The Louisiana House Education Committee unanimously agreed on Wednesday to submit a bill for review in the legislature that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.
The “Science Education Act” is the latest measure in a series of “Academic Freedom” bills that have swept across Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan. A similar measure was also under review in Florida before stalling in the state’s legislature.
Lawmakers say that the efforts to pass the bills are a response to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.
Although legislators emphasize that the bill would "create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories,” detractors claim the bill is part of an agenda to install religion in schools.
“This bill isn’t about improving education in Louisiana; it’s about sneaking religion into the science classroom,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United (AU) in a statement.
“If this passes, Louisiana legislators will be harming children’s education, undercutting the Constitution and holding the state up to national ridicule. People will be asking whether Flintstones cartoons are going to be introduced as documentaries in Louisiana science classes,” he added.
Democratic Sen. Ben Nevers, a sponsor of the bill, however, denied the allegation.
"There is no language in here submitted by some secret agent trying to teach religion in public schools,” he said according to The Times Picayune.
The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based pro-intelligent design think-tank which has monitored the bill’s progress, said that the bill’s opponents were wrongly trying to silence discussion on the merits of the bill’s protection of freedoms.
The group pointed out that numerous chemists and biologists had testified at the bill’s hearing that they were denied tenure, fired, or subject to “academic bullying” because they had submitted evidence that contradicted aspects of Darwinism.
“It was clear from the hearing that Louisiana Darwinists are growing more and more desperate,” the group said in statement. “Like their dogmatic compatriots in Florida who still proudly proclaim that academic freedom is ‘smelly cr**’ Darwinists are making absurd claims in their desperation to keep anyone from questioning Darwinian evolution as taught in public schools.”
In order for the bill to become law, the bill will have to be voted on by the Louisiana House before being confirmed by the Senate.
viking
The Apostle Paul had visions and revelations of the Lord. He was taken in the spirit to paradise and heard unspeakable words (2 Corinthians 12:1-5). He did not have a dream. Because he did not have a dream does that invalidate his experience? Is the Apostle Paul a false prophet?
Bill Weise and others on that website were chosen by God to receive visions and revelations of Hell and/or Heaven. They went in the spirit to either or both places and saw first hand what was there. Just like the Apostle Paul went to paradise in the spirit and experienced first hand what was there.
Just because Bill Weise, Mary Baxter, and others did not have a dream it does not invalidate their experiences any more than the Apostle Paul's experience was invalidated because he didn't have a dream.
Your accusations of Bill Weise to be a liar and a false prophet because his experiences were not in a dream are unfounded. You need a better reason than Numbers 12:6 to reject his testimony as not being of God.
(I flagged myself to reword my thoughts to you.)
star2, I was on my way out the door when I wrote my last blog and I want to add that this knowledge of a real hell should motivate and challenge each and every Christian to be even more intense and passionate in sharing both the Gospel of Christ and Love of Christ in both word and deed to those around them who are without Christ so that as few people as possible will have to face this tragedy.
star2, I can see that hell and the existence of hell are very important to you and rightfully so as this issue should be of concern to every Christian since we know that Christ talked more about hell than heaven when He lived on this earth. But I would be really careful about these near death experiences since the jury is still out as to whether these are actual experiences or only based on a very real dream. There is still much disagreement among Evangelicals as to the authenticity of these encounters and well thought of Evangelical leaders appear on both sides of the discussion. But in all honesty we don't need to rely on anything else but the Word of God and the words of Christ to affirm that there is a literal place called Hell, a place of eternal damnation that is reserved for Satan and his devils and for those who reject Christ as Savior. Know that I deeply share your burden and concern about this serious matter.
viking
When I was 8 yrs old God gave me a revelation that hell was real one Sunday morning in a Baptist Church. I went forward during invitation time and asked Jesus to save me. I knew hell to be so real that I didn't want two of my friends to go there. I told them as best as I could about it and encouraged them to ask Jesus to save them.
I never lost that knowledge that hell was real and the need to have Jesus save you so you wouldn't go there. Many times God has reinforced to me the truth that hell is real.
There are other testimonies about people who have actually died, gone to hell, and came back to life and how they became born-again by the Spirit of God. Their testimonies are on that site I gave you as well. If after listening to their testimonies you still can't hear in your spirit that hell is real then I guess you have no spiritual discernment at all or the devil has so deceived you that you are totally blind to the truth.
That website gives testimonies of people who did not die but went with Jesus in the spirit to hell and heaven to know what it is likle but it also includes people who have actually died and experienced first hand hell and then heaven as God dealt with them, and then came back to life.
steveh20
I did not base my conclusion on one comment (2 Sam 12:23). Read my Sat May 31, 2008 9:13pm post to viking and you will see why I say that deceased babies go to heaven when they die. Also, I would encourage you to read my Sat, 9:41 pm post concerning toddlers, and believer's post on the same say at 10:05 pm.
Viking, I appreciate your honesty with regards to where you stand on the issue of inerrancy and I truly do respect your right to your opinion and as I said earlier I cannot nor will I try to force you to accept my belief in inerrancy, have a great Lord's Day, believer
Believer, I also thank you for your clarification that you do not claim inerrancy of modern english translations. I admit freely that through this conversation I had gained the opposite impression. Bud I do not cast blame on you for this misunderstanding I take responsibility for failing to understand you clearly. I accept your clarification as sincere and true.
Believer thank you for your clarification of Inerrancy. I admit freely that I had a misunderstanding of precisely what you meant when you use the term. I thank you again for the clarification. Further let me say that I believe in inerrancy when defined as you have as follows
"Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their ORIGINAL autographs, properly interpreted, will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm,whether this has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.
Where I believe we most likely disagree is around the qualifiers in this definition those being "when all the facts are known", and "properly interpreted" . I admit freely that I do not know all facts that bear on the scriptures and all matters both spiritual and natural. Further I admit freely that as an imperfect human being my most sincere interpretations of the scriptures are by definition flawed and imperfect. I do not state my interpretations as absolutes or unquestionable truths. I only insist that others not require me to accept theirs as such.
Star2, thank you for your posts. There is so much to respond to let me begin with the post that raised my most instant and immediate concern. Again let me say that I believe you are sincere and are not acting or speaking out of a spirit of malice or enmity. I hope you know that the same is true of my posts including this one.
I went to the site you suggested and reviewed the information on Bill Wiese. I did not go further to look at other persons statements because of my immediate and deep concern (even fear) for you. I beg you not to accept this persons testimony. Even a cursory review of Wiese’s claims show them to be unbiblical. I know that my urging may be suspect because of our possible disagreements over scriptural interpretation but this is so much more dangerous than any disagreement we may have. I set aside all debate between us regarding the concepts of inerrancy and literalism. Please do not rely on my statement or any urging of mine. I refer you to biblical authority and warnings regarding this type of testimony.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
2 Pet 2:3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
Yet Weise claims repeatedly and explicitly that his experience was not a dream. Instead he states in his book
“This was not a dream—I was actually in this strange place. Fully awake and cognizant”
So the Biblical teachings say straight out in plain language that Bill Weise is a liar and a false prophet. Despite his purported biblical support for his description of hell the foundation of his testimony is shown by Numbers 12:6 to be false.
On my last blog threts should be treats and the last sentence is mine and not Norman Geisler's.
Norman Geisler says, the scholarly procedure of textual criticism threts this problem by showing the accuracy of the copies of the originals, the copies are known to be accurate and sufficient in all matters except possibly minor details. Although no one in modern times has ever seen an infallible original, it is also true no one has seen a fallible one. In closing the majority of the modern translations are not inerrant nor do a majority of evangelicals claim they are, but they are both reliable and affirm 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their ORIGINAL autographs, properly interpreted, will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether this has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences. This definition can be found in the book The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. I do not nor have I ever believed that the modern english translations are inerrant but that they are reliable and that all the archeological findings that discover portions of the Bible to this point have confirmed their accuracy to include the KJV.
Mahetes, thank you for your post of 5/31/08 9:10
I appreciate your first hand information on the process on the NRSV. The very fact that they went to these lengths with treble review and majority determination shows that these biblical scholars themselves must agree that translating the earliest available Hebrew and Greek is not a plain and straight forward act. Even they were unable to come to unanimous agreement on a term that changes the meaning of the passage substantively if read from a literalist point of veiw. And this occurred with a group of scholars who joined together without animus not a case of two translations comming from competing denominations with deep conflicting interpretations of Christianity and of the scriptures. The very process you describe shows that an uncritical acceptance of translations as inerrant combined with a literalist view of the man translated writings can not be relied on to understand the holy scriptures. While I do not have the advantage you have of knowing the translaters personally one would presume that in addition to their consideration of linguistic issues they also brought to bear all of their combined knowledge and research on other texts that while not included in the current Christian Bible are part of the much larger body of recognized holy scripture in Christianity. Further one would hope they also considered the best non scriptural but well established historical texts and rabbinical commentaries on the Scriptures. Such a process is far from the process that for instance was used in the development of the multiple translations that are commonly known as the KJV. In pointing this out I am not saying there is no truth contained in the KJV or other significantly imperfect translations only that they can not be accepted at face value with an inerrant/literalist view point. I am far from your level of studies of the scripture and so I do not claim authority of the texts I only claim the right which I thank you for respecting and responding helpfully to of seeking to change my ignorance to enlightenment through reverent but critical examination of the texts. I do not demand that other Christians join in this process if they have no spiritual need to do so. I just ask that they not chastise those who do nor become stumbling blocks for unbelievers who might come to Christ.
Star
Thanks, I re read the story of David and Bathsheba I always think it a very good wake up call to how in ones life wrong turns can be taken and the ramifications that can occur. The verse I think you are really homing in on is 23, diificult to know thaough if David is talking about simply dying which we all will or he is refering to being with God afterwards. My main point though is that I always thought that it was dodgey ground to base thinking only on one verse?
Regards
Steve
viking
I want to encourage you to go to this website http://spiritlessons.com/ to listen online various testimonies of people who have gone to heaven and hell.
viking, I took the question I answered from the other night to be a general question about what happens to a person who dies without accepting Christ and so I gave a general answer, if I had been asked about children who did not know the difference between good and evil I would have given the answer I gave tonight. But since this question was addressed to you in the first place I wonder what your thoughts are?
viking, In John 14:6, Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes unto the Father but through me. In Acts 4:12, we read "There is salvation in none else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved." That said there is only one way a person can be saved and that is by putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Word of God presents no other options. As for babies and children who are not capable of grasping the truths of salvation, star 2 gave you one example in the Bible that seems to show that even though they are born with a sin nature they will not be held accountable for the sins of their fathers, many Bible scholars also refer to Deuteronomy 1:35 and 1:39 to support this view as well. This talks about who will enter the Promised Land but many believe God will use this same criteria with regards to children who don't know evil from good. As for the person who has never heard the Gospel but who knows good from evil the Bible in Lamentations 3:25 says, "The Lord is good to those who wait for Him, to the person who seeks Him." but at the same time we read in Romans 3:11, "there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God." Based on those passages of Scripture if a person truly seeks God He will reveal Himself to Him, but at the same time very few are seeking God. So based on that since they are not seeking God they are destined to an eternity in Hell and if they are truly seeking Him God will reveal Himself to them through the person of Jesus Christ be it through missionaries, media, tracts, and/or the Word of God and they will have the opportunity to be saved and spend eternity with God in heaven.
viking
Re:Toddler going to heaven if they die
I believe toddlers go to heaven if they die before they know the difference between right and wrong.
Here is why I say that:
There is a time in a young child's life where they do not know the difference between right and wrong. This is indicated in a prophecy about Jesus in Isaiah 7:14-16
Is 7:14-16
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
OK, there was a time in Jesus' young life when he did not know the difference between good and evil. During that time I don't know if He always choose to do what was right or not but the potential not to do right I believe was there. However, scripture says that Jesus was without sin (Heb 4:15). Therefore, if Jesus chose to do evil when He didn't know what was right and what was wrong then it was not held accountable to Him for He always chose to do right when He did know thus rendering Him sinless.
Thus, a toddler, who does not know the difference between right and wrong, is not held accountable for what he does. Thus, if he dies he will go to heaven. But once a young child does know the difference between right and wrong then he his held accountable for his choices. The young child is also capable of knowing through the conviction of the Holy Ghost that God is real, that Jesus died for his sins, and by choosing to accept Jesus' sacrifice for him, he can be forgiven and have eternal life.
This context dependence helps resolve Gen 1-2. Many take 2:19 as "the Lord God formed every beast" but because of the entire context which includes what precedes it (ch. 1), a better translation would be "had formed."
Heb grammar also helps with the word "yom" = day. Each time it's used in the OT with either "evening" or "morning" it always means a literal day. Same when used with a number (cardinal or ordinal). So the author did all he could to make us understand the days of creation week were normal days.
As for some not so well done versions, be careful with the paraphrases; they are okay for devotional reading (i like the NCV) but for digging deep, stay as close to the original languages as you can. I know God will bless as you follow Him.
viking.
God said that King David was a man after God's own heart. He kept God's commandments, he followed God with all his heart, did that what was right in God's eyes (1King 14:8). From Ps 23 we can see that King David placed his faith and trust in the living God to meet his nedds, to protect him from his enemies, to be with him in the shadows of death, and etc.. King David ends the Psalm with "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I WILL DWELL IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD FOREVER." (Ps 23:6)
King David knew that when he died he would go to heaven.
Now King David said about his dead son who was conceived in an aduletrous affair, in 2 Sam 12:23, " But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I SHALL GO TO HIM, but he shall not return to me."
King David knew he would go to heaven when he died, so if King David said he would go where his son was, then his son had to be in heaven also.
Viking, only because I met the gen. editor of the NRSV, Dr Bruce Metzger, do I know how it happened. 7 biblical scholar (3 OT specialists, 3 NT, + Metzger) did the translating this way: the 3 OT guys divided up the OT books. Each translation was reviewed by the other 2, then ewviewed by all 7. Where no concensus was found, they voted. In Gen 1:2 "wind from God" won 4 to 3 over "spirit of God." Metzger preferred the latter because the construct relationship between the 2 word is usually taken as "of" but that was the procedure they agreed to follow.
You are indeed correct: Heb words MAY have a range of meanings + it is context which decides it. Thus an imperfect verb (normally translated as future tense) in the midst of a narrative of past events is translated as a past tense.
I'll send the rest in a minute.
Star2 hello thank you for the reference. I read this in several translations and am confused by your reference. I can not see that David states that the child has gone to heaven. Could you tell me in what translation that might be. Thank you
steveh20
Scripture indicates that they go to heaven. See 2 Sam 12:15-23.
I aplogise in advance for butting into this conversation, what do you think happens to the souls of the millions of miscarriages that occur every year ( this includes the souls of those whom their mothers did not even know they where even with child,) they did not hear the gospel , are they cast into the lake of fire?
Believer thank you for your response,
First let me respond to your last statement. Have no fear I am not looking for an excuse. Secondly I notice you didn't actually answer the question. Do you stand by your statement in your earlier post which presumably is consistent with your stated belief in both inerrancy of Biblical translations and a literalist reading of scriptures.
" viking, I've already shared that they are eternally seperated from God and will be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity"
Which of course would condemn to eternal punishment and torment those infants and toddlers you mention as well as all those billions who have never recieved the gospel of Christ either because they lived prior to Christ's ministry or because the Gospel did not reach them prior to their death.
viking, I wanted to keep these two issues seperate, many times when I have shared God's plan of salvation with someone, that question comes up, can I prove with all certainty what God will do with regards to those who have not heard the Gospel no, because God's Word does not specifically speak to that scenario, but I would rather error on the side of yes rather than no because of what I shared in the first blog and join God in ensuring that as many people as possible have the opportunity to come to Christ, once again if I'm wrong they have nothing to lose in fact they win, but if I'm right they have every thing to lose for the rest of eternity. Lastly, many of those whom I witnessed to were trying to use it as a defense to reject God's truth and I would simply say that those who have never heard maybe be able to use that excuse, but you will have no excuse because you have heard God's plan of salvation.
viking, God's Word in Luke 10:20 says, Jesus talking to His disciples said: "but rejoice that your names are written in Heaven, in Revelation 20:15, "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was thrown into the Lake of Fire, and Mark 16:15-16, Jesus say to His disciples, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." and finally 2 Peter "The Lord does not delay His promise, but is patient with you, not wanting any to persih, but all come to repentance." Plus there are other Scriptures that state that those without Christ are condemned, there is much debate with regards to babies and toddlers who are not able to understand their need to be saved or how to be saved, personally I believe God will save them, but there is no biblical teaching to support that. God's Word also says that if a person truly seeks after Him that He will reveal Himself to Him and finally that is one of the major reasons I am a Southern Baptist because we're totally committed to reaching the world, every man, woman, and child with the Gospel of Christ and we're seeing many come to Christ. Some say if what I say is true then God isn't very fair, well frankly I'm glad He isn't fair because if He was fair and gave us what we truly deserved we would all be spending eternity in hell seperated from Him.
Believer
In response to your post of 5/31 8:24
In and earlier post Star asked me
What happens to a person when they die without Christ? What scriptural evidence do you have to back up your belief?
You answered thinking the question was from me.
viking, I've already shared that they are eternally seperated from God and will be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity
So let me ask you a clarifying question based on the words of your answer.
Star asks “What happens to a person when they die without Christ?” These persons would of course include all those billions of souls who have never heard the gospel or had the opportunity this side of the grave to accept Christ. You answer “, I've already shared that they are eternally seperated from God and will be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity” By the plain meaning of your words this would include those billions mentioned before. But I assume nothing rather I ask you to answer do you indeed believe that God who so loved the world (mankind) that he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins and bring us to salvation would condemn all those who did not have the chance at salvation to suffer in eternal torment.
5/28/08 3:17 “And yet your view of evolution says our existence is simply a matter of chance and for what ever reason God decides that when this process produces man that we appeal to Him and so He starts to become involved with our affairs”
5/28/08 3:31 but according to your view of evolution death, destruction, and violence had been present for hundreds if not billions of years already and when God looked out at all that He had created through evolution and saw it was all very good He must have been lying to Himself
5/28/08 3:44 because your view is based on chance and circumstance and mainly leaves God out of the equation
5/29/08 9:03 you accept evolution sight unseen
5/29/08 9:29 So your saying that Luke had the genealogy of Christ all wrong
5/29/08 6:35 so God's indwelling Holy Spirit gave you the ability to discern truth but to the disciples in the upper room on Pentecost Sunday He didn't and that's why they preached a message based on faulty teaching from the Old Testament as well as the life of Christ
5/30/08 8:08 many of your responses to erv and agentorangex included apologies for those ignorant Christians who hold to the view of inerrancy
I can not in conscience as you say move on and stop chasing this rabbit though I can understand your desire to avoid facing this issue.
Believer thank you for your response, (long post 2 parts)
You state “so asking you to clarify a statement you made is a putting words in your mouth?” No I do not object to any sincere request to clarify any statement I make nor do I object to any challenge to what I actually say. What I object to is when my words are (seemingly purposefully) taken out of context and misrepresented as something other than what I have said.
In your post of 5/31 12:20 you excerpt my words
it is because in fact I trust God not man that I cannot accept the two doctrines...."
You follow this excerpt with
Does that mean that those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures do not
trust God because if it does that is a pretty arrogant statement.”
You will note I have included your full sentence. It seems clear to me that the interrogative phrase in this sentence is not actually seeking clarification but rather is rhetorical. This is made clear by 1. the absence of a question mark or any pause before the accusatory phrase of the sentence 2.the fact that you leave out of the excerpted quote my words that already answer the question.
It is because in fact I trust God not man that I can not accept the two doctrines of
Inerrancy and of Literalism. I agree and do not let man replace God in my life. This is
indeed why I reject those two (as I believe) false doctrines. This is what the spirit of
God has shown me. Again let me say that I do not question your faith or presume
to instruct you.”
Clearly the my parenthetical insert, and the last two sentences of my post made it abundantly clear in explicit terms that I was not stating, implying or in any way suggesting that “those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures do not trust God”. It seems clear to me that your main purpose in your prompt was to misrepresent my comment in a way that would allow you to challenge them on grounds of “arrogance” moving the discussion from one of the merits to one of personal attack. I am sorry that for whatever reason you felt the need to do that. But given how often you have seemingly willfully chosen to misrepresent my statements over the past few days….
Mathetes, thank you for your post 5/30/08 9:12
Thank you for your intellectual honesty in acknowledging that some modern translations “are not very good”. Also thank you for identifying at least one text you feel is pretty good and indicating that there are spots even within this text where you feel they “could have done better” From your example I take it you are referring to the fact (as I understand it) that Hebrew is often at best an ambiguous written language where the precise meaning of a word often can not be determined in isolation but can only be understood in the context of the surrounding text and an understanding of the culture, etc. of the peoples and times of the laying down of the text. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you or over generalizing your point.
Taking your example in particular (by the way thanks for taking the time to do the research on this and almah It points me in a fruitful direction) I note that you point out that the NRSV translated ruach as wind instead of spirit at Genesis 1:2.
It seems to me that to an unbeliever such a difference would seem significant. Also I might be in error but it would seem this should be significant to a person who believes in both the inerrancy of the text and the literalism of the text. The literalist doctrine it would seem would not allow one to resolve the difference by saying that wind is a metaphor for Spirit. At the same time the inerrancy doctrine would seem not to allow one to resolve the difference by (as you seem to) preferring one translation as more true and accurate (in this case that being spirit, which I personally agree with). If this logic is not correct then perhaps inerrancy and literalism are not what I have been led to understand.
viking, you said that you came to your conclusion with regards to the inerrancy of the Scriptures by listening to God and not man and yet every thing you cite to support your view was written by men and none of those men were either writers of any of the books of the Bible, nor do you use any texts from the Bible that would share the Scriptures and specifically those found in the Old Testament are unreliable, nor do you cite anything that Christ or Paul or any other Church leader in the Bible said that would lead us to believe that we are wrong to believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures and yet there are several key passages that lead us to be;lieve the Scriptures are inerrant and I cited the key one 2 Timothy 3:16. And yes I do believe that inerrancy holds true to only the original manuscripts of which none have been found, but yet at the same time to this point no manuscripts have been found that show major discrepancies in reliable english translations of the Bible and to this date all of the teachings and truths and the historical accuracy from a biblical perspective as presented in the reliable english translations of the Bible remain solidly intact based of these recently found manuscripts from the Bible.
viking, so asking you to clarify a statement you made is a putting words in your mouth? As I said my failure was not to address those comments from you and the other theistic evolution proponent immediately that I felt were very demeaning to those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, you can either accept or reject my apology, but at the same time I would prefer we move on and stop chasing this rabbit and get back to the more pertinent issue that being the discussion of the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
A quick note about the NRSV translation post:
ruach can mean wind, breath, or spirit. Last night I meant to say they translated it as wind instead of spirit in Gen 1:2.
Oh, the dangers of typing when one is too tired....
PS: Steve, I have leaned to love true "football" even more now that I'm at a university with many interationals on our teams. Tis truly a beautiful sport.
Must go now bye all
Steveh20 ,
thank you for your humor and for your gentle message. I will try to keep your daughters advise in mind.
Believer,
While I forgive you your failure I am sorry that your apology is seemingly given in a spirit of insincerity. You apologize for responding harshly but then you excuse your act by in essence admitting that you took your anger at someone else out on me.
You then compound and continue your acts of unfounded accusation by at first admitting that you can not support your accusation with evidence out of my mouth and then renewing the accusation nevertheless.
You state "I can only say that some of your references towards those of us who hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures inferred that we are ignorant to hold that view". In fact it is the hearer who "infers" something from a statement, the speaker "implies". That aside the inference you draw is of your own creation and springs from your mind not mine. If you actually read my words you will find that while I openly state that I disagree with you on these matters I neither state nor imply that you are ignorant. I have not put that burden on you and I refuse to take responsibility for your failure to surrender that seeming feeling of inferiority to Christ.
I note that shortly after making your purported apology you once again renew your conduct of putting words in my mouth that I did not say, ignoring the words that I did and from that implying that I am arrogant.
“Does that mean that those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures do not trust God because if it does that is a pretty arrogant statement"
Not only have I never made such an accusation or implied it I have explicitly, specifically and repeatedly stated the opposite i.e. in the post you responded to I say to Star "Again let me say that I do not question your faith or presume to instruct you"
Star asks if I had never gone to God in prayerful reflection of his word seeking the guidance of the spirit and I explained that I had. Let me expand on that here are a few of the passages I have spent time with and recommend to any Christian for reverent reflection.
You must change your hearts - for the kingdom of Heaven has arrived."
"How happy are the humble-minded, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs
Treat other people exactly as you would like to be treated by them - this is the essence of all true religion."
"It is not everyone who keeps saying to me 'Lord, Lord' who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the man who actually does my Heavenly Father's will.
Let me be clear, in sharing these passages I do not accuse you nor imply lack of faith on your part, nor ignorance. I only share a small part of my own journey in hopeful illustration to others.
viking, let me keep both my word and promise, your blog to star2, "it is because in fact I trust God not man that I cannot accept the two doctrines....". Does that mean that those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures do not trust God because if it does that is a pretty arrogant statement. As one who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures its not a matter of God or man it is because God declares it in His Word and therefore we are responsible to not only believe it but to teach it and proclaim it. 2 Timothy 3:16 is one example of this truth.
mathetes
Portsmouth or Cardiff, did'nt mind I thought it was just a great end to a great tornament, no Man U, chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, brill !! How I LOVE the beautiful game. Shold drop in here England 2 America 0 at Wembley on Weds night...
viking
I did not cross a bridge to get to me cat but my daughter is always telling me to build one and get over it.
Steve
viking, as I said already I should have dealt with the belittling issue when I first saw it so for me to specifically quote you word for word I can't and I can only say that some of your references towards those of us who hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures inferred that we are ignorant to hold that view. So once again my apology for not dealing with it sooner.
Your view on inerrancy does not concern me, but the website you sent me to does because I feel that the views held by Christian Universalists totally contradict the Word of God and as a result promotes a false gospel. I am not sure your relationship with this group and that is why I'm concerned because I would not want to see anyone get caught up in a group that promotes a false gospel.
good night all
Star thank you for your post
If you review the answers I have given to the quesions that have been put to me by yourself and believer you will note that this is what I have already indicated I do. You may also note when I opened my heart and shared freely my beliefs I was ridiculed with sarcasm in response "Fri May 30, 2008 6:35 am" . Yet I rejoice when men ridicule me for Christ's sake and am happy to recieve this treatment if it will help to bring one lost unbeliever closer to communion with God.
It is because in fact I trust God not man that I can not accept the two doctrines of Inerrancy and of Literalism. I agree and do not let man replace God in my life. This is indeed why I reject those two (as I believe) false doctrines. This is what the spirit of God has shown me.
Again let me say that I do not question your faith or presume to instruct you.
Believer, I thank you for your post
I am surprised by your statement.
“viking, my desire has never been to have you believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God”
This seems out of keeping with the tone of many of your posts and in particular your statement
“my concern is that I believe you are inadvertently presenting a view that contradicts God's Word and may cause serious spiritual issues in your life. My concern whether you believe it or not is for you.”
How can you believe in Inerrancy, be concerned that my lack of such, causes me to contradict God’s Word thus possibly causing me spiritual harm, be concerned for me and yet not have a desire that I believe in Inerrancy.
Also I can not recall belittling or ridiculing those who believe in inerrancy. I have stated that that is not my belief and why in RESPONSE to being put to the question of my faith. Notice I have not questioned yours.
In addition you state “, many of your responses to erv and agentorangex included apologies for those ignorant Christians who hold to the view of inerrancy ”
Please point out to me where I refer to those who hold the view of inerrancy as “ignorant Christians”.
Again I must gently request that you refrain from putting words in my mouth that I have not uttered.
mathetes, I was also very fortunate to have a Pastor in Italy who taught us and equipped us to study the Bible and specifically how to do word studies. He said all you need is a reliable translation of the Word, an english dictionary, a Strong's Concordance w/ Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, two good single volume commentaries, a strong desire to truly know and apply the Word of God to your life, and allow the Holy Spirit the freedom to put it all together.
mathetes, have you had a chance to look at the Holman version (HCSB) my pastor jokingly calls it the Hard Core Southern Baptist Version. But to date for me I agree the NASB is the most solid and easy to understand version I have found. It was my first study Bible after becoming a Christian in 1971. Have a great and blessed night, believer
Though I have great respect for Josh McDowell (last week I was re-reading "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"), I have not seen that video. I'll check it out. Thanks.
viking, I want to apologize for coming down so hard on you in my last blog, I probably should have shared my upset earlier instead of letting it fester, plus there was another person who was a theistic evolution proponent who I felt belittled those of us who hold to the inerrancy view as well, so please accept my apology for my harshness. believer
You're right - they were so very careful. The Heb word we translate scribe is literally "counter" - they knew the exact # of letters in every book of the OT. When I saw the DSS in Mobile, AL, I was in awe when I thought of their labor of love.
While I agree with you that some modern are not very good, I believe there are some that are accurate translations of the best manuscripts. I teach from one that's pretty close to the Heb + Grk -the New Revised Standard Version- but I know the spots where I think they could have done better (e.g., translating "ruach" as "wind" instead od "breath" in Gen 1:2). Perhaps more accurate + better for a lay person is the New American Standard. Its textual notes tell you the literal Heb or Grk, or other possible word meanings or sentence punctuation.
I don't mean to sound like a lecture; I just want people to have the best tools in their hands, to assist them in following God.
mathetes, have you ever seen Josh McDowell's video "The Reliability of The Scriptures" he to does an outstanding job of explaining the meticulous process that the scribes used in making copies of the Scriptures, plus he explains so that believers like myself who don't have a real extensive scientific or educational background in that area can understand it.
viking
Do you ever allow God to use the Word of God to speak to your heart? Do you ever just read what He says and mediate upon it? You seem so preoccupied with what a word says that you miss what Jesus is saying.
You seem to spend a lot of your time seeking out what man says about God's Word. Have you ever consider going to God and asking Him to teach you what His Word says and to lead you into the truth? Teaching you what scripture means and leading you into its truth are two functions of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26, John 16:13).
If you really want to know what God means by what He says in His Word, then go to Him, ask, and allow Him to teach you. That to me seems to be the only wise thing to do. Don't let man replace God in your life.
Mathetes, thank you for the response. This information is consistent with what I have read of the Hebrew scribes very fastidious keeping of the texts without corruption. My understanding(though I could be wrong) is that there was a fairly rigorous and uniform process imposed on scribes including independent cross checking and verifying which helped to insure this. Again I may be wrong but I doubt the same statement regarding variance in texts could be said to be true for the translations of the bible we have today. I must admit it is not God that I mistrust or his word. Rather my mistrust is in fallible men.
Perhaps I can squeeze in 1 more post today + supply some specics re: textual transmission (copying). Prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest text of the full OT was the Masoretic Text from about 800 A.D. Along come the DSS, dag to 150-250 B.C. Comparisons of the book of Isaiah showed 66 variances between the copies of Isaiah. 60 amounted to tiny ink spots which were not even letters. 6 were actual differences in a letter, but none were in a key word which changed the meaning of a verse. Over approx 1000 years, the generations of scribes had transmitted the text in a pretty accurate manner.
I hope a concrete example will help us all learn to trust God more as well as the Word He inspired + preserved.
viking, my desire has never been to have you believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God but it does bother me that you have constantly ridiculed and belittled those of us who do, many of your responses to erv and agentorangex included apologies for those ignorant Christians who hold to the view of inerrancy and now that I have discovered that you appear to heavily align yourself with Christian Universalism I see that you really have no choice but to oppose those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God. As far as my view I have told you that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant plenary Word of God I came to this conclusion by reading and listening to men such as Josh McDowell and Norman Geisler who it appears that God has gifted in this area and who have done extensive research in this area, but most importantly I have yet to read an article that opposes inerrrancy where either the presentor or writer does not have a personal agenda for their desire to invalidate this view for example a cult group or an agenda such as promoting a practice that is purely contrary to the Word of God.
Mathetes thanks for your follow up, and I am not saying that I know Mary was not a virgin. I was not there nor have I contended that it was impossible for her to be a virgin on biological grounds I have simply pointed out that the term translated in many many of the English translations as Virgin did not have that exclusive and definitive meaning as we understand it. That being said it is exactly the type of research that you point out that I believe is needed to adress such question of translations by mere humans. I am not claiming that I have the competency to do such work myself only that as a Christian I am permited to consider such questions and to engage in prayerful study (obviously as you have) to resolve such questions in my own spirit guided journey of faith.
I don't claim that my interpretation is absolute or must be adopted by everyone only that I and others be permited the right without chastisement to pursue the issue rather than be required to automatically adhere to someone elses view in order to be considered a true Christian. I know you have not judged me in this manner in these posts. However your helpful response so well illustrated the very process of prayerful scholarly critical study of the biblical texts which I support that I felt it opportune to make the point here. Thank you.
believer, in regards the discovery of ancient texts. Am I mistaken in my knowledge regarding such discoveries over the past centuries or isn't it more accurate to say that when texts are discovered that conflict with orthodox texts they are described as heretical (not that I am saying they are not heretical just that it seems to me that is a more accurate description of what has happened i.e. gospel of Thomas etc.)
Believer, thanks for the response.
I am not asking you to identify a perfect translation since I agree that there is not one. But when you use the phrase the reliable English Translations this must mean something. There must be some standard by which you seperate unreliable from reliable translations. You insist that I accept your interpretation of inerrancy and yet when I ask you to help me understand your views you refuse to answer. This seems poor treatment after I have patiently and at length risked censure and rebuke by sincerely and openly sharing my beliefs with you on this thread. You say you recognize a set up. I think my question was plain and straight forward in fact in my question I posited the logical extension of your own choice of terms "reliable" translations. In so doing I laid bare my purpose and my thought. I did not act slyly or covertly but openly and sincerely as befits a Christian.
viking, I went to your tentmakers website, you don't have to answer this but are you a proponent of Christian Universalism, my sense is you are since after reading the beliefs of that movement they seem to parallel many of your personal viewpoints with regards to the Bible and Christianity.
viking, and that it was predicted she would be a virgin. To be honest I have some problems with the RSV and I personally do not see it as a reliable translation because I believe some of the researchers had a view ot the Scriptures that they either purposely or inadvertently allowed to taint their research with regards to writing the RSV.
viking, nice try but for an old man I can spot a set-up when I see one. There is no perfect english translation of the Bible because we have not discovered any of the original manuscripts and yet each time as I stated earlier when we discover a manuscript that is older than other manuscripts there is little if any difference between them and the reliable english translations and even those minor differences have no impact on the teachings and truths as well as the historical accuracy of the Word of God as recorded in the reliable english translations of the Bible. So to this point there has been no discovery that does not support the inerrancy of the Scriptures as recorded in the reliable english translations of the Bible. Yes, one translation may differ on a word such as the RSV uses the term young woman while others use virgin but if you see the Scriptures as plenary that use of young woman one time in the RSV does not negate the fact that Mary was a virgin.
Believer, please explain to me by what process of scholarly analysis you determine which translations are reliable and which are not. And if you believe that some translations are not reliable then you in essence agree with my position that at least not all texts can be taken as the Word of God. If you acknowledge this then you acknowledge the validity of my resistance to the doctrine of inerrancy.
Believer, thank you for your response. Yes I do believe that what has been presented to a majority of Christians has contained errors of translation and transiteration of the true teachings. I would refer you to this publication as one of a multitude of scholarly writings that adress one aspect of this issue. http://www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html#c5s2
viking, wanted to be sure I didn't get cutoff. It therefore appears that what is recorded in the reliable translations is very accurate, based on your research you are saying that what is recorded in many reliable translations is not which would mean that what the writers in both the Old and New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote is wrong so therefore you are right and they are not. Please remember I am coming from an inerrantists point of view. My concern is not about my personal beliefs but rather my concern is that I believe you are inadvertently presenting a view that contradicts God's Word and may cause serious spiritual issues in your life. My concern whether you believe it or not is for you.
Viking, great question. I had to pull out the ol' BHS Heb Bible to see. In Gen 24:16 when Rebekah is introduced for the first time, the word "betulah" is used, with the added info that "no man had laid with her" = she was definitely a virgin. In 24:14, the servant had prayed concerning a "na'arah" = maiden, young girl from infancy to adolescence. In 24:43 the word is "almah" = young woman of marrying age who has not had a child. There's no use of "almah" in the OT "where it can be proven that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin" (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon).
From the Theological Wordbook of the OT, by Harris, Archer, + Waltke:
"Since 'betulah' is used many times in the OT as a specific word for "virgin," it seems reasonable to consider that the feminine form of this word 'almah' is not a technical word for a virgin but represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity. This is borne out by the fact that the Septuagint translates it as 'parthenos' in two of its seven occurrences, and that its use in Isaiah 7:14 was quoted to Joseph by the angel as a prediction of the virgin birth. Some translators interpret Matt 1:22-23 as being simply a comment by Matthew, but it is more reasonable to consider that the argument that convinced Joseph was the fact, ointed out to him by the angel, that such an event had already been predicted by Isaiah. There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almah' designates a young woman who is not a virgin." The TWOT goes on to reiterate the same info in the Expository Dictionary of the OT regarding the three types of women listed in Song of Songs 6:8. The TWOT adds that in Ugaritic poetry, the two words 'almah' and 'betulah' are used in poetic parallelisms.
Whew! That was tough, viking. I wish I could have cut and pasted it instead of manually typing it. I hope I did not make too many typos. Thanks for getting me back in the books. I remain at your disposal anytime,
Mathetes Christou
Steveh20
just wondering did you happen to cross a bridge to pat that cat.
viking, referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in your life you said, " It is because of this knowledge that I reject many of the men created errors of the English translations that have come down to us." If what you say is true that a majority of the reliable english translations are in error that means much of what is recorded in the New Testament is in error since they referred to truths as well as issues that you based on your research don't agree with your view of hell and the virgin birth for example that would mean that what a majority of Christians read is in error. But many Christians realize that much work and research was done before these translations were published and I find it very interesting that every time they find manuscripts that are older than those they had before there has yet to be any major discrepancy that changes what we have believed all along.
Mathetes, thank you for this quote. I will review the source and compare it with other authorities for it and their relative scholarly merit. I have not before known this source.
Help me though to understand the reference more clearly. As I read this text the dictionary points out.
That `almah can mean "virgin" is quite clear." This indicates to me that an "almah" may be a virgin but is not necesarily so. This would be quite true of a "young woman" whou also might be a virgin but not necesarily so."
" In <Gen. 24:43> the word describes Rebekah, of whom it is said in <Gen. 24:16> that she was a "maiden" with whom no man had had relations." One presumes from the structure of the sentence that "maiden" has been inserted in place of Almah. If this is the case and Almah is read to mean virgin then why is the redundant phrase "with whom no man had relations" inserted. Isn't the inclusion of such a clarifying phrase included to make clear a word whos specific meaning is not inherently vested with the meaning of the clarification. In other words doesn't this quote from regarding Rebekah clarify that in fact this "young woman" was a virgin.
The dictionary then states "This was a possible, but irregular, use of the word since the word can refer merely to the unmarried status of the one so described" in its reference to Isah 7:14 (the critical prophesy in question). Is it not more normal when studying a text to use the regular or typical use of a word rather than the irregular or non typical meaning unless there is some indication embedded directly within the text in question itself that signifies the intent that the irregular be read here. Isn't this source saying that it is possible to read this as virgin in this passage not obligatory.
These questions are posed to you in all sincerity from one who is reverently and prayerfully seeking true understanding.
I did indeed leave out Copernicus, though not intentionally. It's been real busy the last few days.
I hope I answered Steve's question about the list. The naturalistic and Bible-based presuppositions are two very different starting points, yet people from both camps have made valuable contributions to science. Their interpretations of the facts and the theories they produced sound very different depending on their starting presuppositions. Again, and AO, please tell me if you understand what I've try to convey, evidence is the bare fact; the story built on the evidence is one's interpretation.
And before someone mentions how the Catholic persecuted poor Galileo, let's be clear about those facts. The church of that day had embraced the ruling paradigm of Ptolemy's earth-centered solar system. When Galileo (and others) rightly called it into question in favor of a heliocentric theory, those who controlled the education system balked (Jesuits and Dominicans) and reacted strongly. The pope, who actually like Galileo, was not strong enough to stand against them. The problem was not that the church held too strongly to the Bible, but that it held to strongly to science and too loosely to the Bible.
While I enjoy science and the many benefits of operational (vs. historical) science, we in the church dare not make that mistake again. If we adapt our theology to match today's science, when the current paradigm is abandoned for the next one (as always happens), we will look foolish, and then who will believe us when we teach the Bible?
And Steve, I saw your response just before I posted this. Thanks. I've heard the articial dichotomy between religion and science once too many times. Guess I was just venting. By the way, I have a fondness for felines (2) as well. If they can get along with my dog, perhaps there's hope for all of us.
PS: Were you for Portsmouth or Cardiff?
viking, I know that there are some out there who will pounce on what I'm about to say but with all you do not believe as literal in the Word of God with maybe the exception of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection you make God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present appear to very anemic and wimpy and that may not be your intention at all but we serve an awesome God who has been actively involved with His creation and specifically mankind since He created us. And even though He is God and could squish us like a grape He loved us enough to allow His Son to die for our sins. Think about it, He knows our every thought, word, and action and has known them for all eternity, God is present when they occur and He can simply speak us out of existence and yet He doesn't, why because He created us both on purpose and for a purpose with the primary purpose being to enter into a personal relationship with Him through His Son Jesus Christ, my desire always is to let God be that God in my life and the life of others, hope to blog with you soon.
Believer, Once again you attempt to put words in my mouth or portray me as saying something I have not.
"viking, so God's indwelling Holy Spirit gave you the ability to discern truth but to the disciples in the upper room on Pentecost Sunday He didn't and that's why they preached a message based on faulty teaching from the Old Testament as well as the life of Christ."
I have a hard time with it to since it bears no relation to anything I have claimed. Do you find your own arguments so fragile that you must create straw men to tear down. In this thread I have been put to the question repeatedly to conform to your vision of Christianity. I am at a loss to understand why you feel your faith so threatened. In each comment I have clearly stated that this is what I believe. I have not chastised you for your understanding of scripture though I do not agree with it. I have not said at any point that the apostles preached a message based on faulty teachings. In fact I do not beleive that they did. What I have been clear about and what is the sum and substance of all our disputes is that you seem to believe in the simultaneous innerancy of multiple conflicting texts set down by fraigle and faulty human beings and I do not. Since it appears that I will never accept your premise simply because you insist on it now matter how vociferously and you seem to be unwilling to critically examine the available documented evidence on this subject I doubt that we will ever have a meeting of the minds this side of the ressurection. For that I am saddened but I also refuse to descend into rancorous conflict to the result of unbelievers being driven further from the possibility of salvation.
star2, agentorangex pretty much answered what I meant by my bad, I goofed and answered a question that you asked viking and not me.
mathetes, great job with dealing with the virgin issue I am not to skilled in the use of computers with things like cut and paste, it would have taken me a lot of time to do what you did, so thanks.
Hello Mathetes
Thanks for the reply.
I certainly believe that Christians can be scientists, I don't think that should cause anybody a problem(shame on them if it does). It would be perfectly possible for a (for example only) christian/ muslim/agnostic/atheist/ Kepler to come to the same three principles concerning the orbits of the planets, any other conclusions he comes to(concerning God etc..) after that are beyond science and are purely his own perogative. There science and religion are seperate.
Its a lovely evening in England, I've just been into the garden and stroked the cat, I'm pretty certain that he is there and that my thinking concerning this is correct. I have not based my belief in my cat on God to come to this conclusion, even though my conciousness is based (we think) on bio chemical processes in my brain.
Cheers
Steve
Mathetes,
Yes, Sagan is known for that quote from ‘Cosmos’, he will be missed.
“after its beginning, everything has developed by random occurences, chance mutations, and natural selection.”
Well, I don’t think it’s as random as you truly think. Matter has to obey certain fundamental laws, it can’t act totally randomly and sporadically, and it must adhere to certain constants, which dictates how, if at all, biological changes can occur. Mutations are for the most part random, however natural selection isn’t random at all, and in the abstract and totality, evolutionary processes aren’t random at all either, they are deterministic. Think of how vast the universe is in time and space (still growing mind you), is it realistic to consider in all the trillions of planets and moons that this is the only planet which hosts life at all? No, not really, it sounds pretty absurd. We have a need to think we are central, call it ego, call it what you will, but the universe is more grand than any could have ever imagined and I find it most humbling and inspiring to take a glimpse of the history of our universe which gave birth to our Solar system and us. When you look at the awe inspiring and emotionally and spiritually enhancing views of the cosmos viewed from Hubble and Spitzer, it’s hard to be in awe for some burning bush.
You forgot Copernicus, he too was a creationist, and followed science b/c he like others before and after wanted to know the mind of god through science, but in the end his he left his chips on the table and let the evidence he uncovered speak for itself through deep inspection. He didn’t resort to certain fixed religious dogmas, which at the time stated the earth was the center of all things he let the evidence speak for itself of what was true with regards to things in the universe.
Back later. Be nice while I'm gone....
Steve, let's see if I can reconstruct my lost post about the list of scientists.
Science, as pursued today, begins with naturalistic presuppositions, that the universe (matter and energy) is all there is and all there ever will be (didn't Carl Sagan say that?). Further, after its beginning, everything has developed by random occurences, chance mutations, and natural selection. Because everything including our conscienceness is based on chance biochemical processes, how can we trust our own thinking and know that what we think is correct?
The scientists like Bacon, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pasteur, Mendel, Linnaeus, and Kelvin began with a much different presupposition. They held that when God created the earth, He established certain laws to control the universe in an orderly fashion. God further made man in His image, a spiritual being capable of examining self and the universe around him. Soon after the man disobeyed God, sin entered and corrupted both mankind and the universe, and brought death into the world. These scientists believed that because the universe functioned according to the principles and laws established by God, it could be studied and its behavior predicted, in chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology. These great men of science pursued science in order to understand the world around them, and thereby better understand God. As it says in Romans 1:20, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." (NAS)
Their presuppositions, their inquiries, and their achievements would seem to put to rest once and for all the ideas that science and religion do not mix, and that no real scientists are Christians.
I hope that clears up my earlier post. Sorry for being unclear.
Just got a few minutes, so please forgive my rapid posts and one use of cut+paste.
Viking, regarding the virgin of Isaiah 7:14: I have spent a good deal of time in graduate level Hebrew, but I'll paste it from a better authority than myself:
VIRGIN
That `almah can mean "virgin" is quite clear in <Song of Sol. 6:8>: "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins [NASB, "maidens"] without number." Thus all the women in the court are described. The word `almah represents those who are eligible for marriage but are neither wives (queens) nor concubines. These "virgins" all loved the king and longed to be chosen to be with him (to be his bride), even as did the Shulamite who became his bride <1:3-4>. In <Gen. 24:43> the word describes Rebekah, of whom it is said in <Gen. 24:16> that she was a "maiden" with whom no man had had relations. Solomon wrote that the process of wooing a woman was mysterious to him <Prov. 30:19>. Certainly in that day a man ordinarily wooed one whom he considered to be a "virgin." There are several contexts, therefore, in which a young girl's virginity is expressly in view.
Thus `almah appears to be used more of the concept "virgin" than that of "maiden," yet always of a woman who had not borne a child. This makes it the ideal word to be used in <Isa. 7:14>, since the word betulah emphasizes virility more than virginity (although it is used with both emphases, too). The reader of <Isa. 7:14> in the days preceding the birth of Jesus would read that a "virgin who is a maiden" would conceive a child. This was a possible, but irregular, use of the word since the word can refer merely to the unmarried status of the one so described. The child immediately in view was the son of the prophet and his wife (cf. <Isa. 8:3>) who served as a sign to Ahaz that his enemies would be defeated by God. On the other hand, the reader of that day must have been extremely uncomfortable with this use of the word, since its primary connotation is "virgin" rather than "maiden." Thus the clear translation of the Greek in <Matt. 1:23> whereby this word is rendered "virgin" satisfies its fullest implication. Therefore, there was no embarrassment to Isaiah when his wife conceived a son by him, since the word `almah allowed for this. Neither is there any embarrassment in Matthew's understanding of the word.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
I hope that speaks to the point more clearly than I could have done.
I don't normally post links, but this might just be the best ever "at the end of the day god did it" article AIG have ever published (feedback 30/05), I love the way the main point of the question is ignored by the use of convaluted phrases . I would respect the writer of the article much more if he was just at least honest about his real position (for once)...priceless
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/30/feedback-no-room-supernatural
Steve
"- What does 'my bad' mean? "
it means 'my fault or my wrong' with respect to an accident or admission of fault in an incident. Google star, it works Wonders.
“The fact that invertebrate fossils and vertebrate fossils are buried in sedimentary rock does not that one group of animals gave rise to the other; it only proves that both existed at some point in history.”
True, however the vertebrates don’t appear geologically till later, and again, the vertebrates evolved from the primitive chordates and not directly from the existing invertebrates, which eventually led to the insects. The fossil evidence is not the only evidence supporting common ancestry between larger groups like vertebrates and invertebrates; genetics supports it and fills in the details on when major diversification split such major groups. Certain species only appear geologically at certain times, we never find mammals or even reptile like mammals in the Devonian period, and this as an example which is seen with all other species and groups is profound as it demonstrates that not all life forms have existed at the same times and additionally 99% of those which have existed are gone and many of those which are extinct show common ancestry to other later extinct and extant species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haikouella_lanceolata
“.That one group is buried on top of the other group could have been caused by water transport and burial just as easily as evolution.”
But this same pattern for all species, all across the world, uniformly likes all other layers where only more complex organisms are found higher up geologically? Suppose the flood is true, why are virtually all marsupials found on Australia? Why is such a unique group only found on an island and we don’t find any placental mammals fossils from this area? It does make sense if one considers the current marsupials are descendants of earlier mammals and are now essentially only found there.
“That seems to fit the idea of a large-scale flood better than the slow accumulation of strata over thousands of years.”
Indeed it would, but for a few problems. Within these buried layers, we find trees buried under other trees under again other buried trees, which means these areas were not affected by a single flood, but rather continual flooding which occurred burying several generations of trees. The other problem is the layers, a single large flood leaves one layer, not dozens as we see now in the geological strata.
Please address the genetic evidence (Human chromosome 2, ERV's) I brought up earlier, thanks for your time.
Mathetes,
“It would be a tremendous change for an invertebrate to produce a vertebrate, but that what would have to happen at some point for the theory of evolution to be true, right?”
No, now I see why you’re confused. You’re asking for something, which didn’t occur, and doesn’t/can’t occur, it’s like asking for an ape to pop out a fully formed human in a single generation. Invertebrates weren’t the direct ancestors of the primitive chordates which led to modern vertebrates; you’re drawing a line of ancestry which doesn’t exist. Both groups, vertebrates and invertebrates are decedents from a more primitive common ancestor, see the difference?
The first chordates were the first vertebrate animals (primitive jawless fish, which later became fish with jaws) , but invertebrates with endo skeletons were already around for many millions of years and they had already been diversifying by the time vertebrates even appear geologically. So to sum it up, vertebrates are NOT descendants of invertebrates, rather both large groups shared an ancient common primitive ancestor.
When a zygote is developing from its parent it can’t be too dramatically genetically different or it can’t develop, it can have some minor and subtle mutations, but if it has too many, then no it can’t develop at all. This is why evolution is a slower process than you’d think, you’ll never see an ape in a single generation pop out a fully formed human, the evolutionary process is cumulative and collective like a ratchet building upon existing traits/forms and modifying forward and diversifying outward.
believer - What does 'my bad' mean?
viking, so God's indwelling Holy Spirit gave you the ability to discern truth but to the disciples in the upper room on Pentecost Sunday He didn't and that's why they preached a message based on faulty teaching from the Old Testament as well as the life of Christ. I have a hard time with that one.
star2 and viking, my bad I thought it was viking asking the people without Christ question!!
viking, I've already shared that they are eternally seperated from God and will be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity. Plus Christ talked more about hell than He did about heaven and as I said you rely on commentators and bible scholars who do not adhere to the inerrantist view of the Scriptures and I adhere to those who do because there are many Bible scholars who can show that both the writings of the Old and New Testament refer to the mother of Jesus will be a virgin as the Word of God records. I would encourage you to read some of Josh McDowell's books and especially view his video "The Reliability of The Scriptures" and yes he very much presents it from the inerrantist view point. But once again even though I do use commentaries and other Bible help books I believe that the Word of God, the Bible is totally trustworthy on its own and is literally the Word of God.
viking
What happens to a person when they die without Christ? What scriptural evidence do you have to back up your belief?
Believer thank you for your responses,
Clearly we disagree on the issue of translations. Yes it is true that the original physical texts of the testaments are unavailable to us. Yet still it seems to me that we must not willfully accept and promote what we know from scholarly research to be false rendering of the testaments. I have already provided information on the topic of "hell" in this regard so will not revisit there but instead address another Mistranslation in the KJV that has been a stumbling block for many. The KJV repeatedly mistranslates a Hebrew word in the OT prophesies as virgin when in well accepted fact by all Hebrew scholars this word means a young woman. Again it is clear from the Hebrew texts this is not a euphemism for virgin because another word which is univerally understood to be the specific for virgin is used in the OT but explisitly not where the KJV and others mistranslate "a young woman" as virgin. I share this because this has been (contrary to your claim of no significant meaningfull mistranslation) a source of great conflict within the Christian community and a stumbling block to many unbelievers who might otherwise have come to Christ.
Thank you also for raising the topic of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I believe fervently in this manifestation of God's grace having experienced it first hand. It is because of this knowledge that I reject many of the man created errors of the English translations that have come down to us. I ask you not to accept this errancy of many of the English translations based on my word but rather urge you to research the documented history of some of the translations including the KJV. In fact I urge you to discover that the KJV that we know bears significant doctrinal differences from the original two versions printed in 1611. I also thank you for your honesty and pray for your continued enlightenment through the spirit of God.
Star2, you are Welcome
30 years this July 23rd. Yes, UCC.
viking, so that said the issue is not one of transliteration but interpretation and you appear to rely on the teachings of people who do not come from the inerrantists perspective and star2 and I come from the inerrantist perspective and that of course if every person's choice, but in closing considering how much of the reliable modern day translations of the Word of God you reject I don't see how you can say that what you do believe of the Word of God is reliable and true. The Old Testament is packed full of Messianic prophecies that were fulfilled in Christ and yet you seem to reject that portion of Scripture, the early church relied on many of the very passages you seem to reject to show the world that Christ was truly the Promised Messiah and the Son of God and they did this after being indwelt and filled with the Holy Spirit, don't you think that if what they were preaching and teaching were not true that that same Holy Spirit would have corrected or even stopped them or given them the real truth, but then again I don't know where you stand on the Holy Spirit being God or His role in the life of a believer and in the life of the Church. But I thank you for your honesty and in your sharing, have a good day and be blessed in your journey, believer
viking, to be honest I'm just curious because you claim to be a Christian and I cannot nor will I question that because that is totally between you and the Lord and yet your appear to reject a large portion of God's Word, most if not all the Old Testament and with the exception of the 4 Gospels a goodly portion of the New Testament and even some parts of the Gospels and I find that very unique for a person who professes to be a Christian. You say that you rely on the original writngs and I agree that we need to be as close to the original context and writings as possible, but we don't have any of the original writings and to date the most original writings we have access to are either identical or very similar to a majority if not all the reliable versions of the Bible we have today and the manuscripts that are different the differences in no way the meaning or reliabil;ity of reliable modern day translations, but the bottomline is a this point in time we don't have any of the original manuscripts and the most original we have are in line with reliable modern day translations to include the KJV.
viking
Thank you for sharing your testimony. I have a few questions.
How long have you been a Christian?
Do you attend Church anywhere? If so, is it non-denominational, Catholic, Baptist, etc?
star2 here is part 2
. I slept in a barn that night without the owners permission or knowledge and left again early in the morning. Surprizingly that morning I did not feel hungry but rather unexplainably elated just walking on this journey not in any real hurry nothing more planned than walking on down the road thinking back over my life that far speaking to no one. Midmorning I went aside from the road along a stream to a small pool and sat down. Unaccountably as I sat by the pool I started weeping. I didn’t know why I was just overcome with a deep feeling of sadness. Rather than fighting it or thinking about it I just lay back and let it flow. When it passed I felt empty of thought but joyful and content. I lay there a little longer and then drinking from the pool got up and walked on. As I walked along I realized I wasn’t really alone. There was a presence with me around me filling me that wasn’t quite me but was connected to me. It was when I became directly aware of this presence that I had what can only be called a transformational moment. What Julie had been sharing with me stopped being words and ideas and became a personal reality. At that moment I stopped wondering about the meaning of my life and began experiencing it. I was surprised by the power of the experience and had my first small moment of revelation of the nature of Christ. I went aside from the road again and kneeling down thanked God for giving me my life and a purpose.
Star 2 Thank you for the opportunity, long post 2 parts
At the age of 20 I was a confused lad struggling with the existential question of the meaning of my life. I had engaged in significant hedonistic lifestyle which left me empty and unfulfilled, I also had been raised in a religious tradition which was filled with dead observance of traditions and ritual. At this time while visiting a campground with friends I was confronted with a passionate joyful physically beautiful young woman whom I immediately set out to seduce. Rather than succumbing to my advances (which unfortunately was common to me at that time) or rejecting my advances with scorn or derision she used my attempted seduction as an opportunity to unveil the emptiness of my life with compassion but without pity or derision. Her selfassured strength of character and ability to see under my most charming façade without condemnation intrigued me in a way nothing else had. Her kindness gave me the courage to open my heart and it was then when I was vulnerable that she shared the secret of her joy. No I was not instantly converted. But it began that day. After the weekend she initiated and maintained a correspondence with me never pressing me with a need on her part for me to adopt Christianity rather she took me like a shy wild animal feeding me with bits of hope and comfort as I needed them but always subtlely present was the awarness of the source of her strength. Over the course of time I found that my life was even more meaningless than I had thought. After almost a year of this ongoing process I in the state I was in met her for another weekend camping trip. Wow was I a jerk I struggled to be angry with her and pick a fight. I’m sure as a way to excuse rejecting Christ by finding fault with her. But she was strong in spirit and would not let me. I ended up crying in her arms and falling asleep. But no still I was stubborn and resisted. I left the next morning before she woke up (leaving Vermont) and in a fit of despair and confusion decided to walk back to Maine. I didn’t understand it at the time but the spirit of God was already working in me. I refused to hitchhike I had some cash with me but the whole thing was foolish. At the end of the first day I had eaten Apples and Cheese I had gotten from a farm stand and water from streams that ran under and beside the roadways
viking
Perhaps you can share with us your salvation expereince.
Hello mathetes
Sorry to hear about the glitch.
I think a much better explantion for the fossils at the top of mountains is that two plates collide, ancient sea floor is then thrust upwards over time, further evidence for this is the metamorphic rocks found in the mountain ranges produced which indicate that part of these mountains where once buried quite deep.
Regards
Steve
Believer thank you for the response,
In honesty do you question me in sincerity to gain knowledge or only to put me to the test and to prepare your instruction of my faults according to your doctrine. While I disagree with your understanding of the scriptures I do not chastise you. I simply in humbleness respond to your questions. Yet it seems to me you seek to set snares about my feet.
Still I will again in hope share with you my thoughts. I do not share your seeming faith in the inerrancy of the fallible men who have mistranslated and mistakenly transliterated the holy scriptures through the ages into the English texts you seem to rely on. Further I would urge you again to engage in prayerfull study of the multitude of biblical scholarship which examines the original holy scriptures in the light of knowledge of the language and practices of the times when they were set down.
Believer, thank you for your question,
I have to admit I have found this a hard area in my faith journey. I have prayed and studied at length on this issue. Here is what I have come to in my journey. I can not reconcile the compassionate and all loving God that I experience with the abandonment of Billions of souls to extinction because they were born at the wrong time or in the wrong place and thus were denied the opportunity of coming to God through Christ. After much struggle I have come to the belief that (while I may not have the understanding to conceive of the means) God provides for the salvation of these through Christ. While I could hypothesize endlessly on the means (spiritual visitation at the moment of death, etc., etc.) these would only be guesses. Luckily Christ has not charged me with understanding this facet of God’s plan. My share is to use the gifts I have to bring all those I can to God through Christ and to live as much as grace allows in conformance with his commandments.
viking, that seperation you speak of is the result or the wages of our sin, seperation from God which can only be restored through putting our faith and trust in Christ and for the person who does not do this prior to their death they will be eternally seperated from God and at the Great White Throne Judgement will be cast into the Lake of Fire along with Satan and all the devils. Death in the Word of God not only refers to physical death but spiritual death which is defined as being seperated from God.
Star, thank you for the question,
I believe that separation from God is the state that all reside in until they find their way to communion through Christ. I believe that the communion with God through Christ takes the form of the infusion of the Spirit of God indwelling. That this indwelling of the spirit among other things provides us with the grace to live in conformance with Christ’s commandment to love others as ourselves which would otherwise be beyond our capacity.
Believer,
9:03 Yes I do believe in the resurrection of Christ. Yes it does oppose natural laws as we currently understand them. I do accept evolution and I also accept the Creation of the Universe INCLUDING GODS ESTABLISHMENT of evolution.
9:29 I apologize. It is not my intent to sermonize to you or show you in any particular light. I have only tried to honestly answer the questions you have put to me. I will ask you to note that I have not questioned the sincerity of your faith. I do find that in your posts you are frequently trying to put words in my mouth and wonder why. For example you say “ So your saying that Luke had the genealogy of Christ all wrong” If you review my post you will find that I said nothing of the kind. If you read my response to your question you will find that I found no fault with Luke. In fact I did not use myself as an authority at all since I recognize my own limited scholarship. Rather I presented to you a scholarly documentation of the errancy of not Luke but those who have mistranslated and misinterpreted what Luke recorded. These errors in the translation and interpretations of the original texts are extremely well documented and available to anyone who wishes to progress in their bible study. I am glad that I have not been the occasion of your temptation and hope that the rousing of your spirit will lead you to study and learn the truth of these things. I will say that I do in fact believe in the Inerrancy of the Word of God, that being Christ. But I do not believe in the inerrancy of flawed human beings or the inerrancy of the demonstrably mistranslated and transliterated English texts that they have authored
viking, Do you believe that people who die without accepting Christ as their Savior and Lord will be eternally seperated from God and do you believe when Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one can come unto the Father but through me." that He was telling the truth or that there is more than one way to be saved and not Christ alone?
Believer thank you for the question, about your posts on the 28th
First let me state that I do not believe in Hell. Further I know that if you research the language of the OT you will find that every use of the term Hell in any translation (though most no longer use the term recognizing it as a vulgate and KJV mistranslation) is translated from the word “SHEOL” which literally means the grave. Judaism which of which Christ was a devout member had no concept of a place of everlasting torment. In the new testament the words translated as hell come from three distinct words one reffering to a real world physical location near Jerusalem where pagan rites had historically been performed including the sacrifice of humans through burning and was at the time of Christ a place of refuse and filth where fires burned incessantly. The second term meant simply a place of hiding or concealment. The third term was actually a greek word reffering to the mythological prison of the titans.
In relation to fire and brimstone you will find if you review your bible that this place is reserved for “the adversary” and not for human souls at all.
In relation to your second post I believe you move much closer to Christ’s teachings on the fate of humans. In Christs parables in particular the wedding feast it is clear that there is not a punishment from god for failing to accept the invitation there is only the natural result of a freely made choice. Those who chose not to come to the feast were deprived of the presence of the bridegroom. Or like a fig tree the branches that do not bear fruit are pruned away. I believe and in researching find biblical support for the belief that The wages of sin are death not eternal torment and suffering.
viking
What does separation from God mean to you?
viking, here you go sermonizing on me again and color me dumb, but what the hecks your point other than for sure you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God New or Old Testament.
So your saying that Luke had the genealogy of Christ all wrong and it really doesn't start with Adam even though not only Luke but Paul refer to an actual person named Adam who they both refer to as the first man. Please excuse my intensity and don't confuse it with anger because I'm not but I am almost as fired up now as I am in the pulpit.
Star2 thank you for the question,
Christ was born, lived, died and rose to provide for the salvation of mankind from Sin (the separation of Man from God). But I wonder why you ask me this. Through out these posts I have declared my faith for any Christian to see. While I disagree with you in regards to your views on the OT and on the accuracy of the English translations of God’s inspired revelation to man I have not questioned your faith in Christ. Do you put me to the test? If the Spirit of God does not lead me on the same path in my faith journey as you will you denounce me? Do you set your understanding of the scripture above all others. By the way I do not insist that I am inerrant in my understanding of scripture. As you will note I generally frame my posts in terms of my beliefs based on study and prayer not as absolutes that must be accepted by others because I state them.
Believer , thank you . To understand the genealogy of Christ identified in the gospels it is more important to understand Hebrew rather than Lukes profession. Many of the misconceptions of people of today around biblical teachings arise from two sources. Mistranslations of the original texts and ignorance regarding Hebrew practices of the time of their writing. The topic you touch on is subject to both of these in lay bible study. Here is a small sample of some research on this from a site which while defending Genesis as literal explains how modern understanding of the passage you quote is flawed in at least one way.
“Luke adds a name: In Luke 3:35-36 he includes a Cainan between Salah and Arphaxad. Genesis 11:12-13 includes No name between Arphaxad and Salah. Cainan is the son of Arphaxad and Shelah is the son of Cainan according to Luke; while in the Chronicle this name is not found. However, in Hebrew traditional lineage this name can be found, it is found in the Greek Septuagint Version. Why was this name not in our Bible and found in Septuagint and tradition? By some Hebrew traditions if a person died when they are very young before they have a chance to establish a name for himself, the child born to them will be known as the child of the living grandfather. This practice is shown in the book of Ruth where Ruth’s son Obed is referred to as the son of Naomi. Ruth 14:7. If the son died before he established himself and legally took possession of the properties and rights as a son he would not be listed. Or if they were of bad reputation they might not be listed. Was the latter the case with Cainan? In The Patriarchal Age: or, the History and Religion of Mankind (1854), George Smith writes[1]: "It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the omission of the name of Cainan from the Hebrew text, and the consequent general rejection of him by historians, there are more traditions preserved of him than of his son Salah. 'The Alexandrine Chronicle derives the Samaritans from Cainan; Eustachius Antiochenus, the Saggodians; George Syncellus, the Gaspheni; Epiphanius the Cajani. Besides the particulars already mentioned, it is said Cainan was the first after the flood who invented astronomy (astrology), and that his sons made a god of him, and worshipped his image after his death. The founding of the city of Harran in Mesopotamia is also attributed to him; which, it is pretended, is so called from a son he had of that name.' -Anc. Univ. Hist., vol. i, p. 96, note." Such a deletion would not be acceptable to the gentile world where actual parenthood is always counted. Many scholars have long proposed that due to the poetic similarity of Genesis chapter 5 and chapter 11 verses 10 thru 26 that only the most notable men were listed.”
This is only a drop in the ocean of Biblical scholarship that demonstrates a literal modern reading of our English translations are a seriously flawed understanding of the revelation from God.
flagged myself, Viking then you believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ even though it totally opposes all natural laws and yet you accept evolution sight unseen and reject Creation totally orchestrated by the same God who brought Jesus out of the tomb and recorded both the Resurrection as well as Creation in His Holy Word the Bible?
viking, I read your blog to mathete about hell and wondered what your view of hell is as I did not see it stated. If you'd be willing I'd like you to visit my 9:11 and 9:20 blogs from the 28th where I shared with erv what I believe the Word of God teaches about hell and let me know what you think, thanks believer.
viking
Why did Jesus die on the cross?
Ervs, Hi I understand you would have trouble with the idea that a human could be a son of God. The idea would be ridiculous to someone who 1. believes humans are animals 2. believes that there is no God.
The resurrection of Christ is the central mystery of the Christian faith. I do not claim to understand this mystery yet I accept it in Faith in the hope of one day understanding it.
Regarding the issue of majority Christian belief let me refer you to a couple of sites that may give you a more accurate view. The first is by BARNA a group most likely to be sympathetic to a literalist view.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaU
The second is from religious tolerance .org and has a less denomination driven agenda
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
Another source Christian news wire has some specifics on this
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/5143890.html
There are other sources as well. When you collate the information from these and other sources you will find that while a large Minority of American Christians hold literalist views of the Bible world wide this minority is much smaller.
Yes it was by a minority of Christians that this political agenda is driven. Yet not only as an American who believes in the Constitution but also a Christian who believes in the teachings of Christ I join in the opposition to this law and others like it.
Steve, I just lost a long response to you because of some computer glitch. It's probably the operator (me). I will type it again in the morning and send it. If I dont' get home and let the dog out, I'll have a big puddle to clean up later. Bon soir.
AO, I asked about evidence that shows more than minor changes resulting in new species. You said, "this type of large change isn’t possible to witness in real time, at least I doubt it. You essentially asking for entire new phyla to emerge, the highest class level of an organism, this isn’t what the evolutionary records suggest should happen all the time or often."
That's exactly what I'm asking for, and you answered my question. It would be a tremendous change for an invertebrate to produce a vertebrate, but that what would have to happen at some point for the theory of evolution to be true, right? Yet it has never been observed, and cannot be tested or repeated. The fact that invertebrate fossils and vertebrate fossils are buried in sedimentary rock does not that one group of animals gave rise to the other; it only proves that both existed at some point in history. That one group is buried on top of the other group could have been caused by water transport and burial just as easily as evolution. Remember the broken window, the rock and the baseball - they are evidence, but they do not tell a definitive story. Our interpretations are just that, not evidence.
RE: the polystrate trees. These trees that cross multiple strata would seem to support rapid burial by water-borne silt, as you say. That seems to fit the idea of a large-scale flood better than the slow accumulation of strata over thousands of years. Since these polystrate trees are found on nearly every continent, does that not seem to support the flood account of Gen. 6? And if there was a world-wide flood, could that not account for the burial and fossilization of the plants and animals that are found around the world, even marine fossils found near tops of mountains? If the geologic column was formed by a world-wide flood in a short period of time, not by slow deposits over millions of years, what would that do to traditional dates assigned to strata?
viking, the Bible records in Luke 3:23-38 the genealogy of Christ and it goes all the way back to God, but oddly enough the lineage records Adam as a part of that lineage. Luke was a doctor and yet he records that Adam did exist. How do you reconcile that with your belief that there was no Adam. As for your answer about the angels, devils, and Satan, the Bible declares in a number of passages in both the Old and New Testament that these supernatural beings were involved in human matters, yet for the billions of years during the evolution of the universe they appear to be totally inactive since they are supernatural beings and evolution occured only in the natural realm and yet even in the New Testament were told wemay be entertaining angels unaware. It seems to me that theistic evolutionists tend to set aside the truths and teachings of God's Word to justify their view of evolution, they seem to compartmentalize their beliefs in order to justify their views on evolution. Their view of evolution supersedes their view of God's Word.
First, I want to thank everyone for moderating the tone of the discussion. I think we can achieve better understanding if we take it calmly. Viking, I may not agree with what you believe, but I believe you have set the example of calm question and answer.
Thanks for responding to my posts. I only have about 30 minutes, but I will try to respond to each one of you in turn.
Mathetes,
Thank you for your rebuke of my comment to believer. You have reminded me of my duty of tolerance and to refrain from wrath even in words. That being said I would ask if you have read what the original words of the gospels that are translated into English as the word Hell. In asking this let me be clear NOTHING I am sharing in any way challenges the truth of Christ only the way fallible men have misrepresented that truth.
There are for words in the original texts which have been translated to the English word Hell. These words are:
SHEOL: meaning The Grave is the word used exclusively in the old testament that is translated as the English word Hell. It is well established in Biblical scholarship that in the Old Testament there is nowhere any reference to or concept of a place of everlasting punishment.
HADES: meaning Unseen
GEHENNA: meaning Jerusalem’s city dump
TARTARUS: meaning Greek mythology’s prison for the titans
There is in fact no word in the earliest translations of the New Testament that means Hell as we understand the term today (a place of everlasting torment and punishment for human souls)
I in fact believe that the Old and New Testaments are inspired revelation. I do not believe that the Mistranslations that many of us have been given are as their human authors claim inerrant truth.
Here is a web site that provides a scholarly biblical examination of the history of the word Hell in the bible. http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html.
I hope this is helpful in your faith journey.
Believer, please accept my remorse for my accusation that you abrogated for your self the place of God. My belief that you are wrong in your literalist interpretation of the Bible does not justify such a divisive comment.
Mathetes, Thank you for your rebuke of my comment on believer abrogating for himself the place of God.
I know I am well behind on this thread but will still attempt to answer once again your question more directly.
“I have asked do you believe God had or had not a role in evolution and if so what was His role:
I believe God had the role of originator of the Universe and thus everything within it which has unfolded following the processes, dynamics, etc. that were inherent to that original creation including the processes of evolution.
I do not know how to be clearer than that.
“I asked how do the angels and devils, specifically Satan fit iin the evolution view”
First you put the question in a way that assumes 1. there is one “evolution view” and 2. that I am its spokesperson. I don’t think either is true but I will try to answer the spirit of the question which I would rephrase as “Do I believe that there is any place in the theory of evolution for angels and devils and specifically satan?” My answer would be no. In explanation I would say that by definition angels, devils and Satan are supernatural creatures and science by definition deals only with natural phenomena. Science admits its limitations and makes no claim or attempt to address spiritual matters.
“where does sin enter the evolution equation.”
First I am not sure what you mean by the “evolution equation”. Nevertheless I will try to respond. I believe that ultimately everything in creation turns to God’s glorification and while I do not yet understand exactly how I believe that evolution as an aspect of God’s creation is no exception. I believe therefore that God is or will use evolution in some way I may not understand to help bring humans back to communion with himself.
“Let me add another do you believe Adam and Eve were actual people and the first man and woman and if so how do they fit into the evolution?”
No I do not believe that Adam and Eve were actual people in the sense that I think you mean (a literal reading of Genesis). Therefore I do not of course believe that there is any physical reality relationship between “Adam and Eve” to evolution.
This is as straightforward and as simply as I am capable of answering these questions. I am sorry if I am not able to communicate in a way that fits your needs.
Hello mathetes
Many thanks for your thoughts concerning the nature of belief concerning salvation.
I was intrigued though about your final sentances
"That's the only reliable starting point for understanding the world around us, as our minds + bodies have been corrupted by sin. This is the approach of Bacon, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Mendel, Pasteur, + Kelvin. "
Whilst I of course would look up to these great men of "their" time when it comes to science I would consider myself on equal footing with them when it comes to understanding the world from a spiritual perspective(and anybody else for that matter). I personally think that it is unwise of me to believe something because professor Z did or hold a belief I feel uncertain about but go along with because professor Z does.
A good case in point by the way concerning one of those men is Kelvin, he calculated the age of the Earth to be no more than 100 Ma (way out) because he knew nothing of radioactivity, he was a man of his time and as such had a limited view of this world. If that was true of his specialist subject, then pehaps the same could be said for his view of spiritual things?
Steve
“Has a species ever been observed becoming something more separate, say something akin to a different family or genus?”
Go back and review others not just from talk origins, .trycollege .edu sites, I believe there are a few recent examples of such ones.
“Seems that is what would be required in order to evolve from a single-cell organism to a multicelled organism”
No, no no, you’ve got it all wrong.. Giving to the fact that it took from 3.8 billions years ago till 1.2 billion ago to change from single celled to muti-celled, and from 1.2 billion to 600 million years ago to arrive at truly complex life, this type of large change isn’t possible to witness in real time, at least I doubt it. You essentially asking for entire new phyla to emerge, the highest class level of an organism, this isn’t what the evolutionary records suggest should happen all the time or often. What we should see is small successive and collective changes from species to species as they diverge.
“Where the evidence of that occurring and producing viable offspring capable of reproduction”
It’s not possible for simple bacteria to evolve in a single generation to a fully formed bird or some other creationist quackery; evolution doesn’t work in this manner. If the zygote is too vastly different from its host it can’t develop and evolution couldn’t take place as it would be dead so from this view evolution has to be much more gradual than a dog giving birth to a car or an ape popping out a fully formed human infant. The changes required from single celled to multi celled if you recall occurred over a period of 2.6 billion years, it wasn’t some instant change.
“What is it you want me to explain?”
The human chromosome 2 and ERV”s and if you got time the other genetic evidence supporting evolution.
Gotta run. AO, seriously, thanks. I understand better where you're coming from. I hope you'll try to understand my perspective as well, instead of ridiculing it. I'll check back later this evening.
Sorry, I didn't understand the last line. What is it you want me to explain?
“Radiologic dating has lots of problems: finding C-14 in samples estimated to be hundreds of thousands-millions of years old, when the 1/2 life of C-14 would render it undetectable after <6000 years.
‘hundreds of thousands-millions of years old’…uhhhh, which one? Hundreds? Thousands or millions? Surely not millions as C-14 decays much too quickly to last that long.
“Another: measuring a volcanic rock of known age (10 years, from Mt. St. Helens) to be thousands of years old. Do you understand why many people don't trust radiologic dating”
Ah yes, and what type of isotope was being measured and used to reveal the age of of years for the Mt. St. Helens lava flow, this is critical. It wasn’t C-14, that’s for sure. It was, as Star earlier pointed out (as long as its the same example) Argon Argon dating, which has a is only useful for measuring much slower decaying particles and their isotopes and therefore this is why it couldn’t be accurately used on something as a recent lava flow. Only certain dating methods are useful and applicable to certain dating windows of time, C –14 has a max dating range of about 55,00 years, while Argon Argon dating is used for dating material at or above 100,000 years in age. So obviously using it to date a recent lava flow would result in a out of whack date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon-argon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
“talk to me about fossilized trees that extended through 30 feet of stratified stone;”
It’s not stone, its sedimentary rock and sedimentary layers, laid down by large amounts of silt or numerous successive floods, no amount of slow build of dirt would accomplish it. You need the sediments, or ash to petrify the trees so they may be covered without rotting. You wont find trees stuck in igneous rock or morphic rock, but you will find them rarely under or in sedimentary rock as sedimentary layers can be laid down much faster, relatively speaking, than compared with igneous and morphic rock.
Mathetes, please explain the genetic evidence I gave earlier too my friend.
While I was gone, I did take your advice do the readings on talk.orgins about "observed speciation." Now I understand why you keep coming back to the formation of new species. Depending on which of the four possible definitions for the term "species" is used, I agree that you can say new species are formed. It would seem a lot more scientific if there were just one definition applied to all cases, instead of using whichever one seems more "appropriate." Is that another way of saying, "Use whichever one you want if it will prove your point?"
Anyway, here's a few observations:
1. All examples were 1 species becoming a distinct species, according to 1 of 4 possible definitions. Has a species ever been observed becoming something more separate, say something akin to a different family or genus? Seems that is what would be required in order to evolve from a single-cell organism to a multicelled organism. The jump from single- to multicell organism would require a vast increase in genetic information. Where the evidence of that occurring and producing viable offspring capable of reproduction?
2. The only observed speciation that approached that magnitude of change was Karpchenko's experiment creating a radish/cabbage hybrid. Does his artificial manipulation of the 2 species prove that it has happened in nature? Does the experiment prove it has happened in the past through chance mutation + natural selection alone? Seems like it shows that intelligent action is required for such hybrdization.
As has been posted here before, variation within a genus, even the production of new species, does not explain how simple one-cell organisms become complex multicell organisms. That's one reason why critics of evolution say it has not yet been proven by observation, experimentation, and replication.
Hi, gang, hope you didn't miss me. Alright, AO, let's talk about evidence. I'm sure we've covered this 2-3 times in the last six days; I think logicshouldprevail did a great job, but here we go again. Perhaps if I illustrate it with a story, you'll get it this time.
A man comes home from a weekend out-of-town to find a broken window in a room with a rock and a baseball on the floor. There's no glass shards imbedded in the rock or the baseball. What happened?
One possible interpretation: some boys were playing baseball and hit the ball through his window. The rock is unrelated.
Another: Angry neighbors threw the rock through the window because they don't want him living in their neighborhood. The baseball is unrelated.
We could continue building theories about what happened, but without further hard evidence (a note tied around the rock?) and no witnesses, who knows? That's the case with fossils - mineralized remains in stratified soil. They provided a snapshot, but no interpretation can be conclusive. Your interpretation of the evidence says they were buried over millions of years, but even the geologic column doesn't have assigned dates posted on the layers of rock. Radiologic dating has lots of problems: finding C-14 in samples estimated to be hundreds of thousands-millions of years old, when the 1/2 life of C-14 would render it undetectable after <6000 years. Another: measuring a volcanic rock of known age (10 years, from Mt. St. Helens) to be thousands of years old. Do you understand why many people don't trust radiologic dating?
Regarding the strata themselves: talk to me about fossilized trees that extended through 30 feet of stratified stone; these are found around the world. While the dust was piling up around the base of the tree over thousands of years, how did the top of the tree resist rot and decay until it was finally covered?
The Bible gives another interpretation: a worldwide cataclysm resulted in a flood which buried millions of living things in silt, plant and animal. The evidence in the earth fits that interpretation as well.
I hope that helps you understand what I meant by the difference between evidence (the hard stuff) and interpretations/theories.
Star,
“You are looking for a scientific explanation from creationists”
I guess that was my first clue that you weren't going to reference, ya know, actual science. Creationists not using science to back their claims, how novel a concept!
Do you even know what 'falsifiable' means Star? It doesn’t' appear so. Earlier you made a decry by fiat that ‘god dun it that way’ and I guess for you, you think this is falsifiable?
Here's a hint, its isnt!
“Macro-evolution isn't falsifiable either.”
Sure it is. Just show one species of animal or numerous ones that can’t speciate and diverge into a new species and the concept of macroevolution where animals diverge into other species, genus, orders and so on is dead, aka ‘falsified’. This is what would falsify it. Of course, we have witnessed both in labs and in the wild one species becoming another, so the idea isn’t falsified, again google ‘observed speciation’ for such examples.
I don’t think you understand what ‘falsifiability’ means star; here have another attempt to learn. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Do you know what would help to falsify evolution pretty fast, just show some mammalian fossils in the Devonian period, show some evidence of bunny fossils in the Cambrian and evolutionary theory is about spot on dead/falsified. But instead we don’t find that, we find great succession of fossils, which based on the evolutionary model enables us to make other falsifiable predictions on where and when (geologically speaking) transitional forms should be found. A recent examples of this is the finding of Tiktaalik, which was exactly where and when the paleontologists expected to find it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Perhaps I should list some falsifiable predictions evolutionary has passes, would that work for you?
agentorange
Macro-evolution isn't falsifiable either.
This discussion with you has become a waste of time.
‘When I talk about the creation of the universe I am talking about everything it contains”
Well in that case star, you are back to your old simple decry by fiat that it was done in certain way but without a measure of scientific evidence to back it. Ok, but that’s not scientific so again you fail.
“Too bad big boy, that is the way it happened.”
Another decry by fiat, well done star.
“You still have no proof. It is only an assumption on your (evolutionists) part. Your dating methods are totally unreliable.”
Right star, that’s why over 4 dozen dating methods all show such ages, or why as we did deeper into the earth we only find simpler organisms.
“I already answered you. I will repost it.”
No star, I wanted a SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origins of the human chromosome 2 evidence, ERV’s, fossils and others. The key word being ‘SCIENTIFIC’, either provide a scientific explanation or be gone star, b/c you’re way in over your head. I don’t’ want some unfalsifiable decry by fiat that ‘god made it that way’.
Explain the origins of Human chromosome 2, ERV”, fossils and the like in a SCIENTICIC manner star. You can use ‘god made it that way’, but such a claim isn’t falsifiable and as such isn’t scientific.
agentorange
Re:creation of the universe
You are so foolish. When I talk about the creation of the universe I am talking about everything it contains - stars, galaxies, planets, earth, life of all kind, etc.
Re:We have the creationists explanation of * Poof * and voila its done for life and cosmology but such an explantion isn't scientific, it's simply decried by fiat.
Too bad big boy, that is the way it happened.
Re:“Evolution is unscientific as well. You have no evidence that life began as a single cell organism.”
Actually we do star, even the ID folk admit to the first signs of life being very simple single celled organisms and not large complex fully formed animals. The first and oldest signs of life were small, single celled and not overly complex, for example googlle ‘Stromatolites’, your might learn something. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite These type of earlier single celled life existed by at least 3.8 billion years ago.
You still have no proof. It is only an assumption on your (evolutionists) part. Your dating methods are totally unreliable.
Re:Now recall, we were talking about how you make the claims of ‘god made it that way’ with regards to human chromosome 2 and other facts as scientific and in your whole post you didn’t bother to address this, would you please, I would like to hear how ‘god made it that way’ is a falsifiable and therefore scientific.
You flagged yourself for all that? Man, I am disappointed star. I was waiting for the scientific manner in which you were going to demonstrate human chromosome 2 and ERV’s and other such facts as being the result of ‘god made it that way’ explanation. I wanted a scientific explanation for these facts and instead you doge them both and talk about the creation of the universe (oooops).
I already answered you. I will repost it.
You are looking for a scientific explanation from creationists on how the universe came into existence and you will not get one because there isn't any. Why? Because God spoke everything into existence. You call that unscientific I know but that is the way it happened.
Evolution is unscientific as well. You have no evidence that life began as a single cell organism. Your claim that it did is not falsifiable.
God is the Creator of all the laws that control the behavior of His creation. Mankind works real hard to try to understand how those laws work and how to use them for his benefit. Many times those benefits are good and sometimes they are bad. But for sure, mankind will never be able to use them to discover how everything got started.
“You are looking for a scientific explanation from creationists on how the universe came into existence”
Actually Star, I wasn’t even talking about the universe at all, I was only referring to the wide abundance and diversity of biological life and how it got here and the facts we observe from them. This is why my question was on human chromosome 2, ERV's and fossils and not the expansion of space/time.
We have the creationists explanation of * Poof * and voila its done for life and cosmology but such an explantion isn't scientific, it's simply decried by fiat. We have the evolutionary explanation of how species change and diverge over time and then the cosmological explanation for the order and origin of the cosmos. Do try to understand the difference of cosmology and biology star.
“Evolution is unscientific as well. You have no evidence that life began as a single cell organism.”
Actually we do star, even the ID folk admit to the first signs of life being very simple single celled organisms and not large complex fully formed animals. The first and oldest signs of life were small, single celled and not overly complex, for example googlle ‘Stromatolites’, your might learn something. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite These type of earlier single celled life existed by at least 3.8 billion years ago.
Not until some 1.2 billion years ago did multicelled life become present and not until some 600 million years ago did truly complex life emerge which had appendages. The very first signs of life and the oldest were in fact single celled and only the more recent ones showed signs of higher complexity, so indeed the evidence is there that primitive life started out as single celled organisms and not as fully formed larger more complex organisms.
Now recall, we were talking about how you make the claims of ‘god made it that way’ with regards to human chromosome 2 and other facts as scientific and in your whole post you didn’t bother to address this, would you please, I would like to hear how ‘god made it that way’ is a falsifiable and therefore scientific.
You flagged yourself for all that? Man, I am disappointed star. I was waiting for the scientific manner in which you were going to demonstrate human chromosome 2 and ERV’s and other such facts as being the result of ‘god made it that way’ explanation. I wanted a scientific explanation for these facts and instead you doge them both and talk about the creation of the universe (oooops).
agentorange
You are looking for a scientific explanation from creationists on how the universe came into existence and you will not get one because there isn't any. Why? Because God spoke everything into existence. You call that unscientific I know but that is the way it happened.
Evolution is unscientific as well. You have no evidence that life began as a single cell organism. Your claim that it did is not falsifiable.
God is the Creator of all the laws that control the behavior of His creation. Mankind works real hard to try to understand how those laws work and how to use them for his benefit. Many times those benefits are good and sometimes they are bad. But for sure, mankind will never be able to use them to discover how everything got started.
(I flagged myself to make a few changes and an addition.)
to erv and agentorangex, my belated apologies for falsely accusing you guys of being the same person, but honestly for a while there your views were so identical I was convinced you were, so once again my apology to both of you, believer
erv, the real problem with hell is the total absence of God and all of His godly attributes, no peace, no love, no joy, no contentment, and worse of all no hope that that will ever change. erv, I do not preach or even teach that truth to non-Christians the only reason I'm sharing it now is in response to your blog. I share this with Christians to challenge them to allow God to develop in them a burden to be the Christ-like witnesses they need to be so as few people as possible will face this fate. What I share with a non-Christian is the fact that all sin and are seperated from God and that in spite of our sin God desires to have a personal relationship with each one us, but to do that Christ had to die on the cross to pay the price for our sins and He arose from the dead to show the world the price had been paid and if we would turn from our sins and put our faith in Him we could have a personal relationship with His heavenly Father and become a child of God. Christianity is not about going to heaven and not going to hell it's about having a personal relationship with God.
erv, I've been gone all day and just got back but I wanted to answer some of the very legitimate concerns you shared with regards to Christianity, but first let me say that when I respond to a question or issue I respond from my own worldview which for me is a Christian Worldview which is heavily impacted by the fact that I see the Bible as the inerrant, plenary, Word of God. I do not expect everybody to agree with me because not everybody comes from that worldview. That being said here goes: The Bible teaches that hell is a very real place and that yes there will be fire and brimstone, but that will be the least of a person's worry, just ask Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who were thrown in a furnace so hot that the men who through them in were burnt and killed, but when the king looked in he saw four men because they had been joined by as many Bible scholars believe the pre-incarnate Christ and when the three came out of the fire their clothes were unscorched and not a hair on their body was singed and they didn't even smell of smoke. (cont)
mathetes
“where is the hard evidence of one animal becoming another?”
First lets establish what is ‘hard evidence’ in your eyes and we’ll see how we fair. Now, macro evolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level and this has been observed over and over both in labs and in the wild. Just google ‘observed speciation’ and other variants. Once the species have become genetically isolated they can no longer breed successfully which means they each have their own unique lineages which will have their own unique mutations and evolve along their own similar, but still different trajectories.
“but when did anyone observe one kind of animal give birth to something else?”
There’s that word ‘kind’ again, sorry but there is no biological organism typified as a ‘kind’. There are species, genus, families, orders, and so on, but no ‘kind’. Now, if you’re asking for a typical creationist ‘when has a dog ever given birth to a cat’ or ‘when has an ape given birth to a fully formed human’ sort of question, well then no, sorry but evolutionary theory doesn’t suggest this should or could even happen as the zygote would be too different from the host and it would die before development even took place, so this is something biologically impossible. Only a person completely ill read in biology would think such a process could happen, not even ID folk make such horrid claims. Evolution is a slow and gradual process. But of course to know this to begin with would require actually reading up on biology and knowing what a zygote is.
In court ‘hard evidence’ is something which is testable over and over, ya know, like fossils and genetics, like how paternity testing is established. I would think that if such genetics work in courts, surely it must be up to snuff as ‘hard evidence’ for you, yes?
Here’s some fossils and genetic evidence which support the theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
agentorange
I flagged my post. It was directed to you. I will save my comments until later.
Welcome back, AO.
So just having a majority that believes something carries no weight. I agree. I just wanted to clarify that. So when you or ERV state that all real scientists believe something, the number is irrelevant. Good. I too think sometimes you have to stick with the truth no matter what the majority says.
RE: "only the less rational or young (kids) would so readily accept such an extraordinary proposition where no extraordinary evidence is provided. And that which can be asserted without evidence can be equally dismissed without evidence." That's brings us back to questions we have asked before: where is the hard evidence of one animal becoming another? Not just that they have similar appearances (homology) or that their DNA is similar, but when did anyone observe one kind of animal give birth to something else? ERV likes to talk about duplication of genes in primates, but the end result is still a primate, not something more advanced. Observable, testable, repeatable, remember?
By the way, I just checked the lifescienceprize site; the $10,000 is still there waiting to be taken by anyone who has evidence of evolution.
mathetes, thanks for reminding me the United States is one big insane asylum.
Mathetes,
“Everyone else - now that's scientific, isn't it?’
Actually no, it isn’t simply referring to a proposition and trying to support it based solely on the number of followers or specifically who follows it isn’t a logical argument for a proposition anyways. It makes no more logical sense to claim that hell is real b/c some 39% of people think it does, as opposed to ERV’s claim that ‘everybody else’ doesn’t accept it as such.
However, ERV wasn’t trying to state ALL adults think hell is not real, he stated only the less rational or young (kids) would so readily accept such an extraordinary proposition where no extraordinary evidence is provided. And that which can be asserted without evidence can be equally dismissed without evidence.
ERV,
A Barna Group poll in 2003 found that 79% of Americans believe each person has an eternal soul. 71% of Americans believe in hell. Within the latter group, two particular views stood out as most popular. 39% of adults believe that hell is "a state of eternal separation from God’s presence" and 32% says it is "an actual place of torment and suffering where people’s souls go after death."
These are American adults, not young gullible children. You told me, "You might think hell is not a threat, but everyone else thinks it's disgusting and repulsive." Everyone else - now that's scientific, isn't it? Actually, I also find it disgusting and repulsive, but not for the reasons you think. The way Jesus described it, I would not want anyone to go there.
mathetes: "there's no threat there"
You might think hell is not a threat, but everyone else thinks it's disgusting and repulsive. Young gullible children might be willing to believe in it, but rational adults laugh at it. Even some children have enough common sense to question the sanity of people who threaten torture.
By the way, telling a young chid that he will burn in hell for eternity if he doesn't accept Mr. Jesus Christ is child abuse. It's legal child abuse but in my opinion the people who scare children with eternal torture should be put in prison.
Getting back on topic, the Louisiana 'Academic Freedom' Bill was written by Christians who believe in hell, which is another reason this bill must never be passed. People who know nothing about science and who believe in the most disgusting things like eternal torture, should not be allowed to say anything about what's in a science curriculum.
I think that one thing we fall short in in the Christian community is explaining the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian. When a person genuinely asks Christ to come into their life it is actually the Holy Spirit that indwells them the moment they are saved. One function of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is to help them to better understand and follow God's Word and as result the Christian is better able to understand the Word of God from God's perspective and things that were unclear become clear as a result of the Holy Spirit's presence. Or as erv said those nutty things are no longer nutty because we're seeing them from a different perspective. The only thing that could limit that in the life of a believer is unconfessed sin or their refusal to surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the control of the Holy Spirit. But the believer still has a free will and therefore is free to interpret the Word of God in anyway he chooses.
This one goes out to all those (yes you star) who confuse the ‘origins of life’ (Abiogenesis) with ‘changes life undergoes over time’ (Evolution) and how we don’t have to fully understand how life arose, to understand that it changes over time. Just like how we don’t have to understand or know the origins of gravity, doesn’t mean we can’t study and understand how gravity as a process works and what scientifically we can learn from it. This is a simple analogy on how we can study, understand and know how life changes over time regardless of knowing or not of how it arose here.
ERV, there's no threat there, only speaking the truth in love. I,'m praying for you that you'll understand. If my doctor looked at test results showing I have a malignant melonoma, it's not a threat for him to say, based on his knowledge + experience, if we don't do something, I'm going to die. No threat, just telling the truth. Some things cannot be diluted or sugar-coated + still be of any use. Many here have tried to reason with you; you dismiss most everything Christians say, especially when it's straight from the Bible. I know believer + star2 have tried repeatedly. Don't know what else to say except I'm praying God will help you understand.
star2
“You rejected mine and everyone else explanations in the past”
That’s b/c it wasn’t an explanation using science star, it was a decry by fiat that ‘god made it that way’, a totally unscientific answer.
“the human 2 chromosone is a combination of two separate but nearly identical chromosones in the chimp, then the only explanation as to why that is so is that GOD DESIGNED IT THAT WAY.”
Once again, a simple decry by fiat that ‘god made it that way’, no evidence to back it at all.
“It is genetically impossible for two separate chromosones in an animal to combine to form an entirely different animal.”
Actually star we’ve seen chromosomes fuse to each other and in many species in the labs, however such a fusion doesn’t result in a new species at all, the organisms for the most part are entirely physically unchanged, so your assumption that ‘chromosome fusion = the change which resulted in humanity’ is wrong scientifically.
“Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical. They have exactly the same genetic makeup. GOD DESIGNED IT THAT WAY.”
My emphasis added. Um, Star, didn’t I just mention earlier how ‘god made it that way ‘ isn’t acceptable (you fail) as its not falsifiable and therefore makes it not scientific, what part of that can’t you comprehend? Please re-read what falsifiability means.
Beliver,
“I see neither of you has responded as whether or not you're going to take the lifescienceprize.org challenge”
WHAT is the specifically asked of the challenge, it doesn’t give many specifics on the site to rebuke in the first place.
“any other creationist website you would have discounted it anyways as you and erv have done with everybody else who did, so what is the point”
No, I addressed AIG’s response to the facts of human chromosome 2 first hand, showing how their ‘god made it that way’ answer is totally unscientific in the first place.
mathetes: "Jesus spoke much about hell as a real destination for some, with the only alternative being coming to God the Father thru Jesus Himself. That's not allegory; that's plain speaking. We can't lose sight of that as we reason with people."
To the non-Christian that sounds like a threat. People don't like to be threatened. For me, that's probably the biggest reason I could never in a million years have anything to do with the Christian religion.
viking: "Please do not judge 'Christian beliefs' as nutty based on biblical literalism which is a minority view in christianity just as I would not judge evolution as nutty based on a minority view of the ID people."
I'm well aware there are Christians who are on the side of common sense. I think I might have said earlier one of my favorite biologists is a Christian.
I still could never have anything to do with Christianity, no matter how rational some Christians are. There's that big problem called God I could never agree with. Then there's the even bigger problem called Jesus. The idea that a human could be a son of God is just too impossible for me to take seriously. I don't even want to talk about the Resurrection which is also totally impossible. I'm curious. Do you believe in the Resurrection? I understand Christians have to believe in it.
Unfortunately I have to question your claim about biblical literalism being a minority view. I noticed almost half the American population believe people were created by God just a few thousand years ago. That might be a minority of Americans but it's a majority of Christian Americans.
Getting back on topic, the Louisiana 'Academic Freedom' Bill is a Christian bill. It was written by Christians and it's supported by Christians. This bill will permit the teaching of Christian beliefs in science classrooms. This is the reason it's difficult for me to ignore Christianity. It's not fair to students to have their education attacked by people for religious reasons.
Steve,
Good question about your friends + what beliefs are required for salvation. Believing the good news about Jesus dying for sinners like all of us is so simple a child can understand it, take God at His word, ask God to forgive his/her sins, and reeive eternal life. I was 8 when I did. Didn't understand theology or have an opinion on evolution, yet still God adopted me into His family. Since then He expcted me to learn His Word so I can grow as a disciple. I kept science at school + religion at church thru high school, only really trying incorporate them in college + beyond. I believed in theistic evolution even through seminary until I learned Heb + Greek. If God's Word is true, + one takes all of it for what it plainly says, then one ends with irreconciable differences between Darwinian evolution + the Bible. Viking hit on one: humans have a transcendant soul or they do not. When did they get it: when God made Adam + breathed it into that particular person, or after millions of years of "common ancestors" + evolution? And if God chose one specific mutated primate to ensoul, with what (not whom) did that first human mate to procreate? Taking God at His word makes much more sense since He was a participant/eyewitness. I've explained other contradictions in previous posts. One way around these is to make it an allegory, but that's not what Jesus + Paul did - their typologies accepted the historicity of the events and imbued them with an added spiritual meaning.
In short, God saves where we are, whether 8 or 38 yrs old. He wants us show the same faith in His perfect Word that we had in the gospel. That's the only reliable starting point for understanding the world around us, as our minds + bodies have been corrupted by sin. This is the approach of Bacon, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Mendel, Pasteur, + Kelvin.
Viking, I repeat my appreciation for the calm way you speak to unbelievers. Your reasoned approach is indeed better than ranting.
That said, I don't think believer at any time assumed the place og God as you accused. believer was quite consistent in speaking the truth in love; I hope to do as well at it. Some aspects of the gospel cannot be sugar-coated; Jesus spoke much about hell as a real destination for some, with the only alternative being coming to God the Father thru Jesus Himself. That's not allegory; that's plain speaking. We can't lose sight of that as we reason with people.
Thanks
Steve
Erv, one final thought. Please do not judge "Christian beliefs" as nutty based on biblical literalism which is a minority view in christianity just as I would not judge evolution as nutty based on a minority view of the ID people. You have had a small exposure to mainstream Christian thought which you seem to have appreciated through the quotes of early era Christian apologists. I would ask that at the least you withhold judgement until you have a greater exposure to the rational and consistent theology of mainstream Christianity. One step that I believe would be very hard for you is that to accept Christianity you would need to accept the idea that you are a rational, free willed being with the potential for transcendence. This is very hard I know and the responsibility of that thought daunting in its implications. Yet still I ask that you be open to that possibility. If and when you are ready to think about these things I would suggest C.S. Lewis book miracles as a reasonably accessible work on the subject of the Christian understanding of rationality. There are other works but this is written specifically for the lay person who has limited or no religious background and does not require any acceptance of Christianity in advance to tackle the existential questions of the human condition.
viking, please do not accuse me of being God, I simply believe in getting to the point rather than wasting time. Everything I shared other than when I inserted I believe comes directly from the Word of God with perhaps a touch of personal paraphrasing. With all do respect you have yet to give me a direct answer but tend to sermonize. I have asked do you believe God had or had not a role in evolution and if so what was His role, I asked you not what is sin but where does sin enter the evolution equation, I asked how do the angels and devils, specifically Satan fit iin the evolution view. Let me add another do you believe Adam and Eve were actual people and the first man and woman and if so how do they fit into the evolution? In the words of Denzel Washington, "please answer me as if I were a 3rd grader."
steveh20, your 100% correct it is by faith alone through Christ alone that a person is saved, my point has always been that many who adhere to evolution are atheists and agnostics because evolution does away with the need for God and especially if there is no God, so if evolution is proven to be wrong and creation is proven to be right then there is a God and the atheists and agnostics are wrong on two counts and if that God is the God of the Bible and they have not put their faith in Christ before they die, they have everything to lose. My gut hunch tells me you don't believe that, but that's what I believe and what God's Word teaches.
Part 2 to believer
And to be clear while I do not condemn you for your conception of God I ask that you not place words in my mouth that would turn away the lost sheep from finding Christ. By this I mean while you may not be able to conceive it my theology is not shaped by evolution since as I pointed out the understandings I have preceded my understanding of the science of evolution and are independent of it. If it were found tomorrow through scientific discovery that our understanding of evolution is wrong this would not disturb my faith in God or in Christ. My God is greater than his creation and greater than any imperfect revelation of himself that the human mind can hold or word can speak. I do not as you say adjust my belief in God to accommodate this or that scientific discovery. But neither do I blaspheme my God by trying to force his wondrous creation to fit into a limited preconception that I or others might have of how it works. I am sorry that you are unable to see that I do not believe god was distant and uninvolved with mankind. If you followed my posts to Erv you would see that this is not so. In fact I believe that God has involved himself intimately with his creation the universe through human beings. Also I agree with you that we were created (through a long and complex natural process which god set in motion through his initial creation) for a purpose and that that purpose is as you state to come into communion with God. My understanding of my commission from Christ is not to set stumbling blocks in the way of others coming to faith in Christ but rather to preach the good news of redemption. I do not judge but I ask you to reflect have your posts glorified god by bringing Erv and others closer to Christ or have they in arrogant self righteousness hardened his views and aided the adversary in keeping another soul from communion with God through Christ. I know that I am now and ever shall be accountable for my acts and whether they expand the Kingdom of God on earth or act as the thorns strangling the tender shoots seeking even unknowing for the light of revelation. In Christian charity I pray for you.
Long post in two parts
Believer,
Thank you for your responses. I do not expect though that you will have a sincere conversation with me. For which I am sorry you ask for my understanding of Sin and when I respond in sincerity you answer me with a polemic where you place yourself as an unquestionable authority on the bible. Notice you do not in humility say you believe such or such but rather you say what is and what is not. In doing so you abrogate for yourself the place of God. You will note that in my writing I actually follow the command of Christ not to judge others. I do not condemn you or say that you are less a Child of Christ because of your literalist views I only speak what I believe giving specific Biblical and accepted early church doctrinal writing in support of those beliefs. Your words condemn anyone who seeks to apply reason or thought to his understanding of Christ's revelation and yet Christ himself did not do so and he reproved those who did. When Thomas made his famous statements Christ did not say oh ye unbeliever you must accept my resurrection because it is foretold in the prophesies. No he said to Thomas come place your hand in my side, feel the holes in my hand. If Christ can show compassion for those who find faith hard and thus bring them to himself can I do less in my Christian charity towards Ervs and others who have not been blessed with an acceptance of Christ's redemption. I also believe that redemption and a communion with God is gained through faith but I also believe this faith can be arrived at through reason and experience. In this I stand on the acts of Christ and the apostle Paul. Neither Christ nor Paul simply said here believe this because of the authority of the prophets. No Christ taught and ministered to those around him and Paul taught the churches through reason and argument leading them to faith. Are we greater than Paul that we may simply say to the unbeliever believe as I do because I say it is so. I for one do not have such arrogance.
Believer
I am a little confused, I thought it was belief in Jesus Christ as lord that leads to salvation,nothing to do with whether one accepts evolution as a description or the bio diversity on this planet. Does this suggest that Christians who have a personal faith in Jesus as their lord and saviour and yet have no problem with evolution(some of whom I count as close friends) have in some sense a "faulty" faith?
BW
Steve
erv, your right based on your worldview Christianity does appear to be kind of nutty and the only way that view of Christianity will change is when a person comes into a genuine personal relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ and that is my prayer for you because if my view on creation is wrong you have got nothing to lose but if your view of evolution is wrong you've got everything to lose and I say that with both love and concern, have a good day.
believer, I think the Christian beliefs are very strange. Perhaps the most strange belief is this idea that death came into the world, as if there was a time when nothing died. Sorry, but I think that's really nutty.
I see the point you're trying to make. God is sitting around a few billion years with nothing to do, then finally our ancestors develop into the human species, then God after this long wait becomes involved with our affairs. When you insert evolution into Christian theology the whole thing makes no sense, not that it ever did make any sense. Evolution definitely has some serious religious implications. I'm convinced the best solution is to throw out Christianity and all other religions. Unfortunately that's too drastic for many people, so they either make their religion accommodate modern science, or they completely reject modern science.
The development of our species was not completely a matter of chance. Natural selection is not random. However chance had a lot to do with it. There was nothing inevitable about humans appearing. For example, if the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago had missed earth, the dinosaurs would still rule the earth and the small mammals we developed from would still be little creatures hiding under the ground.
Evidence from DNA analysis shows that humans were an endangered species 70,000 years ago, perhaps because of a drought in Africa. The human population may have shrunk to as low as 2,000 individuals.
Even today we are not on top of the food chain. Ask anyone who escaped an attack from a Great White Shark or a Grizzly Bear.
Humans are nothing more than animals. It makes no sense that we would be a big deal to any god. Also, this Jesus Christ stuff is nonsense. I can't imagine any god doing something as goofy as sending down Jesus just to get executed. The Christians beliefs really are crazy.
Whereas the Bible teaches that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present He is able to make something from nothing and the Bible records in both the Old and New Testament that He was the Creator of all things and as I said earlier we are not a product of chance but God has purposely designed and created us to both worship and fellowship with Him but because of the sin of Adam and Eve that relationship has been broken and can only be remedied through the work of Christ at Calvary and a person accepting by faith alone Christ as Savior and Lord. Your view of evolution cannot and will never reconcile itself with God's plan for the creation or salvation of man, because your view is based on chance and circumstance and mainly leaves God out of the equation which is the intention of a majority of evolutionists in the first place.
but according to your view of evolution death, destruction, and violence had been present for hundreds if not billions of years already and when God looked out at all that He had created through evolution and saw it was all very good He must have been lying to Himself. To be very honest you nor ifeelfine have answered a very simple question you theologize a lot on an issue but you never give an answer and personally I think the reason is because based on your view of evolution the God of the Bible will not fit and so what ever is found in the Bible about God or anything that does not fit your evolutionary view becomes an allegory or whatever and should not be taken literally. Star2 did an excellent job speaking to that. It appears that in your view of God and evolution you have designed God to fit your view of evolution rather than let God be God.
And yet your view of evolution says our existence is simply a matter of chance and for what ever reason God decides that when this process produces man that we appeal to Him and so He starts to become involved with our affairs. The Bible teaches that we were created both on purpose and for a purpose we are not a mistake, accident, or a product of chance and that purpose was to have a growing daily relationship with Him. Unfortunately, because of the sin of Adam and Eve that relationship was broken and death came into the world both physically and spiritually which caused us to be seperated from God, but because God loved us He had a plan in place to restore that relationship through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ,
viking, it appears that because you accept evolution that have redesigned your view of God to fit your evolutionary view. The biblical view of God presents Him as a God very much present and involved with His creation both in the Old and New Testament alike and your view with the acception of Christ's time on earth has Him appear very distant and uninvolved with not only His creation but more specifically with mankind. Yes, He is the God of the universe but He is also the God who loved His human creation enough to send His one and only Son to die on the Cross to pay a price that He could pay for the forgiveness of all our sins and in the process for a moment in time had to turn away from His Son as He took all the sins of the world and all the penalty for those sins upon Himself.
Believer,
And let me ask when and where does sin come into the equation as well as angels and demons specifically Satan and how do they fit into the evolution process
It is my belief (which I believe you will find extensive biblical support for) that Sin is anything which separates women or men from relationship with God. Redemption through Christ involves gaining "a new heart" (again not literally physically but rather spiritually) and thereby living in harmonious relationship with God and inherently and inevitably with our fellow man and the natural universe (God's creation). It is thus made clear that when Christ taught that the Kingdom of God was at hand he did not mean some apocalyptic end of the physical world which has been repeatedly predicted for centuries. Rather he meant it was literally at hand for all those living right then. As Christ preached in his Parables the kingdom of God is a spiritual reality which instantly comes into being for any person who "becomes a new creature" transformationaly through acceptance of Christ and his teachings.
I just watched this YouTube video interview of Stephen Jay Gould. Here is a quote from the video:
"I'm quite happy to conceive myself as merely one twig connected to the rest of life thru the bush of evolution as just one little struggling species like all others enmeshed in nature and trying as best we can to be part of it and to survive as long as we can."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCe1g0eB9Gc
believer - I have not received any email yet. Perhaps you can send it again. It has happened before when other CP posters have emailed me.
viking, I don't think every human quality is the result of evolution. For example, being rational is something that is learned from experience.
believer: "By the way have you or agentorangex made up your minds about taking the life science challenge?" Thanks, but I'm not interested.
viking
Part 1a
In the Word of God it is quite obvious what is meant to be interpreted as symbolic and what is meant to be taken literal. The examples you gave illustrate what is meant to be taken as symbolic of a spirtual truth. The parables Jesus gave were fictional stories to illustrate a spiritual principle. But those are obvious as well.
The historical record is not symbolic nor a fictional story as Augustine and othe RCC fathers have suggested.
I take as literal the creation account and all the scriptures that refer to how He did things in creating the universe and all that is in it. When He says He spoke everything into existence then, I accept that as literal, accurate, and as fact. When He says that He divided the waters from the waters then I accept that as the way He did it. When He says that he strecthed out the heavens, spoke the astrological bodies into existence according to His discretion, then I accept that as literal, accurate, and as fact. When He indicates that everything was created or formed or made in its mature state then I accept that as literal, accurate, and as fact. When God says He created each plant, fish, bird, animal and etc after its own kind then I accept that as literal, accurate, and as fact. When He says that He formed Adam out of the dust of the ground and breathe into his nostrils the breath of life I take that as literal, accurate, and as fact. When He says He caused Adam to go into a deep sleep, took a rib from him, and closed up his flesh and formed Eve I take that as literal, accurate, and as fact. In other words, I take God at His Word. Do I understand it? No, but I do seek Him for understanding.
viking
Part 1b
When God says that the father of musical instruments, the father of those who live in tents and farm, and the instructor of every artificer of iron and brass came from the lineage of Cain, I accept that as literal, accurate, and as fact.
When He says that He rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gommorah as judgment against their wickedness then I accept that as literal, accurate, and as fact.
When He says that He destroyed all flesh on the earth with a world wide flood but saved alive 8 people and the animals He put on the ark then I accept that as literal, accurate and as fact.
When God says that He parted the Red Sea so that the Israelites could go to the other side on dry land and then Pharoah's army was drowned in the Red Sea, I take that as literal, accurate, and as fact.
When the Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness and their clothes did not wear out, they were fed manna from heaven, water gushed out of a rock so they could drink, etc. I take that as literal, accurate, and as fact.
When He says that Jonah was swollowed by a whale and three days later was spit out of the whale's mouth after he repented, I accept that as literal, accurate, and as fact.
When Enoch did not see death and was taken to heaven (raptured) at 365 yrs of age I take that as literal, accurate, and as fact.
When Elijah was taken alive (raptured) to Heaven in a chariot I take that as literal, accurate, and as fact.
I accept all the historical record given in the Word of God as literal, accurate and as fact.
All the miracles recorded in the Word of God I take as literal, accurate, and as fact.
Yes, there is much symbolism in these historical incidents but that in no way suggests that these events did not literally occur.
viking
Part 2
No way can God's record of how He created the heavens and the earth be reconciled with the concepts and explanations of abiogenesis and evolution. The two are diametrically opposed to one another.
Jesus promised His disciples that when He went back to the Father He would send them the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost. Jesus told them that the Holy Ghost would teach them all things, bring back to their remembrance all that He said, would guide them into all truth, and would show them things to come (John 14:26, John 16:13). The same functions of the Holy Ghost are for all believers.
I take Jesus at His Word. I rely on God to give me understanding of His Word. I suggest that you do the same.
You do not have to try to figure things out yourself thru your own wisdom and abilities or the wisdom and abilities of other men. You can go to God the Father in Jesus name and God will answer you thru the Holy Ghost that indwells you.
I encourage you to go to God and ask Him about the account He gave of how He created the heavens and the earth.
Viking, as I caught on today's posts, I first read your post on Jesus' + Paul use of allegory. I believe they took the typological approach, not allegorical: they accepted the historicity of the events + were Spirit-inspired to imbue new spiritual meanings. We are not doing them or scripture justice to deny that history, nor are we Spirit-inspired in the same way.
So then I read your next post. You have a way with words, patiently + calmly explaining the alternatives + outcomes of each. Great job, brother. I'm calling it a day with peaceful joy in my heart.
Hi Believer thanks for the response,
You ask in the form of a rhetorical question,"and yet when it comes to the start of life He just sits in a corner twiddling His thumbs and leaves it all to chance." and secondly if my view of God's role in theistic evolution is wrong then tell me what He was doing for those billions of years while the process of evolution was taking place.
You are right you have a misunderstanding of theistic evolution that stems from a different view of the nature of God. Your statements imply a God who exists inside space "He just sits in a corner " and time " tell me what He was doing for those billions of years" and that God has human weaknesses " twiddling His thumbs"(implies boredom or impotence). In fact my conception is that God is not bound by the limits of his creation (space or time) nor does he get bored of his creation. I believe God is ultimately greater than any of our possible comprehensions of the divine and that while some aproximate understandings are better (more inspired by the spirit of God) than others, none are perfect. But in specific in relation to leaving things to chance I do not believe this. Theistic evolution is simply a small part of a broader Theistic view of the natural universe which does not see conflict between divine spiritual revelation and scientific revelaltion. In this view God incepted the creation of the universe with a pecisely determined set of conditions, processes, constants, dynamics, etc. that resulted in the natural universe which we observe.
The Christian who accepts this theology believes in the example of Christ and his teachings that the "Histories" of the OT are to be understood as primarily allegorical of spiritual truth not as literal physical realities. Just as Christ did not mean that he was a piece of rock when he referred to himself as the cornerstone which the builders rejected. We are not bound to live in bondage "under the law".
I will answer your next question in my next prompt.
Your brother in Christ
Erv,
thank you for your honesty on your veiw of yourself. "To me humans are just animals, nothing more. We're just one small branch on the tree of life. We are an extremely successful species. We are so successful that people often forget that just a few million years ago our ancestors were living in trees. I'm glad to be a member of the human race, but I could never believe we are anything more than an ape species."
In humility and from a scientific point of view I would ask you then from whence do you believe rationality arises. If what you hold is true then the rationality on which you base this conclusion arises from evolutionary processes that operated in an environment that favored this behavioral manifestation as a species advantage for perpetuation.(help me with the science if I got that wrong). Assuming I got that right then what we call rationality would simply be an artifact of an evolutionary process and have no independent validity or foundation. By this I mean what we call rationality would simply be a species trait that happened in the last several eons to possess a survival advantage but could easily be illusionary in the sense of having any objective validity. If that is the case then someone holding that point of view would be forced to concede by their own conclusion that anytime we think we are being rational it is actually just a behavioral response of the species that happens to work out with a survival advantage and cannot be claimed to have any particular validity in and of itself. In other words someone holding your view can not really believe that they are actually rational or a truly reasoning being since as simple evolved animals such behavior is simply an evolutionary artifact.
When I ask you to open your mind to the possibility that you are a transcendent being I am actually asking that you accept your rationality as something real rather than just an illusion of rationality brought about through evelutionary forces. However if you can not do this I accept your self limiting and your decision that no thought idea hypothesis or concept you put forward can ever be actually relied on since from your point of view it could simply be a false but advantageous behavioral trait.
Star,
I will not argue regarding your view of those early church theologians who lived and taught much closer to the time of Christ than either of us and who had access to the original Greek and Hebrew texts as we do not. Rather I will direct you once again to the words of Christ and to his disciple through revelation Paul. Christ himself set the standard for interpreting scripture. Did he not refer to himself as the cornerstone that was rejected by the builders. Under your rule (of reading the scriptures as literal physical truth rather than inspired spiritual truth) Christ was calling himself a piece of Rock. Surely you can not maintain that you believe this rather than the allegorical reading of the psalmist that the cornerstone was a metaphor for Christ. If you do on the other hand accept Christ’s allegorical teaching of the old testament how do you maintain that such treatment of the scriptures is un Christian and demonstrates a lack of faith. Do you set yourself and your literalist desire to “live under the law” of the old testament above Christ. I ask this of you in Christian charity and humility of my own limited but faithful following of the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. This Allegorical treatment of the OT is continued in Paul’s letter to the Gallatians where he reproves the Gallatians by explicitly explaining the OT story of Abraham’s sons as an allegory of the two covenants one of bondage and one of liberty ( Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar) . Do you also hold that Paul is a heretic and without strong faith because he taught the spiritual truth that underlay the stories of the OT. Also do you hold that the Gospel of John is heretical since written by John the evangelist around 90-120 A.D. it borrows heavily from Hellenistic concepts and images to set forth the good news of redemption through Christ Jesus. You statement implies that you accept the Genesis story of Creation as literal physical truth rather than as spiritual truth. If this belief helps you to maintain your faith in the redemption of Christ then I will not try to dissuade you from it. I would humbly put forward however that my faith in Christ is not so weak as to be dependent upon such a belief in the OT. If somehow it could be demonstrated beyond any doubt or question that the translations of the OT that we have were complete and utter fabrications of some enormous fraud it would not shake my faith in Christ’s message one bit. As a brother in Christ I pray that you reflect on the words of the Lord. "Nobody sews a patch of unshrunken cloth on to an old coat, for the patch will pull away from the coat and the hole will be worse than ever. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins - otherwise the skins burst, the wine is spilt and the skins are ruined. But they put new wine into new skins and both are preserved.
erv, if evolution as you believe it is true you are absolutely 100% correct. By the way have you or agentorangex made up your minds about taking the life science challenge? I'll check to see your response in the morning, have a good night.
Excellent question from believer: "... then tell me what He was doing for those billions of years while the process of evolution was taking place."
If there is a God (I doubt it) and if God invented all the laws of nature (an inventor was not necessary in my opinion), and then let the universe begin, what has He been doing the past 14 billion years? Since nature has been doing an excellent job all this time without supernatural intervention, God must be bored to death by now.
believer asks good questions.
believer: "Now back to my concern with theistic evolution. The Word of God teaches that God is all-present, all-knowing, all-powerful and yet when it comes to the start of life He just sits in a corner twiddling His thumbs and leaves it all to chance."
If there is a God, He most certainly did not bother doing anything that nature can do on its own.
viking and ifeelfine, first disregard the their before God in my first blog secondly if my view of God's role in theistic evolution is wrong then tell me what He was doing for those billions of years while the process of evolution was taking place. And let me ask when and where does sin come into the equation as well as angels and demons specifically Satan and how do they fit into the evolution process.
viking and ifeelfine, when are you gonna get it athiests and agnostics have no choice but to teach a view that is totally without the need of God for if the view has a need for God then their God must exist. Secular humanists are developing a system that is totally void of God as well as the need for God and evolution is a perfect fit. Now back to my concern with theistic evolution. The Word of God teaches that God is all-present, all-knowing, all-powerful and yet when it comes to the start of life He just sits in a corner twiddling His thumbs and leaves it all to chance.
Augustine: "It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."
star2, was Augustine not a true Christian thinker? That's for Christians to decide, not me. As a non-Christian I have to agree with his quote above. I have often laughed at some things Christians have said because they were so obviously and totally wrong. The Christians who refuse to think cause great harm to their religion in my opinion.
star2 (to agentorange): "...if the human and the chimp was exposed to the sames viruses then the resulting ERV's would be the same in the DNA that is identical between the two species."
That doesn't work because the ERVs are in identical locations in the genome of both species, which is as likely as my ever winning the lottery and I never buy lottery tickets. The only possible explanation is the ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor species. Be careful about disagreeing with the top scientists of the world. They have a big advantage. They know what they're talking about.
viking, I more or less agree with everything you said.
I thought this was interesting: "I would ask that you open your heart and mind to the possibility of an understanding of your self as a transcendent being beyond the powerful yet limited means of science to describe or explain. If you can do this your are on your way to understanding true Christian thought."
I had to look up the meaning of the word transcendent.
transcendent: Being above and independent of the material universe.
To me humans are just animals, nothing more. We're just one small branch on the tree of life. We are an extremely successful species. We are so successful that people often forget that just a few million years ago our ancestors were living in trees. I'm glad to be a member of the human race, but I could never believe we are anything more than an ape species.
believer: "... but I do so much appreciate your honesty."
Thanks. That was the best (and only) compliment I got today.
Believer, yes I believe fervently that god had a role in evolution (though the term had is somewhat deceiving since it places the act of god inside of time rather than outside of it since time itself is part of God’s creation) as God did in every aspect of the universe. I believe that this role is well stated in spiritual terms by the following which you may find familiar.
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Now I know that this is only one translation (and thus imperfect) of the writings of John the evangelist (A.D. 90-120) and thus imperfect in its communication of the original text yet it is because I struggled with this text in my early faith journey that I still hearken back to it. In explication and in more modern language and with out directly commenting on the indispensable implications of the text in regards to Christ I would say the following. God exists outside of time and space and the natural universe. God brought this universe into existence through means which are themselves ultimately beyond the scope of science to observe, describe or explicate since by definition the act of God in bringing the universe into being was Supernatural not natural (I use these terms in their classic sense not the corrupted lay meanings of today). In doing so God originated all of the natural processes that science has or ever can observe, describe or explicate. This includes the processes of evolution. Therefore no actual scientific discovery can ever conflict with my understanding of God since what ever that discovery is it is simply a discovery of the outcome of God’s original act. As such also no discovery or theory can ever demonstrate or prove God. I further believe that the searching after scientific proof of the existence of God is not only futile it is a demonstration of lack of faith rather than an abundance of it. Yes it is true that many persons in many areas are without faith. Where I stand is with Christ
You are the earth's salt. But if the salt should become tasteless, what can make it salt again?
Let your light shine like that in the sight of men. Let them see the good things you do and praise your Father in Heaven.
"You have heard that it used to be said, 'You shall love your neighbour', and 'hate your enemy', but I tell you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Heavenly Father.
"For if you forgive other people their failures, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you will not forgive other people, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you your failures."
"Don't criticise people, and you will not be criticised. For you will be judged by the way you criticise others, and the measure you give will be the measure you receive.
viking
Clement, Origen, and Augustine were not true Christian thinkers. If they were they would have accepted by faith the Word of God and would have sought God for the understanding of scripture instead of interpreting scripture through the eyes of Greek philosophy.
Natural man cannot understand the Word of God for it is spirtually appraised. When a person cannot understand scripture they start trying to make it say what it does not say. That is what these three men did. Their interpretations and teachings are heretical. Because they did not understand Genesis they started viewing it as allegorical. Origen and Augustine introduced the allegorical approach to interpreting scripture and it has become the norm for the RCC.
If a Christian cannot accept by faith the creation account given by God in the Word of God then over time their faith will become weakened. They will begin to question everything God says. They will become skeptics. Eventually they may even become a non-believer.
It is a dangerous to not accept by faith God's Word.
Hebrews 11:3 - "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Ervs,
Hi again I would like in Christian humility to offer the following for your reflection. You state “It's disgraceful that so many Christians can't answer a simple question correctly. The correct answer is evolution is a fact and God had absolutely nothing to do with it.” You are correct that the processes and phenomena predicted and explicated by the theory of evolution are observed facts. However from a scientific perspective you can not make the assertion that “God had absolutely nothing to do with it.” Science is in fact agnostic neither declaring nor denying the existence of god nor taking any stand on God’s possible acts in relation to events outside of the time space continuum we call the universe. Your statement goes beyond the limits of science and in fact is a statement of belief, or faith if you will, without any evidence or proof (remember the absence of evidence is not evidence). It is this type of over reaching anti-theistic statement associated often with those who advocate for acceptance of scientific understanding (of among other things evolution) which results in charges of scientists and science itself as being anti-God. Of course this is not true of Science anymore than Christianity is Anti-science.
If your desire is truly to reach some common ground and to promote a true understanding of the science of Evolution then insulting persons of faith with statements of a religious nature that are beyond the scope of science to claim are not helpful. Finally in substantive response to this statement it would be more accurate to state that no intervention by god in the natural universe as it is observed to exist is required for the processes (including evolution) of nature to function. It is also true however that nothing in science in any way conflicts with the belief that a creator brought the current universe with all of its underlying dynamics, structure, parameters, constants, order, processes etc. into existence in a way consistent with all scientific observations. Further more there is nothing within the Theory of evolution which conflicts with such a creator establishing the initial creation conditions in such a way that the processes of evolution were not only possible but also inevitable.
While as you allude I am a friend of science I also am a friend of literature. The two are not mutually exclusive nor inherently in conflict. Yet it is impossible to use the scientific method to describe and explicate the human condition the way literature does. Is Hamlet’s soliloquy less insightful or true in its mode of creating meaning because it is not scientific? No it is just not scientific. I would ask that you open your heart and mind to the possibility of an understanding of your self as a transcendent being beyond the powerful yet limited means of science to describe or explain. If you can do this your are on your way to understanding true Christian thought.
believer - no, not yet.
Viking let me ask you like I asked ifeelfine and he has not yet responded, did God have or not have a role in evolution, if yes what was his role, since many in the evolution camp are either atheists or agnostics they do not believe God had any part in the process whatsoever especially since there is no God and even though they appreciate that you support their scientific view of evolution they would prefer you leave God out of the equation, so please let me know where you stand on this.
viking,
Augustine, who died in the year 430 at age 75, had a lot of common sense for somebody living that long ago. I wish he was alive today. The world needs him more than ever.
star2, did not get your e-mail, believer
Ervs, sorry for the delay in my response,
I would hope that you begin to see that the theology of many devout Christians is not in conflict with Scientific understanding of the world. In fact many believe that each advance in understanding of the wonders of the universe only serves to glorify God.
Yes I think in part you do misunderstand me. You state “a religious belief that millions of religious people threw out because they have enough common sense to make their religion accommodate new scientific discoveries.” You perhaps imply that many Christians “threw out” a religious belief (i.e. literal interpretation of Genesis) to accommodate the scientific discoveries related to evolution. This is incorrect and displays a deep but not surprising misunderstanding of Christian theology. Perhaps it would help if I shared with you a few quotes that illustrate that true Christian theology anticipated scientific discoveries rather than were altered to accommodate new scientific discoveries.
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]) Clement of Alexandria
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225] Origen.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]) Augustine
As you can see true Christian thought from the earliest times was not in conflict with science.
believer - I just sent an email to the person I think you are.
star2, if my confirmation name were my last name they would be!
Repost of my explanation for Chromosome 2 Fusion. Maybe others creationists will give theirs.
agentorange
Chromosone 2 Fusion
When God created the universe and everything in it He decided how things were going to work and how they would be combined together.
God created a certain amount of chromosones and divided them according to His will. He decided how many chromosones each type of animal life and, as far as that goes, all life would have.
From what I understand a telomere protects the end of a chromosone from destruction during cell division. The telomeres limit the number of cell divisions that can take place over an animal's/human's (hereafter refered to as 'host's') life span and protects the host cell's chromosones from fusing together or rearranging.
It is genetically impossible for two separate chromosones in an animal to combine to form an entirely different animal.
Since the scientists of our day have determined that the human 2 chromosone is a combination of two separate but nearly identical chromosones in the chimp, then the only explanation as to why that is so is that God designed it that way.
agentorange - I reposted my explanation for the 7 identical ERVs between the chimp and the human. Maybe other creationists will post their explanation.
(Repost from another article)
agentorange
Part 1
Re:Ok, let me simpify it here. ERV insertion into an animal’s genome is ENTIRELY RANDOM. For 2 animals (which already share 98.5% similar nuclear DNA, that would be us and Chimps) to have the EXACT same 7 viral fragments (1 ERV per unique type of virus) and that all 7 be all in same genetic locations of their respected genomes is outside the odds and probability and virtually impossible for both them and us to share the same ones and in the exact same genetic locations. The only way this evidence can be explained is by common ancestry and evolution.
By all means try to explain this evidence without evolution and common descent.
I disagree with your conclusion. There is another explanation for it. When I get it I'll let you know.
ANSWER: The explanation comes from Genesis 1
From Genesis 1 we find the following:
o God is the creator of all things
- space [firmament (atmosphere), heavens (outer space)]
- light in the form of sun, moon, stars
- earth with dry land and seas
- plant life:grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees yielding fruit after its own kind
- fish:each type of fish created after its own kind
- fowl:each type of fowl created after its own kind
- animal life and insects:each type of animal and insect created after its own kind
- humans:Adam and Eve were created in the image of God and after His likeness
o Each creation serves a purpose.
Examples: 1) the lights in firmament divides the day from the night, and is for signs, season,
days and years. 2) Plant life is food for the animals and humans.
o Human life is unique from all of God's creation in that humans were created in the image and likeness of God.
(Repost from another article)
agentorange
Part 2
o God created laws to control the behavior/function of all his creation.
The plant life receive their food from the ground. The genetics that control that are similar or the same.
The laws of genetics that control the biological functions of all animal life is the same or similar. We can deduce this from the fact that animals and humans each consume the same kind of food, and their respective systems process these foods in a similar way. Thus, the genetics that control the consumption of these food are the same or similar.
Hence, the laws of genetics will be the same among the species.
According to Genesis 1 animal life and human life are similar but different. They are similar in the sense that animals and humans can see, hear, feel, smell, taste, reproduce, elimate body waste, etc.. Each require sleep, water. The difference, again, is that Man is created in the image and likeness of God whereas the animals are not.
However, the laws of genetics that control the biological functions of each are the same.
Now, focusing on the great apes, chimps, and humans. It is obvious that the apearance of each of these are simialr. Each have two feet with toes, two hands with fingers, a head, two ears, two eyes, a nose,a mouth with teeth, and a brain. They all have similar abilities. The can hunt for food, make use of tools, they have their own form of communications, and etc. The human,though, is vastly superior to the apes and chimps in his abilities.
God established what all the biological components (DNA, chromosones, genes, etc) were going to be, how they would function, what traits/behaviors they would define, and etc..
When God created each animal He decided what their purpose was going to be in the world and what kind of DNA would achieve that purpose.
Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical. They have exactly the same genetic makeup. God designed it that way. Since the laws of genetics of all living flesh is the same then it would be reasonable to assume that if the human and the chimp was exposed to the sames viruses then the resulting ERV's would be the same in the DNA that is identical between the two species.. So, this is my explanation as to why the human and the chimp have 7 identical ERVs.
agentorange - Even if the new creationists on CP answered your questions you wouldn't accept their answers. You rejected mine and everyone else explanations in the past. Me and other creationists had, for all practical purposes, the same answer. All you could answer me with my explaination as I gave you the scenario was that it was mathematically impossible for it to have happened. The others basically made a statement; ie, common design. I'll go get my explanation and repost it.
believer - are your initials RJ?
Come on, ERV, AO, while I'm watching your videos and learning (even more) about falsifiability, it looks like it's time to take the test. The ball is in your court. If your interpretation of the evidence is so convincing, take the challenge. I'll be watching the lifescienceprize site for news of your winning.
agentorangex and erv, I see neither of you has responded as whether or not you're going to take the lifescienceprize.org challenge, what's up with that?
agentorangex, you're right I didn't because I don't have an answer, but at the same time if had referred to information I received from ICR or AIG or any other creationist website you would have discounted it anyways as you and erv have done with everybody else who did, so what is the point?
Believer, the ERV’s and human chromosome 2 stuff, that is what you (I think) didn't answer. i might be wrong, I know many others have avoided it like the plague. I only take evidence as I see it, I don't care so much as how, who, or where it comes from as opposed to the actual verification of said evidence based on sound tests and facts.
Case and point, the human chromosome 2 evidence and how big name science journals all agree on what the only explanation for it and other bits of evidence are as compared with AIG's token, unscientific response of 'well, god could have made it that way'. sorry, but 'god made it that way', or 'god dun it' is a totally unscientific answer as its not falsifiable, and this is the stuff you want to teach as science? Please tell me you understand the principle of falsifiability? If not, please refer to Wikipeida and familiarize yourself so at least you can understand why 'god made it that way' isn't scientific at all and can't be taught as such.
agentorangex, I've gone to that challenge site and the rules seem pretty easy to abide by and I did not see anything that as you said would keep you from possibly proving your point, so why not give a shot if your so confident there is no way anyone can either scientifically disprove evolution or prove creation. Or are we a little bit hesitant about playing with the big boys?
agentorangex, what question did I not answer and other than piltdown man I did not say they were fake but they were fully human so why not call them human. But as I've said all along I don't claim to be scientist or researcher so I know I'm totally out of your league in that arena, but at the same time what good would it do since you and erv totally discard anybody who in any way, shape, or form is part of the creationist camp and especially anyone associated with AIG or ICR.
"they were fully human so why not simply call him a man. "
Ok, they weren't like our modern apes, and they were more like us for sure, but they weren't us, they were different. Yup, piltdown was found to be a hoax, the neandethals and others....not so much. Seriously ask yourself why god would make a quasi human species just like us, while they weren't us. additionally ask yourself why is it places like AIG, ICR don't even contend they are fakes, they admit they are the real deal.
lifescienceprize.org
Ummm, what exactly must be shown? Looks like another 'kent hovind' prize which isn't even a realistic test. Go ahead, don't bother to answer my questions though, its par for the course around here.
agentorangex, that's exactly what I believe as well they were fully human so why not simply call him a man. Plus the piltdown man was proven to be a total hoax when it was found that it was the tooth of an extinct pig not the tooth of an ancestor of man.
“as far as the neandrethal man along with the infamous piltdown man I don't to be concerned with something that never existed.’
Believer, how you can reject actual physical, tangible evidence which you can hold and study in your very hand is beyond me, we have over on record over 400 specimens of Homo Neandethalensis, not even the dingbats at AIG and ICR contend they never existed, they instead contend ‘they were fully human’. Oh my, how horrid. Worst of all is how the recent genetic evidence further concludes that Neanderthals weren’t the same as us Homo sapiens.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
By all means believer, dillude yourself, pretend they don't exist.
agentorangex, I have never spoken to the erv issue since I don't claim to be either a scientist or researcher, but I asked you at another site if you've taken the challenge at lifescienceprize.org since you seem so confident that no reputable person can scientifically disprove evolution or prove creation, how about you erv. Sounds like easy money to me.
ERVs, thanks for keeping on with my talking points of ERV's and HC2, still I've read the token AIG response though. 'god could have made it that way'. ? uuuum, ya, but why would he right?
I mean here you have folks like AIG and ICR arguing for this omnipotent perfect crafting designer who leaves post it notes in the form of 10 commandments and reveled word to some desert nomads, and then in the end this very word we end up finding not quite so matching evidences in science and to explain why they don’t reconcile so easily, they surmise ‘god could have just made em that way’….well, why would he bother, right? Why would god go to such lengths to leave MORE evidence FOR evolution, unless it was actually the case? It doesn’t make sense for him to on one hand ‘reveal’ his notions on how it was done, only to find his very supposed creation at odds with his words. Ummm, might I be the only one to see the obvious logic problem here?
The answer AIG gives is not only not scientific, but decrying 'god made it so' answers absolutely nothing, it reveals no new actual knowledge which we can then take advantage of. I also read earlier, I think from believer, that god could have ‘left ERV’s’ in similar species, ummm, ya but this is making again MORE evidence which reaffirms evolution. And no believer, ERV’s are not analogous to having eyes, they actually show quite a different hereditary based narrative, one need only read into the details like from actual science journals like Pubmed, or Plos.
everyone can relax, I have returned. Dun, dun dun !!!!!
erv, needless to say you and I agree on almost nothing accept that we agree that we agree on almost nothing, but I do so much appreciate your honesty.
ifeelfine72: "I've already shared that I believe in a theistic version of evolution. Like viking, I feel it is perfectly compatible with the Bible."
ifeelfine72, you might wish I would go away and shut up, but I have to agree with the creationists on this one. Virtually everything I have read in the Bible strongly conflicts with modern science.
For example, I would have a very difficult time making "Let us make man in our image" and the science of biological evolution compatible with each other.
Not to worry. There's this quote from the Clergy Letter Project: "We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
In other words, a person could believe in the Bible and still accept modern scientific discoveries, as long as that person understood that ...
Oh heck. Why not just throw out God? I did, and I discovered that life is much simpler without Him.
ifeelfine, did God have or not have a role in evolution, if so what was His role because according to many in the evolution camp God has no part in the equation and since many of them are atheists or agnostics that would not only make sense but that has to be a reality if there is no God. So as I said earlier not only does theistic evolution willfully contradict the inerrant Word of God it is a view that a large majority of evolutions reject because it says God had a role in evolution.
mathetes: "Thanks for clearing that up."
I said that scientific facts, including evolution, are not atheistic. Science, including evolution, is just science.
I also said evolution is a fact and God had absolutely nothing to do with it.
That might sound confusing to some people so I will explain using an example.
Nobody would call gravity an atheistic idea. Also, very people would agree God had anything to do with gravity. If there were no God, people would still not float up into space.
So gravity is not atheistic, but God had nothing to do with it. In other words gravity is not atheistic and it's not theistic. It just has nothing to do with God. Gravity says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. Gravity is a scientific fact, and science and religion are two different subjects that have nothing to do with each other. Competent religious scientists go to church on Sunday, but on Monday at work they do not invoke God to solve scientific problems. I like to compare religious scientists to religious garbage collectors. Religious garbage men go to church on Sunday, but on Monday they don't use God to help them pick up the trash.
Gravity and evolution are two different scientific facts, but like all scientific facts they have this in common: They are not atheistic ideas. They are scientific ideas. They're not theistic either. Science has nothing to do with God, and God has nothing to do with science, including gravity and evolution.
People believe in God, but they don't use God to help them do their jobs, whether their job is collecting garbage, or researching the evolution of life.
What are the religious implications of God being completely separate from modern science? That's not my problem.
believer: I'm not sure what you're getting at with regards to my belief in evolution. Please elaborate. I've already shared that I believe in a theistic version of evolution. Like viking, I feel it is perfectly compatible with the Bible.
ifeelfine, do you or do you not adhere to theistic evolution, did God have or not have a role in the creation of the universe or not. To Christians it appears you say yes He did and yet in your response to erv you say no He didn't. You see theistic evolutionists tend to say as long as you believe in the beginning God what happened after that really is not that important just as long as you believe God had a role in it. So where do you fall?
ifeelfine, most evolutionists do not adhere to the Genesis Flood as taught in the Word of God. One key thing about it is that Noah did not go and get the animals God brought all the animals who He wanted to survive the flood to Noah. Many creationists believe that God did not allow some of the dinosaurs to survive and those He did along with the rest of the animals they would have been not fully grown and easily fit into the Ark.
ifeelfine, I don't need to rely on anything but the inerrant Word of God, plus I do not adhere to the 6000 year view that is a manmade idea, I do adhere to the young earth view as that is strongly supported by the Word of God. And yes I believe that dinosaurs and man cohabitated together in the beginning but unfortunately the sin of Adam and Eve had a negative impact on all creation and as far as the neandrethal man along with the infamous piltdown man I don't to be concerned with something that never existed.
believer: I responded to that and said I don't agree at all with that - theistic evolution is not appeasement at all. Educate yourself to the facts (and not AIG or ICR) and it will be pretty obvious.
Just to be clear though, you are suggesting that every creature that has ever lived was alive 6000 years ago - dinosaurs, neanderthal man, etc?
star: Theistic evolution in no is deistic of pantheistic. And I've told you this before and exactly why. And I've never once said God is wrong, I've said you're wrong lots of times - it seems as though you are having some issues separating who is who! You can stop putting words into my mouth and beliefs that I've made plain I don't believe.
There are two major issues that I differ from you on (evolution and homosexuality) and you would dare suggest I am not a Christian? You are wrong and have been wrong and I would suggest that you get your perspective right with God.
star 2 and mathetes, thanks for your support on this issue, believer
ifeelfine, do you not read the responses to your blogs because I shared with you already that if theistic evolution is true than God is a liar, because on the sixth day when He had completed all of His creation of the universe and man He said in Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that He had made and it was very good" regardless of your version of theistic evolution when God saw all of His creation and saw that it was very good there would have already been death, violence, and destruction which is not very good. Theistic evolution was and will always be a poor attempt to appease those in the scientific community who adhere to evolution. In a nutshell it says that God messed up at His first attempt at creation so He destroyed all that and started over. God's Word is clear at how He created both the universe and man and theistic evolution is not the way He did it.
ifeelfine72
The concept of evolution came from men who were atheists. An atheist doesn't believe in any kind of God. The only exception would be perhaps Darwin. However, though originally a believer, he lost his faith in God and the Word of God over about 20 years after he came up with his foolish thoughts on the origin of things. The same is happening to you. You say God is wrong in so many things you no longer believe much of what the Bible says to the point Christians on CP wonder if you really are a Christian. Your worldview is not Christian.
Ifeelfine72,
I can't speak for believer, but we talked about this last week. The theory of evolution and the Bible are contradictory in many ways. The ruling paradigm in astronomy says the sun formed before the earth; in biology it states life originated in the sea; and land mammals are the ancestors of whales. Genesis 1 says just the opposite in a clear narrative format: earth preceded the sun; the first life was plants on land; sea animals of all types came before land animals. Pretty clear opposites, no? To hold to the truth of one means the other is wrong.
ifeelfine72
The God of theistic evolution is an diestic/pantheistic kind of God. That is not the God of the Bible.
ifeelfine72
Re:why would you say theistic evolution has got to go?
Because it is not the way God did it.
believer: why would you say theistic evolution has got to go?
ERV: While I am usually on board with what you say as I am pro-science and understand enough facts of evolution to know it is clearly true, I am also a God-loving Christian like Viking. The only time I ever use the term "theistic evolution" (nothing like ID at all) is on a site like this or when I'm explaining it to my other Christian friends. Outside of a site like this, have you ever really heard someone describe themselves that way? I know I haven't and the majority of Christians really do believe that.
And the only reason I even have to use "theistic evolution" is because some Christians (mostly fundy's) think that the facts of evolution disprove God (and you're not doing much to help with your clear disdain of Christianity). I do agree that it is unfair that one should even use that term at all - if the fundamentalist Christians weren't so afraid of what they think the implications of evolution would do to their faith, it wouldn't be so bad.
BTW: If pressed, I could just as easily use the term "theistic gravity" but thankfully most Christians aren't afraid of gravity.
Anyway, don't paint all Christians with the same brush.
erv, finally something we can totally agree on that those of you in the evolution camp appreciate theistic evolutionists buying into your view of evolution from a scientific perspective, but as far as God having anything to do with evolution now thats gotta go. And you're 100% correct theistic evolution has gotta go!
Q: "Too many Christians think evolution is an atheistic idea..." Why?
A: "The correct answer is evolution is a fact and God had absolutely nothing to do with it."
Thanks for clearing that up.
viking, I have no problem with competent scientists who are also Christians. In fact one of my favorite biologists, Ken Miller, is a Christian.
You said "I for one do believe in a creator who created the natural universe with the processes of what we call evolution inherent within it and with quantam mechanics and gravity etc., etc."
That's fine with me. You are pro-science. We are on the same side. I would just like to point out that, for example, gravity did not need an inventor. Neither did biological evolution. These natural processes work just fine, and they would work even if there never was any God.
Certainly you don't think that without God inventing gravity, people would float out into space. There's also no reason to invoke God to invent evolution. Life is going to change over time whether or not God ever existed.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant. In any case, thanks for being a theist and still accepting modern biology. Too many Christians think evolution is an atheistic idea, but it really is just science that just happens to conflict with one religious belief, a religious belief that millions of religious people threw out because they have enough common sense to make their religion accommodate new scientific discoveries.
I don't like any branch of science being called theistic. I noticed the word theistic, when used as an adjective for a scientific fact, is almost always used for evolution and only evolution. The implication is that evolution is different from other scientific facts, and that's not true.
Only 13% of Americans accept the idea that humans developed from other animals without God guiding the process. That's terrible. Evolution is guided by natural selection and other mechanisms. Even the most religious (competent) biologists know that supernatural intervention is NOT a mechanism of evolution. Certainly Ken Miller never invokes God to explain anything in biology. It's disgraceful that so many Christians can't answer a simple question correctly. The correct answer is evolution is a fact and God had absolutely nothing to do with it.
ERVs,
While I in general agree with your posts around biology and evolution I find I must respectully disagree with your last post regarding theistic evolution, Theistic gravity, etc. Many thoughtful informed Christians understand Science and the scientific method. I would aske that you think about the idea that there is no conflict between faith and science. That a scientist who begins his work with a prayer for guidance and wisdom and then proceeds to subject his hypothesis to rigorous testing and analysis is no less a scientist for his faith. Nor does a belief in an ultimate creator of the natural order and functioning of the universe in any way distort his approach to science. I for one do believe in a creator who created the natural universe with the processes of wheat we call evolution inherent within it and with quantam mechanics and gravity etc., etc. What I do not believe is that God can be glorified nor the testament of Christ spread by denying the observed truths such as the processes of evolution by a misguided and non-Christian attempt to live under the law of the old testaament as the OT literalists do.
logicshouldprevail: "Or, it can be used to say: look these Ervs are in identical places, there must have been a uniform designer who allowed them to be placed in each of those identical locations, or allowed them to be inherited in the same places, etc. I don't think this ambiguity can be refuted."
There are many examples of identical Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs) that are found in the exact same place in the genome in two or more species. The only possible explanation is these ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor species.
When you deny this common sense logic, you are insulting the intelligence and hard work of thousands of biologists. You are also insulting the God you believe in. You are saying God went way out of His way to magically insert many ERVs in the exact same locations in many species to deceive scientists.
Why would you think God is in the business of deceiving scientists? Don't you see how insulting this is? Do you think it's in your best interest to insult God?
I would like to talk some more about all those biologists that you and other creationists insult just by being creationists. Biologists devote their lives to understanding how the world works. They work very hard to make the scientific discoveries they make. Just to become a biologist is hard work. It takes a lot of education. Science is not easy like other careers. It takes a much higher than average intelligence and a much higher than average desire to work hard. What do the biologists get in return for all their hard work? What they get is half the American population thinks they are liars and/or incompetent. I think creationists owe the biologists of the world an apology. Then they should apologize to the God they believe in for not using their brain. If there is a God, I doubt He approves of people who refuse to think.
mathetes
Re:If you want to understand how Gen 1+2 report the history of the first 7 days, I'll have to teach you some Hebrew grammar; it just takes some time. But there's no contradiction between the 2 chapters.
I am interested. I am Christian.
I just got done reading all of tologist's comments. It's obvious he is by far the most knowledgeable person here, which I would expect of a biology professor. I encourage the anti-science Christians to read his comments carefully. And I hope tologist feels free to correct any errors I make.
logicshouldprevail: "I want to learn more about macro-evolution, if nothing else, so I can challenge it further, or accept it and come to the conclusion that God somehow wanted to create humans that way."
Want to learn more about it? You can start by not using the word macro-evolution because creationists use it all the time and scientists use it very rarely. Micro and macro are the same thing except macro is over a longer period of time. The mechanisms that cause minor changes to a species are the same mechanisms that cause the development of new species. The creationists need to understand that evolution does not come to a complete stop before animals start looking too different from their ancient ancestors.
You definitely don't want to learn more about evolution just to challenge it. You are not really trying to understand something if all you want to do is criticize it.
Also, if you really want to understand biological evolution, it would help a lot if you at least temporarily set God aside somewhere. God and science don't mix, and you're never going to understand science if you keep looking for a place to insert God. Worship God all you want, but when you're studying science keep Him out of it.
I like to compare biological evolution to gravity. Both are facts and both do not require supernatural intervention. They are just facts that explain how the natural world works. There is no theistic gravity and there's no theistic evolution. It's just science, and science is always completely separate from religious beliefs, including the belief in God.
tologist: "Yes, I'm a biology professor at leading institution with internationally recognized programs."
I'm very glad you're here. Most Christians here know nothing about biology and I hope they learn something from you.
Barbara Forrest, PhD. is a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University.
I just wanted to share these quotes from Barbara Forrest that I wrote down a long time ago.
"The current controversy of evolution versus creationism is one in which you have a segment of the American population who for religious reasons has never been able to accommodate modern science and even many aspects of the modern world. They want to see the country governed by people who think that religion should be the foundation of public policy."
"When you get right down to the bedrock of what intelligent design is about, it's trying to explain the natural world in a supernatural way, and trying to pass off the supernatural as a scientific explanation."
"If you come into a learning situation and there is a religious line which you're not going to be willing to cross, then you forfeit the possibility that you will learn everything that is possible to learn."
"If you are telling students that God did it, which is basically what the creationist point of view is, there's no reason for a student to try to find a natural explanation. It's a done deal. We already know that God did it so why bother looking for a natural explanation. And of course if you don't look for a natural explanation you're never going to find one. So that is why we restrict ourselves to only a natural cause in real science as opposed to creation science, because by restricting ourselves to a natural cause we keep ourselves honest. We keep ourselves looking for that natural cause even if it's very very difficult to find."
LSP, it's been a pleasure. I've been reading here a while but posted 1st time this weekend. Thru college + first masters I was Mr Science, a theistic evolutionist. Only after seminary w/Grk + Heb did I find that position untenable: too many contradictions + compromises. I teach religion + help churches without a pastor. Much credit goes to unv colleagues in sciences, philosophy, logic.
Thanks for postings: insightful, powerful logic. Lawyer? Debate coach? It all reminded me that's we do our best, but in the end it's spiritual. Keep up the good fight.
mathetes:
I appreciate your support throughout this debate. It's nice to know I'm not alone here! Also, you mentioned that you understand hebrew grammer. Are you a pastor by profession, or just someone who has studied up on theology?
Paul Burnett: You assume because I have not looked at your cites yet, that I will never. Aside from the fact, that this is illogical, it is also unfair. I did not come from a Christian background but took the time to read up on different religious and philosophical perspectives. I pride myself in doing this still. I will certainly read your articles. It just might not be immediately.
You might also tone it down on the anger, a bit. I understand your frustration. You believe something to be true and feel you have evidence to support it. You're frustrated that not everyone agrees with you. I share the same frustrations. I want to learn more about macro-evolution, if nothing else, so I can challenge it further, or accept it and come to the conclusion that God somehow wanted to create humans that way. If you want to challenge my belief in God as somehow "ludicrous," which the tone of your posts suggests you may, I reserve the right to challenge your belief in no God, which is equally faith-based.
While you're at it, you gave me some stuff to read from your perspective. Why not cracking open a Bible (start with the Gospel of John) and praying to God asking him to guide you to truth? You're probably laughing at me for suggesting this, but if you are, it's time to ask yourself who's the closed-minded one here.
tologist: You stated: "thus far the courts agree with me, even the most conservative judges." No, actually they do not. Find Edwards v. Aguillard, 107 S.Ct. 2573 (1987). Read Scalia's dissent. He argues for balanced treatment based on the secular interest of thinking critically. If you can't find a copy online, let me know and I'll send you a link.
As for your issues with the Bible, I can understand how you feel. So much death, hypocrisy, and destruction in the world, all on the basis of religion. First, most of these acts occured based on the merging of church and state, something, which unlike most Christians, I am against. (No, I don't believe informing students of the flaws in macro-evolution violates this, but this is another debate)
Secondly, you could also argue that these bad acts occur based on misinformed zeal. For example, take the crusades. Pope Urban II believed that Christians had to conquer Israel. However, he failed to take into account, that while the Old T commanded Israel to go to war, the commands for the nation of Israel do not necessarily correlate to the way the Church (made up of both Jews and Gentiles) was supposed to function. They are different entities, based on a dispensationalist reading of scripture.
Thirdly, one could argue that the warlike passages were negated by the New T, so the bible does not expressly condone these heinous activities like the crusades, like the Old T may appear to. Now, this doesn't mean that scripture is contradicting itself, merely that we are in a different stage of God's plan.
Finally, while there is no justification for the heinous activities of people who called themselves "christians" this evil actually attests to the truth of scripture. As Paul says, quoting the Old T "There is none righteous, no, not one."
"logicshouldprevail" wrote: "Macro evolution, is where one species morphs into another. To my understanding I have never seen a dog, for example, morph into a new never before seen species have you? Also, with respect to origins of mankind, neither you nor I where there, so how and if man evolved cannot be subjected to the scientific method. That should answer your question."
Not at all. You didn't even look at the reference materials from Dr. Padian or Dr. Shubin that I cited for you, did you? Rejoice in your ignorance and enjoy the theocracy.
Viking, Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other Chapter 1 is the macro-version of the Creation story and Chapter 2 is the micro-version of the Creation story dealing specifically with the Creation of the first man and woman, Adam and Eve and neither chapter contradicts the other.
Tologist,
Yes, the Bible is filled with many ugly things; it resembles humanity. It's amazing how you keep lumping Christians in with the radical Muslims of 9/11 (as you keep conflating micro + macro-evolution). When those Muslims did that, they followed Koranic teaching in the most extreme way. When Christians have done such evils as you named, they violated Jesus' teachings. I wish you could understand that.
Thanks for helping me understand your religious background better. I've seen it happen many times. "And some seed landed on rocky soil, and the birds carried it away." I'm truly sorry and will pray for your repentance before it's too late.
Viking,
Also, a belief that the Bible means what it says does not a legalist make. Christ fulfilled the Law so we are under grace + the royal law, the law of love. But that doesn't give us permission to change the meaning of Bible passages we don't like or find hard to understand. Jesus prayed for His disciples, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth." What Jesus was referring to was the OT. All truth will eventually come to agree with the Bible.
mathetes, no deep breaths necessary. I think you see how I might get passionate about such subjects.
The goal of many here, along with the Discovery institute and many others, is to destroy science as we know it. They want to replace it with non-evidence based, belief centered nonsense. If you don't believe me please google "ID" and "wedge strategy". It just might work!
So I will become defensive. Thus far the courts agree with me, even the most conservative judges. There is no room for fantasy magical thinking in science class. We have to work from evidence. Yes, "academic freedom" is gaining traction and we are scientifically illiterate enough as a nation to go for it. Congratuations.
Do me a favor though. I guarantee if you somehow open science class to assertions from non-evidence based disciplines, I will be right there in comparative religion classes, or any public venue where religion is taught. You don't want to go there. We'll talk about the bible and its contractions, its tales of rape, war, slavery, death- delivered from a vengeful and petty deity. We'll talk about where the Bible comes from and when it was written (I have a really deep background in this stuff- only bailed out when I saw how the religious folks around me caved in and failed to accept evidence, then I realized how wrong it was for me to have faith in such things). We'll talk about witch burnings, The Inquisition, the Crusades, Islam, torture and flying planes into buidings for god(s). I'll torpedo that sinister discipline of lies as best I can with my opinion.
So make nice. Keep your opinion out of science class and I'll respect the right for you to worship and believe whatever you want to. And don't worry about me repenting - I won't.
Viking, u sound like someone who believes the New Testament. Good. Why not accept its witness to the truth of the OT - see 2 Tim 3:16. As for allegorical uses of the OT in the NT, those writers were inspired by God in a unique way to do that. We don't have license to do the same. Even when they did, they did not doubt the historicity of the events they used.
Believing the Word does not mean the end of physics, geol, etc. On the contrary, Boyle, Pasteur, + others based their belief in an orderly universe on the orderly laws set in place by God.
If you want to understand how Gen 1+2 report the history of the first 7 days, I'll have to teach you some Hebrew grammar; it just takes some time. But there's no contradiction between the 2 chapters.
jjdiogenes: you stated "Also, as an attorney, you should be more intellectually honest about circumstantial evidence - you make it seem as though its not as good as direct witness evidence. Many times its more credible than direct eye witness testimony. Many cases are decided only on circumstantial evidence."
Yes, you are quite right, circumstantial evidence is definitely utilized in courts, sometimes exclusively. But, the other side is still allowed to present evidence supporting or refuting this evidence. Why can't teachers raise similar arguments against macro-evolution, while teaching macro-evolution at the same time?
Also, with respect to circumstantial evidence, because it is circumstantial, and not direct, one cannot "prove" the event happened with 100% certainty. Hence, while the event probably happened, it would never be called an absolute fact. Circumstantial evidence, especially if corroborated, is treated by Courts as reliable, certainly. But reliability and absolute truth are two different things. All I am saying is that until something is absolute truth, we should be able to ask questions and inform others that such questions exist.
With respect to liberals, one of my issues is the dishonesty in debating they have. Take Roe v. Wade. Before the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, a pro-abortion group headed by Dr. Bernard Nathanson compiled a list of stats showing the number of 'back alley' abortions that had been performed in the U.S The whole point was to 'scare' the Court into legalizing 1st trimester abortions across all 50 states. What happened? The Court capitulated. What else happened? Bernard Nathanson went pro-life and admitted that he and his group lied about the numbers, specifically to scare people into thinking abortion had to be legalized so it could be done safely. Here's wha'ts interesting: if you read a typical, liberal book about abortion, they will cite the original stats, without ever making a comment about Bernard Nathanson's self confessed lie. I'm not saying whether Nathanson's was telling the truth the second time, let alone the first time. But my point is that at least mention it so the reader can become aware of the problem! Not telling people all the nuances and details is the same as brainwashing someone towards a perspective. Censoring, if you will. As I said, I have no problem teaching strictly evolution. But at least mention that not everyone accepts it, and give some reasons as to why.
A few thoughts occur to me as I read the posts of OT literalists who rely on Genesis as evidence or proof of creationism/ID.
First which version of Genesis do you rely on Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 and whichever you chose how do you reconcile your belief that every word of the OT is literally true with the fact that these two versions written at different times conflict with each other. Of course this conflict disappears if you accept Genesis as allegorical as do the vast majority of Christian and Jewish theologians. Unfortunately this would void the biblical conflict with evolution and leave require literalists to give up living under the law as Paul points out in his letter to the Gallatians when he explicitly interprets the OT figuratively.
Secondly assuming for a moment that everyone agreed to abandon scientific evidence and adopt the literalist creationist story. Wouldn't the next logical target for this religious/political fight be to demand that we stop teaching physics in Schools since this also conflicts with Genesis, and then Geology, Paleontology, etc., etc., etc. until ultimately The OT becomes the fundamental guide to all curriculum in our schools.
I say this not as a quote "evolutionist" or an atheist or agnostic rather as a devout Christian who believes I must follow the teachings of Christ and not live under the dead law of the OT.
Paul Burnett: First off, I define micro evolution to be evolution which occurs within a species. For example, if transfered to different climates, birds will change their beak size to be able to better capture food. Those birds in turn are able to live longer and produce more off spring. This type of evolution is able to observed, tested, and repeated, so I have no problem taking it as a scientific fact. Macro evolution, is where one species morphs into another. To my understanding I have never seen a dog, for example, morph into a new never before seen species have you? Also, with respect to origins of mankind, neither you nor I where there, so how and if man evolved cannot be subjected to the scientific method. That should answer your question.
As for "crippling innocent children," I most assuredly don't want to do that, though I could level a similar claim to you if you believe in teaching children anything else but the fact that Christ alone saves. But, there is no need to go into theology here. What is important is that macro evolution has certain flaws in it. For example, where are the transitionary fossils? Gould, a secular mainstream PHD, scientist came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium stating that life evolved suddenly, which is why there were so many gaps in the fossil record. This, however, seems to contradict with the required time frame needed for macro evolution to occur. Based on these candid questions, why shouldn't children hear the arguments against macro-evolution? If nothing else, it will teach them to think critically about it I am not advocating teaching the bible in public school, just allowing teachers to inform students that currently macro-evolution is not an air-tight 100% God-given truth. There is no need to make an affirmative case for creationism or intelligent design. But there is a need to inform them that there are valid questions to the concept of macro-evolution. But perhaps, you want people to blindly accept your beliefs and only your beliefs. Familiar accusation, huh?
manpleaser: How about you open a book and learn a little about science. It's not that difficult.
LSP: Actually your legal analogy is sound only if you add millions upon millions of pieces of circumstantial evidence. Also, as an attorney, you should be more intellectually honest about circumstantial evidence - you make it seem as though its not as good as direct witness evidence. Many times its more credible than direct eye witness testimony. Many cases are decided only on circumstantial evidence.
Also, you need to learn about the scientific method and what a scientific theory actually is. In science, a theory is a collection of facts that proves a particular idea. For example, a fact is that that when you let go of an apple, it falls to the ground / floor (the center of the Earth I believe). Gravity is the theory that is used to explain why this is so.
So evolution is just the theory to explain all the facts. And so far, none of those facts have ever suggested anything else other than evolution.
Tologist, take deep breath, now let it out slowly...
"you are going to destroy our competitiveness. Period. If you don't beleive me, look at funding for science right now in the USA. It is disgraceful."
Wow, I didn't know I was so powerful. I did all that? You think I'm responsible for attacking science + millions of scientists, so it's okay for you to attack me? that it's ok to come on the CP forum + ridicule the living God? May God let you live long enoough to repent.
As for not accepting benefits of science, I have no problem with operational science based in the present; origins science is another matter. The 1st is based on facts; the latter is interpretations of materials. Evolutionists + creationists see fossils buried in layers of dirt - one sees geologic column of 1000s of years, the other sees the results of a flood. Christians have been at the forefront of science for centuries. Don't have space to list all the names; you'd recognize them.
Neither do I have space to give you all the reasons why God allows suffering. Suffice it to say that sin has corrupted mankind + the universe. If you really want to understand it, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
"logicshouldprevail" stated: "What I would like is evidence showing that one species has morphed into another completely different species via macro-evolution."
At what point does your creationist pseudoscientific term "microevolution" turn into macroevolution? What you are really saying is that you believe in inches but you don't believe in miles; you believe in teaspoons but you don't believe in gallons. Because of your limited mortal perceptions, and your pre-conceived deliberate ignorance, you refuse to accept the truth of the fact of evolution, when it is obvious to anybody who understands geological timescales. Or are you a Young Earth Creationist - 4004 BC and all that? That alone will cripple your perception. And maybe explains why you want to similarly cripple innocent children.
Dr. Kevin Padian's sworn Federal court testimony (available via http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp ) - and his slideshow - explains thoroughly how species evolve into other species. "Padian's Critters" might convince you, if you can keep an open mind. But Dr. Padian is an an actual scientist - not a creationist (at all) - so this may not work for you.
Or here's an even more basic explanation - Dr. Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" ( http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book.html ) explains the grand scale of billions of years of evolution and how the human body's most basic structures reveal direct our connection to our very distant ancestors: fish. This book explains how evolution happened, in basic yet detailed terms which make lots more sense than the creation myths of Genesis.
telogist: here is a site on talkorigins.org (a non creationist site) that lists several peer reviewed articles on Intelligent Design, albeit with some criticism. Let me know what you think.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
telogist:
One more quick thing: Behe might be a joke, but what about Gould's punctuated theory of equilibrium? Gould is not a Christian, and is a regular PHD scientist. P.T. states that life evolved quickly during certain periods which is why there are very few transitionary fossils showing macro-evolution. However, the obvious reply to this is that where is the proof that early life evolved so quickly? And also, it seems one could argue that if life evolved so quickly, that it wasn't even evolution, but rather design.
Interested to hear your reply.
telogist:
What I would like is evidence showing that one species has morphed into another completely different species via macro-evolution. I don't need to see evidence of micro-evolution because to me, evidence of micro-evolution does not necessarily provide evidence for macro. If you can provide me with some articles or sources to check (I'll take a more detailed look at talkorigins.org as well) great!
Essentially, we definitely are looking at things from two different perspectives. I see that macro-evolution can not be verified with 100% certainty. As a result, I have no problem with looking at the origin of the World and saying that perhaps God had something to do with it. Obviously, this gets into disagreements about who that God is, but we'll leave that for another discussion!
You, in contrast, admit that macro-evolution cannot be 100% proven, but you believe that there is enough circumstantial evidence to show that it is highly plausible and further, that perhaps in a few more years, the evidence will become even more tight.
If I am correct in making this assertion, my opinion is that until we know something with absolute certainty, we should not be calling that something a "fact." With respect to the viruses you mentioned and how we cannot directly see them, but we know they are there based on technology, my reply would be that based on logic, one can deduce that they are there (no viruses = health, presence of viruses = no health. One can deduce based on the change of health that a virus is present because that virus was not there when the person was healthy. It doesn't seem possible to do the same level of analysis with origin issues, as we could not analyze the situation before hand.
also LSP...
The stuff you refer me to is also tired recapituations of the same stuff... Behe is a joke. He used to be reasonably credible but he does not publish any original research, just infammatory texts designed to perpetrate his opinions. We really need to rely on peer review for the best information. Check that PNAS publication, I think you'll at least find it informative and it will help sharpen your ideas (I mean that in a nice way- I never claim to know everything and if you can sway me the other way I'm open to it- that's the scientist in me, following the evidence).
Mathetes...
Yes, it is a direct and brutal attack on science and scientists. You say that you know better than all of us (millions of us). You say that you have the answers that we don't find. Yes, that is an attack on science and scientists and you are going to destroy our competitiveness. Period. If you don't beleive me, look at funding for science right now in the USA. It is disgraceful.
The Dawkins/Watson quote you pose was quote-mined from their interviews. Neither of them subscribe to these ideas and if you read any of their work, rather than the propaganda that has fooled you into believing nonsense, you would know this. I agree- some cosmic UFO, spaghetti monster, whatever explanation is as good as a magical invisible bearded man in the clouds. Sorry, most people in the world don't accept that explanation.
Based on that, I will happily have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE challenged with EVIDENCE. I can handle that! We do that every day. Creationists bring no evdience. Ever. There is none. None.
Okay, if you believe in your lord over military, medicine etc, then why didn't your god stop the plane from hitting the tower on 9-11? People were in there praying and praying hard. You can hear the cell phone calls and emergency communications. Why does your President, a holy man, use the military if god has it all figured out? Maybe god wants the USA to be attacked and we're just making him madder and madder! Why do we need a military if god has it all figured out? You see how silly this is?
If you hate science and scientists then don't accept medicine, food, technology or any other scientific product that comes from the SAME scientific method that arrives at the conclusion of biological change through time. You cannot accept one and not the other and be intellectually consistent.
Hi LSP... You are right, we will not agree. One of us comes from the side of evidence (me) and the other from opinion (you). Your point about the crime scene is appropriate and an extrapolation of the analogy. It does only tell us beyond a reasonable doubt. The science of evolution now takes this nugget and adds it to a huge number of similar observations- millions of them, by idependent observers, and calls it the Theory that People are Killed. Nobody saw it, but after millions of replicates it is pretty solid to accept.
The scholarly literature is available to you via libraries or through scholarly reviews (see Google Scholar). If you'd like some other ideas on this I'd be happy to help you access it.
You know very well that we can never observe something happen over 30000, 300000, 3,000,000 or 3,000,000 years. No kidding. Does this mean that we stop thinking about it and chalk it up to magic? No way! We look at it like scientists. We look for evidence and see how it aligns. We look seriously at correlations and use the best technology available to understand it.
For instance doctors never physically observed viruses, but their presence could be predicted and then tested using molecular biology. We don't see A, G, C and T's in DNA, we use the best tests to show that they exist. We don't see mountain ranges or many volcanoes form, but we can use scientific tests to learn of their age and content.
So, if you narrow your crititeria to what can be observed, you are stuck. You need to base it on what can be predicted, tested, and reliably reproduced.
Your argument about the DNA sequences is the same- since we don't KNOW the ancestor it must be a designer. What is your evidence? You have as much evidence that it is an omnipotent man in the sky as it is aliens, as it just spontaneously appeared. None.
If you really want to understand this I hope to steer you to a helpful site. Punch in "national academies of science" and "evolution". They have a free book on this that is really nice. Thanks.
Beliver is correct, but I did state that it was debated in philosphy class, this is the correct and proper place to do it, there is no mention of it in the science curriculum in England.
Steve
tologist, according to steveh20 who strongly adheres to evolution his children who go to school in the UK were presented the views of both evolution as well as intelligent design in their classroom and they were allowed to evaluate the information for themselves and determine for themselves to determine which view if any they would adhere to. Having lived in Europe for over 7 years I can almost guarantee you this is not true of UK schools alone.
No one here attacking science; only trying to get you to see that what has advanced science-open inquiry + discussion-has been stifled by people afraid to have their ideas challenged. As for crack-pot ideas, what about Dawkins and Watson (of Watson+Crick fame) saying aliens started life on earth? That's science (observable, testable, repeatable)? Yet they are icons of aethistic evolutionary science.
As for your so-called "irony": my hope for this nation does not lie in science or military might. Tho millions say "Recant!" I will trust in God + His Word:
Prov. 21:31 The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but victory rests with the LORD.
tologist:
You stated below that "science is based on EVIDENCE and objective, honest testing." Questions on the origins of life cannot be tested as the circumstances cannot be duplicated or observed. I've elaborated on this in my other posts. It seems that I'm approaching the issue of macro-evolution from a logical point of view, where you're willing to say that because scientists say it's true, therefore it is true. Isn't this making science a God in essence?
Tologist:
Here's part II
You asked for peer-reviewed literature either affirming intelligent design or refuting macro-evolution. Note that absence of this still does not prove that macro-evolution is 100% truth. That being said, as I am not a scientist (as you pointed out, multiple times, mind you) I don't have access to the peer reviewed research journals like you do. I can recommend three sources however, which in my opinion do a good job of making the case for intelligent design, and biblical creationism. See answersingenesis.org, "I Don't Have The Faith To Be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler, and Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe.
You mentioned that as I was not a scientist, I was utilizing some incorrect terms with respect to macro-evolution. This may the case, however, utilizing these terms, regardless of whether they are incorrect or not, does not negate my point which is that macro-evolution cannot be scientifically tested, therefore it is not a scientific fact. As a result, all the evidence should be introduced. That being said, I would like to be able to use the correct terms scientist use. Can you recommend any books or articles to read from your perspective? Note I am familiar with talkorigins.org
Finally, you made the claim that evolution was a yardstick and a result if micro-evolution was correct, macro-evolution had to be correct as both viewpoints involve the concept of evolution. I have two arguments against this: First, micro-evolution can be observed, tested, and repeated. On the contrary, regardless of the variety, a cat will always be a cat. You could respond and say ",macro-evolution requires more time, but this just supports my argument that macro-evoution is not a scientific fact.
Secondly, micro-evolution has the benefit of having an assumption working for it that macro-evolution does not. We know that a child, in order to have been born had to have a father. Hence, when we find a man that has similar DNA to the child, this is compelling evidence that this man is the father of that child. However, with macro-evolution, there is no requirement that man had to have had a common ancestor. As a result, if man has similar DNA to another species, this could imply: A. Man had a common ancestor OR B. Man and that other species had a similar designer.
I appreciate your dialogue, but it seems that you and I will not agree. I am willing to learn more about macro-evolution, but I still think my logic stands. Macro-evolution is not a scientific fact. Hence, students should at least be informed of all options. This is encourages critical thinking, not closed-mindedness.
mathetes, so while other countries are teaching their children facts, we should expose our children to all of the insane, crackpot ideas of anyone that has them and let the children sort it out? Are you kidding?
The fact that we have to have this discussion on this thread tells us that adults are incapable of understanding what science is, and what science isn't. How can the same people be trusted to give good information to children?
Sorry, you've all been duped. You're being lied to by dishonest people because honest and objective science does not synch with scripture. So, they have to discredit the science. Think about that- only in the USA is this an issue. People want to expose children to magical, supernatural, mythical thinking in an evidence-based forum like a science class!!!! That is insane!
Teach kids religion if you want to- no problem. But don't teach it as science. We're already in last place in developed nations in science and it does not bode well for our future as a nation. Food, energy, technology and military independence/superiority are dependent on our ability to raise scientifically literate children. Most of all, your freedom to practice the religion of your choice will depend on a strong, free nation. In essence, when you attack science and give it to the other nations, you will theaten your ability to practice as you wish. The irony.
Yes, I'm a biology professor at leading institution with internationally recognized programs. I didn't write the rules, I only live by them, the central ones being that science is based on EVIDENCE and objective, honest testing. As I mentioned, macro- and micro- are legitimate terms centered on speciation and that they have been misued by non-scientists to confuse the issue. Both are examples of evolution in action and there is massive evidence for both.
The peer-review system is the gold standard. The lack of ID or creationist work in rigorous journals is not because "Darwinsists" (no such term in science) control it. When you start rattling off on conspiracy then you expose your pseudoscience. IF there was rigorous proof it would be the cover of the BEST journals- guaranteed! Science thrives on new avenues Even if you put a poster up at a meeting with an exciting new tangent labs all over the world start working on the same stuff! Good science expands and grows- fast!. The fact that ID etc are stalled is because they have no scholarly merit. Also, they are strictly religious phenomena. You'll never see an atheist tout ID because it requries belief in the supernatural as a prerequisite to the concept.
The Smithsonian "editor" you refer to is Paul Sternberg. He was an unpaid Research Associate at the Smithsonian and volunteer editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. He subverted the editorial process and allowed publication of an ID artlicle that had been previously rejected (Meyer et al.,) without peer review. This is an incompetent act for an editor. Sternberg's story is well documented. he was never denied office space, access to collections etc, even though there was documentation of misuse. I'll be happy to post details here if necessary, but space is limited.
Yes, Darwin did worry about irreducible complexity. It made good sense in the 1800's before we knew anything about genetics, development and evolution. With this, Darwin shows that he is a skilled and credible scientist because he posits on how something may be falsifiable. We always consider these options and see how evidence does/does not support them. Good job Chuck.
RE: patrioism - if you want to raise more superb scientists, give them the evidence, all the possible interpretations/theories, and teach them to sift through it all with critical thinking. Forcing them to accept without question the ruling paradigm leaves them unable to think critically. The scientists (+ theogians who swallowed the ruling paradigm) decried Galileo's ideas. Thankfully, he knew how to examine the evidence critically + come to his own conclusions. Let's give the next generation the same opportunity + the same skills.