
that’s really bias “mythological explanations” is what they believe but we have “lucid scientific facts.”
Report comment to moderator
that’s just as bad as fundamentalist
Report comment to moderator
Random, you’re slipping into those tired cliches again.
Our culture today is not nearly as hostile toward Christianity as it was in the days of the early church. God can handle it. And weak and complacent though she may become at times, so can his church.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 wrote, “I’ve always wondered why so many fundamentalists discourage students from, well, studying.”
This illustrates the sort of unthinking track that athiests and radical leftists are on. Thomas1 is sitting around “wondering” about something that has no basis in reality. It is an illusion and he uses it as if it were an argument. Thomas1’s is as blind as can be because he believes ONLY what he wants to believe about “fundamentalists.” Hopefully, he is not being paid by the hour by anyone for this sort of nonsensical “wondering.”
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.26.09 AT 11:09 AM
Pastor Roy, you are guilty of that which you accuse others.
Did you read the post? The book in question will provide mythological explanations for natural phenomena, followed by lucid scientific facts.
–
Wow mythological explanations for natural phenomena – an this is evolution, global warning and the science that try’s to prove someone is born into some type of sexual behavior,
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have kids, but I have friends who do, and I have never heard these parents discourage their kids from studying anything. Even the “fundamentalist” people, though I think that word fundamentalist is a little passe now.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark his problem with is with Bible Believe Christian.
Report comment to moderator
#14 Regarding private school enrollment. My daughter graduated from a large Christian high school in CA. A significant number of students were sent there as a last resort by their parents, after they were “in trouble” (crime, behavior problems) in the public schools. This school did not filter out students based on whether or not they were believers. Many of my friends, teachers in public schools, complained that they (public schools) could not expel students and that’s why results were better in Christian schools–yet the students they (the public schools) were failing to server were sent to the Christian schools to be “recovered”.
And just because “conventional wisdom” says something is true doesn’t nullify the fact that the “something” is a Straw Manargument. DaWKINS and LGF et al simply stipulate that faith=denial of objective facts. You simply declare that “so many fundamentalists discourage studying” by shouting “because I said so”. That is a Straw Man argument if I ever saw one.
Report comment to moderator
JoelMark, you need to chillax.
And perhaps inform yourself better, which I can guarantee will not cause your blood pressure to drop.
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
http://www.amazon.com/Age-American-Unreason-Vintage/dp/1400096383/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926145/ref=pd_sim_b_5
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, please chillax.
Suggested reading: Anti-Intellectualism In American Life – Richard Hofstadter
Idiot America – How Stupidity Became A Virtue – Charles Price
Report comment to moderator
If evangelicals were half as aggressively “evangelical” as Dawkins, their churches might be growing even faster.
If Christians were even half as intolerant and dogmatic as Dawkins, we would probably be hated more than we already are.
Report comment to moderator
From a review of “The Age Of American Unreason” by Susan Jacoby: Meanwhile, twenty-five per cent of high-school biology teachers believe that human beings and dinosaurs shared the earth, and more than a third of Americans can’t name a single First Amendment right. In such an environment, Jacoby argues, the secular left and the religious right can have no fruitful dialogue on issues like the separation of church and state.
Report comment to moderator
#4
wow so much hate there Random Name.
#8
Random, you’re slipping into those tired cliches again.
In #3 I said that both Christians and secularists are becoming more precise and less destructive. How is this “hate?”
How is implying I have “so much hate” not a “tired old cliche?”
Report comment to moderator
Have you ever listened to Jay Leno’s questions on “Jaywalking” segments? People can be pretty stupid.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Thomas that the tone of Mickey’s post suggests that the book and the author shouldn’t exist. Fundamentalists, like Mickey, enjoy accusing everyone of trying to indoctrinate kids, but they are the only ones arguing for exclusive access.
Report comment to moderator
Are hours studying the Bible really useful studying?
Are hours spent studying the Bible in a Christian school or in a Christian home school more useful than hours spent studying the Koran in a madras?
Report comment to moderator
I apologize Random, I was referring to some of the remarks you’d made (Christians being “shocked” at criticism; heavens, we are — and mostly have always been in every age — surrounded by critics, we’re quite well accustomed to it, trust me).
Report comment to moderator
“Have you ever listened to Jay Leno’s questions on “Jaywalking” segments? People can be pretty stupid.”
I’m convinced that they edit out the smart people, and end up using a minority of their footage.
Report comment to moderator
“in post #2″ that should have included above (in 31)
Report comment to moderator
8. Thomes1, than science should be able to stand on it’s own without an attack on faith.
Report comment to moderator
I own and have read the Hofstadter book, but it did seem worth finishing back when I picked it up in the late sixties or early 70s. It was written so long ago (and took a stereotypical approach), it has little to do with today’s context.
And a title like “Idiot America” has little appeal for reading. I have learned to apply more intelligence to my reading choices over the years.
Report comment to moderator
As for Dawkins and the “new” atheism, I think the shift we are seeing now is in a more open and aggressive atheism (as opposed to the softer “agnosticism” though that is in reality a functioning atheism). It’s taking a more blatant form. Few non believers in the past wanted to come right out and say they were atheists, after all (something inside held them back from publicly going that far). That seems to be changing. So be it.
But again, the church has survived and even thrived amid far worse attacks than these. Christians, however, need to personally be prepared & up to the task of providing tough-minded answers.
Report comment to moderator
To better inform myself, I went to a website that markets books and study guides for “Christian Schools”.
The 12th grade science material was very interesting, but it wasn’t science. It was a religion class with a smattering of scientific jargon.
Put another way, you can vacuum the living room, read a book, and bake a chocolate cake. But if you try to do all those things at once, you’ll still have cat hair on the rug, the book won’t make a lot of sense, and, well, I hope that cake is Duncan Hines, because that’s the only hope for it being edible.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS @ 35 – have you read the book? (Hint – it’s not out yet.) What makes you think there’s any attacking of faith?
Of course, for some, the mere mention of science brings the heebie-jeebies.
Report comment to moderator
People can be pretty stupid.
That’s why teachers often “grade on a curve.”
Even if elections are fair and accurate (a conclusion that is by no means certain), elections basically represent aggregates of stupid opinions. In a sense, we “elect on a curve.”
I said once that the main usefulness of elections is to protect us against oppression and abuse. It is dubious that elections lead to better decision-making than other systems.
Also, when a society is very closely divided (as ours is), to say that 51% of the vote says one side is “right” [correct] and 49% of the vote indicates that the other side is “left” excuse me, I mean incorrect is perhaps also kind of stupid.
Report comment to moderator
The evangelical-fundamentalist-anti-Christians are on the rise. They like to use labels for their opponents that actually fit them far better. They are too willfully blind to apply self-scrutiny. They are too busy attacking and criticizing others for being the way they actually are, but can’t admit it.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name 10.26.09 AT 11:36 AM
Are hours studying the Bible really useful studying?
Are hours spent studying the Bible in a Christian school or in a Christian home school more useful than hours spent studying the Koran in a madras?
—
yes
Report comment to moderator
We rest our case.
Report comment to moderator
41 – neener-neener-neener. I know you are, but what am I?
Children have better discourse sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
30#
random
“Are hours studying the Bible really useful studying?
Are hours spent studying the Bible in a Christian school or in a Christian home school more useful than hours spent studying the Koran in a madras?”
yes Studying things like why we shouldn’t lie steal respect authority etc. is better than things like kill the infidel etc.
almost all our laws today are based on Biblical principals to
Report comment to moderator
The bottom line is that the books and posts of the anti-Christian zealots show far too little simply human respect for those who hold views rooted in faith. They seem to take it so personal and they feel so threatened that we have freedom of thought. They are shrill and incredibly intolerant of people thinking differently from them.
We have had freedom of faith and freedom of speech for a long time in America precisely because we have long honored liberty, free thought amid mutual respect–values rooted in our Judeo-Christian traditions as applied in America and our respect for the Enlightenment at the same time.
I don’t see much respect any longer from the other side any longer.
Report comment to moderator
#35, I meant to say that the Hofstater book didn’t seem worth finishing when I began to read it 40 years ago. It was ten yeas old already back then.
Report comment to moderator
Studying such concepts as loving God with all our being, loving our neighbor as ourselves, loving and blessing our enemies and living a quiet and humble life for the glory of God.
Yeah, I’d say that’s worthy of much, much study and meditation.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.26.09 AT 11:42 AM
To better inform myself, I went to a website that markets books and study guides for “Christian Schools”.
The 12th grade science material was very interesting, but it wasn’t science. It was a religion class with a smattering of scientific jargon.
Put another way, you can vacuum the living room, read a book, and bake a chocolate cake. But if you try to do all those things at once, you’ll still have cat hair on the rug, the book won’t make a lot of sense, and, well, I hope that cake is Duncan Hines, because that’s the only hope for it being edible.
–
Wow, so you do not like Christian Schools that teach science from a different view point then from the public schools? So I guess you do not believe in Genesis an the account of creation?
Report comment to moderator
Wow, so you do not like Christian Schools that teach science from a different view point then from the public schools?
The Christian Schools are not teaching science, at least from what I saw.
So I guess you do not believe in Genesis an the account of creation?
It works quite well as a metaphor.
Report comment to moderator
donna j 10.26.09 AT 11:55 AM
Studying such concepts as loving God with all our being, loving our neighbor as ourselves, loving and blessing our enemies and living a quiet and humble life for the glory of God.
Yeah, I’d say that’s worthy of much, much study and meditation.
–
do you not see that some here see your idea which I agree with as a threat to their moral views.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, Christ and the Cross have always been an offense and a threat.
But as for studying Christ, I would urge everyone here to go and do likewise, while it is still day.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 45,
but of course the same can be said for those who are often fundamentalist Christian in perspective.
What I suggest is critical is that we separate our beliefs from what can be shown as objectively true.
There are many beliefs and, depsite what some fundamentalsits might argue, there is no way to prove beliefs as objectively true. adn we shold be able to hold honorable discussion with those hwo hold different beliefs.
By contrast there are easily demonstrably far fewer objectively true concepts, but these should, if people are being fastidious in their thinking, be reasonably accepted among those who will accept objectvie evidence (please note there are some people who explicitly reject objective evidence: such people have explicitly also excused themselves from the objective discussion).
And I suggest that such an approach simultaneously blunts the efforts of Dawkins AND also reduces the friction which can occur with fundamentalist Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Atheists, radical homosexualists, leftists, evangelicals, Democrats, Republicans, Boy Scouts, communists and nazis have all tried to target teens. Nothing new there.
My problem with Dawkins is not that he targets teems, but that everything I have heard him say and that I have read so far is profoundly disrespectful. He is a virulent opponent of faith but he does not even begin to understand what or who he is opposing. He is fighting straw men. He resorts to cheap unfounded stereotypes that feed hate and resentment.
Dawkins does not understand how much Christians think indepenedently, how serious we are about science and careful study, and how much we respect truth and its intelligent pursuit. He must redefine us in his own mind to justify his drive to oppose us and sell angry books to teenagers.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Boy post 48,
when you say:
“Wow, so you do not like Christian Schools that teach science from a different view point then from the public schools? ”
what I believe I heard being said is that Thomas1 wants rigorous science to be taught in these environments.
We have had several discussions in various context on this issue BUT we have seen a number of arguments on the objective data being presented which as presented are clearly not scinece based.
Report comment to moderator
Joel mark post 53,
now when you say:
” He is a virulent opponent of faith ”
are perhaps suggesting that we do not see at intervals in WMB a virulent opposition to lack of faith?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.26.09 AT 11:58 AM
Wow, so you do not like Christian Schools that teach science from a different view point then from the public schools?
The Christian Schools are not teaching science, at least from what I saw.
So I guess you do not believe in Genesis an the account of creation?
It works quite well as a metaphor.
—
I guess Christ dieing for the sins of the world is a metaphor for you also correct? An Christian Schools are teaching science, the problem is no matter what the Christian School teaches you would have a problem. The reason is the Christian faith and belief coomes into direct conflict with the junk science that is being push on to kids today
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, Thomas1 is obviously not a woman — he thinks you can’t do more than one thing at a time.
Report comment to moderator
What the great debate nicely displays that at root “fundamentalist” atheism and fundamentalist Christianity come from a common perspective: my belief is true and the others are false.
Losing sight, I suggest, that there is no way to demonstrate objectivley that beliefs are true.
if you can demonstrate objectively that a belief is true, then it is no longer a belief: it is an objective fact!
Report comment to moderator
musing – “what I believe I heard being said is that Thomas1 wants rigorous science to be taught in these environments.”
Yes, but the science he wants to be taught comes into conflict with a Christian belief in creation.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree, Musing. I see a lot more baseless disrespect coming from the qanti-Christian evagelists. It’s my opinion, based on my own experience, my reading, my observations, this blog, other resources and life in general.
In fact, I see ‘respect’ in general on the decline these days in most all groups in comparison with previous decades.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 56,
when you say:
“n Christian Schools are teaching science, the problem is no matter what the Christian School teaches you would have a problem.”
I suspect that you are overplaying what thomas1 seems to have said.
As posed, if the Christian school used and actually taught from the same curriculum in science class as say a school with a focus on science and technology, then as written it does not seem that Thomas1 would have a problem.
Report comment to moderator
Oops, pardon the unintented bold font. I only wanted to highlight the word “disrespect.”
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 60,
when you say:
“I disagree, Musing. I see a lot more baseless disrespect coming from the qanti-Christian evagelists.”
I also reply that I see much disrespect in WMB fopr those who dont believe.
Indeed it is stonger than that: I have seen strong disrespect for those who believe, but are viewed as believing differently.
Tell me about vynette’s discussions with victoria for example.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor roy post 59,
when you say:
“Yes, but the science he wants to be taught comes into conflict with a Christian belief in creation.”
but of course a literal Genesis, which from a doctrine perspective is believed by a minority of Christians, is not science.
And if you insist on creationism in the a science class, by defintion you are also removing science from the science class.
Unless of course you can provide scientifically valid objective data to support your model of creation? Do you have such data?
If you do not have such data, then by your own post, thomas1’s critique is indeed valid and your objection is unsupported.
Report comment to moderator
musing – I suspect that you are overplaying what thomas1 seems to have said
–
I am not overplaying what thomas1 seems to have said. He is not very freindly to Bible Believeing Christian views.
Report comment to moderator
musing
First off you are wrong with this statement – “but of course a literal Genesis, which from a doctrine perspective is believed by a minority of Christians, is not science.” It is the other way around majority of Christians in the literal Genesis, which from a doctrine perspective.
“And if you insist on creationism in the a science class, by definition you are also removing science from the science class.” The same can be said about promoting evolution in .
“unless of course you can provide scientifically valid objective data to support your model of creation? Do you have such data?” Since evolution has failed to produce the scientifically valid objective data to support their model of creation. Can we then say that evolution should not be taught in a true science class?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor boy post 65,
and by your own statement it apepars that you are not very friendly to scientific data.
Now you can not objectively prove your beliefs.
thomas1 can objectivley provee his scientific data.
I believe you hold the heavier burden here.
Report comment to moderator
Pasto Boy post 66,
waht we can dmeonstrate quantitatively is the denominational portion of Christians which believe in strict literal inerrancy.
This is at most 30% of all christians. I have presented the data before, but we can rereview if you like.
But since Caotholics do not accept a strict literal interpretation of the bible, the rest of the numbers follow easily.
So we can debunk that a strict Genesis interpretation is necessary to be a Christian, unless you are going to make increasingly bolder claims here.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor boy post 66,
and your comment:”
“Since evolution has failed to produce the scientifically valid objective data to support their model of creation. ”
here shows a clear error: evolution does not discuss creation. Creation of either the universe or of life.
Evolution argues, as I have posted many times, that all the complex types of organisms are descended from a common ancestor.
And this is very well established by both the stratogrphic data and the DNA data. It has also been shown in experiment, and I have provided Dewberry’s material showing what some have called speciation which can be confirmed by experiment.
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.26.09 AT 12:23 PM
Pastor boy post 65,
and by your own statement it apepars that you are not very friendly to scientific data.
Now you can not objectively prove your beliefs.
thomas1 can objectivley provee his scientific data.
I believe you hold the heavier burden here.
–
Not at all I am very friendly to scientific data.
As for proving evolution – well they can not prove the transitions from one period to another. They have no evidence. You must have faith in that their theory’s on how those transitions periods happen just as they say. (without scientific data) To prove evolution did take place.
As a Christian, the proof of creation is creation it self.
Report comment to moderator
PastorRoy post 66,
by contrast there is no objective evidence to show:
1) an earth of thousands of years old
2) unique creation act of the kinds (the words used in Genesis creation)
Am I missing objective data which you have available? can yo make it available?
Report comment to moderator
What prompted one of the authors above to write his book on anti-intellectualism was a visit to the Creation Museum, where dinosaurs are depicted wearing saddles, and the proprietor told a cheering crowd “We’re takin’ the dinosaurs back from the evolutionists!”
He loses points for creativity in the title, though. I would have called it “The Flintstones: Not A Documentary”.
Pastor Roy, I’m quite friendly to “Bible Believing Christian” views in that I support your right to hold them. But here’s a clue from The Clue Bag – a literal Genesis is not supported by what we know of science. Mainline Protestants and most Roman Catholics addresss this by viewing it as a metaphor for God’s guidance of the process. It’s at least intellectually honest.
Report comment to moderator
Where is you missing link? (an computer programs are not sound pices of evidence.) Is the sun shrinking?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Boy post 70,
so when you say:
“–Not at all I am very friendly to scientific data.”
am I to assume then that you accept:
1) the multiple models showing an earth of hundreds of millions of years old or older?
2) an expanding and old universe?
3) the relatonship of all organisms to a common ancestor?
And I can continue.
But of course we are looking at the output of scinece, not science itslef.
Science itself is actually a process for demonstrating the rleiabiliy of objectvie data: it requires careful and repeated efforts to refute the objective data by repeatable tests which can be replicated by others.
And if such a process were to suggest potential problems with statements which had been made based on religious authority, your position would be?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Boy post 73,
what missing link?
I am sensing perhpas a misunderstanding of:
1) the evolutionalry process
2) the reality of fossils
3) the capabilites of DNA mapping procedure
Can you clarify?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I understand you want to always stress “objective fact” — as you categorize it.
But this is, after all, a Christian web site and your refusal to engage in any sort of meaningful theological discussion really stops these conversations cold. Why no willingness to probe a bit deeper?
Surely truth exists that can’t be seen, no? Why are you so reluctant to at least probe those questions? You’ve said you’re a believer. Go beyond physical eyes & ears a little bit.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Boy post 70,
now when you say:
“As for proving evolution – well they can not prove the transitions from one period to another. They have no evidence. You must have faith in that their theory’s on how those transitions periods happen just as they say. (without scientific data) To prove evolution did take place. ”
I suggest perhaps you have not seen the self-consistent models of relationships which have been demonstrated between various organisms. So we do have evidence of the transitions, and some of them have been nicely represented in the fossil record (the horse is a classic example) and the DNA record closely matches in most cases the structural relationships.
Report comment to moderator
musing computer models are not true science. the reason you must build the program in order to get the resolutions you want. If it does not give you the resolutions, you rewrite the program,
Report comment to moderator
You know, maybe the barely literate aren’t the best choice to champion the cause of a specific type of education style, no matter whether it is Christian, homeschooling, secular, atheist, ‘fabric/Indian city’ based, or anything else.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor roy post 70,
when you say:
“As a Christian, the proof of creation is creation it self. ”
I merely note that as presented this is not science.
It is not an hypothesis which can be tested using any feasible testing (and there are a rich variety: this makes a great discussion in and of itself). it also can not be falsiifed under any conceivable test.
As such, your argument is clearly not scientific.
And as such, is inappropriate for science class.
We keep seeing additional evidence that you are actually very antithetical to science and to teaching science in schools.
Report comment to moderator
DonnaJ – you’re seeing something in Musing’s comments which I do not. I don’t think he’s hostile.
Report comment to moderator
DonnaJ, I see the same thing.
Musing isn’t hostilie. He just likes to see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin rather than discuss the real issue.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, I don’t think Musing is hostile — I don’t really know much about Musing, to be honest, and I’m only trying to draw the poster out a bit more theologically. There’s a reluctance to “go there” which I don’t understand.
Report comment to moderator
musing – I merely note that as presented this is not science.
Under who’s terms, those who are promoting evolution?
Or those who are anti-christian?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 76,
now when you say:
“But this is, after all, a Christian web site and your refusal to engage in any sort of meaningful theological discussion really stops these conversations cold.”
what theological study are you interested in?
I have discussed in this web site:
1) the subtleties of the transition fomr Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 using Strong’s concordance as a source
2) the multiple source hypothesis to the Pentaeuch with an example based on the flood story
3) a study with SavedByGrace on what is arguably the most relaible portion of the gospels as we looked at the structure of Matthew with respect to Luke and Mark
4) the validity of Mark 16:9-20 and the impact of references from Papias on these verses (a very interesting discussion indeed!
)
And I can continue.
But I find it amusing that in the main WMB bloggers tend to focus on secular, not theological concepts. And I am happy to oblige them, in particular when they misstate the facts and use poorly structured logic.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 76,
or when sat Pastor Roy apparently misstates the role of strict inerrancy in the Christian community.
Report comment to moderator
DonnaJ, I think Musing is trying to draw Pastor Roy out scientifically. It’s not really working out very well for either of them.
Pastor Roy – you’re kind of making the case for evolution without meaning to. Evolution is simply not “anti-Christian”. It’s got nothing to do with religion, at all. The only individuals who get all fired up about it are people whose worldviews are based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
If evangelicals were half as aggressively “evangelical” as Dawkins, their churches might be growing even faster.
On the whole, evangelical churches aren’t growing. Sure, you have a lot of mega churches which get lots of attention, but they aren’t truly representative of the state of evangelicalism in the US. Their churches might be growing, but most aren’t, and the mega church growth is an artificial and superficial phenomenon that won’t last.
As a percentage of the population, evangelicals get fewer and fewer every year.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, then let’s do it. Sometime … I’m off to work shortly.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 84,
when you say:
“musing – I merely note that as presented this is not science.
Under who’s terms, those who are promoting evolution?
Or those who are anti-christian? ”
then based on the scietiifc process i have presented, from a scientific perspective only.
I note that Franics Collins is a strong evangelical Christian, but he accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory. His “Language of God” is most interesting on this point. I have one minor snit with Collin’s but it is based on a detailed mathematical issue.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, sorry I’m not so worked up.
I’ll try a little harder next time. But these threads do tend to go in predictable circle. And I’d argue that faith (in something) is involved on all fronts.
Report comment to moderator
donna J post 89,
choose the topic. I may or may not be knowledgeable, but I have always found these discussion s fun.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm, Let me see here. Mr. Dawkings wants to target teenagers with the idea that there is no God. Hmm. Dillon Clebolt, just before he blew a young teenage girl’s brain’s out asked her if she believed in God. She said yes. He then proceeded to splatter her brains all over the wall in Columbine High School.
So Lets see here. So is Mr. Dawkings now prepared to “breed” more Dillon Clebolts so more brains can be splattered? Once has to wonder if that is secretly what a lot of people who advocate a situational ethics, no absolute truth philosophy really want.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll check out the SavedByGrace site — but initially, I suspect your theological emphasis is on, let’s see, limiting the authority of Scripture. That may not be fair, but again, I really have no idea of where you are theologically as a Christian.
Again, I know this answer won’t be popular, but some things are spiritually discerned. If two parties do not accept the same authority (the Scriptures), it can lead to people simply talking past each other.
Tell us a little bit about your particular doctrine sometime.
Report comment to moderator
Give us all a heads up when he goes there Donna.
Report comment to moderator
Joe B. – you’re kidding, right?
Science = murder? An atheist cannot be ethical? All truths are absolute?
If you decide to commit to absolute truth, I’ll give it about 3 minutes, tops, for that is exactly how long it will take your wife to hunt you down to ask if she looks fat in these pants.
Report comment to moderator
“am I to assume then that you accept:
1) the multiple models showing an earth of hundreds of millions of years old or older?
2) an expanding and old universe?
3) the relatonship of all organisms to a common ancestor?
And I can continue.
But of course we are looking at the output of scinece, not science itslef.”
1) I can build a game called Halo, an din that world I can jump 40 feet high. Within that model, it is possible to jump 40 feet high. Is that reality tho? No. This is the danger of models. For instance, since most evolutionary, old timelines are built on the principle of unifiromity, if that is an incorrect assumption, then the models will indeed not be representative.
Have you bothered to look at any that arent? Something tells me you havent.
2) Expanding yes, old no.
3) All organisms would be a decendent of a previous ancestor. Organisms reproduce. To state a single ancestor for all is not provable. It is possible even under evolutionary old time, that multiple ancestors could have arisen at once.
“2) the reality of fossils”
You mean the reality that they are dead? That fossils require water?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 91,
I agree that:
“faith (in something)”
but it is perhaps useful to consider: faith in what.
At root one must make assumptions. These are functionally identical to beliefs. And to accept beliefs requires faith.
I have always posed that the most consistent model is to minimize your beliefs to the minimum necessary. It is a Goedle error to assume that by adding enough beliefs, one actually makes one’s belief set stronger: it usually gets weaker nad more fragile.
Report comment to moderator
It appears to me that most everyone believes things that they consider to be facts while others disagree that they are truly facts. We all ultimately have faith in our facts.
The crucial question then is who is qualified to determine what are the real facts of life. We each tend to answer that the people who agree with me are the ones qualified to determine real facts.
If only there was someone who was smart enough, experienced enough, and capable enough of communicating their wisdom to the rest of us.
Some people believe that only God could fill that role. Others believe that people like Richard Dawkins fit those qualifications. And of course each group thinks the other is the hight of foolishness. Only eternity will ultimately reveal the answer. That would suggest that the warning of Mark 9:42 is worth some thought. What are the long term consequences of what I believe?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, your comment at 99 hit one out of the park. I couldn’t agree with you more.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, my #94 was just trying to get a starting point for both of us established. It simply helps to know where both people start from — what their accepted authority is in spiritual matters.
Me: I’m of the Reformed faith (Westminster standards), but spent many years before that in the Quaker church, including some time off and on in liberal Quaker meetings.
Grew up in a nominal Christian household, SS off and on, but came to saving faith as a young adult. I was helped much in my understanding of Scripture by Bible Study Fellowship. In later years, I’ve taken advantage of Ligonier Ministries’ conferences and materials — excellent resources, by the way.
Still growing in my faith & obedience (I hope), but I really did think it would be a much faster process than it has been.
Arrg. Must be me. Much more growth needed, for sure.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 94,
when you say:
“I’ll check out the SavedByGrace site — but initially, I suspect your theological emphasis is on, let’s see, limiting the authority of Scripture. ”
I suggest rather that I watn to understand scripture. part of that is technical and part of that is meaning.
When one looks at meaing, I suggest we have netered ionto the subjectvie again, and what it means to me may very well not be what it means to you.
And under these conditions, what is the discussion?
If we accept that the Bible is a cornerstone of Christian faith (a debateable topic itself, but notice I use the word “a”), then understanding the nature of the Bible is indeed itself a theological discusion.
I am perhaps sensing that you dont want to talk about the same theological issues I want to talk about?
Report comment to moderator
Fisherman, faith in an entity one can’t see is not the same thing as scientific facts.
The crucial question then is who is qualified to determine what are the real facts of life.
Tootie. Mrs. Garrett was smart, but Tootie was running the show.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 101,
whne you say:
“Still growing in my faith & obedience (I hope), but I really did think it would be a much faster process than it has been. Arrg. Must be me.”
I merely note that fiath is hard. I have bene at it perhaps 45 years and I believe I am kidding myself when I suggest to myself that I may just be getting the hang of it.
Report comment to moderator
When evolutionist can provide emperical proof of how evolution caused the division of male/female for the purpose of reproduction, I will listen to their argument. Until then I will believe That: “…God created man in His own image; in the image og God He created him; male and female created He them.” Gen. 1:27 NKJV
Report comment to moderator
Thorn – you said it better then I could ever said.
Report comment to moderator
Fisherman post 99,
when you say:
“It appears to me that most everyone believes things that they consider to be facts while others disagree that they are truly facts. We all ultimately have faith in our facts.”
I merely suggest that there are certian concepts which can be objectviely proved (this is a long tiopic).
and these do not require the same tought process for believing as something which can not be objectviely proved.
Both are valuable in thier own right, but it is a grave mistake to confuse on for the other.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.26.09 AT 1:13 PM
Fisherman, faith in an entity one can’t see is not the same thing as scientific facts.
The crucial question then is who is qualified to determine what are the real facts of life.
Tootie. Mrs. Garrett was smart, but Tootie was running the show.
–
So why then have you put your faith in evolution?
Report comment to moderator
What I find interesting is how many times it is said that there is “tons of indisputable evidence” for evolution, yet none is ever presented. All of the examples given are merely observations of physical attributes that could have resulted if evolution were true, but certainly don’t PROVE it. Take, for example, Musings “the relationship of all organisms to a common ancestor.” All of the commonality across the species could just as easily been by the design of an Intelligent Creator. Thus, commonality supports both beliefs.
On the flip side, there are situations that flat-out don’t work under the evolutionary model, such as the many circumstances under which dead animals would have had to evolve (e.g. the long neck of the giraffe or the moth turning into a butterfly). Yet this “evidence” seems to go unnoticed. OR, how about this one – that something somehow came from nothing.
Report comment to moderator
An extreme example of what your saying mommy is that
a lemon is round, yellow, and contains hydrogen.
The sun is round, yellow, and contains hydrogen.
Despite the commonality or similiarities, no scientist would argue that the lemon evolved from the sun or vice versa. Similiarities are in and of themselves not proof of descendence.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 106,
but you will be doing so by substituting your beliefs in the apparently mistaken impression that they are objectively proved.
But that is your right.
However it has consequences: by rejecting objective proof, one also takes away ones basis for criticising any specific objectie proof.
One may still legitimately discuss the philosophical basis of science and science as a whiole, but you have lost standing to argue in a fact based manner about say the age of the universe of evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, it’s always been Tootie. Kidding!
If you look at my comment way back at 73, you will see that faith and science have a cozy relationship within the minds of many people. I am one of those people.
Report comment to moderator
thorn post 110,
but when backup by a clear chronology and the DNA evidence, they do indeed provide clear evidence of common descent fomr a common ancestor.
There is no objectvie question about the descent.
There are some fascinating open issues about how this descent occurred.
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 109,
and when you say:
“that could have resulted if evolution were true, but certainly don’t PROVE it.”
but of course we have watched evolution in the small scale in the laboratory.
Dewberry has provided a nice case regarding frogs in North America on the large.
There is no real scientific argument over descent form a common ancestor: indeed no other supported scientific hypothessis has been shown to match the data.
And to argue otherwise is in fact ot reject the objective evidence.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy psot 108,
when you say:
“So why then have you put your faith in evolution? ”
becaus eevolution is supported by objectvie evidence and creationism is not.
As such there is no faith in evolution. the correct statement is that despie testing, evolution has not been refuted ANd it provides an explanatory model for making scientific predictions.
Indeed cell based bioptechnology is based on evolution as a core construct.
Report comment to moderator
#113: Or clear evidence of a common Creator?
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Can you elaborate on Dewberry (google can’t seem to). Did he turn a frog into something other than a frog?
Report comment to moderator
It is worth looking at Pastor Roy’s argument: he does not provide objectvie evidence for creationism but expects us to accept it, yet rejects the objectvie evidence for evolution and expects us to likewise reject evolution.
When Pastor Roy can provide objectvie verifiable sicnetiifc evidence for creation, then pastor Roy is in a position to claim that creationism is science.
I am waiting for his objective scientific data.
Report comment to moderator
“but when backup by a clear chronology and the DNA evidence, they do indeed provide clear evidence of common descent fomr a common ancestor.”
You mean as clear as Ida and Ardi and our good buddy the mini T rex? No, it isnt that clear.
From one single ancestor total Musing? Considering we have not discovered or read every DNA sequence this would seem to be a projection, and not based in fact.
If you mean multiple common ancestors for respective lineages, then I have already agreed with you.
If this is also based on similiarities, then it is not objective fact, but projection as well.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.26.09 AT 1:28 PM
Pastor Roy, it’s always been Tootie. Kidding!
If you look at my comment way back at 73, you will see that faith and science have a cozy relationship within the minds of many people. I am one of those people.
–
So you do not believe in Creation as God said it happen in Genesis, Correct?
So God, did not make Adam and Eve?
Report comment to moderator
Musing 104, I hear you. And saving faith is, actually, at its heart quite simple. Christ alone, all of grace alone through faith alone.
But that’s not to say there’s not a “rest of the story” that’s crucial for us to pursue, that’s central to our growth and understanding of who God is and who we are in relationship to Him and others.
Report comment to moderator
COME ON MUSING!!!! – Share some of that “objective evidence.”
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I said that I disagree with you. I think you are incorrect in your discounting of the disrespect that atheists and leftists show to the right and to Christian faith, and in your estimation of the alleged disrespect that people on this blog show.
I think that this blog also illustrates the very point I was making, by and large.
Musing, I think you are wrong, in general, on both counts.
Report comment to moderator
musing – becaus eevolution is supported by objectvie evidence and creationism is not.
–
What objectvie evidence” computer programs?
Where is your evidence of the evolution transition from one time frame to another that shows the evolutionary change in animals and people, with out using a computer program?
Report comment to moderator
musing – you are putting your faith in a computer programs. To prove your point.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy post 118,
amusingly the reference to Dewberry came in a WMB article critiquing Darwin. the article is here:
http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/science/articles/darwin.html
NOw amusinlgy this is a critique of Darwin, however the folllowing is important:
“Case after case has been reported of variations of plants and animals that are transformed into species. A famous example is the case of the leopard frog, Rana pipiens, which lives throughout the lower 48 states. If we divide the U.S. into nine zones from west to east, and label them zones A through I, we find that when we mate frogs from adjacent zones, for example, A and B, or G and F, they produce fertile offspring. However, if we attempt to mate a frog from zone A to one from zone I, the offspring are not fertile. What we are seeing is differentiation of Rana pipiens into two separate species. A great number of examples of this type have been observed in a wide range of plants and animals. There is little doubt that Darwin is correct in his argument here.”
and you will note the clear accpetance of transformation of one type of organism into another.
Where Dewberry disagrees as I read him is on the detaisl of the process. It is an interesting discussion at this level and at this level is worthy of discussion (Dewberry challenges the single common ancestor, but it appears he probalby postulates 3 or so common ancestors).
But note that the basic argument abuor descent form common ancestor viat mutations is not challenged.
Report comment to moderator
thorn post 119,
and when you raise this issue:
“You mean as clear as Ida and Ardi and our good buddy the mini T rex? No, it isnt that clear. ”
it seems you are then arguing over where in the tree they fall, not whether they are on the tree (even though the tree model has major limitations).
Report comment to moderator
Let me get this straight – we mate two different frogs and we get another frog and we call that “two separate species?” Talk about bad science . . .
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 120,
when you say:
“So you do not believe in Creation as God said it happen in Genesis, Correct?”
I suggest that the correct phrasing is:
Like a majority of Christians one does not believe that Genesis creation, including Adam and Eve as described, is literally true.
Report comment to moderator
Also, Musing, unless you grossly mis-typed it (quite possible), “variations of plants and animals that are transformed into species” makes no sense.
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 122,
so are you willing to take the long ride? You clearly are apparnelty willing to misinterpret the short one, and the detailed ride is long.
first we must start with the data which shows that the earth is old: hundreds of millions of years to billions of years.
Are we willing to accept htis as a starting point?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy asks: So you do not believe in Creation as God said it happen in Genesis, Correct?
No, I don’t. I believe that God guided the evolutionary process and that the 6 day account really took place over millennia. I also point out that God is purported to have said a lot of things, not all of which are consistent.
So God, did not make Adam and Eve?
That depends on what you mean. My Episcopal science teacher suggested that Adam and Eve were the first primates to have what no primates have – souls. In that sense, yes.
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 123,
so when you say:
” think that this blog also illustrates the very point I was making, by and large.
Musing, I think you are wrong, in general, on both counts. ”
please explain the oft made comment in the past that people are heretics made between people who are indeed clealry strong believers?
In short, you assertion does not match the acutal behavior of posters in this blog.
But if you want to live in your fantasy world …
Report comment to moderator
musing -
“Like a majority of Christians one does not believe that Genesis creation, including Adam and Eve as described, is literally true”
Ok, if we take what you just wrote it true. Then God did not kick Adam and Eve out of the garden?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 126,
I have used mo compuiter programs to raise these issues.
But it looks like you also need to do the step by step process.
So please answer with mommy the qeustions in my post 131.
Report comment to moderator
Pastgor roy post 134,
not literaly kick Adam and Eve out of the garden because of course there was no litteral garden of eden and no litteral Adam and Eve.
It follows fomr the first statement.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – well then your “My Episcopal science teacher suggested that Adam and Eve were the first primates to have what no primates have – souls. In that sense, yes. ” He was wrong. But that ok, so you do not believe God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden?
Report comment to moderator
I’ll point out here that Darwin didn’t have a computer. He did just fine without one.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy/Pastor Roy,
so are we willing to engae from the beginning?
And the age of the earth?
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.26.09 AT 1:55 PM
Pastgor roy post 134,
not literaly kick Adam and Eve out of the garden because of course there was no litteral garden of eden and no litteral Adam and Eve.
It follows fomr the first statement.
—
So I guess you then do not believe Jesus is the Son of God and died for the sins of the world?
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.26.09 AT 1:56 PM
Mommy/Pastor Roy,
so are we willing to engae from the beginning?
And the age of the earth?
–
How did you come about the age of the earth?
Report comment to moderator
Ay caramba, Pastor Roy!
He was wrong.
If it makes you feel better to think so, then ok.
But that ok, so you do not believe God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden?
No. I think it’s a metaphor for free will, original sin, and grace (or the loss thereof) designed to appeal to people who don’t want to engage the concept objectively and who require visual aids to illustrate simple points.
But while we’re on the subject… Who was Lilith? Who did Cain marry and be fruitful and multiply with? Where did they come from?
The more literal one gets with Genesis, the more unsustainable the logic has to be.
Report comment to moderator
An example of the uppity attitude that secular leftists tend to have toward people of faith was illustrated when Barack Obama falsely gloated that he was restoring “science to its rightful place.”
Wow! What he had is a disagreement with those on the right and Christians, but he plays it as if his imagined opponents had diminished science itself. This is ignorance and disrespect for those with whom he happenes to disagree.
Report comment to moderator
“and you will note the clear accpetance of transformation of one type of organism into another.”
You mean Frog A and Frog B giving birth to Frog AB…right? This is the limitation of evolution.
“But note that the basic argument abuor descent form common ancestor viat mutations is not challenged.”
And leading creationist YECers dont challenge it either. Apparently your not familiar. Yet you make blanket statements like you are. Multiple ancestors as in created kinds. Each able to diversify according to their own kind. This is obviously limited by their ability to repoduce, which even your frogs display. It is limited by natural selections ability to reorganize and eliminate DNA encoding. It does not create new.
The problem, is millions/billions verses a short time frame.
Report comment to moderator
“it seems you are then arguing over where in the tree they fall, not whether they are on the tree”
Nope, I’m aruging that there are multiple trees.
God created each according to its own kind.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
So, you think simply that one or two alleged anecdotal examples you cite must mean that I live in a fantasy world?
You make my point, Musing. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not answering for Musing, but for myself: So I guess you then do not believe Jesus is the Son of God and died for the sins of the world?
Jesus existed. There’s lots of proof. You don’t even need a Bible to prove it. Adam & Eve? No proof. People begetting 90 bazillion kids and living 800 years? Unlikely, AND unproven.
As to whether Christ was the Son of God and died for our sins – I do believe that, even though it can’t be proven. But that’s faith, not science.
Report comment to moderator
“Like a majority of Christians one does not believe that Genesis creation, including Adam and Eve as described, is literally true.”
Why should one believe in God of the bible, believe in Christ’s death and ressurrection as truth, but then not believe God’s word on his creation?
Thats inconsistant, and fruitless.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 –
”
Ay caramba, Pastor Roy!
He was wrong.
If it makes you feel better to think so, then ok.”
Not at all God’s Word said he was wrong.
“No. I think it’s a metaphor for free will, original sin, and grace (or the loss thereof) designed to appeal to people who don’t want to engage the concept objectively and who require visual aids to illustrate simple points.”
so Christ dies in vian in your view. He did not die for the sin’s of world due to the fact you do not believe Adam and Eve fell from grace due to sin. They were just metaphor.
Do you believe Jesus also was a metaphor?
As for who
Report comment to moderator
I find calling out Dawkins in this manner to be extremely hypocritical.
Tell me any Christian household that doesn’t “target” their own children in order to propagate the faith.
If what Dawkins is doing is so wrong, then what is Sunday School all about? You’re not only targeting teens, but you’re targeting youth in its most impressionable phase of life.
If you’re so sure that Christianity is the way of the world/afterlife, then what is a harmless little book going to do to stop it. If you’re serious about proving to the world that Christians have the “right answer”, then Dawkin’s book will never do the religious establishment any harm.
How better to prove your faith than by standing steadfast against the growing wave of mounting scientific evidence that is slowly decimating your ranks?
Perhaps you would look less like crusaders or suppressors of knowledge, and more like Christians, if you used Romans 12:21 message of “be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Report comment to moderator
Not so fast, Joel: What he had is a disagreement with those on the right and Christians, but he plays it as if his imagined opponents had diminished science itself. This is ignorance and disrespect for those with whom he happenes to disagree.
The Dover case in PA comes to mind. If that wasn’t diminishing science, I don’t know what is.
Report comment to moderator
When Barack Obama gloated that he was restoring “science to its rightful place,” he was showing his self-presumed Messianism and savior-complex.
Why can’t liberals just disagree honorably with their opponents instead of pretending disingenuously in wildly messianic terms and tones that their opponents are (by implication) dethroners or destroyers of science and decency and anything else that they dream up? It is arrogant to the point of indecency to claim such a salvific role for oneself simply by making up evil implications about your opponents.
I see more mindless religious fervor on the secular left than on the religious right. But they are blind to it.
Obama added, “We must not be prisoners of the past.” He was pretending that those who are against his cap-and-trade energy bill actually want to enslave us to the past. Of course, it’s nonsense. Actually, we just don’t want to enslve our grandchildren to huge debts we incur, we don’t want to hurt the economy, and we think that the climate change alarmists are misguided.
Report comment to moderator
No Thomas1, the Dover case was a disagreement. Why can’t you simply see that, without trying to re-define your opponents into some image you want to create for them–illegitimately. It was also an isolated case, and the faith-based side of that case was HORRIFICALLY demonized by the left, and by many on this blog who could not stand allowing people to disagree with them. The Dover case makes my point.
Disagree more respectfully with us. Don’t try to stereotype and mis-characterize us according to your presumptions.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – if you do not believe that Adama and Eve was kicked out of the Garden due to sin. Then Christ died for nothing.
Report comment to moderator
The Dover case included evangelicals perjuring themselves at trial:
After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. “Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions,” Judge Jones wrote. “The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony.” An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful, saying that the “unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed”.
Report comment to moderator
“And the age of the earth?”
Flood would have occurred around 2304 BC or so. Give or take depending on how much the earth’s rotation was affected.
Tack on about 1656 for the previous years and add 2009.
So just shy of 6k.
Report comment to moderator
MATT_SF wrote; “If what Dawkins is doing is so wrong, then what is Sunday School all about? You’re not only targeting teens, but you’re targeting youth in its most impressionable phase of life.”
Please see my comment already posted at #53. I think all your questions were already answered.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – Obama science believe it is ok to kill babies.
Report comment to moderator
Hermes, #88, many are growing and many are not. But the more conservative evangelical churches tend to be the ones growing more than the liberal denominations. But it’s still a big mixed bag. But my point was that Dawkins is being, in my view, a whole lot aggressively evangelical for his beliefs than most evangelicals are for theirs.
Report comment to moderator
So, Joel, perjury is only bad when liberals do it?
It’s not demonization to call perjury what it is.
Pastor Roy, you (intentionally?) misunderstand the Mainline Protestant view of sin, redemption and grace. A literal Adam & Eve are not required.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, I disagree with you regarding the Dover case. The Christians in that case were villified and pilloried and smeared horrificly. They had a hostile judge too. It’s a classic example of not being able to treat Creationists decently, from the start. I don’t think they reacted all that well in every case, but the vilification was unjustified.
Report comment to moderator
Musing @ 131, Nope and I don’t necessary see how it’s germaine.
Report comment to moderator
Perjury is always bad and should be prosecuted. You are trying to do EXACTLY what I am claiming that ultra leftists and secularists do, try to re-define Christians unkindly by some isolated case — a case, in this case, where that very thing was done to Creationists too.
Report comment to moderator
“A literal Adam & Eve are not required.”
Yes, they are. Paul argues such. Mercy can only be real, if sin is real. Grace through one man can only be real, if sin and death came by one man.
Why do you doubt God’s Word?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – what I love is how those on the christian Left claim to be in the Majority. When the evidence shows other wise.
Report comment to moderator
Well, the evangelicals at Dover probably would have given less ammo to those who disagreed with them if they stopped lying through their teeth. The whole thing was done in a sneaky way, and against the wishes of most of the district’s parents.
We can agree to disagree about the Dover case, but you should be aware that you’re defending the indefensible.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t recall any conviction on perjury in the Dover case either. Was there one? If so, then I would say; “good.” If they were guilty of that, they should be convicted. But if not, then my point stands even higher than ever.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.26.09 AT 2:19 PM
So, Joel, perjury is only bad when liberals do it?
It’s not demonization to call perjury what it is.
Pastor Roy, you (intentionally?) misunderstand the Mainline Protestant view of sin, redemption and grace. A literal Adam & Eve are not required.
–
then they do not know God’s Word and who Christ is. IF they deine Adam & Eve fall from grace, then they have made Christ death on the cross meanless. That is why it is so easy for the these Church to abound God’s Word, for a false gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, the accusation that evangelicals lied “through their teeth” needs some evidence, or do you not believe in evidence? If you have no conviction to speak of, you should apologize on this blog. If you have evidence of a conviction on perjury, I will celebrate justice with you. Anyhow, the disrespectful treatment of believers and the arrogance I illustrated with the Obama rhetoric remains.
Report comment to moderator
I will not apologize: they lied.
From the ruling: The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
They were not tried because the school board held a special election, and they were all fired. As it was, their lies cost the school district more than a million dollars in legal fees.
I do have faith in our justice system, even though I think that every one of these liars should have done time.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2005/12/thats-gonna-leave-mark.html
Report comment to moderator
MUSING @ 111: IMPERICAL proof Musing, IMPERICAL proof. Not simply a plethora of words , IMPERICAL proof!
Report comment to moderator
@ Joel,
“Dawkins resorts to cheap unfounded stereotypes that feed hate and resentment.”
As if Catholics, Muslims, Baptists and many other outspoken religious groups haven’t done the same?
Perhaps the problem is that the playing field is becoming more level considering how easily information can be disseminated via the web, Twitter, Facebook, or eBooks. I’m willing to bet the established group in power (The Church) doesn’t want that to happen since they aren’t quite sure how to police and regulate the information flow.
I’m not defending Dawkins, but what I’m pointing out is the hypocrisy of the argument that his school of thought shouldn’t have as much of a right to be taught as your own.
“He is a virulent opponent of faith but he does not even begin to understand what or who he is opposing. He is fighting straw men.”
What Dawkins is attacking is the concept (or theory) of religion. He’s attacking the very idea that we may as well worship a magical teapot floating around the Earth like an all seeing satellite just as equally as an all powerful invisible man who once lived on highest mountain, then the sky, now the heavens.
Point is, he’s challenging the very validity of the entire movement. That tends to frighten or enrage anyone who has faith in that movement, and often, engages the psychology of teams so vehemently that it clouds higher reasoning skills.
Report comment to moderator
How about a DEBATE between Richard Dawkins and
Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Creationist Astrophysicist AiG (US)
Report comment to moderator
MUSING: I am waiting for your emperical proof; or scientific, varifiable data, as you like to put it, concerning my statement at #180.
Report comment to moderator
Kudos to Matt_SF for a great post, which included the words “magical teapot”.
Report comment to moderator
What are you talking about MATT?
There is NOTHING LEVEL in schools.
All the schools are CONTROLLED BY EVOLUTION and even private schools are being pressured to teach evolution or they get no credits for college entrance.
Schools are NOT ALLOWED TO even QUESTION EVOLUTION. BECAUSE SCIENTISTS SAY SO. EVOLUTION THEORY IS FACT. So say the scientists who have locked out anyone questioning evolution.
Report comment to moderator
P)astor Bot post 140,
when you say:
“So I guess you then do not believe Jesus is the Son of God and died for the sins of the world? ”
I respond what gave you that idea? Of course I do. And this does not seem to follow from your earlier comments.
So the logical connection is?
Remember that effectively all Christians believe that Christ died for our sins, but perhaps 1/3 of Christians believe in an strictly inerrant Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – do you believe Noah and Flood was a metaphor also?
Report comment to moderator
Science is in the toilet thanks to evolutionists.
Report comment to moderator
roger Patno post 174,
ok, then I also ask you to participate inthe long discusison to which I have invited mommy and Paastor Roy.
And the starting point is: how old is the arth.
And your answer? Why?
Note that the rest of the argument depends on this answer, so it must be resolved first.
Report comment to moderator
musing – HA HA HA, where do you get your figures “Remember that effectively all Christians believe that Christ died for our sins, but perhaps 1/3 of Christians believe in an strictly inerrant Bible. “
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 178,
as wiht about 2/3 of christians, it is generally considered that the Noah flood is allegorical not litteral.
If you insist that it is litteral objectvie truth, then of course you can produce objective scientiifc data demonstrating:
1) there was a world wide flood
2) that it occurred everywhere simultaneously
I look forward to your data.
Report comment to moderator
Does Dawkins or any evolutionist know what THEORY means?
According to evolutionists the THEORY of evolution means it’s fact. Just because all the scientists who are contolling science say it is fact does NOT make it fact. You are still clinging to your ICONS OF EVOLUTION. Do some research away from the controllers of science.
If I get all my friends to say that I am a millionaire and don’t allow anyone to say different, it still doesn’t make me a millionaire.
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.26.09 AT 3:00 PM
Pastor Roy post 178,
as wiht about 2/3 of christians, it is generally considered that the Noah flood is allegorical not litteral.
If you insist that it is litteral objectvie truth, then of course you can produce objective scientiifc data demonstrating:
1) there was a world wide flood
2) that it occurred everywhere simultaneously
I look forward to your data.
–
HA, HA , HA again your firgures are so funny.
Great Sand dunes
Report comment to moderator
MUSING
You need to read some of Dr. Jason Lisle’s work.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: Thomas1 – do you believe Noah and Flood was a metaphor also?
Good question. It’s covered in several faith traditions, so something happened.
But, there doesn’t seem to be evidence of a worldwide flood that covered everything, and the various scams about “finding the ark” have all been debunked. Also, it’s kind of silly to suggest that every type of animal made it on – there are over 50 breeds of domesticated cats, for example, and if he only saved a stripey pair, where would we get a fluffy one? It would be sad if there were no fluffy kitties.
Report comment to moderator
There are DVDs available that just make fools of evolutionists.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor roy, post 181,
from the Pew survey data:
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Cathlics do not believe in strict inerrancy of the Bible:
And most of the traditional protestant denominations do not either.
The evangelical churches by contrast do. So the strictly correct wording is that the denominational demographics indicate that 2/3 of american Christian do not believe in a strict litteral interpretation of the Bible.
We have discussd this mahy times in WMB, and nobody hs provided any reasonable alternatvie data.
Report comment to moderator
news2me
Have you seen his figures here-
as with about 2/3 of Christians, it is generally considered that the Noah flood is allegorical not litteral
Remember that effectively all Christians believe that Christ died for our sins, but perhaps 1/3 of Christians believe in an strictly inerrant Bible.
God’s Word is clear in the end days there will be a great fallen away. If we take his figures to be correct. Then folks the great fallen away has happen.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
You only need two cats to breed.
Cats are still cats nothing more.
You only need two dogs to breed.
Dogs are still dogs.
People have made them into many breeds.
Report comment to moderator
musing
You mean like the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches as your traditional protestant denominations ?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 184,
what is funny is that ou have made some very strong statements, but when asked to back them up with data, it would appear that you have none.
I do note that you have not answered my question regaridng the age of the earth. It is foundational to evolutionry data and thought, and yet peculiarly you do nopt seem to have any positon on nit.
But of course if you don ot have a good model for the age of the earth, you are also in no positon to make any comment on evolutionary processes.
Indeed your very comments on scinece education lead you intop a logical trap.
Sorry Pastro Roy, but your arugment at this point would appear to be intellectually dishonest. And I suggest your comments can then be evaluated in terms of this dishonesty.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think they will find Noah’s ark because people would worship it.
God wants us to believe without seeing something like Noah’s ark.
I don’t have to go to see where Jesus supposedly was buried to know that HE IS.
Report comment to moderator
So, Thomas1, no conviction of perjury in the Dover case them??? Let me know if otherwise!!! Opinions are not convictions of perjury and they can be wrong. If there is no conviction, that morally obligates you, Thomas1, to apologize for accusing them of “perjury.” But I don’t expect it.
Report comment to moderator
A Maine Coon cat is not a Siamese, and a tabby isn’t a Scottish Fold. They look different, and have for a long time. Look at a sculpture of a cat from ancient Egypt or Rome, and compare it to an actual ordinary cat. They are not the same.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 191,
among them.
Episcopaleans as a denomination do not believe in strict inerrancy, as I remember well from my many years as an Episcopalean.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/billions-of-years
Report comment to moderator
If truth were dependent upon the majority thought, Musing, then you would still be in the dark ages.
It doesnt.
So positing 2/3rds christians is a useless arguement for “fact” especially against the Bible, which often has a remnant of believers.
If God says there was a global flood, then there was, if you believe the God of the Bible to be true.
So the correct start is to ask what mechanisms would have occurred based on th eintial references to the condition of the world that we have from God, and our current understanding of natural laws.
The flood was claimed to have wiped out all land breathing animals and man. As the fossil record clearly shows a mass extinction with heavy fossilization (water is required) this is only parrallel to biblical claims.
On top of that, the hydrological forces over the course of several months could easily have deposited much of our current sedimentary layers.
In other words, the global biblical flood is the knife in the back to any models based upon uniformity or millions of years.
Failure to simply denounce it without addressing the potetial mechanisms that would be associated, lends you no evidence contrary to God’s assertion.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, then you will not be disappointed. Just because someone gets away with something doesn’t make it wrong.
But you should know that.
Report comment to moderator
mommy,
no response to my query?
Report comment to moderator
I can safely believe that you have no proof; nor scientific, varifiable facts. Thank you! That speaks of sham. Is it possible that you excell at that? Just wondering!
Report comment to moderator
MATT_SF, wrote; “As if Catholics, Muslims, Baptists and many other outspoken religious groups haven’t done the same?”
If you have a complaint or case against those groups, then make it clearly. But this discussion is about Dawkins. I offered my opinion and all you can do in reply is try to smear other groups. That’s not a good argument, Matt.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING & THOMAS1
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/billions-of-years
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.26.09 AT 3:12 PM
Pastor Roy post 191,
among them.
Episcopaleans as a denomination do not believe in strict inerrancy, as I remember well from my many years as an Episcopalean.
-
An they are losing member and Churches left and right do to false teachings
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, oh wow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#The_great_flood_in_the_history_of_geology
Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community. Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell’s principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying this principle, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth’s history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale).[57][58] In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[59]
Report comment to moderator
“If truth were dependent upon the majority thought, Musing, then you would still be in the dark ages.”
Good one THORN.
Sometimes I feel like we are living in the DARK AGES.
Report comment to moderator
Tjhorn post 198,
but when you say:
“If truth were dependent upon the majority thought, Musing, then you would still be in the dark ages.
It doesnt.”
and then look at my posts.
No where have I said that objectvie truth is based on majority view. Objectvie truth depneds onobjectvie evidence, and there is no objectvie evidcence for a simultaneous world wide flood, much less a flood in the last few thousand years.
If I am incorrect here, please show me the objective scientific data showing otherwise.
It needs to show:
1) a world wide flood
2) that this flood was simultaneous
I look forward to your data.
Report comment to moderator
Wikipedia is the last place I would trust for TRUTH. Please.
Have you gone to the site I recommended MUSING?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 204,
so when yopu say:
“An they are losing member and Churches left and right do to false teachings ”
you clearly demonstrate that when the facts are against you you try to introduce irrelevancies.
Again strict inerrancy is believed by less than 50% of American Christians and the statistics would suggest only 1/3 believin strict inerrancy.
Report comment to moderator
Are you afraid of truth MUSING?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 wrote; “They were not tried because the school board held a special election, and they were all fired.”
No conviction obligates you to apologize, Thomas1.
And if anyone lost an election fair and quare, then the people spoke. But that does NOT mean they were fired. See you anxious you are to smear them? And losing an election is ABSOLUTELY no good reason to fail to go ahead and prosecute them if they did lie or commit perjury.
The point stands that you have proven my point, Thomas1. Why do you need to disparage those on the other side? Do you have that little confidence in your case? More respect is needed in this discussion in our culture for people of faith.
Report comment to moderator
I answered you @ 161
Report comment to moderator
News2Me – the link was interesting, but it’s not science.
And why are you so darn hostile?
Pastor Roy – this is not a cheap shot, but if someone was truly Episcopalian, he’d probably do a better job of spelling it.
Report comment to moderator
Grammar correction: “See how anxious you are to smear them?”
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.26.09 AT 3:11 PM
Indeed your very comments on scinece education lead you intop a logical trap.
Sorry Pastro Roy, but your arugment at this point would appear to be intellectually dishonest. And I suggest your comments can then be evaluated in terms of this dishonesty.
—
So you believe God’s Word is dishonesty? I said the Creation it self is the evidence of Creation. An can be proven by science. If you want further proof a baby.
HA, HA – oh by the way roger patno has been asking you for proof and you have not responded yourself.
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS1
What in my posting says I’m hostile?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, there were lots of reasons – expense being but one, to not go after the perjuring evangelicals. They were, as I’ve said, fired for what they did. The election took place strictly to replace them.
The real question is, what kind of pretzel logic are you using to defend these people? Machiavelli isn’t in the Bible.
If people of faith want respect in the public sphere, they have to earn it. They can start by not trying to use public funds to teach Christianity to those who prefer to learn about it at church and at home, or not at all.
Report comment to moderator
news2me post 203,
at last someone who actually tries to addres the age of the earth.
In the traditional young earth creationist model the world is posited to be a few thousand years old: 10,000 i8s one classic number.
There are several problems when one looks at the data:
1) Lord Kelvin did a cooling analysis of the arth: the earth based on thhis analysis and updated to include radioactivity yeields an age of the earth of at least 100 million years
2) plate tectonics gives us a rate of motion of the continents: if you look at the rate of motion of India and take it form its initial positon in Africa, one gets an ages of at least about 250 million years
3) uranium cycle radioactiviyt decay has shown rocks with ages of about 4.5 billion years or so
4) the nuclear physics of the sun requires an age of about 5 billon years fo rth eSun
NOw all of these may be in error, but there are tow issues:
a) what objectvie scienti8fic evidence do we have that the earth is say 10,000 years old?
b) and you are arguing that these four measurements which are similar within a factor of say 20 – 40 are all inaccurate by about a factor of 10,000?
This will require a common mode failure between four different types of physical phenomenon. and this failure mode would be?
I look forward toyour response.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 215,
where did I say:
“So you believe God’s Word is dishonesty?”
I do believe however, that you have stopped arguing honestly.
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.26.09 AT 3:18 PM
Pastor Roy post 204,
so when yopu say:
“An they are losing member and Churches left and right do to false teachings ”
you clearly demonstrate that when the facts are against you you try to introduce irrelevancies.
Again strict inerrancy is believed by less than 50% of American Christians and the statistics would suggest only 1/3 believin strict inerrancy.
-
Then God’s Word is true.
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 212,
that you donot see that the age of the earth is germane to a discussion of evolutioon suggests a deep lack of knowledge of evolution.
Evolution depneds on long time frames: if you can show that the earth is young then evolutionary processes can not play out.
And since you fail to see this, I must assume that you also have not fully understood evolution, and hence it mayperhaps be that your arugments against evolution are ill founded.
Report comment to moderator
News2Me, when you ask questions like “are you afraid of truth”? it comes off like “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
If people of faith want respect in the public sphere, they have to earn it. They can start by not trying to use public funds to teach Christianity to those who prefer to learn about it at church and at home, or not at all.
-
Wow how else can they earn your respect and the public respect?
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.26.09 AT 3:27 PM
Pastor Roy post 215,
where did I say:
“So you believe God’s Word is dishonesty?”
I do believe however, that you have stopped arguing honestly.
-
Well you denied God’s Word about creation, Adam and Eve, the flood. I would say you believe God’s Word is dishonesty on at lest these three accounts.
Report comment to moderator
Where did you get your information MUSING?
Shouldn’t you be posing that question to the site?
They do respond to questions.
I am not a scientist.
I gave you a link where they can answer your questions.
If you claim that they aren’t scientists and won’t look any further then what is the point of this discussion?
You come to a Christian site and call us liars.
That is what Thomas is doing.
When we defend ourselves, then Thomas says, “Why are you so hostile?” That is so he can whine to the moderator.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
I am sorry for you that you hate all the people who don’t like homosexuals in church leadership.
Are you coming here and mouthing off because you want to get even with every Christian who doesn’t share your views? Do you go to all Christian sites and do that?
Report comment to moderator
musing
“Evolution depends on long time frames:”
An you have not shown one proof of evidence on the jump in the evolutionary process from one time frame to another.
Report comment to moderator
“and there is no objectvie evidcence for a simultaneous world wide flood, much less a flood in the last few thousand years.”
Mass exctinction fossilized isnt good enough for you?
Sedimentary rock layered without erosion issues?
Marine fossils above a mile in elevation?
Considering that these are regular occurences found all over the world it would seem to have some sort of consistant issue..if not a simultaneous occurence.
Evolution still attempts to solve the problem they chose a meteor or disease over a flood…why when they are worse at explaining?
Report comment to moderator
God is not upset that Christians believe in evolution MUSING.
It doesn’t really matter to me what others believe about evolution unless it keeps them from believing in God.
Report comment to moderator
thank you THORN
Report comment to moderator
Thorn
How about a great sand dune in the Colorado?
Report comment to moderator
In re: 218
Musing, all your “facts” are based on uniformity.
The Bible’s clear claim is that the Flood disrupts that notion.
Plates would not always ahve moved at the current rate of motion. This rate of motion is also highly debated esp its mechanisms amongst geologists and PT theorists.
If there was a flood, these plates would have easily moved much faster for a time period. The Bible is parallel here, because it describes water bursting forth from underneath the ground.
You fail to even examine the mechanisms that would be at work.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I haven’t joined in, because I generally think it is fruitless to try to reason with Musing about anything, and Thomas is very hostile to discussion with Bible-believing Christians.
However, I have to say that as a Bible-believing Christian with very little science training beyond early college, even I can’t accept Answers in Genesis as science. I can find so many holes in their reasoning myself (and, again, I feel that I am NOT a scientist), that I can’t imagine how a trained scientist would view their findings.
I am generally someone who strongly believes that the Bible and science should work together, and — when they don’t — it is because we are failing to understand one or the other or — most likely — both.
I think there are errors in modern science and that secular scientists often have HUGE holes in their thinking because they really don’t want Truth, they want a truth that doesn’t include a God — evidence be damned.
But, I also think that many Christians are completely unwilling to look at evidence outside the Bible and explanations that can possibly reconcile the Biblical claims to many scientific claims.
Members of my family are generally Old Earth creationists, but we are not so stuck as to completely ignore evidence from other belief systems. While I don’t think that Evolution as presently defined is completely correct, I also don’t think it is completely wrong.
If ever both sides dropped their preconceived notions and actually approached the issues like real scientists should, they might find Truth, and that would be lovely.
Report comment to moderator
MUSSING: You constantly demand proof and/or verifiable data from others. I am challenging you for proof and/or verifiable data concerning my comments. Surely you are not above doing that which you demand of others, are you? But perhaps you are!
Report comment to moderator
Musing.
I have no arguments against evolution. I simply believe in creation. I await you giving even one piece of “evidence” that PROVES evolution. Instead, you want to discuss the age of the earth. Seems like you are evading the question.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, God’s Word says a day is like a thousand years to God. So if we take just this idea that each day took a thousand years, then it could have taken God 7,000 years to do the creation story found in Genesis. (I do not know if I agree to it but it could have happen that way)
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, The reason I mentioned Clebolt is because, he was a product of what he had been taught. He had been taught that he was nothing more than an exhaulted animal. He merely acted out what he had been taught.
If you want to really get down to brass tacks, Nazi Germany practiced social Darwinism by setting out to prove themselves to be the fittest and only they should be the ones to survive.
Report comment to moderator
News2Me, I, in turn feel sorry for you that you think that some human beings should be accorded less dignity than others.
I’m sure that you’re a lovely person, but you’d make a lousy Episcopalian. I didn’t call anyone a liar who hadn’t lied, under oath in a legal proceeding, and if you lump yourself in with people who do that, you might want to ask yourself why. I certainly didn’t do it for you.
As for mouthing off, well, that’s how some people characterize a discussion that’s making them uncomfortable. Sorry!
Report comment to moderator
“Evolution depneds on long time frames: if you can show that the earth is young then evolutionary processes can not play out.”
Yet you cited frogs as recent evolutionary examples. So it must happen over shorter time frames. In fact this whole statement you made is an error.
Evolution depends solely upon reproduction. Whether sexually or asexually. A new life must be born containing DNA. The amount of change that occurs, depends on what seems to be many factors at the time of reproduction. It has ZERO to do with millions of years.
We have examples of lizards being tossed into a new environment with a new food source and developing new attributes…even others here claimed it was “large scale”…it only took the lizards about 30 years to do so.
Consider post flood would have been a whole new world, your looking at a vast enviornment change, ecological change, and food source change. The factors would be at a very large clip here, and diversity would easily flow out again.
Millions of years, depends upon slow evolution, but evolution is not rate dependent.
Report comment to moderator
Joe B. are you say Nazi believed they were the next step in the evolutionary ladder?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
I’m not sure of your reference to Sand Dunes in the Colorado, can you explain?
I think the 1000 year to day is not in reference to creation is it? It is reference to heaven?
Report comment to moderator
I’m a new guy here, but I registered so as not to be merely a lurker.
I admit I’m disturbed by the ambivalent view the religious seem to have toward science. You seem to view Dawkins, a first-class biologist, as an evil influence, especially toward children. Do I have that right? You apparently wish to drown him with a millstone around his neck.
You seem, in fact, to dislike science except in those rare occasions where it seems to bolster your preconceived views.
Consider the reaction of the faithful to the Carbon-14 dating of the Turin shroud. The shroud has been shown to be a medieval forgery. The religious predictably denounced the science of carbon dating.
Imagine the reaction of the faithful had the shroud dated to the first century. You would surely have trumpeted the success of science.
It seems to me you can’t have it both ways. If you really distrust science, you should remove the light bulbs from your churches. After all, they were invented not only by a scientist, but by an atheist scientist.
What say you?
Report comment to moderator
PS
DAWKINS is a little late to TARGET TEENS.
Has he been asleep? He needs to get out more. Maybe view a bit of biased media on what Christians are trying to sneak past evolutionists.
Hello…Evolution has been in schools for years and the BIBLE has been banned.
What he needs to watch out for is discussing the opposing side. Is he allowed to talk about the OTHER STUFF?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, the fact that you won’t apologize for being wrong in accusing people of “perjury” says a lot about you.
Thomas1 wrote; “Just because someone gets away with something doesn’t make it wrong.”
Never said it did. In context, that’s a non-sequitur, sir. It has nothing to do with the fact that you yourself were wrong in making a false accusation. It has NOT been proven, but you believe it. Is that how you approach science too?
Report comment to moderator
Throwing Christians to the lions might be something you could consider for people trying to sneak creation into the education system. Those people are right up there with terrorists. Didn’t the White House admin. say so?
Report comment to moderator
Joe B, Dylan Klebold was a very troubled teenager who was taking some pretty heavy antidepressants. I doubt he’s relevant to the discussion of evolution in any way.
You don’t know his religious background or what he believed, because his journals and other evidence are largely devoid of that information.
Report comment to moderator
Scanned through my boy’s Advanced Placement biology book the other day, and it was most amusing.
It talked about the Urey-Miller experiment that shows how electrical discharge through gases can create amino acids, then asserted that long ago simple cells would have utilized those amino acids to make more complex cells.
Simple cells? What a laugh!
The book also gave the peppered moth as an example of evolution, describing how the lighter colored ones became easy pickings for predators after pollution had darkened all the surfaces on which they alight, which changed the light to dark ratio from roughly 50/50 to 90+ percent dark.
But in this supposed example of evolution, nothing evolved.
The book was good in other areas though, like describing the five enzymes required to replicate a DNA strand. Sadly, it didn’t mention how complex those enzymes are, or that they would have to be encoded in the DNA themselves, one of those little complexities glossed over by references to a “simple” cell.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 wrote; “If people of faith want respect in the public sphere, they have to earn it.”
Fine. But my point, which you seem to be conceding here, is that we seldom receive respect. If it is your opinion that we have not earned it, fine. I disagree — strongly and respectfully. But the fact remains that we are being disrespected (unjustly, in my view) and this is what scars up the discourse so much.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Thomas, I’ll take that as a complement.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn 10.26.09 AT 4:02 PM
Pastor Roy,
I’m not sure of your reference to Sand Dunes in the Colorado, can you explain?
I think the 1000 year to day is not in reference to creation is it? It is reference to heaven?
–
Here in Colorado we have a giant Sand Dunes in the middle of farm lands. No one knows how it got there. It is a national park.
As for a 100 years I agree it is not in reference to creation. I have heard some try to make it in reference to creation.
Report comment to moderator
News2me, I would never tell a Christian how he ought to define “savior” or “resurrection.” Why do you insist that scientists misuse the word “theory”? And why are you so certain the Darwinian theory of evolution is so obviously wrong? As someone who has studied evolution, I can say you obviously don’t understand it. If it is wrong, and perhaps it is, that error will be noticed by someone who grasps it, not you. As for perjury in the Dover case, you are right that no one was charged with it. It is worth noting, I suppose, that the judge (a Christian) wrote that at least some of the pro-ID witnesses were lying. There is no denying that Bill Buckingham, for example, contradicted both himself and the material evidence. I hate to call a man a liar, but it seems pretty clear he was less than honest in court. That is, after all, the definition of perjury, and a violation of at least one Commandment.
Report comment to moderator
Do you think that if the Earth is all there is for us right now, that drilling a huge hole in the side of it and doing weird experiments in it is a very good idea?
If this was it for me, I’d be protesting those experiments.
To me that makes Dawkins one hamburger short of a happy meal.
Just saying…
Report comment to moderator
“You seem to view Dawkins, a first-class biologist, as an evil influence, especially toward children.”
Does the scientific community even like him? He seems a bit overly annoying and unable to present anything but old straw men.
“You seem, in fact, to dislike science except in those rare occasions where it seems to bolster your preconceived views.”
This is true of any group or individual. Your whole post is an example.
“Consider the reaction of the faithful to the Carbon-14 dating of the Turin shroud. The shroud has been shown to be a medieval forgery.”
If what I think your referring to here is the case where they made a copy and tested it, I’m not sure how valid that is. Under the old method of Carbon 14 dating it would require destruction of the sample.
Under the new AMS method it is actually finding C14 in supposedly million year old samples, which should not be possible. Did you ever consider that if God created only 6000 years ago or so, that C14 production would have just begun too? Thus the ratio and intake of C14/C12 was much different and you would expect not to find much in any anchient sample?
What say you?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark 10.26.09 AT 4:12 PM
Thomas1 wrote; “If people of faith want respect in the public sphere, they have to earn it.”
Fine. But my point, which you seem to be conceding here, is that we seldom receive respect. If it is your opinion that we have not earned it, fine. I disagree — strongly and respectfully. But the fact remains that we are being disrespected (unjustly, in my view) and this is what scars up the discourse so much.
-
if the church wants respect here it what the church must do.
1. Proudly proclaim God is wrong when He stated He created ever thing.
2. Proudly proclaim God is wrong when He stated a man shall leave his mother and father can clink to his wife. (marriage)
3. Proudly proclaim God is wrong wshen He gave the land to Israel.
4. Prudly proclaim that Jesus is not the only way to heaven.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, I think we’ll have to disagree. I think people of faith aren’t particularly good at respecting eachother over theology, for example. And dirty tricks to try to cram religion where it has no place do little to endear you to those who don’t share it or want it.
I can go on about the bigotry, the anti-intellectualism (in appalling evidence in this thread), and the sheer lunacy of the anti-Obama fringe element that seems to dot the evangelical landscape these days.
But when a majority group with great political power (and ambition) complains of being oppressed, it usually means that the rest of us are doing something right.
Report comment to moderator
Ah pastor roy, thats neat. There is also the St. Peter’s sandstone is it? Which has a very high degree of purity.
Report comment to moderator
As a crusading atheist, Dawkins accomplishes his quest the moment he gets Christians to think they need to defend themselves from evolutionary science to defend against his attacks on belief. As soon as folks agree with him that science is the threat, he’s made his point. He’s won. Philosophically, the fellow’s a blowhard and a dolt, an embarrassing parody of atheism, it’s surprising how willing many folks are play into his game.
Report comment to moderator
LITTLEJOHN
“and perhaps it is” (thank you)
as far as the DOVER CASE you are responding to the wrong person–SORRY.
Also, not all Christians believe in creation as stated in the Bible. Some who say they are Christian don’t even believe what the Bible says about other things.
Report comment to moderator
What I think is funny, or NOT, is that scientists who DON’T BELIEVE in creation, but believe in I.D. (which probably means aliens) are being “thrown under the bus” with creationists.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn 10.26.09 AT 4:24 PM
Ah pastor roy, thats neat. There is also the St. Peter’s sandstone is it? Which has a very high degree of purity.
–
I wonder if they evoluted from one single sand pebble and over the time they grew to what we have today. Or maybe we had a world wide flood an when the water resented the sand just gather in those places.
Report comment to moderator
@ Joel,
More truth perceived as smearing. How quaint. Pickup a European history textbook covering any range of time between 300AD to 1700AD, key in on the Catholic church’s effect on policy or culture, and you’ll get the idea I was going for.
Fact is, Dawkins is convincing everyone (young, old, and even believers themselves) to question the validity of their religious beliefs. Best of all, he’s doing it with real life data, and allowing them to make their own conclusions.
So by making a claim that he is doing X, Y, or Z (e.g. targeting teens with science) when religion supporters have been doing the exact same thing (e.g. teaching their kids to worship God from birth) is hypocritical to say the least.
Report comment to moderator
Seriously GEORGE
So you think we shouldn’t let him make a monkey out of us?
Report comment to moderator
Mommy at #235: I simply believe in creation. I await you giving even one piece of “evidence” that PROVES evolution.
And that is why these sorts of debates are pointless.
There is no “one piece” of evidence that “PROVES” evolution. But there are thousands upon thousands of small pieces of evidence that confirm it. Added together, they make pretty conclusive proof, but taken individually, they are not conclusive.
So you want what doesn’t exist — the “one piece” of evidence that proves it — and you deny the validity of what does exist, the thousands of small pieces that add up.
Report comment to moderator
And there’s alot of small holes that add up too Steve…
Although the biggest one is the dependence on uniformity, when the Bible you believe in claims the world hasnt been.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Boy post 224,
when you say:
“Well you denied God’s Word about creation, Adam and Eve, the flood. ”
then I suggest you are deliberatley miscontruing my words.
I did not say that were false, I did say they were not literrally true. this is a positon held by the majority of american christians and you are the minority here, not me.
If you insist that there was a litteral and objectvie Adam and Eve, and flood, please f=provide the objectvie scientific evidence to support this.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 234,
sure:
1) Lord Kelvin’s age of the earth: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi144.htm
2) tectonic plate motion of India:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html
3) age from radioactive decay:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
4) age of sun based on nuclear physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
there are others, but these I suggest suffice to answer your question.
Report comment to moderator
musing – If you insist that there was a litteral and objectvie Adam and Eve, and flood, please f=provide the objectvie scientific evidence to support this.
Man is the proof of Adam and Eve. Flood – well Colorado giant Sand Dunes in the middle of farm lands.
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 235,
when you say:
“I have no arguments against evolution. I simply believe in creation.”
I have no problem with that so long as you realize that is your belief and that it is not supported objectively.
If you claim it as belief and not as objectvie truth I can and have honred that and not bothered people making such statements.
But again, you entail the respopnsibltiy that it is your belief and have not established any basis to claim it as objective fact.
Report comment to moderator
musing
An you have not shown one proof of evidence on the jump in the evolutionary process from one time frame to another.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Boy post 267,
no actual the dunes are not sufficient to deonstrate:
1) the flood was world wide
2) that it was simultaneous
You will, ifyou look find eveidence for floods overmuch of the world.
The challenge of course is to demonstrate that these were simultaneous. to do that you will have to enter a scientifically validated process for establishing reasonably accurate geologic dates.
So I look forward toyour data showing the simultaneous world wide flood.
By the way have you considered that if the earth is young, then the flood will require perhaps 5X as much water as is on earth today?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 269,
actually before you can call me on this point, there are two issues:
1) what do you mean by jump in the evolutionary process form one time frame top another?
2) you still have not refuted that the earth is hundreds of millons of years old as a minimum
So I am assuming you will refine your request on 1 an dthat you now accept an old earth.
Report comment to moderator
musing – where your proof that there was no world wide flood?
where is your proof that God did not creat the world?
Report comment to moderator
news2me post 269,
now when you say:
“What I think is funny, or NOT, is that scientists who DON’T BELIEVE in creation, but believe in I.D. (which probably means aliens) are being “thrown under the bus” with creationists. ”
I merely note that as posed so far, intelligent design has not been able to dmeonstrate it is a science.
It has produced no predictions which can be tested. IN fact as usually posed by Behe assumes an old earth with directed evolution. But Behe has provided no mechanism to test whether it is driven by a designer or not. In fact his argument aat this level works just fine with or without a designer.
NOw the irreducible ocmplexity is interesting as an idea, primarily because one of the characteristics of organisms is that they have much redundancy and are reducibly complex (for simplicity what happens if you lose a toe?).
The concept of identifiable design is even more amusing: no one has produced a quantifabiel way to examine an object and determine if it is designed ro not. and without such an approach, the concept is meaningless.
Report comment to moderator
musing – 2) you still have not refuted that the earth is hundreds of millons of years old as a minimum
Pastor Roy 10.26.09 AT 3:54 PM
Ok, God’s Word says a day is like a thousand years to God. So if we take just this idea that each day took a thousand years, then it could have taken God 7,000 years to do the creation story found in Genesis. (I do not know if I agree to it but it could have happen that way)
where is your proof that the earth is hundreds of millons of years old, with out using the junk science of evolution.
Report comment to moderator
patro roy post 273,
now your comment:
“where is your proof that God did not creat the world? ”
should perhaps be constructed more correctly that god di not create the universe.
and as I have noted, I neither make no attempt to nor can scinece refute this with science as we understand this today.
If you choose to believe God created the universe, why enjoy. it is in fact in some ways a useful construct.
the earth and the solar system by contrast were established using relatively known solar mechanics, and much of this, including the impact causing the moon, is reasonably well supported by available geologic data.
Report comment to moderator
PPastor Roy post 274,
now when you say:
“where is your proof that the earth is hundreds of millons of years old, with out using the junk science of evolution. ”
it is clear you haven ot been reaidng the posts nor do you understand the science.
Evolution says nothing about the age of the earth. I rpovided four separate ways of detemrining that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old with references. during this time we have clear records that various types of animals have appeared and then gone extinct.
This is the data.
Agian, it would seem any pretense that you actually follow any of the science would seem to be cast in doubt by these first order errorsin argumentation.
Report comment to moderator
” what do you mean by jump in the evolutionary process form one time frame top another?’ musing
The evolutionary process try’s to show how thing evolved by using the time frames of lives. At the end of each time frame something happens and then they jump to a new time frame and say this animal evolved from the other animal in time frame before. The problem is no evidence to show how they evolved from each time frame. An this missing evidence is called the missing links.
Report comment to moderator
NEWS2ME writes, “So you think we shouldn’t let him [Dawkins] make a monkey out of us?”
I suspect he already has if his basic proposition (that evolution negates and disproves theism) evokes a reaction against evolution instead of a reasoned dismantling of the proposition itself.
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.26.09 AT 5:47 PM
should perhaps be constructed more correctly that god di not create the universe.
- where is your proof?
Report comment to moderator
musing
Wow animals have appeared and then gone extinct – an this is proof?
Report comment to moderator
MUSING @ 267: You are avoiding my question because you have no proof with which to answer me. You are playing a child like game. That appears to be charlatanism of the worst kind. You have proven yourself.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno it seems that he is wanting to avoid you but instead go after me and my views on God’s WOrd.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I don’t think you understand carbon dating. No one, much less “they,” makes a copy of “it.” Carbon dating requires, and has always required, the destruction of the sample tested.
Three university laboratories tested small swatches of the shroud. All arrived at approximately the same 14th-century date. The swatches were destroyed by the process, which requires that they be burned in order to analyze the resulting vapor. The only thing that has changed is that more modern dating requires smaller samples. The shroud is phony.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: Of course is. The stratagy is: avoid a direct answer, or avoid a challenge. We can expect nothing more.
Report comment to moderator
I am a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ. I also believe the shroud is a fake.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 10.26.09 AT 6:26 PM
Pastor Roy: Of course is. The stratagy is: avoid a direct answer, or avoid a challenge. We can expect nothing more
have you seen how he has been avoiding this question and idea
” what do you mean by jump in the evolutionary process form one time frame top another?’ musing
The evolutionary process try’s to show how thing evolved by using the time frames of lives. At the end of each time frame something happens and then they jump to a new time frame and say this animal evolved from the other animal in time frame before. The problem is no evidence to show how they evolved from each time frame. An this missing evidence is called the missing links.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING @ 267: You are avoiding my question because you have no proof with which to answer me. You are playing a child like game. That appears to be charlatanism of the worst kind. You have proven yourself.
Mickey, I have been pushing for your nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps it is time for you to demonstrate your peace-making skills.
If someone wants to say “you are playing a child like game” to me, that is fine, because I am not very grown up. But is this the general tenor you want to see at wmb?
Report comment to moderator
Mr Patno: I respect your view, and your candor. Although I’m not religious, I would assume the truly religious don’t need silly props like an obviously fake shroud to keep their faith.
I also appreciate the fact that you don’t seem angry. Is everyone else here always so hostile? I’m new here. I’ve never understood why people who have no doubt what their future holds would get angry at anyone. You’d think they would be, well, serene. I was starting to think I was the calmest person here, and I have no idea who or what controls the universe, much less what my future holds. And yet here I am, sipping tea and marveling at the hostility. Peace.
Report comment to moderator
Okay: I give up. I am not reading ~300 comments. Especially not some of these. In other news, spellcheck is your friend. You know who you are.
Thomas: I don’t doubt you don’t find Musing hostile. But if I were Musing, I wouldn’t take that as a compliment.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas’s use of “metaphor” seems to be itself a metaphor for “total hogwash.”
Report comment to moderator
Oh, good heaven, I just read #127. I haven’t decided whether to laugh, cry, roll my eyes, scream, or all of the above. I’ll get back to y’all.
Yes, a frog turning into a slightly different frog is proof of amoeba >> dinosaur >> human. I am convinced.
Report comment to moderator
#187: I agree about the fluffy kitties. Necessary for life.
But Noah wouldn’t have had to take all the various types of each species: I didn’t think anyone disputed the adaptation/microevolution side of things, which is why Musing’s “proof” about the frogs was completely useless.
Report comment to moderator
Noah didn’t take many plants with him on the ark, and the earth was covered with water of some salt content for a year (If you believe that the flood was world-wide, and there’s some reason to believe that “covered all the Earth” is a bad translation). This would have wiped out most plant species, so you have to allow for another Creation, to re-populate the plants. If you go to the top of White Mountain in California, you can find wood that’s 10,000 years old, from trees that died less than 5000 years ago. This isn’t cabon dating (though it is one way that they calibrate carbon dating). You just count the rings. God would have had to make it.
You also have to assume that all forms of animal life were available a short distance from Noah. Ken Hamm uses the flood story to prove that there were kangaroos in the Middle East. Kind of a stretch.
LITTLEJOHN (I hate those), Welcome! This is indeed a strange place. The things we post are “comments”, but it can take Musing 30 or 40 to make a point. On the other hand, you’re invited to “join the conversation”.
The subjects of evolution, and to a lesser extent, homosexuality, generate these long threads of people talking past each other. Politics can get dreary. Musing is probably the best example, but there are several people here who seem to be able to spend pretty much all their time at this. The motivation isn’t clear to me. It doesn’t seem to cause any long-term drift in peoples’ opinions.
The important thing to remember here, when the atheists and agnostics blame religion for the problems of the world, is to consider the great killers of the 20th century — Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc. — all liberals.
There’s no question in my mind that many of the arguments of the YEC crowd are just bad, and they really don’t need to make them, much less teach them in Sunday school, but I’m still looking, and I haven’t yet found an error in the Bible, at least once I realized that ancient Jews couldn’t do math.
It’s important to realize that Jesus validated the Old Testament, and Peter validated Paul’s writings, but the Bible never says that it’s a really cool science text. Paul gives other uses for it.
On another hand (what are we up to, three hands?) Paul kicks off the meat of Romans with (NIV) “… what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”, and “since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.”
This is very much the crux of the biscuit, the start of the Romans road, and my saving scripture.
I think it’s very important to expose young folk to science, but it shouldn’t be done by Dawkins, unless he can answer Zacharias’
four great questions. I know that Musing doesn’t believe in objective facts (see comment #59), but with a little study you can find out that it’s pretty easy to make an approximate measurement of the distance to distant stars, come up with an approximate measurement for the speed of light, and realize that the starlight we see left the stars we see way more than 10,000 years ago. It’s even reasonable to believe (unless you’re Musing) that we can see remnants of the Big Bang which occurred over 12 billion years ago. If we want to treat Genesis and the Geneologies as “fact”, we have to posit that God made the universe with a history.
Applying the scientific method to deduce “objective fact”, you can discover the “Laws of the Universe”. Many are accessible to regular folks (you know why you shouldn’t jump off a cliff), and they’re surprisingly simple, and, hopefully, consistently interrelated and unchanging.
What you can never get to, applying the scientific method, is why those laws are as they are. It just isn’t in the scientist’s tool set. This explains why Musing is musing, as well as lots of other things.
Before raising up a child, it’s best to be prepared with answers to the tough questions, like:
1. Why is there sin?
2. What’s with a loving God and all the dead babies?
3. How did the starlight get here in 10,000 years, if the stars are farther away than that? Why don’t new starts keep appearing?
4. What’s all this wrath from God for?
5. Where did Noah get a pair of penguins?
6. Which of Adam and Eve’s offspring were stupid enough to marry Cain?
In one of those posts up there, you’ll find the standard “I can’t believe that you think atheists have no basis for their morality” post. The indignation would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Atheists are touchy.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, I always appreciate your posts on this subject. Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Who is this Herb guy who complains about Musing going on too long?
Atheists are touchy.
Please keep your hands to yourself and there will be no problem.
The important thing to remember here, when the atheists and agnostics blame religion for the problems of the world, is to consider the great killers of the 20th century — Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc. — all liberals.
I am an agnostic very close to atheist and I do not blame religion for the problems of the world.
Neither religions (which have had thousands of years to work on the problem with very little success) nor secularists, which have been at it for a briefer time, but have made up for it by doing lots of damage in a big hurry, have ever demonstrated ability to get human beings to live in peace or even use good sense.
Although I am not a religious believer, I accept that all humans are “Fallen,” if you take it as a metaphor, and not a literal truth. But we are indeed wicked and vicious and stupid, and this is true of religious believers and atheists.
It needs a catchy name, but one of the basic logical fallacies is A argues with B and one of them is right. The third choice is, both A and B are wrong, wrong, wrong.
And to think it was five years of reading worldmagblog that brought me to realize I am a nihilist.
Good job, gang.
Report comment to moderator
Oh my.
I am truly grateful I had to go to work this morning and wasn’t around for the rest of all this!
Yikes.
Report comment to moderator
DONNA J: Welcome back to the zoo!
Report comment to moderator
“This would have wiped out most plant species, so you have to allow for another Creation, to re-populate the plants.”
Seeds dont need air to breath, and they take up small space.
So 3 possibilities easily exist. Carried on the ark (food was taken, most of it vegetative I imagine), transported in the flood, and airborn into the atmosphere, resettling later on.
“You also have to assume that all forms of animal life were available a short distance from Noah.”
The world at the time was mostly one land mass. Took noah over a year to build the ark. Thats plenty of time and access to get to noah. The flood allowed for the separation and movement of the earth’s crust. What you have now is not so much drift as it shift. Mass imbalances attempting to reach equilibrium.
Once again, the issue is time. Ever see a sheet of paper slide along a thin film of water? Same principle.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 278,
but when you8 say:
“The evolutionary process try’s to show how thing evolved by using the time frames of lives”
please show me how this is in evoutionary theory? It is not in the theory as I am aware of it. Please explain further if you can.
thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 299,
and when you say:
“The world at the time was mostly one land mass. ”
on what objective data is this based? I am aware of no geological data which support this other than plate tectonics theory which requires hundreds of millioons of years.
Hydroplate theory is easily shown to fail because while its energy ballance is correct, this energy distribution would result in vaporization of the crust.
So you data to support htis statement?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
now you have made a number of points regarindg inerrancy of the scripture. a reference which discusses this point which I did not find yesterday is:
http://www.usccb.org/seia/southernbaptist.shtml
with the critical quote apparenlty:
“Inerrancy: The conviction that the Bible is “without error” in what it affirms. But there are different interpretations of what this actually means.
For Southern Baptists, inerrancy means that the original biblical text was composed precisely as God inspired it and intended it to be because of God’s superintendence: not just the thought comes from God, but every word with every inflection, every verse and line, and every tense of the verb, every number of the noun, and every little particle are regarded as coming from God. Scripture is “God-breathed,” and God does not breathe falsehood, so the text is faithful and true in all it affirms, including the miracle accounts, the attributed authors, and the historical narratives. The 1978 and 1982 Chicago statements on biblical inerrancy are representative of this doctrine.
For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (Dei Verbum 11). What is important is the qualification of “that truth” with “for the sake of our salvation.”"
and this shold make it clear that the evangelical understaidng of Biblical inerrancy is not shared by all Christians.
Which also suggest that we should be careful of how we characterize the understanding of Biblical inerrancy by Christians.
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t think you understand carbon dating. No one, much less “they,” makes a copy of “it.””
I only briefly saw a more recent article or discussion on the shroud testing. My understanding was that they did not use the actual shroud but a copy made from the same materials that would have been used at the time or from the 14th century. If they did use the actual shroud, then please correct me, but thats why i asked what you were referring too. I dont really care too much about the shroud though.
Yes the old way of C14 dating took larger samples and was less accurate. AMS takes a much smaller sample and is much more accurate. Are you implying AMS?
C14 dating is fairly accurate from before 1950 back about 3500 years. Thats about it though. It depends upon ratio, which means you have to know at least the amount of C12 while assuming the rate of C14 production has been the same to calculate the years. For recent samples, years since 1950 it is not used, because the ratio has been upset by all the nuclear testing. For past 3500 years, you would need to know any change in the ratio as well. This is not accounted for as 1. no one likes the flood (or other catastrophes) 2. no one likes a young earth. 3. they like their uniformity.
Libby, the nobel prize winner, who started the C14 dating, found the that the rate of production of C14 was 30% or so greater than decay. He expected that to have reached eqilibrium within 20 to 30k years. He glossed over it, but it means one of two possibilities. Either 1. something has upset the equilibrium in the last 30k years or 2. We arent older than 30,000 years.
Btw, how accurate is C14 dating on objects that dont breathe or eat?
Report comment to moderator
Pasgor roy post 280,
so looking at your point:
“musing 10.26.09 AT 5:47 PM
should perhaps be constructed more correctly that god di not create the universe.
- where is your proof? ”
Lets be clear: science by the nature of the discontinuity inherent in space time at creation of the universe, cannot as presently understood provide any explantaion. so if you want God to create the universe you are not on shakey ground.
Beyond the creation of the universe, however, all indications are that natural laws appears to explain the behavior and there is no theoretical reason why they should not.
As such, unless you can provide proof that the earth was created by God, it would seem your assertion here is unsupported.
See the following as an example of planteray mechanics:
Solar System evolution
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 285,
now when you say:
“Pastor Roy: Of course is. The stratagy is: avoid a direct answer, or avoid a challenge. We can expect nothing more. ”
please note that I provided specifics with references.
And if you can not demonstrate an error in the references, I do believe I have answered your question.
NOw it is interesting that those opposing the age of the earth etc. do not provide data of thier own, do not provide objective criticism of the data, and yet pretend that they have objectively challenged the data.
If you do not provide qunatitative critique of quantitative data, then quite simply you have chosen not to hold an honest discussion.
Right now neither Rastor Roy nor Roger Patno are providing quantitative objectvie critques.
Report comment to moderator
Herb post 294,
and when you say:
“Noah didn’t take many plants with him on the ark,”
you opbjective data to sustain your assertion that:
1) there was a Noah
2) there was an ark
3) any objectvie data supporitng what was on the ark?
Amnd if you do not provide such data, then please be aware that you are discussing religious belif, not science.
I look froward to your data.
Report comment to moderator
“on what objective data is this based?”
The same objective data you base PT on
The starting points are the same. The mechanics are different. Millions of years are not necessary if the crust slid across on a lubricant. There is no more lubricant, as most of it would have been used up in the chain reaction.
“this energy distribution would result in vaporization of the crust.”
In some places it would, you do have alot of lava flows all over the earth. However, the heating of the rock and sedimentary rock would cause metamorphic reactions to occur, which would also release more water in addition to the water escaping upwards during the flood. It would convert to steam, as well as acting as a coolant. So you end up with what the earth’s crust actually looks like…shrivled cracked crust.
Rock can handle very high temperatures without vaporization.
Report comment to moderator
Btw, thanks Matt
Report comment to moderator
musing
Right now neither Rastor Roy nor Roger Patno are providing quantitative objectvie critques.
-
We have given you objectvie critques, the problem is you have rejected them due the fact they do not fit into your view.
Report comment to moderator
You have not shown on proof of evidence on how evolution has happen. How a creature evolved from one form to another for example.
You say DNA – well that is not proof of how a creature evolved from one form to another for example.
You want proof of Creation – the sun, moon, water, air, plants, animals, man and woman etc. This little world of ours is titled just right for life. Did this happen by chance no, It happen because of God.
Report comment to moderator
“NOw it is interesting that those opposing the age of the earth etc. do not provide data of thier own, do not provide objective criticism of the data, and yet pretend that they have objectively challenged the data.”
Any data based on the assumption of uniformity can not be relied upon. It is not objective past the point of direct human observation.
It is like assuming that because the ocean looks flat within five miles that it must extend infinitely outward.
Considering that nearly every ancient culture has record of some great flood story, it is far more objective that some major event occurred, than any data you have to substantiate the principle of uniformity.
Report comment to moderator
TJS Catlover ost 293,
now when you state:
“Oh, good heaven, I just read #127. I haven’t decided whether to laugh, cry, roll my eyes, scream, or all of the above. I’ll get back to y’all.
Yes, a frog turning into a slightly different frog is proof of amoeba >> dinosaur >> human. I am convinced. ”
it would seem that you do not consider the areal argument.
the agument is that all of complex ligfe had a common ancestor, not that dinosaurs turn into amoebas etc. and to argue htis indicates that you haven ot studies evoltuionary theory. Likewise for comments aobut missing links: there are no links in the sense that this usually is meant.
The succession of frogs show different types of frogs which can be traced originally to a common ancestor. And indeed even Dewberry, who is no fan of traditional Darwinism, notes that this data does explicitly demonstrate wihtin a class of organism a common ancestory.
If it does not, then please explain the regional variaton around a basic phenotype.
It can be established both by strcutre and by DNA relative closeness of various psecimens. Both of these approaches
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 307,
so when you say:
““on what objective data is this based?”
The same objective data you base PT on ”
that of course menas that like plate tectopnics, you have objectvie chronology systems whch you can use to date the single land mass?
And what are these?
And what date do they show?
I would be delighted to understand your dating systesm.
Report comment to moderator
Pasto roy post 309,
now when you say:
“musing
Right now neither Rastor Roy nor Roger Patno are providing quantitative objectvie critques.
-
We have given you objectvie critques, the problem is you have rejected them due the fact they do not fit into your view. ”
I respopnd, no you have given religoous critiques. YOu have provided zero objectvie scinetific data to support any of your assertions (the sand dunes in colorado was perhaps the most amusing).
And while the data I have been providing has been quantitati8ve complete with rates arguments and measurements to supprot the data, you have provided no quantitative responses at all.
Which is quite understandable, since to provide quantitativew critques you would need a geologic dating process, an dyou have none which have been shown to objectviely and scientifically valid.
I believe that your arguments are effectively without foundaton unless you provide an objective and scientifically validated geologic dating approach which supports your arguments.
I look forward to your presentation of such dating technicques, with references and valdiation data please.
Report comment to moderator
“It can be established both by strcutre and by DNA relative closeness of various psecimens. Both of these approaches ”
the key word closeness, so closeness then means no I have no proof, I only have a theory.
Report comment to moderator
thorn post 311,
so when you say:
“Any data based on the assumption of uniformity can not be relied upon. It is not objective past the point of direct human observation. ”
i note that my approahces all (except perhaps radioactive dating) rely not on uniformity, but rather on variability.
but if you can not rely on uniformity, then of course you have a non-uniformity based dating system that you are willing to submit?
Do note that I provided four different dating approaches which yield numbers within 20 – 40 and which show an earth of say 10,000 years as not matching any of the data byt a factor of 10,000 or so.
So if you argue for non=-uniformity arguments, then amusingly you are aruging that all four different physics are non-unbifrom in a uniform manner.
Indeed I raised this discussion regarding tnose arguing that the speed of light varies.
so you have now introduced two challenges to your argument:
1) demonstrating an objectvie and scientifically validated dating system basedon non-uniformity
AND
2) showing how the non-uniformity for the four different types of physcis is uniformly non-uniform
I particularly look forward to your discussion on point 2, although point 1 is also amusing.
Report comment to moderator
Please note that for those challenging dating systems, that this introduces an interesting contradicton: if you negate all dating systems, then youo also negate the abilioty to objectviely dmeonstrate that there was a simultaneous world wide flood.
Saying it can’t be disproved is not scientific, since in this case you are making as a scientific assertion which to be scientific requires the functional possiblity of disproof.
So if you negate all dating systems you also negate your ability to assert objectviely that there was a simultaneous flood.
Hence if you negate the present dating systems, to move forwardonthe floo0d argument you need to introduce an alternatvie objectvie and scientifically validated dating system.
Good luck!
Report comment to moderator
MUSING: It is possible that you lost track of what i posted at 106: Let me reiterate so that you can respond with emperical facts and/or undisputable data on the subject that I posted, and NO OTHER!
“When evolutionists can provide emperical proof of how evolution caused the division of male/female for the purpose of reproduction, I will listen to their arguments. Until then I will believe Gen. 1:27.”
Does that help you get back on track? If you do not wish to answer truthfully without spin or dance, I will understand.
Report comment to moderator
Let me understand this correctly by chance this planet is titled in the right direct to support life. By chance it has the orbit around a sun in order to support life. By chance it has the right atmosphere in order to support life. By chance it has land and water, plants and animals to support life. By chance all of this has happen through evolution. Wow what faith it must take to believe this has happen by chance.
Report comment to moderator
“I would be delighted to understand your dating systesm.”
Needs developing. The amount of mechanisms at work and reaction taking place would play a crucial role, and will take along time to develop.
Based on rocks or land mass, it would not be dependable…as they have been recently deposited.
You cant defeat the model based on a model of uniformity musing. You cant switch the initial conditions or the mechanisms at work and claim “aha”.
Just like you cant defeat Halo by playing Left 4 Dead.
Report comment to moderator
“Indeed I raised this discussion regarding tnose arguing that the speed of light varies.”
Of course you did, but the big bang has its own problems with the speed of light. One is known as the horizon problem.
As you were linked earlier to a page discussin billions of years, under one of the headings was an article on light. It plainly discusses the issues on both sides, and it discusses areas where creationists are even attempting to resolve our understanding here.
Lack of knowledge is not objective facts. It’s simply a lack of understanding.
Considering our current dating methods are relatively new, your attempt here to deflect is poor arguement.
“if you negate all dating systems, then youo also negate the abilioty to objectviely dmeonstrate that there was a simultaneous world wide flood.”
Once again, its that they fail to account for any changes. They should be revised accordingly, but that process of development will take time.
Even so the point is not to negate dating systems, but it is to show that many supposedly million year old necessities arent necessary.
Report comment to moderator
Ricahrd Patno post 319,
now when you said:
““When evolutionists can provide emperical proof of how evolution caused the division of male/female for the purpose of reproduction, I will listen to their arguments. Until then I will believe Gen. 1:27.””
I ignored the comment on two points:
1) you put in a religioous assumption which is clearly not scinetific hence making the question moot in a scientific discussion
2) science has not not developed an adeqaute model for this yet
Now it is important to note that the scinetiifc process has as a working model that new understading will continuoulsy develop, which explicitly measn our present understanding is incomplete.
If you insist on this which is right now incomplete ion our siocentific understanding, and argue from a basis which is not supported by objective scientific data, by all means enjoy.
Realize however that you are also explicitly choosing not to participate in the scientific discussion, that you are explicitly agruing that your positon is a religious belief, and hence any of you comments on the details of the scentific approach are moot: you have chosen not to participate in the scientiifc discussion.
And so long as you continue to hold your position that you object to science, I will hold my positon that you may or may not make interesting comments, but that these comments have nothing to do with the scientific discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor roy post 319,
now when you say:
“Let me understand this correctly by chance this planet is titled in the right direct to support life. By chance it has the orbit around a sun in order to support life. By chance it has the right atmosphere in order to support life. By chance it has land and water, plants and animals to support life. By chance all of this has happen through evolution. Wow what faith it must take to believe this has happen by chance. ”
you are making several errors:
1) you clearly do not understand statistics: even low probability events can occur
2) you are making a Texas sharpshooter error: you are making the assumption that humans as we know them must a priori have evolved: then you have an argument. On what objectvive do you have hthat under all conditions humans as we now them a priori must have evolved?
Now we know they did evolve, but the argument then goes that they did evolve in part because these low probability events occurred. And if these low probability events had not occured, we would not be having this discussion.
But show me objective evidence that this conversation had to have occurred?
Report comment to moderator
musing – working model means a computer program correct?
“If you insist on this which is right now incomplete ion our siocentific understanding” so why are you argueing from a basis which is not supported by objective scientific data
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.27.09 AT 12:22 PM
Pastor roy post 319,
now when you say:
“Let me understand this correctly by chance this planet is titled in the right direct to support life. By chance it has the orbit around a sun in order to support life. By chance it has the right atmosphere in order to support life. By chance it has land and water, plants and animals to support life. By chance all of this has happen through evolution. Wow what faith it must take to believe this has happen by chance. ”
you are making several errors:
1) you clearly do not understand statistics: even low probability events can occur
2) you are making a Texas sharpshooter error: you are making the assumption that humans as we know them must a priori have evolved: then you have an argument. On what objectvive do you have hthat under all conditions humans as we now them a priori must have evolved?
Now we know they did evolve, but the argument then goes that they did evolve in part because these low probability events occurred. And if these low probability events had not occured, we would not be having this discussion.
But show me objective evidence that this conversation had to have occurred?
-
So you do believe it has happen by chancve then.
‘Now we know they did evolve”, – where is your proof?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor roy post 324,
when you say:
“musing – working model means a computer program correct?”
no a working model is a way of thinking about something. It may be implemented in a computer program, it may not.
All discussion occurs in working models of some sort because language itself is a owrking model of our thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
musing 10.27.09 AT 12:33 PM
Pastor roy post 324,
when you say:
“musing – working model means a computer program correct?”
no a working model is a way of thinking about something. It may be implemented in a computer program, it may not.
All discussion occurs in working models of some sort because language itself is a owrking model of our thoughts.
—
so you have no proof.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 325,
whne you say:
“So you do believe it has happen by chancve then.
‘Now we know they did evolve”, – where is your proof? ”
I merely note that we are here and whther our presence here was evolution in the traditional sense of evolution in the mind of God and executed as creation is for htis argument, immaterial.
You appear to assert that these lowprobability events means we could not have occurred by accident.
I suggest that all the objectvie data can tell us is had these lowprobabilty events not occurred we would not have been here to discuss it.
My arguemtn is effectviey a tautology.
Your arugment requires additional substantiation to objectively an dscinetifically show soe for of actor.
and your objectvie scientific evidence?
Report comment to moderator
MUSING: Thank you for your non answer.
Report comment to moderator
musing
My arguemtn is effectviey a tautology
No, your argument is based solely on chance. For you argument to work it was by chance that this planet is titled in the right direct to support life. By chance it has the orbit around a sun in order to support life. By chance it has the right atmosphere in order to support life. By chance it has land and water, plants and animals to support life. By chance all of this has happen through evolution.
My argument is not based on chance. It is base of fact – this planet is titled in the right direct to support life. Because of God. the orbit around a sun in order to support life. Because of God. the right atmosphere in order to support life. Because of God land and water, plants and animals to support life. Because of God.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 10.27.09 AT 12:40 PM
MUSING: Thank you for your non answer
-
He is a great dancer
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I only briefly saw a more recent article or discussion on the shroud testing. My understanding was that they did not use the actual shroud but a copy made from the same materials that would have been used at the time or from the 14th century.
What would be the point of that? Then the testing would just reveal the age of the replica, which they would probably already know, since they would have selected it.
That doesn’t even begin to make sense.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno
Here was his answer – “Now it is important to note that the scinetiifc process has as a working model that new understading will continuoulsy develop, which explicitly measn our present understanding is incomplete. If you insist on this which is right now incomplete ion our siocentific understanding, and argue from a basis which is not supported by objective scientific data, by all means enjoy”
Which means I have no proof.
Report comment to moderator
Well thats what I thought Steve. As I said I only briefly caught it, so I was asking for clarification.
I cant see them handing the actual shroud over either.
Report comment to moderator
As I see it, Roger and Pastor Roy are making two consistent errors in this discussion:
1. Insisting that unless someone can answer, right now, every single possible question they come up with about evolution, or that if there are any unanswered questions that science is still grappling with or any mistakes scientists have made, the whole theory is false.
2. Believing that the choices are between literal Genesis creation or atheistic accidental evolution … ignoring the entirely viable belief that God created, using evolution as the mechanism to create (which is where I and, I believe, Musing, fall.)
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 10.27.09 AT 12:57 PM
“ignoring the entirely viable belief that God created, using evolution as the mechanism to create (which is where I and, I believe, Musing, fall.)” where is your proof?
An since God said He credit man and woman – then man did not evolved. or is God’s Word wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry
An since God said He created man and woman – then man did not evolved. or is God’s Word wrong?
Report comment to moderator
1. Is a valid point, but it goes both ways.
2. Or the possibility that Genesis is literal, and that evolution plays a part in diversity of God’s creation…but not responsible for all.
The important point is that if we believe in God, we should have no trouble using that as the basis and foundation for even objective facts… Without God, there is no such thing. Failure to consider his Word as literal truth and to understand the clues that are given, lead us down the wrong paths over and over, and that goes on both sides as well.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn -Failure to consider his Word as literal truth and to understand the clues that are given, lead us down the wrong paths over and over, and that goes on both sides as well.
-
agree
Report comment to moderator
PR: An since God said He created man and woman – then man did not evolved. or is God’s Word wrong?
Not at all.
It’s your insistence that the story has to be taken entirely literally that’s wrong. The story itself is entirely true — metaphorically. But not literally.
Quite simply, there is absolutely no evidence for anything about the Creation story. The universe is billions of years old, not a few thousand. Earth is younger than the universe, but still several billion years old. Life forms did not appear suddenly, in distinct “kinds” over a period of days. There was no global flood.
You can argue until you turn blue that they must be true because the Bible says so, but you are arguing against reality if you do.
Or you can understand that God used a simple story, suitable for a primitive people to understand, to communicate the important spiritual truths they (and we) needed to know, and left it to us to discover for ourselves how the creation took place.
Report comment to moderator
So God was wrong correct? What other parts of the Word of God is metaphorically. But not literally? The fall of man? Christ death on the cross? His resurrection?
Who makes the decission on what is metaphorically and what is literally on God’s Word?
Report comment to moderator
Life forms did not appear suddenly, in distinct “kinds” over a period of days. There was no global flood”
So God’s Word is wrong and what happen to Noah did not happen?
Report comment to moderator
STEVE G @ 335: I appreciate your post. I believe what I believe. What I attempted to do is apply the same criteria to MUSING as he demands from those who disagree with him. He demands such things as,
“objective scientific evaluation”
“scientifically valid data”
“objective data”
and soforth.
II am merely expecting the same from him in response to my post 106 & 318. Does that not make sense?
Report comment to moderator
roger patno – do you not see they are right an God’s Word is wrong (unless the Word if God is only a metaphorically )
Report comment to moderator
Pastor, you may believe what you like, but for me, believing in a literal reading of Genesis is not possible because the physical evidence for evolution is overwhelming and I cannot deny reality in order to hold to a religious belief. I either read the story as metaphorically true, or else I have to abandon it, which I choose not to do.
However, when I say: The story is true, but not literally .. and your reply is: “So God was wrong, correct?” … I see that there is no point in trying to discuss the issue with you. That’s not what I said; in fact it’s the direct opposite of what I said. But if, for you, “true” can only mean literal, then we have no common ground.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
What other parts of the Word of God is metaphorically. But not literally? The fall of man? Christ death on the cross? His resurrection?
Who makes the decission on what is metaphorically and what is literally on God’s Word?
Report comment to moderator
“Or you can understand that God used a simple story, suitable for a primitive people to understand, to communicate the important spiritual truths they (and we) needed to know, and left it to us to discover for ourselves how the creation took place.”
Why did it need to be simple? Why do you consider them “primitive”
Adam was most likely very smart, he was tasked with dominion over the earth and even naming the animals. One of his son’s made musical instraments. Cain built cities. They understood how to grow food, how to herd animals. Noah tasked with building a large boat.
To imply they needed a stupid story in order to get the point, is not founded. Noah’s story is way too specific, and geneology is clearly presented.
Considering they all would have spoken one language, the rate of information exchange could be comparable today. Which means their technological growth could have happened quite rapidly.
Adam was very smart.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR ROY: What does it require to be saved?
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” Acts 16:31 (a)
We must be careful about how we expect others to interpret books such as Genesis.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn – in order for their theory’s to work Adam must be “primitive”. The Creation account must be a metaphorically.
The reason if Adam was smart and Creation did take place, then their theory’s start to fall apart.
Report comment to moderator
“I either read the story as metaphorically true, or else I have to abandon it, which I choose not to do. ”
Is that not a dichotomy of its own? You fail to consider that the “evidence” of evolution is looked at through the lens of assumptions made by men. Why do you have more faith in them, when they constantly fail to get things right (especially when built on false assumptions) and when you have a God whom you believe in, who says otherwise. Why give preeminence to man’s reality, especially when it is corrupted by sin?
If Jesus, Paul, Peter, had addressed Noah or Adam as a story, I’d agree with you. But they do not. They treat them as real, and so does Genesis.
You arent being asked to abandon science by trusting God’s Word. Your being asked to examine science in light of God’s setting the natural laws we live by, and by the events he says have occured.
Even metaphorically, the Bible ruins uniformity. This world fell.
Report comment to moderator
Considering that nearly every ancient culture has record of some great flood story, it is far more objective that some major event occurred, than any data you have to substantiate the principle of uniformity
Or that floods are very common occurances, and nearly every culture has likely experienced one or more major floods.
Doesn’t prove that they are the same global flood.
Report comment to moderator
Considering that nearly every ancient culture has record of some great flood story, it is far more objective that some major event occurred, than any data you have to substantiate the principle of uniformity
Or that floods are very common occurances, and nearly every culture has likely experienced one or more major floods.
Doesn’t prove that they are the same global flood.
Report comment to moderator
2. Believing that the choices are between literal Genesis creation or atheistic accidental evolution … ignoring the entirely viable belief that God created, using evolution as the mechanism to create (which is where I and, I believe, Musing, fall.)
Well said, Steve. I fall into this camp as well.
It is a classic example of a false dichotomy. My observation is that it is also made by atheists, who see evolution as “disproving” God, rather than, as I do, reaffirming His majesty.
Report comment to moderator
#346: I’m not going to get into that game, knowing that you do not accept any kind of belief but literal. We’re talking in this thread about the creation stories. Keep it at that.
Who makes the decission on what is metaphorically and what is literally on God’s Word?
We all do. You made that decision for yourself and decided that rather than having to think about things, you’d just believe it all literally. Others decide to believe none of it. And I decide for myself what I think is reasonable to take literally and what is more likely metaphor.
Report comment to moderator
#347: I did not say “stupid story,” I said simple. And the Genesis creation is simple.
And of course they were primitive. It has nothing to do with being smart, it has to do with the cultural level of knowledge. Ancient man may have been quite intelligent for the day, but did not know anything about dinosaurs, genes or very very long spans of time.
The Creation story says nothing about distant galaxies, invisible to the human eye, yet they exist. (Or do you deny them?) Why is it unacceptable to you to suppose that God chose not to reveal everything about Creation in a few sentences, when that’s obviously the case?
Report comment to moderator
“Doesn’t prove that they are the same global flood.”
Nope, but that wasnt the point I was making.
Report comment to moderator
#347 and 349
“Smart” and “primitive” are not antonyms. There were many very smart people who lived thousands of years ago. But being smart did not enable them to know what lay beyond our solar system, or inside the cells of our bodies, because they did not have telescopes or microscopes or the technology to make them.
SteveG is saying (as I understand him)that Genesis was written for people who had a primitive understanding of how natural processes work. That is not a reflection on them intellectually, it is a statement about the knowledge available to them at the time.
Some of the Greeks (I forget which) made remarkably accurate measurements of the size of the earth (which they knew to be round). There was a growing understanding of the inner workings of the human body. They were very intelligent. But their understanding of science was still very limited compared to advances since the Renaissance.
I believe it was Newton who talked about standing on the shoulders of giants. Each scientific discovery built on the ones made by previous generations. It doesn’t mean that later generations are inherently smarter, just that they benefit from those who have gone before (especially in the development of technology that facilitates scientific discovery).
Report comment to moderator
(I wrote #357 before refreshing and seeing SteveG’s own explanation at #355)
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
“You made that decision for yourself and decided that rather than having to think about things, you’d just believe it all literally.” Oh, yes an you are such a great thinker, that you are blinded to the Truth of God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
I said you implied it.
Cultural level of knowledge grows faster the easier it is to gather, collect, and share information. We have had tremendous growth in just the last few decades because this barrier has shrunk. Adam’s day was not much different. It’s quite possible there were around 6 billion people right before the flood as well.
” Why is it unacceptable to you to suppose that God chose not to reveal everything about Creation in a few sentences, when that’s obviously the case?”
I have only suggested that if God is our God, we should consider that which he has revealed to us as the basis for understanding that which he has not directly revealed. It is important to understand those clues, but not to add or take away.
Example:
God says he created each according to its own kind. He does not state every single species. To assert such is going to far without proof. To say that he only created ONE source of life from which all else evolved, would not be accurate either though.
Thus the understanding of evolution should be refined accordingly. Multiple kinds (first ancestors) with evolution as the mechanism for diversity to flow from those kinds.
The only person who was there to witness Creation…was God.
As I have stated as well, the real issue becomes time.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: God says he created each according to its own kind. He does not state every single species. To assert such is going to far without proof. To say that he only created ONE source of life from which all else evolved, would not be accurate either though.
Thus the understanding of evolution should be refined accordingly. Multiple kinds (first ancestors) with evolution as the mechanism for diversity to flow from those kinds.
We should not revise a scientific theory based on claimed divine revelation. We should base a scientific theory on observation, experimentation, reasonable inference, testable hypotheses, etc.
If the evidence points to multiple ancestors, then science will move in that direction. If it points to a single common ancestor — as it does — then science cannot say “We must be wrong about that because of the Bible.”
Yes, I will put empirical observation above ancient stories for matters of science. The ancient stories tell me a great deal about spiritual truths, but not necessarily about biology, physics or chemistry.
Report comment to moderator
Now God Word is just an ancient stories.
Report comment to moderator
Aye Pauline. That point is taken. My apologies if I misunderstood your point Steve.
My point though is mainly that scientific discoveries occur much more rapidly when there is no language or communication barrier. It’s more like standing on the shoulders of midgets…not giants.
The only thing that would have limited them, would have been their available resources.
Genesis is the way it is, not out of primitive knowledge respects toward man, but because the main point of the Bible is Jesus. If God had gone on about the laws of gravity, Adam would have understood. The creation days are an overview. Yes, simple and short, but simplicity does not negate any truth contained.
Report comment to moderator
“We should not revise a scientific theory based on claimed divine revelation.”
But it is YOUR GOD.
So yes you should.
“empirical observation”
Can observation be empirical without the God who gives it order in the first place?
History is important, and you can not discover many things about the past without it. Failure to resolve and recognize history, leads us doomed to repeat the same path.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: “We should not revise a scientific theory based on claimed divine revelation.”
But it is YOUR GOD.
So yes you should.
If I am looking at a green bird, and my guide to birds says the bird is red, I am not going to insist it is red because the book says so.
I maintain that the Genesis account was never intended to be a literal recounting. If we could go back in time and observe it, we would see nothing like what the book describes, because that was never its purpose.
That does not mean it is not important, meaningful and, in some ways, true. It only means that it’s not meant to be a textbook.
Many Christians are entirely comformatble seeing it this way. You and Pastor Roy are not. And that’s fine, I suppose, although I think it’s kind of sad that your faith depends on defending a literal reading of something not meant to be read literally.
Report comment to moderator
A”Many Christians are entirely comformatble seeing it this way. You and Pastor Roy are not. And that’s fine, I suppose, although I think it’s kind of sad that your faith depends on defending a literal reading of something not meant to be read literally”
An your faith is based on what?
“literal reading of something not meant to be read literally” An where in God’s Word do you get this view from? Please show me the passage that say the Genesis account is not to be taken literally.
Report comment to moderator
“If I am looking at a green bird, and my guide to birds says the bird is red, I am not going to insist it is red because the book says so.”
Haha, but isnt that what you do with evolution?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? The bird could very well have been red at the time the book was written
or just for fun:
Well that green bird came from a flying dino! Look the pelvis is the same!
Report comment to moderator
An where in God’s Word do you get this view from? Please show me the passage that say the Genesis account is not to be taken literally.
Sure. Right after you show me the passage that says literal readings are the only acceptable way to read it.
Report comment to moderator
“the Genesis account was never intended to be a literal recounting.”
Interestingly, a literal but literary reading of Genesis 1 provides what’s arguably a scientifically coherent depiction of the origins of our universe, even by modern cosmology’s standards, in language that’s both gorgeously refined and scientifically tenable. By contrast, the small-minded approach of simplistic and tendentious literalists undermines the text they think they’re defending, and confines them to boxes that windbags like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher just love to kick around.
What follows is something I pulled off the internet several years ago, and seems to have since disappeared. It was penned by Bryan Preston, former contributor over at HotAir and video producer for the Hubble telescope project. For your consideration:
Genesis: Relic Or Relevant?
by Bryan Preston
[initially published at Relevantmagazine.com – original article now unavailable]
We’ve all heard it said a million times “The Bible isn’t a science book.” We’ve probably even said it ourselves to fend off critics, that it’s not a science book, or not a history book, or whatnot. But when the Bible speaks about science, is it reliable? Can the Bible, a book of wisdom, faith and philosophy, be trusted when it seems to contradict the latest scientific research?
The Bible’s first chapter is possibly its most controversial. It establishes what the rest of the book is about: the ongoing relationship between God and His creation. But it’s several millennia old; what could its author possibly have gotten right about the physical creation of the universe? Has our progress in science, from Galileo to Einstein to Hubble, finally outstripped Scripture?
The short answer to that question is a definite “no.” Genesis 1 is a marvel. Put aside your prejudice for or against it for a moment, and just consider it at face value. Written more than 3,000 years ago, Genesis 1 is an attempt to explain where creation came from. Its tone is remarkably dry and scientific for such an age. Competing theories of our origins from that time ranged wildly, from an earth resting on infinite stack of turtles to an earth that was a giant egg laid by a great cosmic bird, to an Olympian god hoisting it on his shoulders. The sun was a flaming chariot, a literal god, and the stars were diamonds, or mother’s milk, or sand along a riverbank. Genesis 1 has none of those trappings. The most mystical thing it says is verse 1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Then it proceeds to a detailed progression, starting from formless and void and culminating with a life-bearing planet and its human inhabitants. The language there is a marvel, too. Formless and void, just like star-forming regions in space. Take a look at the nebula 30 Doradus. It’s a typical star-forming region, without discernable structure, a roiling cauldron of gas and dust and vapor. It is, as Genesis plainly says, “formless and void.”
In verse 6, an “expanse” is formed, and from that the earth eventually forms. The Hebrew word for expanse is raqiya, which means “to beat out or spread out,” and the intended mental image is of something being beaten flat out like pizza dough tossed in the air. The reigning scientific theory of planet formation today holds that planets form in disks of dust and material that spread out from a cloud with a star forming at the center: raqiya in action. The Genesis text is more than 3,000 years old, yet it shadows the latest science.
Genesis 1 also mentions water several times, and we now know that the Orion Nebula, again a fairly typical star-forming region, is chock full of water vapor, enough to fill the earth’s oceans every minute for 10,000 years according to some estimates. And the progression, from plants to sea life to birds and land life and finally humans, is remarkably similar to the sequence you’ll find in any science textbook. It’s not a perfect match, at least not yet, but consider who got there first. Moses was writing this down when the Pharaohs ruled. More than 30 centuries later, we’re getting to the point where we’re able to come up with enough evidence to create an outline that basically agrees with his. Moses was one of the most educated men of his time, having been tutored as the prince of an imperial superpower, but I doubt the Egyptian scholars knew as much about astronomy and biology as the average undergrad does today. Yet Genesis is remarkably accurate.
But there is still a problem: time. Genesis 1 keeps track of the sequence in days, with the stubborn language “there was evening and there was morning” stuck in between to show a literal passage of time. For most moderate to liberal Christians, this doesn’t present a problem since to them Genesis isn’t to be taken literally. But I take it literally, and physicist Gerald Schroeder, author of The Science of God, shows us why we should. The Bible claims to be the inerrant word of God – if it is, and where the language suggests a literal understanding, it should be correct. There’s nothing mythological about the language of Genesis 1. Read Ezekiel, or sections of Daniel, or Revelation. That’s obvious symbolism, visions and nightmares. Genesis 1 has that dry tone, and spins out time in a straightforward way. Yet from science we know that the planet formation process takes millions of earth years, not a 24-hour earth day. And how can you measure days at all when the planet itself isn’t formed until day three, and the sun isn’t a distinct light source in the sky until day four? The answer is Einstein’s relativity, and was presaged by the 13th Century rabbi Nahmanides, who wrote that the six days of creation “contain all the secrets and ages of the universe.” How can six days contain ages? What was Nahmanides suggesting?
Nahmanides knew nothing about relativity, but he had faith that someone would come along and make sense of Genesis 1. That someone was Einstein, who found that time isn’t constant, but depends on gravity and velocity. Where mass is unimaginably huge, gravity dominates and time is slowed or even halted, such as in a black hole, a point so massive that nothing, including light, escapes its gravity. Where there is less mass, time moves along at a decent clip. Velocity also influences time: the faster you go, the slower time passes for you. In other words, the passage of time dilates depending on circumstances. Take your Genesis clock off the earth and set it for the whole universe. An hour to the universe, due to the mass and velocity difference, is an epoch to the tiny earth. A day to the universe, an era to the earth. So a day can contain an age, as Psalm 90:4 says, “For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night.” To God, omnipotent and omnipresent, the creator of time, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day. Time is relative to your position and scale. In this light, the Big Bang and Genesis agree, and the age of the universe is no longer a point of controversy. And the Bible’s literal language is respected in every detail.
The next time your faith seems contradicted or even disproven by some new scientific finding, remember: a 13th Century rabbi, using Genesis 1 as his guide, previewed one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th Century: Einstein’s relativity. Rather than being an ancient relic, the Bible is still relevant, and offers us wisdom for today as well truth for tomorrow. Who knows what secrets it still holds?
Report comment to moderator
Wow. Serious George. That is a great post!
Report comment to moderator
Think about it. What does Genesis tell us of importance? As Preston put it, it’s a document outlining the beginning of “the ongoing relationship between God and His creation.” There are positive assertions that include:
–God’s initiative, design, and oversight (”the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters”)
–God’s expressed pleasure in what he’d done (”and God saw that it was good”)
–God’s particular interaction with people arranged from the basic elements (dust of the earth), but from whose complexity emerged personhood, unity of consciousness, and a moral and creative nature suitable for relationship with God.
Regardless of whether one believes Adam and Eve were literally the first two humanoid inhabitants of creation, or a point at which His creation (think in terms of intentional authorship) produced, through astoundingly progressive mechanisms, creatures for whom God held special regard and relationship, Genesis tells us we are descended from morally culpable people who have a place (citizenship) in the spiritual dimension God inhabits, and the rest of the story goes on from there. This story isn’t diminished in any way by a scientific account of what we understand about the steps or processes that occurred along the way.
Latent gnosticism and johnny-come-lately substance dualism threaten an authentic reading of the Genesis account in ways far more damaging than Dawkins’ lame barbs. Problem is, many Christians happily cripple themselves with weak and demonstrably unbiblical conceptions of their own anthropology, and in doing so, rob the Genesis text of what it can offer and teach about their being the “very good” culmination of a creation by an other-regarding God. Similarly so the significance of what it meant for God to inhabit his creation as a physical, material New Adam, taking on Himself the penalty of brokenness and injustice that results when creatures try to usurp the place of their creator in their affections, replacing Him with idols, something/anything that would take the rightful place of God as the source of their significance and purpose. This is what Genesis tells us with truth and literal fidelity. And inerrancy, in that it doesn’t swerve from this accurate intent.
Report comment to moderator
Good thoughts, SG. I largely agree.
Report comment to moderator
The Preston article reminds me of a book called Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder. It’s worth a read for anyone interested in the subject.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, SteveG. Schroeder’s been buried in the when-I-get-to-it section of my reading list for quite a while. For all I know, Preston lifted ideas from him. I’d also recommend John Polkinghorne’s Belief in an Age of Science.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 10.27.09 AT 6:59 PM
An where in God’s Word do you get this view from? Please show me the passage that say the Genesis account is not to be taken literally.
Sure. Right after you show me the passage that says literal readings are the only acceptable way to read it.
–
Sorry you are the one running around telling everyone God’s Word is not to be take literally. I am asking you for your proof through God’s Word. Since you do call your self a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
SG,
They were discussing that in an article at Answers as well.
There is alot of work being done in that area, as it would also solve the distant starlight problems. (for both theories)
The real conclusion is that millions of years is misleading then, esp if we are in some sort of gravitational well. Light would reach us in mere thousands.
“Regardless of whether one believes Adam and Eve were literally the first two humanoid inhabitants of creation, or a point at which His creation (think in terms of intentional authorship) produced, through astoundingly progressive mechanisms, creatures for whom God held special regard and relationship, Genesis tells us we a