If you have heard of the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opening April 18, chances are you have heard all kinds of distortions and myths about it. So let me set the record straight about some of the most common myths.
Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.
Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interviews.
Myth #2: The film is anti-science.
Wrong again. Many distinguished scientists were interviewed for this film and given the chance to express their views. Just like their Darwinist counterparts, the advocates of intelligent design and their supporters who are interviewed are there to talk about science, not to dismiss it. These are people like Cambridge physicist John Polkinghorne; Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox; journalist Pamela Winnick, who has received hate mail for covering the issue; and biologist Caroline Crocker, who was fired from George Mason University for discussing intelligent design in the classroom. Some of them are religious believers; some are not. But what they share is a commitment to science and the unfettered pursuit of truth. Expelled is not anti-science; it is anti-censorship.
Myth #3: Ben Stein, the actor and writer who hosts the movie, has lost his mind.
Bringing up this very issue in a conference call, Stein quipped that he probably has, “but it was a long time ago . . . probably sometime around 1958.” Well, I have known Stein well for years, and he is as bright as a button and anything but out of his mind. On a serious note, Stein and his film’s producers explained that the mud that people are flinging at him is just one small example of what happens to people who question Darwinian orthodoxy. The original idea for Expelled, said co-producer and software engineer Walt Ruloff, came to him when he was working on a project with a group of biotechnologists and learned “that there was a whole series of questions that could not be asked.”
The prevailing ideology among many scientists—it turned out—he concluded, was keep your mouth shut, take the research money, and publish only the data that fits with “the party line.” The issue that concerns Ruloff and the others behind Expelled is whether the scientific establishment in this country is going to allow genuine “freedom of inquiry,” or simply shut up—and slander—those who do not toe the line.
Given all this, Ben Stein states, “As long as the cause is right, I’m happy to be in an uphill struggle.”
Myth #4: Popular author and atheist Richard Dawkins tells Ben Stein in this film that there could have been a designer of life on earth, but it would have had to have been “a higher intelligence” that had itself evolved “to a very high level . . . and seeded some form of life on this planet.”
Well, actually . . . that one is not a myth. He really did say it—striking admission, though it is.
So, I urge you to go see Expelled when it opens at a theater near you. Believe me, in this case the truth really is stranger—and more compelling—than any fiction the film’s detractors could possibly dream up.
_________________________________________________
From BreakPoint®, April 11, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
RSS
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
Check out Caroline Crocker's slides:
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/ode-to-caroline-crocker/
Her speaking fees range from $1000-$5000 (from her own website: http://www.intellectualhonesty.info/index_files/Contact.htm). These fees "do not include travel expenses" in case you are interested.
So it looks like she is doing just fine, enriching herself off of the ignorant. Ben Stein has joined her at the trough.
Seed,
"While that has been proven to be true in minor changes and variations, it has not been proven in the universal scope of life."
Well you have to ask yourself how all the evidence can be explained but by such large scale 'macro' evolutionary changes. Surely DNA evidence like ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion and others can't be explained by infering no macro evolutionary changes.
What indications/evidnece are there, especially given the lengths of time we're talking about, that varitation within a species can occur, but anything above that cannot? Speciation, or evolution at the macro level (aka ORIGIN of NEW SPECIES) has and continues to be observed (go ahead and ask for my sources, I think you know I am good for it), so what indication is there that a new species can arise, but this stops and somehow couldn't form yet a higher organism taxonomy like genus, family or order? Why do you think it makes sense for evolution to simply stop at the species level and no further?
As soon as speciation has occured, you have 2 unique populations of organisms and they will essentially be genetically isolated, which over time means they will evolve accordingly in different, but somewhat perhaps similar trajectories.
Agent I am not sure when I’ll have the chance to give your comments a thorough response. Let me just say that there are non-Christian historians who would disagree with your assessment.
“Evolution (as a process of change over time) is a fact…”
While that has been proven to be true in minor changes and variations, it has not been proven in the universal scope of life. Furthermore, it not only opens up more questions, but it also has yet to be demonstrated in the first place. While statistics may help prove the historical function of evolution, statistics also reveal that Neo-Darwinism is incapable of explaining the origin of species.
Thumbs up for Star
Would that more Christians would engage the world NOW instead of waiting for "graduation" from some ethereal training before "walking in those works that God has ordained"
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
If the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ has been made plain to you and you have responded, you now know all that you need to know in order to spread the message. Christianity IS an on-the-job-training pursuit. Evangelism is not just the purview of theologically trained pastors.
You learn as you go.
Sanctification is a life-long process, not an event.
Star: I know exactly what you mean! Our chuch, for all of the good in it, well, it just simply stinks at discipleship. So, we've taken matters into our own hands. As a small group, myself, my wife, and two other couples have been working through some terrific discipleship materials produced by Campus Crusade for Christ. I think that, ultimately, the message here is that even though we "belong" to a church, we must still ultimately "work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling" and sometimes, this calls for us to take responsibility for our own training in righteousness.
Again, just my $.02.
Quecat and Emmaus
In Jan 1, 1981 I told God that I wanted to be a woman of prayer, grow in the knowledge and wisdom of God and His Word, know what my spiritual gift was and to use it, and to be a soul winner. Even though the Church I was going to was going to do a year long teaching on these topics, God didn't have me attend those training classes. Instead He sent me out into the world to serve Him so He could answered my prayer requests. My Singles Minister called that on-the-job training.
Emmaus-
The problem stems from the parents being luke-warm Christians. A hallmark of these folks is that they think that "going to church" is all that is required of them to "please God".
They fail to embrace the fact that daily fervent prayer and personal study and application of of the scriptures is how one grows in Christ. The Word of God is what feeds us, but for some reason these folks think that their soul can survive on a once a week meal delivered via a Sunday sermon! Some diet.
So they apply this same logic to their children's lives. They've delegated the spiritual training of their children to the Sunday school teacher for one hour, once a week - and then are mystified that their children behave no differently than the rest of the world!
A child is a blank slate. Parents, do you honestly believe that if that child receives only 1 hour per week of spiritual training and 100 hours of secular schooling, playing video games, and hanging out with non-Christian friends, in between the few "quality moments" that they might get from you, that you're going to somehow raise up a child who loves the Lord?
Seed,
“which have ironically only lead to more questions”
Sorry, but science isn't a silver bullet like theology that proclaims to answer all things in an instant. Science uses reductionism, so it's not in the overnight business, it's in the slow and steady and accurate business. Yes, with science we will always find new questions in wake of answering other ones, but that is how it works and more importantly that doesn't mean there is nothing geniuenly gained from examination. If you can think science hasn't been a great help to humanity or hasn't answered relavant questions for us, then how do you sleep at night? The very thing you're using right now is directly from science.
Science works by reductionism and so over time you get a clearer and truer sense of how the universe works. IE, in netwons day gravity was instan forcet, but this was the best one could do with the afforded technology, however a young jew from germany changed all that with his idea of relativity and b/c he was able to support his idea with evidence and b/c it produced further testable results, it was accepted.
Relativity as you recall wasn’t accepted immediately, it took a while. So now we have a more clearer, truer understanding on how the universe works and it couldn’t have been done by using ‘god did it’ or made it that way in certain parts of the equation.
“However to completely base a scientific theory, calling it fact,
Uh, uh, hu back it up a bit. Gravity (why/how things fall or move in relation to mass) is a fact. Gravitational theory, is the model which explains the facts of gravity.
Evolution (as a process of change over time) is a fact, the Evolutionary Theory is a model which explains the facts of Evolution. See the difference? Now you know the difference. Theories in science are bigger than facts, theories explain the facts, facts support the theories. There is no ‘absolute certainty’ in science, as such theories are tentative, so in this view one could say they are more of a probabilistic function based on observations and tests. Thus, the more evidence one gathers that cumulatively points in the same direction, we can say that it's well supported, if not essentially a fact.
Quecat: I just read the article, and it just further confirms what we already know - parents, those who are primarily responsible to "raise their children in the faith" are failing at it. Add to that, in my opinion, failed youth ministry programs at the average chuch, and its no wonder why so many are falling away. They're never being convicted of that most important of all messages: Repent and be saved!
Just as an aside, this is precisely why we don't have our 9th grader involved in our youth ministry at our church. There's no challenge to the kids to take responsibility for their own salvation, even if their parents won't raise them in the faith. So, instead, our oldest serves as a room aide with the little kids, and she leans so much from serving than sitting around with a bunch of other kids who are complaining about their lives and how hard they have it. Instead, she serves, and then goes to "big church" with her parents. It's soooo much better!
Anyway, just my $.02. Thanks for the heads-up on the article, I would have missed it otherwise.
Emmaus -
as if right on que - this morning's Post story: "Saving Youth from Church Exodus Not Enough, Says Youth Leader"
Seed,
“If you are implying that naturalism is unscientific, then you may have my ear.”
No, think about it. We can only include natural things into Science as this is what we can hold constant, which is critical for testing in the scientific method. We can’t hold constant some god/ID, that is the crux and this is why supernatural doesn’t working at explaining anything more in detail than before.
“The natural materialistic exclusive truth claims cannot support themselves under the pressure of reality.”
Well, what has supernaturalism ever offered? Surely the Dark Ages and the fall of the Islamic science are reasons enough to know that invoking ‘god did it’ at every puzzling corner is not in our best interest.
“this mode of experimentation was in fact derived from within the Christian theistic worldview”
You’re on crack ol chap, the Classic Greeks (430 BC and prior) were using methods of the scientific method before jesus was even around. The Romans also used some of their techniques, until the Dark Ages took over leaving a 1000 scientific void in EU. In the mean time the Muslims were using science in many realms while Europe was floundering. No until the reformation and until some of the intel left behind from the Islamic conquests in Spain and France made there way into European societies did anything change in Europe. The real scientific method we use now, isn’t Christian in origin at all, but Islamic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Myself: “…you would admit that there is no empirical evidence that completely dispels the scientifically based pronouncements in ‘Expelled.’”
Agent says: “To be sure there are questions yet to be answered in evolutionary theory, as there are in gravity and every other theory, so in sake of knowing all things right now, you’re saying it makes more sense to appeal to god/supernaturalism?”
Agent, you’re chasing a rabbit’s trail that you think leads to the acquittal of naturalism and materialism from their predisposed biases, but it’s not so easily done. Nevertheless, to plow into your main point and skip the diatribe I confer not only with your assessment of gravity and every other theory that has been developed with the thought of having once and for all given us answers which have ironically only lead to more questions. However to completely base a scientific theory, calling it fact, when in reality it does not hold the verifiable empirical evidence that these other problematic theories did offer, leaves a bit to be desired of. Secondly, this only reveals the problem that evolution does not in fact offer the kind of falsifiability that Neo-Darwinists such as your self try to pin on I.D. proponents and creationists on a regular basis. The fact that even if it were possible for Neo-Darwinism to account for all living things, it does not seem likely that it could ever be proven or disproved as say other theories such as the one you made. This does not make creationism or I.D. the ‘scape goat’ from the rigorous scientific investigations, but neither should supernatural explanations be omitted from serious enquiry. The simple fact that Neo-Darwinism lacks explaining power which has given rise to Meta-Darwinism should be a clue that even if I.D. is selectively discriminated against over its inherent appeal to religious belief, it doesn’t follow that Darwinism should be let off the hook as the theory de jure.
“…you see how/why appealing to the supernatural isn’t scientific, right?”
Sorry Agent, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are implying that naturalism is unscientific, then you may have my ear. The natural materialistic exclusive truth claims cannot support themselves under the pressure of reality. Not only is there no basis for truth, neither is there a foundation for its development in a materialistic worldview. The mad hatter becomes just as sane as Einstein, no pun intended. There is no way to presume that the man excepting the Nobel Prize is any more worthy as its recipient than the man on the street corner begging for his next drink. It is all in fact meaningless and lacking the capability of distinguishing it.
“Appealing to ‘god made it that way’ is an intellectual dead end.”
I’m sorry Agent, but you are mistaken here. While it may be that for certain practicality sake that one needs to roll up his sleeves and investigate matters for him self without making certain supernatural and mystical explanations, this mode of experimentation was in fact derived from within the Christian theistic worldview. It was Platonic philosophy that held science at the dead end as you called it. It was Christians thinking out of his box that has lead to the disrespect and degradation so commonly held by Mother-Earth advocates and pantheists against Christianity.
w00t/Howard/George/oldguy/Dwen/yyyy/xxxx/first/danny2/danny/BobC/BobCu/Asdfg/zxcvb…
“ID is not science. …there is no science in Expelled.”
…Spoken by a naturalist who has yet to see the movie. Should anyone wonder? “All the information is out there available to you. Take the time to look at some of it.” Sounds like you’ve got some great source material w00t. Why should anyone bother watching it objectively when there are plenty of emotionally distressed reviewers who have been barred from the early previews in the first place? Perhaps if you devoted materialists were to unlock science from strangulation you might learn a thing or two and even have a little laugh along the way. I doubt anyone who has been to Stein’s film sight has been able to keep a serious face. But for you, its all magic man superstition, no?
You may not take pleasure in your worldview being picked at, but it does not give you the right to dictate what other people should think and investigate, just because Maha mahesh w00t says so. Even if I.D. proponents are wasting their time and finances, what is it to you? If Neo-Darwinism is the king of the hill let the facts speak for themselves; it’s not like they are tax-payer funded as the numerous scientific naturalism projects are. They are not advocating an exclusive indoctrination, as Neo-Darwin proponents. If anything they want science unleashed, rather then being stifled by an angry mob of mad scientists who are committed to religious naturalism who demand respect and government support.
You know, X, you can be a real pain in the rear. I'm not "shoving" anything down your throat. I was just commmenting to other Christians about a Biology cirriculum we use (btw - you can CLEP college-level biology classes with it). I wasn't even trying to say anything to the evolutionists out there.
You might find that you will get a little more respect, and people will be a whole lot more willing to listen to you if you'd drop the hostility. It's just downright mean.
"There is no point to wanting it taught in schools"
Well, here your words are at variance with reality. One need only look to the history of how many times creationism has been sought out to be taught in public schools over and over. noe-creationism/ID is just the latest to try and make its attempts.
"...the public schools are the LAST place you'd want to send them! It shouldn't even be a consideration"
Well of course not, now with all that fancy, smacny science and other information they might learn, huh, well it might just jepoardize their faith. and this is the very same reason the Amish don't allow their kids a seodnary education as it too would no doubt inpact the affectiveness of their faith. Heck, look what happens when and if they go to Universities, for those already wavering they have a hard time holding on there.
"including Apologia's "Exploring Creation with Biology" for our 9th grader."
Which means that the earth is taught to be 6000 years old and man lives with dinosaurs and tons of other falsehoods, do I have it about right?
(flagged self)
It's the only way to fulfill Dt 6:6-9 (These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.)
We use nothing but Christ-centered curriculums for our kids - including Apologia's "Exploring Creation with Biology" for our 9th grader.
Two thumbs for Emmaus !!
Now if more parents who call themselves Christian would follow suit - we wouldn't be reading articles such as "Disaffected Youth Abandoning Church".
That's precisely why we homeschool our kids.
I said it once and I'll say it again -
regarding ID:
There is no point to wanting it taught in schools
Why?
I don't see why anyone would bother. If you intend to raise your children with a Christian worldview, the public schools are the LAST place you'd want to send them! It shouldn't even be a consideration.
Furthermore if you think that presenting ID or creationism to public school cookie-cutter kids and that it's somehow going to overcome the rampant secular humanist tripe that is force fed to them everyday in classes, you're sadly mistaken.
Pro 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Psalm 127:3 "Children are a heritage from the Lord, a reward from him."
Eph 6:4 "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
This is not a suggestion! It is a duty.
We, as Christians, have a tremendous responsibility given to us when the Lord blesses us with a child. By doing so, He entrusts us with the responsibility of raising up that child in the way of the Lord and establishing early in his life, a foundation built upon Jesus Christ.
We are answerable to the Lord for how our children are raised.
It's folly to think that we can rightly entrust our children's education to strangers, much less those that would teach them moral relativism, religious pluralism and historical revisionism.
In as much as a pastor is responsible to God for his flock - parents are responsible to God for their children. What is needed is for more parents to take their duties more seriously instead of catering to that tongue in cheek excuse, "economic reasons" or "convenience".
UhHuh- try using that excuse before God when He asks you why your children did not follow in the faith of their fathers.
"All the information is out there available to you. Take the time to look at some of it."
No doubt, just go here and watch how Comer was let go......for teaching Evolution. Her and many others have lost their tenure or been let go for the same reason. And Expelled thinks ID folk are the ones being 'persicuted or targeted' unfairly.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Seed,
You’re a smart guy, obviously you see how/why appealing to the supernatural isn’t scientific, right? And yet you’re trying to get something that isn’t science, taught as such. Think about this one Seedy.
“rather than subjecting their selves to the creationists, they assume that evolution is true and continue on in presuming naturalism”
Well, not quite. There is a good reason why natural explanations are more sought than appealing to supernaturalism, and it has to do with intrinsic value. We seek a naturalistic explanation b/c, well we live in a natural/material based world, and more importantly as history has shown, it’s the one to be most pure (as opposed to lumping in ‘god did it’ here and there to make sense of things), most understandable and thus leads to further discoveries. Appealing to ‘god made it that way’ is an intellectual dead end.
“Instead of answers, naturalistic materialism only leaves more questions.”
Are you kidding? Name me a single discovery where ‘god did it or made it that way’ was ever used and resulted in an increase in overall knowledge for humanity? Show me an instance where an appeal to god or supernaturalism has explained anything in more detail than before. Even those who espouse ID wouldn’t bring any answers other than to note that certain things are, well, complex, or have the appearance of design.
“you would admit that there is no empirical evidence that completely dispels the scientifically based pronouncements in ‘Expelled.’”
To be sure there are questions yet to be answered in evolutionary theory, as there are in gravity and every other theory, so in sake of knowing all things right now, you’re saying it makes more sense to appeal to god/supernaturalism?
“It is the efficacy of random natural selection coupled with genetic mutations that is causing the spin out for Neo-Darwinian evolution.”
What spin out, what can’t be explained by evolution and its processes now? Give me an instance of IC that hasn’t already been diced, shredded and thrown back in Behe’s or others faces.
seedplanter, ID is not science. There is no evidence for ID. You cannot go down in to the fossil record, or map a genome and point to someone's initials and say "HA, here is the proof!"
What science do you have to back ID, because, there is no science in Expelled. There are only baseless claims and arguments that push the emotional buttons on the viewer. That is the deception. Science is not about emotion or philosophy. It is about discovering answers to complex problems. If Expelled wanted to be a truly great movie, they would have presented real evidence just as the scientific community does and used it to refute the evidence of Evolution.
Instead they chose to use false representations and deceit in their movie. They make the claim that people where silenced or let go because of their views on intelligent design. These stories are easily refuted and have documentation to back it up. They purposely try to make the scientist in the film look bad. I could go on and on about this. All the information is out there available to you. Take the time to look at some of it.
If the makers of Expelled want to be honest, then let’s have an honest debate on the evidence and models. They shouldn’t put a movie out that is shallow in it’s understanding of science, and then masquerade around as the end-all movie on Evolution.
This “documentary” not only insults the intelligence of people in science and academia, but also your own because it does not present the ideas in a truthful light.
<rolls her eyes>
I'm off to "Settlement Allows Presbyterian Church to Leave Denomination" - it's getting inane in here.
Quit using the products of science & it will wither on the vine . . . . .. . Refuse medical technology, anything made in a factory (did you know they use _statistics_ for 'quality control'?), & all the other artifacts of Satan . . . . .. The scientists & their evil minions will be laid low . . .. . .
...and the same can be said of proponents of evolution.
JC,
It seems creationists always use the same tired, old arguments.
“The gravitational pull on this planet would have been tremendous, and the two likely would have pulled each other apart and disintegrated.’
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
Agent,
“One can endlessly look for small holes of ignorance and cram god/ID into the void, and this is exactly what IC is…”
I would not be alone in arguing that this is exactly what naturalists seem to do. When a problem arises with evolution, rather than subjecting their selves to the creationists, they assume that evolution is true and continue on in presuming naturalism. When Neo-Darwinism cannot cough up the necessary results to completely silence its critiques, I think it should speak for itself and it would in fact speak loud and clear. Instead of answers, naturalistic materialism only leaves more questions. This double standard of falsifiability does not help the Darwinian cause. Yes, I read earlier claims that seem to put creationism on par with flat earthers and geocentrics this speaks volumes as to the shallowness in the debate on the part of Neo-Darwinian advocates. It is interesting how intelligent scientists can spend their entire lives trying to prove that no intelligence made them in the first place. Sorry Agent, the debate is far from over and while this film may or may not deal with the subject honestly, I am anticipating its arrival along with many others. While it is true as you stated that I am not a biologist and you are I think that if you are honest enough you would admit that there is no empirical evidence that completely dispels the scientifically based pronouncements in ‘Expelled.’ Regardless of whether or not Neo-Darwinism holds the title as the standard scientific dogma, it has not been proven as an incontrovertible fact.
“Other than Behe, please list those in the ID camp that do accept common descent then?”
As I said prior, this is irrelevant to the I.D. proponents in the bigger scheme of things. It is the efficacy of random natural selection coupled with genetic mutations that is causing the spin out for Neo-Darwinian evolution.
Kudos Pattie.
I haven't commented on that article in several days. Sometimes it is very tiring having to repeat yourself over and over again to people who are so blinded by sin that they just won't listen.
Unfornately Teen4Christ attends a church that teaches him that not only should we love the homosexuals in our midst, but actually condone their behavior as normal.
Yes, we should show love one for another, but God calls us to call sin what it is, sin. And to put out of our midst those that would sin openly and unashamedly while trying to still call themselves Christian.
Teen4Christ's pastor is teaching a false doctrine. Scary for Teen to be misled like that - but even scarier for the pastor. God will hold him personally accountable in the day of judgment for those that he has misled.
For those of you still discussing evolution here,
I found today's joke on the company bulletin board to be amusingly appropriate.
A little girl asked her mother, 'How did the human race appear?'
The mother answered, 'God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so all mankind was made.'
Two days later the girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.'
The confused girl returned to her mother and said, 'Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?'
The mother answered, 'Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.'
Oh, and Hebrews 4:12:
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Quecat: Don't forget 2 Tim 3:16-17:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Praise the LORD!
Pattie
You just keep on - keeping on!
Tthese forums have been a wonderful tool for me to spread the Gospel and reach people who need to hear. I was initially amazed to find how many atheists, secular humanists, pagans and "seekers" I've encountered in these forums. They came with the intention of being a spoiler or posting some smart-alecky comment.
But God promises that His word will not return to Him without having the intended effect.
I use every opportunity, every encounter with folks on these forums as a chance to speak the truth of God's word into their lives. Some run away, others rebel and turn hateful, some want to argue along pointless rabbit-trails, but some will engage and reason - and prayerfully still others are watching (reading) and being taught the truth although they themselves don't yet know it or recognize it.
I've been blessed by the effort too. It tests your self-control to refrain from returning spite for spite, and trains you to listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and let His words flow through you, instead of allowing your natural man to respond in a fleshly way.
And most of all, it's made more of a Bible scholar out of me. Some of the challenges that I've answered in these forums, required much study on my part. ...Study through which I've learned pearls of biblical truth of which I had not previously known!
All in all, by exercising my "gospel-spreading-muscles" here - I've strenghtened my own faith, increased my understanding of God's word, practiced answering the questions of skeptics and am more confident of my abilities to engage folks, one-on-one in real life in a more knowledgeable and logical way.
Isa 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:"
2Ti 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Maranatha!
Pattiepie,
It’s nothing personal against Jesus, I don’t solely reject him.
“He died on the cross to pay the penalty for your sins so you wouldn't have to”
Talk about psychological lesson 101, today’s class, the meaning of ‘guilt trip’. Now I am getting spiritual advice from a person that talks like Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars and can’t avoid using ‘S’ when it’s not grammatically correct.
“If yous don't thens you are going to the bad place you know hell to pay for your own sins. And its goin to last forever.”
And lastly another added layer of guilt trip for good measure.
To Agentorangex:
I'm sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I mostly do this during off times while at work and school.
Fact: The moon is moving away from the earth approximately 3.8 cm each year.
If one were to do the math on this, this planet and it's moon could not have co-existed 65 million years ago. Not even 5 million years ago. The pulls on the planet tidal system would have left nothing intact. The gravitational pull on this planet would have been tremendous, and the two likely would have pulled each other apart and disintegrated.
Fact: The earth is slowing down each year, approximately 200 ms every 100 years.
Once again, do the math. At the speeds at which this planet would have been going over 65 million years ago would have been phenomenol. Nothing could have survived. Just from the blast of wind that would have been created from that much speed would have incinerated anything in it's path.
And, yes, "agentorangex", I do believe that T-Rex and mankind was here at the same time. There is more evidence to support this, than there is to support that the earth is 65 million years plus in age.
--------------
Beloved, the world's theory of Evolution is just that, theory. And, scientifically, not a very good one at that. It can be disproven every step of the way, Evolutionists however refuse to look at all the data. For these have chosen to believe selective reasoning and have instead not pursued understanding. This can lead to a very treacherous path.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32)
agentorangex: If I've given you the idea that I think you dislike the Bible, then, I'm sorry. I never meant to give you that impression.
My intention has just been to try to understand where you're coming from, and to lay down some groundwork in which to have a discussion. I understand that you don't accept the Bible's own claims to be divinely inspired as sufficient as an authority to you. So, I'd ask if you'd accept evidence that's external to the Bible as evidence? Is it acceptable to you if I use the same types of tests that are applied to other ancient works to verify their authenticity and claims, such as bibliographic evidence, internal and external evidence, and archeological evidence?
Emmaus,
"But, I do think that its a question of authority"
Oh but it is. You're appealing to the bible to vouch for its own authority, in which you quoted parts.
More or less the framing by you is fair and correct on my position. But understand my position is not from not liking the bible or something like that, it's from how logic is applied to propositions. i reject such a reasoning on basis of how logic is used.
It's not logical to assert authority for something (bible) and then to verify the authority of it to appeal back to the same something (again the bible), in this case its a cirucal reasoning and this is what you offered.
Pattie:
So you understand that God is perfectly just and absolutely Holy and that we as men have sinned against Him and as such are utterly deserving of judgment and punishment for our sins?
And you understand that God loved us so much he paid that price himself so that we would not have to. He sent his perfect Son, Christ Jesus to earth as a man and God to die a death that He
did not deserve so that His divine blood would serve to cover our sin.
And that now the Lord says to all that would believe and have faith in Christ's atonement, that they would be saved. And even our faith isn't something that we worked hard to create within ourselves. God gave us the faith that we need.
We who belong to Christ now do our best and with the help of the Holy Spirit, live daily to become more like our Savior. We talk to God in prayer and pay attention to His leading us by the Holy Spirit. We read our bible to learn more about God's ways. We have a blessed and a living hope that we will all be together in heaven one day.
Pattie - if this is the gospel that you understand and embrace - congratulations sister!
But if not, we need to talk. :)
Agent: I see what you're trying to say, and I understand. But, I do think that its a question of authority. I view the Bible as authoratative, and you do not. I'm really just trying to paraphrase, not trying to put words into your mouth, or to do a "gotcha." I'm just trying to frame the discussion into terms that we can both agree on and understand. Do you agree with what how I'm framing your objection?
“I've seen you say that resting on the Bible as an authority is wrong. Is that correct?”
Let me reiterate. Earlier it was pointed out that- “Jehovah God is the one and only true God, and is set apart from all man-made gods (1 Chr. 16:25).”
This was in reference to how you (Emmaus) were stating that the biblical god is different that all the others. And the source you used to back it up? Yup, the bible.
Essentially, you’re saying ‘the bible says this god (Jehovah) is the one true one, (you know, as opposed to those other 1000’s of previous ones) well, b/c it (the bible) says so!’. See why this is circular argument and thus a logical fallacy?
You’re essentially saying, ‘the bible and the god in it is true, well, b/c it says so!’ see the dilemma there?
agentorangex: "I could of swore most of the initial followers left Israel and sought to spread the gospel elsewhere following his death"
Actually, that's not true. Paul became a missionary to the gentiles (non-Jews), and travelled throughout the region. But, the remainder of the apostles stayed in Israel.
Hey agentorangex
The martyrs Quecat mentioned died cus theys would not deny Jesus so theys coulds continue to lives on the earth.
The 'martrys' of today (Islam people) kill themselves and hopefully some infidels so they can go to heaven and have all the alcohol theys want and 72 virgins. It is all about them.
Nows we still haves Christian martyrs today. Many lose their lifes cus they refuse to denys Jesus. Christians don't kills themselves. People who hates Jesus dos that.
Klling yourself and being killed by someone else is not the same thing.
Muggle:
Fox's Book of Martyrs is a Christian classic - written in the 16th century, it is in the public domain. The unabridged version is preferable.
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/
However for easier access away from my bookshelves - I referred to
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs000.htm
and in particular:
"Christians Who Suffered and Were Slain for the Testimony of Jesus Christ, their Saviour, from the Time of Christ until the Year a.d. 1660"
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs010.htm
“Are you really suggesting that these first hand witnesses to Christ - colluded to create a new false religion and sealed their deception with thier own blood? All of them? Unwaveringly?”
Well by listening and following him in such times they knew they were essentially creating a new religion, no real secret collusion was needed. They knew they would eventually be persecuted for being a thorn in the side of not only the current Judaism but also the Roman Empire. They knew going in persecution and perhaps death was plausible, so there is no real collusion, it was mutually agreed and understood from the get go.
“and who after the resurrection were so emboldened as to preach of the risen Lord openly in the streets and synagogues, convincingly and fearlessly so!!”
I could of swore most of the initial followers left Israel and sought to spread the gospel elsewhere following his death…
AgentOrange,
Yes, that's true ... but the 1stC martyrs still had above and beyond "sight unseen". They were there.
Agentorangex: I just want to make sure that I'm clear what you're asking. I've seen you say that resting on the Bible as an authority is wrong. Is that correct?
Quecat,
>> A few documented examples of 1st century martyrs: ...<<
Thanks very much for this info. I've been looking for a decent compliation of martyr refs. I'm actually going to cut&paste this directly into my notes :^)
MuggleBorn,
We have people now who essentially allow themselves to die or be persecuted for their beliefs simply b/c in their mind they think ‘heaven awaits’ and so the here and now and any punishments are of little consequence.
Pattie - how about your testimony? how did you come to the Lord?
A few documented examples of 1st century martyrs:
Stephen, one of the seven deacons of the church at Jerusalem, stoned outside the gate of the city, by the Libertines, A.D. 34, shortly after the death of Christ.
James, the son of Zebedee, put to death with the sword, by Herod Agrippa, in Jerusalem, A.D.45 According to the annotation of Eusebius Pamphilius, from Clemens Alexandrinus, the executioner was so moved on account of the death of James, that he professed himself to be a Christian; and so, as he states, both were led forth together to death. As they were led out, the executioner asked James to forgive him. James, after a little deliberation, said,"Peace be with thee," And thus both were beheaded. Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 9. ex Clem. Alexand. Also W. Baudart. Apophthegmat. lib. 1. page 4. from Joach. Camer. in vita Christi, page 42. Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 3. Strac. in Festo Jacobi, page 209. Cie. Circa, cap. 45. Annum.
The apostle Philip, bound with his head to a pillar, and stoned, at Hierapolis, in Phrygia, a. d. 54
James, the son of Alpheus, or half-brother of the Lord, cast down from the temple, stoned, and beaten to death with a club, a. d. 63
Barnabas, a companion of the apostle Paul, dragged out of the city and burned, at Salamina in Cyprus, a. d. 64
For the sake of space- a brief listing of the the deaths of other apostles:
Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
Andrew, Peter's brother, was crucified.
Mark was beaten to death.
Peter, crucified upside-down.
Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
Jude was crucified.
Bartholomew was crucified.
Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.
Note: John the Evangelist (according to legend) was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. However it is known fact that afterwards John was imprisoned on the isle of Patmos by the emperor Domitian in a.d. 95 and kept there for eighteen years. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred. It was during this period that he wrote the final book of the canon of the Bible, the Revelation.
Are you really suggesting that these first hand witnesses to Christ - colluded to create a new false religion and sealed their deception with thier own blood? All of them? Unwaveringly?
...These same followers of Christ who deserted Him in the Garden of Gethsamane and hid behind locked doors afterwards for fear of suffering the same fate as Jesus? ...and who after the resurrection were so emboldened as to preach of the risen Lord openly in the streets and synagogues, convincingly and fearlessly so!!
Emmaus
“Jehovah God is the one and only true God, and is set apart from all man-made gods (1 Chr. 16:25).”
This is exactly what I mean by circular reasoning. So the bible says it’s god is the only true one, well b/c it says so! You can’t point to the bible itself to give it authority or credence in this manner, that isn’t logical.
“from walking and talking with Adam and Eve in the Garden,’
Again, referring to the bible to vouch for its credence isn’t logical.
Imagine you’re god right, does it seems logical or sensible to reveal such important information to humanity using the very same methods virtually all other previous religious have used? No, of course it doesn’t and in retrospect one cant’ find it hard doubt the veracity of it on this very detail alone. Such a revelation isn’t the work of an omniscient diety, but somehow you and others so overly overlook it, how?
“I won't ruin the story for you, but, it does show that the LORD is the one true God over all of the little man made gods”
Again, appealing to the bible for it’s own veracity isn’t logical. I take it you’ve not heard the phrase ‘to the victors the spoils and they write the history of events’? From this view point the writings can be as damning as they want as in the end they are meant to support itself.
AgentOrange,
>> What accounts are there for their deaths and how supported are they? People fly planes into buildings b/c they think not only is it righteous but in the end they will live in bliss, thus they are motivated by their imagination as it relates to their after life and the same can be said of those willing to die for their religious convictions now and in the past. <<
The distinction between the first martyrs and martyrs of the "anything and everything" of today is that the first followers of Christ went to their deaths claiming to have actually SEEN the Risen (came back from the dead) Lord ascend into the sky.
The later martyrs up until now and forward to the Second Coming that have not walked with Jesus would (and do) rely on testimony.
If the first martyrs who KNEW Jesus died for what they said, and it wasn't true, they either all lied (I'd personally come clean from a lie at just the threat of a monetary fine), OR they all had the exact same hallucination.
And ... the age of the testimony shouldn't make it any less viable.
“So what of the apostles and other 1st century saints who went to their deaths proclaiming that they were first hand witnesses of the risen Lord?”
What accounts are there for their deaths and how supported are they? People fly planes into buildings b/c they think not only is it righteous but in the end they will live in bliss, thus they are motivated by their imagination as it relates to their after life and the same can be said of those willing to die for their religious convictions now and in the past.
In their mind they don’t care so much if they are persecuted, tortutured, or removed from society as in the end, as least from their perspective, they will be in heaven and so what events transpire in the here and now are utterly meaningless in the abstract. So from this view, it matters little if you’re persecuted for your beliefs if in the end you think you’re going to some imagined blissful place. This is the same type of rationale that overcame those in the Branch Dravidians, the cult of Jim Jones, Buddhists lighting themselves a blaze, and so on….
Of course this is all from their perspective and ultimately they can’t know for sure what occurs post death and so you’re essentially looking at a cocktail of “Greed of eternal life + wishful thinking = behavior on earth”. Would you really care if you were persecuted if in the end you sincerely thought you were bound for heaven anyway? Of course not. So in summation, we shouldn’t be all that surprised if people willingly allow themselves to be killed/persicuted if in the end they think they’re going to heaven, it could essentially be viewed as a dillusion. This is why sheer persecution stories aren’t convincing either.
(Sigh) Pattie - are you still working on that grace thing?
"want it taught in schools"
???
I don't see why anyone would bother. If you intend to raise your children with a Christian worldview, the public schools are the LAST place you'd want to send them! It shouldn't even be a consideration.
Furthermore if you think that presenting ID or creationism to public school cookie-cutter kids and that it's somehow going to overcome the rampant secular humanist tripe that is force fed to them everyday in classes, you're sadly mistaken.
Pro 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Psalm 127:3 "Children are a heritage from the Lord, a reward from him."
Eph 6:4 "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
This is not a suggestion! It is a duty.
We, as Christians, have a tremendous responsibility given to us when the Lord blesses us with a child. By doing so, He entrusts us with the responsibility of raising up that child in the way of the Lord and establishing early in his life, a foundation built upon Jesus Christ.
We are answerable to the Lord for how our children are raised.
It's folly to think that we can rightly entrust our children's education to strangers, much less those that would teach them moral relativism, religious pluralism and historical revisionism.
In as much as a pastor is responsible to God for his flock - parents are responsible to God for their children. What is needed is for more parents to take their duties more seriously instead of catering to "economics" or "conveneince".
Agentorangex:
You're asking some really, really good questions here, and it looks to me like you are genuinely seeking answers. I'd like, if I can, to try and answer them.
1. "Yes, absolutely. We should expect nothing less from a God, ..."
The problem here is with the assumption that all religions/revalations are equal. They aren't. Jehovah God is the one and only true God, and is set apart from all man-made gods (1 Chr. 16:25). The LORD (Adonai) makes it clear in His word that Jesus is the one and only way (John 14:6: "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"). The LORD has revealed Himself in many ways throughout the centuries, from walking and talking with Adam and Eve in the Garden, to his speaking directly with Moses through the burning bush and by other means, to appearing to the Hebrews in the desert as a piller of fire and smoke, to sending prophets like Nathan, Isaiah and Jeremiah, to sending His own Son, Jesus (who, by the way, is Emmanual - "God with us"). The point is that He hasn't chosen just one way of communicating His message. He's chosen many throughout time. The Word, or the Bible if you prefer, is the written record of those revalations, handed down throughout the centuries to believers across time. As an interesting side note, you might want to read 1 Kings 18:16-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018:16-39;&version=31;) to see how other man-made gods stand up to Jehovah! Some Hebrews had decided to follow a pagan god (man-made - Baal) instead of Jehovah. Elijah, a prophet (speaker of truth) from God challenged them to a dual of sorts between Baal and Jehovah. I won't ruin the story for you, but, it does show that the LORD is the one true God over all of the little man made gods.
2. "Seriously, talk about the most illogical base for a story ever. Jesus, according to the religion comes to be born on earth to sacrifice himself for his own actions..."
I think that, perhaps, you might have a misunderstanding of what the cross represents. Since the beginning, Jehovah has required a blood sacrafice for the atonement (forgivness of a transgression of God's Law) of sins (again, transgression). This sacrafice needed to be a perfect, spotless lamb. This was a picture of the sacrafice Jesus would eventually make on the behalf of all of humanity. Where I think you might misunderstand is that Jesus didn't die on the cross to sacrifice for his own sin. In fact, Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life (the only man to have ever done so). In his perfection, He died on the cross to take all of our sins on Himself, as the perfect spotless lamb. His sacrificial atonement (propitiation) is what allows us to be reconciled to a perfect and Holy God. He didn't die for His own sins - He had none. Instead, he died for our sins - yours and mine.
I hope that this helps.
Pattie - I didn't mean your address. What country or state - where are you from?
Seedplaneter,
“As I stated on other posts, the I.D. camp does not conclusively rule out common decent”
Other than Behe, please list those in the ID camp that do accept common descent then? Good luck. And yes, ALL animals involved in CD, so that would include little ol humans.
“C.D. is irrelevant in regards to the efficacy of natural selection coupled with random genetic mutations to account for irreducible complexity and specified complexity”
Fine, show me some examples of IC, which are genuinely valid and aren’t arguing from sheer gaps of ignorance and in sake of ignorance hammer in the designer? Behe can't figure it out, uh oh, the designer did it! Well, not quite says Ken Miller, Kevin Padian, Scott and others as they demonstrate how such systems are quite reducible and not something evolutoin can't reconcile.
“the I.D. camp has rigorously maintained an agnostic approach toward what this Designer might look like.”
And for good reason, for if they all admit openly that ID = God, then it’s obvious what their motives are. But one can read their work, their history and know their intentions regardless and what the designer is in their mind. Just say the works 'intelligent designer' to a person not familar with the debate and good $$ says among the top of the list will be....God. By not defining the designer, they remove it from scientific critique all together, thus making it an unfalsifiable component. It’s pretty hard to falsify something which isn’t defined and left totally ambiguous. See why it’s not Science?
‘Phillip Johnson refuses to be enticed by religious references”
Um, no he and they won’t/can’t reference exclusive religious references as they know teaching it as such is illegal in public schools, that is the main agenda, refer to the 'Wedge Document' remember?
“William Dembski (who by the way holds to common decent with the exclusion of humans)”
Geeeee, I wonder why Bildo, singles out humans and no other animals as being included in common descent? =) Well, it’s quite apparent what his subliminal message is, as is his website ‘uncommon descent’, sorry I wasn’t born yesterday Seed.
“I.D. can be falsified if plausible natural mechanisms can be devised to explain all candidates for irreducible complexity...”
Um, don’t you see the problem already? There will always be temporary small gaps of ignorance which we can’t initially explain but as more evidence comes we do find the explanation and always a natural one.
One can endlessly look for small holes of ignorance and cram god/ID into the void, and this is exactly what IC is, it’s argues from personal incredulity and argues gaps of ignorance. ‘I can’t figure X out, thus the designer did it!’ only to have a smarter person come along and reveal the truth in how such systems aren’t IC in the first place.
You want it taught in schools, so me how it's sciiencentific and has the evidence to boot.
Pattie - where do you live?
Something for you to believe?
Luk 16:22-31 "And it came to pass, that the beggar (Lazarus) died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. "
In fact, Jesus rose from the dead, a fact attested to by the witness and the blood of the martyred. And yet you do not believe. Abraham was right.
Many people have died for something they thought was true, but no one will willingly die for something they KNOW is a lie. So what of the apostles and other 1st century saints who went to their deaths proclaiming that they were first hand witnesses of the risen Lord?
Slacker,
you better be reading those biology and science books already....=)
“Are you asking for God to show you something for you to believe?”
Sure, why not? I would prefer something more out of the ordinary which isn’t portrayed by the same message revelations virtually all other religions have used though. In other words, a god shouldn’t have to stoop the same level of ‘revelation’ as all other religions have, such a method of revealing ones message brings more doubt then genuine acceptance on face value. That’s not asking for a whole lot, especially from a god.
Perhaps you don’t find it hard to accept all the other religions that existed prior to Yaweh and how such acts would ultimately bring genuine doubt to any future god that would be revealed in the same manner. To you and others, this is of no consequence. You have to ask yourself, why would an omnipresence/ omnipotent god allow all these other religions to come to fruition in the first place?
“What your saying is that God creates the world and sends his Son to die as a sacrafice for us.”
No, I am saying he sent himself/son to die for his own actions he indirectly or directly caused in the first place and thus he should be partially to blame in the equation. Worst of all is how some theists can’t see how such an instance utterly disproves the notion of omnipresence and being omnipotent, as if he truly was he would know such an outcome would have occurred and would have taken other actions to avoid it.
w00t,
Seems like you've stubmled upon Thunderf00t's vids too. he's quite the creationist nemisis.
Star - i think Pattiepie is Howie/BobCu etc.
He was all over the boards yesterday whining about why no one would talk to him and kept asking who Howard is. Odd behavior to say the least. I invited him to share the gospel or explain the concept of grace (something a nonchristian would be ill prepared to attempt) after which he disappeared lickety-split!
I just want to make one thing clear. There is NO such thing as a "Darwinist" or "Darwinian". That's about as silly as calling someone a Newtonist, Einstenist, or Heisenberist. They are all scientist. Not theologians.
The reason why we "come out of the wood work" is to show how shoddy of a film this is and how it does not present it's story with any journalistic standard. It is made by a group of men that state that they have no back ground in science, yet they parade around like they do, bringing up points that most high school students can debunk.
This is like your garbage man who had no scientific understanding past a high school education explaining to you how the CERN hadron collider discovered the Higgs bison.
Anyone that says that Evolution has holes, or there are problems with the theory has either not done honest research, does not understand the process, or simply do not care what the evidence shows.
Besides, it's only your children's future in education at stake here. If we refuse to teach Evolution in schools which is the backbone of modern biology and linked to many, many other fields, then we forfeit any chance they have to compete in a global market. There are applications in Evolution, there are none in creationism.
pattiepie
I see that you are new to CP.
Thank you for your questions.
I most assure you that I am not from outerspace. When I came to CP I didn't know what what ID to use. I prayed and asked God. He gave me the idea for the name.
Don't worry about agentorange picking on me. Everything will work out OK.
Howard is a guy who thinks a lot like agentorange. They both are evolutionists who don't believe in God. Many on CP are praying for them and maybe one day all that will change.
Dear God, help us all to see your glory- to speak your words. I Lord am a weak man who would easily loose my temper at such vain arguments as some which have been presented here. Lord, help us to demolish the strongholds of the enemy, to give a reason for our beliefs, but to do so in gentleness and respect.
Agent,
“…could you please explain to me how ID is falsifiable? How for instance, could/would ID explain certain biological evidnece, like Human Chromosome 2 fusion?”
As I stated on other posts, the I.D. camp does not conclusively rule out common decent. You mentioned Behe as an example yourself. C.D. is irrelevant in regards to the efficacy of natural selection coupled with random genetic mutations to account for irreducible complexity and specified complexity. This is not to mention the Meta-Darwinists’ search for natural alternatives in the wake of the growing disillusionment with Neo-Darwinism. If you have heard the debates with William Dembski (who by the way holds to common decent with the exclusion of humans) the I.D. camp has rigorously maintained an agnostic approach toward what this Designer might look like. Phillip Johnson refuses to be enticed by religious references. While it is true that many creationists, including YEC utilize their arguments and often times invite them to speak in their forums, not all creationists look so favorable toward them (i.e. Hugh Ross).
To answer your ongoing challenge, “I.D. can be falsified if plausible natural mechanisms can be devised to explain all candidates for irreducible complexity...” Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler, The Evolution Controversy, p. 276.
Just for the record, my theistic beliefs do not work at the exclusion of science. Considering everything that is involved in science, theology and philosophy, Naturalism has yet to rally these three musketeers to his side persuading them to defend him, granting him the position as their presumed rightful king. Without losing any sleep over it, I can easily say that they will never be able to find such a unilateral common theory that eclipses the God of Abraham, the Creator and Sustainer of heaven and earth, God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom we live and move and have our being.
“The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock.” C. S. Lewis
w00t (aka. Howard/George/Bob?),
Your little straw man parody 'I don't believe in sterilizing medical instruments, and if you say otherwise you are discriminating against me, and censoring my free speech' simply reveals a lack of initiative on your part in attempting to educate yourself on the subject, laying your own personal prejudices and emotions aside. But then again considering your sources it would make sense for you to
Any scientist worth their two cents recognizes not only the limitations of science (including the scientific methods), but also that no significant evidence has emerged on the scene to once and for all silence the opponents of Neo-Darwinism.
Hi AO, to comment:
"I am not asking for anything over the top, but by him using the same means as virtually all other religions begs the question of why he thought that would be the best way to give credence to his message as being any truer than all other revealed religions."
Are you asking for God to show you something for you to believe?
"Seriously, talk about the most illogical base for a story ever. Jesus, according to the religion comes to be born on earth to sacrifice himself for his own actions he ended up causing from the get go and yet in the end the followers are told they’re to be thankful. "
What your saying is that God creates the world and sends his Son to die as a sacrafice for us. It is illogical, your absolutely right, I wouldn't want my son to be sacraficed for the Good of man, are you kidding me. But that shows the love of Christ to give up himself for all of us, that is why he is perfect and we are not, why we need him more then he needs us...
To Woot:
"More lies. Why is lying necessary for this film? "
Two words, Party line... Someone questions darwinian evolution and all of a sudden everyone crawls our from the woodwork to say that they are lieing, interesting. I have no idea if he is lieing or what, but i would ask that if darwin and his theory are valid and can't be touched, then it should be everyone's right to question it to the fullest. If it is right, then there shouldn't be a problem correct??
Here’s another fun fact:
"One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment.
This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that are awkward for the movie's case, however. Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it. Sternberg had always been planning to step down as the journal's editor—the issue in which he published the paper was already scheduled to be his last."
More lies. Why is lying necessary for this film?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
"In this episode Ben Stein is taken to task over his inability to distinguish science from free speech. Stein claims that those who question evolution are discriminated against, whereas in reality this 'discrimination' is merely people getting held accountable for demonstrating their pathetic grasp of both the scientific method and scientific literature.
In simple parody terms it would be like a medic claiming that 'I don't believe in sterilizing medical instruments, and if you say otherwise you are discriminating against me, and censoring my free speech.'
The scientific literature is an open arena. Anyone who can sustain their claim with research and reason will get a fair hearing.
Creationists think the only reason they cannot compete in this arena is due to prejudice, when in reality it is merely the fact that they don't do ANY research, let alone anything worthy of being published."
“You're faulting God for not inventing a new method of transmitting knowledge among men, that would be unique to Him alone???!!!”
Yes, absolutely. We should expect nothing less from a God, shouldn’t we? It doesn’t make sense for god to use the very same means to reveal his word as all or most of the other religions that proclaim to espouse his revealed word. Shouldn't an omnipresent/ominiscient diety see why it's not a good idea to reveal such knowledge in the same manner as all the other religions? What better way to demonstrate from the get go that judasism isn’t but the same as all the other ‘revealed’ religions than to have it’s origin truly self evident as opposed to supposed revelations?
I am not asking for anything over the top, but by him using the same means as virtually all other religions begs the question of why he thought that would be the best way to give credence to his message as being any truer than all other revealed religions.
‘story of the Cross of Christ is not about men trying to be good to get to God, but rather God making the ultimate sacrifice of his own accord in order to reconcile his creation to himself”
Seriously, talk about the most illogical base for a story ever. Jesus, according to the religion comes to be born on earth to sacrifice himself for his own actions he ended up causing from the get go and yet in the end the followers are told they’re to be thankful.
Why exactly must he be born on Earth to make amends for his own guilt on actions in the past? It’s entirely illogical. Couldn’t he have just equally have realized he made a poor call earlier and just ‘reveal’ more information at a later date? Besides, if he ends up finding himself at fault for such things and later comes to Earth to sacrifice for it, doesn’t that show the lacking omnipresence right there? Perhaps you can help me understand this part, but it’s interesting none the less.
Agent asks " So does this mean that the earth/universe is to be read as really being 6000 years old?
I don't know. The bible does not specifically say that. Someone has drawn that conclusion.
Some scholars have counted the generations in the geneaologies of the bible and come to that conclusion but it can hardly be stated that beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are correct.
Some would argue that some undefined and unrecorded period of time passed between the creation event and the events which precipitated Adam's expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
Still others see in the scriptures two distinct creation events.
However it is fascinating to note that God is a God of order and patterns. That numbers have meaning and that six is the number associated with man, seven being the number of completion, perfection and representative of God.
If man has been on earth for 6000 years, it would seem that the 7th epoch of 1000 years belongs to God. An utterly fascinating concept in all it's biblical implications.
Agent's question # 2:
" If that were the case, why did Yahweh choose the very same method of reveling details on god as all the other existing religions? "
You're faulting God for not inventing a new method of transmitting knowledge among men, that would be unique to Him alone???!!!
Mankind has transmitted his knowledge down through the ages by way of verbal, pictoral, and literary means.
Various cultures having an innate sense that there was something unseen, more powerful than themselves that begged to be explained, created elaborate religions that explained how they could make contact with this unseen power. This is the nature of religion - man's attempt to get to God to please him, appease him, and trying to make up for what they perceived as being their imperfections.
However, God reached out to man in a unique way. The story of the Cross of Christ is not about men trying to be good to get to God, but rather God making the ultimate sacrifice of his own accord in order to reconcile his creation to himself. There is nothing that we can do that will make us right before a holy and just God. He, on the other hand, has offered us mercy and grace and willingly forgives all those that would accept the gift. No rites, no chanting, no crawling, no works, no nothing. Nothing but our recognition of our sinful state, a willingness to aspire to a higher standard, acceptance of the gift of grace and walking in accordance with the sanctified nature to which we have been called.
This is the uniqueness of the Gospel of Christ. And it is this Gospel that is exclusive. God said "this is how you get to me and this is the only way - nothing else is acceptable".
No pluralism. God calls the shots. After all - He's God.
As for your assertion that God somehow erred in waiting until such a "late" date to sacrifice Christ, you're wrong.
1 Peter 1:18-20 "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake."
The Lamb of God was "slain from the foundation of the world". We're speaking of an entity that exists outside of time as mortal men understand it. His sacrifice is effective for all who would call upon Him throughout all of time.
"GOD CREATED."
But were they literally 6 human days or 6 'god day's' so to speak? So does this mean that the earth/universe is to be read as really being 6000 years old? that is what I am stating.
w00t,
Also telling is why Professors like Ken Miller, Paidian, Scott, and others weren't asked to be interviewed, as from Mathis they would pose too much of a problem.
Quecat
I 've enjoyed our conversation tonight, I'm off to bed as its getting late (for me) in old blighty.
Steve zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Steve,
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you wanting to debate elements of philosophy as applied to scripture?
I'm not really interested in doing so, but it is worth noting that your question contains an incorrect conclusion.
You stated " I take it then that you don't accept that God is the basis for logic because as soon as a logical question is asked, illogical answers (those that are based on sources that can't be verified) are given."
I take issue with your conclusion that an unverifiable source is automatically determined to produce only illogical answers.
It is actually quite possible for an answer to be true and logical without knowing from what source the answer proceeded.
Simple alegebraic problems would be a grand example of this. An unknown element is part of the equation. That the element remains unrevealed does not negate the validity of the equation. The only problem lies in determining the nature of the missing element.
The end product that the movie became is exactly the reason why they do not like to work with creationist with an agenda.
They know that they will be asked questions that have the only purpose of making them look foolish or to quote them out of context.
"They knew they would have to deceive the researchers, professors, and scientist to get an interview with them. "
Whether that is the case or not, I cannot say.
But one cannot help but wonder why it is, that if these "eminent" men of science are so cock-sure about their ideas, why would they not freely discuss the matter with anyone and everyone regardless of their beliefs? Can they not withstand the scrutiny of unfriendly positions? Very telling.
ooooohhhh - so the question that YOU'RE getting at is not "can the WHOLE bible be believed as literal", but rather "can the entire contents of Genesis 1 and 2 be taken literally"?
It is, what it is. I don't see any evidence of it being presented as parable or allegory and some may argue for it evidencing some metaphorical elements, but what it comes down to is the larger picture: GOD CREATED.
Does it matter to me if it was six 24 hours days, six "eon" days, six "God-length" days or whatever? NO. What it says to me is that God created and gave me enough information to understand that such was so. No matter that He didn't give me all the messy details.
If I give my daughter a cookie and tell her that I baked it for her - it's hardly relevant to her that I went to the grocery store, bought eggs, flour, milk, sugar, etc and followed a recipe, yadda, yadda, yadda and tada! cookie. No - she has a cookie that her loving parent made for her and that is all that is important for her enjoyment of it.
In your world, the girl would accuse her parent of "magic" because she questions the validity of the story "a cookie was baked for you".
Nonsense!
Quecat,
Myers, dawkins, etc were all lied too. They were led on to believe that this was to be a "pro-science" movie. If they had known that this was going to be a non-scientific "documentary" they would have never agreed to being interviewed. Mark Mathis knew this and that’s why the game of bate-and-switch was played.
Also, the producers knew all along what they were planning to do. The movie idea had been around before 2007. Ben stein is quoted as saying,
"I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can’t question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you’ll lose your job, and you’ll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating." – Ben Stein, April 19, 2008
The producers knew all along. They knew they would have to deceive the researchers, professors, and scientist to get an interview with them. If the producers are willing to lie and cheat over something as simple as an interview, how can you trust any material in the movie?
Quecat, , I take it then that you don't accept that God is the basis for logic because as soon as a logical question is asked, illogical answers ( those that are based on sources that can't be verified) are given.
Kind regards
Steve
P.s By verify I am talking about an entity existing in a timeless state.
Quecat,
the title of moive name changing aside, it's also not ethical to bar someone from viewing the film in fear of them critiqing it considering they were among the few interviewed. Many critiqies haven't been allowed to view the pre-screening of the film.
‘Saying that the bible is literal the way you mean, presupposes that every word written was intended to be taken literally.”
If by ‘understanding’ you mean in a non -oung earth creationist fashion? And if that be the case, then obviously there is no problem as I contend, as do the majority of Christians for that matter, that this wasn’t how scripture was intended to be read.
w00t
are you unfamiliar with the concept of films having "working titles"?
The movie "The Lion King" was formerly "King of the Jungle" and "Casablanca" was not always Casablanca. It was known as "Everybody Comes to Rick's", the book upon which it is based.
"The film’s original title was Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.... The film company said the movie's title was changed, on the advice of marketing experts." The Guardian Fri, Sep. 28 2007
In regards to point #1, here is the email that Mark Mathis sent out to people asking for interviews:
"My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.”
At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment.
We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.
Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time?
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Sincerely,
Mark Mathis
Rampant Films"
They then used the interviews against the participants to make them look ridiculous.
Link: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background/interview-tactics
I thought we weren't supposed to lie?
Agent alludes to "evidence that doesn’t conform to a literal reading of the bible"
I don't have a problem with anything you might give as evidence as would any other Christian who reads the Word of God with understanding. Saying that the bible is literal the way you mean, presupposes that every word written was intended to be taken literally.
That would be a mistake.
As with reading any modern document, the author gives unmistakeable clues as to what is intended to be literal, what is allegory, what is parable and what is metaphor.
It's the marvel of scripture that in many instances passages can fulfil multiple literary functions at once! However, that it would be wrong to conclude that all do so.
So when you imply that you are somehow the keeper of "faith shaking" refutations of literal scripture, you'll have to excuse me, if I don't exactly jump to attention.
That being the case, however, I'd be mildly curious as to what you have to offer.
‘To say that some one is using circular reasoning and therefore not worthy to listen to is circular reasoning in itself.”
No it’s not. Anyone who appeals to circular reasoning should be pointed out and in such a case with the bibles authority coming from itself is case an point a circular argument. I didn’t say he’s not worth listening too, I said the notion of it being authoritative on the fact of it’s own admission is circular reasoning.
“Tha Bible clearly show that the Earth (and all creation) is somewhere about 6000 years old.”
Yep, it’s too bad the evidence for such a 6000 earth/universe is entirely vacuous. But don’t let that evidence get in the way.
“He new they would sin in the garden.”
And yet you guys argue he’s an intelligent guy for such a blunder, mkay. Essentially, god in eden portrayed a negligent father who leaves his loaded 45 magnum on the ground and tells his two young ignorant kids not to play with it, only to be upset later after they use it. Horrid parenting skills there and yet you guys applaud his efforts and find no fault on his part in the matter.
“He allowed them their freedom and they sinned”
Right, that’s like saying you allowed your preteen daughter the freedom to walk the streets at night only to be mugged, raped and murdered and later when the cops press charges against you for parenting negligence you appeal and say ‘well officer, I was only letting her have her freedom, I did nothing wrong’. God in Eden is partially culpable in the account as he tempted them and left this talking snake there to make it all play out.
“God didn't wait 180,000 years as you presume (you are forcing your evolutionary thoughts on a Creationist worldview).’
Yep, there’s are those darn fossils, genetics and avenues of evidence which can’t be accepted for your sake.
“evolutionists reasoning behind morality”
yah, like altruistic, symbiotic, and reciprocal behavior weren’t enough by evolution to explain ‘why it pays to be moral/ethical’. Many organisms survive as they do simply b/c of such principles, in affect their gain is directly from acting in a moral fashion.
“nor can they give a reason why they believe things will continue uniformly”
I think we’ve already gone over this pal, remember how I stated that uniformity is critical to science as without it testing anything would be pointless. Can you show me where and why we shouldn’t’ accept uniformity as a principle to begin with? Why should we even assume gravity wont work tomorrow?
Steve,
Does the incarnation of Christ prove that God changes? No.
Christ is described in Revelation 13:8 as being "slain from the foundation of the world."
Christ being slain from the foundation of the world illustrates not only that He was foreordained to be slain, but also that the efficacy, or the beneficial effects of that death, is the same as if that sacrifice had been made before the creation of the world. Thus, Old testament saints are washed clean in Christ's blood the same as we are today. In other words, the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice is not limited by time.
1 Peter 1:18-20 "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake."
In other words, the fall of mankind did not destroy God's purpose in creating mankind. God is omniscient (all knowing) and nothing takes Him unaware nor is He unprepared for any event. God does not go running after Satan trying to sort out the mess he (satan) creates. Rather, the blood of Jesus has already taken care of it.
It is as if to say, God had taken out an insurance policy before creating mankind. It is a fully comprehensive insurance that pays for all damages no matter what, and even promises to ‘restore back as new’. That insurance is the blood of Jesus. The main strength of the insurance (just like any normal insurance policy) is that it was taken out before the incident. That is why it covers every thing. Jesus' death on the cross was not an after thought by God, rushed through after the event (of mankind falling into sin). No. It had been settled before.
Jesus Christ is who He has always been.
So in other words quecat, the more something is perplexing to the human mind the truer it must be? Have I understood your posistion?
Regards
Steve
‘The gist of the comment was that scientific discoveries, whatever they may be are not set in stone.’
The earth is round is set in stone, as is gravity existing, despite we not knowing absolutely everything in how it works, yet. However, these and many other ‘truths’, which are set in stone, we know thanks to science. Again, Science uses reductionism, so it’s not an overnight wham-bam thank you mam solution, it is progressive and collective which overtime reveals the more truer nature of how exactly the universe works. You want a solution passed down which answers everything immediately, but this isn’t how epistemological truth is obtained. No new evidence will come forth to rule out the earth isn't round or that DNA has nothing to do with biology and heredity, these are truths.
“My foundation does not shake - can yours say the same?”
Your foundations don’t shake huh, then what do you make of the evidence that doesn’t conform to a literal reading of the bible? If that doesn’t shake you foundations in faith, well you get the idea….
Steve
Can you tell me WHY you think that God "cannot be pre incarnation and post incarnation at the same time"?
Omnipotent - effectively HE can do anything. It's a moot point that man's finite mind cannot understand it.
God is also revealed as being three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in ONE triune Godhead. Not 3 Gods - ONE! How can this be? God is omnipotent.
Do we understand it? No.
Did we invent the concept? No!
Why on earth would man invent a concept of which he, himself is incapable of understanding?
If a man were inventing a god for himself, wouldn't he be more likely to invent one that he could relate to more closely?, case in point the Greek pantheon.
The God of the Bible is so unlike any other supposed earthly diety, for the precise reason that He is not the construct of finite men's minds.
Agent-
Sorry to rain on your parade- but you brought up the word epistemology, the theory of knowledge... and then you seem to indicate that any form of circular reasoning is illogical-
And I quote "Well b/c the bible says so! Holly circular argument Batman! "
Since you brought up epistemology, I just wanted you to know that all reasoning is ultimatly circular. Yes, even science. To say that some one is using circular reasoning and therefore not worthy to listen to is circular reasoning in itself. "Circular reasoning isn't reason because it's circular." Even if you take it further and say "Circular reasoning isn't proper reasoning because it isn't based on independant facts and conclusions" you still have to justify how you came to that conclusion and again end in a circular argument.
Tha Bible clearly show that the Earth (and all creation) is somewhere about 6000 years old. God, from the beginning created man and woman perfect. He new they would sin in the garden. He allowed them their freedom and they sinned. The entire purpose of the Old testament scriptures was a forshadowing of the New Testament revelation. People before Christ were still saved by faith and not by works, as the Bible clearly shows. God didn't wait 180,000 years as you presume (you are forcing your evolutionary thoughts on a Creationist worldview). God clearly showed people how to have a relationship with Him from the start.
If you would like to continue this rant of yours, I politely ask you to explain to me the evolutionists reasoning behind morality and the reson behind the uniformity of nature. I will explain those if you need me to. I clearly say that an evolutionist cannot give any reason for an aabsolute standard of morality, nor can they give a reason why they believe things will continue uniformly (for example: why gravity will work tomorrow,) which is a requirement for science.
Should you not explain those 2 critical ideas, shut up and stop wasting my time reading your "pietistic" non-sense.
Man, do you have it bad.
For the record - once again - my post said (quote) "As for Einstein - Isn't it interesting that now science is even questioning those theories for which he is most famous - as being incomplete or perhaps at least, not quite right on the money."
So you say "Right, you just stated his theories were wrong, I can’t see how I mistook the HUGE difference there. Sorry, but you can’t back pedal on this one. You said his theories were being found wrong, ergo you claim he’s wrong."
Do what? Is English your native language or not?
I replied “I mean what I said - HIS KNOWLEDGE WAS INCOMPLETE!”
to which you retort: 'Well then please say what you mean..."
Shall I repeat myself for the umpteenth time, (as if it were going to do any good)?
The gist of the comment was that scientific discoveries, whatever they may be are not set in stone. New discoveries have a uncanny way of requiring scientists to modify or altogether toss out old and previously "proven" ideas in favor of the new data.
I however, will place my confidence in the bedrock truth of the unchanging God.
My foundation does not shake - can yours say the same?
Quecat
Thanks for your reply. Your quite right when you write
You still have not answered the question (all you have done is make a comment about me) if God is the basis of logic he cannot be pre incarnation and post incarnation at the same time and therefore God does change
Kind regards
Steve
Wow - you ask alot of questions all at once.
This will take some time, but I'm game if you are...here goes:
Number 1, you asked:
" why then were 14 books removed at the counsel of Nicaea around 350 years after the fact of the events?"
The Apocryphal books were transmitted by various portions of the early church as being "useful" and containing some elements of history, but were regarded as spurious due to lack of pedigree and lacking the power and distinctive elements of the revealed Word of God. In any case, whereever they were included, the Apocrypha were delineated either in an appendix and/or with an explanation showing them to be non-canonical.
The Old Testament concludes with the book of Malachi, the last book to be written after the restoration from exile (5th century B.C.). And its final sentences prepare the people of God for a long wait, ("Remember the Law of Moses," 4:4); also a lamp of hope is given ("I will send you Elijah," v.5, who will speak authoritatively from God).
So God's people settled down, as it were, to wait for this promised Elijah, and no other. Indeed, even the Apocrypha admits that during the inter-testamental period (roughly four centuries between Malachi and the Baptist) no prophet was to be heard or seen. "Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them" (1 Macc.9:27).
Now the New Testament, when God once again spoke through men, it was exactly to fulfill Malachi's prophecy. For John the Baptist is said to be that Elijah (M11:14; 17:10); when questioned directly whether he was the literal Elijah, he denied it (Luke 1:17), but Christ confirmed it for us that John fulfils Malachi's prophecy. Thus the story, so to say, goes on uninterruptedly, even though four centuries had elapsed.
The link between the last book of the Old and the first book of the New Testament is as clear as daylight, and reinforces the integral unity between the two Testaments. Anything in between would appear strange and out of place.
The Apocrypha would fit in as a wedge, not only because they are not needed, but also because they are not prophetical, are not inspired, contain doctrinal errors and are never quoted by Christ or His apostles.
“HE says of Himself that He was, and is and is to come’
The Bible is true, well b/c the author of it says it is! And how do we know god is really, really god? Well b/c the bible says so! Holly circular argument Batman!
Quecat,
Right, you just stated his theories were wrong, I can’t see how I mistook the HUGE difference there. Sorry, but you can’t back pedal on this one. You said his theories were being found wrong, ergo you claim he’s wrong.
“I mean what I said - HIS KNOWLEDGE WAS INCOMPLETE!”
Well then please say what you mean and all is fair, no harm no foul. How exactly can you blame him for being wrong if the technology and revealed knowledge of his time didn't exist for him to stake a claim in the matter? That's like saying Newton was absolutely 100% wrong, but that is not true either.
According to Epistemology (philosophy of knowledge) we will always, at least to some small degree in any moment of time be short on ‘knowledge’ and thus can’t even know all things in a ‘truth’ standard. Einstein was working with what he had and solved Newton’s problems related to gravity, this is how Science works, it’s cumulative, it’s not an overnight, slam bam done ‘revealed’ process. It’s slower, methodical and based on objective evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
“again - Science changes as knowledge changes”
No, the ‘knowledge’ derived from science grows over time to reveal epistemological truths. Truths like gravity exists, the earth is round, and so on.
Steve
You make the error of applying the constraints of man's imagination to the nature of God's existence. HE says of Himself that He was, and is and is to come.
You're failing to fully grasp the concept of omnipresence because you cannot fathom timelessness.
Pattiepie -
Could you do us the great service us explaining the concept of grace to all that are here?
This would be a wonderful chance for you to share the gospel.
“Either the bible is true or it is not. SIMPLE……. However to assume that the fallibility of men influenced scripture is a logical fallacy.”
Well, if it’s true, all true and always was, why then were 14 books removed at the counsel of Nicaea around 350 years after the fact of the events? Sorry, but such a large margin of error to be utterly gutted from something that is espoused as being ‘revealed by god’ doesn’t bold well for the argument from authority which is what all religions have anyway. If man can gut such an authoritative word 350 years after the fact, then what makes you think they couldn’t have forged or misrepresented other parts even earlier on? This must be the same reason why the protestant and catholic versions also are different and why there are some 3000+ denominations.
.
”God is presented as being omniscient”
If that were the case, why did Yahweh choose the very same method of reveling details on god as all the other existing religions? One would think a truly smart and all powerful god would see that such revelations might not be considered as strong as authority for the simple fact that such ‘revelations’ were done world wide and to his apparent exclusion. If such a revelation is true, why did Yaweh wait till only some 2000 years to bring a savior when humanity (H.Sapiens) have been around for at least 190,000 years. So you’re saying this all loving god waited for over 180,000 years of suffering, death and torment to finally send a ‘revelation’ and then later to send a savior?
Right, the same omniscient god that apparently couldn’t find Adam in the garden of Eden at first right? Nor could he somehow not know that in the end leaving a temptation like the tree of knowledge wouldn’t be approached by Eve after she is left to be seduced by a talking snake? Surely an omniscient deity would have known and foreseen the dilemma of leaving what is figuratively a loaded gun for two unknowing and curious people to play with. But your book gives a different conclusion and puts the blame on mankind…for something Yahweh helped to setup!
”God is presented as being omnibenevolent”
Have you taking a look around at our Universe lately; it’s hardly the work of anything that is omnibenevolent. Do black holes, quasars, and gamma ray bursts sound like the work of an omnibenevolent deity to you? If so I have some land to sell you on the Moon. Oh I know, you’ll say it’s b/c of ‘fall’ right? Well, if that’s so
Surely God does change though. If the second person of the trinity came to earth as a man there was a time when (in heaven) he had not. Now the arguament will most likely be that we exist in time and God does not, but to be honest this is a cop out. We are told God is the basis for logic but the the godhead cannot be before the incarnation and after the incarnation at the same time that is illogical, so God does change.
Regards
Steve
Preach it, Quecat, Preach it! AMEN!
You're rather hard headed aren't you? Seeing evil intent where none exists.
I didn't say "Einstein is wrong"
You read "As for Einstein - Isn't it interesting that now science is even questioning those theories for which he is most famous - as being incomplete or perhaps at least, not quite right on the money" and read that I was claiming Einstein to be wrong.
I mean what I said - HIS KNOWLEDGE WAS INCOMPLETE!
again - Science changes as knowledge changes.
As for me, I place my trust in an unchanging God.
What don't you understand about that?
Men's theories are entirely fascinating and all that, but I consider them nothing but an amusing diversion from that which commands the bulk of my attentions.
“What dos you means by all that?”
Research what ‘Deistic’ and ‘Pantheistic’ mean and you’ll have your answer. Deists and Pantheists still believe in a god, a first mover/cause, but their view of god isn’t not akin to how religions espouse it to work. Namely no miracles, as they contend god acted only once and no longer is involved in directing or guiding preferential treatment, and is rather in different.
“Whats you got against the supernatural?”
Are you serous? What are you 5 years old?
“Yous know, man has a been believing in somekinds of God since theys been on the earth. Hows comes yous different?”
I am hardly the only one, now or before to even ever consider ‘no god’. The ancient Greeks actually have a word for those in there time who viewed in such a manner ‘aetheos’. Some of the first greek philosophers were fond with the notion and went back and forth with those of the opposite persuasion. You’re right, man has throughout time been fixated on god(s) and supernaturalism and bent over backwards in appealing to it in sake of natural acts that explain events much simpler.
Agentorange said: "Just who do you think penned the bible? Yes, in the end men, inspired or not, fallible men."
There is a logical error inherent in your quip, Agent.
Either the bible is true or it is not. SIMPLE.
If it is not there is no point in discussing the matter further as it's not worth the paper that it's printed on.
However, if on the other hand, it is true, then an entire series of propositions and truths emerge.
God is presented as being omnipotent.
God is presented as being omniscient
God is presented as being omnipresent
God is presented as being omnibenevolent
That pens in the hands of men physically produced the bible is irrefutable.
However to assume that the fallibility of men influenced scripture is a logical fallacy.
If God intended men to write one thing and instead they wrote another, wouldn't this fly in face of God's omnipotence? If He truly is omnipotent, it would not be outside of his power to have a faithful transmission of word produced.
If the Bible truly is the Word of God, is God also not capable of preserving throughout the ages what he intended to deliver to mankind? Of course He is! Were such not so, it would be a lie for scripture to claim that God is omnipotent or omniscient.
There is no "maybe" about it. The Bible is either the very Word of God or it is nothing.
Quecat,
Ummm, DUH. Einstein was fixated with saying ‘god doesn’t place dice’ in reference to Quantum Mechanics and all the evidence that came from it and consequently he wasted the rest of his life trying to explain something for which he lacked the details on. Until String Theory came around that is, but Einstein was long dead by that point.
So, where exactly was Einstein wrong again? The articles simply state what everyone (well scientists at least) already know, which is Einstein was working with an incomplete model and thus his efforts for unification were hopeless. I don’t see how this disproved Einstein’s theory of relativity, or special relativity, please explain that.
"Rovelli senses another temporal breakthrough just around the corner. “Einstein’s 1905 paper came out and suddenly changed people’s thinking about space-time. We’re again in the middle of something like that,” he says. When the dust settles, time—whatever it may be—could turn out to be even stranger and more illusory than even Einstein could imagine."
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
"We now know that Einstein’s efforts to find an all-encompassing “unified field” theory were doomed because he knew nothing about two fundamental forces within the nuclei of atoms, forces that came to be understood only after his death. Yet the search for a theory that would unify all of physics continues to occupy thousands of researchers around the world. The spirit, if not the style, of Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory lives on.
Still, Einstein’s missed connections serve as a warning to today’s physicists. Are they, too, oblivious to the limits of their vision, working with an incomplete understanding of some fundamental aspect of nature? “Yes, it’s perfectly possible,” Rovelli says. “If you look at the history of physics, almost every epoch has the feeling that ‘we know everything now.’ I think what we don’t know is probably huge. We are still far away from knowing all the ingredients.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/10-einstein-didn.t-grok-his-own-revolution/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
Pattiepie,
“I guess you don't believes in Him dos you? Hows come?”
It’s complicated, but I will say I am more of a Agnostic/weak Atheist as opposed to saying outright from an epistemological stance ‘no god’. I can see a Deistic or Pantheistic God in our universe and so in these I am agnostic to, but the religious ones I am atheistic towards for differing reasons, generally from my distaste in supernaturalism. For the most part, I don’t believe in religious gods for the same reasons Christians reject all others and why Muslims reject all others.
star2
“Basically, evolution says everything came by change and through mutations or mistakes.”
Mutations aren’t mistakes star, they are genetic variations. Having a genetic mutation like CCR5 that allows the human host to be immune to HIV bonding is far from a mistake, it’s beneficial, this is why evolution can be seen as a credit to god, but you can’t have that. Lactose tolerance, malaria rejection, yup those are also directly from single mutations, which are certainly not mistakes in terms of aiding humanities survival.
quecat,You write
"As for Einstein - Isn't it interesting that now science is even questioning those theories for which he is most famous - as being incomplete or perhaps at least, not quite right on the money"
I was wondering two things
1. Which theories are you writing about?
2. If some of Einsteins theories are being questioned by "science" what is actually wrong with that, it was questioning of some aspects of Newtons laws etc.. which lead to Einsteins theories, so whats the problem?
Thank you
Steve
“As for Einstein - Isn't it interesting that now science is even questioning those theories for which he is most famous - as being incomplete or perhaps at least, not quite right on the money.”
Such as? His big one was relativity and this certaintly isn't dying, it's getting stronger. Technology advances and with it comes new evidence and mixed with new minds allows for us to further refine theories to in totality they are more epistemologically true. Einstein, like Darwin got many things correct and no doubt got many others wrong.
“Science changes as knowledge changes. GOD DOESN'T CHANGE. I prefer HIS opinion over man's.”
Just who do you think penned the bible? Yes, in the end men, inspired or not, fallible men. Science works according to reductionism philosophy, so overtime it strips away at parts of ignorance to form a truer picture of how the universe works. It doesn’t kill the theory, but removes the nominally wrong details and advances.
“So if someone wants to discuss a concept presented in the film, it would be helpful if I were familiar with what it was they wished to address.”
You’re in luck chuck (Quecat). Although we can’t watch the film directly now, there are available snippets from it, in which some points can be made and we can discuss forward. There are also small samples of vids available on the Net, I think on a site something like webclips.com, or something like that.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
agentorange
Don't you created a product at work using your knowledge, understanding, and wisdom? Don't you use you ability to reason and to reason creatively? If you say, yes, then you are using the same stuff that God used to create everything.
God used His knowledge, wisdom, and understanding to create everything. God created us in His image. That is why we too posses the ability to reason creatively, and to use our knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.
Basically, evolution says everything came by change and through mutations or mistakes. If you were created in the image of evoultion, then why not go do your work by that method? Lets see what kind of product you produce with it full of mistakes. If you are lucky you might put out a product that will get you the praises of your management and the Employee of the Month award.
If you keep using your ability to reason with your knowledge, wisdom, and understanding to produce a quality product then you are contining to show forth the image of the God who created you, the Lord Jesus Christ.
If you were created by evolutionary means, then that means you were created in its image. Go show forth the principles of evolution (random chance and mutations/mistakes) in how you produce a product for your company and lets see what you get. It definitely will take eons of time to get anything. And what you do get, if you get anything, will be nothing but rubbish.
So now you think it's amusing that I don't have intimate knowledge of the ID field in all it's various permutations? Are you wanting an argument so bad that you keep trying to make me stump for a concept that I couldn't care less about? Go argue against ID with someone who cares.
As for Einstein - Isn't it interesting that now science is even questioning those theories for which he is most famous - as being incomplete or perhaps at least, not quite right on the money.
I said it once and I'll say it again. Science changes as knowledge changes. GOD DOESN'T CHANGE. I prefer HIS opinion over man's.
Whoa - back the truck up Chuck! (or Agent)
Did you not read what I just said regarding ID? To me, ID is the driver's license in my wallet.
Perhaps you misunderstood my comment regarding holding a discussion with detractors.
If I haven't seen the movie, it's going to be a bit mystifying as to what all the hubbub is about.
So if someone wants to discuss a concept presented in the film, it would be helpful if I were familiar with what it was they wished to address.
You're jumping to conclusions if you think that because I want to see the film that I support the entire contents and the manner in which they are presented.
I'd much rather see a slick Hollywood production with all the nifty special effects that they could muster, that faithfully portrays the creation of the world from Genesis 1:1 forward!
Quecat,
“In that, the concept denies speaking explictly about God for fear of turning people off.”
Ha, you don’t know the history of where the phrase Intelligent Design came from do you? In 1987 the phrase became popular after a court decision landed ‘creationism’ as impossible to teach in public schools. The reaction by the creationists in their book Pandas and People was simply to swap ‘creator’ with ‘intelligent designer’, in fact these very books were used in Dover to show without a doubt a religious motivations and why they lost. Just who exactly do you think the ‘intelligent designer’ is, it’s a no brainier. Everyone knows who it is, even Dembski and others profess the designer is god.
“So called science has reversed itself time and again when "new" discoveries disproved previous "proven facts".”
Um, hello that’s how science works. Science isn’t not an overnight wholla total answer to all things instantly. It works according to reductionism philosophy and continually testing things. Earlier scientists considered the earth to be the center of the solar system, but after more convincing evidence came to light it geocentricism was put to death. Newtonian gravity showed that gravity worked in an instant fashion, however when newer technology and a genuine genius (Einstein) re-examined how gravity worked he found it not to be instant, but relative, relative to the maximum speed of the universe – light speed. In science, knowledge begets knowledge.
Quecat,
"Why would I go see it?, curiousity, amusement, an ability to hold a discussion with detractors."
Here's your chance Top Gun, lets hear it, what can ID predict? How is it falsifiable? Sorry to say but a movie isn't going to go into enough depth to understand either ID or Evolution, so it's misleading to think that simply by watching this is somehow going to allow you to step in to the ring with people who work in the field. Go ahead, if you’d rather wait to watch it till offering something I got it. Come back later and regurgitate away and we shall see young padawan.
“it's nice to finally see someone willing to say publicly - "there is an alternative".”
Right, the alternative that lost in court (Dover) and was deemed nothing more than the re-labeling of creationism? The alternative that even the founder Phillips confesses ID isn’t even close to having the evidence to be comparable with evolution in explanatory power, nor should it be taught in schools.
Wow dongard! that is really such an amazing admission from you!
Our brains operate like computers. My computer had a maker - as does my brain - neither of which came into being by random chance or an autonomous conglomeration of elements!
THANK YOU!
God is so good.
agentorange
This Behe is nothing more than an evolutionist with an intelligent designer thrown into the mix. That to me is ID.
The God of the Bible doesn't take forever to create anything. He speaks, and it is done.
AgentO
Please don't lump me in with ID folks - whatever exactly that is.
Intelligent Design sounds like a way of secularizing the notion that "something bigger and smarter than us", was the catalyst for us being here. In that, the concept denies speaking explictly about God for fear of turning people off.
Well, I'm not terribly sorry if the concept of God offends some people! And I will not remove the Holy Name of God from any discussion about how it is that mankind came to exist!
You can apply man's wisdom in regards to science, to whatever you want, all day long and it makes no matter to me. So called science has reversed itself time and again when "new" discoveries disproved previous "proven facts". So you'll have to excuse me if I prefer to believe what the Creator said He did versus what the creation propounds is true.
“All ID is is evolution with an intelligent designer thrown into the mix”
I don’t mean to burst your bubble star, but the very principles of ID, like IC (Irreducible Complexity) argues that certain biological systems couldn’t have possibly arose by gradual, cumulative, successive additions, thus its saying ‘evolution can’t make sense of this’ and thus it appeals to a designer which they wont explain to make sense of it. Sadly for the ID crows all the instances of IC Behe has were thrown back in his face at Dover in 2005. One can watch Ken Miller utterly gut Behe’s argument for IC here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
ID, and those within the camp, are essentially creationists, from YEC’s all the way up to nearly theistic evolutionists, but this is where they draw the line. Strangely, the guy (Behe) who coined the concept and examples for IC also accepts common descent, so in other words he accepts the notion of great apes and man having a recent shared common ancestor.
one of the great things about computers is that it has allowed us to examine our own brains. we too have a kind of software that is running as well as basic code structures. this also means that we may be prone to computer like viruses too. i am really beginning to wonder if religion is a computer virus that has wormed its way into our brains. it seems to serve no function except to replicate itself( which it does amazingly well) and it seems to program its host to become hostile and defensive whenever it is questioned.
to Star -
Why would I go see it?, curiousity, amusement, an ability to hold a discussion with detractors.
After having to sit through so much mind-numbing evolutionist propaganda, it's nice to finally see someone willing to say publicly - "there is an alternative".
What the movie does or does not say has no effect on my belief in scripture. As far as I'm concerned, God said 6 days. It doesn't matter if it was six 24 hour days, or six "God" days, or six "days" of a thousand years each or whatever. It doesn't matter.
What does matter, is that God created it, He created you, He created me and He gave us His Word, that we might know Him.
Maybe when I get to heaven I'll ask Him what exactly He meant by "6 days" - but I really do think I'll have more important things on my mind then.
Maranatha!
Quecat,
or anyone who is fond of ID or teaching it as science (Seedplanter I would assume this would be you) could you please explain to me how ID is falsifiable? How for instance, could/would ID explain certain biological evidnece, like Human Chromosome 2 fusion? thanks.
Aritonang,
“Then it does not make any sense for this Dawkins whats his face in trying to suppress this film”
Wouldn’t you want to suppress a film that quote mined you, and purposely mislead you only to use your words against your very convictions? This is basically what the producers of Expelled have done, and barring a person from seeing the film who was interviewed in it (PZ Myers) is the height of irony. The only reason PZ wasn’t allowed in was the same reason most critics haven’t been allowed to view it, Expelled doesn’t want and can’t afford to be critiqued.
“Why the need to shut people up, does the Darwinian people appreciate intelligent questioning or is it right for them just to expel intelligent people and consider them dishonest and deranged.”
Having lost in Dover, the ID camp can only offer to ‘teach the controversy’ and engage in massive PR campaigns, such as movies. Look at who Stein interviews, and it’s a who’s who from the ID club, many of which didn’t show up in court in Dover to defend their pet theory. Only Behe from the DI showed up, Dembski, Meyers, and others all bailed at the last minute, apparently they had more important things going on than to defend their pet idea. Ah, shucks. In expelled, they don’t charge just the scientists as being at fault, but also the media, govt. and other factions.
Pattiepie,
“Are you really a evolutionists like I hear people say you are?”
Hi Pattie, generally ‘evolutionist’ isn’t widely used in science circles. Evolution is a principle theory in science and so it’s not really logical to call oneself an ‘evolutionist’ as it’s not logical to label oneself as a ‘gravitationalist’ simply b/c one accepts the evidence on gravitation. We have enough labels in this world, and evolution and biology are nearly synonymous and therefore generally you could say as one accepts biology they equally accept evolution.
“How do you know that you came from some great ape?”
Let’s be clear here, ‘Great Apes’ apply to those within the high ape family which exist today, namely Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Bonobos. Nowhere in evolution is it suggested that we descended from these living great apes, rather it’s suggested we share a recent common ancestor with them, most particularly with Chimps and Bonobos.
“you have the same parents I had; ie, Adam and Eve.”
If you’re talking about the mitochondrial (mtDNA) Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam, then the answer is most certainly yes. However, according to the genetics neither mtDNA Eve or Y-Chromosome Adam existed at the same time, so no, it doesn’t support the ‘biblical creation adam and eve’, but the names used are more or less a play on the biblical account just for likeness. Too often religious folks take the names used in such studies and think they support the biblical creation account, however under closer inspection one finds the names are the only thing in common, the dates, locations and the rest is entirely different.
All I can say for Howie - in all his various personalities is: Keep on coming back!
God's word say in Isaiah 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it."
Howie - whether you know it or not, God's Holy Spirit is working on you. And every encounter with a Christian who can speak the truth of God's Word into your life is sowing a seed.
Do you understand how exciting that is? You are quite probably someone I'll see in heaven!
You may not be there in the here and now - but you'll come around.
Thank you Lord for Howie!
If you are a Christain and accept God's Word by faith on how He created everything, then why would you want to go see this movie? All ID is is evolution with an intelligent designer thrown into the mix.
"I believe followers of the Charles Darwin theory are the ones who are unintelligent and dishonest as well as deranged. "
I don't think that this is fair. I'd argue that they are blinded and misled, but not unintelligent or deranged. I don't think that it is right to question their intelligence. After all, the Word says that they are just worldly-wise, and don't have the LORDs wisdom ("The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" Ps 111:10). Until the scales are removed from their eyes, they will not see clearly, and not much good will come from insulting those who don't know the TRUTH. We must first respond in love, just as Jesus commands:
One of the scribes approached. When he heard them debating and saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked Him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?"
"This is the most important," Jesus answered:
Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.
"The second is: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these." Mark 12:28-31.
How do we respond in love? By giving them the TRUTH - nothing shows more love then sharing the gospel - their eternal destiny depends upon it.
Seedplanter - what you missed were several purposefully offensive postings from Howie. He went off the deep end again and was screaming and trying to be intentionally blasphemous,
and topped it all off with the taunt "only a coward would delete this post".
- d e a d g i v e a w a y -
Now that every knows who he is - we won't see him again...until of course he creates yet another username and starts all over.
sure makes things interesting
Did you see the advertisement for the film, last night on the Discovery Channel?
I couldn't help but laugh. Very amusing - and spot on!
Go Ben Go!
opens Friday.
Didn't know this was coming to theatre's. I will go see it.
Then it does not make any sense for this Dawkins whats his face in trying to suppress this film. People can and in fact do question and probe Darwin dubious theory.
The cruel response from the Darwinian and the so called Science supporter absolutely proves that Mr. Stein is spot on. Thank you Mr. Colson for this brilliant explanation on the four false and dishonest myths
Why the need to shut people up, does the Darwinian people appreciate intelligent questioning or is it right for them just to expel intelligent people and consider them dishonest and deranged. That is the communist party policy, you know.
I believe followers of the Charles Darwin theory are the ones who are unintelligent and dishonest as well as deranged.
DARWINISM and ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Hey,Charles,... I have a basic understanding where you`re Soul is at and I`m happy to tell everyone so,....In my mind nothing else needs to be said on my part,.....DCM.....
seedplanter
I don't think that da6383ma realizes that the problem he had "about a month ago" was complements of GeorgeX/Howard/first/danny/Dwen/xxxx etc.
da6383ma, which name were you using so we can catalogue all of BobCu's aliases without mistake?
We should also send you a sincere apology that you got mixed up in all of the smoke. I personally do not know who it is that is flagging all of his posts as well as the ones here. I have to confess that I have been busting up laughing at all the posts. It may even be one of the moderators who flagged him. They were very disturbed when he flagged all of the posts a while back.
Quecat that was a great point and very true: "...he gives himself away by issuing his age-old taunt "only a coward would, blah, blah, blah"."
Too bad I missed his posts between the flagging.
Just kidding!
Is da6383ma Howard too?
See,..I (personally) have a problem with whom ever it is thats flagging all GeorgeX`s postings,....I had this problem about a month ago on another article about some of my postings,..And as,...maybe one doesn`t particularly like what he has to say, he still has a right to say it, Thats what makes "Cross Fire" a great thing........
agentorange
Re:Wouldn’t leaving the original message up for all to see and read be a more powerful presentation and argument than to self -censor and hope others would later squabble over it?
If GeorgeX, possibly aka Howard, is really flagging all his stuff, I don't think he really cares about what he wrote. Everyone knows how he feel about evolution and the Christian God. I think he is getting a kick out of seeing the reaction of everyone to all the flagging.
Goodness, I'm gone 30 minutes and I've missed all the action!
agentorange, I wasn't saying I really thought he flagged himself, I was just trying to say who knows who is doing the flagging. I think you'd find that most Christians here would be more apt to discuss, not flag. And I'm sure the same could be said for a lot of non-christians too. And that is my whole point; you can't fit everyone into the same exact box.
oh for crying out loud - Georgie IS that crazy atheist!
...just when I was starting to believe otherwise.
he gives himself away by issuing his age-old taunt "only a coward would, blah, blah, blah".
I sure wish IP addresses were linked to userID's so we could more easily identify immature posers and not waste valuable discussion time on them.
Grow up!
george have some respect at least. try to meet them 1/2 way and the message will be not only more digestable but more sincere and dignified.
"George said jesus is a myth'
well - that is his opinion. Obviously his opinion has nothing in common with truth.
GMG
“it could be Georgie himself,”
It could be, but I don’t find that satisfying as an explanation, and nor should you. Why create a lengthy , well argued rebuttal against the very article, which by the way was quite decent and by no means offensive, only to self censor later? Wouldn’t leaving the original message up for all to see and read be a more powerful presentation and argument than to self -censor and hope others would later squabble over it?
well, this is going to get ugly...George said jesus is a myth. I'll start the count down till the flagging.
Quecat
All true. And I wish I could say he was a teeny-bopper playing on his folks computer, but he told Hawk 49 that he (Howard) was born in 1949, so that makes him much too old. Hmmm, maybe early onset senility instead? hahahaha
agentorange
I did not delete GeorgeX. I only flagged one post today and that was yours because I took offense to your example about my Jesus. Stop accusing me of deleting everybody's entry. I don't do it very much like you claim I do.
Maybe GeorgeX flagged himself. I am coming to believe that Howard flagged himself yesterday and then almost immediately comes back as GeorgeX. The initial comments GeorgeX makes is why does Howard alway write 'flagged as inappropiate'. GeorgeX, aka Howard maybe, adds a little comedy to the situation.
oh no - you mean Georgie is really that crazy nihilistic atheist? I thought that a few turns of phrase that he used sounded familiar. I guess he had to change his username again because people wised up to him and started flagging everything he wrote as a way to ignore him right off the page! "religious people are immoral" - whatever. Maybe he ran out of Prozac again.
The last time I heard from him, I accused him of being some smart-alecky thirteen year old sneaking onto his mom's computer just to be as churlish and infantile as possible. After that, he disappeared.
What a waste of time.
orangex -
So now the views of some inane woman spouting off on some equally inane tv show somehow reflects on the intelligence of a group of people that you've defined as 'creationist" or 'YEC' or whatever?
That's rather presumptuous, don't cha think?
And no - I did not flag Georgie - I was having to much fun with him. The only people that I ever bother to flag are those that are purposefully abusive in their language or outright profane for no other reason than be offensive.
agentorange
>>>Priceless. I guess I better not push too many buttons, lest my posts become censored as well?!
Well, if censorship is the only card you have to play, then it's quite clear the opposition has nothing to offer as they can't handle critical analysis and critique. Such tactics like these are the akin to fascism.<<<
Oh come on, do you know who's doing it? At this point, no one knows. As a matter of fact, it could be Georgie himself, it would certainly strenghthen his point that us religious people are immoral, etc. etc. After all, he does have a history of irrational behavior. And don't bother to say he's not howard/first/danny....., because he is.
Your bias is showing agentorange. What happened to the cool, calm, reasoned, educated evolutionist? Just calm down already.
'ohhh, who deleted Georgie?'
Star, yourself....does it really matter? here on CP it's SSDD. censorship over ideas, regardless if they are not hostile or not is quite typical here. I didn't find anything George wrote as geniunely offensive, he never resorted to hate speech, nor did he ridicule anyone personally, or their relgion and their god and despite all that he's censored regardless. Priceless. I guess I better not push too many buttons, lest my posts become censored as well?!
Well, if censorship is the only card you have to play, then it's quite clear the opposition has nothing to offer as they can't handle critical analysis and critique. Such tactics like these are the akin to fascism.
Quecat, hate to break it to you, but Sheepard from the View is a creationist, of the young earth variety, and this is why she said she doesn't believe in evoltuion and can't accept that the earth is round as according to her 'she's never persoanally seen it' so I guess the rest of the evidence isn't enough. She also remarked 'the earth being round or not' wasn't a big priority growing up, which is basically a cop out to save face in sake of admitting she's an expossed flat earther.
JC,
“Another, yet prevalent theory among Evolutionists is that dinosaurs and humans were on this planet at two distinct times (or Eras as they like to call it).”
Actually, it’s not just humans and dinosaurs not being alive at the same point in time, but rather virtually all of life that has ever existed, thus all the fossils and why nearly 99% of all living species that have ever live are extinct. Forget Dinosaurs, what about all the species of other animals that lived prior to 165 million years ago and all those after 65 million years ago in which no Dinosaurs or humans existed?
“There was a famous dig in the United States where they had found human and dinosaur prints in the same derma”
Oh right, you mean the forged long ago debunked ‘Paluxy tracks’ riiiight.
“The skeleton "Lucy" was another great example of this. They found very little of what appeared to be a chimpanzee's remains.”
Um, news flash JC, but ‘lucy’ is only one specimen of the species Australopithecus Afarensis, we have many, many others and from these we can make a collective picture of what they looked like, hands, feet, and all. You act like ‘lucy’ is the only one, she’s old news, over 30 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
“Once again, another fabrication of the truth.”
Yup, totally fabricated, just like these right? Don’t forget to watch pt.2 for the followup.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM&feature=related
“The funny thing is that scientists say that Christians are unbendable and deny science (we've seen that even on this post),”
Nope, not all Christians. Mostly just YEC Christians, there is a distinction there.
JC,
"Another theory these scientists like to employ to support Evolution is the Big Bang theory”
Well, no, not really. Evolution applies to biology while the big bang applies to cosmology, please understand the difference.
“Then these scientists point to carbon dating as "proof" that this planet evolved over millions of years old”
Actually Mr. JC, Carbon dating (C-14) is only usefull for ranges from up to around 55,000 years in age, so it’s most certainly not used to date material anywhere near a million years old.
“This basically is that if a spinning object were to blow apart, as they suppose the Big Bang happened, then logically and by the law of angular motion, the blown out parts should be spinning in the same direction.”
Oh no, totally epic failure of cosmology on your part JC. The outward spinning masses that were first spawned from the expansion of our Universe post BB were GALAXIES, and not singular star systems. Stars and their planets were formed much, much, much later so of course they are going to have diifrence trajectories, angular momentums relative to their galaxy they reside in and if at all they revolve. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, while our Solar system is some 4.8 billion years old, thus they weren’t formed at the same point in time and thus the objects in our solar system wouldn’t be revolving according to any other circular momentum but the Solar systems gravitational tug.
ohhh, who deleted Georgie? he was too funny. don't delete him - otherwise we're missing part of the joke.
Hmmm,
My Merriam Webster defines creationism as:
" a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis ."
But yours says "uneducated"? Maybe you'd better return your dictionary to Barnes and Noble for a refund before you make a faux pas from which you can't recover.
Or is the problem that you have an whole passel of books which cater to your fantasy world?
What is this - an evolutionist love-in?
You're quite deluded if you believe that somehow a sizeable percentage of people still think that the earth is flat and that such an anomaly is attributable to the influence of religion as opposed to the failure of our miserable public school systems.
Are these survey respondents, the same pitiful "sophisticated" urbanites that you see in typical late-night show man-on-the-street interviews that answer the simplest queries with the utmost ridiculous answers?
Judging from the appearance or demeanor of the majority of them, it would appear that religion has nothing to do with their problems, so much as pure ignorance does.
GeorgeX,
“I heard about this before. Pretty darn good evidence for why dinosaurs went extinct.”
This is only a small piece of evidence too, there is the chicxulub crater. The level of dominance by Dinosaurs appears to have been on the decline prior to the impact as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
The abnormally high levels of Iridium, a normally very rare mineral found on Earth, however it’s found in very high concentrations in Asteroids and Meteors. Then there is evidence of how smashed quartz crystals appear in this impact area, which also correlates with a high pressurized impact. If you want more, I’ll list more, but you get the idea.
“If I remember correctly a recent poll said about 20% of Americans think the sun circles the earth.”
I don’t know how accurate that poll is, I would venture to say some 10-15% sounds plausible, but 20% sounds a little high. I recall Sherri Shepherd on ‘The View’ recently remarked how ‘she didn’t know’ (somehow?) if the Earth was flat or not when asked by Whoopie Goldberg. Whoopie had to ask her that after Sherri Shepherd couldn't understand Evolution. I don't think Whoopie was out of line, we should challenge stupidity at every corner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/18/new-view-cohost-sherri_n_64864.html
I swear, if you don’t know the Earth isn’t a flat disc and you’re an adult living in the industrialized world, what exactly have you been reading? I can understand people in the 3rd world not knowing as they don’t have access to such education, but for her, that is horrid, it’s glorified ignorance.
TerryH,
“LOL!!! Here is an experiment for you. Through a rock as hard as you can into the ground and see what living creature you create out of it. LOL!!!”
And the strawman statement of the year goes to……..TerryH. um, terry, no one is advocating that dropping or throwing a rock (or asteroid for that matter) would somehow spawn life. His point was that the asteroid that hit 65 million years ago has a lot of evidence behind it (google KT boundary) and that when the dinosaurs and countless other larger apex predator species died off as a result, the smaller more adaptable mammals took over entire eco systems, niches and thus this is the period when mammalian diversity really took off.
“Galileos teachings along with Darwins are slowly vanishinbg as there is no solid foundation to there claims"”
So now Galileo’s teaching of heliocentric solar system are vanishing now? So, you’re saying you think the earth is the center of our solar system then? Are you a flat earther too? What books, if any, have you been reading? i am laughing on the outside, but crying on the inside for your lacking science understanding to think such nonsense. I guess warning labels have a purpose after all.
eaglewolf asks" weren't we one church before the reformation"?
Actually, no. The supposed unity of the church as "Catholic" with a big "c" is a popular misconception. The entire history of Christendom is multi-schismatic, with the winners of any disputation claiming that they are the rightful heirs of "apostolic succession".
THE Reformation was only the culmination of several hundred years of various sincere biblical scholars questioning RCC dogma and breaking with Rome our of conscience. Much prior to that, was the Great Schism when rival popes in Avignon and Rome fought over who had rightful control of the papacy. And long before that was Constantinople's (the Greek church's) sustaining of all of Christendom within the Byzantine Empire while Rome fell to invading barbarians in the fifth century. It's sad to say that only after the west had recovered and powerful, ambitious popes argued for their primacy over the steadfast east, that they excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, abandoned the eastern empire to the Turks and even added insult to injury when western Crusaders sacked the Eastern capitol in 1204.
The church body IS one in Christ. To argue for some imaginary construct of a single corporal body of believers on earth is to deny the reality of both history and the present.
More detail: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/gschism.htm
For further reading - I would highly suggest "The Story of Christianity" Volumes I & II, by Justo Gonzales.
Seedplanter,
Let’s be clear here, the ‘ID tent’ is quite large, everything from YEC’s all the way up to nearly theistic evolutionists, but that is where they draw the line, they won’t accept theist evolution, save for Behe apparently. Behe, although he accepts common ancestry is but a minority in ID circles, if not the only one, and it’s not something they like to talk about, especially when Dembski authors a site called ‘Uncommon Descent’.
I know you’re not a biologist, so tell me how is ID falsifiable, how is it scientific? What can we infer by something appearing as having qualities of ‘design’ alone?
‘I think that it is important to allow scientists the elbow room to do their work’
Here’s where I think you’re in the dark a bit. ID isn’t even a reputable theory, even the founder Philips confirms this and claims that it can’t rival Evolution in terms of explanation of evidence. And this is the theory ID proponents want taught in public schools, as science?
GMG,
I think you're right about GeorgeX. Star2 pointed this out as well. The speech patterns give it away, but there's a more subtle indication ...
I think it may be off the mark to say that he's morphed from Howard to this ... his commentary is no more insightful than any of his former digital IDs. I'll explain to you "why" later on ... "GeorgeX, Xposed" :^)
This is kinda hilarious,...but not really suppose to be lol.......Charles if your out there listening somewhere,....I watched the "Passion of Ch--st",.. more than once actually,...And that movie as well as your article and bloggings thereof serve to teach me personally that the better the Evangelist you turn out to be, the fewer are your friends also,...I think all your columns are excellent and informative by the way......I get Breakpoint too........
I am trying to find out if this movie is going to be released in the UK? I have tried the major movie chain sites but to no joy. I'd hate you yanks to have all the fun, can anybody advise, cheers
Steve.
Agent, that was an interesting and fun post. Stein did work as a comedian did he not? I am not at all reducing the film's material to a comedy show, but I do think that as many Christian bashing antagonists that have had fun at the expense of others, that is in fact a great comedy to see the serve returned.
GMG, that makes sense considering I read a few posts on the Expelled web sight that GeorgeX criticized and I remember someone mentioning 'BobCu' and his magic man argument on one of the posts.
I think it was Googlas Groothuis, Os Guiness or somebody else who discussed the problems of the internet identities being unauthentic. It is difficult to build relationships where people can actually know each other in a type of quasi matrix where identities and names can be changed with a key board.
Ifeelfine, you speak of “…folks who routinely turn a blind eye to the evidence of evolution…” as if Neo-Darwinism has been empirically proven. It would be worth it for you to check out “The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories” by Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler. I.D. may not be quite so easily shrugged off. It is important to recognize that even if common decent has actually been verified (which is still being debated), it does not prove the efficacy of natural selection coupled together with random genetic mutations to order the rise of new and higher species. Meta-Darwinists recognize this and have tried to offer alternatives which are less than satisfying arguments. Behe and other select proponents of I.D. do not dismiss the evidence of common decent. Although it can be said that all of the evidence is not in that could likely validate Neo-Darwinism, the same argument can be utilized by those who reject common decent. The debate is far from over and is not nearly as elementary as evolutionists would like to think. I think that it is important to allow scientists the elbow room to do their work. That includes unrestricted access for alternative views to Neo-Darwinism.
What a laugh, it's too bad I didn't find this one earlier.
"Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating."
'Darwinist' huh? like Darwin was the only one around that time that put the growing collection of fossils, geology and other sciences and came across an idea of 'descent with modification'. Also, Dawkins and PZ Meyers were at least partially mislead on the interview for this film, as at the time it was called 'Cross roads: religion and science' and not it's current title and theme.
Expelled Expossed, what you didn't know about 'Expelled'.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/expelledexposed.html
1st Expelled began offering $$ for viewers (mostly from schools) to go see their film.
Then in a pre-screening they barred PZ Myers who was interviewed in the film and wouldn't let him view it. Oh the Irony of expelling someone critical of your very own film that you earlier interviewed for it.
Then they were caught using (see illegal plagarising & copyright infringement) of a Harvard produced media. Oooops, can you say 'lawsuit' Mr. Stein?
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-expelled-for-plagiarism.html
Lets look at what the reviewers think, well a writer for Fox News thought the film was horrid,
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/flunked-not-exp-1.html
and others think the same. - http://www.sltrib.com/features/ci_8903065?source=email
ifeelfine
xxx/yyy/Dwen/Danny2/Danny......./BobC never came right out and admitted he was all those people, but he didn't deny it either. And it is true that he's not as 100% nasty as BobC was. It seems with each of his identities he gets a bit more civilized, which is a good thing. But there are certain speech patterns that betray people, and that goes for all of us. And though Howard worked for quite a while to hide his identity, it of course showed up. And you want to know something else? Howard has now morphed into.....GeorgeX! And yes, I'm positive. What I find particularly telling is that he calls whoever flagged him a "lunatic", as he seems to make no connection whatsoever with what he did to everyone on CP last March with what was done to him on a much smaller scale yesterday. Oh well, God is in the business of miracles, and no nut is too tough for Him to crack.
GMG: did Howard tell you that he is really Danny / Bob / whoever? I don't think he did. And I have a feeling they are not the same person. Danny / Bob was very angry, Howard just seems disdainful of Christians - he doesn't seem to exhibit the anger that the other guy did.
pburwell: Did you flag all of those comments? There were a lot more comments critical of Expelled that were flagged than otherwise. Two of my comments were flagged both, refuted the claims Colson made regarding the "myths." You can do a search and see the actual evidence for yourself to know that some of what Colson is saying is not true . . . but then we are dealing with folks who routinely turn a blind eye to the evidence of evolution so why should that be any different.
All this interesting "Cross fire" is more apt to make me go see the movie,...And Charles Colson has actually earned himself a WHOLE web page devoted to him being a "Liar",..lol,...Some of this is totally entertaining,....thanks GeorgeX......
Expelled claims that an atheistic, amoral scientific elite is barring the door to the consideration of ideas like intelligent design that include a religious component. Yet scientists who are religious also perform science without bringing God in as part of their theories. Scientific theories do not include God because scientific theories must be tested. Testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God; therefore, scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable. All scientists work this way, whether they are religious or nonreligious. This is a practical restriction on what science can do, not a philosophical or moral restriction imposed by some elite.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution
Premise Media and its marketers have engaged in deception from the beginning of the production of Expelled to the opening weekend. The makers were dishonest with their interviewees, dishonest about allowing (and then disallowing) people to view the film, and dishonest in promoting the film. Dishonesty permeates the content of the film as well: quote-mining, selective editing, and misinterpretations permeate the movie from start to finish, as discussed in The Truth behind the Fiction.
When it comes to candor, the people associated with Expelled flunk.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
"I read some of those comments before they were flagged and I saw no problems."
Howard, or whom I affectionately called BobCoup d'état on account of his winsome ways. He was also known as: oldguy/Dwen/yyyy/xxxx/oldguy/first/danny2/danny/BobC/BobCu/Asdfg/zxcvb
One might say he has created a lot of sworn enemies on CP. In the past, he seldomly engaged in serious dialogue. He only antagonized others who wanted to enjoy a nice chat without the Christian-bashing. I did not get the chance to read his posts myself, but I suppose one might say that the kind of intelligent atheism that he represents only does nore harm to the atheist cause than good. As I pointed out a few weeks ago when he was posting under some other name: some times athests make the best Christian evangelists.
The Geological Society of London is the oldest national learned society for the Earth sciences in the world, and embodies the collective knowledge of nearly 10,000 Earth scientists worldwide. On their behalf it wishes, during the United Nations International Year of Planet Earth, to place on record the following facts as being long established beyond doubt.
Planet Earth, along with the other planets in the Solar System, was formed approximately 4560 million years ago.
Life has existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years. It has evolved into its current form by a combination of genetic variation and natural selection - and is likely to go on doing so for as long as it continues to exist.
Close study of the structure and organisation of living animals and plants clearly indicates their common ancestry, and the succession of forms through the fossil record, as well as the genetic record contained in every living organism, provides powerful evidence of the reality of evolution.
"Judging by the number of inappropriate comments flagged here"
A flagged comment is not necessarily inappropriate. I read some of those comments before they were flagged and I saw no problems.
seedplantar, you are so right. And that was.....(drumroll)....howard (he had many aliases). Imagine that, what goes around, comes around. Wonder how he likes it himself?
George, I do not know why they were dleated, but I do know that there was an atheist on here a month ago who went nuts and deleted every single post on CP.
Judging by the number of inappropriate comments flagged here I would have to say Mr Colson hit the mark, dead center.
Well done Chuck. Tickets anyone?
Patrick J Burwell / OnlyJesusSaves.com
Blue, while it may be true that many people doubt everything from God's existence right down to and including their very own existence; I think that when a person is studying theology with the expectation of representing their church that it only follows logically that they have certain expectations and criteria. There are numerous liberal art schools that offer religious classes for the uncommitted.
(I flagged myself to edit)
True fact: there is a blog for the Expelled movie which is controlled by the producers of the Expelled movie. The moderators of the Expelled blog have been changing the comments of some people (including myself) who are critical of the movie. This is extremely unethical and dishonest.
Does anyone know why ifeelfine72's and Howard's comments were deleted?
The thing that I think is funny about this film is its main point - "The prevailing ideology among many scientists—it turned out—he concluded, was keep your mouth shut, take the research money, and publish only the data that fits with “the party line.”" - is the same thing that happens among theology studies. People debate scriptures and doubt bible credibility all the time, and theyre shunned too. I, for one, doubt that this world was created in a week, I doubt homosexuality is a sin, and I don't think Mary was a virgin - so should I shut my mouth in Catholic School theology class so as to receive my A+ grade...
I believe that no one who believes in the Bible has any sense or wisdom compared with me, in accounting for the Creation of the world and all the creatures in it. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877)
“The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens” (Pr 3:19).
“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6).
“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
Howard wrote:
It was only after a huge asteroid crashed into earth 65 million years ago, were our mammal ancestors able to evolve into the species we see today, including the ape species (chimpanzees, bonobos, humans, gorillas, and orangutans).
LOL!!! Here is an experiment for you. Through a rock as hard as you can into the ground and see what living creature you create out of it. LOL!!!
Howard wrote: it isn't nice to call your ancestors soap scum. Howard you need to tell that to the man in the mirror.
calean 007 wrote:
Because Howard, saying that a blob of algae in the ocean one day turned itself into a human being is not only ludicrous, there is no factual evidence to suggest that such a thing happened. period.
This goes to show that scripture has once again confirmed itself as usual,
for the "intelligent evolutionists", Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:22 (King James Version)
Howard wrote:
Faith can make people spread lies about science to defend their supernatural beliefs. It is faith that EXPOSES the lies about science. Besides it takes more faith to believe that man came from ocean scum than it does to believe in God.
"religion and Christianity in particular, has been the catalyst and sustainer of most human progress."
Then why is it that only religious people, especially the protestant extremists and the Muslim terrorists, have a problem with biological evolution?
Because Howard, saying that a blob of algae in the ocean one day turned itself into a human being is not only ludicrous, there is no factual evidence to suggest that such a thing happened. period.
When it comes to Evolution, the theory is nothing more than the princess kissing the frog and it turning into the prince. Darwinism has just added "millions and millions" of years instead of the instant poof.
These same scientists point to carbon dating as "proof" that this planet evolved over millions of years. The only problem is that carbon dating doesn't work. There was a wooly mammoth that was found. One end of the creature carbon dated to about 44,000 years ago, while the other end of the creature dated over 65,000 years. This creature lived a very long time, and dragged around a dead half for over 20,000 years?
I doubt it.
Another theory these scientists like to employ to support Evolution is the Big Bang theory. But, as Larry Hovind once asked, "Haven't these people ever been on a merry-go-round?". It's called The Law of Circular Angular Motion. This basically is that if a spinning object were to blow apart, as they suppose the Big Bang happened, then logically and by the law of angular motion, the blown out parts should be spinning in the same direction. However, we can see from our own moon that it isn't spinning at all. In fact, there are entire galaxies that are actually spinning counter-clockwise, defying all the laws of invoked by the Big Bang.
Another, yet prevalent theory among Evolutionists is that dinosaurs and humans were on this planet at two distinct times (or Eras as they like to call it). This isn't supported in the Bible, and certainly isn't supported historically. There was a famous dig in the United States where they had found human and dinosaur prints in the same derma. This was found after a flooded out section of the riverbed gave way. This became a famous painting in most children's history books, but the tracks had been changed to show hoofed feet instead of the normal human footprints that were actually found. Complete fabrication of the truth.
The skeleton "Lucy" was another great example of this. They found very little of what appeared to be a chimpanzee's remains. Only some ribs, back bone, thigh bones, and very little of what was left of a skull. However, when it entered into the history books of the elementary schools, Lucy had feet, hands, a complete head and was half ape and half human. Once again, another fabrication of the truth.
This list could go on and on. The funny thing is that scientists say that Christians are unbendable and deny science (we've seen that even on this post), but it is these same individuals who ignore the truth. They have changed what they see in front of them and fit them into their molds of "truth", ignoring the obvious in front of them altogether, or are just outright lying.
Howard, how can there be 2 bibles? On what authority?
Quecat, thanks for the web site. Although I'm at work and don't have time to look up everything on it, I recommend checking out www.BrantPitre.com who did a talk about the origins of the Bible. To my understanding, the bible existed before the reformation, and was accepted as the word of God until those years (and up until now even for Catholics). What I find difficult to understand is why the bible was accepted all those years previously to those councils, since it had taken some councils to come to that collection of books and letter to be included in the bible as canon to begin with. What I read on the website you indicated were "facts" in support to "its" belief AFTER the fact that the bible had been accepted as it was before those reformation years. All their bibles had those books, but were then pushed "to the end", and eventually left out. Again, who had that authority to do so? Weren't we one church prior to the reformation? Since then, there are now thousands of "churches" because of false "interpretations". Sometimes truth is difficult to believe, just as science truths are sometimes conveniently put aside or "hidden".
Hey Howie -
Could you define, for me, the term 'protestant extremist' ?
Eaglewolf - as to your assertion that the catholic bible is "bigger"
please see
http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html
which addresses the reason for the ommision from most bibles of the 15 spurious books of the Apocrypha.
TerryH, rewhat you wrote
"Galileos teachings along with Darwins are slowly vanishinbg as there is no solid foundation to there claims"
Can you enlighten me as to which of Galileos" teachings " are slowly vanishing.
Cheers
Steve
Any good debate needs true, researched facts, whether in science or religion. They are unseperable and go hand in hand. There is fact that there is research being supressed, as there is belief being supressed as well. I believe when science is properly used, it points to God. I believe God has protected his truth in the Catholic Church. Otherwise, why is a Catholic bible bigger than a non-catholic bible? The Catholic bible came out first, and is known as the word of God. So why were things taken out? Because it did not fit some ideaology? That's very unscientific and false. If the bible gets quoted, please use the complete bible. I recomend the NRSV by Ignatius Press.
Howard,
The scientific discovories you are referring to are nothing more than theories at best. In reality they are false doctrines that contradict themselves with no proof of their origin. Religion has also been attacked but withstands the test of time. It has never wavered from its teachings of the point of origin. It is the idiots that have allowed themselves to be decieved by the false doctrines of evolution. that will suffer the wrath of God in the end. Galileos teachings along with Darwins are slowly vanishinbg as there is no solid foundation to there claims. Even the atheistic scientist are beginning to acknowledge this. Satans plan is to eradicate religion. I have a news flash for you, God is still alive and His word is still the truth and it will endure forever.
What's further amazing is that whether the unhappy blogger happens to be an evolutionist or a rabid atheist - they all use the same rhetoric, word for word. lol
They obviously all have the same teacher(s) in common.
RE: religion getting in the way of human progress - on the contrary, religion and Christianity in particular, has been the catalyst and sustainer of most human progress. Convenient that secularists forget this, no? Historical revisionism has been such a blessing to them.
How about we inject a little objective truth into the discussion? (see below)
http://www.newsweek.com/id/87767?tid=relatedcl
2000 Years Of Jesus - For Believers, He Is The Hinge Of History. But Even By Secular Standards, Jesus Is The Dominant Figure Of Western Culture. How Christian Ideas Shaped The Modern World--For Good And, Sometimes, For Ill.
As an evolutionist I'm glad this movie is being shown. The thinking behind this movie needs to be bought out into the open and seen for what is. I welcome it with open arms and believe that it will be as sucessful in moving forwards its claims as the ID movement was at Dover.
Steve
It's only too amusing to watch the evolutionists absolutely writhe on the hook like a skewered worm in their agonizing over the very existence of this film. And their hyperbole and panicked rhetoric just keep on getting more colorful by the minute. Go Ben Go!
Could somebody define the term pond scum to me. I fear it is being used on this page with no thought to what it is actually refering to.
Many thanks
Steve
Howard,
Way to go, keep throwing mud and shying away from issues. I wonder, if you lived at the time of Galileo, and Galileo said that the Earth revolves around the sun, would you have said, "Look at this lying dog, we don't even need to think about what he says, let's just look at his history. Ha, he recanted, what a spineless coward, that proves that his views are wrong because of the type of person he is."
Howard here is some magic for you. Watch pond scum become a monkey and a monkey become a man. As far as intelligent design. There must be an intelligent designer. And there is. His name is God.
To those that want to ride the "sins of in ones growth experiences, past tense",.." Let they that are without sin cast the first stone".....Where do I remember reading that?.....I personally read that book of his and Harold Ficketts titled the "Faith"...seems like his Watergate conviction was more of a BLESSING not only to himself and his family, but also alot of people that really need (ed) his Evangelism in the past 30 somethin` years he`s been "studying the Arts"
to believe in evolution is simply put as this
pond scum became an ape
ape became man
if you want to believe that then so be it
i myself believe in GOD and that he made me and You
he loves us and forgives us and has made sacrifices for US
that means you and me, if you dont believe and want to believe you came from pond scum
that is fine with me, i pray that someday you will see the glory of God
before it's too late
call it fantasy if you wish but research the evidence before you judge
i grew up studying science i loved geology and had plans on becoming
a field geologist and have done my studying and it is with science i
came to the conclusion that their is a GOD,
dont be close minded to the fact or your conclusions will be closed
would you want to go to court with a jury of closed minded individuals?
Whilst I don't agree with what CC writes above I can't agree with tarring him with his past as a means of disabeling his points, I think he really believes what he is writing ( not sure how though) .
I do reccommend though the review that Fox news give the movie ( check their site out youselves) if THEY thing THAT about this movie (and I woud have expected them to support it) then Ben Stein has problems.
In England we have a saying that todays news is tomorrows fish and chip papers. The same can be said about Expelled, here today but gone tomorrow.
Steve
Howard,
"I'm also not surprised Colson is as dishonest as the producers of this anti-science movie. The scientists who were interviewed to appear in this film were not given any clue this was meant to be an anti-biology pro-supernatural-magic propaganda movie."
Wow, so you just restated the myth all over again without dealing with a single point raised! Good job! I am amazed. I guess that Richard Dawkins and company did not look at the documents they were signing, go figure.
The only thing you did was sling mud, so be proud of yourself, you can call names and make fun of people, maybe you should join politics.
Gee, Colson is a criminal - he can't be trusted! How about trying to deal with what he says? Stein is a funny, witty, intelligent man. The interviewers apparently explained their agenda to the interviewees beforehand and now, they are crying 'foul.' Free inquiry, the freedom to question the assumptions of a position are absolutely necessary for science to flourish. No question should be 'off limits.' Stein is doing America and the scientific community a favor by exposing this.
LOL