The Bathroom Wall

Inaugural post:

Creationists suck

Now Steve, sucking belongs in the van out in the parking lot. And don't forget to wash!

Fyi

Joe Carter just put a post up at the Evangelical Outpost, critiquing three arguments against ID (specifically, "ID is a form of "stealth creationism," "ID is an argument from ignorance," and ID is a "God-of-the-gaps" explanation").

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000766.html#more

He states that "There are many other philosophical objections, but rather than build strawmen to knock down, I'll simply ask the critics of ID to present their objections themselves."

So we don't need to crash the party. We're invited. ;)

Love his appeals to authority- Behe and Plantinga. And he never addresses the main argument: "It ain't science."

Love his appeals to authority- Behe and Plantinga. And he never addresses the main argument: "It ain't science."

Eh, just to be nitpicky, the creation myth of the Egyptians begins with a sacred mound, the Nun, rising up out of the waters....Geb and Nut are much later in the cosmology... Before I was a cashier, I was an Egyptologist:)

Bob: Thanks for your concern for my son. Surgery tomorrow... He's taking it better than my wife and I! Sorry to hear about your pipes. That can be a mess! Hope insurance covers it!

Something I'm noticing as I interact with you, Wayne and even Steve when he can bring himself to communicate with me, is you all seem to ascribe only negative characteristics to "god". I find that interesting.

Admittedly, I'm a believer so you'd expect my comments to be naturally positive when describing my concept of "God", but I wonder why is your concept of "god" overwhelmingly negative?

Steve is an atheist, which as far as I understand it simply says: there is no god.

I don't believe in elves, but I don't have a particularly hostile concept of what they might be if they existed.

Bob... well, I take it you're an atheist too?

And Wayne is agnostic which, if I understand correctly says: I just don't know if there's a god or not. Again, I wouldn't expect to hear a significant amount of comments like:

Bob: "a fickle and insecure (and capricious) Cosmic Trickster"

or: "diseases and viruses He so thoughtfully provided"

or "Didn't your loving God command the angel-sheltering believer to send his wife (or daughter?) out to be gang-raped to death by the horny mob?"

or from Wayne: "Fear god because if you don't respect god you'll face eternal damnation."

or: "God Dammning man and 3 more generations"

or "I don't think god would be a older man with a great white bushy beard."

Frankly, if God is as you describe him, I don't like him either! I mean, you've described a cosmic scumbag! The interesting thing to me is you all seem to be not simply opposed to his existance; but convinced he's evil if he does exist.

You ignore the positive characteristics ascribed to God in the Bible, but are quick to latch onto anything in the Bible you see as negative. Why is that?

You are all obviously familiar with the Bible... so why do you read it contrary to the message of God's love? It's almost like you're angry with God... is that it?

If God exists, could you imagine him possessing ANY positive characteristics?

I'm just curious, as it's something that has really stood out to me.

Bob: I want to go back to one comment you made and admit something... okay? Confession time from the Creationist! You said: "Didn't your loving God command the angel-sheltering believer to send his wife (or daughter?) out to be gang-raped to death by the horny mob?"

Actually you are referring to the story of Lot (Abraham's nephew) in Genesis. Here's my confession, right up front: This is one of the few stories in the Bible I really have a hard time with. You're right, it doesn't square with what I think is right.

In defense of God, however, you DO have your facts mixed up though.

God NEVER commands Lot to offer his daughters to the mob. That was Lot's idea (which never comes to fruition, by the way, as the "angels" intervene). I think there are two factors at play here... 1. That culture was COMPLETELY different from our own and I believe some, if not many, of their values would shock us. 2. Lot himself is never presented in the Bible as a shining example of virtue, in fact we have indications in other verses that he was selfish at best. The bottom line is, he was spared because he was Abraham's nephew.

But again, I admit, I don't like the details of this story. I think it's an example of God getting a bad wrap, though, simply because the Bible accurately reports what happened rather than glossing over the unpleasant facts.

Changing the subject a bit, Wayne says: "It doesn't make sense. A "God" that is alone and creates with life with no partner is asexual. Unless, here is where I get struck down by lighting, god's penis is a vestigial organ."

Wayne, you're ascribing human features to God. John 4:24 has Jesus claiming that God (the Father) is a "spirit". And let's face it, if he really is omnipotent (all powerful) then creating life is no big deal. He wouldn't need any help.

Your next comments are very candid. Speaking about "free will" you say: "I guess I do this with my son. I give him choices and let him know the consequences of his choices. The difference is I'm not all knowing and I don't claim to be perfect and all good.

Most loving parents do attempt to communicate the consequences of certain choices to our children while still offering them a free choice when we believe it is appropriate. You seem to be saying you can't grant God that same freedom because he knows more than you do about any given outcome. Have you ever let your child make a "bad" decision so they will learn? Not only can it teach them far better as they remember the consequences they went through, but it also helps them trust you in the future... they remember that Dad knows what he's talking about after all. It doesn't mean you don't love your kids.

You continue: "Other difference is my punishment doesn't wipe my son out of existence like will happen to me by Jesus and God if the bible is right."

This is probably the biggest complaint people have about Christianity. The idea of hell, eternal damnation, etc. I have to admit (I'm admitting too much in this post!: ) it seems pretty harsh to me too.

Here's what it comes down to, for me. I believe the Bible says Jesus will be our ultimate judge. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery even though he didn't have to and there's no indication she asked for forgiveness. When he healed the paraletic (sp?) he said: "Your sins are forgiven." There's no indication the guy even asked for his sins to be forgiven. The religious leaders had a fit over that statement, by the way! He forgave the thief on the cross beside him when all he said was "Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom." He said "today you will be with me in paradise." There's many more examples of this. There's every indication to me as I read the Bible that Jesus is an extremely compassionate judge.

Ironically, the people Jesus came down hard on were the religious leaders! They were the people who should have recognized him and didn't. Jesus saw them as hippocrites using their positions of authority to gain power and riches and he accused them of such to their face! He condemned this in no uncertain terms, which is part of the reason they hated him and eventually had him crucified.

So how does that relate to eternal damnation? Only that Jesus is the ultimate judge and I don't believe he'll send anyone to hell who doesn't deserve to be there. Of course, you and I may have our own concept of what "deserve" means. Ultimately, if Jesus is God, he'll decide.

By the way, I think it was Bob who said that God created hell to prompt us to worship him. I don't agree. The Bible says hell was created for the devil and his (fallen) angels. But, alas, I suppose if you have a hard time envisioning the possible existance of a god, you'll have any even more difficult time with the concept of a devil!

Guys, I'm more than happy to keep posting, but there may come a time when you get tired of hearing my views. If so, let me know and I'll lay off. I enjoy hearing your perspective... I always learn something, and it's been good "getting to know you" so to speak through cyber space.

Hi Roger,

Keep us posted on your son's progress. Repair on the leaking pipe cost $212, but is fully recompensable through the Class Action Fund, which, as far as I know at this point will also provide a whole-house replumb and reimbursement for incurred damages (carpets, walls, etc). The coverage window for our particular type of installation is 16 years from closing, which ends in less than a month. So if God was punishing me, at least he limited it to a relatively minor inconvenience - more of a warning? :>)

As to my (can't speak for Wayne or Steve) ascribing only negative characteristics to God, it's pretty much in direct counterpoint to your ascribing only glowingly positive characteristics to Him. Got to maintain a context here. I don't think I'd call myself an atheist though - how about on the atheistic side of agnosticism?

If you're going to credit God with creating the universe; us; butterfly wings; sunsets; and every other pleasant or good thing, you've also got to hold him accountable for Ebola and HIV, bubonic plague, and all the rest of the less than pleasant stuff. No cherrypicking allowed.

Blunt questions - "Yes" or "No" answers? Do you consider the Bible inerrant? Do you take the Bible literally?

Actually, a lot of people who don't believe in God are rather fond of him (Him?) as a liteerary figure and resent the tendency of some folks to bad mouth him.

You gotta say this for the Yahweh of the Old Testament. He isn't an insipid goody two shoes. As Trekies know, there's a great deal of Q in J.

Something I'm noticing as I interact with you, Wayne and even Steve when he can bring himself to communicate with me, is you all seem to ascribe only negative characteristics to "god". I find that interesting.

— Roger

I don't believe in elves, but I don't have a particularly hostile concept of what they might be if they existed.

— Roger

Frankly, if God is as you describe him, I don't like him either! I mean, you've described a cosmic scumbag! The interesting thing to me is you all seem to be not simply opposed to his existence; but convinced he's evil if he does exist.

— Roger

You ignore the positive characteristics ascribed to God in the Bible, but are quick to latch onto anything in the Bible you see as negative. Why is that?

— Roger

You are all obviously familiar with the Bible . . . so why do you read it contrary to the message of God's love? It's almost like you're angry with God . . . is that it?

— Roger

If God exists, could you imagine him possessing ANY positive characteristics?

— Roger

Wayne, you're ascribing human features to God. John 4:24 has Jesus claiming that God (the Father) is a "spirit". And let's face it, if he really is omnipotent (all powerful) then creating life is no big deal. He wouldn't need any help.

— roger

they remember that Dad knows what he's talking about after all.

— roger

This is probably the biggest complaint people have about Christianity. The idea of hell, eternal damnation, etc. I have to admit (I'm admitting too much in this post!: ) it seems pretty harsh to me too.

— Roger

There's every indication to me as I read the Bible that Jesus is an extremely compassionate judge.

— Roger

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

— John 5:22-23

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

— John 3:18

But if you believe in the bible then it isn't so. I could live my life as a murdering, child molesting thief and accept Jesus on my death bed and be saved but little 5 year old Sing Lee in China will be damned to hell because she was hit by a bus and never even heard of Jesus. Something I do not believe would happen. I think it was Bob who said that God created hell to prompt us to worship him.

— Roger}Only that Jesus is the ultimate judge and I don't believe he'll send anyone to hell who doesn't deserve to be there.[/quote

Bob, Wayne & Friends:

Well we took my son in for surgery today but the Dr called in sick! So we had to reschedule for Wed. The good news was they hadn't started the IV yet.

Bob, I guess your pipe thing might even be a "blessing" in disguise? Bob Writes: So if God was punishing me, at least he limited it to a relatively minor inconvenience - more of a warning? :>)" Hmmm, Bob... I think you might be on to something! : )

Bob, you make a good point about God creating good and bad... not sure how to answer right off, so that's my indication that it's a good point.... my inclination is to argue that God created things in a "good" state but sin corrupted things. In fact that could be the answer, but that might be too simplistic... how 'bout if I get back to ya?

You also ask: "Blunt questions - "Yes" or "No" answers? Do you consider the Bible inerrant? Do you take the Bible literally?"

Actually I think I've pretty well answered this already, but to sum up... A. in it's current form "no", but remarkably close; I also believe God uses the imperfect to communicate his message; B. as much as possible except when it is obvious allegory or metaphor. I'm not opposed to someone interpreting the "difficult to understand" stories as allegory. (Guess that wasn't yes or no... sorry!)

Wayne: You bring up the concept that God will hold 3 or 4 generations responsible for the sins of their fathers several times. Two things, 1. could you tell me where to find this? 2. As far as I know this idea was done away with, but I'm fuzzy on the details.

I see that most of your responses to my last questions basically add up to: I don't believe the "God" of the Bible is the creator of the universe. The Bible, you believe was created by man. So you are not opposed to the idea of a "god", but you don't beleive it's the god of the Bible, which you describe as bushy-haired old man.

I agree (with the bushy-haired part). But I notice most of your comments seem to apply to the God of the Old Testament. You also argue that the words of Jesus have been embellished and even fabricated.

Do you believe Jesus claimed to be God?

You also quote John 5:22-23 and comment that: "Not this isn't Jesus saying this and I do not believe this is what Jesus would have meant by what he is reported to have said."

So you believe this has been added? Because, according to the way it is written it IS part of a long, direct quote from Jesus which begins in verse 19.

This quote, to me, seems consistent with the rest of Jesus' teachings.

You also make the same point with John 3:18. Again, the author presents this as Jesus speaking directly to Nichodemus. So I can only conclude that you simply do not accept the account as it's presented. Right?

Wayne: You bring up the concept that God will hold 3 or 4 generations responsible for the sins of their fathers several times. Two things, 1. could you tell me where to find this? 2. As far as I know this idea was done away with, but I'm fuzzy on the details.

— Roger

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

— Deut 5:9-10

Frankly, if God is as you describe him, I don't like him either! I mean, you've described a cosmic scumbag! The interesting thing to me is you all seem to be not simply opposed to his existence; but convinced he's evil if he does exist.

— Roger

Roger,

Somewhere on this thread I believe you were asked (by Frank J?) what type of Creation (ism) you subscribed to, and you answered "Biblical." Everything from the Universe to us in 6 days, and Noah's Flood thrown in for good measure?

Roger, Somewhere on this thread I believe you were asked (by Frank J?) what type of Creation (ism) you subscribed to, and you answered "Biblical." Everything from the Universe to us in 6 days, and Noah's Flood thrown in for good measure?

— Bob Maurus

Hi Frank,

Mainstream Christianity aside, I would point out that "Biblical" creation is a six day affair that leaves no room for evolution.

And once we get into Biblical literalism we're dealing with such assorted goodies as Lot's wife as a pillar of salt; the plagues of Egypt; Moses' staff into a serpent; the Red/Reed sea parting; Noah's Flood; and Jesus crucified, dead, and resurrected.

This site is not about validating or alibiing (an invented word that looks kinda weird) the Bible, it's about demonstrable supports for naturalistic predictions. I'm waiting for Roger to provide some sort of a framework for evaluating Divine Creation. Absent that, it's a non-starter. In point of fact, I'm waiting for anyone to provide said framework.

Roger,
Are you telling me you've never considered the downside of "God the Creator"? I'll see your sunset and raise you an Ebola outbreak. One of my dearest friends is a born-again Christian conservative Republican. A few years ago we got into an EvC debate, and at one point he said, "Every time I see a sunset or a butterfly's wings I'm reminded of the glory of God's handiwork." I responded, "Do you also see the glory of God's handiwork in the Ebola virus?" and he replied, "I don't understand what you're getting at." We're still dear friends, but it has been difficult.
I have a problem with you're having to decide how to respond. He either did it or He didn't, unless you're suggesting several co-creators - altough that would be a new and startling addition to the
Christian cosmology. Do me the courtesy here of not running the "sin corrupted things" riff on me. This site is dedicated to providing support for, and engaging dissents from, evolution, not to engaging in theological debates.

You indicated that you take the Bible literally, except when it's obvious allegory or metaphor. Who makes that final distinction? Suppose I claim that the WHOLE THING is allegory and metaphor? Can you dispute that with evidence? I would suggest that your "yes or no" answer is "No."

Bob brings up a good point. The whole "sin corrupted everything" doesn't make sense to me.

God created a perfect world but some how it broke when Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Or was the Garden of Eden the only perfect place and the land of Nod was not so perfect.

Why would God make a perfect world but not a perfect being?

I actually like a hindu interpretation of Genesis 3 where it was not fruit of a sacred tree that they ate but the "fruit" represented intercourse and that upon Eve discovering the pleasures of sex for herself tempted Adam. Thus they where thrown out of the Garden of Eden for doing that which only the creator wanted to do, create life. I don't believe it but its symbolism makes more sense in my eyes of how early civilised man would try to describe origins.

As far as the whole bible being allegory and metaphor. I think if we look at the O.T. I would say much of this is true. With the N.T. I would say it is more political manipulation personally. The gospals where not written to be anything but fact even revolations.

Agian these are my views and don't expect to have anyone agree with me.

On an interesting side note I just got an email from a woman, via a match making site, who is interested in catching up...she's a born again Christian studying to become a teach in science. I emailed her my openness to all religions and briefly explained that I like learning about religions, biology, geology, cosmology etc and reitterated the fact that I'm agnostic. Any bets on if she'll continue on trying to meet me?

Mainstream Christianity aside, I would point out that "Biblical" creation is a six day affair that leaves no room for evolution.

— Bob Maurus

Hi Frank,

Guess Roger's up to his eyeballs with family things, or taking a weekend break.

Don't forget about Lilith - the first feminist. She took one look at the setup and said, "I'm outta here."

Absent individual specifics from Roger, I'm assuming a pretty literal Biblical line:
Me: "Do you consider the Bible inerrant? Do you take the Bible literally?"
Roger ; "A. in it's current form "no", but remarkably close; I also believe God uses the imperfect to communicate his message; B. as much as possible except when it is obvious allegory or metaphor. I'm not opposed to someone interpreting the "difficult to understand" stories as allegory."

Hey Friends:

I WAS quite busy... too many details to explain, and then when I tried the page wouldn't download... anyway, since I have limited time (gotta get to church tomorrow! : ) I'll get right into it...

Wayne: the passage you quoted doesn't say anything about "damning" anyone. Is this the only verse you are talking about are are there others?

Frank: Thanks for the benefit, and yes, I am genuinely unsure. Bottom line: if I haven't made up my mind, I flat out admit it. And if someone can show me I'm wrong, I'll change my views. My goal is to get to the truth, not win an argument. I'm certainly not a professional IDer. (I'm sure the REAL ones would be offended at the thought! : ) No, the truth is, in the end, my opinion doesn't mean a whole lot... I'm not much of a "threat" or "benefit" to either side! Thanks for the book recommend, I'll see if I can find it.

Shoot! I don't even know what all the acronyms you guys are using stand for! I'm guessing Young Earth Creationist; Old Earth Creationist... but then you start to loose me. Here's the way I see it:

If you read the Bible literally, you read it that a day is 24 hours, hence 6 days. On the other hand "day" has been used in other locations to mean "years". So, I suppose that's where all the debate comes in. Again, a lot of people on both sides of the debate disagree. That's why, for me, the jury's still out. I just don't know, but either way works under my world view, because I believe in an all-powerful creator who could have done it either way and who is well above my IQ, or Wayne's son, or even Bob... (I don't know about Steve!) (Kidding!)

Sure, I realize that's not "verifiable" so I suppose that ends the discussion and I can come back to class when I have some concrete evidence for the existance of God. Fine! I've said from the beginning you have to accept MY position on FAITH. My only point, in that regard, is that you all accept YOUR positions by FAITH as well.

Bob writes:
"I have a problem with you're having to decide how to respond. He either did it or He didn't, unless you're suggesting several co-creators - altough that would be a new and startling addition to the
Christian cosmology."

Why do you have a problem with my indecision? I'm not claiming to be God. For me, Bob, God IS the creator of all things. And you're absolutely right in pointing out that not all things are "good." So that makes me stop and think. What are the possible explanations?

You continue:
"Do me the courtesy here of not running the "sin corrupted things" riff on me. This site is dedicated to providing support for, and engaging dissents from, evolution, not to engaging in theological debates."

Here you go again, asking me a question, knowing full well that I am, in fact, a believer in the Bible, but then telling me the Biblical explanation is off limits. Bob, if you ask a "theological" question such as: "Do you also see the glory of God's handiwork in the Ebola virus?"; you might have to settle for a "theological" answer. You can't have it both ways. Besides, last I checked we are, after all, still in the bathroom here!

That said, I think the "sin" argument is valid. You may not believe it, and that's fine, but I certainly see it as a valid position from my perspective. However, you'll notice in my previous comment that I admitted that may be too simplistic. For example: Under my world view, is it possible that both options are true? Ie: God created a perfect world which sin did indeed corrupt, but then God created "imperfect" or even "negative" as a possible consequence of sin? I will have to give that some more thought, but, right off, it strikes me as a good possibility.

Bob writes:
"You indicated that you take the Bible literally, except when it's obvious allegory or metaphor. Who makes that final distinction? Suppose I claim that the WHOLE THING is allegory and metaphor? Can you dispute that with evidence? I would suggest that your "yes or no" answer is "No.""

I knew this question was coming! Who makes the final destinction? Everyone is free to make up their own mind. Can I dispute that the whole thing is allegory? Sure. Will you accept it? Probably not. Without going into a huge amount of research and evidence, however, hopefully you'll at least grant me that much (if not most) of the verifiable data given in the Bible such as geographic locations, names of kings, civilizations, structures built, battles fought, etc, etc have been verified archeologically and through outside historical documents. Names like "David" and "Solomon", the "Hittites", etc, once thought to be nothing more than the stuff of legend have been verified. On such matters, we can conclude that the Bible is accurate, even remarkably so given the fact that it is a collection of books by many different authors covering thousands of years.

Is Job, for example, allegory or fact or even a little of both? Either way is possible and quite acceptable. For me personally, however, it all comes down to Jesus Christ. To me, if Jesus was just a man and not who he claimed to be, then I'd throw the whole thing out and start getting my philosophy from you guys.

Wayne writes:
"Bob brings up a good point. The whole "sin corrupted everything" doesn't make sense to me.

God created a perfect world but some how it broke when Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Or was the Garden of Eden the only perfect place and the land of Nod was not so perfect."

I think the "sin corrupted" argument does make sense. But there's a lot of things underlying that concept that you, as an agnostic, don't agree with. For example, you write:

"Why would God make a perfect world but not a perfect being?" Several possibilities, but I suggest that a "perfect" being would be a robot, not capable of truly and freely loving (or rejecting) God. I suggest, this is not what God wanted. Who's to say he didn't already try that somewhere else anyway?

Bottom line: If God did indeed create us as the center-piece of this creation, with a free-will and everything else as the backdrop, it means we're quite "special". Therefore, our actions could indeed impact our environment either directly (as we see in play today as our technology impacts our environment)or indirectly through God's (or some other) actions in response to sin.

Wayne: "Any bets on if she'll continue on trying to meet me?"

Not to meddle in your personal affairs, but keep in mind the scriptures teach her not to be "unequally yoked" to unbelievers. That's not meant to be a slam on you, but it could definitely be a limiting factor. I realize you probably see that as a control mechanism, but, that's probably where she'll be coming from.

Thanks for your comments! G'nite!

Bottom line: if I haven't made up my mind, I flat out admit it. And if someone can show me I'm wrong, I'll change my views. My goal is to get to the truth, not win an argument. I'm certainly not a professional IDer. (I'm sure the REAL ones would be offended at the thought! : )

— Roger

Admittedly, I'm a believer so you'd expect my comments to be naturally positive when describing my concept of "God", but I wonder why is your concept of "god" overwhelmingly negative? Steve is an atheist, which as far as I understand it simply says: there is no god. I don't believe in elves, but I don't have a particularly hostile concept of what they might be if they existed.

— roger

Wayne: the passage you quoted doesn't say anything about "damning" anyone. Is this the only verse you are talking about are are there others?

— Roger

Not to meddle in your personal affairs...

— Roger

David: Actually I was thinking about Santa's elves! : ) Then again, maybe they're sneaky, little nymphs too!

Question for you... something I've been curious about for quite some time... what is an "ethnic Jew". How is that defined?

Wayne writes: "John 3:18, and many other verses, says if you do not believe then you are condemed." Maybe it would help to back up a bit... the way I understand the Biblical teaching is that everyone is "condemned" because everyone is guilty of sin. That means everyone, even Mother Teresa. But just 1 verse prior to the one you are quoting has Jesus saying: "For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

In other words, we're already condemned, compliments of our sin. Jesus is saying "I came to save the world, not condemn it." Again, I point out that Jesus is a merciful and compassionate judge.

You continue: "The bible reads out that if you do not worship then you are damned. If you interpret it differently then that is your choice."

Where does it say that? My concept of worship, in order for it to be genuine, would have to flow freely out of a greatful heart. Someone who is truly thankful to God for his free gift would willingly "worship". The idea that God demands worship goes against my understanding of the Biblical God. What's the point of creating beings with a free choice if you demand worship of them?

I also don't think you'll find a verse that teaches lack of "worship" will damn you. It's sin that damns us. But again, the Bible says we're all in the same boat with regard to sin, not just those who don't "worship", and Jesus says, "I'm not here to condemn the world, I'm here to save it."

As far as "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments." ...I'm not a theologian, but it reads to me that God will "punish" those who hate him (or his chosen nation of Isreal) in THIS life. In effect he's saying: You mess with Isreal, you mess with me and you'll pay for 3 or 4 generations, but if you love me and keep my commandments (even if you're not a part of the nation of Isreal)I'll show compassion on you for a thousand generations (verse 10). To me, the point of the passage is the contrast: Look, the God of the Jews is the only God and he's not to be taken lightly. BUT he's also compassionate. In fact his compassion FAR outweighs his anger.

Wayne: You better be careful! I've been praying that God would send someone in your life to show you he exists! : )

Couple questions on evolution....

What would you say is the BEST evidence in support of evolution?

If you don't mind answering this one... what is the best argument or evidence you've ever heard in favor of creationism?

Take care!

David: Your thoughts are very provocative! You write: "The problem in a modern context is that the early Christian leaders made a number of compromises over the centuries, selecting those stories which allowed them to "make deals" with local rulers --- notably, retaining the pagan idea that a king was also the representative of God ("divine right")."

Are you suggesting that the Bible itself was edited, altered or censored through the centuries to bring it in line with certain political power centers or merely that church doctrine, protocol, liturgy, etc. was?

what is an "ethnic Jew". How is that defined?

— roger

Are you suggesting that the Bible itself was edited, altered or censored through the centuries to bring it in line with certain political power centers or merely that church doctrine, protocol, liturgy, etc. was?

— roger

The first Council of Nicaea is conspicuous as the starting point for the great doctrinal controversies of the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries. Here a union between the ecclesiastical potency of the councils and the State was effected, vesting the deliberations of this body with imperial power. Earlier synods had been contented with protection against heretical doctrines; but the Council of Nice is characterized by the further step from a defensive position to positive decisions and minutely elaborated articles of faith.

... even I know about the Council of Nice, where the bishops of the time, in cooperation with the Emperor Constantine determined which of the many scriptures of the time would be considered "books of the Bible", and relegated the others to the status of "Apocrypha".

— I

Couple questions on evolution . . . . What would you say is the BEST evidence in support of evolution? If you don't mind answering this one . . . what is the best argument or evidence you've ever heard in favor of creationism?

— Roger

Best single argument for evolution? It works; the predictability of the theory is quite spectacular. It was an evolutionary formulation which allowed surgeons, practicing on dogs, to notice they had induced diabetes in the dogs, which information led to the understanding that diabetes is a malfunction of the pancreas in humans. This link would not be expected were evolution not accurate.

Similarly, the treatments for diabetes, using pig and beef insulin, is suggested by evolution.

And today's treatments, using Humulin manufactured by genetically-modified E. coli is suggested by evolution theory, and achieved through applied evolution theory in engineering the mechanisms.

That's one line of evolutionary achievement on one pathology. There are similar lines in food crops (I especially like the grapefruit story), crop pest management, paleontological explanations (with molecular biologists predicting what the fossil hunters would find in whales, for example), and cancer treatments and cures among thousands of medical applications.

The most powerful, single argument for evolution theory is that the theory works in the real world to predict what will happen in myriad specific applications.

IMHO, of course.

If you don't mind answering this one . . . what is the best argument or evidence you've ever heard in favor of creationism?

— roger

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

— Gen 2:7

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

— Gen 2:21-23

Wayne: You better be careful! I've been praying that God would send someone in your life to show you he exists! : )

— Roger

Are you suggesting that the Bible itself was edited, altered or censored through the centuries to bring it in line with certain political power centers or merely that church doctrine, protocol, liturgy, etc. was?

— Roger

Frank: Thank you for the links. I've started to check them out, they seem to be very informative. You mention anti-evolution strategists... I was going to make a comment that it seems like I'm the only Bible-believing creationist who posts here!

You write: "I have never heard a reasonable one for YEC, which misrepresents not only biology, but geology and cosmology too."

So you couldn't accept as a possibility that either a great flood accounts for the appearance of age or that God created the world to appear old?

You write: "Apparently God still will not be outsmarted by mere humans, and thus needs to be taken on faith."

I agree.

David: I've heard that before... about being born to a Jewish mother automatically makes one a Jew. Yet, forgive my ignorance, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I mean it seems to me that somewhere back down the ancestral line someone would have to have been a practicing Jew.

Could you be born to a non-practicing "Jewish" mother and still be a Jew?

Put another way: it seems to me that a "Jew" who does not accept Judaism is somewhat of an oxymoron? Wouldn't that be like me saying "I'm a Christian, but I don't follow the teachings of Jesus." ?

Do you find yourself neutral toward Judaism or hostile or perhaps indifferent?

Do you consider the books of the Old Testament to accurately represent the history of the Jews?

Just curious, hope you don't mind me asking.

With regard to the Bible, admitedly, my world view rests on an accurate, or divinely inspired Bible. So if it has been politicized, edited and fabricated, it would greatly impact my world view. I have to believe that God ultimately orchestrated the coming together of the various books that encompass the Bible. If not, it ceases to be world view and falls to mere philosophy. I have no problem, however, with an omnipotent God working within the framework of various political powers to accomplish his purpose. In fact, the Bible itself is replete with such stories (the stories of Esther, Moses, Joseph just to name a few.)

As far as the impact of political power on various church doctrines and policies, my world view is affected very little either way. The various Christian churches may have been influenced and even corrupted at various times by those in power, but, if the Bible has remained unchanged, then my faith has a solid foundation.

Ed: Thanks for your response. I'll take your word for it, but, if possible in a forum like this, could you show me the connection between using pig and beef insulin, to treat diabetes, and evolutionary theory?

Why would god use Adam's rib? I see this as a try by early man to explain why men have 1 less rib then women . . .

Okay Wayne... I'm going to have to ask you to stop asking me such DIFFICULT questions! (Kidding!)

Wayne writes: "Roger you say we are all condemned and must be saved.

Does this mean a baby that has committed no sin itself is "condemned" and if that baby dies soon after birth that it is to spend a unspecified time in hell because that baby did not accept Jesus?"

Okay Wayne, don't show me any mercy here... don't hold back... just wallop me, okay? Let's see if Roger can handle a question the greatest theologians in the world wrestle with!

Am I overreacting???? : )

Personally, for what it's worth, I have to believe the answer is "no." In fact, as Judaism provides the basis for Christianity, David may be able to shed some more light on this, but I think, according to Jewish tradition, a child is not considered to reach the age of accountability until like 7 or 8?

But I admit, right up front, that, is just too "generic" for me. I then start wrestling with questions like, "So if this kid dies on his eighth birthday without accepting Christ, he's gonna burn in hell, whereas if he died one day earlier he spends eternity with God?" So you're right, I can't reconcile it as a strictly black & white issue. And, as you'll see, I don't believe it is.

Theologians may have a hard time with this, I don't know, but again, for me, everything comes down to Jesus Christ. I don't believe Jesus Christ is limited to any pre-set "rules"... "Ooops sorry, you didn't make the cut, you died at the wrong time or lived in the wrong place so now I (Jesus) have no choice but to send you to hell. Sorry for any incovenience."

You and others may interpret the Bible to be saying that, but I don't see it. Show me where I'm reading it wrong.

I see, for example, the Jewish law that said: Do no work on the Sabbath. Pretty black and white. Right? Jesus and his disciples were good "practicing" Jews, yet he allowed them to pick corn (or wheat or whatever it was) on the Sabbath because they were hungry. The religious leaders had a fit. Jesus' reply was pretty arrogant (or perhaps a simple statement of fact?) "[I am] Lord of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:28)

So I have to believe Jesus is also Lord over who goes to hell and who doesn't. And I'm very encouraged by stories of Jesus healing people, for example, just because he had compassion on them. I think the story of the healing of the paralytic has far reaching implications... the summed up version is this guy is paralyzed, right? Can't get to Jesus especially considering the crowds. So his friends decide to make a hole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus in front of the crowd and all. From the context, Jesus had never laid eyes on this guy before. Also from context we get nothing indicating that the paralytic says anything at all to Jesus. Mark 2:5 says: "When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven.'"

He doesn't just heal the guy, he says "your sins are forgiven." The religious leaders, again, had a fit because they saw it as out and out blasphemy. Jesus was indeed equating himself with God since only God has the power to forgive sins. Then to prove his point he heals the guy.

So how does that relate to your question? If Jesus had the power to forgive that man's sins on the spot without the guy even asking for it, he has the power to save the baby in your example, or a Chinese kid, or a muslim kid, or whoever he chooses.

To me the attitude of the person is what's important to him. But I don't believe he will send the "innocent" to hell.

Now that doesn't take away from the fact that we are all born into a "sinful nature". We can't help it, we just are. And if Jesus had not paid the price for the sins of the whole world by dying on the cross, then we'd all be condemned, end of story. But according to Jesus: God did not send (me) his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it."

So under my world view, Jesus paid the price. Jesus is the ultimate judge.

The good news is, according to the Bible, all you have to do to receive salvation (eternal life with God)is simply believe Jesus was who he claimed to be. I may diverge from traditional orthodoxy when I take it to the next level... namely, I don't believe that if you choose not to accept or believe it or if you never get the chance, you then, by default, limit Jesus' choices and he is "required" to send you to hell. If he has the ultimate power to decide, and he is a compassionate judge, that's REALLY good news.

But you may be right in arguing that is not what is typically taught.

Now having said all that, I acknowledge I could be wrong. I could be reading too much into it. But, Wayne, I have to agree with you, a God who would choose to create millions, even billions of people only to send them to eternal damnation simply because they never had an opportunity to hear the gospel and make up their mind about it, would not be the kind of God I want to serve. And I can't reconcile that kind of a God with the one I see in the Bible and especially in the person of Jesus Christ.

Theologians may have a problem with this because they see a huge potential for abuse... "Well Jesus will save me whether I accept him in this life of not." I don't think so. If Jesus is God, you can't "pull one over on him". He knows your heart, and that would be a dangerous attitude to have.

Well enough of me "preaching" the gospel according to Roger! I'm sure Steve has had quite enough!

Great question, by the way, Wayne!

From a rhetorical point of view, it's a natural move to argue from premises accepted by the person you're speaking with. This thread shows the limitations of this approach. Moving from talking about biology to talking about the Bible hardly helps when believers approach the book no more rationally than they approach nature.

Theologians may have a problem with this because they see a huge potential for abuse . . . "Well Jesus will save me whether I accept him in this life of not." I don't think so. If Jesus is God, you can't "pull one over on him". He knows your heart, and that would be a dangerous attitude to have

— Roger

Hi Jim,

It does pretty quickly become a pointless exercise in diminishing returns - along with having nothing to do with biology, evolution or science. In the end, a subjective belief doesn't have to make sense to anyone else - and frequently doesn't.

Jim,

Yeah, it pretty quickly degenerates into a pointless exercise in diminishing returns, along with having diddly to do with biology, evolution or science. Once the caveat about "it's literal except for the metaphors and allegories" is tossed in there's nowhere to go with it, so why try?

Sorry 'bout the double - I swear to God the first one didn't show up even after I backed and refreshed. The posting delay on this site is bizarre - when I hit "post" nothing happens for up to 30 seconds and then I get a "can't find server" error message, hit "back" and then "refresh," and then, normally, my post shows up. It didn't this time, but there it was after I did the second.

Discussions of how to read an old book are not irrelevant to the concerns of Panda's Thumb because of the overwhelming political and cultural power of the Bible, especially in America where bibilolatry has a long tradition. Anyhow, it was philology and not evolutionary thinking that first loosened the grip of religious orthodoxy and made possible both secular and religious enlightenment. You've gotta have a Spinoza before you can have a Darwin,

Creationists talk about science as if it were a discussion session in Philosophy 101 where everybody has a right to their own opinion, no matter their level of ignorance, and warehouses full of data don't matter. In fact, genuine science is very different and more demanding kind of operation. The serious study of texts is also something more than an amateur debating society. There are established facts. There are nonarbitrary rules. In short, there's a there there.

Could you be born to a non-practicing "Jewish" mother and still be a Jew? Put another way: it seems to me that a "Jew" who does not accept Judaism is somewhat of an oxymoron? Wouldn't that be like me saying "I'm a Christian, but I don't follow the teachings of Jesus." ?

— roger

In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience. Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.

—

I should be more careful about such jesting prophecies! Seems I missed a close-bracket, but I think you folks can figure it out.

Jim & Bob: My "logic" may not make sense to you, but I disagree that it doesn't "make sense to anyone else." While I may diverge from traditional orthodoxy in some areas, and while I do seem to be the only voice (and weak one at that) for a Biblical world view in this forum, there are, in fact, millions of believers in Jesus Christ.

Bob writes: "Creationists talk about science as if it were a discussion session in Philosophy 101 where everybody has a right to their own opinion, no matter their level of ignorance, and warehouses full of data don't matter. In fact, genuine science is very different and more demanding kind of operation."

Bob, I'm not a scientist, which I acknowledged very early on in this discussion. I pointed out that I am not qualified to argue about scientific facts. I don't have a problem with facts! Who would? Though I am interested to learn about the facts that prove evolution.

As far as I am aware, though, the fact that I am not a scientist coupled with the fact that I do not accept evolutionary theory doesn't disqualify me from being able to think. Unless, perhaps, my brain has simply not evolved to the level required to accept evolutionary theory as fact.

You write: "The serious study of texts is also something more than an amateur debating society. There are established facts. There are nonarbitrary rules. In short, there's a there there."

It would seem you are saying that because I don't follow a set of prescribed rules for debate, my opinion is irrelevant? That may very well be true.

David: Sorry for the abuse of your patience. None was intended. I have more questions, but will refrain.

Wayne writes:
"I agree but tell me who when faced with Jesus no matter how they lived and confronted with that truth would choose not to accept Jesus? Not many I care to say. I think it causes a problem with the theologians but I think it causes more problems with the head of church and state that rely on this fear of man that unless they follow mans religious and political doctrine that they will be sent to hell. Someone who rebels against the church doesn't help the church if they accept Jesus after they die because they are face to face with him."

Actually, I agree with you, Wayne. (Which seems to annoy Bob & Jim!) Again, it comes down to the validity of Jesus Christ. Was he an historical figure? We agree that he was. If so, is the Biblical account of him accurate? We disagree on that. It's as simple as that.

I'll answer your question, but it would seem that my communications here are starting to wear on the patience of others. So I will attempt to keep it brief and may not be back for a while.

What would the world be like if Jesus had not come? Hmm... are you accepting, for the sake of argument, that he is God and therefore the creator? Given that premise I can only conclude that conditions would remain as they were prior to his coming. The only atonement for sin being the regular sacrifice of animals. Frankly, I don't like that thought.

If, on the other hand, you are asking what it would be like if Jesus is not God, it would certainly change my world view. I would like to think I could still find "meaning" in life through my experiences with those I love. But I would always be questioning: Why are we here?

Wayne: You ask if there's any place in the Bible where Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. Right off the top of my head, I don't think so, but I'll do some checking...

It appears as though I have attributed Jim's quote to Bob, sorry.

Bob, I'm not a scientist, which I acknowledged very early on in this discussion. I pointed out that I am not qualified to argue about scientific facts. I don't have a problem with facts! Who would? Though I am interested to learn about the facts that prove evolution.

— roger

So you couldn't accept as a possibility that either a great flood accounts for the appearance of age or that God created the world to appear old?

— roger

Hi all,

Today at the library where I work I was amazed to overhear one of the student workers telling another that old canard about the philosophy teacher and the broken chalk. You know, the one where the biology teacher dares God to intervene and prove His existence by preventing a dropped stick of chalk from breaking, and a theistic student challenges him, so the prof drops the chalk but it hits his shoe and therefore doesn't break.

I had to intervene myself ("Are you saying that happened here on campus?!" "No, but I heard it from a friend of a ...") and I showed them the Snopes Urban Legend site (http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.htm#jackchick), which the agnostic student thought pretty funny, but the proselytizing student noticed the link to, sigh, the Jack Chick "Big Daddy?" comic.

And we looked at that tract, which shows a fair-haired Christian standing up to a ranting atheist professor and his hippie and colored classmates, and the Christian "proves" that evolution is all wrong.

I said that some of the proofs were simply, maliciously wrong (Lucy was only a malformed chimp? please) and directed them to talkorigins, but I think that site looked like much too much information to digest for a couple of freshmen who were only enjoying a pay-back-the-teacher story.

Anyhow, academicians here may want to know that story is making the rounds yet again.

With non-malicious regards to Roger, who has a good sense of humor, and to Creationist Timmy,

Fiona

Roger,

I'm not "annoyed" by your views, and you're not the only voice for a biblical worldview that's shown up here. There's just not very far to go with it. You're a believer and a biblical creationist, most of us aren't. This site isn't about theological debate, the willingness of a few of us notwithstanding. As I said, once allegory and metaphor are acknowledged, biblical literalism is a non-starter.

If you want to talk about biology, evolution, science, you might find more acceptance or engagement, although you have been pointed to some comprehensive resources that you can access and digest at your leisure.

Fiona I see you are still a lying harlot. That's fine. That's fine. I hope you enjoy smoking--as in forever!!!!!!!11 Your disobedience to God will get you tortured eternally.

Lovingly Yours in Christ,
Timmy

Ah, Timmy - you would have made a truly wonderfully devout and devoted Jesuit in the early days in the New World, when strength, resolve, determination and earplugs were required to bring the heathen savage kicking and screaming, tortured and burned, into the loving arms and eternal love of Jesus and His Father.

Creationist Timmy:

You are right -- I am suffering in hell -- but I live in hope that the virtuous light of reason will restore me after November 2nd.

Lovingly yours in harlotry,
Fiona

PS: Dwayne Gish is down here too and sends "a big ole buddy hug" to you. Oh, and so do the printers of the new textbooks for House Bill 911, the "Missouri Standard Science Act" -- they think you're just the greatest!

Hey Fiona, give the Beast a pat for me. It likes being scratched under chin #3....

Fiona, that Chick tract has been in circulation for years. Constantly.

I got the editor of the tracts to agree to take a look at any scientific errors, once, about two years ago.

Then I listed 27 profound errors in the tract. Suddenly the rational, error-seeking editor became a raving beast.

It's interesting to see the folks at Jack Chick try to live up to their cartoon versions of demons.

That Jack Chick tract against evolution will survive as long as ignorance and bigotry do, I predict.

Good thing the creationists can straighten us out about gluons. We poor fools.

But actually, if you're a creationist, that makes perfect sense. If your ilk are fit to lecture us about biology, then why not physics?

Creationist (Wilberforce class) circa 1890: Evolution is nonsense. God did it.

Creationist (Johnson class) circa 1980: Uh, okay, 'microevolution' might be true but macroevolution is nonsense. God did it.

Creationist (Behe class) circa 1990: Well, micro and macro might be true all the way back to the very first cell. But God did that.

Anybody see where this is going?

Creationist (Dembski class) 2001: ID can accommodate all the results of "Darwinism." But despite that all my analogies are with embodied designers, it's still possible that an unembodied designer did that.

<< Creationist (Behe class) circa 1990: Well, micro and macro might be true all the way back to the very first cell. But God did that.

Anybody see where this is going? >>

Yeah. But some genius here last week (I believe he's a good friend of Barley Zagner) wrote:

<< living systems must be able to utilize the reverse time-sense as I explained above, operating backwards in time from future to past. It is the only reasonable explanation. >>

So, all we need to do is utilize our reverse time-sense, and live backwards for around 15 billion years, and we'll be able to see the Multiple Designers at work for ourselves!

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo's views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move---it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth. As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth. Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo's views---and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them---the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved. ... Copyright © 1979-2004 Catholic Answers.

<< As a hypothesis, the Genesis story was quite reasonable when first written. >>

This reminds me to ask humbly, as an English major with a layman's understanding of most sciences, the difference between a model and a theory.

When I consult http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Science, I am told that

"Scientists use the term model to mean a description of something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions which can be tested by experiment or observation. A hypothesis is a contention that has not (yet) been well supported nor ruled out by experiment."

It seems to me, then, that the Genesis story is a model (which can easily be confuted), rather than a hypothesis, under the definition above.

Since the proper use of words is super important to me, I'd appreciate being set straight.

(I am entirely clear about the definitions of theory and law, by the way, and have written many letters to newspapers about such.)

Fiona

And re Chick Flicks:

David wrote:
<< Hey Fiona, give the Beast a pat for me. It likes being scratched under chin #3 . . . . >>

Well, I tried -- and it looks like he's developing a chin #4 -- but you know, Dante arranged his infernal circles so that Dwayne is way down there in Circle 8, and since I'm not a hypocrite, fortune-teller, simoniac, etc., they don't let me down that far.

And Ed wrote:
<< I got the editor of the tracts to agree to take a look at any scientific errors, once, about two years ago. Then I listed 27 profound errors in the tract. >>

Oh, you brave, brave man.

<< Suddenly the rational, error-seeking editor became a raving beast. It's interesting to see the folks at Jack Chick try to live up to their cartoon versions of demons. That Jack Chick tract against evolution will survive as long as ignorance and bigotry do, I predict. >>

I find it loathsome, so I am very proud of you for trying to educate the uneducable. And why am I not surprised by the outcome? Thanks for the big, big laugh, though!

Possibly OT:

Would you consider sending your anecdote to Snopes.com? They always want (that is, ask for) updates, and they obviously don't like Jack Chick, either! Since Snopes gets a LOT of hits, you'd be doing your fellow terrestrials a favor.

Thanks and commiserations,
Fiona

So, I had an interesting conversation with one of my colleagues today. This person described your site as rabidly anti-ID, and full of people such as Ken Miller who just play it "fast and loose" and essays that don't add up when you really search the literature, continuously flipping around requests as to the method by which ID could be distinguished from Darwinian evolution, and finally culminating in statements to the effect that evolution is practically irrelevant to biology. He conceded that there are trivial cases where Darwinian evolution can be verified, but said that in no truly interesting case has it been observed.

Among other things, he charged that there is no evidence for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, indeed that evolution has failed to explain the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, despite the fact that he seemed to know a lot about its various relationships to secretory systems, might be worth looking into further. He claims that the consensus in literature is that the secretory systems evolved from the flagellum, but there is no explanation of how the irreducibly complex flagellum arose in the first place. It might be an interesting little project to learn something about...

Wayne: You asked if Jesus ever mentioned Adam and Eve... The closest I could find was John 10:5 where he quotes Genesis saying: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"

Interestingly enough, he does mention Adam & Eve's son Abel by name in Luke 11:51.

This person described your site as rabidly anti-ID, and full of people such as Ken Miller who just play it "fast and loose" and essays that don't add up when you really search the literature

I just discovered and read a few things on TalkReason.org. Wow. I almost feel bad for Dembski, being massacred in public like that. If I were Dembski I would slink away and change my name.

Dembski and his IDiot brethren should remember the words of an actual scientist:

"Evolution is cleverer than you are." -Francis Crick

So, I just had lunch with (of all people) Casey Luskin. Interestingly, he's not going to law school for a few years at least. When he does become a lawyer, he says he'd sure like to do stuff for ID, but he thinks he'll probably end up in environmental law--says there's no money in ID advocacy (I neglected to mention no point). He doesn't want to work for any unscrupulous oil corporations. I think this is a personality I can't swing--a environmentalist liberal who rallies for the conservative Christian education agenda.

So, I just had lunch with (of all people) Casey Luskin. Interestingly, he's not going to law school for a few years at least. When he does become a lawyer, he says he'd sure like to do stuff for ID, but he thinks he'll probably end up in environmental law--says there's no money in ID advocacy (I neglected to mention no point). He doesn't want to work for any unscrupulous oil corporations. I think this is a personality I can't swing--a environmentalist liberal who rallies for the conservative Christian education agenda.

What the FUCK is it about lawyers and ID.

Friends:

I've been doing some homework (reading some of the pages that have been recommended to me to enlighten me about how evolution is proven fact... so far nothing convincing, but, take heart ye defenders of evolution! I do have much more to go! I'm young and ignorant! Well... at least the latter is true:) and I came across an amusing little page on talkreason that attempts to explain, in layman's terms, (which I, being IQ challenged, tend to gravitite to) how utterly preposterous it is to accept the Bible and in particular the book of Genesis.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/bible-science.cfm

The amusing thing is, the author, Amiel Rossow, is guilty time and time again of doing exactly what evolutionary scientists and "apologists" (yes, I use that term deliberately)insist creationists do... namely arriving at conclusions based on incomplete information or simply without considering all the possibilities. Here's merely one case in point...

The author is making the case that the story of Noah could not possibly be true. He points out that Noah and his sons were not expert ship builders and that the ark was a huge ship. (He apparently overlooks the fact that the Bible claims Noah was 650 years old when the flood came so he'd been workin' for a good long time!--Of course I realize that alone may sound preposterous to the author, but the Bible consistently mentions very long ages up to 950 years as the normal lifespan before the flood) He then argues that the ship would have been rather unseaworthy and generally leaky. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah...

He then begins to make his case against the absurdity of getting all those doggone animals on the ark... he writes:

"If we accept the Biblical story, we have to imagine all those animals tightly packed in the ark, layer upon layer, in a highly compressed state. Besides all those bodies, the ark had to accommodate tons of food. The utter implausibility of the story, if judged in rational terms, is obvious."

He then goes on to argue, (as any good scientist would!) that those animals are gonna weigh a heckofa lot! He even politely-- and sacrificially I suppose--uses conservative numbers to estimate an averge weight of all the animals taking into account the smallest insects up to the big boys...

"The animals gathered in the ark would have weights varying in a wide range, from a fraction of a Newton for some insects, to hundreds of thousands of Newtons for such giants as elephants and hippopotami."

Conclusion? Doesn't make sense scientifically, so it can't be true.

Okay, so here's the point. Mr. Rossow completely overlooks the possibility that these animals could have all been babies. I mean if God is orchestrating the whole thing anyway, as the Bible claims, then why would he have to take fully developed adults on the ark? Many of the insects and reptiles could have been nothing more than eggs. And conditions on the ark would have been perfect for hybernation, so many, if not most, of the animals would have either not eaten or eaten very little.

Is the story of Noah fact or metaphor? I don't know. I believe it's true, but either way is acceptable. It's just amusing when science attempts to debunk stories that have an omnipotent God as their centerpiece.

Roger,

Glad you finally got around to responding on Noah. Your assignment now is to provide evidence to document the global flood which, presumably, submerged the peak of Mount Everest. That's an accumulation of more than five miles depth of water covering the surface of the Earth. Good luck.

I think this is a personality I can't swing---a environmentalist liberal who rallies for the conservative Christian education agenda.

— Admonitus

I've been doing some homework (reading some of the pages that have been recommended to me to enlighten me about how evolution is proven fact . . . so far nothing convincing, but, take heart ye defenders of evolution! I do have much more to go!

— roger

Roger,

To expand on the beginning of my previous post: I could be wrong, but your interest in the Bible may cause you to unintentionally seek out the worst "defenses" of mainstream science. May I suggest that you avoid arguments that attempt to disprove God (as you know by now some of the main "evolution defenders" are Christians anyway) or a literal flood. The best arguments against a YE are geological arguments that don't involve evolution or the flood at all. As a chemist I find the isochron arguments most interesting. They are hard to follow, but worth the effort.

Again, your goal should be to see where the evidence leads, meaning the "hows," not the "Creator or not" part, even if "in your heart" you believe something else.

There's probably no more common set of creationist misunderstandings than those in the claim "Evolution is just a theory, not a proven fact". Here are two good essays which should have straightened them out on the subject, but seem to've had no effect. Belief is just too strong.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Frank J:
"As a chemist I find the isochron arguments most interesting. They are hard to follow, but worth the effort."

Could you supply a link or reference for us lazy sods too torpid to track it down ourselves?

The last half of this deals with ID, the DI, ohio, and horribly, shockingly, the Gates Foundation.

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009973A-D518-10FA-89FB83414B7F0000

Frank:

Actually I've been studying both... I went to the pages you recommended and haven't finished yet. (Also my computer crashed during that process, and I got frustrated and gave up for the time being... probably God warning me! ; )

The talkreason page just came up as I was at that website, if I remember right I was directed there from the origins site. Actually, I opened the page not thinking, this should be pretty weak, but the opposite, this should be pretty good. (Meaning a well thought out attack on Genesis.) In a few cases it was, but I can still make the case for every argument presented that "God did it", so, like Bob says, it's a non-starter. Disclaimer: Bob does not agree with my position when he makes the comment. I was gratuitously using his, possibly copyrighted phrase, for my own selfish purposes : )

In any event, you mention evidences for an old earth several times... so far I've learned that most scientists accept an age for the universe at 15 billion years... or was that for the earth? I can't remember, I think it was the universe and the earth is quite a bit "younger", right? In other words the big bang happened 15 billion years ago.

I better get my numbers straight, how old do scientists believe the earth is, and when would most "theorize" that life began the process of evolution on earth?

I'll tell you up front the problem I have with an old earth, maybe you can settle the issue for me...

15 BILLION.... even if it's just 4 or 5 BILLION for the earth... it rolls off the tongue pretty easy. Even if we add the zeros it's not that big of a deal (I'm not a mathematician but I think this is correct) 5,000,000,000. Not that big of a deal, even though my calculator doesn't have that many positions!)Multiply that by 365 to get a rough idea of how many days we're talking about. My point is that's a HUGE amount of time. In fact, I suggest it's so long our minds which function for less than 100 years can't even grasp the enormity of it.

Yet science throws these kinds of numbers around as if it were no big deal. Add to that, the fact that science starts making "backwards" predictions of what occured 3 BILLION years ago, even 10 million or even 1 million, for Pete's sake! based only on what exists in the present. It's like estimating what occurred in 1492 based on the blink of an eye in 2004. How could anything that attempts to explain things that occurred so far into the past be anything other than "educated" conjecture? (I'll grant that it's easier to make backwards predictions than forwards, but not much when we're talking about a majorly prehistoric amount of time.)

Bob wants evidence for a world-wide flood. Why do we find fossils on the tops of mountains?

(Also for Bob: I'm assuming you believe the many stories told by local Kurds (who are not Jews nor Christians) about actually seeing and in some cases even touring Noah's ark on mount Arrarat along with government photos of an "unnatural" very large object in the snow are fabrications?)

Fossils exist in the present. It's not like someone traveled back in time 2 million years ago, picked them up and brought them back. They exist now. Some people see them as very old indeed. Others do not. How do I, and the public in general, know who's right?

What's the best evidence for an old earth?

Russell, the easiest access to arguments for or against evolution are at the Talk Origins Archive. Search "isochron" and you'll get their FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

On that note, notice how anti-evolutionists who want students to learn the arguments against evolution, never refer to what may be the only site with easy access to all of them?

What's the best evidence for an old earth?

— Roger

What's the best evidence for an old earth?

Frank:

Your points are very well thought out and I am certainly giving them consideration.

You wrote: "For example, if it's not common descent, it must be "independent abiogenesis." Anti-evolutionists almost never use that phrase because they know that they have no evidence to support it. Furthermore, they would be caught in a contradiction when they use their bogus "abiogenesis is impossible" argument. That's why they use ambiguous, scientifically useless terms like "special creation" and "common design.""

It seems to me that what often occurs in a search for "truth" regarding the origin of life, is a war of semantics rather than an honest exchange of ideas... both, or perhaps I should say all, sides are guilty of this to one degree or another. I come to find out, for example, that "theory" often means something different to scientists than what it means to the general public. Apparently so does "evolution". Now you mention "abiogenesis" as being scientifically acceptable while certain creationist terms are not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about your choice of words, I'm just making an observation about the overall "debate". A few posts back Jim implied that my opinions are irrelevant since I don't follow the rules for debate. I agreed. For me it's not about winning anything, especially something so trivial as an "online" debate! I just want to cut through all the rhetoric on both (or all) sides and attempt to get closer to the truth in the process.

So here's my question... why is it that anything deemed "unscientific" is out of bounds when considering the origin of life? If you can't test it, it's irrelevant?

By the way, I refer to some defenders of evolution as "apologists" since it appears to me that they defend their belief in evolution as passionately as any apologist would defend his or her faith. And as I have mentioned before, neither side has a monopoly on "fact". The page you referred me to a few days ago starts off by conceding that the arguments presented will not attempt to explain where life came from, only that it is here.

That doesn't mean I'm simply throwing science out the window. Certainly not. I accept the observations made by science and I don't deny that many important acheivements have been made because of science. (Many of those scientists were also Christians! by the way.) All I'm saying is neither side has a "scientifically" valid explanation for how or why life got here in the first place.

So both (all) sides are, in effect, religion.

Roger,

Fossils on the tops of mountains? Unless you've been hiding in a cave, you're aware of plate tectonics, and can figure it out for yourself. But, just for kicks, let's assume for a moment that the Flood did occur. That would require the existence of worldwide geological evidence showing a sedimentation layer deposited at the same time - somewhere in the vicinity of 6000 years ago - as the five miles+ of water evaporated. I await the results of your search. It should be pretty easy to find, don't you think?

You may believe the (something less than) many stories about seeing, touring, or bringing back pieces of, the ark, but, unfortunately, they've all been debunked as fabrications. Documentation is available on the web. I'm almost offended that you'd think that I believe them. I've seen the latest photos and am underwhelmed, to say the least. More wishful thinking or one more hoax? Can I assume you were convinced by the photos of the Mars Face?

Fossils are found in dateable strata. You can accept the ramifications of that or not - that's your decision and your problem. Look at the evidence and judge it or put on blinders. Think for yourself or hide in the myths of the bible. Unfortunately, you've already acknowledged allegory and metaphor in the bible, thereby rendering it an unreliable source of anything but geographic and (secular) historical information - and even that isn't completely accurate.

So now it's your turn - what's your best evidence for a new earth?

So both (all) sides are, in effect, religion.

So both (all) sides are, in effect, religion.

— Roger

Roger, everything you've said has been said ten thousand times. You seem to be very new to the issue, in which case you may not know that. But it has. In any case, saying them for the 10,001st time isn't going to change anybody's mind. And if you're asking the questions to learn instead of persuade, you need to start by learning about evolution. Since you're new to this, start with a book like What Evolution Is by Mayr, then perhaps Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution by Graur and Li. Then maybe move on to some more technical stuff. It'll be a better use of your time than arguing here.

Steve:

Not to discourage reading books but I recommend the Talk Origins Archive to start. It has active links. And it's free. I must check out the book by Graur and Li; I enjoyed Li's "Molecular Evolution." Very technical - much of the math was over my head - but quite informative.

Roger:

Compare my story: As I said before, 7 years ago I was a mid career chemist who thought he knew evolution for 30 years prior. But just after discovering the web, I realized I was quite mistaken on many things. I was already a skeptic, so I took nothing as gospel - indeed a lot of web material is bogus - but I kept reading and formulating ideas. More than a year of reading (several hr/week) passed before I felt comfortable to even start posting (on the Talk Origins Newsgroup). And another 3 years of reading went by before I started posting regularly.

In no way is this a suggestion to stop or even slow down posting here. Only a reminder that there is a lot of information out there.

Coming back from a dinner party slightly loaded, I read the last few entries and had a moment of compassion. What the heck is so dreadfullly important to creationists that they want to deny so obvious a set of facts? Are you guys that desperate? Talk about postmodernism. Do you think that your spiritual needs, however urgent, will change the nature of things?

The only argument left to these folks is, pretty much, maybe we're all dreaming.

The Talk Origins archive is a great source of information. I would suggest learning about evolution itself first though. These creationists never have a good understanding of evolution. Even if they still want to be creationists afterward, at least they won't fall for the stupidest forms, like the Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind types.

Also, the websites are free, but used copies of those books will set you back $20. That's a lot cheaper for these guys than wasting hours trying to talk smart people into believing stupid ideas.

So here's my question . . . why is it that anything deemed "unscientific" is out of bounds when considering the origin of life? If you can't test it, it's irrelevant?

— Roger

Bob wants evidence for a world-wide flood. Why do we find fossils on the tops of mountains?

— roger

Let's say that I got a "revelation,",...

To Frank's point I would like to add a few things. In the United States you have a few people asking for "Equal Time" in Science class asking for Theology to be taught. I wonder how many of these people would shut up if Biology class had to, at the same time, teach other faith's creation stories. I bet you that there would be a big fuss amongst them if the Australian Aborigine's "Ancestors" who created all life while singing on a walkabout was to be taught as science or the Hindu's belief that Vishnu commanded a lesser god Brahma to create the world and the fact that the world has been created many times and faded into nothing many times, or the creation stories of ancient Greece and its many gods, or one of my favourites is an Eskimo story of 2 giants that had a daughter that grew bigger then them named Sedna. Sedna tried to eat her parents one night so they took here out into the ocean to drown here but she grabbed their canoe and tried to tip it over and so they chopped off her fingers and this is where the animals of the sea came from.

All this sounds like a mythology class not biology doesn't it. Yet this is what should happen if "Equal Time" is introduced. I would be very pissed of if my child had to learn mythology in biology class instead of learning about the scientific method and best theory for what we observe today given the data we see.

Would anyone else pay to see charlie wagner and steve host a talk show?

Steve:

Your interpersonal communication skills overwhelm me.

You write: "That's a lot cheaper for these guys than wasting hours trying to talk smart people into believing stupid ideas."

I'm not trying to talk anyone into anything. I'm offering my opinions and welcoming those who differ, learning a lot in the process. Sure I can read, and I am. But that's a one sided communication. I like active conversations with real people who know what they are talking about. It seems to me I have found some very intelligent and well informed people on this site. That's why I keep coming back. If I felt your views didn't deserve the time of day, why would I bother? It may seem like it, but I'm really not a glutton for punishment.

Bob: My best evidence for a young earth? I've only been around for forty years! (Obviously the world didn't exist before I did! : )

Actually, as I'm sure is no great surprise to anyone, I personally don't have any, other than history and the Bible would seem to indicate a relatively young earth. But I don't think a young earth is a prerequisite for acceptance of the Bible.

As I said before, however, from a skeptical and common sense standpoint it seems to me quite amazing that science simply accepts a 15 billion year old universe and 4.5 billion year old earth like those were common, everyday numbers. Bill Gates may have that many dollars, but I'd be happy with a fraction of that!

Since I'm not limiting my research to only the sites recommended here, I've discovered some other sites who seem quite convinced there's credible evidence that the earth is much younger than an evolutionary model would allow.

What do you think, for example, of the "not enough helium" in the atmoshpere argument?

Frank writes: "but you at least deserve an answer to a fair question."

Thank you. I appreciate it. And again, I am taking in your thoughts and considering them all as time permits (I DO have a life!)

You mention that: "questions about whether a Creator was involved in the origin of life, should be discussed, and even taught. It is just out of bounds for science class."

Sure. I don't have any problem with that. But I thought this was the bathroom at Pandas Thumb where "almost any saying or scribble can find a home." Right?

Wayne: Good to hear from you again. You write: "In short we can say the radioactive decay is constant. Half-lives now are the same as they'll be in 5 billion years."

I've seen other sites claiming to be scientific that dispute that.

You also write: "I would be very pissed of if my child had to learn mythology in biology class instead of learning about the scientific method and best theory for what we observe today given the data we see."

True, but couldn't it be presented as you put it: the "best theory" for what we observe today, rather than fact? My daughter's high school Biology
textbook presents evolution as fact. I agree with you about "mythology" but perhaps just one class could be devoted to a number of different religious explanations for reality. Would there be any harm to that?

So here's my question . . . why is it that anything deemed "unscientific" is out of bounds when considering the origin of life? If you can't test it, it's irrelevant?

As I said before, however, from a skeptical and common sense standpoint it seems to me quite amazing that science simply accepts a 15 billion year old universe and 4.5 billion year old earth like those were common, everyday numbers. Bill Gates may have that many dollars, but I'd be happy with a fraction of that!