Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Was Darwin a Racist?

Posted by truthtalklive on October 21, 2008

On todays show, Stu interviews A. Charles Ware , author of the book “Darwin’s Plantation!” . Check out his ministry blog.  Many people don’t realize the intimate connection between the theory of evolution and  racist ideology .  Please leave comments here or call 1-866-34-truth between 5 and 6 PM (EST). Three listeners will be getting a copy of the book so listen up!  As always, thanks for listening and we look foward to your comments!!!

Add to Technorati Favorites

AFTER THE SHOW CHECK OUT THE PODCAST!

Evolution's Racist Roots

Advertisements

181 Responses to “Was Darwin a Racist?”

  1. abc's said

    “On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horsewhip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating for ever the men, women and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; – nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro, as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such enquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master’s ears.

    It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feelings, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumbscrew be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffer from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner and with cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; – what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children – those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own – being torn from you and sold like beast to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin.”

    Charles Darwin
    The Voyage of the Beagle

  2. Jason said

    It is amazing how many people miss the link between evolution, racism and abortion. Last week you had pro-life nurse Jill Stanuk on your show, and she mentioned that pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood target the African-American community for abortion, and that something like 35-percent of African-American babies are aborted. The black community, and especially Christians who are African-Americans, should be appalled and outraged. Yet we have many people, of all races, who want to support Barack Obama, arguably the most pro-abortion candidate and politician EVER, for president. When are Christians going to wake up and smell the coffee?

    Some people want to vote for a candidate based mostly on his race, but by doing that, people who say race should not matter, are in effect saying it DOES matter.

  3. MattF said

    Abc: You beat me to it. 🙂 The mere idea that Darwin was a racist is laughable once someone is willing to do the research.

    Since the program also argued that Hitler was motivated by Darwinian theory to commit atrocities, let me also insert some words from Mein Kampf, emphasis mine:

    “Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe.” (383)

    “The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.” (383)

    “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, … so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.” (214)

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (65)

    “[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission.” (398)

    Do I mean to defend Hitler’s actions? Of course not. I only mean to point out that his behavior was not, as creationists seem to love to think, motivated by evolution. In fact, it wasn’t evolution he twisted to meet his agenda; it was Christianity.

    Those interested in the real story of those featured in the recent Expelled movie would do well to visit expelledexposed.com. Contrary to the statements of the movie itself, not one of the people featured was fired for believing in Intelligent Design. Moreover, the evolutionary scientists who were interviewed were misrepresented and lied to (they were told they were being interviewed for a movie entitled Crossroads about the creation/evolution controversy, not some movie about the “prejudice” some people experienced at the hands of those who accept evolution.)

  4. Maz said

    There is no doubt that evolution is a breeding ground for racism. That evolution proposes that some races are less evolved is against the teaching in the Bible that man was created in Gods image and that there is only ONE race on this earth, the human race. Evolution has taught in the past that the aboriginal and the black races were less evolved. and it was obviously the cause of the kind of treatment that they received when so called civilised people originally came to their lands. Klu Klux Klan was a group that took it this to extremes, and I believe Hitler also was influenced by evolution, believing that the Jewish people were a lower form of human kind that needed to be irradicated from the earth.

    Whether Darwin was actually ‘racist’ I am not sure, but his ‘Origin of Species’ went a long way to spawn racist attitudes in others.

  5. Maz said

    Mattf: “The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.” (383)

    Didn’t Hitler commit sacrilege against his Creator by laying hands upon the image of the Lord?…..mankind……the Jew in particular, being part of it? Or am I reading this wrong?

  6. MattF said

    Maz: That evolution proposes that some races are less evolved

    Evolution does not propose this. Some have proposed this and have tried to use evolution as a (flimsy) rationale.

    Maz: I believe Hitler also was influenced by evolution, believing that the Jewish people were a lower form of human kind that needed to be irradicated from the earth.

    If so, he made absolutely no mention of it in his autobiography. He preferred to say that it was his Christian beliefs that led him to the conclusion that Jews should be eradicated.

    Maz: Whether Darwin was actually ‘racist’ I am not sure, but his ‘Origin of Species’ went a long way to spawn racist attitudes in others.

    Because people will pervert anything to justify their hatred. Racism existed long before Darwin. It exists among people who do not embrace Darwin’s theories.

    Science attempts to examine the way the natural world works, and doesn’t care what conclusions anyone draws from that. Should we say that the Bible is flawed because people have twisted its tenets to justify their heinous actions?

    Maz: Didn’t Hitler commit sacrilege against his Creator by laying hands upon the image of the Lord?

    I would say that yes, he did. He did not think that way, however. He instead believed that he was laying his hands on the Creator’s killers, and that justified any action he chose to take against them.

    I again state that I could not disagree with him more strongly.

  7. John said

    Maz, Racist people can use almost any facet of society, education, or theology as a breeding ground for their chosen form of bigotry.
    I do not believe that evolutionist used terms such as “race” in regards to humanity in the same manner that the racist does.
    The evolutionist used the label to describe the different types of humanity, the different “kinds”, if you will.
    The racist however, jumps upon such terms as “race” in an attempt to try and prove their alleged superiority over others they disapprove of.It mainly revolves around ignorance and ego, I think.
    As you should know, a very large number of racist people are strongly religious.

  8. John said

    Maz, Have you ever studied up on the Hindu “Cast System” in India and the bigotry that’s directed at the “Untouchables” in their society? A fine example of racism without the support of scientific evolutionary theory.

  9. F. L. A. said

    If one types in “A. Charles Ware’s book Darwin’s Plantation” into the computers search you can learn what those who have read the book have to say about it.

  10. Jared Black said

    Darwin may have not knowingly been a racist, however it is easy to see in hindsight how damaging his doctrines and world view (religion) have become. What one might say more appropriately about Darwin was that he had an overt hatred of God as do many of God’s enemies. All self-proclaiming non-believers and many claiming to be Christians, in our Lord’s visible church, are enemies. God in his sovereignty has allowed for some of Satan’s emissaries to simply be more effective than others. God allowed for Mr. Darwin to serve Satan well, just as he allows many of the self proclaiming “called” ministers of the word to act as wolves within the body of Christ.

    Evolution as a theory is laughable and Dr. Ware answered the question as to why people believe in this theory, and the racism that accompanies it, very well. “Sin”. Remember, those who don’t serve the Lord are blind and deaf and the only way they will ever be brought into the light is through the truth of the Gospel as it is faithfully preached and made effectual by the work of the Holy Spirit. Until we give thanks to, and honor our God in his corporate worship, we can expect that he will continue to bring judgment upon His church. But, don’t be despaired, God chastises those he loves sanctification will accompany that discipline.

    Praise the Lord!

  11. MattF said

    Jared Black: Darwin may have not knowingly been a racist, however it is easy to see in hindsight how damaging his doctrines and world view (religion) have become.

    Do you mean to imply that evolution is a religion?

    Jared Black: Evolution as a theory is laughable

    It explains the observable data. Why is it laughable?

    Jared Black: and Dr. Ware answered the question as to why people believe in this theory, and the racism that accompanies it, very well. “Sin”.

    Sure, racism is sin. But his premise — that Darwin was racist — is demonstrably untrue. (And I challenge your notion that those who believe evolution are sinning by doing so.)

    Jared Black: Remember, those who don’t serve the Lord are blind and deaf and the only way they will ever be brought into the light is through the truth of the Gospel as it is faithfully preached and made effectual by the work of the Holy Spirit. Until we give thanks to, and honor our God in his corporate worship, we can expect that he will continue to bring judgment upon His church. But, don’t be despaired, God chastises those he loves sanctification will accompany that discipline.

    What does any of this have to do with evolution?

  12. John said

    Uh, welcome to the site, Mr.Black.
    I am a self proclaimed non-Christian, but I don’t consider myself[yet] to be your enemy. Darwin was somewhat of an Agnostic, how is it that you think he had an overt hatred for God?

    Your post above does not sound as if it has a very unifying message. It certainly doesn’t inspire the non-believer to happily adopt Christianity.
    We hope to hear from you more often.

  13. Jared Black said

    Yes, evolution is a systematic religion although it seems to evolve….. almost daily!

    Actually it doesn’t sufficiently explain any observable data, it ignores any credible data presented against it, makes horrendously crazy assumptions, and it defies nearly all of the known laws of science (for example the 1st 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics) and the list could go on and on.

    So you acknowledge “sin”. How? Unless you have a foundation to work from “sin” is only a matter of the opinion and convenience. In a relativistic world the word sin or evil has no meaning what so ever. In fact language looses all meaning because the law of non contradiction in fact, has no meaning.

    The last paragraph is the most relevant of all! Blindness in terms of the truth is a terrible place to be and unfortunately in our day as in many times throughout history blindness has overtaken not only the world, which is where they are always found, it has also become, relative to the historical mean, more prevalent in God’s church.

  14. John said

    Thank you for responding so quickly Mr.Black.
    Could you please elaborate on and provide examples of evidence for your first paragraph within post 13 on how modern evolutionary sciences defy nearly all of the known laws of science, makes horrendously crazy assumptions, the credible data against it, and how the Laws of Thermodynamics can be used to argue against the evolutionary processes within planet Earth and in fact the whole known universe[which are open, not closed, systems]?
    I have to go to bed now, but look forward to your replies.
    Blessed Be.

  15. MattF said

    Jared Black: Yes, evolution is a systematic religion although it seems to evolve….. almost daily!

    That would seem to argue against its status as a religion. Religion holds that there is a basic dogma that is unchangeable and unquestionable.

    It’s also noteworthy that no one put “Evolution” in the blank where religion is recorded in the census. Evolution has no accompanying rituals or observances. It has no supernatural powers or beings. It explains no ultimate reality. It has no prescriptions about how people ought to behave. It seems to fail a lot of the basic characteristics of religion right away.

    What properties does it exhibit that make you argue that it’s a religion?

    Jared Black: Actually it doesn’t sufficiently explain any observable data, it ignores any credible data presented against it,

    Such as?

    Jared Black: makes horrendously crazy assumptions,

    Such as?

    Jared Black: and it defies nearly all of the known laws of science (for example the 1st 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics) and the list could go on and on.

    Unless you have new evidence that it does so, it doesn’t. It violates some horribly misleading and overly simplistic explanations of those laws, certainly, but that’s not the same thing; it’s kind of like saying that helium balloons violate the theory of universal gravitation on the basis that they don’t fall down.

    But I’m always open to new information. Please — present your facts.

    Jared Black: So you acknowledge “sin”. How?

    Let’s try this for a definition and see where it goes: Sin is desire, will, or activity that exists in opposition to the will of God.

    That definition may not prove adequate, but it gives ujs a starting point. Your turn. What is sin? Do you find this an adequate definition, does it require refinement, or do we need to start over again?

    Jared Black: Unless you have a foundation to work from “sin” is only a matter of the opinion and convenience. In a relativistic world the word sin or evil has no meaning what so ever. In fact language looses all meaning because the law of non contradiction in fact, has no meaning.

    What does any of this have to do with evolution?

    Jared Black: The last paragraph is the most relevant of all! Blindness in terms of the truth is a terrible place to be and unfortunately in our day as in many times throughout history blindness has overtaken not only the world, which is where they are always found, it has also become, relative to the historical mean, more prevalent in God’s church.

    Okay. What does this claim have to do with evolution?

  16. F. L. A. said

    It is good to hear from you once again MattF.
    My apologies for not bringing this up sooner.

    Greetings Mr.Black!
    I was wondering, have you read through any of the other sites here at Truth Talk Live.com that involve the topic of the Evolutionary Sciences? If not, then I recommend that you do so you will be armed with the knowledge of what has already been discussed and resolved by others in the past.
    For some strange reason there is only one site listed within the archives dealing with the topic of evolution, however if you like I can provide you with a list of all of the other sites that involve this topic….but tomorrow, for now I am going out to dinner.
    Good luck.

  17. Jared Black said

    I am sorry MattF. it is pointless arguing with you. I cannot convince you and before your eyes are opened it will not matter how much scientific evidence I produced, you would not believe. You obviously have very little handle on the scientific laws like the conservation of energy, mass, etc… Entropy is a big one that defies the theory of evolution, but I wouldn’t expect you to know it. The fact that soft tissue is found in fossils supposedly millions of years old wouldn’t change your mind either. Or the fact not one transitional creature has ever been found and held up, but have all been shown to be either hoaxes or misinterpretation. Non of these things can convince you God’s word is true. Only the Holy Spirit can humble you and enlighten your mind!

    By the way…. sin is any thought, word, or deed that breaks God’s law by omission or commission. At least that is the children’s version.

  18. F. L. A. said

    Wait a moment.
    Are you…running away, Mr.Black? Because it certainly looks this way. MattF. was not arguing with you, only asking you to support your claims, and then you make rash assumptions about his scientific knowledge. You appear to be doing exactly what you were accusing the evolutionists of doing.
    What about John’s questions?
    Please stay with us and try to answer our questions.
    Teach us.
    Check out those other sites.
    The second most recent site on this topic is named “What’s the big deal with Evolution in Public Schools?”.

  19. MattF said

    Jared Black: You obviously have very little handle on the scientific laws like the conservation of energy, mass, etc…

    Obviously? This is the first time I remember it being brought up here.

    I think what would prove useful here are specifics. How do you feel evolution violates conservation laws?

    Jared Black: Entropy is a big one that defies the theory of evolution, but I wouldn’t expect you to know it.

    Insults are not evidence.

    But please, again, I must ask you for specifics. How does evolution violate entropy? (You’re not assuming that entropy is the same thing as chaos or disorder, are you?)

    Jared Black: The fact that soft tissue is found in fossils supposedly millions of years old wouldn’t change your mind either.

    Try me. Which ones? What evidence to they present that contradicts evolution?

    Jared Black: Or the fact not one transitional creature has ever been found and held up, but have all been shown to be either hoaxes or misinterpretation.

    All? There have been hoaxes, sure, but I have seen no evidence contraindicating Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Ammonoidea, Pikaia, Conodont, Haikouichthys, Arandaspis, Birkenia, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Dimetrodon, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Morganucodon, Yanocondon, Yixianosaurus, Pedopenna, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusomis, Ichthyornis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Dorudon, Aetiocetus, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis, Mammalodon, Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus, or any of several dozen others. Do you have evidence that these were hoaxes — or, alternatively, that they do not qualify as transitional forms?

    Jared Black: Non of these things can convince you God’s word is true. Only the Holy Spirit can humble you and enlighten your mind!

    I agree that none of your statements, even if they were true, would convince me that God’s Word is true. I believe that quite apart from the fact that I accept evolution.

    Jared Black: By the way…. sin is any thought, word, or deed that breaks God’s law by omission or commission.

    Okay. The only functional difference I see at first glance between your definition and mine is that you used the word “law” and I used the word “will” to describe what is being defied. Any difference I see that that would present amounts to nitpicking, e.g., pointing out that God’s law says nothing about violating copyright (except by implication).

    Do you think there is an important difference between our definitions? If so, what?

  20. Jared Black said

    No, Matt. I just know from my God’s word it is pointless to argue with you and I honestly have far better things to do. I actually hold two advanced degrees in science and have spent my entire career in scientific fields using some fairly awesome technology that took the best minds years to develop. In comparison to my education, scientific knowledge, and use of mind boggling scientific equipment …. is as a grain of sand when compared to God’s design. In fact it isn’t even worth mentioning me or all human scientific knowledge combined, compared to the design God has shown us, just in the human body. If I were not a christian, I would be in your same boots …. no matter how educated or how smart I thought I was, it would not matter how much someone might try to convince me. I would still hold to any theory that stole the glory from God, like the big bang and evolution theories, although they require far more faith than looking around and knowing God has designed and crafted everything right down to the atomic structure, which we scientist can’t even fully and will never be able to explain. In all of my scientific studies I never once used or was taught a presupposition that disorganization leads to organization in a closed system or more fundamentally even than that, that something can come from nothing. Arguing about evidence outside of fundamental presuppositions is chaotic insanity and you don’t acknowledge the same presuppositions that I do so all you will hear when you read any of this is gibberish. And this is exceedingly clear from the responses that you have given me. I truley hope that some day God removes the scales from your eyes, if it be God’s will to do so.

    As God’s word says.

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

    Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

  21. Jared Black said

    P.S. MattF

    What is it that you worship in your religion? Just ask yourself what it is you spend the majority of your time trying to accomplish. Your religion and worship will be close at hand. I really would like to know … I am not trying to be a jerk. Just interested. It is much easier to discuss things with someone when you know their world view (religion).

    F.L.A.

    Not running away, it is just pointless as you can read above. And if you want to call it running away that’s fine. But I know I could wow you with tones of evidence and you wouldn’t change your mind. My PHD friend is in the same boat. He even acknowledges the laws and facts, but he just admits he doesn’t like the idea of God. He does say their had to be a creator and organizer/designer. Just admits he doesn’t like the idea of a God.

    John

    God tells me in his word we were all his enemies. Now he has changed me. I am no longer his enemy. So the logical conclusion is…. Fortunately, God tells me to love my enemies and he even demonstrated how much He loved his enemies when He provided a perfect sacrifice, The Lord Jesus Christ, and took the burden of his elect peoples sin upon himself so that he could justly say their debt has been paid in full. He will deal with the rest and it humbles me to think he did such a thing for me. I deserve to be with those he will pour out his wrath upon. I was his enemy just like you are. I didn’t choose Him and there was anything in me (good) for Him to choose me. He did it purely according to His good pleasure as He tells me.

  22. Kasha said

    Jared Black: “I would still hold to any theory that stole the glory from God, like the big bang and evolution theories, although they require far more faith than looking around and knowing God has designed and crafted everything right down to the atomic structure, which we scientist can’t even fully and will never be able to explain.”

    I fail to see how any human theory could steal any glory from God. God’s glory is immutable.

    Jared Black: “In all of my scientific studies I never once used or was taught a presupposition that disorganization leads to organization in a closed system or more fundamentally even than that, that something can come from nothing. Arguing about evidence outside of fundamental presuppositions is chaotic insanity and you don’t acknowledge the same presuppositions that I do so all you will hear when you read any of this is gibberish.”

    Jared, you are conflating evolution with Big Bang Theory. Evolution addresses the development of species over time and does not address the fundamental question of when/where the universe started.

    Also, I think Mattf, FLA and JOhn asked you very specific questions regarding claims you had made in your post, so I don’t understand why you don’t just answer them. Saying that they won’t believe you anyway doesn’t help your case, and implying that your scientific knowledge is superior to theirs but then refusing to elaborate on their questions is dodging the subject. That is exactly the sort of attitude that makes nonbelievers think that Christians are irrational. If you make a claim, you must be prepared to back it up without getting defensive. That is simply good discussion, not to mention good Christian witness.

  23. Jared Black said

    Kasha ….

    Because God tells us fundamentally how he created the world and any theory that trumps His word is stealing his Glory. Sit down and read His word. Even if you aren’t or are never a christian it is highly valuable. It is amazing what insights it can give you into how this world works.

    Because it will not change their minds. Read the responses. Until a man (or woman) is humbled and knows their condition before a Holy beyond comprehension God and their absolute reliance upon Him (even his enemies), no amount of scientific argument makes any difference. Once a mans mind has been renewed then and only then will his mind begin to understand the science and how extraordinarily it is all for the glory of God and truth becomes so evident. + Big Bang and Evolution have everything in common given the fundamental law breaking necessary for these two theories to exist. In order to understand this you must have a minor grasp of quantum mechanics. Disorganization leads to extraordinary organization with out outside influence? I could say it in far more complex terms, but this is essentially what you have to believe in order to accept either theory. Not even my smart PHD friends and professors can reconcile this. They just close their eyes and go with blind faith. You have to have blind faith to believe in theories like these! At least those who don’t know the Lord. Think about it! That is it for me.

    We shall see what the next subject truth talk live has on.

  24. Maz said

    John: #7 & #8. Yes, I know about the cast system. Obviously Hinduism does not teach that we are all equal in the sight of God.
    And whether the consept of race as we see it now was part of evolution, it certainly taught that the black people and aboriginals etc. were less evolved than we the ‘white civilised’ peoples are. Ofcourse we AREN’T that civilised when you think about what humans can do to other humans then and now.

  25. Maz said

    I know from what Hitler DID, not what he said he WAS, revealed that he was NOT a Christian. God said in the OT that whoever blessed Israel would be blessed and whoever cursed Israel would be cursed, so what Hitler did he was NOT doing it for God (even though he thot he was…..there is a question mark over his sanity at the time anyway).
    His hatred was in line with the kind of hatred we see today for Israel from certain sections of humanity. To exterminate them from the earth. Ofcourse this will never happen because Christ we come back one day and save them from this fate.

  26. Maz said

    Mattf: Evolution IS a religion. It is taken by faith, as much as you would like to say there is plenty of evidence. But the so called evidence does not hold water, you see what you want to see which is why Jared said that it is sin because of the blindness of peoples hearts and the ignorance that is in them. They do not WANT to know the truth that will set them free.

  27. Maz said

    That last post was in answer to #11.

  28. Maz said

    Jared #17 & #20: You realise the same as I do that debating with some people on this site will get you nowhere. They don’t see it, because they don’t WANT TO. I have raised entropy with those on this site before, whether MattF was part of that I can’t remember. But evolution is an UPWARD state of affairs, entropy on the other hand is DOWNWARD. The THEORY of evolution goes against the natural grain of physical existence. It would never have got started atall naturally let alone continue to IMPROVE even with a trillion years! They think that given
    enough time ANYTHING can happen. No.

    ALL……ALL….mutations are harmful in the end to any life evolving to a much higher state. They are usually detrimental to any improvement. It just doesn’t happen. But will they see that? NO.
    And there are NO missing links…..ha ha ha……because they never existed in the first place. The so called ‘missing links’ was an invention by evolutionists, simply because they couldn’t find the links that SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE if evolution was true! But do they see that? NO!

  29. Maz said

    F.L.A: ”Teach us”. #18.
    Do you REALLY want to be taught? I thot you only came on here for amusement?
    You have read books about creation and heard what we have said in the past, has it taught you anything?
    Have you changed your mind about evolution or creation? I don’t think so. I think you just enjoy bating us with questions. But you have had answers before and not accepted them. Why do you want the same answers again? You have made it clear before that we are repeating ourselves here, going over the same old ground. And yet you encourage us now to do so.

  30. Maz said

    Jared: It’s a shame that you have to bow out here, but I understand your frustration even though I am not a scientist, just a great reader and studier of it. Your contribution here would have been much appreciated (atleast by me) but it does seem futile at times I know.

    Kasha: The fact that Jared questioned whether you are a Christian says a lot about you. What you say doesn’t always seem to fit what a Chrisian is supposed to believe.

    And the origins of our Universe are all entwined with the faith of evolution, that it all came about by itself from a great unexplanable explosion and without God.

  31. Maz said

    That last line doesn’t sound right….what I meant was…..The origins of our Universe, the Big Bang etc., are all part of the evolutionistic belief that everything (and eventually all life) came about by itself from a great unexplanable explosion of nothing (which they say is something!!) and without God.

  32. Maz said

    Found this on a NON-CREATION site, the explanation for ENTROPY:

    1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
    2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
    3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
    4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
    5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

    ——————————————————————————–

    [German Entropie : Greek en-, in; see en-2 + Greek trop, transformation; see trep- in Indo-European roots.]

    ——————————————————————————–

    en·tropic (n-trpk, -trpk) adj.
    en·tropi·cal·ly adv.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    ——————————————————————————–
    entropy [en-trop-ee]
    Noun
    1. Formal lack of pattern or organization
    2. Physics a thermodynamic quantity that represents the amount of energy present in a system that cannot be converted into work because it is tied up in the atomic structure of the system [Greek entropē a turning towards]
    Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

    ——————————————————————————–
    entropy (ntr-p)
    A measure of the amount of energy in a physical system not available to do work. As a physical system becomes more disordered, and its energy becomes more evenly distributed, that energy becomes less able to do work. For example, a car rolling along a road has kinetic energy that could do work (by carrying or colliding with something, for example); as friction slows it down and its energy is distributed to its surroundings as heat, it loses this ability. The amount of entropy is often thought of as the amount of disorder in a system. See also heat death.

    The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
    Noun 1. entropy – (communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome; “the signal contained thousands of bits of information”
    selective information, information
    communication theory, communications – the discipline that studies the principles of transmiting information and the methods by which it is delivered (as print or radio or television etc.); “communications is his major field of study”
    information measure – a system of measurement of information based on the probabilities of the events that convey information
    2. entropy – (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; “entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity”
    randomness, S
    physical property – any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
    conformational entropy – entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
    thermodynamics – the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy

    Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

    Make your own assessment of what the word actually means and then ask yourself if it fits an evolutionary model. Anyone with any reading capabilities can see that it doesn’t.

  33. Maz said

    And ofcourse an evolutionist will introduce the idea that maybe the Universe is an open system. But they have no proof of this and it is more likely closed and limited according to the Big Bang theory anyway. The Universe only goes so far and it’s matter and energy limited to what (they say) happened at the beginning.

  34. Kasha said

    Jared,
    Now you question my knowledge of the word of God, even knowing nothing about me or my faith.

    See how Maz takes the time to refute them, even knowing that they are going to come back and argue why entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics don’t apply to evolution? See how she doesn’t insult their intelligence, but defends what she believes with patience and a spirit of trying to spread the gospel?

    I don’t agree with Maz on this: she is a young earth creationist and I am an “old earth” creationist, but at least she is willing to defend what she believes without attacking followed by a quick retreat. I greatly respect her willingness to research what is said here and repsond.

    And my understanding of the Great Commission is that we are to spread the word of Jesus to everyone, not just those predisposed to listen. If someone’s presuppositions are different than mine, I just have to work harder to find a way to explain it so that they may some day understand. Belittling their intelligence because they disagree with me on a topic doesn’t help me share the salvation of Jesus.

  35. MattF said

    Jared Black: In comparison to my education, scientific knowledge, and use of mind boggling scientific equipment …. is as a grain of sand when compared to God’s design.

    No question.

    Jared Black: If I were not a christian, I would be in your same boots …. no matter how educated or how smart I thought I was, it would not matter how much someone might try to convince me.

    Why does it seem to you that acceptance of evolution is somehow non-Christian, or that it is a matter of stubbornness?

    Jared Black: I would still hold to any theory that stole the glory from God, like the big bang and evolution theories, although they require far more faith than looking around and knowing God has designed and crafted everything right down to the atomic structure, which we scientist can’t even fully and will never be able to explain.

    Why do you think that the Big Bang and evolution remove God as designer? Does God only act in events that science cannot explain? Since when does science claim to understand everything — and, more importantly, why does its lack of full information mean that it cannot explain some things for which good evidence exists?

    How is it that any scientific theory — which attempts to describe how things behave in a Universe that God designed — can take glory away from God? (This seems especially puzzling in light of a passage we both agree on below, that God’s attributes can be seen in creation.)

    Jared Black: In all of my scientific studies I never once used or was taught a presupposition that disorganization leads to organization in a closed system

    I assume you’re discussing evolution here. Thankfully, the Earth is not a closed system.

    Besides that, the Second Law of Thermodynamics — which you seem to be referring to obliquely here — does not predict increasing “disorganization”. It predicts increasing equilibrium. Some states that exhibit higher equilibrium represent increased order as well. If this were not true, crystals would never form, snowflakes could not exist, and babies would never grow up to be adults.

    The idea that increasing entropy is the same as increasing disorder is a gross oversimplification of the Second Law.

    Jared Black: or more fundamentally even than that, that something can come from nothing.

    Who’s arguing that? Even if you subscribe to the Big Bang, no one knows where the initial singularity came from.

    Jared Black: Arguing about evidence outside of fundamental presuppositions is chaotic insanity

    Chaotic insanity? Glad we cleared that up. 🙂

    Jared Black: and you don’t acknowledge the same presuppositions that I do

    I’m trying to work from reality here. If you’d rather talk about some kind of warped interpretation of basic laws, we can do so, but I don’t know what it would accomplish.

    Jared Black: I truley hope that some day God removes the scales from your eyes, if it be God’s will to do so.

    Actually, it’s kind of funny that you say that. I was a young-Earth creationist for most of my (educated) life. Thankfully, I was introduced to some actual observable, repeatable evidence, and even though it was hard, I struggled through its implications. God kept my faith intact, for which I can only praise Him.

    In your “arguments”, I see the same sort of rhetoric I used to spout, and the same sort of rhetoric I hear from young-Earth creationists over and over. It’s tempting to dismiss them, since I know why they’re vapid. But if I am to be intellectually honest, I must know why you think what you do; it’s possible that you understand something that I haven’t properly considered.

    If I can take a page from what you quoted — specifically, Romans 1:20:

    For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

    I believe that this is true. The evidence rather soundly contradicts the idea that organisms were poofed into existence over six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago. It’s not just a different way to interpret the same data; it’s that this notion is provably incorrect. Even though I certainly don’t have perfect knowledge about what did happen, I can state what demonstrably did not happen.

    Since I also believe that God cannot lie [Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18], it behooves me to examine my assumptions. All the time.

    they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

    Jared Black: What is it that you worship in your religion? Just ask yourself what it is you spend the majority of your time trying to accomplish.

    I believe that my life should be consumed with learning to be more like Christ, since it is He Who redeemed me from my own desires and destruction. (Besides, as God, He’s the only one Who deserves worship.) To be honest, I fail much more often than I’d like to admit.

    Jared Black: Because God tells us fundamentally how he created the world and any theory that trumps His word is stealing his Glory.

    Um… with respect, no, it doesn’t. It tells us that He created the world. It does not tell us how. That He did it by poofing things into existence is an assumption on your part, unless you can show otherwise.

    Jared Black: Big Bang and Evolution have everything in common given the fundamental law breaking necessary for these two theories to exist. In order to understand this you must have a minor grasp of quantum mechanics.

    Good! We can get down to business. I have much more than a minor grasp of quantum mechanics.

    Now, what specifically in quantum mechanics do the Big Bang and evolution contradict? (Will you answer this question, at least?)

    Jared Black: Disorganization leads to extraordinary organization with out outside influence?

    Apparently so, assuming that the organization represents a net gain in equilibrium. I gave some examples.

    Jared Black: I could say it in far more complex terms, but this is essentially what you have to believe in order to accept either theory.

    It’s a good thing we observe it happening in reality, then. The laws you describe, but grossly simplify, even tell us how we should expect these things to occur.

    Maz: And whether the consept of race as we see it now was part of evolution, it certainly taught that the black people and aboriginals etc. were less evolved than we the ‘white civilised’ peoples are.

    No. It did not.

    Things do not evolve in an ascending fashion. The only sense in which “more evolved” applies is to mean “more suitably adapted to its habitat”. It does not mean “better” in any sense. (In fact, since the environment is also constantly changing, “more evolved” can turn out to be worse further on down the road.)

    Maz: I know from what Hitler DID, not what he said he WAS, revealed that he was NOT a Christian.

    I’m not here to argue that he was. As you point out, his application seemed to indicate that he just didn’t understand the concepts behind it.

    In a curiously parallel fashion, those who claim that “more evolved” means “better” don’t understand the concepts behind evolution.

    Maz: Evolution IS a religion. It is taken by faith, as much as you would like to say there is plenty of evidence. But the so called evidence does not hold water,

    It’s been corroborated by countless experiments and continues to be corroborated by new fossil finds and understandings that Darwin didn’t even have in his day (e.g., genetics and molecular biology). I can give examples if you like. Absolute proof does not exist in science, but there simply is no other explanation that we have that covers the evidence.

    If you have an explanation that does not require denying evidence that exists or convenient supernatural tampering whenever the evidence does not fit your explanation, I encourage you to step forward. Scientific fame is guaranteed.

    While we’re on the subject of evidence, do you have any evidence for creation?

    Maz: ALL……ALL….mutations are harmful in the end to any life evolving to a much higher state. They are usually detrimental to any improvement.

    Actually, most mutations are neutral. There are about three detrimental mutations out of 175 per human generation, for example (Genetics magazine ran an article on this). In addition, some commonly-observed mutations are beneficial; they’re common enough to be a problem when it comes to creating effective antibiotics and pesticides. (They’re even repeatable in the lab.)

    Mutations that allow plants to grow better are the ones we select for when we farm. There are mutations in humans that offer resistance to heart disease, resistance to AIDS, and increased bone strength. In the presence of no other foodstuff, bacteria have mutated to develop the ability to digest nylon — a man-made material!

    I can give you references if you like so that you can poke holes in the science done if you want to.

    (The temptation is also to see mutations as “beneficial” or “detrimental” outside of their environment, which is a fallacy. Mutations persist because of an environment; and mutations that are beneficial in one environment may be detrimental in another.)

    Maz: It just doesn’t happen. But will they see that? NO.

    Given that we have observed them happening in the field, and that we can even cause them to happen repeatedly and predictably in the lab, it seems that you have the wrong group denying reality there.

    Maz: But you have had answers before and not accepted them. Why do you want the same answers again?

    I don’t think we do want the same answers. The answers we have seen thus far are difficult to accept in that they deny what we actually observe and grossly oversimplify and overextend scientific principles in order to make their point. Add to this that we have seen no positive evidence to accept what you say and you might be able to see why we remain unconvinced.

    But it’s always possible that you’ve uncovered something that shows the error of our ways — a testable principle that shows that we’re barking up the wrong tree. That’s what we’re after — testable principles, not “answers”. Until you can understand the difference, the reasons we keep coming back will continue to baffle you.

    Maz: The origins of our Universe, the Big Bang etc., are all part of the evolutionistic belief that everything (and eventually all life) came about by itself from a great unexplanable explosion of nothing (which they say is something!!) and without God.

    That can’t be right. I accept the Big Bang and evolution, and I certainly don’t think either happened “without God”.

    Frankly, neither of these theories have anything to say about God one way or the other.

    Maz: Make your own assessment of what the word actually means and then ask yourself if it fits an evolutionary model. Anyone with any reading capabilities can see that it doesn’t.

    Entropy can increase even if there are local increases in order, as long as the net state is one of higher equilibrium. I gave some examples of where this kind of thing happens all the time.

    You’re assuming that what happens to the whole describes what happens to every little part, and that’s simply not true. If it were, increase in order could never exist for any reason whatsoever.

    Maz: And ofcourse an evolutionist will introduce the idea that maybe the Universe is an open system.

    Actually, if they’re discussing evolution, they’ll point out that the Earth is not a closed system. Our evidence for this is that big thermonuclear fusion reactor in the sky, for starters.

    Maz: But they have no proof of this and it is more likely closed and limited according to the Big Bang theory anyway.

    Your turn. Evidence?

  36. Maz said

    MattF: You know, people would be more inclined to read your posts if they were just a little shorter. I know you want to answer every point but it puts me off. Sorry, but although posts can get long when you are putting forth information about a certain thing as I did in post #32 I think yours has won a prize for being the longest! Ever! I may be wrong. But I won’t just ignore it altogether….just a couple of points…

    ”I accept the Big Bang and evolution, and I certainly don’t think either happened “without God”.”

    Sorry, they certainly didn’t happen with God or without God……He CREATED the heavens and the earth, He didn’t evolve them. He took 6 days, not 6 billion years…..whatever well educated minds may THINK about that…..that is the way God told us it happened, and He was there, you and I weren’t. Genesis is SO specific about HOW He created that I find it difficult to realise that not only unbelievers, but those who say they believe in the Bible can’t accept what God SAID……GOD’S WORD.

    ”Frankly, neither of these theories have anything to say about God one way or the other.”

    Because God wasn’t part of it.

    As far as mutations go, the kind of evolution that is taught, from blob to Bob (sorry but that just popped into my head from somewhere!) cannot be explained by the mutations that are possible. The Theory of evolution is STILL an upward progression and entropy is downward. The two don’t meet in the middle anywhere. You might aswell try mixing oil and water.

    ”Actually, if they’re discussing evolution, they’ll point out that the Earth is not a closed system. Our evidence for this is that big thermonuclear fusion reactor in the sky, for starters.”

    The sun is DYING. It will one day become a Red Giant and burn everything up within the solar system….that is if it had a chance to…..but it won’t, because Jesus will return long before that happens. But it does speak in Revelation of the earth being burnt……and what about the ‘elements melting with fervant heat’?…global warming perhaps? Just a thot.

  37. Maz said

    MattF: Just noticed this little line.

    ”Absolute proof does not exist in science, but there simply is no other explanation that we have that covers the evidence.”

    You mean you have a theory that has absolutely no proof existing.

    And, you have to accept evolution as an explanation for life because you simply have no other explanation to believe in……or actually you have no other explanation you care to believe in.

  38. Stanley said

    Maz, if you’re such a great scholar of the sciences then why would you refute the numerous human missing links and the multitudes of other transitional species fossils we have. What science do you know? You don’t know any anthropology or evolutionary biology if you claim there are no transitional specimens.

  39. abc's said

    Jared Black

    “I actually hold two advanced degrees in science and have spent my entire career in scientific fields using some fairly awesome technology that took the best minds years to develop.”

    I don’t believe you.

    If this is true, in the pursuit of your “advanced degrees” you didn’t take any course work that deals with thermodynamics or biology.

    I can’t think of any “advanced degree” in “science” that one can get from an accredited university that doesn’t require at least some coursework in both of these areas.

  40. MattF said

    Good to see you too, F. L. A. Sorry I didn’t say so before.

    Maz: You know, people would be more inclined to read your posts if they were just a little shorter. I know you want to answer every point but it puts me off.

    Sorry to hear that. I generally think other people’s contributions are worth addressing.

    Maz: Sorry, they certainly didn’t happen with God or without God……He CREATED the heavens and the earth, He didn’t evolve them.

    Ignoring terminology for the moment, what makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

    There’s a very old Christian concept called “providence” that asserts that God works through natural means. God can heal a sick person by instantly making him well, for example, but He can also (and most often does) do so by causing the right doctors, medicines, and techniques to be in the right place at the right time.

    In other words, the fact that science cannot see God at work does not mean that He is not at work.

    Maz: He took 6 days, not 6 billion years…..whatever well educated minds may THINK about that…..that is the way God told us it happened, and He was there, you and I weren’t.

    Right. There were no humans. So perhaps human concepts of time do not apply. Or perhaps the vocabulary of the language in which this story is communicated was limited. Or perhaps God didn’t fill in all the blanks (which is easy to believe if you read the rest of the Bible; there are countless places where I personally wish God had given us more information, but He chose not to for some reason).

    Maz: Genesis is SO specific about HOW He created

    Specific? Are you and I reading the same book? I can’t find a single word or phrase in there that describes the method of creation. Any method you choose to describe seems to be based on your interpretation or your understanding, not on the words that are actually there.

    Maz (quoting me): ”Frankly, neither of these theories have anything to say about God one way or the other.”

    Because God wasn’t part of it.

    Does that mean, then, that God has no part in any other phenomenon that science is able to describe, but has nothing whatsoever to say about God?

    With respect, Maz, if this is what you mean to say, your idea of God seems very small indeed.

    Maz: As far as mutations go, the kind of evolution that is taught, from blob to Bob (sorry but that just popped into my head from somewhere!) cannot be explained by the mutations that are possible.

    Which mutations are required that have not been directly observed? Be specific. You stand on the threshold of describing a form of mutation heretofore unknown to science, and this is not insignificant.

    Maz: The Theory of evolution is STILL an upward progression and entropy is downward.

    No. Evolution is a progression towards greater adaptation. That in no way implies “upward”.

    Maz: The sun is DYING. It will one day become a Red Giant and burn everything up within the solar system….that is if it had a chance to…

    Ding ding ding! You’re exactly right! Tell me — do the laws of thermodynamics allow this increase in “disorder” to be matched by a localized increase in “order” elsewhere in the system defined by the Sun’s effects?

    Answer carefully, now. Remember that the Sun generates heat (among other things), and we’re discussing the laws of thermodynamics.

    Maz (quoting me): ”Absolute proof does not exist in science, but there simply is no other explanation that we have that covers the evidence.”

    You mean you have a theory that has absolutely no proof existing.

    No. I mean exactly what I said. The amount of evidence that corroborates evolution is staggering, but no absolute proof exists or can exist for this or any other scientific theory. There is “proof” in the form of corroborating evidence, but no theory can be proven.

    Do you have evidence that corroborates spontaneous creation?

    Maz: And, you have to accept evolution as an explanation for life because you simply have no other explanation to believe in……or actually you have no other explanation you care to believe in.

    So far, all other explanations for life’s diversity that I’ve been exposed to are contradicted by fact and experiment. The body of collected knowledge on the topic is enormous. Given the facts at my disposal, it seems that God is a fantastic liar; some people who claim to speak for God are mistaken or wrong; or the theory of evolution is onto something. (These are not mutually exclusive explanations.) I do not believe the first option, and find the second and third remarkably easy to accept.

    And let’s be clear: I accept evolution as an explanation of life’s diversity, not its origins. Evolution doesn’t pretend to tell us where life came from.

  41. Jared Black said

    Kasha

    In case you didn’t notice, I presented the Gospel several times to the folks on this forum. There are also many gospels being preached today as has been the case for several thousand of years (yes I intended to say several thousand years) , but only one that God uses to bring a sinner, such as myself, to true knowledge and repentance. After you present the true Gospel and it is rejected, you go to another venue (read Paul’s and Luke’s writings in the New testament). It is foolish to spend time arguing at the facts level, when presuppositions are not the same. You must argue from fundamentals and scripture as is demonstrated to us throughout the new testament. No amount of arguing about observable results (superficial resultant facts) will have any effect in changing a man’s heart until the Holy Spirit removes the scales from someone’s eyes. If you presuppose a world view (religion) of evolution as Darwin has presented it, at it roots, then you can make your observations from science say whatever you want them to. You just fit them into your model and any piece of information you cannot explain you excuse. And, when the model can morph over time as much as evolution has, then the chaos and relativism is almost infinite in permutations. I assure you I am not intentionally insulting anyone on this forum. The truth (biblical truth) is insulting to human pride and us christians, although we do, should never feel insulted until someone insults our Lord. Remember it is not our truth it is our God’s truth. We have nothing to be proud about other than our God. I simply have been given a gift by my Lord and Savior, and not of my own choosing, or I would have something to be proud about. I no longer unknowingly or knowingly hate truth (God’s Revelation) and it is as Paul wrote in Romans …. it has been made clear to me. Sure, I am still a sinner, but my Lord’s truth has set me free from being God’s enemy.

  42. Stanley said

    Doesn’t creation have to have some scientific evidence? If your little god made the world, shouldn’t the evidence verify that claim? We say the universe came into being one way, and have provided evidence. You say the world was created differently, and you say we have this book and the fact that everything that exists, exists. You gotta come up with some proof my friends.

  43. Jared Black said

    Kasha

    As Stanley evidences … no amount of physical proof can change a mans presuppositions (World View). The universe screams God and they just cannot see it. And they will not see it until they are effectually called by God!

  44. MattF said

    Maz (quoting me): ”Absolute proof does not exist in science, but there simply is no other explanation that we have that covers the evidence.”

    You mean you have a theory that has absolutely no proof existing.

    I had to address this because it really sticks in my craw.

    This sort of thing is exactly why it can be frustrating sometimes to try to discuss topics like this openly and honestly. One side is so vested in having the correct answers that they are willing to tell other people what they really mean, even if that isn’t what they say. They then take the ridiculous nature of the misrepresented stance of the opposition as evidence that their stance is correct.

    It’s small wonder that so many who embrace evolution accuse creationists of denying reality.

  45. Stanley said

    So, what you’re saying Jared, is that I’m right? You say you have scripture and the fact that the universe exists is your proof…

  46. abc's said

    MattF

    Hello.

    You seem to have a good grasp on the Science of things. I have a question for you. How do you reconcile your acceptance of evolution with your faith?
    I’m assuming your believe in the credibility of the Bible and that your are a Christian. If i’m wrong, please let me know.
    I’m curious to hear your response.

  47. MattF said

    Jared Black: No amount of arguing about observable results (superficial resultant facts) will have any effect in changing a man’s heart until the Holy Spirit removes the scales from someone’s eyes.

    Right. But God’s truth will also never be at variance with the facts.

    For example, we can easily accept the theory if universal gravitation because there’s no evidence in God’s Word that He does it differently. It’s the same way with evolution.

    Jared Black: If you presuppose a world view (religion) of evolution as Darwin has presented it, at it roots, then you can make your observations from science say whatever you want them to.

    You haven’t addressed why you think evolution is a religion. And there are facts and predictions that would either corroborate or contradict evolution; so far, of those, there’s been no contradiction.

    There are also facts and predictions that would either corroborate or contradict the notion that life was spontaneously created within six 24-hour days. The facts contradict this notion. I can give you specifics if you like.

    Jared Black: Remember it is not our truth it is our God’s truth.

    Taking a particular interpretation of an ambiguous part of Scripture and calling it “God’s truth” is pretty insulting, though, and certainly seems to reflect pride.

    Jared Black: As Stanley evidences … no amount of physical proof can change a mans presuppositions (World View). The universe screams God and they just cannot see it. And they will not see it until they are effectually called by God!

    That’s convenient. Your stance seems to be: “If you don’t agree with me, it’s just because you don’t get it yet”.

    I learned to accept evolution after learning the facts of the matter; I was a young-Earth creationist. Which stance seems capable of changing its suppositions? One willing to admit that it was wrong (and still has less than full possession of the facts), or one claiming that it cannot be wrong?

    Abc: How do you reconcile your acceptance of evolution with your faith?

    I don’t think Scripture is at all interested in telling us how God created, any more than it’s interested in telling us that matter is made up of atoms.

    Abc: I’m assuming your believe in the credibility of the Bible and that your are a Christian.

    Yes, though some here might disagree.

    I also don’t think that believing that the Bible is true means that it is perfectly understood; exactly which truth it is communicating may not be obvious or easily penetrable. Ultimately, I believe that understanding Scripture is in some measure a supernatural act and involves the communication of the believer with the Holy Spirit. Snice no one hears the Holy Spirit perfectly, no one understands Scripture perfectly. It behooves us as students of Scripture to humbly acknowledge this, and to always examine our assumptions and preconceptions (especially when new facts come to light).

    Can I give you emprirical evidence for this? Well, no; it’s faith. 😉 But I believe that faith requires believing in things that are unprovable, not believing in things that are disproven.

    Does that answer your question, or have I misunderstood?

  48. Maz said

    Stanley: #38. I read a lot, and not just creationist stuff.

  49. Stanley said

    Do you read, or do you learn?

  50. abc's said

    MattF

    “Can I give you empirical evidence for this? Well, no; it’s faith. But I believe that faith requires believing in things that are unprovable, not believing in things that are disproven.”

    You answered exactly what I was asking. Thank you.

  51. Stanley said

    Whoever said evolution promoted racism is flat out wrong. No evolutionist believes that one race of human is less advanced than another. Race comes from the cline the race comes from.

  52. Maz said

    MattF: #40.
    ”With respect, Maz, if this is what you mean to say, your idea of God seems very small indeed.”

    I would question WHO is making God small or limiting Him in any way. He CAN’T create in 6 days?? He CAN’T create supernaturally??

    ”Which mutations are required that have not been directly observed? Be specific. You stand on the threshold of describing a form of mutation heretofore unknown to science, and this is not insignificant.”

    I don’t know any unknown mutations….because they are unknown if they exist atall. But how can the mutations we know about prove that evolution in all it’s complexity and diversity took place?

    ”No. Evolution is a progression towards greater adaptation. That in no way implies “upward”.

    Whether you dismiss ”upward”, evolution is still a theory that teaches better, more and more complexity, more and more variation in animals, as I said, blob to Bob. I don’t believe that the mutations that we observe today are capable of doing anything like the theory of evolution is suggesting it did in the past.

    ”The amount of evidence that corroborates evolution is staggering, but no absolute proof exists or can exist for this or any other scientific theory.”

    You know, the more I read stuff like this, the more you sound like a politician. You say that you say what you mean but you really don’t mean what you say. It’s great grammar gymnastics.
    Come on now, there is either proof of evolution or there isn’t, I find it quite amusing when evolutionists start playing with words like this.

    ”Given the facts at my disposal, it seems that God is a fantastic liar.”

    Oh dear, you really have put your evolutionistic foot in your mouth…….seriously……you shall have to answer for that quote one day soon.

    ”Ding ding ding! You’re exactly right! Tell me — do the laws of thermodynamics allow this increase in “disorder” to be matched by a localized increase in “order” elsewhere in the system defined by the Sun’s effects.”

    I listened to one of those ‘Horizan’ programmes recently (you may not have ‘Horizan’ over there) and they were talking about not only the sun dying, but eventually the solar system, then the other stars, galaxies Black Holes………to cut a long story short, they were talking about the death of the Universe. And that had nothing to do with creationists or creation or Christianity. This was a secular scientific programme. It’s entropy. If there is any order in the Universe it is temporary, the major move in the Universe is towards disorder and finally death.

  53. Kash said

    MattF,
    I enjoy your long posts, but that is probably because you and I appear to have a similar point of view on this topic! I find your quote, “But I believe that faith requires believing in things that are unprovable, not believing in things that are disproven” a very succinct summary of the way Christianity can be taken seriously in the modern age.

  54. Maz said

    Jared #41. Although ‘arguing’ or ‘debating’ or discussing these issues with unbelievers may not achieve what we would like it to, if we say absolutely nothing, then they will hear absolutely nothing. That’s my view on this. That’s why I try not to give up too soon.

  55. Maz said

    Stanley #42. God never told m to prove to anyone that He created the world in six days, He just told me to tell them. Ofcourse, we can show that there is no proof for evolution.

  56. Kash said

    Maz,
    You are twisting MattF’s words.
    ”Given the facts at my disposal, it seems that God is a fantastic liar.” He goes on to say why this isn’t so. It is young earth creationists that make God out to be a liar, because their beliefs would imply that He somehow made the earth and universe look older than they are just to fool us or test us.

  57. Maz said

    Jared #43: The Word says they are ‘WILLINGLY ignorant’ and they ‘have no excuse’.

  58. Maz said

    MattF: #44.
    ”This sort of thing is exactly why it can be frustrating sometimes to try to discuss topics like this openly and honestly. One side is so vested in having the correct answers that they are willing to tell other people what they really mean, even if that isn’t what they say.”

    I am just trying to get to the truth, but it’s hard when you say things that to me don’t make sense half the time.

    Never mind, one day we shall all know REALITY, I think someone is going to be very surprised, and it won’t be me. Jesus said, ”I am the Way, the TRUTH, ad the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me.” In other words when Jesus said, ”I am the Truth..” He is saying…”I am REALITY.” And He wants you to know HIM.

  59. Maz said

    Abc’s: You know, I’m glad you said that because I had forgotten this man was a Christian….or atleast he says he is. Or did he? I really thot he was on the ‘other side’.

  60. Maz said

    That last post from me was in answer to #46.

  61. Maz said

    Ah, yes he did, in #47. I’m still trying to catch up!

  62. Maz said

    Stanley: #49. I read, and I learn.

  63. Maz said

    Stanley: #51. I have seen pictures in a book about evolution of the different races and that some are superior to others in the evolutionary tree. I can’t remember where I saw it….maybe I can find out for you if you really want to know. But it’s in black and white somewhere.

  64. abc's said

    MattF

    “I also don’t think that believing that the Bible is true means that it is perfectly understood; exactly which truth it is communicating may not be obvious or easily penetrable. Ultimately, I believe that understanding Scripture is in some measure a supernatural act and involves the communication of the believer with the Holy Spirit.”

    I’m sure you can see how this might sound like magic. This is the question that I always arrive at: How can faith be epistemologically valid when it provides no method for distinction between true and false propositions? Like you said, there is no way to be sure of which truth is being communicated.

  65. Maz said

    Kasha: #56. This is what MattF said in full:

    ”So far, all other explanations for life’s diversity that I’ve been exposed to are contradicted by fact and experiment. The body of collected knowledge on the topic is enormous. Given the facts at my disposal, it seems that God is a fantastic liar; some people who claim to speak for God are mistaken or wrong; or the theory of evolution is onto something. (These are not mutually exclusive explanations.) I do not believe the first option, and find the second and third remarkably easy to accept.”

    He said he found the second (and third) option remarkable easy to accept……i.e: ”that God is a fantastic liar.”
    Now how did I misunderstand it?

  66. Mike S. said

    Response to Kash/Maz re:post #56
    Or it could be that the process in which God used to create the world was simply an accelerated creation process. Just because it appears to be billions of years old doesn’t mean God is trying to trick us. The Bible’s purpose is not to tell us the processes he used to create, only THAT HE CREATED. Who knows, during the time of creation, one day could of been equal to billions of years. On the first day, none of the cycles of the universe were even in place yet. If you really try to think it through completely, (how it all began) it will boggle your mind regardless of whether or not you believe God created it all.

  67. Maz said

    Remember Stanleys post #51.
    Now read:
    ”An abysmal chapter in the history of evolutionary thought involves the notion that certain races weren’t quite as advanced as others. Consider the complete title of Darwin’s famous book: “The Origin of Species by Natural Selection” with the subtitle, “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”. By this he meant human races as well as animal subspecies.

    ”In the 1800’s the scientific community believed that Negroes were lower on the evolutionary chain that Caucasians. Not only were Darwin and Thomas Huxley racists, but virtually all the leading evolutionists and anthropologists – Osborn, Hooton, Hrdlicka, and Haeckel. (Morris 1989, 61, 63) Consider this quote:

    “The Negroid stock is even more ancient that the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the body characters, such as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo Sapiens.” (Henry Fairfield Osborn, “The Evolution of Human Races”, Natural History Jan/Feb 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980):129) (Morris, 1989, 62).

    H. F. Osborn was the most prominent American anthropologist of the first half of the twentieth century and director of the American Museum of National History. These remarks were not based on innate prejudice, but on the evolutionary science of the day. (Morris, 1989, 62)
    The idea that some races had progressed further than others was rationalized by Ernst Haeckel’s “recapitulation theory” or “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” where stages of embryonic development express the evolutionary sequence. Here the activities of children (of advanced races) were equated to the activities of adults of the lower races. (Morris 1989, 61, 62)

    It should be noted that today anthropologists agree that the different human races have a common origin – a Biblical doctrine. (Morris 1989, 64).”

  68. Maz said

    Stanley: Again, I quote John Koster (1988) in ‘The Athiest Syndrome’. He notes about Darwin’s view on race, he:

    ”…never considered “the less civilized races” to be authentically human. For all his decent hatred of slavery, his writings reek with all kinds of contempt for “primitive” people. Racism was culturally conditioned into educated Victorians by such “scientific” parlor tricks as Morton’s measuring of brainpans with BB shot to prove that Africans and Indians had small brains, and hence, had deficient minds and intellects. Meeting the simple Indians of Tierra del Fuego, Darwin wrote: “I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilized man; it is greater than between a wild and domesticated animal . . . Viewing such a man, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures and inhabitants of the same world.”

    Darwin’s belief that some races (such as blacks) were inferior to others became so widely accepted that, as Haller concluded: ‘the subject of race inferiority was beyond critical reach in the late nineteenth century. (Haller, Ref: 38, p132.) Although Darwin opposed all forms of slavery, he did conclude that one of the strongest evidences for evolution was the existence of living ‘primitive races’ which he believed were evolutionarily between the ‘civilized races of man’ and the gorilla:

    ‘At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. … It has often been said … that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.” Darwin, Ref: 9, pp 241-242.

    The missing link wasn’t missing but, many evolutionists of the time concluded, lived in Australia and other faroffplaces.47 The existence of some living races was openly viewed as irrefutable evidence of a graduation of living creatures ‘linking’ humans to the monkeys (or today ‘to our common primate ancestor’). This ‘scientific conclusion’ was interpreted as compelling evidence for evolution, thus a large number of biology textbooks of the time discussed the ‘hierarchy of the races’ topic.

    The man who some regard as the actual modern ‘discoverer’ of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Russell Wallace, also espoused essentially the same idea.48 In his words,

    ‘the weak dying was necessary to improve the race because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off leaving the superior-that is, only the fittest would survive.’49

    This was the essence of Darwinism, and race differences and fitness of these differences (racism) was at its core.

    Although Darwin was far less racist than many of his disciples, especially Spencer, Haeckel, Hooton, Pearson, and Huxley, his theory provided the basis for the latters’ extreme racism. As Poliakov 50 noted, Darwin’s primary spokesman in Germany, Ernest Haeckel, was ‘the great ancestor’ of Nazi biology theoreticians. Importantly, Darwin did little to oppose this conclusion which spread like wild-fire from his works.51 Since Darwin’s writings were critical in the development of evolutionary theory, his thoughts on the application of his theory of racism are crucial to understand how the racism theory spawned. Although he was known as a kind and gentle man, Darwin openly gave his support to eugenic ideas which gradually won acceptance in the scientific community, both in Europe and the United States.

    It seems that reading this and other quotes, the answer to the question above is, he was!

  69. MattF said

    Maz: I am just trying to get to the truth, but it’s hard when you say things that to me don’t make sense half the time.

    Then do what a rational person would do: Ask for clarification. It’s misleading and dishonest to tell another person what they really mean to say.

    Maz: Jesus said, ”I am the Way, the TRUTH, ad the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me.” In other words when Jesus said, ”I am the Truth..” He is saying…”I am REALITY.” And He wants you to know HIM.

    Ultimately, that’s the most important thing. However, we must not conflate knowing one interpretation of an ambiguous part of Scripture with knowing Him.

    Maz: I have seen pictures in a book about evolution of the different races and that some are superior to others in the evolutionary tree.

    If true, that betrays a gross misunderstanding about evolution. It would be good if you could find this book, so that we can see how it compares to contemporary evolutionary analysis.

    Abc: I’m sure you can see how this might sound like magic. This is the question that I always arrive at: How can faith be epistemologically valid when it provides no method for distinction between true and false propositions? Like you said, there is no way to be sure of which truth is being communicated.

    You’re absolutely right. But if my faith were deducible from empirical data or impenetrable logic, it would be scholarship, not faith.

    There is no empirical reason to place my hope and trust in Jesus Christ (as opposed to, say, the Invisible Pink Unicorn). The only reasons I could give you would be based on experience and things one believes in even though ironclad corroborating evidence is impossible. I know that’s dissatisfying, especially since critical scientific thought is such a marvelous tool for separating truth from garbage; to say that this is a matter that these tools cannot hope to penetrate is rather frustrating.

    Science is quite useful when it comes to analyzing the natural Universe. Faith is simply outside its scope, except and unless that faith makes statements about the natural Universe.

    (This can be terribly unsettling at times, especially since I’m a big fan of Occam’s Razor. If faith is a requirement to believe in God or His revealed truth, as I believe it is, then these things will fail every Occam’s Razor test you can put them to, because there will always be a simpler natural explanation.)

    Maz: This is what MattF said in full:

    ”So far, all other explanations for life’s diversity that I’ve been exposed to are contradicted by fact and experiment. The body of collected knowledge on the topic is enormous. Given the facts at my disposal, it seems that God is a fantastic liar; some people who claim to speak for God are mistaken or wrong; or the theory of evolution is onto something. (These are not mutually exclusive explanations.) I do not believe the first option, and find the second and third remarkably easy to accept.”

    He said he found the second (and third) option remarkable easy to accept……i.e: ”that God is a fantastic liar.”

    CAN YOU COUNT? “God is a fantastic liar” was the first option. “Some people who claim to speak for God are mistaken or wrong” was the second. “The theory of evolution is onto something” was the third. Please, re-read what I had to say. I do not mean to imply that I believe that God is a liar — only that it is one of the logical explanations of the information before me.

    Mike S.: Or it could be that the process in which God used to create the world was simply an accelerated creation process.

    Yes, but He never even hints at any kind of acceleration. It could be that God created everything last Tuesday, complete with an apparent history and our memories of prior experience. But if that’s true, it’s impossible to analyze scientifically, and thus rather useless when trying to discuss its implications in the natural world, never mind find evidence or create predictions.

    Mike S.: Who knows, during the time of creation, one day could of been equal to billions of years.

    That’s getting really close to what I happen to believe about the matter.

    Maz: Consider the complete title of Darwin’s famous book: “The Origin of Species by Natural Selection” with the subtitle, “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”. By this he meant human races as well as animal subspecies.

    The book itself uses “races” to refer to variations within species that survive to leave more offspring. It does nothing to imply any kind of stratification of these races. (The book itself hardly even mentions humans.)

    Maz (quoting Morris): In the 1800’s the scientific community believed that Negroes were lower on the evolutionary chain that Caucasians.

    Yes… and there is a sense in which Darwin was a product of his era. However, as pointed out, he vehemently opposed slavery; he also contributed to missionary enterprises that attempted to better the condition of the natives of Tierra del Fuego. Considering the general demeanor of his contemporaries, Darwin himself was rather enlightened.

    Besides all this, evolution doesn’t rest on this person or that’s opinion about what the races are or what their roles ought to be. It rests on evidence.

    Here’s a question: Why doesn’t the notion of “kinds” promote racism? There were some Christian teachers who justified harsh treatment of other races based on Cain’s mark or Noah’s curse on Caanan.

    Consider, too, George McCready Price, one of creationism’s early lights. He wrote that black people came to be by migrating south, where their minds were emptied. Other prominent creationists taught that black people were either degenerate humans or the product of human-ape reproduction.

    “Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acument of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.” — Henry Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, page 241.

  70. Mike S. said

    Matt & Abc
    Just because someone opposes slavery is not proof that they are not racist. If I oppose beating dogs it does not mean that I don’t believe they are an inferior species to humans. Sorry PETA.

  71. Maz said

    MattF: ”CAN YOU COUNT?”

    Yes, but somehow my brain stopped working when I read it!!

    “God is a fantastic liar” was the first option. “Some people who claim to speak for God are mistaken or wrong” was the second. “The theory of evolution is onto something” was the third. Please, re-read what I had to say. I do not mean to imply that I believe that God is a liar — only that it is one of the logical explanations of the information before me.

    And I’m glad you would not accept that God is a liar. I recant my earlier statement.

  72. MattF said

    Mike S.: Just because someone opposes slavery is not proof that they are not racist.

    Point taken. I have conceded that Darwin was a product of his era… but if one contrasts his views with those of his contemporaries (even, it pains me to say, his Christian contemporaries!), he seems downright progressive.

    Maz: And I’m glad you would not accept that God is a liar. I recant my earlier statement.

    My apologies for shouting a bit, there.

  73. Maz said

    MattF: Forgiven.

  74. MattF said

    My apologies… I didn’t mean to ignore this post.

    Maz: I would question WHO is making God small or limiting Him in any way. He CAN’T create in 6 days?? He CAN’T create supernaturally??

    I’m not saying He can’t. I’m saying He didn’t. There’s a big difference.

    He can do whatever He wants. Since Genesis appears to be sketchy in its details, I would rather look to the Universe and see if there are forensic indications of how it was done that might lend insight into that question.

    Lo and behold, there are. And they indicate that spontaneous creation is not how the diversity of life came to be.

    Maz: But how can the mutations we know about prove that evolution in all it’s complexity and diversity took place?

    As in “prove conclusively”? They can’t. But the kinds of mutation we have observed directly are sufficient to account for all of the genetic diversity we see. Any evidence that they could not would contradict evolution rather strongly.

    Maz: Whether you dismiss ”upward”, evolution is still a theory that teaches better,

    No. Just because you say it does doesn’t mean that it does.

    Maz: more and more complexity,

    First of all, evolution does not predict more complexity. If a simpler organism is better suited to an environment, it will survive and its competitors will not.

    Second of all, “more complex” does not mean “better”.

    Maz: more and more variation in animals,

    It’s hard to know what you mean to say here, since “variation in animals” could mean several different things. But if a given population is better suited to an environment even though it is less complex, it will tend to survive.

    Evolution is about survival of the most well-adapted. There is no direct correlation between that and complexity, “betterness”, or variation.

    Maz: I don’t believe that the mutations that we observe today are capable of doing anything like the theory of evolution is suggesting it did in the past.

    What do mutations need to do in order to demonstrate that they are capable of doing so? What part of the genetic makeup of what organism is one that, as far as you know, is impossible to arrive at through known types of mutations?

    Without this kind of data, your argument seems to boil down to “It can’t be true because I can’t imagine how it could be true”. That’s a statement of personal incredulity, and it’s not science. (If you have data that prevents it from being this kind of statement, please present it.)

    Maz: Come on now, there is either proof of evolution or there isn’t, I find it quite amusing when evolutionists start playing with words like this.

    You seem to be stumbling over the nature of proof.

    Consider a crime scene where someone is shot. Bullets removed from the body are found through ballistic tests to have been fired from a gun also found at the crime scene. There are fingerprints on the gun, and they are matched to an individual who is promptly arrested for murder.

    Is this evidence conclusive proof that the suspect killed the victim? No — because there’s always the outside possibility that there is another set of events, however convoluted, that gave rise to the evidence we see. Does the available evidence corroborate the theory that the suspect killed the victim? Obviously, yes.

    This is exactly the way it is with scientific theory. Conclusive proof is an impossibility, simply because we don’t know everything. But there is a point where believing in other scenarios seems to require more and more elaborate and unusual justifications if they are to be responsible for the evidence we find.

    Evolution rather simply fits the facts. Young-Earth creationism does not — at least, not without heavy tweaking.

    Maz: If there is any order in the Universe it is temporary, the major move in the Universe is towards disorder and finally death.

    Well, yes, assuming that nothing steps in to change things from their natural direction. No evolutionist stands in opposition to the idea that order is a temporary state of affairs. I’m not sure I see what your point is.

  75. abc's said

    MattF

    Kudos on your responses to all of the questions asked of you so far. In my opinion you are truly open minded.

  76. Stanley said

    I’m in Anthropology class, looking at those missing links that don’t exist. Lol.

  77. Stanley said

    Is his information wrong, or… what? Why is this not true, fundies?

  78. Maz said

    MattF: ”He can do whatever He wants. Since Genesis appears to be sketchy in its details, I would rather look to the Universe and see if there are forensic indications of how it was done that might lend insight into that question.”

    If God wanted us to know more about HOW He created everything wouldn’t He have told us. Or maybe He wants us to accept what He has told us and leave the rest to faith? If we know everything there is no need to have faith.

    ”Without this kind of data, your argument seems to boil down to “It can’t be true because I can’t imagine how it could be true”. That’s a statement of personal incredulity, and it’s not science. (If you have data that prevents it from being this kind of statement, please present it.)

    But I didn’t SAY that did I? My imagination has nothing to do with it.

    ”Consider a crime scene where someone is shot. Bullets removed from the body are found through ballistic tests to have been fired from a gun also found at the crime scene. There are fingerprints on the gun, and they are matched to an individual who is promptly arrested for murder.

    ”Is this evidence conclusive proof that the suspect killed the victim? No — because there’s always the outside possibility that there is another set of events, however convoluted, that gave rise to the evidence we see. Does the available evidence corroborate the theory that the suspect killed the victim? Obviously, yes.”

    Pardon? Is He guilty or not? Did they prove this? Both answers have to be yes, he is guilty and they proved it, or they may end up putting an innocent man in gaol.

    ”Maz said: If there is any order in the Universe it is temporary, the major move in the Universe is towards disorder and finally death.
    MattF said: Well, yes, assuming that nothing steps in to change things from their natural direction. No evolutionist stands in opposition to the idea that order is a temporary state of affairs. I’m not sure I see what your point is.”

    The point is ENTROPY. It began the day Adam sinned. It continues until Jesus comes back and sets up His Kingdom.
    Romans 8 v 21-22 says that, ”…the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the WHOLE CREATION groans and travails in pain together until now..”
    Not just man, but creation itself is in bondage to the curse brought about by Adams sin, and it shows in nature. Entropy. Order to chaos, not chaos to order.

  79. Maz said

    Stanley: If ape-man missing links are not missing, then why are they called ‘missing’ links?
    This really is laughable. If something is called a missing link…wouldn’t it mean that it is……er…….MISSING?

  80. Stanley said

    You say its missing. Not me. Its right over there.

  81. Stanley said

    Wow Maz. New low.

  82. MattF said

    Maz: If God wanted us to know more about HOW He created everything wouldn’t He have told us.

    Maybe. I can’t claim to know how God thinks. It seems that this is a difficult question to answer positively, though, since one might ask whether God wanted us to know about germ theory, or gravity, or atoms. None of these are mentioned in Scripture, either.

    Maz: Or maybe He wants us to accept what He has told us and leave the rest to faith? If we know everything there is no need to have faith.

    No one claims that accepting evolution grants one knowledge of everything. You need faith whether you accept evolution or you don’t.

    Maz: ”Without this kind of data, your argument seems to boil down to “It can’t be true because I can’t imagine how it could be true”. That’s a statement of personal incredulity, and it’s not science. (If you have data that prevents it from being this kind of statement, please present it.)

    But I didn’t SAY that did I? My imagination has nothing to do with it.

    No, you didn’t say it, but you didn’t give any concrete evidence to corroborate your statement, either. Without it, this sort of argument is all we have to go on. As I pointed out, you could easily refute the notion that your imagination is the basis of your argument by presenting some evidence.

    Maz: ”Is this evidence conclusive proof that the suspect killed the victim? No — because there’s always the outside possibility that there is another set of events, however convoluted, that gave rise to the evidence we see. Does the available evidence corroborate the theory that the suspect killed the victim? Obviously, yes.”

    Pardon? Is He guilty or not? Did they prove this? Both answers have to be yes, he is guilty and they proved it, or they may end up putting an innocent man in gaol.

    He is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not proven guilty conclusively.

    It is much the same with evolution. It is true beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the case that it is proven conclusively, however. No scientific theory can be.

    Maz: Romans 8 v 21-22 says that, ”…the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the WHOLE CREATION groans and travails in pain together until now..”

    The prominent young-Earth creationist John Gill wrote in his commentary on the Bible that “creation” is the wrong translation of this word (ktisis), and it would be better to translate it “creatures” (and interpreted to mean “Gentiles”; “creatures” was evidently a common euphemism for Gentiles). It certainly fits better with the context. Otherewise, we have Paul talking about the roles of Jews and Gentiles, stopping with no clear transition to talk about all of creation for a bit, then resumes talking about the roles of Jews and Gentiles (again with no clear transition). Given Paul’s general writing style, that seems a bit odd.

    (I mention him to point out that a prominent young-Earth creationist does not think that this passage has anything to do with entropy, and that the exact interpretation of the passage is far from clear even among young-Earth creationists.)

    Besides, without entropy, the Sun could not warm the Earth, friction would be impossible (meaning that we could not move by propelling ourselves along the ground), and chemical processes could not reach equilibrium. Allowing all these things to be possible without entropy involves a major re-write of the laws of physics. Unfortunately, my Bible tells me that God finished His creative work by the seventh day [Genesis 2:2]; since Adam sinned after that point, either this verse is in error, my interpretation of it is in error, or entropy existed before the fall of man.

    Maz: Entropy. Order to chaos, not chaos to order.

    Actually, entropy is much more sophisticated than that. That’s the general trend, yes, but not the situation seen in every corner of a system under every circumstance.

  83. Maz said

    Stanley: #80. Over where? Never Never Land?

  84. F. L. A. said

    Post#29: I do come here for amusement Maz, but others do not. That is why I said “Teach “US” instead of teach “me”.
    Besides, he amuses me with his…confidence. I want to read more. The fact that Jared questioned whether Kasha was a Christian also says a lot about him, too.

    Mr.Black, consider this,…even though you believe that some of us will never change our opinions on this topic do not fail to consider the help that others such as Maz might gain from your input, for a MULTITUDE of people from around this world read these posts.

  85. Maz said

    MattF: SO, evolution is reasonable but not conclusive? So there is still that element of doubt?

  86. Maz said

    F.L.A: That’s a good point! Who knows who is reading our posts and learning something from them….hopefully the truth. Ofcourse that could be claimed by both sides, but atleast people have the chance to make their own minds up about it.

    Yes Jared, we need your input if you are still reading.

  87. abc's said

    Maz

    “MattF: SO, evolution is reasonable but not conclusive? So there is still that element of doubt?”

    Yes, there is always the element of doubt, and that’s where evidence comes in. So far we haven’t found any evidence to doubt evolution.

  88. Maz said

    Abc’s: So there isn’t any doubt? That means it is conclusive, which is contrary to what MattF said. Mmmmmmmm???

  89. John said

    I would like Mr.Black to answer my questions even if he thinks I won’t understand or accept his answers. Please feel free to use all the big words and technical scientificinformation that you wish Mr.Black, I have a collection of encyclopedias and dictionaries[smile].
    I also have a collection of Christian Bibles, so perhaps just reading the Bible is not sufficient to help someone such as myself just understand everything in regards to this issue.

  90. MattF said

    Maz: SO, evolution is reasonable but not conclusive? So there is still that element of doubt?

    Yes. If one is intellectually honest, there is also some doubt about gravity, atoms, germs, or any other thing that scientific theory posits, no matter how well corroborated it is. That is simply because we don’t know everything, and new information may come to light in the future that forces us to reconsider our ideas.

    Maz: So there isn’t any doubt? That means it is conclusive, which is contrary to what MattF said. Mmmmmmmm???

    You seem to misunderstand. There isn’t any doubt yet. But we haven’t discovered everything yet. There may yet be evidence waiting to be uncovered that contradicts evolution. If we are to remain intellectually honest before facts, past, present, and future, we must admit that there is room for evolution to be wrong. Therefore, it is not proven conclusively.

    But there comes a point where expressing doubt borders on denial. For example, physicists do not really doubt that gravity exists, even though discoveries at the frontiers of astrophysics indicate that we don’t have all the details nailed down. We’re pretty confident that we’re on the right track with acknowledging that gravity explains a great deal that no competing theory yet proposed explains well or in a way consistent with the facts. In the same way, biologists do not really doubt that evolution exists, even though discoveries at the frontier of biology indicate that we don’t have all the details nailed down. We’re pretty confident that we’re on the right track with acknowledging that evolution explains a great deal that no competing theory yet proposed explains well or in a way consistent with the facts.

    There is a great deal of evidence corroborating evolution. The difficulty comes in when the challenge is made to “prove” evolution, by which laypeople usually mean one of two things — either (a) prove it conclusively, or (b) produce one piece of evidence that cannot be interpreted any other way. Neither is possible — nor, strictly speaking, is it true for any scientific theory.

  91. John said

    You make me wonder how Ferox might be as a man and a Christian, MattF. You sound similar in some ways.
    I’m still curious at how the Earth and even the universe as we know it can be thought of as “closed systems”.
    Any good ideas?

  92. Stanley said

    In my classroom. I held a cast of a Australopithecus somethingus. The names kinda run together because there are so many off branches.

  93. Jared said

    John

    I have tried to make the point that you, and the other evolutionists on this forum, have a far different presupposition than I do. I presuppose a creator, the God of the Bible. I cannot reconcile something coming from nothing or syntropy, as evolution must presupposes. Fortunately, I have never had to reconcile this as I have been a Christian since I was a young man. All that I have ever been able to physically observe or measure is in fact an increase in entropy. Many of my experiments in graduate school relied upon this observable law. Many if not most evolution scientists actually acknowledge this is very problematic for the evolutionary theory and the big bang for that matter. So they offer up other theories to circumvent the entropy problem. Proposing periods when the currently observable laws were not in effect and in this case reversed and they have great “faith” in those theories. You …. see the world through the eyes of someone who does not believe in a transcendent being or and absolute truth, but rather organization from chaos and relativism. So what ever evidence, such as is above will not bend your ear one iota save the grace of God.

    It is obvious that if I say evolution requires syntropy and no known system currently demonstrates this ability to organize itself, you will say I am wrong. Then I will refer to another fundamental observable law which effects phenomenon preserving life here on earth like maxwell’s equations and there relationship to the earths magnetic field and the resultant Van Allen radiation belts. And, how measurements started by Gauss, have shown that the magnetic field strength is an exponential function with the half life in terms of strength being about 1400 years. Knowing maxwell’s equations then dictates that the energy required to generate those magnetic fields actual has a half life of 700 years. Evolutionists continue to increase the age of the earth, but given observable degradation in the magnetic field and the associated energy required to generate such a field would require energy on par with a small star only 20k+ years ago. You would say I didn’t know what I was talking about and there are theories that evolution scientists have come up with (have “faith” in) that help them reconcile this problem. I could refer to the hundreds of symbiotic relationships in nature that are clear evidence of design, such as insects and plant reproduction, or better yet the unbelievably complex symbiotic relationships within your very cells such as DNA and how it dictates the particular function and activities of a cell in your liver as apposed to your hair or brain and how these cells can’t function at all without DNA or for that matter RNA is another unexplainable mystery to evolutionists of which they must have great faith “just came to be” (evolved) and again defying the natural law of entropy demonstrated around us. The structure and chemical composition of DNA in all living organisms, even the ones referred to as living dinosaurs is beyond evolutions ability to explain. I have it easy and you will agree, I say “thus saith the Lord”. I have faith in a creator, a transcendent and imminent being who designed with great precision and beauty everything we see around us and we spend years researching only to begin to understand. But, you will again deny that this takes any intelligent design and say give me more evidence.

    I was once standing with a man in Indiana looking down at a concrete floor discussing these very issues. He said to me “If there is a God then he should make a tree grow up right out of this concrete floor.” (we were standing in a factory). We laughed (he is a friend of mine) and I said “God does sometimes make trees to grow right out of rocks (as you can see in Yellowstone or other places in the west), but you wouldn’t believe anyway”. “You would find some excuse and tell me that is normal, I see it all the time”, I assured him. And then he agreed with me. He said something to the effect of “You are right, I wouldn’t believe, I just don’t like God.” He was at least honest on this occasion.

    Thanks be to the Lord for opening my eyes, that I don’t put my faith in man generated theories, but rather place my faith in an all knowing, transcendent, yet imminent creator.

    Isaiah says it this way “Lift up your eyes on high and see, who created these? He who brings out their host by number calling them all by name. By the greatness of his might and becuase he is strong in power not one is missing.” and “Lift up your eyes to the heavens,and look at the earth beneath; for the heavens vanish like smoke,the earth will wear out like a garment,and they who dwell in it will die in like manner; but my salvation will be forever,and my righteousness will never be dismayed.” And there are billions of them! That righteousness Isaiah is referring to … is the Lord Jesus Christ!

  94. Jared said

    Maz

    #86. The only problem with “but at least people have the chance to make their own minds up about it.” is that people aren’t free to make up their own minds about it. Those who have not been changed in their hearts by the Holy Spirit will always choose the trendy secularist world view (religion) negate of God. Look around. Have you ever observed an atheist claiming that the world was designed. Evidence isn’t for the non-believer, it is for you … the Christian. Until a man’s heart is changed he will always find ways to argue, ignore, or suppress the evidence. Romans 1.

    #76. If God explained to us how he created all things … how many volumes would that take! How many books have you read lately. Better yet have you read God’s word cover to cover. I can’t imagine how many volumes this might fill. That would be more written than all human writing from the beginning combined. I bet and army of people could not read it even if they wanted too. Your time is better spent reading the word of God than writing on this forum and I should take my own advise.

    Don’t get to caught up in the details, is the point. Evolutionist can’t even agree on their own details. They should spend more time arguing with each other about, which one of the marsupials they came from or which race is of higher intelligence or which species should be eliminated due to natural selection or exactly how long ago the first cell came to be or what exactly was the first life form or when do we actually call it life and what is is called or where exactly did the stuff come from to make the big bang or where did the stuff come from to design and make what I am looking at right now!!!!!!!!!!!

    Deal with the fundamentals God has designed into the system lest you become as Proverbs 26:4 says.

    It has been fun. Appreciate your comments. And more importantly Thanks be to God for all this awesome technology to talk this way and that I am not still blind.

  95. Mike S said

    Great post’s Jared
    I once was blind but now I see. 2Corinthians 4:5, For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,”made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

  96. Maz said

    MattF: #90. Now you really are doing somersaults, first we have evolution theory taught as FACT, then we are told it is not absolute, not conclusive with some doubt, then we are told there isn’t any doubt YET. What is it? Is evolution a FACT with undeniable evidence as some on here have , or is evolution still a theory which could be wrong if they found new evidence, which you seem to think COULD be possible in the future?
    Sounds ambiguous to me. Your theory is perched on shifting sand, whereas my faith stands upon a Rock. It doesn’t waver or shift or change. Or am I still misunderstanding?

  97. Maz said

    That sentence after ‘What is it?’ should have read ‘Is evolution a FACT with undeniable evidence as some on here have stated categorically, or……’

  98. Maz said

    MattF: #90. ”We’re pretty confident that we’re on the right track with acknowledging that evolution explains a great deal that no competing theory yet proposed explains well or in a way consistent with the facts.”

    I would disagree with that statement. Evolution does have a competing theory (though it’s not a theory) and it CAN and DOES explain the facts as seen from another worldview. It all comes down to worldviews, but one is right and one is wrong. Take your pick……you can’t believe in both (contrary to what some Christians may think).

    I guess we don’t know anything really according to science! Ofcourse I would agree with that because every time they come out with some theory they have to change it later on when a new discovery is made, as in Hubble. Which means that science has the habit of very often getting things wrong. Not a very trustowrthy track record wouldn’t you agree? Or perhaps not.
    Whereas I can trust God and His Word entirely and completely.

  99. Maz said

    What Jared said in #93 makes so much sense, but why don’t the evolutionists see this?
    He said ”Many if not most evolution scientists actually acknowledge this is very problematic” (ENTROPY that is) ”for the evolutionary theory and the big bang for that matter. So they offer up other theories to circumvent the entropy problem.”

    You see I hear this all the time when I watch those science programmes, they have this set theory, and they try to find things that fit it. If they come up against a problem, they don’t question the theory, they have to find something to solve the problem so that their pet theory still stands. There are problems all the time in Astronomy and in Physics which they try to solve to fit their worldview, and they are still trying to find answers to a lot of them, but will they be honest enough to say…’Maybe we are wrong.’ I have never heard any scientist on screen say that.

    I was watching something on the History Channel the other day and they were talking about the origins of life, ofcourse you get all the ‘may have’ and ‘could have been’ phrases weaved into the naration as usual. But an astrobiologist, having spent 25 years in this field, is STILL seeking out origins of life on earth. And they state that they are ‘still trying to figure out when inorganic became organic’. Ofcourse this has nothing to do with evolution…..but does it not? If they can’t figure out how life got here in the first place how do they know how it continued? Ofcourse! All that evidence!…..which is inconclusive, yet there’s no doubt it is true?????….YET?????? Mmmmmm!!

    It’s a wonder people like me get confused about what scientists REALLY believe!!

  100. Maz said

    Jared: I really enjoyed reading your post #93. You’re right about people’s blindness, but there are believers in I.D who don’t believe in God. They see the design yet won’t acknowledge that there is a God that actually designed everything.

    I must admit, I never saw the world in my youth as I saw it after I became a Christian, everythig became ALIVE to me, colours, the beauty…it all looked different. Mind you, it did take me quite a long time to get rid of the evolutionary teachings I was indoctrinated with at school. Thank God for people and ministries like Ken Ham, Jhn McKay and others. And ofcourse the Word of God which brought it all together.

    Don’t leave us yet, I can learn more, and ask YOU questions if I have any! Are you well up in Physics? I think you said so, I’v always wanted to ask those deep questions about speed of light/time dilation, gravity etc. It’s all so fancinating to me. It all speaks of ORDER, DESIGN, LAWS…….you don’t get these things in the kind of world evolution teaches.

  101. MattF said

    John: You make me wonder how Ferox might be as a man and a Christian, MattF. You sound similar in some ways.

    I don’t know Ferox or how she sounds, so I really can’t comment on that.

    John: I’m still curious at how the Earth and even the universe as we know it can be thought of as “closed systems”.

    Maybe I’m just not up to intellectual snuff, but I can’t think of a single system incorporating the Earth as a whole that can be thought of as a closed system. There are very small systems that can be accurately modeled as closed, but when you get to the size and scope of the planet generally, I can’t think of anything that remains closed to the Earth itself. Tectonic movement, maybe? I don’t know how much of that is driven by heat generated by internal radioactivity and how much is driven by, say, external heat and tidal stresses.

    As far as the Universe is concerned, to the best of my knowledge, we’re not aware of any natural phenomenon that can enter or leave. There’s some deep weirdness connected to things we can’t fully explain yet — why expansion is accelerating, for example — but we still expect to find the things responsible for them in the Universe. I have trouble thinking of a reason it can’t be considered a closed system.

    Of course, maybe you know more about the matter than I, or maybe I’ve misunderstood your question. Feel free to fill in my blanks. 🙂

    Jared: I have tried to make the point that you, and the other evolutionists on this forum, have a far different presupposition than I do. I presuppose a creator, the God of the Bible.

    As do I. Your point is false on its face. Part of it is that I believe in a God that one needs faith to come to [Hebrews 11:6], which means that scientific evidence of His existence and His involvement in the Universe will always prove fleeting.

    Proof is for doubters. 😉

    Jared: I cannot reconcile something coming from nothing or syntropy, as evolution must presupposes.

    How is this different from “I can’t understand how it would happen, so it must not have happened”?

    Jared: Then I will refer to another fundamental observable law which effects phenomenon preserving life here on earth like maxwell’s equations and there relationship to the earths magnetic field and the resultant Van Allen radiation belts.

    Look up Cowling’s Theorem. It’s mathematical proof that you can’t predict the magnetic field strength of a dynamo in the past by extrapolating present trends; this strength is, by its nature, chaotic, and any “trend” we see is merely an illusion caused by the limited length of time we can observe it. (And Earth’s magnetic field is generated through dynamo action.)

    Jared: I could refer to the hundreds of symbiotic relationships in nature

    No evolutionist posits that these symbiotic relationships sprang into place fully symbiotic. No population is ever “done” evolving. It is possible for organisms sharing an environment to evolve toward symbiosis. You might want to read some Margulis; there’s a lot of work there involving symbiosis as a driving force for evolution.

    Jared: defying the natural law of entropy

    I only mention this because you still have not addressed how a law about spontaneous heat flow in a closed system applies here, nor the fact that “complexity” arises naturally all the time. (For example, if a standing pool of water is heated, the convection currents that result are more complex than the still water used to be. Ant colonies are capable of sophisticated behavior, even though each member is rather simple. Adults come from zygotes. Planetary rings are formed through nothing but gravity.) You just continue to beat the drum and state its impossibility without stating why counterexamples do not apply.

    I do not for a moment pretend that the Universe is marvelous and awe-inspiring if one takes the time to look, and that certainly causes me to praise its Creator. I do not believe that that necessarily implies a certain method of creation, however.

    Jared: Have you ever observed an atheist claiming that the world was designed.

    Read that sentence carefully. Ask yourself why it is you might never have heard an atheist claiming that the world was designed.

    Jared: Evidence isn’t for the non-believer, it is for you … the Christian.

    Proof is for doubters.

    Maz: Now you really are doing somersaults, first we have evolution theory taught as FACT,

    Do you think it is misleading to have the existence of gravity taught as fact? Or to have the existence of atoms taught as fact?

    Maz: Is evolution a FACT with undeniable evidence as some on here have , or is evolution still a theory which could be wrong if they found new evidence, which you seem to think COULD be possible in the future?

    The evidence that points to evolution — and, for that matter, the evidence that contradicts special creation — is undeniable.

    It is possible for a theory to have undeniable evidence corroborating it and still be falsifiable. Any good scientific theory will exhibit these properties, in fact.

    It is useful to point to the theory of evolution as a fact because of the sheer volume of evidence corroborating it, just as it is useful to point to the theory of universal gravitation as a fact.

    But there is also a sense in which gravity is a fact because we observe it directly. We see its effects in tightly-controlled lab experiments and in the field. In precisely the same sense, we observe evolution directly, so it is fact.

    The fact that we cannot construct a perfect evolutionary history or observe evolutionary history directly is no more to the point than the fact that we cannot observe the gravity on the third planet on the 100,000,000th star in the Andromeda Galaxy directly. We are confident that gravity would exist on that hypothetical planet, and we are confident that evolution worked in a time when no human observed it. More to the point, the signs we see left behind are consistent with the notion that it happened, and they contradict the idea that it all came about because it was spontaneously created.

    Maz: Your theory is perched on shifting sand, whereas my faith stands upon a Rock. It doesn’t waver or shift or change. Or am I still misunderstanding?

    The mutability of scientific thought is a strength, not a weakness. It changes in light of new information that shows we were wrong and need to re-think things.

    Immutable faith refuses to change in the light of new facts and evidences that address its subject matter. And believing that something is true in direct contradiction to reality betrays either a serious gap in understanding or insanity.

    Maz: Evolution does have a competing theory (though it’s not a theory) and it CAN and DOES explain the facts as seen from another worldview.

    It has a theory in competition with it, yes. But that theory does not have any evidence to support it, and the evidence we do have contradicts it. It’s not just a matter of worldview.

    If the diversity of life were spontaneously created, there are certain things you’d expect to find in the way things behave and in the evidence left behind. The way things behave and the evidence left behind indicate that spontaneous creation is not the way the diversity of life came to be.

    Let’s take a slight detour into something that a lot of young-Earth creationists incorporate into their model of how things were: a global deluge just a few thousand years ago, during which at least some of the existing biosphere was preserved in the geologic column as fossils. If this theory is true, we should expect certain things it implies to be true:

    * Most of the sedimentary rock should be in the oceans, since loose material would be gathered into the low spots as the floodwaters receded. Most sedimentary rock is, in fact, in high ground.

    * Erosion levels should be globally consistent, since they were all eroded around the same time by the same phenomenon, and there hasn’t been much time to establish a difference. However, some mountain ranges are much more eroded than others.

    * Recent fossils should show a radial pattern leaving a single point over time: the resting place of the Ark. They don’t. We do, however, see migrations over the long term and evolutionary adaptations to new environments throughout the fossil record.

    * There should be no way to trace an unbroken lineage of tree rings to a time before the Flood. However, bristlecone pines show an unbroken record of tree rings going back more than 10,000 years.

    * Coprolites (fossilized poop) should show signs of flowering plants (which arrived relatively recently) at all levels in the geologic column. However, they only show up after flowering plants evolved.

    * For that matter, flowering plants should be in all strata. They’re not.

    * Fossils should show some signs of hydrodynamic sorting. They don’t.

    * Species with greater mobility should always be found near the top. However, one finds (for example) flying dinosaurs with other dinosaurs, all the time.

    * Man-made tools should be near the bottom (they sink faster and can’t run to high ground). They’re not.

    * Environmentally specialized fossils should be found dispersed among fossils from other environments. They’re not. (In fact, we find entire forest ecosystems — the right plants, the right animals, the right soil — always grouped together.)

    * Different parts of the same organism (arms, legs, trunks, branches) are always found in a single layer.

    * There are too many fossils to represent a single biosphere. (I can give numbers if you like. It gets amusing quickly.)

    * Species should not be found on isolated islands. They are.

    * Specific signs of inbreeding damage should be present in all of Earth’s species. They are not.

    * There should be no continuous historical records by other civilizations going back before the Flood. There are.

    That should be more than enough for starters. We can say that the available evidence contradicts the idea that there was a global flood just a few thousand years ago, because the logical consequences of that idea fail to match the evidence.

    Maz: one is right and one is wrong.

    Yes.

    Maz: Take your pick……

    I have.

    Maz: you can’t believe in both (contrary to what some Christians may think).

    (Assuming you mean that I can’t believe that God created using evolution) And why not? Because you say so?

    Maz: I guess we don’t know anything really according to science!

    In a strict logical sense, you’re right. The method does allow us to systematically detect and eliminate erroneous thinking, however.

    Science never claims to possess the truth. It can only claim to approach the truth, getting closer and closer to the real answers as more and more information pours in. We have a lot of evidence concerning evolution; it’s pretty safe to say that even though we don’t have the exact answers, we’re on the right track with this evolution thing.

    Maz: Ofcourse I would agree with that because every time they come out with some theory they have to change it later on when a new discovery is made, as in Hubble. Which means that science has the habit of very often getting things wrong.

    As pointed out, it cannot claim to be perfectly right. As a method, the best it can hope for is that the errors it makes will be smaller and smaller, and its explanations will be closer and closer to the truth. It’s not going to “do a one-eighty” and completely reverse its position on something that has already yielded enormous predictive power when all other posited theories haven’t.

    For example: the Earth is not flat. It is also not a sphere. It’s also not an oblate spheroid. But if you think that the oblate spheroid model of the Earth is every bit as wrong as the flat model of Earth, you’ve missed something important about how science works. (And as the monitor in front of you will attest, it works pretty darn well.)

    Maz: Whereas I can trust God and His Word entirely and completely.

    I’m not disagreeing with you on that.

    Maz: If they can’t figure out how life got here in the first place how do they know how it continued?

    We can watch how it behaves. We can formulate a useful theory of universal gravitation, for example, without knowing where mass came from.

    Along these lines, I happened to think of this scenario this morning while I was waiting for the alarm clock to sound. It’s less than polished, but I think it gives some insight into the scientific method — and, more particularly, how evolution (or any theory that happens to get lumped into “evolution” by creationists) sees creationist objections and why it sees them that way.

    Two detectives, Shawn and Hank, encounter a dead body in an abandoned warehouse.

    Shawn: Well, we finally found Joe Blow. It looks like was shot.
    Hank: No, he hanged himself.
    Shawn: Look — here’s the gunshot wound. A clean hole in the head.
    Hank: Maybe he poked himself while he was hanging. Hard enough to bleed really badly.
    Shawn (digging with tweezers): Aha! I found the bullet.
    Hank: That’s not a real bullet. I’ve seen real bullets. See? I have some in my pocket. That looks nothing like a bullet.
    Shawn: That’s because it was fired from a gun. Being fired from a gun changes bullets.
    Hank: You’re joking. What lengths will you go to to cling to this “he was shot” theory?
    Shawn: No, really. There’s intense heat and pressure caused by a chemical explosion that deforms the bullet at the same time it propels the bullet forward. The casing is left behind. And impact with a person sure doesn’t help. As it happens, I’m studying to be a tech in the ballistics lab, and I have a paper here that outlines the basics.
    Hank: I’m sorry. Explosions are deadly things. They never cause useful work to happen.
    Shawn: But all the telltale signs of an explosion are there! We know how matter behaves based on other tests, and this is certainly consistent with those!
    Hank: Besides, you’re expecting me to believe that all of those things could happen in a device small enough to carry in your hand? Sorry, I don’t buy it.
    Shawn: We have lots of lab tests that produce similar results.
    Hank: No. You have to show me, every step along the way, how a bullet like this one in my pocket comes to look like this one you just found. I don’t think you ever will. Have you ever seen a “transitional bullet” halfway between them?
    Shawn: Sure, but they’re rare. From misfires and such. I could show you — I have a list of examples.
    Hank: No, you couldn’t. They don’t exist.
    Shawn (changing tactics): There are no laceration marks around the neck.
    Hank: You can’t prove that it’s not just because this particular neck wouldn’t show them.
    Shawn: The capillaries in the eyes didn’t burst, like they usually do with asphyxiation.
    Hank: That doesn’t prove anything by itself, especially since you said “usually”. You’re just afraid of the implications of suicide.
    Shawn: What? I haven’t said anything about a killer one way or the other! The signs just clearly indicate that he was shot! I can’t tell with what I have here whether it was suicide or homicide!
    Hank: Why don’t you just accept that it was hanging, then?
    Shawn: Because the signs don’t… it isn’t… um, do you have any evidence for hanging? Any of the signs of death by asphyxiation? Something left behind that he could be hung with?
    Hank: I have this note in Joe Blow’s handwriting that says “I’m going to go down swinging”. Swinging at the end of a rope, obviously.
    Shawn: I’m sorry — the note seems more ambiguous than that to me. Some of the intelligent folks down at the station might even question whether Joe Blow even wrote it.
    Hank: Look. There are too many holes in your theory. Until you can show me the gun that fired this bullet, the killer, how the killer came here and left, the shop where the gun was bought, and a serial number on the gun along with the manufacturer’s records on that particular model at the very least, I have no reason to believe what you say. Until you have perfect knowledge, this “he was shot” idea is just an unprovable theory.
    Shawn: In some pedantic sense, I suppose that’s true. But can you at least acknowledge that there’s no evidence that he was hung, and that the evidence we have so far indicates pretty strongly that he was shot?
    Hank: No.
    Shawn: … I’m going to ask the captain for another assignment. What you’re doing isn’t police work.
    Hank: Is too! I’m solving murders, just like you! I just interpret the facts differently! You say it was a gunshot, I say it was poking!

  102. abc's said

    Maz

    “You see I hear this all the time when I watch those science programmes, they have this set theory, and they try to find things that fit it. If they come up against a problem, they don’t question the theory, they have to find something to solve the problem so that their pet theory still stands.”

    I would say the same thing about a young earth creationists view of the bible.

  103. Jared said

    Your right Maz. There are a few non-christian folks who see all the evidence and acknowledge that there is no question that an intelligent designer was necessary to create such a universe, however all of them I know still hold to a very old evolving system. They just mix a designer into evolution. My Aunt taught Nursing for years and her experiential knowledge of the human body alone pushes her to believe in intelligent design, but she hates God’s word and still believes in the earth being millions/billions of years old in its currently generally observable condition and leans toward life forms evolving from a lower order condition to higher order conditions, just with some outside influence forcing the issue.

    Don’t ask me questions about Gravity. No science has ever been able to answer this question, “how the fundamental mechanics of this works”. We obviously can measure it and model it with algorithms, but like the atom, light, time, etc … we don’t fundamentally understand the mechanics of any of it. All I know and for that matter anyone else, is that God says he uphold the universe by the word of his power. Scientist are still trying to get their hands around the speed of light. Is it changing? There is some evidence that suggests it is either changing or gravity, or the lack there of, has a far larger effect on it than we understand. Most scientist I know say Einstein’s theories have many holes in them but the algorithms he used for modeling work decent enough until something else better is demonstated. That is about all they can say.

    In other words the universe is so complex us humans in all our intelligence, or really lack there of, can’t give fundamental explanations for many of the observable phenomenon.

    Doesn’t it seem inconceivable that someone would argue this universe and the equally complex life on earth of which we can’t explain many fundamental observable phenomenon (DNA, RNA, Quantum base, light, gravity, etc…), still argue it came from nothing and then evolved from the something, which came from nothing, atoms and simple compounds perhaps, to complex chain compounds of widely various types in order to evolve into the basic building blocks for life and then that life just kept evolving upward until it got as complex as a human with a brain faster than the best supercomputers in the world just to run the human eye and then at some point it got cognizance. Amazing. I once was blind, but now I see. But hear me clearly “I would still be blind had not … God … changed me.” No one can change their own mind to trust God’s truth. We were still his enemies when he changed us and not because of us, but for his own good pleasure. If you understand this it is clear how these folks cannot see. Perhaps at some point God will open their eyes, but you have fulfilled your obligation to bear witness to the truth, be it ever so weak. Fortunately we have God to do the impossible for us.

  104. Maz said

    MattF: ”The evidence that points to evolution — and, for that matter, the evidence that contradicts special creation — is undeniable”.

    In other words it is conclusive and without doubt?

    And as far as the VOLUME of evidence for evolution, I will have to absolutely disagree…ofcourse.

    ”….we observe evolution directly, so it is fact.”

    NO WE DON’T.
    As it supposedly takes millions of years, how can we see any evolution on the scale that is proposed. We see natural selection, we see variations within animal species, but WE DO NOT SEE EVOLUTION IN ACTION simply because it apparently takes SO LONG.

    ”The mutability of scientific thought is a strength, not a weakness. It changes in light of new information that shows we were wrong and need to re-think things.”

    It changes simply because the scientists got it wrong before….so how do they know they havn’t got it wrong now? (Yet they are SO dogmatic that they are right!) This sounds like the kind of thing I hear from Jehovahs Witnesses about their doctrines and the ‘light that gets brighter and brighter’, when they change their donctrinal beliefs and also go back on prophecies that don’t come to pass. They won’t accept that they got it wrong, they say we have fresh new information that brings us more light etc. etc. etc.
    I hate people trying to explain away their error by trying to make it sound as if it wasn’t really an error in the first place. Oh well………

    ”Immutable faith refuses to change in the light of new facts and evidences that address its subject matter. And believing that something is true in direct contradiction to reality betrays either a serious gap in understanding or insanity.”

    There are NO NEW FACTS that will change the REALITY of what the Bible tells us about God and about His creation. If the Bible, (from which I get my facts about reality), contradicts anything, it contradicts scientific dogma which changes from month to month, year to year.

    I could gather data on the global flood and the geological conditions etc. etc. but I’m not going into the Noah’s flood thing…..it’s been touched on before and is a big issue in it’s own right, so I won’t waste my time because I doubt whether it will cause any light to enter your understanding of it.

    ”(Assuming you mean that I can’t believe that God created using evolution) And why not? Because you say so?”

    Absolutely NOT. It is what the Bible tells me, Gods Word, the Word that comes from your God (presumably). If you don’t accept Genesis 1 as history as it is written (even if God did leave out all the minutest of details) then one wonders what else you do not accept in Gods Word? What about the rest of Genesis? Exodus? Joshua? Daniel? Ezekiel? Matthew…Mark…Luke and John…? And we could go on and on and on……
    I speak what the Bible has taught me, nothing comes from my own opinion. Others tend to do that when they question God, His Word and the way He created everything.

    I shall post this and then go onto your little narative.

  105. Maz said

    MattF; Silly example.

  106. Mike S. said

    MattF
    Your murder investigation is a great example. That Hank reminds me of many atheists when looking at the evidence for God.

  107. Maz said

    Jared: Concerning your last paragraph, yes I find it extremely mind boggling that someone would believe such a rediculous notion that basically something came from nothing (which is something!!!) and it exploded and created all that there is, all on it’s own, the complexity of life and especially the intelligence of mankind.
    And all they need to do is look into Gods Word, look at Genesis and stop wasting years of scientific research. I think it is a tragedy that some of these scientists are wasting their whole life searching for something that God has already told us about in His Word. So sad.

  108. Maz said

    Yes Mike, they don’t accept the obvious because they don’t want to, they have to look for something else.

  109. Barney said

    Jared post #94 – “The only problem with “but at least people have the chance to make their own minds up about it.” is that people aren’t free to make up their own minds about it. Those who have not been changed in their hearts by the Holy Spirit will always choose the trendy secularist world view (religion) negate of God. Look around. Have you ever observed an atheist claiming that the world was designed. Evidence isn’t for the non-believer, it is for you … the Christian. Until a man’s heart is changed he will always find ways to argue, ignore, or suppress the evidence. Romans 1.”

    Please stop insisting that this (Biblical young earth creationism) should be taught in our science classes.

    Thanks!

    Best Regards,
    The Free Thinkers of the World

  110. Maz said

    Barney: If it was and it could be proved false as you are so confident that it is then you have nothing to worry about. On the other hand if they get the science taught in schools that supports Genesis 1 then……watch out it may even make a few kids realise that they have been brain-washed with evolution all this time.

    A Free spirit.

  111. Barney said

    Maz:ignore

  112. MattF said

    Maz: Your theory is perched on shifting sand, whereas my faith stands upon a Rock. It doesn’t waver or shift or change.

    I only bring this quote up again because it is important to caution you against confusing having faith in a particular interpretation of an ambiguous portion of Scripture with having faith in God.

    My faith is in God, and I accept evolution. There is no contradiction here. There would only be contradiction between my acceptance of evolution and of the truth of the Bible if there were some passage that definitively excluded evolution from being the way that God created things; and, to the best of my knowledge, no such passage exists.

    Jared: Doesn’t it seem inconceivable that someone would argue this universe and the equally complex life on earth of which we can’t explain many fundamental observable phenomenon (DNA, RNA, Quantum base, light, gravity, etc…), still argue it came from nothing

    Do you have scientific evidence that there was once a time when there was nothing?

    Maz: MattF: ”The evidence that points to evolution — and, for that matter, the evidence that contradicts special creation — is undeniable”.

    In other words it is conclusive and without doubt?

    The evidence and its implications are undeniable. The conclusion is impossible to prove conclusively — but it would be silly, insane, or misinformed to deny it, given the nature and volume of the evidence. Concepts like these are important, since they form the basis of scientific thought and analysis. Until you can understand these notions, statements from you about how evolution and creationism differ should not be taken at face value.

    Here, for example, are some things that evolution expects, but creation has no special reason to; some, in fact, would be seen as contradicting the notion of spontaneous creation. All have been observed:

    * A nested hierarchy of organisms.
    * Vestigial organs (meaning “rudimentary”, not “useless”) that were once formerly functional in ancestors.
    * Atavisms.
    * Morphological change at a rate consistent with that predicted by the fossil record.
    * Functional change at a rate consistent with that predicted by the fossil record.
    * Genetic change at a rate consistent with that predicted by the fossil record.
    * Speciation events at a rate consistent with that predicted by the fossil record.
    * Many degrees of genetic isolation between species.
    * Clear evidence in the fossil record of creatures migrating and adapting to new environments.
    * Empirical tests confirm evolutionary predictions.
    * The phylogenetic tree matches the tree derived from inheritance of junk DNA. Both trees match the tree derived from inherited microbiological characteristics.
    * Observed rates of evolution match those predicted from interpretation of evolutionary history.
    * Evolutionary predictions tell us where the oil is.
    * Evolutionary predictions allow us to make more effective antibiotics and pesticides.
    * We find transitional forms in the fossil record at precisely the right time and place for them to occur in proper chronological order. Even the single-celled organisms.
    * Ontogeny.
    * Ubiquitous genes with no relationship to species’ phenotypes.
    * Functional redundancy in proteins.
    * Functional redundancy in DNA.
    * Endogenous retrovirii.
    * Redundant pseudogenes.
    * Transposons.
    * Present biogeography.
    * Past biogeography.
    * Parahomology — on the morphological and molecular levels.
    * Suboptimization of morphological structures.
    * Suboptimization of molecular structures. (This, in particular, poses problems for “irreducible complexity”.)

    Maz: And as far as the VOLUME of evidence for evolution, I will have to absolutely disagree…ofcourse.

    Of course. But I have seen no evidence that you have investigated thoroughly. You haven’t even addressed simple requests for evidence to corroborate your theory. Your confusion of the simpler ideas and implications of evolution lead me to believe that you are not even entirely sure what it is that you claim to be disagreeing with.

    Maz (quoting me): ”….we observe evolution directly, so it is fact.”

    NO WE DON’T.
    As it supposedly takes millions of years, how can we see any evolution on the scale that is proposed. We see natural selection, we see variations within animal species, but WE DO NOT SEE EVOLUTION IN ACTION simply because it apparently takes SO LONG.

    You are confusing observation of the effects of evolution in history with observation of the effects of evolution in the lab. We have directly observed speciation — organisms changing from one species to another — both in the lab and in the field. And what we have observed is repeatable. In other words, evolution in action.

    Maz (quoting me): ”The mutability of scientific thought is a strength, not a weakness. It changes in light of new information that shows we were wrong and need to re-think things.”

    It changes simply because the scientists got it wrong before….so how do they know they havn’t got it wrong now? (Yet they are SO dogmatic that they are right!)

    The basics of evolution — ideas like descent with modification, common descent, natural selection, and so on, which are still evolution in a recognizable form — are so firmly established as to be beyond any reasonable doubt. There’s a decent amount of bickering about some of the particulars for which less-than-compelling evidence exists. But you’ll see that in every branch of science.

    Maz: I hate people trying to explain away their error by trying to make it sound as if it wasn’t really an error in the first place. Oh well………

    No honest scientist will maintain that every detail of evolution has remained unchanged since its inception. In fact, what we currently study has changed in some salient ways from Darwin’s original suggestions, so hearing evolution referred to as “Darwinism” is a little confusing. Do people who use this term mean to debate evolution, or certain ideas that Darwin clung to that have long since been refuted (e.g., pangenesis)?

    Maz: There are NO NEW FACTS that will change the REALITY of what the Bible tells us about God and about His creation.

    I agree. However, facts can (and have!) come to light that can change our understanding of what the Bible says.

    Consider the problem some people had in trying to assert that the Earth revolves around the Sun about 400 years ago. There were religious authorities who condemned what they had to say based on the Bible — in particular, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5, which seem to indicate that the Earth cannot be moved.

    The vast majority of educated people understand that these passages must be interpreted differently. Why? Even if you dismiss this as figurative language on the basis that it’s poetry, why is this taken as figurative language while other bits of poetry — e.g., Psalm 51:17 — are interpreted as factual?

    Maz: If you don’t accept Genesis 1 as history as it is written (even if God did leave out all the minutest of details) then one wonders what else you do not accept in Gods Word?

    I do accept it as history as it is written. You and I disagree on how it should be understood. There’s an important difference.

    Look — ultimately, it makes very little difference to most people’s lives whether creatures were poofed into existence or whether they evolved. And if you want to believe that the Earth was created in six 24-hour days around 6,000 years ago, and that all evidence that appears to be to the contrary is misunderstood, I can’t logically object.

    That doesn’t mean that I’m not concerned. This clinging to a specific interpretation of a particular ambiguous passage of Scripture in spite of what would appear to be clear evidence to the contrary because some teacher says so reveals a lot about where you get your answers to questions. Admittedly, this particular topic seems rather harmless, but what if the question is about human rights? Or medicine? Or who gets food? Or whom we should follow?

    Especially since, where I live, the opinion of the majority steers the direction of the society in a rather direct way, the idea that people would willingly and enthusiastically follow the rhetoric of a charismatic leader who, intentionally or not, misrepresents facts is nothing short of terrifying.

    I know you’ve claimed to watch a lot of programs, Maz, but please go out and borrow a book that will try to teach you the basics of what evolution is and why it works. Try reading some real scientific meat like Science, Nature, Genetics, or just about any other biological scientific journal so that you can appreciate both how voluminous the evidence for evolution is and the nature of what it is that these scientists really disagree about. Try to understand the meanings and limitations of interpretation versus understanding. If you continue to have qualms that still hold water in light of all that evidence, please, present them.

    Because ultimately, I can’t claim that what you want to believe is false with absolutely impenetrable logic; no matter what evidence is presented, it’s always possible to come up with a convoluted reason why things are not as they plainly appear to be (in blatant contradiction of Romans 1:20, incidentally), so it’s impossible to attack the belief on the basis of logical consistency. To say that this belief is harmonious with findings in the natural world or scientific analysis, however, and that it’s merely a question of starting assumptions or “worldview”, is to be either misinformed or a liar. It brings me no joy to see you branded as a liar, Maz, which some will do if you are exposed to relevant information and refuse to address it.

  113. Mike S. said

    Barney
    Are you and Stanley one in the same? Are you like cut out the same mold or something? Many of both your posts are quite nebulous and difficult to find much reason and meaning in them and both have similar biting tones. I really try to comrehend them, but maybe I’m just a little too slow for you highly educated WFU folks.

  114. Mike S. said

    or too slow to spell comprehend right.

  115. Stanley said

    I didn’t say it.

  116. Stanley said

    Too easy. Sorry Mike, but don’t set yourself up like that.

  117. Maz said

    MattF: ”I only bring this quote up again because it is important to caution you against confusing having faith in a particular interpretation of an ambiguous portion of Scripture with having faith in God.”

    It is not ambiguous to me. I read it and accept what I read…..and it is confirmed in Exodus twice….is that ambiguous too?

    And tell me, if God used evolution to ‘create’ the animals, don’t you think He would have made this quite clear, instead of saying, DAY 1, DAY 2, DAY 3, DAY 4…etc. What about a Millenium….which time length is mentioned in the Bible, so why not say on Millenium 1 etc.(if it was a Millenium) or some other length of time would have been used. God is not a God of confusion, so why should He be confusing us by using ‘days’ as the length of time He used to create something?

    Again I would question whether you look at other passages in the Bible as ambiguous when they are clearly saying what they mean.

    ”Of course. But I have seen no evidence that you have investigated thoroughly. You haven’t even addressed simple requests for evidence to corroborate your theory. Your confusion of the simpler ideas and implications of evolution lead me to believe that you are not even entirely sure what it is that you claim to be disagreeing with.”

    I havn’t ‘investigated thoroughly’? How much reading, studying and watching of science programmes do I have to do to satisfy what you would call enough investigation? I have addressed most questions to the best of my ability, what more do you want?
    And I have had enough information thrust at me from evolutionists on this site to furnish me with enough to disagree with.

    ”The basics of evolution — ideas like descent with modification, common descent, natural selection, and so on, which are still evolution in a recognizable form — are so firmly established as to be beyond any reasonable doubt..”

    Ah! Now it is BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT!! It is FACT!! The VOLUME of evidence shows that!!
    So why do you say it is not proven?

    ”I do accept it as history as it is written. You and I disagree on how it should be understood.”

    So, you don’t read it as it is written, but you try and understand what is BEHIND what is written?
    What God has SAID is not exactly what happened?? He didn’t REALLY create in 6 DAYS??….He meant something else?? He didn’t REALLY create the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day??….He meant something else?? Do I go on?

    ”I know you’ve claimed to watch a lot of programs, Maz, but please go out and borrow a book that will try to teach you the basics of what evolution is and why it works.”

    Why should I buy a book when I had several years in school being indoctrinated with how evolution works? And I have read a lot of books, magazines….I love science….I’v been reading those kind of books for atleast 45 years!! Remember I said I had believed that God used evolution at one time until I realised I was compromisig with the Word of God. And it is the Holy Spirit that guides us into all truth, not science. Science is weak and fails, the Holy Spirit is the power of God and trustworthy. My faith is built on solid Rock not shifting scientific sand. And I’v had enough of arguing this point, it is futile.

    ”Thy Word is true from the beginning, and everyone of your righteous ordinancies endures forever.” Psalm 119 v 160.

  118. F. L. A. said

    MattF, for what it is worth, I think that you are a GREAT poster.
    You saved me[And perhaps others.] from doing a lot of work. Thank you.

  119. Mike S. said

    Happy to oblige Stanley. I bet you believe humility is weakness huh?

  120. Barney said

    Mike, in post 94 Jared says that the evidence for creationism is available only through Divine intervention and non-Christians won’t see it.

    So I asked him, on behalf of all free thinkers, to stop trying to teach it in a science class. How can you teach Divine intervention in a science class?

    That’s all. Is that unreasonable?

    Stanley is a raving lunatic; best ignore whatever he says.

  121. F. L. A. said

    I feel your pain, Stanley, for I too, am a lunatic[Huge sharp-toothed grin].

    “I’m lost in my own little world, but it’s ok, they all know me there.”

    “They said that as I got older I might lose my mind. What they didn’t tell me though is that I wouldn’t miss it very much.”

  122. Maz said

    The witness of creation, I believe, is for everyone who is willing and open to see it. There have been those who have been saved by going to a meeting by Answers in Genesis. They hear about the science aswell as what the Bible says and they are able to realise the truth. Ofcourse I believe that it is the Holy Spirit that ultimately reveals the truth to those who want to see it.
    Gods Word reveals the truth about God and His ways to man, this must include creation.

  123. Mike S said

    Sorry Barney
    I never saw where Jared was saying anything about teaching it in our schools. Maybe I missed it.

  124. MattF said

    Maz: It is not ambiguous to me. I read it and accept what I read…..and it is confirmed in Exodus twice….is that ambiguous too?

    But there are additional things that you have added to the text, as evidenced by our earlier debates here. For example:

    * You insisted that the millennial reign of Christ will be a restoration to a pre-fall existence, despite that never being mentioned in Scripture.

    * You insisted that pre-fall existence was “perfect” and that nothing was bad, in spite of God Himself stating that something was “not good” and never using the term “perfect” to describe things, even though Hebrew had such a term at the time. (It’s harder to get a more succinct definition of “bad” than “not good”.)

    This human tendency to “fill in the blanks” and read definite meaning behind ambiguous wording is difficult to avoid. For example, you seem to think that things were instantaneously created, even though there is nothing in the passage to indicate this.

    I also mentioned in these previous forums why I believe these “confirmations” in Exodus are less than ironclad ways of determining that the creation was accomplished in six 24-hour days.

    A “plain reading” of the texts I mentioned in 1 Corinthians and Pslams would seem to indicate an immobile Earth. Do you believe that the Earth is immobile? Why or why not? Why have you not addressed this?

    Maz: And tell me, if God used evolution to ‘create’ the animals, don’t you think He would have made this quite clear, instead of saying, DAY 1, DAY 2, DAY 3, DAY 4…etc. What about a Millenium….which time length is mentioned in the Bible, so why not say on Millenium 1 etc.(if it was a Millenium) or some other length of time would have been used. God is not a God of confusion, so why should He be confusing us by using ‘days’ as the length of time He used to create something?

    I believe that they generally refer to long but indefinite stretches of time. There is no word in the Hebrew of Moses’ time that denotes a long but indefinite stretch of time other than the word we also translate “day”. (This may be difficult for us to comprehend, but their vocabulary was seriously overloaded. English has over half a million words. French, one of the smallest modern languages, has about 40,000 words. The Hebrew of Moses’ time had about 8,700 words, a small fraction of which appear in the Torah.) In addition to these meanings, the same word is also translated “time”, “year”, “age”, “forever”, “ago”, “always”, “season”, “chronicles”, “continually”, “ever”, “evermore”, and a handful of other ways in the Old Testament. Some rabbis — even hundreds of years before modern science — asserted that the word must refer to long but indefinite stretches of time, especially given some hints about the events of the third and sixth day. (These were people whose knowledge of Hebrew and understanding of Moses’ intent far surpass those of modern scholars, and whose devotion to trying to discover the truth was beyond question.)

    Their numbering system, which was based on their alphabet, was also very brief and did not express numbers in the millions or beyond.

    But it’s also entirely possible that this knowledge is unnecessary for our spiritual development — which, I imagine, is why all sorts of other details are missing from Scripture.

    Is this proof that I’m right? Certainly not. But it is proof that I’m not contradicting a legitimate interpretation of the passage.

    Maz: Again I would question whether you look at other passages in the Bible as ambiguous when they are clearly saying what they mean.

    I’d say that it’s as clear as it needs to be for its purpose — no more, no less. Genesis 1 isn’t trying to educate us scientifically on the origin of things. It tells us what we need to know for our spiritual development. As such, the level and kind of detail will be different.

    Maz: I havn’t ‘investigated thoroughly’? How much reading, studying and watching of science programmes do I have to do to satisfy what you would call enough investigation?

    To the point where you’re no longer making broad, incorrect generalizations about what evolution claims. To the point where you’re no longer telling people what they really mean to say when they describe things, but can instead refute their statements directly with facts. To the point where you understand the difference between when something is supported by extraordinary evidence and when it is conclusively proven, and why the difference is subtle but important.

    Maz: I have addressed most questions to the best of my ability, what more do you want?

    I hate to sound like a broken record here, but some supporting evidence of your stance would be welcome.

    While we’re on the topic, I would also like to know whether you think the Earth is immobile or not, and why.

    Maz: And I have had enough information thrust at me from evolutionists on this site to furnish me with enough to disagree with.

    The issue isn’t whether you agree or disagree. The issue is whether or not this information agrees with observable fact.

    Maz: Ah! Now it is BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT!!

    Yes.

    Maz: It is FACT!! The VOLUME of evidence shows that!!

    Not if, by fact, you mean “proven beyond all possible ability to construct a different explanation, no matter how convoluted”.

    Maz: So why do you say it is not proven?

    Because I’m trying to be honest with respect to epistemology.

    Maz (quoting me): ”I do accept it as history as it is written. You and I disagree on how it should be understood.”

    So, you don’t read it as it is written, but you try and understand what is BEHIND what is written?

    Only because I have scientific curiosity. I don’t think it’s necessary for spiritual development.

    I also have scientific curiosity that causes me to seek the meaning behind “the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved”. Is that bad, too?

    Maz: What God has SAID is not exactly what happened?? He didn’t REALLY create in 6 DAYS??….He meant something else?? He didn’t REALLY create the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day??….He meant something else?? Do I go on?

    You don’t have to if you don’t want to, especially since we hashed out most of these details already. It’s interesting to note that, in addition to the details there, the word translated “made” when describing the things on the fourth day is different from the word translated “created” elsewhere in the chapter (e.g., Genesis 1:1), and that it is the word usually used for man making things. This is remarkable considering Hebrew’s limited ability to describe nuance.

    Scholars with much more time to devote to the study of these things than you or I have have been debating the order in which things were created, given Hebrew’s lack of a past perfect tense, since long before modern science. Some insisted that the heavenly bodies were created when God created the heavens earlier in the sentence (Genesis 1:1), and that the fact that there is day and night proves it (since they are impossible without a point light source), along with the parallel passage concerning separation of light and darkness. They also use the fact that the call is for lights in the firmament, and the Sun, Moon, and stars are not in the firmament.

    None of these things are proof of my stance. But they are proof that my stance does not contradict the passage!

    Maz: Why should I buy a book when I had several years in school being indoctrinated with how evolution works?

    For starters, because you continue to display deeply misinformed ideas about what evolution claims, and because you seem to think it’s okay to pontificate about these matters in spite of this lack of basic knowledge. I’m hoping that you’ll find something that will better educate you than whatever it is you’ve been exposed to so far so that people more callous than I won’t rake you over the coals for your simple mistakes.

    Maz: Remember I said I had believed that God used evolution at one time until I realised I was compromisig with the Word of God.

    I know you said that, but the lack of understanding you’ve shown when it comes to what evolution is and how science works makes me doubt that you ever really received a proper education on these matters. Everything you’ve mentioned in terms of one set of ideas supplanting the other has been based on rhetoric, and none of it on evidence.

    Maz: And it is the Holy Spirit that guides us into all truth, not science.

    Yes. But are you claiming that you understand all truth? Or that science is incapable of teaching us any truth, or changing or shaping our ideas when we receive truth?

    Maz: The witness of creation, I believe, is for everyone who is willing and open to see it.

    On that you and I agree. We just seem to be having some difficulty over what it says.

    Maz: There have been those who have been saved by going to a meeting by Answers in Genesis.

    Yes. There have been those who were saved by all manner of things. God uses flawed vessels to communicate His truth, and thank goodness He does!

    Maz: They hear about the science aswell as what the Bible says and they are able to realise the truth.

    Or, from a scientific point of view, they hear overly simplified ideas, misrepresentations, and omissions used to lend support for their particular interpretation, deliberate or not. But they sound logical enough, given known common “bugs” in human thinking that advertisers and politicians also like to exploit. Your mileage may vary.

    Maz: Gods Word reveals the truth about God and His ways to man, this must include creation.

    We also know from history that people get God’s message wrong from time to time. We must try to analyze all of God’s revelation to man, natural and supernatural, and try our best to be faithful disciples with the information at our disposal.

  125. John said

    Thank you for your response Jared.
    I like your use of terminology, however I think that you assume too much about people.
    I also believe in a transcendent being. A whole bunch of them in fact[smile].

    Thank you for your thoughts, MattF.
    I agree with Ferox in post#118, and no, I have no good information to share with you about the hypothetical boundaries of the universe, only ideas. There IS a great amount of weirdness involved.

  126. Barney said

    Mike, so sorry, but if you guys (the conservative, fundamentalist Christian right wing politico) were not so eager to have some form of Creationism taught in public school science classes, then we wouldn’t be having most of these evolution/creation arguments.

    For example: If we were arguing that ‘Darwin was wrong, therefore let’s keep evolution out of Sunday School’ few would argue with you.

    Heck, I am a creationist, too. I am a Christian. Allying oneself with the phony science of Ken Ham, etc. is not the same thing as being a Christian, though.

    When I first listened to Truth Talk Live way back when, it interested me (remember Stu used to have the Triad Skeptics Club on the show?). It interests me less now and a I rarely listen to a whole show anymore. Then they started this forum and I was an early contributor. They were only two or three of us ‘non-fundies’ here then and I thought that I had something to add.

    Times change; there are many others here now who are much better able to present the opposing points of view than I am and I have so little to contribute that I often resort to making sarcastic comments to try to illustrate incongruities I see in some of the posts.

    Sorry, again! I’ll try to stay down.

    best,
    Barney

  127. Barney said

    re: 120

    J/K Stanley!

  128. F. L. A. said

    For what it is worth, we think it was big of you to apologize like that Barney.
    We well remember back….when you were Fred, and there were only three permanent dissenting posters.

  129. Stanley said

    Mike, don’t assume. Humility isn’t a weakness, its a strength few posses.

  130. Maz said

    MattF:
    Speaking of the ‘days’ of creation you said ”I believe that they generally refer to long but indefinite stretches of time.”

    In my time of prayer this morning a couple of thots came to me, thots I hadn’t really seen before and they are actually concerning exactly what you have said here. I guess Someone knew what you would say.

    1. Genesis 1 v 1 states, ”IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavesn and the earth.
    He CREATED everything IN THE BEGINNING. At the time of the BEGINNING.
    Are we still in THE BEGINNING? NO.

    2. Genesis 1 v 31. God stated that His creation was VERY GOOD. OK the word ‘perfect’ wasn’t used but I would not use ‘very good’ if there was sickness, disease and death, and harmful mutations, which you believe was part of creation.

    3. Genesis 2 v 1. Carrying on from verse 31 Gods word states, ”Thus the heavens and the earth WERE FINISHED, and ALL THE HOST OF THEM.” So on the sixth day creation was FINISHED. But you believe evolution, which you say God used to create is STILL GOING ON. ??

    4. Genesis 2 v 2a. The Word of GOD states again, ”And on the SEVENTH DAY GOD ENDED HIS WORK WHICH HE HAD MADE;” Again the Word says that creation was ENDED. So why is evolution still going on as you said if that is what God used to create?

    5. Genesis 2 v 2b.
    The Word of God states, ”And He RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORK WHICH HE HAD MADE,”
    So God has FINISHED His work, He has ENDED His work and GOD RESTS from His creation on the seventh day. So why do YOU insist that not only did God use evolution to create but He is STILL creating?….as you said evolution is STILL HAPPENING TODAY?

    6. Again in Genesis 2 v 3, ”And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,”
    So which million years of evolution was blessed? ”because that He HAD RESTED FROM ALL HIS WORK WHICH GOD CREATED AND MADE.”

    I find it difficult to understand a Christian arguing on the side of evolutionists who on the main are atheists, and arguing against the scriptures which are not ambiguous atall but clearly state as I have just pointed out that God created in 6 days at the beginning and rested on the seventh. That is where we get the seven days of our week and the seventh being then a Saturday was sanctified by the Lord and was called the Sabbath.

    If as you say, God hasn’t finished His work, it is 1) against what the scriptures state, and we are still in the 6th ‘day’, which means God HAS NOT RESTED and this ofcourse also goes against scripture.

    Read Genesis 1 again MattF, and ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the truth of GODS WORD.

  131. Maz said

    MattF: ”We must try to analyze all of God’s revelation to man, natural and supernatural, and try our best to be faithful disciples with the information at our disposal.”

    That is what is wrong, you ANALISE Gods Word rather than rely on Gods Holy Spirit to bring you to the truth it conveys. Analytical thinking I believe keeps people from seeing the truth rather than finding it. The Spirit is our teacher NOT science.

  132. Maz said

    Barney: What Church do you go to?

  133. MattF said

    John: I agree with Ferox in post#118,

    Ah. So Ferox is F. L. A. I had no idea. Thanks for that. 🙂

    Maz: He CREATED everything IN THE BEGINNING. At the time of the BEGINNING.
    Are we still in THE BEGINNING? NO.

    On that we agree, I think.

    Maz: Genesis 1 v 31. God stated that His creation was VERY GOOD. OK the word ‘perfect’ wasn’t used but I would not use ‘very good’ if there was sickness, disease and death, and harmful mutations, which you believe was part of creation.

    No? Not even if they accomplish His purposes? And what’s the alternative, then — that God created these things when Scripture said He was done?

    Besides, death is absolutely not an evil. [Psalm 116:15; Romans 14:8; Philippians 1:21, 23; Revelation 14:13] In addition to these passages that discuss the death of God’s followers as a positive good, God is shown as being the agent of death (and disease, and sickness) in Scripture; God cannot be the agent of evil. The notion that it is is a New Age tenet, not a Christian one. Finally, only man was ever offered immortality; if God desired, He could also have protected man from any other things He wished.

    You have not shown that there was evil before the fall. Even if these things existed, the Earth could have been “very good”.

    You have also not addressed how something bad, by God’s own words, could have existed in a “perfect” creation.

    Maz: Genesis 2 v 1. Carrying on from verse 31 Gods word states, ”Thus the heavens and the earth WERE FINISHED, and ALL THE HOST OF THEM.” So on the sixth day creation was FINISHED. But you believe evolution, which you say God used to create is STILL GOING ON. ??

    My interpretation: the initial setup of the Earth and its preparation for man — to whom the Bible was written — is complete. The idea that no new things can be made is ridiculous; one might as easily say that, for example, water cannot be made out of hydrogen and oxygen any more.

    Even if you want to argue from a young-Earth creationist standpoint that God had finished His supernatural creation, what was with Jesus doing things like turning water into wine?

    Maz: Genesis 2 v 2a. The Word of GOD states again, ”And on the SEVENTH DAY GOD ENDED HIS WORK WHICH HE HAD MADE;” Again the Word says that creation was ENDED. So why is evolution still going on as you said if that is what God used to create?

    The evolution that is continuing is no longer part of the preparation of Earth for man. God didn’t rewrite the laws that he used to create creatures after he was done creating them.

    Maz: Again in Genesis 2 v 3, ”And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,”
    So which million years of evolution was blessed? ”because that He HAD RESTED FROM ALL HIS WORK WHICH GOD CREATED AND MADE.”

    Let me be clear. I do not believe that “day” equals one million years. Long but indefinite.

    I believe He blessed it because the work of preparation is complete. Lest we forget, God is up to something in the Universe; a fascinating Bible study can be made out of looking for passages that elucidate the purpose of God.

    In fact, if you read Hebrews 4 and interpret it literally, you’ll find that the seventh day is still going on — a curious thing, since Genesis never closed the seventh day as it did all the others. The young-Earth creationist is forced to treat this as figurative language.

    Maz: I find it difficult to understand a Christian arguing on the side of evolutionists who on the main are atheists,

    Another misunderstanding of people who accept evolution. Atheists actually comprise a very small percentage of the population. The total number of people in Western culture who accept evolution and are not atheists dwarf the total number of atheists.

    Besides, evolution has nothing to say about God one way or the other. Is it that inconceivable to you that an atheist could be right?

    Maz: and arguing against the scriptures which are not ambiguous atall but clearly state as I have just pointed out that God created in 6 days at the beginning and rested on the seventh.

    Right. On that we agree. We’re just arguing about the significance of that information.

    Maz: That is where we get the seven days of our week and the seventh being then a Saturday was sanctified by the Lord and was called the Sabbath.

    Yes. And as I pointed out before, this would be a much stronger point if “sabbath” only ever referred to one day in seven. It doesn’t. The one-in-seven pattern is consistent, though, and I think that’s the greater point that we’re supposed to get.

    Maz: If as you say, God hasn’t finished His work, it is 1) against what the scriptures state, and we are still in the 6th ‘day’, which means God HAS NOT RESTED and this ofcourse also goes against scripture.

    No. We’re in the seventh. Read Hebrews 4. For that matter, read Genesis 1 and 2, and note which days come to a close.

    Maz: MattF: ”We must try to analyze all of God’s revelation to man, natural and supernatural, and try our best to be faithful disciples with the information at our disposal.”

    That is what is wrong, you ANALISE Gods Word rather than rely on Gods Holy Spirit to bring you to the truth it conveys. Analytical thinking I believe keeps people from seeing the truth rather than finding it. The Spirit is our teacher NOT science.

    We commonly use the natural sciences all the time to illuminate our understanding of Scripture — archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, anatomy, astronomy, climatology, ecology, medicine, and so on.

    All of these things can help us understand — and have helped us understand! — which of several possible meanings of a passage is correct, or what happened when a particular historical event took place, or why a given happenstance is remarkable. For some reason, you mean to exclude biology, even though it uses the same rigorous techniques the other branches of science do.

    I could make a long point about how God’s children are encouraged to examine and test God’s Words, provided they intend to follow them once confirmation is received. Let me know if you want more detail on this point.

    Do you believe that the Earth is immobile, Maz? Why or why not?

    I think I finally stumbled onto a key issue. Maz, you’ve doubtless been exposed to many of the findings of evolution. You need more information about the functionality of evolution. It seems that a lot of time is spent trying to explain that your statements about what evolution claims and what evolutionists believe are flawed. That’s frustrating at a basic level; it’s like trying to explain things to someone who insists that physics is useless because it insists that someone who has moved a heavy piece of furniture across the room has done no work.

    He hasn’t — under the physics definition of work. Science often has its own terminology, a point that seems to escape people who try to score points in a scientific debate by running to the dictionary. (The dictionary can often help, but it’s primarily a linguistic reference; when it comes to scientific terminology, it can tend to be muddled or incomplete.) This is confusing, but science has done this to lend greater precision to its language in the hopes that someone can eventually prove its statements wrong and we can progress.

    A similar problem surrounds words like “theory”, “proof”, “conclusion”, and so on. If you could wrap your head around the basic philosophy of science and the basic functionality of evolution, our debates would be a lot more productive. (Your misunderstandings about the nature of evolution and those who accept it seem to come out of the Answers In Genesis textbook, if their website, media, and literature are any indication.) It would also help if you studied some more of the theological history of the Church and understood the different ways in which passages in Scripture have been understood by various teachers, and why.

    I’m not claiming that I understand all this. But at least it would allow you the chance to find facts I haven’t, or show why the information I have is wrong. It would accomplish a lot more than all this shouting.

  134. MattF said

    Maz: That is what is wrong, you ANALISE Gods Word rather than rely on Gods Holy Spirit to bring you to the truth it conveys.

    I wanted to bring this up again to draw attention to it specifically. I’ve already gone on record under this same heading saying that I believe that complete understanding of Scripture is impossible without the Holy Spirit.

    That said, I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit may well communicate things to me that it is difficult for me to comprehend or believe. I do not believe, however, that He will tell me things that contradict observable fact, since creation is there to bear witness to Him. The natural sciences can therefore illuminate, if not definitively define, the meaning of Scripture.

    It seems that you’re telling me what I “really mean” again, Maz, which is a cowardly way to debate. It’s more like internal monologue than exchange of ideas.

  135. F. L. A. said

    Yes MattF, Ferox is the F. in F. L. A. .

  136. Maz said

    MattF: You are unbelievable. To you I am cowardly? Goodness, if I really was I wouldn’t even attempt to debate you, or gone as far as I have.
    And whether the ‘day’ was an indeffinate period of time as you seem to think or not, it still begs an explanation as to why God told us He had FINISHED and ENDED His creation, and RESTED afterwards on the seventh day. Your explanation is attempting to add something in the scriptures that is not there. I think you accused me of doing something similar earlier.

    As I said before, it is pointless arguing with you when you use science against the scriptures……and I can hear you say ”I am not”, well, I’m sorry, but that’s the way it looks to me. You elevate scientific evidence (so-called!!) over Gods Word. Maybe you even argue against whether God did any miracles atall, Noah’s Ark, the crossing of the Red Sea, and how about Jesus walking on water…..that is against all scientific evidence, people don’t walk on water!!!
    So the debate between you and I finishes here, I am not arguing for arguments sake.

    Exodus 20 v 11: ”For in SIX DAYS the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh DAY; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath DAY, and hallowed it.
    See also v 9-10.
    Exodus 31 v 16-17: ”Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in SIX DAYS the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh DAY he rested, and was refreshed.”

  137. abc's said

    MattF

    What is your interpretation of the story of Noah and the flood?

  138. MattF said

    Maz: MattF: You are unbelievable. To you I am cowardly?

    No, Maz. Go back and read what I said. I did not accuse you of being a coward; I accused you of employing a cowardly technique in debate. If you did nothing but employed cowardly techniques, I might be more justified in trying to apply a unilateral label.

    You use a technique in debate that is bad. This does not make you a bad debater. You see?

    Maz: And whether the ‘day’ was an indeffinate period of time as you seem to think or not, it still begs an explanation as to why God told us He had FINISHED and ENDED His creation, and RESTED afterwards on the seventh day.

    I believe that you need to understand Scriptural passages in the light of the rest of Scripture as well as in the light of observable fact. Jesus turned water into wine, which would seem to indicate that He was not finished creating in the “making new stuff” sense. God also continues to work in the world, in spite of the “rested from all His work” phrase in Genesis 2:2. There must be some other valid sense in which these words can be understood.

    It is also the case that we see new species evolve as we watch, in modern times. Regardless of how you interpret the Genesis account, this is simple fact. It must also be folded into how we understand Genesis’ account of God finishing creation.

    It may or may not be the correct way, but I have one way of explaining it that, as far as I know, does not create any contradictions. And you? If God created death, disease, natural calamity, decay, and so on after man’s fall, in what sense had God completed creation before that? (It’s not just that He rested on the seventh day and resumed creating later. Genesis 2:1-2 say “completed” and “finished”.) How do the appearances of new species in modern times factor in?

    Maz: You elevate scientific evidence (so-called!!) over Gods Word.

    Again, you distort what I’ve come right out and stated — this time, about what I believe the role of science is with respect to understanding Scripture. At no point have I asserted that Scripture must be disregarded because of the findings of science; that would be putting science in a higher position than Scripture. Instead, I have insisted that science can help us to understand which, of several ways of interpreting the passage, might be correct or incorrect.

    In other words, on the matters where we’ve disagreed, I haven’t ever said, in essence, “That Scripture should be ignored” or “That Scripture is incorrect”. I’ve always said, in essence, “That Scripture can’t mean what you think, based on facts in the real world; here’s what it might mean instead”. That would seem to be placing Scripture in a higher role than science.

    In the event that Scripture and science address the same subject matter, what, in your mind, is the role of science? What, in your mind, is the role of Scripture?

    Do you believe the Earth is immobile or not, and why?

    Maz: Maybe you even argue against whether God did any miracles atall, Noah’s Ark, the crossing of the Red Sea, and how about Jesus walking on water…..that is against all scientific evidence, people don’t walk on water!!!

    No. Again, you misrepresent my stated views. I am not saying that a supernatural miracle is impossible. I am saying that a specific type of supernatural miracle did not happen in this case, based on the forensic evidence and directly observed evidence.

    See, I believe that science will show a miracle when it happens to the extent that it can test the evidence for it. If you had tested the water in Cana, it would have appeared to all tests to be water. If you had tested it after Jesus turned it into wine, it would have appeared to all tests to be wine. If you tested the stone water jars after the miracle, they would show transference and/or chemical signs of having contained wine. If you tested whatever the servants used to draw the water, it would show transference and/or chemical signs of having been in contact with water. No observation or forensic test would show results that would contradict what had just happened.

    This would seem to be common sense. If God performed a miracle that allowed a perfectly consistent, logical conclusion based on all the directly observational evidence and forensic evidence to point in a different direction, we might not even be sure anything had happened. One could picture a wedding guest in Cana under these circumstances asking, “This is wine, you say? It looks, smells, feels, and tastes like water. And none of the things this fluid has come in contact with exhibit wine stains. Why do you say it’s wine again?”

    abc’s: What is your interpretation of the story of Noah and the flood?

    Let me take a deep breath before getting even deeper into that can of worms. 😉

    Okay. Based on the vocabulary used, clues given in the passage, and references made to the event in other passages, I believe that Noah’s flood was a local (but catastrophic) event. (For example, Genesis 8:5 and Genesis 8:9 give a clue that “all the earth” does not mean “the entire planet”. If it does, how could there be water over the surface of “all the earth” in verse 9 when the mountaintops were visible in verse 5? It’s also the case that God told Abram to “leave your country” in Genesis 12, and the word translated “country” there is the same word translated “earth” — eretz — in the flood account. Abram did not go to Mars, yet we believe that he obeyed this command. There is also a Hebrew word that always refers to the entire planet — tebel — but it is never once used in the flood account.) I do not believe that every species on Earth alive at Noah’s time was represented on the ark — not nearly so. I also believe that it happened much earlier than the time that young-Earth creationists assign to it, though I have nothing to back that up but knowledge of Jewish genealogy recording techniques and an extremely basic understanding of studies involving the human Y-chromosome.

  139. Maz said

    MattF: It is pointless continuing this argument, it is not achieving anything inspiring in either of our lives so I shall close it here.

  140. F. L. A. said

    Well, I enjoyed reading the “argument”.

  141. MattF said

    I personally would have enjoyed it a bit more if she’d answered more of my questions and spent less time gainsaying my statements. But that’s a question of technique, I suppose, and I can’t mandate such things. (I was particularly interested in the answer to the “immobile Earth” question, since it might have provided me with a different way to relate science and Scripture that was still logically consistent. Oh, well.)

  142. Maz said

    MattF: I wasn’t aware I was using a technique. I was just trying to be honest about what I believe. But there you go, some people are never satisfied with the answers you give. That’s life.

  143. Stanley said

    Is there a law in arguing that if you mention Creationism, your argument is invalid? Like Godwin’s law changed a bit. Call it Maz’s law.

  144. Maz said

    Stanley: Certainly the law in schools seems to judge creationism as scientifically invalid…..but that is one thing it is not, if you really look at the evidence it represents.
    If I have a law atall in my life it is the law I have been given from my God, and that is the law of love.

  145. Bookert said

    Maz,

    Please stop with the Joan of Arc thing. It’s not forwarding the discussion. It’s just muddying the waters. At worst your remarks are narcissistic – and when I say that, I don’t mean “self-love”, but that voice in your head you can’t shut off.

    I invite you to consider that the voice in your head is not God, you You, or perhaps someone you once took very seriously. One way to cut off the voice is to project outward. Take a hard look at the world. Try to reclaim some childhood wonder. Go to a museum or an art gallery or even a high school football game. You claim to be a free spirit but you come off as a fish in a fish bowl. You can sense a world beyond the bowl but you’re swimming in circles. Please do the hard work of reading, thinking and experiencing, then bring something fresh to the table. Maybe one day you’ll “get” the theory of evolution – and I do mean “get.” I’m sure you don’t understand why people don’t “get” that God created the word in six days and why more discussion is necessar. Okay, some of us don’t understand how otherwise intelligent human beings can sidestep the tricky issue of dinosaur bones – to explain them away as six thousand-year-old “dragons” from the Old Testament. The theory of evolution is not a god, and it’s certainly not my god, but to stand before it and “get” what it’s telling you is to stand before a vast, angry god. You have to be intellectually tough enough to stand there and say, “Yes, this is also possible.” What you’re doing – and what Jared is doing – is shutting down the conversation before it begins. You’re talking so loud you can’t hear a thing. It’s that voice in your head again. Forever talking and never listening. I think you have it in you to think beyond the fish bowl, Maz. But only you can do it. No one can do your thinking for you. Not if you don’t let them. I’m suggesting that you close your Bible, only that you crack a few other books. Read a chemistry book. There are 92 elements and they are the building blocks of nature. Begin there. Read Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”. Read David Foster Wallace’s final commencement speech. Read “Terrible Lizard” (it’s British). But ease off on the fishbowl commentary, okay? I bet most of us already know what it’s like in there.

    As to the original question, Was Darwin a Racist, the question is another lame, capgun shot at Obama. I’m guessing the prep logic went something like, “If they ‘believe’ in Darwin, they can’t vote for Obama, so it’s gotta be one or the other and each is helpful to our own True Cause – eg to keep republican rule intact by shoring up the belief that republicans didn’t evolve, but were instead created by an intolerant God in His own image.

    Anyone know who won the Darwin Award this year?

  146. Bookert said

    correction –

    I’m NOT suggesting that you close your Bible.

    sorry

  147. Maz said

    Bookert: Well I have been called a lot of things on this site but never Joan of Arc. That is quite a compliment! She was willing to fight and die for her beliefs.

    ”…but that voice in your head you can’t shut off.”

    Maybe that voice is not in my head but in my spirit. I trust That voice and I wouldn’t want to shut it off as you say.

    ”Try to reclaim some childhood wonder.”

    I never lost it.

    ”Maybe one day you’ll “get” the theory of evolution”

    And maybe one day you will ”get” the truth that will make you free before it’s too late.

    I’m (not)suggesting that you close your Bible, only that you crack a few other books. Read a chemistry book. There are 92 elements and they are the building blocks of nature. Begin there. Read Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”

    If you have read anything I have posted on here you will know that I have, several times, said I have read MANY books, listened to MANY scientific programmes (And not creationist either) from which I have learnt a lot about atheistic beliefs about our world and the Universe. I have also read Steven Hawkings, I find him really interesting. You may wonder how I can still believe what I do when I’v read and heard all that stuff, it’s easy, I have read the Bible and I have a relationship with the One Who wrote it, and I believe Him rather than mans biased INTERPRETATION of how life came from non-life and how it supposedly evolved. I’v been through all the scientific reasons why evolution just doesn’t work so maybe going to the other sites might fill you in on what I have said. Not that it will change your mind one iota. You see, I’v been outside the fish bowl and seen the real world and it’s not what it pretends to be. I’m in a far better bowl now!

    ”But ease off on the fishbowl commentary, okay? I bet most of us already know what it’s like in there.”

    Fishbowl commentary? I’v heard that kind of attitude before from others. They don’t like what I am saying so they want me to shut up. Sorry, can’t oblige. And in any case, I don’t know if you have noticed but this is a CHRISTIAN site, debating CHRISTIAN questions and todays issues from a BIBLICAL perspective. It’s written on the top of this page.

    ”…but were instead created by an intolerant God in His own image.”

    Intolerant God? I would ask you, would an intolerant God bother to come down to earth and have His own creation put Him to death so that He could, in His love, save them from the punishment for sin that they deserve? Take a look at the cross where Jesus died for your sins, can you honestly point your prideful finger in His face as He dies for you and tell Him He is intollerent?

  148. F. L. A. said

    But, Jehovah also brought him back to life, and if one considers that Jesus is also supposed to be God himself, but in human-like form, would this not take something vital away from this sacrificial offering of life?
    Not that I am implying that your deity was an……”Indian giver”, or something like that, but it does not seem to have the same significance that a mere mortal man or woman sacrificing the fragile life of their own child would have. There would not be the same sense of….loss[Nor the smelly, messy evidence of their loss for them to deal with as a grim final reminder of their ultimate sacrifice.].

  149. Maz said

    F.L.A: I’m not sure what you are saying. God sacificed His Only Son, Someone very precious. For someone who has never had a son (and I am assuming this from what I have read before) you cannot know what it is like to lose one. I have two sons, and I would be devistated to lose either one. Just because God is God, does not mean He cannot feel that loss too.
    The Bible tells us ‘God is Love.’ He doesn’t just love, He IS love. Can you understand what that means? But His love is not namby pamby (don’t know how to spell that), His love cost Him His Only begotten and dearest Son, so He could save us from a punishment that WE DESERVED! Yet, and no one can fully understand this truth, God Himself was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. 2 Cor: 5 v 19.

    And yes, He came back to life because death (the wages of sin…and Christ never sinned so He never earned death) could not hold Him, and Satan could not keep Him. He overcame death, hell and the grave and rose again, so that if we believed in Him, death could not hold us, and Satan could not keep us in hell, but we too can rise up in newness of life. We would receive eternal life now, and though we would one day die physically, our soul and spirit would be raised to be with our Savior when we die, and He would give us a new body that would never corrupt. 1 Cor: 15.

  150. abc's said

    MattF

    Thanks for the reply.

  151. MattF said

    Maz: MattF: I wasn’t aware I was using a technique.

    Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mean to accuse you of trying to employ some kind of trickery. We all have conversational habits, though, ways that we try to convey information that come naturally to our personalities and experience. It’s these habitual ways of conversing, especially in debate, that consitute a person’s “technique”.

    Maz: I was just trying to be honest about what I believe. But there you go, some people are never satisfied with the answers you give.

    Well, yes, but I guess if that’s what you were doing, I failed to communicate my requests adequately. I, too, have answered some questions in this discussion with answers that amount to “This is what I believe; I know I can’t justify it, but there it is”. And if that’s all you were trying to do, then there’s not much I can say about that.

    What I picked up on, though — especially given your endorsement of Answers In Genesis and the reasons you gave for endorsing them — is that you see your beliefs as somehow consistent with science. That’s what all of my questions are meant to address. There are facts and observations in the real world that seem to indicate that this isn’t true; what we can see, measure, and infer directly contradicts the idea that organisms were spontaneously created. Given those facts and observations, how do you continue to see your beliefs as consistent with science?

    That’s why I keep asking, “Is the Earth immobile or not, and why?”. And I am interested in your answer. It’s not really related to evolution at all, but especially if you provide a step-by-step analysis — that is, answer the “why” part — it should show me how you answer questions when both science and Scripture seem to address the same subject matter. If that manages to be logically consistent, I could use the same analysis to understand how it is possible to believe in spontaneous creation, accept scientific findings, and remain intellectually honest about my position. Unless I can understand that, I must admit to being baffled by your stance… because I was a young-Earth creationist, and a rather devoted one at that, until I found that the justifications that had been given to me for its acceptance flatly contradicted things that were plainly visible to people in the lab and the field. I spent many a sleepless night trying to figure out how to reconcile them. If there’s something I’ve missed, I entreat you to share it with more detail than “I just believe”, because it seems you’ve attempted to characterize those beliefs in a way I can’t understand (i.e., as being consistent with science).

    That, I think, is why Bookert saw you as “[coming] off as a fish in a fish bowl” and why he says that you’re “shutting down the conversation before it begins”. (Feel free to set me straight here if I’ve got this all wrong, Bookert.) When presented with facts and observations that seem to present problems for your stated position, you either ignore them, or accuse the other side of not having all the answers (which it never claimed to anyway), or accuse the other side of being motivated by godless or evil things (which is not only insulting, but untrue). When you ask how other people understand their positions and they answer you, you accuse them of not understanding things properly without providing an intellectually honest alternative (e.g., “This is how I understand that and why I think it’s scientifically valid…”) or accuse them of having no proper respect for Scripture (which is kind of odd for those of us who are trying to see how Scripture might fit what we see and observe instead of just saying that it has limited or no relevance or worth).

    Stanley: Is there a law in arguing that if you mention Creationism, your argument is invalid?

    Not if you can present a logically consistent argument. And I won’t lie — there is a decent amount of inertia to be overcome, because there will be a lot of challenges by people who can’t see the logical consistency (myself among them) and don’t know how to understand this fact or that observation in light of what you say. But if you could show us that we don’t have to ignore these things, we could take the argument that young-Earth creationism is consistent with science a bit more seriously.

    Maz: Certainly the law in schools seems to judge creationism as scientifically invalid…..but that is one thing it is not, if you really look at the evidence it represents.

    Please, share it with us. I’ve been asking for evidence for creationism from the beginning.

    I’ve certainly attempted to do the same, whenever objections to evolution have been raised (e.g., addressing the question of localized increase in “order” by pointing to real-world examples where that happens). It would only be fair if you could return the favor.

    Do you believe the Earth is immobile or not, and why?

    Maz: I have read the Bible and I have a relationship with the One Who wrote it, and I believe Him rather than mans biased INTERPRETATION of how life came from non-life and how it supposedly evolved.

    I’m not contesting that for a moment. But where I’m having difficulty is in seeing how you know that your interpretation is the proper one, and why you claim it is consistent with science. (You’ve raised some excellent arguments for your position, but presenting arguments isn’t the same as showing us the basis of your knowledge; it’s also not the same as showing that the other person’s arguments are inconsistent with the facts.)

    Maz: I’v been through all the scientific reasons why evolution just doesn’t work

    I’ve tried my best to answer them with things we observe (which is the only kind of basis for knowledge that science will accept) and show why ideas like “entropy” and “the weakening strength of Earth’s magnetic field” don’t show why evolution “just doesn’t work” at all. Have I missed some? Prompt me to answer them. Have I explained observations improperly in my explanations, or used concepts in places where they don’t apply? Show me how. Do you have other scientific reasons why evolution doesn’t work? Please, share them. Is there an explanation for the phenomena I’ve listed that is consistent with spontaneous creation? Elucidate.

    That’s how people learn, Maz, or at least it ought to be — find the reasons people have for thinking a certain way, evaluate them, then decide whether those reasons are compelling enough to agree (or at least understand that the other person isn’t wrong) based on available evidence. It doesn’t say much for your estimation of our intelligence that you think that we’ll just accept your say-so without having some how and why questions thoroughly discussed first.

  152. Maz said

    MattF: I’m sorry you went to all that trouble with your post but I have ceased debating with you remember?

  153. Stanley said

    Winner:
    MattF

  154. Jared said

    Maz: After 153 posts … do you see how they are blind?

    You watch, they will have some degrading comeback for this also.

    Those who have been given sight and a heart of flesh presuppose the God revealed in the bible. Those who have not aren’t even working on the same plain. It is like people from different countries and different languages trying to talk to one another for the first time.

    The one guy said “Please stop insisting that this (Biblical young earth creationism) should be taught in our science classes.” So as apposed to that he wants to teach people that something can come from nothing and that simplicity progresses toward complexity. In fact it is even more mind boggling than that. By implication he has clearly stated nothing can produce complexity. That sounds like a study in insanity rather than science. That is the biggest leap of blind faith in a religion I have ever heard of. And, yet he wants to teach this religion, that obviously defies observable scientific law. Amazing isn’t it?! No amount of producing evidences can ever change a man’s mind, even when argued at the most fundamental level. They will even come back and argue with what is just above.

    Until they repent of their sin, believe in Christ, and begin to live a life without a heart of stone they will always hate the notion of a designer. The truth is they can’t even do that on their own.

    Hopefully some ordinary seeds were planted here that God will use extraordinarily at some point to bring some of these folks to repentance. Once they see sin and how ingrained and prevalent it is in this fallen world some or all of these folks will no longer be so blind to the truth.

  155. Maz said

    Jared: Yes, it really is amazing how science can make something so nonsensical sound so intelligent.
    I’v already had to cease one debate with someone on this site, I do not want to bash my head against a brick wall forever.
    I always hope and pray that even one single sentence may open up a stoney heart, enough for them to see a chink of light instead of remaining in the dark.

  156. Maz said

    Actually I need to correct a word in my last post….the last word in the first sentence shouldn’t be ‘intelligent’ because evolution doesn’t sound atall intelligent…but some people think it does.

  157. F. L. A. said

    So, wise Jared, why do you not fill in for Maz and respond the the questions presented my MattF within post#151?

    You sound somewhat intelligent.
    If not for us skeptics, then why not do it for all of the Maz’s of the world who may read these words? Even if you fail in this endeavor you can at least hold your head up with pride at the knowledge that you tried.

  158. Stanley said

    Is being willingly ignorant a sin?

  159. Maz said

    Stanley: I would say so.

  160. MattF said

    Maz: MattF: I’m sorry you went to all that trouble with your post but I have ceased debating with you remember?

    I remember. But this is a public forum. It means that anyone can comment on anyone else’s posts, whether or not the person who put up the original posts is actively interested in talking to them. Questions can be a form of comment; they can show people exactly what you have not addressed, and why I think it’s important. They can then make their own decisions about it. Questions have the added bonus of allowing you to address information that may have slipped your mind, if that’s something you want to do.

    Jared: Those who have been given sight and a heart of flesh presuppose the God revealed in the bible.

    It’s funny that you should say that, considering exactly what is revealed in a specific portion of the Bible has been far from nailed down. Some interesting arguments exist, but I haven’t heard anything conclusive based on the Bible alone. (There are still more interpretations than the ones we’ve discussed here — even ones that existed before the advent of modern science. Even though some of them present their own theological difficulties, that’s not the same as being shown as demonstrably false based on Scripture alone.)

    Of course, you seem interested in keeping things consistent with science, which is where things get tricky. The forensic evidence doesn’t seem to agree with young-Earth creationism… unless you can explain direct observations that have forensic implications (post #112 ought to give you a running start).

    Jared: The one guy said “Please stop insisting that this (Biblical young earth creationism) should be taught in our science classes.” So as apposed to that he wants to teach people that something can come from nothing

    I’ve asked before. Maybe you’ll answer this time. Do you have evidence that there was a time when there was nothing? (No fair going back to young-Earth creationism for support. We’re looking for reasons to teach it, not checking for internal consistency.)

    For that matter, do you have any evidence for creationism that would merit mentioning it in a science class? Actual observational evidence, not rhetoric based on simplifications of general principles?

    If you do, could you share it? I’ve been looking for it from the beginning.

    If you don’t, why do you think it ought to be taught as science?

    Jared: and that simplicity progresses toward complexity.

    I gave real-world examples where that very thing happens as we watch, even in fields unrelated to biology. What evidence do you have to suggest that these examples of localized “progression towards complexity” are not relevant?

    You can keep saying that “simple does not become complex” all you want, but as long as there are real-world examples where that very thing does happen and you fail to address them, it doesn’t seem that you have a leg to stand on. We’re talking about actual observations here, not facile oversimplifications of general principles.

    Jared: Until they repent of their sin, believe in Christ, and begin to live a life without a heart of stone they will always hate the notion of a designer.

    I don’t hate the notion of a designer. I agree with David the psalmist: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (139:14). And I look forward to meeting Him someday, because I have repented of my sin and believe in Christ for my eternal destiny. I say this even though science can tell me exactly how my genetic makeup (and, therefore, body) is the product of genetic information that came from my mother and my father during a very well-understood process. The findings of science hold no threat for me, because I believe that God can do things however He wants.

    Why do you believe that acceptance of evolution requires disbelief in God?

    Uncomfortable thought: Romans 1:20 tells us that the attributes of God are “plainly visible” in creation. If you insist that God did something a certain way, in spite of and in direct contradiction to the plain findings of science made through direct observation (see post #112), how does worshipping the God you’ve decided upon — the One defined by a particular interpretation of Scripture in lieu of the “plainly visible” creation, even though other valid interpretations appear to exist — differ from idolatry?

    It might simplify the answering of that question if you let me pose to you some of the same questions I tried to pose to Maz: In the event that science and Scripture address the same subject matter, what is the role of Scripture? What is the role of science? Do you believe that the Earth is immobile or not, and why?

    Especially since, if you are correct, it is in your power to direct someone away from (at worst) their own idolatry by answering these questions, why would anyone refuse to answer them? Do these people possess knowledge that God doesn’t really want to be worshipped by those seeking to find out Who He really is?

    Maz: Actually I need to correct a word in my last post….the last word in the first sentence shouldn’t be ‘intelligent’ because evolution doesn’t sound atall intelligent…but some people think it does.

    Note that there isn’t a single bit of evidence presented here or in the post she meant to correct. And here, the judgment on evolution is cast based on the way it sounds.

    Unfortunately, the way it sounds is irrelevant. Science seeks to understand the way things really behave, regardless of how descriptions of them may happen to sound.

    Creationists in this discussion have accused those who embrace evolution of doing so because they don’t like the implications of creationism. Ignoring for a moment how ludicrous that is — God has never seemed as amazing and as powerful as after I embraced evolution; a God Who can do that as part of His plans is surely a God worth getting to know! — how is that different from rejecting evolution because of the way it sounds? How is that different from rejecting evolution because it doesn’t fit the picture of God you like to embrace, based on your favored interpretation?

  161. Maz said

    MattF: You don’t know when to give up an argument do you? I hope you realise…but you may not…..that I am not reading any of your posts to me anymore, it would only tempt me to continue when I have decided NOT to continue because it is just not edifying. As so often has happened, some of us on here have had to say that we must agree to disagree.

  162. F. L. A. said

    Over here in America we call that “Taking the easy way out”, Maz, but perhaps it is better this way. You should read the posts anyway, just for…..fun.
    I think that more than a few of us would enjoy reading Jared’s responses to the posts of MattF, if he’s feeling up to it.
    Jared, I would think that such a debate would be easier with a fellow Christian than with one such as myself.

  163. Maz said

    F.L.A: I see it as a wise decision. Wasting time in arguing over something we will never agree about is pointless. I’m not here to waste my time. If it is getting nowhere what is the point of continuing?

    And altho’ I find some of the posts amusing I do not read these posts ‘just for fun’. I’m here to convey Gods truth to those who are lost and on their way to Hell. That certainly will not be fun.

  164. F. L. A. said

    But IS this really an argument, Maz?
    I may be mistaken, but it APPEARS to be a case of a few people making claims and then when those in doubt ask their own questions concerning these claims, the few who presented the claims quickly duck out of the conversation, to leave behind those in doubt who then may come to their own conclusions[Which may be wrong. Who knows?]about the abandoned claims.

  165. Maz said

    F.L.A: For a start I do not like to continue to ‘argue’ the scriptures or what they mean with other Christians over and over again. I felt MattF was questioning the very foundation of scripture and of the very origins of sin and therefore the work of Jesus Christ on the cross to redeem us. I am not ducking out of anything, I could carry on ad infinitum but I’m not here just to carry on arguing….and that was what it felt like to me, not particularly against what I believe so much, but against the very Word of God.
    And you really aren’t interested in what I have to say, you have made it quite clear about that. And there is nothing to stop anyone else taking up the subject….am I the only one who can do so? And I am not even an American. Is there an American Christian over there willing to take MattF on?
    I’v gone as far as I am willing to go with the man, it really does trouble me that someone who proclaims to be a Christian should put such twisted interpretations on the Word of God. That’s my fial word on the issue.

  166. John said

    “Am I the only one who can do so?…..Is there an American Christian over there willing to take MattF on?”

    Why would your country of habitation matter in a debate on this topic on the Internet? We aren’t discussing American culture, after all.
    And yes, it seems that there is no one else willing to jump in and help you with this anymore. For some reason Jared Black “cut and run”. Methinks that he was too uncomfortable under the spotlight, if you know what I mean, which is a bummer.
    He sounded so confident in himself.

  167. Maz said

    John: There are more reasons for ceasing to debate certain people other than ‘cut and run’. There is wisdom in knowing when to speak and when to shut up. Some people on here do not know the difference.
    And are you judging me and Jared?
    Or did someone else mention judging in another post perhaps?
    Oh well, judge away. I am only concerned about how God will judge what I say and do.

  168. F. L. A. said

    He said “Methinks that he was too uncomfortable…” not “Jared and Maz ran away because they are absolute cowards.”

  169. Maz said

    F.L.A: He also said, ”For some reason Jared Black “cut and run”.”

    And I would suppose that is what he thot I was doing too, seeing as I’v stopped debating with MattF aswell.

  170. F. L. A. said

    Well, if he did not “cut and run”, then why did he leave all of us in doubt to form our own conclusions?
    Did he say to himself “Well![Huff!] IIIIII have BETTER things to do!”? He sounds so confident in himself. Did he think that it was beneath him to give us his time?
    Because he decided that we “just wouldn’t/couldn’t understand”, or something? He goes on about how Christians should not waste their time with the spiritually blind and those he deems as enemies of God and Atheists, which seems rather contrary to the behavior I thought the ideal Christian was supposed to display. And lets not forget what I typed within the second half of my post#84.
    His behavior just strikes me as somewhat suspicious.

  171. Maz said

    F.L.A: Really…… do you need Jared or me to help you form your own conclusions? You are quite able to form them whether we answer every question on this site or not. Would it make any difference? I don’t think so.

    But I’ll let him speak for himself, which I’m sure he is capable of doing if he so wishes. I didn’t think that we were under any compulsion here to answer anyones questions. But……we do our best. And there are those times when it seems we are just casting pearls before swine.

  172. F. L. A. said

    No, I do not need you that much at all, but then I was not speaking only of myself when I said “those of us in doubt”.
    Remember the hypothetical multitude and “others like Maz”? It may matter to them, some day.

  173. Maz said

    F.L.A: It is a great shame that there are Christians that put people off Christianity….I may have done it myself…..may the Lord forgive me if it was something I should not have said or done, or something I should have said or done and didn’t……but at the end of the day, people will face God at the Great White judgment throne and have to answer for rejecting CHRIST. Their vain pleas that some Christian put them off will not help them.

    And for us who are born-again of Gods Spirit……..let us shine our light into this dark world and not a shadow that will hide the glory of God and cause many to stumble.

  174. MattF said

    Maz: I felt MattF was questioning the very foundation of scripture and of the very origins of sin and therefore the work of Jesus Christ on the cross to redeem us.

    I quote this to comment on it in the hopes of reaching out, not because I expect Maz to respond.

    I would like to note that nothing I said controverted the idea that Adam brought sin into the world, that death was spread to mankind through Adam, that we still endure a curse God issued as a result, that Christ is the sacrifice necessary to remove the stain of sin, or any of what would seem to be the core notions of Christianity.

    My interpretation and understanding are not without their theological difficulties, but neither is young-Earth creationism.

    Maz: and that was what it felt like to me, not particularly against what I believe so much, but against the very Word of God.

    I bleieve I understand Maz’s feelings on this matter. Before studying up on the various interpretations of Scripture that the Christian church has embraced throughout its history and checking them for internal consistency (as well as arguments pro and con), I was stuck with the only interpretation I had ever been fed in serious Bible study, complete with the notion that interpreting certain things any other way meant that I couldn’t consider myself a “real” Christian. I saw no way to reconcile my faith with scientific fact. I felt forced into having to choose between my faith and intellectual honesty — a rather difficult place to be, I assure you.

    While I was hip-deep in young-Earth creationism, I, too, would have called different interpretations of these passages “against the very Word of God”, because I never failed to see the interpretations I had been taught when I read the words instead of the words themselves. Trying to describe the difference is difficult; it’s even more difficult to try to convince someone that there is a difference, and that interpretations like young-Earth creationism are actually rather new in terms of mainstream acceptance. (An excellent history that attempts simply to tell the facts and refrain from picking a side is The Creationists by Numbers. It details how young-Earth creationism was, at best, a fringe doctrine within Christianity until the late 1800s. (That was when the surge in popularity of Seventh-Day Adventism, which championed young-Earth creationism, and emotionally-charged reactions to Darwin’s book created a perfect storm. Until then, even most people who called themselves “creationist” embraced an old Earth at a minimum — including William Jennings Bryan, who defended creationism during the Scopes trial. This history is detailed elsewhere, but Numbers brings it all together in one comprehensive, convenient, well-researched and annotated place.)

    I can understand where Maz is coming from, but don’t know how to encourage people with outlooks similar to what she has expressed to examine other interpretations of Scripture and test them for validity.

    Maz: it really does trouble me that someone who proclaims to be a Christian should put such twisted interpretations on the Word of God.

    I can’t claim to have invented the interpretation I currently accept. It’s mostly the result of study and a desire to understand how science can illuminate Scripture. I just need to state that for the record. Frankly, if a really good explanation existed for why young-Earth creationism is consistent with science after all — one in agreement with the facts and observation, and not filled with the misrepresentations of science that drove me away in the first place — I could not honestly say which was the one that actually happened.

    While I’m in full-disclosure mode, though, I have to admit a sort of fondness for evolution now that I’ve been able to embrace the full weight of evidence behind it — in much the same way that I have a sort of fondness for physics. I’m going to have to dig a little bit into scientific terminology to explain what I mean.

    Facts constitute the basis of science. You can’t do much until you start collecting information on the way the Universe behaves.

    Once you have a reasonable number of facts, you can start to describe how things appear to behave generally. We call these descriptions “laws”.

    Once you have laws, you can erect an explanation for the general behavior. We call these explanations “theories”.

    Let’s take gravity as an example. (I’m simplifying.)

    Fact: This ball fell when I released it.

    Law: Things released close to the ground fall. (“What goes up, must come down” is a common way to put this.)

    Theory: Objects are attracted in a way that depends on their mass and the distance between their centers.

    This also relates to evolution, and shows why evolution is both a fact and a theory.

    Fact: The descendants of that species evolved into another species while we watched. (This happens, both in the lab and in the wild. Multiple times, and in highly repeatable fashion. I’ll give you documentation if you don’t believe me, and you can argue with the observations.)

    Law: Populations of organisms evolve.

    Theory: The changes in organisms that represent greater adaptability to their environment remain.

    Why is this so revolutionary to me? Because it is theories that answer the questions of Why. Kepler is often credited with describing science as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”; even though scientific theories can never claim to be the absolute truth on the matter, they may be as close as I can get with my pathetic little brain to trying to understand what God was up to when He designed the Universe. The very idea fills me with amazement and awe.

    Without the theory of evolution, biology has no answer to “Why?”. It is reduced to filling in tables on a clipboard; it has no hope of finding any rhyme or reason to it all in spite of the statement in Romans 1:20 that the attributes of God are “plainly visible” in creation. With it, though, I obtain the slightest glimpse of the power of God, One Who is able to coordinate His plans in the Universe by setting up a few simple ideas and running them in highly predictable fashion so that we might observe, learn, understand, and worship Him.

    The idea that God would let us understand Him on this level, even though it is still limited, is significant. It’s the difference between knowing that a ball will fall (having a law) and being able to describe the speed and travel time of any ball dropped anywhere in the Universe (having a theory); we get one step closer to potentially understanding the nature of the Creator, since it seems He created things one way and not another. It feels like learning to appreciate God because of Who He is rather than because He can do fireworks.

    It’s such an exciting and humbling idea that I long to share it with my fellow Christians. It seems so backwards that in my current place and time, the ones I can share these ideas most openly and honestly with are the atheists and agnostics who happen to be my friends, and not the ones who would seem on the surface to share my beliefs. Likewise, it’s only the atheists and agnostics who consistently bother to even try to understand my spirituality, and seem to be the only ones who understand why this view of the Universe leaves one in awe and wonder.

  175. John said

    And at least one pair of Pagans[sympathtic smile].
    Yes, curious isn’t it?
    And you were just trying to help fellow Chritians, yet they make it seem as if you are as one of us.

    Happy Halloween Everybody.

  176. MattF said

    Hey, John, thanks for your support.

    And happy Halloween to you too, though I’m sure that wishing you wellness and happiness means that I’m not a Christian or something.

  177. John said

    Only to some, perhaps.Luckily I have no such theological restrictions, imagined or otherwise.
    Perhaps some would just think of you as a “bad” Christian? I don’t know, and who really cares what the others think anyway? I wouldn’t loose any sleep over it, but then when you consider were this support is coming from, some could also accuse me of corrupting your faith, I guess.
    According to mainstream Christian doctrine I and Ferox are “the bad guys” you know.
    Our apologies for misspelled words within all of our posts[Spellcheck is down and we are too lazy to pull ouy the dictionary.].

  178. MattF said

    John: Only to some, perhaps.Luckily I have no such theological restrictions, imagined or otherwise.

    Your comment about restrictions strikes a chord with me. I believe that God is big enough to encompass all truth, regardless of where we find it. When Paul was writing to Titus about the people of Crete, he acknowledged the truth behind what one of their (pagan) prophets had said (). When Paul found himself trying to explain to Athenians Who God is, he not only likened it to a concept they embraced and quoted one of their own poets on the matter () — which implies that, in his search for truth, he listened to and thought deeply about sources besides his own little religious circle.

    I can’t claim to think as deeply as Paul. But I don’t want to be guilty of missing God because of my own willing ignorance, either, so I do what I can to follow his example.

    John: Perhaps some would just think of you as a “bad” Christian? I don’t know, and who really cares what the others think anyway?

    I only care in that God seems so much more amazing than I had ever dared to think now, and I burn to share it; I also grieve for the bad name people give to Christ when they claim to understand things they don’t, especially when it comes to telling their opponents what they really mean to say or what they really think. (I find it curious, for example, that Jared said that evolution violated scientific principles, and that you’d need a background in quantum mechanics to explain why — then launched into the idea that the idea that something can come from nothing is nonsensical, when one of the basic things quantum mechanics shows us is that this happens all the time, and that as long as all the somethings add up to nothing, there’s no violation.)

  179. MattF said

    Oops. Those references should be Titus 1:12-13 and Acts 17:16-34, respectively.

  180. abc's said

    MattF

    Virtual particles. It’s good that you know about them.

  181. John said

    It is good to hear from you once again MattF.
    I apologize if by “striking a chord” my comment offended you in some way.
    If you have been reading regularly you may have noticed that Ferox and I[well, mainly Ferox] have been mentioning your posts on some of the more recent sites in our discussions with Jared and Maz.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: