Intelligent Design: A pig that does not fly
Long-time readers know my views on the pseudo-science movement behind intelligent design. Occasionally I get a reader who is unfamiliar with my views, or how long I have been tracking the issues.
So, for those readers new to the blog, I point to this post in which I discuss why it is not legal to teach intelligent design at present, since there is such a great lack of data, hypothesis, or anything else, in support of intelligent design in science. In heated discussion with Dr. Francis Beckwith of Baylor, several months ago, I felt compelled to find a good analogy for his advocacy that it would be legal under the Constitution for a state board of education or other educational entity to put intelligent design into public school science classes. This gives a link to that post.
I hope I’m not being too subtle for anyone: Intelligent Design: A pig that won’t fly.
December 22, 2007 at 8:36 pm
You mean like the pigs Jesus sent the demons into?
Sorry bud the man Jesus quoted on hell never misses - isaiah666.com
He makes Darwin look like a fool and has the physical evidence to back it up.
December 22, 2007 at 10:07 pm
The existence of a person named in scripture is no refutation of any part of evolution theory.
Evolution denies no part of scripture, so long as one does not insist contrary to scripture that all parts of scripture are literal.
I hope that answers your question, because I don’t know what you’re talking about otherwise, formerthings.
January 21, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I’m sorry to say, but your sadly mistaken on your view. Intelligent design happens to be a movement backed by nothing but logic and evidence. Evolution, however, hasn’t a shred of evidence supporting its claims. All it has going for it is poor logic and deception to support itself, not science (http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ - Speaks specifically about the science of creation refuting evolution) . Here are a few websites/articles/videos supporting Intelligent design (The Bible and God)…
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2704
This one’s about dinosaurs and The Bible.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
This site has a multitude of articles all completely devoted to the support of intelligent design.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2027017937592260869
“The Science of God - Part 1″
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=101157555912125530
“The Science of God - Part 2″
Explaining the intricacies of The Bible supporting the idea that it had to have been created by a supreme God.
I’m not trying to challenge you specifically, but rather trying to help you see the creationist point of view for what it really is. I’m not telling you’re wrong because I have a different opinion. Nor am I arbitrarily making claims (like evolutionists) w/o any real solid evidence. If you are to look up the foundations of the evolutionist claims you’ll find inconsistencies and deception. To be quite frank, I think a pig is more likely to fly than a monkey is to “evolve” into a human (based on every scientific fact I’ve ever seen).
All in all, I think it’s unfair to tell impressionable people that Evolution is fact and Creationism is wrong without a single shred of credible evidence. By the way, evidence isn’t a statement, or a theory; it’s observable and testable consistencies. I urge you to simply do the research. You don’t have to believe me, find out for yourselves.
January 21, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Tyler, please read the post linked to at the bottom. The sources you cite are anti-science hangouts, notorious for their bizarre and non-science claims. If that’s representative of your science sources, you might find it useful to get familiar with what evolution theory really is before commenting.
Try the PBS series, “Evolution,” or spend some serious time at the evolution gateway from Berkeley.
January 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I’m sorry, but how is the evolutionist interpretation have any more validity than the creationists? How are their claims “non-science”? What in them contradicts fact?
So, the discovery of Carbon-14 in oil thought to be “millions of years in the making” isn’t a scientific discovery? And the logic that because there is Carbon-14 in the oil the oil isn’t millions of years old, but merely thousands is also not scientific? 60,000 years is the longest amount of time Carbon-14 can remain in a formerly living object and we’re finding it in all oil, coal, and fossils said to be “millions” of years old. Before you think I’m not aware of the evolutionists theory that the oil (in the case I read) is somehow always contaminated by biological substances or remade via radiation… Think again. I am aware, and I ask you: How can you believe in something so far fetched? We’re discovering an element that decays rapidly in substances that the evolutionists were hanging onto as absolute irrefutable proof that this planet is millions of years old.
http://www.reference.com/search?q=carbon-14%20
“Most man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 has long since decayed. However, oil deposits often contain trace amounts of carbon-14 (varying significantly, but ranging from 1% the ratio found in living organisms to undetectable amounts, comparable to an apparent age of 40,000 years for oils with the highest levels of carbon-14). This may indicate possible contamination by small amounts of bacteria, underground sources of radiation (such as uranium decay), or other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production. Presence of carbon-14 in the isotopic signature of a sample of carbonaceous material therefore indicates its possible contamination by biogenic sources or the decay of radioactive material in related geologic strata.”
There’s more…
A good portion of the evolutionists “prehumans” were fabrications or wrongly identified fossils.
Examples from Mike Riddles “Origin of Humans” PDF found on http://www.train2equip.com/DVDlessonPlan.asp :
• Java man
- In 1891, an apelike skullcap was found.
- In 1892, a human-like thighbone was found 40 feet away from the skullcap.
- Rudolph Virchow, a leading scientist of the time stated:
“In my opinion this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The
thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull.”
- Dubois kept information hidden.
- Dubois insisted Java man was not a man but a creature intermediate to the
gibbons and humans.
- Since 1950, anthropologists and textbooks have been calling Java man
Homo erectus.
• Piltdown man
- Parts were found between 1908 and 1912 in Piltdown, England.
- The claim was: a 500,000-year-old intermediate link.
- It was featured in textbooks and encyclopedias as the missing link.
- In 1953, it was discovered to be a fraud.
- The bones had been chemically stained to appear old and filed to fit
together.
• Nebraska man
- Fossil evidence discovered in 1922
- Used to support evolution in the 1925 Scopes trial
- Claimed to be a one-million year old missing link
- The truth: an extinct pig’s tooth
• Ramapithecus
- Pithecos: Greek for ape
- Discovered in the 1930’s (jaw bone and teeth fragments)
- Claimed to be the 14-million year-old intermediate between humans and
ape-like creatures
- The truth: In the 1970’s a baboon living in Ethiopia with similar dental and
jaw structure to Ramapithecus was found
- Ramapithecus was dropped from the human line
• Summary of “facts”
- Java man was part human and part ape.
- Piltdown man was a hoax.
- Nebraska man was a pig.
- Ramapithecus was an ape.
- In every case the dates (millions of years) were wrong.
One more thing before I finish. Read Revelation in The Bible and compare the predictions to the foreseeable future now and tell me The Bible is a work of fiction.
Here’s a personal theory I think foreshadows the eventual mark (RFID chip) in the hand or forehead that will disable our ability to buy or sell without it.
http://weirdjerod.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=revelations&action=display&thread=1197682188
January 21, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I visited the PBS site and it doesn’t give any sort of compelling argument.evidence that Evolution is true. It assumes you think Evolution is true and then makes seeming statements of fact that are quite misleading. If I were ignorant I would have assumed the site had good reason for making the claims it does, that’s unfair. That’s indoctrination.
January 21, 2008 at 6:52 pm
What part of evolution theory do you think is “misleading?” The PBS material I’ve looked at, and to which I referred you, is backed by a couple centuries of hard research. If you think science is “indoctrination,” I’m really curious with what bizarre ideas you have been indoctrinated with yourself. Care to elucidate?
January 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm
How does science differ?
1. Science findings are published for everyone to see, in peer-reviewed journals, to try to avoid error.
2. Science findings are replicable — anyone can do the observation and get the same results.
3. Science findings exist; they are not hypothetical or imaginary.
4. Science findings produce predictions of results of observations or experiments, which have been verified subsequently. No creationist claim does that.
What in creationism contradicts fact? The rest of your post is a good example; what isn’t simply contrary to the facts is often distorted. Transitional species in fossil form are common, not non-existent. There are fossils prior to the Cambrian. Dozens of species exist in many lines, providing dozens of “links” where creationists claim there are none. And so on.
I notice that you appear unable to specify any part of evolution that is misleading, so far.
January 21, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Sure it’s scientific. It doesn’t rebut any part of evolution theory. What’s your claim?
I think you’re confused about radioisotope dating. Off hand I can’t think of any reason there should not be C-14 in oil in trace amounts.
Since oil is a fluid, and since it flows through lots of strata, it’s impossible to get a clean sample that should be suitable for dating with C-14. Any date given to oil would be invalid, if one follows the protocols for getting accurate readings.
Of course, creationists rarely are interested in accurate readings, having no basic commitment to accuracy, fact or truth. Isn’t that your claim here?
I assume that you’re unfamiliar with how oil is extracted, then, that you would think an uncontaminated sample possible.
Carbon 14 is generally measured in bone from animals, or in solid wood from plants. Which part of the petroleum is the bone or the solid matrix wood? Which part of the petroleum is equivalent to bone or solid wood?
If one uses an inappropriate method to measure, one gets inappropriate answers.
January 22, 2008 at 12:52 am
Here’s the trouble with creationism: It makes creationists irrational see below.
There are about 20 species known between modern humans and our last ancestor common with other great apes. Most of the species are known from a few dozen specimens, but some are known from thousands of specimens. “A good portion” would be more than 1%, I would think — which would mean there should be a hundred cases of fabrication or fraud. There is only one case I know of, however, and Piltdown was uncovered because it didn’t fit evolution theory.
I think you’re exaggerating wildly by saying there are fabrications. Incorrect identifications are serious only if done maliciously. Your examples don’t meet that criterion.
Virchow was a crank on human evolution. Adamantly opposed to the concept of evolution, he ignored the evidence. He kept declaring Neanderthals as modern humans with rickets, until there were hundreds of specimens. Rickets would prevent the creatures from growing to adulthood, and these were adults. To cite Virchow’s criticism here suggests that one is unfamiliar with the science then as well as now. Eventually, the evidence for Neanderthal was so overwhelming, with so many specimens from so many different sites, but all in the same strata, that science simply ignored Virchow. The evidence speaks.
The story of Dubois’ search is confirmation of evolution. Dubois was inspired by Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolution, to search in what is now Indonesia. His searches in Sumatra weren’t encouraging, but he moved to Java in 1890, and by 1891 had found a skull cap, listed in the catalogs now as Trinil 2. It was the first hominid fossil found outside Europe. Dubois had carefully calculated where to go to find such fossils based on Wallace’s work, and once there, had limited his work to the sediments dated to about the time human ancestors would have been there. This is one of the earliest cases of evolution theory being used for such a difficult prediction — and it worked.
The femur may or may not be from the same specimen; this is readily acknowledged by all scientists. If it’s not from the same person, it means there are two specimens there. There is no scandal, fraud or error involved in those statements.
Dubois originally named the species Pithecanthropus erectus using Haeckel’s terminology. Ernst Mayr, who had seen the Dubois specimens as well as the Peking specimens and analyzed them all, suggested that they were the same species from different locations, a suggestion confirmed by dozens of other scientists since then. The species is now called Homo erectus. Again, no fraud, no error. You fail to mention that there are about 40 specimens known from Java and another 40 known from near Beijing (by 1998 — there are undoubtedly more now). 80 specimens is a lot, don’t you think? The 1969 discovery of the mostly complete skull known as Sangiran 17 contributed greatly to our knowledge of what the face of the creature looked like. Definitely a hominid.
After encountering great skepticism and personal rebukes, Dubois sat on the fossils for a time. He “hid” nothing to support your claim of fraud. The fossils are available for study now, and have been extensively studied, especially since the opening of China’s caves to further digs over the past 25 years.
“Java Man” and “Peking Man” are now both classified as H. erectus. With more than 80 specimens from at least five different digs in widely-separated areas — China and Indonesia — in projects scattered over more than a century, these finds are among the most solid evidence possible. When the amazing fossils from Beijing were lost in the Japanese invasion, many thought the casts would be all that would ever remain of “Peking Man.” But nearly three dozen individuals have been unearthed since 1980.
This is extremely solid science. I cannot imagine why you’d question it, unless you’re just unfamiliar with it. Pat Shipman wrote an amazingly detailed book on Dubois, The Man Who Found the Missing Link. Check your library to see if they have it; the details are interesting, and the story of Dubois is a tragedy suitable for dramatizing.
If you want to see the fossils themselves, check the library for Donald Johansen and Blake Edgar’s book of life-size photos, From Lucy to Language. It has photos of Dubois’ cranium as well as several others.
Actually, Piltdown didn’t make many textbooks. For several reasons, it didn’t fit the evolution story, and many paleontologists remained skeptical. Because it couldn’t be fit into the story, most publications that mentioned it at all noted only that it had been found. Because it did not fit any other evolution data set, scientists reanalyzed the specimens in 1953, and they discovered the hoax.
Piltdown was an amazing hoax, probably a practical joke gone awry. There is good conjecture that a couple of scientists were trying to entertain a third scientist, a friend, at the British Museum, with this astounding find in a gravel pit (clue one). Unfortunately, their friend didn’t pick up on the joke, and went public with the data. They tried to make it even more ludicrous, but those data were not revealed until later (they obtained an elephant femur, had it carved in the shape of a cricket bat, and aged the bone — obviously, a cricket bat would mean the ancient man was genuinely English!).
But this is the one fraud. It’s important to note that no creationist ever had an inkling of the fraud. Only because the bones didn’t square with other finds from near the same aged sediments, nor did they square with known distribution of hominids at the time, evolutionary scientists kept plugging away. But for evolution theory, the fraud may not have been discovered, ever.
A Nebraska farmer found some fossil teeth. He took them to a local dentist who said he was pretty sure they were human-like. The farmer sent the teeth to the American Museum of Natural History in New York. A researcher there described the teeth in a science journal, and asked if anyone could confirm that they were hominid. Within a few weeks other researchers noted that the teeth were porcine, not hominid. The new identification was published. Again, no fraud — an amateur, a dentist, misidentified the teeth and got some excitement. A pig’s molar is indistinguishable from a hominid molar to anyone who isn’t an expert (the dentist obviously was not an expert in pig teeth and the differences).
William Jennings Bryan had hoped to do something with the case at the Scopes trial, but it was never introduced as evidence there. When the judge refused to allow science testimony, Scopes pled guilty and the trial ended with no show of evidence. Notice it was the creationist side that wanted to make hay with it, not the science side.
No fraud, no false findings, no significant error. The dentist, by the way, was a good Christian, creationist until asked to identify the fossil teeth (and probably afterward). This shows the dangers of letting ill-informed or un-informed creationists draw conclusions on data that they are not qualified to draw.
You should read up on these things. The difficulty with this fossil is simply that it’s too old to be a hominid. Before we had molecular dating and DNA, wide time-ranges put it in the range of humans. When the molecular guys determined hominids split from the other apes only 5 million to 7 million years ago, Ramapithecus had to be cast as an outlyer at best. Additional digs found a similar, almost contemporary ape species, Sivapithecus, in the same strata, and that fairly sealed the deal that it was not a hominid.
Again, no fraud or deception, no serious error. The debate on this species was full and open, and it depended on the finding of new evidence at each turn — molecular evidence and new fossil finds provided the data needed. Creationists provided no useful input to the process, since creationists rarely do research in these areas.
Baboons were known long before the 1970s. This is a fossil ape. I don’t know what the claim is with living baboons, but it’s probably irrelevant. We are finding more fossil apes, however, which only adds to the mountains of evidence favoring evolution.
No, Homo erectus is all Homo — it’s a hominid. With so many specimens, this identification is quite clear.
A hoax determined only with the use of evolution theory — it reifies the accuracy of evolution theory. Piltdown played a vanishingly small role in evolution, since it didn’t fit evolution’s predictions.
A well-meaning dentist and farmer found some fossils. No scientist ever called it “Nebraska Man” (the name was attached by a London tabloid newspaper), and the scientists quickly identified the teeth as pig teeth. By the way, the age of the fossil pigs also refute a literal Genesis version. The pig fossils support evolution theory (not to mention the Ashfall Beds State Park fossils, nearby).
A fossil ape, whose proper identification supports evolution theory, though it shows evolution of one of the other branches of the great apes, not the hominid branch.
Good science. I can’t figure out why you’re trying to spin this one. There’s no problem with it at all.
No, in one case, Ramapithecus, the dates were not wrong, but were determined to be before the split of hominids from other apes. In no case were the dates wrong, in fact. When serious dating was done of the Piltdown specimens, they were properly dated, too.
But you’ve left out almost all of the hominid fossils. You’ve really mentioned only one, Homo erectus. There are at least 17 different species in the chain from modern humans back to our common proto-ape ancestor, and they are all solid, too. From modern to most ancient, they are:
Homo sapiens (Modern humans)
H. neanderthalensis
H. heidelbergensis
H. erectus
H. ergaster
H. habilis
H. rudolfensis
Australopithecus boisei
A. aethiopicus
A. robustus
A. crassidens
A. africanus
A. afarensis (Lucy’s species)
A. bahrelghazali
A. anamensis
A. praegens
Ardipithecus ramidus
So, you’ve got one case of mistaken tooth, corrected by scientists; one case of practical joke gone awry, corrected by scientists; one case where you think somehow an ape fossil negates some part of evolution (I’m still not sure about that); and one case where your facts don’t change the reality that H. erectus strode the Earth.
And then there are 16 other species, with thousands of individuals in some of them (sapiens and Neanderthal both, for example), which you appear not to have known anything about until this moment.
One hoax doesn’t negate 17 solid species. On numbers of species alone, there is a very strong case for human evolution. When we consider the number of individual specimens, the evidence is really overwhelming.
Tyler, spend some time at this site, and get some background:
http://www.becominghuman.org/
If you’re in Texas, get thee down to Houston to see Lucy:
http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/special_exhibits/Lucy.asp?r=1&terms=
And here: http://lucyexhibition.com/about-the-exhibit.aspx
Check out some of the fossils of hominids here:
http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eorigins/index.html
Noodle around the web and see what else you can find — here’s a BBC World Service site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/2chapter1.shtml
And just so you understand that there are a lot of questions, and that scientists constantly work for greater accuracy and more details, take a look at this story that suggests modern humans have been around for 195,000 years, not just 100,000:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7020&feedId=online-news_rss091
It’s a big world out there. Evolution theory helps us make sense of it, and survive in it. Evolution is worthy of your study.
January 22, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I appreciate you taking the time to reveal some things about evolution I didn’t know, but it still doesn’t shake my belief in God whatsoever. The reason I’ve been found ignorant in this discussion is because I decided to place my faith in man, I pray that doesn’t happen again.
You said:
“It’s a big world out there. Evolution theory helps us make sense of it, and survive in it. Evolution is worthy of your study.”
What you fail to mention here is that evolution provides no hope. So you think the study of hopelessness is worth my time? If we are to accept that evolution is true, that would mean God is false. If that is so, what is there after death? Nothing, that’s what. If so, what’s the point to living? There is none. Evolution is a hopeless and ultimately fruitless belief. But that’s not the reason I don’t believe, because believing in something because you simply don’t want to accept it is cowardice. I believe for good reason.
I believe in God, for the most part, because I have seen biblical prophecy (it’s more in the process of unfolding) and miracle’s unfold before my very eyes. The Bible, in all of its judgments, have always been correct. I believe this because I’ve personally never seen it contradicted and I have the faith (yes, I know, believing in something without evidence; but I’m not entirely without evidence. So, it’s a partly faith based belief.) to trust that what I haven’t seen is consistent with what I have. Where did this faith come from? Well, I believe it came from God, but God doesn’t always work in mysterious ways. He’s gifted me with several testimonies that could have only been a miracle, because they completely go against every consistent medical record we have on the subject…
“Class IV Hemorrhage involves loss of >40% of circulating blood volume. The limit of the body’s compensation is reached and aggressive resuscitation is required to prevent death.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemorrhage
I bled 66% of all my blood internally (The doctors told me 1/3 blood loss kills. I lost double that and was still awake!) through my stomach (because a cancerous tumor in my stomach broke) while sleeping and woke up, fainted, came to a few minutes later able to speak. My friend called an ambulance and I reached the hospital, conscious.
A few weeks later I was in the hospital brooding on my condition. At the time I didn’t believe in God whatsoever. In fact, I despised people who came to God because of fear of death. I thought it was pathetic. I thought the Christians were a bunch of loony fanatics without a shred of evidence supporting their belief. I couldn’t have had a more wrong misconception.
I don’t have the references off hand and atm I’m running on 4 hours of sleep (two jobs), so I urge you to read revelation (parts of daniel and the end of matthew are also two prophetic books) yourself. Afterwards, read the news and you’ll see connections that you couldn’t believe. You can download a KJV Bible off this site ( http://www.e-sword.net/ ) for free that comes with a direct English to Hebrew/Greek translation that allows you to simply scroll over a number next to a word and see the original word and it’s definition.
I’ll post again tomorrow, I don’t have the mental endurance to finish right now…
January 22, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Ed, do you hold a degree beyond a bachelors?
January 22, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Can’t argue with miracles, Ed. They’re empirical AND supernatural. Illegal (cough) mix of science and religion, eh?
January 22, 2008 at 8:22 pm
What I find disturbing is that both of you have the narrowmindedness to believe that if creationism is true, then evolution is a lie and vice versa. One theory that I personally don’t dream of trying to back up with evidence is that God created the earth and set the evolution of its inhabitants into being. Note that it is exceedingly difficult to use science’s own evidence against it, but creationists still try. I would take the dramatic failures in this case (note the story of whoever went to try and convert the Epesians) as a hint that our own faith ought to be enough for ourselves and God. Tyler, I believe that since you are trying to say that the establishment of science is upon falsehoods, it is irrelevant to your argument whether or not Ed has a degree higher than a bachelors. I, personally am a sophomore in high school, and I consider myself up to the task of chewing you two out (review your posts and note that this is all you are doing). Don’t bother responding to me because I won’t be coming back.
January 22, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Nor was it intended to, nor should it.
However, your faith in God, and your dedication to Christian virtue, might make you ponder why anyone would claim that understanding evolution would mean a lack of faith in God, or why anyone whose case must be built on so much denial of reality could really claim to be doing God’s work.
Whoever told you evolution is opposed to religion, or that religion requires opposition to science (and the facts), was wrong. Don’t listen to them any more.
January 22, 2008 at 10:25 pm
My wife had a good friend in college who was an unfortunate victim of cystic fibrosis. Wendy died at an age of about 24 from the disease. It’s been way more than a decade, but my wife still feels the loss. We now have another friend who suffers from CF. Medicine has advanced a lot. Life can be extended for CF victims — but only so far.
Evolution theory undergirds the search for a cure for CF. There are promising developments that could provide a cure in the next decade or two. Evolution theory provides hope of the best sort: Hope for a conquest of fatal disease.
Evolution theory is the foundation of the fight against cancer. It provides hope that one day we might offer a simple injection to beat a cruel, formerly fatal cancer. Evolution theory led to the discovery of the cause of diabetes, the development of treatments for mass use from beef and pork insulin, and now to the development of a unique treatment that features human insulin created by bacteria.
I urge you to study evolution because it offers hope. I cannot imagine why anyone could be so cynical as to tell you evolution offers no hope, or that evolution means God is false. Neither claim is accurate. I can’t imagine how anyone could make a convincing case on either point.
On the other hand, campaigns against evolution science have crippled our scientific achievement, robbing millions of the hope of cure for many diseases in their lifetimes.
Fighting against evolution delays cures for cancer and treatments for genetic diseases. I cannot imagine a more hope-destroying thing to do.
January 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I did graduate study in history, biology and rhetoric. My only advanced degree is a J.D., however.
January 23, 2008 at 3:56 am
I find myself quoting Shakespeare:
“What fools these mortals be.” MND III.ii.115
Especially as, right under this post on WordPress’s listing under the “intelligent design” tag, is one claiming that any point of view other than complete agreement with ID is in violation of First Amendment rights. Which, as far as I’m concerned (and, begging your pardon, I do have a Ph.D. and do study organismal phylogeny, a branch of evolutionary biology), has as much credence as a First Amendment issue as shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Even if the guy (especially if the guy) doing the shouting is Ben Stein.
The thing that worries me the most, even to the point of despair, about the way this debate is tending, not just here but nearly everywhere, is the nature of the argument.
Science - all science, not just the scientific investigation of the evolution of life on earth - depends first on knowledge, often painstakingly and painfully gained, and second, on the dispassionate discussion and testing of that knowledge.
What I see, more and more often, are not debates but slanging matches, conducted with overt, deliberate appeals, not to reason, but to emotion. Appeals that most scientists are doomed to lose because they are neither trained nor, for the most part, temperamentally disposed to make emotional appeals. Richard Dawkins is one of the few prepared to try to fight fire with emotional fire, and I’m not sure but what he’s doing the field of evolutionary biology more harm than good. By allowing the ID crowd to point to him and shout Same as you!!
There are few things more emotionally charged than belief in a Supreme Being, who, in the words of Ambrose Bierce, “will annul the laws of the universe on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy”. One who provides hope in bodily resurrection and eternal life - the only hope that matters to many who profess Christianity (and, I daresay, to our Mr. Tyler). To challenge that belief, however dispassionately, however armed with facts, typically provokes an emotional response (alarmingly like the adrenaline-charged “fight or flight” response seen in practically all animals including humans) which ends not in reason but “he who shouts loudest has the floor”.
A true scientist, at least one who has the same understanding of scientific reasoning as I, does not believe anything that falls within science. The scientist will accept a statement as true until something better comes along. The theory of the evolution of life on earth by the process of natural selection, as originally proposed by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Wallace, modified by thousands of subsequent investigations and still undergoing modification today, remains dispassionately accepted as the foundation of biology, through which most of the useful work that biology has done for humankind has arisen. Its replacement by a “theory” that satisfies the need for a belief but has (Ben Stein’s pronouncements notwithstanding) no prospect for doing useful work, would be a major step backwards.
I’m not at all sure I’ve expressed myself adequately, but I’ve already occupied enough of your blogspace, Ed. I just hope the use can be of some use.
January 24, 2008 at 12:15 am
Ed, I greatly appreciate your kind responses thus far. It sure has made this discussion less stressful.
First off, Evolution is based on a few fundamentals that must be true for Evolution to be right. The same goes for God and his word (the Christian God). If a single contradictory note is sung within the parameters of The Bible, then it’s false. If science claims the Christian God doesn’t exist, then we first have to examine that claim before we go being too hasty.
Differences of Evolution and The Bible:
- The Bible says the universe is around 6k-7k years old. Evolution is dependent on the universe being billions of years old.
- The Bible says man sprung up on the 6th day of creation fully man and fully formed. Evolution is dependent on, well, the claim that there is a mechanism of change in all living things and that we evolved from a single celled organism millions of years ago.
You can’t believe in one and the other.
Anyway, I’ll post tomorrow about Revelation prophecy. I had an unexpected fellowship I had to attend. I also got caught up writing something about creation science and decided that I’ll let God directly argue his point instead. Besides, I’m honestly not educated enough science-wise to have an equal discussion about it.
January 24, 2008 at 1:26 am
This is a false dilmena: many Christians, in fact MOST Christians (if you count Catholics) do not hold that the Bible is literally true in all respects. What you fail to see if that your particular conception of God being false is not a limit on the possibility of a loving God period. It’s merely a limit on your very, very specific theology.
I also have to express my sorrow that you feel that your life is itself so worthless and meaningless that if it didn’t continue on forever, it would have no point. If you knew that you would have no eternal life, would you stop loving your family? Would you stop caring about them and their happiness? Would you stop caring about higher ideals like our country, or art, or moral conviction. If so, that’s truly sad.
I’m not sure I follow your logic though: infinity times 0 equals zero. If any solely finite amount of life is meaningless, then eternal life is eternal meaninglessness: it can never add up to anything more.
January 24, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Bad, if you really believe that there is a question of whether to count Catholics as Christians, then you have no business being allowed to use the word “Christian.” Roman Catholocism was the original Christian religion. If you believe anything contrary to this, then the only person that I have ever heard of who shares this view is a comic maker named Jack Chick. Incidentally, this comic is used as a medium to further hatred of gays and the belief that Islam is the worship of a moon goddess among other things. Thank you for your time on an unrelated subject.
January 24, 2008 at 7:09 pm
2Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
So I’m sorry to say that the people who believe that are not participating in their Bible studies :)
Mat 7:14 “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
And this tells us that if MOST believe those things then they’re probably on the wrong track.
Anyway…
I don’t know what’s beyond this existence, Bad. I believe that God, however, has given this seemingly meaningless life a purpose.
You and I could argue the meaning of life all day long and get nowhere. Luckily, we don’t have to know what it is as Christians to know that there is one while evolutionists are left to guessing.
The Bible is pumped full of evidences that support it that require personal research to dig out. I’m only a man, but if you let God speak to you you can be sure that he’ll tell you truth. When I speak of truth I don’t only mean that “life directing” sort of truth. I’m talking about the faith building truth. The things of God that convince that he exists because they’re specific and unarguable. It’s just a matter of study. Either way, I’m gonna post a few biblical truths I’ve discovered.
VI = 6 (Roman numerals)
S = 6 (Cyrillic numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_numerals
/\ = A (The resemblance is obvious) = 6 (Urnfield Culture numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture_numerals
a = 6 (Thai numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_numerals
VIS/\ or VISa = VISA
Rev 13:17 “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
I think that VISA technology will somehow be implemented on the mark that will be in our hands or foreheads. This will probably come about using an RFID chip…
From this article: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/169
“Visa is combining smart cards and RFID chips so people can conduct transactions without having to use cash or coins. These smart cards can also be incorporated into cell phones and other devices. Thus, you could pay for parking, buy a newspaper, or grab a soda from a vending machine without opening your wallet. This is wonderfully convenient, but the specter of targeted personal ads popping up as I walk through the mall, a la Minority Report, does not thrill me.”
…RFID chips are the next logical step after a world government is made into a reality (The government will be controlled by the Antichrist all according to The Bible). With these chips, transactions and the flow of the world government’s citizens will be fluid (due to the ease of just swiping your hand over a scanner without any ID or risk) and controlled (logically given that we won’t have to deal with many of the economic problems that arise in an extremely economic world with borders. That, and several conflicting governmental laws will be abolished).
I’ll look a bit more into some other things if ppl want to hear them. I chose this prophetic subject because I know a moderate amount about it.
All in all, remember this promise:
Heb 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
A better interpretation of “prove” is “to test”. So The Bible itself, that so many ppl believe to be a fabrication of man, is telling us to test it! It’s not afraid, and for good reason. For one, it’s been 3.5k years and it still exists without a contradiction and, for two, it’s the word of an almighty God.
January 24, 2008 at 7:11 pm
2Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
So I’m sorry to say that the people who believe that are not participating in their Bible studies :)
Mat 7:14 “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
And this tells us that if MOST believe those things then they’re probably on the wrong track.
Anyway…
I don’t know what’s beyond this existence, Bad. I believe that God, however, has given this seemingly meaningless life a purpose.
You and I could argue the meaning of life all day long and get nowhere. Luckily, we don’t have to know what it is as Christians to know that there is one while evolutionists are left to guessing.
The Bible is pumped full of evidences that support it that require personal research to dig out. I’m only a man, but if you let God speak to you you can be sure that he’ll tell you truth. When I speak of truth I don’t only mean that “life directing” sort of truth. I’m talking about the faith building truth. The things of God that convince that he exists because they’re specific and unarguable. It’s just a matter of study. Either way, I’m gonna post a few biblical truths I’ve discovered.
VI = 6 (Roman numerals)
S = 6 (Cyrillic numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_numerals
/\ = A (The resemblance is obvious) = 6 (Urnfield Culture numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture_numerals
a = 6 (Thai numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_numerals
VIS/\ or VISa = VISA
Rev 13:17 “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
I think that VISA technology will somehow be implemented on the mark that will be in our hands or foreheads. This will probably come about using an RFID chip…
From this article: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/169
“Visa is combining smart cards and RFID chips so people can conduct transactions without having to use cash or coins. These smart cards can also be incorporated into cell phones and other devices. Thus, you could pay for parking, buy a newspaper, or grab a soda from a vending machine without opening your wallet. This is wonderfully convenient, but the specter of targeted personal ads popping up as I walk through the mall, a la Minority Report, does not thrill me.”
…RFID chips are the next logical step after a world government is made into a reality (The government will be controlled by the Antichrist all according to The Bible). With these chips, transactions and the flow of the world government’s citizens will be fluid (due to the ease of just swiping your hand over a scanner without any ID or risk) and controlled (logically given that we won’t have to deal with many of the economic problems that arise in an extremely economic world with borders. That, and several conflicting governmental laws will be abolished).
I’ll look a bit more into some other things if ppl want to hear them. I chose this prophetic subject because I know a moderate amount about it.
All in all, remember this promise:
Heb 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
A better interpretation of “prove” is “to test”. So The Bible itself, that so many ppl believe to be a fabrication of man, is telling us to test it! It’s not afraid, and for good reason. For one, it’s been 3.5k years and it still exists without a contradiction and, for two, it’s the word of an almighty God.
January 24, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Dan, I’m no Christian, and have no strong feelings over how to define one. But some American Protestants do, and not even limited to crackpots like Chick. I mentioned the caveat purely because I know that creationism and this view overlap quite a bit. I wasn’t agreeing with it, simply acknowledging it.
I’m sympathetic to the arguments of Catholics actually, when it comes to scholarly claims about the historical legitimacy of tradition, but again, that’s not really here nor there.
January 24, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Tyler,
Again, if you find life to be “seeming meaningless” and without all sort of perfectly natural and real purpose, then I’m sorry for you. I can’t even imagine what it would be like not to find inherent value in your friends, family, loved ones, and so on. I’m glad then that you have your beliefs, whatever their validity, to help make you moral and caring like the rest of us, however indirectly.
Not so. What Christians have is exactly no different than what everyone has: it just happens to be more convoluted and indirect. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the “meaning of life” is an incomplete thought: it doesn’t specify who its talking about (and that who is a necessary component of the concept), and there are many different possibilities, all valid and non-contradictory (since many different people can find different meanings in the same thing).
Obviously, I don’t agree, but this was not really the question at hand, however. You asserted that if any part of the Bible was flawed, the entire thing was a lie. That, however, is not so, as the beliefs of countless Christians testify. You may disagree with their beliefs, but the fact is that your statement that the Bible must be false if it has even a single contradictory note is, itself, a false claim.
Your speculation about VISA is amusing, but anyone can play number games all day long. In virtually every era there have been believers who came up with another “deciphering” of what the numbers 666 “really” stood for… and always a different answer custom tailored to the particular fears of the person in question. As far as I can tell, most solid Biblical scholarship suggests that the code was originally meant to stand for Caesar Nero, since that is what it seems to spell out in the common numerology of the time. Early Christians understandably had a major fear of Nero (who was indeed quite an evil fellow), even to the point of fearing he would return and persecute them again.
January 25, 2008 at 1:56 am
Firstly, the prophetic books of The Bible are more relevant than they have ever been. In the past people claimed that the possible fulfillment of one or two prophecies was a sign of the end, but now ALL of The Bible’s remaining prophecies seem possible…
- 10 kingdoms controlled by a one world government (UN, or maybe a successor?)
1. North American Union
2. European Union
3. South American union
4. Asian Union
5. Mediterranean Union (In progress)
6. United Kingdom (I know it’s part of the EU currently, but who knows)
7. Australia (probably going to remain it’s own thing)
8. Possibly a revived Soviet Union?
9. African Union
10. There’s still some country’s that aren’t united yet, but you can be sure if the rest of the world is doing it everyone else will.
- natural disaster rating increasing (birth pains).
- not being able to buy or sell without VISA (666) technology (a definite possibility in the future). In fact, this will probably be utilized by the world government. Like I said, it’s the logical next step.
- The Bible claims that the world will see the two prophets killed by the Antichrist. This didn’t make sense until television. Rev 11:9 “And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.”
- Dan 12:4 “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”
What has happened in the past 150 years? Well, people have busied themselves and we’ve become extremely knowledgeable with advanced technologically.
- Mat 24:6 ” And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. ”
This century has easily been the bloodies one in all time.
- Mat 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Everyone on this planet, practically, knows of Jesus.
- Mat 24:12 “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. ”
Just take a look around nowadays.
Secondly…
You said: “You may disagree with their beliefs, but the fact is that your statement that the Bible must be false if it has even a single contradictory note is, itself, a false claim.”
God/I said: “2Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
So I’m sorry to say that the people who believe that are not participating in their Bible studies :)
Mat 7:14 “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
And this tells us that if MOST believe those things then they’re probably on the wrong track. ”
Please tell me why you think this is unclear and wrong before you go saying that I’m wrong, because I believe only what The Bible says. So first refute The Bible here and then tell me I’m/God’s wrong.
Thirdly, If I in someway offended you, I apologize. I get a bit passionate sometimes.
January 25, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I’m not offended, I’m not sure why you would think I was. I don’t agree certainly, but that’s fine.
Again, though, this is what people have been insisting for millenia now: interpreting these things slightly differently from yourself of course. What’s to say that 1000 years from now there won’t be someone interpreting them in an entirely different way, just as sure that everything is then all falling into place?
You understand that this claim completely begs the question though, right? Only if you insist on strict literal truth AND (of course) your particular interpretation of those passages would you have grounds to use them as evidence. If you didn’t, then there wouldn’t be any reason you’d have to come to the same conclusion. It’s also very odd to simply use single lines pulled out of the Bible as if they were all general statements directly applicable to whatever point you find yourself making.
For myself, none of that is really an issue in the first place, because I don’t believe in any supernatural specialness of the Bible in the first place. I was just explaining that there are many many other Christian views possible than a strict literalism (in fact, that view is really quite a recent development).
January 25, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Bad, people haven’t been addressing these things logically, but now, every single prophecy has an OBVIOUS comparison. Most people can look at a prophecy in The Bible and, off the top of their heads, compare it to something happening in the world; no bending of the meaning of the prophecy, or stretching the bounds of the current reality required. Just look at the prophecy I wrote about above. Do you honestly think that any of that is easily explainable to a mindset 60-3000 years in the past? No, back then most of it was confusing and ridiculous sounding, but now it’s ALL relevant (Some of the prophecy has been on the horizen for awhile now. Ever since the early 1900s late 1800s, The Bible has been becoming more and more relevant .
They’ve been addressing a few of them relating them to current events, but NEVER has EVERY SINGLE PROPHECY been on the foreseeable horizon. In the past most of what prophecy mentioned in The Bible made no sense.
Ether way, I can’t discuss these things with you if your going to just arbitrarily tell me I’m wrong without backing it up with a shred of evidence. Also, if your just gonna take my words and ignore the context then it’s impossible to intelligently discuss this matter. This is not to say that I’ll stop posting, I’m just telling you that I’m getting tired of being told that I’m wrong without actually being proved wrong. Give me something tangible to combat, until then I don’t know what else to say.
January 25, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Tyler, it seems to me that trying to argue that prophecies are “coming true” that suggest a major conflict of Biblical proportions falls into that same category as the question that was put to Jesus by the Pharisees about the coming of the Kingdom of God.
Jesus said no man can know. Isn’t that rather what you’re saying, that you see the signs?
Here’s Luke 17, the relevant passages:
January 25, 2008 at 6:47 pm
You think its obvious, but then so did all those other people about their particular interpretations. Personally, it all seems far too vague and cryptic to me for it to be of much use at all: someone could link it to just about anything. And people do. I’ve met plenty of people like yourself who think that all the signs are obviously showing the way today… except they talk about entirely different signs than you.
Again, that’s clearly not so. Many of the people in the past believed it all made sense (they even believed, like you, and wrongly, that no one before had been able to make sense of it!) In fact, the people that wrote it originally had some very obvious concerns in their own time to which it all matched up with, since they all believed that the end of the world was imminently nigh right then and there. I’ve already mentioned Caesar Nero.
How many bites at the apple does a prediction get before it’s failed? Hundreds? Thousands? People do the same exact thing with the prophecies of Nostradamus, just as unconvincingly.
That’s a completely backwards standard: how am I supposed to provide “evidence” that the world ISN’T going to end the way you say or that these supposed prophecies are vague and interpreted all sorts of different ways by lots of people?
You’re the one who needs to provide evidence that anyone should take them seriously. Simply speculating about them yourself and demanding that I prove you wrong isn’t the same thing as you providing evidence of anything. I understand tat you think you see a pattern. I’m just saying that a heck of a lot of time, people see patterns in just about anything, and its just not a very convincing case here.
January 26, 2008 at 7:47 am
You can show me historical writings of people claiming that prophecy is coming true. Heck, you must be able to, because otherwise how could you make the claim that
Bad said:
“Again, though, this is what people have been insisting for millenia now”.
That’s what I meant by prove me wrong. Honestly, if your just going to ignore what I say and say that what you ignored is information I’m not giving then how could we possibly discuss this?
If you going to tell me that these prophecies to you are too “vague”, and that because of that “broadness” it is impossible decipher there exact meaning then I suppose we have a disagreement. Like I said, I agree that over the course of history some prophecies may have been seemingly “coming true”, but that’s just some. Never has every prophecy in The Bible simultaneously been relevant.
If you say…
Bad said:
“I’ve met plenty of people like yourself who think that all the signs are obviously showing the way today… except they talk about entirely different signs than you.”
Give me some examples. Also…
Bad said:
“In fact, the people that wrote it originally had some very obvious concerns in their own time”
Give me examples!
Stop telling me “I’m wrong” without even giving me a minuscule shred of evidence supporting your words. If you can’t come up with evidence, then use logic to back up your claims. Maybe compare the verse I referenced to the world in a different way. Heck, that would support your claim.
Ed…
God does say that we won’t know the hour of his coming, but we’ll certainly know the season. If we weren’t meant to be able to tell if the end is, at least, near, then God wouldn’t have written prophecies (not to say that I know what God would and wouldn’t do, but I can’t see any reason for prophecy if God didn’t want us to know that the time was near). There are several verses that suggest that we will know the end is nigh.
Mat 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Mat 24:6 “And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.”
Mat 24:15 “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)”
Why would he say these things if we weren’t meant to know that the end is near (these are just to verses of the top of me head)?
Also…
Mat 24:32 “Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:”
Here he tells us that we will know the season of the end.
January 26, 2008 at 8:04 am
Ed said:
“Whoever told you evolution is opposed to religion, or that religion requires opposition to science (and the facts), was wrong. Don’t listen to them any more.”
I don’t believe that science is opposed to The Bible. God created all things, science is the uncovering of the intricacies of Gods creation. Since evolution contradicts God, I look for and believe that evolution, apart from the rest of the science, is in itself, false. We have already gone over this though. So don’t worry about bringing it up again. I’m not learned enough in evolution and science to argue this mostly faith based belief that it’s (evolution) untrue.
I’m only digging up the dead so the people reading this may know that I do believe allot of science to be true, just not evolution.
January 26, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Ok, well if you aren’t aware of these things: start here. If you google revelation prophecies, you’ll find literally hundreds and hundreds just form people today, many of whom think it obvious, but not the same obvious things as yourself. Heck, there are whole LIBRARIES of this stuff Take a trip to your local Borders and you’ll see I’m not making things up. I didn’t toss out a bunch of cites before because I figured it was obvious. Heck, the most famous is probably Martin Luther’s interpretation of the Catholic Church as the anti-Christ
There are also entire schools of thought on how Rev should be interpreted
And so on.
January 26, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Whoever told you evolution contradicts God was lying. Don’t listen to them anymore.
And, Tyler, Jesus doesn’t say we’ll be suspicious of the time — He said we won’t know. Even the faithful will be caught unawares. Even the faithful.
So, you tell me you are aware of the end? According to Jesus’s statement, which category would that put you in?
The gospel has not been preached in all the world.
We have constant wars and rumors of wars, and have had for the last 6,000 years. That line could apply to almost any time (though there was a brief period after the fall of the Soviet Union when we had a window of delicious hope for peace — Jesus tells us we should work for that).
There is always the abomination of desolation. Always. Constantly.
How many times must people go up to the hills awaiting the end at midnight before they get the clue that the end won’t come if they think they’re ready for it? You ask us to enumerate each of the several dozen — or several hundred — times this has happened? Have you studied none of them?
Jim Jones used to offer warnings similar to those you’re offering. What should we make of that?
And then you deny science, you deny the things that God’s creation makes manifest?
Foolishness. I’ll not take part, thank you.
January 26, 2008 at 6:28 pm
The Bible says that the world is 7k years old and that man was created fully formed. Evolution REQUIRES the world to be several millions, and man to be the descendant of a single celled organism . How does EVOLUTION (not SCIENCE! as I’ve said before) and The Bible go hand in hand?
God says that we will definitely know the season of the end. I try to make it a priority to know what God says. It says for us to live every day as if the world will continue forever, I understand! I’m just using Bible prophecy as a testimony to God. I’m not saying be a suspicious doom-sayer constantly watching your back. I’m definitely not saying that science is false! I’m saying that the Science that contradicts The Bible is verily, and most completely, false.
Concerning your Jim Jones references:
Ouch, I’m NOTHING like him. I try (true unadulterated conviction is hard to come by) to believe 100% completely in The Word of God, and if I am ever confronted with truth in scripture that contradicts my beliefs I’ll make sure to understand it and believe it. Jim Jones was an Antichrist who claimed to be all of the great spiritual leaders who ever existed rapped up in one (even Christ). He denied scripture and said several things that contradicted it. He was a manipulator for either self gain or he was so rapped up in his own pride and fame that he lost his sense of reality and actually thought he was God.
All in all, he may have been a lunatic who MAY have used the truths of God to his advantage, but that certainly doesn’t make the truths he spoke any less credible (assuming he actually fed people all the information).
If you think I’m wrong in scripture, I’m here right now ready to hear why I’m wrong. Back up what you say with scripture and I’ll MOST DEFINITELY rethink my beliefs. My trust and faith is totally and completely in God and the ONLY REASON (besides maybe a little bit of pride, but I try hard to not have pride) I have for saying what I do is for the salvation of the souls of the readers of this article’s comment section. I’m just trying to be obedient to God by telling people what I feel God has shown me to be true. Say I’m wrong all you want, but PLEASE don’t make FALSE and uncalled for statements like comparing me to Jim Jones. He was an abomination to God, all I want is to be is an obedient disciple of God.
January 26, 2008 at 7:06 pm
No. There is no scripture which says that. A geologist working to calculate the age of the Earth thought that he might get an approximation by counting the begats, if one assumes that Genesis 1 is sorta correct, and if one assumes that the begats are literally correct, neither assumption the geologist would vouch for.
There is no scripture which says the Earth is young. There is no scripture which says the Earth is less than 4 billion years old. There is no scripture which says an accurate numbering of the years of the Earth can be obtained by any calculation or prestidigitation of the Bible.
7,000 years old? It’s 17th century science. You’re mistaking science for scripture, and not good science, but 17th century science that has been disproven.
God’s creation shows fossils that are, measured by God’s clocks, millions of years old. If the Earth were younger than that, God would have to be a liar. I resent that implication, and Christians reject it.
Scripture does say no one, not even Jesus, can know the hour of God’s coming for us. You deny that scripture, and claim to have a better interpretation than Jesus’s. When we point that out to you, you dance a bit, but insist that you’re right and everybody else, including the Bible and Jesus, are wrong. Then you claim Jim Jones did that same stuff, but somehow you’re different from him.
Ouch, indeed.
January 26, 2008 at 7:35 pm
WTH? I could have sworn I posted a lengthy response…
In any case, I didn’t toss out a bunch of cites before because I figured the point was obvious. There are entire LIBRARIES worth of books purporting to interpret Revelations. There are entire schools of interpretation of which your way of interpreting it is just one. A simple google search will return hundreds if not thousands of takes just in the modern era, and any book on major Christian movements will include some. Martin Luther, for instance, once discounted Revelations, but towards the end of his life began to believe that it was almost certainly talking about the Roman Catholic church of his time, against which he fought. St. Augustine had his own take, and so on.
The first and most obvious historical interpretations I’ve already alluded to: the fact that the text looks to predict things specific to the situation of the times it was written in: the persecution and fall of Rome. 666 (or 616) seems to stand for Nero. The 7 heads are the 7 Roman Caesars, and so on. The mark was simply that: a mark (like a tatoo) placed on loyal servants of the evil empire.
January 26, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Bad, I found one post in the spam filter (I’d have sworn it would take more links than that); not a long one, but with a bunch of cites. Is that it, now posted above?
January 26, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Yep, thanks. And you know, I hadn’t even considered spam filters: I just figured my net connection had crapped out on me again and failed to post (it happens sometimes on wordpress for some reason: I actually lost a bunch of quite long posts I was working on the other day).
January 27, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Ed…
About your Evolution and The Bible theory, and the two being compatible:
Gen 1:8 “And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. ”
“And the evening and the morning were the second day” Here the Bible describes the second day for us. It’s telling us that that day consisted of an evening and a morning BEFORE he even created the sun. If that is so why would he say that? Well, he was specifying that it was a day, just a day. A day exactly as we would know it. The kind of day that consists of an evening period and a morning period. Here is even more evidence supporting a 6 day creation.
The word “evening” used in 1:8 (like all the other times it’s used in chapter one) is the Hebrew word “eh’-reb” and it means “dusk: - + day, even (-ing, tide), night.” Every time the word “evening” is used in Genesis it’s translated from “eh’-reb”. “eh’reb” is used 13 times in Genesis and every time it’s used it means exactly what you’d think it would mean; the second half of what we know as a day. Here are some examples:
Gen 8:11 “And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.”
Gen 24:11 “And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water.”
Gen 29:23 “And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.”
Gen 30:16 “And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes. And he lay with her that night.”
The exact same thing goes for the word “morning” in Hebrew. The word is “bo’-ker” which means: Properly dawn (as the break of day); “generally morning - (+) day, early, morning, morrow.” Every time this word is used (it’s used 19 times in Genesis) it means exactly what we know to be the early part of a day. Here are some examples:
Gen 19:15 “And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.”
Gen 19:27 “And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:”
Gen 20:8 “Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.”
Gen 21:14 “And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.”
If this isn’t enough. If we were to do a word study on the word “day” in chapter one we would find that the word was translated from “yome”. Find the word “yome” in Genesis and you’ll find that it means a short period of time or a literal day…
Gen 7:11 “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” - day here means is translated from yome.
I’m not trying to attack you, or try to be the “most smart”, or “best arguer” or anything. All I’m trying to do is spread the truth of the Bible and save souls. I’m not in this for gain or disposition. No one here even knows who I am, and they won’t know. I want nothing from this.
January 27, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Bad…
I’ve never refuted the fact that Bible prophecy is sometime relevant to a time period. If fact, I’ve said that sometimes it is relevant to a time period. My only point is that never has ALL the prophecy in the Bible been relevant to a time. Every other time period couldn’t explain the entire world logically seeing two prophets die in Jerusalem (TV). Never has the world been in a position for a sustained global government, because economically and realistically a world would fall apart as such before now because of limitations we no longer have. Never has the world been so close to having the gospel preached all over the planet. Never has there been such an incredible spike in natural disasters (to the best of our knowledge). And never has there been such a MASSIVE jump in technology over such a short period of time. So much so that we’re on the verge of destroying this planet. If we’re so close to self destruction then I don’t honestly see how God is going to wait much longer. God destroys everything on this planet with his judgments, not us.
Heck, these are things I don’t even have to reference, they’re just so obvious. I’m not so arrogant to believe that the end will unfold EXACTLY as I say it will, but I do say that all of Bible prophecy is very obviously and logically possible.
Like I said, I’m not a doom-sayer, and I’m definately not in this to deter people from God (I’m not an Anti-Christ). I’m simply here to spread what God has shown me to be true, THAT”S ALL. Quote me were I’ve been giving you the impression that I want you turn from Gods commandments of…
Mat 22:37 “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”
Mat 22:38 “This is the first and great commandment. ”
Mat 22:39 “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
January 27, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Look, Tyler:
Genesis 1 conflicts with Genesis 2. If you’re right, that Genesis 1 is right, then Genesis 2 must be wrong. You’ve falsified the story of Adam and Eve.
Not to mention the creation story in Job, which comes from the mouth of God. If Genesis 1 is “correct and literal” as you claim, God lied to Job. You’ve successfully falsified God. And, true to Paul’s complaint about violating the law most when he tried hardest to keep it, you’ve done it while you were trying to do the opposite. But of course, since you’ve already falsified the Bible and God (except for Genesis 1), Paul’s writings are also false.
Congratulations. You’ve put Genesis 1 above God. Abraham fought to end idol worship, you’ve reinstated it.
If you want to spread “the truth of the Bible,” spend some time reading the story of Hosea and Gomer; spend some time reading Galatians. Read the beatitudes. Follow Jesus’ advice and be kind enough to people that they will want to model their lives after you.
Telling everybody the world will end soon meets none of those criteria, but that’s what Jesus called for. You have a choice: Follow Jesus or be creationist.
Your choice. Choose wisely.
January 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Give me specific verses that conflict with my view please. All I won’t to know is the truth, that’s it. Please confine your answer to Genesis two, I would like to know how it contradicts chapter 1.
January 27, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Tyler, in Genesis 1 humans are created last, after all the other animals. In Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created at the same time, together.
In Genesis 2, Adam is without a mate. What happened to Eve? This conflict of scripture cannot be explained away as a translation error. It is discussed by Judaic scholars in texts more than 2,000 years old.
In Genesis 2, God creates Adam first, then the other animals in hopes of finding a mate for Adam. When none of the other animals proves suitable for mating, God creates a woman from Adam’s rib.
Those are two of the larger contradictions. The order of creation is different for several things between the two.
Christians have understood for a couple of millenia that these creation stories are not to be taken literally. I cannot imagine why anyone would deny so much Christian tradition and insist they are literal — especially now that God’s testament of creation is so clear that the stories are not literally true.
January 28, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Is it your prediction that every human being on the planet will be watching Tv when this event supposedly occurs? No? You’re reading more into this passage than it says in order to apply Tv to it, not the other way around. People of other eras had no particular problem with this passage: it just means that people from all sorts of different nations will bear witness to the event.
As far as the Biblical people were concerned, the Romans pretty much were a sustained nearly global government (inasmuch as they knew of the globe).
But they aren’t obvious. They might seem that way to you, but you seem to have closed off pretty much all alternate avenues of seeing the world differently.
Again, this is something nearly anyone in any age could claim, and feel it was equally obvious.
What incredible spike?
January 28, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Bad raises some good points.
Tyler said:
When the UN was formed, it had 45 members, out of about 115 nations. Today there are nearly 200 members, with more than 200 nations on the planet.
We’re moving away from global government at an accelerating clip. Even with the EU consolidations, we’re moving away from global government.
January 28, 2008 at 4:11 pm
2Ti 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
2Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
2Pe 1:21 “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
“All scripture is given be inspiration of God” - How can this be true and Genesis 1 not?
I can’t keep going with this. I’m now well under the requisites of this verse in the Bible.
Tit 3:10 “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;”
I’m sorry, but I’m sinning and because this I can’t continue this talk. You doubt my God, my lord, my saviour… I can’t take part in this any longer.
I pray that you see the truth and become as a little child, knowing nothing, but what God tells you.
Farewell, and God be with you friend
January 28, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Tyler said (again):
It doesn’t say all scripture is God’s work, nor that all scripture is God’s word. When one reads the prophets, to pick one group, one will notice in almost every book that the author takes liberties, and will write directly “this is my view, not God’s.”
All scripture is useful, Timothy said. You’re trying to say all scripture is perfect. Not the same thing at all.
Genesis 1 is not prophecy. Very little of the Bible is prophecy. Your interpretations are not authorized, nor verifiable as the correct readings.
You’re assuming for God that God wished to make a literal statement of creation, and did so. As we’ve noted several times before, God was not the author of Genesis 1, nor is there any indication that it was ever intended to be considered literal by the author or anyone else. How can Genesis 1 be true when Genesis 2, Job, John, Baruch, Psalms and other books contradict it?
If they are not supposed to be literal stories, the contradictions are of no consequence. St. Augustine urged that we disregard all claims of literalness, the better to preserve scripture.
I don’t doubt God. Sorry about yours.
I pray that you see the truth and become as a little child, knowing nothing, but what God tells you.
Farewell, and God be with you friend
January 29, 2008 at 9:04 am
Ed: “Very little of the Bible is prophecy.”
Are you taking the meaning of ‘prophecy’ in the *literal* sense, that of foretelling a future event? Or are you willing to take the broader meaning (most likely intended), that of speaking forth God’s words?
January 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Bye, Tyler. God be with you too. I pray that you will come to think for yourself in addition to listening to the voice of God. (note that this post is not made mockingly)
February 26, 2008 at 11:25 am
I got to this page from a Google search about carbon-14 and happened to notice that a young earth creationist named Tyler quoted the following:
“Most man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 has long since decayed. However, oil deposits often contain trace amounts of carbon-14 (varying significantly, but ranging from 1% the ratio found in living organisms to undetectable amounts, comparable to an apparent age of 40,000 years for oils with the highest levels of carbon-14). This may indicate possible contamination by small amounts of bacteria, underground sources of radiation (such as uranium decay), or other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production. Presence of carbon-14 in the isotopic signature of a sample of carbonaceous material therefore indicates its possible contamination by biogenic sources or the decay of radioactive material in related geologic strata.”
That’s from the Wikipedia entry on Carbon-14.
Apparently Tyler did not comprehend what is being stated in that paragraph. What is being pointed out is precisely how C14 gets into oil (or coal) that is millions of years old. For example, in particular oil and coal that is in surrounding rocks that contain radioactive uranium or thorium (which, by the way, applies to a lot of oil and coal) is having C14 generated in it by this radiation. Yes, that’s right, this is because C14 is not just generated in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, it can also be generated in the ground by rocks with radioactive elements.
So notice how Tyler used that quote *as if* it substantiated what he was claiming, even though in fact the very quote he provided is discussing exactly why his claim is wrong!
February 26, 2008 at 1:37 pm
It doesn’t say all scripture is God’s work, nor that all scripture is God’s word. When one reads the prophets, to pick one group, one will notice in almost every book that the author takes liberties, and will write directly “this is my view, not God’s.”
All scripture is useful, Timothy said. You’re trying to say all scripture is perfect. Not the same thing at all.
IN SIRRY TI SAY BUT ED DARREL YOU NEED TO READ YOUR BIBLE(YOU CAN LEARN LATIN AND GREEK WITCH WILL HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND BETTER)TO ACTUALLY BE ARGUING WITH TYLER ABOUT THIS
Genesis 1 is not prophecy. Very little of the Bible is prophecy. Your interpretations are not authorized, nor verifiable as the correct readings.
YOUR RIGHT GENESIS IS NOT PROPHECY IT IS PROPHESIED IT ALLREADY CAM TO PASS IN THE BEGINNING “GOD”….ETC SO YOU SEE YOU NEED TO READ TO ARGUE A BETTER POINT
You’re assuming for God that God wished to make a literal statement of creation, and did so. As we’ve noted several times before, God was not the author of Genesis 1, nor is there any indication that it was ever intended to be considered literal by the author or anyone else. How can Genesis 1 be true when Genesis 2, Job, John, Baruch, Psalms and other books contradict it?
If they are not supposed to be literal stories, the contradictions are of no consequence. St. Augustine urged that we disregard all claims of literalness, the better to preserve scripture.
YOU REALLY DONT GET IT DO YOU IF YOU WANT TO SAY THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF QOUTE US A PASSAGE THAT DOES BECAUSE AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN READING IT IT DOESNT AND I HAVE READ IT OVER UNCOUNTABLE TIMES
Qwerty
Ed: “Very little of the Bible is prophecy.”
Are you taking the meaning of ‘prophecy’ in the *literal* sense, that of foretelling a future event? Or are you willing to take the broader meaning (most likely intended), that of speaking forth God’s words?
ARE YOU REALLY FOR REAL BECAUSE YOU ARE A JOKE I NOT GONNA WASTE MY TIME ON YOUR DUMB STATMENT!
Tyler, in Genesis 1 humans are created last, after all the other animals. In Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created at the same time, together.
In Genesis 2, Adam is without a mate. What happened to Eve? This conflict of scripture cannot be explained away as a translation error. It is discussed by Judaic scholars in texts more than 2,000 years old.
In Genesis 2, God creates Adam first, then the other animals in hopes of finding a mate for Adam. When none of the other animals proves suitable for mating, God creates a woman from Adam’s rib.
Those are two of the larger contradictions. The order of creation is different for several things between the two.
Christians have understood for a couple of millenia that these creation stories are not to be taken literally. I cannot imagine why anyone would deny so much Christian tradition and insist they are literal — especially now that God’s testament of creation is so clear that the stories are not literally true.
I HAD TO LAUGH WHEN I READ THIS ONE ABOUT ADAM AND EVE FIRST OF READ YOUR BIBLE THIS IS NOT TRUE ABOUT ADAM HERE IS THE PASSAGE
GENESIS 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
YOU HAVE PROVEN YOUR CASE FOR ABOUT 2 SECONDS THEN YOU FAIL TO REALIZE WHAT THE REST OF THE BIBLE SAITH AND WE GO ON…..
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and
every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had
not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man
to till the ground. SO DID MAN SUDDENLLY DISAPEAR NO WE READ ON
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and
there he put the man whom he had formed.
WOW THAT MAKES IT ALLOTT MORE CLEAR DOESNT IT AT LEAST IT DOES ME NOW YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING SO WHAT HAVE YOU PROVED ABOUT US CREATIONIST THAT TRY AND AVOID THIS SUBJECT
February 26, 2008 at 1:41 pm
SO GOD CREATED FEMALE BUT THE THING IS IT NEVER SAID HE PUT BOTH OF THEM ON THE EARTH RIGHT AWAY DOES IT
ALSO YOU ARE A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER RIGHT WELL LOOKS LIKE YOU NEED TO GO TO SCHOOL YOURSELF BECAUSE ON THE PASSAGE
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SEMI COLON MEANS E.G( ; ) ILL LET IT DO THE TALKIN
he him; male and
PROVE YOUR POINT MAYBE
March 12, 2008 at 9:18 am
Dear Sir,
While I share your distain and dislike for much of what passes for “science” in the murky undergrowth of Christian fundamentalism, I am concerned about the a priori elimination of all teleological considerations, regardless of the level of evidence presented. One can make the argument that the intelligent design people have not proven their case - I agree. One can also argue that the movement is principally a philosophical rather than a scientific movement at the current time - about this I would also agree, although I would not consider the term “philosophy” perjorative in this context. On the other hand, to simply rule out all teleology by fiat, insisting that all teleological evidence must be rejected out of hand for a study to be “scientific”, seems a sharp detour into scientism, not science. In physics and cosmological studies at least, the issue of teleology is not closed, and, in the form of the anthropic principle at least, is deeply intwined with the study of nature in the field. Also, recent discussion of the possibility of “seeded universes” or of man-made “inflationary universes” suggests that the possibility of a universe with preset boundary conditions and teleological tweaks may not be at all unreasonable hypotheses in, as it were, “artificial universes.” But of course, that begs the question, and it is not an unscientific, and certainly not