The resurrection of Omphalos

"Like, whoa dude, we could be like in the Matrix, man, and all your memories could be just made up! Oh man, I'm freakin' out!!!"

Honestly, what kind of jerk of a being would do that to his "beloved" creation? And, perhaps more puzzlingly, why? I've never seen any of the omphalos crowd explain the purpose of a faked-up past for the universe, except that their god's a tricky bastard.

Tulse said: Honestly, what kind of jerk of a being would do that to his "beloved" creation? And, perhaps more puzzlingly, why? I've never seen any of the omphalos crowd explain the purpose of a faked-up past for the universe, except that their god's a tricky bastard.

n BioLogos Darrell Falk asks How Should BioLogos Respond to Dr. Albert Mohler’s Critique of The BioLogos Initiative?

that they even bother to consider a response speaks volumes about why science should distance itself even further from this nonsense.

Biologos is a failure, if the goal is to help science.

RBH said:

Tulse said: Honestly, what kind of jerk of a being would do that to his "beloved" creation? And, perhaps more puzzlingly, why? I've never seen any of the omphalos crowd explain the purpose of a faked-up past for the universe, except that their god's a tricky bastard.

Mohler is quite clear about that: It's to avoid the theological and exegetical problems that result from not retaining a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Tulse said: You misunderstand me -- I understand why Mohler wants to interpret things that way, but what I don't understand is how he explains why his god would create an aged earth in the first place. It seems profoundly perverse to me, and makes his god a liar.

I suppose one should never underestimate the mental confusions of the ID/creationists; but this Omphalos Problem falls into the same philosophical genre as solipsism.

These are “exercises for the sophomore” that are easily reduced to the recognition that evidence for existence from within each sphere might just as well be taken at face value because it is what you are stuck with. You wouldn’t behave any differently if the universe was real and existed for as long as the evidence suggests.

Putting a gun to one’s head and pulling the trigger would be devastating if the world were real and you would have no idea what would happen if it weren’t.

So you might as well just treat it as real and learn something form it.

When recognized in those terms, it is clearly evident that ID/creationists are desperately trying to avoid reality.

See, I can almost comprehend the concept that a god might create a universe that looks older, it'd be fairly dull for a long time, if you had to wait for plants to grow and so on. I can also almost grasp the idea that, somehow, culturally changable ethics and subjective immoral activities can wear creation down, making it look more used.

However, it still doesn't explain why the fecking light is coming from so far away. There's no possible explanation of why a god would make starlight from stellar events that cannot possibly have existed.

I mean, seriously. The major fundamental flaw of cDesignists is to put some thought into their already flawed ideas.

What these folks are running into is the same problem that has plagued religions since centralized religious authority was invented: there is no mutually agreed and principled way to resolve disputes among competing interpretations of religious texts.

Tulse said:

RBH said:

Tulse said: Honestly, what kind of jerk of a being would do that to his "beloved" creation? And, perhaps more puzzlingly, why? I've never seen any of the omphalos crowd explain the purpose of a faked-up past for the universe, except that their god's a tricky bastard.

Mohler is quite clear about that: It's to avoid the theological and exegetical problems that result from not retaining a literal interpretation of the Bible.

You misunderstand me -- I understand why Mohler wants to interpret things that way, but what I don't understand is how he explains why his god would create an aged earth in the first place. It seems profoundly perverse to me, and makes his god a liar.

Since Mohler thinks theistic evolution is the consummate oxymoron, then I guess we can presume that Mohler thinks his god cannot foresee the future consequences of whatever universe his god decides to set in motion? I guess that would explain why his god also cannot foresee the consequences of creating a bunch of stupid rules nobody can follow.

The thing about this that's always bugged me is this: If it's true that their god has created a universe with all the evidence that it's old, then that's, well evidence that it's old. Therefore, they should have to agree that evidence based understanding, that is, science, must conclude that the universe is... old.

Therefore, teaching creationism or any of its illegitimate stepchildren is not science, but faith, and doesn't belong in a science class. And since all the evidence shows that the universe is old, and is self-consistent, the science based on that is useful in understanding why the Earth and universe look and act the way that they do, and should be taught.

So why do they constantly try to stick non-evidence based material into science classes, and why do they constantly try to remove evidence-based material?

The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Christian, called the appearance of old argument the deceptive God blasphemy.

Jim Thomerson said: The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Christian, called the appearance of old argument the deceptive God blasphemy.

What these folks are running into is the same problem that has plagued religions since centralized religious authority was invented: there is no mutually agreed and principled way to resolve disputes among competing interpretations of religious texts.

Flint said: Alternatively, we can say that there IS a mutually agreed and principled resolution mechanism - the schism.

"What do you get when you have two Baptists on a desert island? First Church of Island Baptist -- and First Church of Island Baptist REFORMED."

So I've just seen another anti-Darwin / evolution diatribe by Klinghoffer of the dishonesty institute, surprisingly as a post on the Huffington Post. Same old Klinghoffer, what drivel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-klinghoffer/the-dark-side-of-darwinis_b_630627.html

So I’ve just seen another anti-Darwin / evolution diatribe by Klinghoffer of the dishonesty institute, surprisingly as a post on the Huffington Post. Same old Klinghoffer, what drivel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david[…]_630627.html

RBH said:

Tulse said: You misunderstand me -- I understand why Mohler wants to interpret things that way, but what I don't understand is how he explains why his god would create an aged earth in the first place. It seems profoundly perverse to me, and makes his god a liar.

Ahhh. Sorry. Mohler doesn't address that question in his talk

Somewhat off topic; but there is considerable interference on PT ant the moment.

How is this spamming by www.b2bsharing.com being handled?

Mike Elzinga said: Somewhat off topic; but there is considerable interference on PT ant the moment. How is this spamming by www.b2bsharing.com being handled?

So supernova SN1987a, which was measured at roughly 170,000ly away, never actually exploded? God created light already on its way to the earth from a completely fictitious event that never happened? I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster explanation better. The FSM just alters our perception of reality.

John_S said: So supernova SN1987a, which was measured at roughly 170,000ly away, never actually exploded? God created light already on its way to the earth from a completely fictitious event that never happened? I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster explanation better. The FSM just alters our perception of reality.

RBH said:

John_S said: So supernova SN1987a, which was measured at roughly 170,000ly away, never actually exploded? God created light already on its way to the earth from a completely fictitious event that never happened? I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster explanation better. The FSM just alters our perception of reality.

In one of his early books--I don't now recall which--Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, made exactly that argument: what we see as novas are merely "blobs" (Morris' word) in a stream of starlight from a star that never actually existed.

But I want to suggest to you that the most natural understanding from the scripture of how to answer that question comes to this: The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man. By our understanding that would’ve required time for Adam to get old but not by the sovereign creative power of God. He put Adam in the garden. The garden was not merely seeds; it was a fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole.

FL said: So, Dr. Mohler pointed out:

But I want to suggest to you that the most natural understanding from the scripture of how to answer that question comes to this: The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man. By our understanding that would’ve required time for Adam to get old but not by the sovereign creative power of God. He put Adam in the garden. The garden was not merely seeds; it was a fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole.

That's a very strong statement there. Left unrefuted, it could do some damage to your theistic evolution brothers. So, to help out your TE homies, let's try a little exercise. Using the Scripture texts alone, offer a disproof of what Dr. Mohler said there. Try it. Take your time. ****** What's that you say? You're not able to pull it off using the Biblical texts? Well, of course not. The Bible SUPPORTS what Dr. Mohler is saying and therefore the Bible opposes those Biologos boys. Nevertheless, this sort of stuff can give you valuable insights as to the heavy quandary that theistic evolutionists are stuck in 24/7. See, for you Pandas, it's all very simple. "Darwinism Sez So, Uniformitarianism Sez So, Screw Da Bible." And that's that. Case closed. Three rails on which PandasThumb merrily rolls along. The Biologos boys slavishly follow your lead on the first two rails (as expected), but they know that if they touch that third rail ("screw da bible"), they will burn up their own credibility with the Christian audience they're so desperately trying to evangelize for evolution. So, unlike PT, the Biologos guys CANNOT blow off the Bible when attempting to respond to Dr. Mohler's statements. They've got to bring the Scriptures to the table somehow, in order to stay in the debate. But that's the kicker: Dr. Mohler's apparent-age gig derives DIRECTLY from Scripture itself. Ooops. In chess terms, the Biologos boys are faced with a monster Zugzwang on this one. So let's hear some suggestions, PT amigos. How do we rescue Biologos on this one? C'mon, help a "Bio brother" out! FL

Dale Husband said: I remember reading Morris' crap and responses to it by scientists when I was in college and wondering why Morris was not prosecuted for fraud. I know we have a First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, but there should be logical limits to it. Claiming something is scientific which doesn't even follow the rules of science and logic at all, just to defend some extremist view of the Bible that is itself illogical and a manifestation of idolatry certainly deserves no respect in any enlightened society.

Here is
the speed of light crap from ICR.

You can find all these arguments at AiG also. As I said, they keep repeating the same refuted crap over and over. It’s their shtick.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dale Husband said: I remember reading Morris' crap and responses to it by scientists when I was in college and wondering why Morris was not prosecuted for fraud. I know we have a First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, but there should be logical limits to it. Claiming something is scientific which doesn't even follow the rules of science and logic at all, just to defend some extremist view of the Bible that is itself illogical and a manifestation of idolatry certainly deserves no respect in any enlightened society.

Morris and Gish were absolutely ruthless in their mischaracterizations of science. I think it had something to do with taunting scientists into debates with them. I remember battling their misconceptions throughout the 1970s and 80s. They spread memes faster than the physics community could clean up after them. Over at the ICR website you can still find much of Morris’s and Gish’s crap. For example, here is Morris on the Stars of Heaven with his original screwing up of thermodynamics and cosmology. The creationists are still making hay off debates from back in the 1980s. They retract nothing; every crappy argument they started with back in the late 1960s can still be found on the internet. In any other area of consumer protection, these bastards would be in prison. But they hide behind freedom of religion and get away with it.

Oh, I just looked elsewhere and he is still alive. Maybe we can still drag his @$$ to court, along with Ken Ham and other known frauds.

Dale Husband said: By Gish, you mean Duane T. Gish, who was indeed Morris' lientenant in the Institute for Creation Research. He was indeed one of the most blatantly shameless liars I've ever read, with one book in particular titled, "Evolution, the Fossil Say NO!" that was quite laughable.

FL said:

Oh, I just looked elsewhere and he is still alive. Maybe we can still drag his @$$ to court, along with Ken Ham and other known frauds.

But how will that provide any help to the Biologos boys in their hour of need?

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

Oh, I just looked elsewhere and he is still alive. Maybe we can still drag his @$$ to court, along with Ken Ham and other known frauds.

But how will that provide any help to the Biologos boys in their hour of need?

Biologos doesn't need any help. You do, because you are a fraud, as are all those who would sacrifice integrity for the sake of dogma. The priests and prophets who wrote the Bible thought the Earth was flat and centered on the Mediterrianian Sea, that the Sun and all other objects beyond the Earth want around it, and thought the universe was only a few thousand years old. They were also ruled by kings, with no concept of democracy. That explains why their preception of God was so petty, merely nothing more than a glorified human being. But that wasn't the real Creator at all, and that is what we have slowly come to realize. The Bible has nothing to do with God or the real world. It is merely ancient man's limited and flawed view of both. Grow up!

Gee, thanks Dale. I'm sure the rest of the atheists (and Pagans, if there are any) appreciate being lumped in with neo-Nazis and organized crime.

Alex H said: Gee, thanks Dale. I'm sure the rest of the atheists (and Pagans, if there are any) appreciate being lumped in with neo-Nazis and organized crime.

Dale Husband said:

Alex H said: Gee, thanks Dale. I'm sure the rest of the atheists (and Pagans, if there are any) appreciate being lumped in with neo-Nazis and organized crime.

That was sarcasm, taking FL's idiotic bigotry and throwing it back at him. No actual pagans or atheists were the intended targets.

Dale Husband said:

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

Oh, I just looked elsewhere and he is still alive. Maybe we can still drag his @$$ to court, along with Ken Ham and other known frauds.

But how will that provide any help to the Biologos boys in their hour of need?

Biologos doesn't need any help. You do, because you are a fraud, as are all those who would sacrifice integrity for the sake of dogma. ... The Bible has nothing to do with God or the real world. It is merely ancient man's limited and flawed view of both. Grow up!

Seriously, if the Bible is the only reason you beleive in God or (claim to) have a moral center, you might as well be a Pagan, an atheist, a neo-Nazi or a mafia member. You are no better than them, because your faith is worthless.

Omphalos fails for many reasons.

1. The fundie god is lying to us. He created the universe 6,000 years ago but it looks like it is 13.7 billion years old. In fact, it is impossible to prove that it isn't billions of years old. Then he provides a magic book that claims it is 6,000 years old and demands that we believe in him or go to hell and be tortured forever.

Such a being is evil. The fundie god looks a lot like satan. They even lie constantly and occasionally practice human child sacrifice.

2. Why create an old looking universe 6,000 years ago? We could have been created with all our memories and an old earth, last Thursday. God could create a new universe every week. Enjoy your last 3 days alive, next week is giant squids swimming in methane seas universe week.

[quote]The fundie god is lying to us.[/quote]

One of the questions I have always wanted to ask is this,

God told Adam and Eve that eating the fruit from that special tree will kill them, but in the end they ate it, and they didn't die.

Now, how does that count as not lying?

Always boggles my mind. And it is mostly the OT that prevents me from becoming a Christian. I've encountered nice moderate Christians, and their community is lovely, but I just can swallow the OT god. If not for Him, I might even consider becoming a one of them.

Casuals said: [quote]The fundie god is lying to us.[/quote] One of the questions I have always wanted to ask is this, God told Adam and Eve that eating the fruit from that special tree will kill them, but in the end they ate it, and they didn't die. Now, how does that count as not lying? Always boggles my mind. And it is mostly the OT that prevents me from becoming a Christian. I've encountered nice moderate Christians, and their community is lovely, but I just can swallow the OT god. If not for Him, I might even consider becoming a one of them.

The New Testament also contains some horrible images. Ever read the book of Revelation? There is enough death and destruction there to make any civilized person cringe in disgust.….unless they are religious fundamentalists, of course. They live for such carnage as a means of eliminating all unlike them. Sort of like Daleks, in a way.

When a believer tosses some form of Dosteovski's idea (without a god, all is permitted) at you, toss this back: "Oh, have the police and sheriff resigned their jobs and gone home?"

It's not great literature, but it's better than referring to non-xians, atheists, nazis and mafiosi in one sentence.

Yeah Casuals I would agree. Dying, meeting the wonderful Pete at the pearly gates, and saying where's this god chap, I want to give him/her/it a piece of my mind. What the hell was he/she/it thinking, he/she/it couldn't use a consultancy, the Mice did, they used Slartybartfast.

Casuals said: [quote]The fundie god is lying to us.[/quote] One of the questions I have always wanted to ask is this, God told Adam and Eve that eating the fruit from that special tree will kill them, but in the end they ate it, and they didn't die. Now, how does that count as not lying? Always boggles my mind. And it is mostly the OT that prevents me from becoming a Christian. I've encountered nice moderate Christians, and their community is lovely, but I just can swallow the OT god. If not for Him, I might even consider becoming a one of them.

If you are sympathetic towards a Christian God but don’t like the Bible, why don’t you go through it and use a black marker pen to block out all the bits that offend you? That way you can use your self-abridged version as a moral guide to life. Afterall if you don’t believe a compassionate God could commit those attrocities then they can’t have happened, right?

Christians Are Starved for Intelligent Christian Conversation

So claims Mohler.

Smile away

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/07/06/radio-days-lessons-learned-behind-the-microphone/

Casuals said:

If you are sympathetic towards a Christian God but don’t like the Bible, why don’t you go through it and use a black marker pen to block out all the bits that offend you? That way you can use your self-abridged version as a moral guide to life. Afterall if you don’t believe a compassionate God could commit those attrocities then they can’t have happened, right?

But why would I want to do that? If I can cross out those messages that offend me, that certainly means I already have an inner moral guide, which makes having a book as a moral guide rather redundant, no?

Roger said: If you are sympathetic towards a Christian God but don't like the Bible, why don't you go through it and use a black marker pen to block out all the bits that offend you?

TomS said: Dosteovski's idea (without a god, all is permitted)

TomS (a different TomS) said:

TomS said: Dosteovski's idea (without a god, all is permitted)

BTW, what Dostoevsky actually put in the mouth of one of his characters (Miusov, quoting Ivan, in "The Brothers Karamazov" Part I Book II Chapter 6) was: "If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral; everything would be lawful, even cannibalism."

Flint said:

What these folks are running into is the same problem that has plagued religions since centralized religious authority was invented: there is no mutually agreed and principled way to resolve disputes among competing interpretations of religious texts.

Alternatively, we can say that there IS a mutually agreed and principled resolution mechanism - the schism. Last I looked it up, there were over 38,000 Christian denominations alone. And this is probably a Good Thing, because by now, you can read scripture, decide what YOU think it means, and find a denomination that substantially agrees with you.

(This is the second TomS here)

I don't know what Dostoevsky was arguing at this point, whether Ivan as understood by Miusov is expressing D's opinion.

But I agree with you that the opinion isn't very insightful.

Among the problems I have with it is that in 19th century Russia I can think of a better example of an extreme immorality than cannibalism - how about pogroms or serfdom?

And the argument, as it stands, is not an argument for the truth of immortality, but an argument that it is a good idea that people should believe in immortality even if it's false: The "Santa Claus" theory of morality.

TomS said: (This is the second TomS here) I don't know what Dostoevsky was arguing at this point, whether Ivan as understood by Miusov is expressing D's opinion. But I agree with you that the opinion isn't very insightful. Among the problems I have with it is that in 19th century Russia I can think of a better example of an extreme immorality than cannibalism - how about pogroms or serfdom? And the argument, as it stands, is not an argument for the truth of immortality, but an argument that it is a good idea that people should believe in immortality even if it's false: The "Santa Claus" theory of morality.

and now Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (William Dembski’s former employer), all but accuses Francis Collins’ BioLogos Forum of apostasy (or so Darrell Falk interprets it) on much the same grounds,

I dunno, I figure when you're time's up, that's it, which makes this brief time even more precious, and makes love even more important than if I had all of eternity to hang out with Perfection.

"Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens." -- David Byrne.

raven said: ... Everyone has been asking for a decade, "Where are the moderate xians." Good question, I was one up until a few years ago and couldn't find them either. They are waking up and realizing that creationism is a faith and religion killer. Basing cults on making belief in false facts a necessity is ultimately futile, and evolution and science aren't even mentioned in the bible and have nothing to do with xianity.

Ichthyic said: n BioLogos Darrell Falk asks How Should BioLogos Respond to Dr. Albert Mohler’s Critique of The BioLogos Initiative? that they even bother to consider a response speaks volumes about why science should distance itself even further from this nonsense. Biologos is a failure, if the goal is to help science.

DavidK said: So I've just seen another anti-Darwin / evolution diatribe by Klinghoffer of the dishonesty institute, surprisingly as a post on the Huffington Post. Same old Klinghoffer, what drivel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-klinghoffer/the-dark-side-of-darwinis_b_630627.html

It's too bad that these "living fossils" of Christendom haven't heeded the following advice uttered by the likes of the Dalai Lama, Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno, among others:

1) The Dalai Lama has said that if Buddhism is wrong and science is right, then Buddhism must conform to science.

2) Ken Miller has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should terminate their memberships in such faiths.

3) Both Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno have said, that, as devout Roman Catholic Christians and as professional scientists, there is no other reasonable course but to recognize that science must and should trump religion where they conflict (Apparently that realization hasn't reached the ears of Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk of BioLogos, nor, might I add, Francis Collins or Simon Conway Morris's.). It is only in private moments as devout religious worshippers will they consider their religious values as being more important than their understanding of science and what it requires from them as working professional scientists.

FL said: That's [Mohler's] a very strong statement there. Left unrefuted, it could do some damage to your theistic evolution brothers.

But that's the kicker: Dr. Mohler's apparent-age gig derives DIRECTLY from Scripture itself. Ooops.

Judging from Mohler's background it's likely that he knows a lot about theology and the supernatural and little about science. His acquaintance with the natural world is likely restricted to personal observation. If this is the case his solutions to problems will be theological, supernatural, largely medieval, and alien to modern science. In these ways he resembles the Pope, except he lacks the backup of the Pontifical Academy.

FL said: So let's hear some suggestions, PT amigos. How do we rescue Biologos on this one? C'mon, help a "Bio brother" out

Roger said:

Casuals said: [quote]The fundie god is lying to us.[/quote] One of the questions I have always wanted to ask is this, God told Adam and Eve that eating the fruit from that special tree will kill them, but in the end they ate it, and they didn't die. Now, how does that count as not lying? Always boggles my mind. And it is mostly the OT that prevents me from becoming a Christian. I've encountered nice moderate Christians, and their community is lovely, but I just can swallow the OT god. If not for Him, I might even consider becoming a one of them.

He was telling the truth in this case because Adam and Eve are dead whereas if they hadn't tasted the forbidden fruit they would still be living in Eden. If you can handle knowledge-based fruit and talking snakes...

hmmm,
...perhaps you would consider burning rather than just tossing in the bin...

what is the difference with that logic and that of an extremist view of classical works outside thier faiths? nice.

b allen said what is the difference with that logic and that of an extremist view of classical works outside thier faiths? nice.

But hey, maybe in the end the only creationists left will be 144,000 virgin males. Perhaps they are only fulfilling a biblical prophecy.

Casuals said:

b allen said what is the difference with that logic and that of an extremist view of classical works outside thier faiths? nice.

The difference is that he only burns/throws his own copy, but not yours or anyone else's, maybe?

Christianity wikipedia: The number 144,000 has a religious significance for Christians because of its use in the Book of Revelation of the New Testament. The 144,000 are mentioned three times in the Book of Revelation: Revelation 7:3-8 (ESV) Tribes of Israel The Tribes Reuben Simeon Levi Judah Dan Naphtali Gad Asher Issachar Zebulun Joseph Manasseh Ephraim Benjamin Related topics Israelites Tribal allotments Ten Lost Tribes v • d • e saying: "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until after we have sealed the servants of God on their foreheads." And I heard the number of the sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, 12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, 12,000 from the tribe of Gad, 12,000 from the tribe of Asher, 12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, 12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh, 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, 12,000 from the tribe of Levi, 12,000 from the tribe of Issachar, 12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, 12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed. Revelation 14:1 (ESV) Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. Revelation 14:3-5 (ESV) And they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. For it is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless.

The Omphalos Hypothesis is still quite valid, IMHO; The fact is, if we're all wrong and creationism is correct, then it means that god designed all the evidence around in such a way that it appears to utterly contradict his divine word, thus leading to the rational conclusion that his texts were not inspired, or are mythical.

b allen said: i'm still not sure i follow the reasoning of paying for a book you may or may not like or agree with and then destroying it rather than giving it to someone else or selling it. oh, well.

A professor friend who taught theology at a Southern Baptist based college in the south complained to me that fundamentalist kids with a long history of Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and Training Union came into his class with little or no knowledge of the bible. It is not just the public schools that are having problems.

NA said: The Omphalos Hypothesis is still quite valid, IMHO; The fact is, if we're all wrong and creationism is correct, then it means that god designed all the evidence around in such a way that it appears to utterly contradict his divine word, thus leading to the rational conclusion that his texts were not inspired, or are mythical.

And that is the major reason I finally decided I really can’t worship the god of bible even if he’s real.

phantomreader42 said: Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. " Yet according to 5:5, Adam lived OVER NINE HUNDRED YEARS! The imaginary sky tyrant told them they'd die THE VERY DAY they ate it, but they did not. Outright, blatant, shameless lie, with no hope of recovery for a literalist, in the very first book, not even a tenth of the way through. Biblical literalism is bullshit. Most of the bible is bullshit, and what isn't can be better obtained from sources not soaked in bullshit and blood.

A professor friend who taught theology at a Southern Baptist based college in the south complained to me that fundamentalist kids with a long history of Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and Training Union came into his class with little or no knowledge of the bible.

Note -

Oops, I just put up a post about religion that wasn't 100% attacking all religion. That can confuse people.

I am not religious.

Please do not waste your time composing replies to me unless you understand that, although I said some non-negative things about some religious people, I myself am non-religious, don't believe in magic or the supernatural, and am a super-skeptic in general.

harold said: Note - Oops, I just put up a post about religion that wasn't 100% attacking all religion. That can confuse people. I am not religious. Please do not waste your time composing replies to me unless you understand that, although I said some non-negative things about some religious people, I myself am non-religious, don't believe in magic or the supernatural, and am a super-skeptic in general.

Jim Thomerson said: A professor friend who taught theology at a Southern Baptist based college in the south complained to me that fundamentalist kids with a long history of Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and Training Union came into his class with little or no knowledge of the bible. It is not just the public schools that are having problems.

Jim Thomerson said: A professor friend who taught theology at a Southern Baptist based college in the south complained to me that fundamentalist kids with a long history of Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and Training Union came into his class with little or no knowledge of the bible. It is not just the public schools that are having problems.

You don't need to KNOW what the Bible actually says if you beleive it is inerrant

Why is being tolerant and respectful of some religions, while believing in none of them, a problem?

Dale Husband said: Why is being tolerant and respectful of some religions, while believing in none of them, a problem?

Dale Husband said: That's the real problem; fundamentalist leaders do NOT want people to know what the Bible really says, without first adding layers of propaganda to explain away the logical gaps and historical errors it displays (unfounded speculations and even outright lies being on the menu).

NA said: The Omphalos Hypothesis is still quite valid, IMHO; The fact is, if we're all wrong and creationism is correct, then it means that god designed all the evidence around in such a way that it appears to utterly contradict his divine word, thus leading to the rational conclusion that his texts were not inspired, or are mythical.

Steve Taylor said:

NA said: The Omphalos Hypothesis is still quite valid, IMHO; The fact is, if we're all wrong and creationism is correct, then it means that god designed all the evidence around in such a way that it appears to utterly contradict his divine word, thus leading to the rational conclusion that his texts were not inspired, or are mythical.

Heck, even a Deity has to have hobbies.

eric said:

Dale Husband said: That's the real problem; fundamentalist leaders do NOT want people to know what the Bible really says, without first adding layers of propaganda to explain away the logical gaps and historical errors it displays (unfounded speculations and even outright lies being on the menu).

Ironic, considering the origins of Protestantism. But not surprising. You can't have an organization based on the principle that no one needs to be led. I'm sure the protestant faiths were no different from the earlier church in this respect; when it came down to a choice between organizational survival and ideology, ideology is what gives way. It just happened to them later because they're younger organizations.

John Kwok said: Have to give poor David some credit, from one Brunonian to another. At least he's being quite consistent in his dishonesty by promoting once more his Darwin Equals Hitler canard (EDITORIAL NOTE: For those who don't think so, David is acting exactly as one would expect from a Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer.):

DavidK said: So I've just seen another anti-Darwin / evolution diatribe by Klinghoffer of the dishonesty institute, surprisingly as a post on the Huffington Post. Same old Klinghoffer, what drivel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-klinghoffer/the-dark-side-of-darwinis_b_630627.html

And when those members are lost, they often go straight to atheism. As a consequence, the number of atheists, including former Christians hostile to religion, are growing slowly.

Casuals said:

And when those members are lost, they often go straight to atheism. As a consequence, the number of atheists, including former Christians hostile to religion, are growing slowly.

I am not sure if this is just my false impression, but it always seems to me that for one fundamentalist who turn to atheism, there are at least one atheist/agnostics who is "born again"--my impression of them is that I really don't realized the number of atheists is increasing. Maybe I remembered it wrongly, but some of the studies seem to suggest that the percentage of fundies and atheists are pretty stable over the years? I need to go check up on that, maybe I did remember wrongly. The impression could be largely due to how fanatical US fundamental right currently appear, and it seems to have general public support.

DavidK said:

John Kwok said: BTW, you might find rather revealing with regards to his character, this rather self-indulgent, narcissistic rant explaining why he would send his children to our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater: http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/content/view/1893/40/ (The article was entitled "How Brown Turned Me into a Right Wing Religious Conservative".) The following month, that "essay" of David was the subject of some interesting rebuttals published in the magazine's Mail Room. (Look under Reactionary or Sage here: http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/content/category/6/98/40/ ) Have to give poor David some credit, from one Brunonian to another. At least he's being quite consistent in his dishonesty by promoting once more his Darwin Equals Hitler canard (EDITORIAL NOTE: For those who don't think so, David is acting exactly as one would expect from a Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer.):

DavidK said: So I've just seen another anti-Darwin / evolution diatribe by Klinghoffer of the dishonesty institute, surprisingly as a post on the Huffington Post. Same old Klinghoffer, what drivel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-klinghoffer/the-dark-side-of-darwinis_b_630627.html

John is referring to David Klinghoffer, not DavidK in his post. Whew. That's one bad guy I don't want to be mistaken for.

Sorry about that David, but I mixed my reply up with my original post, so here goes:

BTW, you might find rather revealing with regards to his character, this rather self-indulgent, narcissistic rant explaining why he would send his children to our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater:

http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/content/view/1893/40/

(The article was entitled "How Brown Turned Me into a Right Wing Religious Conservative".)

The following month, that "essay" of David was the subject of some interesting rebuttals published in the magazine's Mail Room.

(Look under Reactionary or Sage here:

http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/content/category/6/98/40/ )

Casuals said: As a citizen of another country, sometimes I ask myself why do I care so much about the US public education, religious movement and court cases to feel despair on occasion (like watching some interview with fundamentalists, oh, the feeling of despair), it has nothing that affects me personally. But immediately I would realize my unconscious fear of a theocratic America-imagine what would such a country, with superior military power and technology, do to the other countries, to the world.

Dave Luckett said: The United States of America is now by far and away the most transcendantly powerful political entity that has ever existed. There is no conceivable combination of enemies capable of restraining it, far less threatening it in any serious fashion. Put simply, its leadership can do what it wills, and there is no sanction that it can suffer save those imposed by the American people themselves. Putting that power into the hands of a leadership composed of the religious right and answerable only to them, is a terrifying prospect for all of humanity.

Dave Luckett said: I ask Americans to contemplate the possibility of a serious candidate for the Presidency - or even for the Congress - saying such a thing and getting elected. That fact causes quiet consternation everywhere else in the democratic world.

Dave Luckett said:

Casuals said: As a citizen of another country, sometimes I ask myself why do I care so much about the US public education, religious movement and court cases to feel despair on occasion (like watching some interview with fundamentalists, oh, the feeling of despair), it has nothing that affects me personally. But immediately I would realize my unconscious fear of a theocratic America-imagine what would such a country, with superior military power and technology, do to the other countries, to the world.

I am also a citizen of another country very interested in the religious right in the US, and fearful of it. Of course the only people who can actually repudiate it are Americans. They are the ones who must defeat the literalists, fundangelicals and dominionists, and continue their country's long and admirable committment to rational, enlightened democracy and the protection of human rights. Nobody else can do this. But every human being on the planet is rightly concerned with the struggle, because it affects every human being. The destruction of liberal democracy and rational policy in the US - which is the dearest wish of the religious right - would immediately put every human into the most desperate peril. The United States of America is now by far and away the most transcendantly powerful political entity that has ever existed. There is no conceivable combination of enemies capable of restraining it, far less threatening it in any serious fashion. Put simply, its leadership can do what it wills, and there is no sanction that it can suffer save those imposed by the American people themselves. Putting that power into the hands of a leadership composed of the religious right and answerable only to them, is a terrifying prospect for all of humanity. The new Prime Minister of my own small country, on taking office, declared herself to be an agnostic atheist. Our own religious right reacted predictably; most people shrugged. It is true that she will only face election as the leader of her party and Prime Minister later this year, but I very much doubt that her lack of religion will be any sort of issue. I ask Americans to contemplate the possibility of a serious candidate for the Presidency - or even for the Congress - saying such a thing and getting elected. That fact causes quiet consternation everywhere else in the democratic world. Other democracies - and I put my own country's commitment to robust democracy up against anyone's - are quietly horrified by the influence of the extreme religious right over the US government. We can do little but watch, wait and hope, but what little we can do to uphold the great and venerable traditions of freedom of the US, that we should also do.

Dale, ask yourself: what could a terrorist organisation possibly do that could threaten the United States of America with decisive damage?

The answer is, nothing. Not even a nuclear device set off in an American city would meet that requirement. A hundred thousand Americans dead in a single event? The sad fact is that the major combatants of the First World War suffered that many dead in any single year or even in some months of that conflict, and did not disintegrate as nations, nor give up the struggle. The Soviet Union suffered a hundred times that many, and still rose up to destroy Nazi Germany.

Do you imagine that America would cower before such an atrocity? I think not. The only result would be to gain America's undivided attention. Americans are not cowards. They never were. We, here, attest to the truth of American courage, and we remember it still, with awe and with gratitude.

America has repaired the damage, and it has moved on. But in doing so, let Americans remember that fanatics of all stripes can only do the US serious harm by persuading Americans to harm themselves.

The fanatics must fail in that attempt, for the sake of America, and for the sake of the world.

It is unfortunate that people in here in the US have to walk on egg shells about not having any particular religious beliefs.

It's been interesting watching the Australian (non) reaction to having a PM that is a professed atheist.
She wasn't voted in to office, to be sure, but there has been a decided weak reaction to her public admission of atheism.

I kept hoping it would encourage Obama to drop his holy act.

but then, most Americans know fuck-all about America, let alone any other country, so I doubt they pay any attention to the "crazy Australians".

The answer is, nothing.

9/11 did tremendous damage to the US.

or didn't you notice we have been involved in two ongoing wards putatatively because of it?

did you miss the huge mob fear reaction that has lasted years afterwards?

I think you underestimate just how vulnerable the US always was.

it doesn't take an invasion to do serious damage to a country.

ugh.

wards=wars

sticky key.

America has repaired the damage, and it has moved on.

I disagree.

the fear and hatemongering is still there, like a raw nerve waiting to be picked at.

Ichthyic said: The answer is, nothing. 9/11 did tremendous damage to the US. or didn't you notice we have been involved in two ongoing wards putatatively because of it? did you miss the huge mob fear reaction that has lasted years afterwards? I think you underestimate just how vulnerable the US always was. it doesn't take an invasion to do serious damage to a country.

I know biologos. I post on it.
Its not apostacy for Christians to believe Genesis is wrong as long as it doesn't interfere with Christian doctrines that make one a Christian.
As biblical creationists it doesn't make sense why other great miracles and claims are accepted by Christians while denying Noah was here on earth with friends.
Its all quite remarkable.
Genesis is important to truth of christianity but one can be a cHristian and reject Genesis .
Yet for most people of any belief if a big portion of the bible is wrong then why any is right.
Creationism is important and successful in defending the foundations of other more important christian doctrines.

You say that Darwin left on his expedition on the Beagle to “prove the theory of evolution.” You say he had his theory of evolution before he went on the Beagle and that he was seeking evidence to support it as he traveled about the globe. I would be interested in knowing where you got this idea. Darwin kept copious notes, a diary, and wrote many letters in the course of his long public life. From this vast set of insights into his thinking biographers have been able to unfold his thinking at every turn, and we have a clear picture of how, when, and in response to what, he developed the theory of evolution. What we know with certainty is that he was a Christian who believed in Creation when he boarded the beagle. He even wrote “I did not doubt the literal truth of anything in the Bible” to describe his view when he boarded the Beagle. Far from having a theory of evolution, he was a devotee of William Paley and the design argument. Yet you say exactly the opposite. Can you give some sources for your unusual historical claim?

Darwin added the following quote of Charles Kingsley to his second edition:

“A celebrated author and divine has written to me that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.”

Brodie Innes, vicar of Downe and a personal friend said the following of Darwin in 1878: He is the pastor in “Creation”.

“I have the pleasure of the intimate friendship of one of the very first Naturalists in Europe. He is a most accurate observer, and never states anything as a fact which he has not most thoroughly investigated. He is a man of the most perfect moral character, and his scrupulous regard for the strictest truth is above that of almost all men I know. I am quite persuaded that if on any morning he met with a fact which would clearly contradict one of his cherished theories he would not let the sun set before he made it known. I never saw a word in his writings which was an attack on Religion. He follows his own course as a Naturalist and leaves Moses to take care of himself”

Rich said [Quoting Brodie Innes, 1878, describing Darwin]: He follows his own course as a Naturalist and leaves Moses to take care of himself

Casuals said:

b allen said what is the difference with that logic and that of an extremist view of classical works outside thier faiths? nice.

The difference is that he only burns/throws his own copy, but not yours or anyone else's, maybe?

Ken Miller has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should terminate their memberships in such faiths.

FL said:

Ken Miller has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should terminate their memberships in such faiths.

Hmmm. Even I won't issue ultimatums like that when addressing Christian TE's. Is Ken Miller your idea of a "meoderate Christian" or something?

Here's a wonderful qoute on Genesis from the Rev Thomas Burnet in 1692

....the account given by Moses...is not true in itself, but only spoken popularly to comply with the dull Israelites, lately slavish brickmakers, and smelling strong of the garlic and onions of Egypt. To humour those ignorant blockheads that were newly broke loose from the Egyptian taskmasters and had no sense nor reason in their thick skulls"

Similar statements are to be found in Augustine, Calvin Galileo Needham and many others, but are more delicate

Robert Byers said: Creationism is important and successful in defending the foundations of other more important christian doctrines.

FL said:

Ken Miller has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should terminate their memberships in such faiths.

Hmmm. Even I won't issue ultimatums like that when addressing Christian TE's. Is Ken Miller your idea of a "meoderate Christian" or something?

Robert Byers said: I know biologos. I post on it. Its not apostacy for Christians to believe Genesis is wrong as long as it doesn't interfere with Christian doctrines that make one a Christian. As biblical creationists it doesn't make sense why other great miracles and claims are accepted by Christians while denying Noah was here on earth with friends. Its all quite remarkable. Genesis is important to truth of christianity but one can be a cHristian and reject Genesis . Yet for most people of any belief if a big portion of the bible is wrong then why any is right. Creationism is important and successful in defending the foundations of other more important christian doctrines.

Robert Byers said: ... Yet for most people of any belief if a big portion of the bible is wrong then why any is right. Creationism is important and successful in defending the foundations of other more important christian doctrines. ...

Millions of christians believe quite happily in their faith -and- accept evolution as having happened. It’s only the fundamentalist delusional dogmatics who insist on such a black and white ‘all or nothing’ approach to bibical literalism. Although, I suspect, you don’t regard those who accept evolution as ‘true’ christians.

— Natman

Frank J said:

Millions of christians believe quite happily in their faith -and- accept evolution as having happened. It’s only the fundamentalist delusional dogmatics who insist on such a black and white ‘all or nothing’ approach to bibical literalism. Although, I suspect, you don’t regard those who accept evolution as ‘true’ christians.

— Natman

Apologies if this has already been covered above, but even the "all or nothing" literalists pick-and-choose what "feels good." Except maybe the Flat-Earthers and/or Geocentrists. So if Mohler has such a problem with TEs, does he have the same problem with the DI, which either admits old earth, old life and common descent, or at least plays "don't ask, don't tell"? Or will he make excuses for anyone who misrepresents evolution, however they contradict each other (and sometimes themselves)?

And yet you have no problem with your assertion that anyone who dares learn about science is not a real christian and therefore deserves to be tortured forever.

Dave Luckett -

And anyone else who doesn't know this...

The vast majority of religious claims made by Americans under 65 years of age are to some degree coded political statements.

One point of fundamentalism is to have an excuse to oppose gay rights and reproductive rights, without being Catholic. One possible reason for opposing those things is to signal, to certain types of minds, a more general willingness to tolerate the idea that different groups of people should be treated differently by the law.

The American right invests a huge amount of effort in coming up with dog whistle phrases, aimed at extremist bigots, that are couched in terms that allow "plausible deniability". A veneer of religiosity is very helpful. Also, during the civil rights era, the "liberal" side was able to attract the support of mainstream religious denominations. Making sure that there are plenty of politically conservative religious figures is a way of making sure that this never happens as easily again.

You have characters on the right as nihilistic and decadent as Ann Coulter - for example - baldly claiming to be religious. Ann Coulter accuses "liberals" (a group that she would surely place the Biblical character Jesus in, to put it mildly, if he were saying his lines today) of being "Godless". Does anyone - whether fan or critic - actually think that Ann Coulter cares about the Bible?

Do creationist trolls actually seem to care about religion, the Ten Commandments, or any other traditional ethical stances associated with Christianity? Or are they just out to "win" at all costs?

When an American makes a religious claim, the possible underlying political motives, related to such things as class, ethnicity, perceived short term financial self-interest, authoritarian fantasies, etc, have to be considered. These things correlate incredibly tightly with certain types of religious claims.

FL said:

And yet you have no problem with your assertion that anyone who dares learn about science is not a real christian and therefore deserves to be tortured forever.

That is your assertion, not mine. At PT, at ATBC,and at two other online forums, I have affirmed otherwise. But I have learned not to trust everybody's reading-comp skills, yes?

And yet you have no problem with your assertion that anyone who dares learn about science is not a real christian and therefore deserves to be tortured forever.

That is your assertion, not mine. At PT, at ATBC,and at two other online forums, I have affirmed otherwise. But I have learned not to trust everybody’s reading-comp skills, yes?

The Biologos boys slavishly follow your lead on the first two rails (as expected), but they know that if they touch that third rail (“screw da bible”), they will burn up their own credibility with the Christian audience they’re so desperately trying to evangelize for evolution. So, unlike PT, the Biologos guys CANNOT blow off the Bible when attempting to respond to Dr. Mohler’s statements. They’ve got to bring the Scriptures to the table somehow, in order to stay in the debate. But that’s the kicker: Dr. Mohler’s apparent-age gig derives DIRECTLY from Scripture itself. Ooops. In chess terms

FL said:

And yet you have no problem with your assertion that anyone who dares learn about science is not a real christian and therefore deserves to be tortured forever.

That is your assertion, not mine. At PT, at ATBC,and at two other online forums, I have affirmed otherwise. But I have learned not to trust everybody's reading-comp skills, yes?

The Biologos boys slavishly follow your lead on the first two rails (as expected), but they know that if they touch that third rail (“screw da bible”), they will burn up their own credibility with the Christian audience they’re so desperately trying to evangelize for evolution. So, unlike PT, the Biologos guys CANNOT blow off the Bible when attempting to respond to Dr. Mohler’s statements. They’ve got to bring the Scriptures to the table somehow, in order to stay in the debate. But that’s the kicker: Dr. Mohler’s apparent-age gig derives DIRECTLY from Scripture itself. Ooops. In chess terms

...your assertion that anyone who dares learn about science is not a real christian and therefore deserves to be tortured forever.

Oh, I'd never call you a liar, FL. I can't make any sense out of anything you say.

FL said: Harold says I'm lying because of the following:

The Biologos boys slavishly follow your lead on the first two rails (as expected), but they know that if they touch that third rail (“screw da bible”), they will burn up their own credibility with the Christian audience they’re so desperately trying to evangelize for evolution. So, unlike PT, the Biologos guys CANNOT blow off the Bible when attempting to respond to Dr. Mohler’s statements. They’ve got to bring the Scriptures to the table somehow, in order to stay in the debate. But that’s the kicker: Dr. Mohler’s apparent-age gig derives DIRECTLY from Scripture itself. Ooops. In chess terms

However, if I'm lying, it should be quite easy to locate and quote the specific places in that quotation that fit Stanton's very specific accusation:

...your assertion that anyone who dares learn about science is not a real christian and therefore deserves to be tortured forever.

So, any takers on this one? Harold? Stanton? FL :)

FL said: So, any takers on this one? FL :)

FL said:

Ken Miller has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should terminate their memberships in such faiths.

Hmmm. Even I won't issue ultimatums like that when addressing Christian TE's. Is Ken Miller your idea of a "meoderate Christian" or something?

So, have you renounced the vile doctine of hell?

FL said:

So, have you renounced the vile doctine of hell?

Only if Jesus has done so. Lemme check the Four Gospels.... Ooops, Jesus still says that Hell exists: eternal flames, supernatural darkness, and worms with eternal munchies. My apologies, Mr. Phantom! FL

But that’s the kicker: Dr. Mohler’s apparent-age gig derives DIRECTLY from Scripture itself. Ooops. In chess terms...

— FL

"Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

If we wish to designate S by a proper name we can say of it that it is the transformation content of the body, in the same way that we say of the quantity U that it is the heat and work content of the body. However, since I think it is better to take the names of such quantities as these, which are important for science, from the ancient languages, so that they can be introduced without change into all the modern languages, I propose to name the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word a trope, a transformation. I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy, since both these quantities, which are to be known by these names, are so nearly related to each other in their physical significance that a certain similarity in their names seemed to me advantageous. Rudolph Clausius in Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Vol. 125, p. 353, 1865, under the title “Ueber verschiedene für de Anwendung bequeme Formen der Hauptgleichungen der mechanischen Wärmetheorie.” ("On Several Convenient Forms of the Fundamental Equations of the Mechanical Theory of Heat.")

Frank J said: I should have known that FL likes to play chess. ;-)

FL said:

So, have you renounced the vile doctine of hell?

Only if Jesus has done so. Lemme check the Four Gospels.... Ooops, Jesus still says that Hell exists: eternal flames, supernatural darkness, and worms with eternal munchies. My apologies, Mr. Phantom! FL

Dale Husband said: With a God like that, who needs Satan? Indeed, how could we tell the difference between them?

Another theologian as bad as Mohler is Wayne Grudem BA Harvard PhD Cambridge, whose "Systematic Theology" is a standard work for most evangelical theology students on both sides of the Atlantic. (I have to use the book in teaching theology as it is so widely recommended)

When discussing the age of the earth he is unconvinced by geological arguments and I think is now more YEC.

This one book is highly influential in ensuring that most evangelical clergy in America and Britain will be YEC.

So long as theological nonsense like that is used the problem will continue.

Michael Roberts said: So long as theological nonsense like that is used the problem will continue.

Dang man, I'm gonna start calling you "Mike Entropy".

MrG said: Dang man, I'm gonna start calling you "Mike Entropy".

Mike Elzinga said: It seems to be most heavily used by fundamentalists and evangelicals; but the greatest abuse seems to come from those “self-taught” fundamentalists who rise through the ranks of their sects by being anointed by the sectarian hierarchy as they acquire the “gift of gab” in their climb. It appears to be pretentious erudition designed to impress and intimidate. Aside from the fact that it is apparently an old and well-practiced shtick used by all sorts of hucksters and scoundrels, do you find any evidence in theology that it is necessary? In other words, taking the example I gave with the entropy post, what possible meaning can one derive from words in religious texts if the reasons for their use is lost in history? This appears to me to be one of the most abused tactics in all of organized religion.

Rich said: So, a given text is studied by a group and then it's determined "what it means to me" rather than "what it means". The particulars gets stressed over and against the big picture.

FL said:

So, have you renounced the vile doctine of hell?

Only if Jesus has done so. Lemme check the Four Gospels.... Ooops, Jesus still says that Hell exists: eternal flames, supernatural darkness, and worms with eternal munchies. My apologies, Mr. Phantom! FL

Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge!

FL, why don't you follow the example of your Muslim brethren in spirit and make yourself a bomb belt?

Rolf Aalberg said: FL, why don't you follow the example of your Muslim brethren in spirit and make yourself a bomb belt?

Here is Grudem's preface to a recent Britsh creationist book

Should Christians Embrace Evolution? (Norman C. Nevin - Editor)Biblical and scientific responses

CONTENTS

Foreword - Wayne Grudem

Preface: A twenty-first-century challenge - Phil Hills

1. Evolution and the Church - Alistair Donald

2. The language of Genesis - Alistair McKitterick

3. Adam and Eve - Michael Reeves

4. The fall and death - Greg Haslam

5. Creation, redemption and eschatology - David Anderson

6. The nature and character of God - Andrew Sibley

7. Faith and creation - R. T. Kendall

8. Towards a science worthy of creatures in imago Dei - Steve Fuller

9. Interpretation of scientific evidence

A. Homology - Norman Nevin

B. The nature of the fossil record - Norman Nevin

C. Chromosomal fusion and common ancestry - Geoff Barnard

D. Information and thermodynamics - Andy McIntosh

10. Does the genome provide evidence for common ancestry? - Geoff Barnard

11. The origin of life: scientists play dice - John Walton

Conclusion: Should Christians embrace evolution? - Phil Hills and Norman Nevin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOREWORD

This is a highly significant book because it persuasively argues that Christians cannot accept modern evolutionary theory without also compromising essential teachings of the Bible.

It may at first seem easy to say ‘God simply used evolution to bring about the results he desired’, as some are proposing today. That view is called ‘theistic evolution’. However, the contributors to this volume, both scientists and biblical scholars, show that adopting theistic evolution leads to many positions contrary to the teaching of the Bible, such as these: (1) Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, but they were just two Neolithic farmers among about ten million other human beings on earth at that time, and God just chose to reveal himself to them in a personal way. (2) Those other human beings had already been seeking to worship and serve God or gods in their own ways. (3) Adam was not specially formed by God of ‘dust from the ground’ (Gen. 2:7) but had two human parents. (4) Eve was not directly made by God out of a ‘rib that the Lord God had taken from the man’ (Gen. 2:22), but she also had two human parents. (5) Many human beings both then and now are not descended from Adam and Eve. (6) Adam and Eve’s sin was not the first sin. (7) Human physical death had occurred for thousands of years before Adam and Eve’s sin – it was part of the way living things had always existed. (8) God did not impose any alteration in the natural world when he cursed the ground because of Adam’s sin.

As for the scientific evidence, several chapters in this book show that deeper examination of the evidence actually adds more weight to the arguments for intelligent design than for Darwinian evolution.

What is at stake? A lot: the truthfulness of the three foundational chapters for the entire Bible (Genesis 1 – 3), belief in the unity of the human race, belief in the ontological uniqueness of human beings among all God’s creatures, belief in the special creation of Adam and Eve in the image of God, belief in the parallel between condemnation through representation by Adam and salvation through representation by Christ, belief in the goodness of God’s original creation, belief that suffering and death today are the result of sin and not part of God’s original creation, and belief that natural disasters today are the result of the fall and not part of God’s original creation. Belief in evolution erodes the foundations. Evolution is secular culture’s grand explanation, the overriding ‘meta-narrative’ that sinners accept with joy because it allows them to explain life without reference to God, with no accountability to any Creator, no moral standards to restrain their sin, ‘no fear of God before their eyes’ (Rom. 3:18) – and now theistic evolutionists tell us that Christians can just surrender to this massive attack on the Christian faith and safely, inoffensively, tack on God, not as the omnipotent God who in his infinite wisdom directly created all living things, but as the invisible deity who makes absolutely no detectable difference in the nature of living beings as they exist today. It will not take long for unbelievers to dismiss the idea of such a God who makes no difference at all. To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.

I was previously aware that theistic evolution had serious difficulties, but I am now more firmly convinced than ever that it is impossible to believe consistently in both the truthfulness of the Bible and Darwinian evolution. We have to choose one or the other.

Wayne Grudem

Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Okay, I see it now, Cheryl. Sincere thanks for the alert.

Mr. Jasper is unable to engage and refute the specific Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity--no surprise there, and Cheryl is equally silent as well--but he's apparently in the mood to discuss "heliocentrism."

Okey then, I'll get him accomodated quite soon. Again, thanks for the head's up! Will also be posting new essays on some more topics soon, including some more origins-related posts.

It may at first seem easy to say ‘God simply used evolution to bring about the results he desired’, as some are proposing today. That view is called ‘theistic evolution’. However, the contributors to this volume, both scientists and biblical scholars, show that adopting theistic evolution leads to many positions contrary to the teaching of the Bible, such as these: (1) Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, but they were just two Neolithic farmers among about ten million other human beings on earth at that time, and God just chose to reveal himself to them in a personal way. (2) Those other human beings had already been seeking to worship and serve God or gods in their own ways. (3) Adam was not specially formed by God of ‘dust from the ground’ (Gen. 2:7) but had two human parents. (4) Eve was not directly made by God out of a ‘rib that the Lord God had taken from the man’ (Gen. 2:22), but she also had two human parents. (5) Many human beings both then and now are not descended from Adam and Eve. (6) Adam and Eve’s sin was not the first sin. (7) Human physical death had occurred for thousands of years before Adam and Eve’s sin – it was part of the way living things had always existed. (8) God did not impose any alteration in the natural world when he cursed the ground because of Adam’s sin.

...(And) now theistic evolutionists tell us that Christians can just surrender to this massive attack on the Christian faith and safely, inoffensively, tack on God, not as the omnipotent God who in his infinite wisdom directly created all living things, but as the invisible deity who makes absolutely no detectable difference in the nature of living beings as they exist today. It will not take long for unbelievers to dismiss the idea of such a God who makes no difference at all. To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.

And yes, I'm gonna buy that book pronto. Thanks for the headsup!

When discussing the age of the earth he is unconvinced by geological arguments and I think is now more YEC. This one book is highly influential in ensuring that most evangelical clergy in America and Britain will be YEC.

— Michael Roberts

FL

I wouldnt waste your money.

Of the 8 points of objection Grudem gives the first 6 are either minority views or simply misrepresentation.(except 4 which was held before 1800 by many)

The last two were thrown out by orthodox Christians whether evangelical or Catholic 200 years ago and have only been re-introduced in recent years. Even then it is questionable whether either 7 or 8 were held by even a majority of Christians before 1800 or so.

It is a pity you follow a false Gospel and then back it up with nonsense and dishonesty.

FL

Surely as you, like most religious types, pick and choose which bits of the holy book you follow and which you don't, your arguments ring hollow.

If the bible is literal, utterly correct in every sense and -all- of it is to be followed, to the letter, then I'd expect to see some amazing haircuts from you, and for your partner, when menstruating, to be exiled from your home.

If not, then you are arbitrarily deciding which bits are relevant, and which are not, which also allows theistic evolutionists to believe what they want without incrimination from your narrow minded viewpoint.

FL threatens:

"Will also be posting new essays on some more topics soon, including some more origins-related posts."

Paleeeaze, not again. I am still numbed by the 100-pages-thread wasted trying to make him talk sense.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4c35c1d77fb9182d;act=ST;f=14;t=6313

FL said: Okay, I see it now, Cheryl. Sincere thanks for the alert. Mr. Jasper is unable to engage and refute the specific Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity--no surprise there, and Cheryl is equally silent as well--but he's apparently in the mood to discuss "heliocentrism."

Okey then, I'll get him accomodated quite soon. Again, thanks for the head's up! Will also be posting new essays on some more topics soon, including some more origins-related posts.

I think the difference between science and religion is that in religion, we don't want a way to resolve disputes between competing interpretations of texts. That's what the mystery is about.

When you have people insisting on one way to interpret the text, *that's* when you get into trouble.

The age of the site is further constrained by biostratigraphic evidence. Important plant taxa include Tsuga (hemlock) and Ostrya-type (hop-hornbeam type), which are unknown in northern Europe after the Early Pleistocene17. Key mammalian taxa include Mammuthus cf. meridionalis (southern mammoth; Fig. 2j), Equus suessenbornensis (extinct equid) and at least two species of Mimomys (extinct vole), together with Cervalces latifrons (extinct elk), Cervus elaphus (red deer) and ‘advanced’ forms of Microtus (voles)18, 19, 20. The overlapping ranges of the plant and mammalian taxa indicate a date towards the end of the Early Pleistocene. This evidence together with the palaeomagnetic data indicates that human occupation occurred towards the end of the Matuyama Chron between 0.99 and 0.78 Myr ago (Fig. 5).

... now theistic evolutionists tell us that Christians can just surrender to this massive attack on the Christian faith and safely, inoffensively, tack on God, not as the omnipotent God who in his infinite wisdom directly created all living things, but as the invisible deity who makes absolutely no detectable difference in the nature of living beings as they exist today. It will not take long for unbelievers to dismiss the idea of such a God who makes no difference at all. To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0. I was previously aware that theistic evolution had serious difficulties, but I am now more firmly convinced than ever that it is impossible to believe consistently in both the truthfulness of the Bible and Darwinian evolution. We have to choose one or the other.

FL

What are the five incompatibilities?

FL said: and Cheryl is equally silent as well--

Rolf Silly comments like that don't help. Every time you say something like that you recruit another creationist. From my observation in the UK many conservative/evangelical Christians are laible to become creationist because of objection to strident and silly comments. We need to give them good arguments and point them to better material eg from Biologos in the USA and Christians in Sciecne and Faraday Institute in the UK

Rich said: TE is a conclusion and not a starting point. Take what's in yesterday's issue of Nature... ...Note that evolution has nothing to do with this but it does make these humans being the descendants of Adam and Eve, err, a little difficult.

In the words of Huxley in the movie Creation: "Mr. Grudem, you've killed God, sir."

FL -

Sorry, I'm a pathologist, not a weasel farmer. Can we get a straight answer? Do Christians who accept biological evolution go to Hell or not? Or are they allowed to "make errors" and still go to heaven? How many errors are allowed?

Your five objections to it are all wrong, by the way. I'm not a TE, but it's easy to see how wrong they are.

"According to biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation, absolutely necessary, to explain the origin of the first humans. (Gen. 2:7, 2:21-22.) Evolutionary theory clearly denies this foundational claim."

Just a bald assertion, not supported by many Christians.

"According to biblical Christianity God, and Jesus as well, created everything specifically with TELEOLOGY (goal-directedness, purposefulness, and conscious forethought)."

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with this. Science rejects explanations that rely on human-like teleological thinking. Whether God has a purpose is not a subject for science.

"According to biblical Christianity, we humans were, and are, specifically created in the image of God. See Gen. 1:26-27. (Btw, only humans were created in the image of God, not animals.) However, evolutionary theory clearly denies this foundational claim."

Absolutely not something that science can ever confirm or deny.

"Evolution teaches (in fact, absolutely requires) that death was present on this planet PRIOR TO Adam and Eve's famous sin (commonly known as the Fall)."

Sure, but that's just a literalist claim. Obviously, TE rejects a non-metaphorical reading of Genesis.

"Biblical Christianity: God is loving and caring towards all, he even cares for animals (for example, Matt. 10:29). Evolutionary theory clearly denies this foundational claim."

Life behaves the way we see it behave, whether we explain that with reference to evolution or not. Whether or not God is loving and caring is not something science can study. Ironic that one who threatens others with Hell constantly would make this claim about his god.

Harold, thanks for the analysis (so the rest of us didn't have to read it.) All five of these arguments are essentially the same circular argument: if we start with the premise that TEs are wrong in the way they read the bible, then we can arrive at the conclusion that they are wrong in the way they read the bible. FL is just assuming literalism to try and prove literalism.

1. According to biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation, absolutely necessary, to explain the origin of the first humans. (Gen. 2:7, 2:21-22.) Evolutionary theory clearly denies this foundational claim. "First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. "It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)." --Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000.

"Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process..." ---David Olroyd, The Weekend Review (Australia), Mar. 20-21, 1993.

"Evolution has no goal." -- Jerry Coyne "Evolution has no goal." -- Talk Origins website "Evolution has no goal." -- Biology 391 Online, "Organic Evolution", University at Tennessee-Martin "...(A) completely mindless process. The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past." -- Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition (textbook).

"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." -- "Evolution and the Brain", Nature science journal, June 14, 2007.

"The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view. It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man." -- evolutionary philosopher James Rachels, from his book Created From Animals (textbook), 1990.

"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. "Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!" ---- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Feb. 1978.

"(Natural) selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms..." "I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution." --Jacques Monod, (TV interview, June 10 1976).

"What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?" "...Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend." ---Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog, June 21, 2008.

Sorry, I’m a pathologist, not a weasel farmer. Can we get a straight answer? Do Christians who accept biological evolution go to Hell or not? Or are they allowed to “make errors” and still go to heaven? How many errors are allowed?

When Jesus says the worldwide Flood happened in history (Matt 24:39) and evolutionists (including TE’s) are saying the worldwide Flood never happened in history, Christians need to choose who’s really gonna be their Lord or not.

— FL

Is Jesus right, or is Darwin right?

— FL

FL said: To be a TE is to accept falsehoods and reject Biblical claims in key areas.

What's the difference between an atheist and a fundamentalist?

An atheist is contemptuous of all religion. A fundamentalist is contemptuous of all religion but his own.

FL said: But there's no doubt about it: evolution is incompatible with Christianity. To be a TE is to accept falsehoods and reject Biblical claims in key areas. When Jesus says the worldwide Flood happened in history (Matt 24:39) and evolutionists (including TE's) are saying the worldwide Flood never happened in history, Christians need to choose who's really gonna be their Lord or not. Same for Jesus's affirmation of Adam and Eve (as actual historical persons, created by God himself, as described in Genesis) in the books of Matt and Mark. Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and 2:21-22 (Eve) directly and totally contradict the evolutionist "common ancestor" claim of human origins, so again a choice MUST be made by Christians. Is Jesus right, or is Darwin right? Who you gonna follow, honestly? FL

What about those IDers who say the worldwide Flood never happened and consider TEs the worst “kind” of “evolutionist”?

In other words, when facts get in the way of you faith, squeeze your eyes closed real tight, and ignore the facts. Ignore debate. Ignore disagreement. Ignore everything and every one and declare yours as the only correct version.

...natural evil prior to humans results from human sin at the Fall. So, too, in the theology of the Cross people who lived before Christ experience salvation from their sins through his Cross.

FL said: Nope. Instead, one simply does like ICR and AIG (and Ross's RTB too), and continue to affirm the Scriptural historical claims while continuing to examine and critique the various evolutionary historical claims on a case-by-case, scientific basis (taking care to note presuppositions and problem areas also.) FL

FL said: Sure. As I have said...repeatedly, repeatedly...you can still be a genuine Christian and still believe in biological evolution. [...] But there's no doubt about it: evolution is incompatible with Christianity. [...] FL

Scott said:

FL said: Sure. As I have said...repeatedly, repeatedly...you can still be a genuine Christian and still believe in biological evolution. [...] But there's no doubt about it: evolution is incompatible with Christianity. [...] FL

Okay, FL. In a single comment you say that both "A" and "not A" are true. These two statements simply cannot both be true at the same time. Please explain how you think they can.

FL said:

In other words, when facts get in the way of you faith, squeeze your eyes closed real tight, and ignore the facts. Ignore debate. Ignore disagreement. Ignore everything and every one and declare yours as the only correct version.

Nope. Instead, one simply does like ICR and AIG (and Ross's RTB too), and continue to affirm the Scriptural historical claims while continuing to examine and critique the various evolutionary historical claims on a case-by-case, scientific basis (taking care to note presuppositions and problem areas also.) FL

Have you forgotten the Dembski and Marks paper, or are you afraid to confront it?

Scott said:

FL said: Sure. As I have said...repeatedly, repeatedly...you can still be a genuine Christian and still believe in biological evolution. [...] But there's no doubt about it: evolution is incompatible with Christianity. [...] FL

Okay, FL. In a single comment you say that both "A" and "not A" are true. These two statements simply cannot both be true at the same time. Please explain how you think they can.

FL said: Moreover, I was discussing (from the 1999 book) how Dembski's ID has bridged science and theology (a topic which is NOT discussed in the Dembski and Marks paper, as you know.)

…natural evil prior to humans results from human sin at the Fall. So, too, in the theology of the Cross people who lived before Christ experience salvation from their sins through his Cross.

FL said: But I'm still open to discussing Dembski's book with you if you would like.

FL said: ...one simply does like ICR and AIG (and Ross’s RTB too), and continue to affirm the Scriptural historical claims while continuing to examine and critique the various evolutionary historical claims on a case-by-case, scientific basis (taking care to note presuppositions and problem areas also.)

Dr. Mohler’s apparent-age gig derives DIRECTLY from Scripture itself. Ooops.

FL said:

In other words, when facts get in the way of you faith, squeeze your eyes closed real tight, and ignore the facts. Ignore debate. Ignore disagreement. Ignore everything and every one and declare yours as the only correct version.

Nope. Instead, one simply does like ICR and AIG (and Ross's RTB too), and continue to affirm the Scriptural historical claims while continuing to examine and critique the various evolutionary historical claims on a case-by-case, scientific basis (taking care to note presuppositions and problem areas also.) FL

mplavcan said: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." Real "scientific" approach. Yup.

Mike Elzinga said:

mplavcan said: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." Real "scientific" approach. Yup.

The link is here. There is an important part of this “interpretation by fallible people” that needs to be pointed out.

eric said: A blind man cannot rationally argue "you should trust me to lead you through the forest because that other guy needs glasses."

Mike Elzinga said:

mplavcan said: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." Real "scientific" approach. Yup.

The link is here. There is an important part of this “interpretation by fallible people” that needs to be pointed out. This forms the foundation of the creationists’ highly-touted “different starting points, different interpretations” shtick. “Different interpretations” has literally (not figuratively) translated into consciously distorting concepts, words, and evidence in science to fit scripture. The result is a set of words and pseudo-concepts that no longer work in the real world and in the laboratory. This is the primary reason ID/creationists cannot do science; it always blows up in their faces. If I am remembering correctly, Henry Morris was one of the primary drivers of this approach; and his tactic now forms the foundation of all ID/creationist attacks on science. Gish picked it up and used it ruthlessly in debates and in taunting teachers. Ken Ham was a protégé of Morris; so it is no surprise that we find this same shtick at AiG. It is a money maker for Ham. After the Edwards v. Aguillard, those fundamental misconceptions that became the foundation of ICR’s propaganda were simply translated over to ID. Those foundational misconceptions have not changed in over 40 years. Every attack on science, every “interpretation from the biblical perspective,” contains those fundamental misconceptions. This was picked up fairly early by members of the science community when they finally realized they were under attack. However, as we see from our FL troll, creationists have become extremely adept at word-gaming. In addition to Frank J’s frequent admonition to make ID/creationists explain all the differences among themselves, it should be routinely pointed out to these people, especially the gullible rubes, that they don’t understand ID/creationist “science” any more than they understand real science.

As far as I can see FL's 5 assertions are confusion between scientific statements and theological.

As a Christian I state dogmatically that God created humans , but that is "simply an assertion of Fact" (CD origin) and not an explanation.

These and the other statements are accompanied by quotes from atheists who claim that to accept evolution one must be an atheist. You could give a TE's 5 points and quote Miller, Gingerich Conway Morris Dobhansky, and various others

BTW speling is important especially on names

It is David Oldroyd not Olroyd. I know too well his atheism as when he was staying in my vicarage when he wanted to visit the Bala Limestone (the only formation in Wales my family know) I took him round to see it and so we went to the waterfall at Llanrhaedr en route ( visited by the teenage Darwin on his horse Dobbin) and as we inspected the edge of the sill and the contact metamorphism we got into an argument whether geology with its great ages was fatal to Christianity. He thought it was, so we disagreed!! That night we went for a meal at the Queen's Head a Darwin haunt. (My speciality is Darwin's welsh geology)

Some of these issues come out in the Geol Soc of London special publication Geology and Religion, in which there are articles by Christians atheists and others. David wrote one article as did I

...(Natural) evil prior to humans results from human sin at the Fall. So, too, in the theology of the Cross people who lived before Christ experience salvation from their sins through his Cross.

mplavcan said: As an analogy, we might consider the "The Infallible Manual for Assembling "Tool A" (The "ImatA").

You don’t get to set the rules; remember? You discuss at my level of expertise and you discuss material that everyone here has easy access to.

FL said:

What about those IDers who say the worldwide Flood never happened and consider TEs the worst “kind” of “evolutionist”?

Simple. Even if a card carrying YEC says "the Flood never happened in actual history", that YEC is bucking Jesus's own statement on that one. Same for TE's, OEC's, ID's, evolutionists, all of us. FL

FL said: Why? What is your level of expertise regarding, say, the Big Five Incompatibilities? Are you able to discuss biblical and Christian topics at a reasonable layman's level? Also, I'm assuming that everybody here has access to a Bible (at least online) and a local public library somewhere. Is that perhaps being unrealistic, maybe? (The question is sincere, btw.) FL

FL said:

What about those IDers who say the worldwide Flood never happened and consider TEs the worst “kind” of “evolutionist”?

Simple. Even if a card carrying YEC says "the Flood never happened in actual history", that YEC is bucking Jesus's own statement on that one. Same for TE's, OEC's, ID's, evolutionists, all of us. FL

FL said: However, it should be remembered that Dembski's statement [concerning a retroactive Fall ] does NOT appear in his basic and classic book, the 1999 IVP text Intelligent Design. Nor was any such move necessary in that book. Read the 1999 book yourself: he DID spell out the ID-based bridge between science and theology, and he did not need to mess around with "natural evil" at all, or try to resolve old-earth problems, in order to accomplish that bridging. ("Information" was--and still is--the key to the bridging process. Not the age of the earth, and most certainly not theistic evolution.)

The fine-tuning of the universe ... [is an instance] of specified complexity and signal information inputted into the universe by God at its creation.

Anthropic coincidences signify all the prior conditions that need to be precisely satisfied and correlated for human life to be possible. Often cosmologists refer to the totality of these coincidences as the "fine-tuing of the universe." For example, the fundamental forces of nature have to fall within very precise tolerances for the basic constituents of the universe to support life. If the strong nuclear force were slightly stronger, hardly any hydrogen would form because its nuclei would be unstable. If on the hand, it were slightly weaker, no elements other than hydrogen could form. Similarly if the force of gravity were lightly stronger, stars would burn out too rapidly to support life on surrounding planets. If, on the other hand, it were slightly weaker, there would be not enough heavy elements with which to build surrounding planets.

Rich said: YEC sees an old earth and its concomitant theological problems more clearly in us because we have the courage not to mumble.

Frank J said: ... for now I'm curious about Jesus' position on the flat-earth, geocentric and heliocentric YEC interpretations of Genesis. Did he favor any particular one ...?

all the stars whose privy members were like those of horses’ (1 Enoch 83: 3).

are you sure that wasn't referring to porn actors like John Holmes?

I heard Jesus had a hankering for porn, too:

http://www.examiner.com/x-10853-Portland-Humanist-Examiner~y2010m7d7-Jesus-Christ-appears-in-Portuguese-Playboy-magazine

FL

Surely as you, like most religious types, pick and choose which bits of the holy book you follow and which you don’t, your arguments ring hollow.

If the bible is literal, utterly correct in every sense and -all- of it is to be followed, to the letter, then I’d expect to see some amazing haircuts from you, and for your partner, when menstruating, to be exiled from your home.

If not, then you are arbitrarily deciding which bits are relevant, and which are not, which also allows theistic evolutionists to believe what they want without incrimination from your narrow minded viewpoint.

Natman said: FL Surely as you, like most religious types, pick and choose which bits of the holy book you follow and which you don’t, your arguments ring hollow. If the bible is literal, utterly correct in every sense and -all- of it is to be followed, to the letter, then I’d expect to see some amazing haircuts from you, and for your partner, when menstruating, to be exiled from your home. If not, then you are arbitrarily deciding which bits are relevant, and which are not, which also allows theistic evolutionists to believe what they want without incrimination from your narrow minded viewpoint.

Dale

What a lovely considerate post - not

What was the point of it?

Dale Husband said: Christians explain that away by noting that Jesus did away with the Law, replacing it with Grace given by the death of Jesus himself. But this dogma was introduced not by Jesus but by Paul, who was not even one of Jesus' original desciples. Jesus actually said, "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law, til all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:18). Thus, if we were truly followers of Jesus, we'd be following a sect of Judaism, not an independent religion. That alone shows what a hypocrite FL and all others like him are. There are NO true Christians, period.

What was the point of it?

and here I find myself actually seeing the point of it.

*shakes head*

try these words on for size:

cherry picking
hypocrisy

Dale was pointing out the reason there are over 32K sects of xianity.

no true xian, indeed.

I can see the point in Dales post, but it highlights my post better. The fact that christians cannot justify cherry-picking the bible is more telling than anything else they say.

For the fine-tuning argument to have any force the Universe must be old, and indeed 13.6 billion years old for the physics to work out right. Bill Dembski understands this and is why ID is fundamentally old earth. ID’s also arguably a brand of TE. Michael Behe is compelled by the scientific evidence to accept common descent because the genetic evidence is so overwhelming.

— Rich

While I'm on a "definitions" rant, and given that this thread is about Omphalos, I'd like to propose 2 more terms:

1. Hard Omphalos: One who says "Mainstream science is correct about the evidence, but I just choose to believe something else."

2. Soft Omphalos: One who says "Mainstream science is probably correct about the evidence, but I believe something else. But I have also heard some arguments against evolution that are fairly convincing too."

I think there are a lot of #1s among the rank and file, including many who answer that poll quesion with "God created humans in their present form in the last 10,000 years." But any anti-evolution activist who shows signs of retreating into Omphalos is almost certainly a #2.

Frank J said: 1. Hard Omphalos: One who says "Mainstream science is correct about the evidence, but I just choose to believe something else."

Natman said: FL Surely as you, like most religious types, pick and choose which bits of the holy book you follow and which you don’t, your arguments ring hollow. If the bible is literal, utterly correct in every sense and -all- of it is to be followed, to the letter, then I’d expect to see some amazing haircuts from you, and for your partner, when menstruating, to be exiled from your home. If not, then you are arbitrarily deciding which bits are relevant, and which are not, which also allows theistic evolutionists to believe what they want without incrimination from your narrow minded viewpoint.

MrG said:

Rich said: YEC sees an old earth and its concomitant theological problems more clearly in us because we have the courage not to mumble.

"Courage"? Heh! We have no motive for dissembling. If you're on the side of the facts ... While ID was never anything more than creationism with the mumbling cranked up. In some ways the studied evasiveness of ID helps them by muddying the waters; under scrutiny it hurts them, because it is more obvious there's nothing there.

There are all kinds of courage," said Dumbledore, smiling. "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends. I therefore award ten points to Mr. Neville Longbottom."

"If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult ... some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God's Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness," he says, according to several accounts by those who have seen the video. Those words set off a furor at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where Waltke was — until this week — a professor. (The seminary is evangelical, with ties to several denominations.)

Natman said:

Frank J said: 1. Hard Omphalos: One who says "Mainstream science is correct about the evidence, but I just choose to believe something else."

I think there's another word for this - delusional

Frank J said:

For the fine-tuning argument to have any force the Universe must be old, and indeed 13.6 billion years old for the physics to work out right. Bill Dembski understands this and is why ID is fundamentally old earth. ID’s also arguably a brand of TE. Michael Behe is compelled by the scientific evidence to accept common descent because the genetic evidence is so overwhelming.

— Rich

Excellent points, including the ones I didn't copy above. I had read once that the "fine tuning" argument actually undermines the ID argument (I don't recall the details, but FT seems to be all about "regularity" which Demsbki pretends to rule out). But that it requires (or at least better fits) the old universe/earth/life conclusion is something I never thought of. My quibble though is with "ID’s also arguably a brand of TE." Behe has been described, even by Eugenie Scott, as a TE because he happens to believe nearly all of the "whats, where, whens" of TEs. But I see anti-evolution activism not as any particular belief, or set of beliefs, but rather as a strategy to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution. And if they can get away with it, unreasonable doubt of nearly everything in science (geology, cosmology, basic chemistry and physics, etc.). ID and TE are polar opposites (ID agrees with "atheistic evolution" on the "conflict" model), even if their advocates agree on most of the "whats and whens." ID, like any pseudoscience, uses tactics like defining terms to suit the argument, cherry picking of evidence, quote mining, etc. I often call ID the "central pseudoscience" because it can accommodate anything - Bigfoot, astrology, even, in Dembski's words "all the results of 'Darwinism'." This boils down to my usual caution: Pseudoscience switches definitions when convenient, but we can't afford to. Whatever definitions we use for TE, "creationism" (does it include ID or not?), etc. we must be consistent. I know I'll never win this one, but I wish we would stop using the word "Darwinism," regardless of the definiton. I can't prove it, but I firmly believe that Darwin would agree with me 100% on that.

Frank J said: I wish we would stop using the word "Darwinism," regardless of the definiton. I can't prove it, but I firmly believe that Darwin would agree with me 100% on that.

Yes, we should no more be talking about Darwin and Darwinism than aerospace engineers talk about the Wright Brothers and "Wrightism". The Wright Brothers solved all the fundamental problems of controlled powered heavier-than-air flight -- but modern evo theory is no more (and no less) Darwin's theory than a Boeing 747-8 is a Wright Flyer.

I’m sure many here would be disappointed and would like for the numbers to be higher but these numbers would utterly shock your average layperson.

— Rich

Frank J said: Plus the % is undoubtedly smaller still if one just asked biologists.

Rich said: The first is the courage to admit facts that counter your position. This comes naturally to many who are scientists.

The charge of apostasy threat against Biologos is not an empty one ...

I realize that this is a bit off topic, but Salon has condemned Huffington Post for giving Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer a platform to promulgate his lies about the "relationship" between Darwin and Hitler:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/07/huffpo_antiscience/index.html

Rich said: For the fine-tuning argument to have any force the Universe must be old, and indeed 13.6 billion years old for the physics to work out right. Bill Dembski understands this and is why ID is fundamentally old earth. ID's also arguably a brand of TE. Michael Behe is compelled by the scientific evidence to accept common descent because the genetic evidence is so overwhelming.

Mike Elzinga said: Or it could behave in ways we haven’t yet imagined because we don’t even know all the possibilities that exist in our own universe.

MrG said: "Fine Tuning" is a sort of "lottery winner fallacy" argument: "The odds of winning the lottery are so low that if you win, you must have cheated." But that ignores the question of what the odds are of SOMEBODY winning. In the absence of knowledge of alternative Universe configurations, we have no means of calculating such odds. ID pushes the "strong anthropic principle (SAP)" but ignores this "weak anthropic principle (WAP)" -- and ends up with the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle (....)".

I like “completely ridiculous anthropic principle”, by the way. :-)

Mike Elzinga said: I like “completely ridiculous anthropic principle”, by the way. :-)

I have made some estimates of the probability that a chance distribution of physical constants can produce a universe with properties sufficient that some form of life would have likely had sufficient time to evolve. In this study, I randomly varied the constants of physics (I assume the same laws of physics as exist in our universe, since I know no other) over a range of ten orders of magnitude around their existing values. For each resulting "toy" universe, I computed various quantities such as the size of atoms and the lifetimes of stars. I found that almost all combinations of physical constants lead to universes, albeit strange ones, that would live long enough for some type of complexity to form (Stenger 1995: chapter 8).

Mike Elzinga said: (Man! What is the probability that exactly those electrons that were passing through that component at exactly that time would have lead to exactly that cascade of events that blew out that transistor? This can’t be happening. It must be gremlins!)

Michael Roberts said: As far as I can see FL's 5 assertions are confusion between scientific statements and theological.

Mike Elzinga said:

Rich said: For the fine-tuning argument to have any force the Universe must be old, and indeed 13.6 billion years old for the physics to work out right. Bill Dembski understands this and is why ID is fundamentally old earth. ID's also arguably a brand of TE. Michael Behe is compelled by the scientific evidence to accept common descent because the genetic evidence is so overwhelming.

The fine-tuning arguments are as misunderstood and abused as the thermodynamics arguments; and the conceptual misunderstandings related to both are the same. The fundamental misconception driving both is that what we see in the universe is an “uphill climb” against fantastically improbable odds. The misconception that the second law says “everything decays into chaos” and the fine-tuning argument that fundamental constants have to be exquisitely tuned to impossibly precise values are both totally bogus and complete misrepresentations of what is actually known, discussed, and used in the physics community. But the reality is that matter in the universe has been condensing ever since the “Big Bang.” Matter does this. There would be no universe if it didn’t. The fine-tuning argument is also misleading. You can see the misconception when you consider the fact that the carbon based life that we know about exists in a very narrow energy window in which water is a liquid. But there are thousands of systems that exist in narrow energy windows. It depends on the constituents of the system and how they interact at various temperature ranges. Changing the fundamental constants one at a time is misleading. If they are changed in groups, you find that universes can exist in many combinations of these. And we don’t know what narrow energy ranges and constituents would support life in those other universes; we don’t have the ability at the moment to compute all the emergent phenomena that would occur. We have only limited ability to do that with the universe we know. But we can take the lesson from our own universe and suspect that there could very well be conditions in those other universe that would support some kind of life. It would very likely not be life as we know it, but it would behave similarly. Or it could behave in ways we haven’t yet imagined because we don’t even know all the possibilities that exist in our own universe.

Rich said: There may be a valid expression of fine tuning -- I'm speaking hypothetically because I've yet to see a good expression in practice

Michael Roberts said: Dale What a lovely considerate post - not What was the point of it?

eddie said: Tip #33: When quoting sentences out of context in an attempt to justify a (quite frankly risible) point, it is best to stick to something slightly more obscure than the Sermon on the Mount. After all, your readers may have come across it before. Tip #34: If you are going to quote out of context to distort the meaning of something, don't complain when others do it with a topic you care about.

Rich said: -- but the statistical variant promoted by ID is extraordinarily problematic. Letting an ID proponent invoke statistics is like giving a drunk the keys to your car. He's going to crash it.

eric said:

Rich said: There may be a valid expression of fine tuning -- I'm speaking hypothetically because I've yet to see a good expression in practice

Perhaps, but not for humans. Because there are lifeforms that have narrower requirements, (example: undersea vent dwellers), any FT argument must necessarily provide more support for the conclusion that the universe was designed for them, not us.

Rich said: The best candidates for necessary conditions for life is star formation and heavy element nucleosynthesis. Taking that and seeing how narrow a band of fundamental constants is needed would be the strongest anthropic argument we could have. Even that would be subject to some unifying theory and/or multiverses.

Rich said: If everything is fine tuned but we find out that our measurements are off and then the changed value is now fine tuned? Smells too much of heads I win, tails you lose.

Our result implies that either the Rydberg constant has to be shifted by −110 kHz/c (4.9 standard deviations), or the calculations of the QED effects in atomic hydrogen or muonic hydrogen atoms are insufficient.

4.9 SD? That's a major league change.

Mike Elzinga said:

Rich said: If everything is fine tuned but we find out that our measurements are off and then the changed value is now fine tuned? Smells too much of heads I win, tails you lose.

From that Nature article:

Our result implies that either the Rydberg constant has to be shifted by −110 kHz/c (4.9 standard deviations), or the calculations of the QED effects in atomic hydrogen or muonic hydrogen atoms are insufficient.

The QED calculations are hard and messy. It would not surprise me if someone will need to go back and check. I remember back when I was working on g – 2 for the electron that the experiments alerted theorists to a mistake in the QED calculations.

Rich said: This has got to have the theorists salivating. Such a huge disconnect between experiment and theory provides a good time for all. Even though the calculation is the most likely candidate for the discrepency given the "cast of thousands" on the paper it would mean that they re-did the calculation a lot of times. Results like this prompts a wha? response. A good explanation for those of us whose physics background doesn't include all this high-energy stuff is here: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/07/protons_even_smaller_than_we_t.php

FL said: (Hey, it WAS quite a marathon, wasn't it Kattarina? A wonderful dance, albeit very intense.) Golly, a human female actually said something to me, yuck, yuck.

FL said:

Sorry, I’m a pathologist, not a weasel farmer. Can we get a straight answer? Do Christians who accept biological evolution go to Hell or not? Or are they allowed to “make errors” and still go to heaven? How many errors are allowed?

Sure. As I have said...repeatedly, repeatedly...you can still be a genuine Christian and still believe in biological evolution. Why is that btw? Because even in the New Testament, Christians were believing in false teaching (the Galatians, for example). The false teachings were incompatible with their Christian faith, damaging to their faith, and needed correctives such as provided by Paul. But they were still Christians, still having a personal relationship with Jesus, all the same. All Christians have areas of their lives where Christ is flushing out false teachings and influences from day to day via the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. Lifelong process for all of us. But there's no doubt about it: evolution is incompatible with Christianity. To be a TE is to accept falsehoods and reject Biblical claims in key areas. When Jesus says the worldwide Flood happened in history (Matt 24:39) and evolutionists (including TE's) are saying the worldwide Flood never happened in history, Christians need to choose who's really gonna be their Lord or not. Same for Jesus's affirmation of Adam and Eve (as actual historical persons, created by God himself, as described in Genesis) in the books of Matt and Mark. Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and 2:21-22 (Eve) directly and totally contradict the evolutionist "common ancestor" claim of human origins, so again a choice MUST be made by Christians. Is Jesus right, or is Darwin right? Who you gonna follow, honestly? FL

FL said: (taking care to note presuppositions and problem areas also.) FL

Mike Elzinga said:

Rich said: This has got to have the theorists salivating. Such a huge disconnect between experiment and theory provides a good time for all. Even though the calculation is the most likely candidate for the discrepency given the "cast of thousands" on the paper it would mean that they re-did the calculation a lot of times. Results like this prompts a wha? response. A good explanation for those of us whose physics background doesn't include all this high-energy stuff is here: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/07/protons_even_smaller_than_we_t.php

This supplement outlines what is involved.

Dale Husband said: Tip # 1: If my quote was inaccurate, specify the inaccuracy. Sorry if pointing out the obvious annoys you. I have little patience for empty rhetoric like that.

Mike E, I got to thinking about the "Fine Tuning" argument and the Dembski-Marks paper and got a hunch that such arguments rely on the basic assumption of a "uniform distribution of a natural phenomena across its parameter space" -- I am not sure if I deserve to be rewarded or punished for that phrase, but lacking anything better I will let it stand.

Anyway, that leads to the next question: How many natural phenomena have such a flat distribution? I would think it unusual, and that bell-shaped curves are much more common, or even discontinuous functions -- absorption or emission spectrum of a gas, for example.

MrG said: Mike E, I got to thinking about the "Fine Tuning" argument and the Dembski-Marks paper and got a hunch that such arguments rely on the basic assumption of a "uniform distribution of a natural phenomena across its parameter space" -- I am not sure if I deserve to be rewarded or punished for that phrase, but lacking anything better I will let it stand.

Anyway, that leads to the next question: How many natural phenomena have such a flat distribution? I would think it unusual, and that bell-shaped curves are much more common, or even discontinuous functions -- absorption or emission spectrum of a gas, for example.

MrG said: Mike E, I got to thinking about the "Fine Tuning" argument and the Dembski-Marks paper and got a hunch that such arguments rely on the basic assumption of a "uniform distribution of a natural phenomena across its parameter space"

Anyway, that leads to the next question: How many natural phenomena have such a flat distribution? I would think it unusual, and that bell-shaped curves are much more common, or even discontinuous functions – absorption or emission spectrum of a gas, for example.

Uniform distributions are unrealistic in nature.

FL, How exactly do you ascertain if a given “teaching” is “false” if different Christians hold to different “teachings”?

(The) LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. -- Gen. 2:7

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. -- Gen. 2:21-22

...Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. -- Ernst May, SciAm July 2000

Then how come you refuse to talk about how Christians have used "the Curse of Ham" to promote slavery and racism, or how Christians have claimed all Jews were guilty of murdering Christ in order to instigate Anti-Semitism?

And how come, if you consider Evolution to be a false and evil doctrine, you continue using and eating products made through Evolutionary Biology and related sciences?

Oh, wait, it's because you're a lying hypocrite.

Well FL, you might as well give up on all of science then, since science does function, to paraphrase Ernst Mayr - whom you cite incorrectly as "Ernst May" and was one of the key architects of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution - as an intellectual endeavor that "rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations" and explains only natural phenomena (since it doesn't recognize supernatural causation or phenomena) "solely materialistically".

Since yours is such a blind hatred of science, then please forgoe getting your next flu shot or other immunization shot for any number of other diseases. Why? Vaccine development relies upon evolutionary biology. But of course since you refuse to accept this, then see whether the Almighty will protect you without taking any medicine the next time you are seriously ill.

FL said: Professing Christians simply should NOT be holding on that particular false teaching, regardless of what label they're wearing. Period. It's a false teaching, directly contradicting and negating the Bible's teachings.

MrG said:

Uniform distributions are unrealistic in nature.

"Assume a spherical cow ... " And then, there is the other item, I think pointed out by Wes Elsberry & company, that evolution does NOT define a search scheme: "It's not searching for anything." If it's a search algorithm, then so is a rivercourse: "Well, the water has this challenge in finding the lowest parts of the terrain, and the longer the watercourse the greater then challenge. I mean, geez, it has to follow a path that is effectively downhill all the way along its length ... the longer the river, the worse the odds."

Sorry for the typo, John. Merely missed the last letter of Mayr's name.

Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible's clear claim of human origins?

Or, if you don't know of anybody, can YOU resolve it?

FL

FL said: Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible's clear claim of human origins?

FL said: Dornier Pfeil asked,

FL, How exactly do you ascertain if a given “teaching” is “false” if different Christians hold to different “teachings”?

Answer: By taking the time to check out whether a given teaching is in accordance with the Scriptures, or in opposition to the Scriptures. FL

Why is that any of your business?

FL said:

Why is that any of your business?

Should I take that as a "No", Mike? (Btw, my request is sincere. If you don't know of any evolutionist or TE who has offered a rationally and Scripturally supportable resolution to the problem, and you yourself are not in a position to offer such a resolution, then my response to Dornier Pfeil's inquiry necessarily remains valid.) FL

Dale Husband said:

FL said: Dornier Pfeil asked,

FL, How exactly do you ascertain if a given “teaching” is “false” if different Christians hold to different “teachings”?

Answer: By taking the time to check out whether a given teaching is in accordance with the Scriptures, or in opposition to the Scriptures. FL

The Scriptures, including the creation myths of Genesis, don't matter so much if they are made by people. People are not God, you idiot. Can you prove that God wrote the Book of Genesis?

FL said:

Why is that any of your business?

Should I take that as a "No", Mike? (Btw, my request is sincere. If you don't know of any evolutionist or TE who has offered a rationally and Scripturally supportable resolution to the problem, and you yourself are not in a position to offer such a resolution, then my response to Dornier Pfeil's inquiry necessarily remains valid.) FL

MrG said:

Uniform distributions are unrealistic in nature.

"Assume a spherical cow ... " And then, there is the other item, I think pointed out by Wes Elsberry & company, that evolution does NOT define a search scheme: "It's not searching for anything." If it's a search algorithm, then so is a rivercourse: "Well, the water has this challenge in finding the lowest parts of the terrain, and the longer the watercourse the greater then challenge. I mean, geez, it has to follow a path that is effectively downhill all the way along its length ... the longer the river, the worse the odds."

An evolving biological population, on the other hand, starts on a "solution" -- if it's reproducing it's far enough up some slope to be viable. And it does not sample from the whole of the "search" space but rather preferentially samples the neighborhood defined by one application of an evolutionary operator, that neighborhood also being a viable place with some relatively high probability. All of Dembski's blather about search and displacement and the allegedly teeny weeny probability that random search will find viable phenotypes in a humongous volume depend on ignoring that point.

FL said: ... then my response to Dornier Pfeil's inquiry necessarily remains valid. FL

And there's another reason the search metaphor is deceptive: Biological evolution doesn't test randomly over all possible nodes, but rather preferentially explores (via mutations) nodes that are in the neighborhood of an already successfully reproducing population. One can give that more rigor, e.g., by defining "neighborhood" in terms of all nodes accessible by single applications of the various mutation operators. But it's intuitively clear without that.

And the key insight is staring them right in the face; there are literally billions of living systems that have been sampled and have worked throughout the history of life on this planet.

Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible’s clear claim of human origins? Or, if you don’t know of anybody, can YOU resolve it?

FL said: And speaking of "avoiding questions", let's not forget THIS question....

FL said: Sorry for the typo, John. Merely missed the last letter of Mayr's name. Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible's clear claim of human origins? Or, if you don't know of anybody, can YOU resolve it? FL

RBH said: I have posted maybe a dozen times over the years that characterizing biological evolution as search is a snare and a deception.

Dale Husband said: But if you beleive in God as a Creator, then you can understand the true nature of God, including how he created, by studying the universe itself. That is the basis for Theistic Evolution.

Not that he would be considered credible now, but for the longest time, the hominid paleontologist and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Certainly the most famous example of a theistic evolutionist I can think of from the 20th Century, though Theodosius Dobzhansky would also rank highly, especially when he, like Mayr, was another “architect” of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution.

FL said:

Not that he would be considered credible now, but for the longest time, the hominid paleontologist and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Certainly the most famous example of a theistic evolutionist I can think of from the 20th Century, though Theodosius Dobzhansky would also rank highly, especially when he, like Mayr, was another “architect” of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution.

Okay, thanks for your reply John. So it's deChardin and Dobzhansky. You say deChardin would not be considered credible now (and you're right!). But let's look closer at Dobzhansky then. Specifically, what was his proffered resolution to the huge, intractable clash between the evolutionist "common ancestor" claim of human origins and the biblical creation claim of human origins? FL

FL said:

Not that he would be considered credible now, but for the longest time, the hominid paleontologist and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Certainly the most famous example of a theistic evolutionist I can think of from the 20th Century, though Theodosius Dobzhansky would also rank highly, especially when he, like Mayr, was another “architect” of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution.

Okay, thanks for your reply John. So it's deChardin and Dobzhansky. You say deChardin would not be considered credible now (and you're right!). But let's look closer at Dobzhansky then. Specifically, what was his proffered resolution to the huge, intractable clash between the evolutionist "common ancestor" claim of human origins and the biblical creation claim of human origins? FL

Stanton said: How come you insist on picking apart the faiths of theistic evolutionists in order to slander them when you simultaneously ignore the fact that other Christians have used the Bible to justify racism and slavery and genocide, ala "The Curse of Ham," "The Curse of Cain," or the persecution of Jews for their alleged role in murdering Jesus?

Mike Elzinga said:

Stanton said: How come you insist on picking apart the faiths of theistic evolutionists in order to slander them when you simultaneously ignore the fact that other Christians have used the Bible to justify racism and slavery and genocide, ala "The Curse of Ham," "The Curse of Cain," or the persecution of Jews for their alleged role in murdering Jesus?

He’s trying to set up a “gotcha” trap. Juvenile bigotry at best. This crap belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

Mike Elzinga said:

Stanton said: How come you insist on picking apart the faiths of theistic evolutionists in order to slander them when you simultaneously ignore the fact that other Christians have used the Bible to justify racism and slavery and genocide, ala "The Curse of Ham," "The Curse of Cain," or the persecution of Jews for their alleged role in murdering Jesus?

He’s trying to set up a “gotcha” trap. Juvenile bigotry at best. This crap belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

FL said: Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible's clear claim of human origins? Or, if you don't know of anybody, can YOU resolve it? FL

Hmmmm, replace that last 'you' with 'us'

Natman said:

FL said: Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible's clear claim of human origins? Or, if you don't know of anybody, can YOU resolve it? FL

Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a rabid dogmatist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the fundamentalist christian claims that the Earth is only 6000 years old and the massive amount of evidence that says otherwise We don't have to prove ourselves to you, we're the ones who don't believe in something based on faith. We have our evidence, we have our theory and facts. YOU are the one who believes something based on a single source, you need to justify yourself to you.

John Kwok said: The ever delusional FL hopes we'll be as intellectually challenged as he is, but unfortunately for him, none of us are.

If he ignores my post and continues to gabble on about his wet-dream decisive argument winner(?) then Wall him.

For now, I'm content to see him keep digging his hole deeper.

I get bored listening to creationists. If they had any interesting criticism it would be different, but it's always the same stale old games and baloney.

It stops registering. Too stifingly dull to even insult them.

FL said: Dornier Pfeil asked,

FL, How exactly do you ascertain if a given “teaching” is “false” if different Christians hold to different “teachings”?

Answer: By taking the time to check out whether a given teaching is in accordance with the Scriptures, or in opposition to the Scriptures.

FL said: snip

FL said: And speaking of "avoiding questions", let's not forget THIS question....

Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible’s clear claim of human origins? Or, if you don’t know of anybody, can YOU resolve it?

This response was originally addressed to John Kwok and is based squarely upon my reply to Dornier Pfeil. Now, neither John nor Dornier may be available to respond right at this moment, and that's fine. There's plenty of time; no need to rush. If Mike, Stanton, or Dale want to reply specifically to what I've asked there, that's fine. I'd love to see somebody offer a considered, supportable resolution of the problem, or merely offer a link to some other evolutionist's proffered resolution. But I'm not worrying about any "you didn't answer my question" stuff. Nope. If you don't want to engage what I asked John, just leave it be. FL

If christian A says verse A provides teaching A and christian B says verse A provides teaching B and teachings A and B are conflicted, how do you resolve them? I am not going to list specific examples as getting into any dispute over specifics would sidetrack my purpose. I want to know what general method christians would use to resolve biblical disputes.

I can rationally and scripturally resolve the dispute by recognizing a literal reading of the bible as simply wrong.

(@ everyone except FL, this is actually on topic.)

Side note for Stanton.....So you want me to affirm to you that the Southern Christians' belief that "the Bible justifies American slavery" was/is a false teaching?

Sure, I'll affirm for you that it was a false teaching. After all, the Grimke sisters pointed out multiple Biblical violations going on with the slavery horror-show.

(And I'm sure that my forebears who found themselves standing on antebellum auction blocks in the vicinity of Gallatin, Tennessee, can repeat my affirmation with much sadness and anger.)

And you want me to affirm for you that the "Curse of Ham" had nothing to do with Africans and therefore nothing to do with Black Americans? Sure; consider it affirmed. You have access to a Bible, so you already know that the curse was aimed at Canaan and his descendents not Cush and his African descendents. Therefore anybody trying to lay the curse on black people, IS propagating false teaching. There you go.

But you know Stanton, all you're doing is trying to change the subject.

Discussing American slavery, "the curse of Ham", and affirming how some Christians fell for false teaching on those topics, doesn't really have anything to do with what Dornier and I are discussing. After all, false teaching about slavery and the curse of Ham, does NOT magically salvage evolutionary theory's false teaching about how the first humans originated in Earth history. The Bible still makes clear that it's false teaching. You have no way to re-write the Bible there, and no way to reconcile the diametrically opposed historical claims.

So it's like you're stumped, and hence you seek to change the subject. You (and others) suddenly want to talk about something else, and then you insist I discuss the "something else" or go to the Wall. (Not ignoring you Natman, but it appears to be the same story with you too.)

Well, I'm not impressed by that kind of move, hmm? But, you now have the affirmations you apparently wanted, so there you go. Enjoy your weekend dude!

FL

It’s always obvious when FL just has to ejaculate.

It’s always obvious when FL just has to ejaculate.

FL said: And speaking of "avoiding questions", let's not forget THIS question....

Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible’s clear claim of human origins? Or, if you don’t know of anybody, can YOU resolve it?

This response was originally addressed to John Kwok and is based squarely upon my reply to Dornier Pfeil. Now, neither John nor Dornier may be available to respond right at this moment, and that's fine. There's plenty of time; no need to rush. If Mike, Stanton, or Dale want to reply specifically to what I've asked there, that's fine. I'd love to see somebody offer a considered, supportable resolution of the problem, or merely offer a link to some other evolutionist's proffered resolution. But I'm not worrying about any "you didn't answer my question" stuff. Nope. If you don't want to engage what I asked John, just leave it be. FL

Dale Husband said:

Dale Husband said:

FL said: Dornier Pfeil asked,

FL, How exactly do you ascertain if a given “teaching” is “false” if different Christians hold to different “teachings”?

Answer: By taking the time to check out whether a given teaching is in accordance with the Scriptures, or in opposition to the Scriptures. FL

The Scriptures, including the creation myths of Genesis, don't matter so much if they are made by people. People are not God, you idiot. Can you prove that God wrote the Book of Genesis?

Note that FL completely avoided my question, which is the whole point of why you can be Christian and not rely on Scrupture as an absolute basis for "truth". Therefore, his point is debunked. There is no evidence that God had a hand in the writing of any part of the Bible, let alone the Book of Genesis. But if you beleive in God as a Creator, then you can understand the true nature of God, including how he created, by studying the universe itself. That is the basis for Theistic Evolution.

FL said: First, we cannot rationally afford to ignore the genre of those two Gen passages. The two Gen passages are written as straight historical narrative (not parables, not allegories, etc). If you try to suggest that they are non-literal, you have to be able to support your claim from the texts/contexts themselves. Gotta offer some textual or contextual evidence of "non-literalness" there, and "Darwin Sez So" doesn't count this time.

Literalism involves a fundamental misconception of the mental processes of biblical man and ignorance of his modes of self-expression. It thus misrepresents the purpose of the narrative, obscures the meaningful and enduring in it and destroys its relevancy.

You honestly have to go to the Scriptures, and then see if the Bible texts offer better support for the stated position of either A or B.

(Btw, if you’ve been watching the Presbyterians as they debate homosexuality and gay clergy this month, you’ve probably seen this method in action, as all sides attempt to appeal to the Bible for support. That’s the “general method”, as you put it.)

eddie, by "context" FL probably means something like "other Scripture that relates to the text in question". He almost certainly doesn't mean something as sophisticated as "the circumstances, place, time, culture, language, history and individual where the text originated."

eddie said: Since, in Sarna's (much quoted) words:

Literalism involves a fundamental misconception of the mental processes of biblical man and ignorance of his modes of self-expression. It thus misrepresents the purpose of the narrative, obscures the meaningful and enduring in it and destroys its relevancy.

I wonder how FL would feel if he spend years working on a massive hotel building, designing it, constructing it, and decorating its rooms, finally finishing it and then leaving it to run according to the rules he made for it and nothing more.

Years later, he returns to find that some egomaniacs in charge of the building have written a book, claimed that the book was FL's idea, and the book told a story about how he created the building in only a few hours, then made all sorts of rules that were not even mentioned by FL before, but imposed on the tenants of the hotel without FL's explicit approval. Even worse, he finds that there are disputes within the hotel because several groups of egomaniacs have written other books, claiming FL inspired them too, with different stories, different rules, and even different depictions of what FL himself is like.

If I were in the place of that hotel designer and builder, I'd immediately have expelled all the egomaniacs who slandered and libeled me and tell the remaining tenants to a think for themselves with their own brains and leave me out of it.

In fact, FL would probably answer "God" to all those circumstances, and look at you funny for even suggesting that any other considerations could be relevant.

FL said: Meanwhile, Christians can indeed figure out what teachings may be "false teachings" or not, by adopting the general approach of going to the Scriptures to find out.

FL said: Side note for Stanton.....So you want me to affirm to you that the Southern Christians' belief that "the Bible justifies American slavery" was/is a false teaching?

Sure, I'll affirm for you that it was a false teaching. After all, the Grimke sisters pointed out multiple Biblical violations going on with the slavery horror-show.

(And I'm sure that my forebears who found themselves standing on antebellum auction blocks in the vicinity of Gallatin, Tennessee, can repeat my affirmation with much sadness and anger.)

And you want me to affirm for you that the "Curse of Ham" had nothing to do with Africans and therefore nothing to do with Black Americans? Sure; consider it affirmed. You have access to a Bible, so you already know that the curse was aimed at Canaan and his descendents not Cush and his African descendents. Therefore anybody trying to lay the curse on black people, IS propagating false teaching. There you go.

But you know Stanton, all you're doing is trying to change the subject.

Discussing American slavery, "the curse of Ham", and affirming how some Christians fell for false teaching on those topics, doesn't really have anything to do with what Dornier and I are discussing. After all, false teaching about slavery and the curse of Ham, does NOT magically salvage evolutionary theory's false teaching about how the first humans originated in Earth history. The Bible still makes clear that it's false teaching. You have no way to re-write the Bible there, and no way to reconcile the diametrically opposed historical claims.

So it's like you're stumped, and hence you seek to change the subject.

You (and others) suddenly want to talk about something else, and then you insist I discuss the "something else" or go to the Wall. (Not ignoring you Natman, but it appears to be the same story with you too.)

Well, I'm not impressed by that kind of move, hmm? But, you now have the affirmations you apparently wanted, so there you go. Enjoy your weekend dude! FL

Dornier Pfeil said: (FL's) problem seems to be that you don't want to grant to anyone the perogative to read the bible as they see fit. I don't get why you think you are so privileged to do so but we all have our own arrogances and conceits.

FL said: The Bible is considered authoritative by Christians, (after all, the founder of Christianity clearly considered it authoritative, see John 10:35 abd 17:17).

Oops. If I'm going to ask FL to get his facts straight, I should be a little more precise myself, or he's going to quotemine me. Paul of Tarsus was the founder of the Christian Church, not precisely "Cristianity", which is the word that FL used. But the rest of the comment still stands.

Actually, all the schisms arise from the Protestant reformation. It's the notion that the only true path to God is to read and understand the Bible for oneself, rather than to rely on a single authority (ie, the Catholic Church at the time) for the true word of god. Now, everyone (including FL) has the responsibility and "authority" to decide for themselves what the Bible says. Unfortunately, many wrongly think that means that they also have the "authority" to decide for everyone else what is True, and to damn everyone to Hell if they disagree. Yet another blasphemy. Or at least a damn big conceit.

At least the Anglicans (that FL mentions) agree that there can be different interpretations of the Bible. He simply misunderstands what they're trying to do with those differences. Not only does FL get his science hopelessly wrong, he doesn't even know his own religion very well.

Sorry to be so OT, but I've recently been learning about the history of the Bible and the early Christian church. The "context" that FL so disdains. It's fascinating stuff. And when FL starts erroneously quoting theology he obviously knows nothing about, it kind of frosts me. I mean, it's one thing to be willfully ignorant of stuff he doesn't care about (like all of science). It's another to be willfully ignorant of stuff he claims authority from, and claims to know something about. Just appalling.

Cheers.

FL said: Sorry for the typo, John. Merely missed the last letter of Mayr's name. Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible's clear claim of human origins? Or, if you don't know of anybody, can YOU resolve it? FL

Scott said: Actually, all the schisms arise from the Protestant reformation.

W. H. Heydt said: Ummm...No. Think about the split between Rome and Constantinople. Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox....none of 'em related to the Protestant Reformation. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

W. H. Heydt said:

Scott said: Actually, all the schisms arise from the Protestant reformation.

Ummm...No. Think about the split between Rome and Constantinople. Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox....none of 'em related to the Protestant Reformation. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Hey FL are you willing to take the Jenny McCarthy pledge and promise not to take a flu shot the next time we have a credible influenza pandemic? After all, you wouldn't want to displease your LORD, the one true CHRIST, by taking medicine produced by some of our fellow evil evilutionists who've been corrupted by Lucifer into thinking that evolutionary biology is sound mainstream science, of which epidemiology is merely an applied aspect of it. Am I right?

Looking forward to reading your oh so thoughtful response.

Peace and Long Life (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John

Dave Luckett said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Scott said: Actually, all the schisms arise from the Protestant reformation.

Ummm...No. Think about the split between Rome and Constantinople. Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox....none of 'em related to the Protestant Reformation. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

You are completely correct in saying that the Christian church schismed a number of times before the Protestant reformation, but I think it reasonable to think of earlier successful schisms (that is, splits that lasted) as political in nature rather than theological. Gnosticism, Arianism, Pelagianism and others were successfully destroyed after being declared heresies. The split with the Eastern Orthodox communion was essentially about who was the highest authority in Christendom, the Bishop of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople, and exactly what that authority consisted of. Was he merely "primus inter pares", or did he wield magisterial power over his fellow prelates - and lay princes? These are political questions, not theological ones as such. There is, of course, a political dimension to the Protestant reformation, too. The Anglican split was essentially about the power of the English crown, not over anything to do with belief. But with Calvin and Knox, the question is theological. Scriptura solis is a theological idea, and it implies rejection of all traditional authority, all sacerdotal hierarchy, and reliance on the individual's interpretation of the Scriptures alone. These are radical departures in a theological sense. The earlier schisms - where lasting - were about who was in control of the Church and of the power it wielded in the secular world. The Protestant reformation's central tenet was that God is, and nobody else. Of course that idea - which is, essentially, the abandonment of human authority over the believer - produced the situation that applies today. God, however much his authority is appealed to, doesn't seem to speak or act any more. Or if He does, it's in many voices to many different effects. Perhaps He did speak to George Fox and Mother Shipton and Charles Wesley and Anne Lee and Joseph Smith and all the others. If so, His message couldn't have been to reunite, because they didn't. They produced further schisms, further splits, further bitter feuds and, in some cases, further religious wars. I think the idea that the Protestant reformation is responsible for the utter fragmentation of Christianity is justifiable, then. The schisms before that were few, and along political lines. But as soon as you allow the idea that Scripture, interpreted by individual conscience, is the sole authority, the rest follows. Of course, it has been noted by many that the Reformation was preceded by the Renaissence, and followed by the rise of science and the Enlightenment. But post hoc, ergo propter hoc doesn't cut it, in history, or in science.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/the-bible-cannot-be-the-word-of-god/ One of the great tragedies of the Protestant Reformation, in addition to destroying forever the unity of the Christians in western Europe, was that it enshrined the Bible as the sole source of dogma among Protestants. Now, I will grant that the incredible corruption and tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages made the Reformation both necessary and inevitable, but the way it was done by most Protestants made spiritual tyranny inevitable among them as well. This was because they simply replaced the Catholic papacy and church councils with the Bible itself, or rather, how Protestant leaders read the Bible. Calling the Word of God what is actually your INTERPRETATION of words of men writing in the name of God is stretching things beyond any bounds of logic you can imagine, which is why Christians constantly emphasize faith as their standard. When you read the Bible, you are not reading the original Word of God at all, but something that was written by various authors (in many cases, unknown), copied many times, translated, printed and published in various languages and editions over thousands of years. After all this time, there is really no way we can tell what the real Word of God may be, and instead we are left with something that gives a dim view of God at best. It is like someone telling a long and complex story to a friend, who then repeats that story to another friend, and so on until eventually the story has been repeated about 30 or 40 times and finally the original storyteller hears the story again….and realizes how inaccurate his story has become, even with details added or omitted that he never intended, maybe even with different character names and a different outcome made by people who didn’t like the story as it had been told originally. Nowhere does this analogy become more apt than with the four Gospels in the New Testament, with their own contradictions and altered, added and omitted details. None of them were written by Jesus himself, and they were written decades after the events they describe, as even fundamentalists admit in their own propaganda. The conflict between Creationism and evolution in the life of creation “scientist” Kurt Wise illustrates the absurdity of Biblical dogmatism clearly. He was unable to let go of his assumption that the Bible was infallible, so he declared, despite his scientific training (even studying under Stephen Jay Gould), that the teachings of the Bible trumped any physical evidence from the universe that supported evolution. This is illogical, since the Bible itself says that God created the universe and mankind, thus one would expect what we find when we study the universe to be the tool by which we can confirm whether or not the Bible is God’s Word. And the intelligence that God supposedly gave us must also be used as a tool to determine what is true or even acceptable, or God wouldn’t have given us brains in the first place. But the Biblical dogmatist says that without the Bible, most of us would not know of God at all. That may be true, but that would not justify adhereing to absurdities or even outright lies for the sake of beleiving in God. We know that the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a boy was made up to illustrate the moral value of honesty (how ironic), but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist, since all the other historical records of his military achievements and Presidency are beyond dispute. We need to use science and reason to find out what is valid and reject what is rediculous, or we will doom ourselves. Jesus himself said that the Jews of his time erred by “teaching as doctrines (of God) the teachings of men.” And that is true whether you believe in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church traditions or the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura. Either way, you will be led into tyranny. Truth can only be found via science, never dogma of any kind. Science unifies people by showing what is true via objective study of the universe and everything in it, while religion with its baseless assertions divides people. It must be noted that my statement is just as applicable to Islam, the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran cannot be the Word of Allah, though it contains much wisdom. It also contains much evil and must be regarded critically by science and reason just as much as the Bible.

Yes, precisely what Mr. Luckett said. :-) Perhaps the term "splintering" would have been more accurate than "schisming", to differentiate the Protestant Reformation from other, earlier splits in the church.

Following the links in Mr. Elzinga's map of Christianity, it, and learning about more modern American religious history, it seems pretty clear that changes in church theology were and continue to be as much "political" in nature, with a sometimes thin veneer of theology to cover political power grabs (thinking of the Southern Baptists in '79).

The existence of 38,000 recognized interpretations of the Bible (one of Wiki's references) certainly doesn't lend any support to FL's position of the Bible as an "inerrant" Authority on any secular topic (as per Mr. Husband).

Okay, so I'm a relative amateur at religious history as well. :-) At least I'm trying to learn about it.

FL said: Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible’s clear claim of human origins?

FL said: And speaking of "avoiding questions", let's not forget THIS question....

Hey, do you know of anybody (especially a theistic evolutionist) who can rationally and Scripturally resolve the huge clash between the evolutionary theory claim of human origins and the Bible’s clear claim of human origins? Or, if you don’t know of anybody, can YOU resolve it?