If you missed part 1, you can rewind and check it out here. It took a lot of cutting and editing to get all these notes into one post... but I'm ready to move on and get back to the fun stuff: homeschool and kid posts! So here's my last post on this series. There's tons of great information and in case you missed the introduction, most of this information (a lot of it is directly quoted from Kent Hovind) came from CSE Ministry's Creation Seminar, Part 1, "The Age of the Earth".
PART 2
Why am I so passionate about Old Earth verses Young Earth Creationism? Because I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and I take it literally. I think God made it for me to be able to understand it (like a child, without the aid of an interpreter) and that he wrote it with me in mind. I believe He inspired it and that he preserved it to this very day. Old Earth and Evolution are a far cry from the Bible’s literal account of Creation, and to me, therefore, they are simply not something I can believe in. Millions of god-hating men from the dawn of time have tried to discredit the Bible and as of yet have been unable to do so. The sad part is that there are souls lost to evolution and humanism every day – and it begins with public broadcasting and public schools… when kids aren’t even able to read yet.
The Bible matters. God is what gives me hope, meaning and a future beyond this life. I'm putting my eggs in the basket of eternity. I am naturally interested in evidences that might prove individual verses in the Bible as being true (although I would take them on faith even if there were no evidences to show). Bible archeology is another interest of mine being a Christian. The newest information about the search for Noah's Ark is intriguing. I have been following all the claims and this newest one seems the most promising.
Atheistic evolution provides a world without purpose or hope. If atheistic evolution is true, our star (sun) only has 5 billion years left until it dwarfs and burns up the inner planets... leaving us without resources and most likely extinct (un-remembered in cosmic eternity - returning to the stardust we supposedly came from). What are the odds that humans will find a way off this planet to populate some other perfectly habitable home somewhere in outer space? What is the point in this argument when we are all headed for extinction (either years from now or quickly by catastrophe with asteroid collision)? Come on, do 'they' really think that population control is going to prevent extinction? If 'they' are right, WHO CARES about ethics, morals, endangered species or biofuels? We're on a road to no-where.
So, without further ado, here are a few more reasons why I believe it is not so impossible to believe in a Young Earth....
Here’s a
Evolution and Old Earth is opposite from 6-Day Creation (biblical account) on many points, and if a loose interpretation is made of the “days” in Genesis… you can see that Old Earth doesn’t make sense…
BIBLE SAYS...Belief that the days in Genesis are epochs doesn't make sense to me. Think clearly about it here: Either Genesis is out of order (casting doubt on God's 'inspiration') and the plants lived millions of years without sunlight… or the Bible is right that God made the plants a DAY before he made the sun. How can a God that is so holy and perfect that he can create everything that exists in one second and have it be able to sustain life for all known time not know how to write a book without mistakes? He created the human mind and all the animals yet he can’t dictate a story in the right order?
1. Earth before
2. Oceans before land
3. Light before sun
4. Land and plants first
5. Fruit trees before Fish
6. Fish before insects
7. Plants before sun
8. Marine mammals before land mammals
9. Birds before reptiles
10. Atmosphere between two layers of water
EVOLUTION/OLD EARTH SAYS...1. Sun before earth
2. Land before oceans
3. Sun before light
4. Marine life first
5. Fish before fruit trees
6. Insects before fish
7. Sun before plants
8. Land mammals before marine mammals
9. Reptiles before birds
10. Atmosphere above water
My husband and I both struggled with the Bible for a while when we first became Christians. We studied a lot with other Christians and although we could feel God pulling on our heartstrings, and our life was changing for the better… the real moment of truth happened when the science was put in perspective for us. When we read about dinosaurs in Job and found the evidence that was never taught to us in public schools, it all started to make sense.
I don't believe being a Christian means that you have to commit intellectual suicide. On the contrary, the longer I have been a Christian and studied both critics of Christianity, Secular Science and rebuttals in favor of Creation, the stronger my faith has become. The important thing to do if YOU are seeking truth in this area is to study God's Word and pray. We shouldn't expect that we can find answers to origins from mankind (the creation) and yet not inquire of God. God gives wisdom freely to those who ask Him for it. King Solomon was famous for this in all the earth... and I still think that God will bless us with it today if we ask and seek Him FIRST.
Below is a list of more questions that evolution fails to answer coherently. I believe you’ll be amazed at all the evidence (or criticism of the other side's evidence) there is and most of it you’ve probably never heard of (if you’ve been raised in American public schools). I know there's been much banter back and forth in my comments section, and a couple of these might have been discussed there as well. I apologize for any duplication of information.
Other questions evolutionists can’t answer:
Who made the laws that govern the universe?The law of angular momentum in physics dictates that if a body is spinning and it breaks apart, every piece that is flying off will spin in the same direction the original object was spinning. If this is true, and the Big Bang is true, WHY are so many moons and planets in our solar system spinning in different directions? Kent Hovind says that “God did it on purpose to make the big bang theory look stupid”.
Who made the energy needed for a big bang?Answers in Genesis puts it this way: "Unlike the 'Energizer Bunny', which just keeps going and going on its own power (or so the ad would have you believe), the universe is running out of available energy and is becoming more chaotic, or disorderly, as time goes on. Eventually, there will be no more energy available throughout the universe to accomplish any work. So where did all the original available energy come from, i.e. how was it 'wound up' initially? Someone outside of the universe had to have created it orderly in the beginning—that Someone was God."
Where are all the people?Kent Hovind discusses the Human population curve for this argument against evolution saying, "almost all textbooks agree that there were only 1 billion in 1810." According to Hovind: 1. The whole population in the world today would fit inside the city of Jacksonville, Florida twice. 2. When Jesus was here there were about 250,000,000 people on the planet. 3. The growth curve proves that we started about 4400 years ago. 5. The Bible teaches that God made everything about 6,000 years ago and 4400 years ago there was a big flood (conveniently starting around the same time the population curve does). 6. Evolutionists then have a huge problem because in just 3,000,000 years the population would have grown to 150,000 people per square inch of earth.
Why are galaxies still spiral shaped?Galaxies are spinning and gradually loose their spiral shapes. If they are billions of years old why are the still spiral shaped? To the Creationist this is no problem, but the evolution and old earth can not explain this.
Why are there not more Super Novas?Astronomers observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a super nova. If the earth is billions of years old, why are there less than 300 known super nova? There should be a lot more of them. According to other articles I have read, the current amount of supernovae in stage 2 found indicate an age of between 10-50 thousand years old (increasing as they find more). More on this topic in my comments section for part 1.
If it takes billions of years for stars to evolve, why was Sirius seen as both red and white in less than 2,000 years?Teachers say red stars evolve into white stars and it takes billion years to happen. If this is true, why did Cicero in 50 BC state that Sirius was red, why did Seneca describe it as being “redder than mars”, and why did Ptolemy say it was one of the six red stars in 150 AD. According to Hovind, "TODAY SIRIUS is a WHITE star-binary." It has been less than 2,000 years!
Why are some planets and moons still so hot/have such strong magnetic fields if they are so old?Some planets are cooling off still. Hovind uses the analogy of a coffee cup: "How long does a cup of coffee stay hot?" Jupiter’s moon Ganymede still has a strong magnetic field indicating that it has a very hot inner core that has not finished cooling yet. According to Hovind, "Even evolutionists say that it should have cooled solid billions of years ago. Creationists don’t have a problem here. It isn’t billion of years old."
Why are Saturn’s rings still unstable?According to Hovind, Saturn’s rings are unstable and moving away from the planet proving that it can’t be billions of years old.
If the earth is 4.6 billions of years old, how do you explain the rate that the moon is gradually moving away from the planet?According to Dr. Hovind, the moon is going around the earth and gradually getting further away from the planet. He says to his audience on the seminar video, "That means it used to be CLOSER. If you bring the moon in closer, you start to create a problem because the moon causes the tides. If you bring the moon closer, the tides are higher. Calculating the inverse square law (1/3 the force of attraction between 2 objects is 9 times greater) that means about 1.2 billion years ago the moon would have been whizzing around just above the surface of the earth (explaining what happened to the taller dinos)" Then he adds, “They got mooned!” He tells us that using this calculation from the moon makes a 4.6 billion year old earth geophysically impossible.
How can the earth be 4.6 billion years old if there are still comets?Comets are loosing tails. They only last about 10,000 years. Pretty soon they are gone. Some scientists propose that new comets are coming in from the “Ort Cloud”. In 1950 Jan Ort proposed there was a great cloud 50,000 AU away. Pluto is really hard to see at 39 AU away. Seeing a comet at 50,000 AU is impossible. According to Hovind, "Ort never saw the ort cloud. The whole thing is built on a mathematical mistake (see Raymond Littleton, “The Non-existence of the Ort Commentary Shell”, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 31 – December 1934, pp. 385-401)." and, "It is not up to creationists to prove the non-existence of the Ort cloud. Why don’t THEY prove the Ort cloud exists? THEY are the ones with the problem believing comets are OLD."
Why do we still have a magnetic field if the Earth is billions of years old?Hovind says the Earth’s magnet has lost 6% of its strength in the last 150 years. (Astronomy and the bible by Donald DeYoung, P.18) He says on the seminar, "That means the magnetic field is getting weaker. It used to be stronger. That means the earth has to be at least 25,000 years or younger. If not, the heat generated by the field would have destroyed life on earth." He also claims that this "also means carbon dating doesn’t work."
If the earth is billions of years old, how can you explain its slowing spin?The earth is spinning over 1000 mph at the equator…. but, it is slowing down. They add ticks to the clock to keep up with this loss of time. Every once in a while (like New Years Eve in 1990 and 1992 – etc.) they have added a ticks. The earth slows down 1,000th of a second every day. In 1992 they added another tick. Leap seconds happen every year or year to a half. Hovind states in his Creation Seminar that: "If the earth is slowing, it used to be going faster. At the steady rate of slowing, a few billion years back, and the earth would have been going so fast that centrifugal force would have spun the dinosaurs clean off of the planet (maybe that’s what happened to them???!!!)" and also says that "the winds would have been 5,000 miles per hour from the Coriolis effect."
According to the research on the time it takes for the process of desertification, why is the *oldest desert only 4,000 years old?Sahara Desert has a prevailing wind pattern. Hot air causes more desert to spread – desertification. After studying Sahara, they say it is about 4,000 years old. If the earth is millions of years old, though, why is the biggest desert less than 4,000 years old? It’s hard to have a desert during a flood (4400 years ago).
* Note, according to Talk Origins, they say that there is an 80-90 million year old desert, but I have not checked into this claim or done any research on it. I would ask how they got their date and see if it were feasible before taking this off my list. From what I know, this was not on the AIG (Answers in Genesis) list of "arguments not to use with evolutionists". However, I'm open to letting this one rest if there's clear evidence against it.
If the earth is billions of years old, why is there still oil pressure?Notes directly from "Age of the Earth": Oil pressure is greater than the pressure of the overbearing rock. It should have cracked the rock in less than 10,000 years. If the earth is millions of years old, why is there still ANY oil pressure at all? Where did the oil come from? Nearly all scientists agree that oil is made from pressurized organic matter (organisms that once lived in the sea changed by heat and pressure). Years ago they learned how to make oil in 30 minutes. Sinclair has the dino as their logo… yet some say the oil has been under the earth mellowing for 80 million years. Young earth creation easily explains this by the flood 4400 years ago and the pressure of the water (enough to cover every mountain on earth) changing all the plants and animals (including dinosaurs and people) into oil. So think of that when you are at the pump! Say thanks to “great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great… grandpa” for keeping you on the road!
How can the earth be billions of years old if the rings in the ice cores are really not annual rings at all?More notes from Hovind's Part 1 seminar [sorry, I'm getting too lazy to format the notes, if you can't tell already. Whew, this post is long!]: Many scientists study ice cores from Greenland and the poles. Core samples have rings. Some scientists believe refreezing each winter and summer represents an annual ring. But what they don’t take into account is that “The Lost Squadron” crash landed in Greenland. In 1990 ground penetrating radar discovered a plane 263 feet below surface. They melted the hole to get to them and noticed rings in the ice. The guy who dug out the airplane talked with Kent Hovind. He said from the time the planes were lost in Greenland in 1942 up until 1990 when they found them, there were 48 years. If they were 263 feet below the surface, that means 5.5 feet of ice and snow per year. The deepest core they have drilled at the ice labs is 10,000 feet. Divide 10,000 feet by 5.5 feet of snow and ice per year, and you get only 1824 years back! The guy who dug the airplane out said he saw those rings – many hundreds of them. If they are annual, how do you get that many on top of an airplane? The rings represent climate changes – which can be hourly, daily, monthly, or by season!!! Warm cold, warm cold, warm cold! A guy in Alaska got 15 distinct layers of snow on his car in just 8 hours.
How can an old earth explain polystrata fossils or objects that are known to have petrified quickly (when scientists say it takes millions of years to petrify)?This one is a particular favorite of my dad's. Hovind states as an introduction to this topic that the "Geologic column’s timescale is a lie." If it is true that the layers formed over that many years, how can they explain polystrata fossils (petrified trees growing through multiple layers of strata)??? Even harder for them to explain is the existence of upside down trees (which would suggest catastrophic or flood conditions when rock formations/layers are made). One polystrata fossil near Cookville, TN grows in layers of coal that are dated thousands of year’s difference in age. There are thousands of these fossils defying evolution and old earth. Evolution requires that we believe in SLOW petrification… yet Scientists estimate there are 20,000 trees in the bottom of Spirit Lake – many buried upright and 15 feet deep in sediments. They seem to settle out by species giving the appearance of complete underwater forest.
Not only this, but there are many items that are known to have petrified quickly. The conditions of a flood would increase petrification rate. There’s ample evidence that the time limit required by 'old earthers' and evolutionists for petrification is WRONG. They have found a petrified dog inside a tree, petrified pickles, a petrified fish (giving birth - indicating catastrophic conditions causing it's demise). These things defy the dating systems that evolutionists and 'old earthers' use to calculate the age of the earth and geologic layers.
Another more recent upset to geology is the finding of a live coelacanth. It makes me scratch my head in wonder that no one would question the geologic column (dating fossils by rocks and then rocks by fossils - circular reasoning) when a "prehistoric" fish is found alive. Doesn't that mean that a celocamp could be found in ANY GEOLOGIC LAYER? How, then, do you date a layer of rock with a coelacanth in it? Hu? *scratching head*
Why is the Gulf of Mexico not full of mud already if the earth is billions of years old and there was no global flood?
According to Hovind, the Mississippi river is depositing sediments at the rate of 80,000 tons per hour. That delta is growing larger all the time. It probably took around 30,000 years to put the mud that is in the Gulf of Mexico there. If the earth is millions of years old, why isn’t the whole Gulf filled with mud by now? The flood would have washed half of it out in 20 minutes – yet evolutionists deny flood geology and don’t believe in the flood.
Why is the oldest tree found alive less than 5,000 years old if the earth is billions of years old?The oldest tree alive is 4300 years old. ... and according to Hovind, Trees sometimes produce more than one ring a year. If the earth is millions of years old, why is the oldest one only 4300? The flood would explain this…. And we can count back by genealogy from the flood to the “beginning”.
If the earth is millions of years old, why is there not an older coral reef?The largest reef in the world is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. During WW2 some of the reef was destroyed and the scientists began to watch it grow to see its rate of return. They say based on this study that it is 4200 years old.
If the earth is millions of years old, why has Niagara Falls not receded all the way back to Lake Eerie?Niagara Falls has been eroding for nearly 9,900 years. Up until the 1930’s it was eroding at the rate of 4.7 feet a year, causing the falls to move backwards as the water washed away the land under the edge. Charles Lyell went there and stated at first that it took 10,000 years to erode to it’s present state, and then later wrote the book “The Principals of Geology and stated that it took 35,000 years. Charles Lyell hated the Bible. Darwin read this book. Even at 35,000 years there is a limit to how far back it goes. If the earth is millions of years old, it would already have gone back as far as Lake Eerie.
If the oceans are millions of years old, why are they only 3.6% salt?Mineral salts from the soil and rain runoff in the ocean cause the oceans to be 3.6% salt today. Many evolutionists then ask, “How did the fresh water fish survive in the flood?” According to Hovind, fish today are salt-water because of gradual salt increase since the flood (natural adaptation to their environment).
If the earth is billions of years old and formations of flowstone really do take 250 million years to form… how can evolutionists explain the quick rate of observed flowstone formations around the world?Cave formations don’t take as long as evolutionists say to form. 250 million years is how long evolutionists say it takes (1,000 years per inch). Yet how do they explain the 50 inch stalactites growing under the Lincoln Memorial built in 1922 (photo was from the 1960’s). How do they explain the 2 inch ones growing off of a refrigeration shed in Pensacola, Florida (shed was built in 1926 or 7). Then there’s the building in Indiana open for 40 years that had a basement getting full of flowstone formations (photos and references on Kent Hovind’s Creation Seminars, Part 1 – “The Age of the Earth”). A lead mine cave in Mt. Isa Australia was shut down for 55 years and had huge formations of flowstone that grew there within that time. A building built in 1993 in Hurlburt Field, FL has a 13 inch stalactite growing on the property near a pipe. This was only 7 years! On the UT Campus in Austin, there were stalactites growing on people’s cars in the parking lot. Some guy in Wyoming has a “Tepee Fountain” in his yard made of flowstone. Over a period of 100 years, the pipe is still there and there is a huge limestone formation growing in his yard now – almost as big as a house.
If the earth is billions of years old, why do we still find fossils above sea level?At the current rate of erosion, the continents would be eroded flat in 14 million years. The ground doesn’t fall UP. It falls down. Volcanoes do not put forth sedimentary rock (which is where fossils are found). Why are there huge erosion patterns in places it never rains? Grand Canyon didn’t form slowly over millions of years – there’s no way it could have flown up-hill for 300 miles to cut the channel through the rock. Ripple marks in southern Iraq only explained by a world-wide flood.
If people are millions of years old, why is the oldest language in the world only 6,000 years old, and why do cultures around the world say that the earth began less than 10,000 years ago?Oldest language is less than 6,000 years old. The Chinese calendar puts us in the 4700s. Maybe they started with the birth of Shem or Noah? The Hebrews calendar puts us around 5763. There are no historical records that are older than 5 or 6 thousand years old.
Conclusion
Evidence for young earth is overwhelming but much of it is never shown. Not even honest criticism of evolution theory or warnings of false icons in textbooks that are still being used is allowed. Just what are they afraid of? Kent Hovind says on his seminar "When you start to think for yourself as a people, it makes you a bad slave. You just might just throw the tea in the harbor and start a war."
According to Hovind, "75% of kids in Christian homes who go to public school are losing faith in the bible largely because of evolution." He states that many a seminary student has been lost to secular, atheistic colleges that preach evolution and old earth... and he says evolution leads children to believe there are errors in the bible, when it is really errors in their science. According to Hovind (and the great group at Answers in Genesis), "The old earth theory causes the credibility of Genesis to be at stake." The word “Yom” in Hebrew means a literal 24 hour period (see this, and this article for more information). Hovind and Ham both agree that Jesus quoted genesis a lot and must have believed in it.
Hovind discusses the fact that supplying only one side of an argument makes it easy to brainwash people. He says, "All evolutionists have to do is get you off track in the first few seconds and they have you brainwashed." They begin with kindergarteners. One of the first books a kindergartener is ever given is “I can read about Dinosaurs”. First page begins with “Millions of years ago…” (as if there was no other theory and evolution is a fact). Then you have the TV shows on PBS and Discovery Channel that do the same and are aimed at a young audience. Kids are brainwashed before they can even read on their own! Even Dr. Seuss says “Millions of years before you were born”. Dr. Hovind says, "This calls Jesus a liar." Matthew 19:4 says Adam and Eve were the “Beginning” and the Bible says there was no death until Adam sinned. This is another area AIG and CSE (Creation Science Evangelism - Kent Hovind's ministry) agree wholeheartedly.
Many people can’t believe in the Bible because they don’t understand where dinosaurs fit in to the Creation account. Kent Hovind discusses the mention of dinosaurs (behemoth and leviathan) in the book of Job. I read through Job this morning - it always impresses me to read God's awesome rebuke to Job and his awesome wonders... especially leviathan and behemoth.
“Slime to Human” is a philosophy that destroys people’s faith. In Col. 2:8 the Bible says “beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.”
Don't get me wrong, you can believe in evolution and still be a saved, born-again Christian. I believe there are plenty of Christians out there in the Old Earth camp who are just as saved by grace as I am. I am certainly not trying to point fingers. I just thought it would be nice to explain my position for anyone who may be on the fence, or anyone who may wonder at why we are so against putting our kids in science classes at public school (of course, this isn't the ONLY reason we homeschool, but it is ONE of them). I feel that in my own heart, the literal account of Genesis is the correct account. I don't know HOW God did it, but I believe He did. I believe as AIG says in "Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse". I am a literalist, and am not ashamed to be so. In the end, though - it really won't matter.
A few questions to ask yourself:1. How will kids view the world after 12-16 years to school in your town?Other Interesting, Related Reading:Why I Believe in 6-Day Creation - Part 1
2. If the Bible is right about the beginning don’t you think it will be right about the end?
Evolution and Emissions Debate
Icons of Evolution - Book Review by Sprittibee
Buzz Words: Science, Apologetics, Evolution, Darwinism, Questions, Faith, Creationism, Life, evidence, Believe, Bible, Geology, Creation, Apology, Christian, Origins, Christianity, Debate, Homeschooling
33 comments:
The oldest tree alive is 4300 years old.
You may want to check Guiness World Records for the accuracy on this one.
Oku,
I DO, in fact believe that many scientists are out to prove that Darwin's theory is correct and that God does not exist - that all things can be explained by natural causes... naturalism, humanism, athiesm, etc. These are religions just like Christianity - which must be "defended at all costs". I laughed at your statement:
"Do you really think that scientists wouldn't have noticed evidences for a young earth? That all of the conspire together to hide this from the public? How much effort do you think would be required to silence them?"
Because evolution is funded by our property taxes and all but worshipped by our congress as they continually strike down any effort to bring Creation or at least honest criticism into classrooms across America! School teachers and scientists are made laughing stocks and fired if they dissent from Darwin. The system is MORE than stacked in favor of silencing Creationists - and yet they still exist. I could use your same argument that you used in your comment as well. Do you really think that Creationists enjoy being laughed at, fired, and mocked? Do you really think that if they didn't feel they had honest evidence against or criticism against evolution that they wouldn't just shut up and conform? What would be harder, to go with the flow or against it?
The "PROTECT DARWIN AT ALL COST" mentality is why the geologic column was not re-defined after finding a LIVE celocamp. I also believe that there may be dinosaurs still living today - native tribes in Africa say they have seen them in the swamps, and there have been many human sightings of large sea creatures and lake creatures that would fit dinosaur descriptions. There were blood cells found in a T-Rex bone (which couldn't have survived for millions of years). This would also upset the geologic column. The geologic column was created in advance of carbon dating. Each new "scientific" theory Darwinian Evolution creates for itself is based on the previous (faulty) conclusions.
Let us just agree to disagree here, as I also have a life and don't wish to argue with you any more.
It would be fruitless to continue arguing with you anyway.
As I see it, acceptance of the evidence depends on:
1. Weight of evidence
2. Clarity of presentation
3. Honesty of examiner
4. Logic of examiner
5. Background prejudices of examiner
(Homer Hailey - Evidences Quarterly, IV, 1 (1964), 4.)
So... since you are unable to get past all five of these points based on any criticism of the theory you adhere to, nothing I say will change your mind (nor you mine).
Thanks for commenting anyway. Thanks for being level-headed and not flaming. I appreciate it - as it is always nice to be able to discuss "hot" topics in a friendly manner.
Corey, I did a quick search and did not come up with anything older than what Kent Hovind had originally said. Here's the link in case you wanted to see the tree he is referring to:
Methuselah Tree
I believe that Kent Hovind says that tree is about 4,400 years old to fit into the flood.
According to Guiness Records 2006, a bristlecone pine, Prometheus, that fell in 1963, had ring count of 4,867 and was estimated to be 5,200 years.
I believe he made reference to somebody telling him of planting trees that were cut down seven years later to have have eleven rings. Well, when planting trees, you plant a young tree, say a four-year-old. So, you cut it down seven years and it has eleven rings. 4 + 7 = 11.
Niagara Falls has been eroding for nearly 9,900 years. Up until the 1930’s it was eroding at the rate of 4.7 feet a year, causing the falls to move backwards as the water washed away the land under the edge.
Niagara Falls did not exist until about 10,000 years ago, after the last ice age. It was formed form glaciers retreating.
Hovind weight of evidence of creationism lacks references and lacks clarity. He does not seem to be honest (his offer on evolution)nor is he logical (protesting paying taxes) and he has background prejudices.
The largest reef in the world is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. During WW2 some of the reef was destroyed and the scientists began to watch it grow to see its rate of return. They say based on this study that it is 4200 years old.
Who is they?
What is a celocamp? Do you mean the Coelacanth?
I also believe that there may be dinosaurs still living today - native tribes in Africa say they have seen them in the swamps, and there have been many human sightings of large sea creatures and lake creatures that would fit dinosaur descriptions.
Some of these have turned out to be hoaxes, Loch Ness monster, or mistranslated from natives' languages and/or have not been verified. The theory of evolution never states that a species must go extinct.
The moon is going around the earth and gradually getting further away from the planet. Calculating the inverse square law (1/3 the force of attraction between 2 objects is 9 times greater) that means about 1.2 billion years ago the moon would have been whizzing around just above the surface of the earth Using this calculation from the moon makes a 4.6 billion year old earth geophysically impossible.
According to Kepler's laws, the lower the distance between Earth and Moon the less time it takes for the moon to orbit the Earth. This means that the Moon orbited much faster in ancient times if it was much closer to Earth.
Therefore the frequency of the tides were lower, because the difference of orbit time and the time of the rotation of the earth was lower (even if rotation was faster, because the relative time change of earth-rotation is less than relative orbit time change of the moon). Energy dissipation and the drag force on the Moon are dependent on the tidal frequency and the tidal strength, but even if the tidal strength was larger due to the closer Moon, the effect of the lower tidal frequency prevailed. This simply means that the Moon receded even slower in ancient times.
Corey:
TREE
Ok, so there's an estimated 5,200 old tree (according to if the rings are actually annual). That is still less than 6,000.
FALLS
I don't know much about Niagra Falls - I was quoting Hovind (as I said at the beginning). That is one of the items on the list that is not as interesting to me as the others, but since AIG had nothing about it, I thought I would include it anyway.
TAXES
We've been over this one (a number of times).
REEF
I don't know who they is. Ask Hovind. Or, you could view the video at the link I provided (for free).
FISH
This one is a real biggie, by the way. Yes, I meant Coelacanth. Not sure why I blotched that one. I even had the link to the article there and still misspelled it. Sorry. I have corrected the post. Thanks for notifying me.
DINOS
Some are hoaxes, some are not. Prove it, is what I say. I know that the theory of evolution says that a species doesn't HAVE to go extinct, but the geologic column (to date things by fossils) would be incorrect if there were LIVING dinosaurs. That would mean they could be in ANY ROCK LAYER.
MOON
Having the moon just above the surface of the earth would still cause problems - even if it were moving faster.
Just the fact that there are ANY number of these questions/holes/gaps in evolution theory says that 1. We must not be closed minded. 2. We must not stop studying. 3. We shouldn't pick fights and hurl insults at eachother because everyone is learning (including scientists). and 4. We may never know all of the answers (and I'm willing to be the first to say that there are questions that might NEVER be answered)
Thanks for your comments. Happy Wednesdsay.
If it takes billions of years for stars to evolve, why was Sirius seen as both red and white in less than 2,000 years?
One has to be careful how we approach ancient texts. While Cicero and Ptoloemy recorded Sirius as being red, Chinese astrologers recorded this star as being white: http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/031207/sirius.htm
, both before and after the time of Cicero.
Hello Sprittibee. I would like to ask you a few questions to see where you are coming from.
1. You claimed you read "scientific rebuttals" of creationist claims. what are those. What books by non-creationists have you read on the matter? what websites do you read?
2. Have you checked each of your questions with the index of creationist claims at talkorigins
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CE ? Have you checked the links and books they give on the pages on the claims for each/some/any of the claims ?
3. Do you have any scientific training/background (college courses, for example) ?
4. Have you read any actual scientific literature on evolution (peer reviewed papers, textbooks etc.) ?
5. Have you read "the origin of species" by Charles Darwin?
Let me stress that my intent with these questions is not to diminish your contribution, but to get an impression of the kind of background you have.
Sprittibee, I had no idea that you'd already posted your "part 2". I left a lengthy reply on your previous post, and I wanted to include it here for whatever use readers may have of it. Perhaps you could allow this, as I spent a bit of time trying to reply thoughtfully... If not, then accept my apologizes for posting it twice.
-------------------------
I wanted to briefly throw my two cents into the ring. I know I want change any opinions (sigh), but I hope you'll carefully consider what I have to say.
First of all, I'm appalled by much of what I'm reading here. I am a Christian. I'm also a graduate student of biology. My areas of interest are evolution and ecology.
So, right off the bat, the five options you listed for understanding these issues don't fit a lot of people.
I find deep meaning and purpose in my faith through our Lord Jesus Christ, and evolution is the coolest and most exciting theory in science today. (Other scientists would quibble with that last point, but hey, it's my field and my opinion. Let the chemists convince you otherwise...)
Now I understand you'll probably never realize that. But at the very least, I would encourage you to be sufficiently respectful that you don't call lots of brothers and sisters "atheists". If I could suggest two books that you might find interesting, I would point you to Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller and Biology Through the Eyes of Faith by Richard Wright. At the very least, my hope from these books is that you'd realize there are very sincere Christians that are evolutionary biologists.
Finally, though no doubt you'll disagree with me, I must address this idea of evolution being controversial or scientifically debated. I do not know what polls say (nor do I especially care), but I can assure you that a 50-50 split is nonsense. Two things. One, scientists who are not biologists do not speak from authority on evolution. I'm not saying that they don't have a right to an opinion! I'm just saying that a chemist or a mathmetician is just as much a layperson on evolution as you or any other person in the general public (except in those rare cases where they work in evolutionary related fields of chemistry or mathematics). Just like I, when I have a doctorate in biology, will have no special training in cosmic physics. Without specialized training, they don't speak an an authority. Simply put, their arguments do not deserve the label of -- so and so, PhD scientist blah, blah, blah when it comes specifically to the issue of evolution.
Secondly, with a completely honest conscience from the depths of my soul, I can assure you that within the biological sciences, evolution stands as an overwhelmingly accepted theory. I'm talking 99% here -- Christians and non Christians alike. It's as settled as germ theory. You can gnash your teeth and refuse to believe it, but I'm telling you, as a graduate student of biology, that there is NO disagreement of evolution's place in biology.
As for pointing you to more references explaining evolution, I pessimistically will provide a couple, though my perception is that you're not rejecting evolutionary theory based on evidence, but rather religious beliefs and interpretations. One of the best articles I know is Was Darwin Wrong? which appeared in National Geographic of November 2004. It's online (follow the link), though it lacks all the pretty pictures that the print version had. I also wrote a lengthy article myself on the subject, which may or may not be of help.
I'd like to respond some to your comments directed at Zeteo Eurisko. I thought some of them were either quite harsh or showed (what I view at least) as a terrible misunderstanding between the realms of science and religion.
"Your brave (our rather, "proud") claim that my beliefs can not be scientifically validated shows that you have more desire plant a seed of doubt in my mind (satisfying your desire to draw me into unbelief) than to discuss the science."
This seems unnecessarily hostile... Is the sole reason that I'm talking to you to "plant a seed of doubt"? For goodness sakes, I share many of your beliefs, though admittedly in different ways. Could it not be that the evidence really does lean one way and that's why Zeteo and myself have brought up these points? You keep saying that their's two sides to this argument. Well, there's two sides to an argument between chemistry and alchemy. I think one's right and the other isn't. But one is free of course to throw up their hands and say, "Well, you never can really know..."
"I don't think evolution OR creation can be proven. Both are taken with faith - either faith in God or faith in Chance."
This is not true, and is one of the sources of continual amazement for me. Natural selection, one extremely important factor that drives evolutionary change is anything but random! The randomness that gets spoken about is at the genetic level. What I find mind blogging is that if you say a genetic process is random, Christians tend to accept that. An example. Every one of us has on average about 100 mutations different from the genetic code our parents past on. Of those 100, 4 actually code for different proteins (large parts of our genome are not used, thus 96 mutions - on average - can have no effect). As best we can tell, this is random, like trying to predict a thunder storm years in advance. A second great example is what happens when our chromosomes sort when we create sperm or eggs (known as the principal of independent assortment). We each carry two chromosomes, and at random (there's that word again...) they sort themselves into one cell or another as our sex cells divide during meiosis. (This cuts the amount of genetic information in half). Thus, if we completely ignore something call crossover (an important process that really mixes genes up by "trading" them between chromosomes) a man's chance of producing the exact same sperm is 2^23. (two sets of 23 chromosomes). Same for a women. Thus, when you bring them together, the chance of a couple producing the exact same child twice would be 2^46. This is a gargantuanly low probability. Suffice it to say, we speak of this process as random. And many Christians seem okay with that, if it's genetics we're talking about. But talk about the exact same thing as it applies to evolution, and suddenly some people are up in arms.
The truth is, random is not a scientific pronouncement. If you choose to believe by faith that God is guiding those changes, maybe He is. I personally find all kinds of comfort and theological reasons in accepting random processes in God's creation. But like I said, that's a theological issue, not a scientific one.
"Evolution does not answer the questions of origins (there is still no solid theory on where the matter, energy, time, morals, or emotional differences in mankind came from)."
Fair enough. Nor does it try to. Saying that evolution is a bad theory because it doesn't account for where matter came from is like saying gravity is a bad theory because it doesn't explain reproduction.
"More importantly to me, however, it does not answer the question of the meaning of life (if you subscribe to it, you have no HOPE, MEANING, PEACE, FUTURE)."
Ah, here we agree! (for a few words) but then several words later I think you completely wrong. NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY PROVIDES THE MEANING OF LIFE. Even an atheist builds their meaning of life from other logical processes. They may use scientic theories in reaching their conclusions, but that does not come out of the science itself. Science is simply a way of knowing, and it truly does not make these kinds of value judgements on meaning and purpose. That's something people do (and by extension scientists, since they are people too after all).
Now, I "subscribe to it" (evolution, as you say), and my life is filled with "HOPE, MEANING, PEACE, FUTURE". For me, these come squarely from my Christian faith.
When I find people arguing this way against evolution, I want to scream NO, NO, NO, NO! This is a rejection of evolution for completely unscientific reasons. And it really is a terrible misunderstanding about what science is, and what it can teach us. It's a way of knowing that's limited completely to the natural world. The kinds of issues you're concerned with here are completely metaphysical (that is, outside the natural world).
"Who cares if I'm wrong."
I would suggest that God is not going to make this the golden question of our lives. So I think it matters less religiously than pragmatically. Evolution is an incredibly important foundation for what we've learned in the biological world. It's implications even for medicine are profound. That's one of the reasons I care. The other is that when Christians promote the false dichotomy that you have to choose between evolution and faith in God, anybody that learns how exciting evolution is, will generally choose the it over God if they've been taught their entire life that the two are incompatible. Once you see that the apple really does fall from the tree, you can't honestly say that it doesn't, even if Christians don't want to hear about it.
"I'd rather live my life happy and in blissful ignorance of deep scientific matters than spend all my best years fruitlessly searching for "knowledge" and "philisophical arguments", spitting out hateful and divisive arguments to anyone who would listen (like many adherents of evolution do at Talk Origins and elsewhere that I have read)... tearing down other people's faith in God."
Ay-yeah-ay. Where did that venom come from? I certainly didn't think Zeteo was just trying to tear down other's faith. He seems to be highly concerned with what's really true, and how you can know something's really true. While I too wish he'd come back to the fold (I love intelligent Christians), I can understand how his history has shaped who he is, and don't feel threatened by that.
This is where we differ strongly. I would rather not live my life in deep scientific ignorance. I view all truth as God's truth, and thus really don't feel threatened by any of it. (Seems logical if one truly believes in God). I would prefer to push the limits, and see what we can learn about the place we live in.
When has purposeful ignorance -- the kind you're proud of -- ever been a Godly quality?
"You can not prove what happened at the beginning of the world with SCIENCE (observable, remember???). Until the invention of a TIME MACHINE, "theory" and "hypothesis" is all evolutionists will have. This is not a win or loose argument."
So many misunderstandings... In the strictest sense, science never really proves anything true. It seeks understanding by postulating ideas that explain what we see, and then coming up with ways to prove those understands are false. Yes, generally we speak of something has having been proved, but what we're really saying is that in enormous numbers of experiments or observations, X theory has not been disproven.
As far as observable goes, our understanding of the world, even it's beginnings, are squarely within the realm of observation as we can observe the clues they left behind. You objection here is like saying that we could never convict someone of a crime or murder if there were no direct eye witnesses. The same assumptions that we send criminals to jail with, are the same assumptions we use when studying evolution or cosmic physics -- namely that the laws of nature work the same in the past as they do now and as they will in the future, and that those laws exist everywhere.
Finally, you're right. All evolution is, is a theory. Just like gravity, germs, chemical reactions, etc... Every single bit of knowledge that science gives is simply a theory. With these theories, we send men to the moon, flip a switch for light, and take some pills to make us feel a heck of a lot of better when certain tiny critters get uppity.
"and Christianity (still) has nothing to fear from scrutiny."
I couldn't agree more. Though it seems to me that a whole lot of Christians are terrified of scrutiny when it comes to studying God's creation. Baffling.
Heather, I think you did a great job with this post and the part 1 post also. It is funny because my Answers magazine just arrive from Answers in Genesis! What great timing. God is always right and we believe the Bible is the authority over what humans say about evolution. Science is not an absolute fact and the ideas of evolution are theories, just some man's opinion, and that is all. Thanks for putting all this info into one place. I appreciate all the time and attention you put into it. sue in FL
Anonymous, you obviously didn't read the comment right above yours.
Yes "the ideas of evolution are theories". NO, they are not just some man's opinion, any more than theory of gravity, germ theory, or electricity are "some man's opinion."
A theory is NOT a hunch. It's not some guess. It's a way of explaining natural phenomenon that has been put to the test and been confirmed widley and repeatedly.
And since you still might not read that comment (I know, it's ridiculously long), I'll state for the record once again -- I'm a Christian. And a biologist.
Sorry, guys, but the two of you who got deleted were just being really rude and calling names. That's not nice, so I was forced to delete you. I am deleting you permanently as well - because I don't want to have my blog linked to someone who uses hateful words. I have not resorted to calling any type of evolutionists or even athiests names. Please return the favor, or at least keep the ugliness on your own blogs.
Kletois -
Yes, "one has to be careful" when reading ANY TEXT (including modern science books... as Mark Twain once said and I quote from memory, "Be careful when you read health books; you might die of a misprint"), but when THREE seperate sources in history (according to the information Hovind has on his tape) say Red and one says white, do you not see any reason why there may be questions? Regardless of this point, though... or this star in general, the information I posted in the comments section for Part 1 might interest you as I have already argued the point of stellar evolution with Oku. Sorry, but I'm getting tired of this thread after dealing with lengthy comments for a week. It is taking me more time in the comments section than it did to watch the video, take the notes, and format them for the blog. This is entirely not fair to my family - as blogging is not a paid profession.
Till -
Hello. Here are my answers to your questions that you provided in order by the number in which you listed them.
1. Talk Origins has many rebuttals of creationist claims (and a few of the commenters in this and the previous post have been so kind as to supply the link in case you wanted to check them out). I don't read many books on the matter... it's a good day if I'm able to read at all in my spare time (my main reading is homeschool related, the Bible, Christian related literature that is not necissarily scientific in purpose, and children's books which I read to my children daily). I read about THIS topic online in my spare time when I find something interesting - usually prompted by National Geographic stories or the Media relating discoveries and such (on both creationist and secular websites). I have already said this in my comments section in the previous post, and maybe in this post also.
2. I do not have time to spend reading the entire Talk Origins website, but I have checked into a many individual things there, yes. This is not my line of work, and I have already stated I am not a scientist a number of times throughout the process of posting these two posts on "WHY I BELIEVE in 6-Day Creation".
3. I am not a scientist. Again, for the record. Yes, I did attend college courses, but do not have a science degree or PHD (piled higher and deeper as a relative of mine likes to say).
4. I have read a lot on evolution. How can you avoid reading a lot on evolution? It is in textbooks, children's books, on television, PBS, Dr. Seuss, and in magazines - National Geographic, etc. Most every person who can read in America has read a lot on evolution. I think what you are trying to get at here is to have me admit that I don't read Scientific Journals that are 'hot off the press'. You are correct. I am not a scientist and Creation, while interesting, is not my main focus in life.
5. I have read parts of "The Origin of the Species". Not the entire thing. What does that have to do with anything?
If your intent was to inquire of my "understanding" of this matter, you might start with reading the first few posts (conveniently linked at the bottom of the post). It seems to me that your intent was exactly to discredit my "contribution". I am not contributing to anything other than the internet. It isn't like I am writing a Scientific Peer Reviewed Paper or anything. I am just stating a few reasons why I BELIEVE what I believe. I guess I knew this was coming, though - so it really isn't your fault. I did say, "Post it. And they will come."
You have to hand it to me for sticking my neck in the guillotine. I have "guts, spunk and moxy" (whatever moxy is)... just like Snowball said on Stewart Little.
Jay -
Wow. I thought I was a talker. ;)
I would love for your comment to be on this post. I'll go and delete the other one if this is a duplicate, so that it doesn't look as if I'm ignoring you on the other post.
OK, here we go...
You wrote, 'I would encourage you to be sufficiently respectful that you don't call lots of brothers and sisters "atheists".'
Certainly! I don't want to call anyone an atheist if they aren't. I made the comment to Didaskalos on the previous post in the comments section today and I will repeat it for you here:
You [Didaskalos] said, "Instead, you turned it into a "catalyst question" of Christianity."
I replied to him... "I don't think I meant the same thing you surmised. In my original posts, although I did use the term "catalyst question", (catalyst meaning synonymously: agitator, enzyme, goad, iconoclast, impetus, impulse, incendiary, incentive, incitation, incitement, motivation, radical stimulus, reactant, reactionary, spark plug, spur, stimulant, synergist, wave maker - or in my thoughts, a question that gives rise to intense inward soul-searching)... I also said in the same paragraph that, "While your beliefs about it may not effect your salvation, it most certainly will affect your worldview... and your worldview is the window through which you evaluate all other thoughts."
I never have said (or believed) that 'I don't think you can go to heaven if you believe in evolution.' I have just stated why I feel it is important to me that I believe in 6-Day Creation. I never meant to attack anyone or even appear to.
You said, "there are very sincere Christians that are evolutionary biologists."
I agree. The guy that mapped the DNA code most recently is one of them. There are other Christians who aren't. I think that I covered this in a comment between Didaskalos and I (about the 5 beliefs about origins).
Here it is again:
The way I see it is this:
A person has five options.
1. Believe based on faith that evolution is true on all counts and God does not exist (atheistic)
2. Believe based on faith that evolution is true on some counts and God does not exist or is not God of Bible (ID/atheistic/agnostic)
3. Believe based on faith that evolution is true on all counts and God set in motion (ID/Old Earth Creation)
4. Believe based on faith that evolution is true on some counts and God set in motion (ID/Old Earth Creation)
5. Believe based on faith that evolution is not true and God created in 6 days (Creationism)
There are 3 on that list that are Christian viewpoints. My view, quite obviously is #5. You can take your pick and we can still be friends regardless. :)
You said, "within the biological sciences, evolution stands as an overwhelmingly accepted theory" and you said, "I'm also a graduate student of biology."
As I have stated before, my father has a biology degree, a chemistry degree, and worked in geology for many, many years, so I do know there are other graduates of science (and biology) who disagree with evolution (and there is an ample list of those in fields similar to yours on the AIG website, many of which not only believe in Creation, but in 6-Day Creation as well). What I am trying to say is that I DO NOT believe in evolution (and there are others who don't). I don't much "care for the statistics" (as you said you don't) either. It makes no difference to me if lots of people believe in atheistic evolution, Darwinian evolution, purple-people-eating evolution... whatever. I believe in JESUS and lots of people don't. My faith is not shaken by other's lack of it.
You said, "Could it not be that the evidence really does lean one way and that's why Zeteo and myself have brought up these points?"
I don't know what his or your motivations are, but yes, perhaps that one statement was a little harsh after re-reading it (it was certainly not my intention to come across as harsh, so I apologize if I did to Zeteo if he's reading this). I had just finished reading a number of alternative websites involving Zeteo's comments/posts and found a few of them upsetting (but did not wish to drag him into the mud, as that is not Christ-like). I was greatly saddened that he had become an atheist over this issue as well - especially since his parents are missionaries.
You said, "that's a theological issue, not a scientific one." and you also said, "as best as we know".
First of all, I have never said that there is not FAITH involved in this discussion. I believe that faith is involved on every side (see my list above). You are at least admitting that there are some things you (and scientists in general) don't know. That is good. I have admitted that as well.
You quoted my statement in a previous comment as, "More importantly to me, however, it does not answer the question of the meaning of life (if you subscribe to it, you have no HOPE, MEANING, PEACE, FUTURE)." and you said this was wrong based on how no scientific theory tells you how to view those four things.
Let me clarify. When I said, "if you subscribe to it", I was commenting to an Agnostic/Atheist. I should have listened to Didaskalos and clarified my terms better (I see), but I think Zeteo got my gist without taking personal offense to this (as none was meant). I was using his own words from the posts I had read on his blog, and he knew what I was referring to. However, it was lost in the translation because most of the other commenters here have not read his agnostic blog about how he lost his faith in God. I should clarify for the reader, I mean - IF you believe in ATHEISTIC evolution (accepting that there was NO God that set evolution into motion) - then... you have no hope, meaning, etc. I do not see any purpose or meaning past God's plan (found in the Bible).
You said, "when Christians promote the false dichotomy that you have to choose between evolution and faith in God, anybody that learns how exciting evolution is, will generally choose the it over God if they've been taught their entire life that the two are incompatible."
I never said that you have to choose between Evolution and God. On the contrary, I have repeatedly admitted that there are MANY scientists who believe in both and I have repeatedly admitted in both posts and their comments that I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A SALVATION ISSUE. I find it sad that many DO loose faith over this issue, as you correctly stated (and Zeteo did). I would rather send someone to "Reasons to Believe" than to an atheistic-based science site. I don't think everyone needs to agree with me and "Answers in Genesis", I just reserve the right to make my own mind up (and post it on my blog) - as do you.
You said, "Where did that venom come from? I certainly didn't think Zeteo was just trying to tear down other's faith. He seems to be highly concerned with what's really true, and how you can know something's really true. While I too wish he'd come back to the fold (I love intelligent Christians)"
First of all, the hate speech was on Talk Origins, and not in any way related to Zeteo's comments on my post. I think he understood that (seeing as how he posted the following day on his blog and was extremely nice). I also have had to delete a few posts here (because of name-calling and very hateful remarks) in this post, so my observation of some of the types of comments/articles/posts you get when discussing this topic still stand. I do not presume to know anyone's motives, but that is what I did see at Talk Origins previous to writing that comment and many other times. Just google the word "idiot" and "Talk Origins" and see how many results you get. No, wait... I'll do it for you: About 2,220,000! NAME CALLING (and that was a relatively mild name, I'm sure there are worse ones on there). That is what I'm talking about. People, unlike yourself, that are aiming at destroying someone's character or instigating division between Christians (trying to get Old Earthers and Young Earthers all in a "tizzy" with each other). THAT is what I was referring to in my comment. Not Zeteo.
Secondly, are you implying that Zeteo would be an intelligent Christian if he were to come back to the fold, and thereby in the same sentence inferring that I am not one. Hmmmm. Seems like you are able to be a little hostile without even using harsh words.
You said, "When has purposeful ignorance -- the kind you're proud of -- ever been a Godly quality?"
WHAT? I never said I was proud of ignorance. I said I would rather live in ignorance of DEEP SCIENCE (meaning I don't necessarily want to spend my life getting a DEGREE IN MICROBIOLOGY to try and figure out every single little detail about this world). I QUITE OBVIOUSLY from the thread of this topic am interested in Science and have read a lot of material on both sides of the issue. This is simply quote mining and completely wrong and out of context. Would someone who is PROUD of their Scientific IGNORANCE be reading National Geographic? Come on, now. Let's be a little more friendly in our debating.
You said, "science never really proves anything true."
I agree. So while there is ample room for things to be still yet UNTRUE, please allow me to have an open mind about it all.
You said, "You objection here is like saying that we could never convict someone of a crime or murder if there were no direct eye witnesses."
I disagree. While you can lay the evidence out on the table for both sides, you still have to make your own CHOICE as to which side you think answers more of life's questions for YOU INDIVIDUALLY. That is where the belief comes in. The secular camp says this... The Creationist camp says this... the ID camp says this... but it is YOU as an individual who have to process and choose what to believe for yourself. That is weighing the evidence. That is what is done in murder crimes.
You said, 'Finally, you're right. All evolution is, is a theory.'
I just thought I would bold that comment, as I think we found an area other than Jesus to agree.
You said, you couldn't agree with me more that "Christianity (still) has nothing to fear from scrutiny." (as I said in an earlier comment) but that... "it seems to me that a whole lot of Christians are terrified of scrutiny when it comes to studying God's creation. Baffling."
I beg to differ. I think that Creationists are just as interested in studying the world as you are. Just check out AIG and see how interested in Science they are. :)
Thanks for all your comments. I am really spending WAY too much time in here, though. I do have a day-job. So, I'll leave this open for a few more comments (in case Jay, Till or Kletois want to pipe in again, but I really have to call it quits somewhere....). This [evolution and creationism] isn't my main focus in life, and I've got to be a good steward of my time. It isn't my children's fault that their mommy is a talker. They shouldn't be punished by me spending all my time on the blog.
I am just stating a few reasons why I BELIEVE what I believe.
I respect your statement. Last week, I asked Brandt Dary about evolution and Hovind's arrest. He did not post my comments but he did e-mail me. We e-mailed to each other several times. He never provide me with any evidence of creationism and he asked if I believed I was saved and born again.
Unfortunately, this is a stereotypical view of Biblical literalist, not willing to give some clear response and argument back.
However, I do not think you should believe in what Kent Hovind tells you about evolution. Not just because of tax evasion and building permits, but his unwillingness to recognize the American government, filing false complaints against the IRS for false arrest, threatening federal, state and district officials and caring more about his guns than his wife.
Corey, Thanks for being respectful. I agree (again) that Hovind has issues that need to be resolved. However, I don't know enough about them to start throwing stones at him...
And it remains to be seen that many of the things that Hovind says are also things AIG repeats or also believe. So, even if I were to not believe in Hovind, there are other Creationists who also agree with him.
I certainly regret that he has cast a long shadow over the integrity of Creation Science because of his personal issues of late... but I don't think the shadow will remain. I believe that long after Hovind is forgotten, there will still be a Creationist viewpoint.
Look, Spiritbee: if pointing out the obvious fact that you are not a scientist and therefor not qualified to refute hundreds of years of research is rude and offensive, you need to grow a thicker skin.
It may or may not hurt your feelings, but you are still quite ignorant.
More to the point, you have made up your mind ahead of time what to think and no amount of careful experimental evidence is going to convince you to change your model (your worldview).
So fine. It's your life and I feel sorry for your children. But Willful ignorance is ignorance just the same and no amount of comment-deleting will change that fact.
(You don't even seem to know that there is a distinction between microbiology and evolutionary biology as seperate fields, for example. No offense meant, but you make my point for me. I do not know a carburator from a catalytic converter so I do not lecture people about mechanical engineering.)
Finally, SCIENTISTS ARE NOT OUT TO PROVE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!
Seriously. I swear. I am at one of the largest research institutions in the world and NO ONE HERE is setting out to prove anything about God one way or the other.
We're studying chemistry, physics, cells, bacteria, you name it, but no one, and I repeat NO ONE, is doing any experiments that involve God.
Not everyone is thinking about religion all the time. I don't care what you think about me or my colleagues' eternal souls, but please get your fact straight:
SCIENTISTS ARE NOT OUT TO REFUTE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
We just do the work and interpret the data as best as we can.
Jooyla -
Here are the reasons why you were deleted:
"stop talking about things YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!"
Sorry, that's rude.
i am an not car mechanic so i do not presume to tell people how to fix their cars. DO YOU GET THAT? YOU ARE INGORANT OF THIS MATTER!!!
Shouting and rude again. Calling someone an idiot according to the Bible is punishable by hell. I don't call people idiots (and if I feel like it, I repent and pray for them instead).
Matthew 5:22 - But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
And shouting again when you said,
"i , a scientist, have not GONE TO SCHOOL FOR 10 YEARS to be questioned by someone WHO HAS NOT HAD THE SAME TRAINING IN SCIENCE."
You said, "if pointing out the obvious fact that you are not a scientist and therefor not qualified to refute hundreds of years of research is rude and offensive, you need to grow a thicker skin."
AGAIN, for the record (and about the 20th time now) I'll say...
I AM NOT A SCIENTIST.
You didn't have to say it again. You were just angry and wanted to vent.
I DID NOT question YOU. You sought me out. Not the other way around. I simply stated my beliefs.
I don't need to grow a thicker skin. This is my blog. I say what goes here.
You said, "More to the point, you have made up your mind ahead of time what to think"
So have you.
You said, "It's your life and I feel sorry for your children."
Oh, you shouldn't. They will be learning all about evolution. Don't worry. They are happy and fine... above average, really. If evolution is so wonderful, you have no reason to worry. I am teaching them critical thinking skills.
Quote mining out of context:
"You don't even seem to know that there is a distinction between microbiology and evolutionary biology as seperate fields, for example."
I was making the point that I don't wish to become a Microbiologist, not that it is not different than Evolutionary Biology. Anyone (even a kid) can do a simple Google search and see that there are plenty of different branches of Science and not all are the same.
I don't lecture people either (on anything). I said up front that the points made in my post were from a Hovind video (and I linked it for anyone else to see if they wanted for free). I also said they were REASONS WHY I BELIEVE. That involves FAITH - and my site is about Christianity, Homeschooling, Kids, Parenting, Children's Books, Field Trips, Etc. I also said that because I believe in 6-Day Creation, and it was one of the reasons (ONE, not the only) we homeschool... I felt that it was relevant to my blog.
However, my post is in no way meant to discredit your ten years of schooling. I think Science is great and although there will always be room for improvement (for both Creationists and Evolutionists), I don't begrudge anyone their right to believe what they want. Or to post that belief on their own blog. Or to talk about that belief with others.
So long as everyone is friendly and respectful to eachother, I don't mind them disagreeing with me here on my blog, either.
:) I'm glad you were able to re-state your post, because you do have a valid point.... that I'm not a scientist, of course.
You are shouting again Jooyla.
You said, "Finally, SCIENTISTS ARE NOT OUT TO PROVE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!"
I never said all scientists are out to prove that God doesn't exist. Maybe I should rephrase that (it was a bit too general)...
"many scientists are out to prove that Darwin's theory is correct - that all things can be explained by natural causes... naturalism, humanism, athiesm, etc. These are religions just like Christianity - which must be "defended at all costs".
There. Still the same thought, but without your objectional content.
Man... this is why I got out of the debating Creation science thing in the first place. If nothing else, these interchanges were a good reminder of why.
At this point I am confident of two things... God did create everything (accepted on faith based on my personal relationship with the creator Himself) and I am going to stay clear of biology based discussions in the future. There are just too many emotions surrounding the issue.
Oh wait, there is one more thing I am very confident about... all of this will be known in the future when the one who created this all can clarify it for us Himself.
Thanks Didaskalos. :) You gave me a grin. I agree with you. We have to add another thing to the list of topics to avoid with others: politics, religion and SCIENCE.
Ha!
I'll be glad to shut this discussion down when everyone has had their "last word". I should have prepared for this by just not allowing comments, but then I wouldn't have met interesting people like you.
"Calling someone an idiot according to the Bible is punishable by hell."
I didn't say "idiot", i said "ignorant". Idiocy is forgivable. Ignorance is correctable.
"I DID NOT question YOU. You sought me out. Not the other way around. I simply stated my beliefs."
I am a biologist and when you slam 150 years of biology, you are slamming me. I was speaking on behalf of my colleagues.
"This is my blog. I say what goes here."
Fair 'nuff. You're still wrong about the science, though.
" I also said they were REASONS WHY I BELIEVE."
See, what bugs me is people trying to justify *faith* using the tools and language of *empiricism*. If it's your faith that the world was created in 6 actual days 6,000 years ago, then you have absolutely no need to mine for data.
For one thing, no amount of data will ever change your mind, because that would mean renouncing your faith.
For another thing, it's bad theology to "put God to the test" looking for evidence of your beliefs, no? I say this as a nonreligious person, so maybe you disagree.
It's a trap, your reasoning. You already choose to believe the Hebrew Bible story of genesis literally, so you look for evidence to support your belief. If you find contradictory evidence, you must ignore it or explain it away because it does not jibe with your belief. If you cannot ignore the data and reassess your world view, this rocks the entire foundation of your religious beliefs. Which would be jarring, to say the least. Therefor, you have a vested interest in believing what you believe ... it's a viscious circle.
Darwin, on the other hand, came to his conclusions after many, many years of thought and study and went against the grain of learned though of his time, and indeed of the past thousands of years.
"many scientists are out to prove that Darwin's theory is correct - that all things can be explained by natural causes... naturalism, humanism, athiesm, etc. These are religions just like Christianity - which must be "defended at all costs"."
We aren't trying to prove it. That is fait accompli. Some scientists are seeking to refine our understanding of evolution. Some, like me, are jsut trying to figure out how things work using the TOOLS that are made possible by evolutionary theory.
Biology really doesn't make sense otherwise. It's Occam's razor. If it walks like evolution, and quacks like evolution ...
Now there is a lot of dispute within biology as to the precise mechanisms and rules of evolution, but pretty much NONE on the yes/no question.
What I think fundamentalists fail to understand is that not everyone is a fundamentalist. I would be very, very, very surprised if God suddenly appeared to me and said, "You know, this whole evolution this is bollocks. Here's how it works for real," but it wouldn't rock my world. (Actually, I take that back - I would probably be committed if I mentioned that to anyone.)
But let's say that many, many papers came out in the peer-reviewed literature that refuted, oh, the age of the Earth. I would be surprised, but I would have to take it in stride and rethink my model, my conception of how the world works.
This actually happens, on a small scale, in my field all the time. Everyone says Protein X does such-and-such, careers are made on this, papers are published, and then all of a sudden someone comes out with a paper that say, "Actually, Protein X does this-and-that!" Everyone is very skeptical and a lot of people (the ones who said it did such-and-such) are pretty touchy. But IF lots of other people think really hard and do some experiments to show that X does this-and-that, eventually everybody adjusts and life goes on.
You have a huge, huge stake in evolution being incorrect because you've decided to base your life, your self, on a literal reading of the Christian Bible. A worthy book, but hardly universally agreed upon. For you, there is a deep moral and personal imperative for me to be wrong.
Scientists have come to depend on the evolution of organisms because for 150 years, this framework has passed test after test. It is NOT a moral issue. I'd be quite surprised to learn that you were correct about God, creation, etc., but if it could be convincingly demonstrated to me, I should have to acquiesce.
That has never happened.
So, just like you want to share the Good News with your neighbors, I feel impelled to share Enlightenment Reasoning with my neighbors. Because I think it would be helpful and save people from delusions.
Sorry to have offended. Perhaps I will go to hell after all ... I don't believe this, so I'm not scared, but thank you for your concern. My concern is for your kids' critical thinking skills.
Apologies also fr "shouting" in all caps, but I wanted to make my point loudly and clearly. I suppose you are right about one thing. I do have a moral imperative to fight ignorance and intolerance.
Finally, to sum up, there are indeed many sides to any story - but not all of them are equally legitimate.
Best of luck to you.
Okay, one last, final, really this time, last thought.
Science means saying "I don't know" a lot. A lot? More like most of the time, if you're an honest scientist.
You say, "How does this work? I don't know. I wonder how I can figure it out. I will think about it and try to test it, or come up with a hypothesis and see if what is in the world matches what is in my head - or not."
It's like being in the dark and making a circle of light with a match. At first the circle is very small and surrounded by darkness. Then you build a fire. Now the circle of light is bigger, but the circumference of the circle - the amount of known darkness - is much bigger! Every new discovery generates more questions. We don't WANT to run out of questions. How boring! Not to mention, we're out of a job. ;)
Faith is the opposite of questioning. Faith is saying, "I know this to be true," not "I have no idea."
So comparing them is apples and oranges.
People have conflicting impulses when it comes to making sense of the mystery that is life: to ask questions and to seek certainty.
So you see, science is not a religion the way that Christianity is a religion. Possibly it is more like Buddhism.
Heather and all,
Thanks for the great discourse. All postere, Christian and non, have provided a lot of food for thought and as a bystander, I appreciate the time you put into your comments. Thanks for sticking your neck out, Heather.
This is why I stick to humor. :)
Peace to you, from one Christian/skeptic.
Sprittibee, thanks for answering my questions. Again let me emphasize that asking you these questions was never intended so that I could point at your lack of formal education or ridicule you. I regret that you got that impression.
It is really just curiosity on my part. I'm always interested in what people belief and why they believe it. Indeed I'm not even interested in debating evolutionary biology with you, as I would not change your opinion as surely as you wouldn't change mine.
I appreciate that you talk openly about your beliefs and try to keep the conversation civil.
oh and one last question, if you don't mind: do you know any atheists, personally ?
thanks in advance :)
I still have issue with your list. The closest it gets to many Christians positions is:
"4. Believe based on faith that evolution is true on some counts and God set in motion (ID/Old Earth Creation)"
For me and many other Christians, it would read something like:
Believe based on evidence that natural laws are sufficient to explain the processes by which matter and life is organized today, and believe based on faith that God is the originator and sustainer of those laws. This is most assuredly NOT an "old earth" / intelligent design creationist view.
I reject your assertation that faith is needed to understand evolutionary biology. There are underlying assumptions in science -- for example that bones pulled from the ground are actual creatures, not "placed" there. These assumptions are not the same as faith. We really do use these same assumptions when we fly an airplane (we assume for example that the laws of nature which keep it in the air are not going to suddenly change) or when we convict a criminal using evidence left behind. And so because of this, understanding evolution is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of being convinced by the overwhelming amount of evidence.
You wrote: "IF you believe in ATHEISTIC evolution (accepting that there was NO God that set evolution into motion) - then... you have no hope, meaning, etc."
I'm not an atheist, but I dislike this statement. I know atheists. And some of them are quite nice. They can have meaning and hope and whatever other values they want, it's just that they build their values into their worldview based upon their own conclusions. I grow weary of the "atheist boogeyman" that many Christians promote, as it borders squarely on fear and hate mongering.
You wrote: "Secondly, are you implying that Zeteo would be an intelligent Christian if he were to come back to the fold, and thereby in the same sentence inferring that I am not one. Hmmmm. Seems like you are able to be a little hostile without even using harsh words."
Come on Sprittibee... This is playing prosecuter, judge, and jury all in one sentence. No, that's not what I'm implying, and it goes out of it's way to assign me the worst motives possible.
What I'm saying is that Zeteo understands the basics of evolutionary biology. A vast number of Christians do not. No offense, but I include you in that group. Not understanding something is different than being stupid or unintelligent. Frankly, I've been reading what Zeteo has written for some time now (it was through his blog that I found yours). Thus I feel comfortable saying he's an intelligent person because I've seen what and how he writes. I have no prior experience with you, though I always try to assume the best and give the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding my statement "When has purposeful ignorance -- the kind you're proud of -- ever been a Godly quality?", it sounded slightly different that I meant it... I meant the word you to mean anyone. Thus my statement might better have read: When has purposeful ignorance -- the kind one is proud of -- ever been a Godly quality?
Now, quote mining is a terrible sin, the accusation of which I take very seriously. Here's you quote again, I think I quote it fairly. "Who cares if I'm wrong. I'd rather live my life happy and in blissful ignorance of deep scientific matters than spend all my best years fruitlessly searching for "knowledge" and "philisophical arguments", spitting out hateful and divisive arguments to anyone who would listen (like many adherents of evolution do at Talk Origins and elsewhere that I have read)... tearing down other people's faith in God."
That quote clearly seems to not hold learning in very high esteem. You say you'd rather be wrong and ignorant that waste your time looking for "knowledge" (and putting quotes around knowledge to further question it's value). And I'm asking, when has being right or "knowledge" been considered a waste of time for the person who believes in God?
Now, while I hate to this, I believe I've suddenly found myself the victim of being quote-mined. You wrote, without any context:
"You said, 'Finally, you're right. All evolution is, is a theory.'
I just thought I would bold that comment, as I think we found an area other than Jesus to agree."
I'm assuming your familiar with the misquote creationists have been guilty of with Darwin on the eye, where they quote a sentence and completely leave off what he says next. This is what you've done with me. Here's what I wrote.
"Finally, you're right. All evolution is, is a theory. Just like gravity, germs, chemical reactions, etc... Every single bit of knowledge that science gives is simply a theory. With these theories, we send men to the moon, flip a switch for light, and take some pills to make us feel a heck of a lot of better when certain tiny critters get uppity."
Rather poetic I thought... The point is that evolution is a theory, and a theory in science aint some fly by the seat of our pants explanation for things. You quoted me in a way that turns my statement into something it's clearly not.
I think one of the real problems here is that you dismiss any arguments you don't like by passing them through the worldview filter... For example, one doesn't have to use a worldview filter to dismiss a global flood (aka, it's not true because I don't want the Bible to be true) but rather because one can look at the evidence and conclude, yep that didn't happen. In the same way, it's not intellectually honest to look at the world around you and dismiss theories because you don't like them. The question is what the evidence says.
One example of this is your apparent admiration for the Answers in Genesis website. I don't know how else to say it... Overwhelming, scientists find their arguments spectacularly ignorant. And these aren't just the atheist boogeymen. Christian scientists too. The answers are easy to find. Like Zeteo, I would encourage you to look for them.
One final example of warping the world through your worldview... You wrote: "ust google the word "idiot" and "Talk Origins" and see how many results you get. No, wait... I'll do it for you: About 2,220,000!"
Undoubtedly, Talk Origins can be a rowdy place, like any on the internet that discusses this issue. But, if you go to Google and click on advanced search, type in the word idiot and then, where it allows you to search a specific site, type in talkorigins.org, it gives you 29 results, not 2.2 million. (Here's a link to the results.) And of these 29, they are certainly not all name calling. For example, the second search result points to a Talk Origins page where someone calls a scientist an idiot (maybe deservingly, maybe not).
Anyway, I've said enough. I wish you the best, and I sincerely hope your kids would learn about science as it really is. But that's your decision, and I wouldn't for a moment suggest that it should be anyone else's.
Jay, that was a really lucid and brilliant comment post. Thank you.
For one thing, no amount of data will ever change your mind, because that would mean renouncing your faith.
Does this not assume science can test or answer all aspects of faith? Based on your comment, is it really absurd to suggest that there are those out there (many who depend on science) who want to use science to dispprove the possibility of God's existence (which it cannot do by the by)? Must I really renouce my faith if you can throw infinite amounts of data at me? How naive is that thought?
I am a biologist and when you slam 150 years of biology, you are slamming me. I was speaking on behalf of my colleagues.
So much for science being a dispassionate discourse of empirical ideas. If I were that confident in a position, I certainly wouldn't feel threatened by someone else's challenge.
For instance, many positions I take on faith could not be empirically supported. And yet, I am 100% confident in those positions of faith. Can I explain this to you? Not in empirical terms.
And yet, there are things that science cannot explain - faith, hope and love to name a few. Even though they are not "testable" their existence cannot be denied or empirically understood.
I have debated many an atheist that see me as a fool or perhaps simply "naive". I have been challenged many times for my positions of faith. Yet, no matter how much of a simpleton you or others think I might be, I am confident enough in my position to not feel "slammed" because you would not agree. I sincerely doubt you will find that kind of assurance in science. Science doesn’t have the ability to bring final answers as Jay has so correctly pointed out – it can only lead you to the best possible conclusion based on all the data and validation of that data. Confidence beyond that is a position of faith.
Frankly, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist - but that is just me.
JOOYLA -
I assure you, I'm not slamming biology. I am just reserving the right to keep an open mind about the fact that the theories we hold today may or may not be entirely true. I am also not putting God to the test. I have already said that even if it were true (evolution in all it's forms), that is not a reason why you can not maintain faith in God (ie: not a salvation issue at all). I think all scientists and people in general tend to look to prove a belief - whether it is a scientific or theological one. We are not so different. I highly doubt your world wouldn't be rocked if God appeared to you and spoke clearly about biology (as he did to King Solomon). I have never said you shouldn't have the right to share your views, yet you calling other people's views delusions is downright ugly. I hardly think you could call me intolerant after allowing every alternative view out there to be presented in my comments section. Best of luck to you, too - and I'll one up that and pray for you as well. Not because I think you are incapable or stupid - but because it is a nice and generous gesture and I honestly mean it. By the way, that was a funny map on your blog. Being from Texas, I rather enjoyed the humor.
On your last thought... Faith is not blind. Careful criticism of evidence is weighed. There is no "jumping off a cliff" to believe. God will give you enough to believe in if you honestly search. I highly doubt so many people in history would let themselves willingly be crucified and burned at the stake if they did not have more than just a "delusional" hunch. Maybe, like what you suggest for me to do in light of biology, you should pick up a book about the reasons Christians believe in God and see what YOU can learn. Then maybe we can be more respectful of each other on both sides of the coin.
CINDY -
Yes, sweetie... humor is a nice neutral. Thanks for stopping in. I did put a lot of time into previous messages, but I am wearing thin on energy (and my kids are calling my blog a "vacuum" that sucks Mommy in when she walks by the computer) - so I'm going to post this and then move on. I spent way too much time in here yesterday.... and my site meter was going crazy. I actually got poo flung on me twice (rather intolerant and rude, but funny, none-the-less) and another blog quoted me as well (probably more of them than I care to know will most assuredly be picking up the thread and running with it). I had hits from Harvard, Berkeley, and many other colleges. I couldn't believe my discussion could cause quite that big of a stir. I guess it's a twisted sort of compliment. I mean, who cares what one homeschool mother thinks about eternity and the cosmos? Really!
TILL -
Thanks also for your civil comments. Yes, I do know a few atheists. One of them believes we were put here from aliens in outer-space and works at a place you can get a free steak any time of the day just for showing up. The rest are quite rational and friendly... even a few that are extremely moral and nicer than some Christians I know. I think knowing atheists is not relevant to this discussion. There are crackpots in every walk of life. How many evangelical Christians do you know well? And do you respect any of them?
JAY -
I really don't have the time this morning to do your post justice and pick it apart thoroughly, but I'll point out a few things and just let you have the last word on the rest. I wasn't setting my 5 ideas of how people view origins in stone. I also agreed on an earlier comment between Didaskalos and I that there could be another position between 4 and 5... which is similar to what you stated, I guess? Or maybe you were between 3 and 4. Whatever. I'm just trying to get a general list as simplified as possible. You have the right to redefine your own beliefs based on your own ideas, not mine. I agree that bones in the ground were of actual animals, but I also believe that many full skeletons are inferred when only a few bones are found. I have also heard of botched or faked sets (although I have not physically researched all of these claims and don't wish to at this time - no need for more argument). I am not trying to say that some of the assumptions in science are not beneficial. I, as much as anyone, am glad for things that have been discovered and improved upon through science. I take antibiotics, fly on airplanes, and enjoy modern technology like the rest of you. You are trying to make me out to look like a hater of science because I am leaning on theology to help me understand research that has been done. I am not saying variations within kinds is taken solely on faith - it is observable. I am only saying that there are elements of evolution (such as elements of "the big bang", and even "macro-evolution") that can not and have not been observed which someone must choose to believe. I never said that there are not reasons one MIGHT choose to believe those reasons, and I don't think you or any other atheist or evolutionist are STUPID. On the contrary, many of the people who hold to these beliefs are more schooled in their field than I will ever be. I am just saying that there are still questions (like the "ancient" fish that was found recently that could be in any geologic layer... etc.) that upset different theories. These are good things that spur further research. I do understand scientific method and if there were NO questions there would be no reason to continue research. Like I said before, there are even physicists (secular ones) that believe in the possibility that the laws we take as solid fact may have changed over time. If this is the case, much of today's views may have to be re-calculated.
Also, like I said before, the "hope, meaning, etc." comment was directed to Zeteo after reading a post on his blog. He was arguing this point:
"First, why can we claim that we are owed Law, Hope, or Meaning. Innately, we wish for justice. We want to have eternal hope. We would like to think that our lives mean something. I agree that the theistic world view gives answers to these three neatly, but the bigger question is -- are they the right answers? Life is easier with theistic answers, but who says that we are owed Law, Hope, or Meaning?
His argument strikes me as this: he wishes it so, it gives his life internal consistency, so it must be. Why, other than wishing, are we owed these three? I want to live my life based first on Truth; if Law, Hope, and Meaning fit in with that, so be it. I do not believe in wishing the God of the Bible into existence because he makes my personal world view consistent."
I was telling him that I believe that Christianity solves the problem of why we should be offered those things. I am not saying you can't "make up your own meaning" for life (as an atheist would have to do minus God's Word). I am saying for me, life would have no meaning if it were not for God. You forget that I used to be an agnostic as well, so when you say I am trying to make agnostics or atheists into a boogey-man, you are just sadly, WRONG. I did not get "saved" until I was 24 and already had given birth to my son. I was a hellion of a child. I have lived on the other side of the fence. I used to believe in evolution as well... after all, I was raised in public schools.
You said, "I know atheists. And some of them are quite nice."
So do I, and I agree.
When you say that Zeteo understands the basics of evolutionary biology, you are implying that I don't. I can understand evolution and still not adhere to it entirely. You and others are calling me ignorant when I am most assuredly not. Just because I don't see things exactly the way you do does not mean I am ignorant. I am not trying to say that you, having a degree, do not know MORE than I do... but the basic principles, I do understand. I find that insulting coming from another Christian; more so than from an atheist.
The "knowledge" and "philosophical quotes" came into play because of my understanding of scripture. There is a difference, so it appears after careful reading of the Bible in the "worldly knowledge (gained by fallible man - not revealed by the Lord)" and "the knowledge of God". Sometimes they may stand side by side, but other times they may not. Here are a few verses that show the difference in the two types of knowledge (below). My reference in the quote you pulled merely means that I would rather rely on my "knowledge of God" than my "worldly knowledge (gained by fallible man)". It does NOT mean that I give high value to stupidity or willful ignorance of the world around you.
1. Proverbs 2:6 - For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. (the knowledge of God)
Isaiah 11:2 - The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD - (the knowledge of God)
Isaiah 47:10 - You have trusted in your wickedness and have said, 'No one sees me.' Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you when you say to yourself, 'I am, and there is none besides me.' (worldly knowledge)
Hosea 4:6 - my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children. (the knowledge of God)
Romans 1:28 - Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. (the knowledge of God)
1 Corinthians 13:2 - If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (either would fit here)
1 Corinthians 13:8 - Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. (worldly knowledge)
2 Corinthians 2:14 - But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. (the knowledge of God)
2 Corinthians 4:6 - For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (the knowledge of God)
2 Corinthians 10:5 - We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (the knowledge of God)
Colossians 1:9 - For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. (the knowledge of God)
1 Timothy 2:4 - who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (the knowledge of God)
***But most importantly, this verse (which was the one I was thinking of at the time):***
1 Timothy 6:19-21 -
19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.
Grace be with you.
All verses from New International Version: Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
The word "science" (KJV) or "knowledge" (NIV) in 1 Timothy 6:20 comes from the Greek: "Gnosis" (defined below).
1. knowledge signifies in general intelligence, understanding
2. the general knowledge of Christian religion
3. the deeper more perfect and enlarged knowledge of this religion, such as belongs to the more advanced esp. of things lawful and unlawful for Christians
4. moral wisdom, such as is seen in right living
In other words, according to the Bible, there is something that is FALSELY called knowledge which leads people to wander from the faith. I believe that we should keep our minds open to worldly knowledge (even scientific knowledge) so that ALL theory can be honestly scrutinized without bias. I also believe as this verse said, that when worldly wisdom does not line up with Godly wisdom, we should rely on Godly wisdom. After all, we are Christians. You may not believe in Noah's flood, but because the Bible says it happened, I do. I also believe that the issues raised by Answers in Genesis and even some by Kent Hovind are valid. I don't believe they would be spitting out lies just to convince people to believe in the Bible. On the other hand, there have been KNOWN scientists who have done this in the name of advancing Evolution!
"Today, however, Haeckel is mostly known as the foil of creationists, who rightly point out that he manipulated some of his iconic drawings of embryos to strengthen the contemporary case for evolution." - Amanda Schaffer
I can not speak for you, but no science can prove God does not exist and therefore, it really is irrelevant if you believe in evolution (and a God that set things in motion) or creation (and a God who works through miracles). I just hope that whatever anyone believes, that they would grant others to have a difference of opinion without labeling them and talking down to them. I have been called all sorts of names in the past few days on various websites, but I do not think ill of those people who wrote those ugly comments. I only wish they had the decency to give me the same respect.
Yes, you are rather poetic and have a degree in Science. That doesn't negate my opinion. After all, when all is said and done, and the curtain rises on judgment day, it won't matter a hill of beans what anyone (including me) thinks about how we got here.
You said, "it's not intellectually honest to look at the world around you and dismiss theories because you don't like them". I never said I was dismissing evolution. I said I BELIEVE in 6-Day creationism. I also believe that variations happen within a kind (micro-evolution) which make life interesting and beautiful. I think the new breed of fox-dogs are the cutest little creatures on the planet (besides mouse lemurs... and maybe kittens). I do NOT think that you have honestly read all of the other comments to see that I am not dismissing evolution entirely. I don't think scrutiny of Creationism based on other people's belief in evolution is unhealthy, either. More power to them. I think if you want to debate this further, maybe you should quit picking on the layman and go find yourself an equally qualified scientist that believes in an opposite or different viewpoint. Don't say you can't because AIG has a list of them that would probably welcome kind interest in their research and experience.
Pardon me for the idiot/Talk Origins link. I'm not trying to pick on any one individual site more than the others, and I admit, I have been a little rude by suggesting they are doing the "lion's share" of it. I was merely pointing out that I have seen that the ulterior view (trying most genuinely to not stereo-type here)... has a very "colorful" way of "debating" anyone who dissents from their positions. It does not have to be on Talk Origins, per say. That is where I had just come from before making my comment that you so disliked, but that is besides the point. You can just go read the lovely remarks about myself at any number of alternative viewpoint blogs over this topic and see what kind of behaviors I am discussing.
Science is great, and I plan on teaching my kids about it as much or more than what they would have learned in Public School. Not only that, but they have ample time for field trips to places to see them first hand and not just in textbooks. I don't think homeschooling or even teaching that there are questions that may not be answered by evolution as of yet is going to do them any harm (quite the opposite, really).
DIDASKALOS -
Love that quote at the end of your post. Thanks for stopping in to share your thoughts again. I enjoyed them.
EVERYONE -
I appreciate your concern, support (for those that offered it), enthusiasm, friendliness, tact and input. I hope that you will stop in other times to visit and comment on other posts. I hope that we can seek to find similarities in each other to make up for the differences that we have been discussing. After all, we are all human and are all equal in God's sight.
Discussion on this post is closed at this time, however... If you want to comment to me, please email me at the email address on my profile! I don't mind talking more about this if it is done in a respectful manner with any of you via email at a more leisurely pace (when I don't have to feel pressed for time). I think I owe it to my kids to stop making my main focus the blog!
THANKS AGAIN TO ALL WHO CONTRIBUTED!
Post a Comment