Christians vs. nonChristians on issues
-
Well, I'm running out of interest here (I'm sure you feel the same). But, I did want to comment briefly on the link you posted. It also illustrates Creationist's misunderstanding of evolutionists. Evolution is a philosophy trying to explain everything without God. Evolution is not a philosophy trying to explain everything without God. Darwin, himself, was a religious man. I went to Christian college where I studied computer and pre-med. From my interaction with the biology department, I would guess that 100% of the biology professors were evolutionists. It's the dirty little secret of my college, because parents hated the idea of evolution and threatened not to send their children there because "it was taken over by evolutionists". It always struck me as sad that the biology professors couldn't talk about the reality of evolution without some parent thinking they knew better and calling them a sellout. In any case, most people who believe in evolution are theists. I think what really scares the theists is that evolution can be used as part of a philosophical system to explain everything without God. That does not mean evolution is that philosophy. The statement "evolution is a philosophy to explain everything without God" is about on par with the statement that germ theory is simply a way for atheists to explain disease without reference to God's punishment and devils. The misunderstanding arose because people failed to realize that biblical passages must be understood in terms of what the author was trying to convey. That's exactly what Christians who are evolutionists say about the book of Genesis. They say that the creation story was trying to convey something - namely that the world is ordered. They say that it is no more literal than the astronomy passages which seem to back a geocentric universe. Creationists accept the idea that the author was trying to convey something non-literal when there are geocentric passages in the Bible, but immediately reject the same logic when it comes to creation and evolution. However, the Psalms are clearly poetic, not historical like Genesis.14 Thus, they were never intended to be used as a basis for a cosmological model. How do they know that Genesis isn't poetic? Afterall, people once argued that the geocentric parts of the Bible aren't poetic. There's still that whole issue about the devil taking Jesus up to a high mountain to show him all the nations of the world, too. That doesn't sound poetic. It’s ironic
Brit wrote: Evolution is not a philosophy trying to explain everything without God. You can successfully argue that point as it relates to specific individuals and even organizations. However, the history of evolution's philosophical development is definitely tied up in the desire to ignore or reject God and His Word. Darwin was in the process of rejecting God, and told people that John Locke's obiously anti-Bible book of geology was a big influence on his ideas. Also, most of the leaders in evolutionary support and influence are clearly athiests. Brit wrote: Creationists accept the idea that the author was trying to convey something non-literal when there are geocentric passages in the Bible, but immediately reject the same logic when it comes to creation and evolution. No. We accept the idea that a book of poetry is intended to be poetic and that a book of history is intended to be historically accurate. There is an easy to see and obvious textual difference. This is normal language usage, not something difficult to comprehend. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Ian Darling wrote: Um, where are the particular issues I raised resolved? This feels a bit like argumentum ad information-overload . I certainly didn't see anything relevant after a superficial look. I wasn't sure which of the arguments in the link you were actually interested in, since there were several. Ian Darling wrote: you have to explain how there was an uninterrupted series of Egyptian dynasties in that time (the date above matches roughly with the transition between 5th and 6th dynasties - the changeover being around 2323-2300BC. Well, first, the interpretations that cause people to see the Egyptian evidence in those date ranges are just that - interpretations. Second, here's a link[^] that should help you see that it is dealt with logically and consistently within a Biblical framework, as well as solving problems the archeologist had without using the Biblical timeline. The others can be dealt with too, but have a look at the Egyptian stuff first. Ian Darling wrote: One thing I did find that hasn't been referred to so far is that there was something called the Sumerian Deluge - a big flood. But this dates to 5600 BC, and only affects the region around the Black Sea. It's quite conceivable that many of the flood myths (or stories, if you prefer), are based on an oral tradition dating from this region and time. Given most early civilisations would have lived close to water sources anyway, flood stories of some sort seem almost inevitable. Or the dating assumptions of archeologists are wrong (as with the Egyptian dating), and all of the flood legends are based on Noah's flood. :) Ian Darling wrote: I reject the premise that the Bible can tell me the exact nature of our origins, and that the early books are a reliable source of history. My own reading of the evidence does not support that premise in the slightest. Unless you're actually browsing ancient documents and slabs of stone, you're not reading the evidence -- you're reading interpretations of evidence, and they can be wrong. Ian Darling wrote: One thing I would direct your attention to (as it's genuinely interesting) is the IIDB Formal Debates forums: http://www.iid
Sorry for the delay. I need to check some of the finer details of the Rohl and Standard Egyptian Chronologies - which I won't get an opportunity to do until the weekend. As for the IIDB stuff - I just thought it was an interesting site with some high quality debates. There weren't any specific aspects of the content I wanted to debate.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Brit wrote: Evolution is not a philosophy trying to explain everything without God. You can successfully argue that point as it relates to specific individuals and even organizations. However, the history of evolution's philosophical development is definitely tied up in the desire to ignore or reject God and His Word. Darwin was in the process of rejecting God, and told people that John Locke's obiously anti-Bible book of geology was a big influence on his ideas. Also, most of the leaders in evolutionary support and influence are clearly athiests. Brit wrote: Creationists accept the idea that the author was trying to convey something non-literal when there are geocentric passages in the Bible, but immediately reject the same logic when it comes to creation and evolution. No. We accept the idea that a book of poetry is intended to be poetic and that a book of history is intended to be historically accurate. There is an easy to see and obvious textual difference. This is normal language usage, not something difficult to comprehend. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: You can successfully argue that point as it relates to specific individuals and even organizations. However, the history of evolution's philosophical development is definitely tied up in the desire to ignore or reject God and His Word. Darwin was in the process of rejecting God, and told people that John Locke's obiously anti-Bible book of geology was a big influence on his ideas. Also, most of the leaders in evolutionary support and influence are clearly athiests. And if the theory that germs caused disease was tied up in an atheist's attempt to push the spiritual realm and prayer out of medicine, would you reject it? Would you claim that germ theory is part of "a philosophy to explain everything without God"? John Fisher wrote: No. We accept the idea that a book of poetry is intended to be poetic and that a book of history is intended to be historically accurate. There is an easy to see and obvious textual difference. This is normal language usage, not something difficult to comprehend. Which is why I provided non-psalms references. The New Testament reference about the devil taking Jesus to a high mountain to show him all the nations of the earth looks literal. It also cannot be literal. On the subject of Psalms, I should also point out that many people do try to draw historical prophecy out of the book. It seems to me that people are just cherry-picking their facts. In some cases, Psalms is seen as poetic. In other cases, people think it provides actual literal validation of prophecy. Here's an example: "STUDIES IN THE PSALMS" A Source Of Messianic Confirmation[^] In this article, he claims that Psalms contains prophetic information about Christ. He then calculates the probability of all those "prophecies" being true by chance, and concludes that it validates the divinity of Christ. The problem here is that the information is heavily cherry-picked out of Psalms. He says: 1. His rejection by both Jew and Gentile b. By His own family - Ps 69:8 (cf. Jn 7:5) Psa 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. But, if that verse was talking about Jesus, how does he explain the verses a few lines before and after which clearly does not describe Jesus: Psa 69:5 O God, th
-
John Fisher wrote: You can successfully argue that point as it relates to specific individuals and even organizations. However, the history of evolution's philosophical development is definitely tied up in the desire to ignore or reject God and His Word. Darwin was in the process of rejecting God, and told people that John Locke's obiously anti-Bible book of geology was a big influence on his ideas. Also, most of the leaders in evolutionary support and influence are clearly athiests. And if the theory that germs caused disease was tied up in an atheist's attempt to push the spiritual realm and prayer out of medicine, would you reject it? Would you claim that germ theory is part of "a philosophy to explain everything without God"? John Fisher wrote: No. We accept the idea that a book of poetry is intended to be poetic and that a book of history is intended to be historically accurate. There is an easy to see and obvious textual difference. This is normal language usage, not something difficult to comprehend. Which is why I provided non-psalms references. The New Testament reference about the devil taking Jesus to a high mountain to show him all the nations of the earth looks literal. It also cannot be literal. On the subject of Psalms, I should also point out that many people do try to draw historical prophecy out of the book. It seems to me that people are just cherry-picking their facts. In some cases, Psalms is seen as poetic. In other cases, people think it provides actual literal validation of prophecy. Here's an example: "STUDIES IN THE PSALMS" A Source Of Messianic Confirmation[^] In this article, he claims that Psalms contains prophetic information about Christ. He then calculates the probability of all those "prophecies" being true by chance, and concludes that it validates the divinity of Christ. The problem here is that the information is heavily cherry-picked out of Psalms. He says: 1. His rejection by both Jew and Gentile b. By His own family - Ps 69:8 (cf. Jn 7:5) Psa 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. But, if that verse was talking about Jesus, how does he explain the verses a few lines before and after which clearly does not describe Jesus: Psa 69:5 O God, th
Brit wrote: So, Christians use the book of Psalms whenever it proves accurate, but ignore or reinterprete it when it doesn't. If you had stuck "some" in between the first and second words of that sentence, you would be correct. But as it appears with the meaning "all Christians", it is an incorrect statement. Also, (without validating the ones you specifically mention), some of the statements in Psalms are referred to as prophecies by the New Testament writers (who are just as inspired as the Psalmist was). Brit wrote: Which is why I provided non-psalms references. Ah. I just looked back 3 levels to find the references you are referring to, since they weren't listed in post I had responded to. But, if you still think those other references cause a problem, and that "poetic-ness" is the major line of defense, I seriously wonder if you bothered to read the link that I gave you a few posts back. Please read it again, particularly the section below the heading of "Heliocentrism" where it specifically addresses some of the verses you mentioned. Also, keep in mind that it is still considered scientifically valid to use the reference frame of the earth when describing the sun's movement. I expect that you speak of "sunrise" and "sunset" without believing that you are scientifically inaccurate, since it does rise and set from our perspective. Brit wrote: The New Testament reference about the devil taking Jesus to a high mountain to show him all the nations of the earth looks literal. It also cannot be literal. Why not? You could easily go to a high mountain and watch a movie. It would be equally possible for Satan to have taken Jesus to a high mountain and showed him a vision, or that the vision itself gave the impresion of being taken to a high mountain. And, yes, that is perfectly plausible explanation given the context (unless you think they were actually walking around when Satan "took Him to" the holy city or the mountain). Brit wrote: And if the theory that germs caused disease was tied up in an atheist's attempt to push the spiritual realm and prayer out of medicine, would you reject it? Would you claim that germ theory is part of "a philosophy to explain everything without God"? Not at all. But, "being tied up in" and "being the reason for" are very different things. Darwin had a serious struggle with God because of his daughter's death. That certainly played a
-
Sorry for the delay. I need to check some of the finer details of the Rohl and Standard Egyptian Chronologies - which I won't get an opportunity to do until the weekend. As for the IIDB stuff - I just thought it was an interesting site with some high quality debates. There weren't any specific aspects of the content I wanted to debate.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Ok. :) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Brit wrote: So, Christians use the book of Psalms whenever it proves accurate, but ignore or reinterprete it when it doesn't. If you had stuck "some" in between the first and second words of that sentence, you would be correct. But as it appears with the meaning "all Christians", it is an incorrect statement. Also, (without validating the ones you specifically mention), some of the statements in Psalms are referred to as prophecies by the New Testament writers (who are just as inspired as the Psalmist was). Brit wrote: Which is why I provided non-psalms references. Ah. I just looked back 3 levels to find the references you are referring to, since they weren't listed in post I had responded to. But, if you still think those other references cause a problem, and that "poetic-ness" is the major line of defense, I seriously wonder if you bothered to read the link that I gave you a few posts back. Please read it again, particularly the section below the heading of "Heliocentrism" where it specifically addresses some of the verses you mentioned. Also, keep in mind that it is still considered scientifically valid to use the reference frame of the earth when describing the sun's movement. I expect that you speak of "sunrise" and "sunset" without believing that you are scientifically inaccurate, since it does rise and set from our perspective. Brit wrote: The New Testament reference about the devil taking Jesus to a high mountain to show him all the nations of the earth looks literal. It also cannot be literal. Why not? You could easily go to a high mountain and watch a movie. It would be equally possible for Satan to have taken Jesus to a high mountain and showed him a vision, or that the vision itself gave the impresion of being taken to a high mountain. And, yes, that is perfectly plausible explanation given the context (unless you think they were actually walking around when Satan "took Him to" the holy city or the mountain). Brit wrote: And if the theory that germs caused disease was tied up in an atheist's attempt to push the spiritual realm and prayer out of medicine, would you reject it? Would you claim that germ theory is part of "a philosophy to explain everything without God"? Not at all. But, "being tied up in" and "being the reason for" are very different things. Darwin had a serious struggle with God because of his daughter's death. That certainly played a
Well I'll wrap this up by saying that, as I see it, Christians only have two options: to come to the belief that Christianity is false, or that Genesis should be reinterpreted. I was once a Creationist and a Christian myself. Since I went to a Christian college, I've known lots of people (professors mostly) who have been caught between the hard-line Creationists saying that evolution and Christianity are incompatible, and then - in the process of getting their PhD and while acting as professors - facing the very solid evidence for evolution. People have taken different approaches to this question. At my college, professors either threw up their hands in frustration and said, "Christianity and evolution are both true, but I don't know how to fit them together", or they've reinterpreted Genesis along metaphorical lines. I've known other people who have simply dropped their Christian beliefs - either because they saw in incompatibility or they believed the hard-line creationists, who, in their attempt to convince Christians of creationism claim that Christians must accept both or neither. (Doesn't work out so well when they pick neither.) I have yet to meet a Christian who has seriously studied evolution (and treats physical evidence as significant*) and doesn't think evolution has some serious weight to it. I think it's unrealistic and excessive to convince Christians of the falseness of their religion in order to show them the reality of evolution. The only other option is reinterpretation. In your case, that isn't happening, either. I guess the evolutionists will just have to endure another long period of Creationists trying to push their ideas into the schools (although, if I take what you said about having a different belief basis, the Creationists will be undercut in this move by their explicit acknowledgement of the religious basis of their belief in Creationism). * I add that qualifier because I've meet Creationists who say that the Bible always overrules physical evidence. They setup false dichotomies by saying things like "you can believe man or you can believe God". ---------------------------------------------------------- "We know that reason is the devil's harlot, and can do nothing but slander and harm all that God says and does." - Martin Luther, Christian Reformer
-
Well I'll wrap this up by saying that, as I see it, Christians only have two options: to come to the belief that Christianity is false, or that Genesis should be reinterpreted. I was once a Creationist and a Christian myself. Since I went to a Christian college, I've known lots of people (professors mostly) who have been caught between the hard-line Creationists saying that evolution and Christianity are incompatible, and then - in the process of getting their PhD and while acting as professors - facing the very solid evidence for evolution. People have taken different approaches to this question. At my college, professors either threw up their hands in frustration and said, "Christianity and evolution are both true, but I don't know how to fit them together", or they've reinterpreted Genesis along metaphorical lines. I've known other people who have simply dropped their Christian beliefs - either because they saw in incompatibility or they believed the hard-line creationists, who, in their attempt to convince Christians of creationism claim that Christians must accept both or neither. (Doesn't work out so well when they pick neither.) I have yet to meet a Christian who has seriously studied evolution (and treats physical evidence as significant*) and doesn't think evolution has some serious weight to it. I think it's unrealistic and excessive to convince Christians of the falseness of their religion in order to show them the reality of evolution. The only other option is reinterpretation. In your case, that isn't happening, either. I guess the evolutionists will just have to endure another long period of Creationists trying to push their ideas into the schools (although, if I take what you said about having a different belief basis, the Creationists will be undercut in this move by their explicit acknowledgement of the religious basis of their belief in Creationism). * I add that qualifier because I've meet Creationists who say that the Bible always overrules physical evidence. They setup false dichotomies by saying things like "you can believe man or you can believe God". ---------------------------------------------------------- "We know that reason is the devil's harlot, and can do nothing but slander and harm all that God says and does." - Martin Luther, Christian Reformer
Brit wrote: I have yet to meet a Christian who has seriously studied evolution (and treats physical evidence as significant*) and doesn't think evolution has some serious weight to it. Then I suggest visiting www.answersingenesis.org[^]. Specifically, read any of Jonathan Sarfati's books, like Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. [edit]These two books discuss the most popular or influential evolutionary arguments put forth as the best evidence for evolution by PBS, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, and Scientific American. As you read the books, you'll realize that evolution stands nowhere near as solidly as you have been conditioned to think.[/edit] There are also books written by scientists who worked with solid evidence every day and have become to believe the Bible because of that evidence, seeing how pitiful evolution's attempts to explain it can be. Brit wrote: I guess the evolutionists will just have to endure another long period of Creationists trying to push their ideas into the schools Maybe. But not from me or the people at the site I mentioned previously. Why would we want to force people to teach something they don't believe? Then they would teach it badly or with a twist that makes it even harder to believe than if it hadn't been taught at all. You assert that we are ignoring evidence. In contrast, I believe that you are basing your opinions far too much on the number of people who have decided the same thing, rather than actually looking at the data itself. Hence, the beginning of your post. Also note that if someone doesn't hear adequate arguments from both sides of any issue, the side that presents the most arguments is likely to be accepted. For several years, people had a hard time finding books about Creationist science, and that is no longer the case. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Sorry for the delay. I need to check some of the finer details of the Rohl and Standard Egyptian Chronologies - which I won't get an opportunity to do until the weekend. As for the IIDB stuff - I just thought it was an interesting site with some high quality debates. There weren't any specific aspects of the content I wanted to debate.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Blurg. Sorry for the delay (and this short post) - real life0 has rudely inserted itself and I'm uber-busy for the next couple of weeks. As a result, I didn't get to see the full detail of the Rohl Chronology, but AFAICT it's about 300-400 years shorter than the standard one. Essentially, my argument is: Assuming that one version of the egyptian chronologies is essentailly correct (or some hybrid of the two is), I still think you've got major problems with the Noachian Flood (dated 2304BC by AiG) - because there would be an Egyptian civilization there and it's an uninterrupted one (backed up by either chronology). However, it is acceptable that some version of the exodus is true (particularly if the Rohl chronology is vaguely accurate) - at least as far as a population of semitic peoples left. I'm still not convinced that it's the 2.5 million or so that I've seens suggested - as there's no sign of them whatsoever that I know of in the archaeological work done in the relevant region (Sinai). What I have seen though is that amongst the general consensus of Egyptologists the view is that the Standard chronology has some problems, but the Rohl chronology is worse. From this point, I'm not going to continue the debate, and I thank you for your time and patience. While I don't think I've "won" so to speak, I think it's clear why I cannot and do not accept scriptural authority - particularly a literlist reading. [0] There's an amateur dramatics group I'm involved with, and I am currently in charge of the set for the current production. Unfortunately I have about 3 weeks to finish a set which at normal pace would take 4 or 5 weeks to finish. So I'm a bit up against it :-)
I do have a question over how Genesis 1:28-30 can be reconciled with the apparent reluctance on the part of Creationist thought-leaders (I'm thinking about guys like Duane Gish) to perform scientific experiments and subsequently publish them in recognised scientific journals to back up their world view. There is a chain of reasoning here. Essentially, it's that the earth sciences (at base, physics, geology, and biology) are the best way to understand and therefore be best able to "subdue" the planet. It seems strange that there is this apparent antipathy to doing this in Creationist thought-leader circles. Can you enlighten me further?
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertr
-
Ok. :) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.:doh: My (fairly brief) post was in a reply to my own message. It'll probably be the one underneath this.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Brit wrote: I have yet to meet a Christian who has seriously studied evolution (and treats physical evidence as significant*) and doesn't think evolution has some serious weight to it. Then I suggest visiting www.answersingenesis.org[^]. Specifically, read any of Jonathan Sarfati's books, like Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. [edit]These two books discuss the most popular or influential evolutionary arguments put forth as the best evidence for evolution by PBS, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, and Scientific American. As you read the books, you'll realize that evolution stands nowhere near as solidly as you have been conditioned to think.[/edit] There are also books written by scientists who worked with solid evidence every day and have become to believe the Bible because of that evidence, seeing how pitiful evolution's attempts to explain it can be. Brit wrote: I guess the evolutionists will just have to endure another long period of Creationists trying to push their ideas into the schools Maybe. But not from me or the people at the site I mentioned previously. Why would we want to force people to teach something they don't believe? Then they would teach it badly or with a twist that makes it even harder to believe than if it hadn't been taught at all. You assert that we are ignoring evidence. In contrast, I believe that you are basing your opinions far too much on the number of people who have decided the same thing, rather than actually looking at the data itself. Hence, the beginning of your post. Also note that if someone doesn't hear adequate arguments from both sides of any issue, the side that presents the most arguments is likely to be accepted. For several years, people had a hard time finding books about Creationist science, and that is no longer the case. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: Then I suggest visiting www.answersingenesis.org I have. It's not terribly bad - but not good, either. It does dive into some rather questionable tactics at times. (Like saying that you can't believe in God and evolution, and that Christians who believe evolution are being used by atheists - which I see as a psychological mechanism to herd Christians into believing Creationism.) There's not many biologists (Sarfati, for example, has a PhD, but it's in chemistry with a specialty in superconductors - smart guy, but I have to wonder if he's read any serious paper on evolution). Ken Ham is stunningly bad (he's one of the founders of AIG). I still have one of Ken Ham's books because I had to read it for a college course. In case you are wondering, the book was used as an example of bad creationist scholarship - not that all of them are in that category. When AIG is backed into a corner by evidence, they're going to pull out the "God is right, man is fallible" argument, as they say on their own website: "So, the issue is not 'young Earth' versus 'old Earth,' but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp[^]) In other words, ignore the evidence if it doesn't fit the Bible. That's scary to me. John Fisher wrote: As you read the books, you'll realize that evolution stands nowhere near as solidly as you have been conditioned to think. No, evolution is not nearly as weak as you have been conditioned to think. I've done the work myself. I've looked at DNA sequences of chimps and humans. I've looked at the presence of radioisotopes on earth. I'm not relying on someone else's words. If I just happened to stumble upon the evidence that confirmed evolution by random luck, I would be very surprised. Evolution had the potential to fail spectacularly, but it passed each time. If evolution is false, then for a false theory, it is astoundingly good at dodging bullets. You might want to see http://www.talkorigins.org[^] Or this: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective[
-
Blurg. Sorry for the delay (and this short post) - real life0 has rudely inserted itself and I'm uber-busy for the next couple of weeks. As a result, I didn't get to see the full detail of the Rohl Chronology, but AFAICT it's about 300-400 years shorter than the standard one. Essentially, my argument is: Assuming that one version of the egyptian chronologies is essentailly correct (or some hybrid of the two is), I still think you've got major problems with the Noachian Flood (dated 2304BC by AiG) - because there would be an Egyptian civilization there and it's an uninterrupted one (backed up by either chronology). However, it is acceptable that some version of the exodus is true (particularly if the Rohl chronology is vaguely accurate) - at least as far as a population of semitic peoples left. I'm still not convinced that it's the 2.5 million or so that I've seens suggested - as there's no sign of them whatsoever that I know of in the archaeological work done in the relevant region (Sinai). What I have seen though is that amongst the general consensus of Egyptologists the view is that the Standard chronology has some problems, but the Rohl chronology is worse. From this point, I'm not going to continue the debate, and I thank you for your time and patience. While I don't think I've "won" so to speak, I think it's clear why I cannot and do not accept scriptural authority - particularly a literlist reading. [0] There's an amateur dramatics group I'm involved with, and I am currently in charge of the set for the current production. Unfortunately I have about 3 weeks to finish a set which at normal pace would take 4 or 5 weeks to finish. So I'm a bit up against it :-)
I do have a question over how Genesis 1:28-30 can be reconciled with the apparent reluctance on the part of Creationist thought-leaders (I'm thinking about guys like Duane Gish) to perform scientific experiments and subsequently publish them in recognised scientific journals to back up their world view. There is a chain of reasoning here. Essentially, it's that the earth sciences (at base, physics, geology, and biology) are the best way to understand and therefore be best able to "subdue" the planet. It seems strange that there is this apparent antipathy to doing this in Creationist thought-leader circles. Can you enlighten me further?
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertr
Ian Darling wrote: Sorry for the delay (and this short post) - real life0 has rudely inserted itself and I'm uber-busy for the next couple of weeks. No problem. My best friend from college just came to visit for a few days, so I barely even checked my mail. :) Ian Darling wrote: I do have a question over how Genesis 1:28-30 can be reconciled with the apparent reluctance on the part of Creationist thought-leaders (I'm thinking about guys like Duane Gish) to perform scientific experiments and subsequently publish them in recognised scientific journals to back up their world view. There is a chain of reasoning here. Essentially, it's that the earth sciences (at base, physics, geology, and biology) are the best way to understand and therefore be best able to "subdue" the planet. It seems strange that there is this apparent antipathy to doing this in Creationist thought-leader circles. Can you enlighten me further? I have heard of Gish and the Institute of Creation Research. In fact, we had a speaker from there come to our church. You'll find this bit enjoyable -- I wrote up 2 page response to his statements pointing out the flaws in his scientific statements, but more importantly in his assumptions about what the Bible said. I gave it to my pastor, and he presented it to the man, who then was much less dogmatic in his (extra-biblical) statements the second evening. Because of that, and some other things I have read from and about the ICR, I always treat information from them with an extra bit of caution. In an attempt to "enlighten" you, I prefer that people go to sites like AIG (which you've already seen some of). Recently, I came across www.trueorigins.org[^] The link points to a description of a Creation Theory, but the whole site looks interesting. I will be exploring it to determine whether it deserves my recommendation or not. At any rate, that link has references to Christian scientisc, organizations, and journals that not only are unafraid of detailed facts, but claim that creationism matches the current evidence as well as or better than evolutionary explanations, and will exceed evolution's explanations as more facts are discovered. In pursuit of that goal, they are diligently going about God's desire to explore and understand our world. Ian Darling wrote:
-
John Fisher wrote: Then I suggest visiting www.answersingenesis.org I have. It's not terribly bad - but not good, either. It does dive into some rather questionable tactics at times. (Like saying that you can't believe in God and evolution, and that Christians who believe evolution are being used by atheists - which I see as a psychological mechanism to herd Christians into believing Creationism.) There's not many biologists (Sarfati, for example, has a PhD, but it's in chemistry with a specialty in superconductors - smart guy, but I have to wonder if he's read any serious paper on evolution). Ken Ham is stunningly bad (he's one of the founders of AIG). I still have one of Ken Ham's books because I had to read it for a college course. In case you are wondering, the book was used as an example of bad creationist scholarship - not that all of them are in that category. When AIG is backed into a corner by evidence, they're going to pull out the "God is right, man is fallible" argument, as they say on their own website: "So, the issue is not 'young Earth' versus 'old Earth,' but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp[^]) In other words, ignore the evidence if it doesn't fit the Bible. That's scary to me. John Fisher wrote: As you read the books, you'll realize that evolution stands nowhere near as solidly as you have been conditioned to think. No, evolution is not nearly as weak as you have been conditioned to think. I've done the work myself. I've looked at DNA sequences of chimps and humans. I've looked at the presence of radioisotopes on earth. I'm not relying on someone else's words. If I just happened to stumble upon the evidence that confirmed evolution by random luck, I would be very surprised. Evolution had the potential to fail spectacularly, but it passed each time. If evolution is false, then for a false theory, it is astoundingly good at dodging bullets. You might want to see http://www.talkorigins.org[^] Or this: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective[
[edit]Agh! I can't type clearly tonight. I checked over this after I published it, and some of my statements appeared to mean the opposite of what I intended. So, there are a few small changes.[/edit] Brit wrote: No, evolution is not nearly as weak as you have been conditioned to think. Then why in TV series or a book designed to present the best, most convincing arguments for evolution were they unable to present something that could not easily be shown as either wrong or very shaky? Brit wrote: I've looked at the presence of radioisotopes on earth. Sure, they exist. But the interpretation is the question, not their existence. Brit wrote: Evolution had the potential to fail spectacularly, but it passed each time. If evolution is false, then for a false theory, it is astoundingly good at dodging bullets. If evolution is so well established, you ought to be able to present several pieces of evidence that conclusively show how each different biological family descended from another. You should also be able to show how the first life came about, without resorting to a philosophical basis that essentially winds up meaning, "life is here, so it must have evolved". Brit wrote: There's not many biologists (Sarfati, for example, has a PhD, but it's in chemistry with a specialty in superconductors - smart guy, but I have to wonder if he's read any serious paper on evolution). If you had read any of his materials, you would cease wondering. In his response to an article by an editor of Scientific American, he corrected mistakes in that author's understanding of evolutionary theory itself (before showing the logical errors). Brit wrote: the book was used as an example of bad creationist scholarship Could you tell me which book it was and why it was so bad? (Not that a person can't change his opinion later, which may have happened.) Brit wrote: When AIG is backed into a corner by evidence, they're going to pull out the "God is right, man is fallible" argument, as they say on their own website AIG hasn't been backed into a corner by evidence. It is the interpretation of the evidence that contradicts what the Bible teaches. So, their position is perfectly valid. In fact, it is the same as your own, except you choose philosophical naturalism as your basis, rather than the Bible.
-
[edit]Agh! I can't type clearly tonight. I checked over this after I published it, and some of my statements appeared to mean the opposite of what I intended. So, there are a few small changes.[/edit] Brit wrote: No, evolution is not nearly as weak as you have been conditioned to think. Then why in TV series or a book designed to present the best, most convincing arguments for evolution were they unable to present something that could not easily be shown as either wrong or very shaky? Brit wrote: I've looked at the presence of radioisotopes on earth. Sure, they exist. But the interpretation is the question, not their existence. Brit wrote: Evolution had the potential to fail spectacularly, but it passed each time. If evolution is false, then for a false theory, it is astoundingly good at dodging bullets. If evolution is so well established, you ought to be able to present several pieces of evidence that conclusively show how each different biological family descended from another. You should also be able to show how the first life came about, without resorting to a philosophical basis that essentially winds up meaning, "life is here, so it must have evolved". Brit wrote: There's not many biologists (Sarfati, for example, has a PhD, but it's in chemistry with a specialty in superconductors - smart guy, but I have to wonder if he's read any serious paper on evolution). If you had read any of his materials, you would cease wondering. In his response to an article by an editor of Scientific American, he corrected mistakes in that author's understanding of evolutionary theory itself (before showing the logical errors). Brit wrote: the book was used as an example of bad creationist scholarship Could you tell me which book it was and why it was so bad? (Not that a person can't change his opinion later, which may have happened.) Brit wrote: When AIG is backed into a corner by evidence, they're going to pull out the "God is right, man is fallible" argument, as they say on their own website AIG hasn't been backed into a corner by evidence. It is the interpretation of the evidence that contradicts what the Bible teaches. So, their position is perfectly valid. In fact, it is the same as your own, except you choose philosophical naturalism as your basis, rather than the Bible.
Just a quick post because I'm at work (and I'm not going to write a big article while I'm here.) John Fisher wrote: In other words, ignore the evidence if it doesn't fit the Bible. Not at all. It means that we should not arrogantly assume that we know everything. Instead, we should believe God's Word, since God does know everything. When man's opinion about the evidence conflicts with God's truth, we can safely assume that man is wrong. Let's say that someone came to me who believed that their religion claimed that the earth was flat. I told them that lots of evidence points to a spherical earth. He responds exactly as you did: "It means that we should not arrogantly assume that we know everything. Instead, we should believe God's Word, since God does know everything. When man's opinion about the evidence conflicts with God's truth, we can safely assume that man is wrong." In this case, we might both fault the flatearther for not looking at the evidence and only looking at his religious book. His statement might sound reasonable, but in reality, it is advocates ignoring physical evidence when it conflicts with his holy book, which sounds pretty unreasonable. I might ask myself "what evidence can I give this flatearther to convince him that the earth is a sphere?" On the basis of his statement, the correct answer is that there is no amount of evidence which could ever convince him because he will never consider the evidence strong enough to actually change his view. His statement explicitly rules out the possibility that physical evidence could ever change his view. That's what I call "ignoring evidence when it conflicts with the holy book". If you don't believe that physical evidence should be ignored when it conflicts with the Bible, then you shouldn't make statements like "we should believe God's Word, since God does know everything. When man's opinion about the evidence conflicts with God's truth, we can safely assume that man is wrong" because that statement is two things: (1) it is an argument about why it's okay to "ignore the evidence when it conflicts with the holy book", and (2) it advocates the idea that you should "ignore the evidence when it conflicts with the holy book". John Fisher wrote: I also looked at your radiation-dating link. There are several logical flaws in the article, among them circular logic and arguing that something is true simply because many people believe it. He also stated that all the forms of dating ag
-
Just a quick post because I'm at work (and I'm not going to write a big article while I'm here.) John Fisher wrote: In other words, ignore the evidence if it doesn't fit the Bible. Not at all. It means that we should not arrogantly assume that we know everything. Instead, we should believe God's Word, since God does know everything. When man's opinion about the evidence conflicts with God's truth, we can safely assume that man is wrong. Let's say that someone came to me who believed that their religion claimed that the earth was flat. I told them that lots of evidence points to a spherical earth. He responds exactly as you did: "It means that we should not arrogantly assume that we know everything. Instead, we should believe God's Word, since God does know everything. When man's opinion about the evidence conflicts with God's truth, we can safely assume that man is wrong." In this case, we might both fault the flatearther for not looking at the evidence and only looking at his religious book. His statement might sound reasonable, but in reality, it is advocates ignoring physical evidence when it conflicts with his holy book, which sounds pretty unreasonable. I might ask myself "what evidence can I give this flatearther to convince him that the earth is a sphere?" On the basis of his statement, the correct answer is that there is no amount of evidence which could ever convince him because he will never consider the evidence strong enough to actually change his view. His statement explicitly rules out the possibility that physical evidence could ever change his view. That's what I call "ignoring evidence when it conflicts with the holy book". If you don't believe that physical evidence should be ignored when it conflicts with the Bible, then you shouldn't make statements like "we should believe God's Word, since God does know everything. When man's opinion about the evidence conflicts with God's truth, we can safely assume that man is wrong" because that statement is two things: (1) it is an argument about why it's okay to "ignore the evidence when it conflicts with the holy book", and (2) it advocates the idea that you should "ignore the evidence when it conflicts with the holy book". John Fisher wrote: I also looked at your radiation-dating link. There are several logical flaws in the article, among them circular logic and arguing that something is true simply because many people believe it. He also stated that all the forms of dating ag
Brit wrote: that statement is two things: (1) it is an argument about why it's okay to "ignore the evidence when it conflicts with the holy book", and (2) it advocates the idea that you should "ignore the evidence when it conflicts with the holy book". It may sound that way on the surface, but you have still missed my point. We do not ignore the evidence. Instead, we believe that the evidence can be interpreted incorrectly. When there are multiple interpretations, and our understanding of the Bible fits only one, then we assume that this one is the best explanation of the evidence so far. Please don't confuse evidence with interpretations of the evidence. If there were the same large amount of evidence, with no serious interpretation questions (as is the case for the flat-earth situation), then you would be talking with someone who was in the process of changing his mind. However, the assumed evidence for evolution has not answered even the basic problems, nor does this evidence have only an evolitionary interpretation. Since this is the case, my previous explanation stands, and is in fact similar to the position every scientist takes -- stick to a theory until there is no way to make it work, or you find one that is clearly superior (and even then, they are free to come back to the disregarded theory if the data changes). A "something is true simply because many people believe it" statement: Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. The obvious logical error here is that they all subscribe to the same system(s) of dating things. So, of course they will all get similar answers. The number of papers written also has no bearing on whether the system is correct (the quality is what matters). A "circular logic" statement: It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes. The original abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life. For that equation to work mathematically, he must already know the tim
-
Brit wrote: that statement is two things: (1) it is an argument about why it's okay to "ignore the evidence when it conflicts with the holy book", and (2) it advocates the idea that you should "ignore the evidence when it conflicts with the holy book". It may sound that way on the surface, but you have still missed my point. We do not ignore the evidence. Instead, we believe that the evidence can be interpreted incorrectly. When there are multiple interpretations, and our understanding of the Bible fits only one, then we assume that this one is the best explanation of the evidence so far. Please don't confuse evidence with interpretations of the evidence. If there were the same large amount of evidence, with no serious interpretation questions (as is the case for the flat-earth situation), then you would be talking with someone who was in the process of changing his mind. However, the assumed evidence for evolution has not answered even the basic problems, nor does this evidence have only an evolitionary interpretation. Since this is the case, my previous explanation stands, and is in fact similar to the position every scientist takes -- stick to a theory until there is no way to make it work, or you find one that is clearly superior (and even then, they are free to come back to the disregarded theory if the data changes). A "something is true simply because many people believe it" statement: Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. The obvious logical error here is that they all subscribe to the same system(s) of dating things. So, of course they will all get similar answers. The number of papers written also has no bearing on whether the system is correct (the quality is what matters). A "circular logic" statement: It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes. The original abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life. For that equation to work mathematically, he must already know the tim
John Fisher wrote: Please don't confuse evidence with interpretations of the evidence. If there were the same large amount of evidence, with no serious interpretation questions (as is the case for the flat-earth situation), then you would be talking with someone who was in the process of changing his mind. However, the assumed evidence for evolution has not answered even the basic problems, nor does this evidence have only an evolitionary interpretation. Well, to quote Ken Ham, "there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp[^]). Since you argue that the problem is with the interpretation of facts and (according to Ken Ham anyway) all facts are interpreted, then this philosophy allows anyone to reduce the weight of any evidence to zero. Nevertheless, I think that you would not entirely believe that argument if confronted with strong evidence (your rephrasing the argument by adding "If there were the same large amount of evidence, with no serious interpretation questions" actually changes the meaning of the earlier quote - and Ken Ham would, I'm sure, disagree with you). But, as it was originally stated, it is a philosophy which has the ability to nullify the weight of any and all evidence. ( On a side note, while looking at the AIG site, I was reminded of your earlier statement, "Also note that if someone doesn't hear adequate arguments from both sides of any issue, the side that presents the most arguments is likely to be accepted." (Link[^]) The reason I thought of your statement is because the AIG site doesn't provide links to the evolutionist's counterarguments. The TalkOrigins site does. They prominently display links to creationist counterarguments (many of which they host on their own site). For example, here[^] is an article about Noah's Ark with links to Sarfati's complete counterargument. It's unfortunate that AIG is not as willing to display coun