2009.07.01
Pinder: A dark biblical view
A dark biblical view
I wonder if David W. Clark looks upon the Dark Ages as the good ol' days. A time when church dogma ruled the day and when anyone with a different viewpoint would be a heretic. In his June 12 commentary "The Bible v. evolution," Clark looks to pass judgment on Francis Collins' statement that "one can believe in both science [i.e., evolution] and God." Clark presents many well-known historical figures as both scientists and creationists to demonstrate his point. Unfortunately, many of those he uses (Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, Kepler) were dead long before Charles Darwin's day, while others were not biological scientists (Faraday, Pascal, Newton, Kelvin) who use evolution as a fundamental principle.
Read more.
RSS feed 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/30muse.html?hpw
An article about the "Creationism Museum" in Kentucky. The comments from the scientists are hilarious.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 9:03 am
I saw a blip on this museum on TV. If believing that the few species aboard the ark that were saved have evolved into the thousands of species of animals found on the planet today makes sense to you, but slow evolution over millions of years does not, well, then, I just flat don't know. Suspension of reality is definitely a requirement.
Comment by Other John — July 1, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Bahahaha! OJ, that's great. I've never even thought about that!
Comment by HCS — July 1, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Well said, Mr. Pinder! Thank you.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Oh ok. I read the article now...;)
That is just freakin hilarious. I think if I visited that museum I would not be able to contain laughing out loud. They completely disregard any physical and real evidence that has been proven and just make up their own information...such as the dinosours going out of existence at the same time even though they existed at drastically different time perdiods...and what's up with the God giving animals special tools to change?? Umm...hello?! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Comment by HCS — July 1, 2009 @ 10:18 am
HCS...I liked the Swedish doctor who said..."We don't have much of this in Sweden". I bet they don't.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 11:47 am
I mean, how exactly could at least 2 of every animal been gathered up by one man anyway? Ever try to get near a deer? Good luck! But, let's assume he could approach the animals and take two of them to the ark. How on earth did he cross the entire planet (even assuming as Creationists do that the continents were all attached until the flood), to gather all the various forms of life found in grasslands, deserts, jungles, northern climates, and elsewhere? It's just not plausible. It's a great story, but unless something supernatural aided Noah in the quest, it's just not possible. Of course, you have to believe the supernatural in order to account for the massive expansion of species since the great flood, yet debunk any evolution that might have occurred as evolutionists purport. So, how is it that short-range evolution is what happened, but long-term can't? Please. Hence why I don't go to church, I apparently don't play nice and people never liked my questions.
Comment by Other John — July 1, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Other John: "I mean, how exactly could at least 2 of every animal been gathered up by one man anyway?"
Easily. It's called a Fairy Tale.
Comment by George — July 1, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
A Fairy Tale? You mean like Obama birth certificate?
Heh...
Comment by Henry — July 1, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
OtherJohn..not only did they gather up all these animals - presumably ranging from dinosaurs to elephants to snakes...but they ALL LIVED TOGETHER ON THE BOAT. Without anyone getting eaten! With 2 lions on board, how did any gazelle make it to the end of the voyage?
As a fairy tale, it's a nice story and has generated all sorts of nursery decor and folk art. To try to defend it as a viable scientific basis for the fauna currently running around the world...it's beyond impossible.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
BAAHAHAHA I just love it. LOVE it.
Comment by HCS — July 1, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
I guess the typical answer to that would be that they each had their own rooms? But yeah, there's more holes in the great flood story for being factual history than there are holes in Swiss cheese.
Comment by Other John — July 1, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
@ Henry:
Oh, you mean the birth certificate that the original has been shown to numerous sources?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Seriously, you're going to side with Jerome Corsi, the same man that thinks 9/11 was a Zionist conspiracy, that President Bush was in league to create a New World Order by integrating Mexico within the USA and that Democrats are in league with Iran to provide nukes to destroy the USA?
Comment by George — July 1, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Henry...
You might want to find a different dead horse to beat rather than Obama's Birth Certificate. I suspect that far more legally savy people within the Republican Party would have managed to legally wrangle something out of this if they thought it had any merit. Since they haven't, I think it's pretty safe to say most Republicans have acknowledged authenticity. Why don't you.
Comment by Will — July 1, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
The most humorous thing about the article is that you would think the writer (who works for the Dept of Fisheries) would know that a whale is a mammal and not a fish.... babahahahabababahahahhhh??!!??
Seriously, I honestly find it much easier to believe that all animals were put onto an ark than to believe we 'evolved' from nothing? gas? lightning? take your pick?
So explain to me how even IF we did evolve from a great space collision, how come our species is the only one that has grown all powerful? Why havent others? How can you believe that we have evolved from single cell creatures...then what, the cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms???
The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
I know this may be deep for some people here...
Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.
Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.
Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.
Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.
Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.
Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.
Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.
These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.
The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.
One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.
These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.
From: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 1, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread477825/pg1
Mark I checked that site and I think this link referencing the import of "jellyfish crop circles" is equally informative.
I mean, why not cite an XFiles episode?
To quote HCS.....bwahahahahaha.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
I guess the typical answer to that would be that they each had their own rooms? But yeah, there's more holes in the great flood story for being factual history than there are holes in Swiss cheese.
Comment by Other John — July 1, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Yes, you'd have to have the Predator Deck (definitely the dinosaurs), and Prey Deck, where Noah and his family would huddle among the deer and antelope.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
"The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant."
Sooo..the fact that scientists haven't discovered (yet) a way to create granite proves that God is responsible for creating the Earth? The absense of one explanation isn't proof of another. Until God comes and shows us how he made granite, there is not PROOF that he created anything. I'm not saying that I somehow know for certain that he didn't...I'm just saying that the fact that we can't figure it out isn't proof. After all, scientists can create diamonds in laboratories, but this wasn't always the case, there was a time when we didn't know how diamonds were formed either. That didn't prove that God made them.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 1, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
how about a leaf, or a butterfly
Comment by wayne p. — July 1, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
So you believe there is no difference in lab-created diamonds and naturally occuring diamonds.... wow im glad im not your wife!!
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 1, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Something else I've wondered about. Biblical accounts place the Ark at 450 feet long. This would make it the longest, largest ship ever built until the past 150 years or so, when ships began being made of steel. The only other wooden ships of that size have been known to be extremely weak structurally, were prone to flexing and bending, and eventually sank due to extreme water seepage. I'm guessing that shipbuilding knowledge that could not be duplicated at any point since then, except with the aid of extremely strong metals, had to have been imparted by God too.
As for what VT Hokie mentioned, the same thing can be said of lightning. For a long time, some humans believed lightning was sent down by Thor. They had no explanation for it, but attributed it to Thor and that was sufficient for them. We of course now know that lightning is created by an imbalance of electrons between the clouds and the ground, and this imbalance leads to massive discharged of electrical energy akin to closing a circuit for a flash of a second. Humans seem to look for ways to explain the unexplainable, and God certainly makes a good way to do so. Humans are by nature very curious creatures. Many of us seek answers through science, searching for how things work to understand them. Others, I guess don't have this drive and find their answers in church. To each his/her own I guess.
Comment by Other John — July 1, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
From what I understand, the lab diamonds are typically yellowish in color, and are mostly only good for industrial tools because of their sand grain-like size.
Comment by Other John — July 1, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Wow Kristen!!! You found a forum where anyone can submit anything... factual or not. You know those are tough to come across on the Internet nowadays.
Im surprised you havent heard of the jellyfish circles...i didnt think anyone in this country HADNT heard of them before (remember that quote?)
In other words, I am pleased to see that you are now researching your links you are providing (i.e. the Mysterious Carson Clips)
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 1, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
@OJ #22... so in other words if a scientist did create granite in the lab, it would also be really nothing like what occurs in nature. So where did that darn granite come from then?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 1, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Mark, I'm glad you are not my wife either, and I'm pretty sure my husband feels the same way
Comment by VT Hokie — July 1, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Regardless of difference between lab diamonds and natural diamonds, the point is that we now know how they are created, from carbon under enormous pressure. It's not so mysterious that we need to have a supernatural explanation for the process.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 1, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
since no one really KNOWS for sure, no one can say they are right.
a lot of people said the world was flat and totally ridiculous and far-fetched to be round...think about it, what if the bible is a truth document, not necessarily to be taken literally but metaphorically...nobody knows...
Comment by pammala — July 1, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Superman had the strength to crush coal in his hands until it turned into diamonds
Comment by wayne p. — July 1, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
The two skunks were placed in a smaller boat and towed behind the ark
(Soprano episode joke)
Comment by wayne p. — July 1, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Mark, I honestly don't know. With the diamonds, they can currently create small, non jewelry quality diamonds. Some day, they might be able to create larger ones the same way many gemstones are lab-produced by growing crystals. It's certainly a plausible future potential. It's also quite plausible to me that at some point, scientists may be able to replicate virtually any material in a lab, I think we'll have the technology for that one day.
Science may not yet have an answer for how everything came into being, but it has explained quite a few things rather well and much more so than the Bible has. I would still like to know how it was possible for Noah to gather animals from all around the planet to put them on the Ark, given that we had a decided lack of monorails or cars at that time, and he would have had to walk or go by horseback to do so. That seems awfully suspect to me. Maybe he was some supremely talented Horse Whisperer or Dr Doolittle type who could talk to the animals and called them up on their cell phones to invite them to the Ark or risk their own death. And even if he did gather most of the species of animals, there are now so many variants of animals found all over the planet. If the great flood caused the continents to separate, did Noah go around placing these animals on every continent afterward?? Or did he simply Fedex them around to where he thought they might need to go. I'm sorry, but the Bible just does not make a damn bit of sense in regards to how much of anything actually occurred, IMHO.
Comment by Other John — July 1, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
This is the crux of the problems with Christianity today. There are too many literalists out there reading every word of the Bible as the exact word of God, rather than taking the lessons and interpreting them for the lessons they teach.
If we are to believe in things like Noah and the Ark and believe every word, then what about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which says "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Hey guess what ladies? time to zip it in the church.
There's all sorts of great passages about stoning your wife to death if she's not a virgin at marriage, and cutting your arm off if it causes you to sin... and upholding ideals of slavery. You think people follow these verses as the word of god? I sure don't.
Too many literalists... that's the problem. The bastardize the bible to suit their own needs but then ignore the stuff that "doesn't apply to them."
True Hypocrisy in action.
Comment by scott — July 1, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
I agree OJ, you honestly dont know.
First, it is necessary to note that Noah was not told to gather the animals. He was commanded only to build the Ark, large enough for all the animals, and simply receive the animals when they arrived. "And of every living thing of all flesh, . . . two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive" (Genesis 6:19-20).
They were guided to the ark by the Lord's will OJ... not by the rocks and gas that they evolved from in the first place (snort).
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 1, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
"The absense of one explanation..." from a VT Hokie
Really? The absense?? Maybe we should just ask VT Hokie to explain everything to us. Why should we have to learn from anywhere else?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 1, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
Thanks for clarifying Mark. That still sounds pretty magical and amazing though, and not very plausible. What kind of timeframe are we talking about for this anyway, and I'm guessing that on the way to the Ark, God commanded the animals not to eat each other too, right? (I honestly have an easier time believing that Noah globe-trotted and personally collected the animals, that at least is physically plausible, though not highly likely) Still doesn't exactly answer the problem of how the animals got dispersed back around the planet afterward...because if the flood pushed the continents apart, as Creationists claim, then how exactly did the animals get everywhere they are today? The Ark landed in one spot...did they first travel the globe stopping at each landmass letting off a select few animals everywhere they went? Or did God just will them to be where they're found today? BTW, these are the same questions I had when I was a kid, about 10 years old, and I was treated rather rudely for asking such questions because I dared to question what was in the Bible. I was only seeking to understand why it didn;t make sense to my young 10-year old brain, and thus far no one has really managed to give me a satisfactory explanation. Nearly 2 decades later, I'm still looking for an answer that doesn't involve some sort of hocus pocus.
Comment by Other John — July 1, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
Mark...I had no problem finding the jellyfish crop circle story...it was on the same site as your "this proves evolution is wrong" site! I'm sure I can find some Bermuda Triangle stuff there too...Maybe even a Carson/Zsa Zsa clip! All equally fairy-tales....except maybe the Bermuda Triangle, which has far, far more scientific documentation than the ark tale.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 7:07 am
They were guided to the ark by the Lord's will OJ... not by the rocks and gas that they evolved from in the first place (snort).
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 1, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Wow..so....God is like the Great Dog Whisperer in the Sky.
If only the proponents of this sort of theory realized how it trivialized God.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 7:09 am
Youre right again OJ!! It is very amazing that the Lord created the animals in the first place. Therefore, I would venture to say that He wouldnt have any problem gathering them together very quickly or distributing back out very quickly either.
Hocus pocus = a phrase we give to something happening that we do not understand or know how to explain, not even in the slightest.
So how did granite come to be? Where did matter and energy come from in the first place? Would a formerly (or still) 10 year old brain still explain that away with 'Hocus Pocus'?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 8:01 am
Speaking of triangles, imagine a map of our Solar System, Kristen, that has one big triangle drawn around the Earth. Can you believe all the weirdness involving life that has happened inside this triangle? Say, how come other planets dont have those triangles? It has been (yawns) scientifically proven that other planets could have sustained life in the past as well, yet there is no evidence of that either. Say, how come its only this planet that was 'chosen'?
Say, regarding the mutations of cells needed to 'evolve' to a complex organism such as ourselves today. You do realize that even the *best* scientific evidence that shows the age of the Earth doesnt show enough time to have passed to allow those permutations to occur right?
Say, how come other *animals* havent evolved to even as simple as a level as one that would write things down to record their thoughts? Just one, one *animal*, humans have.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 8:11 am
Kristen, I thought you said those clips were real and you were laughing at others because you were not aware that there wasnt a soul in this country that hasnt seen them?
How come its now a fairy tale?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 8:14 am
Well Mark, seeing as how none of us were around back then, I would have to venture to say that we'll probably never conclusively know without a doubt. What I do know based on my lifetime of observation is that all the questions I asked with a genuine desire to figure them out have been answered in a fashion similar to how you have, which is to say they were done with a smug attitude and condescending tone of 'boy you're dumber than a box of rocks to not know that god does it all.'
All the resorting back to 'God willed it' is not a sufficient explanation to me (if he can will so many great things, what's up with all the war and genocide...why doesn't something change with that? Seems to me God is, at best, a completely random notion based on what is attributed to God doing or not doing). Throughout time and human history, thousands of things penned up to God's will have been explained using physical and natural laws and been replicated or otherwise observed to be true. Simply accepting the magical notion that God willed the animals off the Ark and around the globe (how is it that they crossed water some thousands of miles wide...oh, right, God did it) may work for you and millions of others, but it doesn't for me.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 8:21 am
This article from 2001 (http://www.geologynet.com/granite1.htm) goes into a lengthy discussion of two theories of the formation of granite, in keeping with an old Earth and "evolutionary" processes.
"In general, two feasible theories resulted. One, known as the magmatic theory, states that granite is derived by the crystal fractionation of magma. The second, known as the granitization theory states that granite is formed "in situ" by ultrametamorphism. There is evidence to support both theories and current thinking is that magma forms from both processes; in many instances, from a combination of the two."
In 1988, Richard Wakefield wrote an article dealing with Gentry's claims: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm, and I found this: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/saga.htm, which is a response from Wakefield to a response from Gentry. I'm running out of time this morning to see if there is additional information available, but just know that the information that MM provides above has been addressed. It's not the insurmountable problem that creationists really, really want it to be.
Comment by Rob Miles — July 2, 2009 @ 8:44 am
OJ, try billions of others... seems that throughout time, there has been billions of people who have felt that *will* inside their bodies and believe.
You seem to be a very rational person, you even mention a VT degree hanging on your wall, so you are obviously very, very educated. Suppose we create a virtual world where people, by our bidding, are placed into a 'world'. They may never get to sit down with a cup of coffee to discuss who 'we' are or where 'we' come from right away. We could make things happen in that world that would be oblivious to the inhabitants. We could implant a 'seed' to a select few that 'we' get to know more personally and allow them to spread the message of 'us' to everyone else and that those who truly believe in 'us' would be granted an opportunity to 'live' forever. It certainly is 'our' world so we could do anything we wanted. The inhabitants certainly are allowed to question where things come from and hopefully the message that 'we' sent to them will answer their questions and give them hope and comfort. The inhabitants invent war, genocide, and bad hairdos but 'we' try to give them comfort knowing that it will not always be that way.
From even some of the earliest times, suppose 'we', the creators, didnt exist and the inhabitants created the whole story about 'us' and formed a 'bible' based on it. How could such document, elaborately well written back in such an early age of humanity, sustain itself for thousands of years? How many other books, literature, recordings have existed for so long and are a part of a billion person's lives today?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 8:56 am
Rob, UFOs, Bermuda Triangles, telekinesis, and ghosts, also have many *theories* and 'scientific evidence' to support small parts of each one.
From the first article you mentioned...
"An interesting question in magmatic evolution of granite batholiths is how is the immense amount of country rock removed to make room for the batholith? Various mechanisms have been proposed: massive explosions removing the country rock; formation of ring dykes and couldron subsidence; lifting of the country rock and subsequent erosion; and digesting of the country rock as the magma rises. Not one of these would adequately explain its removal on its own but rather it is more likely that all of these occur at some time or other."
It is more likely that all of these occur at some time or other.... hmmm real hard scientific evidence there.
"The local thickening of the crust provides a sufficient rise in temperature at depth for crustal melting to occur. This may rise in several different ways to produce granite. Experimentally, it has been proven that granite can form by remelting of the crust; however, it has also been shown that the temperatures and water concentrations at depth might not be high enough for remelting to occur (Brown and Hennessy, 1978) unless magma from the mantle influenced in some way.
When this theory is applied to subduction zone areas, remelting of the underplated crust will not occur because of a lack of heat and volatiles."
"It may also explain.." It may??
"Lochenbruch(1968) suggests that although this may occur, it is impossible for granitic melts of such origin to be homogenous. However, other authors have argued that homogenization can occur fairly easily (e.g. Talbot, 1971)." Fascinating... no one can agree on how a rock is made?
"In terms of classifying granitic magmas according to their origin, Pitchers (1979) classification scheme is probably best." Probably?? really??
and check out the closing statemnt of this long article and waxes and wanes as much as the moon...
"The origin of emplaced granitic magma is diverse and mechanisms used to explain its emplacement varied. As techniques for studying granite become more refined, a greater understanding of them will result."
Thats an amazing wrap up there... Im not sure if the author believed anything he had just written at this point.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 9:18 am
"Maybe he was some supremely talented Horse Whisperer or Dr Doolittle type who could talk to the animals and called them up on their cell phones.."
Gee, OJ, if you think I have a condescending tone and a smug attitude what would you call what the above quoted chap has?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 9:25 am
"Say, how come other *animals* havent evolved to even as simple as a level as one that would write things down to record their thoughts? Just one, one *animal*, humans have." - Marked Man
Why does it have to be that in order for evolution to be real that everything would have evolved into a similar thing or would at least have evolved with a couple of similar traits/abilities?
"They were guided to the ark by the Lord's will OJ... not by the rocks and gas that they evolved from in the first place (snort)." - Marked Man
Yes indeed. All of a sudden just two of each animal in the world (except for the unicorns
)got up and marched obediently to the ark....very reasonable. Even if I did believe in the will of God, that seems a bit too much. If those types of thing really did happen, how come we don't see them happen today?? In current modern times you simply won't hear anything as outrageous as people believe and follow blindly from the bible...why?
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Yes, it's much harder to believe than believing that two tyrannasauri, cats, and parakeets wandered onto a boat at some point and kept eachother company until the earth "dried up".
Basically, the "God made it happen" is only going to apply to a smaller and smaller list of events as scientific investigation succeeds in explaining more and more about the origins of ourselves and the earth. What happens to God then?
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 9:33 am
My apologies Mark. My quip about how the animals got on the Ark certainly has the same ring of implying someone still has the mind of a 10 year old. I'm going to go watch Scooby Doo re-runs and eat my Oreos now, and try not to spill my sippy cup of apple juice.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 9:39 am
HCS, have you ever heard the Unicorn Song by the Irish Rovers? If not, you must find a way to listen to it.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Kristen: we become like Sweden!
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Just found it and listened to it OJ. Wow, how appropriate to our conversation here! Poor unicorns...
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 10:23 am
OtherJohn...they'll never get me to eat lutefisk.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 10:25 am
Perhaps if we believe that 10 year olds drink from sippy cups then believing that God created life, and could certainly place things where He wanted shouldnt really be that far fetched should it?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 10:28 am
HCS, I know. They at least saved the humpty-back camels though.
Kristen: me neither, bleck!
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 10:31 am
No I suppose not Mark. I'm guessing by the same logic that if someone were to call a spell or a hex, that would also work too, or does this only work for things done by Christians? It's not just that I don't believe in Christian explanations for how things came to be, I doubt anything that would require me to suspend my rational thinking to accept as truth, or would have me believe in some unseen supernatural force, God, universal energy, Chi, or whatever to make it happen. I guess similar to the guy in the bar scene of Star Wars, I've got a death sentence in 12 religions...that is if I believed in any of it.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 10:44 am
I wasnt being condescending OJ when I said that. Condescending would be implying that others who do not believe what you do are idiots by making wild statements (animals using cell phones, although you would think evolution wouldnt have picked out only one species to manufacture them?)
Condescending would be calling someone out apart from the whole country and asking Wow, i cant believe there is anyone that hasnt saw those Carson clips?? Where have you been? Living under a rock?
I was simply implying that if we go through our lives trying to comprehend what we couldnt understand when we were 10 years old, then how are we ever supposed to intellectually advance? I didnt know precisely why the sky was blue, what causes different types of clouds to form, what asphalt was made out of, why people said concrete would never be dry... I learned the answers to each of these based on what someone else told me and I felt inside that they were telling me the truth. I didnt need to be able to create those things myself in order to explain how they come about. I trusted (sometimes) a complete stranger's word to explain how they came to be.
Do I believe that diamonds have been created in a lab? Do I believe atoms could be split? Do I believe that someone can list what the interior of the sun is made up of? Sure, even though I've never done it myself... or stood and watched the entire process. I believe something i've never seen before....based on what someone else has told me.
Do I believe that a man could build a large ship and that God could will/pick up and move/transport all animals to the boat and have them coexist peacefully together for 40 days? Sure, even though I've never done it myself... or stood and watched it happen. I believe something I've never seen before...based on what someone else has told me.
We could try this from your perspective... Do I believe that all matter and energy could come from nothing? Do I believe that a life enabling protein could come from said nothing and evolve millions of times (in a relatively short period of time) to the organisms we have today? Sure, because nobody can explain it to me???
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 10:50 am
The thing is Marked, there are witnesses to our scientific discoveries, documentation in video, photographs, demonstrations etc. etc. But really whose word are we betting on if we believe every word of the story of Noah and the Ark...Noah's? Well, in that case, I have figured out how to fly through the will of God...you haven't seen it, you haven't done it...but you should believe me right?
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Ohh and not to mention beiing able to recreate and demonstrate over and over the scientific knowledge/abilities etc. that we have....Marked, care to recreate Noah's ark for us?
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Mark, I was taking a point from the great Rush Limbaugh in demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. I know full well that cell phones and monorails did not exist in the time of Noah, and it also seems equally absurd to me that God simply willed everything to happen and the only 'proof' of it happening is a book of oral stories written down some 2600 years after the fact and that plenty of scientific evidence exists to disprove the Biblical accounts thereof. If believing in that brings you a better quality of life and helps you to live a better life, then great. It just does not work for me.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 11:20 am
This is all only my own humble and to many, worthless opinion but I think that if you require proof in order to have faith, you have no faith. If you require faith in order to have proof, you have no proof. When you consider that the Bible, Qu'ran and Talmud were written by men, edited by men, archived by men, controlled by men and even apparently parts destroyed by men, you can easily see that taking it all literally would be a mistaken use of your free will and make you a false servant of your faith. There is too much of man's projection onto God and into "God's plan" for absolute, literal, inerrant belief. However, there are vast amounts of very divine, comforting and righteous guidance available in all of the Holy Books. Man may condemn you for not believing every word, God will only condemn you for missing the point of the whole. I do not condemn science or faith that I do not understand. I completely and freely condemn science or faith when one is used against the other. I know enough to know there are things I do not know and I believe there are things I cannot know.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 2, 2009 @ 11:20 am
I believe you HCS, in fact, believing that the will of God is responsible for many things on Earth, including flying... psst which, although I have never flown myself, I have seen people fly before... and land... and circle a runway. You should get out more often.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 11:21 am
There are no photographs of Henry the 8th or Charlemagne. Somehow I don't equate believing they existed to believing the ark myth.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 11:22 am
#57 how do you know that HCS, because someone told you so or have you recreated the process showing what elements make up the sun?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 11:23 am
I suppose I should have been more clear...I mean I fly without the use of a machine..I flap my arms. Sound silly? I would assume that it does to some. But I am sure you do believe me.
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 11:26 am
OJ can you then improve my way of life by explaining where matter and energy originated from then? How was life definitely first formed?
I have a belief which explains how these things have occured and i feel it deep down inside.
Are you saying you just dont have a belief because another guy/gal hasnt told you how matter is scientifically created? Suppose someone tells the world that they successfully created matter and energy... do you believe right away? Do you wait until a certain percentage of people/scientists also believe and then you decide to because they decided to? Do you build a lab and recreate everything yourself so you can definitively know? How will you know OJ, how will you... know?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 11:29 am
HCS...you can flap your arms all day long and no "will of God" will get you airborne.
The will of people like DiVinci and the Wright Brothers and hundreds of other inventors and physicists is why we can "fly". And, really, we're not flying. We're sitting. The plane is flying. And last I checked, mechanical entities weren't part of God's purview.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Kristen, surely you jest!
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 11:41 am
#61 Why Kristen? Because someone wrote down that they existed, and noted things they accomplished? And that document was passed down generation after generation...??
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Mark, it probably would not matter for you one way or the other, and to be honest, however we got here does not change my life one bit either (neither would a lot of things, but that's been covered in other discussions). It would answer some questions, though, that I've asked for a long time without getting adequate answers. I would probably believe that they created it if they could successfully re-create the events and circumstances of their experiments and document their methodology and results and provide this for people to see. I don't blindly accept what scientists have to say unless they can factually replicate it or otherwise conclusively prove it (hence my reluctance to accept Global Warming as fact). If they can't, all they have is a theory not dissimilar from any Biblical theory that hasn't been proven, but may or may not have physical or anecdotal evidence to support their positions and theories.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Technically, your arms wouldnt make you fly, the lift created by the air around them would. So i retract what i first said, now i just cant believe you.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 11:47 am
I think what is being missed here is that too many people who do not choose to believe the Bible are trying to explain things through the physics and the science that is known today which is a minsicule percentage of the total knowledge of everything.
So, that said, when you cannot fathom the power of an omnipresent being such as God you can't begin to understand how long dead bones could be made again into flesh, or how somehting like the earth or the universe could be created in 6 days. You try to explain it on the physics and science that you know but you don't know the power of God. No one does.
So it gets down to faith and belief. Darwin was proved quite wrong on alot of things. Even he did not explain where life came from.
I believe in the Bible and it is not because I am a quack and it is not because many of the events mentioned in it have been proven to have occurred and are true. I beleive in it because I choose too, because it does make sense to me, and scientists have come up with little to dissuade me.
I believe. Whenever all of us meet our maker I guess that is the time you discover the ultimate truth.
Bob
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
So God willed the air the lift me as I flap my arms. What's so hard to believe about this?! Obviously this makes perfect sense.
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
"So God willed the air the lift me..." Huh?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
MM: "OJ can you then improve my way of life by explaining where matter and energy originated from then? How was life definitely first formed?"
According to the Big Bang Theory, all energy (including the matter that came from that energy) was contained in the singularity just prior to the bang (and yes, I know that, according to the theory, time also started with the Big Bang, so it's difficult to talk intelligently of a time "before" that event.)
This is not incompatible with the various multi-verse theories, either.
We don't know how life was *definitely* first formed; it's still being studied. Fortunately, the scientists who study these questions are typically not content with "god did it, let's go have a beer", and so are prepared to continue the study.
You asked OJ (and I imagine you were doing your best William Shatner impression when you did this) "How will you know OJ, how will you... know?" For us lay-people, we do have to carry a certain amount of trust regarding the answers we get from the scientists. We have to trust that the scientists are telling the truth about their findings, that other scientists who work to verify the findings are telling us the truth about their findings, and that the scientific community will continue to study even those areas that they think they've answered, because data they receive in the future could change, at least in part, the answers they've already given.
Of course, trust is different from faith, isn't it? We can trust the scientific community, and the scientific method, because it has a long track record of giving us the best means of discovering the truth about our universe. We don't know it all, but our understanding grows with each and every day.
Comment by Rob Miles — July 2, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
"We can trust the scientific community, and the scientific method, because it has a long track record of giving us the best means of discovering the truth about our universe."
I.E. Global warming, sun revolving around the earth, earth being flat, trepanation...???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Treveris_-_engraving_of_Trepanation_for_Handywarke_of_surgeri_1525.png
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Is it not true that the Big Bang *theory* does not provide any explanation for an initial condition of matter and energy, rather, it attempts to describe/explain the general evolution of the universe since that instant?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Marked man,
You forgot the moon being made of cheese!
To those who don't believe in God (or say that they don't) I steal an idea from Bill Cosby: If you are on a plane that has failed and you are going down, why are you looking upward?
There is so much that is unknown. Didn't they say the titanic sank in one piece?
Somewhere out there I have seen a picture of a piece of straw that was hurled by a cyclone so fast that it actually went into a piece of wood. Physically impossible the scientists say, wood is harder than grass. Yet, the picture is true.
The power of God is the power to create the laws of physics.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
"So God willed the air the lift me..." Huh? - Marked Man #72
Ok. So it does make sense to you that OJ, myself, Kristen etc. had that exact same reaction when you said that God will the animals to do everything they did?
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
No im sorry that quote you and I referenced still doesnt make sense, try rereading it
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Trepanning is a precursor to cranial surgery done today. Holes are drilled in skulls to relieve cranial pressure regularly, and evidence from ancient corpses show the (basic) same procedure performed successfully for thousands of years.
How that relates to pre-heliocentric universe thought, I don't know.
"#61 Why Kristen? Because someone wrote down that they existed, and noted things they accomplished? And that document was passed down generation after generation...??"
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 11:41 am
I think both DiVinci and the Wright brothers have left enough of a papertrail, both individually and by way of contemporaneous collaborative material - that I can believe in them without having to resort to "faith" in order to do so.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
MM: "I.E. Global warming, sun revolving around the earth, earth being flat, trepanation...???" (In response to my saying we can trust the scientific community and the scientific
I'll grant that trepanation was pretty horrid as it was practiced centuries ago, but it serves to illustrate my point of how the scientific community continues to strive for answers and learn from the past. And it wasn't all bad; forms of it are used today though it goes by different names.
I'm probably closer in agreement with you on Global warming (or "climate change") than you know, but I don't think either side of the argument can make a compelling, drop-dead case at this point. I do trust that eventually the facts will be known, and that it will be the scientific community, not the religious one, that finds them.
But are you seriously going to bring up flat earth and geocentric universe as indictments against the scientific community? The ancient Greeks were the ones who first determined the Earth is round, and though they thought the Universe revolved around the Earth, it was science that eventually proved that was wrong. Again, the scientific community forwarded our understanding of the Universe, not the religious community.
Comment by Rob Miles — July 2, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Re: 73
"Of course, trust is different from faith, isn't it?"
Oh really? How?
"We can trust the scientific community, and the scientific method, because it has a long track record of giving us the best means of discovering the truth about our universe."
The only way you could even know this in part, granting your system, is if it were the conclusion of applying the scientific method itself. I can "trust" you are being honest about your research here, right? You can demonstrate this, by science, that is?
"We don't know it all..."
But you must first assume you in fact do "know it all" in order to say "We don't know it all," and especially, God does not exist.
Re: 46
"Yes, it's much harder to believe than believing that two tyrannasauri, cats, and parakeets wandered onto a boat at some point and kept eachother company until the earth "dried up"."
That tyrannasauri, cats, parakeets, and rational human beings all came from millions of years of rain pouring down on inorganic, irrational, impersonal matter, which came from itself just seems self-evident, doesn't it?
Re: 45
"In current modern times you simply won't hear anything as outrageous as people believe and follow blindly from the bible..."
Oh, sure you will HCS; it's called evolutionary naturalism...you know, the view you espouse.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
MM, your post #75 as far as I can see is scientifically accurate in every way. Maybe there's hope for you yet.
Comment by Ed H — July 2, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Kevin, drop an egg. You don't have to have faith that it will hit the ground and break, but you can sure trust that it will. Whether or not you have "faith"...isn't relevant. You don't need "faith". Trust is born out of experience and knowledge. Faith is rooted in....well, you tell me.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
EdH #82... right but it doesnt answer where matter and energy came from... that post from Rob was just a persons long elaborate theory on what would have happened after the fact. I guess neither of us can prove to one another how matter and energy were created.
Some choose to believe papers that men have recently written describing how it may have happened... i choose to believe papers that men were guided to write telling us how it did happen.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Yes Kevin, evolution which is proven and does exist and happens now is just as rediculous as let's say a speaking bush that is on fire, the floating zoo, the parting seas etc etc.
Let's not forget that even in this creation museum it says that animals were given special tools to change...if that doesn't mean that those animals have evolved then what does it mean? It means that God gave them the ability...but it says that evolution does in fact exist. Even the creators of this rediculous museum say so.
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
MM,
And you were doing so well there, for a moment.
Of course science doesn't have "answers" to questions for which there is no evidence. Duh.
The point is, science has found answers to lots of things. Reliable answers, because they are based on evidence and reason. One of those things that science has found out, is that the Bible has no plausible answers to anything.
Comment by Ed H — July 2, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
I know I'm going to be harpooned for this, but it's something I've always wondered about. How exactly do we know that Jesus wasn't some crazy person spouting things he attributed to a connection to God that never existed? How do we really 'know' that he was really the son of God? We don't factually know, we have to take an awful lot of things on pure faith with that. I mean, you have to take it on faith that those people back in the day were inspired by God, and then you also have to take it on faith that what was written down well after the fact was the accurate representation of what was spoken. Plus, you have to take it on faith that what was spoken by the man exactly mirrored what was sent down by God. Plus, I assume you have to take it on faith that the translations of the Bible are accurate in their language conversions and that no parts of it have been edited, reformed, deleted, or added through the ages to suit any sort of political agendas of the day (which the Catholic Church has been shown to have done). Also, there's an awful lot of faith that has to be had to believe the stories in the Bible are true and correct, and not some long-passed tall tales from the desert that eventually made it to print a la an Aesop's Fable. I know some people have some awfully strong faith, and maybe that's why they can believe in these things as being true. About the only faith I have is that my car will start in the morning when I turn the key, and it has proven 99.86% truthful...and there's a solid scientific explanation behind why my car will or will not start that I can understand. BTW HCS, I have a Burning Bush, I talk to it almost every day when I check my rain gauge, but it has yet to speak to me. I have my hopes, and I give it plenty of nice organic fertilizer and plant food to try and encourage it. Perhaps one day. On a larger note, I do not say these things to mock others or to poke fun at other people's belief systems. I only say these things to illustrate why I don't get it and why it seems too outrageous for me to understand. I've discovered that a few of the things I thought were not entirely accurate (I'm by no means a Biblical scholar, not by a very long shot), but even with that, no meaningful explanation has been provided for the revised explanation that makes a lick of sense to me. Science may not have all the answers yet, but all I get with religion, any for that matter, is a whole lot more unanswered questions and an extremely limited number of answers that don't make any logical sense to me.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Kristen,
Faith is rooted in belief.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
OJ - I wonder those same things. In fact one thing I've said for a while is why everyone seems to just simply say "oh yes, VIRGIN Mary. Of course!" I mean what makes perfect sense to me is that Mary umm had an 'oopsie'. I mean honestly, if a pregnant woman came up to anyone on this blog and said "I'm a virgin I swear! It's God's baby!" Would anyone believe her? No. In fact I'm sure there's quite a few on here that would've told her that "We all know where babies come from and if you don't then you're stupid".
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
HCS,
Are you saying that some evolution is part of God's plan?
Evolution must be awfully selective. Sharks are still the same they were millions of years ago. And the caelocanth.... (perhaps misspelled).
Becoming what God planned for you to be is not evolution, whether it is humans or another species.
Read some of the work of Louis Leakey who discovered the hominid fossils at Olduvai Gorge in Kenya. Even he knew he had not found a link to modern day man. "Evolution doesn't happen that fast" said he. Despite the immense fossil records, the fossil records don't support evolution at all. Take, for instance, the modern day horse. You can find ancient fossils of related precursors, but you can't find a fossil record linking those ancient precursors to the modern day horse. One ought to be able to connect the dots if evolution is what happened don't you think? Interesting isn't it?
But that part of the evidence is somehow left out of the "science" of evolution.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Re: 83
"Faith is rooted in....well, you tell me."
Your faith is rooted in the dialetical tension between the belief that cosmos is ultimately irrational and the product of chance happenstance on the one hand; and the belief that the cosmos has the necessary rational order and regularity, the law-like-ness to be for us to predict that events of the future will resemble evenst in the past on the other hand.
Moreover,then you use the later belief to assert that our brains are the product of the content of the former belief.
So, your faith is rooted in the irrational. The great thing, Kristen, there is another way.
Re: 85
"Yes Kevin, evolution which is proven and does exist and happens now..."
This is good to hear, your confidence assures me that you'll have no trouble offering proof that something came from nothing-nothing and since "evolved" into the rational, personal, purposeful, meaningful, paradoxically disposed royalty who wrote # 85.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Other John, you do not deserve to be harpooned for an honest an open expression of what you think and why. You have many valid points and even as I have faith in God, I have not so much in man and will freely grant what you say to a large extent as far as the Biblical stories and purported historical happenings. I am willing to concede that Jesus was not "the son of God" even; because it also seems a projection of man to me. Having a true and deep devotion to language and what words communicate, I find that so much of the New Testament teachings seems to be extolling us to look beyond man and church leaders to seek the true faith and service. The prose, if you will, seems more divine than man made (to me anyway), especially for the time they were written, and the lesson of that prose as well seems more divine than man projected. That is what I cling to. The details will be sorted out and while I may be wrong (as some are sure I am) I am willing to be judged ON my faith and not my use of it. Those who use their faith as a weapon or an excuse to harm and denigrate will rue the day, if my understanding is remotely correct. Like much else, we will never know or be able to share what we learn "after".
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 2, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Why can't people just live their lives? I don't believe in God, period and I don't see why other people believing is such a problem that needs to be joked about, chastised and otherwise dragged through the gutter. If people want to see a "creation" museum...good for them!
Comment by Danny — July 2, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
BobH....I agree that faith is rooted in belief. So to think something is true, do you have to believe it, or know it?
I think it was Jung who said he didn't have to believe God existed, because he "knew" it. But how can you know something that you can't prove?
As for sharks evolving, we don't know that there might have been some ancient shark iteration that did in fact evolve and now exists in another form. Much as scientists speculate that the feathers we see on birds today correspond with the scales on dinosaurs in ancient times.
Granted there are still "traditional" sharks swimming around, but I'm not sure what purpose would be served in their evolution as they're still pretty much king of their jungle. It would be like lions evolving...why bother?
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
OJ,
It may interest you to know that a large number of scientists have gone about the business of disproving the diety of Jesus, mainly through trying to scientifically disprove His resurrection (which to answer your question, is what made him the son of God). Just about everyone of them after examining the evidence and trying to disprove it came to the conclusion that the resurrection of Christ happened and was factual.
Not to go into a diatribe on 5000 witnesses who saw Him feed the whole crowd with a few loaves and fishes. You can't buy witnesses like that. Then the many who saw Him raise Lazarus from the dead. I could go on here, but I won't.
I have never claimed the Bible was the entire collection of God's intervention amd communicating with man. In fact, as you point out, the Catholic church actually decided what books would be in "the Bible" hundreds of years ago. That doesn't mean the books of the Bible are not God speaking through man, it doesn't discredit the books at all, but it does mean we don't have as complete a record as some would like to have. Like the gospel of Mary Magdalene for example. And who knows what books were discarded because they weren't books of the Bible that are now forever lost. James refers to one of those books in his books where he quotes a scripture but the scripture he quotes is not in todays Bible. That can only mean that it was a scripture in James day, and James' book was included in the Bible, but the scripture he referred to was not and perhaps editing was not done on that.
For me and for many, it isn't a proof of Jesus death and resurrection as a factual event that creates belief. It is a matter of belief of Biblical truth. Truth that the guards the Romans placed outside of His tomb did not lie. Faith that the hundreds of people who saw Him after He had been crucified were factual. Faith that He told us He would return and that we should love each other as He loved us enough to die for us on a cross.
My belief has been reinforced many times in my life. Where I asked for help from Jesus and got it. Not in the means of a visit by Him in his mortal form but by me turning to Him, asking for help, and getting it, and there being no other way circumstances could have happened as they did except divine intervention. I have had a son attempt suicide. He is now cured of his depression. I can only explain it via Jesus. And I could cite other examples.
I don't believe in conversion to God/Jesus out of fear that one is going to hell if one doesn't, or heaven if one does. I am not saved by good works, I am saved to do good works. There is an awful lot of good stuff in the Bible about how we all should treat one another and a great many of the worlds problems could be resolved if everyone followed the advice of the Bible. That being said, Satan is the "prince of this world" and does everything he can to convert us to his side. He even tried Jesus!
I don't mean to go long here, but I wanted you to know where my faith comes from, why I have it, why I believe in the Bible as the word of God, and in Jesus as my savior and the Son of God.
Bob
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
BobH, I am open to the possibility of a divine existence of some sort (maybe or maybe not God as Christians see him) making it all happen. But I'm also open the possibility that a divine existence in fact does not exist at all. What I am not open to is the argument that evolution does not happen at all whether at the hands of God or just at the hands of science.
The fact that some species have seemingly not changed doesn't change the fact that others have. Perhaps sharks have not had the need to change, I don't know specifically why one species has change and not another because I am not a scientist. But you can't simply say evolution doesn't exist because there is a species that hasn't changed. What about the rest who have?
"Becoming what God planned for you to be is not evolution" - BobH
Why not? Let's say that the changes that animals go through is in fact the work of God...why can it not be called evolution. They are still evolving from one form to another regardless of who or what did it or why.
I'd say those links between the horses or whatever may still be there and we just haven't found them yet...or maybe we did and didn't recognize it? Again, I'm not a scientist but the fact that there are related fossils tells a lot to me and it tells a lot more than religion does.
"But that part of the evidence is somehow left out of the "science" of evolution" - BobH
ALL of the evience is left out of the creation explanation.
Kevin
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/93309.php
and those are just a couple of many many things you can find to support science and evolution. You seem fairly certain of yourself as well...so since you asked for me to provide my proof, please provide proof for your argument as well.
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Sandi,
I am sorry to read that you do not believe JC was the son of God. I was under the impression you were a Christian but I was obviously mistaken.
I would not profess to be a Holy Roller and tell you you are wrong, going to Hell, etc. That would be judgmental and I would not do that. I do not care for any churches that use that fear to win converts. Jesus did warn about this and even told them that those who might even be doing good works in His name, He will say He does not know them at judgment time.
I was once a doubter too. I was once a believer that the Bible was a collection of Canterbury Tales. I had doubts about the resurrection. I am still growing in my faith but I don't doubt these things anymore.
We do live in a country which allows for freedom of religion and you are certainly free to practice yours (or none) free of any judgment from me!
Peace to you either way,
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
Kristen,
I know I love my wife. But I can't prove it. I believe in a good many things that cannot be in fact proven. All of us do. all of us have trust and faith. Every day you get into a car and drive you have faith that the person going the other way approaching you loves living as much as you do and is not going to swerve over and kill you. This is one reason why we have a hard time comprehending suicide bombers.
As I have said before, despite the immense fossil record, you would think connecting the dots of evolution would be relative simple. But it hasn't been done for any species that I know of. Either it is today what it was millions of years ago or it has a fossil relative but no link in fossil rcord to today (from this, to this, to this, to a horse). evoultion cannot be proven even if it is believed in.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
BobH,
"I am sorry to read that you do not believe JC was the son of God. I was under the impression you were a Christian but I was obviously mistaken"
I thought she was Christian, too. Specifically, Methodist.
I grew up in the Methodist Church. The Apostles' Creed is typically used during worship services as an affirmation of faith.
It begins:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord;
I would be surprised to hear that Sandi's beliefs have changed so quickly. It was only a month or so ago she mentioned being a member of the United Methodist Church.
Comment by Jack — July 2, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Kevin,
You would think evolution would be the easiest thing in the world to prove wouldn't you? But it hasn't been proven yet through the evidence.
They don't even have anything linking the modern day house cast to any other species. I could go on.
The dots aren't there.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
BobH, I know that your last post#97 was directed at Sandi but I'd like to respond to you likewise. I do not mean to diminish anyone's religion and I respect what you choose to follow and believe...I just enjoy a good discussion on it.
Peace to you as well.
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
"The dots aren't there."
Comment by BobH
Yes they are. You're just neglecting to connect them.
It is a truism, of course, that the fossil record is made up of dotted lines. Not every living creature gets fossilized when it dies. That doesn't excuse the mindless prejudice it takes to not follow the dots.
Comment by Ed H — July 2, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
God in Heaven knows how I would hate to disappoint either of you, but BobH and Jack, I stand by what I said. I believe we covered some of this territory when I mentioned my crisis of faith had led me to remove my membership from the church I was baptized in. I attend a UMC church, I am not a member of that church any longer. I most heartily believe Jesus was God's prophet and messenger on this earth, however the science of the virgin birth of a divine being is as incredulous as Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the Whale and many other of man's projections of God IMHO. I consider myself a Christian, in that I attempt to follow Christ not in that I believe every word, every man wrote and put into a Bible.
The Apostle's Creed also says "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" and "the resurrection of the body and life everlasting" 3 strikes!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 2, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
@Sandi: "...however the science of the virgin birth of a divine being is as incredulous as Noah..."
Hey... the media believes that a man has given birth twice...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6468144.ece
Comment by Jack — July 2, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
Bob:
Indeed, you would think. What's more is that it doesn't even need proof, it just "exists," remember?
As for the dots, I'd agree there too, but Ed has explained our problem well for us: "Yes they are. You're just neglecting to connect them."
Our question for Ed becomes: What must be the case in order for the particular sense-data to "connect" with either our reason or each other--how, in terms of atheism are we to find unity among all the diversity of experience?
I'm guessing the answer will be in the form of "It is just that way!" or a wave of the hand...two favorites.
Good observations, Bob.
Blessings
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
Re: 86
“One of those things that science has found out, is that the Bible has no plausible answers to anything.”
The final clause of the about sentence, “the Bible has no plausible answers to anything,” is obviously a absolute affirmative; and of course science, by nature of the matter, cannot provide the necessary means of absolute propositions. Therefore, you need to tone your conclusion down a bit or tell us how you know this, since science is not how you came to this conclusion. This especially, because according to you, we can know things only through scientific methodology.
What’s really funny is that philosophy, even as far back as the pre-Socratics, presented fundamental questions and paradoxes about the constitution of the natural order, questions which have to do with the possibility of scientific enquiry, that modernist scientism still has yet to even approach answering. You know, just trivial little things about physics and the nature of reality like motion, rest, the one and the many problem, and predication among many others!
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Other John:
You said, “On a larger note, I do not say these things to mock others or to poke fun at other people's belief systems. I only say these things to illustrate why I don't get it and why it seems too outrageous for me to understand.”
John, I truly believe this, and I truly appreciate the remark. While some of your statements are clearly reflecting a party-line rationale, I personally know that you’re not beyond reasonable dialogue.
It’s manifest that you are a man of facts, interested in knowing “factually.” I want to see if I can help with this. First, though, I’d ask a couple quick questions.
You ask the question, “How exactly do we know that Jesus wasn't some crazy person spouting things he attributed to a connection to God that never existed?” This may strike you strange, but as a Christian, this question is both simply incomprehensible on the one hand, and a good one on the other. It’s a good one for at least three reasons. First, if it’s not true that Jesus is the Son of God but “some crazy person” who sought to draw others into his delusion, then, as Paul said, “We (Christians) are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Corinthians 15:19). Second, I find it saddening that many Christians have adopted the soft-minded fideism that you present as the only alternative to scientism; they embrace the same faith vs. reason attitude unbelievers have.
Third, granting the gravity of the nature of the question, don’t you suppose the question would be more reasonable in reverse? “How do you know Jesus was some crazy person.” Now I know you’ve never said it like that, but is there a huge difference in the attitude one would have towards such a person and your attitude toward Jesus now? Admittedly, I don’t know you that well and we can’t live in each other’s heads, however, do you honestly think you would live your life in a relatively different way holding the belief that Jesus was a loony? Of course I’m not looking for an answer from you concerning these questions, I’m only hoping they might foster some deeper reflection.
I would ask you this, however. What is it that you know about Jesus that would cause this question to arise in your mind. That is, what “evidence” and “facts” have you found that would lead you to ask this? I suppose we could all ask ourselves the very same questions about ourselves and everybody else. But to do so without sound reasons, to me, seems to evidence that maybe some introspection is in order after all. And done often enough, maybe even a couch and a $100 an hour doodler wouldn’t be out of the question.
Back to your honest interest in facts. The quote from Paul above comes from a very relevant chapter for our discussion. It concerns the resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s rejoinder to the idea that Christians are the most pitiful people swings of the historical reality of the resurrection of the Son of God.
Allow me then to present you with a few facts that surround Jesus’ resurrection. These facts are well evidenced, accepted by even the most skeptical scholars who study the issue, and so do not assume the inspiration of Scripture. They are simply treating certain texts as we would any other historical document. These are:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. The tomb was empty.
3. The disciples sincerely believed that they had experienced risen Jesus.
4. Saul/Paul, the archenemy, was converted, and...
5. James, Jesus’ half brother and skeptic, was converted.
Now, we know that facts don’t speak for themselves, they don’t ‘know’ facts apart from an interpretive paradigm. So, what hypothesis do you think offers the most plausible accounting of these ‘facts’?
Blessings,
Kevin
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
"I consider myself a Christian, in that I attempt to follow Christ not in that I believe every word, every man wrote and put into a Bible."
Sandi, do you not realize that the same men who wrote all the theological propositions and claims of Jesus that you find unacceptable were the same men the recorded the Jesus' exhortations for social justice and ethics?
Fine. Supernatural claims aside, tell us, how is it that you know God the Ultimate Supernatural fact even exists? Granting your theology, you could just as easily be a Muslim or deist. Why even claim the name Christian?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
HCS:
National Geographic is a purely evolutionary in its research and reporting.
So, here is a counter argument of the same class: read the Bible.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
HCS:
Whoa, whoa, whoa! When you say, "The fact that some species have seemingly not changed doesn't change the fact that others have," is seems clear to me that you are insisting on microevolution. Well, if that's the case, good grief, you have no argument from me. I grew up in the dog business, and trained for 16 years, I know for certains dogs change...just not into horses.
Everything else you've said indicates you mean evolution in the sense of the explanatory theory of origins--metaevolution. Especially, since that is the topic of the thread.
If it's the larger theory you have in mind, then argue for it. However, when you do, don't point to Labs and Poodles, but to rocks, rain, and humanity, and "connect" those dots.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
BobH: "It may interest you to know that a large number of scientists have gone about the business of disproving the diety of Jesus, mainly through trying to scientifically disprove His resurrection (which to answer your question, is what made him the son of God). Just about everyone of them after examining the evidence and trying to disprove it came to the conclusion that the resurrection of Christ happened and was factual."
I don't know about OJ, but that would definitely interest me, if it were true. How about some links, Bob. Since you say there are a "large number" of such scientists, lets settle on... 20? Yea, 20 scientists who come from a field of study that's related to settling such matters as the diety of Jesus. I'd like to know their methodology in disproving his resurrection, and what evidence exactly made them decide that it was factual.
You don't have to provide any summaries or anything; just links will do. I'll read the information for myself. If 20 of this "large number" is too much, I'll settle for 10 (though that will take some of the force of your assertion away.)
BobH: "Not to go into a diatribe on 5000 witnesses who saw Him feed the whole crowd with a few loaves and fishes. You can't buy witnesses like that. Then the many who saw Him raise Lazarus from the dead. I could go on here, but I won't."
Oh, I hope you will go on just a bit, Bob. For instance, how do you know that there were 5000 witnesses of the bread and fish incident? How do you know that people saw him raise Lazarus from the dead? Do you have any other contemporary sources for such a claim, other than the Bible itself? Using the assertions in the Bible to prove that the Bible's assertions are true is circular reasoning, so I certainly hope you have something more than that.
Comment by Rob Miles — July 2, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
There is a large body of works debunking creationists' claims against Evolution at http://www.talkorigins.org. The site is an archive of the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup.
Another great resource in learning the facts about Evolution can be found at http://pandasthumb.org/.
Sandi, I for one applaud you for the intellectual honesty to look at the claims in the Bible, especially those surrounding the deity of Jesus, and to admit that those claims just don't hold up. There are some good teachings attributed to Jesus, and that is true whether he was a prophet or not, so that additional claim of being the "son of god" isn't necessary.
Comment by Rob Miles — July 2, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
I think it's sad that some people insist on total adherence to the less plausible ( by which I mean pretty darned unlikely) aspects of the Bible, to the detriment of the TRUE purpose of the Bible (New Testament anyway, which is a Christians main concern), which is to convey Christ's teachings.
In fact, I think it's interesting that Christ's teachings are left out of the discussion all together - in fact, ignored. Christ advocated feeding the poor, visiting with the incarcerated, healing the sick, housing the homeless...if one is aspiring to live as Christlike a life as possible, who cares how many fishes and loaves were handed out as long as hungry people were getting a meal?
Comment by Kristen — July 3, 2009 @ 7:54 am
In Response to Marked Man in number 15
The old Polonium Halo problem eh? Here's the major difference between your thinking and that of scientist: In your world, somebody presents a natural phenomena that seems to buck explanations for how things work. In this case you've got polonium halos in granite that don't seem to fit with any explanation of how they could be there. So, instead of doing some hard work to come up with an explanation that fits into what we know of a physical world, you leap to a conclusion that invalidates a hugely massive pile evidence that runs contrary world view you DESIRE to believe. There's an explanation for Polonium halos in granite, but I can guarantee that an accurate description of the phenomena is going to fit very well with with the same natural laws that allow you watch TV and that assure the apple falls down when it leaves the tree.
What you didn't mention in your treatise on Po halos is that the researcher who posited these claims, Gentry, also makes the wonderful leap of faith to conclude that the earth was created only about 6000 years ago.
If you are going to believe such things, then just say your faith requires you do so. It's not necessary to employ a spurious scientific claim to justify you faith in scripture...
Just to be sure, Marked Man, you accept the earth is 6000 years old right? Because that's what the researcher who published the Po Halo information concluded and that's evidence your putting forth.
BobH
There's lots of evidence for evolution. Huge, vast, deep, piles of it. It comes from geology,cosmology, biology, genetics, paleontology...
Sorry, I just don't think the christian holy book provides very good explanations for natural phenomena or, in the case of the old testament, a very good moral foundation either. I'd rather go with the evidence,
Comment by Mike Scott — July 3, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Kevin
In regard to this:
"Allow me then to present you with a few facts that surround Jesus’ resurrection. These facts are well evidenced, accepted by even the most skeptical scholars who study the issue, and so do not assume the inspiration of Scripture. They are simply treating certain texts as we would any other historical document. These are:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. The tomb was empty.
3. The disciples sincerely believed that they had experienced risen Jesus.
4. Saul/Paul, the archenemy, was converted, and...
5. James, Jesus’ half brother and skeptic, was converted.
Now, we know that facts don’t speak for themselves, they don’t ‘know’ facts apart from an interpretive paradigm. So, what hypothesis do you think offers the most plausible accounting of these ‘facts’?
Geez, these are FACTS? Dude this is a 2000 year old story told and retold with numerous translations, omissions and redactions. The resurrection stories aren't even consistent in the gospels. To answer your question, I think the most plausible hypothesis accounting for the so called facts you present is that the early Christians developed this mythology in the same manner that every religion develops myth: To try to explain an unpredictable world around them and to create a common core of belief. I'm sorry, but I require a little more proof before I call something a Fact. That's are more likely scenario than a dead person coming back to life or the same dead person talking directly to someone on the road to Damascus.
Comment by Mike Scott — July 3, 2009 @ 9:20 am
"I require a little more proof..."
Geez, Mike, what kind of proof would it take to satisfy you? Seriously, what method of proof would it take to convince you? Even the most sceptical scholars who study the topic (study, not just conjecture on the basis of their unargued bias) accept these as historical facts.
Please, if you would, offer any myth or legend that ever developed in under a decade.
Your response only illustrates your bias against Christ's resurrection, it doesn't excuse it. I'm not asking you to assume the inspiration of the Bible in order to acknowledge the facts, because each is independantly and attested to in period secular/enemy sources as well. Also, none of the events described in the facts above require you to step out of your naturalistic comfort zone. Was the War of 1812 mythological too?
The resurrection was believed and proclaimed by the original disciples, no time for embellishments.
Modernists were not the first to reject the resurrection. Obviously, from the beginning it has had its critics. None of the original sceptics pronounced mythological theories, rather they attempted to refute the historical resurrection. If myth, then simply pointing to an occupied tomb would have snuffed the Faith before it ever got of the ground. The tomb was in the same city where the resurrection was first proclaimed.
You claim to be so concerned with proof. What proof do you have for your mytho-hypothesis? And how does it account for any of the points I list?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 4, 2009 @ 12:47 am
"Sorry, I just don't think the christian holy book provides very good explanations for natural phenomena or, in the case of the old testament, a very good moral foundation either. I'd rather go with the evidence..."
Simple enough, right.
Your concerned about a "very good explinations for natural phenomena"? Have you every considered what exactly is assumed to be the case for any such explinations?
What independent (of logic) "evidence" do you have for the logical laws that must be assumed to explain anything?
Touching the Old Testament's ethics, whence came the Great Commands of Jesus, to "Love the Lord your God with all you heart, soul, mind, and strength; and you neighbor as yourself, but from the OT (Deut. 6, Lev. 19)?
Moreover, what system of morality are you using to judge the OT ethics? And, of course, I'm sure you have a good pile of evidence for this ethic of yours, right? What evidence is it that caused you to believe yours is better than its?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 4, 2009 @ 1:07 am
RE:#114
Just to be sure, he stated that humans have only been on the earth for about 6000 years... not that the earth is only 6000 years old, but hey nice try.
You also realize that your first two paragraphs offer nothing... except chiding me for making a valid scientific point that that shows granite and polonium HAD to be created in an instant. You mention that there is a valid explanation for how they got there, yet you do not bring it to the table.
Some will call my way of thinking weird... I believe there may be some parts of the bible that were incorrectly translated over time because its entirely possible that an ancient language may have used words or phrases that we do not use today. I do not believe that the earth was created in 6 days as we know the term 'day'. I believe that humans (not neanderthals) have only been on the earth for around 6000 years because there isnt any evidence to the contrary. I believe the earth itself has been around for millions of years, i would be a fool to think otherwise. I believe I could harvest my garden COMPLETELY 6 times in 6 days. How you ask? Well one year, on one single day, i could harvest my garden completely. Several years later, i could harvest my garden again completely in one day. And so on. 6 times in 6 days. No big deal. I believe that God created the earth. I believe that He created everything. I believe he gave it time to develop and evolve on its own. Time is a very relative term here because with God, there isnt anything known as time.
Well, now that you know what i believe, could you share with us your belief on how matter and energy were created?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 4, 2009 @ 8:01 am
Kevin...supporting my mytho-hypothesis in each of your posts..
I started to go on a long winded debunking each of the points but we'd just going back forth on an "how many angels can dance on the head of pin" argument. Not gonna change your mind and my mind, which started, which started where your's currently is, has already been changed.
I would believe that Christ was resurrected if a person I physically knew died. During the period of death, that person's death would be validated by the best empiracal evidence of proof of death such as brain monitoring, heart monitoring and, I suppose a general degradation of the body over three days or so. I would also test for chemical markers that are evidence from biological decomposition. Then on the third day, if the person came back to life, I'd want to see the indicators of life on the aforementioned devices and I would want to see if there was a genetic relationship between the resurrected person and person I knew.
Basically, Kevin, I would require the resurrected person to demonstrate that they were, in fact dead using all the knowledge and accepted physical evidence of what death is and I would require said dead person to prove by a genetic relationship that their resurrected body is the same as the previously dead one.
Apparently resurrection was easy back in the day even if the corpses had been dead for some time. (Matt 27:52) You know about that right?
Resurrection is extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof
Comment by Mike Scott — July 4, 2009 @ 8:59 am
Marked Man
Thank you for reply. I think you are wrong in characterizing Gentry's position about Po halo's. His assertion isn't about how long people have been on earth, it's about "instantaneous creation". Other creationists have different explanations that fit in your one week scenario. But here's the rub, you've focused entirely on an explanation that doesn't fit with a vast
amount of knowledge from scores of disciplines in science. I'm not particularly qualified to speak about Po Halides, but here's a source that is
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
I've already said or, at least inferred that I believe in naturalist and materialist explanations for the formation of the earth and I come to that position by education and experience. I've actually counted radioactive samples for a living. The math and physics that I learned in my educational pursuits actually matched the subsequent experience I had in counting radioactive samples. That is, the published information about radionuclides and the mathematical relationships that described their decay always.... always.... always were correct. Half lives never change, decay rates are fixed and in 12 years of counting samples, nothing ever was out of step with physics that said it would be so. The long history of acquiring knowledge that allows us to understand these processes are testable and repeatable? How is you assertion? If I adopt your explanation, how do I do the job I was trained for?
Comment by Mike Scott — July 4, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Sorry to burst your primordial bubble MikeScott...
"Thank you for reply. I think you are wrong in characterizing Gentry's position about Po halo's. His assertion isn't about how long people have been on earth" - M.S.
"What you didn't mention in your treatise on Po halos is that the researcher who posited these claims, Gentry, also makes the wonderful leap of faith to conclude that the earth was created only about 6000 years ago." - M.S.
these were your quotes, sir, not mine. Is Mike Scott a nom de plum for John Kerry?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 4, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Mike:
Let me see if I understand what your saying. Essentially, you are saying: If someone you had personal, immediate experience of someone who had died, and was demonstrably biologically dead for three days, and could be empirically verified as now alive again, then you would believe in Jesus’ resurrection.
Honestly! Do you think that this is sound in either the scientific or rational sense?!? Man X, at AD 2009, without any significant religious context, is resuscitated after three day, to die again; therefore, Jesus’ resurrection. Such reasoning reveals the tenuous nature of your disbelief. You must deny a distinction between resuscitation and resurrection...a critical distinction indeed.
Moreover, your rigors of ‘biological’ proof are not applicable to the five data I presented. Such strictures would preclude, for instance, geology, paleontology, and not least historical sciences. The facts under consideration are questions of history, not biology.
You claim to be all about evidence, but you have none to maintain your proposed myth hypothesis. This is special pleading.
At best, science can only vacillate between varying degrees of probability. Thus it cannot be used to ascertain an understanding of the world needed for making claims of possibility and impossibility. But, that is precisely what your statements intimate. So, according to your own standard, the strongest statement in respect to Jesus’ resurrection you’d be allowed is, “In naturalistic terms, the biblical explanation of the “phenomenon” of Jesus’ resurrection is improbable.” The humility of this claim is far different from your own remarks, and frankly, the claim is not a very big one at all.
Besides, since you can’t prove scientifically that your method of proof is either the correct or valid choice for investigating the data at hand, it only ‘evidences’ the naturalistic bias you bring to the evidence; it’s not a scientific objection, but a philosophical one.
The fact that you, after asserting your ‘just-seems-so-to-me’ explanation, mythology, seek to exclude the data by means of evoking an irrelevant genre of scientific analysis demonstrates just how unscientific and disingenuous you are toward this question.
You rightly acknowledge that Jesus’ resurrection is an extraordinary event. Yeah, but isn’t that kinda the point? The fact is, when a Christian predicates the resurrection with “extraordinary” they mean something other than you do. In order for the revelational sign of the Resurrection to be what it was and is, it’s required to be extraordinary so to be recognized as what it is—the definitive in-breaking of God in Christ bringing redemptive history to its climax, and inaugurating a new age. Conversely, when you say “extraordinary,” you simply mean inexplicable by means of natural sciences operating on atheistic presuppositions. Sorry, but to be fair, I’ll not concede your position and attempt to work from your atheism in order to try to get us to Christian theism—that’s impossible because science and reason are themselves impossible on atheistic assumptions.
Finally, how about # 117? You seem to be a capital scientist, so I’m sure such answers are only an inference away for you. Please, do tell.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 4, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Marked Man:
"I believe the earth itself has been around for millions of years, i would be a fool to think otherwise."
Why do you say that?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 4, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Kevin Stevenson:
"according to you, we can know things only through scientific methodology."
That's not according to me. That's according to you: You are the one obsessed with finding some absolute TRUTH, and projecting your own inability to face uncertainty onto the rest of us.
"At best, science can only vacillate between varying degrees of probability. Thus it cannot be used to ascertain an understanding of the world needed for making claims of possibility and impossibility."
"of course science, by nature of the matter, cannot provide the necessary means of absolute propositions."
"What’s really funny is that philosophy, even as far back as the pre-Socratics, presented fundamental questions and paradoxes about the constitution of the natural order, questions which have to do with the possibility of scientific enquiry, that modernist scientism still has yet to even approach answering. You know, just trivial little things about physics and the nature of reality like motion, rest, the one and the many problem, and predication among many others!"
If these are your attempts to distract our attention from the fact that no other human mental activity is any better than science -- or even as good as science -- at dealing with imponderables, it's not working.
Comment by Ed H — July 4, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
"If these are your attempts to distract our attention from the fact that no other human mental activity is any better than science -- or even as good as science -- at dealing with imponderables, it's not working."
Well, it must have gotten your attention, Ed!
"no other human mental activity is any better than science"
Tell me Mr. Ed, did you come to know this by means of natural science?
Science gives us the microwave, and we give it god-like status. As Nietzche said, "'Wherever the tree of knowledge is, there is Paradise,' speak the oldest and youngest devils."
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 5, 2009 @ 10:03 am
Kevin
I suppose I should have also said that even if I did see a scientifically documented resurrection, I doesn't mean that one happened 2000 years ago. You've created a logical inconsistency in my response's logic that doesn't exist in my own mind, I can assure you of that.
You may wish to your confine your views to only historical events, but those events still have to be explained in the context of nature. You don't get a free pass for no evidence because they happened a long time ago.
Comment by Mike Scott — July 5, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Mike:
"I suppose I should have also said that even if I did see a scientifically documented resurrection, I doesn't mean that one happened 2000 years ago."
And I suppose you should have, yet that would have contradicted the entire point of what you were saying (evidently, that is not of great concern to you). I asked what proof you would accept, you offered it. Now in this post you are denying even the proof that you said would satisfy you! You unbelievers sure are good at hedging your beliefs, aren't you.
"You've created a logical inconsistency in my response's logic that doesn't exist in my own mind, I can assure you of that."
I created nothing, Mike. Your response is your own creation, don't try to shift the blame onto me. What do I have to work with but your "response's logic"? And it was there that the logical flop happened, not in my imagination. The logical inconsistency is yours.
The point is that your own reasoning on this issue is so unscientific and misological that you have no credible ground to exact it from others. Even if your silly standards were met, what you've said here demonstrates that you are not qualified to make a serious judgment on the matter.
Whether you like it or not, the data I set forth is historical. The fact that you are trying to wiggle around it makes my intended point. You don't really care about an even-handed analysis, your philosophical assumptions preclude any evidence that would lead to a conclusion that would conflict with your core beliefs. You, my friend, are a fundamentalist in your own right.
Now, I'll ask you again, how about # 117.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 5, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Marked Man:
"I believe the earth itself has been around for millions of years, i would be a fool to think otherwise."
Why do you say that?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson
Because Kevin, time is something that exists in our minds. Our scientific proof shows that the earth has went through many many stages, era, eons over time... time as WE know it.
If we can believe that God is our creator, the beginning, and the end, then why would it be so hard to believe that he could 'create' time as we know it as well? The earth and/or universe could be 7000 years old, 1.4 million years old, or 17 billion years old... it wouldnt matter, these are all measurements that only exist in our mind's perception of time. Suppose we had no sun... or suppose there were many suns.... we wouldnt have 'days' ... therefore we wouldnt have 'months' or 'years' either.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 5, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Marked Man:
I appreciate your responding, but frankly, it wasn’t very helpful in answering my question.
Again, you said: “I believe that the earth itself has been around for millions of years, I would be a fool to think otherwise.” The reason for my persistence is that I in fact do think otherwise (and of course I’m certainly not alone on this), which, according to you, would make me to be a fool. So, I hope you understand my consternation on this point.
In this last post you claim that “time is something that exists in our minds.” And that the postulated ages put upon the cosmos “are all measurements that only exist in our minds perception of time.” Both of these statements make time out as something subjective and experiential. I suppose I need you to clarify what you mean by time.
Elsewhere, you ask the rhetorical question, “Is it so hard to believe that he [God] could create time...?” as though I were questioning his ability to do so. I suppose that I too could ask, “Would is be so hard to believe that God created all that is, did it 7 to 10K years ago, and has the ability to communicate that fact propositionally to us?” Nevertheless, my point in contrasting your statements is to point out that you, on one hand, seem to be insisting that time is some arbitrary projection that only “exists in our minds” (i.e., a subjective construct); but, on the other hand, that time is something created by God (i.e., an objective reality).
This conflict is deepened when you rightly point to celestial bodies, like the sun, and “scientific proofs” (objective) in order to support your conclusion that time is something that exists only in our minds (subjective).
Admittedly, my question was enthymematic. I should have been clearer.
I’m sure you know the exegetical evidence that yom (“day”), in Genesis 1, clearly intends the idea of an ordinary day. Also, Paul insists that Adam’s rebellion is what brought death and futility into the world (Romans 5:12—13; 8:18—25). And Jesus’ belief that God “who created them (i.e., Adam and Eve) from the beginning made them male and female...” which is citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:18. (And he ought to know, John 1:1—3.)
In light of these observations, am I a fool for believing in a relatively late creation of the earth? Because, your time argument hasn’t convinced me that I am.
Thanks,
Kevin
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 5, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
Wow Kevin, i think you have some good points but you still arent arguing your belief very well either. You believe that on the first day, God created light and darkness (both of which could only be understood by a physical eye mind you).
If you know that a certain rock is 10,000-15,000 years old, and you believe that God created all things, then how can the Earth only be 6000 years old?
God created time in the sense that He made our earthly bodies and brains able to understand and comphrehend it. Do you think that there were 'days' that God did things before He began creating the earth? Or were days (in the 24 hours sense) only 'created' then as well?
I could certainly be wrong about all this and you may be correct, heck even both of us just may be wrong... but I'm sure glad to know we will have the chance to find out one fine day.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 5, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
Any truth to the rumor that the earth is round?
Comment by Blue John — July 5, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
No. That's just a Communist plot to make all these good Christian people walk off the edge.
Comment by Ed H — July 5, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Kevin I don't think anyone cares what you believe. You're free to believe the earth was populated by little green men, which I think is along the lines of what the Scientologists think.
The problems begin when individual groups want to see their own private creation myth taught - in schools- as a viable "alternative theory" to evolution.
Privately, people are of course free to believe as they wish. I'm sure you wouldn't care to see the Hindu or Buddhist myths taught in schools outside of a comparative religion class.
Comment by Kristen — July 6, 2009 @ 7:45 am
Any truth to the rumor that the atheist people here can prove how matter, energy, or light was actually created?
....Oh, without giving us 'proposed theories' of how it *might* have occured, like the responses to the formation of granite, polonium halos, etc.
Just hard factual evidence, please.
BTW Kristen, I care what Kevin believes. You know, you should try standing for something, otherwise you will fall for anything.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 6, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Kevin, as long as you dont believe those Carson/ZsaZsa clips floating around the Internet, that everyone in America has seen before, then I will respect anything you believe.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 6, 2009 @ 9:21 am
Kevin,
You've called me disingenuous, unscientific and a fundamentalist in my own atheistic sort of way. Just to make sure you understand my position clearly: I don't believe that your five historical points provide enough evidence that stinking, rotting dead person came back to life. I don't care if was three days or a Marked Man minute. You and William Lane Craig still have a lot of heavy lifting to do to prove that a historical account actually proves a biological impossibility.
I can't believe for a minute that you don't know much of the literature that relates to Christianity as a myth. It's freely available through numerous sources on the Web and I have desire to spend days arguing with you in this blog dissecting each argument. The last book I've read on the topic is Kerygma and Myth by Rudolph Bultman. I think this is a nice summary of his view:
"It is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all of our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such acceptance a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work"[4]
Comment by Mike Scott — July 6, 2009 @ 9:50 am
Marked Man
i"t wouldnt matter, these are all measurements that only exist in our mind's perception of time"
I've already mentioned that I have worked with radionuclides, specifically in the treatment of cancers. One common treatment for gynecological cancers is the insertion of an isotope of cesium into the cervix or uterus. This is called brachytherapy, which translates loosely to treatment from a short distance, and it's very effective at treating tumors that reside in those tissues. My job was to figure out how long that treatment should last. The dose of radiation is time dependent. Too little a dose and the tumor comes back. To much and the tissues dissolve and create a condition called a recto vaginal fistula. That's where the vagina and rectum actually become the same space because the septum that separates them dissolves. It's a horrific outcome for a patient.
Would you be comfortable having me calculate a treatment for your wife or daughter using your concept of time?
If it's just the same to you, I would like to treat your family, or anybody's family using a time system that's been proven to minimize terrible outcomes.
Comment by Mike Scott — July 6, 2009 @ 10:11 am
"Kristen, I care what Kevin believes. You know, you should try standing for something, otherwise you will fall for anything."
Gosh...that almost sounds like a country music song.
No, wait! It IS a country music song.
Comment by Kristen — July 6, 2009 @ 10:32 am
If you dont have that job anymore Mike Scott, i guess i wouldnt be comfortable with you calculating anything.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 6, 2009 @ 10:57 am
MM,
"Any truth to the rumor that the atheist people here can prove how matter, energy, or light was actually created?"
None whatsoever.
How many times do you have to be told this, Mark? Science does not waste it's time making up "answers" where there is no evidence to back them up.
Comment by Ed H — July 6, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Ed, in other words science cannot tell us where we came from? So we can create teflon but we cannot create energy huh? interesting....
Say, you have to wonder since we all evolved from a rock how come other species havent wondered these same things... created technology... built computers and the Internet and are bantering back and forth about them?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 6, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
"Say, you have to wonder since we all evolved from a rock how come other species havent wondered these same things... created technology... built computers and the Internet and are bantering back and forth about them?
Comment by Marked Man (mark)
Speak for yourself, Mark. I don't have to wonder about things like that, because whenever I want to know about something, I go look it up.
Comment by Ed H — July 6, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Ed,
You mean you dont wonder why out of the zillions to 1 odds that humans ended up the way we have in such a relatively short period of time, how come other species havent advanced as far as well? I mean, there are thousands, no millions of other species that have been around for longer that humans... what have they become?
Where would you look up that at?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 6, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Mike, you won't even skirt the historical evidence because you know that the biblical interpretation is the only way to account for it. And, again, your presuppositional bias can't allow for such a conclusion. There is too much at stake for you, epistemologically and morally speaking.
You said:
"I think this is a nice summary of his view:
"It is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all of our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such acceptance a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work"[4]"
Well, so did Wiki, from whence it came. Pretty scholarly there, Mike. I love it when you guys are driven to the copy-paste defense.
Nevertheless, I'm not using the five facts at all like Bill Craig would. My purpose in their use was to demonstrate that regardless of the "facts" or "evidence," you aren't really concerned with a neutral analysis. You've said that the world is "unpredictable," and now you "know" possiblity and impossibility...you know absolutely and universally. The fact is, though, you don't; unless you are God, and then we wouldn't be arguing about this, would we?!?
You have utterly no room for a God who speaks with absolute authority, because that is to challenge your own autonomy.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 6, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
Oh yeah, Mike, I almost forgot. For the forth time, HOW ABOUT # 117?!?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 6, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
After a self imposed sbbatical I am posting just this once on this:
Sandi, post 103, To be a Christian means that you believe that Jesus was the son of God. BTW the Apostles creed has the "catholic" church non capitalized. There is a reason it is that way... There really is no reason to follow Jesus Christ if he were just another prophet like Isiah or name your own. The Jewish faith does not follow Jesus. The immaculate conception is acknowledged by the Islamic faith as well.
Rob (post 111) Josephus also recounts the story of the fish. The Bible is not a book of historical record. That wasn't the purpose of its authorship.
Kristen (113) The New Testament is not just about Christ's teachings. He said I am the only way. He said said He was going to die so our sins could be forgiven. He that believes in me (Jesus speaking) will have enternal life. Don't just take part of it, take it all.
To all who have posted, this may sound wacky about the facts, but I will pose this to you: Do you believe the Civil War ever happened? Do you believe men walked on the moon? Do you believe Slavery ever existed in this country? I would bet the answer to all of the above is a resounding YES.
But can you prove the Civil War actually happened? No. You have to go by the evidence, by the written record, by the witness testimony of those who were there and endured it. You cannot prove it happened, but you believe it did based on the record left. Same thing with the moon and the same thing with slavery.
Why then, are you so quick to discount the Bible? It is much the same evidence that supports it. Much of what is in the Bible has been proven to have historically occurred. How can you now discount the witnesses that saw Jesus after He was crucified? That saw Him perform the miracles He did. Paul was not always a believer either, you know?
Do me a favor, and hold the same litmus test you do about the Bible to every other "historical fact" you can think of and tell me how many that didn't happen in your lifetime that you can prove.
The numbering of years started over when Jesus died. There may be a reason for that.......
Bob
Comment by BobH — July 7, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Marked Man (mark) #143:
Really, Mark. I only wonder about questions that have not already been answered. The ones you're asking are Evolution 101.
You honestly don't know how to look up information? You've never seen any of the innumerable links I've posted here to reliable scientific sources?
Read a book. Go to school. Subscribe to some professional journals. Download some of the biology lectures from iTunes U. Google.
Comment by Ed H — July 7, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Bob...
Even by your standards, comparing the occurances of The Civil War, Slavery or Men Walking on the Moon to the alledged events as detailed in The Bible is a bit over the top.
The Bible, among its many characteristics, is full of impassioned emotions. As we know, emotion and passion can create all kinds of events in the mind's eye that, to some, will become very real events.
Your belief in those impassioned emotions is something that you are free to do. Others, however, have not had the same experiences and consequently don't see the world with the same view that you might have. It doesn't necessarily make your view wrong nor their view right. As a matter of fact, it's not about a right or wrong view of religion...but how it hopefully provides a positive influence on how you interact with others.
I personally don't take every word in the Bible to be absolute. I contend that it was man's written interpretation of a set of events and emotions. Who's to say that their interpretation is anymore right or wrong than man's interpretation of events and emotions today?
Comment by Will — July 7, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
You raise a good point, BobH, perhaps better than you realize. The only thing historians can ever "prove" is how likely something is to have happened: the more documented evidence, the greater the likelihood. What documented evidence do we have for, let's say, the immaculate conception outside the Bible? Since it is the most unlikely way to conceive a child, based on all the evidence we have, historians would need mountains of evidence, but we have none except the Bible's report. Historically, there is no way to accept this as a probable event.
Theologically, it's importance doesn't seem to be supported by the record of the early preaching of the followers of Jesus as reported in Acts of the Apostles -- they never mention it. How could something supposedly that important to the basis of Christian faith and worship be ignored by those who were converting the first believers to the faith? Remember that these sermons are presumed to have been given prior to the writing of any of the Gospels, so the speakers could not have assumed that their listeners already knew the story.
I'm afraid your "litmus test" just doesn't hold up very well. And the numbering of years used in the common era wasn't adopted for centuries after the death of Jesus. There may be a reason for that....
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — July 7, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
#147
So Ed, i missed that link you provided showing how matter and energy is created... could you do a fellow man, who obviously evolved from rock and gas, a favor and supply it again?
Wait i went through your comments on this thread and i see no links provided at all... Perhaps you are talking about links youve posted here and there over the years but i dont keep a running accumulation of "Ed's theories which have not and cannot be proven." Sorry...
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 7, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Don't be sorry, Mark. You're not hurting me. Sorry....
Comment by Ed H — July 7, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Kevin,
Exactly what is at stake for me morally? Love to hear it.
As for my scholarship..the attribution is given to Bultman, I think you can clearly see that. Those are his words, and I included the quoted text as support of one scholar who suggests that Christianity has a mythological component.
To be honest, I don't think I have the patience to spend a whole lot of time with you on old testament morality. If you are really itch'n to debate with a whole bunch of people who will go on forever and ever...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Comment by Mike Scott — July 7, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Will,
You think slavery and the civil war have not generated impassioned emotions about how it is now viewed? Some people think that now Lincoln was a rascist but the South saw him as a slave emancipator. Many people are very passionate about slavery in this country and none of them experienced it. Can you PROVE it happened?
Bill, the immaculate conception is not nearly as critical to the Christian faith as the resurrection. The Roman world (at the time) still had its believers in mythology and many Gods and among that belief are countless stories of those Gods coming down to earth, taking on mortal form, and seducing human females and having human offspring. I am guessing that the account of the immaculate conception was left out of Acts in that it may have been hard for converts to grasp. They may have confused it with the common mythology of the time which would not have been what any disciple of Christ would have wanted. It is mentioned in some of the Gospels, I believe John is the only one it is not mentioned in as John begins at a different time frame in Jesus' life.
Bill, Jesus didn't command his disciples to go out and tell about the immaculate conception. He told them to tell of what He had done to make salvation possible for all mankind. That is what the Acts of the Apostles is about. We don't know that it was not discussed in their sermons, only that it was not recorded.
What do you do when you are trying to establish that something happened that you did not see for yourself? You talk to the witnesses of the event. If they are not alive, you read their account of the events. But for some reason, on the Bible, that isn't good enough.
Poke holes if you want. I would agree that there is enough in the Bible for a disbeliever to support their disbelief if that is the way they already lean. Just like 2 people witnessing the same traffic accident see it 2 different ways. Eyewitness accounts of the survivors of the Titanic had it going down as 1 piece and 2 pieces. The official report was 1. we now know it was 2. Poke all the holes you want. Many people saw Christ alive after crucifixion. I believe He was the son of God, come down from God to save me of my sins. As I have said, I am not saved by my own good works, that wouldn't be possible, I am too sinful. Instead I am saved to do good works.
Peace
Comment by BobH — July 7, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
"But can you prove the Civil War actually happened? No. You have to go by the evidence."
When I see photographs of a man declared dead, then up walking around 3 days later, I'll lend as much credence to the resurrection story as I give the Civil War. Fact is, there IS no evidence to any of these Biblical stories...just some people supposedly reporting about it 2000 years ago.
If I wrote an editorial to the RT describing an alien invasion of my backyard, would that qualify as 'evidence'? What if 5 different people wrote about little green men in Roanoke City...it would still be a tough sell.
Comment by Kristen — July 7, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
@Sandi "I consider myself a Christian, in that I attempt to follow Christ not in that I believe every word, every man wrote and put into a Bible".
I feel your struggle Sandi. I really feel that the New Testament, and Jesus, have a lot to say about the way we should try to live our lives and treat other people, with compassion. I am often inspired by an enlightening sermon on Sunday, that makes me want to be a better person, a better wife, and a better mother. But sadly I don't fit in at any church, even the one I attended as a child, because I struggle with the same questions as Other John, and I simply cannot muster the faith to believe that a child was born to a virgin, or that Jesus died and was resurrected three days later. I have a great admiration for the prophet Jesus, and try to live by his word, but I feel out of place because I can't get myself to believe in his literal immortality.
I like to think maybe that the story of his death and resurrection is a metaphor for his words and ideas living on in eternity, that even though the man is gone his teachings can still inspire us over 2000 years later. But I know that is not enough for me to be considered a true Christian by any church.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 7, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
You mean you still feel pain EdH? Im surprised that evolution hasnt weeded that emotion out of us? Look at the insects who do not feel pain and have been around for so so many years ... like the cockroach, who really hasnt evolved at all.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 7, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
VT Hokie...I don't think Jesus expected us to pass some random litmus test administered by some version of a Christian church. What you and Sandi describe is an effort and struggle lots of people contend with, which is also why so many non-denominational churches and non-traditional churches are growing today.
If someone's teenaged daughter today tried to make the case that they were pregnant yet still a virgin, they'd be unlikely to be believed. Why? Because virgins don't get pregnant. Nothing has changed in 2000 years. Recognizing that doesn't mean you can't love your neighbor, etc.
Comment by Kristen — July 7, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
BobH, I'm not saying that the Bible isn't "good enough." I'm simply following the argument you presented in #146. When it comes to the Civil War, moon landings, slavery, and many more historical events we could mention, no reasonable person relies on only one source to understand what happened, when, where, and why. As you point out in #153, even eyewitnesses can present conflicting versions of events, so additional evidence is often needed to determine the facts. Using your logic, the question is why the Bible should be accepted unquestioningly without further documentation.
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — July 7, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Kristen
How do you know who signed the magna carta? We are talking about an age when there was no photography and an age today where just about any photograph can be doctored (google Loch Ness monster pictures).
Do you know whether Oliver Cromwell ever lived? Do you know that Washington was our first president? Do you have photographs to prove it? nope, you don't. But you acknowledge that as factual.
I would suggest there is disbelief in the resurrection on your part to begin with and that makes it hard for you to view it objectively by the eyewitness accounts.
Bob
Comment by BobH — July 7, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Perhaps, BobH #159, but it seems abundantly clear that your belief is based on something other than historical documentation, which makes it hard for you to view it objectively.
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — July 7, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Mike:
“As for my scholarship..the attribution is given to Bultman.” I know who wrote the quote. Having “just read the book,” as you said you had, I just thought it was funny that your favorite quote came from Wiki’s page on him (BTW, the “[4]” foot note mark gave it away). And being the Bultmann fan that you are, you should do him the honor of spelling his name correctly. That’s twice now.
Nonetheless, here’s how your last argument looked: 1. I say myth; 2. Bultmann says myth, therefore, 3. resurrection is myth. Oh, my! You touch the point as with a needle! Whose faith can stand before the might of such an argument?!? Please. Bultmann was assuming the same atheistic existentialist paradigm you are today. Should we be shocked that you both draw the same naturalistic conclusion? You see, it’s not about evidence or science, it’s about with paradigm accounts for reason and science, naturalism or Christian theism? Therefore, I’ll ask for the fifth time...how about stepping up to the plate and dealing with # 117?!?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 7, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
OH kevin, stop it... i cant quit laughing now... that was a fine post and a very logical one too, seriously.
While you wait for Mike's answer to that nearly 2-score old post, I will anxiously await EdH's magic link that shows us how matter and energy were formed from nothing.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 7, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Thank you Kristen. It's good to know that some people understand. It's just hard sometimes. My sister is a very devout believer, and even though we can usually talk about anything, the one topic I avoid with her is religion, because I can't possibly explain how I feel without feeling like I'm putting down her faith. I know that faith guides a lot of people in their lives, and makes it possible for them to endure great heartaches. It does nothing for me, but I would never try to take it away from them. I think Other John's earlier post, along with Sandi's, was the closest I've ever come to hearing someone else express what I've been thinking and feeling for a long time.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 7, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Following Christ does not make you a Christian. It just means that you agree with some of His ways. Not only that, you are basing your faith on what YOU have done. A Christian has a personal relationship with Jesus. It has nothing to do with being good or bad. I've known winos who were able to articulate their relationship better then church deacons. A Christians is not justified but what he does or doesn't do but what God does.
Read the Prodigal Son parable to learn more about the relationship between child and Father.
Comment by Henry — July 7, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Bob...is there a picture of the magna carta being signed? No. Is there a photo of Washington? No.
But since the magna carta, things have been signed. Since Washington, people have been president.Since the Civil War, there have been civil wars.
Since the ostensible resurrection of Christ...no one has been resurrected. Since the ostensible "virgin" birth...no virgins have shown up pregnant. That something happens more than once makes the original more believeable.
Comment by Kristen — July 7, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Alas, as Henry just pointed out for me, merely loving my neighbor is not good enough for any of the churches I have attended.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 7, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Actually, in an earlier post I explained that I was not a believer. I have come to believe in the resurrection as factual (to me) and that was part of the conversion process for me.
There are many, many, provable documented truth's in the Bible of actual historic events. It is much more than a fairy tale.
Comment by BobH — July 7, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Why would a cockroach need to evolve? The purpose of evolution and natural selection is survival, and the cockroach has survived for millions of years (or, alternatively, 6000) just fine. What would evolving possibly do for the cockroach?
As for no other species having "advanced as far" as humans have...hop into the polar bear tank or lions pen at a zoo and explain to them that they're not as evolved as you are. Good luck. Once you're at the top of your food chain, much further evolution is sort of pointless. Check sharks.
Comment by Kristen — July 7, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Bob...
Re your post #153...I'd say the greater burden of proof is on you to provide concrete evidence that the Civil War or Slavery did not exist. But...I really think your arguments have faultered trying to use those examples of "blind faith today" versus "blind faith of biblical events".
But it won't be until I see all the folks who say the Bible is the end all be all living exactly as it says you should live by every book, chapter and verse that I will lend much of any credence to the document.
Until then...you believe what you want, I'll believe what I want and we'll all die just the same.
Comment by Will — July 7, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
Henry I've always found the Prodigal Son to be one of the lesser parables. All I got out of it was that it didn't pay to be good and play by the rules, because you could just as easily do whatever the heck you want and get away with it.
In my house growing up...the relationship between Father and child was "Do what the hell is expected of you or suffer the consequences". It's a mindset I've brought to parenting myself.
Comment by Kristen — July 7, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Ya know...I just had a magnificent revelation!
If indeed Christ was the product of immaculate conception and born of the Virgin Mary...so much for the tired argument that you have to have a man and a woman to marry in order to pro-create!
That means that the human race will continue whether Jack and Jill marry or Jack and John marry or Jill and Jane marry!!!
The marriage debate just ended right there!!!!
Comment by Will — July 7, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Marked Man re:#15
Yes a whale is a mammal. But if you would have read the Bible, you would know Jonah 1:17
Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
You may gotten your whale version from watching Pinocchio. Either way, one could not survive. Saying you could is just silly and is in the realm of myths and fairy tales.
Comment by MIke Pinder — July 7, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Mike Pinder, you've probably found that Christians often don't know what their own Bible says. My theory is that they can't read it while beating everyone over the head with it.
Comment by Rob Miles — July 7, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Thanks for your honesty and support VT Hokie, frankly this is a hell of a place to be honest and sincere on such a subject, but I only travel one road. The struggle is internal and eternal but I have faith in God and his judgment not the self serving judgment's man has projected onto him.
I may be wrong, but I will not face God with a false judgment on my heart.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 7, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
Mike Pinder, I am sorry people have laughed at your honest, humble and thoughtful commentary. This blog has some people who cannot make a point without insult. Lord knows, it is a struggle for me on some issues as well. Thank you for the effort to help those of us searching make sense of things and giving us food for thought. It gets deep in here often, only the big steamy pile is neither brains nor compassion on some threads.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 7, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
Will,
How do you prove somethign did NOT exist? Think about it. How do you prove that?
As far as the immaculate conception, you are aware that the Islamic faith also recognizes the legitimacy of that? I suppose the billion or so Islamic people in the world, as well as the Christians are wrong on that and you are right.
God chose to do this once. It hadn't happened before (although foretold much earlier in some Old Testament books) and it hasn't happened since. I wouldn't count on it happening again for the continued procreation of the human race. There is no scripture to support or foretell a second immaculate conception.
Kristen (165). That's what makes it unique! You got it! That's what made Christ the Son of God! Because it hasn't happened again, and it won't.
If you are looking for uniqueness, look in the mirror. In the entire universe there is only one you.
As far as the prodigal son parable goes, you need to re-read it. The older brother also got his inheritance at the same time the younger one did. He stayed and worked his own farm, not his father's. He is the bad guy of the story.
Comment by BobH — July 8, 2009 @ 7:07 am
BobH...I grew up as the "good son". That parable annoyed the tar out of me, but maybe, as you say, I'll get my reward one day.
Comment by Kristen — July 8, 2009 @ 7:46 am
Nice to see you give some credit to "the billion or so Islamic people in the world" when it suits your purpose, but I don't think that is the whole picture of Jesus to Islam.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 8, 2009 @ 8:18 am
Bob..
Re your post #176...are you ducking the existence of the examples you cited...The Civil War, Slavery, G. Washington as the first President of the United States because you don't know how to prove those events didn't occur?
As for whether the Islamic faith believing in immaculate conception...fine. They can believe it all they want. But to have unbridled belief in that event creates a contradiction within the Bible itself regarding the procreation of life and what exactly is needed in order to accomplish it.
Safe to say Bob...you believe what makes your heart light and happy at the end of the day and I'll do the same. We may not agree on the specifics of how to get there, but I think we'll still be okay.
Comment by Will — July 8, 2009 @ 9:14 am
Oh im sorry Mike Pinder, I was merely going by what you said in your article about someone living in a fish, i didnt realize you were quoting something from another book.... say is that how you properly quote something anyway?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 8, 2009 @ 9:20 am
"Why would a cockroach need to evolve? The purpose of evolution and natural selection is survival, and the cockroach has survived for millions of years (or, alternatively, 6000) just fine. What would evolving possibly do for the cockroach?
As for no other species having "advanced as far" as humans have...hop into the polar bear tank or lions pen at a zoo and explain to them that they're not as evolved as you are. Good luck. Once you're at the top of your food chain, much further evolution is sort of pointless. Check sharks." - Comment by Kristen
So in your twisted scenario, cockroaches are at the top of the food chain because they havent needed to evolve? Interesting...
Say, I wonder how many people were eaten my sharks last year, compared to how many sharks were eaten by people?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 8, 2009 @ 9:22 am
"That something happens more than once makes the original more believeable." - Kristen
Ahh, you mean like matter and energy being created or like ZsaZsa and Johnny making tapes together?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 8, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Bob's problem is that he created a litmus test he's not willing to apply to his belief. He said:
"Do me a favor, and hold the same litmus test you do about the Bible to every other "historical fact" you can think of and tell me how many that didn't happen in your lifetime that you can prove." (#146)
I thought he had a good point, and I also think he should be willing to hold the same litmus test you do about every other "historical fact" you can think of to the Bible. If we had only one book describing, for example, the Civil War, and it was not mentioned in any other comtemporary writing of the mid-19th century, would we think it had really happened? No chance.
While I agree with Will that Bob should believe whatever makes his heart light and happy, I doubt that Bob will agree that the rest of us are just as "correct" as he is if we choose some other path.
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — July 8, 2009 @ 9:32 am
No, I think she means like a dog with a bone.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 8, 2009 @ 9:58 am
Say, I wonder how many people were eaten my sharks last year, compared to how many sharks were eaten by people?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 8, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Let's throw 100 people into a tank with 100 sharks and see who comes out on top. And I don't think in general you'll find humans and sharks on the same food chain...especially since sharks live under water...else we'd probably have grizzly bears and sharks fighting for supremacy.
In general, FYI, a food chain is a natural construct. Hand an ape a big enough gun and he can shoot a leopard. This doesn't change that fact that, in nature, leopards trump apes. Here's a handy resource!
http://wanttoknowit.com/what-do-leopards-eat/
"The main diet of leopards are ungulates and monkeys, although they have been known to eat over 100 species of different animals."
Obviously, cockroaches aren't at the top of their food chain. They've managed to evolve (there's that word again!) other accomodations to ensure their survival. Again, a handy visual aid.
http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/1998/cockroach.html
I guess science classes aren't mandatory everywhere....
Comment by Kristen — July 8, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Mark, as for matter and energy not being "created" again...since you confess complete ignorance on how these matters are explained on this planet, surely you can't claim to know that matter and energy aren't being created on another one.
Comment by Kristen — July 8, 2009 @ 10:10 am
MM..
Would you care to make a point with your last remark as it is completely escaping me.
As for Zsa Zsa and Johnny...if you're referring to the remark I made about the two of them and the fictional interaction that was alledged to have taken place that I made reference to about 200 posts ago, I have openly said that I was in error...but I guess you can't read that.
Comment by Will — July 8, 2009 @ 10:31 am
LOL...
wanttoknowit.com = Kristen's science education (here's the best part from her biology101 site: "So now you know the answer to the question what do leopards eat and know six exciting and educational facts about leopards.") bwahahaha
Is this where your scientific fact that apes have used guns to shoot leopards before came from?
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2755015/1/Inuyasha_The_Ape_man
fanfiction.net, hmmmmmm, i guess another good scientific resource...
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 8, 2009 @ 10:38 am
No Will i was referring to Kristen's backing you up on the Zsazsa tapes and insinuating that anyone who HASNT seen them before were idiots, but i guess you couldnt understand that.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 8, 2009 @ 10:40 am
Please Kristen for the dumb donkeys (no offense libs) like myself that still dont understand the obvious explanation of how matter and energy were created, could you please explain it for me just one time... i promise if you give us some valid evidence I will entirely drop the fact that you cannot prove how it was created... or you can prove it? Well, either way, i anxiously await your response.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 8, 2009 @ 10:42 am
Kevin,
So....what do I have a stake morally? Quid pro quo. You do some moralizing and I'll give some 'o' #117!!!!.
Comment by Mike Scott — July 8, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
I don't know Mark....maybe Noah cooked up some matter and energy during his spare time on the ark. The snake maybe told him what to do. Anyway, with all the manure on that boat, energy wouldn't be tough to come by. Who needs actual valid evidence when you have dinosaur boats and talking snakes to go with!
My little biology sites were deliberately simple.
Comment by Kristen — July 8, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Before one can answer the question of "of how matter and energy were created", one must make the distinction between physics (science) and metaphysics.
The concept "of how matter and energy were created" is, at this moment anyway, a metaphysical one. Don't like that answer? Too bad. Science, unlike some folk's concept of religion, doesn't claim to have all the answers. Think the Bible has it right? Maybe sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure? That's between you and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Science doesn't have a dog (or a god) in that fight. To paraphrase a maxim I learned in Latin class: In matters of faith, there can be no dispute.
As to "Global warming, sun revolving around the earth, earth being flat, trepanation...???" being arguments against the scientific method, that's just plain silliness. The earth-centric universe is a religious construct, not a scientific one, as probably was trepanation (letting out the evil spirits). Associating either of them with the scientific method reveals your ignorance of the scientific method.
As to your incessant nattering: "how about # 117?", well what about it? Again, ethics and morality don't lend themselves particularly well to the scientific method, so let's cut to this particularly cryptic phrase:
"What independent (of logic) "evidence" do you have for the logical laws that must be assumed to explain anything?"
Again, the question itself screams ignorance of the scientific method which is a method of inquiry that, as Mike said, involves the "testable and repeatable". It has, unlike religion, been remarkably successful at advancing human understanding of the universe. It ultimately rests on empiricism, so if you have an argument with what works, take it up with reality.
Perhaps my favorite quote of all: "Science gives us the microwave, and we give it god-like status." Well, YOU may worship appliances, sport, but I don't know anyone else who does.
It never ceases to amaze me when some express a preference for the Dark Ages over the Enlightenment. BTW, Mike Pinder, loved the piece.
Comment by Painless — July 8, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Not simple enough for Mark, Kristen. I don't think anything ever would be.
I've told him many times, at least once on this thread, that science doesn't do magic, and he keeps complaining we won't give him a magic answer to the mystery of existence.
I've given him tons of hints on how to find answers to his evolution questions, and I'll bet he's never tried a single one.
"A dog with a bone", that's Mark; he's chewed all the marrow out of it, with a heaping pile of fresh bones right in front of him, and he just keeps chewing....
Comment by Ed H — July 8, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Painless,
That was beautiful!
Comment by Ed H — July 8, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
"if you have an argument with what works, take it up with reality."
Great line, Painless.
Comment by Kristen — July 8, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
painless you sound so smart it hurts my brain to read it, but thanks!
Marked Man (mark), if you want to insult Democrats by using "dumb donkeys" I can handle that (not true of all but sure true of some), but you need to lay off donkeys. I happen to think they are an absolutely noble animal and I love them!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 8, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
EdH, I never said evolution didnt happen/wasnt happening. I completely believe that some creatures have evolved and changed over time, thats apparent.
...poor Painless has me confused with Kevin and also just told us that Global Warming has no scientific basis, that i actually CAN agree with.
Oh, and i also agree with Kristen when i asked her to tell us how matter and energy came to be .."I don't know"...
my little biology sites were deliberately simple" - Kristen
What sounds so great about is Sandi? The fact that painless doesnt know who she/he is talking to (Kevin or myself) or the fact that he/she could have saved the diatribe and said "Well shucks, I dont know where we came from."
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 8, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
"..poor Painless has me confused with Kevin..."
Where did you get that idea, Mark? Where does Painless ever say who s/he's responding to? All I see are various quotes, some from you, some from Kevin, and Painless' response to each.
...and also just told us that Global Warming has no scientific basis..."
Once again, your reading comprehension fails. Putting GW in with all that other stuff was Kevin's mistake. Painless' reply is to the other stuff, and doesn't mention the known fact of global warming at all.
"...that i actually CAN agree with."
Now THAT is just plain silliness.
I have no idea how any of us "could have saved the diatribe and said "Well shucks, I dont know where we came from."" I have been telling you that repeatedly for months. If it had ever sunk in, why do you keep asking us?
Comment by Ed H — July 9, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
"As to "Global warming, sun revolving around the earth, earth being flat, trepanation...???" being arguments against the scientific method, that's just plain silliness. The earth-centric universe is a religious construct, not a scientific one, as probably was trepanation (letting out the evil spirits). Associating either of them with the scientific method reveals your ignorance of the scientific method." - Painless
"As to your incessant nattering: "how about # 117?", well what about it? Again, ethics and morality don't lend themselves particularly well to the scientific method, so let's cut to this particularly cryptic phrase:
"What independent (of logic) "evidence" do you have for the logical laws that must be assumed to explain anything?" - Painless
Oh im sorry Ed H, are we all supposed to know immediately who Painless is talking to when he/she is throwing out 'you' and 'your' to anyone reading?
I dont even know what the deal with #117 is? That second paragraph where Painless is calling out someone for incessant nattering, I figured, was directed at the same person who he/she was quoting in the first paragraph above (that one was mine).
I'm fairly sure if you had been keeping up you would have understood that.
"As to "Global warming, sun revolving around the earth, earth being flat, trepanation...???" being arguments against the scientific method, that's just plain silliness." "Associating either of them with the scientific method reveals your ignorance of the scientific method." -Painless
Sure sounds to me like Painless is saying associating the 'understanding' behind Global Warming with scientific method is ignorant...
"Once again, your reading comprehension fails. Putting GW in with all that other stuff was Kevin's mistake. Painless' reply is to the other stuff, and doesn't mention the known fact of global warming at all." - EdH
NO EdH, that wasnt Kevin's 'mistake', that was my quote actually, speaking of sinking in....
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 9, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
OK, Mark. I still have more important things to do than go back and read through a dozen or more posts to verify who said it. I'll just take your word for it: Throwing in global warming with a lot of pseudoscientific stuff was your mistake, not Kevin's. I stand corrected.
Comment by Ed H — July 9, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Im not sure how Painless would take you disagreeing with him/her EdH.
"I still have more important things to do than go back and read through a dozen or more posts to verify who said it" - EdH
Its okay EdH, we are all pretty used to people not verifying things they say here.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 9, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
"Im not sure how Painless would take you disagreeing with him/her EdH."
Well, if I ever do, we'll find out together.
Comment by Ed H — July 9, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
The point is, EdH, that Painless also said that "As to "Global warming, sun revolving around the earth, earth being flat, trepanation...???" being arguments against the scientific method, that's just plain silliness." "Associating either of them with the scientific method reveals your ignorance of the scientific method." Do you not also agree that associating 'the science behind Global Warming' with scientific method to be ignorant as well?
"Once again, your reading comprehension fails." - EdH
"I still have more important things to do than go back and...verify who said it... I stand corrected." - EdH
Well if you ever do, and you find yourself to be wrong, at least you know how to admit it.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 9, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
Good decision Ed H. Painless is hardly that and possesses game!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 9, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
What Painless said:
"As to "Global warming, sun revolving around the earth, earth being flat, trepanation...???" being arguments against the scientific method, that's just plain silliness. The earth-centric universe is a religious construct, not a scientific one, as probably was trepanation (letting out the evil spirits). Associating either of them with the scientific method reveals your ignorance of the scientific method"
What Mark said:
"Painless also said that "As to "Global warming, sun revolving around the earth, earth being flat, trepanation...???" being arguments against the scientific method, that's just plain silliness." "Associating either of them with the scientific method reveals your ignorance of the scientific method.""
Quotemining, Mark. That's a no-no.
Comment by Ed H — July 10, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
I never did like the moody blues....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pinder
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 12, 2009 @ 11:51 pm